German/Italian Unif.[D, Gp, Gr] BETA, all files p.1

by **drwho1979** on Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:42 pm

I think the maps are both looking real good =D>

.. I agree with the other post that the circles for the armies are a bit large. I also think that both maps show get potential. One question, have you ever giving thought to a future concept :ugeek:

of combining boths maps into one large version kinda like the WWII europe map. I think that as a trio that would be really neat.

by **Industrial Helix** on Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:19 pm

Kab, Yeah, i can turn it gray... I'm thinking about maybe turning down the opacity could be a solution as well.

Dr.who - Thanks for the support and suggestions. Interestingly enough, the two maps could be linked to form a nice map of central Europe.. CC just won't allow it because it will break the rules regarding map size and all that.

by **thenobodies80** on Mon Sep 28, 2009 6:16 pm

Hello Helix,

some hints for the italian map from an italian guy

use Aosta instead of Monferrato (monferrato is where you have piemonte circle now)
The correct name is piemonte
Liguria is Genoa
Parma and Modena aren't a part of toscana during 1860 but indipendent countries.
This map could help you with borders and regions http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Unification_of_Italy_1815-1870.jpg
There aren't mountains between venezia and bezecca (but there are between bezecca and tyrol)

I like the idea to add some name of battles to the map (lissa, bezecca, custoza) , they weren't regions during that period, but they were important places during italian unifications. Good choice =D>

If possible I'd like to see Roma with 5 troops? Roma was an hard objective during the unification and the last one to raise the white flag. (1870)
If i'm not wrong, Nice was a part of kingdom of Sardinia http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/TannerMapKingdomSardinia1839.jpg

Industrial Helix wrote:I tried to take a page out of Kab's book and do the hatched area, which will then corresspond with a hatched square in the bonus legend. BUT, it looks out of place and a tad strange I think.

Agree, it looks out of place.

More suggestions (also for the german map) come soon

Nice maps, go on!
Have a nice day
Nobodies

by **Industrial Helix** on Mon Sep 28, 2009 8:23 pm

thenobodies80 wrote:Hello Helix,

use Aosta instead of Monferrato (monferrato is where you have piemonte circle now)
The correct name is piemonte
Liguria is Genoa
Parma and Modena aren't a part of toscana during 1860 but indipendent countries.
This map could help you with borders and regions http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Unification_of_Italy_1815-1870.jpg
There aren't mountains between venezia and bezecca (but there are between bezecca and tyrol)
The problem with Toscana, Parma and Modena is that they won't work as individual bonus regions given their size, but they do work as a grouping in the area, which is what I chose to run with. If anyone can come up with a gameplay aspect that would give them the proper recognition then I'd be happy to use it. We'll see what happens. As for the rest, these are all awesome suggestions, they will definitely b implemented. Thanks a ton!

I like the idea to add some name of battles to the map (lissa, bezecca, custoza) , they weren't regions during that period, but they were important places during italian unifications. Good choice
If possible I'd like to see Roma with 5 troops? Roma was an hard objective during the unification and the last one to raise the white flag. (1870) yeah, that seems like a good option, perhaps the autodeploy for it could be a tad higher.
If i'm not wrong, Nice was a part of kingdom of Sardinia http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/TannerMapKingdomSardinia1839.jpg Nice and Savoy were originally part of Sardinia but were sold to the Second Empire of France in exchange for help during the wars of Italian Unification.

Industrial Helix wrote:I tried to take a page out of Kab's book and do the hatched area, which will then correspond with a hatched square in the bonus legend. BUT, it looks out of place and a tad strange I think.

Agree, it looks out of place.

More suggestions (also for the german map) come soon

Nice maps, go on!
Have a nice day
Nobodies

by **Industrial Helix** on Thu Oct 01, 2009 11:26 am

Ok, this should address all the previously mentioned concerns.

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

by **Kabanellas** on Sun Oct 04, 2009 1:49 am

Helix, I don't know if you did that already, but I've inserted the German map in the Bonus Calculator:

those were the bonus values I got

DN - 5
DN + S-H - 5
KD - 0 (it shows a value of 0,42)
KD + S-H - 1
KM - 2
DS & B - 7
O-P - 3
W-P - 5
PPR - 2
PPR + E - 3
EF - 2 (it shows a value of 2,12)
EF + E - 2 (it shows a value of 1,95)
O - 6

the numbers seem to be needing some adjustment (not a real problem). Something worries me though - how will you justify a raise in Deutsche Nordzustande with S-H, same goes for Danmark. It gets even worst with L'Empire getting Elsab, that will make its borders drop from 2 to only 1, making the bonus calculator going down instead of asking for more bonus....

by **ender516** on Sun Oct 04, 2009 6:39 pm

I have a suggestion for the hatched area. I think a common cartographic method for showing a disputed area is to have the colours representing the two claimants hatched together. So rather than half green with grey hatching and half grey with grey hatching, use green and grey hatched together, with the stripe of each colour being the same width. For an example of the style of hatching I mean, see the Aksai Chin region on this Wikipedia map, which hashes the beige of India with the light brown of China.

by **captainwalrus** on Sun Oct 04, 2009 6:42 pm

battle for iraq does a good job of having regions in multiple bonuses, but it is fine here, I think it is clear enough.

by **Industrial Helix** on Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:39 am

Kab - Yeah, i had to play with the bonus calculator numbers to make the map seem functional. I mean, i didn't think it was a good idea to have the Denmark bonus worth nothing. I wanted the disputed territories to mean something and enable a player more... making them worth no added advantage seems to undermine this. France is a major problem because it does have its sole single border of Alsace, which offers a few possible solutions:

The Paris territory is already running a 5 neutral... increase this to increase the difficulty of obtaining the bonus or to increase the time delay before a player gets the bonus. What makes this difficult is that Paris is a game objective and I don't want to make it too difficult to obtain.

Throw in Benelux as a killer neutral displaying the options that the Prussian govt had in taking on France. Though I'm hesitant to do this as it is not what happened in the wars.

I'm definitely open to suggestions on this matter. But I'm leaning towards leaving the bonus close to what they are.

Ender - Hmm... that might be a good idea. I'll give it a shot and see how it comes out. Thanks for the suggestion.

Captain - Good to hear. I'm glad that it is clear, now its time to find out how to make it a bit more aesthetically pleasing.

by **Kabanellas** on Mon Oct 05, 2009 3:42 pm

Sure, you need to have a bonus for holding Denmark. I’m just pointing that the payback when holding S-H will be huge. In fact it will be the same for holding DN and S-H, you are giving a 2 extra bonus with no border increase, and remember that the calculator asks for a 5 troop bonus for holding DN, you’re raising it already to 6.

As for France… I really don’t know how to pull that one off. Again, you start with a higher number than the one asking by the calculator which would be 2 instead of 3 (even with those neutral 5 – for that calc with neutral troops I used Andrew’s updated calculator

), and you’re giving a 2 extra bonus (from 3 to 5) for a reduction in borders. Not coherent I think…

by **captainwalrus** on Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:22 pm

OK graphics

Not really digging them right now, they look kinda odd and pixely.

Some of the borders look a little too straight. There are too many angles, not enough curves. Even it it is technacly a straight border or an angle instead of a curve, there is no one that is going to call you out on it if you change it just for looks.
For the texture, it just comes across as being something you took then really stretched out. It seems like you put a texture over the whole this, but it was too small, so you just expanded it, but it ends up not coming out clean. It is especialy noticable in the non playable areas like Russia and the Ottoman territories. Try to find a similar texture, but larger sized so it comes across as baing clearer.
I like the mountains a lot, though, good job.
I like how in Germany, the big red one has a gradient, it looks cool how it gets darker toward the bottom mountains, perhaps try that for other mountains? Have the bonuses that border the mountains get darker as they go toward the mountains.
The rivers are too bright blue, IMO. It kind of clashes with the rest of the map, and there wouldn't be that much of a difference from the sea water and the freshwater. Also, some of the rivers extend out into the sea a bit in an odd way (the ones at the top of the Germany one).
What is the yellow thing sort of beind the und in the lable of Kroatien und Slawoien? look closely, if you don't see anything, then it could just be a trick my eyes are playing.
On the Italy one, the mountains in between Tyrol and Steiermark, the 3rd one up, which is really over Steiermark more than Tyrol, is the color of Tyrol, but it should be the color of Steirmark.
The sea connections could be made thinner (with a glow maybe?) since right now they stick out too much. Also curve them a bitmore, it looks akward when some are straight but some are curved, and the curved ones are better, IMO.

Some of that stuff is just nitpicky, so you can adress them later, but that is mose of the stuff I see graphics wise for now.

Edit: the objective text glow is too bright also, lower the opacity maybe?

by **Kabanellas** on Tue Oct 06, 2009 7:38 am

Must say I like the graphics

Captain has a point about the rivers, and yes it all seems a little stretchy. I have no problem with it apart from the lines, especially the border lines that look a bit pixelated. The expanded gradient, being intentional and part of the graphic concept – it’s ok for me. I dig it

by **Industrial Helix** on Wed Oct 07, 2009 8:58 am

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

Thanks for the nitpicks Cap'n and Kab. I think they helped for sure. I made a load of graphical changes, the big onebeing that I swapped out the background texture for something a little more aesthetically pleasing. I redrew the borders on Germany and adjusted the sea connections on Italy and added them in for Denmark to make sure it was clear. I overhauled the bonus boxes and adjusted the numbers some.

Alsace is worth 2 more points to Prussia West while only being worth plus 1 for France. As France has the advantage with the reduction of borders, the incentive to gain the bonus for West Prussia is greater, which should help to balance the game.

Let me know what you guys think, you've been a great help so far!

by **ender516** on Wed Oct 07, 2009 10:38 am

If you decide not to go with my hatching suggestion, you might want to try placing the troop circles in the disputed/shared regions on the colour boundary. This might make it more apparent that the region falls into both zones. This looks very feasible in all cases except S.-H. which is a little cramped, unless you shift the colour boundary instead of the troop circle. Of course, with my hatching scheme, the boundary is diffused and the troop circle looks shared no matter where it sits.

Another reason to try my scheme is that it might avoid confusion about boundaries. For example, with the current colouring, Venezia, Lombaria, and Custoza almost look like four territories with one of those confusing four-corner boundaries. Yes, your hatching runs through all of Venezia, but my eye takes more note of the sharp colour boundary, leaving me wondering at first if Venezia can even attack Custoza.

Is there a typo in the legend? Is it not supposed to be "Preussische" (sorry, don't know the code for the German sharp s)? Also the colour of the PPR box does not match the map very well: it seems too white.

by **captainwalrus** on Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:17 pm

I like the new texture. It is really good.
There are some other nitpicky things that I will save for later.

by **thenobodies80** on Sun Oct 11, 2009 9:05 am

A map with the real regions (and names) to use with "regno delle due sicilie"

http://www.regione.abruzzo.it/ospiti/covatu/covatu_file/image050.jpg

it's possile to have smaller dots or something else for sea routes?
Finally add impassable on both maps and.... you'll be ready for a preliminary review

by **Industrial Helix** on Sun Oct 11, 2009 6:24 pm

I made the Germany map larger so I could fit in the title, which I added to Italy as well.

I changed the sea routes in an attempt to look like chalk line or something. I really don't think i like the dots, so any suggestions on sea routes would be great!

Added impassables in the legend.

Made a few more name changes in Italy as per Nobodies request.

Tried to match the legend white with the Prussia white.

Changed hatches to stripes, much better I think.

Forgot to add a r in Preussiche but did it in the ps file after I uploaded to photobucket.

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

by **ender516** on Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:07 am

I'm glad the stripes worked out.

On the Italy map, in the Game Objective legend, "Control" is misspelled and there is no reason to abbreviate "Shields" to "Shiel.", and if there was a reason, "Shlds." would be a better abbreviation, don't you think?

by **Seulessliathan** on Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:17 am

looks interesting, but one request:

Can you please use german OR englisch names (for german ter, same for other countries)? Cologne & Bavaria OR Köln & Bayern etc? I hate unnecessary mixup of languages. If you need german names, pm me (or maybe better daydream, he is a master of both languages)

by **Kabanellas** on Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:00 am

The stripes are working great!!

by **Industrial Helix** on Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:03 am

Ender516 - nice catch on control and I think there is a glitch with the d on shields. I'll have to check the file and see what's up.

Seulessliathan - I intended to use the native language of each country to name the territories, so German for the Austrian and German terrs. I expect I missed some though I was reading off of German maps. If you've got the time just post the corrections here for the German and Austrian terrs. and I'll make the changes, thanks!

Thanks Kab, I'm really quite pleased with it!

by **thenobodies80** on Sun Oct 18, 2009 12:17 pm

Hello Helix,
Sorry for taking so long.

German Map:

Click image to enlarge.

Gameplay:
Just a thought: elsaß and S.H. required to gain their respective bonuses.
France 7 regions 1 to defend with only 2 bordering regions/2zones : 3
PPvR 4 regions 2 to defend with 7 bordering regions/3 zones : 4
DN 6 regions 5 to defend with 7 bordering regions/4 zones: 5
KD 3 regions 1 to defend with 1 bordering rgions/1 zones: 2
If a player has to hold the entire zone to gain the bonus we will see some nice fights between opponents

WP seems more than a 3 to me, it has a half-central position onthe map and your impassables make it very hard to hold:
5 to defend, attacked by 10 regions.....increase it to +4/+5 ?

Graphics:

Just personal, but i think that the sea routes can be done better. A simple dashed line?
You missed a border between Oberpfalz and prag/Linz
Sachsen border with Brezlau?
Can you make more visible the background texture on the white zone?
Some border are very tricky, but you can refine them later.

Italian Map:

Click image to enlarge.

Names spelling:

Gameplay:
Lissa is a part of any bonus? (i don't think )
Shared regions Savoy/Venezia/Romagna (see above in the german review)
It's strange bot to have a bridge on the Po river. Custoza-Parma could be a good idea, there was built one of the first briges on the river (Borgoforte 1254). I think that it's too hard to go from north to south and viceversa.

Graphics:
Sea routes: Don't look so good , again a dashed line? (with a chalk effect, it's good

)
Some borders are more thin...can you make them similar?

Looking forward your next update
Nobodies

p.s. Try a test with the flags/important people behind the titles. Increase trasparency, i think that they pop up a bit too much hidding the two titles.

by **porkenbeans** on Sun Oct 18, 2009 7:39 pm

Here for the review.
Has possibilities. Could use some improvement on the borders and mountains. The borders seem a little blurry and too thick, and the mountains are blurry as well. If those 2 things were adjusted, This could end up, to be a winner.
8-)

Good luck.

by **whitestazn88** on Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:13 pm

these maps look pretty nice. i will probably be back tomorrow to give more feedback, but i'll enjoy my 21st birthday for now.

by **the.killing.44** on Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:01 pm

Wonderful idea, Helix. I really look forward to this.

On a broader scheme (applying to both maps), they are overcrowded, and there are a couple of the usual suspects to blame for it. The lack of land-sea separation (think drop shadow, outer glow, bevel, etc.); the way that the borders are all the same width—and a very large width at that—instead of bonus borders larger than tert borders; and a large, bold font in all caps are the main ones. So:

Land-sea separation - well, like I said before, this is a big one for all maps. The trick is to maintain the 19th-Century look while still offering one of the staple 21st-Century Photoshop effects for the betterment of the map.
Border size - biggest one here. What you should probably do is go over all the continent borders with a 2px brush, then the inner-cont. tert borders with a 1px brush. Or you could do 3px, 2px—the point is that the continent ones are bigger than the tert ones.
Font - I love it, it fits the style perfectly, but it's just too big as you have it. Maybe it's the caps, or both. Experiment…

For a gameplay note, maybe you could add a tweak and add neutral territories off the map as Cavour, Garibaldi, and Bismarck? Holding all of Prussia & Bismarck would give you a bonus; holding S. Italy & Garibaldi a bonus; the same with N. Italy & Cavour.

Some other thoughts are that the rivers need to be more prominent—dark outer glow to distinguish from land, esp. in light regions; darkening the color would help, too; there are some points where the borders are either missing or just confusing (Cologne, Oberpfalz); instead of "7 with x," "+1 with x" indented under the main bonus.

Great start =D>