Conquer Club

I'm a big fan of the new version of the legend. Works very nicely for me, and the colors of the states look just right. They are different enough to add a little bit of variety, but keep within the "dryed out" feel of the map overall.

Excellent job, RjBeals.

The square of "drought" isn't the same colour as the drought areas!?

C.

MrBenn wrote:I think the legend looks good; and is an original way of showing the state bonuses.

The drought region in it doesn't quite look right though, imo... I think that it either needs to be a shade or two darker darker, or you could give the border the same style as on the map??

Like this? I don't like it any darker than it already is...


I prefer this one - which is how we had it. Thanks for the input though. It was worth a try.

RjBeals wrote:

I GOT SERVED wrote:Oklahoma and New Mexico seem too bright compared to the rest of the map.

I did that on purpose, so the states would contrast more. I tried to keep very muted colors, so it wouldn't take away from the "dust" feel. If we think it's too bright than, I can change.

In order to have dark, we must have light

That works for me. Maybe you could tone them down just ever so slightly.

RjBeals wrote:I prefer this one - which is how we had it.

Definitely agree...

C>

PS your thumbnail in your sig is out of date!!!!

I GOT SERVED wrote: Maybe you could tone them down just ever so slightly.

I'll try.

There's been a bit of confusion by my suggestion about darkening the drought area... I was talking about the little square representing the drought region on the legend!

yeti_c wrote:The square of "drought" isn't the same colour as the drought areas!?
C.

I think the map itself looks fine - and I def. prefer the original version to the darker/adjusted one...

... I just think that the little square either needs to be a bit darker, or to have the same edge/border style as the drought region on the main map....

Ahh.. thanks for clearing that up. I'm not sure it will work though since the legend map is so small.

It's probably just an optical illusion, as the background to the map is lighter/yellower than the background to the legend, which makes the drought area on the legend look lighter/yellower than that on the map...

... or maybe I should just shut up and stop confusing you!

It's exactly the same color - as I just copied the merged layer and made a box of it.

Awesome map.

Hope this gets quenched ASAP.

RjBeals wrote:It's exactly the same color - as I just copied the merged layer and made a box of it.

Apologies - it looks different though!!

C.

Although it is the same colour, I think need it needs to be made a fraction darker, as it looks lighter..

Added graphical legend to small map
Adjusted the small block color in the legend to better match the actual drought region, although it's not going to match each region exactly because of the slight coloring I applied.

Working on xml.... slowly. But I think the graphics are pretty much done. Whadda you think?

edit... I forgot to add the slight drop shadow under the small map state bonus legend. You guys probably wouldn't have noticed though I'll fix it later.

2nd edit... It also looks like I have the blending wrong on New Mexico on the small map (compared to the larger map). I'll look at that also tomorrow.

3rd edit.. And I'm not happy with the drought borders in the small map. They are not as well defined at the large map, so I'll look at those also.

It's purdy. And the drought solution is an elegant one. Nicely done, rj.

It's looking good.

In the small map, the Texas drought region looks really different from the others... I like the slight variations between states, but perhaps this could be toned down a littel bit on the small map (it looks OK on the large one)

Agreed. Thanks Mr Benn. I'll fix.

I've only gone back a few pages so maybe this has been addressed, but have you tried the map without army circles? Usually the circles are necessary when the background image is too dark, which I bet is not the case on this map. Personally I think maps look a bit more elegant without the circles.

nice work all around.

Okay... Fixed all the graphical things. Created the base xml and tested it. Works fine. Link here: DUSTBOWL.XML

Oaktown - Your suggestion of no circles was never brought up. Gave it a try here. These maps have actual xml data on them for armies. Let me know what you think. I think I prefer this map WITH circles, but probably only because I'm used to it now.

yeti_C - the xml is posted here. If you could take it and add the drought code, that would be swell.

LARGE CIRLCES

LARGE NO CIRCLES


SMALL CIRCLES

SMALL NO CIRCLES

Looks great, RjBeals. I agree that it looks a little better with the army circles in place. They don't seem to detract from anything, so my vote is to leave them on there.

the army circles are subtle enough that they look fine... it works either way.

RjBeals wrote:
yeti_C - the xml is posted here. If you could take it and add the drought code, that would be swell.

Consider it done...

C.

Edited by Coleman, protecting Privacy since, err now.

O give me a break Coleman. It was meant to be a little more personal because of the favor.

There will be no breaks! And no smiling!

No worries...

C.

RjBeals wrote:Oaktown - Your suggestion of no circles was never brought up. Gave it a try here. These maps have actual xml data on them for armies. Let me know what you think. I think I prefer this map WITH circles, but probably only because I'm used to it now.

I also like the maps with the army shadows. On some maps, army shadows are not needed. But I think sometimes army shadows enhance a map...and I think that is where the map falls, perhaps in my mind.


--Andy