Page 14 of 22
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:17 pm
by Ruben Cassar
AndyDufresne wrote:Thanks for reminding me about this, I was going to post something about this a day or two ago when I saw some discussion.
I do like the use of italian, as it's only fitting for such a map. But I'm afraid the "Number of cities held" might be pushing the boundaries of clarity for everyone. The same could be said about the impassable borders, but for the most part people generally understand impassable borders, but as the cities is a less general and more unique feature, I might go with it in english.
--Andy
Hmm changing only that phrase might seem a little bit out of place now since everything is in Italian. Perhaps he could leave the Italian and write the meaning in English in a small font beneath it?
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:19 pm
by AndyDufresne
I'd be fine with that also, just as long as it is in clear, and easily read, english.
--Andy
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:22 pm
by RjBeals
Sorry man - no room for that. I think English for the cities & impassible borders & created by rjbeals.
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:52 pm
by RjBeals
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 6:07 am
by Sparqs
Great looking map - very clean and appealing.
As a newcomer though, I had to stare at the map for a long time before I realized where the cities are and that the legend shows them as a darker color. I suspect city symbols were proposed and rejected, and I do like the way they look now, but I think the legend could use a little clarification.
When I first looked at the legend, I had no idea the darker squares were meant to indicate cities. (A) Perhaps shift the Citta text a little to the right and move the city blocks a little to the left, creating some separation and associating them more with the text?
(B) Or better, move the city blocks to the left, remove the hard drop shadow, and add a border and soft drop shadow that matches the border around the territory. You may need to shift the whole city-explanation block to the left a bit.
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 8:03 am
by RjBeals
Thanks for the feedback Sparqs. I hear what your saying - the cities don't stand out a great deal and the legend doesn't say "cites are darker shades of country colors" although that itself might not be a bad idea...
My map files are on my usb drive which I left at work yesterday. I'll look at maybe moving the city color blocks to the left of the text so they are are a little more clear.
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 8:24 am
by Wisse
Wisse wrote:hmm mayby you could move the sea routes above the dropshadow from the country so it doesn't look like it is going underneath it?
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 9:37 am
by RjBeals
Wisse wrote:Wisse wrote:hmm mayby you could move the sea routes above the dropshadow from the country so it doesn't look like it is going underneath it?
Yeah I tried but i cant. It has to do with the way the drop shadows are created on the layers.
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:11 pm
by Sparqs
How about moving the Citta text over a bunch and replacing the small darker colored boxes with a small version of each territory? Make them something between 30-50% size, with the land-style border and shadow, and I think it would be quite clear. I think the map looks so clean, it would be great to avoiding adding any explanatory text.
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:56 am
by Wisse
RjBeals wrote:Wisse wrote:Wisse wrote:hmm mayby you could move the sea routes above the dropshadow from the country so it doesn't look like it is going underneath it?
Yeah I tried but i cant. It has to do with the way the drop shadows are created on the layers.
than you put the layer of the routes above the layers of the countries?
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:12 am
by RjBeals
Wisse wrote:than you put the layer of the routes above the layers of the countries?
Right. But it still doesn't look right. I'll reverse the layers & post a jpg to show you.
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:37 am
by RjBeals
* Fixed legend so it is hopefully more clear on what the cities and the city bonus are.
* Played w/ drop shadow a little on waterways so it flow's with the land better. Thats the best I can do with that.
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 11:46 am
by hulmey
map looks really good and smooth...Very appealing on the eye
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:20 pm
by RobinJ
Pity you couldn't have kept the Italian but I guess it makes sense. I suppose this will be quenched pretty soon then... (hint, hint, Andy)
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:33 pm
by Ruben Cassar
Perfetta! Grandiosa! Mitica!
Andy...just do it (tm)!
P.S. - Yes...pity about the Italian. RJ is that no order necessary though? Other maps have the city bonus and it's pretty understood that it's a no order bonus although I don't think it harms to have it there either.
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:58 pm
by Xyl
Ruben Cassar wrote:Perfetta! Grandiosa! Mitica!
Andy...just do it (tm)!
P.S. - Yes...pity about the Italian. RJ is that no order necessary though? Other maps have the city bonus and it's pretty understood that it's a no order bonus although I don't think it harms to have it there either.
It might be clearer to remove the "No order" but change it to "Any 2", "Any 3", "Any 4", and "All 5" (like the king of the mountain map).
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 3:07 pm
by RjBeals
Xyl wrote:It might be clearer to remove the "No order" but change it to "Any 2", "Any 3", "Any 4", and "All 5" (like the king of the mountain map).
Good Idea - I'll change to that tomorrow.
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 3:46 pm
by Ruben Cassar
RjBeals wrote:Xyl wrote:It might be clearer to remove the "No order" but change it to "Any 2", "Any 3", "Any 4", and "All 5" (like the king of the mountain map).
Good Idea - I'll change to that tomorrow.
You think that's better? I think that's unnecessary cluttering of the legend. I would just remove the no order and leave it as it is. It's pretty straightforward already.
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 3:49 pm
by RjBeals
I really don't care. I've been looking at too long - it makes sense to me. I would rather leave it the way it is, either with (No Order) or without it. I'll see if anyone else has comments.
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 4:30 pm
by KEYOGI
I think the legend on p22 was fine. In fact, I think the new one is more confusing if anything. When you've decided on a legend I think it's time to post links to your large and small images along with the XML.
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 4:39 pm
by Ruben Cassar
KEYOGI wrote:I think the legend on p22 was fine. In fact, I think the new one is more confusing if anything. When you've decided on a legend I think it's time to post links to your large and small images along with the XML.
I agree with Keyogi...I prefer the legend on page 22.
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 4:42 pm
by Sparqs
Ruben Cassar wrote:RjBeals wrote:Xyl wrote:It might be clearer to remove the "No order" but change it to "Any 2", "Any 3", "Any 4", and "All 5" (like the king of the mountain map).
Good Idea - I'll change to that tomorrow.
You think that's better? I think that's unnecessary cluttering of the legend. I would just remove the no order and leave it as it is. It's pretty straightforward already.
The changes certainly clarified the legend for me. I agree that the "(No Order)" text is probably unnecessary. If you want to make it a little clearer, how about this:
Center the "Citta Bonus" text over the city area (looks right-justified now).
Take out the "No Order".
Make "Number of cities held" two lines, centered over the "1 = +0" text.
Maybe even add some leading to the "1 =" text, to lengthen that column.
Edit
Or you could just do what Ruben said - I'm sure it would be clear.
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 5:30 pm
by RjBeals
^ Ruben said:
1) He likes the lengend on pg 22 better
2) To take out the "No Order"
Which?
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 5:34 pm
by Sparqs
RjBeals wrote:^ Ruben said:
1) He likes the lengend on pg 22 better
2) To take out the "No Order"
Which?
Definitely the "No Order part". I haven't seen why people prefer the legend from p.22 - other than the Italian (which I also like).
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 5:40 pm
by Sparqs
Sparqs wrote:I haven't seen why people prefer the legend from p.22 - other than the Italian (which I also like).
Maybe people don't like the addition of the city names. I think they look fine - they don't clutter up the map with extraneous text, they're place names.
I also think the list of city names would be unnecessary if you went with my suggestion of using small versions of the city territory shapes, but perhaps you aren't feeling that.
Edit
Not that I think the list of city names is
necessary now, but it does clarify things.
