Conquer Club

natty_dread wrote:

ndrs wrote:On another note, could someone please explain how the territory distribution is calculated?

What do you mean?

Maybe he is referring to number of regions each player starts with, depending on the number of players game setting?


--Andy

Well that's simple,

Number of non-neutral territories / number of players ~rounded down.

Nice, even I can do that kind of math! (First post updated with the distribution).

Oh, except for 2-player games, in those territories are divided the same as in 3-player games but one of the players is made neutral.

your design is so clear
you really doesn't need to explain Mendi connect only to Tari

move your minimap south

I would prefer the title up left

maybe statistics should go with scale bottom right

I feel that the title is rather flat and uninspiring. This is purely because EVERYTHING else on the map is in some form of 3D. If the title was to be given a 3D perspective as well it would tie int the whole image better I think.

Apart from that this all looks good to me for the most part.

gimil wrote:I feel that the title is rather flat and uninspiring. This is purely because EVERYTHING else on the map is in some form of 3D. If the title was to be given a 3D perspective as well it would tie int the whole image better I think.

Apart from that this all looks good to me for the most part.

I like the title the way it is I think.


--Andy

The mini map looks like a scaled down version of the current image. Lose the territ lines and the rivers as they are distracting.
Some of your sea routes are pixelated. Also the territ lines as well.
Also, I concur with gimil, the title is very flat and has a pasted on look. Try to bring it out some.
Are you going to move it and put the stats back in?

Love the update, ndrs.

I don't have too much to add to what cairnswk said in his post above. I think his advice is 100% dead-on. I'm 50/50 on the mountains being labeled... I know they are "non-traditional," as DIM noted (which, by the way, I think is a good standard that he laid out there), but they also seem painfully obvious. But the discussion seems to be getting people to arrive at an appropriate conclusion.

The only issue I see that I think could be tweaked are the rivers. Being honest, until I started reading the discussion I didn't even notice those were rivers. Once you think about it and note the bridges, it becomes more apparent. But it's not strikingly obvious just from looking at it. So, my suggestion would be to simply increase the width of the rivers by a few pixels. A broader river would make it clear that it's not just a normal border and it would highlight the bridges a bit more.

Peter Gibbons wrote:Love the update, ndrs.

I don't have too much to add to what cairnswk said in his post above. I think his advice is 100% dead-on. I'm 50/50 on the mountains being labeled... I know they are "non-traditional," as DIM noted (which, by the way, I think is a good standard that he laid out there), but they also seem painfully obvious. But the discussion seems to be getting people to arrive at an appropriate conclusion.

The only issue I see that I think could be tweaked are the rivers. Being honest, until I started reading the discussion I didn't even notice those were rivers. Once you think about it and note the bridges, it becomes more apparent. But it's not strikingly obvious just from looking at it. So, my suggestion would be to simply increase the width of the rivers by a few pixels. A broader river would make it clear that it's not just a normal border and it would highlight the bridges a bit more.

I think I echo Peter Gibbons. I might even go so far as to make note graphically of "bridges" in the legend area.


--Andy

OK guys, I appreciate the feedback!

cairnswk wrote:1. your signature

Added

cairnswk wrote:2. does anyone think that "impassables" are needed in the legend

Added

cairnswk wrote:3. the stats i think need to be re-inserted somewhere - it was one of those things that made this map "different" even though they are of no consequence to gameplay

Added

cairnswk wrote:1. i'd like to see Bougainville in the mini map un-hyphenated

Fixed

cairnswk wrote:2. the title and km guage could be split up and placed at the top of the map on either side - that would allow the full "bougainville" and not make the bottom of the map so cluttered.

Fixed

cairnswk wrote:3. move the mini map south a fraction so it is not so close to the main playing area - more eye space.

Fixed

gimil wrote:I feel that the title is rather flat and uninspiring. This is purely because EVERYTHING else on the map is in some form of 3D. If the title was to be given a 3D perspective as well it would tie int the whole image better I think.

Fixed

koontz1973 wrote:The mini map looks like a scaled down version of the current image. Lose the territ lines and the rivers as they are distracting.

Fixed (kept the rivers though)

Peter Gibbons wrote:The only issue I see that I think could be tweaked are the rivers.

Fixed. (Made the rivers darker and added a highlight, hopefully clearer now)


V3:
[bigimg]http://i1258.photobucket.com/albums/ii524/ndrsCC/PNG_V3_L.jpg[/bigimg]

you have a BEAUTIFUL map here

I would only swap hatched territories
some kind of geographical coherence of the graphic code
mainland is plain and small outside islands are hatched

New Ireland hatched instead of Madang
Bougainville hatched instead of Mline Bay

pamoa wrote:you have a BEAUTIFUL map here

I would only swap hatched territories
some kind of geographical coherence of the graphic code
mainland is plain and small outside islands are hatched

New Ireland hatched instead of Madang
Bougainville hatched instead of Mline Bay

Thanks, man!

The idea of switching the bonus colours does make sense. It's a little bit of work, but I'll make it happen if others feel the same way.

The new title is beautiful! Really helps to bring the whole map together.

Out of curiosity why do some regions have stripes whether others are plain?

Looking good so far. You've misspelled "mountains" in your new legend addition. Also, "unbridged" sounds pretty awkward, but I see what you are trying to do. Maybe ender516 will stop by with a suggested wording.


--Andy

gimil wrote:The new title is beautiful! Really helps to bring the whole map together.

Out of curiosity why do some regions have stripes whether others are plain?

It was to keep the colours down. I already asked.

AndyDufresne wrote:Looking good so far. You've misspelled "mountains" in your new legend addition. Also, "unbridged" sounds pretty awkward, but I see what you are trying to do. Maybe ender516 will stop by with a suggested wording.

--Andy

Why not mountain ridges & rivers only. The bridges have the territ line in them so there is no real need to have anything else.

Fixed (kept the rivers though)
Thanks. Good choice in keeping rivers.

gimil wrote:Out of curiosity why do some regions have stripes whether others are plain?

koontz1973 wrote:It was to keep the colours down. I already asked.

Yeah, I wanted to keep a simple colour theme by avoiding to mix reds in there.

AndyDufresne wrote:Looking good so far. You've misspelled "mountains" in your new legend addition. Also, "unbridged" sounds pretty awkward, but I see what you are trying to do. Maybe ender516 will stop by with a suggested wording.

koontz1973 wrote:Why not mountain ridges & rivers only. The bridges have the territ line in them so there is no real need to have anything else.

That would work as well. And thanks for the spell checks – I know I need them.

ndrs...this is starting to look really good...but i'm afraid i don't quite get the feeling of the branch on the end of the title.
What does it represent?

Also i'd like to ask if you would consider changing the name of the continent from Southern Papua to Fly-Gulf...you've correctly identified the Speik region in the north, i think the Fly region should be mentioned as this is the other major river in PNG and as such along with the Gulf are two of the provinces.
On second thoughts...don't worry about the last bit. It's fine as is.

cairnswk wrote:ndrs...this is starting to look really good...but i'm afraid i don't quite get the feeling of the branch on the end of the title.
What does it represent?

It's an interpretation of a generic bush-type growth, and aims to represent PNG as a fertile region.

cairnswk wrote:Also i'd like to ask if you would consider changing the name of the continent from Southern Papua to Fly-Gulf...you've correctly identified the Speik region in the north, i think the Fly region should be mentioned as this is the other major river in PNG and as such along with the Gulf are two of the provinces.
On second thoughts...don't worry about the last bit. It's fine as is.

OK, thanks.

ndrs wrote:

cairnswk wrote:ndrs...this is starting to look really good...but i'm afraid i don't quite get the feeling of the branch on the end of the title.
What does it represent?

It's an interpretation of a generic bush-type growth, and aims to represent PNG as a fertile region.

Try and give it some green and run it behind the title so it does not look like an after thought and just stuck on there.

I think it's good as it is, it fits the style of the map. Simple & clean.

koontz1973 wrote:

ndrs wrote:

cairnswk wrote:ndrs...this is starting to look really good...but i'm afraid i don't quite get the feeling of the branch on the end of the title.
What does it represent?

It's an interpretation of a generic bush-type growth, and aims to represent PNG as a fertile region.

Try and give it some green and run it behind the title so it does not look like an after thought and just stuck on there.

I don't agree. It's not supposed to look like a real life plant – it's an ornament/stucco of the same material as the title, and goes in line with the artificial style of the rest of the map.

– Changed the impassables text
– Removed some compression artifacts on the water
– Army number legibility test:

[bigimg]http://i1258.photobucket.com/albums/ii524/ndrsCC/PNG_V3_NRs.jpg[/bigimg]

Why do you have some numbers outside the islands? They look weird sitting on water when there's plenty of room on the land. And blue numbers show very poorly on the dark water.

natty_dread wrote:Why do you have some numbers outside the islands? They look weird sitting on water when there's plenty of room on the land. And blue numbers show very poorly on the dark water.

Because some numbers wouldn't fit on the islands – especially on the small map to come.

Would this be better?

[bigimg]http://i1258.photobucket.com/albums/ii524/ndrsCC/PNG_V3_NRs_2.jpg[/bigimg]