Terrific map, mibi. I've been eagerly awaiting the small map, and it's looking good.
My one gripe is the size of the army circles and faction boxes in the aforementioned small map. The boxes are one thing, that's just an aesthetic gripe, but it'll be tough to see which of the army circles are the red city ones when the army numbers overlap so badly. I didn't see anywhere on the map where increasing the circle size would result in too much cramping...
Actually, I lied, I have another gripe: is there some sort of logic to the order in which the city faction bits are listed? seems like you could have mosul, tikrit, kirkuk, and qa'am on the top row, the remaining western cities on the second, and karbala and the southern cities on the third.
Again, fantastic map. Can't wait to see how it plays.
Battle For Iraq! [Quenched]
Moderator: Cartographers
Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
-
Incandenza
- Posts: 4949
- Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:34 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Playing Eschaton with a bucket of old tennis balls
Incandenza wrote:Terrific map, mibi. I've been eagerly awaiting the small map, and it's looking good.
My one gripe is the size of the army circles and faction boxes in the aforementioned small map. The boxes are one thing, that's just an aesthetic gripe, but it'll be tough to see which of the army circles are the red city ones when the army numbers overlap so badly. I didn't see anywhere on the map where increasing the circle size would result in too much cramping...
Actually, I lied, I have another gripe: is there some sort of logic to the order in which the city faction bits are listed? seems like you could have mosul, tikrit, kirkuk, and qa'am on the top row, the remaining western cities on the second, and karbala and the southern cities on the third.
Again, fantastic map. Can't wait to see how it plays.
yeah the circles are rather tight in the small map. The city names are also red if that helps distinguish them, and also, 88 is the most obstructing number possible as well. I would adjust the circle sizes with out hesitation but the problem is, the whole iraq part of the map got flatten somehow so adjusting the circle size on a flat layer is a bit of work. but if other people bring it up, it can be done.
and you are right about the city orders, its completely random. I can switch back to alphabetical like it was before, or perhaps so other order....
Nice rework of the boxes Mibs...
a) I agree with the Rev... ordering would be good based on where the city is... i.e. the 3 northern cities on the top with the northern most western city... the rest of the western cities (left to right) and then the 4 southern cities left to right...
b) Karbala on small map - may struggle with 3 digits.
C.
a) I agree with the Rev... ordering would be good based on where the city is... i.e. the 3 northern cities on the top with the northern most western city... the rest of the western cities (left to right) and then the 4 southern cities left to right...
b) Karbala on small map - may struggle with 3 digits.
C.
Highest score : 2297
yeti_c wrote:Nice rework of the boxes Mibs...
a) I agree with the Rev... ordering would be good based on where the city is... i.e. the 3 northern cities on the top with the northern most western city... the rest of the western cities (left to right) and then the 4 southern cities left to right...
b) Karbala on small map - may struggle with 3 digits.
C.
a) i can order them like that
b) yes on the small map if there are 3 digits on both karbala cities, they will over lap slightly. I can attempt to move them further apart.
-
yamahafazer
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 9:56 am
yeti_c wrote:I still think that the cities would be better ordered by location rather than alphabetical?
C.
I thought about it, but the geographical cities dont map very well onto the city grid.
Mosul and Kirkuk are the northern most, then Tikrit. But then you have one space left in the top row. It could go to Qa'am which is marginally more northern than hidithah. But then its its farther to right in the grid and by the time your done you have a mess that might as well be random anyways.
mibi wrote:yeti_c wrote:I still think that the cities would be better ordered by location rather than alphabetical?
C.
I thought about it, but the geographical cities dont map very well onto the city grid.
Mosul and Kirkuk are the northern most, then Tikrit. But then you have one space left in the top row. It could go to Qa'am which is marginally more northern than hidithah. But then its its farther to right in the grid and by the time your done you have a mess that might as well be random anyways.
Fair enough...
C.
Highest score : 2297
-
unriggable
- Posts: 8037
- Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm
I take this back unless you've started work on it, if anyone builds a loyalty square up to 80 something I want to see it.Coleman wrote:The loyalty boxes on the small map need to be bigger. They are really hard to center right now as the 88 always overlaps on one side it seems like.
I'll focus on centering the 3s.
Well, unfortunately I'm at a problem again. 
Bad News & Good News (although only good news if you're willing to slightly change the wording/behavior of your bonus structure)
Bad News First
I can maybe do al-Qaeda (it'll take 66 tiny continents with a complex system of overrides). If the logic doesn't work out on that then it's crazy and I'd need to do 66, 495, 924, 495, 66, 1 (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12)
Mahdi is less insane but still insane, I'd need to do 495 continents with 8 (4 squares and their cities) components and 495 continents with 16 components (8 squares and their cities).
Good News: A solution. +3 for every 2 UNIQUE ADJACENT allied cities. +7 for every 4 UNIQUE ADJACENT allied cities.
That is sane, that I can do. It also makes their bonuses slightly harder to get though so you may want to raise it to +4 and +8.
Bad News & Good News (although only good news if you're willing to slightly change the wording/behavior of your bonus structure)
Bad News First
I can maybe do al-Qaeda (it'll take 66 tiny continents with a complex system of overrides). If the logic doesn't work out on that then it's crazy and I'd need to do 66, 495, 924, 495, 66, 1 (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12)
Mahdi is less insane but still insane, I'd need to do 495 continents with 8 (4 squares and their cities) components and 495 continents with 16 components (8 squares and their cities).
Good News: A solution. +3 for every 2 UNIQUE ADJACENT allied cities. +7 for every 4 UNIQUE ADJACENT allied cities.
That is sane, that I can do. It also makes their bonuses slightly harder to get though so you may want to raise it to +4 and +8.
Coleman wrote:Well, unfortunately I'm at a problem again.
Bad News First
I can maybe do al-Qaeda (it'll take 66 tiny continents with a complex system of overrides). If the logic doesn't work out on that then it's crazy and I'd need to do 66, 495, 924, 495, 66, 1 (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12)
Mahdi is less insane but still insane, I'd need to do 495 continents with 8 (4 squares and their cities) components and 495 continents with 16 components (8 squares and their cities).
Good News: A solution. +3 for every 2 UNIQUE ADJACENT allied cities. +7 for every 4 UNIQUE ADJACENT allied cities.
That is sane, that I can do. It also makes their bonuses slightly harder to get though so you may want to raise it to +4 and +8.
You are a wildman coleman. Although I do not know what your talking about. Unique adjacent city? huh
Sorry badly worded. Unique sets of adjacent cities.
So like, if I had Umm Qasr, Basrah, and Nasirlyah all al-Qaeda loyal I'd only get +3 because Basrah is in both sets, but if I then had Karbala I'd get +6 for Karbala & Nasirlyah and Umm Qasr & Basrah.
However, under the system that I stand a real chance of coding if you had Umm Qasr, Nasirlyah, Qa'am, & Rutbah you wouldn't get anything because they aren't adjacent.
Which is why I was suggesting if we did it the way I'm planning they should be worth +4 for 2 instead of +3 for 2.
Same sort of thing for the other +8 for 4 instead of +7 for 4.
So like, if I had Umm Qasr, Basrah, and Nasirlyah all al-Qaeda loyal I'd only get +3 because Basrah is in both sets, but if I then had Karbala I'd get +6 for Karbala & Nasirlyah and Umm Qasr & Basrah.
However, under the system that I stand a real chance of coding if you had Umm Qasr, Nasirlyah, Qa'am, & Rutbah you wouldn't get anything because they aren't adjacent.
Which is why I was suggesting if we did it the way I'm planning they should be worth +4 for 2 instead of +3 for 2.
Same sort of thing for the other +8 for 4 instead of +7 for 4.
Coleman wrote:Sorry badly worded. Unique sets of adjacent cities.
So like, if I had Umm Qasr, Basrah, and Nasirlyah all al-Qaeda loyal I'd only get +3 because Basrah is in both sets, but if I then had Karbala I'd get +6 for Karbala & Nasirlyah and Umm Qasr & Basrah.
However, under the system that I stand a real chance of coding if you had Umm Qasr, Nasirlyah, Qa'am, & Rutbah you wouldn't get anything because they aren't adjacent.
Which is why I was suggesting if we did it the way I'm planning they should be worth +4 for 2 instead of +3 for 2.
Same sort of thing for the other +8 for 4 instead of +7 for 4.
I suppose that could work. I'm not too keen on adding more complication to the legend but if it needs to be done.... Also instead of adjusting the bonuses I could adjust the neutrals to make less resistence for al-queda and mahdi...
Coleman wrote:However you want to do it. I wish I knew what lack's to do list was so I could tell you how long it would be until an xml update happens, but I don't. I know it is on his list though.
right, I already have one map hung up on an update and I dont want two...
so lets code it up like you say, leave the current bonus, and I will drop the neutrals.
I was planning on dropping some of the neutrals because I was a bit worried that the loyalties wouldnt come in to play at all, since I know that people have neutral phobia.
Also I was considering dropping the +2 bahgdad bonuses to +1 and making all baghdad +10. The ethnic bonuses may get dropped too to encourage more loyalty action.
