[Abandoned] - Gettysburg

by **AndyDufresne** on Fri Sep 30, 2011 9:17 am

I think this map is coming along pretty well. The only real comment I have right now is that the deciphering the road areas on the map can be a little difficult, even with the two different connecter methods you have going.

I think it is because the dotted lines stand out much more than the solid road lines currently, and the road lines (and thus understanding the road bonuses) can get a little lost.

What if you made the road lines much darker like the dotted lines, and the dotted line color more like the current road color?

Hm, maybe one other point. The sharp edges of the Union/Confederate bonuses in the legend might be better rounded off, and maybe even less like a word document highlight and more like highlight that is less rigid and structured (for instance, the loops on the map are nice example of something less rigid).

--Andy

by **Minister X** on Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:37 am

All of Andy's comments are good but...

AndyDufresne wrote:Hm, maybe one other point. The sharp edges of the Union/Confederate bonuses in the legend might be better rounded off, and maybe even less like a word document highlight and more like highlight that is less rigid and structured (for instance, the loops on the map are nice example of something less rigid).

...when I had the highlight more rounded/informal I got called on it.

(I'll work on some alternatives)

The rest of Andy's remarks seem to apply only to the small version. True?

by **AndyDufresne** on Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:00 pm

Yeah, the roads for the most part stand out pretty well on the large map.

--Andy

by **Victor Sullivan** on Fri Sep 30, 2011 7:27 pm

I agree with Andy on all fronts. Perhaps thinning the dotted lines (having smaller, more frequent dots) may help to make the roads more apparent.

-Sully

by **Minister X** on Fri Sep 30, 2011 7:29 pm

Okay, so here's an updated small map - still considered draft #9 since I didn't change the large one. (Is that okay??) Roads thickened and dots changed from 4 pixels each to 3 - makes all the difference. (And all just 2 minutes after Sully suggested it!!)

show

by **Victor Sullivan** on Fri Sep 30, 2011 7:35 pm

I think the dotted lines could stand to be a lighter grey. There still isn't quite enough contrast between the dotted and solid lines IMO.

-Sully

by **Minister X** on Fri Sep 30, 2011 8:04 pm

I disagree on two counts: 1st, the difference is clear enough with dots vs solid lines with glow, but 2nd, there's no need for any huge difference - both dotted lines and roads behave exactly the same, connecting terts. That said, I agree that the dots being a bit lighter might be a general aesthetic improvement. Easy to do.

by **lostatlimbo** on Thu Oct 06, 2011 9:03 pm

Minister X wrote:...when I had the highlight more rounded/informal I got called on it. :D
(I'll work on some alternatives)

For the record, I said:

I'd just use a clean, rounded box there or change the font color.

The early version of those highlights just looked a little too sloppy. The areas on the map are loose, but deliberate. If you can replicate that in the legend, it would look great. (Though I still think a font color would suffice - to each their own).

by **lostatlimbo** on Thu Oct 06, 2011 9:13 pm

About this road v dotted line business...

I'm not sure that changing the opacity of these will solve the problem. Unfortunately, the roads look like background decor, partly because they are in some spots (Gettysburg), but mostly because the dots are so pervasive, they really just overwhelm the roads no matter what shade.

There are other issues to consider - namely that the road connections really disappear behind the union bonuses (particularly the Center & Left titles). No matter how you shade those, it will be easy to glance over that spot and miss the connection.

I'm also confused by the relationship between YP3, YP2 & HUN2. Obviously YP3 & YP2 connect, but do they both attack HUN2 and vice versa?

I think you should try two things:
1) replace all the straight line with a dashed line. I think this will help them stand out evenly.
2) move the Union Center & Union Left to the side, off the road.
3) clarify the YP-HUN connections by connecting HUN2 directly to the appropriate territories, rather than using the fork.

Hope that helps

by **Minister X** on Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:22 am

lostatlimbo wrote:I think you should... replace all the straight line with a dashed line.

What straight line(s)? The roads?? Make them dashed lines?

by **Minister X** on Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:01 am

Draft #10

On the small map, dotted lines have been lightened a bit, and were added where road connections were ambiguous. Roads were strengthened under the flank shadings. (Flanks can't be moved off the road - they included road terts which MUST be on the roads.) Army circles were removed. Result: roads stand out more.

On the large map the ambiguous connections were fixed and the legend shading rounded.

I think this satisfies all the points made above - at least the ones I could grasp. Any more graphics complaints/criticisms/corrections?

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

by **RedBaron0** on Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:05 pm

Looking pretty good. The paths on the small map look better, they're darker, should really apply that to the large map.

Oh, and on the large map, the story, should the last line read"...Army of the Potomac?"

by **isaiah40** on Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:14 pm

This has been nagging me for a while now. It seems that the Confederate Left and Right Flanks should be switched around. It seems funny having the left flank on the right and the right on the left. Any historical reason for this?

by **gimil** on Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:19 pm

I am trying to understand what i going on in the background graphics. Is it suppose to be some kind of terrain feature? Hills and stuff?

by **Victor Sullivan** on Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:53 pm

isaiah40 wrote:This has been nagging me for a while now. It seems that the Confederate Left and Right Flanks should be switched around. It seems funny having the left flank on the right and the right on the left. Any historical reason for this?

Well, it depends on what direction your looking at. It seems to me the Confederates are going North to South, so naturally, their left and and right would be as depicted on the map.

-Sully

by **Minister X** on Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:46 pm

Flanks are defined by where the enemy is. One faces the enemy, then, as one is facing that way, one has a left and right flank.

The background is indeed terrain (hills) - it was decided that was better than not having them.

"Army of the Potomac" would be correct, but so is "army of Lincoln" with a small 'a'. Many pages ago I was told that I should take nothing for granted regarding knowledge of the battle since so many members of CC would be quite unfamiliar with it. Some kid from Finland might not know that "Army of the Potomac" meant the north's forces; "army of Lincoln" is a bit more likely to make sense to someone who's never heard of the "Army of the Potomac". If it were up to me I'd go either way happily; I'm just explaining why I chose the wording I did. Lee, I presume, is more widely known to have been a southern general than Meade to be a northern one.

by **isaiah40** on Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:49 pm

So this is looking at it from the Union's perspective then?

by **Minister X** on Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:53 pm

No. Say I'm facing you. Which is my left hand? You're facing me. Which is your left? Your left is near my right; my left is near your right.

by **Victor Sullivan** on Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:01 pm

Well, I think you misunderstood, Minister X. You are right, you just misunderstood him, I think.

Yes, isaiah.

-Sully

by **isaiah40** on Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:20 pm

Minister X wrote:No. Say I'm facing you. Which is my left hand? You're facing me. Which is your left? Your left is near my right; my left is near your right.

Sounds like some square dance routine.

by **cairnswk** on Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:05 am

Minister X, those region names that are to the right of the army numbers...
particularly on the small map...players will have trouble with their idenification if they have 10+ armies and they decide to use the colour coding i.e. r15.
Is there any way you could move them to the left of army placements so there is no issues there?

by **Minister X** on Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:00 am

I thought the numbers grow leftward as they get bigger. Yes? No?

by **gimil** on Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:01 am

The background is indeed terrain (hills) - it was decided that was better than not having them.

I suspected that, in that case I think the background needs more geographic features. Are there any rivers, forest etc? I think right now it doesn't feel like terrain.

by **isaiah40** on Fri Oct 14, 2011 8:14 am

Minister X wrote:I thought the numbers grow leftward as they get bigger. Yes? No?

No, when you have either r4/44 or 888 they are centered between the first and second digits. Even if you have 8888, they are still centered between the first two.

by **cairnswk** on Fri Oct 14, 2011 5:01 pm

isaiah40 wrote:
Minister X wrote:I thought the numbers grow leftward as they get bigger. Yes? No?

No, when you have either r4/44 or 888 they are centered between the first and second digits. Even if you have 8888, they are still centered between the first two.

...and thus r44 would run over the names.
I always do name placement SSE, S, SW, W, NW, N, NNE of the army numbers depending on other grx elements thereabouts, but in your case there should be no issues with W placement (although up to you)

[Abandoned] - Gettysburg

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 9 pg 7

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 9 pg 7

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 9 pg 7

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 9 pg 7

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 9 pg 7

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 9 pg 7

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 9 pg 7

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 9 pg 7

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 9 pg 7

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 9 pg 7

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 9 pg 7

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 10 pg 8

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 10 pg 8

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 10 pg 8

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 10 pg 8

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 10 pg 8

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 10 pg 8

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 10 pg 8

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 10 pg 8

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 10 pg 8

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 10 pg 8

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 10 pg 8

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 10 pg 8

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 10 pg 8

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 10 pg 8

Who is online