Duck & Cover [Quenched]

by **Chirondom** on Sat Dec 01, 2007 2:41 pm

The borders look odd with the numbers on top of them. Also, you're using an older map in that example.

by **yeti_c** on Sat Dec 01, 2007 3:16 pm

Chirondom wrote:
yeti_c wrote:Pfffft late comers!!!

C.
lol, I was the one who suggested adding Korea on the first few pages, but admitedly I stopped checking this thread frequently.

I was pointing that at Unriggable actually.

C.

by **oaktown** on Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:37 pm

OK, clearly I should NEVER re-post an old version of the map, even with a warning.

Below are the current army count placements. When placing the counts where I did I took into consideration the following factors, in this order:
1. keeping elements off of borders. Don't want army counts bleeding off into other territories, because that is damn confusing.
2. keeping as many counts as possible actually on the territory. Japan and Korea didn't allow both the count and the title to be on the territory, so I figured it was best to at least have the count on within the borders. UK was just a disaster all around, and given how much is already going on inthat part of the map i didn't want to blow the country up as I did Japan.
3. consistency across the continent. For example, at one point I had all of N. America's counts above the titles, but I moved the mex and greenland counts below the titles to keep the titles within the borders.

And I do think that my version looks better than if all are directly below the territory title.

by **Unit_2** on Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:33 pm

thats great, but how about putign the army number in kaz. below.

by **soundout9** on Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:58 pm

I love this map....it will be my new doodle earth!

by **yeti_c** on Sun Dec 02, 2007 3:48 am

Unit_2 wrote:thats great, but how about putign the army number in kaz. below.

Actually a better suggestion would be to move East bloc to above.

C.

by **oaktown** on Sun Dec 02, 2007 3:50 am

Unit_2 wrote:thats great, but how about putign the army number in kaz. below.

i guess you didn't actually read my criteria for army count placement... most of the other red territories have the count above due to other concerns - territory shape and the presence of the mushroom clouds - so I made Kazahk above as well.

So other than your sudden interest in having them as such, there is no rationale for putting army counts below the territory name, Unit. You aren't even doing this in your Japan map. I think that I have reasonably addressed this concern, so this is the last time I respond to posts on this topic.

by **Unit_2** on Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:28 am

i did read it and i couln't make sense outta it because NA is not how you said it is.

Your wrong.. Japan is hard to work with, its shape and size are the big problems.. Also the territorys are VERY small so its very hard to find room for the under-ground lines, the names and the army circles.

by **oaktown** on Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:16 pm

alright Unit_2, I've redrawn borders and moved Eastern Bloc and Mexico army counts to remain consistent with the rest of their regions. Quebec's doesn't fit, and I maintain that Western Europe is better as is than dangling out in Spain. I've also nudged some other counts slightly in the processto get them away from other elements.

Unless there is a readability problem with a count location I would like to consider this issue resolved.

Large map, without and with counts:

Small map, without and with counts:

by **yeti_c** on Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:19 pm

I really don't think that added anything!!

C.

by **oaktown** on Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:48 pm

yeti_c wrote:I really don't think that added anything!!

C.

It added an hour of work to my morning.

by **mediahack** on Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:02 pm

I'll show my age here: I almost snorted my drink out my nose at this map. The Turtle feels like an old friend who finally got an effin' sense of humor. Love the concept.

by **wrightfan123** on Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:03 pm

Love the avatar, Dad.

Oh yea, the map looks great, too. Might wanna take out one of the USA mushrooms clouds, though.

-W123

by **Swifte** on Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:24 pm

i like the map. I know you have the stars, but the "USA only" bonus is still confusing because Alaska is part of the US. Might want to specify "lower 48 states" or "continental US" or .. i dunno. just a suggestion.

by **oaktown** on Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:38 am

Swifte wrote:i like the map. I know you have the stars, but the "USA only" bonus is still confusing because Alaska is part of the US. Might want to specify "lower 48 states" or "continental US" or .. i dunno. just a suggestion.

This was discussed recently, and the general consensus was that: 1) it's fine because Alaska wasn't a state in the 1950s, the era of this map, and 2) it is my hope that it will be obvious by the stars what is going on.

The other day somebody suggested that the old American style stars were better than the asterisk-stars... I'm kind of in that camp as well, epecially since I'm already using a standard five-pointed star on the top of the map, where it says "conquer." I may try to update the standard stars and post another version for discussion.

by **Backglass** on Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:16 am

oaktown wrote:The other day somebody suggested that the old American style stars were better than the asterisk-stars... I'm kind of in that camp as well, epecially since I'm already using a standard five-pointed star on the top of the map, where it says "conquer." I may try to update the standard stars and post another version for discussion.

I agree. The asterisk's look like snowflakes at first glance. Stars would be better IMHO.

by **yeti_c** on Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:41 am

Pffft - I said this ages ago!!!

C.

by **oaktown** on Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:35 pm

Here it is with proper stars. They're a bit smaller than before, and I've angled them so the "top" of the star could be north, rather than the top of the image. Nothing else is new to this version.

by **Coleman** on Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:38 pm

Not sure what kind of comment this is. Is the plane flying over the U.S. a B-52?

by **oaktown** on Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:40 pm

Coleman wrote:Not sure what kind of comment this is. Is the plane flying over the U.S. a B-52?

Yes... it seemed the most cold war-esque. The Russian plane is a Tu-16, also a bomber from the late 50s.

by **Coleman** on Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:42 pm

Glad you researched. :lol:

by **oaktown** on Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:58 pm

anything for the sake of historical accuracy!

by **rebelman** on Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:47 pm

i know it was already discussed and added because of that discussion but i would love to see the north pole gone from this map it looks like a part that oaktown forgot to colour in

i prefer stars to snow flakes

by **gimil** on Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:59 pm

rebelman wrote:i know it was already discussed and added because of that discussion but i would love to see the north pole gone from this map it looks like a part that oaktown forgot to colour in

i prefer stars to snow flakes

perhaps giving it a dark blue boardr will cheer rebelman up?

by **lord voldemort** on Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:05 pm

yer unsure bout the N but i assume thats been talked about...

the stars as is now, look wikid, congrats oak..looking forward to this. first game 6 player assasin freestyle!!

Duck & Cover [Quenched]

Who is online