Forum

by **ManBungalow** on Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:46 pm

natty_dread wrote:
ManBungalow wrote:
Click image to enlarge.

This is the large map?

How do you think the small map will look with all the army numbers in it? I think you need to either cut down the territories or make the image larger... too much clutter atm. I mean, with the numbers on, it'd be really hard to tell what connects where...

I suppose I could scale the image up and apply for supersize. It shouldn't be too difficult to recreate most of the details present at the moment for a higher resolution image.

I started this map before supersize became an option, and never really felt the need to increase the dimensions of it. For the small image, I plan on cropping some of the from the left and right, in addition to condensing the legend/header.

However, just because we can supersize, doesn't mean we have to. All the regions fit and all the names are there. If I had things my way, I'd keep the large image roughly as it is now, and perhaps apply for supersize just for the small image.

Victor Sullivan wrote:Hm, perhaps this could be remedied by the way things are named in the XML. For example, "088" in the XML could be named "088 (Shelter)".

This is really what I'm aiming for.

by **thehippo8** on Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:04 pm

ManBungalow wrote:
Victor Sullivan wrote:Hm, perhaps this could be remedied by the way things are named in the XML. For example, "088" in the XML could be named "088 (Shelter)".

This is really what I'm aiming for.

Works for me.

by **natty dread** on Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:57 pm

ManBungalow wrote:I suppose I could scale the image up and apply for supersize. It shouldn't be too difficult to recreate most of the details present at the moment for a higher resolution image.

I started this map before supersize became an option, and never really felt the need to increase the dimensions of it. For the small image, I plan on cropping some of the from the left and right, in addition to condensing the legend/header.

However, just because we can supersize, doesn't mean we have to. All the regions fit and all the names are there. If I had things my way, I'd keep the large image roughly as it is now, and perhaps apply for supersize just for the small image.

Ok, here's a trick I use when I'm working on the large image and am not sure if the small image will be feasible...

First, figure out the size differential you're aiming for - usually, it should be between 70-85% (small map to large map) - and then, take an army number (888) and scale it up accordingly: for example if your size differential is 75%, so that small map is 3/4 of large, you scale the number up to 133% (or 4/3) size. Then just add the enlargened army numbers on your territories, and see if they all fit comfortably without covering important features of the map.

by **DogAlmighty** on Thu Dec 08, 2011 5:33 pm

I should know better then to click on subliminal messages.

by **ManBungalow** on Fri Dec 16, 2011 4:16 pm

Does anybody want to voice any concerns about me applying for supersize and scaling up the graphics?
I'm thinking that the small image will be about the size of the current image, with some potential for cropping of ocean and legend. I feel that the image I posted already with the region names on will accommodate the army numbers and still convey everything it has to.

Hopefully then I'll be able to get the graphics done with and the gameplay stamp whenever I get round to proposing neutral values. Then it's only the XML and we're not so far from finished, right?

DogAlmighty wrote:I should know better then to click on subliminal messages.

Damn right.

by **ManBungalow** on Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:50 pm

I'll be able to update this in a few weeks.

by **isaiah40** on Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:53 pm

ManBungalow wrote:Does anybody want to voice any concerns about me applying for supersize and scaling up the graphics?

Just do both small and large and apply for it, and thenobodies80 and I will review it.

by **isaiah40** on Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:51 am

Before I move this to the Recycling Box, what is the status on this? It's been 2 months since an update, so I need to know what is going on with this please.

isaiah40

by **AndyDufresne** on Mon Jan 30, 2012 3:05 pm

Sad to see this slow-down, this looks like a fun map.

--Andy

by **Gillipig** on Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:00 am

AndyDufresne wrote:Sad to see this slow-down, this looks like a fun map.

--Andy

Me too, it was one of my favorites

! It got a bit overly complicated and lost it's initial charm I think.

by **ManBungalow** on Wed Feb 01, 2012 2:08 pm

I'm still working on this (should have more chance to do so in the next few weeks than I have recently). In fact, I was working on scaling it up to supersize the other day and dropped some of the regions off.

Will update formally soon.

by **ManBungalow** on Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:05 pm

Update to V12: another overhaul (sigh)

Click image to enlarge.

Things have been greatly simplified. Essentially all the clutter from V11 has been removed, simply by drastically reducing the number of regions. At the moment, I am predominantly interested in getting the GAMEPLAY STAMP. The graphics, introduction, text and otherwise can be sorted out when the regions and bonuses are fixed in place.
By all means, leave comments regarding non-gameplay related matters (hell, they don't even have to relate to the map itself), but it probably won't change anything much until I get that damn stamp. I'm just saying.

Notice that each shelter is connected to exactly three food regions, and that there are 2 access regions between each shelter and food region.
The numbers on the image I just posted are proposed neutral values.
Oh, it almost goes without saying for me that the shelters make up the starting regions, and all the rest are neutral.

by **natty dread** on Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:10 pm

Looks pretty cool. But maybe a bit on the constricted side? Could maybe use some more connections... seems to me there are a lot of chokepoints.

by **Victor Sullivan** on Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:03 am

I agree with natty, choke-points are going to be a major issue. Hm... I have a suggestion. I wonder if you could make the closed-off regions formed by the paths into killer neutrals, which could assault and be assaulted by all adjacent path regions? You could make the killer neutral relatively substantial so the map isn't too open (perhaps 4 or 5 neutrals), but it would help to make the map a little more, hm, diverse, in terms of strategy and gameplay.

-Sully

by **koontz1973** on Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:53 am

Having each region start exactly the same would be ideal but bad for some game types. It might be nice if you had some of the start closer/further to the food territs. You have 2 normal territs between the start and food. Why not have one at 2, one at 3 and one at 4 away. So a food region that is 4 away from one shelter would only be 2 away from another shelter. I would suggest you take the stating territs down to 8 with the simplified GP so you have more wiggle room with other types of territs.

What has happened about the escape territs. Will they come back or have you abandoned this idea. It would be a shame if they do not come back.