[Abandoned] - Gettysburg

[Minister X]

Thanks for the stamp!

...why are there so many canons? Re-using the same graphic suggests that it is part of the gameplay, but they seem to only exist for decoration. If that is the case, perhaps you should alter the canons with muskets or structures from the period.

Great suggestion. It's on to google image search for me!

Lastly, the font you've chosen for territory names looks really choppy to me.

I've allowed this to happen on purpose. I think it makes the typesetting look handmade and old. It's not a result of any anti-alias setting. It occurs when you rotate the type a tiny fraction of a degree. I'll fix the worst of them.

[Minister X]

I'd say get cracking but you already work at such a pace that makes me dizzy

-- Marshal Ney

So tell me what size the small map should be so I can get to working!

[isaiah40]

I'd say get cracking but you already work at such a pace that makes me dizzy

-- Marshal Ney

So tell me what size the small map should be so I can get to working!

Try the max small size (630x600) first. It should good at that size.

[lostatlimbo]

Congrats on your stamp!

I've allowed this to happen on purpose. I think it makes the typesetting look handmade and old. It's not a result of any anti-alias setting. It occurs when you rotate the type a tiny fraction of a degree. I'll fix the worst of them.

In that case, I would suggest applying a little bit of blur or smudge to the text, so as to make it appear as if the ink blotched. Then it will look intentionally crooked, but not so sharp and crisp.

Alternatively, you might want to browse some of the free fonts here: http://www.dafont.com/theme.php?cat=107&page=1

There's some pretty good ones that already look like an old faded typeset. Some that caught my eye:
http://www.dafont.com/hotel-coral-essex.font
http://www.dafont.com/dead-kansas.font
http://www.dafont.com/wicked-grit.font

[Minister X]

Using a free font from dafont.com might be a perfectly reasonable suggestion but my typographic roots run deep into the past, when fonts made by amateurs were as likely as not to crash your system. I own 3,297 fonts that I've purchased from reliable sources, and which I can use without restriction. I'll stick with those.

But for folks willing to take more risks than I, there sure are some fun-looking faces there!

[RedBaron0]

I'm sure you'll be good with fonts then if you've got typographic roots.... lol

So, how about some TOPOgraphic roots? Gettysburg was won and lost on the terrain of the battlefield. The map need relief, it's great there is a territory named Cemetery Ridge... but where's the Ridge?! Add those features in and lets get this thing going!

[Minister X]

Responding to several comments...

Draft #9 - two versions

• Type has been cleaned up everywhere.
• Small graphic "accessories" have been changed; cannon reduced to one, image of cemetery arch added, and image of struggling soldiers added. Those struggled soldiers will look familiar to philatelists. I robbed them from the US Postal Service! For the centennial of the very battle I'm mapping, the post office issued this stamp:



• The Union and Confederate bonuses bottom center were re-worded and the shading was fixed.
• The six "flank blobs" have gone from solid color to outline plus barely visible fill. This was done primarily to accommodate...
• Topography: hills and ridges. I surveyed every single CC map to see how others had depicted changes in elevation. The ONLY relevant map was Austerlitz, and cartographer pamoa made sure there was no type covering up his shadings. I don't have that luxury but I've done my best. I present two versions: one with hills and ridges depicted, and one without. I'd really appreciate some expressions of preference - which do you like best or hate least?

show

show

[MarshalNey]

The topogrophy looks better, but both look good!

[lostatlimbo]

Font looks much better.

I vote for the topographic relief. Gives the map some depth and more texture.

[Minister X]

Small version of draft #9 with topography apparent. I made quite a few changes to ensure it would be just as readable as the large version.

show

[AndyDufresne]

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

[Minister X]

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

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?

[AndyDufresne]

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


--Andy

[Victor Sullivan]

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

[Minister X]

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

[Victor Sullivan]

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

[Minister X]

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.

[lostatlimbo]

...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).

[lostatlimbo]

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

[Minister X]

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

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

[Minister X]

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.

[RedBaron0]

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?"

[isaiah40]

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?

[gimil]

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?

[Victor Sullivan]

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