Moderators: Cartographers, Global Moderators

oaktown wrote:I'm only on round two of a game on this map, and so far I can tell that it's smart in its gameplay and beautiful to look at. But while the territory names are well thought out and somewhat helpful, the map is still very dependent on subtle colors. As one of the site's colorblind users, I'm constantly going back to the XML to see which territories make up which bonuses. Chicago is especially tough, as I'm just guessing which station I'm placing on and attacking.![]()
I know, my bad for going away all summer and entirely missing this map go through the Foundry process.
oaktown wrote:I'm only on round two of a game on this map, and so far I can tell that it's smart in its gameplay and beautiful to look at. But while the territory names are well thought out and somewhat helpful, the map is still very dependent on subtle colors. As one of the site's colorblind users, I'm constantly going back to the XML to see which territories make up which bonuses. Chicago is especially tough, as I'm just guessing which station I'm placing on and attacking.![]()
I know, my bad for going away all summer and entirely missing this map go through the Foundry process.
Seinfreak wrote:Wow, so that information IS there!![]()
I swear, I read and re-read that legend 3 or 4 times and overlooked that.
DiM wrote:why don't you use the greasemonkey? it shows all the armies with colorblind indicators plus it has a text map feature that shows what borders what and what are the bonuses made of. i think it would be much easier than to look at the xml.



xzmattzx wrote:It's "SacrAmento", not "Sacremento". I noticed that in the attack menu.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest