Moderator: Cartographers
asl80 wrote:Cairns - the shape of napolean's hat in the picture above is nice, but i must say the stretched transformation seems more like a safari hat. The concept is good, but keep the shape of the original, maybe rotate it 35-40o (degres) so that the point is down on the left a little and going across the page (if some of the corners get chopped off i wouldn't say that's a problem - so long as the shape, i.e. what the image is, can be discerned - the present transformation truly is a little misleading) - ultimately, at the same time as providing the space for the field of battle, it would be really nice if it could be only so slightly discernable as a transparency {if you could get it to not interfere with the practical bits of the map}, this would also help the case for not needing to see the whole hat.
P.S. - the battle took place on a hill didn't it? - If it's at all within your sights, i'd love to see a bit of a foreground/background setting, i.e a little more three dimensional (though not necc. 3D), i think the setting of this battle certainly urges it.
My thought is, that, Wellington's troops, placed a little to the north west of the map (i.e. within the hat that run's the opposite direction as mentioned above) would be presented as the highest point in your graphical representation, moving down to Napolean's army to the south east. (it seems the diagonal/slant would be a good way of representing slope)
Ahh, if this is the case, then the landscape, of the hill, could take up your whole map, though the playing area could still reamain within the hat, which now, is more of an outline - though still inclusionary(of the playing field)/exclusionary(of the bonus info and left over land etc). Here, the landscape outside of the hat could be shadded/dimmed/whatever's appropriate. This would also give you the chance of keeping some of the original hat's graphics around the unused verges.
Coleman wrote:Mind if I try to build symbols closer to those that fit? I could give you a set later of a few attempts. I just don't like that the calvary is flags.
The infantry and artillery are actually probably as good as possible. Couldn't you try something like a knight chess piece instead of a flag?
asl80 wrote:Haha - no worries, cheers for the words. But "tell him he's dreaming" would have sufficed.
(I trust you get the reference)
Anyway, good luck, i look forward to seeing it move along in any case.
Reakon you could maybe take coleman up on his offer with the symbols though, see what he comes up with.
yeti_c wrote:Your army number on the large are too big!!!
C.
yeti_c wrote:Artillery wording...
Why not something like...
"Artillery can bombard any enemy position"
That way you don't need to mention bands and so forth...
Also it should mention that Artillery shouldn't be able to attack anyone (just bombard)
C.
cairnswk wrote:yeti_c wrote:Artillery wording...
Why not something like...
"Artillery can bombard any enemy position"
That way you don't need to mention bands and so forth...
Also it should mention that Artillery shouldn't be able to attack anyone (just bombard)
C.
OK...i guess it is feasible for this to occur... iwas thinking of keeping it within ranges, but as you pointed out this might alleviate the band idea....which in itself woudl be good.
and will add the bit about bombard also in next version.
Should the artillery only be able to bombard directly in front of its position? Given that Ajax is working and brings up the terts that one can attack to, would this work?
Coleman wrote:I'm confused for once.
The nameplates help explain how the places are named right?
Why is D'erlon in codes and in a name plate. What is codes even about? (EDIT: Nevermind, it's an example of how places are named... It's going to need improving)
There are 2 CA2 territories.
A place down by BI1 and BC1 with an infantry inside doesn't even have a name.
BC2 is a really confusing territory, but I'm not sure how to improve it.
NI1's 1 is poorly placed, nudge left?
The tree in wellington is hideous (sorry) does it have some sort of historical significance? Why is it there?
unriggable wrote:Artillery is useless in this, i suggest you fix it's role.
edbeard wrote:Any reason that Wellington and Ney's commander icons have bolder edges?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users