Page 4 of 11

Re: Chicago-- Version 6.1 Airport Attack Route [Pg 5]

PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:09 pm
by danfrank
whitestazn88 wrote:hey, whitestazn88 here for the preliminary review. since the last time i was here, the map has gone through a bunch of great changes. at the moment, i have no beef with it, and i'm happy to give my approval of it moving to the main foundry.



:lol: :lol: :lol: Your a funny guy :P

First time i am seeing this map and i like it.. Keep it up :!: :!:

Re: Chicago-- Version 6.1 Airport Attack Route [Pg 5]

PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:49 pm
by laddida
where or how is this moving to the main foundry does this thread move to a new location? a bit confused on the next step :-P id like to keep track of the progress

Re: Chicago-- Version 6.1 Airport Attack Route [Pg 5]

PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:49 pm
by whitestazn88
laddida wrote:where or how is this moving to the main foundry does this thread move to a new location? a bit confused on the next step :-P id like to keep track of the progress


instead of being in the drafting room subforum of the map foundry, it is in the main page. you'll still be able to reach it from the drafting room via a link if you get too confused finding it in the map foundry

Re: Chicago-- Version 6.1 Airport Attack Route [Pg 5]

PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:00 am
by Dexsting
you need a Cook County :)

Re: Chicago-- Version 6.1 Airport Attack Route [Pg 5]

PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:13 am
by Tisha
whitestazn88 wrote:
laddida wrote:where or how is this moving to the main foundry does this thread move to a new location? a bit confused on the next step :-P id like to keep track of the progress


instead of being in the drafting room subforum of the map foundry, it is in the main page. you'll still be able to reach it from the drafting room via a link if you get too confused finding it in the map foundry

I think he was asking what exactly need to be done to get this map moved into the main foundry.. maybe 8-[

Does anyone know if there are guidelines that need met that get it moved to the different places? Is there a list of them somewhere?

Re: Chicago-- Version 6.1 Airport Attack Route [Pg 5]

PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:14 am
by Scott-Land
Dexsting wrote:you need a Cook County :)


Downtown bonus is Cook County-- not sure how far it extends tho. I can find out ..... Anyhow was that what you were referring to?

Re: Chicago-- Version 6.1 Airport Attack Route [Pg 5]

PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:17 am
by Dexsting
Just saying Cook County is just about as Famous as Chicago itself, and maybe put it in somewhere...maybe set the bonuses by county and include Cook County as the biggest bonus ;)

Re: Chicago-- Version 6.1 Airport Attack Route [Pg 5]

PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:19 am
by Scott-Land
Dexsting wrote:Just saying Cook County is just about as Famous as Chicago itself, and maybe put it in somewhere...maybe set the bonuses by county and include Cook County as the biggest bonus ;)


lol- I can prolly name all of 2 counties in Chicago. :lol:

Re: Chicago-- Version 6.1 Airport Attack Route [Pg 5]

PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:55 am
by Industrial Helix
Prelim review time! Personally I say just move it to the main foundry. Everything is there, the graphics look great, I love the darker, nighttime theme it has. My only crit would be to grab some stock images or something of a street poll, traffic light and sign as they all seem to break from the real images you have going on in the rest of the background.

The gameplay has no major flaws. I like the addition of the airport link, but out of curiosity is there an airport in Midway?

Re: Chicago-- Version 6.1 Airport Attack Route [Pg 5]

PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:06 am
by laddida
yes its called midway airport and its 10000 times better than going to o'hare airport less delays and not as crowded :-P

Re: Chicago-- Version 6.1 Airport Attack Route [Pg 5]

PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 6:44 pm
by Scott-Land
laddida wrote:yes its called midway airport and its 10000 times better than going to o'hare airport less delays and not as crowded :-P


Yep and it's closer to the city-- depends on where you're flying to really.... international then O'hare. If I'm flying Southwest ( dirt cheap flights ) that service to/from Phoenix and LA-- maybe Vegas too; I had to fly out of Midway.

Re: Chicago-- Version 6.1 Airport Attack Route [Pg 5]

PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:35 pm
by Scott-Land
Few changes--

* Fixed the borders that runs along Calumet River.
* Changed bridges.
* Added Helipads to involve L Michigan with the CG Helicopter and add northern/southern access. Before you guys ask me why I didn't choose a ship and use ports. There were a few reasons but the biggest being-- ships are more detailed and with the small area available to work with I couldn't produce a clean image. Besides-- don't think there are helicopters in any previous maps. :D
EDIT: The north pad the H is off centered- will fix. Cbicago is off too.
* Added florescent lighting inside train cars.
* Changed Lake Calumet.


I'm sure one of you will be confused or have concerns about the clarity of the 2 way attacks. I didn't want to add any further explanations. Airport attacks airport and helipads attack helipads-- they can't attack each other. ;)

Click image to enlarge.
image

Re: Chicago-- Version 7 Helipads [Pg 6]

PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:18 pm
by Night Strike
Great fix on that river spot. But what's that white line below it?

Re: Chicago-- Version 7 Helipads [Pg 6]

PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:46 pm
by Bruceswar
Night Strike wrote:Great fix on that river spot. But what's that white line below it?


It reads SL in a nice font. For Scott-land :)

Re: Chicago-- Version 7 Helipads [Pg 6]

PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:10 pm
by Scott-Land
Hehee thanks.- it is SL. Maybe I should move it.......

Some like my Coast Guard helicopter and some one or two don't. So I'll poll it I guess. :D

Re: Chicago-- Version 7 Helipads [Pg 6]

PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:27 pm
by dolomite13
Great map, you might want to consider bringing the L lines forward a bit in front of the trees and making them somewhat transparent there so you don't loose them when they enters the trees. Also the trees are a bit too realistic and big. Maybe you could use a poster type filter on them and shrink them a bit.

What does airports 2 way attack helipads mean. Does that mean airports and helipads can attack all other airports and helipads. If so say that you have plenty of extra space.

I would look at getting rid of the hyphen in jefferson park.

Explain the bridges in the legend.


Why is far south side 2 and west side 3 ? they have same number of territories.

Great job ... looking forward to playing this one.

==D

Re: Chicago-- Version 7 Helipads [Pg 6]

PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:56 pm
by Scott-Land
dolomite13 wrote:Great map, you might want to consider bringing the L lines forward a bit in front of the trees and making them somewhat transparent there so you don't loose them when they enters the trees. Also the trees are a bit too realistic and big. Maybe you could use a poster type filter on them and shrink them a bit.

What does airports 2 way attack helipads mean. Does that mean airports and helipads can attack all other airports and helipads. If so say that you have plenty of extra space.

I would look at getting rid of the hyphen in jefferson park.

Explain the bridges in the legend.


Why is far south side 2 and west side 3 ? they have same number of territories.

Great job ... looking forward to playing this one.

==D


I had posted with the update about the 2 way attacks. It's really not that confusing is it? If the airports could attack helipads, then I wouldn't had made helipads.... I'd make them all airports. ;) Suppose I will have to clarify on the map, something I didn't want to do.

Even tho they both have equal territories, Far South Side is 2 because it only borders 3 terrs unlike West Side's bordering 6 terrs + Jefferson/ Austin rail stations -- total of 8 breaking points. I could possibly move it to 4 and have no issues with it but no way should it be more and FSS be 3. The problem with making it like 5 or 6-- the game shouldn't be won by holding only 4 terrs. By making the bonus worth more, that's exactly what I would be doing. The fight shouldn't be there-- although it does contain very important cross territories. The bonus that the map is centered around is and should be FSS.

Trees-- it's going to be impossible to move those trees alongside the Orange Line. I could definitely make them smaller-- perhaps more to fill the necessary impass that I want to achieve.

Bridges-- like with the 2 way attacks... i feel it redundant to state the obvious. They look like bridges, one would assume you could cross from one terr to another by them. Something I'll consider if absolutely necessary.

Thanks for the comments and questions, hope I've satisfied some of them for you.

P.S. I can't wait for gameplay discussions.... prolly will be the best part of making a map. :D

Re: Chicago-- Version 7 Helipads [Pg 6]

PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 2:07 am
by Master Fenrir
Scott-Land wrote:
Dexsting wrote:you need a Cook County :)


Downtown bonus is Cook County-- not sure how far it extends tho. I can find out ..... Anyhow was that what you were referring to?


Dexsting wrote:Just saying Cook County is just about as Famous as Chicago itself, and maybe put it in somewhere...maybe set the bonuses by county and include Cook County as the biggest bonus ;)


The entirety of Chicago lays within Cook County. West Chicago is in DuPage County, but it's an entirely different municipality.

Great map. I can't wait to play it and start representin'. The only thought I had would maybe be for Lincoln Park to be a +1 autodeploy because of the outrageous property value in that area (college students don't bat an eye at paying $2,500 for a 2 bedroom apartment), but I think I'm a bit late for that, and I'm not sure if an auto-deploy goes against the definition of a standard map.

Re: Chicago-- Version 7 Helipads [Pg 6]

PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:00 am
by laddida
i work about half a mile from west chicago every day :-P in dupage hehe

Re: Chicago-- Version 7 Helipads [Pg 6]

PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 2:49 pm
by cairnswk
Scott-land...what can i say, very nice indeed. :)
The only small issue i have is will the map still have the same legibility and clarity for territory names etc, when it is in it's small version size?
I'm in favour of moving it to the foundry. :)

Re: Chicago-- Version 7 Helipads [Pg 6]

PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 6:50 pm
by Scott-Land
cairnswk wrote:Scott-land...what can i say, very nice indeed. :)
The only small issue i have is will the map still have the same legibility and clarity for territory names etc, when it is in it's small version size?
I'm in favour of moving it to the foundry. :)


I certainly can't complain about my experience here in the foundry. So nice to see all the veteran map makers [and everyone] in here giving solid advice and being so helpful. Thx Cairns.

I'm wondering if there's another way to resize the image without getting it distorted. I haven't done much with the small version. Actually I haven't done anything at all but resize it to get a perspective. I do lose ALL my lines and borders (well no I get them in triplicate :D )- is there another way to resize outside of Image Size in PS without sacrificing legibility ? I'm afraid the answer's gonna be to basically redo the whole thing. ?!

Re: Chicago-- Version 7 Helipads [Pg 6]

PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 6:58 pm
by cairnswk
Scott-Land wrote:
cairnswk wrote:Scott-land...what can i say, very nice indeed. :)
The only small issue i have is will the map still have the same legibility and clarity for territory names etc, when it is in it's small version size?
I'm in favour of moving it to the foundry. :)


I certainly can't complain about my experience here in the foundry. So nice to see all the veteran map makers [and everyone] in here giving solid advice and being so helpful. Thx Cairns.

I'm wondering if there's another way to resize the image without getting it distorted. I haven't done much with the small version. Actually I haven't done anything at all but resize it to get a perspective. I do lose ALL my lines and borders (well no I get them in triplicate :D )- is there another way to resize outside of Image Size in PS without sacrificing legibility ? I'm afraid the answer's gonna be to basically redo the whole thing. ?!


Scott-land, i'm not sure about re-szing in PS because i don't use that package.
WM is more likely to be able to assist with this one.

Re: Chicago-- Version 7 Helipads [Pg 6]

PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 6:59 pm
by lanyards
Scott-Land wrote:
cairnswk wrote:Scott-land...what can i say, very nice indeed. :)
The only small issue i have is will the map still have the same legibility and clarity for territory names etc, when it is in it's small version size?
I'm in favour of moving it to the foundry. :)


I certainly can't complain about my experience here in the foundry. So nice to see all the veteran map makers [and everyone] in here giving solid advice and being so helpful. Thx Cairns.

I'm wondering if there's another way to resize the image without getting it distorted. I haven't done much with the small version. Actually I haven't done anything at all but resize it to get a perspective. I do lose ALL my lines and borders (well no I get them in triplicate :D )- is there another way to resize outside of Image Size in PS without sacrificing legibility ? I'm afraid the answer's gonna be to basically redo the whole thing. ?!
You could resize everything except the text, and the army circles, and I don't think the blur would be too noticeable. Just redo text separately for the small map. Hope that helps. This map has looked great since version 1. Time for a stamp I say.

Also, not too fond of the territory labeling font. I like font used for the top right bonus legend though.

Re: Chicago-- Version 7 Helipads [Pg 6]

PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:37 pm
by Scott-Land
My circles are currently 22x22. What's the smallest they can be ?

Re: Chicago-- Version 7 Helipads [Pg 6]

PostPosted: Sun Jul 26, 2009 3:16 am
by whitestazn88
instead of 2 way attack it could say attack themselves? lol... i dunno.

ooh, got it. it could say "attack same symbols".