Forum

by **dolomite13** on Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:27 pm

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

by **Scott-Land** on Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:56 pm

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.

by **Master Fenrir** on Sat Jul 25, 2009 2:07 am

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.

by **laddida** on Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:00 am

i work about half a mile from west chicago every day :-P

in dupage hehe

by **cairnswk** on Sat Jul 25, 2009 2:49 pm

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.

by **Scott-Land** on Sat Jul 25, 2009 6:50 pm

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

)- 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. ?!

by **cairnswk** on Sat Jul 25, 2009 6:58 pm

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 )- 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.

by **lanyards** on Sat Jul 25, 2009 6:59 pm

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 )- 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.

by **Scott-Land** on Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:37 pm

My circles are currently 22x22. What's the smallest they can be ?

by **whitestazn88** on Sun Jul 26, 2009 3:16 am

instead of 2 way attack it could say attack themselves? lol... i dunno.

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

by **lanyards** on Sun Jul 26, 2009 1:48 pm

Scott-Land wrote:My circles are currently 22x22. What's the smallest they can be ?

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21353

That thread may help you out. 22x22 is probably the perfect size, but I'd say the lowest you should go is 20x20.

by **thenobodies80** on Sun Jul 26, 2009 5:07 pm

A wonderful map, good work! =D>

I am pleased to issue this map the draft stamp on behalf of the foundry community

Have a nice day

thenobodies80

by **lanyards** on Sun Jul 26, 2009 5:40 pm

Congrats. The red text in the bottom left legend is hard to see by the way.

by **Scott-Land** on Sun Jul 26, 2009 6:21 pm

thenobodies80 wrote:A wonderful map, good work!

I am pleased to issue this map the draft stamp on behalf of the foundry community

Have a nice day

thenobodies80

Woah--- almost as nice as getting the red balloon. Cheers !

lanyards wrote:Congrats. The red text in the bottom left legend is hard to see by the way.

Yep Tisha said the same thing. I'll work on it in the next update.

by **lostatlimbo** on Sun Jul 26, 2009 8:07 pm

wow - this one just keeps getting better. very nice visuals.

i agree that there is a need for clarity about the helipads-airports. players won't be privvy to your thought process when playing their first game on this map and the way you've presented these attack points creates uncertainty - something you don't want to find out the hard way during the game.

i do agree with you that the bridges need not be in the legend. they are self-exclamatory. however, i used stylistically similar bridges in my Portland map (in the Foundry) and they were not well-received. maybe they suit your map better, but just a heads-up.

is the "L train" all three colors? if so, your legend should say "L trains". if not, which color is the L train?

my only other complaint is that I can't tell where The Loop connects. does it connect to River North? to all 3 of the trains? or just the orange one?

great work Scott-Land