Classic cities: London [19.2.12] p27

[natty dread]

I reply with another question....why is a so big problem to add them, specially because you have lot of space to do that?

That's just it, I want to maintain a clean, concise style without cluttering the image with unnecessary clutter. There's a good balance between the elements of the image right now, adding more stuff may compromise that.

but yes take it as a rule, impassable must be listed, specially if they are not something clear, like a mountain

So, just for future reference. Where does the line go? What is considered "clear" and what isn't? Apparently forests, mountains & rivers can be left unexplained, are there any others?

[Victor Sullivan]

I think I'm with natty on this one I think it's better without an explanation. If it becomes an issue in beta then we can remedy it, but I doubt it will be.

-Sully

[AndyDufresne]

So, just for future reference. Where does the line go? What is considered "clear" and what isn't? Apparently forests, mountains & rivers can be left unexplained, are there any others?

I think because of the similarity of your impassables to other elements on the map, it could be helpful. Mountains, trees, etc, usually look distinct enough from the map, but your impassables probably fall in the middle somewhere. In any case, I don't really have an opinion on the matter.


--Andy

[thenobodies80]

I think because of the similarity of your impassables to other elements on the map, it could be helpful. Mountains, trees, etc, usually look distinct enough from the map, but your impassables probably fall in the middle somewhere

What he said.

If it becomes an issue in beta

That's not the Beta purpose. Please stop thinking the Beta stage as the solution of all problems. Or we can remove the whole process, upload maps and see if people complains with the same way of thought! (and maybe you'll be happy to not have more us to stress you all, unfortunately this is not landgrab)

Add the impassable natty, you have space in the lower right corner. Really I don't see why there should be a discussion for everything mods say (why you ask this, i don't like that, it's an artistic choice, etc etc) specially when is written on guidelines

Borders and attack routes should be clear (or clearly explained if unconventional borders are used)

You impassable are not certainly conventional, anyway I'll rewrite that passage to define much better what is unconventional.
Where is gone the common sense and the way of doing thing of the old days.....

[natty dread]

Really I don't see why there should be a discussion for everything mods say

Well I'm so sorry I'm making your life difficult. Wouldn't it just be so much easier if you had paid workers that you could boss around here?

[natty dread]

So anyway,

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

I hope this is satisfactory

[Bruceswar]

Looks pretty swell if you ask me.

[thenobodies80]

I hope this is satisfactory

yes, thanks.

Personally I'm not a fan of this map, but it's just a personal opinion. Certainly this one is not your best graphics production and probably the gameplay is a bit too "flat"

But from a CA point of view (more objective), I don't see other things that need to be fixed or changed according our guidelines so I don't have other things/reasons to bother you about this before seeing it with 888s (that i think won't be a problem anyway since you have space everywhere)

Nobodies

[natty dread]

Looks pretty swell if you ask me.

Glad you like it!

Certainly this one is not your best graphics production

Well I guess I can't please everybody, but this is a perfect example of what I was talking about in the other thread... when I stick to a style that's more "familiar" to me everyone's complaining... and here I have a map where I'm doing something totally different and stylistically pretty unique, and then some complain it's not graphically my "best production"...

I mean, you're entitled to your opinion, you don't have to like everything I do, that's fine. But I just hope you can appreciate the irony of the situation.

[thenobodies80]

I think you can have your style and use it when you want, the important thing is that the style fits the map.

To give a couple of examples, I'm also a pianist and i can recognize mozart from chopin or beethoven just after a couple of notes. All those great composer have their style and they used it for almost their works. But all them are well know like composer who created a so large and different type of music. For example Fantasie impromptou is really different than a nocturne n2, but both are written by chopin and it easy to understand that there's the same person behind both them.

But let me make an example with someone more related with paintings and the like
Leonardo was a genius, he did tons of different things, all of them, or almost all of them, have the same style....but he is agenius anyway. One of the greatest genius we had on this planet imo. That's wrong. No.
Picasso is another genius, he broke the rules of painting, creating something new. He was another genius imo. But he wasn't like leonardo, both them loved to experiment, but leonardo did his experiments changing the materials or the techniques but using all time his "hand", picasso did that changes all time with the style. In fact we know picasso had varius period (usually labelled with names of colors) in which he did totally different artworks.

A thing make one of them more a genius than the other? In my opinion no. Yes they're different but the genial mind behind them was the same.

So, up to you if you want to be a Leonardo or a picasso.....the important thing is that the style will fit the map.

Nobodies

P.s. Sorry if maybe the above is no written so well, but I'm typing on the Ipad while eating so it's not like type on a pc.

[natty dread]

So, up to you if you want to be a Leonardo or a picasso.....the important thing is that the style will fit the map.

Well in my opinion it does in this case. When I still had the old graphics for this map, several people didn't like them, and to be honest they were kinda generic and didn't fit together too well... so I figured I would do something different. I tried to figure out how to best represent London, I spent a long time thinking about different options, and slowly, piece by piece, this style of map came to be - I took inspiration from lots of city maps, the london underground map, tourist maps, the album cover of London Calling... and this is what I came up with. It's pretty damn close to what I planned it to be.

It's also, I think, a lot more "artistic" than any of my other maps. It's sort of minimalistic, but in a very particular way... if that makes any sense.

[natty dread]

Images with 888:s

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

[thenobodies80]

mmm Islington on the small...
Swap the troops and the name and create some additional space at the expense of Camden, something like what you have on kensington?
That number is the only one that doesn't look good to me.

Nobodies

[natty dread]

Click image to enlarge.

[gimil]

I am satisfied with the development up to this point. Here is your 48 hour sticky.

[Stickied]

[natty dread]

Thanks gimil...

I wonder if I should remove the bonus area names from the small version, though. It seems to me at that scale they're just making the map a bit too busy... and you don't really need them to figure out where the bonuses are, so I was thinking it might be a good idea to have them as a bonus feature for the large version only.

[gimil]

Thanks gimil...

I wonder if I should remove the bonus area names from the small version, though. It seems to me at that scale they're just making the map a bit too busy... and you don't really need them to figure out where the bonuses are, so I was thinking it might be a good idea to have them as a bonus feature for the large version only.

Nah I think they look fine. If anything I would suggest you reduce the prominence of the stroke/glow around them in the small. It is a little to buff on the small and is probably what makes it feel busy.

[isaiah40]

I would suggest to decreasing the opacity of the background in the playable area. It looks a tad bit cluttered, distracting. Other than that it is looking better.

[natty dread]

Thanks gimil...

I wonder if I should remove the bonus area names from the small version, though. It seems to me at that scale they're just making the map a bit too busy... and you don't really need them to figure out where the bonuses are, so I was thinking it might be a good idea to have them as a bonus feature for the large version only.

Nah I think they look fine. If anything I would suggest you reduce the prominence of the stroke/glow around them in the small. It is a little to buff on the small and is probably what makes it feel busy.

What stroke? On the bonus areas?

I would suggest to decreasing the opacity of the background in the playable area. It looks a tad bit cluttered, distracting. Other than that it is looking better.

I don't think so, if I decrease it any more it won't be visible at all... I'd rather remove the bonus names alltogether than reduce the city image. It's something that's integral to the style of the map, if I change that then I'll have to reconsider the whole composition of the image.

[natty dread]

Here's how the small image looks without the bonus names:

Click image to enlarge.

[gimil]

I would suggest to decreasing the opacity of the background in the playable area. It looks a tad bit cluttered, distracting. Other than that it is looking better.

I disagree with this. I look at the map with the '888' think I could play a whole speed game on it without feeling distracted by the background.

What stroke? On the bonus areas?

Sorry I misunderstood you post earlier. Disregard what I said...your small looks good without the watermarks on the small.

[gimil]

p.s. merton terr name needs a shuffle so it isn't to close to the border

[natty dread]

Yeah, territory names will need to be moved on the small.

Also, I think I'll decrease the opacity of the bonus names on the large as well...

[natty dread]

Ok so here's updated versions.

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

[gimil]

Beautiful.