The Great Lakes -- [Quenched]

[Unit_2]

i think that you need to make the names of the bonuses pop-out a little more. there hard to see

[KEYOGI]

Lovely map. It's such a nice change to see a draft of a map actually look like it has had some effort put into it. As usual though, I have a couple of concerns.

I really like the perspective, very nice touch. However, I feel that legend perhaps slants away a little too much. Maybe just tone it down a touch.

Minnesota and Wisconsin in the West? It'd be nice to see a bit more variation in the continent borders. There are a few I have trouble identifying, but it is mainly in the West.

As has already been mentioned by a number of others, the port system could use some tweaking.

Overall, a very nice start. I'll have more to say after your next update.

[Spockers]

I really like the perspective, very nice touch. However, I feel that legend perhaps slants away a little too much. Maybe just tone it down a touch.

My thoughts exactly, however I am having trouble matching the contintents to their key. I cant quite make out their shapes, and the colours are hard to differentiate.

I dont know USA that well, so it makes it hard to know where they should be found.

[WidowMakers]

UPDATE NUMBER 3
Sorry for the long wait. I have had lots of stuff going on in reality.
Here is the next update. I still need to add text to describe the port territories bu the icons of an anchor better distinguish them now. Plus here is what they look like with armies.

The bonus layout is different too. I was thinking of putting the names of the states inside each area. (like the revamp of the middle east map)

Plus what does everyone think about the rivers. Several people have expressed dislike in the fact that I have made rivers bigger than they are in real life. I did this to break up the map. Sort of like the USA map. Idaho cannot attack Oregon on that map but hey can in real life. I was attempting to use real attributes of the region to help with borders and layout. What do you think about the rivers?

Oh. The text for the ports will read something like this. Lakes can attack adjacent lakes and adjacent port territories. Port territories can attack adjacent lakes and territories.

Any help here would be appreciated.

[KEYOGI]

I didn't notice this on the previous image, but your territory names are a little wonky... if you get my meaning. Some letters are higer/lower than others next to them.

I'm not sure I like the new legend. I think the original was fine, it just needed some tweaking. I'm not sold on the colouring and texturing of the lakes either. How they were was ok and I think the texture was less noticeable then.

I think the rivers are ok, if a little uneccessary. Maybe try it without them and see how it looks. I'd like to see some different bridges, the one's you have do the job, I just feel you could come up with something better.

[KEYOGI]

Is this map good?

Yes, it is perfect now
18% [ 13 ]
Yes, but needs a little work.
62% [ 45 ]
Yes, but needs a TON of work.
16% [ 12 ]
No, I don't like it!
2% [ 2 ]

Total Votes : 72

[WidowMakers]

I didn't notice this on the previous image, but your territory names are a little wonky... if you get my meaning. Some letters are higer/lower than others next to them.

They are all still vector based. SInce I made them small Photoshop for some reason is messing them up. I guess rotating a small font 2 degrees makes it weird. Once the names settle down I will rasterize the layers and fix the text issue.

I'm not sure I like the new legend. I think the original was fine, it just needed some tweaking. I'm not sold on the colouring and texturing of the lakes either. How they were was ok and I think the texture was less noticeable then.

I like the old legend too but people were saying it was too hard to read. I will make this my next poll question.

I made the lakes different textures so people not from the the USA would be able to tell where they border.

I think the rivers are ok, if a little uneccessary. Maybe try it without them and see how it looks. I'd like to see some different bridges, the one's you have do the job, I just feel you could come up with something better.

I can eliminate the rivers and see what people think. My concern is that it opens the map up a lot and makes a lot more borders.

[unriggable]

There's a random number near philadelphia...
Also green's got the game in the bag.
Make the lakes bonus different, it's really unfair.

[sully800]

I like the new key- its simple and direct. A schematic representation instead of a list of names, which can be helpful because you can notice strong and weak areas of the map quite easily. I think its an effective simplification.

I don't like the new lakes very much though. Can't you tell that each lake divides at the narrow parts where there is a bridge crossing? That all seems pretty clear to me, but then again I'm American and I've seen the lakes many times.

As for the ports- your intention is for them to only be able to attack lakes they border correct? So Detroit could only attack Lake Erie (which I guess is why you extended the dark blue above the detroit-windsor bridge). I think a better solution would be to move that bridge so it connects Saginaw and Windsor. That way the bridge crosses exactly at the lake borders as is the case with every other bridge.

Indiana and Illinois are a bit hard to distinguish. Those continents are almost entirely bordered by the river so their outline coloring doesn't stand out very well. Also perhaps its because of the color choices (Brown looks a bit like shadow, and the blue blends with the river). I would either make the color outline for each of those continents a little thicker, or replace them with brighter, more distinct colors. In fact, whenever a river corresponds to a continent border the river reduces the apparent size of the colored band (I'm guessing the river is placed over the real border). So maybe the solution would be to have the coloring start at the river edges instead of the centerline where the border currently is.

[joystickgenie]

They are all still vector based. SInce I made them small Photoshop for some reason is messing them up. I guess rotating a small font 2 degrees makes it weird. Once the names settle down I will rasterize the layers and fix the text issue.

A bit off topic but how did you get the names to rotate while still being vector based in photoshop? I have always had to rasterise them before rotating/skewing/bending/modifying them. the only think I can change when they are vector baed in the font, pt size, justification and direction(left right, up down) honestly doing anything vector based in photoshop has been a pain for me(I hate that pen tool).

oh but I am using photoshop 7.0. Is that somthing they added in cs?

[WidowMakers]

They are all still vector based. SInce I made them small Photoshop for some reason is messing them up. I guess rotating a small font 2 degrees makes it weird. Once the names settle down I will rasterize the layers and fix the text issue.

A bit off topic but how did you get the names to rotate while still being vector based in photoshop? I have always had to rasterise them before rotating/skewing/bending/modifying them. the only think I can change when they are vector baed in the font, pt size, justification and direction(left right, up down) honestly doing anything vector based in photoshop has been a pain for me(I hate that pen tool).

oh but I am using photoshop 7.0. Is that somthing they added in cs?

I have CS2. I don't kno wif this works in 7. Just make a text layer and Crtl+T. This (for me in CS2) puts the transform box around the text and lets me move it.

[joystickgenie]

I have CS2. I don't kno wif this works in 7. Just make a text layer and Crtl+T. This (for me in CS2) puts the transform box around the text and lets me move it.

hmm... must be a new feature then, dang leaving things vector while working out the kinks would really save some time. I should look into upgrading.

[KEYOGI]

What if the new legend was made bigger to take up the majority of space in the top-right corner and the title was changed and moved to the bottom-right?

[keiths31]

Hey thanks for taking my comment about Greenstone and Fort Frances

The Detroit-Windsor bridge is there, because it is there in real like. Saiginaw and Windsor don't connect, that's why he made it like that.

Good map. Really looking forward to playing it.

[Pro_Snowboarder]

Looking good. However i think Duluth should be a harbor territory.

[casper]

I'm still not a fan of the imaginary rivers in Michigan, Ohio, and Illinois/Indiana border. They contribute to there being too many territories accessible from only one other territory. I count seven at the moment: Philly, NYC, Plattsburgh, Evansville, Grand Rapids, Minneapolis, and Peoria. An issue that should be addressed imo.

And also Cincinnati is a major city missing from the map. Any chance it can be worked in?

Anyone else think that Plattsburgh should be renamed Adirondacks? Seems more appropriate since Adirondacks refers to that whole region (have a look on Google maps) and Plattsburgh is just a tiny town. (No offense if anyone lives there.)

Oh and I miss the state/province flags.

[DiM]

*there are 3 army numbers that don't belong in the map: in Lake Huron, in Albany and in Philadelphia
*i don't like the different colours for the lakes. i think the bridges are enough to separate the lakes.
*i don't like the bridges and somehow i don't think there should be bridges, maybe some connecting curved lines?
*i actually really like the font. it sort of gives the impression it flows with the relief of the regions.
*i really don't care about the rivers not being acurate. i think for gameplay reasons they should be kept.
*please make the Harrisburg-Philadelphia a bit bigger. in the small version it will barely be visible.
*the army circles overlap the anchors in different ways. either make them identical or put the anchors in a different place.
*all the borders on the edges of the map are straight except columbus, north bay and ottawa. it would be better to make these straighter. (although it's not realistic)

[mibi]

its really too bad that people like the new legend better. The only reason why someone would say the original legend was hard to read is because they have literacy problems.

Now you have wasted all those great continent names, which were the only good names on the map, since all the other ones are just city names which are generally not very representative of their territory.

Before it was a battle of the great lake states! Now its a battle of a bunch of territories who are only unified because a little color coded graphic in the corner says so. I think you have stripped a lot of character out of the map by removing the BETTER of the legends.


be wary of the foundry's ability to group think

[ruthlessontogeny]

first of all, i love the map. as a resident of the great lakes region, i love the shout-out and would play this game constantly.

on the same note, i must protest your naming the central new york region "albany." first of all, the actual city of albany is situated east of your demarcation, in the area labelled "new york city." secondly, syracuse is widely considered the principal city of central new york state, to the degree that it is often referred to as cny/syr. thirdly, where you have the name "albany" right now is directly over the city of syracuse. it would seem a shame to have your otherwise splendidly accurate map be faulty on this point.

cheers!

[DiM]

be wary of the foundry's ability to group think

actually this group you're talking about is the one that will play on the map so it's opinion counts. yes sometimes the masses make decisions that others don't agree, but hey, it's a democracy in here...until andy comes in and claims dictator rights

[Samus]

I didn't notice this on the previous image, but your territory names are a little wonky... if you get my meaning. Some letters are higer/lower than others next to them.

I believe the texture effect is being applied to the territory names. I'm not sure if that was intentional or accidental, but the word "wonky" is a pretty accurate description for how it looks. So yeah, redo the text without the textures.

For the text, you could perhaps have it "standing up" perpendicular to the map itself, to highlight the text without the fading.

Still a good suggestion for the bonus legend.

For the ports, I would very much like some sort of graphic that physically connects the lake and the land, like a pier. This will make it much more clear that it is only connecting those two territories.

You need to do something about the border around the lakes to indicate that, aside from the ports, they do not connect with the land territories. Perhaps do some sort of 3D land rise so that the land is above the lakes, and only the piers go down to it. (i.e., sink the lakes slightly)

For the bridges and lake connections, I thought a 3D bridge with a two-way arrow running underneath it would look good and be much more clear.

You need to shrink the mountains between Scranton and Harrisburg to make it more clear those territories connect.

I'm somewhat torn on the rivers. I think from a visual perspective they look great as is, but at the same time they are rather thin and often the divisions take a closer look. I could see a lot of people making the mistake that certain territories connect, like Madison and Minneapolis.

I would change North Bay to no longer be a port. This would both reduce Ontario to 4 borders instead of 5, and give the Great Lakes one territory that isn't a border (Lake Huron). Both regions would then be MUCH more holdable, whereas the way they are now neither is a viable region to go for.

I still think all these things are true.

[vakEirn79]

Before it was a battle of the great lake states! Now its a battle of a bunch of territories who are only unified because a little color coded graphic in the corner says so. I think you have stripped a lot of character out of the map by removing the BETTER of the legends.

I think so too. Since the map represents an actual geographical location, it feels much more engaging to me if the states are referred to by name. Also, I'm Canadian, and I don't know US states off the top of my head. On this map, the only two I recognize immediately are Michigan and New York. I can think of Ohio, Illinois, Minnesota, and Indiana if I look through some of the city names within those regions, and I would have to look up Wisconsin every time if I wanted to refer to it by name. It would certainly take away a lot of the "flavor" of the map if I had to tell my teammates "I'm going for the yellow area".

Also, I thought the perspective text was a really interesting style for the legend, and seemed much more integrated with the style of the map. The current legend (and also the text for Lake bonuses) looks really tacked-on.

*i actually really like the font. it sort of gives the impression it flows with the relief of the regions

I agree with this too. It might look odd at first glance, but if you pay a bit of attention to it, you notice that the text is contouring with the relief of the map, which adds to the feel that the whole thing is a map laid out on a table. To me, the slight misalignment of the letters don't really hinder my reading; The human mind processes words as blocks anyway, not as a string of individual characters. However, I can certainly understand the argument to have territory names stand out and be easily legible.

The only problem I have with the territory names right now is how the words tilt in odd directions. For example, the text for Int'l Falls and Minneapolis are mostly parallel, while Duluth is tilted at an angle from those two. Reading the three names involves a mental re-adjustment in perspective for the middle one, which is somewhat awkward.

[mibi]

[quote="vakEirn79"]
It would certainly take away a lot of the "flavor" of the map if I had to tell my teammates "I'm going for the yellow area". /quote]

Yes exactly. It is much more fun to be able to defend and hold New York than "the orange area" which to people unfamiliar with the geography of the great lakes, might as well be a random collection of territories, with no name even!

oh and, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

[MR. Nate]

Your territory names are a little wonky

As for the ports- your intention is for them to only be able to attack lakes they border correct? So Detroit could only attack Lake Erie (which I guess is why you extended the dark blue above the detroit-windsor bridge). I think a better solution would be to move that bridge so it connects Saginaw and Windsor. That way the bridge crosses exactly at the lake borders as is the case with every other bridge.

The Detroit-Windsor bridge is there, because it is there in real like. Saiginaw and Windsor don't connect, that's why he made it like that.

There's a lot of liberty here both ways, because Lake St. Claire isn't a great Lake, and it takes up the space between Erie & Huron. There is technically a connection between Saginaw / Windsor: The Blue Water bridge runs between Port Huron & Port Edward where Lake Huron runs into the St. Clair River.

Whichever legend is decided on, I think it is important to retain the names as much a possible. I also like the clouds as a background for the legend, and the new port symbols are nice, they have a "Great Lakes" feel to them.

[mibi]

the ports with numbers on them look like smiley faces, especially with the 88. thats what i thought they were at first. they should be moved to the coast.