Conquer Club

i don't think this map is a good look, it looks old(like the old brazil map) and not a new map, l think that you need to give it some better grafics/text.

Coleman- I've done a little research and it appears that the area in question was considered Dakota Territory in many of the maps from that era.
I've adjusted several of the army circles and will post that in the next revision...

Pope- I've had the same thought about the texture being a bit hard; Unfortunately, with photoshop, texture affects aren't easily reversed. So what I may wind up having to do is pull a layer from a previous version (one with a lesser or no texture), drop it in the newest version and rework it altogether...

Cairnswk- Your input in this project has, and continues to be invaluable to me and greatly appreciated.
When I mentioned moving this into final forge it was largely in response to your own, very positive, comments about the progress of the map.
But the assumption that I'd spend what has been a considerable amount of time on this, and yet think that the xml would "magically appear" just kind of rubbed me the wrong way.
I do, of course, realize that I don't make the decisions on when it gets moved to the next phase, but please don't mistake my enthusiasm for the project for being anything other than that.
We've had a reasonably respectful exchange of dialog and it would be truly regretful if that dialog were to become anything less than productive.

Again, Thanks to everyone for their opinions and constructive advice.
-Elijah

Unit_2 wrote:i don't think this map is a good look, it looks old(like the old brazil map) and not a new map, l think that you need to give it some better grafics/text.

That's a bit harsh, but I also have a general bone to pick with the look. When it comes to a historical map, I like to see the overall look to capture the era somehow. There is much about this map that does, but the colors seem too crisp and vivid. The texture you've been playing with helps a lot.

Elijah S wrote:Cairnswk- Your input in this project has, and continues to be invaluable to me and greatly appreciated.
When I mentioned moving this into final forge it was largely in response to your own, very positive, comments about the progress of the map.
But the assumption that I'd spend what has been a considerable amount of time on this, and yet think that the xml would "magically appear" just kind of rubbed me the wrong way.
I do, of course, realize that I don't make the decisions on when it gets moved to the next phase, but please don't mistake my enthusiasm for the project for being anything other than that.
We've had a reasonably respectful exchange of dialog and it would be truly regretful if that dialog were to become anything less than productive.

Elijah...i appreciate your enthusiasm very much. However, it is part of my duties to ensure and assist mapmakers to try to achieve the best possible outcome for their maps and maintain the high standards that have been achieved in line with past productions.

In this respect I am always happy to assist wherever i can....and as for us having anything but respectful dialogue...that would be sheer folly on my part as a moderator if i were to allow it to disintergrate

Well lets see what we've got here...!


Regarding the Visuals:

I like the simplicity of this map, visual wise, though I think it still needs some work. The recently Quenched map of Portugal was a very 'simple' map to the eye, but the way it presented its simplicity felt a little more polished than this current map.

Regarding the textures, as someone mentioned...they feel a little odd. I'm not sure the 'painted wall' texture really fits this map. What other textures could you experiment with?

I'd maybe nudge some the names so they aren't so close to the army circles (I.E. Neb. on small, Badlands on small). Also you are going to have some troubles with New Hampshire and Mass.'s coordinates (3 digits) perhaps overlapping the name, which is something we'd like to avoid. Also look out for Vermont's 3 digit coordinates overlapping N.H.'s. Watch New Jersey's overlap of name also.

I like the use of both flags as a background, but the where the 'flag ocean ends' when it meets the legend, the map looks almost unfinished in this aspect. I'm not sure how you would alleviate this, but the sudden change from the flag ocean to the legend is something to look at.

The river right now feels drawn on, and very un-river-like. And like another user mentioned, the bridge image doesn't quiet mesh with the map.

I see you also use a number of decorative images around the map, but for the most part I'm not a fan of these. They seem to take up space, without adding much to the map. I'd maybe be in favor of removing the canon, bugle, and whatever is above Grant's name. The swords in the name seem alright, though I'd maybe consider moving them behind the title and making them bigger.

Regarding the ships in the water...the current images don't fit with the map. They feel too much like a real life image, which doesn't quite fit this theme. I'd consider alternate images. I also dislike the 'little legend' at te bottom of the map, and how the ships are on it. Also eventually the red connecting lines should be spruced up, as they glaringly stand out and look crude.

The legend feels a little chaotic, especially with the overlap of territory names into it. I'd almost consider looking into cutting off a few pixels on the left side of the map, (as you have some territory space that isn't really needed), to create more space for a seperate legend.

=====

As for Game play....

The capitals aren't a part of the 'Key Cities' bonus, are they?

I like the bonus tiers you have, with the division leaders each having a bonus, along with the collective having a bonus. I also like the inclusion of the key cities bonus, though the north may be at a slight disadvantage as to where they are located. The capitals are similar to Anhk-Morpork in Discworld, and will he contested and a nice early foothold. Side note, capitAls

The rest of the game play looks pretty standard, but good. The bonuses seem alright, but I'll look closer at those maybe later.

Good work, keep it up.


--Andy

Okay... my delayed reply is due to the fact that Andy placed a heaping stack of requests on my plate.

A few of the easier fixes have aleady been worked on, but the more time consuming things will be done gradually, if at all.

The icons still seem to add to the feel for some, and detract for others. So, this may have to go up to a vote at some point.
I think they give the board something... except for the drum which, when placed in the working file never seems to maintain its sharpness. So I'll probably 86 it.
The bugle and canon though... I like.

As for the river seeming "drawn on" and the ships seeming "too realistic"...
I don't see that this river is much different from others (i.e.- germany); and the ships... again, I'd like input from others on whether or not they need to be different. -The ones I've used are from the war itself and that should probably be considered.
I'm sure that, should a consensus show that others feel the same as Andy, I can draw new ones or find some appropriate clipart.

I've tacked on another 20px to the Legend and re-re-re-realigned it.
I'll work on making it more consistent as for the font sizes, but again, would like additional input.

I'm also playing with different textures... thusfar, the ones which are most appealing to me is an eye candy "weave" or photoshop "canvas"... I'll put the two in the next revision.

Gameplay issues will be addressed at a later stage, as I think that the graphic presentation should be fine-tuned first.

Elijah S wrote:The icons still seem to add to the feel for some, and detract for others. So, this may have to go up to a vote at some point.

You might benefit from trying something akin to the arrows qwert uses to show river crossings in Eastern Front. Not trying to say the bridges don't work, just giving you another idea since a couple posters have mentioned problems with them.

Elijah, the fact that you continually receive posts from different moderators giving their input on what they each think needs to be done differently to your map has to at some point become frustrating. Just when you make a change to please 1 of them and get a thumbs-up, another tells you to go to the other extreme. I am sure that with all this artistic and graphic talent in 1 place together, that there are going to be differences of opinion. As moderators, I personally think that they should all look at what they think needs to be done, then collectively make a post that they can all appreciate. I still love the map. I really do hope that all of your hard work isn't for nothing. I have so much respect for you that you take all of this constructively and continue to try to find a happy medium for everyone. Good luck to you

Suzy, as always, you've been very supportive in this endeavor and I appreciate your comments.

I've been perhaps a little overanxious to get this map finished, and can see some things that can be improved but, yes, it's frustrating to change things per new input. -Especially things which require a considerable amount of time.
But you know me... I trudge on and try to maintain a degree of optimism.

I've been looking for a texture that would give this map a more antiquated feel and I think this does it...

I also put a faint portrait of Lincoln in there... I think it adds something to the map.

Comments welcome...

I think it looks great, besides the legend, it seems messy to me.

Elijah S wrote:

Elijah S...are you going to replace any boat links that were red and Andy mentioned could be changed.

Also, is it possible to change the overall title of your map...perhaps Vx (Py) rather than New Poll (unless there is a poll your are planning or is this a hangover from start-up) I keep looking for the poll.

Personally I like the Abe image in the back-ground, others may think differently...but I am not keen on the territory texture. Sorry. Perhaps speak to DiM or Oaktown who have used the antiquated look on previous maps to find out how they did it.

Elijah,

Great work so far.

1) The bridge from Illinois to Kentucky. Perhaps that could be moved to Ohio/W. Virginia [seeing as these are mostly troop/attack bridges - a neutral Kentucky probably wouldn't appreciate one].

2) Maryland wasn't actually neutral. It was UNION occupied [seeing as how DC was the capital of the North - speaking of which why has DC been made a part of MD? And Delaware part of New Jersey?].

3) The Union Navy should be based out of Annapolis (US Naval Academy), MD. Yet another reason to make MD part of the North. I guess they might have launched some ships from West Point (US Military Academy), NY.

4) Attack lines for ships. If you add a route from Annapolis/West Point to USS4, that should take care of the Union Navy. If you move the CSS2 a few pixels to the right, then each Confederate ship can "supply" 2 southern states: CSS1 [Louisiana and Mississippi]; CSS2 [Alabama and Florida]; CSS3[Georgia and South Carolina]

4b) It's a blockade - each Confederate ship should have to worry about slipping between two Union ships. If you move CSS2 to the right - then you can move USS1 and USS2 a little to the left. Move USS3 to the bottom right corner of the ocean - then it can attack both CSS2 and CSS3. USS1 would now only attack CSS1 and USS2 would get both CSS1 and CSS2.

5) I assume the key city in South Carolina is Charleston? That is much closer to the Georgia border [right across the river from Savannah]. Might want to lower both the city marker and CSS3 [effectively have it touch down in Savannah, GA]. This will allow you to move the army circle and state label down a few pixels.

5a) I know that St. Louis is right on the river, but you might want to move it a pixel or two left [same separation as you have for the Tennessee city].

6) The Legend. The fonts [and amount of boldness] still look different in several places. Especially Capitals; the +1 doesn't agree with the +1 for Confederate Navy. Not sure if one is squished or the other stretched?

7) The Rivers. The edges are somewhat jagged or textured in most places - this is good. But in Louisiana, between Ohio and West Virigina, and in Iowa they are smooth. Shouldn't they all be jagged/textured [my choice] or all smooth?

Aerial- Thanks for your advice.
I've taken the sea-attack lines and bridges out of the most recent versions, hoping for input like yours.
I'm messing with different ways to portray the attacks from ship and the bridges.

Cairnswk- I had a poll up yesterday, but managed to place a wrong image in it, so had Coleman take it out.
The new poll is more along the lines of what I'm wanting to know.
Personally, I really like the marble texture. -It gives the board the kind of look I was going for.
I'm flexible about the Lincoln image though...

I voted for the sandstone texture. The marble texture could just be a bit dark (all the territories seem a bit dark or dirty - obscures the Confederate Flag). If you could lighten the marble texture a little, I might be swayed.

I'm glad you like my advice (oh wait, you didn't say you liked it ... you just thanked me for it *chuckle*). I too like the Lincoln image in the background. Sorry to have put so much in that first post - but it was my first look. I'm sure you (and the rest of the community) have your own ideas about many of those things.

Elijah S wrote:I've been looking for a texture that would give this map a more antiquated feel and I think this does it...

I also put a faint portrait of Lincoln in there... I think it adds something to the map.

Comments welcome...

you need to change the color of the "PA" area to something other then 1860's New Jersey

though the text is good.

how can people vote for sandstone?! it looks unprofessional!

Herakilla wrote:how can people vote for sandstone?! it looks unprofessional!

I dunno, tell all your friends. I voted for marble too.

4 to 5. Apparently my vote was the swing vote. As I said, I think I'd like the marble better if it was a bit lighter and didn't obscure as much.

Officially consider my vote changed [pending a lightening].

Aerial
-Maryland, while adjacent to DC, was considered a "border state" (states which were Considered Union but were also "slave states").
Just to keep things someone uncomplicated, the neutral and border states were grouped together under the term "neutral".
-Both Delaware and Rhode Island were left out of the map due to size restraints, and I don't think gameplay should be affected by this.
-I see what you're saying about the Legend number sizes and rivers being smoothe and jagged. These issues will both be addressed as well as more precise placement of the key cities.

I really prefer the marbled texture and will try some different marbeling in future revisions.
The effect can be taken off of the flag and opacity adjusted to reduce the "dirty" appearance.
It think there may be some give and take on this, as I want the map to look crisp, yet have a feel for the era represented.

Unit 2
-Are you suggesting that the color of the states grouped with Pennsylvania should be changed?

Again, everyone's feedback is important and appreciated. -Elijah

Herakilla wrote:how can people vote for sandstone?! it looks unprofessional!

I personally like the sandstone texture. I think that it almost gives the map the look of being on parchment, makes it more like a literal map. The marble one looks nice too, I'm not sure why there were complaints in the first place, but the sandstone looks even better.

Elijah S wrote:Aerial
-Maryland, while adjacent to DC, was considered a "border state" (states which were Considered Union but were also "slave states").
Just to keep things someone uncomplicated, the neutral and border states were grouped together under the term "neutral".
-Both Delaware and Rhode Island were left out of the map due to size restraints, and I don't think gameplay should be affected by this.
-I see what you're saying about the Legend number sizes and rivers being smoothe and jagged. These issues will both be addressed as well as more precise placement of the key cities.

I really prefer the marbled texture and will try some different marbeling in future revisions.
The effect can be taken off of the flag and opacity adjusted to reduce the "dirty" appearance.
It think there may be some give and take on this, as I want the map to look crisp, yet have a feel for the era represented.

Unit 2
-Are you suggesting that the color of the states grouped with Pennsylvania should be changed?

Again, everyone's feedback is important and appreciated. -Elijah

yeah, its too bright it don't go with the MA region, try to make the PA region darker and also try to darken the MA area.

Maybe try a mix of the two textures to add interest and veriaty rather than just going for one.

Okay, the texture poll ended at a deadlock, so I combined the two textures and I'm pleased with this one.

Notable changes in this revision:
-New, larger swords are now positioned directly behind the title.
-The ships and bridges have been redrawn and repositioned.
-The sea attack lines have been redone.
-More margin has been given to the right side of the Legend.

Okay... before anyone else brings it to my attention... my swords look like a fricken big pair of scissors...

***memo to self- Fix the fricken big pair of scissors behind the title***