Conquer Club

Napoleonic Europe 1812 - Ver 41/44 [Quenched]

Care to peruse completed maps? Take a stroll through the Atlas.

Moderator: Cartographers

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Postby AndrewB on Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:13 pm

Sooo, word "Aboukir" there is part of the legend text, as well as the territory label in the same time?

Very confusing :S
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant AndrewB
 
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:02 pm
Location: Edmonton, Canada, MST

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Postby Raskholnikov on Wed Oct 28, 2009 6:11 pm

Aboukir is the label for that Naval Battle, yes. And you are right, it is also part of the text. Space constraints.... ;(
User avatar
Private Raskholnikov
 
Posts: 638
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:40 pm

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Postby AndrewB on Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:58 am

I guess.

If possible I'd rather put the text, explaining of one way attack next to Corsica. Or maybe even in the main legend?
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant AndrewB
 
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:02 pm
Location: Edmonton, Canada, MST

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Postby Kabanellas on Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:14 pm

humm, I'm quite sure that kind of situation happens in some other maps as well..... I like it as it is to be honest. The same is happening in Gibraltar....
Major Kabanellas
 
Posts: 1482
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:21 pm
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Postby AndrewB on Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:57 pm

I can bet that 90% of the people after playing this map 10 times would not know about that one way attack from Corse...

And at least Gibraltar text is attached to the attacking country.

Corse on the other hand, has an asterisk, which u need to find first...

And everyone knows where Gibraltar is, so they can check their assumption about the attack.

On the other hand, not many people know about Aboukir...

If the real estate is the problem to put the text next to the Corse, then maybe you can move this one way attack from Corse to another country?
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant AndrewB
 
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:02 pm
Location: Edmonton, Canada, MST

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Postby Kabanellas on Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:26 pm

well, that one way assault from Corse is a conceptual/historical thing that Rask can explain better than me :oops:
Major Kabanellas
 
Posts: 1482
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:21 pm
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Postby AlaricusTheGreat on Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:57 pm

WOW! :o This map looks amazing. Great idea for a map, cant wait until i can play this map
ALARICUS: meaning "all-powerful; ruler of all." Latin name composed of the Germanic elements ala "all" and ric "power; rule," hence "all-powerful; ruler of all."
User avatar
Cook AlaricusTheGreat
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 3:50 pm

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Postby Raskholnikov on Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:48 pm

In brief, Napoleon (in his 1798 Bonaparte incarnation) broke the siege of Toulon by the Brits and sailed by Corsica all the way to Egypt to destroy the British positions there. He almost did it ( he won the battle of the Pyramids) except that the best of the French fleet got caugght and slaughtered by Nelson at Aboukir (which some historians argue that it ranks evena above Trafalgar in terms of its consequences).

In terms opf game=play, we need to connect France directly to Egypt by sea both to bring the Orient and Turkey into play, and to respect historical events. The Brits have their own route to Aboukir from Gibraltar via Malta, and the French need a separate one to actually be abke to get there without passing though Malta. So, we need this route, and Corse is the only French territory we can run it from (Provence is even more busy with the Battle of Toulon facing it).

I am sure people who play this map will get used to it; our game-rules are nowqhere near as numerous or complicated as others, and i think it is quite clear that Aboukir is the actual sea battle represented below it. It's not perfect, I know, but unless you can suggest a more logical place to place that text, I don't think there's much we can do about it.... Thanks....
User avatar
Private Raskholnikov
 
Posts: 638
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:40 pm

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Postby AndrewB on Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:04 am

Hm, that is what i thought...

i guess we would have to leave with it for now. No other solution comes into my mind right now...
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant AndrewB
 
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:02 pm
Location: Edmonton, Canada, MST

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Postby Raskholnikov on Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:50 pm

Any further comments and ideas on how we can improve the map or can we move this thread to the Main Foundry??
User avatar
Private Raskholnikov
 
Posts: 638
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:40 pm

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Postby natty dread on Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:20 pm

I'd say this should be at main foundry already... the graphics are amazing, gameplay is great... a few minor problems, such as the corse->aboukir attack route, shouldn't hold a great map like this from getting stamped.

By the way, if you were to remove one of the swords in the legend, I'm sure you could fit in an explanation about the corse->aboukir route, but then again that would be a shame, the graphic design is so nice on this map...
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class natty dread
 
Posts: 12877
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:58 pm
Location: just plain fucked

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Postby jefjef on Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:54 am

Put the corse attack text in color that stands out and hits ya.

Bright red should do it.
This post was made by jefjef who should be on your ignore list.
Image
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
User avatar
Colonel jefjef
 
Posts: 6026
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:41 pm
Location: on my ass

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Postby thenobodies80 on Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:18 am

First of all i have to say that i like this map and the idea that you're going to develope.
But develope a complex map doesn't mean develope a map hard to play.
I think that the map is too full, this happened because you want to place too many informations on your map.
Unfortunately, to have the best development of this map, I think you should do some simplification.
Not an easier map, but more userfriendly.
In my opinion, the bonus system is not always clear, not because of the legend, but because of the colors, that are mixed and then split up to mingle again, increasing confusion.

Some small examples:

If i read the legend: "3 Ottoman Empire + 1 Orient" , i spent 2 mins to find the word "Orient" on the map.
Aboukir - Corsica, agree with AndrewB. I think that now this is the worst thing on the map.
Colors, that blue piece of land near to Malmo, why is coloured with a different system?
Why all zones have a graphic text but not the Kingdom of Italy? (different)
The Confederation of the Rhine text is almost invisible.
The Alpes zones is a bit too full
Hollande, Oldenbourg, Sx (etc) there is space for armies? I think that on the small version could be some problems to fit all the 888
Isn't possible to think about something to have all the land battles displayed in a different way, maybe something similar to naval battles, in which the battle icon is the same place in which you have the number?

As said, i think you have too much informations on this map. Make a compromise is a good thing, but not too much. ;)
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thenobodies80
 
Posts: 5400
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:30 am
Location: Milan

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Postby Raskholnikov on Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:56 pm

First of all i have to say that i like this map and the idea that you're going to develope.
But develope a complex map doesn't mean develope a map hard to play.
I think that the map is too full, this happened because you want to place too many informations on your map.
Unfortunately, to have the best development of this map, I think you should do some simplification.
Not an easier map, but more userfriendly.
In my opinion, the bonus system is not always clear, not because of the legend, but because of the colors, that are mixed and then split up to mingle again, increasing confusion.

Some small examples:

If i read the legend: "3 Ottoman Empire + 1 Orient" , i spent 2 mins to find the word "Orient" on the map.

"The Orient is a term which means "the East". The term Orient particularly included regions that used to be known as Persia, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, and Egypt." (Wikipedia) Besides this common definition, anyone who knows a bit about Napoleon will know about his "Campagne de l'Orient", which means to Egypt and Palestine. Finally, since it is a +1 for the Ottoman Empire, it clearly must be adjacent to it. So really there is no reason to spend 2 minutes finding it on the map. We could try writing it in bigger letters, though, if you think that would help.


Aboukir - Corsica, agree with AndrewB. I think that now this is the worst thing on the map.

We could change the exisiting asterisks next to Corsica and Aboukir into bold red asterisks easier to spot. Do you have a better idea?

Colors, that blue piece of land near to Malmo, why is coloured with a different system?

It's a slightly lighter blue because the word Malmo is right on top of the color and if the blue would be as dark as the rest of Sweden, Malmo would not be readable.

Why all zones have a graphic text but not the Kingdom of Italy? (different)

Because there is not space in that area for it ;)


The Confederation of the Rhine text is almost invisible.

Yes, we need to work on that.


The Alpes zones is a bit too full

The only difference between the Alpes region and anywhere else are the mountains. Do you suggest removing them? I think they play an important role. Also, if you compare this map with other CC maps like Waterloo (but many others as well) you will find that by comparison ours is really not that full or cluttered. The only extra element we have compared with, for example, Europe 1914, is the land battle sign. True, we have bonus regions, but those are shown by means of related colors. A radical solution would be to code all region names with a one letter-one number system, like WWII, and only have the full territory name displayed in the drop-down menu. Do you think the additional "clarity" would be worth transforming the map into, effectively, a chess board (e2 - f1)?

Hollande, Oldenbourg, Sx (etc) there is space for armies? I think that on the small version could be some problems to fit all the 888

See above. Less radically, we could shorten Hollande and Oldenbourg to Ho and Od and add them to the legend on the left-hand side.


Isn't possible to think about something to have all the land battles displayed in a different way, maybe something similar to naval battles, in which the battle icon is the same place in which you have the number?

The big difference between the land battles and naval battles is that naval battles are, in effect, self-contained territories. Land battles are not: they are simply indicating a bonus system for territories already existing. To put the number somehow within the land battle might suggest they, too, are independent territories separate from the land they are on. Now THAT would be totally confusing!

As said, i think you have too much informations on this map. Make a compromise is a good thing, but not too much. ;)

Again, I respectfully disagree on the "too much information" comment. The only additional info we have compared with a map like Europe 1914 is the land battles sign. That's it. At most, we could rework the graphic names of the various countries to make them smaller, but that would take away from the idea of having a "time=period map" rather than just an Atlas map one can find in any book.
We have more territories and cover a larger area than 1914, but this is because we tried to actually do a historically accurate map showing Europe as it was in 1812 and allowing for the game-play to develop dynamically by means of Empire expansions (especially France) that take into account the various stages of Napoleon's reign. Without this, we would end up with the same, usual, Europen map not much different from Europe 1914.

In any case, thanks for your comments; we will try to make some changes to meet your concerns.
User avatar
Private Raskholnikov
 
Posts: 638
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:40 pm

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Postby Kabanellas on Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:57 pm

Thanks nobodies for the critics :)
I’ve been overwhelmed with stuff to do at work that’s why I’m delaying my responses.

Rask pretty much answered to some essential questions.
I know we have a lot of info there, and it may seem a bit hard to get at a first glance.


Anyway, I’ll do a map with all numbers (888) placed so we can get an idea on how things are going.
Major Kabanellas
 
Posts: 1482
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:21 pm
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Postby Incandenza on Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:02 am

It's certainly an ambitious map, and looks to be well on its way. But I'm a veteran player, I've played all kinds of funky maps, and I spent quite some time this afternoon sussing out the gameplay on this map and it was pretty headache-inducing. I fear that you guys are still on the wrong side of the line separating complex from confusing.

It's worth pointing out that I've focused entirely on the small map. And I keep referring back to it as I write this, and I again have a headache from squinting and trying to read tiny type and differentiate between strikingly similar bonus colors.

The simplest thing is that the map sacrifices so much for the sake of historical authenticity that it no longer functions well as a game map. You also need to recall that games will not play out in any way like the Napoleonic wars did. Waterloo games, for instance, never turn into a true British-vs.-French battle.

For instance, the one-way attacks may work in a historical sense (altho it's worth pointing out that Napoleon did indeed land on malta in June of 1798), but from a gameplay perspective I don't see any good reason why an army in Gibraltar can warp to Malta (a fact that is obscured by the legend, btw). Same with Corse and Aboukir (which is kind of a confusing name, given that the naval battle is much better known as the Battle of the Nile and that there was a land-based Battle of Aboukir in 1799). Absent a compelling gameplay argument, I would recommend eliminating both.

The sheer number of bonuses creates comprehension problems. The fact that the bonus legend doesn't appear to be laid out in any sort of organized manner only compounds the problem. Consider reworking it so that bonuses are generally listed north to south, or east to west, or alphabetically. More to the point, consider consolidating some bonuses.

The blizzard of bonuses create other legibility issues. Colors are one, the fact that the UK and Denmark bonuses are so close to the same color is a flaw. Also, have you checked to see how this map will appear to the color-blind?

The terits themselves, along with the terit names, are way too cramped. I actually got a giggle from the hanging "a" in Transylvania. Plus the labels are often not terribly legible against the exceptionally busy background you have (this is particularly problematic in the former holy roman empire area). You might want to consider changing the label font to something more impactful. Terit names need to pop. And you might want to consider consolidating some terits.

Also the terit names have no real consistency. Normandy is Normandie, and Corsica is Corse, yet Rome isn't Roma, nor is Lisbon Lisboa.

Some of the bonus labels are tough (you've already talked about the problem with the Confederacy of the Rhine... maybe consider having the bonus label on the map simply read "Rhine"). The fact that there is none for Italy creates a problem, since maps need to have some kind of internal consistency to pull them back over the line from confusing to complex. That's something you'll want to have a hard look at.

Some other issues:

Raskholnikov wrote:Besides this common definition, anyone who knows a bit about Napoleon will know about his "Campagne de l'Orient", which means to Egypt and Palestine. Finally, since it is a +1 for the Ottoman Empire, it clearly must be adjacent to it. So really there is no reason to spend 2 minutes finding it on the map. We could try writing it in bigger letters, though, if you think that would help.


Like nobodies, it took me quite some time to find the Orient label. And while I can appreciate that you've done your research, the players won't necessarily have done so either. More to the point, the word has gone through some semantic drift over the centuries, since "Orient" is now much more popularly used as a blanket term for the Far East. Perhaps there's a better (or at least less confusing) term for it... or you could just scotch the label and have the legend reflect that Ottoman gets a +1 with Palestine and Egypt, or just fold both into the Ottoman bonus.

No matter what it's called, having the bonus label tucked in between the big honking swords is a bad idea. Clear bonus labels are much more important than graphical flourishes on the signatures, so you might want to try and rework that area. In fact, you could very easily get rid of the swords altogether, they're too distracting, especially since the information conveyed by them is the least important data on the map.

Raskholnikov wrote:Also, if you compare this map with other CC maps like Waterloo (but many others as well) you will find that by comparison ours is really not that full or cluttered.


That is a matter of opinion.

Raskholnikov wrote:A radical solution would be to code all region names with a one letter-one number system, like WWII, and only have the full territory name displayed in the drop-down menu. Do you think the additional "clarity" would be worth transforming the map into, effectively, a chess board (e2 - f1)?


You may have to, if you're unwilling to begin consolidating terits and bonuses.

Raskholnikov wrote:Again, I respectfully disagree on the "too much information" comment. The only additional info we have compared with a map like Europe 1914 is the land battles sign. That's it. At most, we could rework the graphic names of the various countries to make them smaller, but that would take away from the idea of having a "time=period map" rather than just an Atlas map one can find in any book.


Aesthetics and historical accuracy are all well and good, but not when they impede legibility and gameplay.

In closing, in case I haven't hit this point hard enough, I offer the following from the first post:

The idea was to recreate Europe by the time of Napoleon, in 1812 precisely. Europe by that time offers a multitude of political and social idiosyncrasies holding all the right ingredients for a map that could be both interesting in terms of game-play and at the same time respect carefully all historical facts.


You'll find fewer people on this site that are more interested in geography and history than I. But form must follow function, and the look and theme of the map must be utterly subservient to gameplay and legibility. Thus far that has not been the case with this map, which is why, despite the fact that it's one of the more impressive drafts I've seen recently, I fear that you gents will have to go back to the drawing board for a substantial reworking.
THOTA: dingdingdingdingdingdingBOOM

Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est
User avatar
Colonel Incandenza
 
Posts: 4949
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:34 pm
Location: Playing Eschaton with a bucket of old tennis balls

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Postby Raskholnikov on Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:42 am

These are my replies. Kab and Andrew may have their own.

It's certainly an ambitious map, and looks to be well on its way. But I'm a veteran player, I've played all kinds of funky maps, and I spent quite some time this afternoon sussing out the gameplay on this map and it was pretty headache-inducing. I fear that you guys are still on the wrong side of the line separating complex from confusing.

That's a matter of opinion.

It's worth pointing out that I've focused entirely on the small map. And I keep referring back to it as I write this, and I again have a headache from squinting and trying to read tiny type and differentiate between strikingly similar bonus colors.

I recommend either the use of the large map, or a pair of good contact lenses, or both of the above.


The simplest thing is that the map sacrifices so much for the sake of historical authenticity that it no longer functions well as a game map. You also need to recall that games will not play out in any way like the Napoleonic wars did. Waterloo games, for instance, never turn into a true British-vs.-French battle.

True as to the second comment. We don't expect it to.


For instance, the one-way attacks may work in a historical sense (altho it's worth pointing out that Napoleon did indeed land on malta in June of 1798), but from a gameplay perspective I don't see any good reason why an army in Gibraltar can warp to Malta (a fact that is obscured by the legend, btw). Same with Corse and Aboukir (which is kind of a confusing name, given that the naval battle is much better known as the Battle of the Nile and that there was a land-based Battle of Aboukir in 1799). Absent a compelling gameplay argument, I would recommend eliminating both.

They are called ships. The same system is used in most Europe games, except they are called Sea territories instead of sea battles. There is no reason whatsoever to eliminate them, and I already explained in detail why they should be kept.

The sheer number of bonuses creates comprehension problems. The fact that the bonus legend doesn't appear to be laid out in any sort of organized manner only compounds the problem. Consider reworking it so that bonuses are generally listed north to south, or east to west, or alphabetically. More to the point, consider consolidating some bonuses.

Ther are many maps with bonus systems which are much more complicated that here. In fact, there is nothing complicated about our bonus system: In fact, there are only 3 types: regions, additional territories next to regions, and land or naval battles. It is simplicity itself when you compare with maps like Iraq or City Mogul, or World 2.1 or WWII, to name but a few I am familiar with.


The blizzard of bonuses create other legibility issues. Colors are one, the fact that the UK and Denmark bonuses are so close to the same color is a flaw. Also, have you checked to see how this map will appear to the color-blind?

We can change the Denmark color. There is no blizzard of bonuses. All maps need to be checked for user-friendliness and we will do so, yes.

The terits themselves, along with the terit names, are way too cramped. I actually got a giggle from the hanging "a" in Transylvania. Plus the labels are often not terribly legible against the exceptionally busy background you have (this is particularly problematic in the former holy roman empire area). You might want to consider changing the label font to something more impactful. Terit names need to pop. And you might want to consider consolidating some terits.

Glad we put you in a good mood. Of course, we will fix the hanging "A" in Transylvania. Again, we can deal with clarifying somewhat the territories, but I do not accept that our map is in any way more crowded or illegible than, for example, Waterloo or WWII.

Also the terit names have no real consistency. Normandy is Normandie, and Corsica is Corse, yet Rome isn't Roma, nor is Lisbon Lisboa.

Yes, we can work on consistency.


Some of the bonus labels are tough (you've already talked about the problem with the Confederacy of the Rhine... maybe consider having the bonus label on the map simply read "Rhine"). The fact that there is none for Italy creates a problem, since maps need to have some kind of internal consistency to pull them back over the line from confusing to complex. That's something you'll want to have a hard look at.

Although I totally see your consistency point re: Kingdom of Italy, I don't think Ithis itself is a big issue. There was no space for a Kingdom of Italy label, but the legend is quite clear. No confusion there. I'll talk to Kab and see if there is any solution to this.

Some other issues:

Raskholnikov wrote:Besides this common definition, anyone who knows a bit about Napoleon will know about his "Campagne de l'Orient", which means to Egypt and Palestine. Finally, since it is a +1 for the Ottoman Empire, it clearly must be adjacent to it. So really there is no reason to spend 2 minutes finding it on the map. We could try writing it in bigger letters, though, if you think that would help.



Like nobodies, it took me quite some time to find the Orient label. And while I can appreciate that you've done your research, the players won't necessarily have done so either. More to the point, the word has gone through some semantic drift over the centuries, since "Orient" is now much more popularly used as a blanket term for the Far East. Perhaps there's a better (or at least less confusing) term for it... or you could just scotch the label and have the legend reflect that Ottoman gets a +1 with Palestine and Egypt, or just fold both into the Ottoman bonus.

Well then the players will get to learn something. i like the Orient name and bonus and it fits great where it is.


No matter what it's called, having the bonus label tucked in between the big honking swords is a bad idea. Clear bonus labels are much more important than graphical flourishes on the signatures, so you might want to try and rework that area. In fact, you could very easily get rid of the swords altogether, they're too distracting, especially since the information conveyed by them is the least important data on the map.

All this is a matter of opinion - and I don't share it. We could, if Kab agrees, fix the swords so they interfere less with gameplay clarity.


Raskholnikov wrote:Also, if you compare this map with other CC maps like Waterloo (but many others as well) you will find that by comparison ours is really not that full or cluttered.



That is a matter of opinion.

Indeed it is.

Raskholnikov wrote:A radical solution would be to code all region names with a one letter-one number system, like WWII, and only have the full territory name displayed in the drop-down menu. Do you think the additional "clarity" would be worth transforming the map into, effectively, a chess board (e2 - f1)?



You may have to, if you're unwilling to begin consolidating terits and bonuses.

Well let's see what Kab and Andrew think. I am open to this.

Raskholnikov wrote:Again, I respectfully disagree on the "too much information" comment. The only additional info we have compared with a map like Europe 1914 is the land battles sign. That's it. At most, we could rework the graphic names of the various countries to make them smaller, but that would take away from the idea of having a "time=period map" rather than just an Atlas map one can find in any book.



Aesthetics and historical accuracy are all well and good, but not when they impede legibility and gameplay.

I don't agree they do.

In closing, in case I haven't hit this point hard enough, I offer the following from the first post:

The idea was to recreate Europe by the time of Napoleon, in 1812 precisely. Europe by that time offers a multitude of political and social idiosyncrasies holding all the right ingredients for a map that could be both interesting in terms of game-play and at the same time respect carefully all historical facts.



You'll find fewer people on this site that are more interested in geography and history than I. But form must follow function, and the look and theme of the map must be utterly subservient to gameplay and legibility.

Utterly subservient? Now, please, telll us what you REALLY think... ;) Well this is your opinion and I for one don't share it to the extent to which you choose to go.

Thus far that has not been the case with this map, which is why, despite the fact that it's one of the more impressive drafts I've seen recently, I fear that you gents will have to go back to the drawing board for a substantial reworking.

Your evaluation is entirely yours. Whilst I have found some helpful comments, on the whole I consider it to be overly negative and critical. I am willing and indeed eager to proceed with changes that will actually improve the aspect and playability of the map; however, "substantial reworking" is a very subjective term to which I don't suscribe. I prefer to take each issue on a case by case basis and decide if it needs changes or not.

Many thanks for the time and effort you put into providing this detailed critique. I for one do not agree with most of it, but can nonetheless appreciate the effort you put into it and realise it constitutes a great learning experience for you. I think with time you will learn how to become a relatively good Foundry member, provided you take it all less seriouly and realise this is not part of an application for the position of Chief Gameplay Designer and Cartographer for Nintendo. In other words, relax, tone done the negativity, be a bit more friendly and less imperious, and one day you'll get to be reasonably good at this. ;
Last edited by Raskholnikov on Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Private Raskholnikov
 
Posts: 638
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:40 pm

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Postby jefjef on Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:47 am

Well you could do away with the sword by the legend & put your Raskholnikov sword there. Honestly the way it is does clutter up & jam Orient.

It is a sharp map for sure. IMO
This post was made by jefjef who should be on your ignore list.
Image
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
User avatar
Colonel jefjef
 
Posts: 6026
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:41 pm
Location: on my ass

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Postby Raskholnikov on Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:10 am

Hi Jef,

Thank you fro your suggestion. I have absolutely no problem to do what you propose, as long as Kag goes for it. It's his artistic vision and I will not presume to commit to altering it before he checks in with his opinion. But in short, yes, if what you propose will resolve the issue for the majority, I am all for it.

Many thanks,

R
User avatar
Private Raskholnikov
 
Posts: 638
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:40 pm

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Postby Kabanellas on Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:27 am

Thanks Incandenza for the critics.

Though I don’t entirely agree (in the essence) with what you said, I think you’ve pointed out some issues that do concern me as well.

I’m proposing on:

-changing all French names to English
-taking one sword out
-add all 888 to see how will they fit
-change ‘Confederation of The Rhine’ for just ‘The Rhine’
-add a ‘Kingdom of Italy’ near the kingdom of Italy zone itself
-of course you realize that hanging ‘a’ in the small map was an honest mistake – that will be corrected

I'll post all those fixes today (hopefully) and we'll go from there.

K
Major Kabanellas
 
Posts: 1482
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:21 pm
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Postby thenobodies80 on Sat Nov 07, 2009 10:53 am

Raskholnikov,
Listen to Incandenza, he speaks sense 99 times out of 100. he is not only a veteran player but also a veteran foundry member, he helped me a lot during the development of the Oceania map and i 'm sure that he could help you a lot for this map. Listen to him. ;)

Kab,
happy to see that list of changes
can you work also on colors?
i've tested your image with vischeck (colorblind simulation)

Image

there are some parts hard to distinguish, like england-norway-danmark, the yellow bonuses and italy-naples (and malta?).
Anyway, i'll ask to a colorblind friend ;)
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thenobodies80
 
Posts: 5400
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:30 am
Location: Milan

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Postby thenobodies80 on Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:08 pm

thenobodies80 wrote:Anyway, i'll ask to a colorblind friend


this is the answer:

It's very hard to read text wise in the legend and only having the inner color glow makes distingishing the colour (brown reds and green)
near impossible ,same with some smaller blue and pinks
i can tell that where which colour starts and stops for each zone but i couldn't tell you which is which due to the colours being super close in comparision to the others and the legend is to small to read to know which is which so all in all i think if legend and text is more visible the colours shouldn't be an issue
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thenobodies80
 
Posts: 5400
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:30 am
Location: Milan

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Postby the.killing.44 on Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:26 pm

So your reply to the lengthy and excellent post by Inc is that it's all a matter of opinion, you disagree, and so you're not going to make any changes. Oh, and you HAVE to have a playable small map. Recommending the large map isn't going to work. Good luck getting past the Drafting Room.

(I'm a teen so of course this post doesn't exist for all you care)
User avatar
Captain the.killing.44
 
Posts: 4724
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:43 pm
Location: now tell me what got two gums and knows how to spit rhymes

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Postby Kabanellas on Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:46 pm

Hi!

As I've posted before here are the changes to version 23

Version 24
Click image to enlarge.
image
Major Kabanellas
 
Posts: 1482
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:21 pm
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Postby natty dread on Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:48 pm

image is not visible..

oh nvm now it is :D

That crossed swords -icon is a bit hard to spot, it kinda fades to the background. Could you make them stand out a bit more?

Especially on territories like italy, vienna, ex.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class natty dread
 
Posts: 12877
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:58 pm
Location: just plain fucked

PreviousNext

Return to The Atlas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users