Land and Sea [Quenched]

[yeti_c]

AF5 - AT7 is the best IMO

C.

[cairnswk]

...
Three different arrow ideas there, anything tickling anyones fancy?

No, perhaps something similar to the other sea connection bridges might be an option also.

[edbeard]

Game play-esque questions...EU1 and AF1 are not land connected, yes? Does EU5 border AF4?

those territories ARE all connected. perhaps a legend note should be added

We can do a section in the legend that says something like...

Territory Connections That Might Not Be Apparent

MS-AT2, MS-IN1, AF1-EU1, AF4-EU5

Arrows... not a fan. Any graphic will be fine if it is noted in the legend. But I understand that they may be the most clear option, so you might be able to convince me with the right arrow.

well not to be a jerk but we don't really have to convince you. arrows are what's happening. either of the two singular arrows are fine by me. the double one-way ones don't look good to me

territories that cross the map divide: what about some graphic that runs across the edges to help indicate the connection? Chain links between each pair of like territory names?

I don't think that's needed and will just clutter things. We have a legend note. We have territory labels on both sides. That's all that's needed really.





Sea bridges ARE NOT going to happen. sorry to spoil anyone's thoughts on this and I realise this goes against what I said about giving gimil full control but the ones connecting PA4-AT3 and PA1-IN2 are going away. As I've said before, there's no point in having multiple ways to show that territories connect. this just clutters the map. one style/way to do it is all that's needed. Plus they don't look good anyway.




I deleted the quote but I think Andy is correct. downgrading the dark Atlantic colour slightly seems like a good idea.

[gimil]

those territories ARE all connected. perhaps a legend note should be added

We can do a section in the legend that says something like...

Territory Connections That Might Not Be Apparent

MS-AT2, MS-IN1, AF1-EU1, AF4-EU5

The Med is already outlined in the legends, for AF1-EU1 and AF4-EU4 I can jsut move everything closer together so it looks more connected. Better than cluttering up the legends some more.

[edbeard]

agreed

[gimil]

Ok let me put together a todo:

-Reduce Atlantic Colour
-Add new arrows for land sea and use arrows for sea sea connections (the ones in africa seems to be the most supported so far)
-Make legends feel less cramped?
-Move AF1 and EU1 + AF4 and AF2 closer to make connection more noticable
-"Land and Sea Territories are only connected via arrows"

[edbeard]

Ok let me put together a todo:

-Remove AF4 and AF2 connection (We still doing this?)

uhh. no? where'd you find that?


AF4-EU5 same thing as AF1-EU1 just make the connection a little bigger

[gimil]

Ok let me put together a todo:

-Remove AF4 and AF2 connection (We still doing this?)

uhh. no? where'd you find that?


AF4-EU5 same thing as AF1-EU1 just make the connection a little bigger

not really sure! Fixed...

[gimil]

Ok I will make a bug update tomorrow. Please no one tugg my balls on any issues until that update

[gimil]

What do we think of these?

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

[RjBeals]

Luv it.

[edbeard]

the only thing I'm concerned about is the length of the arrows that connect PA4-AT3 and IN2-PA1

I wish the thin bit was longer so the pointy bits were a bit more evident

[gimil]

the only thing I'm concerned about is the length of the arrows that connect PA4-AT3 and IN2-PA1

I wish the thin bit was longer so the pointy bits were a bit more evident

Easily fixed.

[gimil]

This any better ed?

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

[edbeard]

perfect

the first image screwed me up for second though


edit: wait wait. you didn't change the Atlantic colour on the legend. you probably realise this and were just waiting for approval but I'm saying it so I don't forget

[edbeard]

Question:

The original plan was for the XML to be done like this...

NA2 (Western US)

EU5 (Middle East)

SA2 (Brazil)

OC3 (Australia)

etc


should I go with that plan or just scrap it?


I ask because in some cases (oceans and antarctica) it'll be filled with redundancies like (West Antarctica), (Central Antarctica) etc. unless I name them after whose claim it is. And oceans I'm not sure what I'd do. And, I ask because if people don't like the idea then there's no point in me doing it.

[gimil]

Why not go with:

North America 1
North America 2

Atlantic 1


etc etc

This is most likely to cause the lesat overall confusion, what do you think?

[edbeard]

Why not go with:

North America 1
North America 2

Atlantic 1


etc etc

This is most likely to cause the lesat overall confusion, what do you think?

uhh. no. they need to be exactly the same as the map itself. hence having the

NA4 (Alaska) or AF2 (Egypt)

so either they should just be

NA4
AF2
AT5

or they should have the additional description at the end like SA1 (Columbia), NA1 (Central America), AF5 (South Africa)

[gimil]

Well how about 'North America 1 (NA1)'. What your suggestion can lead to all sorts of confusion. You won't get many thou that are going to argue that they dodn't know where north america is and even if you do its on the minimap to confim.

[edbeard]

Well how about 'North America 1 (NA1)'. What your suggestion can lead to all sorts of confusion. You won't get many thou that are going to argue that they dodn't know where north america is and even if you do its on the minimap to confim.

no dude. you need whatever is ON the map to be the first part of the name so they can find it on the drop down. I'm just asking people if they want the second part EU5 (Egypt) or that they don't care. It's really only a character detail.


I don't know what you're talking about in the last sentence because we have a mini-map.

[gimil]

I think I am making myself sound like a twat, let me try and expleain better.

With our setup the drop down will look like this:

NA1
NA2
NA3
AF1
AF2
AF3
AL1
AL2
AL3
ETC
ETC

That is much, much more likely to cause confusion than is we lay it out like this:

North America 1 (NA1)
North America 2 (NA2)
North America 3 (NA3)
Africa 1 (AF1)
Africa 2 (AF2)
Africa 3 (AF3)
Atlantic 1 (AL1)
Atlantic 2 (AL2)
Atlantic 3 (AL3)

Now on a normal day I would agree that what is on the map should generally appear on the XML. I nthis case thou I think we would be safe to go with the way I suggested. AL1 & AF1 will cause unfortuantly mistakes when listed together in a dropdown, Africa 1 (AF1) & Atlantic 1 (AL1) make this confusion much less likely, you see what I am getting at?

[edbeard]

I think you've come to completely the wrong conclusion. If I see a territory called AF2. I look for AF2 on the drop down. This is how the vast majority of people are going to think.

AF1 (Sudan)

and

AT1 (Hudson Bay)

can prevent the sort of confusion you're talking about, if that's a real concern. I guess you think it's a big enough concern to bring up so I'll go ahead with doing NA4 (Alaska) style instead of the plain NA4 style.


putting something other than what is on the map itself is a huge mistake.

[gimil]

I think you've come to completely the wrong conclusion. If I see a territory called AF2. I look for AF2 on the drop down. This is how the vast majority of people are going to think.

AF1 (Sudan)

and

AT1 (Hudson Bay)

can prevent the sort of confusion you're talking about, if that's a real concern. I guess you think it's a big enough concern to bring up so I'll go ahead with doing NA4 (Alaska) style instead of the plain NA4 style.


putting something other than what is on the map itself is a huge mistake.

But whats on the map will be in the drop down: North America 1 (NA1)

Suit yourself mate I trust your judgement. But Ill be sticking to my guns (opinion)

[pepperonibread]

Have curved arrows been suggested yet? The straight ones seem a bit out of place to me.
And any chance of giving some additional flair to this map? Things honestly seem a bit bland in the current state. I know you want to keep with a simple style, but I'd guess that just one or two subtle changes could do a lot of good. The S. America and NYC maps are two good examples of this: Relatively plain and "flat" maps, they nevertheless work very well graphically. For SA it's the color scheme and textures that does it, for NYC the criss-crossing subways and interesting title.
It doesn't have to be eye-popping, just eye-catching... I believe in you gimil

[cairnswk]

Have curved arrows been suggested yet? The straight ones seem a bit out of place to me.
And any chance of giving some additional flair to this map? Things honestly seem a bit bland in the current state. I know you want to keep with a simple style, but I'd guess that just one or two subtle changes could do a lot of good. The S. America and NYC maps are two good examples of this: Relatively plain and "flat" maps, they nevertheless work very well graphically. For SA it's the color scheme and textures that does it, for NYC the criss-crossing subways and interesting title.
It doesn't have to be eye-popping, just eye-catching... I believe in you gimil

^^ Second that. Onya Pepp.