Imperium Romanum [Quenched]

[yeti_c]

by yeti_c on Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:21 pm

I think you need something like this somewhere - to explain that the Dots represent transports.

yeti_c wrote:
" . . . . link from main map to inset maps. "

Now these look like twiling zone. I know that you give these sugestion,and i start to create explanation box,but Oaktown think that these is insulting to people inteligent(i belive that these what he related when he wrote that),and give me visual sugestion for these dots,and i apply these. Now you request to go back creating explanation box again? I realy dont see what is so confusing with dots. If you think that explanation box is desperately need,then i must reconsider what to do,its look that now i have two group of people-people who understand what dots present,and people who is confused with dots.

1 sentence to say that the dots are transports is all you need.

C.

[Qwert]

new update:
I fix "Flag"(its a shield)
also i change some things to be more better visualy.

Click image to enlarge.

As concerne of yeti sugestion abouth "transport",these is not transport,these is attack and inset means,enlarge part of map(Alpes inset present enlarge part of alpes on main map,and roma defence map present enlarged roma town with praetorian defence forces).

[gimil]

congratz,

[Qwert]

thank,aim expected these much early.

[oaktown]

Perhaps this is the problem with the little circles, and I will try to keep the explanation simple.

Circles are used in two ways on this map:

1. some circles are attack routes

2. some circles refer to the inset maps.
What if instead of circles you used a different shape for the references? Sqaures? Stars? Asterisks? * * *

[Qwert]

by oaktown on Fri Jul 04, 2008 12:26 am

Perhaps this is the problem with the little circles, and I will try to keep the explanation simple.

Circles are used in two ways on this map:

1. some circles are attack routes

2. some circles refer to the inset maps.
What if instead of circles you used a different shape for the references? Sqaures? Stars? Asterisks? * * *

You mean some other geometric shape.I will stay dots for Alpes,and try to put something other for Roma box,

[oaktown]

I will stay dots for Alpes

I would suggest you change BOTH shapes.

Also, I know that you got the graphics stamp, but I think there are a lot of things you can and should do to make this look better.

1. clean up the legend. You changed it to make sense, but now it looks bad. For starters, the borders stop in the middle of nowhere.

2. line up the territory names that float into Germania Magna. The sample that somebody made for you looks much better in my opinion.

3. text seems sloppy. Some are a larger point size (DACIA, ASIA) and the yellow text on the blue water looks a bit fuzzy.

4. if you really want to make the Alpes inset more clear, a very light dotted line on the map itself showing the outline of the inset map would be helpful.

5. The assyria army count is going to run off the map in three digits, especially with color-blind help.

[ZeakCytho]

3. text seems sloppy. Some are a larger point size (DACIA, ASIA) and the yellow text on the blue water looks a bit fuzzy.

To add to that, a lot of the territory names are at funny angles. This is mostly done for space reasons, but I think you have room to straighten some of them out. For example, Tarraconensis, Lugdunesis, Aegyptus, Syria, Armenia, etc - there are tons. Also, the ones near the Germania Magna next are all at different funny angles - could you maybe make them all the same angle?

[Qwert]

I would suggest you change BOTH shapes.

Also, I know that you got the graphics stamp, but I think there are a lot of things you can and should do to make this look better.

1. clean up the legend. You changed it to make sense, but now it looks bad. For starters, the borders stop in the middle of nowhere.

2. line up the territory names that float into Germania Magna. The sample that somebody made for you looks much better in my opinion.

3. text seems sloppy. Some are a larger point size (DACIA, ASIA) and the yellow text on the blue water looks a bit fuzzy.

4. if you really want to make the Alpes inset more clear, a very light dotted line on the map itself showing the outline of the inset map would be helpful.

5. The assyria army count is going to run off the map in three digits, especially with color-blind help.

1.Clean up legend?I dont understand what to clean?need more explanation
2.For milion time i will repeat-these is historical map,and its normal that name goes to all direction and all diferent sizes,if you want some examples,then i will show you several maps,who present roman empire(ofcourse i can not find original map from these period )
3.look no 2.-Yellow look fuzzy,cam on not use some weird words. How you expect to understand.
4.we have agrement,if people dont understand,then i will back explanation box,i dont want to mess mine map with some lines who go over map,to show something who is not complicated.Insulting or not for people inteligent,but if these will continue,then explanation box will come back.
5.I also repeat for milion time,that all issue abouth Army circle and number will be on line when i start XML.

To add to that, a lot of the territory names are at funny angles. This is mostly done for space reasons, but I think you have room to straighten some of them out. For example, Tarraconensis, Lugdunesis, Aegyptus, Syria, Armenia, etc - there are tons. Also, the ones near the Germania Magna next are all at different funny angles - could you maybe make them all the same angle?

Its look that you dont see many historical presentation map of roman empire(and other ancient countries).Well i will show you maps who have names who goes to all direction and diferent sizes.

[Qwert]

Aim posted these when i start map,source wikipedia-if you notice names go to all direction,and diferent size and angle.

Well these map have very good terittory and borders,and these will be mine background for creating Imperium Romanum,with all imperiall terittorys.

I will present more sources,and more diferent maps with diferent ancient countrys.

[cairnswk]

hey qwert. congrats on making this into the sticky of the Foundry. next step FF.

[Qwert]

by cairnswk on Fri Jul 04, 2008 9:09 pm

hey qwert. congrats on making this into the sticky of the Foundry. next step FF.

Thanks,but now i will spend some week to explane people why i wont to names go in all direction and diferent angles.

[ZeakCytho]

Aim posted these when i start map,source wikipedia-if you notice names go to all direction,and diferent size and angle.

Well these map have very good terittory and borders,and these will be mine background for creating Imperium Romanum,with all imperiall terittorys.

I will present more sources,and more diferent maps with diferent ancient countrys.

It appears to me that the names are only at angles when they cannot fit straight. There are tons of straight names on the map you showed - Italia, Corsica, Sardinia, Lusitania, Aquitania, Dacia, Regnum Bospori, etc. As I said, you have room in a number of places to straighten out the names on your map.

[Qwert]

Also like i say,i can give you more maps where names go to diferent angles and diferent sizes:

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

Now i dont understand,why you dont want to apply these names style?You realy dont have any contra argument.

[ZeakCytho]

The names on those second two maps you posted aren't "straight," but they curve along lines of latitude, so they are visually pleasing. The names on the first one are too illegible for me to comment on.

I think the names as you have them now are unnecessarily distracting, odd looking, and ugly. Straightening them out would make the map as a whole much nicer to look at.

[Qwert]

by ZeakCytho on Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:28 pm

The names on those second two maps you posted aren't "straight," but they curve along lines of latitude, so they are visually pleasing. The names on the first one are too illegible for me to comment on.

I think the names as you have them now are unnecessarily distracting, odd looking, and ugly. Straightening them out would make the map as a whole much nicer to look at.

Ok,now aim use translator to understand mean of word "straight",and not working,can you show me visual what you mean.

[ZeakCytho]

by ZeakCytho on Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:28 pm

The names on those second two maps you posted aren't "straight," but they curve along lines of latitude, so they are visually pleasing. The names on the first one are too illegible for me to comment on.

I think the names as you have them now are unnecessarily distracting, odd looking, and ugly. Straightening them out would make the map as a whole much nicer to look at.

Ok,now aim use translator to understand mean of word "straight",and not working,can you show me visual what you mean.

By straight I mean horizontal. The best example I can think of is Oasis:

You see, in that map, all the territory names are parallel with each other as well as with the top and bottom of the map. You don't have room to do that with all the territories in Imperium Romanum, but in many of them you can.

[Qwert]

I see what you mean,and i dont understand why i must do in that way.All mine previous map have Horisontal names. For these map i want to names goes in these style. I give you examples in other maps,so i dont see how these examles have any point with mine examples. Can you explane these?

[cairnswk]

I see what you mean,and i dont understand why i must do in that way.All mine previous map have Horisontal names. For these map i want to names goes in these style. I give you examples in other maps,so i dont see how these examles have any point with mine examples. Can you explane these?

Qwert. I think what the guys are saying is:
names on straight line - horizontal - are much easier to read on any map...it also makes for better overall consistency if the majority of the "straight names" are the same.
This is why i ask for the territory names near Germania to be same angle ////// better for reading, easier.
i personally don't like the way the historical maps are named but i understand why they do it like that. Old historical maps always look messy to me.
And i think you don't have to do the same as old maps - you can do better Qwert, i know you can.

[AndyDufresne]

I am in agreement with Oaktown, Zeak, and Cairnswk.

Additionally,

I would suggest you change BOTH shapes.

Also, I know that you got the graphics stamp, but I think there are a lot of things you can and should do to make this look better.

1. clean up the legend. You changed it to make sense, but now it looks bad. For starters, the borders stop in the middle of nowhere.

2. line up the territory names that float into Germania Magna. The sample that somebody made for you looks much better in my opinion.

3. text seems sloppy. Some are a larger point size (DACIA, ASIA) and the yellow text on the blue water looks a bit fuzzy.

4. if you really want to make the Alpes inset more clear, a very light dotted line on the map itself showing the outline of the inset map would be helpful.

5. The assyria army count is going to run off the map in three digits, especially with color-blind help

I agree with most of Oaktown's points also.


--Andy

[Qwert]

Andy you are incredibile,you know that,did you even try to read what i reply to Oaktown post?

Cairnswk,i understand that you dont like Historical maps who have aranged names in that way,but i like to be oriented like these.So i will try to be more close to these three examles what i presented,because these is mine sources.

And i think you don't have to do the same as old maps - you can do better Qwert, i know you can.

You know its quit dificulty to create historical map if you dont have any source to upgrade these.I will experiment with names,but i will not to put to be horisontal,because these will not give realistic view of map.

[AndyDufresne]

Cairnswk,i understand that you dont like Historical maps who have aranged names in that way,but i like to be oriented like these.So i will try to be more close to these three examles what i presented,because these is mine sources.

As noted, the historical maps mostly only use varying angles for when things do not fit properly. There is some room to alteration and change to make everything look nicer. It'll improve the map surely.


--Andy

[pamoa]

Hi, nice map.

Did you test it with 3 digits armies!

[Qwert]

by pamoa on Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:19 am

Hi, nice map.

Did you test it with 3 digits armies!

No,aim not still working on XML,these is for FF stage.
Any way update will be today.

[pamoa]

by pamoa on Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:19 am
Did you test it with 3 digits armies!

No,aim not still working on XML,these is for FF stage.
Any way update will be today.

My point was graphical issue, 3 digits armies are very large! You should test it to adjust border and so on!

refering to "Digis 88's in all colors" thread
Since CC added the possibilty of displaying armies color code, I think map making should evolve.
Every new map should be able to display a 3 digit army including color code "legs" (green, yellow, pink).
Now the minimum size is 24 pixels wide and 15 pixels high, 18 if you want to have the numbers centered vertically.

Here you have a JPEG


and a GIFF with transparency


and a PING with transparency