Maps for MWIF

[stretch]

Well I'm no graphic artist, but how about using 3 or 4 different texture effects instead of one? Maybe I'm just reaching here... since I'm bored.

[Froonp]

My current plan is to:

1 - Place the icon in the center of the hex if it is the only icon in the hex. This means I do not have to enter any data for the vast majority of the icons. They will just have a blank (zero) value.

I would like it better if the icon (even if it is the only icon in an hex) was placed in the most geographically accurate position inside the hex.
And if you don't please make this "position inside the hex" a value that can be modified by the players, so that we can create a mod where all the cities & ports are in their most accurate geographical place.

2 - Violate rule #1, if that places a non-port icon in the ocean.

3 - Violate rule #1, and place ports at the intersection of the land and sea. For example, Portsmouth will be at position 18, 2/3rds of the way towards 6 o'clock. That should place it a little below the 1st O in the label Portsmouth. Pembroke will be at position 6. Holyhead and Harwich at position 9.

4 - When there is more than 1 icon in the hex, try to achieve the same results that rules #2 and #3 are aiming for.

[Froonp]

Posting screen shots doesn't get code written. On the other hand, working in isolation has some serious dangers about heading off in the wrong direction and wasting hundreds of hours of effort meaninglessly. There actually is a solid productivity gain in posting all these screen shots.

Posting screen shots is also great for us [:D][:D].

[Froonp]

[:D]

Then, I can say something kinda silly which will make your head explode, like "don't forget to make the hexside south of Hull clearly impassable like Froonp commented the other day".

It was not silly, and he still hasn't corrected it [:-]

It is important that the maps shows things such as invadable hexes and impassable hexsides.
Too bad to set up an invasion and discover on D-Day that the place is not invadable

[Glen Felzien]

It is important that the maps shows things such as invadable hexes and impassable hexsides.
Too bad to set up an invasion and discover on D-Day that the place is not invadable

LOL excellent point Froonp. I agree that placing the icons on the geographically correct location within each hex would be best but I cant help but wonder what it might look like. Using Steve's location rules there would be uniformity throughout the map. With this there would be a certain tidiness that would over all look good. With the icons placed more accurately based on each hex itself, it might look very haphazard. It would be nice to see Europe or the Med in both formats.

The down side of course, is that I imagine the time needed to review every hex for every possible icon and rail line would take a lot of time. The payoff would have to be well worth it. It the hexes themselves where modable, the community might be able to spend the time experimenting I suppose.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Glen Felzien

It is important that the maps shows things such as invadable hexes and impassable hexsides.
Too bad to set up an invasion and discover on D-Day that the place is not invadable

LOL excellent point Froonp. I agree that placing the icons on the geographically correct location within each hex would be best but I cant help but wonder what it might look like. Using Steve's location rules there would be uniformity throughout the map. With this there would be a certain tidiness that would over all look good. With the icons placed more accurately based on each hex itself, it might look very haphazard. It would be nice to see Europe or the Med in both formats.

The down side of course, is that I imagine the time needed to review every hex for every possible icon and rail line would take a lot of time. The payoff would have to be well worth it. It the hexes themselves where modable, the community might be able to spend the time experimenting I suppose.

You are right to mention the rail lines. I want the rail lines to terminate at the city icon (or port icon if no city is present) (or resource icon if neither a city nor port is present). The way I intend to achieve that is to write code that draws the rail lines differently depending on the position of the terminous. This will be a little tricky given all the diverse combinations of rail lines possible.

If you look at the paper map and start counting the number of unique rail line images used within 1 hexagon, you'll find it is quite large. The irregularity used by the artist when drawing the raillines adds a lot to the map's beauty. The rigid 60 degree angles used by CWIF has a mathematical beauty but not an aesthetic one (IMO).

The positioning of the cities (and other icons within a hex) will be available for modification by the players using the 25 points within a hex that I described earlier. All the data related to cities will be available in a separate CSV file. This means that Patrice will be able to eliminate the new city CWIF added to the map in Germany, or reposition it to a different hex, or add a couple more to keep it company. That will also enable players to eliminate the extra cities we plan to add in China. You can think of all of these as part and parcel of deciding on 'options' before startng a game.

[Froonp]

If you look at the paper map and start counting the number of unique rail line images used within 1 hexagon, you'll find it is quite large. The irregularity used by the artist when drawing the raillines adds a lot to the map's beauty. The rigid 60 degree angles used by CWIF has a mathematical beauty but not an aesthetic one (IMO).

I think I understood that you are developping a map overlay to draw the rivers on the map.
Why not use the same (or another) overlay to draw the rail lines too ?
After all, it's just 2 parallel black lines with small lines crossing them regulary. I believe this should be easy for a graphic artist to do that ?
The map is what can make people wanting to play the game, so let's have it the best we can.
I for one was appealed to the games of "Gary Grisby World at War" and "Heart of Iron games" because of the map & the graphics. Sure, after playing a few turns to the former, and 1 full campaign of the latter I never started them up again, but I would not have played them in the first place if not for the graphics.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

If you look at the paper map and start counting the number of unique rail line images used within 1 hexagon, you'll find it is quite large. The irregularity used by the artist when drawing the raillines adds a lot to the map's beauty. The rigid 60 degree angles used by CWIF has a mathematical beauty but not an aesthetic one (IMO).

I think I understood that you are developping a map overlay to draw the rivers on the map.
Why not use the same (or another) overlay to draw the rail lines too ?
After all, it's just 2 parallel black lines with small lines crossing them regulary. I believe this should be easy for a graphic artist to do that ?
The map is what can make people wanting to play the game, so let's have it the best we can.
I for one was appealed to the games of "Gary Grisby World at War" and "Heart of Iron games" because of the map & the graphics. Sure, after playing a few turns to the former, and 1 full campaign of the latter I never started them up again, but I would not have played them in the first place if not for the graphics.

Too many rail lines.

I already have the graphics guy doing all the coastal hexes (5070 at last count). The British Isles only have 76.

And besides, you are imputing that my automation of the rail lines will be tacky. Wait until you see it to say that.[;)]

I created the Gulf of Mexico today. Or at least I added it as a new sea area for the MWIF map. Now the MWIF map has the same sea areas as the America in Flames map - with a few minor differences far out at sea. I'll review those in detail some day. Or perhaps have the playtesters critique them.

[Froonp]

And besides, you are imputing that my automation of the rail lines will be tacky. Wait until you see it to say that.

Wow wow, I am imputting nothing in regards to your automation of the rail lines which I did not understood was underway [;)] until now [:D]
Cheers !

[composer99]

I am really impressed with the pics. It looks great - I mean it.

Some nitpicking on the China image:

2. Chunking MIL hasn't got an R sign whereas Canton's does. The 5-1 GAR label reads "(Res)" instead of a right wing "R". Some lack of consistency here.

Cheers,

Daniel

The Chungking MIL unit is not a reserve unit, whereas the Canton MIL is; hence the lack of an "R". Also, the "Res" part of Chinese unit names does not make them reserve units in WiF FE. The cardboard counter reserve units have "Res" on the back of the counter, and in CWiF they had the "R". This is just one of the (admittedly many) idiosyncracies of WiF.

[composer99]

The maps are really looking nice - far less garish than CWiF, especially once the flag control, port & whatnot icons are adjusted to the MWiF colour palette.

[Frederyck]

I am very very impressed with everything I have seen this far!

[Shannon V. OKeets]

And here is today's project: the sea boxes.

As you can see, I am going with two sets so the Axis and Allied units will occupy separate boxes, never mixing. Neutrals will go into the side that they are likely to join (Italy - Axis; USA - Allied).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here is one of the two problem children. I have yet to add the names of the sea areas. they will go in underneath the bottom boxes.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

The other problem child. For the Baltic and the Red Sea you will not be able to change the locations of the sea boxes. These look a little crowded against the shoreline but that will be lessened when the pretty coastline is added.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here is an example of how you can look at two sea areas at once. You will be able to reposition the sea boxes at any time. Just right click on a sea dot and the an option will pop up that lets you plae the upper left sea box in there. It has to be such that the rest of the sea boxes will fit in the 2 rows by 5 columns layout though.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

The last in this series. Here the sea boxes for all three sea areas have been positioned close to Honolulu. There isn't any code written for actually moving units into these sea areas. But that shouldn't be too hard. Essentailly it will be a hybrid of the routines that (1) move them into ports and (2) out to sea. This map is defective. The Hawaiian island chain is nothing like this past Kauai (the leftmost jungle hex).

I have entered in starting locations for all 83 sea areas, so it is just placing the units in them that remains to be done.

I am thinking about maybe changing the outline colors depending on what units are in the sea box. Perhap a red outline if there are units capable of invading. Or something special to indicate convoys or submarines present. Nothing really thought through yet. It's just that there is a lot of open space around these boxes that offer the opportunity for adding stuff. Then not again, the starkness has an austere beauty.

[Froonp]

These are great, yes, great great great !!!

To tone it down, I would have one comment / request : Have them contiguous. Separate the Axis / Allied boxes, but keep the 0, 1, 2, 3 & 4 boxes contiguous if possible for each of them.
Have the Axis & Allied set of boxes more far away too if possible, to allow for greater stacking of counters ?

The idea of a changing color for the box outline is great too !

Another idea : You could center the texts & numbers on top & bottom of the box, maybe it is even more beautiful.

Last note about the terrain aspect : The desert seems pretty good to me, but the desert mountains (post 234) seems not dark enough.

[Froonp]

Just right click on a sea dot and the an option will pop up that lets you plae the upper left sea box in there. It has to be such that the rest of the sea boxes will fit in the 2 rows by 5 columns layout though.

Maybe the option could also give the choice to lay down the boxes verticaly or horizontaly, as the player wants.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Just right click on a sea dot and the an option will pop up that lets you plae the upper left sea box in there. It has to be such that the rest of the sea boxes will fit in the 2 rows by 5 columns layout though.

Maybe the option could also give the choice to lay down the boxes verticaly or horizontaly, as the player wants.

I was following the example in the paper maps of only centering the sea box number and right justifying the invasion information. Centering everything is a good idea. I am thinking of making the sea box font bold - it gets kind of lost versus the white and yellow.

I also like the idea of vertical as well as horizontal arrangement for the sea boxes.

Pushing them altogether I think will detract from their appearance. The paper maps of WIF FE obviously were drawn using a template that was overlaid onto existing graphics. They also were oversized because placing physical counters in the hex required more room. You will never have to neaten the stacks of naval units in MWIF. Also, keeping the sea boxes separate lets me outline the boxes individually as a clear indication of which contain carriers or naval air (for example).

Still undecided is how to let the player view all the units in a sea box simultaneously: spread out, grouped by Axis versus Allied, and arranged by unit type. You want to see invading land units on tranports, carrier air units on carriers, the convoy war (convoys, convoy escorts, ASW, submarines, surface raiders), and land based aircraft.

I do not believe it is feasible to do that without taking over most of the screen. Some of the sea areas are very small and yet there can be a lot of units in them (the Med comes to mind). If I try to do this within the sea area, I will fail. If I try using the surrounding land hexes I run the risk of the units on land being confused with the units at sea. Therefore I am assuming that the visual will have to be an opaque box with the units spread out inside of it.

I want to make the box moveable and not fill the entire screen, so the player can see where he is invading (for example). Beyond that I haven't gone. At present, my design is just a large white rectangle with 50 or more units floating around in it. I believe it is a challenging problem for how best to communicate information. As such, I think it has great potential for having an elegant solution. I won't be satisfied with any less. My motivation here is the forum member that complained that the naval war got short shrift in CWIF. If possible, I want to go over the top in responding to that well justified criticism.