Matrix Games Forums

Here are some screen shots for the "almost final" map graphics. This one shows the new graphics for the alpine hexsides.

There is some kind of Santa Claus beard effect here, but it looks correct.
Will see on larger maps.

The green hexside borders indicate weather zones - I intend to make them a toggle so they can be removed whenever the player wishes. I looked at making the thickness of the country borders thinner but that made them too vague.

The weather zones are crucial to WiF FE play, so you should consider making them only more visible.
For the country borders, I like them this way. Just the right thickness for my taste.
If the weather line was more thick, it could show the Red Borders within it when they are both on the same hexside, this could be good (N & NE of Trieste for instance).
Or it could be the Borders line that would be thicker than the weather lines.

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
The weather zone lines might be a bit more visible though. Making them clickable on/off is a good idea too.
Lars

Perhaps simply changing the color from dark green to something else. With the current color scheme for the map, the dark green disappears frequently (against different terrain types).

One reason I am not that concerned about the weather zone borders/lines is that there already is a toggle that will place very noticeable indicators in each hex as to which weather zone it is in. The weather zone indicators are comparable in size and shape to the hex control indicators/flags.

While I am on the topic,...

CWIF gave each hex characteristic/toggle a different placement within the hex. The flags/control was bottom center, the weather and weather zones were above that. I am thinking of simplifying the whole deal and just using one placement (bottom center). This would mean that when you toggle one of them on, it would replace any one currently being displayed. Whenever you toggle one off, you end up with none showing. Clearly this would not affect the toggles for displaying rail lines, names, and units.

The symbols other than just the weather border line that can be toggled in are one of the features I personally never use in CWiF and I find them introducing unwanted clutter on the maps. The green weather line on the other hand is a good help in deciding how to move units.

Lars

They look too much like clouds to me. (there's always one complainer). I would kjeep the white, but I would render it as something more jagged, like the "caret" style mountains on old maps.


^ here be dragons ^^
^^^^^^^^Moria^^^^^^^^^^

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman
They look too much like clouds to me. (there's always one complainer). I would kjeep the white, but I would render it as something more jagged, like the "caret" style mountains on old maps.


^ here be dragons ^^
^^^^^^^^Moria^^^^^^^^^^

2 problems with the jagged line alternative:

(1) They aren't quite in keeping with the other graphic elements used for terrain. Jagged mountain peaks assume the viewer has the perspective of being on the ground looking off in the distance. Most of the other graphic elements assume the viewer is airborne and looking down on the terrain.

(2) Though it could probably be made to work for the horizontal mountain hexsides, the vertical ones would look like stacked "something-or-others".

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman
They look too much like clouds to me. (there's always one complainer). I would kjeep the white, but I would render it as something more jagged, like the "caret" style mountains on old maps.


^ here be dragons ^^
^^^^^^^^Moria^^^^^^^^^^

2 problems with the jagged line alternative:

(1) They aren't quite in keeping with the other graphic elements used for terrain. Jagged mountain peaks assume the viewer has the perspective of being on the ground looking off in the distance. Most of the other graphic elements assume the viewer is airborne and looking down on the terrain.

(2) Though it could probably be made to work for the horizontal mountain hexsides, the vertical ones would look like stacked "something-or-others".

I also thought about suggesting a contour line alternative, but that doesn't sound quite right.

All I can say is that the clouds look way too fluffy. Maybe there needs to be some dark color around them to give the transition from mountain to snow. Or add some valleys. The current alternative does not look like mountains seen from space.

I disagree on the comments re the alpine hexes. I think they come across as a valid barrier without being too formed.

Flying over the Rockies on a very regular basis I can say that I think they are a good reflection of snow mass at the peats.

This may be a stupid question, but if solid, curved, 3-5 pixel black lines are not being used to represent anything on the map such as roads, why not just use it to represent rail lines instead of the current tapeworm-like symbol currently being used? The advantage would be a much cleaner look to the map even if you zoom in. There is just something very off-putting (from a graphic designer's eyes) with the current incarnation of the rail lines.

The current incarnation is the closest representation of what is on the World In Flames boardgame Mapset. Some of the diehard fans prefer it remain as close as possible to that version.

At the "zoomed out" (lowered?) levels of display, they don't look bad, and appear most closely to the boardgame. In the higher levels of zoom in, they get thicker, and look like tapeworms to me, too.

I think Steve has expressed a dislike of the traditional single solid line with cross ties for a rail road. Example of that can (barely) be seen from the US Geological symbols:



(Steve's vote counts much more than mine. Hehe. I am merely "stirring the pot".)

Other ways to show these RR lines also include:

ORIGINAL: mlees

The current incarnation is the closest representation of what is on the World In Flames boardgame Mapset. Some of the diehard fans prefer it remain as close as possible to that version.

At the "zoomed out" (lowered?) levels of display, they don't look bad, and appear most closely to the boardgame. In the higher levels of zoom in, they get thicker, and look like tapeworms to me, too.

I think Steve has expressed a dislike of the traditional single solid line with cross ties for a rail road. Example of that can (barely) be seen from the US Geological symbols:



(Steve's vote counts much more than mine. Hehe. I am merely "stirring the pot".)

Votes? There was voting? The possibility of ballot tampering rears its ugly head again.

I might come back to the rail lines later. "Before releasing the game?", they ask. Hmm, not sure. [;)]

Programming the automation of the rail lines (so they didn't have to all be drawn by hand using bitmaps) was non-trivial. I needed to get something to show up on the screen just to see if that worked. At that time I did invest some effort into testing different colors and styles. The real problem is the distortion that occurs when trying to find something that looks similar at all levels of zoom. As it is, at the lowest level of zoom (1) the rail lines are currently being drawn as a simple black line with a thickness of 1 pixel.

I also wanted to wait until all the other graphic elements of the map had been done. For example, the icons for the cities, resources, et al and the rivers, lakes, and alpine hexsides were missing at that time. We have also modified some of the basic terrain types since I last worked on the rail lines.

Fundamental graphical elements for the map are now mostly in place. I expect the forts to be done in a few days (I reviewed a third pass on them today). All that would be missing from the map graphics, once the forts are done, would be the straits depiction. Oh, and we have recently been discussing the border line thickness/shape/color for weather zones.

No promises, but I am aware of the criticisms. Your examples of alternatives were/are very welcome.

ORIGINAL: rtamesis

This may be a stupid question, but if solid, curved, 3-5 pixel black lines are not being used to represent anything on the map such as roads, why not just use it to represent rail lines instead of the current tapeworm-like symbol currently being used? The advantage would be a much cleaner look to the map even if you zoom in. There is just something very off-putting (from a graphic designer's eyes) with the current incarnation of the rail lines.

Yes, a possibility.

For both the rivers and the rail lines, I had been trying to match the WIF FE maps.

Eventually I had to concede it was infeasible for the rivers - there just aren't enough pixels at all levels of zoom.

I am not quite ready to concede the same for the rail lines (but close to doing so). Remember, I used to play tournament chess and I learned early (and the hard way) that a position should not resigned until it is almost embarassingly obvious that it is hopeless.

Votes? There was voting? The possibility of ballot tampering rears its ugly head again.

I might come back to the rail lines later. "Before releasing the game?", they ask. Hmm, not sure.

With all this adversity against those railways, I must say (surprising, no ?) that I kind of like them as they are now.
Moreover, the more I review the MWiF map, the more I admire the automation work done by Steve for railways, because it also apply in the rest of the world. Everywhere on the WiF map the railways are smooth and "natural". It's a beauty.

About the graphic, I like this one as it is [:D]

For the record, I liked the alpine hexsides.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here are some screen shots for the "almost final" map graphics. This one shows the new graphics for the alpine hexsides.
The green hexside borders indicate weather zones - I intend to make them a toggle so they can be removed whenever the player wishes. I looked at making the thickness of the country borders thinner but that made them too vague.

Here's a Google Earth shot of the same area of the Alps. The main difference is that the contours of the valleys are more visible in the Google Earth image than in the current graphics.

Fred,

Beautiful picture. Thanks.

The satellite view would change somewhat (more or less white) depending on the time of year, obviously.

It also displays the difficulty of converting the real world into a game map. If the player were given the satellite view when playing the game, it would be extremely difficult to determine what moves were legal. That is, where are the passes that the troops can move through and the mountain ranges they can not cross?

I gave the graphics artist very explicit instructions that the alpine hexsides should look impassable to even infantry on foot. Only ski and mountain units can cross them. In other words, I told him to make them contain distinct linear elements to indicate that movement was impossible.

Still, your map picture is lovely. I do so like those satellite views. I own a copy of "Mission to Earth: Landsat Views the World". A terrific book with glossy pictures of the whole earth.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Fred,

Beautiful picture. Thanks.

The satellite view would change somewhat (more or less white) depending on the time of year, obviously.

It also displays the difficulty of converting the real world into a game map. If the player were given the satellite view when playing the game, it would be extremely difficult to determine what moves were legal. That is, where are the passes that the troops can move through and the mountain ranges they can not cross?

I gave the graphics artist very explicit instructions that the alpine hexsides should look impassable to even infantry on foot. Only ski and mountain units can cross them. In other words, I told him to make them contain distinct linear elements to indicate that movement was impossible.

Still, your map picture is lovely. I do so like those satellite views. I own a copy of "Mission to Earth: Landsat Views the World". A terrific book with glossy pictures of the whole earth.

It would be pretty trivial (but, alas, quite time consuming) to add Google Earth links (.kmz files) to each hex -- click on the link, launch a view of the current hex in Google Earth. There's no technical reason why you could not do it at each zoom level, or for a given range of hexes.

Once the map is final this would be a fun project for a distributed team. So as not to add any work to MWIF, we could put an image version of the map onto a webserver and set up a simple database to associate hex coordinates and .kmz files.

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Fred,

Beautiful picture. Thanks.

The satellite view would change somewhat (more or less white) depending on the time of year, obviously.

It also displays the difficulty of converting the real world into a game map. If the player were given the satellite view when playing the game, it would be extremely difficult to determine what moves were legal. That is, where are the passes that the troops can move through and the mountain ranges they can not cross?

I gave the graphics artist very explicit instructions that the alpine hexsides should look impassable to even infantry on foot. Only ski and mountain units can cross them. In other words, I told him to make them contain distinct linear elements to indicate that movement was impossible.

Still, your map picture is lovely. I do so like those satellite views. I own a copy of "Mission to Earth: Landsat Views the World". A terrific book with glossy pictures of the whole earth.

It would be pretty trivial (but, alas, quite time consuming) to add Google Earth links (.kmz files) to each hex -- click on the link, launch a view of the current hex in Google Earth. There's no technical reason why you could not do it at each zoom level, or for a given range of hexes.

Once the map is final this would be a fun project for a distributed team. So as not to add any work to MWIF, we could put an image version of the map onto a webserver and set up a simple database to associate hex coordinates and .kmz files.

Ah, okay. But not by me.[;)]

It would be pretty trivial (but, alas, quite time consuming) to add Google Earth links (.kmz files) to each hex -- click on the link, launch a view of the current hex in Google Earth. There's no technical reason why you could not do it at each zoom level, or for a given range of hexes.

Hmm. I don't know. That is a personal choice, I think. To me, the sat views are to distracting, and "dark". It might also clash with the gamemap icons (city, port, fort symbols), and the game units in the hex.

I prefer the map to be clear, unambiguous, and nondistracting.

The sat view is for gazing at the map when that is your only goal, I think.

ORIGINAL: mlees


Hmm. I don't know. That is a personal choice, I think. To me, the sat views are to distracting, and "dark". It might also clash with the gamemap icons (city, port, fort symbols), and the game units in the hex.

I prefer the map to be clear, unambiguous, and nondistracting.

The sat view is for gazing at the map when that is your only goal, I think.

I agree! And Steve has persuaded me that the current alpine hexes are best.

I am not sufficiently gungho to do this -- but there are a lot of people who love creating these Google Earth mashups, and I bet we'll find there are a few in the final MWIF market.

(now going completely off topic) It's interesting to wonder whether there is hope for a renaissance of gaming in the proliferation of Google Earth & maps APIs - it seems to me you ought to be able to do a pretty cool "massively parallel" war game on top of Google Earth.