map and stuff

[General Quarters]

I have always loved maps, especially historic maps. When I was a kid, I would look at the maps in my dad's old college textbooks -- and always found the medieval maps so puzzling, since the Hapsburgs seemed to be everywhere. Lots of the old boardgames had great maps and that was one of the pleasures, as it is in a computer game.

The FOF map is a case in point. Not only is it pleasing to look at, but it looks like the kind of map a general, or Lincoln or Davis, would use. I like that element of historical flavor.

I also enjoy the way the photos appear and disappear on some screens while you are waiting. And the logo -- the ancient helmet -- is very classic and classy. Congratulations to whoever is responsible for these elements of design.

[cesteman]

Here here. I agree. Hats off.
Christian

[Gil R.]

The map was researched mainly by Mr. Z, and created by Pixelpusher, so I'll take no credit (other than for saying, "Yeah, that looks like a map").

I can take some credit for the photos, in that I had a hand in scouring the web to look for those (as well as for the photos used to illustrate many of the upgrades). I'm glad you like those. Incidentally, we really wanted to use lots of period newspapers such as Harper's Weekly to further enhance the game's look, but the main website that has scans of them wanted to charge us a rather hefty sum, one large enough that it would have doubled our graphics budget had we purchased a bunch. (Most people don't realize it -- after all, why would they need to know this? -- but there's an interesting part of U.S. copyright law that states that if someone scans something in the public domain -- e.g., Harper's Weekly from 1861 -- the scan itself becomes one's protected property. It's a pity, since the game would have looked even better.)

Pixelpusher's not very fond of the spinning-helmet logo. Personally, I like it. Maybe I'll start a poll thread so that we can all vote.

[pixelpusher]

Aw, shucks! Thanks for the kind words, folks. It's always good to know that somebody out there actually enjoys all those little bits of polishing one puts into one's work!

I also enjoy the way the photos appear and disappear on some screens while you are waiting. And the logo -- the ancient helmet -- is very classic and classy. Congratulations to whoever is responsible for these elements of design.

Hi GQ:
Yup, that would be me. Generally I think we (WCS) tend to like calm, understated things that are functional but refined. We were certainly striving for a historical, period feel for Forge of Freedom.

ORIGINAL: General Quarters
I have always loved maps, especially historic maps. <...> The FOF map is a case in point. Not only is it pleasing to look at, but it looks like the kind of map a general, or Lincoln or Davis, would use. I like that element of historical flavor.

Yep, that's what we were going for. The map is really an important piece of a game... the player spends a LOT of time staring at it. The Forge map is loosely based on an British map from about 1870, which had most of the RR data. We look at lots and lots of maps to develop our games, so we definitely develop opinions about what a good in-game maps should be like.

I'm a total map geek, myself. (I was just listening to a book on tape about WW2, and following along in the atlas!) Medieval maps are great. All the pre-cartographic maps are fantastic. I particularly like Japanese maps.

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
Pixelpusher's not very fond of the spinning-helmet logo. Personally, I like it. Maybe I'll start a poll thread so that we can all vote.

Well, I would prefer something a bit more understated, and where it is easier to read the logo. There's no reason it should be spinning, really, and I feel like it's going to smack me in the forehead.

I'd like to use something more like the attached image below. It looks much better bigger, of course!

[cesteman]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

I can take some credit for the photos, in that I had a hand in scouring the web to look for those (as well as for the photos used to illustrate many of the upgrades). I'm glad you like those. Incidentally, we really wanted to use lots of period newspapers such as Harper's Weekly to further enhance the game's look, but the main website that has scans of them wanted to charge us a rather hefty sum, one large enough that it would have doubled our graphics budget had we purchased a bunch. (Most people don't realize it -- after all, why would they need to know this? -- but there's an interesting part of U.S. copyright law that states that if someone scans something in the public domain -- e.g., Harper's Weekly from 1861 -- the scan itself becomes one's protected property. It's a pity, since the game would have looked even better.)

Thanks for the info Gil R. I was planning on asking at some point what it takes to make a wonderful game like this. I am not interested in knowing what your budget is etc., but what goes into the planning and research for something of this scale. I think it would make an interesting thread for us to read. Maybe it would make those who always gripe about this problem or that problem understand what it takes to make FoF or any game for that matter come to life. I think it will open everyones' eyes and maybe then if they want something they can become involved and help out. My two cents [&o]

[General Quarters]

Very interesting, Pixelpusher, about the maps. For those who love maps and ever get to Washington DC, here's a tip for you. I used to work on the Hill and would often enter the James Madison building, a newer Library of Congress building across the street, at the rear, below ground level, and passed by the Map room. They always had a display in the hall of new maps of some kind. And the map room itself is a cornucopia of all kinds of maps. Well worth putting on your visit list for your next trip to DC.

[General Quarters]

On the question about the planning and research for a game like this, I too would be very interested in a step by step account. It is hard for me to imagine going from the back of the envelope stage of planning for something like this to the finished product. What was the first idea for the game?

[MarcusCSA]

I would just like to add that I agree that the map is really really nice, clear (this is important) once you get the hang of 'riverbed' provinces. My grey hat is off to you, Sirs.

[Drex]

yes, and my blue Kepi.

[General Quarters]

ORIGINAL: MarcusCSA

I would just like to add that I agree that the map is really really nice, clear (this is important) once you get the hang of 'riverbed' provinces. My grey hat is off to you, Sirs.

The river provinces puzzled the heck out of me at the beginning. I couldn't find Richmond, and I had never heard of the Neuse and one of the others (where Columbia Ga is). But now I think river provinces were one of the really smart design moves they made. They allow quick movement along the rivers and let riverines join in attacks on key cities, for openers.

[cesteman]

yes, I agree it was confusing for me as well.
Christian

[Gil R.]

Can anything be done to make river provinces less confusing? Obviously, the map itself can't be changed. But is there something else?

[Gray_Lensman]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Can anything be done to make river provinces less confusing? Obviously, the map itself can't be changed. But is there something else?

Possibly you could add into the pop up mouse box (rollover box), some sort of notation that the province contains "city name", just don't hold up the "beta" patch please...[:D]

[Gil R.]

You know, that's not a bad idea, since several people have been mystified about where Richmond was, or another city.

[General Quarters]

Yes, I always think of those river segments in terms of the city -- Richmond, Raleigh, Savannah, etc., not the river -- and have wished those segments were named after the city. A popup box would be a good way to do it.

[cesteman]

I agree. Good idea!
Christian

[Sonny II]

One of the confusing things is that the river areas are small and long. You can't tell if your troops are in one area or another. This is especially true in the Tennessee/Mississippi area. when you move a unit and point to one of these areas the unit does not always move where the arrow is pointing. this makes you wonder if you clicked the correct area or not. And of course with the areas being long and narrow some troops are way up top and some arre at the bottom. It is just confusing.

Sorry I don't have a suggestion for improvement other than making the rivers wider which is not possible.

[Gil R.]

I agree that it's confusing, but there really isn't a better way this can be handled. We do have the pop-up that tells you which province a unit is in when you mouse over it. So if you mistakenly send it to the wrong place, you can easily undo the move.

[cesteman]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

I agree that it's confusing, but there really isn't a better way this can be handled. We do have the pop-up that tells you which province a unit is in when you mouse over it. So if you mistakenly send it to the wrong place, you can easily undo the move.

OK Gil, now you've brought up something that I don't know how to do. How do you undo a move, say of infantry? Thanks.
Christian

[Gil R.]

Undoing moves is done with the backspace key, which undoes the most recent things you've done, in order.