Skip to Content
 

4 different prototype terrain

17 replies [Last post]
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
PNG Size 15 GW with Forest without info.png
PNG Size 15 Grass without info.png
PNG Size 15 Sand without info.png
PNG Second Run 001.png
PNG Size 15 Dead Forest without info.png
JPEG Second Run 002.jpg

With a simple check list. I can create any terrain I would like.

But the question is. Are they good enough to play with?
They can be cut out and put together on the table. Or they are pasted together in paint.

Just like my previous version. But this time it is a "higher" quality picture.

Please have critique as much as possible.
Especially if you focus on the centre of each terrain.
It is supposed to be used to determine if corners of other terrain touch the path of a projectile. According to the rules; the path goes from centre to centre.

- Is the centre point obvious enough?
- The colour purple, right choice?
- Should I change this into a monochrome dot centre, with white/black circle's?
- Where to place additional information? It's going to be 4 numbers in total. A 4 x 4 box if you will.
- Additional information in a cleared out box?

Samarkand
Offline
Joined: 03/25/2014
I like the first three hexes.

I like the first three hexes. The forest hex, though, is a little bit crowded for my taste.

1. I didn't saw the purple center until you asked about it, when I had to zoom in and look very carefully. I doubt you will be able to see it clearly in print unless your hexes are 6"x6" or bigger. Print the hexes out on your home printer and check. Even if they are only B&W, you'll still see the [lack of] contrast.

2. I don't know about purple. I am not sure if it is contrasting enough.

3. Maybe the monochrome dot center with a circle is a better option.

4. Maybe place the number box on the bottom f the hexes, where the picture has the more space without anything happening.

tuism
tuism's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/14/2013
Hmmmm So some of them are top

Hmmmm

So some of them are top down while some of them are landscapes. I say pick one convention and stick with it :)

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Thanks for replying.

Thanks for replying. These are just 4 fast examples that I have put together. I tried to mix the possibilities.

@ Samarkand

The forest hex is one of many. This one would be a very dense version. But you are right. It is a bit to crowed to tell what it is. Zooming in or out would not help much.
(Yes, I still can zoom in and out)

1. Sorry to hear that the centre is hard to tell. But then again, it proves to me that I need to adjust this.
The purple centre too can be bigger or smaller. But the hexes themselves are going to be 4 cm in sides, 8 cm in maximum diameter, that is about 3 inch. It is play tested and works best.
I could print these with word, 27% big, 1200 dpi. Very nice detail for a prototype. 6 on each A4.

2&3. Next time, I will be posting hexes with monochrome dots. (Need to fix the templates first before cutting out new hexes.
But what about the edge? It is purple too. Should it be different as well since the hexes are going to be put to next of each other? Black outer line, white inner line?

4. What about putting a box with numbers around the centre? Or would that be ugly? I personally thought of putting the terrain numbers somewhere in the corners. But I am still not sure if I am going to put big numbers in or not. The forest that you see there would have for example the code:

2700
900
0
6T0R

Using symbols wont work. For example, dots.
And putting the numbers in a manual wont work either. For example, you can't map out 200 magic cards either.

@ tuism
Which one is preferred amongst designers? And why?
What do you prefer?
Personally, I am diverting towards landscapes since they show more detail. But top down is more "map like". So I don't know. If I ever am going to publish the game, I will ask the publisher for new top down terrain. I am not an artist. I need to use pictures of others right now.

tuism
tuism's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/14/2013
Well if you're using these as

Well if you're using these as prototyping art then there's nothing wrong with them at all! :) Anything that communicates is fine.

As for the fineries of terrain design, it really depends on the spirit of the game and design vision, I think. A lot of Catan hex tiles are straight up scenic scenes, while things like Neuroshima Hex are purely communicative (actually portraits of units). Some games WANT terrain because they have to house units, Catan is more abstract and representative. It really depends on a lot of other things and the art directions overall, there's no easy answer :)

Samarkand
Offline
Joined: 03/25/2014
I didn't even notice the

I didn't even notice the purple edge, even when I clicked to see the full-size picture. So, it's not noticeable at all. Furthermore, if your game would be printed via TGC or published, the edge will most definitely by cut out. You need to take into consideration that anything within 1/16" (2-3mm) off the edge, and sometimes slightly more depending on the cutter's accuracy, could be cut out. You either have to make thicker borders, or no borders at all. Do you need the edge?

If you go with a thicker border you can make the box merge with it for an added aesthetics.

I would argue against the numbers placed in a center. Personally, I like my terrain (or cards, etc.) to show off the art and be something I can enjoy while I wait for my opponents to decide on their turn. The corners and the bottom are great places for the info.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Well, with having different

Well, with having different terrain next to each other. I am surely doubting the use of edges now. But I do need 1 line to determine where the hexagons merge. And purple is for me THE color that is used a lot for editing detailed stuff.
So I think the border doesn't matter much now. It is for personal uses first. And purple does blend in nicely when it is very small.

However, when de determining the influence of a region. Those corners are very important. During play testing, we already encountered the question numerous times if a line of howitzers would be able to hit a certain target at a distance of 9 hexagons.

So, if purple is not the color, then I should use another one. And now I am thinking about black border lines that almost disappear on grand scale. And simply have monochromatic B/W corners as well. The big map would be starting to look a bit like this (only focusing on the centre and corner dots):

http://www.iowamath.org/resources/graph/dot/triangle-dots.jpg

Of course my dots would be looking like bulls eye's.

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Why not have a dark-coloured

Why not have a dark-coloured dot at the center, surrounded by a gradient-fading "halo" of a lighter colour? The dot will be well-defined, and the halo around the outside will offset it from any background images you use.

For clarity's sake (and if it's so important to your game), personally I'd choose black for the dot, and white or yellow for the halo.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Isn't that the same as a

Isn't that the same as a bulls eye?

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Visual

Here's a visual example of what I mean:

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I have added 2 new pictures.

I have added 2 new pictures. (The 4th and 6th in the list) This time with a bulls eye in the middle. No more purple borders either.

If you think the dot is to small or to big. Let me know.
When the diameter of the hexagon is 8 cm. The bulls eye is only 3,6 mm. And the white dot in this bulls eye is 1,8 mm.

I can go 2 ways:
Making bigger dots
...or...
Making smaller hexagons

With printing on 1200 dpi, the little cross within the bulls eye is clearly pointing the middle.

Now, where to find big maps to cut out of?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Mistake in the long run

The basis of an hexagon are 6 triangles.
Each triangle consists of 3 lines.
In drawing programs, a line consists of pixels.
But these pixels are best considered very big indicators of the dots (or singularities) that make up the line.

Thus a line of 1 long has 2 pixels.
A line of 2 long has 3 pixels. etc.

Adding up 2 lines of 2 pixels and each 1 long. Would result in 2+1 in pixels. So a starting line is 2, then 1 gets added. A 2(+1)

Adding up 2 lines of 3 pixels and each 2 long. Would result in 3+2 in pixels. So a starting line is 3, then 2 gets added. A 3(+2)

Quote:

Trying out paint.net
Loading most recent hexagons.
Ah. A panning option of 60 degrees. Great. Lets check out the inaccuracy.
Hey? The hexagon doesn't fit!

I discovered that I made a mistake when making my hexagons. The basis that I used for half triangles was
15(+14) x 26+(25). With an expected accuracy of 0,07%, or panning a 1 meter map 60 degrees would lead to 0,7 mm mismatch.

But the real accuracy that followed is 3,9% or a 3,9 cm mismatch. Now every designer knows that having that big of a difference when panning a hexagon 60 degrees will result in maps not fitting each other AT ALL. Thus this needs to be fixed asap.

What did I do wrong? Apparently I went into the wrong direction with the shift in numbers. I knew I needed to use 15 with 26. But using 14 or 16 and 25 or 27 with it, I never thought of that and made the wrong choice. Instead of having 1 more pixel then the line, it was the opposite of what I wanted.

It had to be 16(+15) x 27(+26) with the real 0,07%.
And to top it off, this one has problems in paint when putting the lines together. Not only that, but this was a choice back then of an absolute minimum.

So I need to look for new possibilities (found them already though). And then...

I have to do my hexagons all over again.
At least I know exactly how much time this takes.
But knowing what to do now for fixing this is encouraging.

3 options are open for the moment. I have not yet decided.
When creating maps of 1 meter I can choose between a mismatch of 0,74 , 0,2 and 0,05 mm.

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Hex templates

If you've photoshop, you can save yourself some time by using some premade templates. Here's the info page for one at TGC:

https://www.thegamecrafter.com/help/game-mats

I'd suggest you use these templates, scale and trim them as you require, then you won't have to worry about inaccurate hex measurements.

As for doing your hexes all over again, there may be a way to simply paste your artwork on the hex templates in photoshop.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I am using my own

I am using my own templates.
I simply have to do them over.

I got a described approach about this in the Fed2k forums. Where I have more info about my progress.

Quote:

- I will be needing:
+ Primair basic template to cut out a hexagon of a picture.
+ Secundair basic template that has the default 8888-8888-8888-8T8R as a "digital" code from the 6 viewpoints. (will change due to testing with friends)
The secundair also contains a centre radio active symbol.

- The primair will cut out the desired region.
- Then the secundair will be adjusted to the numbers that I need for that desired region.
- The secundair will be cut out of the desired region and saved in a second file.
- The second file will now be inverted in color.
- The second file will now be pasted in the desired region. And this one will be saved as a finished region. The desired region will also be saved as an extra temporary default. So I can cut out different numbers afterwards without much hassle.

With this plan, there is a minimum and one time use of paint.net.

Yet, I have not found time yet to complete several hexagons.

By pasting these hexagons together. I am able to make maps of 400 regions big. A big print none the less. But worth my time once satisfied.

And during the making of this plan, the codes that are going to be used on the hexagons are going to change.

I am now thinking about having them in the down left corner of each of the 6 side views.
And the rules about regions have changed once again, this due to the fact that unit size is now depending on the region and not the regions space size.

Well, you will figure it out when I create a new thread about my new regions. But it needs time, which I currently don't have. This project is still a hobby ;)

Masacroso
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2014
I really dont like it at

I really dont like it at all.

What I would did is searching from pictures where terrain is focused from the top (from the sky, completely perpendicular or as much as possible), cutting the best zone from any photo.

And after this I would applied some transformation with photosho or similar to make the image more close to a draw than a phot, something like (maybe) pasterize or any tool to caricaturize photos.

But this is my personal taste. (Maybe I was extremely critic?)

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Getting close to a drawing is

Getting close to a drawing is new for me. For the rest...bin there... done that. And yes. Top view is better

Masacroso
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2014
X3M wrote:Getting close to a

X3M wrote:
Getting close to a drawing is new for me. For the rest...bin there... done that. And yes. Top view is better

Not drawing... just modify some photos like you have (or better) with photoshop to seems a "draw". This is very easy, you have many plugins for this, something like:
http://www.photoshopessentials.com/photo-effects/watercolor-painting/
http://www.squidoo.com/psdrawing
http://www.photoshopessentials.com/photo-effects/watercolor-painting-pho...
....
(want for sketch, crayon, cartoon or painting effect).

You can do it with you own photos, if you had a section where appear something similar that you are searching for. Or using some photo from the google search.

Anyway this is my preference because I like more a "art" than a photo. Just saying.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Awesome results in the

Awesome results in the examples.
I'll consider it.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut