I think it looks better without the territory names. Would be interesting to know if most people prefer seeing names or not in this one. Also, in the topographical there are the flavour names in relief overlapping the shown names.
Plus several are misspelled or misplaced.
Just my opinion; I've no clue if people prefer seeing names or not.
@Cernel - It might 'look' better without but it makes it really difficult to refer to any territory without names. So from a playability standpoint its much better I think. There are some that are misspelled or misplaced that would be nice to fix.
Since I've decided to update the map, I guess that makes me the new owner (would still ping Veqryn about any major changes) and if he returns then its all his. If enough people complain about the changes then I'll will revert any of them the majority of people don't like.
1) Regarding the territory names I just suggest leaving them as they are. Since the few I know sucks in no small part I surmise they are overall just too bad and not worth the effort.
Moreover, I think that a good Napoleonic map should have the names in French corresponding, with high consistency, to those of a 1794 map, and I don't currently own or have access to an original 1794 French atlas or even map, or images of it, so I can't help here.
If you really want to just correct the most glaring ones (I disagree, because I believe or you can do something close to perfection or better doing nothing), then I guess you can just go ahead doing it yourself, no need to discuss them or anything, but do it soon (like in the next few days), to minimise the issue of breaking peoples's games.
In this case, be sure to have my top 2:
Orleanais->Ile De France
But, really, I suggest just giving up, unless you have a 1794 original atlas and want to do a serious naming (I highly advice in French).
2) I hate hacking the graphic (and this is the only way, since we don't have the original stuff that made up the images) and redoing all the unit images is just not worth the effort.
I guess we have found a good user case for the Flag Display Mode. It just needs a series of engine improvements:
A) Not displaying flags for Neutral or being able to set it (the hacky work-around is to have invisible images assigned to Neutral).
B) Being able to set in the map to never display flags for some units (in this case, all the sea ones, already having the flags (don't remove the flags for the sea units, mainly because they must have them as base, since it is the only way to differentiate them)).
C) Being able to set in the map where to position the flag, with different values for the "Small" and the "Large" (the same way as you can position the stack number) (in this case, having it in the same position as the integrated flags of the ships).
D) Having also the "Small" flag behind the units or being able to set it so (in this case, not covering up the Latin numerals of some units and other things) (or maybe just having it fully covering all numerals, positioning it as per point above).
Once the above improvements are made, I think the "Flag Display Mode" option may cover decently the need of distinguish between Austrians and Prussians (which I agree it is a major problem here, I had some FFA even failing because of that).
3) Remove the custom cursor; it is awful looking and ridiculous (a Medieval gauntlet in Napoleonic, wtf?). If you want, you can put in the one I made for COTW, but I'd just leave it with no cursor (also, we won't have really good cursors till only gif is supported; png like support is needed (plus the max should be at least 64x64)).
4) I'd suggest leaving the names not displaying and having a key button for prompting them to display for 15 seconds (only for the maps not having them as default); this should cover all the user cases of having names and save the map from uglyness (but maybe most people like to see the names; sadly we hardly ever get any opinions). If you decide to go for the opinions (instead of taking full ownership), I would say the names should be added if a clear majority wants them, since the previous state was no names.
2. So the flags do help though I don't see that as an excuse to have colors that are so similar. I would recommend opening a new issue in the main repo for unit flag enhancements as you have good ideas. For Napoleonic, I just want to know if someone is willing to hack the Austrian units to be a different color to contrast with Prussian units. If not then I don't have the graphic skills to do it so it'll have to be left as is.
3. Agree, I'll look to remove the custom cursor.
4. I think every map should have land territory names displayed in some manner by default. Whether they are just text shown by the engine or drawn on the map. This is really a playability issue so any map I decide to update and have any kind of ownership of will have names displayed by default. Making it easier to turn them off/on is a good idea and should be open as a feature request. Having players have to open property files to change settings is not a good practice.
1) Sorry, I looked at the names and wrote down like a dozen horrible corrections but realised they are just too bad; there is no point or salvation for me correcting the 10 worst ones, and the ones absolutely horrible are much more than 10 for me, and on the other hand I've not the sources nor the 1794 knowledge to easily do a full renaming (which also should really be in French).
For example, probably you think that "Syria" or "Mesopotamia" there are not horrible, but for me they definitively are, and I don't know how they should be called.
The names here really suck in a lot of places, for example only modern-day Libya they are mostly wrong and should be like:
But I'm not even sure if these are actually correct for 1794.
Let's say it's my personal problem; I hate to change anything (thus putting my name on it) to just progress from a disgusting situation to a only a bit less disgusting one, but if you or anyone wants to change stuff I won't bitch over it.
2) I'd like to help you here, but, again, I'm kind of against hacking graphic for principle (on the other hand, I've no problems hacking the xml), so I actually suggest not doing it (if anyone does, be sure to conserve the originals). In my mind, the only good solution would be to make a mapskin with totally different units that are easier to tell apart like in the "Age of Tribes" style, but that would be some big work (and, being a mapskin, can be done anytime by anyone).
4) Well, ok, but I think there should be a limit. There may be maps in which displaying the names would be really very degrading; so I would not go with it as a must-be. The option of switching on and off should be disposable only for maps that have names "on" default, as a mapmaker may be making a map in which names are preferred never to be shown, not even optionally.
I really hate being so unhelpful here but this map... Sorry and good luck.
I think the main visual problem of this map is that you have to see a "Hussars" unit that, unless I'm missing something, it is not a hussar, or anything the like, but it rather seems to be representing a "Dragoon", which in turn is represented by what it is clearly a Polish lancer, that it is a light-horse unit, like the hussars (tho I guess the fact that a bunch of French dragoons regiments were converted to lancers in a way tempers the nonsense of seeing a lancer called dragoon).
Without making new images, I suggest:
- In the skin, renaming the "Hussars" to "Dragoons" and the "Dragoons" to both "Hussars" and "Light_Horses".
- In the xml, renaming "Hussars" to "Light_Horses".
- Use the current "Hussars" image for the "Dragoons", which seems good, as that could really be representing a dragoon (but surely not any kind of light cavalry).
- Use the current "Dragoons" image for the "Hussars", but rename it to "Light_Horses", as it would look strange to see a lancer depicting a hussar (tho they are both light cavalry).
- Having a "Hussars" image still in the folder, for full backward compatibility.