Experimenting

[Paper Tiger]

Let's see if this works

Edited March 13, 2023 by Paper Tiger

[Paper Tiger]

Doh! I thought I'd be able to delete the original post. I was just trying to see if I could link screenshots with this site.

In case you're curious, I've been learning how to use GIMP to create the artwork for an upcoming campaign and that's the basic format I've arrived at today. It's still a WIP.  I expect screenshots of the new campaign and an announcement will follow shortly now that I know how it works.

[Vacillator]

Looks very nice in my opinion and is crystal clear about the two important things - VCs and reinforcements. 

Oh how we all love reinforcements, sometimes the promise of them is all that keeps me going (not in current PBEMs of course).

[Paper Tiger]

This is the last substantial barrier to reworking my old CMSF campaigns - the artwork was terrible (done with MS Paint and Picture Manager) and has to be redone and I have to learn how to use GIMP to make new artwork for the missions.

Of course, it also allows me to make all new campaigns as well. 

I'm going all in with getting 'Gung Ho' ready for next month. This is my entire focus just now.

[chuckdyke]

Any suggestions how I could use my Affinity Photo for artwork?

[chuckdyke]

Doodling.

[Paper Tiger]

Looks okay to me. Is that a snow map? I haven't seen any of them in CMx2 ever.

I'm FAR from being anything other than a complete novice with GIMP.  I can do the absolute basics: import layers, move them around, add opacity to a layer, etc and that's about as far as it goes right now. That's all I really need to do.

[chuckdyke]

1 minute ago, Paper Tiger said:

Looks okay to me. Is that a snow map? I haven't seen any of them in CMx2 ever.

I'm FAR from being anything other than a complete novice with GIMP.  I can do the absolute basics: import layers, move them around, add opacity to a layer, etc and that's about as far as it goes right now. That's all I really need to do.

I would make my maps black and white scenario is Snow for the Hungry F&R. Or I could copy the Style of CM Briefings. 

[Paper Tiger]

You really can't go far wrong copying the official CM artwork. It looks very slick. Or you can develop your own style: that's how I roll. I feel like I'm cheating copying somebody else and prefer to do it all myself but that's me. It helps that I enjoy learning to do new things too. Who knows if these skills will come in useful for some other aspect of my life?

If it's a SNOW map, it seems to me a black and white map like yours would be better. 

[chuckdyke]

Better just keep playing the game. But the program is fine. I was more into photography than graphic design.

[chuckdyke]

The magic is you can convert View-4 to View-5 if the Camera doesn't capture all of the map with a screenshot. 

[chuckdyke]

I feel proud of this effort, wrecked my brain to make a silhouette quick and easy. Will keep this one for future projects.

[RockinHarry]

9 hours ago, Paper Tiger said:

This is the last substantial barrier to reworking my old CMSF campaigns - the artwork was terrible (done with MS Paint and Picture Manager) and has to be redone and I have to learn how to use GIMP to make new artwork for the missions.

Of course, it also allows me to make all new campaigns as well. 

I'm going all in with getting 'Gung Ho' ready for next month. This is my entire focus just now.

GIMP is great for doing all sort of things. Using it for years now and it´s getting better and better. No need for PS and other paid stuff. I do my own CM tac and and strat maps with it, but add only that info that would be available to a real commander. No fancy sh*t and info for what the player gets for doing this or that, victory points wise. Overview map in sketch format just showing things of importance. The less colors and useless terrain info, the better for a player. The more experienced at least. (avoiding info overload with unnecessary stuff)

[chuckdyke]

The filing system in Adobe Bridge is great and Adobe Bridge is free too. You don't need Lightroom. 

[JM Stuff]

I use :
Paint when I need to do something quick.
Gimp when I need to do something in details.
PS when I need to do things that Gimp and Paint is not able to do.
Greenfish icons when I will be sure to convert a BMP file in the correct 24bits because sometimes also with PS I have some problems I don't know why.
 

[chuckdyke]

8 hours ago, JM Stuff said:

PS when I need to do things that Gimp and Paint is not able to do.

Affinity Photo can do anything PS can do and cost $50 and it is yours. I got the Affinity Trinity, and it is good enough for a professional graphic designer. I know there are open-source alternatives, but I find my integrated suite money well spent.

 

Edited March 15, 2023 by chuckdyke

[Paper Tiger]

12 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

GIMP is great for doing all sort of things. Using it for years now and it´s getting better and better. No need for PS and other paid stuff. I do my own CM tac and and strat maps with it, but add only that info that would be available to a real commander. No fancy sh*t and info for what the player gets for doing this or that, victory points wise. Overview map in sketch format just showing things of importance. The less colors and useless terrain info, the better for a player. The more experienced at least. (avoiding info overload with unnecessary stuff)

Yes, that's the best way to do it in my opinion too. However, and perhaps this is a rather controversial observation, I suspect that there are an increasing number of gamers who do not read, (of course, they CAN, they just find it all too much work - "TLDR!"). They just want to get into the game asap. This is especially true on Steam which is where CMx2 games are increasingly heading. Of course, nothing is ever Black and White and back in the days when I was designing, some folks complained that briefings deliberately misled the player and that was another reason for displaying the most crucial information on the tac map. I'm moving back towards my old idea of using the Operational map to display the OB and reinforcement schedules and the tactical to show the player's victory objectives only. Both are on display when you read the tac map so this would avoid some of the clutter I see on the map above.

What you see above is just me getting the panel sizes correct and a mock-up. the picture of the village, while pretty, communicates nothing of any importance to the player. I'm working with overhead photos of the entire map (as far as that's possible to do anyway) and de-saturating the colours as much as possible. I've toyed with the idea of drawing a battle plan on the tac map but who's going to follow that? It'd be seen as just another 'evil designer' trap to 'mislead' the player. And I wouldn't blame them as I use multiple AI plans and at least one of them would be a counter to that plan.

I quite like the idea of showing the VP conditions because there are often subtleties in them which an alert reader will appreciate and see that there's more than one way to skin the cat (Sorry Ginger. I'm not talking about you.) You don't need to capture or preserve everything to win. Pick and choose your objectives and go for the win that way.

For WW2, I found a Filter setting in GIMP called 'Old Photo' which produces something very similar to the aerial recon photos I see in my Battleground Europe books and use to help me to construct maps. I suspect I'll be using that a LOT for my Normandy missions.

[chuckdyke]

8 minutes ago, Paper Tiger said:

Yes, that's the best way to do it in my opinion too.

I find pre battle intel misleading and often irrelevant. It is just like any other contact item useful for up to three turns. If I would design something I wouldn't include them. My Red Icons I would use them for Objectives with the points displayed. 

 

[Paper Tiger]

All true. I really don't like being misled by briefings except when it was the historical norm to do so - i.e. every German tank was reported as a Tiger. The mission itself is all that really matters and no briefing or artwork is going to make the experience of playing a stinker any better. But a bad briefing or artwork can diminish the experience of playing a winner. The briefing and the artwork helps build up a sense of anticipation in some readers and helps them to immerse in the scenario while others just want to get into the action NOW! 

Edit to add:

I also don't like the lack of control I have over what the Early Intel parameter reveals to the player - even on 10%, it sometimes shows too much. Using that setting also 'fixes' the AI plan before the player hits 'Start' whereas it is randomised without any Intel setting. The briefing and artwork can do the intel reveal for me rather than the game settings most of the time.

Edited March 15, 2023 by Paper Tiger
add a point

[RockinHarry]

2 hours ago, Paper Tiger said:

All true. I really don't like being misled by briefings except when it was the historical norm to do so - i.e. every German tank was reported as a Tiger. The mission itself is all that really matters and no briefing or artwork is going to make the experience of playing a stinker any better. But a bad briefing or artwork can diminish the experience of playing a winner. The briefing and the artwork helps build up a sense of anticipation in some readers and helps them to immerse in the scenario while others just want to get into the action NOW! 

Edit to add:

I also don't like the lack of control I have over what the Early Intel parameter reveals to the player - even on 10%, it sometimes shows too much. Using that setting also 'fixes' the AI plan before the player hits 'Start' whereas it is randomised without any Intel setting. The briefing and artwork can do the intel reveal for me rather than the game settings most of the time.

Yeah, there´s various styles for sure to choose from. Which to choose is rather matter of (own) taste, as one can´t please all potential players anyway. CM briefing and maps layout is fairly **** IMHO. Otherwise one could help and communicate to a player much better. I also wonder the editors terrain overlay layer can´t be toggled during game play. You can add any sort of map on top of the play area and avoid the hardly readable and ugly map text stuff, if toggled on. I tend to avoid it entirely if not necessary for a particular reason. But oh well. BFC stopped inventing usefull things long time ago and so be it. The caravan keeps moving.

Here´s example briefing map for how simple I go with basics. There´s bits of additional detail info in briefing (own forces composition, reinforcements, but not points given for doing/taking this or that) and designer notes (special things like mods to use and such), but that´s optional and just for those who really want reading. I also "hide" small things in short text lines. I.e if the player should preserve (or not) own forces. This as indicator that it migth yield "points" if not taking too many losses. But bothering a player with "math"... no way. He/she who likes it can play Paradox games. lol

[RockinHarry]

3 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

I find pre battle intel misleading and often irrelevant. It is just like any other contact item useful for up to three turns. If I would design something I wouldn't include them. My Red Icons I would use them for Objectives with the points displayed. 

 

So a RL commander goes into every battle completely blind or what? I even give the AIP some intel which helps it in various circumstances. I see we prefer playing two different games (or styles of playing them). Good that BFC at least enables us approaching the game in different ways, although they could do much more IMO.

[chuckdyke]

9 minutes ago, RockinHarry said:

So a RL commander goes into every battle completely blind or what?

Too many times I found all the tentative contacts misleading or it was so obvious as being irrelevant. Before your attack, I think there has been a patrolling program for some time. I would include some standing patrols in a scenario. Or include some POWS taken during a raid the previous day. Unlock intel by a touch objective with a spy located. Campaigns lend themselves better, I think.

 

[Paper Tiger]

43 minutes ago, RockinHarry said:

Yeah, there´s various styles for sure to choose from. Which to choose is rather matter of (own) taste, as one can´t please all potential players anyway. CM briefing and maps layout is fairly **** IMHO. Otherwise one could help and communicate to a player much better. I also wonder the editors terrain overlay layer can´t be toggled during game play. You can add any sort of map on top of the play area and avoid the hardly readable and ugly map text stuff, if toggled on. I tend to avoid it entirely if not necessary for a particular reason. But oh well. BFC stopped inventing usefull things long time ago and so be it. The caravan keeps moving.

Here´s example briefing map for how simple I go with basics. There´s bits of additional detail info in briefing (own forces composition, reinforcements, but not points given for doing/taking this or that) and designer notes (special things like mods to use and such), but that´s optional and just for those who really want reading. I also "hide" small things in short text lines. I.e if the player should preserve (or not) own forces. This as indicator that it migth yield "points" if not taking too many losses. But bothering a player with "math"... no way. He/she who likes it can play Paradox games. lol

That's a really nice looking format. I was thinking along those lines for WW2 missions, for the tac map at least. I find heavily de-saturated works nicely for modern era for my taste. Operational maps come in handy for folks who know very little about the conflicts covered - the old grog breed seems to be dying out nowadays so it's not a given that folks will know the history. But that's along the lines of what I was considering - 50-50 op map and the rest used for the OB reinforcements. Or even just what is necessary for the Operational to use in the Strategic box instead. That would work for Montebourg. If the player doesn't know where Normandy, Luxembourg or Italy are, well, I'm not overly concerned about informing them

A lot of my early works just have nice pictures in those boxes. They don't even look good nowadays, especially 'Hasrabit', some of which are absolutely ghastly. My old campaigns badly need an update.

[chuckdyke]

@RockinHarry did you download the paper textures or did you make them in your program?

Edited March 15, 2023 by chuckdyke

[Combatintman]

I seem to trot these out fairly regularly in other similar discussions:

My Ap Bac Scenario graphics for the Heaven and Earth mod.  All done with Powerpoint and Paint:

Strategic Map

Operational Map

Tactical Map

Now I admit that the black and white 'aerial reconnaissance' photography isn't great but on both the tactical and operational graphics I was looking to create that 1960s feel so on the 'imagery' the image tints were similar to 1960s aerial images and the annotation style and fonts were similar.  Likewise for the Mission and Tasks statements on the operational map - 1960s-style fonts were used.