Map supplement for the Czech Vehicle Guide

[kato13]

I have been experimenting with some new mapping code I hope to integrate with the DC working groups future releases.

Working off the Czechoslovak Vehicle Guide i have build a very large map annotated with the units listed within.
ORIGINAL LINK IS DEAD use this one
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bww...ew?usp=sharing


Example below


The full map is here Full Czech Map (913kb 3850x1950)

The file size is larger than I hoped for but I needed a larger map to prevent the units from overlapping.

Let me know what you guys think.

[Eddie]

I assume since you're using military graphics, you're attempting to make them doctrinally correct?

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Eddie

I assume since you're using military graphics, you're attempting to make them doctrinally correct?

Kinda. My original goal was to recreate (and perhaps Improve) the maps from the V2 T2k rule book.

I used FM 101-5-1 (October 1985 and September 1997) as the source for most of the symbols. I am using a font that I built to make the unit graphics. Fonts have some limitations but scale nicely so I chose those instead of overlaying images. I made some adjustments to the text around the units (vertical rather than horizontal) to allow for greater clarity when dealing with the complicated inner Poland map I expect will be my grand work. The problem is all my maps are dynamically generated. Overlap of symbols is going to be a problem. By reducing the unit footprint I minimize the issue a bit.

Here is a example of what I am going for.
http://games.juhlin.com/maps/map_unit.html

The cluttering/readibility gets better as you zoom (top left) but gets worse on most of the other map options (top right).

This is very much a work in progress. If you have any comments or suggestions I would appreciate hearing them.

(edit oh you can click on the units for more information)
(edit2 Another note I suppressed 4 small units which were collocated with larger units. Eventually that info will be accessible from the popup)

[Eddie]

If you want to be a little bit more "doctrinally correct" without going overboard, the enemy symbols need to be rotated to where they are diamond shaped, not rectangular.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Eddie

If you want to be a little bit more "doctrinally correct" without going overboard, the enemy symbols need to be rotated to where they are diamond shaped, not rectangular.

I'll add the diamond symbols to my font at some point. Unfortunately it is almost a duplication of the work I have done so far so it might take some time. I will then probably make that one of the selectable map options.

Edit. Is double borders for enemy units a acceptable option? Short term that might be an easier solution.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Eddie

If you want to be a little bit more "doctrinally correct" without going overboard, the enemy symbols need to be rotated to where they are diamond shaped, not rectangular.

My info may be a bit dated, but I have worked in a DTAC as well as a BTOC and we never used diamond-shaped symbols for the enemy forces. Enemy forces were in red or orange, and friendly forces were in black or blue. I'll have to investigate further...

[Eddie]

Trust me. I'm an active duty Lieutenant that is about to be promoted and go to the Captain's Career Course in the next few months. My Company Commander has made me an expert on doctrinal speak, symbols, and writing over the last eight months. I'm right.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Eddie

Trust me. I'm an active duty Lieutenant that is about to be promoted and go to the Captain's Career Course in the next few months. My Company Commander has made me an expert on doctrinal speak, symbols, and writing over the last eight months. I'm right.

Back on the old boards, we used to have a guy named Al Behnke who posted regularly -- right until he made Captain. He even had a web site and a PBEM that I played in. The Army promoted him to Captain, and we haven't heard from him in years -- he just got too busy. Good luck!

I'll have to go to AKO and see if they'll let me download the new version of MIL-STD-2525...

Didn't Captains-to-be go to Officers' Advanced Course? Did they change the name?

[Eddie]

OBC and OAC became BOLC III and the Captain's Career Course for their respective branches. Infantry and Armor merged into the Maneuver Captains' Career Course about two years ago.

[Brian S]

Here you go, have fun.

FM 101-5-1, Operational Terms and Graphics
http://www12.georgetown.edu/students...es/101-5-1.pdf

[kato13]

I actually think the symbology changed between the 1985 and 1997 version of the Field Manual. In the current version you can see the details on page 235.

Honestly I don't like the change (surprise surprise a person focused on a 25 year old game does not like change ), but if I have time I will add the character to my font.

[Brian S]

You know what would be fun is to find out what symbology the Soviets used to useand use that for Warsaw Pact units.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Brian S

You know what would be fun is to find out what symbology the Soviets used to useand use that for Warsaw Pact units.

Since NATO and the US use slightly different symbols and I know the USSR also used different symbols, I am considering making a national perspective a user defined choice. I think my font can have up to 10,000 symbols and I have only used like 500 so far. However it complicates things from a record keeping and data basing perspective as every time I create a new unit type I will have to remember to make all the versions.

Due to these complications it is way down my priorities list as things like nuclear effect overlays, user created markers and distance calculators (to nearest city, allied/enemy unit, resource, marker, or nuclear blast) will offer more of a "gee-whiz" factor from my time allocated.

[Targan]

I think the most appropriate symbols (for T2K) would be those used by NATO, pre-1997. I'm sure Eddie knows what he is talking about for the US military circa right now but modern US symbology isn't necessarily what is most appropriate for this discussion.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Targan

I think the most appropriate symbols (for T2K) would be those used by NATO, pre-1997. I'm sure Eddie knows what he is talking about for the US military circa right now but modern US symbology isn't necessarily what is most appropriate for this discussion.

I am actually trying to strike a balance. In general for the stuff I am producing for T2k i am trying to match the symbols that GDW used in their games. This is the stuff I cut my teeth on and therefore am most comfortable with.

There is likely a logical reason for many of the changes I have seen. For example my assumption is that photocopies or unintentional black and white printing necessitated the switch from rectangles to diamonds for enemy units. The increased use of color printers minimizes this problem so I will not tackle it immediately.

I am modernizing the font to current US standards as I hope to share the font with others who might find it useful. I am also hoping to use the font for TO&Es, hierarchical structures, and unit wiki pages. Another factor leading to my going with a pure US version is also due to the fact that a font already exists for NATO units (though it is significantly less awesome than mine )

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by Targan

I think the most appropriate symbols (for T2K) would be those used by NATO, pre-1997. I'm sure Eddie knows what he is talking about for the US military circa right now but modern US symbology isn't necessarily what is most appropriate for this discussion.

The only flaw in your logic is that I joined in 1996 and this methodology had been around for a while. I'm pretty knowledgeable about military things. Past and present. I had to sit through many lectures and seminars in BLDG Snore at Ft. Benning.

APP-6 was the NATO standard for map symbology in 1985. the US used a MIL-STD-2525 or something though. Basically, we updated our's every couple of years, while NATO stagnated. They didn't update theirs until 2000 or something (give or take a year or two). In that time, we had like six updates, with there being no real changes since 1989 or something like that.
While NATO was using the same symbol, just colored red, the US was transitioning to the diamonds.

That said, Kato is going for a T2K feel. I perfectly understand that and don't fault him for that.

[Fusilier]

I like the symbols as they are. I think you've got a pretty cool project going Kato. IMO the US may have updated their methods, but the US is only one part of NATO... so sticking with what you have IMO is more fitting for the masses.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

IMO the US may have updated their methods, but the US is only one part of NATO... so sticking with what you have IMO is more fitting for the masses.

I agree. One of the cool things about a T2K campaign is that any given unit is likely to have soldiers from a variety of countries. That (and the fact that I'm not American) are the reasons that I would prefer that the unit symbols were not American-centric.