As a bonus, I also made new unit icons inspired by @Firehawk's icons used in 'Napoleonic'. I don't know if people prefer the good old low-resolution tank/gunboat icons, but it's an option.

Cool. I like the changes.

It is hard for me to see, but is Crete considered to be part of Greece now?

Yes @Mercy, it is. So whoever takes Greece will also flip Crete's color.

What system do you use to draw maps that look like classic? Those are the best kind imo but I don't know where to go to make new maps in that style

1) Go to the variant page for Classic (id=1)

2) Go to View/Download code

3) Download "smallmap.pgn" and "map.png".Modify them as you wish; I use paint.net.

There is some more work to do, but the first steps are these.

My icons are spreading, soon they will take over all the variants! Muahahaha :)

Ah Corsica. Home to the Bonapartes. Although he never really had their backing as they wanted independence from both. They had it for a couple years from Italy then the French came.

I really enjoy your icons @Firehawk. They are simple and elegant, yet makes each power look much more unique!

Would people feel bad at losing the vanilla icons though? The "green army & grey ship"? The new icons can be viewed here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0trpqr2wv5aidvy/AAD9TfEFvgtR2A7Ns891wbEFa?dl=0

For me, there was always something nice about how simple it was to see fleet vs army with the "green army and grey ship". While yes, the square and hexagon are more akin to the original style of pieces from the board game, it might cause at least a little potential confusion to people who aren't used to that style (which is probably a decent percentage of people who have only played online). So I guess I'd say something to the effect of "if it ain't broke, why fix it?". Have we had any issues with the "vanilla" icons that have necessitated a change, or is it just aesthetics?

Piggy-backing on that last sentence about aesthetics...the unit designs for War of Austrian Succession. They're really nice looking, but the army unit shields being the only difference made things odd for me in the game I played with them. Especially when someone occupied an opponent's SC in spring (so the color of the territory did not change yet), it wasn't very obvious at a glance who's units were where on the board, as the shields aren't as visible as what you would see in "classic" Dip where there'd be a colored border around the green army.

> it might cause at least a little potential confusion to people who aren't used to that style<

Would it? I find people (from outside the site that I try to pull into vDip) are actually more confused about how all units don't even have unique colors of their own.

I mean, only the webDip family uses such model. PlayDip, Backstabbr, Diplicity, Conspiracy, jDip, DAIDE Diplomacy, etc etc etc all have units with unique colors for each power. So does the board game. It's the closest we have to a standard, and it's a standard for good reason.

>Have we had any issues with the "vanilla" icons that have necessitated a change, or is it just aesthetics?

Aesthetics is certainly a factor, but the current setup *is* confusing for many. What can be more confusing than units shifting colors!?

If France's Army Paris sits in Paris, it's pure green.
If France's Army Ruhr sits in Ruhr, it's green with a blue square around it.
If France's Fleet Brest sits in Brest, it's pure grey.
If France's Fleet English Channel sits in English Channel, it's grey with a blue square around it.

Of course, that's my own personal impression when I first came to this site, one also shared by many players. Perhaps we could try a poll?

>it wasn't very obvious at a glance who's units were where on the board<

That's a problem that requires a simple thing to get solved:*high contrast*.

High contrast between the powers' map colors and the powers' unit colors means:

1) England's map color should have a tone different from France

2) English units' color should have a tone different from England's map color

Here's the UNOFFICIAL poll: https://strawpoll.com/g8ef2s6h

Disclaimer: The poll's purpose is to know what people prefer. In no way the website is obliged to follow its result.

Enriador, I want to to the poll, but if it's no trouble could you make a sample, populated map also we can see the new icons? It would help to see what the other discussions are about

Should be feasible @jason. Working on it.

I am using France as the basis for the sample maps below.

If you want to take a look at each of the New Icons, feel free to see the whole gallery here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0trpqr2wv5aidvy/AAD9TfEFvgtR2A7Ns891wbEFa?dl=0

Old Icons: https://imgur.com/a/LEgWHOH

New Icons: https://imgur.com/a/uUguz2p

Thanks, nicely done.

Enriador: I love flags. I mean really: I can identify way more than your average Joe. I'm not sure about this change, though. It does work. I don't think you need to change your variants. But I think that there's something to be said for using better representations for armies than a square and an elongated shape. I find the green tank anachronistic and would prefer for it to be replaced with something like the Monopoly cannon that the official board game uses. So I do welcome a redesign of the icons, but I'm not sure that your idea is a universal fit. I realize that your design caters more to the board game pieces from earlier versions of Diplomacy, but I fear that most users will have a harder time distinguishing between armies and fleets if your change is implemented on the various Classic maps.

@JECE

>I fear that most users will have a harder time distinguishing between armies and fleets<

I haven't heard a single complaint about it from all players who played through Canton, Napoleonic and 1800. Literally, not a single one. I recognize that the army/fleet icons are somewhat similar, but I don't think this is a real problem for anyone still wearing their glasses.

Still: I am quite fond of the cannon/gunboat combo myself. I might try drawing something like that. Much better than the anachronistic green tank (well said!) I think.

I agree with drano and JECE.

I have the board game myself, but it must be a different version than what Enriador has, for my game doesn't have squares and hexagons representing armies and fleets. Rather, my version has tin cannons and tin ships in different colors to represent the respective units, and flag symbols are placed on top of supply centers.

I think the current webdip icons are better than the flags as a representation of units, because they make it easier to distinguish between the unit types. That doesn't mean that nothing can be improved; I like the idea of replacing the tanks with cannons and coloring them in the color of their country. If we place flags on supply centers, just like in my version of the board game, then we no longer need to color territories, which is an interesting thought to me.

@Mercy : coloring territories makes things very clear. I don't see how anything else could be clearer than that. What's more, most players love painting the map with their color.

My main problem with the classic units is that they change depending on where they are, and that apart from these strange boxes that appear when in enemy territory, they are all indistinguishable from one another. Another issue is that tanks weren't used in battle until 1916, and even then only 3 of the powers involved in the war ever even used them, so they don't represent armies well.

In all iterations of the board game the pieces are at least different colours. My goal was to create units that were different depending on who you are playing, and are unchanging wherever you put them. I prefer simplicity personally, having developed a few different custom units, the units for small maps need to be incredibly small (a handful of pixels) and a simple flag is something that can still look good at this scale.

I would never change colouring territories, that is a clear and obvious advantage of the online platform!

>I have the board game myself, but it must be a different version than what Enriador has<

Come on @Mercy, don't sleep on the job! The icons are based on @Firehawk's art style, not on whatever Avalon Hill has ever done.

I agree with @Retillion and @Firehawk, coloring territories is awesome. It makes historical borders accurate and gives (to me at least) some degree of satisfaction as I see my color spreading across the map.

Like @Firehawk I prefer simplicity as well, hence why I chose his art as inspiration. I find the national flags encased within simple (yet recognizable!) geometrical forms to be very pleasing to look at, and I believe most do (especially compared with the time-travelling green tank of death!).

I will try my hand at some cannon/ship duo though, might be fun.

"I mean, only the webDip family uses such model. PlayDip, Backstabbr, Diplicity, Conspiracy, jDip, DAIDE Diplomacy, etc etc etc all have units with unique colors for each power. So does the board game. It's the closest we have to a standard, and it's a standard for good reason."

I could theoretically agree that having the armies/fleets be colored according to what power owns them would be an improvement. The "vanilla" units aren't *that* confusing (you just have to think of France as a green army with a blue box on it...but you can't see that box when it's in a blue territory), but having colored units themselves could definitely be an improvement.

Regarding the square/hexagon - I still would argue that those shapes aren't intuitive like an actual tank (or cannon or soldier) and ship are. Everyone knows a ship is a fleet and a soldier is an army. Ask a n00b what a square means and they'll have to think about it. Ask someone who's been playing Dip on sites that use icons (soldiers/tanks/ships) for awhile, and they'll tell you they have to stop and think for a second as well (guilty as charged).

>but you can't see that box when it's in a blue territory)<

It's not really complex, but it *is* an extra complication.

webDip has this special effect for the solo purpose of easily making armies/fleets available to variants, without obliging mapmakers to also draw custom units to every single power.

>Ask a n00b what a square means and they'll have to think about it<

Give the person the two different rectangles, and ask them what is the army and what is the ship. I bet they will correctly identify the elongated shape of one of the ships.

Again: ***is there any evidence that people (noobs or not) actually get confused by these shapes?*** Like, anyone? We are not discussing theory alone: we have got 13 games of Canton, 13 games of Napoleonic and 8 games of 1800.

Where are the confused masses? I played all of these variants above and never saw a noob question what units were what.

Besides, now we get the unit icons next to the drop-down interface. So you have a square (or a green tank) next to "The army in Paris". It's literally a simple matter of connecting dots, a "feat" which all evidence shows has been successfully made by 100% of players, noobs & veterans alike.

You are missing the important question as well... If we do have cannons, where do they face: west or east?

"Again: ***is there any evidence that people (noobs or not) actually get confused by these shapes?*** Like, anyone? We are not discussing theory alone: we have got 13 games of Canton, 13 games of Napoleonic and 8 games of 1800.

Where are the confused masses? I played all of these variants above and never saw a noob question what units were what."

No one is arguing that there's "confused masses". I have made the argument that a square and hexagon are not intuitive and that people will have to stop and think about things for a second since it's not intuitive. I myself have had this happen to me. The cannon/tank/soldier and ship are very intuitive. Why change something that is blatantly intuitive into something that is even borderline not intuitive? It doesn't make sense. I'd also argue that as a proponent of making a potential change, the onus would be on you showing that the square/hexagon is a better option than the tank/ship we currently have. To make the same assertion that you have, where are the confused masses regarding the tank/ship (the coloring of the units and box around them is a separate question completely and I'd tend to agree that it clears things up by just having colored units themselves).

And obviously the cannons switch around depending on which way they're ordered, duh. Why would the cannon face east if Russia moving west. Seriously, I mean, it's like you're not even paying attention Enriador. :p

But wouldn't the cannons face the opposite direction if they are being drawn by cart or transported by truck? Jeez, not everyone has railway artillery.

>people will have to stop and think about things for a second since it's not intuitive<

>something that is even borderline not intuitive<

My point is: do people actually "stop and think for a second"? If they do, fine, excellent observation. If they don't, there is no problem at all.

You may prefer the tank/gunship, fine. But I ain't sure the problem you are appointing with the new icons *even exists*.

>where are the confused masses regarding the tank/ship<

There aren't, really - all icons are fine, we could even replace icons with the words 'FLEET" and "ARMY" for maximum clarity. If I have a problem with the old icons, it's more about their lack of power-specific flavor and the blatant anachronism of that time-travelling war tank.

It's primarily a matter of aesthetics, as mentioned elsewhere in the thread.

> the cannons switch around depending on which way they're ordered <

How didn't I think of that before! I will add it right after I add some flowers and fallen leaves map effects for the Spring/Autumn turns.

>wouldn't the cannons face the opposite direction if they are being drawn by cart or transported by truck?<

Fair point. And what about convoys? If F MID convoys F BRE-NAF, would the cannon face the sea to the west, or Tunis to the east?

The world wonders.

If a fleet convoyed directly from Bre to NAf, the world would wonder. ;-)

"do people actually 'stop and think for a second'?"
Yes. At least three alone in this quiet Forum.
"You may prefer the tank/gunship, fine."
I don't, anyway. Yours are prettier, for sure. I prefer neither. I haven't voted in your poll because 'neither' isn't an option.
"But I ain't sure the problem you are appointing with the new icons *even exists*."
It does exist.