"1) Did anyone ask in the Public Chat what units were what?

2) Did anyone misordered (or even just claimed to) due to the "confusing" unit icons?
"

Now you're just being silly Enriador. Just because someone doesn't post in the global chat, or misorder doesn't mean people don't "stop and think for a second".

"It's a conjecture so far, one that I find hard to remedy without any evidence of what exactly is wrong (besides, "hey it's not a literal army"!)."

It's not a conjecture. I'm literally telling you right now, that in my game with those icons, I had more than one moment where I glanced at the map and had to stop and think to remind myself which shape was army and which shape was fleets. Yes, it wasn't a "major" problem, and no, I didn't have to go to global and ask, but it certainly exists. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if someone who's played a fair amount of Diplomacy and has been fairly successful in those games (myself) has these thoughts, that there are other people who have the exact same thoughts. It's really not a stretch at all.

And again, even if it's only a minor issue, this issue literally DOES NOT exist for the tanks/ships. If it's not broke, why fix it?

Now if you want to focus on the coloring of the icons instead of the box around it, cool, that's an issue that exists. I'm not sure why there's a push to change things that don't have a problem though. It's pretty much literally impossible to confuse a tank for a fleet or a ship for an army. However, it most definitely *IS* possible to confuse a square and hexagon, as I've done it myself. Even if it's a potentially really minor issue, why would you make a change that adds more potential confusion?

As for 1900, I've never played it, so I didn't realize it uses geometric shapes. But since you bring it up......

1900 uses Hexagons for armies. Napoleonic, 1800, and Canton use Hexagons for fleets. You want to discuss confusion Enriador? There you have it right there. Same shape, different meaning on different maps. That's poor design. Once again, tank/ship is impossible to confuse. Hexagons? Don't even have the same meaning on different maps.

>Just because someone doesn't post in the global chat, or misorder doesn't mean people don't "stop and think for a second". <

It's the best piece of evidence we can get - someone speaking up what they think about.

>it certainly exists<

I can accept that the problem exists for *you*, but probably not for a majority. And if all that takes you is one second to realize what is going on, well, then you are perfectly fine.

> I'm not sure why there's a push to change things that don't have a problem though<

Going to quote myself:

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

> it most definitely *IS* possible to confuse a square and hexagon

ಠ_ಠ

>adds more potential confusion?<

It's a pretty weak potential I guess. Nobody ever complained about it.

When there is a major issue, be either in terms of gameplay, a bug, aesthetics or whatever, people complain. There has been zero complaints about these icons, and you played a full match of '1800' yourself without any loss (perhaps some seconds taken to figure out what was a square and what was a hexagon).

>Same shape, different meaning on different maps. That's poor design<

You should study something about design then.

Contrast is the name of the game. If, say, supply centers were circles with a flag in the middle of them, armies cannot ever be circles as well, or there will be an obvious degree of confusion...

...Unless you make these circles *CONTRAST*. An example is found in Backstabbr (http://www.backstabbr.com/). Dots and armies *are the same shade and shape*, yet their SIZE is key in creating a contrast capable of setting both meanings apart.

All the variants' icons you mentioned have different authors. nopunin10did, Firehawk, VaeVictis and Webb didn't conference with each other when deciding upon the icons they would use for their variants, yet all of them managed to make the icons look apart well enough by applying contrast.

1900 uses hexagons for armies, but their fleets are (distorted) triangles - and thus not a single soul complains. Canton uses hexagons for fleets, but their armies are squares - once again intuitive contrast, in both shape and size, enables the reader to understand what unit is what.

You (@drasno) played both 1800 and Classic yourself. It's unrelated, but I am curious: would you say that the extra seconds lost "stopping and thinking to remind yourself which shape was army and which shape was fleets" had any influence on your performance in the games?

>Don't even have the same meaning on different maps.<

They don't need to. What is needed is the reader to look at the map with attention, and read it the subtitles right besides them.

>You want to discuss confusion Enriador? <

Honestly, I do. I can't figure out (yet!) how people possibly get confused with a squares, hexagons and triangles for more than (maybe?) a few seconds.

I must declare, however, that it's perfectly fine for people to think that the new icons are ugly, or that the old icons are traditional and thus should be kept, or whatever. My issue is this "issue" you talk about; I believe in you, but I don't believe it's a credible problem.

Honestly, you don't. You come here to bombard the forums with inane discussion and a trove of "new" variants with no point apparent behind them. You're not interested in honest feedback from people who actual play, just praise from all your efforts. On one hand your industrious effort has it's appeal and shouldn't be discouraged, but the reality is that you're not adding anything of merit here. And your obnoxious shout down conversation style prevents any progress or improvement from being made. You're one of these guys that never lets a conversation end, always needed to get the last word in. Sometimes it's like you're arguing with yourself.

There are very few players in the hobby now who analyze a map, the rules, or the mechanics of Diplomacy variants like Drano does. He's a highly intelligent and experienced player with an understanding of how these various matters engage with the dynamics of the game of Diplomacy, something gained by extensive play. If you're dismissing his opinions and perspectives, you're not only doing yourself a disservice, but you're demonstrating that you're here for an ego boost more than anything else.

"I can accept that the problem exists for *you*, but probably not for a majority. And if all that takes you is one second to realize what is going on, well, then you are perfectly fine."

I never made the claim that it was a problem for the majority. I have claimed, repeatedly, that there is potential for an issue. And given that you yourself have admitted that this entire discussion is about an aesthetic change, I would make the argument that no change should be made for purely aesthetic reasons if it increases the potential for confusion and mistakes. If even one mistake is made due to these aesthetic changes, that's 1 mistake too many.

"When there is a major issue, be either in terms of gameplay, a bug, aesthetics or whatever, people complain. There has been zero complaints about these icons, and you played a full match of '1800' yourself without any loss (perhaps some seconds taken to figure out what was a square and what was a hexagon)."

You're quite confident there's been zero complaints. Zero complaints on the forum, sure. Zero complaints in private conversation? Surely there's no way to know that. I have issues with the icons, and I'm voicing them here. Is that not a complaint? I did not bring it up earlier as I didn't feel it was a huge issue. Now that the discussion is ongoing though, I have no issue bringing it up and talking about it.

"You should study something about design then. ........"

I'll admit I'm not artist, and I don't know much about designing maps. I'm a civil engineer. We work to optimize things. What I do know is that when you have the same icon mean multiple things, it can cause a lot of confusion. I stare at 4-500 page blueprints every single day for work. There's a REASON that they have standard symbols for things in construction, and the same symbol doesn't mean different things on different pages of the blueprints. Edge lines are always shown the same way throughout a plan set. Storm sewer lines are drawn a specific way. Electrical duct bank is drawn a specific way. Flip through the plan sets, and they're shown the same way. Storm sewer isn't shown as a solid black line on one page, and a dot-dash line on the next. Standardization helps to prevent mistakes by making things clear and concise.

Let's be honest, people make mistakes. Having the same symbol mean different things only facilitates this. Can you honestly say that you don't think someone would ever get confused if they're playing both 1900 and 1800 at the same time, and are flipping between games? You've never had a "brain fart" where after doing one thing for awhile, you forget to shift your brain to a new way of thinking? If you say that you've never had that, I'll say you're probably lying. We've all done things like that. It's natural. This situation is just like that. Hexagon means fleet while playing 1800, and if someone shifts to their 1900 game for a few minutes just to check something, they could easily have a "brain fart" and think hexagon means fleet, even though now it means army! Sure, "just pay attention" would technically solve that. But surely we've all not "paid attention" at least once in our lives and made a stupid mistake? Hell, I've done it dozens of times in the past year probably! This problem is only made potentially worse by the fact that there are people who play vdip solely on mobile. Smaller screen and less details on the screen at once make it potentially easier to make a small mistake like this.

"All the variants' icons you mentioned have different authors. nopunin10did, Firehawk, VaeVictis and Webb didn't conference with each other when deciding upon the icons they would use for their variants, yet all of them managed to make the icons look apart well enough by applying contrast."

And that's fine that they didn't conference with each other! But their maps are being hosted on a centralized site. In a vacuum, they're each totally fine. But when you put them together, and people potentially play them all at the same time, is when the issue arises. Imagine playing 5 games in which hexagon = fleet, and one game where hexagon = army. 80-90% of the time you're thinking hexagon = fleet. It's easy to see how the other 10-20% of the time, you might accidentally make a mistake once in thinking hexagon = fleet still.

"You (@drasno) played both 1800 and Classic yourself. It's unrelated, but I am curious: would you say that the extra seconds lost "stopping and thinking to remind yourself which shape was army and which shape was fleets" had any influence on your performance in the games?"

Honestly, for me, no. But - and I really didn't want to have to go into "tooting my own horn" to make my point - I do consider myself an exceedingly experienced and quite talented Diplomacy player. My entire life I've found analyzing boards like Diplomacy to be a "natural talent" of mine. My record here and on the few other places I've played back that up. I'm sure there's at least a handful of people here who will attest to my abilities (thank you Ruffhaus for the support!). Just because something isn't a problem for me does NOT mean it's not a potential problem. The vast majority of vdip players don't have the same analytical mindset that I do, nor do they necessarily spend as much time thinking about the games as I do. My own experience shows me there's a large chunk of players who log in, send a couple messages, and call it a day. A 2 second mistake of thinking a fleet is an army could easily cause them to make mistaken orders simply because they DO NOT necessarily analyze the board for that long. They see "oh, it's a fleet in Belgium", and enter their orders, not going back to reanalyze and realize it's an army.

Anyways, I've gone on WAAAAAY too long in this message, and I apologize for the wall of text. I'm sure there will be more messages to respond to anyways!

I think it's clear there is certainly no overwhelming consensus to change the icons so this question is resolved! Of course I was always going to have to argue for my own icons but at the end of the day I think the strength of this site is for developers to create variation in to map design. There's no problem having different units for different maps because that's part of what makes them different, and allows the creators to add flair to them. Lets just leave all icons however the original creators chose to design them! If it aint broke and all that :)

I'm chiming in for the first time on this thread...

Re: colors
Just make certain you offer the three color variations that fit for the 20% of the male population that is colorblind.

Re: Symbols and Icons. Symbols that don't intuitively reflect what the represent in a game are bad form but to let them potentially represent different things is simply bad graphic design. Consistent use of symbology is important in cartography which is essentially what our game boards are. The best icons can be intuitively understood: A sailing vessel or modern battleship for a navy, a tank or man on horseback for cavalry (for scenarios with such units), and a rifleman, swordsman, or shield with crossed pike for army/infantry.

Replying to @Ruff's surprisingly butthurt comment:

>Honestly, you don't.<

Nah, honestly I do. Believe me, I know better about what I want than you do.

>You come here to bombard the forums with inane discussion<

That's your opinion @Ruff, and I respect that. If you find the discussion "inane", you can always get lost. I don't at all mean to sound rude, but if you don't find a discussion worthy, why care in first place? Or, perhaps, you do find the discussion enjoyable?

If so, welcome to the thread.

>"new" variants with no point apparent behind them.<

Does a variant have to "have a point", Mr. Variant Specialist? Are you the judge in when a variant "has a point"? I know I ain't.

You gotta warn the people who played (and replayed) the variants I ported though, they haven't got the good news.

>You're not interested in honest feedback<

Oh, but sure I am! I carefully consider what people talk about, and more than once I took steps to solve the issues they appointed. Issues not just technical, you see ("Ravenna doesn't have a SC dot!!!") but stuff like "hey Enriador, I didn't the color for Dai Viet, it's too yellow for me". I have an open-door policy regarding feedback, and I always had.

The only thing I know about you, Ruff, is that you aren't a very good reader (if that's your sincere analysis of this thread), and the only thing you know about me is that I don't birch out in internet forums with internet strangers about what I perceive or not as ego or whatever.

It actually might look like it's about *your* ego - you obviously didn't come to contribute to the discussion, and seems actually overconcerned with attacking a fellow site member.

Well, unluckly for you, I don't care about you (or your mumbling, devoid of substance) whatsoever. I can play my games, make my maps, debate stuff in the forum and live on. I do all this for my own personal pleasure, but if one guy or two also enjoy what I make for vDip, then great.

So chill buddy - there is no need to take things to the personal side (I know Diplomacy does that to people). If your personal feelings *are* hurt (poor boy!), perhaps you should take a break? ;)

>On one hand your industrious effort has it's appeal and shouldn't be discouraged<

That's sweet! A sentence that isn't a pile of crap, at last.

>you're not adding anything of merit here.<

And... *you are*? I don't think so. You're here literally just complaining about a person that, bad news for you, isn't goin anywhere or changing their approach.

It's harsh, but I am sure you will cope.

>You're one of these guys<

Whoa Ruff, calm down. Why the finger-pointing? You do sound like one of these internet trolls who randomly cast "ad hominem" attacks on people... but we know you aren't, right? Right? ಠ_ಠ

You are a civilized diplomat, and someone with enough brain so to know that you cannot take things personally on internet discussions (especially *written* discussions, even moreso with a game). Relax...

There are very few players [...] like Drano<

Agreed. But no one attacked @drasno's intelligence, good character, or love for the game. You are just overreacting (for God knows why).

>you're dismissing his opinions and perspectives<

I ain't, really. I could just ignore the fella and do as I please, couldn't I? But I wouldn't, for I correctly identified his attempts at feedback as good-natured. If in some point I don't agree with the issue he claims to exist, that's my personal right.

If you dislike my opinion, well, live with it. You got no other choice. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>you're here for an ego boost<

That's how you argue? "You are here to steal the Magic Lamp for yourself, evil villain!". Screaming that smooths your own ego? How pathetic Ruff, I am disappointed at you! You had a good reputation in my eyes.

Answering @drasno's civilized reply:

>If even one mistake is made due to these aesthetic changes, that's 1 mistake too many. <

I completely agree, but has this mistake ever been made? We are arguing on theory here, obviously - no one got proof of how often people confuse one unit with another.

It's like anothe proposed change in the thread - the new maps. Will paint Sardinia the color of Rome make people think that Rome is adjacent to Western Mediterranean (like in several variants, like recent 1900? Maaaybe, in theory, but I haven't seem the problem arise.

I think the vDip community is way more intelligent than you are giving us credit for. When a symbol is written right next "The army in Paris", I bet people will correctly indentify that symbol as an army.

>You're quite confident there's been zero complaints<

I cannot prove the lack of complaints, I am guilty of that. Proving non-existence is kinda my weak point.

> I have issues with the icons, and I'm voicing them here. Is that not a complaint?<

You educatedly pointed out that the army/fleet icon aren't literal tanks/ships and people may confuse them. This is a potentially bad issue, I agree.

But do people actually confuse them? I am honestly curious to know if they do, because that can radically change the way I draw these unit icons. Believe me, it's not easy to discard stuff you made yourself without knowing exactly if it's strictly necessary in first place.

>There's a REASON that they have standard symbols for things in construction, and the same symbol doesn't mean different things on different pages of the blueprints.<

This entire paragraph makes an excellent point, but I argue that *vDiplomacy is not a factory*. We *can* afford to be imperfect, or non-optimal.

>Can you honestly say that you don't think someone would ever get confused if they're playing both 1900 and 1800 at the same time, and are flipping between games? <

I admit this is a perfectly possible scenario. If your brain has "farted" enough however, you may commit similar mistakes even without any possible design mistake (who never sent a message to Russia that was meant to go to Turkey?). But are the non-uniform icons across the site's 100+ variants a *issue*?

I genuinely think not. vDip has a salad of icons, and survive so far.

> This problem is only made potentially worse by the fact that there are people who play vdip solely on mobile. Smaller screen and less details on the screen at once make it potentially easier to make a small mistake like this.<

Funnily enough, I find the mobile view far better. I can put my eyes closer to the screen, and even read fonts that are otherwise hard to read (like Classic's Turkey's hyper-light tone of yellow). Of course, different people may have different experiences, so you might have a point.

>when you put them together, and people potentially play them all at the same time, is when the issue arises<

Hmm, but ever since the dawn of time vDip has got different icons for different maps - I only made a dozen maps from February to July 2018, so this is an "issue" that precedes my own work here.

And this "issue" never was an issue with anyone - I may be speaking out of ignorance, so I add "that I have heard of".

>Just because something isn't a problem for me does NOT mean it's not a potential problem<

As I explained above, this potential problem is an old one.... Do you have a proposed solution yourself? Unless we standardize all icons across all variants, the problem you highlight will remain.

I am not discussing for the Classic icons' own sake - I prefer their fate to be decided by the community at large (including the players that might be victims of the "potential problem"), and whether they will be accepted or not is ultimately the smallest thing on my "to-do list" for this website.

However @drasno you raised a very interesting theoretical question here, and that's why I am discussing with you. In no way I meant any disrespect (which I guess you noticed, for unlike @Ruff you paid close attention to the matter at hand and didn't for a second attempt to insult anyone), but I am interested in finding out a possible consensus to the question: "is vDip's ultimate goal of fun hurt by non-standard icons?"

> I apologize for the wall of text<

No need to apologize. Good discussions are fueled by walls of text!

> it's clear there is certainly no overwhelming consensus to change the icons<

I disagree, @Firehawk. Online communities, for all their wonder, are also susceptible to "loud minorities" and I won't take a couple of comments (both civilized and rude) as evidence that change isn't welcomed.

> just leave all icons however the original creators chose to design them! If it aint broke and all that<

I greatly respect who took the time and care to build up webDip and designed the original icons. Hence why I didn't suggest spreading it to the other Classic subvariants (including one of my own, 1913) as I believe they should be kept alive somehow. I even asked "Would people feel bad at losing the vanilla icons though?" at the start of the thread.

Curiously, sentimentalism for the old icons didn't arise (yet!). But I argue that the old icons are somewhat weird at least in a historical sense (the already-mentioned time-travelling war tank).

"Broken" is a strong word though, and shouldn't be the only incentive for change. Otherwise one might imagine, "webDiplomacy isn't broken - why have vDiplomacy then?"

>Just make certain you offer the three color variations that fit for the 20% of the male population that is colorblind. <

I took care to make sure nothing in that regard was modified. The new maps respect vDip's native adjustments for colorblinded people.

> Symbols that don't intuitively reflect what the represent in a game are bad form but to let them potentially represent different things is simply bad graphic design<

Bad form? Bad graphic design? Would you say the supply center dots (supposed to represent cities and centers of military supply) are "bad graphic design" because they are circles rather than a cozy little town or army depot?

>Consistent use of symbology is important in cartography which is essentially what our game boards are. The best icons can be intuitively understood<

Funny thing you mention cartography. Did you know military cartography uses *rectangles* as stand-ins for armies? (https://www.hpssims.com/pages/products/RifMusk/Chickamauga/Chickamauga-Battle-Map.jpg)

Does anyone think "where the hell is 3rd Regiment, that is just a square."?

I confess I don't know.

Re: Military cartography - Yes, as a Marine and avid Warhammer, I do know standard military notation. But this is a game played by all types of people, not just MI and former Marine tacticians. Thus the icons should probably *not* discourage civilians with no military tactical and strategic cartographic knowledge.

Re: SC dots. A) standard civilian maps also use these symbols with size shape and fill reflecting population size. So this is not something the general populace doesn't know. Although map reading is becoming a lost skill.

Avid wargamer. Stupid fucking phone.

>the icons should probably *not* discourage civilians with no military tactical and strategic cartographic knowledge. <

I completely agree with you in that regard @YouCan't. However I dispute that these icons go so far as to "discourage" anyone. Maybe, as @drasno suggests, they can possibly confuse, but I think "discourage" is a strong word.

If anything, the low-resolution icons actually discourages people from vDip. I consistently try to draw new players to vDip from other Dip places (mostly Conspiracy) and a major issue people say about the site are the low quality graphics for units and order-arrows (and a few maps).

> standard civilian maps also use these symbols with size shape and fill reflecting population size<

And as you know, even civilian-made maps of battles (like the one I linked) show the poor rectangles.

I have seen maps showing cavalry as *triangles*, even. I don't think there is a universal standard for representing military units on maps (is there?), but as long as there are subtitles somewhere people can find their way.

@RUFFHAUS: Enriador had specifically asked me in PM to give my opinion in a forum thread despite him knowing that my opinion is different from him. That doesn't seem like someone who isn't interested in other's opinions.

The icons made me stop and think. Now I am used to them. After all they are the same color, and get a painted square behind them when sitting on the sea, or on a foreign territory. That is strange and unique to vdip/webdip. I'd say, Just colour the ships and cannons, perhaps with a bolder countour to not make them almost invisible when at home.

There may not be a universal standard but the US military certainly has a standard taught in each services advanced schools.

>I disagree, @Firehawk. Online communities, for all their wonder, are also susceptible to "loud minorities" and I won't take a couple of comments (both civilized and rude) as evidence that change isn't welcomed.


Instead you'd assume *no* supporting comments is a majority. Zero support is still zero.

>the US military certainly has a standard taught in each services advanced schools<

Do you have a source showing this American standard? I wonder how they draw stuff like cavalry. Perhaps a chess-like horse head?

>Instead you'd assume *no* supporting comments is a majority<

A wrong conjecture - I see no meaningful spoken support for either option.

In the absence of a community-wide consensus, the answer is the status quo. However, we don't have to build such consensus within a deadline - we have all the time in the world!

>They [Corsica] had it [independence] for a couple years from Italy then the French came.<

Italy didn't exist as a political entity in the 18th century. =)

Source?! How about a member of the U. S. Marine Corps from 1984 to 1988? That would be *me*. And tanks and other armed vehicles are cavalry. We, obviously, didn't have standardized symbols for men on horses as we didn't use men on horses but when fighting an enemy on horse, we still used the armored cavalry notation.

But just for you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Joint_Military_Symbology

>How about a member of the U. S. Marine Corps from 1984 to 1988?<

This is the internet, @YouCan't. When discussing knowledge I can't take anyone's words at face value - no offense meant!

Thanks for the link by the way, it's an interesting read so far. The marvels of geometry are many indeed!

Which is why I provided the link. I am a Marine having left active duty as a Corporal (E-4 and the lowest NCO rank).

>Which is why I provided the link. <

I know you are a man of culture.

A man of culture? Should I be offended? :-)

>Should I be offended?<

If you dislike culture, then yes, I guess?

This was ultimately a good discussion about design, despite some offense being made & taken. :P

I personally don't have any issues with the classic webdip map from an understanding perspective. I do think that abstract shapes need to rely on consistency much more so than other icons that can rely on inherent associations.

As such, while it isn't a *huge* problem, I think that hexagons are inherently going to be a little it more prone to confusion.

I would be interested to know if anyone has thoughts on whether the custom designs I created for my own pet variant suffer from similar confusion (the icons are all shields or flags, and the fleets are simply boat designs with the shields/flags superimposed on top).

https://imgur.com/w92QySI

Nope, no confusion with your icons, they look great and add to the flavour of the map and the unique feeling of playing each power, which is what's so great about using flags and the like. Lets be honest, I think we are all capable of looking at the map, seeing two types of units, checking which ones are at ports and dispel confusion for the rest of the game within about 3 seconds. I think the talk of confusion is being really overplayed. I've never made an error on a move because of icons and everyone in this post has referred to these errors only hypothetically. If none of us can think of a situation where this actually happened is it really an issue?

Bringing the thread back on topic -

"I completely agree, but has this mistake ever been made? We are arguing on theory here, obviously - no one got proof of how often people confuse one unit with another."

There's been a total of what, a couple dozen games played with the "new" shapes (square/hexagon)? That's versus literal thousands played with the "original" icons of tank/ship. It's not a stretch at all to say that once we hit thousands of games played with the "new" shapes, at least 1 mistake will have been made due to temporary confusion over square/hexagon and what they mean, or because someone was playing 1800 and 1900 at the same time and confused what hexagon meant. Again, this issue is 100% fixed by simply using an "intuitive" unit marker (soldier/tank/cannon for army, ship for fleet).

"I think the vDip community is way more intelligent than you are giving us credit for. When a symbol is written right next "The army in Paris", I bet people will correctly indentify that symbol as an army."

You need to remember that people aren't only trying to identify THEIR units, but opponents as well. They don't get a little line saying "the army in Paris" if they don't have that unit. Sure, you could say that they would correlate an army in their order set and compare the icon to the one in Paris, but honestly, I've never done that, and I don't know if everyone does. My gut instinct is that people look at the map fairly quickly and base their orders on what they see on the map alone. If they have a brain fart and they enter their orders remembering that it's a fleet in Belgium (when it's really an army), that could cause issues. It's a bit hard to explain on a forum, but I'm trying to get across the point.


"I admit this is a perfectly possible scenario. If your brain has "farted" enough however, you may commit similar mistakes even without any possible design mistake (who never sent a message to Russia that was meant to go to Turkey?). But are the non-uniform icons across the site's 100+ variants a *issue*?"

........

"Hmm, but ever since the dawn of time vDip has got different icons for different maps - I only made a dozen maps from February to July 2018, so this is an "issue" that precedes my own work here.

And this "issue" never was an issue with anyone - I may be speaking out of ignorance, so I add "that I have heard of"."

You're entirely right that there's non-uniform icons across the site's 100+ variants. However, (and I admit I didn't open every variant to check) note that they still follow the general "rule" we've been discussing, where army/fleet differentiation is very intuitive. Fleets I believe are universally a ship of some sort. Armies range from tanks to cannons, to soldiers, to shields. All of those are still extremely intuitive. There isn't a situation except in 1800/1900 where the exact same icon means two different things. Nowhere does a shield mean a fleet. Nowhere does a tank mean a fleet. Nowhere does a ship mean army. Icons being different isn't the issue if there's still a base uniformity behind it, which there is with ship = fleet and soldier/tank/cannon = army. The fact that they're extremely intuitive is the important thing. Shapes are not intuitive. We could *make* them intuitive by changing vdip to always have squares = armies and hexagons = fleets, but we don't have that here, and we won't go that route ever I believe. Until then, the shapes simply are NOT intuitive for most people here, especially when Hexagon can mean two different things.

"As I explained above, this potential problem is an old one.... Do you have a proposed solution yourself? Unless we standardize all icons across all variants, the problem you highlight will remain."

I've already proposed a simple solution many times. Make intuitive icons. Ship of some sort = fleet. Soldier/tank/cannon/shield = army. This is very easy and intuitive. And it's also been the status quo until the past few months. Coincidence? I think not.

"Funny thing you mention cartography. Did you know military cartography uses *rectangles* as stand-ins for armies? (https://www.hpssims.com/pages/products/RifMusk/Chickamauga/Chickamauga-Battle-Map.jpg)"

Since most of us aren't military/ex-military, does this point even matter? The fact is that vdip, for years, used intuitive icons for armies and fleets. Adding in a new mix is changing the status quo and introducing potential confusion in an area where it is not needed, nor was it asked for.

Besides that, the point YCHTT was trying to make is standardization, not the specifics of standardization. Vdip for years had a standard, and it was quite obvious and worked. That standard is now being diluted and introducing uncertainty.


"I disagree, @Firehawk. Online communities, for all their wonder, are also susceptible to "loud minorities" and I won't take a couple of comments (both civilized and rude) as evidence that change isn't welcomed. "

I agree completely that online communities are susceptible to loud minorities, but I'd caution the opposite is also true. Online communities are susceptible to silent majorities as well. Vdip in particular does not have a super robust forum community compared to the people who play here. Most people simply do not post on the forum, or probably even read it. I'd wager a lot of money the vast majority of vdip doesn't even realize this discussion is happening. So saying that there's no complaints, or that no one has really opposed the "change" in unit icon style and therefore it's been accepted to continue the practice can be considered bad form as well. Unless someone implements a site-wide poll or discussion somehow, this issue is likely to be one that's discussed by the small community who read and comment on the forums, so we'll be dealing with the "loud minority" anyways.

Replying @FrozenDog

A wild Dog appears on vDIp! =O

I already gave you my impression on Discord, but to reiterate: they are wonderfully made! My only criticism is the ship icon - the "shield atop boat" looks a bit strange. I would prefer a more "sail-shaped" icon to go along the boat, but that's me nitpicking - vanilla certainly works.

They would work too if they were geometrically shaped. =D

>I think that hexagons are inherently going to be a little it more prone to confusion.<

They are not as obvious as a ship/fleet, but are they really "prone to confusion" like that?

Replying @Firehawk

I couldn't have said it better myself - I agree with every single word. Especially:

> the unique feeling of playing each power<

That's what drove me to make the new icons. Classic is a very special map with very unique "personalities" in each power - it deserves a more unique feel.

And for God's sake, a colored Sardinia!

Replying @drasno:

>once we hit thousands of games played with the "new" shapes, at least 1 mistake will have been made due to temporary confusion<

Once you hit such a sample size, mistakes may be attributed (truthfully or not) to the most varied number of things.

I personally heard someone complaining in one of my first games at webDip that Classic's color scheme for powers doesn't match either the American nor the British version of the board game, and they mistakenly mixed a key order in one game (as England, I think? Which is pink/purple in European editions) with another (Russia I guess, can't remember).

The details are foggy but I am quite sure there was a mistake attributed to webDiplomacy's unique color scheme for powers. Does it mean the color scheme sucks? I don't think so, it's just different and requires *getting used to*.

>this issue is 100% fixed by simply using an "intuitive" unit marker<

This "issue" will never be fixed. There will always be something people will complain about, and one issue I do hear a good deal is that vDip/webDip have no unique unit icons for each power, and this "issue" (Power v Power icons) is massively more confusing than the Army v Fleet "issue" - at least in my humble opinion.

Begginers be like, "what the hell, all units belong to Italy!". Hehehe.

>Make intuitive icons<

The current icons are pretty intuitive - not many will "stop and think" when the icons are subtitled right behind their nose. Some will, but you can't appeal to everyone.

> it's also been the status quo until the past few months.<

This is downright false - to give one example, "Napoleonic" has been here much longer than the "past few months". No one lost their minds.

I will also make two things clear:

1) I have not yet decided on the best unit icons for Classic - this thread received a good deal of good opinions (including from you @drasno). I may try a cannon/gunboat thing.

2) The unit icons for 'Canton' and '1800' will fundamentally stay as they are, unless I see reports of mistakes happening due to them - in which case I shall swiftly make an alternative set for the community.

>Since most of us aren't military/ex-military, does this point even matter?<

It does matter, and a big deal.

First of all, it's not about "military-made" or "used for military purposes by military personnel". Military cartography generically refers to *maps of battles* too, and this is obviously of massive interest for us, players of a *wargame* (in the unlikely case you didn't know Diplomacy is a wargame).

Military cartography shows quite clearly that *geometry is widely used to make units recognizable in a map*, and I am not talking about a Warsaw Pact secret plan for Kabul's conquest (though that's also a nice perspective), I am talking about The New York Times making a comemorative article for the Battle of Tours and showing the units through geometry *to the larger public*.

>Adding in a new mix [of unit icons] is [...] introducing potential confusion<
> introducing uncertainty. <

We can easily google maps of battles/campaigns (Diplomacy better fits the latter) in newspapers (kings of easily communicating something to the common man), if you insist that geometry is so confusing.

It's not really confusing. It may, at best, be slightly different but, to quote @Firehawk above:

>Lets be honest, I think we are all capable of looking at the map, seeing two types of units, checking which ones are at ports and dispel confusion for the rest of the game within about 3 seconds<

If you can't do the above - though ironically you did in 1800 - I honestly don't know what to do for you @drasno, except recommend you don't repeat your mistake and stay clear from "confusion-inducing" variants from now on.

I don't mean to offend - I don't like how some variants are drawn/designed, so I stay clear from them (though I did share my ideas for improvement with the creators). Simple as that.

>saying that there's no complaints, or that no one has really opposed the "change" in unit icon style and therefore it's been accepted to continue the practice<

Again, this is blatantly false - I never said that "its been accepted" to go on with the proposed change. I already answered an identical observation by @YouCan't, so I assume you simply didn't read what we (me, YouCan't and Firehawk) wrote...

That's understandable, the thread is quite large. But if you are unwilling to read what we wrote you must pardon me if I just ignore what you write as well. =(

I will quote myself:

>In the absence of a community-wide consensus, the answer is the status quo<

No one said that the unit icons must change because "hey, only @drasno doesn't like the unit icons - bring them down!"

>Unless someone implements a site-wide poll or discussion somehow, this issue is likely to be one that's discussed<

I wholeheartedly agree - a site-wide poll is the best way to settle this (and other) potentially polemic issues with proposed changes (the green padlock is a recent example).

You see, I have no issues with loud minorities myself - they aren' inherently bad or good, they just exist - so of course We Lucky Feel can keep discussing as we wish.

So far it has been quite fun!