Hey @drasno, no offense meant. I just like to give nicknames (Ruff, YouCan't, drasno etc). Don't know why, I think your username sounds better with the "s".

>apparently this isn't possible to happen for people playing a game with shapes for units?! <

Of course it is possible, I said it many times before... You sure you are reading our posts? =(

However it's so unlikely to have any meaningful impact in a game that I am somewhat healthly skeptical of your doomsaying.

>you don't have any intention of changing your opinion<

>I don't feel you are honestly taking my reasons into consideration<

1) I would completely change my opinion (though I feel it drifted a bit), if I had seem something that could push me that way.

2) Let's be honest - you weren't changing your opinion either, so we are even.

3) Even though I disagree with you, I will follow your (and others') idea of adding cannons/ships as icons. Humpf, I actually mentioned making icons exactly like you suggested (non-abstracted) three times in this very thread. No need for drama!

Thanks for sharing your thoughts in a most respectful manner.

Here is what I don't grep EnriThe8th. Change for change sake is bad. You shouldn't change established standards unless they fail in some area or the change provides a significant improvement. I see no failing with a 2D visual representation of the 3D board pieces and there is no significant improvement gained from the shapes.

>Change for change sake is bad<

It's not "change for change's sake". Problems with the old icons have been pointed several times in this very same thread.

You can probably use CTRL+F and look for them yourself, @Can'tYou? =D

> there is no significant improvement gained from the shapes.<

I respectfully disagree. There is much to be gained from the new shapes, notably:

1) Removing the anachronistic green tank (which didn't exist in 1901/1914).

2) Making each power's units more unique and different from each other, in line with every other visual representation of Diplomacy around the world.

You gotta use new arguments, these ones have been beaten down already. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Then make the change to a graphical representation of the board game pieces in higher res or to standard NATO notation. Don't replace them with abstract art that doesn't equate to anything used in the real world.

>make the change to a graphical representation of the board game pieces in higher res or to standard NATO notation. <

1) Didn't I say (four times by now) that I would consider making cannons/ships icons? ಠ_ಠ

2) I wouldn't use the NATO symbols - they are clear and nice, but I doubt many will be familiar with them anyway. If we are going for the abstract, why "change for change' sake"?

As discussed above, all it takes is just a couple of seconds for even the slowest mind to get used to the new icons.

>abstract art that doesn't equate to anything used in the real world<

So what? I could very well draw a pony as the Army and a dove as the Fleet - as long as the public can read the God-provided subtitles anything is feasible (even, I admit, a green tank that has no place in a game set in the 1900s).

I will try coming up with a cannon/ship duo, but honestly, I don't feel like drawing new abstract icons unless you have some really cool concept to show.

Well you threw out the baby with the bath water when you switched from real world (albeit anachronistic) icons to abstract art. How do I play with my icons in my mind and picture the battleships shooting at each other? Instead I have polygons doing battle like in an old Atari 2600 game.

Ok, so I said I was out, but I don't know if I can resist really...

The crux of all this seems to be that Enriador is saying that people just need to pay attention to the map, and if they do, it doesn't really matter what the icons are since looking at the map will tell you what they are right? Everything else is extraneous (the using shapes, coloring, etc) as long as people pay close enough attention, things should be fine.

On the flip side, YCHTT and myself are saying that icons should be intuitive (and let's face it, squares/hexagons/triangles are simply not intuitive here for most people) and run on some sort of standard (which we've mentioned multiple times - ships for fleets and soldier/tank/cannon/shield for army), because people make mistakes and don't always pay attention as much as they possibly should. (and yes, I know you've said 4 or 5 times you'll consider the cannon/ship icons, this is more about using shapes in general)

In a perfect world, I will admit that Enriador's point would stand. If everyone paid close enough attention to things, it wouldn't matter what the symbols are, since they would be able to figure it out.

That being said, we do not live in a perfect world, and the combined decades of experience YCHTT, myself, and RUFFHAUS have in playing Dip on here and webdip have shown us this. We might not have a specific example from the couple dozen games finished with the abstract symbols (13 Napoleonic games finished, 4 1800 games finishes, 0 1900 games finished, and 11 Canton games finished for a total of 28 games < - not exactly a huge sample size), but combined we've played about 250 games on Vdip, and probably at least that many on webdip, plus games in outside PBEM forums. We've had plenty of time to get a feel for the type of players who play on webdip/vdip and what might happen when some of these people play these games. Note that none of us are saying it's necessarily a problem for US, we are instead arguing for the community as a whole. Our experience has shown us this could be a problem, and we're trying to nip it in the bud before it becomes a problem. Discounting this experience, especially in the community where we've been for many more years than you have, is not only foolish, but downright disingenuous.

I wanted to make this post separate so that the post above gets the proper attention it deserves:

Look, I'm a huge fan of the massive amount of work you're putting in Enriador. It's a big job, and you're putting in a lot of work for no real compensation in order to improve the community. I applaud you for that! It does seem though like you're overly fixated on aesthetics for things that don't really matter like the tanks being anachronistic (I honestly have never heard anyone mention this until recently when the new maps with shapes have been added). I can understand the focus on coloring the units specially for each power, as the "box" that appears and disappears could be confusing. So I'm all for having British armies be a different color than French armies and Italian armies. That makes sense! Focusing on a tank being out of place because the game takes place in 1914 though? And replacing it with a square (or in one map, a hexagon)? I just can't understand that. In essence, you're making an argument that discounts decades of Diplomacy experience by us (me, YCHTT, RUFFHAUS) simply because flags look "nicer" and the tank is out of place in the time period. Do I agree the flags look nicer? Actually, yes I do! But again, decades of experience between us here tell us this could potentially be a problem (yes, a minor one, but a potential problem none the less), and that nothing is wrong with using tanks like we do now (except possibly coloring them to remove any doubt on what country they belong to), so why make the change?

>How do I play with my icons in my mind and picture the battleships shooting at each other?<

Poor @YouCan't! If you were presented with Diplomacy back in the 1970s, where the best platform to play it was an impatient adjudicator furiously emailing "France F (Bre)-Eng", you would be out of the Hobby and playing checkers by now.

I am glad you joined us in more graphical times! =)

> let's face it, squares/hexagons/triangles are simply not intuitive here for most people<

Don't know about that. Plenty of players played variants with abstract icons - didn't hear a word against them until you showed up this weekend, and this community is thankfully quick to provide feedback on issues (as seem by the many forum threads stating "something is wrong with variant X") as soon as they pop up. I got the threads to prove!

At best, the issue of the icons being "intuitive" or not is a hypothesis. A very reasonable hypothesis, but it's theory nonetheless.

>combined decades of experience YCHTT, myself, and RUFFHAUS<

> total of 28 games < - not exactly a huge sample size<

First of all, @Ruff didn't say anything on-topic. He limited himself to insult me (which you happily considered "support" for yourself) despite not doing shit for this community besides grumbling in the forum without adding absolutely anything to the discussion (@nonpunin10did's well-crafted thread about a proposed Scoring system in addition to PPSC/WTA is a clear example. @Ruff merely hand-waves whatever he dislikes and lacks intelligence to build a proper reply).

So forgive me if I disconsider the pile of shit he wrote.

Second, you alone played a game with the new variants (a round of 1800). 28 games of these variants mean (roughly! Many replay these maps) 260 different players. Now *this* is a small sample size - your observations are important of course, but represent just 0,38% of players dealing with the new icons.

Thereby my resistance to scrap my little work without a theoretical debate to justify it properly.

>we've played about 250 games on Vdip, and probably at least that many on webdip, plus games in outside PBEM forums<

"I don't like to toot my own horn", but I played over 150 games myself across vDip, webDip, PlayDip, Diplicity, Droidippy, Conspiracy and PBEM. I have considerable experience with most Diplomacy communities (I regularly engage with these communities in all of the above-mentioned platforms) and even if I was a 10-game old newbie diplomat who found out about the Hobby last week, *I reserve myself the right to disagree if I found opposing logic faulty.*

Why I find your logic faulty has been described countless times across the thread - if you ask I can make a short summary.

>Discounting this experience<

I do not discount anyone's feedback, neither I am an arrogant fool (like some in this very midst) who believes that experience automatically translates into wisdom, as one can see from @Ruff's pathetically agressive behavior.

I merely believe you are wrong, and that your fears ("the community will go crazy with these indecipherable icons!") ultimately does not find solid ground in evidence (either for or against your theory, I must admit). I do think that this is a matter worthy of deeper investigation, and may be of interest to all Diplomacy mapmakers.

You know what? This discussion inspired me to write yet another article for Diplomacy World. There are many representations of units across the history of Diplomacy, so we have plenty to write about.

>In a perfect world, I will admit that Enriador's point would stand<

I can replicate my thoughts by rearranging your sentence a little: in a doomed world (where no one can spend 2 seconds to identify which unit is what), I will admit that your point would stand.

>I applaud you for that!<

Thank you, that's much appreciated.

>I honestly have never heard anyone mention this until recently when the new maps with shapes have been added<

I have. It's actually an old topic, even in webDip/vDip.

>Focusing on a tank being out of place because the game takes place in 1914 though<

First of all, this wasn't "focused on" - "unique unit icons for each power" has always been the major principle behind the proposed changes, and I said more than once that it's primarily about aesthetics.

Second, historical accuracy goesway beyond pure cosmetics. You call yourself someone experienced in the vDip/webDip communities, and I believe that. Don't you know then that a good portion of this community shares a great passion for History?

From nitpicking about a province's slightly mispelled name to helping build dozens and dozens of historically based variants, the vDip/webDip community loves and appreciates when History and gameplay go side by side.

I wouldn't discard this fact lightly - that would be disingenuous indeed, as you said.

>why make the change?<

New Icons:

Pros: Unique for each power (reducing odds of confusion, especially for players from outside the webDip world); historically accurate representations (using national flags and national colors from the 1901-1914 timeframe)

Cons: Too abstract (more likely to confuse players about what is an army and what is a fleet).

Old Icons:

Pros: Traditionally used (on vDip since the website's conception); clear distinction between Army and Fleet.

Cons: Low-resolution; no inter-power distinction (e.g. between France's Armies and Turkey's Armies); unusual and potentially confusion-inducing representation of hostile armies in territories (drawing a square around the unit).

Whether the change is worth or not, it's a matter of opinion. I would love to see some more, by the way, so you forum lurker is very welcome to join!

Enri-ass-dor. I started playing face to face in the 70s. I've played postal and via the judges. I own several boards where I used to track on going games.

Better to have people think you might be an ass than to open your mouth and prove it.

"I am glad you joined us in more graphical times! =)"

Errr...I'd be cautious saying this to YCHTT, even if it's in jest. I believe he's been playing Diplomacy since the pre-online versions (he said he was a US Marine from 1984 - 1988, so that means he was at least 18 in 1984. Not hard to believe he was playing in person or by mail in that time period). So it comes off as a bit snarky and unneeded. Even if he did just start playing in the online-versions of Dip, it's an unnecessary statement as context makes it seem aggressive (blame lack of inflection due to reading text instead of talking in person perhaps).

"He limited himself to insult me (which you happily considered "support" for yourself)......"

Actually, he explicitly supported me in his response with this statement:

"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."

So yeah....let's not try to take things out of context? While he didn't specifically say "yeah Drano's responses are right", the context is quite clear. Even if you want to dismiss RUFFHAUS, I haven't even added in JECE and Mercy supporting my position with their comments on the first page of this thread. They explicitly back my position, which would more than replace the fact that you're discounting anything RUFFHAUS says.

""the community will go crazy with these indecipherable icons!""

Let's not be politicians here. I said nothing of the sort and you know it. My statements have, the entire time, said it's a possible level of confusion. I never have insinuated that the community will go crazy, or that there would be some sort of mass confusion. I explicitly have said it's a minor (potential) problem, but one I think is worthwhile to nip in the bud. So don't try to make me out to be some Chicken Little yeah? It's not appreciated.

"First of all, this wasn't "focused on" - "unique unit icons for each power" has always been the major principle behind the proposed changes, and I said more than once that it's primarily about aesthetics."

This major principle has already had a very easy and universally accepted (on this thread at least) solution proposed. I think everyone has agreed that it would be a good thing to simply color the units individually for each nation so that they're identifiable and unique unit icons for each power. As for historical accuracy, simply substituting a cannon instead of a tank would fix that as well while still remaining extremely intuitive for everyone on the site. The desire to replace it with shapes is the confusing thing. Why, when a cannon or something similar (soldier perhaps) that is colored individually for each nation, would solve all the issues with tanks (anachronistic, not unique icons for each power), would you introduce shapes that are not intuitive?

I feel it'd be a very positive compromise if we all agreed that was a good way forward. It encompasses literally all of the pros you list for the new icons (Unique for each power with colors, historically accurate by using cannons or soldiers depending on the time frame), while also taking care of all of the cons of the current units (can be made hi-res, has inter-power distinction with color, no unusual representation of hostile armies in territories). Is that not the best of both worlds? The flags, while nice looking, do add in a potential layer of confusion with the shapes, whereas what I listed above does not.

"Enri-ass-dor. I started playing face to face in the 70s. I've played postal and via the judges. I own several boards where I used to track on going games."

Annnnnd....YCHTT beat me to the punch while I was typing my response.

I’ve also been playing across platforms since the 70s (my own game, which I purchased either at the end of the 70s or early 80s, has the plastic stars for armies and the plastic anchors for navies). While I do appreciate historical accuracy, I think the most important thing is to have intuitive icons, as that does prevent mistakes of the “quick glance” and “moving too fast” variety, especially when looking at the units of others. For example, right now, it’s very difficult to distinguish the differences between armies and fleets in Eduardoan v3: https://vdiplomacy.com/variants.php?variantID=130

Thus, the more defined the shape (and color) is for an army (archer, cannon, tank) and fleet (longship, galleon, battleship) the better. I think stars and anchors are less superior to these, and squares and rectangles less superior to stars and anchors. Coloring in the units so they represent distinct countries (as flags do) without having the boxes appear around them is a good solution. You could also have small flags superimposed over the lower corners of units to distinguish them as well.

>I started playing face to face in the 70s<

If this is true, why cry about "how to play with icons in my mind"? You are supposed to be used to *no icons at all*, so seeing you whine about a few squares strikes me as random behavior.

I didn't mean to offend anyway, there is no need to be triggered. If you are indeed as experienced as you claim, you shouldn't lose your mind over a little forum debate. If you do, then perhaps checkers is indeed the ideal game for you.

>Enri-ass-dor<

Hehehe, that's the spirit - we are all friends around a board game! =)

>he's been playing Diplomacy since the pre-online versions<

Has he? Then why base an argument on "how to picture the battleships shooting at each other" in first place?

> he explicitly supported me<

He did, before and after insulting me - I don't highly consider praise from such a troll.

> JECE and Mercy supporting my position <

Not really - neither supported the status quo as you do. Actually, both explicitly supported the idea of cannon/ships:

@Jece: >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<

@Mercy: > I like the idea of replacing the tanks with cannons and coloring them in the color of their country.<

So it's really you, basically. @HeCan'tFaceTheTruth stated some aspects regarding the new icons' potential for issue but from my quick, 1-page search, he never even played with the new icons. So I take *your* opinion in higher esteem, @drasno.

>it's a possible level of confusion<

Here we go again: is it? In fact, you have stated that it's a possibility, and I accepted the idea. I don't, however, take this as enough of an argument to scrap the icons *since we have no evidence these are actually misleading and may harm anyone's game with as they are perfectly subtitled right under their noses*.

>Why, when a cannon or something similar (soldier perhaps) that is colored individually for each nation, would solve all the issues with tanks (anachronistic, not unique icons for each power), would you introduce shapes that are not intuitive?<

1) The geometrical shapes are an art style I personally find attractive, and I know many others do (you said it yourself). Given mine and @YouCant's conversation about cartography and military iconography, no one can deny that geometrical shapes *are* recognizable.

2) I made the new icons *before* @Jece kindly made the suggestion of using cannons/ships as the new duo.

>So don't try to make me out<

I don't want to make you be or do anything. I just used a figure of speech, so apologies if it sounded offensive. You have been very respectful, the least I can do is reciprocate.

>I feel it'd be a very positive compromise if we all agreed that was a good way forward<

I would share your sentiment. I have a weak spot for the cannon/ship marriage myself, and I had the pleasure of working on a beautiful set (initially provided by @VaeVictis) for 'Edwardian', 2nd Edition.

The main question remains though: does the cannon face east, or west?

Answering @GMan:

> it’s very difficult to distinguish the differences between armies and fleets in Eduardoan v3<

I have personal difficulty understanding how difficult it is to distinguish between squares and rectangles. Guys, *geometry*, anyone?

The matter however has been brought to attention in Edwardian's own thread. I shall wait for the author's approval to redo, revert or keep that variant's unit icons.

>squares and rectangles less superior to stars and anchors<

Hmm, that's a matter of perspective. I find PlayDiplomacy.com's star-shaped army icons much more confusing, as the supply center dots are *also* small stars. I would trade these for nice cozy squares any day.

>Coloring in the units so they represent distinct countries (as flags do) without having the boxes appear around them is a good solution.<

This is a good solution indeed. A balance must be reached though, between the color of the units and the on-map color of the powers. That's somewhat challenging to achieve, so I am open to suggestions - how contrasting should they be, if at all?

> You could also have small flags superimposed over the lower corners of units to distinguish them as well.<

@VaeVictis did a similar job here (https://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=413&t=57961). Check the first image.

Justice must be made: @G-Man also prefers less abstracted shapes.

"Not really - neither supported the status quo as you do. Actually, both explicitly supported the idea of cannon/ships:"

I'm not sure you're actually understanding my position Enriador. I've said, MULTIPLE times now that I support a position of intuitive icons with the idea being tank/cannon/soldier/shield = army and ship = fleet. If you cannot understand that despite me mentioning it multiple times across multiple messages, then you need to work on your reading comprehension. A quick scan shows the following quotes by me:

From page one of the thread:

"I still would argue that those shapes aren't intuitive like an actual tank (or cannon or soldier) and ship are"...

"The cannon/tank/soldier and ship are very intuitive"...

From page two of the thread:

"Again, this issue is 100% fixed by simply using an "intuitive" unit marker (soldier/tank/cannon for army, ship for fleet)."

"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."...

"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."...

From page three of the thread:

"...and run on some sort of standard (which we've mentioned multiple times - ships for fleets and soldier/tank/cannon/shield for army)..."

That's a minimum of SIX times I've talked about using a set of standardized icons that are intuitive to the user and differentiate between fleets and armies extremely easily. For someone who's argument is that people will pay attention to the map and notice that hexagon means fleet in 1800 and army in 1900, you sure aren't paying attention to what I'm saying. Undercut your own argument much? And for the record, my position (you know, the one I mentioned SIX times at least) is supported by JECE and Mercy, as you know, Mercy specifically said "I agree with drano and JECE." (funny how you left that party out isn't it? Cherrypick much?)

"*since we have no evidence these are actually misleading and may harm anyone's game with as they are perfectly subtitled right under their noses*."

Except for, you know, the guy making this argument not even paying attention to what his debate opponent is saying in the thread, despite it being perfectly subtitled right under his nose in the thread. Really supports that position of his that people will pay attention to the small details. /s

"The geometrical shapes are an art style I personally find attractive, and I know many others do (you said it yourself)."

You're right, they ARE attractive! Doesn't mean I think they're a good fit for using as icons though! This entire thread shows I don't think that, nor do JECE, Mercy, YCHTT, RUFFHAUS (although you don't care what he thinks), and now G-Man.

"Given mine and @YouCant's conversation about cartography and military iconography, no one can deny that geometrical shapes *are* recognizable."

What, the sidebar where an ex-military guy (who obviously recognizes MILITARY iconography duh) and the guy who CREATED the icons talk about looking things up in the New York Times? Of course we all RECOGNIZE geometrical shapes. That's obvious. Doesn't mean a random person knows square means army if they've never looked into military history (I mean, look, I like history alot, but talking about a commemorative NYT article about the Battle of Tours and using that as justification that gee everyone must be familiar with that iconography now? Come on man). Besides, if we're talking about military iconography, I'm pretty sure the military doesn't use square for army on one map, and a hexagon for army on another. If you want to talk military iconography, then keep it standard and use what the military ACTUALLY uses, otherwise there's no connection and the point is moot.


"I would share your sentiment. I have a weak spot for the cannon/ship marriage myself, and I had the pleasure of working on a beautiful set (initially provided by @VaeVictis) for 'Edwardian', 2nd Edition."

Progress. Excellent.

>If this is true, why cry about "how to play with icons in my mind"? You are supposed to be used to *no icons at all*, so seeing you whine about a few squares strikes me as random behavior.<

And you prove your attention span is typical millennial. I'll repeat, I have *several* boards where I *used* to keep track of my games.

But as you are acting like the recent college grad you are, your way will be right because, as all teenagers and early 20 somethings believe, there is no way people twice your age who have been playing since a decade before you were born could be right.

>I'm not sure you're actually understanding my position<

I do, actually. However you are backtracking on your own words! You *initially* defended keeping the vanilla tank. *Then* our conversation flowed to a middle ground (cannon).

>you need to work on your reading comprehension<

You do need to work on your reading comprehension: I said multiple times before that the cannon is very reasonable.

I just don't agree with your opinion regarding the abstract icons being confusing. Sorry, so far you proved utterly uncapable of convincing me otherwise.

>not even paying attention to what his debate opponent is saying<

Of course I am. Not sure about you though: you completely discarded @Firehawk's spot-on reply on page 2:

>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?<

You didn't dare answer this either. Hehehe.

And discarded poor @YouCant's consideration and my own reply to it:

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

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

You said something interesting down here:

>Doesn't mean I think they're a good fit for using as icons though<

That's your God-given right, of course. Hopefully I answered your question "(why have these shapes?").

>we all RECOGNIZE geometrical shapes<

There is still hope for you then. =D

>a random person knows square means army<

I will let @drasno answer that one for me: "let's not try to take things out of context?"

I believe a random person knows square means army if they can read the subtitles nicely put bellow every map on vDip, alongside the orders interface. And I think we got more than enough evidence that yes, they *can* correctly identify the new icons as long as they can read (though yes, mistakes can happen).

Your argument ultimately does not sustain itself. I am playing a game of one of the variants using the new icons, I actively talk to all players every single season, and no one among us had a problem with the icons. If anyone did, it certainly didn't have any impact of notice and thus is the smallest of problems, one I may choose to ignore when porting variants.

If they 1) look cool and 2) do their job, why the scare? You may argue that cannons/ships are superior - I would agree, even. But your attempts at saying that abstract icons are especially prone to confusion haven't convinced me yet.

>This entire thread shows<

This entire thread shows conjectures (which isn't bad at all, that's what we got for now). We have successful variants being played every day with the new icons - I don't buy the idea that these icons "aren't a good fit", sorry.

>RUFFHAUS (although you don't care what he thinks)<

To be honest, I don't know what he thinks: he merely attacked me and praised you (as if I had insulted you somehow). He never actually contributed to the discussion.

> If you want to talk military iconography, then keep it standard <

There is no universal standard even among military iconography. @YouCant mentioned NATO, but other countries do their own particular drawings.

And again, lack of standardization didn't set the website aflame. The abstract icons work just fine.

>you prove your attention span is<

Whoa, you did get triggered - where is your military discipline? Relax buddy, no hard feelings here, alright? Relaxed already?

Good - that' my boy!

> I have *several* boards where I *used* to keep track of my games.<

That's your word - why would I believe you? I personally take care before believing in fancy claims from people whose first argument that come to their heads is "hey I was in the military, thus I know what I am talking about".

If you did do that, then great. I gotta admire such dedication, Mr. Sea Soldier!

> there is no way people twice your age<

1) You don't know my age.

2) I doubt you have the age you claim to have given the ridiculous affirmations so far, but I reserve you the benefit of the doubt... to a short extent.

3) Why the bizarre 'ad hominem' attack? Did you lose your will to argue, @YouCant? If you did, get lost buddy - I enjoy discussions of all kinds, but trading insults is something you will have to do elsewhere, vDiplomacy is not the place for it.

"I do, actually. However you are backtracking on your own words! You *initially* defended keeping the vanilla tank. *Then* our conversation flowed to a middle ground (cannon)."

That's because I was directly replying to your comment where you said "green army and grey ship", so I replied in kind. Hell, I even put QUOTES around it in my message to show that I was referring to YOUR message. Literally my next message on the thread says:

"I still would argue that those shapes aren't intuitive like an actual tank (or cannon or soldier) and ship are"

So unless you're making the claim that I was "defending" the vanilla tank by simply replying with your exact words, then your point is baseless. Not to mention, I was only referring to the tank/ship in terms of how easy it was to differentiate between the two, not explicitly saying "TANK ONLY!!!!!!".

"You do need to work on your reading comprehension: I said multiple times before that the cannon is very reasonable."

Ok, again, taking things out of context. This is a pretty blatant attempt to misconstrue my words. My quote about reading comprehension had nothing to do with you talking about the cannon being reasonable. It was about you not understanding and misstating my position despite me laying it out at least 6 times in this thread. Two completely different things. Again, cherry-pick much?

"Of course I am."

Ok, then if you are paying attention to what I'm saying, why have you miscontrue my stance on the subject which has been consistent (except as noted above when I was directly quoting you) throughout the thread? Either you're not paying attention, or you're deliberately misleading. Which is it?


"Of course I am. Not sure about you though: you completely discarded @Firehawk's spot-on reply on page 2:

<Firehawk's quote which will be answered below>

You didn't dare answer this either. Hehehe."

Cool, Firehawk made a statement while I was in the middle of a 12 hour Saturday work shift on a construction site at O'Hare Airport. I'll happily reply now and explain why I ignored it earlier:

"I think it's clear there is certainly no overwhelming consensus to change the icons so this question is resolved!" <- Of course there isn't. We've mentioned in this thread how vDip doesn't have a very active userbase in the forum. There will *never* be overwhelming consensus on the forum unless site admins somehow get the whole site involved.

"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." <- Cool, that's all his opinion. Especially the last sentence the "no problem" part.

"Lets just leave all icons however the original creators chose to design them! If it aint broke and all that :)" <- Umm, isn't that kinda what this entire thread is about? So I *am* responding to that.

Happy now?

"There is still hope for you then. =D"

You know, it's these types of responses that make some of us think you're just being a snarky asshole. We're all (generally) polite people who like to play the same board game. With all due respect, that doesn't make us friends, and it doesn't mean we appreciate getting sass from other people like this. Same goes with the nicknames. That's something friends do, not essentially strangers on a game forum. (For the record, Drano is *already* a nickname, so yeah)


"I believe a random person knows square means army if they can read the subtitles nicely put bellow every map on vDip, alongside the orders interface. And I think we got more than enough evidence that yes, they *can* correctly identify the new icons as long as they can read (though yes, mistakes can happen)."

We have 28 games, hardly enough of a sample size to make this assertation. More importantly though, you literally just said mistakes can happen when referring to people correctly identifying the new icons. Either you don't really mean that, or..... /thread

"Your argument ultimately does not sustain itself. I am playing a game of one of the variants using the new icons, I actively talk to all players every single season, and no one among us had a problem with the icons. If anyone did, it certainly didn't have any impact of notice and thus is the smallest of problems, one I may choose to ignore when porting variants."

So, your anecdotal experience is now the definitive authority on whether there's a problem? I mean, you are claiming that if anyone had a problem (referring to the game you're in), it didn't have any impact, and thus is the "smallest of problems", one you can ignore. I seem to recall someone in this thread talking about something like this...ah yes! "That's your word - why would I believe you?" Are you really making the claim that just because your game is ok, it's all good? Because that's what it looks like you're doing.

"And again, lack of standardization didn't set the website aflame. The abstract icons work just fine."

Very little will "set the website aflame". If you're making the claim that it has to set the website bonkers before it's a problem, that's ridiculous. Just the fact that we have this long thread discussing it (where now 6 people have discussed opposing viewpoints to yours - me, YCHTT, RUFFHAUS (whatever you want to say about him, he was supporting me and my view and I'm sure he'd be happy to clarify that), JECE, Mercy, and G-Man) shows that there is clearly some sort of opposition to it. Vdip as a whole doesn't go crazy over things. A small percentage of people participate in the forum who may make their opinion known. And I believe 6 out of 8 people in this thread have come down on the side opposite of yours. That says something.

"2) I doubt you have the age you claim to have given the ridiculous affirmations so far, but I reserve you the benefit of the doubt... to a short extent."

Based on what you told me of your age Enriador, YCHTT is indeed more than double your age based on statements he made long ago that I have read that he was in the military from 84-88. Sure, he could be making a false persona over many years, but he had no reason to lie before, so barring asking for a birth certificate, I'm going to choose to believe him. Otherwise, if we have to assume we can't believe people, I'll have to assume the age you told me isn't true either, and maybe perhaps you're a 15 year old? Who knows?!?!

"3) Why the bizarre 'ad hominem' attack?"

To be fair, you've been making comments that come off as extremely snarky (to me at least) for much of the thread Enriador, so yeah, what goes around comes around?

>I was only referring to the tank/ship in terms of how easy it was to differentiate between the two<

Apologies then, I didn't interpret it as such. The following quotes of yours gave me the idea you exclusively supported the tank/ship:

> 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?<

>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.<

Then, after cannons were mentioned by @Jece (and others) we started making references to the cannons as well.

Your very first mention of "cannon" was after I said:

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

It's all there in page 1, isn't it?

>My quote about reading comprehension had nothing to do with you talking about the cannon being reasonable<

Of course it does! Here's what you wrote just before:

> I've said, MULTIPLE times now that I support a position of intuitive icons with the idea being tank/cannon/soldier/shield = army and ship = fleet. <

You stated that you support literally representative icons (rather than abstract icons). Among these, you mentioned the cannon. Hence why I replied that I supported the cannon idea as well - no clue why you keep bringing "reading comprehension" up. Should we start idiotizing one another now?

>have you miscontrue my stance <

I didn't misconstrue your stance. It has been relatively clear from the very start, and at times I agreed with it - though I disagree in others.

No need for cheap drama.

>I was in the middle of a 12 hour Saturday work shift on a construction site at O'Hare Airport<

I *totally* believe you.

>Firehawk's quote which will be answered below<

@Firehawk's first post (a diplomatic one) was very interesting (and so are your replies to it), but you conveniently ignored the second post, where he literally says it all (and I quoted above to make your job at replying it easier).

Since you are obviously not in the mood for reading, here is the short version:

> 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<

>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?<

We both know you don't really can answer these, but I can say I tried.

>you're just being a<

Weren't you the one making jokes about reading comprehension in first place? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>it doesn't mean we appreciate getting sass from other people like this<

If you dislike "getting sass" (aka receiving reasonable replies), my buddy Enri-ass-dor has a message for you: go get a break. We have been trading small puns and jokes for a couple of pages now, and if you can't stand it anymore, better if you just rest a bit.

>We have 28 games, hardly enough of a sample size to make this assertation.<

The same size *is* small, but we are still talking about hundreds of players. You were the brave soul among these players who gave your feedback (and for that I amvery grateful, by the way). If more stand up I shall (to quote myself again) "swiftly make new icons" for the variants.

One can't argue with facts, but they have to spring up first.

>More importantly though, you literally just said mistakes can happen when referring to people correctly identifying the new icons.<

They can, yes. Mistakes, however, can happen at any degree for any reason if someone has (to quote a philosopher) "brain farted" enough.

>your anecdotal experience is now the definitive authority on whether there's a problem<

Not at all. I admitted (several times by now...) that I might be wrong, I just would like a bit more reason than "abstract icons make me stop and think for 3 seconds" to scrap the pretty little pixels I made up. Poor flags!

> that's what it looks like you're doing. <

It isn't.

I think that such "issue" is extremely minor, if it even exists. As such, I am not going to hold myself from making new abstract icons.

HOWEVER (this bit is important), if there comes evidence of confusion caused by the icons, we can always just revert to vanilla or do something else entirely, more literal this time (like a cannon). If my work, in any way, harms player experience, the website doesn't need my consent to do what it must and fix the icons for good.

For now though, I don't see the danger of these little icons growing up and being used more often.

>there is clearly some sort of opposition to it<

I have no doubt about that. What, however, makes you think that this is an argument? I simply have points of view different from those of yours. I don't know who is the majority (as we have agreed, these damn sample sizes are too damn small) but even if I am the absolute majority I wouldn't discard your solitary opinion just for the sake of it.

You wisely and educatedly said the abstract icons can be a problem. Duly noted, thanks for pointing it out. Now, we move on. =)

>That says something.<

If it does say something, I take the satisfied silence of the majority who plays and replays the variants (Napoleonic, 1800, Canton) as rock-solid proof that you *are* just a loud minority.

I wouldn't ever do that, of course. Even loud minorities deserve a friendly ear.

>Based on what you told me of your age<

Did you believe it? Including the bit about playing Diplomacy during Christmas?

ಠ_ಠ

>I'm going to choose to believe him. <

This is your moral right.

>maybe perhaps you're a 15 year old?<

Maybe, perhaps. I might even be 13! Or 45. Who knows?

What I do know is that "pulling up rank","tooting one's own horn", "bragging about one's natural superiority" etc is a pretty poor way of supporting one's case

When people resort to meaningless boasting in the internet, you know they have very little of substance to add.

>what goes around comes around<

I took care to answer without talking about a person's supposed weaknesses or my own person's supposed advantages. If I did, apologies - we have the important duty of being respectful to each other in this community.

If you guys enjoy trading insults though, I recommend you go love each other elsewhere - vDiplomacy has an important reputation to keep.

sample size*

"Apologies then, I didn't interpret it as such. The following quotes of yours gave me the idea you exclusively supported the tank/ship:

> 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?<"

Again, that quote was in direct response to your question about the "green tanks and grey ships", so of course I referenced the "vanilla" icons. The cannons hadn't even come up in the discussion yet, as you admitted yourself.

">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.<"

Literally the very next sentence after this quote I mention the tank/cannon/soldier. The quote you put up is referencing Firehawk's post about the colored squares appearing and disappearing hence again, my reference to "vanilla" units.

"You stated that you support literally representative icons (rather than abstract icons). Among these, you mentioned the cannon. Hence why I replied that I supported the cannon idea as well - no clue why you keep bringing "reading comprehension" up. Should we start idiotizing one another now?"

I brought up reading comprehension because you stated that I support the status quo, when that is not the case. I said you need to check your reading comprehension because I've made it abundantly clear that I support (as you put it) representative icons instead of abstract icons. You then replied that i need to check my comprehension because you've said you support the cannon too. How that has anything to do with me saying you need to check your comprehension because you're misstating my position is beyond me.

"I *totally* believe you."

Do...do you want me to send you a picture of the airport? I'm literally right next to a taxiway and about 500-700 feet from a runway. I mean, I can send you a picture if you'd like? Maybe make a little sign saying "Hi Enriador from O'Hare Airport" to show you it's not pulled from the internet? Jesus dude, unclench your butt a little bit and lighten up, not everyone lies all the time.

"Since you are obviously not in the mood for reading, here is the short version:"

Putting aside yet another snarky comment, I apologize for replying to the wrong comment. To Firehawk's other comment, I'll let JECE do the talking from page 1, as it sums up the response quite simply:

"It does exist."

"Weren't you the one making jokes about reading comprehension in first place? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"

More unnecessary snark. My comments on reading comprehension weren't jokes. You have misconstrued my opinion on things, and as such, should check your comprehension of what I've been saying.


"The same size *is* small, but we are still talking about hundreds of players. You were the brave soul among these players who gave your feedback (and for that I amvery grateful, by the way). If more stand up I shall (to quote myself again) "swiftly make new icons" for the variants."

and

"If it does say something, I take the satisfied silence of the majority who plays and replays the variants (Napoleonic, 1800, Canton) as rock-solid proof that you *are* just a loud minority."

Convenient that you take "satisfied silence of the majority" when we've said multiple times already that most people on vDip don't ever come on the forum. Also interesting is that a lot of people on vDip just tend to go quiet when things turn against them and stop trying too hard (ask around, most top players can tell you this happens regularly), which might very well be the exact people who maybe had issues with the icons.

Not to mention, you contradict yourself. On one hand you say talk about how while the size is small, it's still hundreds of players, and the silent majority is fine with it. On the other hand, you've agreed that the "damn sample sizes are too damn small". If the damn sample sizes are too damn small, then having a majority be ok with it doesn't matter.

To make an extreme example, if in one game of classic dip, 6 people were ok with the icons being ship = army, and cannon = fleet, should we really be satisfied saying that since the silent majority was ok with it, then that's "rock-solid proof" that the one person who think the icons are weird just a loud minority? If the sample sizes are too small, then the majority opinion is not representative and cannot be used as a rationale for something.


"Did you believe it? Including the bit about playing Diplomacy during Christmas? "

Yes, I did believe it. I had no reason not to. My family used to play Monopoly and Risk and Axis and Allies and Settlers of Catan at all family gatherings, even the holidays. Playing Diplomacy does not seem out of the ordinary from my experience, so yes, I believed it. If you're stooping to lying about your age though, that's kind of ridiculous. I would hope we're all decent enough people to be truthful about who we are at least. Like I've said, I'm 30, and been playing Dip for about 13 years, the past 9 or so online. I'm also a civil engineer who is working on a construction project at O'hare airport. I have no reason to hide this or lie about it. Are you saying you're so uncertain about us here at vDip that you have to hide all personal details?

Not gonna comment on everything here, just my two cents on the original topic:

I personally don't like the current tank/ship display of the units, simply because it is historically inaccurate, the tank at least. I do like modelled representations, I.e. actual soldiers, cannons, ships etc more than the simple rectangle with a flag design though, although they are pretty nice to have for a change on some variants too. I'd therefore like to propose to maybe just change the current tank in classic to a soldier or artillery piece, or a helmet with a gun or whatever.

As for the updated map, Corsica being green has bothered me for a long time, any update there would upgrade it by so much!!

> The cannons hadn't even come up in the discussion yet<

Yeah, that is my point - we didn't reach the common ground of "cannon" yet as it wasn't even mentioned by @Jece. I thought you fully supported keeping the vanilla tanks, but now I see that isn't the case - you are willing for change, as long as it is for the better (in your eyes, of course).

>You then replied that i need to check my comprehension because you've said you support the cannon too<

That's it! I thought you supported the status quo. You then made clear that you didn't, and was considering cannons as well - which I also did all along.

Several times I had to quote myself to show that I would consider cannons, yet you kept on pressing on the defense of the vanilla tank. Hence why I said "hey, bro, I like cannons too, like you do".

>do you want me to send you a picture of the airport?<

Do you feel a need to prove yourself to internet strangers? Your own use of reason should be enough of a weapon, my fellow diplomat.

>Jesus dude<

Whoa, clean your mouth buddy- no need to vomit shit at this cozy little thread this hour of the night.

> unnecessary snark<

Is that what you call "snark"? You do these all the time. Even used some very rude wording after "Jesus dude", just a few minutes ago.

Cut the crap @drasno, this "snark" talk is empty. You call other people's opinions "ridiculous" (page 3) and dare say people are "foolish" if they disregard your words (page 2). But what is the use in pedantically nitpicking what you might or might not have meant?

I give you the benefit of the doubt and prefer to think you are making light jokes. <3

>most people on vDip don't ever come on the forum<

Most people with problems with my ("my") variants on vDip does come to the forum/PM myself/go to the Mod tab. Humpf, you did it yourself.

>people on vDip just tend to go quiet when things turn against them<

How so?

>On one hand you say talk about how while the size is small, it's still hundreds of players, and the silent majority is fine with it. On the other hand, you've agreed that the "damn sample sizes are too damn small". If the damn sample sizes are too damn small, then having a majority be ok with it doesn't matter. <

Gonna teach you a small thing about sample sizes:

Small sample sizes are NOT conclusive.

Small sample sizes should NOT be discarded completely.

So yes, there IS a small sample size (hundreds of players versus thousands and thousands of vDip players), but we CAN take clues from this sample size.

> If the sample sizes are too small, then the majority opinion is not representative<

Indeed, it's not "representative of the whole reality".

>and cannot be used as a rationale for something.<

Wrong buddy - it can.

Ever created and GM'd a variant yourself? Or, given your vast experience, ever engaged in playtesting a new variant?

If you replied "yes" to either question, you know that small sample sizes (common in variant playtesting) DO have their usefulness. They are not ultimately conclusive, but they have multiple uses and can guide you towards the next steps.

Honestly, if I see a game where 6 people are fine with abstract icons and 1 person isn't, I would try to change things for the better even though the lonely guy is in the minority. I do it all the time here on vDip with the variants I port, this case wouldn't be different.

>Playing Diplomacy does not seem out of the ordinary from my experience<

It isn't, really. Nothing against people who play it on Christmas - I may have done it myself, can't recall.

> you have to hide all personal details<

1) I don't have to report my personal details to anyone in this place, and that includes you. If you like to it's your business, and I fully respect that.

2) I see no use in reporting personal information on my private life to you. I have a personal distaste for people trying to use rank/profession/academic degree/place of residence/yearly wage/supposed experience/etc as if these things (easily made up anyway) proved anything about whatever is in discussion.

If you want to be seem as someone who knows what is being talked about, there is zero need to boast - your own reputation and eloquence should (should!) speak by themselves.

Ironically this applies to you (you are clearly a good egg), hence why I find you mumbling about who you are behind the screen mildly amusing.

Thanks for the feedback @God. I shall provide a traditional cannon/gunboat alternative here to see what folks prefer.

And for God's holy sake, I can't stand Eternally Neutral Sardinia anymore.

Here are all icons:

Old Icons (what we have now): https://imgur.com/a/LEgWHOH

New Icons (what I originally proposed): https://imgur.com/a/uUguz2p

Newer Icons (low contrast & high contrast versions): https://imgur.com/a/3O3KEFI

In this conversation (which I have completely read) between drano019 and Enriador, I fully support drano019's position.