+- PG-HQ Forums (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms)
+-- Forum: Panzer Grenadier (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: DIY (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Something for Vince (/showthread.php?tid=760)
Something for Vince - plloyd1010 - 03-05-2014
If I made side counters, they would like something like this:
[attachment=542][attachment=543]
Side graphics are easy to get. They do seem to be busier the top renderings. Making something like the standard tri-shade graphics would be doable, but would take more time.
RE: Something for Vince - vince hughes - 03-05-2014
I'd be very surprised if anybody AT ALL said they do not look better !!
Look at em' !
They are to scale with each other as well arn't they ?
What a shame that was not the original decision of design.
EDIT .... Heck, if they wanted to, they could even place a few deifferent cams and other AFV colour designs on the 'same' counters.
RE: Something for Vince - plloyd1010 - 03-05-2014
They are closer to scale with each other. I think the PzIII may still be a little big. The only real issue may be that when you get them down to 0.65 inches, all that pretty may just be a colorful smudge. The outlined tri-shade that AP did with the original counters avoided that.
RE: Something for Vince - vince hughes - 03-05-2014
I'm not so sure that I am glad I asked you to do it. I feel like I am missing out on a whole game system of good AFV counters !! :-)
RE: Something for Vince - rerathbun - 03-05-2014
Being an old naval gamer, the top-down views always seemed more intuitive to me (no 'upside-down' counters on the map); I always liked the top-down Yaquinto Ironclads counters better than the side-view Excalibre counters.
That said, those do look really nice. I may have to revise my opinion for land-warfare games.
RE: Something for Vince - plloyd1010 - 03-05-2014
Pretty or not, it would still be a lot of "steel" to work through. Even worse if weapon & personnel counters join a revised counter set.
When I play, I turn my counters upright relative to me. My opponents usually do something similar. The obvious result being that our tanks drive towards each other sideways. The guns & infantry look somewhat better in their advancing. Thus side or top views matter very little me, unless some facing rule is involved.
RE: Something for Vince - Poor Yorek - 03-05-2014
Nicely done, Peter.
I always thought that even the simple black silhouettes (a la Panzer Blitz) were far more recognizable at a glance than the top down APL counters. I'll concede Peter's point regarding relative orientation upon approach, but I still find the know-what's-what-at-a-glance ability with the silhouettes to be a significant loss in play "comfort" - couldn't think of a better term. I find something similar with chess: I "see" the game better with Staunton pattern (or similar) pieces than with, say, historical or fantasy sets.
Part of the chess issue is likely familiarity, but I'd bet that there are studies in the psychological and/or cognitive science literature regarding how the brain does or does not recognize shapes and images and, in particular, how outlines/silhouettes are recognized compared to images with internal detail. Be sort of neat to do the experiment with APL armor counters and, say, old PB ones, testing recognition speed and accuracy.
RE: Something for Vince - campsawyer - 03-05-2014
very nice Peter.
could I see one without the shadowing under the tank?
RE: Something for Vince - plloyd1010 - 03-05-2014
That's an easy one Allen. The shadow is only a single object in the original file.
[attachment=544] [attachment=545]
I think without the shadow, the vehicle image and armor factor should be lowered a little. I think it looks better with a shadow though. Without the shadow, the tank looks like it is floating in space.
RE: Something for Vince - Hugmenot - 03-05-2014
Floating tanks, perfect for Strange Weapons!