Fair enough. I don't think that this particular addition would break the tooltip box, but I understand the slippery slope argument. And the argument that map-makers should really get their stuff together on the graphics end...

I'm not sure it's going to really be any bigger (Fogged games wouldn't show anything I imagine, just the name or Unknown)... although I do agree that I think it should be fixed by the Board Designer if the unit count can't be seen.

Ok, revised suggestion.

It might be nice for the board designer to have the option to toggle a halo (or mask) around the unit count numbers to highlight them against a noisier background. This could be a simple white/black one- or two-pixel border around the actual numbers (white halo for black text, black halo for white text). The halo would give the numbers contrast so they could be more easily read (this is an option for labeling map features in ArcGIS, for example).

Kjeld wrote: Ok, revised suggestion.

It might be nice for the board designer to have the option to toggle a halo (or mask) around the unit count numbers to highlight them against a noisier background. This could be a simple white/black one- or two-pixel border around the actual numbers (white halo for black text, black halo for white text). The halo would give the numbers contrast so they could be more easily read (this is an option for labeling map features in ArcGIS, for example).

The border designer can pretty much do this on his map image though can't they?  Maybe not as precise as outlining, but something similar as what Cram did with 1776. 

So, I dunno, maybe something cool/neat if it was a quick thing for tom (of course I think you may still get into white halo doesn't work for some areas or someone will want it customizable to be any color or for only some territories...), but really seems like just wanting WG to fix a map instead of the board designer.

The halo would mold to the actual uni number displayed on the map, as opposed to a generic circular halo made by the designer on the board image (which, by the way, would also show up in the fog layer, which is less than desirable).

In any case, as I said, this shouldn't be a priority for Tom at this point, but would be a nice option at some point.

I was actually thinking about enabling a sort of combined Circle / Fill mode view where the circles (with drop shadow etc) were still drawn on top of the filled area.

tom wrote: I was actually thinking about enabling a sort of combined Circle / Fill mode view where the circles (with drop shadow etc) were still drawn on top of the filled area.

This is what happens when you take an action on a territory right?  Like when you add units or when attacking.

Yes.

I like that it's present in the Dual Layer, and could see it being somewhat useful as a toggle for Designers (although could be confusing too since it's really still Fill mode), but for very small areas (which is what I'm assuming Kjeld would like it for), I'm not sure it would be too beneficial because it could potentially cover up the whole Fill territory (and borders), thereby really not looking all that great on the map. It may really not be all that "good looking" either since it ignores the textured board image layer (or would it then take this into account?). Likewise, how would Fog work with it?

A simple one- In the flash player, when I click on the board tab, to check borders/continents, I would rather have the board show first than the description.

So

details rules description

instead of

description rules details

Tom, you are the man.

Mongrel wrote: A simple one- In the flash player, when I click on the board tab, to check borders/continents, I would rather have the board show first than the description.

So

details rules description

instead of

description rules details

Aye, good call with this!

*edit* Except I just noticed that I think it broke the Design tab :P

do we have a 'rematch' capability? if i understand correctly there is the 'restart' button, but that's not really a rematch, it just plays the same game again..

No... although it's a good idea. Should rematches be allowed for Public (ranked) games do you think?

Yes, but they should not be ranked. It should open a private game with all the players invited.

OK agreed.

I was never really a fan of Rematches on WF, but don't see why a simple button shouldn't be available.
The thing to watch out for is Declines and "breaking" the game (ie if 4 players are needed and 1 Declines). I guess the Host (person that hits Rematch) could then add more players, just like a normal private game.

i don't see why it shouldn't be available for ranked games as well. I've been playing a fair amount of SpyvSpy games against Ed Nygma and Mongrel and would terribly like to just hit a button to start a rematch. it beats the pants out of putting up another board with the title "rematch for soandso"....

granted there could be issues with a board with a mandatory # of players, but the host should be able to terminate before play begins, correct? that would fix that problem.

Rematch being Ranked creates an easier route for abuse IMO. It pretty much allows the creation of Private Ranked games since others wouldn't be able to join and they would never be Open.

i thought private games by definition weren't ranked.

and how does one win something that noone is joining? or are you saying against a duplicate account?