Apart from the images. I've been busy with the eastwest symbols.

1. I agree with Jonno, all symbols should be at the same place.
2. I think this should be the left upper corner, because this is most and best seen. It even helps keeping commodities apart. In my printtest I saw no problems in just the west set or just the east set.
3. I think it really should be in a seperate box as I suggested before. Just adding another box like salt totals is very confusing to me. I should be an apart marker.
4. I think keeping all symbols black gets the best result. regardless of the cards' outline, I keep all boxes white, with a black outline and a little shadow.
5. For the shared commodities I used red now, cause blue gets confused with black in a bad lighted area. Purple or green could be an option too

here are some examples of how it might look:

Your new Wax suggestion is fine.

Your new Stone is much better!

Rotating the Copper works for me.

New Incense is fine.

The new Lacquer might be a bit too bright, and a bit too much contrast. As it is now it'll be the card with most contrast in the entire set.

I do not like your new Silk. On the other hand I don't think we have to change it. Your old proposal does not clash with Wine, and Lacquer is changed.

New pearls is great, much better than any earlier proposal.


After thinking about it I think your box is the best solution to the E/W problem. However, I don't like to change colour of the shared markers to red, I've never had any problems with the current hue of blue. And, unlike the non-tradable calamities, shared commodities does not have to be easily recognizable.

Ok, you have a point about the red markers. Let's keep it blue then

What's the problem with the new silk? the dark spots?
When I printed the cards, it had a problem with lacquer. One of these cards should be changed to solve this problem.

My problem with silk is those bright red "plasma rays" over the dark read background.
I find no problem combining the old silk and wine with the new lacquer:


Preferably I'd love a more moderate contrast on the lacquer (somewhere in between the old and new).

But if that's not possible, the new Lacquer is better than the new Silk, so keeping the new Lacquer is acceptable.

OK

it's new lacquer, old silk.

Do we all agree on the new calamities now?

We agree on the new commodities now. Please update your PSD template and send it to me (you can upload it on my ftp this time too) and I'll generate the individual cards and the sets.

That said, I reserve my rights to come with new complaints/suggestions after having played with the cards...

yes ofcourse. The real judgement is after at least one game of civilization with these cards.

I'll make one file wehen all calamities are done too.

Please keep commodities and calamities it two files like today (or I'll just re-split them when I get them). They are different enough to warrant that, and you are more often changing just one of them than both at the same time.

The (for now) final results are now available in the Archive.

I've checked and double checked the exported png images, but the human factor is always an issue, so please verify that I didn't do anything stupid.

Well,

no stupid thing. I realized that the EWmarkers sometimes overlay the decorations, and sometimes not. This was not recognized when I was doing a few test cards.

This can be solved easily by simply moving the decorations-layers a bit downwards. But you gotta export again.

I've done this to all layers, and uploaded a new file to your server.





Another thing is, I was wondering... Salt needs 9 boxes of numbers like always. But the Psd-file got 9 boxes of numbers for each card. Reaching numbers that are never used. Why is this done, or was this eventually intended and never removed? I just came to discover that when I exported my files to psd's.
Ofcourse you keep these layers invisable, but why do they exist in the first place?

I had noticed it too, but though you was aware of it and thought it no big deal, so I thought I should see how they worked out in print first.

Anyway, if you also think it's a problem, we should probably do something about it. However, I think you overdid the move a bit. So I've prepared a somewhat more moderate approach. I moved the E/W marker up 5px, and then moved down the individual markers that didn't clear the E/W box with 5px down so they did clear the box with 5px. This means I didn't touch the symbols that wasn't a problem, including the two lower symbols on each card. (I did, however, move the upper right symbol so it also cleared the box by 5 pixels, as anything else looked too odd).

I have had no time to re-export all images again, but you can take a look at the template and tell me what you think.


When we first created the template, the amount of each card was not yet set in stone, so we made it possible to make each up to 9 to easily be able to change it. It has never been removed as it costs little to keep it, and would save us lots of work in the unlikely case that we change in the future.
While 9 stack 9 cards is unlikely to ever be used, 9 stack 2 cards isn't too remote a possibility, and deciding exactly where to draw the line just isn't worth the time.

Well I had no real problem with my last version, bu neither do I have with yours.

What you like.

My problem with your version was that the symbols was too far down compared with the main digit.
Anyway, if you think my new template is OK, then that is what we'll use.
I'll redo the exports and print-sets tonight.

Oh, and I forgot, I also changed so that the outer border of the card always is black, rather than the same colour as the main digit and symbols. This because having the outer border white makes the border disappear completely, as it looks as if the white edge area just became larger.

Whatever you like. I have no real opinion on that. I thought you always wanted to keep it the same colour. Maybe you're right in always keepin a black border. this is more general to the EW-markers too.

You could always add another black (outside)border to a white or black insde border.