Tech help

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Tech help

      This is in fact related to CoW, but I wasn't sure where it belonged so I settled on here as the least disruptive spot.

      So, lately I've been sitting out of games because I've been getting this message:



      Which, when I play a game, means it's insanely laggy and automatically on the low-graphics mode (the latter I can live with even though I find it ugly but the former is such an impediment that I actually abandoned a game because it was annoying me so badly).

      I've tried clearing my browsing data, including cache. Nope. In fact I tried that again just before posting this just in case I didn't remember to clear everything last time, and achieved nothing.
      I've also tried moving to places in my house where there's better internet, because the room I'm usually in is awful from that perspective, just in case that makes any sort of difference. It doesn't.

      Since I am not a tech person, this represents the limit of my troubleshooting abilities, so: has anyone else had this problem, and how did they fix it (if indeed they have)?


      I've actually had this for over a month now, and I've been hoping it would clear up by itself, but now I'm considering joining the forum game but really don't want to play with the mobile version, which I have tried and hate almost as much as the laggy monstrosity desktop has become. And switching to a different PC is not impossible but highly impractical. So this has suddenly become more urgent.
      Her Ladyship Aragosta
      A.K.A. "The Backstab Person"

      Pan-Asian is a better doctrine than Axis when played correctly and you cannot change my mind.

      You just lost The Game.

      Join the Madness here:
      CoW Forum Players! Unite!

    • Did you ever submit a support ticket, maybe that could help?

      Lady Aragosta wrote:


      But now I'm considering joining the forum game but really don't want to play with the mobile version, which I have tried and hate almost as much as the laggy monstrosity desktop has become.
      As a mobile player, I do not disagree, but I must say in your face!

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • I didn't, actually. Maybe that should have been where I started.

      And given that you also seem to prefer the abomination that is colours mode over the aesthetically pleasing relations mode, I think it's safe to say that our ideas of what constitute a pleasant interface differ considerably.
      Her Ladyship Aragosta
      A.K.A. "The Backstab Person"

      Pan-Asian is a better doctrine than Axis when played correctly and you cannot change my mind.

      You just lost The Game.

      Join the Madness here:
      CoW Forum Players! Unite!

    • Huh. I opened CoW just then and guess what? No trace of the problem. No popup, and I experimentally opened my dormant Australia game and nothing untoward happened to it (outside of Australia being invaded). I haven't even complained about it to anyone outside of this thread (or my wall, where I first raised it).

      Of course it's going to reappear just as the forum game starts.

      But all the same. Given that it's been plaguing me for a while, that's just bizarre.
      Her Ladyship Aragosta
      A.K.A. "The Backstab Person"

      Pan-Asian is a better doctrine than Axis when played correctly and you cannot change my mind.

      You just lost The Game.

      Join the Madness here:
      CoW Forum Players! Unite!

    • Lady Aragosta wrote:

      I didn't, actually. Maybe that should have been where I started.

      And given that you also seem to prefer the abomination that is colours mode over the aesthetically pleasing relations mode, I think it's safe to say that our ideas of what constitute a pleasant interface differ considerably.
      You… traitor!

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • Carking the 6th wrote:

      Lady Aragosta wrote:

      I didn't, actually. Maybe that should have been where I started.

      And given that you also seem to prefer the abomination that is colours mode over the aesthetically pleasing relations mode, I think it's safe to say that our ideas of what constitute a pleasant interface differ considerably.
      You… traitor!
      Maybe so, but a traitor of taste and discretion.
      Her Ladyship Aragosta
      A.K.A. "The Backstab Person"

      Pan-Asian is a better doctrine than Axis when played correctly and you cannot change my mind.

      You just lost The Game.

      Join the Madness here:
      CoW Forum Players! Unite!

    • Lady Aragosta wrote:

      Carking the 6th wrote:

      Lady Aragosta wrote:

      I didn't, actually. Maybe that should have been where I started.

      And given that you also seem to prefer the abomination that is colours mode over the aesthetically pleasing relations mode, I think it's safe to say that our ideas of what constitute a pleasant interface differ considerably.
      You… traitor!
      Maybe so, but a traitor of taste and discretion.
      Nah, Color map is better. Relations map is ugly. Why would I want constant grey and red? I know redcoat blue, french white, navy blue and grey are the only colors in the United Kingdom (Though you see some green when you look over towards Ireland) but I thought you’d have more diversity in your taste!

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • Carking the 6th wrote:

      Lady Aragosta wrote:

      Carking the 6th wrote:

      Lady Aragosta wrote:

      I didn't, actually. Maybe that should have been where I started.

      And given that you also seem to prefer the abomination that is colours mode over the aesthetically pleasing relations mode, I think it's safe to say that our ideas of what constitute a pleasant interface differ considerably.
      You… traitor!
      Maybe so, but a traitor of taste and discretion.
      Nah, Color map is better. Relations map is ugly. Why would I want constant grey and red? I know redcoat blue, french white, navy blue and grey are the only colors in the United Kingdom (Though you see some green when you look over towards Ireland) but I thought you’d have more diversity in your taste!
      As someone who's been studying in the arts, I have to disagree with the idea that 'constant red and grey' (as an aside, the absence of green in this description indicates something about your approach to diplomacy) is inferior to a huge array of clashing colours. That sort of thing can be done well, as is evidenced in a lot of modern and post-modern art, but bad examples of the above show that most of the time it really isn't. A subdued palette with limited bright tones that don't dominate the whole look of the thing is generally preferable.
      And even some of the more modern artists reflected this - for example, Joan Miro's art (particularly his later work) is dominated by yellows and blues, and not particularly bright ones at that, rather than a whole range of different colours.
      Her Ladyship Aragosta
      A.K.A. "The Backstab Person"

      Pan-Asian is a better doctrine than Axis when played correctly and you cannot change my mind.

      You just lost The Game.

      Join the Madness here:
      CoW Forum Players! Unite!

    • Lady Aragosta wrote:

      Carking the 6th wrote:

      Lady Aragosta wrote:

      Carking the 6th wrote:

      Lady Aragosta wrote:

      I didn't, actually. Maybe that should have been where I started.

      And given that you also seem to prefer the abomination that is colours mode over the aesthetically pleasing relations mode, I think it's safe to say that our ideas of what constitute a pleasant interface differ considerably.
      You… traitor!
      Maybe so, but a traitor of taste and discretion.
      Nah, Color map is better. Relations map is ugly. Why would I want constant grey and red? I know redcoat blue, french white, navy blue and grey are the only colors in the United Kingdom (Though you see some green when you look over towards Ireland) but I thought you’d have more diversity in your taste!
      As someone who's been studying in the arts, I have to disagree with the idea that 'constant red and grey' (as an aside, the absence of green in this description indicates something about your approach to diplomacy)
      Drab greens. Also still true, anlmost completely grey and later red. Are you allying with the 20 inactives per game?



      Lady Aragosta wrote:

      Carking the 6th wrote:

      Lady Aragosta wrote:

      Carking the 6th wrote:

      Lady Aragosta wrote:

      I didn't, actually. Maybe that should have been where I started.

      And given that you also seem to prefer the abomination that is colours mode over the aesthetically pleasing relations mode, I think it's safe to say that our ideas of what constitute a pleasant interface differ considerably.
      You… traitor!
      Maybe so, but a traitor of taste and discretion.
      Nah, Color map is better. Relations map is ugly. Why would I want constant grey and red? I know redcoat blue, french white, navy blue and grey are the only colors in the United Kingdom (Though you see some green when you look over towards Ireland) but I thought you’d have more diversity in your taste!
      As someone who's been studying in the arts, I have to disagree with the idea that 'constant red and grey' (as an aside, the absence of green in this description indicates something about your approach to diplomacy) is inferior to a huge array of clashing colours. That sort of thing can be done well, as is evidenced in a lot of modern and post-modern art, but bad examples of the above show that most of the time it really isn't. A subdued palette with limited bright tones that don't dominate the whole look of the thing is generally preferable.And even some of the more modern artists reflected this - for example, Joan Miro's art (particularly his later work) is dominated by yellows and blues, and not particularly bright ones at that, rather than a whole range of different colours.

      What is the world other than chaotic and clashing? If this is so, then the color map would only make sense. Yes, there are bad examples of it, but as evident by any sight in the United Kingdom, drab, muted colors can look terrible as well. The colored map usually assigns a contrasting color that pops out compared to all other countries. Makes differentiating them more easy. More effective in the political sense and as a map where you want to tell who’s who… the maps on the colored map are not bright and random, they have meaning… From American blues and Soviet reds, the colors all make sense and represent their countries well. Relations map is dry, empty. It doesn’t evoke the chaos, complexity and intensity of the geopolitical realm, but rather helps to empty its effect.
      Overall, the colored map is more effective for a game like this, and the topic of the Second World War.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • Carking the 6th wrote:

      Drab greens. Also still true, anlmost completely grey and later red. Are you allying with the 20 inactives per game?
      I was going to write something about diplomacy, but the 'anlmost' is taking up nearly all of my attention.
      Do you have something against drab greens? I like that shade of green.

      Carking the 6th wrote:


      What is the world other than chaotic and clashing? If this is so, then the color map would only make sense. Yes, there are bad examples of it, but as evident by any sight in the United Kingdom, drab, muted colors can look terrible as well.
      Metaphorically chaotic and clashing. And frankly, the 'metaphorically' bit is already taken care of in any game with more than two or so active players. I find that too many bright colours right up against each other a) cancel each other out to the point where they don't actually mean a lot, as opposed to two or three bright colours surrounded by drab ones, and b) are the visual equivalent of a noise overload. At this point it's down to personal taste and is thus an automatic stalemate but I find the colours mode to be hugely unattractive and you cannot talk me into liking it.

      Carking the 6th wrote:

      The colored map usually assigns a contrasting color that pops out compared to all other countries. Makes differentiating them more easy. More effective in the political sense and as a map where you want to tell who’s who…
      On the relations map, the countries that matter really stick out, because they're comparatively brightly coloured while surrounded by non-brightly coloured things rather than more bright colours, and one doesn't have to pay attention to random neutral states if one doesn't want to. If I'm fighting a three-way war I don't care about the five neutral countries sharing a continent with me, I care about the three countries I'm actively fighting and any allies I may or may not have.
      Furthermore when late-game bordergore kicks in my relations with a previously neutral country can change overnight through no fault of my own. If I am against my better judgement using colour mode I won't even notice, since the war declaration will be lost in all my other notifications and the article buried under the last six hours' worth of articles relating to a country on the other side of the map, but in relations mode I'll notice immediately. So I find it an active hindrance by the time I'm at a point where identifying countries would be at all difficult.

      Carking the 6th wrote:

      the maps on the colored map are not bright and random, they have meaning… From American blues and Soviet reds, the colors all make sense and represent their countries well.
      Depends entirely on what associations you have. US and Soviets make sense, and so does Manchukuo being yellow in HWW (I don't know what it is on other maps). For everyone else my internal colour for the country invariably doesn't match the one on the map (for example, Australia is ochre red in my brain and green on the HWW map, that being the last colour I would have assigned it).

      Carking the 6th wrote:

      Relations map is dry, empty. It doesn’t evoke the chaos, complexity and intensity of the geopolitical realm, but rather helps to empty its effect.
      It does just as well for evoking chaos and complexity in the areas relevant to you, the player. As for the rest of the map? I find that sort of thing to be a distraction. If I want an overview of which countries in South America or wherever are the strongest, I'll zoom out and glance at the borders, or check the newspaper. (And if neither are much of an enlightenment, I'm probably looking at a bordergore situation I'm better off checking up on in a few days when it's slightly saner and one person is looking more likely to win.)

      Carking the 6th wrote:

      Overall, the colored map is more effective for a game like this, and the topic of the Second World War.
      As discussed extensively above, it depends on the specific person playing, and for some (like myself) it's aesthetically offensive with no real compensations.

      The only situation in which I would turn it on is if I were in a complicated bordergore tussle with three or four doctrines in the mix, and even then only if I were in a position to be fussy about what units I were using, rather than my standard emergency 'throw artillery and militia at it' strategy (which I almost never am because such wars use up a lot of my resources).
      Her Ladyship Aragosta
      A.K.A. "The Backstab Person"

      Pan-Asian is a better doctrine than Axis when played correctly and you cannot change my mind.

      You just lost The Game.

      Join the Madness here:
      CoW Forum Players! Unite!

    • Lady Aragosta wrote:

      Carking the 6th wrote:

      Drab greens. Also still true, anlmost completely grey and later red. Are you allying with the 20 inactives per game?
      I was going to write something about diplomacy, but the 'anlmost' is taking up nearly all of my attention.Do you have something against drab greens? I like that shade of green.
      That shade of green is alright, but not too… vivid. Nothing special, nothing I’d enjoy staring at.

      Lady Aragosta wrote:

      Metaphorically chaotic and clashing. And frankly, the 'metaphorically' bit is already taken care of in any game with more than two or so active players. I find that too many bright colours right up against each other a) cancel each other out to the point where they don't actually mean a lot, as opposed to two or three bright colours surrounded by drab ones, and b) are the visual equivalent of a noise overload. At this point it's down to personal taste and is thus an automatic stalemate but I find the colours mode to be hugely unattractive and you cannot talk me into liking it.

      Not sure what you exactly mean in the second sentence. Not all colors used in the color map are bright. For example, Germany is a dark grey. That doesn’t cancel out with the more vivid blue of say, France. I can see where you come from in the overwhelming department, however the colors chosen are honestly muted enough to where it done not kill your brain, all while giving each country a unique color. You know what’s also huge unattractive? Your-



      Lady Aragosta wrote:


      Carking the 6th wrote:

      The colored map usually assigns a contrasting color that pops out compared to all other countries. Makes differentiating them more easy. More effective in the political sense and as a map where you want to tell who’s who…
      On the relations map, the countries that matter really stick out, because they're comparatively brightly coloured while surrounded by non-brightly coloured things rather than more bright colours, and one doesn't have to pay attention to random neutral states if one doesn't want to. If I'm fighting a three-way war I don't care about the five neutral countries sharing a continent with me, I care about the three countries I'm actively fighting and any allies I may or may not have.Furthermore when late-game bordergore kicks in my relations with a previously neutral country can change overnight through no fault of my own. If I am against my better judgement using colour mode I won't even notice, since the war declaration will be lost in all my other notifications and the article buried under the last six hours' worth of articles relating to a country on the other side of the map, but in relations mode I'll notice immediately. So I find it an active hindrance by the time I'm at a point where identifying countries would be at all difficult.
      Actually, the color mode does make it easy to tell who your ally is. The color becomes far brighter if right of way, and you can of course see units with share map. As for wars, you should be able to tell by seeing any border changes, the fences on the borders, color changes if previously an ally, and nearby red units combined. I’ve never had issues with telling who I’m at war with, at least. And I am a very forgetful man.

      Lady Aragosta wrote:


      Carking the 6th wrote:

      the maps on the colored map are not bright and random, they have meaning… From American blues and Soviet reds, the colors all make sense and represent their countries well.
      Depends entirely on what associations you have. US and Soviets make sense, and so does Manchukuo being yellow in HWW (I don't know what it is on other maps). For everyone else my internal colour for the country invariably doesn't match the one on the map (for example, Australia is ochre red in my brain and green on the HWW map, that being the last colour I would have assigned it).
      I think Australia is supposed to have a color representing the irradiated deserts that fill its wasteland? I’ll admit you make a point there. But that’s still rather rare… Most other countries are fine. France is pink (rather close to the red on their flag, contrast) UK of course is blue, Germany is grey, Italy is yellow/green (forgor which one), I believe Poland is white, etc… only perhaps Turkey with its cyan confuses me, since it has a nice beige in CON. But still, the colors are fitting for the most part.

      Lady Aragosta wrote:


      Carking the 6th wrote:

      Relations map is dry, empty. It doesn’t evoke the chaos, complexity and intensity of the geopolitical realm, but rather helps to empty its effect.
      It does just as well for evoking chaos and complexity in the areas relevant to you, the player. As for the rest of the map? I find that sort of thing to be a distraction. If I want an overview of which countries in South America or wherever are the strongest, I'll zoom out and glance at the borders, or check the newspaper. (And if neither are much of an enlightenment, I'm probably looking at a bordergore situation I'm better off checking up on in a few days when it's slightly saner and one person is looking more likely to win.)
      Not for the most part. Usually, I already have relations memorized in my head. I’d rather remember who owns and took what. I remember being confused with which enemy owned with city and which ally took what in certain wars, when I used to use relations map. Border changes feel more important to me, regardless of bordergore (I’ve seen enough to be desensitized).



      Lady Aragosta wrote:

      Carking the 6th wrote:

      Overall, the colored map is more effective for a game like this, and the topic of the Second World War.
      As discussed extensively above, it depends on the specific person playing, and for some (like myself) it's aesthetically offensive with no real compensations.
      The only situation in which I would turn it on is if I were in a complicated bordergore tussle with three or four doctrines in the mix, and even then only if I were in a position to be fussy about what units I were using, rather than my standard emergency 'throw artillery and militia at it' strategy (which I almost never am because such wars use up a lot of my resources).
      I’ll concede that it’s subjective, but that doesn’t mean I won’t argue for the fun of it!

      I will set that situation up to the best of my ability once this forum game comes around…

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • Carking the 6th wrote:

      Lady Aragosta wrote:

      I was going to write something about diplomacy, but the 'anlmost' is taking up nearly all of my attention. Do you have something against drab greens? I like that shade of green.
      That shade of green is alright, but not too… vivid. Nothing special, nothing I’d enjoy staring at.
      Huh. I suppose you like acid green. The sort of colour I don't mind seeing in nature but humans can't pull off artificially.

      Carking the 6th wrote:

      Not sure what you exactly mean in the second sentence. Not all colors used in the color map are bright. For example, Germany is a dark grey. That doesn’t cancel out with the more vivid blue of say, France. I can see where you come from in the overwhelming department, however the colors chosen are honestly muted enough to where it done not kill your brain, all while giving each country a unique color. You know what’s also huge unattractive? Your-
      In the second sentence, what I mean is that 'the world being a chaotic and clashing place' means, or was interpreted by me to mean, that it is human activity that makes it that way, and not visual activity at that. That sort of chaos and clashiness is provided by human players within the game engaging in the sorts of activities that make forum members come here to rant about it.
      OK, so maybe there's slightly more contrast in the colour map scale than I've previously admitted. But not enough for me to back down on any of those points. At this point I also call sensory sensitivity. Also I just do not like most of those colours even in isolation. Simple as.


      Carking the 6th wrote:

      Actually, the color mode does make it easy to tell who your ally is. The color becomes far brighter if right of way, and you can of course see units with share map. As for wars, you should be able to tell by seeing any border changes, the fences on the borders, color changes if previously an ally, and nearby red units combined. I’ve never had issues with telling who I’m at war with, at least. And I am a very forgetful man.
      Noticeably brighter? Not to somebody like me who's used to using relations mode and is just looking at a big block of colours, some of which are brighter than others anyway (also somebody who has Fog of War turned off wouldn't have this effect on their map so it would make no difference whatsoever. I do use Fog of War, partly because it's so useful I don't really understand why someone would choose to have it disabled and partly for aesthetic reasons, but the point stands).
      The border fences are a detail it's very easy to overlook when one is already overwhelmed with other stuff going on in the game (citation: that Manchukuo game, plus every other game I've played where I got to that stage rather than being immediately steamrollered) and the red unit tags just mean 'oh look, more stuff I need to kill' rather than 'crap someone new declared war on me' because they take more active investigation to identify as belonging to a certain country. (Yes, I know: when you select them the thumbnail shows a huge flag in the background. I've very good at overlooking that sort of detail when I'm focused on the stack composition and how many hitpoints it has and how they're distributed.)
      In brief: I like being able to find out important stuff, like 'oh look, Tibet declared war on me', at a glance. Not by scrutinising borders.


      Carking the 6th wrote:


      I think Australia is supposed to have a color representing the irradiated deserts that fill its wasteland? I’ll admit you make a point there. But that’s still rather rare… Most other countries are fine. France is pink (rather close to the red on their flag, contrast) UK of course is blue, Germany is grey, Italy is yellow/green (forgor which one), I believe Poland is white, etc… only perhaps Turkey with its cyan confuses me, since it has a nice beige in CON. But still, the colors are fitting for the most part.
      This I'll give you, but it's still subjective. Admittedly the fact that my colour associations for countries when playing a WWII game are more related to synaesthesia than to politics or flags says more about me than about most users, but then I can't be the only person like that playing... surely?
      Also, the UK looks purple to me. Even a comparatively reddish purple. I was not aware that anyone thought of that as blue. But then I think of the SimCity 2000 commercial zoning as blue, but apparently some people think it's purple.
      All of which seems to be another argument for 'trying to assign logical colours isn't going to work'.


      Carking the 6th wrote:



      Not for the most part. Usually, I already have relations memorized in my head. I’d rather remember who owns and took what. I remember being confused with which enemy owned with city and which ally took what in certain wars, when I used to use relations map. Border changes feel more important to me, regardless of bordergore (I’ve seen enough to be desensitized).
      "Usually I already have relations memorised in my head."
      Interesting.
      I can generally keep track of relations I instigated, or at least was heavily involved in the creation of. But as mentioned before, in situations where the AI start ganging up on the Dreaded nations I can't rely on my memory. Nor do I want to press on with a war if it turns out the other bloke surrendered and gave me right of way while I was asleep. (Well sometimes I do but this is the sort of situation that calls for actual thinking, not doing something accidentally because I didn't notice the change to relations.)
      As for border changes: the major ones are pretty easy to keep tabs on by scrolling out of the map, and I don't really care about the minor ones (except on my own fronts, where I'm going to know about them anyway). I don't really care what ally has which city since I'm probably going to betray them all anyway (and if they're an ally-for-life I'm going to be watching them more closely than I would otherwise). I mostly care about who, overall, is more powerful, has more cities overall, managed to get the good bits during an invasion, etc. Nothing too fiddly unless I have reasons to be concerned about a specific country.
      I know this goes against what I said earlier about seeing things at a glance, but for me relations trump minor border details.

      Carking the 6th wrote:


      I’ll concede that it’s subjective, but that doesn’t mean I won’t argue for the fun of it!
      I will set that situation up to the best of my ability once this forum game comes around…
      Yeah you asked for this.

      Have fun. If you end up in a war with me, unless you deliberately hold back, I'm basically dead anyway.
      And if you do deliberately hold back, that would be...interesting.
      Her Ladyship Aragosta
      A.K.A. "The Backstab Person"

      Pan-Asian is a better doctrine than Axis when played correctly and you cannot change my mind.

      You just lost The Game.

      Join the Madness here:
      CoW Forum Players! Unite!

    • Lady Aragosta wrote:

      Carking the 6th wrote:

      Lady Aragosta wrote:

      I was going to write something about diplomacy, but the 'anlmost' is taking up nearly all of my attention. Do you have something against drab greens? I like that shade of green.
      That shade of green is alright, but not too… vivid. Nothing special, nothing I’d enjoy staring at.
      Huh. I suppose you like acid green. The sort of colour I don't mind seeing in nature but humans can't pull off artificially.
      Not sure exactly what you mean… that color looks closer to the one used by the game. Not very natural, but I guess it’s vivid? More bright than vivid.


      Lady Aragosta wrote:


      Carking the 6th wrote:

      Not sure what you exactly mean in the second sentence. Not all colors used in the color map are bright. For example, Germany is a dark grey. That doesn’t cancel out with the more vivid blue of say, France. I can see where you come from in the overwhelming department, however the colors chosen are honestly muted enough to where it done not kill your brain, all while giving each country a unique color. You know what’s also huge unattractive? Your-
      In the second sentence, what I mean is that 'the world being a chaotic and clashing place' means, or was interpreted by me to mean, that it is human activity that makes it that way, and not visual activity at that. That sort of chaos and clashiness is provided by human players within the game engaging in the sorts of activities that make forum members come here to rant about it.OK, so maybe there's slightly more contrast in the colour map scale than I've previously admitted. But not enough for me to back down on any of those points. At this point I also call sensory sensitivity. Also I just do not like most of those colours even in isolation. Simple as.
      Bad take. What other way would you represent that activity? You want bomb effects all around the borders of countries at war? I for one thing that the contrasting colors represent that better. Painting the map your own nations color is another plus. Sensory sensitivity? Tell that to your soldiers getting blown up on the front ;( .



      Lady Aragosta wrote:

      Noticeably brighter? Not to somebody like me who's used to using relations mode and is just looking at a big block of colours, some of which are brighter than others anyway (also somebody who has Fog of War turned off wouldn't have this effect on their map so it would make no difference whatsoever. I do use Fog of War, partly because it's so useful I don't really understand why someone would choose to have it disabled and partly for aesthetic reasons, but the point stands).The border fences are a detail it's very easy to overlook when one is already overwhelmed with other stuff going on in the game (citation: that Manchukuo game, plus every other game I've played where I got to that stage rather than being immediately steamrollered) and the red unit tags just mean 'oh look, more stuff I need to kill' rather than 'crap someone new declared war on me' because they take more active investigation to identify as belonging to a certain country. (Yes, I know: when you select them the thumbnail shows a huge flag in the background. I've very good at overlooking that sort of detail when I'm focused on the stack composition and how many hitpoints it has and how they're distributed.)
      In brief: I like being able to find out important stuff, like 'oh look, Tibet declared war on me', at a glance. Not by scrutinising borders.
      Yes, noticeably brighter. I find it very easy to tell my diplomatic relations at a glance… the color significantly changes. Who’s foolish enough to turn off Fog of War? It’s a very important to tool to know how far you can see…

      Point is, it’s not that hard to know who you are at war with… it only takes a couple minutes. You could say the same with provinces, sure, but I consider war changes more important than diplomacy ones.

      In that case, I’d like to find out important stuff Like ‘oh look, Tibet took Dehli’ at a glance. Not by scrutinizing borders. You spelled scrutinising wrong…



      Lady Aragosta wrote:

      This I'll give you, but it's still subjective. Admittedly the fact that my colour associations for countries when playing a WWII game are more related to synaesthesia than to politics or flags says more about me than about most users, but then I can't be the only person like that playing... surely?Also, the UK looks purple to me. Even a comparatively reddish purple. I was not aware that anyone thought of that as blue. But then I think of the SimCity 2000 commercial zoning as blue, but apparently some people think it's purple.
      All of which seems to be another argument for 'trying to assign logical colours isn't going to work'.
      Really? I thought it was universally either dark blue (for more modern times), pink (seen this a few times) or red (British empire, red coats). Mostly the former thanks to the flag and Britannia rules the waves stuff. Red White and Blue are its national colors, or colours, after all.
      Sure, there isn’t one logical color, but you can have multiple ones that work.


      Lady Aragosta wrote:



      Carking the 6th wrote:

      Not for the most part. Usually, I already have relations memorized in my head. I’d rather remember who owns and took what. I remember being confused with which enemy owned with city and which ally took what in certain wars, when I used to use relations map. Border changes feel more important to me, regardless of bordergore (I’ve seen enough to be desensitized).
      "Usually I already have relations memorised in my head."Interesting.
      I can generally keep track of relations I instigated, or at least was heavily involved in the creation of. But as mentioned before, in situations where the AI start ganging up on the Dreaded nations I can't rely on my memory. Nor do I want to press on with a war if it turns out the other bloke surrendered and gave me right of way while I was asleep. (Well sometimes I do but this is the sort of situation that calls for actual thinking, not doing something accidentally because I didn't notice the change to relations.)
      As for border changes: the major ones are pretty easy to keep tabs on by scrolling out of the map, and I don't really care about the minor ones (except on my own fronts, where I'm going to know about them anyway). I don't really care what ally has which city since I'm probably going to betray them all anyway (and if they're an ally-for-life I'm going to be watching them more closely than I would otherwise). I mostly care about who, overall, is more powerful, has more cities overall, managed to get the good bits during an invasion, etc. Nothing too fiddly unless I have reasons to be concerned about a specific country.
      I know this goes against what I said earlier about seeing things at a glance, but for me relations trump minor border details.
      I could say the same things with war. I could care less which AI is at war and has good relations because I memorized all the ones that mattered and can easily find new ones with a few clicks. All those minor border changes you mentioned are easier with color map. Why click on each city separately when you can see them all? I’d argue that’s harder than clicking on each country you’re at war with or looking at units/borders. Of course I usually don’t betray people so my line of thought it different, but minor border details would matter more to me than relations regardless. Also, if you don’t care who your ally is, then why would keeping constant knowledge of your relations matter, in that case?


      Lady Aragosta wrote:

      Yeah you asked for this.
      Have fun. If you end up in a war with me, unless you deliberately hold back, I'm basically dead anyway.
      And if you do deliberately hold back, that would be...interesting.
      I asked for this? Maybe. Worth it.

      Hmm… elaborate on that last sentence.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate