Moderator: Cartographers
edbeard wrote:To be frank, you try to make a thread for a new idea every week (If not multiple times a week). So, until you show me something good, I'm not behind this idea.
You've been around long enough to know that threads like this don't do anything. The idea is only as good as the execution. Any idea can be good if done right. If you make threads with only ideas then you'll get nothing.
You have to show people what you're going to do. Don't worry about graphics. Get something up with territories and continents. You have to put thought into gameplay and realism. Do research and look at maps of Japan (or whatever idea it is). Maybe try to find something with separate empires/kingdoms to help you split continents. From there put the territories while thinking about gameplay (borders impassables etc...). Keep in mind that you need labels and circles inside of each territory.
Until you put in the work and keep going at an idea, you'll be known as the guy who makes threads about ideas and never puts up anything worthwhile. I'm not saying that you're not trying hard, but you have to put the effort in the right direction.
oaktown wrote:I applaud the idea of a Japan map - we've got six or seven maps of China either live or in the works, why not Japan? But there's something about this map that doesn't work for me... I can't quite put my finger on what's bothering me... what could it possibly be?
d.gishman wrote:Also, when you're labelling the Sea of Japan, you should include the Korean name the East Sea as most western maps use as convention.
t.e.c wrote:d.gishman wrote:Also, when you're labelling the Sea of Japan, you should include the Korean name the East Sea as most western maps use as convention.
actually, it's the other way around. most maps use "sea of japan", but china and korea want it changed to "east sea".
also, what is the big city between tokyo and sapporo? if you are going to use a 4th one, it should be nagoya, although it is a little close to osaka, which is also out of place.
d.gishman wrote:no no you misunderstood me. i meant the convention was adding both names: including the korean name the East Sea as per convention. i said including, not that East Sea was the convention
Users browsing this forum: No registered users