Conquer Club

changes:

1. Water routes in the north. I changed the one going to F de N, but more importantly I gave on last go to the 'ceara to wherever the hell I sent it' route. I think it looks better and I hope I'm done with that damn thing.

2. Rivers. I think they have depth now and look much better. Hopefully others feel the same way. (You better or I'll hate you forever).

3a. Mountains. I moved them east starting from somewhere south of the La Rioja label. I'm going to remove those mountains that jump out by the Tucuman label.

3b. Mountain tops. I did it just in the south. How do you think it looks (especially cairns sine he asked for it)? Should I put it on all the mountains or perhaps keep doing so but with lesser intensity until some point where it fades out? (actually that sounds like too much work!)

BTW. I know I missed a couple tops and I can see the weird black line so I'll fix that later. I just want to know if cairns or others like how it looks.
BTW. I know I missed a couple tops and I can see the weird black line so I'll fix that later. I just want to know if cairns or others like how it looks.
BTW. I know I missed a couple tops and I can see the weird black line so I'll fix that later. I just want to know if cairns or others like how it looks.

4. Cartographer names. They're still a shade of red, but this darkened version fits a lot better I hope.

5. Legend. Cut down the text size by 2.5 or so points.

6. Shading. I quite liked how it was, but I cut it down quite a bit. So, mibi and rk how do you this? As for the yellow region being next to the orange, well I think they are quite easily distinguished, but if many others bring this up I guess I'll have to rethink it.

7. Switched the location of Santa Cruz label and the army circle so it's more uniform with other label and circle locations in the area.

8. Moved Japura label down so it doesn't mask the river border.

The shading merely muddies the colors more than it accomplishes and graphical pleasantry.

Some constructive criticism... sorry I haven't read through the whole thread.

Overall map looks too dark/gray. The land shading is way overdone. Ocean should be bluer.. more intense.

The fonts are pretty boring..especially the legend and title. And the territory fonts are the same as Caribbean Sea font.

Army circles are too dark.

ok here are some suggestions for you:
1) the shading is ugly , delete it or just put it at the sea borders
2) army shades don't look good, i think white whit a 70 transparant does look better, but if you like the army shades then its good, the army shades are nothing big now
3) the rivers have depth on the wrong way, they now look like hills
4) the mountains look ugly, why? because these reasons: you have picked/made a to low quality mountain, there are to much of them thats why all my atention goes to the mountains instad of the countries, they look like vulcanoes
5) the sea routes are not good, thet just doesn't have the same style as your map, that is also for the bridges i am sure you can do more than 2 stripes and a few dots?
6) also something behind the legend would be nice, but if you don't want that, please change the bleu color abit then, so its readable

thats all for now

I've independently decided to get rid of the shading. Not because 4 people in a row said they hated them...........

Army shades look fine when they have numbers on top of them. The dark circles work well with the rest of the map.

I don't see how the sea routes and bridges don't have the same style as the rest of the map. Other people seem to think they are fine.

Like the army circles, the ocean works well with the rest of the map. I'll see if I can do something with the blue colour of Patagonia to make it clearer.

I like the 'boring' text. The good thing about the territory text is that when I resize the map it stays clear. With all the spacing issues, that's very important.

I don't see how you think the rivers look like hills? Seems totally the opposite to me.

just curious if people feel the same way about the shading on this older version from quite a while ago. I ask because I quite like the shading, especially from this older version I'm providing and honestly the more I think about it the more I feel that it's something I really want.


Don't comment on this map except for the shading. It's an older version and I've provided the latest update below.
Don't comment on this map except for the shading. It's an older version and I've provided the latest update below.
Don't comment on this map except for the shading. It's an older version and I've provided the latest update below.
Don't comment on this map except for the shading. It's an older version and I've provided the latest update below.
Don't comment on this map except for the shading. It's an older version and I've provided the latest update below.
Don't comment on this map except for the shading. It's an older version and I've provided the latest update below.
Don't comment on this map except for the shading. It's an older version and I've provided the latest update below.

I understand and in-part agree with you. The older image looks nice but it looks less real. I would liken it to looking at a surrealist's painting... it looks nice, I could put it on my wall but I wouldn't use it to plan a war against South America. The shading on the newer image makes it look dirtier (in a good way), more real and also more 'physical'.

I'm sorry if this isn't the answer you wanted to hear. You should know that I like the look of both. Keep up the good work.

I don't like the rivers. In a lot of ways they look like they float on the land instead of being dug into the land. Not sure how you would correct that.

I still say they don't float on the land. But, I think what I'll try to do is get all of the rivers to share the look of the one that goes from La Paz to just west of Para. That seems to be the least intense one.

The shading is an interesting thought, but the map feels more like there is 'dirt' and 'grime' on it...with the shading.


--Andy

edbeard wrote:I still say they don't float on the land. But, I think what I'll try to do is get all of the rivers to share the look of the one that goes from La Paz to just west of Para. That seems to be the least intense one.

edbeard...if i can give my viewpoint about the rivers, i have to agree with coleman (and not for the sake of agreeing with him either) but to me they do look like ribbons of plastic sitting on top of the map. sorry.

don't worry cairns I'll just hold it against you. I hate you all.



Changes:

1. New Rivers.

2. No Shading

3. Removed the weird mountains that I'm not sure how they got there

(I was just kidding about that stuff up top in case people couldn't tell. I value all of your opinions)


edit: Looking at Panama I think it looks very strange without the shading leading into it. Maybe I should just fill it in black or try out another colour instead of the one I have. Suggestions? Thoughts?

ed beard...i know that u luv us all LOL....

*Those rivers look a "little" better....if i may...one way to fix this is to have the river layer running underneath the tert layer, it just means that you have to draw black borders on those terts that border the river...its a little extra work but it does work very well....and looks real...i used this in BfA and had no probs.

* like the snow caps... they look excellent.

* only thing is the legend...fixed in the old map, but not in this one.

* I do think the map looks better wihtout the shadows, IMHO.

Good work!

what's wrong with the legend? It looks the same to me?

I'll try out the river suggestion. thanks.

edbeard wrote:what's wrong with the legend? It looks the same to me?

I'll try out the river suggestion. thanks.

Rio Grande and g highlands...in the maps at the top of the page, i think you had dropped the legend size by 2.5

RE: the legend, I can drop it some more? But that IS with the drop in size. You can see the two differences on page 7.



Is this what you meant? Two versions one just very simple (though I need to clean it up a bit) and one that is the version I had before with the lines around it.

edbeard wrote:RE: the legend, I can drop it some more? But that IS with the drop in size. You can see the two differences on page 7.

Is this what you meant? Two versions one just very simple (though I need to clean it up a bit) and one that is the version I had before with the lines around it.

Sorry edbeard,,,i am misguiding you
the difference from the map that i am looking at is G Highlands in your latest map is called Guianas, and B Highlands is called Plateau....this is where the difference lies.

Map looks much better without the shading, but still has that nice dark appeal that makes me think of a rainforest floor.

ahh it makes sense now cairnswk. Yea those names are old from before Marvaddin put his knowledge of the region into the map.

Thanks rk!


So, back to the latest discussion. Top or the bottom rivers?

edbeard wrote:ahh it makes sense now cairnswk. Yea those names are old from before Marvaddin put his knowledge of the region into the map.

Thanks rk!


So, back to the latest discussion. Top or the bottom rivers?

I think i prefer the top map rivers - this one - southamerica28adv9.jpg
The bottom ones still look like plastic tubes for some reason evern thought they are under the terts. Good job on the black borders on the rivers.

edbeard wrote:I don't see how you think the rivers look like hills? Seems totally the opposite to me.

because you have added the wrong kind of depht in the rivers and they now seem higher than the land
i had that too at my china map and had to change it

Wisse wrote:because you have added the wrong kind of depht in the rivers and they now seem higher than the land
i had that too at my china map and had to change it

well I don't see it that way, but anyway they've changed now so I'd like to hear your thoughts on the newer ones :p

ah i see thee right one looks the best to me (its the same texture i used in my china map )

edbeard wrote:As for what Marv did and what I did. Well everything on this map was done by both of us. I drew half a line then Marv finished it. Marv coloured in half an area and I finished it. Took a long time, but I think the final product is quite good!

Lol!

I was very busy last days, but now I want to join the party
Lets return to some playability discussion, too (as you would expect from me).

Graphics
1- The Suriname to Ceará route is still a problem, it doesnt fit very good, and some names are out of their best position. One alternative with minimum gameplay impact would be a river between Maranhão and Ceará (it exists in real life), and changing the route to Suriname (or Amapá) to Fernando de Noronha. No changes about contis numbers of borders.

2- I had never a problem with the shading... Should we maybe try textures or images instead of solid colours?

3- I personally also think we could avoid having the yellow and the orange areas next to each other. Although its not a REAL problem.

4- Im also up to TRY a new ocean. If its worse we can always return to the old one

5- I love the snow covered mountains, I think I want more of that. The new rivers are also ok.

6- Are you sure the numbers fit well in the armies circles, mate? In my previous experiences I discovered light circles usually work better (mainly because of the dark blue armies).

7- Its just me or the title font should be changed?

8- Is there some confusion about the location of Falklands and Tierra del Fuego names?

9- The map is "tall". I think we can reduce its height and increase width a bit. How about move the title to the area currently between Fernando de Noronha and the directions rose? So, we wouldnt need abreviated names in the legend, we could have "Brazilian Highlands" and "Guyanan Highlands" instead of the B. and G. Highlands. And maybe even open room for some "final" art.

Playability
1- 1st of all, I would like to say that I dislike the fusion between Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay lands on the territories called Rio Grande and Uruguay, but I saw no way to avoid it and still keep the rivers in the area. If someone is angry about it, please present an option.

2- We could make the Pampas conti a traditional 4 territories and 2 borders for a bonus of 2. We just need remove the border between Buenos Aires and Chubut, giving to Cordoba some of Buenos Aires lands. The question is, should we?

3- Andes. I feel the lack of a gigantic continent in a map with so many continents. I would like an area with more territories. And in the Andes we can do it without many graphical problems, and keeping still a good space for all the names. Of course, we can add some more routes, like Santiago to Potosi. Opinions? (In fact, I think Andes would need at least 1 more territory...)

4- If someone was liking the Panama due to playability... a corner territory to jail an opponent and prevent his elimination in assassin or escalating games... We could have the same effect adding the Galapagos islands, to the west of Ecuador. Ed disliked the idea due to map size.

5- Bonuses. Ed was misunderstood. I was suggesting simply some diferent bonuses: Andes could be 3 like it is now; B. Highlands 4 (even why its the possible expansion from Caatinga); Amazon, possibly 6, although it is currently the biggest conti and also a no man land. Any opinions about bonuses?