Conquer Club

everywhere116 wrote:One thing. If this is in the future, the map would not look like this. North America is moving away from Europe.

Does it matter? Let's focus on perfecting the map and stop quibbleing about trivial facts

sfhbballnut wrote:

everywhere116 wrote:One thing. If this is in the future, the map would not look like this. North America is moving away from Europe.

Does it matter? Let's focus on perfecting the map and stop quibbleing about trivial facts

Aren't maps supposed to have a point?
Anyways, I love it! However, I think the current background is too dark.

The new sea is to dark, and the old one too light.

Also, I don't know how you're making the sea, but it seems to be tiled and too pixellated. It seems a shame to have such an ugly sea when the land is so beautiful. Why not just try and simple block colour with texture applied. Also, this new version seems to have lost the bevel effect which was present on the small lakes within, for example, the orange continent. I;d really like to see that back, as it makes the land stand out much more.

i like it, keep it up!

Overall I like the map, however..

I guess you're keeping the water pixilated since this is "future" map and it kind of looks futuristic? Otherwise, I really don't like it.

I love your mountains. I struggled to make mountains in my map, but couldn't get the right feel so I left them out. Yours look good, and makes sense in that there would be large mountainous regions where the continents are pushing together.

Continent colors are okay. Maybe a bit too bold for my taste, but the "swirling" background textures are great.

Not crazy about the legend font.

Continent borders look good & well defined.

Keep working - I'm liking the map so far !

I like the colors, just please bring back the beveled-lake effect. That was really cool!

I worked a bit on the map. What do you think of it now??? Is the background too shiny? What do you think of the borders?

Visually Way better. Great job so far.

May be the colors are too faded

Huge improvement graphically, but yeh the land itself is a little faded. Brighten it up and you're on to a winner in my opinion.

I'm really excited about this map I really like it when they pop up outa nowhere looking really nicely done.

i'm still a bit troubled with antarctica and oceania - whoever scores a good start down there can go after both continents, and only have to defend them from two points. That's a big land mass to be able to hide out in. Is an antartica-south america attack route out of the question?

it looks much better, but will the territories have names?

oaktown wrote:i'm still a bit troubled with antarctica and oceania - whoever scores a good start down there can go after both continents, and only have to defend them from two points. That's a big land mass to be able to hide out in. Is an antartica-south america attack route out of the question?

Either that or to africa off the bottom and onto the top edge... would be fine on a real globe, just might look a bit off...

I agree with Guiscard and Oaktown, perhaps a few more attack routes can help move armies around the board a little better.


--Andy

Guiscard wrote:Either that or to africa off the bottom and onto the top edge... would be fine on a real globe, just might look a bit off...

Usually maps don't work like that - no connection between south pole and north pole.

Think about rotating the southern land mass clockwise about 15 degrees, so you can have both Aus attack routes into different territories in Asia, and a route from Ant. to S. Am.

Yeh they don't usually, but I don't see why it can't be an option - we have east - west in Classic!

-i feel like the lakes in the middle should have a different look than the outside ocean...
-I think the title block (metal?) is pretty ugly.
-and I think there should be a hole somewhere in the v of mountains that borders africa, north america, and south america. and if not, north america should only be a 3 bonus, because you can easily only have 2 borders.

otherwise great start! keep it up!

-i feel like the lakes in the middle should have a different look than the outside ocean...
-I think the title block (metal?) is pretty ugly.

No! I love both of these...

Its incredible!

However, as I am a complete deuschebag, I should mention:
1. South America is going to collide with Australia
2. North America (this include the section of Russia closest to Alaska) is colliding with asia
3. India will be indistinguishable from Asia, with the himilayas blocking it from asia almost completely
4. Africa will kind of rotate, disconnecting with arabia and colliding with spain.
5. Arabia (mideast) will be indistiguishable from asia.
6. Antarctica will go north-ish. close to where alaska is now.
7. Australia will also go north, same way as antarctica.
8. I think greenland follows north america.
9. Central America will most likely drown.

Would be interested in where you got your info from unriggable... this thread has peaked my interest...

oaktown wrote:

Guiscard wrote:Either that or to africa off the bottom and onto the top edge... would be fine on a real globe, just might look a bit off...

Usually maps don't work like that - no connection between south pole and north pole.

Think about rotating the southern land mass clockwise about 15 degrees, so you can have both Aus attack routes into different territories in Asia, and a route from Ant. to S. Am.

South pole would be in the ocean near the "pangaea ultima" ; north pole would be somewhere on the asia/europe border.

I'm sorry unriggable but I can't change the continent configuration cause if I changed it, we could not anymore call it "Pangaea Ultima." Pangaea Ultima is the name given by Christopher Scotese to his potential configuration of the continents. However I still have to improve the connexions between the different countries. I will follow your advices.

To answer GreecePwns... Yes, the territories will have names. But I don't know yet how I'm gonna name them.

Lovely map. I'm just wondering whether those mountains between Oceania and Antarctica need to be there. Unless they're a result of the continental shifts, they seem out of place.

KEYOGI wrote:Lovely map. I'm just wondering whether those mountains between Oceania and Antarctica need to be there. Unless they're a result of the continental shifts, they seem out of place.

I think the mountains are good there. It makes it feel like, to me, that when they are joining, then the bottom half of Australia and the top bit of Antartica crushed together to make really steep hills.

----
But, in reality, Oceania is going towards Asia, but it's fine the way it is. It's coming on good.

Looks like this is in another risk map in another risk website.