Nordic Countries [Quenched]

[natty dread]

These can go horizontal as you have the room. I'm one that if the name fits in the territory horizontally then, it should go that way.

With all due respect, your honour, that's debatable. Some might argue that having only a few territory labels non-horizontally makes those labels stick out.

[AndyDufresne]

These can go horizontal as you have the room. I'm one that if the name fits in the territory horizontally then, it should go that way.

With all due respect, your honour, that's debatable. Some might argue that having only a few territory labels non-horizontally makes those labels stick out.

I'm in agreement with isaiah40 here. It looks pretty ad-hoc and after-the-fact currently.


--Andy

[isaiah40]

My first impression was this looks good, but when I looked at the territory names I thought "what a mess". I know you would rather me be honest with my thoughts rather than beating around the bush so to speak. AS far as a few names being at an angle, I believe that most would understand that they had to be done that way to get them to fit within their respective borders as much as possible.

So please straighten them out.

[natty dread]

Well I straightened some of them. Others aren't slanted that much... so I don't know about them. I think it's ok to have labels slanted in places where borders etc. are more clear even if it could be fitted straight.

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

[isaiah40]

The coastal Norwegian names can be placed horizontal as you have lots of room for them. The Icelandic names can go the same way.

The second part of this name needs to be lined up with the first part.

In Finland, Oulu and Hame can be leveled out as well.

All the names in Norrland need to be levelled as well.

As for the others that are on an angle, no problem as they need to be in their respective territories as much as possible.

[natty dread]

Well I straightened most of those. A few I think simply look better slanted, like Lofoten & Sudurland... they line up with the land contours better that way, and/or leave better room for the army numbers.

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

[gimil]

At the risk of sounding like the bad guy, I am still not feeling the impassable stuff. Unfortunately I am not being much help in a solution. Does anyone else feel like this?

[natty dread]

Click image to enlarge.

[koontz1973]

show

A huge improvement, looks like a forest now from afar.

So, so much better. And I am not joking or taking the piss.

Without causing you too much pain, but can you bring the one between Uppland and Vaster-gotland out a tad. A little hard to see.

With the mountains (never been to your part of the world so I do not know the terrain) how about running a thin line of the new trees down one side. Not on the mountain but touching. If you do not think it needs it then fine.

[lostatlimbo]

Click image to enlarge.

Dude... they look like bubbles. Or tadpoles maybe. Nothing like forests.

Just out of curiousity, what didn't you like about this version? I think this was your best by far:

Click image to enlarge.

If anyone says "blobs" one more time, he's banned from this thread.

I'm just trying to help here. I thought the point of a graphical revamp was to address these sort of issues, but if my opinion is not welcome, I won't clutter your thread.

A huge improvement, looks like a forest now from afar. =D>

You and I clearly have different perspectives when it comes to graphics. :)

[natty dread]

This is it.

This issue with forests and mountains... the problem is, it's very much a subjective one. Everyone has their opinion about them, some like one design, others hate it... so no matter what kind of impassables I create, I can't please everyone. So ultimately the decision has to be mine.

I think I like these forests most of all.

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

[koontz1973]

Nice choice. I agree that you can not please everyone and it is your map. Like I said before though, can you bring out the small one a bit so it is easier to see.

You and I clearly have different perspectives when it comes to graphics.

Your right. So far natty has done a bang up job on this and as he says, he cannot please everyone. I liked them more for the fact that he tried something different and I did call them Green Fizz.

[natty dread]

I added some shading to the forests, I think they're ok now.

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

[natty dread]

Anything else?

Can I get stamped?

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

[natty dread]

Anything else?

[lostatlimbo]

Looks good to me, but I'm not the person you need to hear that from. :)

[isaiah40]

At the risk of sounding like the bad guy, I am still not feeling the impassable stuff. Unfortunately I am not being much help in a solution. Does anyone else feel like this?

I'm with gimil on this one. Especially the mountains/glaciers. To be honest they look more like you took your greatwall from Transsib, colored it white and placed it this map. IMO, the mountains are the only thing wrong with this revamp. We all know you can do better mountains, so let's see some different varieties on here.

[natty dread]

To be honest they look more like you took your greatwall from Transsib, colored it white and placed it this map.

I don't recycle my (or anyone else's) graphics. Everything here is drawn from scratch, by me, for this project only.

IMO, the mountains are the only thing wrong with this revamp.

IMO, they're fine and fit the style of the map.

Can I get some kind of reasoning here? People keep telling me they hate this and that, but it would help if I could get some actually constructive feedback here. What exactly is wrong with the mountains, or what kind of mountains would you rather see on the map and why?

[Seamus76]

Personally I think the mountains look great. There's some very nice detail and shadow-play that really brings them to life. The only one I'm not a fan of, and it may just be me, is the top left glacier. I think it may need a little something where it meets the ocean, maybe a faint line, or ripple. Other than that, I'm not sure you can get better mountains. I mean they're hand drawn! Great work natty.

[gimil]

IMO, they're fine and fit the style of the map.

Can I get some kind of reasoning here? People keep telling me they hate this and that, but it would help if I could get some actually constructive feedback here. What exactly is wrong with the mountains, or what kind of mountains would you rather see on the map and why?

They really don't fit though. The impassables themselves are good artistically but they do not fit on this map in their current state. Every other detail on this map blends together beautifully and as far as graphics stamping it, I would argue is ready. Just the impassables stick out in a negative manner, they sort of sit on top of the map rather than feeling integrated like everything else.

They are more like blocks of colour put on top of the map, rather than something that is PART of the map.

[natty dread]

Why do you think they do not fit the map? What about them makes you think they don't fit the map? What kind of impassables would you rather see on the map?

See, personally I think they fit the map just fine. So I'm afraid unless I get some specifics there's nothing I can do about it. If I try to "fix" them without seeing what is wrong with them, I'll just end up with another set of impassables that you think don't fit the map. So I'm going to need some details, some specific answers, instead of just vague "they don't fit" or "they look ugly" comments.

[DiM]

the mountains don't look like mountains at all. there are no peaks, no size variations, no colour changes, nothing. basically they're very uniform from start to finish and look very artificial.
the forests have been improved greatly since the version where they looked like green gummy bears and i am pleased with them.

as for the glacier perhaps try to add some volume to it and then add some broken ice parts in the water with a few ripples and waves. that should be enough to let people know that's a glacier.

other than that, i'd like to see the bold black country borders be smoother. there are places where they feel unnecessarily jagged especially on the large map.

[gimil]

Why do you think they do not fit the map? What about them makes you think they don't fit the map? What kind of impassables would you rather see on the map?

See, personally I think they fit the map just fine. So I'm afraid unless I get some specifics there's nothing I can do about it. If I try to "fix" them without seeing what is wrong with them, I'll just end up with another set of impassables that you think don't fit the map. So I'm going to need some details, some specific answers, instead of just vague "they don't fit" or "they look ugly" comments.

they sort of sit on top of the map rather than feeling integrated like everything else.

That is exactly what is wrong with them, as well as what DiM has said about them being to uniform. I have said this a couple of times now.

[natty dread]

That is exactly what is wrong with them, as well as what DiM has said about them being to uniform. I have said this a couple of times now.

UGH... head explodes.

Dim basically wants me to do photorealistic mountains that look like real mountains. You want me to do mountains that "fit the style of the map" (without specifying what you think would fit the map...)

However, I can't do both. Since the style of the map is very stylistic and abstract, not an imitation satellite image, photorealistic mountains would look very out of place on the map. So it's either or, it's mountains that look like real life mountains, or mountains that fit the style of the map.

Anyway, here's one more alternate set of forests and mountains.

Click image to enlarge.

[DiM]

i don't want photorealistic mountains, i just want them to differ in size shape and colour.
your mountains have the same height width and colour from start to finish.

look at the mountains in dawn of ages or japan or middle east then translate those into a graphic style that suits your map.

why did you change the forests?