Victor Sullivan wrote:Also, non-zoomed in LA should be red, not brown.
Victor Sullivan wrote:I'm worried about the red and brown territories. Will the army numbers fit on the small version?
Also, non-zoomed in LA should be red, not brown.
The shape is not quite right. Yours looks like a freehand drawing, made by some long ago cartographer, that did not have the advanced measuring and mapping tools that we have today. I will post a side by side, to show what I mean-
It still has a certain charm. It looks like it was painted yesterday, by a cartographer that lived 300 years ago. Who says that an Antique "looking" map, needs to be all faded and yellowed out ? Why not a representation of the map as it would have looked when it was made. Before the ravages of time steal away its color and clarity.
So, Why not continue with the current watercolor, but change up the theme to match some long ago era.
porkenbeans wrote:I like the direction the logo is taking. But the rest is looking out of place with the theme. It should be done in watercolor just like the state. It should flow together as if painted on canvas. It looks to "clip and paste" like a modern magazine add. The whole thing should look like a watercolor painting. Everything except the labels, that is. Although the text in the title could stand to be painted "watercolor".
Victor Sullivan wrote:I still don't fully understand the cities. Are you gonna label them? Are they gonna be separate territories from the one it's in?
Industrial Helix wrote:Ah... I finally understood the cities.
The big thing that I find is missing from this map is the awesomeness of the California Flag. 1) There is a giant bear 2) Red Star, and communism reference ignored, stars are pretty. 3) It says "California Republic" and, sure, the USA has absorbed many other states but Cali is the only one that says it explicitly on the flag and for that reason, California's flag is badass.
I'd say ditch a lot of those abbreviations. The less the better.
1. The territory "No Name" is bad*ss. I hope you don't change the name
2. Central Coast should definitely stay +3, as it's equally as easy/hard to hold as Mojave.
3. The labels on the mini map are unnecessarily hard to read. Do you think you could increase the font size?
4. You think you could also have a different icon for cities? The black circles you have are rather bland and awkwardly stick out.
i like this a lot.
Monterey for the win!
YOu may not want to, and I dont think you need it. But seems ppl think its too narrow or such- so you could do something like 13 colonies , some surfers out in the water, some islands ... i dunno.
The Bison King wrote:2. Central Coast should definitely stay +3, as it's equally as easy/hard to hold as Mojave.
That raises the question, should Sierra nevada be +3 as well? it too is 5 terri 3 borders.
The Bison King wrote:For example Eureka could attack San Francisco, San Francisco could attack Eureka and Montery, Monterey could attack San Francisco and Lompoc, Lompoc could attack Monterey and Beverely hills, Beverely hills could attack Montery and San diego, and San Diego could attack Beverely hills.
Users browsing this forum: estwdjhn