Conquer Club

natty dread wrote:

The Bison King wrote:Maybe squeeze one more landmark in for the west coast. Golden Gate bridge maybe?

I don't think it's a good idea to add any more of them. I think we're pretty much at the saturation level for landmarks...

If you move the saguaros from the Rio Grande region where you have them, over to Arizona, I think you could satisfy Bison's concern about the southwest being too empty without hurting anything, and you'd improve the realism at the same time (saguaros don't grow in the lower Rio Grande valley, they grow exlusively in the Sonora.)

cairnswk wrote:Wait, wait, Natty wait for me...you won't get a chance to tell me to go to hell either if you act too fast

Firstly, congratulations on winng the contest.

Haha, thanks cairns. I'm not going to tell you to go to hell - we've had our differences at times but I still respect your opinion as an experienced mapmaker.

cairnswk wrote:The only things i wasn't totally happy with, even though i picked it as being your map (from your textures)
was the title and the mountains. Title could have done with a little something extra and kind of looks a bit ho-hum as is now.

Well, the thing is, I have a certain style on this map which I've tried to keep consistent overall. Kind of like how my Eurasia map has a sort of watercolour style, on this map I tried to go for a bit of like it's drawn with colour pencils... or maybe more like, the lines are drawn with an ink pen and the colours were done with colour pencils, or maybe aquarelle pencils... I don't know if it's a thing elsewhere, but when I was in school we often had assignments where we had to draw stuff with those colour pencils. For example, there could be a geography assignment to draw a map of North America, and draw in some things that represent each place on the map...

Anyway, I think the mountains fit with the style, and so far it really looks to me like most people don't have a problem with them. As for the title, I don't want the title to be anything flashy, I think there's enough going on on the map that the title doesn't need to compete for attention, and with this in mind I don't really see what else I could do with it...

cairnswk wrote:i would consider that if there is a number of commentors who have issues with any aspect of the map, then it needs to be addressed or justified in the appropriate manner.

Yep, and I have addressed all reasonable feedback. If there are any technical details that need to be fixed, like maybe there's pixelation somewhere, or maybe the kerning is out of whack, then I have no problem fixing those. But when it comes to aesthetical concerns, that are largely a matter of opinion, like if someone doesn't like the style of the mountains for example... then I'm allowed to use my own judgement there, unless there is a clear majority, or a large influx of people asking for a certain change.

macbone wrote:I dig the map, Natty. The connections are clear, and the artwork adds a nice aesthetic flair to the map.

It does feel a little strange to get rid of the Dominican Republic. Maybe adopt the Israel and Palestinian Territory route from the Middle East Map and include Haiti and Dominican Republic as one tert (or rename it as Hispaniola, since Haiti is only the name of the country on the western side of the island, and is smaller both in population and total landmass)? But based on the size of Cuba, it makes sense that Cuba is two terts and Hispaniola is only 1.

Wellll....

Yeah, I think that's doable, if I move the label below the island.

Dukasaur wrote:If you move the saguaros from the Rio Grande region where you have them, over to Arizona, I think you could satisfy Bison's concern about the southwest being too empty without hurting anything, and you'd improve the realism at the same time (saguaros don't grow in the lower Rio Grande valley, they grow exlusively in the Sonora.)

Well the thing is, they wouldn't fit very comfortably in Arizona. It would be too crowded there, especially on the small version... Honestly, I only chose the saguaro because it's the most recognizable cactus, but I could probably change it to something more appropriate...

Maybe I'll change it to peyote

natty dread wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:If you move the saguaros from the Rio Grande region where you have them, over to Arizona, I think you could satisfy Bison's concern about the southwest being too empty without hurting anything, and you'd improve the realism at the same time (saguaros don't grow in the lower Rio Grande valley, they grow exlusively in the Sonora.)

Well the thing is, they wouldn't fit very comfortably in Arizona. It would be too crowded there, especially on the small version... Honestly, I only chose the saguaro because it's the most recognizable cactus, but I could probably change it to something more appropriate...

Maybe I'll change it to peyote

Peyote is nice, but I don't think most people would recognise it...

Anyway, the saguaro is great, and you're right, it is the most recognisable cactus.

Maybe if the taller one sat partly in California, and only the shorter one was completely in Arizona? That would still be fairly realistic (since the Sonora does sit partly in southern Cal) and it would still contribute to the balance of having a Southwest landmark.

Mmyeah I don't think it'll fit comfortably that way either... also USA already has like 5 landmarks, while Mexico only has 2.

Yeah, quite trying to rob Mexico of it's landmarks!

Ok here's a little update, I didn't change the cacti yet because I haven't yet found a cactus that looks good and grows in the area... other concerns are taken care of, slab of land cut from the east coast, haiti renamed to hispaniola, also yucatan label moved to sea to make more room for troop numbers, bahama sea routes changed & circle removed, aaaaaand that's about it.

It looks good.

And the cacti are a trivial issue -- it won't hurt anything to keep them where they are, if that's what works best.

Really like the map. I hope that the small version of the map doesn't get too long or tall.


--Andy

both sizes

XML done:

Test results



I edited the XML from the old XML to ensure the territories are in the same order so as to prevent messing up games.

I know not all CC maps have to be 100% geographically accurate, but just wondering if there's a specific reason why the Yukon/Alaska border is skewed. It appears all the other international boundaries on the map (where they are delineated) are totally realistic. But for the Yukon you've made the border jagged and have it indent to the west, when in reality it's straight-lined from north-to-south:

http://www.travelalaska.com/~/media/Ima ... al_new.gif

Not a big deal if you want to keep it, I guess, but figured it was worth pointing out because it's easily "fixed" if it's just an oversight.

Like the map overall. Good work.

Peter Gibbons wrote:are delineated) are totally realistic. But for the Yukon you've made the border jagged and have it indent to the west, when in reality it's straight-lined from north-to-south:

The border is 100% accurate. It's simply a matter of map projection, ie. the north-south axis doesn't go straight on the map.

edit. oh, you mean between yukon and alaska... yeah, I don't know, I had some reason for drawing the border that way but I can't remember what...

I guess I could draw it straight, it's not a big deal.

Updated xml with coordinates for a.alaska & yukon adjusted


Updated map

Lookin' sweet. Here are a couple of my thumbs. I'll be back with more probably sometime.


--Andy

edit. oh, you mean between yukon and alaska... yeah, I don't know, I had some reason for drawing the border that way but I can't remember what...

I guess I could draw it straight, it's not a big deal.

Cool. Wasn't a big deal on my end either... just wanted to save you from having people bitch afterward if it was unintentional.

One other quick question/thought. And this one doesn't bother me no matter which way you decide, either, but does seem worth raising...

Any thought process behind a sea route from Nova Scotia to Quebec? I only ask because the St. Lawrence has plenty of bridge crossings, particularly in the area of Montreal, so a bridge connection from Nova Scotia to Quebec would make more sense. I'm guessing the argument against it is that a bridge would crowd too close to New York?

Peter Gibbons wrote:One other quick question/thought. And this one doesn't bother me no matter which way you decide, either, but does seem worth raising...

Any thought process behind a sea route from Nova Scotia to Quebec? I only ask because the St. Lawrence has plenty of bridge crossings, particularly in the area of Montreal, so a bridge connection from Nova Scotia to Quebec would make more sense. I'm guessing the argument against it is that a bridge would crowd too close to New York?

Actually I just figured a sea route would be clearer, but I guess a bridge could work too...

Nice work, natty. I look forward to playing on N. America again without wanting to scrub my eyes out afterwards.

My only gripe is how Pennsylvania sticks out awkwardly. Would be better abbreviated and on land, imo. But that's a trivial matter.

I hate abbreviations. They force you to check back and forth between the map and legend, and I try to avoid them whenever possible.

Just noticed this thread. I like the map as a whole except the images all over the place. They make it look cluttery and add nothing to the appeal of the map.

Most people seem to like them though.

chapcrap wrote:Just noticed this thread. I like the map as a whole except the images all over the place. They make it look cluttery and add nothing to the appeal of the map.

disagree

natty dread wrote:Most people seem to like them though.

agree

Well, if most like them, that's fine I guess. It just seems cluttery because you throw a bunch of extra stuff that is not needed on the map. I don't care that much, because I hate North America in general, but I think the map would be better without them.