“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
I think the grey-ish sea colour works perfectly, creating a great contrast against the colourful land areas.
On your latest image, you could increase the saturation of the land a bit, to give even more contrast against the nonplayable areas, but not too much - just make them a little brighter. Also, West Estonia could be somehwat lighter - blue numbers will probably be hard to see on such dark blue.
Then some other things... The impassables can still use some work. They don't seem to fit the map... seem a bit too pasted on.
The outer border around the playable land area seems unnecessarily thick. Also it doesn't seem to be consistent - on some places it looks more brown and blurry, others it's more black and thinner. A sharp, consistent border would look better. Kinda like the territory borders, but maybe a bit darker.
Also, the grid shouldn't go over the border lines. Put the layer with the grid under all the border layers. You could also try some other layer mode for the grid, to make it follow the colours around it - try multiply mode or something similar.
Great job on all four alternatives! I would pick number 4 the Desat with Marble Sea. I prefer the marble sea and I think it's the contrast between it and Estonia that makes it look better. With a dark sea it sort of blends together with Estonia. The marble sea makes those regions look better.
iancanton wrote:west estonia and islands estonia can be combined usefully, for example, to form a proper continent in the classic sense. islands estonia especially ought to be eliminated as a stand-alone bonus because of its small size and isolated location.
Sorry I missed responding to you. I just want to mention I really happen to like that there is a bunch of bonuses. It leads to many different ways to win this map given different drops.
no worries, bruce. having a 2-region bonus in a corner of the map doesn't lead to many ways to win though. it simply ensures that this is the best part of the map to secure in the early stages and gives a consistent advantage to the one who has a good drop there (like classic oceania). with six 3-region and 4-region bonuses, which is already an extreme number, a tiny 2-region bonus in addition makes no sense at all.
some more trees will certainly be welcome, especially in latvia, where the only credible start is in the southeast. merging some of the many regions in west and central latvia will also help a player who starts with many troops in this difficult area, as well as reducing the total number of regions to 44, which avoids the situation of 2v2 doubles games where the only sensible first move tactic most of the time is to knock down the second player from 12 to 11 regions. merging away three regions in west and central latvia to a total of 45 is also possible, since it's sensible to have telsiai start neutral, thus bringing down the number of starting regions to 44. it'll be a good idea to remove the sea route from talsi to kuressaare, so that the larger bonuses become easier to hold.
on graphics, i think my preference is for an almost-fully-saturated land (the current hues are just a tad too much) with marble sea.
Polls in the foundry are pretty worthless anyway... I never do polls on map threads anymore. If people care enough about an issue, they will post about it, and they will post their reasons for it - which means I'll also get to know if people have good reasons for wanting a change or if they just "feel like it".
Also, on the colours: you should be careful not to overdo the desaturation. Since lack converts all map images to low quality jpeg:s, which reduces the colour saturation on the whole image, you may end up with less saturation than you intended on the final map images...