Conquer Club

OK, here's with straight lines. I thought I'd try it on for size.

[bigimg]http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/8282/southafrica17large.png[/bigimg]

please keep them curved. It rocked that way.

incredible btw man.

Either way is fine. I do prefer straight though.

one more point man... I dont know how it will play... but this will graphically be one of my favorite maps.

One more vote for the border and against the lat/long lines. (I think when I first heard mention of lat/long with the border, I was thinking of the black and white checker effect, not lines on the map itself.)

yeah the border looks damn nice... I forgot to mention that. And Ender is right, no lines would look great too.

Yeah I think I am jumping onto the same ship. The lines don't really add much It'd be best just to do away with them

I like the lat/long lines and think they add an interesting aspect to the map. But I suppose majority rules...

I like the lines, and curved, as I am well aware of the curvature of the Earth. But I can live without them, up to you Helix.

Ditch the lines. Kepp the border, but try it with a lighter shade of the sandy color in the map. I really think it will frame the picture better. It will help the border to jump to the background, and allow the map to be pushed forward. You can still dirty up the edges of it though.

Wow... thanks everyone for the speedy replies. Here's without lines and with Pork's suggestion of lighter tan tones in the checkered border.

[bigimg]http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/8282/southafrica17large.png[/bigimg]
[bigimg]http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/551/southafrica17small.png[/bigimg]

I'd say you've struck gold!

I have to apologize IH, as I cannot find anything wrong with this draft

With the border a lighter shade, it does not stand out so much. And, the map is the main focus.[bigimg]http://i665.photobucket.com/albums/vv12/porkenbeans/southafrica17large111111111111copy.png[/bigimg]

I'm afraid I don't understand, pork.

Victor Sullivan wrote:I'm afraid I don't understand, pork.

The highest % of the map is of a light shade. The dark colors used for the borders of the territs contrast all of that lightness, and helps them to "stand out".

So my feelings are, that the map, and not the border, should be what stands out. The border should be sent back into the background a bit, so that the map can take the center stage.

Also, the whole thing looks more real. Notice the outside of the border just looks like other (unpainted) areas of the map.

porkenbeans wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:I'm afraid I don't understand, pork.

The highest % of the map is of a light shade. The dark colors used for the borders of the territs contrast all of that lightness, and helps them to "stand out".

So my feelings are, that the map, and not the border, should be what stands out. The border should be sent back into the background a bit, so that the map can take the center stage.

Also, the whole thing looks more real. Notice the outside of the border just looks like other (unpainted) areas of the map.

(I actually posted that before your comment. I guess I fastposted you ) I think the borders are fantastic as is and to dull them down would make it more difficult to distinguish them than necessary.

Victor Sullivan wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:I'm afraid I don't understand, pork.

The highest % of the map is of a light shade. The dark colors used for the borders of the territs contrast all of that lightness, and helps them to "stand out".

So my feelings are, that the map, and not the border, should be what stands out. The border should be sent back into the background a bit, so that the map can take the center stage.

Also, the whole thing looks more real. Notice the outside of the border just looks like other (unpainted) areas of the map.

(I actually posted that before your comment. I guess I fastposted you ) I think the borders are fantastic as is and to dull them down would make it more difficult to distinguish them than necessary.

I do not know what this means.

porkenbeans wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:I'm afraid I don't understand, pork.

The highest % of the map is of a light shade. The dark colors used for the borders of the territs contrast all of that lightness, and helps them to "stand out".

So my feelings are, that the map, and not the border, should be what stands out. The border should be sent back into the background a bit, so that the map can take the center stage.

Also, the whole thing looks more real. Notice the outside of the border just looks like other (unpainted) areas of the map.

(I actually posted that before your comment. I guess I fastposted you ) I think the borders are fantastic as is and to dull them down would make it more difficult to distinguish them than necessary.

I do not know what this means.

It means that I think if the borders were more set in the background, it would make them unnecessarily harder to see.

Victor Sullivan wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:I'm afraid I don't understand, pork.

The highest % of the map is of a light shade. The dark colors used for the borders of the territs contrast all of that lightness, and helps them to "stand out".

So my feelings are, that the map, and not the border, should be what stands out. The border should be sent back into the background a bit, so that the map can take the center stage.

Also, the whole thing looks more real. Notice the outside of the border just looks like other (unpainted) areas of the map.

(I actually posted that before your comment. I guess I fastposted you ) I think the borders are fantastic as is and to dull them down would make it more difficult to distinguish them than necessary.

I do not know what this means.

It means that I think if the borders were more set in the background, it would make them unnecessarily harder to see.

Ah, ha, I think that we are talking about two different things. i have not suggested that anything be done with the territ borders. My suggestion was to the outside border of the map.

porkenbeans wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:The highest % of the map is of a light shade. The dark colors used for the borders of the territs contrast all of that lightness, and helps them to "stand out".

So my feelings are, that the map, and not the border, should be what stands out. The border should be sent back into the background a bit, so that the map can take the center stage.

Also, the whole thing looks more real. Notice the outside of the border just looks like other (unpainted) areas of the map.

(I actually posted that before your comment. I guess I fastposted you ) I think the borders are fantastic as is and to dull them down would make it more difficult to distinguish them than necessary.

I do not know what this means.

It means that I think if the borders were more set in the background, it would make them unnecessarily harder to see.

Ah, ha, I think that we are talking about two different things. i have not suggested that anything be done with the territ borders. My suggestion was to the outside border of the map.

Gotcha I think that'd be fine.

Ok, Nobodies told me he wanted to see some touch ups on the northern mountains and touch up I did... I'm not sure if it fits the bill but it seems to look like the mountains are more alike now. Not sure. Thoughts? Hopefully this will be the last of the graphics nitpicks before we finally get to play this ole boy.

[bigimg]http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/8282/southafrica17large.png[/bigimg]
[bigimg]http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/551/southafrica17small.png[/bigimg]

nice.


I hope there are some sort of map awards every year man. this one might win some.

Dig-Dugging the style of this map more and more. IMO, I think the graphics are done.

I agree. It has an air of authenticity, and, as they say, once you can fake that, you've got it made.