Reply With Quote
I have to admit that the pine and the broadleaf forests do not mix very well. Frankly, I never solved that problem so I just put them apart, separated by plains or mountains.
Thanks! I'm glad to read that, because I've been just unable to do other convincing icons as a replacement... and I've done all the town & castles now. I've reworked the "national" borders more. I'm going to work the labelling and the legend now.By Ghostman
It's looking pretty good now. I think the town symbols are fine also.
Last edited by Ilanthar; 05-24-2014 at 11:47 AM.
I have to admit that the pine and the broadleaf forests do not mix very well. Frankly, I never solved that problem so I just put them apart, separated by plains or mountains.
Yes, thanks for noticing that, Azelor. You're right, obviously, and I'm not sure to see how change that... I may put the forests labels over the separation when I can.
The borders do look very nice. I like their shading effect.
In a few places you might want to place the river level beneath that of the mountains - unless the mountains are just skeletal linework? The nicely 3-dimensional mountain work with rivers crossing lines is jarring.
All the myriad different city symbols are delightful.
That large southern lake is going to be very salty, with probably no plant or animal life, and it will probably grow and shrink a lot as the seasons pass, since it receives all the rainfall of a large piece of a continent.
I'm not sure I believe the two major southwestern rivers paralleling each other so far, with no indication of even a minor rise in land to separate them. In fact, the large marsh area implies "very flat" across its whole extent, yet the two rivers remain distinct even across the marshes. It would take only a few minor hill symbols to hint that at least some land between the two has a bit of elevation, and the viewer's mind would assume the rest.
For the two types of forest to be visually similar seems all right to me. The distinction is there if you study it, yet for a casual user it probably matters more that there's forest here and there and yonder, with the type of trees not so important.
With most of your mountains and hills you have avoided the "flat bottom" look to individual symbols that would make them look just stamped as ink symbology instead of nicely "jumping up" from the paper. If you look there's a few that do have that issue, and if they were bothering you and you didn't know why, perhaps a bit of editing would "root" them better. I see a few in the upper center and a few in the southwest. None are outright jarring, so if they had not bothered you, let them lie.
Related to that, I know it is typical to draw little city symbols like you have (like you have very well!), but I wonder if they would ever benefit from a similar "rooting" in 3-d with a hint of projecting toward the viewer. I have no skill at little pictorial symbols, so this is merely an idle wondering - have any of you who use such settlement icons ever tried less of a straight foundation-line?
Please take all these as suggestions from someone who cannot come even *close* to producing something that looks so good - I like this a LOT already!
Wow, that's a big and constructive comment! Thanks a lot for this and the rep jbgibson
About the rivers, I knew it, and just corrected it on the one below.
By jbgibson
That large southern lake is going to be very salty, with probably no plant or animal life, and it will probably grow and shrink a lot as the seasons pass, since it receives all the rainfall of a large piece of a continent.
It's an enclosed sea actually. But not very salty and with life... and it's a fantasy setting, so some scholars have strange theories : a underground river flowing to the Western Ocean, or a connexion with another Plane. Both are true of course
Yep, you're right, thanks for pointing that out. And, I've just forgotten some past ideas here... After all, "Pierrecolline" means "Stonehill", so...I'm not sure I believe the two major southwestern rivers paralleling each other so far, with no indication of even a minor rise in land to separate them. In fact, the large marsh area implies "very flat" across its whole extent, yet the two rivers remain distinct even across the marshes. It would take only a few minor hill symbols to hint that at least some land between the two has a bit of elevation, and the viewer's mind would assume the rest.
For mountains and cities, I'm not sure to catch your meaning. You seems more skilled than I am with 3D questions. And truth be told, I didn't spotted the flat bottom mountains that you're mentionning.
Well, I'll need advices and views on this. I decided to add a few more towns and indications, and mostly : all the labels. Does it look fine? Readable?
Labels looks legible when zoomed in. Though you better have to check it at print size (if this map is intended to be print).
Yes, it is intended to be printed (my players would yell at me if they were forced to look at a computer screen). I've printed a part and it seems OK, at least to my opinion.
I added the hills in the swamps and corrected a few things. I'm thinking about putting the title in the bottom left corner. I was wondering about a legend, but I won't have the place... and I think that we can guess what is what (between castles, villages, town and fortified town/city). Please, tell me if I'm wrong about that.
That sea in the map's corner is just a plain area of nothing but water so it's a good place for the title. You could probably also fit the legend there if you can make it small enough.
- Member of The Campaign Builder's Guild
- My tutorials: How to make a roll of parchment graphic in GIMP
I make use of Wag's mountain brushes.
What I meant about the 3-d effect and a straight baseline, is
if A looks better than B, does A look better than B?
A good drawing is often better than a long speech. Thanks, it's very clear now!
The funny thing is that I got that result with mountains just because I wanted a barrier feeling... generally vertical or diagonal. And so, I suspect that my flat bottom mountains are those displayed in the horizontal way.
It's indeed a good idea to apply that to cities, but I'll have problems to do it for this map. I think : 1) the icons are very small so I won't be able to do much more than you do in your example, 2) there are a lot of them... 3) the "walled" cities will pose a serious problem to get that perspective 4) there is not much time left to finish it as I'll need the map for gaming soon.
Posting Permissions
