,
Moderator: Cartographers

 Keredrex
				Keredrex
			





 
		
 edbeard
				edbeard
			







 
		edbeard wrote:definitely stay with names.
the less territories thing.....but which the huge number of territories they don't work well at the moment.
Good Luck

 Keredrex
				Keredrex
			





 
		
 boogiesadda
				boogiesadda
			
 
			 sfhbballnut
				sfhbballnut
			



 
		 
 
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong

 gimil
				gimil
			













 
		gimil wrote:Kaplowitz buddy i think your better striping it right back and starting with the basics.
1. basic layout - with boarders basic continent colors
2. Plain colored background
3. dimple legends
3. Terr names with no effects and a simple font
4. impassable as simple lines
from here we can tackles issues one by one
what do you say

 Kaplowitz
				Kaplowitz
			


 
		 
 
 
 

 boogiesadda
				boogiesadda
			
 
			
 boogiesadda
				boogiesadda
			
 
			

 oaktown
				oaktown
			









 
		oaktown wrote:Hi kaplowitz, please read this post in the spirit of constructive criticism in which it was intended.
Every month somebody wants to do another US state map. And while New York is certainly more interesting than, say, Arkansas (my head is still spinning around that one), I keep coming back to the same questions around state maps...
1. is there any appeal beyond people who live in that state?
2. does it make sense as a geographic region on which a battle may be waged? If this were a battleground and you've got a stack of armies along our front, why wouldn't I just go into Pennsylvania and whack you from behind?


 MasterKujacnbsh
				MasterKujacnbsh
			Users browsing this forum: No registered users