yeti_c wrote:My other concern is that AR2 & AN2 border each other (remember that from Feudal Gimil?)
C.
Me and ed have been aware of this, ust lazy in looking for those types of terrs and fixing them.
Moderator: Cartographers
yeti_c wrote:My other concern is that AR2 & AN2 border each other (remember that from Feudal Gimil?)
C.
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
edbeard wrote:well actually I have a slight problem with EU2 on both maps. the lines there are very short so it's hard to see that it borders EU3 on the south. and also the EU1-EU3 border line can be overlooked. I think moving the army circles and the labels slightly would help especially if you can move the border lines slightly in those areas so that they're longer (and therefore more visible)
I have an idea for this. Let me work on it.
also, why is the AN2-AN3 border line darker than the other ones? well actually I should say why are the other lines there lighter? I think the darker looks better.
They are all the same darkness, some areas are sharper than others. It will take a fair bit of work with the pen tool paths. In my opinion its to much work to do for such a little gain. You don't mind letting this one slip do you?
finally, shouldn't the numbers in the mini-map be the same style/font as the continent names? see thru looks good
Easily done.
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
InkL0sed wrote:Can't the land/sea connections be shown with something other than an arrow?
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
gimil wrote:-EU3 border fix is now on both maps.
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
edbeard wrote:you were the one saying we needed new arrows not me
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
InkL0sed wrote:Can't the land/sea connections be shown with something other than an arrow?
edbeard wrote:InkL0sed wrote:Can't the land/sea connections be shown with something other than an arrow?
well obviously they CAN but is there a need to do that? you haven't really said why you don't like it. I personally think it fits well with the whole look and I haven't seen gimil say anything contrary about that medium for the land/sea connections so where is our motivation? honestly, I can't really think of a better way to do it that works with how the rest of the map looks. But, if gimil wants to do something else it's his area to do so.
edbeard wrote:yea it was him but like I already saidedbeard wrote:InkL0sed wrote:Can't the land/sea connections be shown with something other than an arrow?
well obviously they CAN but is there a need to do that? you haven't really said why you don't like it. I personally think it fits well with the whole look and I haven't seen gimil say anything contrary about that medium for the land/sea connections so where is our motivation? honestly, I can't really think of a better way to do it that works with how the rest of the map looks. But, if gimil wants to do something else it's his area to do so.
if we don't see a reason to do it we're not going to just do it to do it. right now we have no reason to do it other than InkL0sed asked about it which to me isn't a great reason to do so when like I've said neither of us see a reason to do it and can't think of an alternative that would look good with the rest of the map
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
gimil wrote:edbeard wrote:you were the one saying we needed new arrows not me
Someone else did as well! I can't remeber who.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users