Boxcutta wrote:I haven't read the thread, but S. Greenland and Labrador should be linked IMO.
and artic circle should be a 4.
Moderator: Cartographers
Boxcutta wrote:I haven't read the thread, but S. Greenland and Labrador should be linked IMO.
Boxcutta wrote:I haven't read the thread, but S. Greenland and Labrador should be linked IMO.
AndyDufresne wrote:I'm not sure about the name of Kansas being split up...even though there is little room. Try to fiddle with the placement of everything, to make it uniform and easily read.
--Andy
AK_iceman wrote:Boxcutta wrote:I haven't read the thread, but S. Greenland and Labrador should be linked IMO.
But if you did that then 4 of the 5 territories in that continent would be borders. It would be better to link it to Nunavik, which is already a border.
I actually like it the way it is tho, looks great Dublin.
reverend_kyle wrote:I have another question.. and i"m sure its too late.. but Could we at least make the general shape of north america more to scale.. that bugs me everytime I look at it.
DublinDoogey wrote:reverend_kyle wrote:I have another question.. and i"m sure its too late.. but Could we at least make the general shape of north america more to scale.. that bugs me everytime I look at it.
I'm not really sure what you're saying, this is to scale, this is what North America looks like. My very first map wasn't to scale, it was one of the maps where the poles are stretched out, but this is a normal map, I can't remember what the different ones are called, maybe a mercater?
reverend_kyle wrote:DublinDoogey wrote:reverend_kyle wrote:I have another question.. and i"m sure its too late.. but Could we at least make the general shape of north america more to scale.. that bugs me everytime I look at it.
I'm not really sure what you're saying, this is to scale, this is what North America looks like. My very first map wasn't to scale, it was one of the maps where the poles are stretched out, but this is a normal map, I can't remember what the different ones are called, maybe a mercater?
Greenland seemed to small, but looking at other maps you're right.
DublinDoogey wrote:reverend_kyle wrote:DublinDoogey wrote:reverend_kyle wrote:I have another question.. and i"m sure its too late.. but Could we at least make the general shape of north america more to scale.. that bugs me everytime I look at it.
I'm not really sure what you're saying, this is to scale, this is what North America looks like. My very first map wasn't to scale, it was one of the maps where the poles are stretched out, but this is a normal map, I can't remember what the different ones are called, maybe a mercater?
Greenland seemed to small, but looking at other maps you're right.
ok
reverend_kyle wrote:DublinDoogey wrote:reverend_kyle wrote:DublinDoogey wrote:reverend_kyle wrote:I have another question.. and i"m sure its too late.. but Could we at least make the general shape of north america more to scale.. that bugs me everytime I look at it.
I'm not really sure what you're saying, this is to scale, this is what North America looks like. My very first map wasn't to scale, it was one of the maps where the poles are stretched out, but this is a normal map, I can't remember what the different ones are called, maybe a mercater?
Greenland seemed to small, but looking at other maps you're right.
ok
You left off the islands that are around greenland and it threw me off.. but I think tis better w/o them.
DublinDoogey wrote:reverend_kyle wrote:DublinDoogey wrote:reverend_kyle wrote:DublinDoogey wrote:reverend_kyle wrote:I have another question.. and i"m sure its too late.. but Could we at least make the general shape of north america more to scale.. that bugs me everytime I look at it.
I'm not really sure what you're saying, this is to scale, this is what North America looks like. My very first map wasn't to scale, it was one of the maps where the poles are stretched out, but this is a normal map, I can't remember what the different ones are called, maybe a mercater?
Greenland seemed to small, but looking at other maps you're right.
ok
You left off the islands that are around greenland and it threw me off.. but I think tis better w/o them.
yup, thanks too. it was too messy lookin with them, and it allowed me to move greenland closer to canada to keep my map from being too tall. i guess in that respect, the scale is a little bit off.
happysadfun wrote:the mountains are a tad hard to see. and the actual name for the region you call ottawa is the golden hoseshoe. it's a little bigger, but would still work.
DublinDoogey wrote:Here's the latest version:
I believe that it *might* be ready, and then I'll begin work on the xml.
From version one, i've added non-crossable boundries using the plethora of mountains and rivers available in North America. My goal with these is to create bonus areas that are obtainable, but a challenge to do so, in the middle of the map. Basically, becuase it's a larger map than what we've seen, it will be inevitable that some of the bonus areas are extremely difficult to hold.
I've also checked spelling, but it's possible that some mistakes have slipped through.
Anyway, lets discuss borders, bonuses and anything else!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users