Seeking map or need advice on making it

[Targa]

Also, what's everyone's opinion about the spread and combination of mountain/forest/fertile plains/wasteland? Am I not putting in enough "money spots"? I keep finding myself not being happy with the "barren" provinces, and wanting to stick something in them. I'm concerned about the distribution of fertile lands....too much, not enough, wrong places? I can't tell you how many times I've loaded Aran.tga for a comparison. Believe it or not, I have even measured how many pixels wide and high each province is in comparison to those on Aran.

[Arryn]

It appears that you have more barren coastal area than a map like Orania. Most of Orania's coastal provinces have some sort of green (farmland, woods, river mouth). Also, the map appears to lack any frozen land.

I am in favor of chokepoints. I'd say the distribution should be 1 Fertile Province for every 5 provinces or so.

Also since this is a large map and more than likely going to be used for 17 Nations. You can divide everything by 17 to find a balance of barren, forest, mountain, river, and farmland provinces. I did notice the prevelence of barren land, but maybe it's just because there is not alot of green. Perhaps you could make or IW has a 'waving wheat field' icon you could put in a few provinces.

And yes, it looks terrific. Maybe you could even place a tower icon on the edge of a chokepoint so it's more visual.

[Targa]

Originally posted by Arryn:

One comment that I have is that it seems you are creating large-sized provinces, as compared to a map like Orania. Do you have a ballpark estimate for the total number of land and sea provinces this map will have?

Well, to be honest I haven't really looked at Orania until just now. That map is quite a bit larger (2400x1800) while mine is 1600x1200. The smallest province on there is 68x86, and the largest is 324x172. Mine has (so far) 64x71 and 206x102. As you can see, I'm pretty close on the small, and smaller on the large. The larger map (Orania) makes the provinces appear smaller. As of now my map has about 100 outlined provinces, and roughly 1/3 of the map yet to do....so 130-140 would be a guess for land. Not sure about water. I've been told to keep the water province number fairly low (if you look at Orania and Aran, the water provinces are very large compared to the land provinces).

OTOH, I am keeping the "province borders" layer separate, so they are very flexible. Multiple Versions is not out of the question.

EDIT

Orignially posted by Zen:
I did notice the prevelence of barren land, but maybe it's just because there is not alot of green.

Yes and no. It looks more barren because of the way it's drawn, but yes, it still lacks enough fertile land. Aran only has about 14 fertile provinces, and quite a bit of empty ones. Orania seems to have a bunch more fertile around the edges, but many barren ones in the middle. I'll do the math as you suggest...that'll make it alot easier to determine if I have enough or not.

Originally posted by Arryn (above):
how many players (average) do you estimate your map will accommodate?

That's a question you'll have to ask someone with more experience than I have.

[ February 05, 2004, 01:34: Message edited by: Targa ]

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Targa:
That map is quite a bit larger (2400x1800) while mine is 1600x1200.

The larger map (Orania) makes the provinces appear smaller. As of now my map has about 100 outlined provinces, and roughly 1/3 of the map yet to do....so 130-140 would be a guess for land.

Good point about Orania being a much larger map overall. Being a relative noob at Dom, how many players (average) do you estimate your map will accommodate?

[Targa]

See my post below for some answers, I edited it. Something else I wanted to mention though. One of the difficulties I've been having is placement of fertile lands. Using Orania as an example, the majority is by the water's edge and along the rivers, while inland is barren. While this looks realistic, it creates a problem for anyone unlucky enough to start the game somewhere in the middle, and those people starting by the water have a cash advantage right off the bat. So would you say that it's better to go with an "evenly distributed" look? Should I make all the fertile lands #nostart, as well as all the provinces bordering the edges of the map?

Originally posted by Targa:
See my post below for some answers, I edited it. Something else I wanted to mention though. One of the difficulties I've been having is placement of fertile lands. Using Orania as an example, the majority is by the water's edge and along the rivers, while inland is barren. While this looks realistic, it creates a problem for anyone unlucky enough to start the game somewhere in the middle, and those people starting by the water have a cash advantage right off the bat.

That is in part of the game, position plays alot of how the game is played by any particular nation. You have enough rivers that you can place a fertile province pretty much where you'd like. If you happen to get an area that seems lacking in both mountain, forest and riverland areas, make it a high chokepoint area so there is some benefit for it. (You could also place already visible sites in these provinces to try to make up for the discrepency)

So would you say that it's better to go with an "evenly distributed" look? Should I make all the fertile lands #nostart, as well as all the provinces bordering the edges of the map?

You should place all the borders as #nostart, with the exception of the water provinces near the edge (this will allow water nations have some space to not get invaded instantly by a land province to their capital).

I would prefer the semi-realistic look while being balanced as far as if an area doesn't have fertile provinces they have something else that could make up for it.

[ February 05, 2004, 01:57: Message edited by: Zen ]