Italy

Here is also the same mountain range as before with a different colour. [spoiler=Italia draught 5b][img]http://www.the-inkstore.co.uk/frame/Italia_draught_5b.png[/img][/spoiler]

Since my ugly worms now are beautiful snakes! :D Jocking... I do think they should be thicker, the color looks good, but thicker. The river is 1 km wide, since it would be 0 pixels, it's okay if it is narrow, but the mountains are 100 km wide, they should be a bit more than just a line.

EDIT: I had not seen the second option yet, just as they were before but grey-brown, well I think is better than both the previous.

In the first version of the brown mountains they look a bit like a wall or a dike. The second solves that somewhat, but not completely (the Eastern side of the Northern mountain range for example). @Bisshop, maybe you should make a sketch of the space the mountains should cover).

I think these mountains will solve the problem and hopefully give the map a better look too?! [spoiler=Italia draught 6][img]http://www.the-inkstore.co.uk/frame/Italia_draught_6.png[/img][/spoiler]

They look nice, but they are not very visible because they are almost the same color of the regions. But I think if you get them more contrasted (and in case even more dark) they can be good. I mean, the same color as they are (OR a bit darker, or even a bit reduced in saturation) but with the dark side of every single mountain turned almost black. I hope you understand what I mean. Sorry, for so many OR, but it's a think that one must try.

I agree with the_bishop, the mountains need to be much more visible.

The mountains have all been redone and are at optimum contrast without causing false boundaries. I stayed up all night to get them done, as they seem to be a big feature of the map and are important. [spoiler=Italia draught 6a][img]http://www.the-inkstore.co.uk/frame/Italia_draught_6a.png[/img][/spoiler]

In my opinion, mountains would look better if they did not conform to the colors of their surrounding territories. Sorry for not making that clear earlier.

I don't like them, but not sure why. For a part because they more look like a couple of pyramids. And very symmetrical rows too, everywhere 4 rows thick (not true, but it looks like that). Maybe it's also for a part because of the colours, but I don't know.

I meant something like this: http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q700/Photo_Bishop/Italia_draught_6aaa_zps0695c680.png?t=1391348902 Basically I agree with LIP and Matty both. I am not a fan of bi-colored mountains, they just are a non-playing area since they should have its own color, different from the regions, just my opinion. And as they are now they look too much geometric, let say that would be better to have them narrow but with some 'spots' here-and-there around giving the sensation that it is not clear where the mountain area begins. I want to try out also another version based on draught 5b, that it was not bad in my opinion. I have the file but I am not sure what I can do, just trying... OFF_TOPIC @Aeronautic - About the English grammar, actually my spellchecker provided by Firefox points out 'draught' as a mis-spell. Since I don't know who I have to trust! @Matty - The correct spelling of my name is The_Bishop, but if you want you can also call me Your Eminence. But if you have fun to call me Bis-shop then enjoy it!

I also made a post [url=http://www.dominating12.com/forum/?cmd=topic&id=659#post-7937]here[/url], as a comment on Pntbttrs mountains: [i]Its not so much like: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+abs%28sin%283x%29%29+from+0+to+pi, but more like: [url=http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+0.9*sin%28x%29+%2B+abs%28sin%283x%29%29+from+0+to+pi]http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+0.9*sin%28x%29+%2B+abs%28sin%283x%29%29+from+0+to+pi[/url][/i]

I see, generally you are saying, realistic in heights, sizes and colours! i.e. random as nature intended, but with definite width so as not to overwhelm regions and territories, with slight dotting of the odd one or two so as not to have definite lines. It might look a bit out of place or attention stealing, but let's see. My intention was to try to keep the extreme contrast of the very long mountain range to a minimum. @The_Bishop you must have a USA spell checker... "draught" is very real indeed and very English, at least old fashioned English that was taught in our schools 30+ years ago! We are getting dumbed down as time goes on though.

Wow, since now we got the mathematical formula for the mountains! These mathematicians are weird! Remember Hero y=|sin(3x)|+0.9sin(x) That I can translate in normal words like: the higher summits are in the middle of the range, the lowers are in the sides. Lols... Thanks Matryx :D Jokes apart it was a smart suggestion. I have tried to modify a bit the file that Aeronautic sent to me. I'm not sure about the quality, but just the idea: [url=http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q700/Photo_Bishop/Italy15degreesAAD_zps2dbfec85.png]normal A[/url]; [url=http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q700/Photo_Bishop/Italy15degreesAAE_zpsc9178e98.png]more contrast A+[/url]. More or less those are the mountains that I was imagining. But feedback and ideas would be appreciated. But really I wanted to try a thing completely different but I don't know if it can work. Just keep the mountains as they are but surround them with a blending color area: [url=http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q700/Photo_Bishop/Italy15degreesAB1_zpsfcf33441.png]normal B[/url]; [url=http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q700/Photo_Bishop/Italy15degreesAB2_zpsd2330e47.png]more light B+[/url]. The regions boundaries are ruined because I worked the file with GIMP, but I checked it and I can say the mountain layers are perfectly visible with Photoshop.

It all looks good and has taken much effort as mine did too, however, they seem "attached" to the map instead of part of it. I have a new idea and will put my graphics to the test tonight and tomorrow, as it will take a while. Stay posted...