Iberian Peninsula

[spoiler=Image posted by Psymon][img]http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/5679640.jpg[/img][/spoiler] It's cool for me! Possibly I would make CyL and Andalusia with the same bonus.

That sound you hear is the angel chorus I hired playing in triumphant jubilation. Thank you so much for kickstarting this again Psymon! It's wonderful!

Yes, it's the same gameplay, the only difference is that I expanded the mountains so they cover León, which comes to the point that Bishop said of lowering the bonus. Will update that later. Thanks guys!

Assuming then that there are no issues with game-play, I'd like to point out a couple of graphic things that could be considered. The first is the Frame, wall maps have frames and desk maps don't, I recommend cropping that off and resize your image back up to 1024, the scale markers should stay though. [img]http://www.the-inkstore.co.uk/map_resources/Tutorials/Snippets/map-crop.jpg[/img] The mountains: I do not dislike them, in fact I like the concept, but I find them unworkable, unintuitive and something that is spoiling your beautiful map. They do not work well with border lines and are a lot of work when overlapped, needing you to delete all that is visible from the mountains behind. [img]http://www.the-inkstore.co.uk/map_resources/Tutorials/Snippets/current-snippets.jpg[/img] I like the concept but after much viewing it appears that only ones with some sort of solid fill would eliminate all the problems, increase intuitiveness and add to the beauty of the map. Therefore, I have made some comparisons to see what might best suit your map. First I cleared an area on your map, then borrowed some realistic style mountains from the Mountain Kits I'm making for D12, but found that these didn't suit your map. [spoiler=Realistic not recommended] [img]http://www.the-inkstore.co.uk/map_resources/Tutorials/Snippets/sample-real-mountains.jpg[/img][/spoiler] I wanted to stay with your concept but fill in the mountain area so I made a simple 2 tone mountain and duplicated it at various sizes, which I personally think solves all the issues I mentioned and I think it looks nice. [spoiler=simple 2 tone recommended][img]http://www.the-inkstore.co.uk/map_resources/Tutorials/Snippets/sample-basic-mountains.jpg[/img][/spoiler] Of course, I have used the darkest version, but if you want to either use one of the lighter versions or just make your own, is completely up to you. This will be added to the Mountain Kits (free to use by all), regardless of whether you use it or not. Here is the transparent PNG: [img]http://www.the-inkstore.co.uk/map_resources/Tutorials/Snippets/Basic-2tone.png[/img]

Before changing the mountains I'd like to try and modify borders and correct all the small inconsistencies. I believe that they fit better because it looks like drawn, not like the ones you propose. Shouldn't take long to correct that either. I added the frame because of two things, because I had enough space and because it gave more spirit to the map. Plus I disagree on desk maps having no frame. They may not always have frames but the most external part of the map should at least be paper, which tends to be irregular because of the use. In this case it was also because latitude and longitude would be there, as in a paper map, check the example. I removed the numbers to avoid having to add the latitude/longitude lines. Example/inspiration source: https://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/colbeck/spain_portugal_peninsular_war.jpg

You seem to have missed my point with the map frame. The example (inspiration) you just posted would be exactly what I was talking about, i.e. leaving the markers behind. The current version looks like it has an actual frame. If you were to even make it like your above linked example, that would also look great. I also said I liked your concept of the mountains, but they cause intuitive issues. This is true with not easily seeing where the legitimate gaps are (connected territories) between mountains. Also the border lines look weird when they pass through a mountain that has no fill. Having said that, you would have seen this concept on a lot of early drawn maps, but then the map would have to look like an early (16th century) drawn map to warrant their use and it currently looks like a 19th / 20th century map. It seems to have a conflict of periods with the hand drawn mountains. The filled mountains I talk about, do not have to be Black & Grey, a variety of colours could be used, or another neutral colour for the map and they do not have to be my drawings, they are purely to try to help with ideas and to see what is achieved with comparison. Although, I have no objection if you want to use them, modify them, recolour them or whatever best suits you.

Ok, I'll be adding something that makes the map more paper-like. Don't really feel like resizing everything, actually. 19th century maps use wormy (seen from top) mountains, usually. So I took the liberty to use other kind, given that wormy mountains look wormy. I am unsure about what you really mean about non-intuitive connections/barriers. Could you give me an example? Do you mean that it looks like Ávila and Madrid are connected, or that it's difficult to see how Euskadi and Burgos are?

Euskadi and Burgos, they don't stand out as easily seen as a connection, due to all the mountain lines around there. I agree with the unsuitability of "Wormy" mountains (as seen even in your inspiration link), however, I still feel that I like the simple concept of mountains, but these particular ones do not give enhancement to your map, they also look like they were added after the map was made. You are only hearing my view at the moment, it would be best to hear some other opinions before changing anything, because others may have a different opinion (my guess is they definitely will !!).

Actually is a bit hard to see the mountain gap between Euskadi and Burgos, and in general everywhere is required concentration to get the impassibles. Also, I don't think is wrong what Aero recommended for the frame, or at least would be nice to see how it shows.

This looks great. I like the simplistic mountains. They are very artsy and different and they work. Maybe just a touch more contrast in the similar colored regions? ...maybe. I like it. EDIT: No opinion on the frame either way. Aero's mountains look great as well, replacing gray with the color of the adjacent territory would also look good. If Bishop thinks it takes concentration to see impassable, then it's probably an issue. I just like the style - but gameplay always comes first.

The more I look the mountains, the more I like them. Oh well :( Guys, it will take time, please be patient...

Perhaps adding actual passes in, like in some of the other maps. Just have solid mountains with bridge-like connections between the territories you would like to be contiguous. I like the swoopy, artistic mountains. I feel like they fit pretty well with the map. On the other hand, it's always nice to have options. Take your time Psymon, you've made a lot of progress on this already in just a few days!

Yeah no matter what, it won't be what everyone put Aero through on Italy's mountains :D

[spoiler=Image posted by Psymon][img]http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/5679640.jpg[/img][/spoiler] Just a small enquiry in the meantime. Did the names of some of the Iberia regions / territories change over years? I see from your map link below that Navarra is labelled as Navarre. https://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/colbeck/spain_portugal_peninsular_war.jpg I haven't checked any others, but that caught my eye.

That map uses English names, most of them correspond to the Spanish names but some are slightly different. I think it is the reason of Navarre.