World Reduced

The texture looks good but is too visible. Try reducing the opacity a tad. The land also looks a bit too saturated, this is maybe due to the texture layer.

Thank you Fendi. Here are four opacity options: [spoiler=33% Opacity][img]http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/5157652.jpg[/img][/spoiler] [spoiler=29% Opacity][img]http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/5157653.jpg[/img][/spoiler] [spoiler=25% Opacity][img]http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/5157654.jpg[/img][/spoiler] [spoiler=21% Opacity][img]http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/5157655.jpg[/img][/spoiler] For easier comparison, see here: [url=http://www.bluemelon.com/madone/wrtexturetweaking#page-0/photo-5157655]http://www.bluemelon.com/madone/wrtexturetweaking#page-0/photo-5157655[/url] I think 29% is best. The saturation can be more easily sorted once the texture darkness has been finalized.

I like 29, but to keep the contrast of 29, but get rid of the extreme bite of the texture, you could oilify it a bit, or just plain blur it until it's not so strong.

I think 29 or 25 are best, though I personally am not so much a fan of cloth.

Hi Vir98, sorry I haven't been on for a while, I've been working on a new map. I noticed you are trying to get the opacity right for each individual texture and at the same time being told about your colour saturation and or over-baring glow. If I may suggest one method I use to take care of a few of these problems?[spoiler=Land Screen Overlay]I have put examples below with 0%, 100% and 20% so you can see what it is and what difference it makes. Remember I do not have your layers so everything flattened on the land will be darker on my examples, but on yours if you use it, it will just be above the land layer/s and below everything else so will not affect anything bar the land. First thing I notice and Fendi mentioned it earlier on, is that your red region is too dark to start with, if you make it a bright colour like the rest, your screen overlay will take care of the rest. Obviously you can play about with the Land Screen Overlay opacity slider to get it where it works best, plus you can add screens of different colours to play around with and even multiple screens of different colours to make unique colour blends that you couldn't normally get from the colour selectors. [spoiler=Method]With your land layer selected, use the [i]Magic Wand Tool[/i] and click outside the land i.e. over the water, this as you will no doubt know selects up to the land edges, of course you will have to press the shift button with the magic wand tool to add the lakes & any bits missed etc that are inside / outside the land mass (Shift & click adds / Alt & click subtracts). Once you have it all selected, choose (Select) and then (Inverse) and the marquee will be only around the land and not the whole page, you can then just make a new layer and use the fill tool with black colour and fill it similar to the 100% example below, but more precise for you as you have separate layers, then slide the opacity to where you want it. I would personally make a few different colour layers first before deselecting the marquee as it takes time to magic wand the land and you don't want to do it each time[/spoiler] Some of the benefits are, it allows you to increase the opacity of the texture if below the Land Screen Overlay, it allows you to have more vibrant colours and subdue them instead of de-saturating them, It allows you to get the overall glow of the map to a level more contrasting to the player colours.[/spoiler] [spoiler=Land Screen Overlay 0% Opacity][img]http://www.the-inkstore.co.uk/frame/WR%20Black%20Land%20Screen%200.png[/img][/spoiler] [spoiler=Land Screen Overlay 100% Opacity][img]http://www.the-inkstore.co.uk/frame/WR%20Black%20Land%20Screen%20100.png[/img][/spoiler] [spoiler=Land Screen Overlay 20% Opacity][img]http://www.the-inkstore.co.uk/frame/WR%20Black%20Land%20Screen%2020.png[/img][/spoiler] I don't know if this will be any good to you for the land on this map, but should at least give you more options on other maps and or other layer effects.

I know I'm jumping into this late, but shouldn't Europe and Africa be equal bonus troop values? Both have the same territories (4) and same number to defend (3) against adjacent continents. I know Europe has more adjacent territories on Asia, but I never feel like that actually affects defending a territory. I think defending a continent really depends on how many troops you can build up on those territories that are adjacent to another continent. That's 3 for Europe, Africa and N.America. For instance, I don't think South America is going to be harder to defend than Australia unless the same opposing player owns both Central America and West Africa. Which is only "common" in 2 player games. Also why is Alaska even a territory given the trend on this map? In real life, North America is smaller than Africa, so I would think giving it and Europe (significantly smaller in real life) all the same points would be more in trend with the intent of simplifying (reducing) the World Map. I'd say give them Europe, Africa, and North America all (2) bonus troops, and reduce Asia to (4 or 5). It seems like its going to be very easy to own continents on this map, so I think it would be better for game-play to treat it more like Caribbean map where owning continents gets you something but doesn't swing the game dramatically. Just my thoughts... i could be wrong.

@HiErebody: [quote=HiErebody said:]shouldn't Europe and Africa be equal bonus troop values? Both have the same territories (4) and same number to defend (3) against adjacent continents. [/quote] I think you need to look closer! ^^ [b]Europe has 3 border territories[/b] (Scandinavia, Ukraine, Europe Mainland), and can be attacked by 5 other territories (Greenland, West Siberia, Kazakhstan, Middle East, North Africa). [b]Africa has only 2 border territories[/b] (North Africa, East Africa), and can only be attacked by 3 other territories (Brazil, Europe Mainland, Middle East). From this comparison you can see that, despite both regions having only 4 territories, Africa is significantly easier to hold than Europe. [quote=HiErebody said:] I'd say give them Europe, Africa, and North America all (2) bonus troops, and reduce Asia to (4 or 5). [/quote] This comment is largely reliant on the assumption that Africa had 3 borders, when in reality it only has 2. Reducing N.America and Europe to +2 would make Africa much better than N.America and Europe. With N.America and Europe at +3, all of the region bonuses are good relative to each other. Also, the +6 on Asia is supposed to make an incentive for going for it. In the vast majority of games, it will never be obtained and held, similar to the Cuba region in the Caribbean map.

[quote=cbt711 said:]I like 29, but to keep the contrast of 29, but get rid of the extreme bite of the texture, you could oilify it a bit, or just plain blur it until it's not so strong. [/quote] I used a motion blur, and tried to get roughly the same angle of blur as the lines on World Classic. Does it meet the needs required? [spoiler=Intense texture (for comparison)][img]http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/5157653.jpg[/img][/spoiler] [spoiler=Texture less intense][img]http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/5158519.jpg[/img][/spoiler]

I've been thinking about Capital positions: [spoiler=1st attempt at 2-4 players][img]http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/5158522.jpg[/img][/spoiler] 2 players: Despite both caps having 3 adjacent exits, it is not perfect, as Canada had a much greater chance of being blocked in. Any of the following territories result in a block for Canada: Alaska, USA, Central America, Brazil, North Africa, Greenland, Scandinavia, West Siberia. For India, the following territories result in a block: Middle East, Kazakhstan, China. [b]Most Importantly:[/b] The following combinations result in a complete block for the Canadian Capital: West Siberia, Greenland, USA West Siberia, Greenland, Central America West Siberia, Greenland, Brazil West Siberia, Greenland, North Africa West Siberia, Scandinavia, USA West Siberia, Scandinavia, Central America West Siberia, Scandinavia, Brazil West Siberia, Scandinavia, North Africa Alaska, Greenland, USA Alaska, Greenland, Central America Alaska, Greenland, Brazil Alaska, Greenland, North Africa Alaska, Scandinavia, USA Alaska, Scandinavia, Central America Alaska, Scandinavia, Brazil Alaska, Scandinavia, North Africa That is a lot!! I've just realised something: There is an equal chance of the player with the Indian Capital getting one of these combinations, and not being able to reach the Canadian capital that way. In 2 player caps, do blocked-in probabilities matter as much? Anyway, review the caps please! I'm sure there are better solutions. For 4 players, I am fairly certain that the green locations are better. However, it may be possible to get all four caps with three exits. Wow! Capital locations are so difficult! ^^

Still seems to have too much deptch on the close knit texture. Depth isn't bad if it's over large areas and non uniform (like the cloud overlay giving depth is a good thing). You don't want physical shape on a small scale to be visible to such an extent typically. The only maps you can really see depth on the texture layer are Europe 1800 HD, and a bit on Anchor Bay - which I didn't even like haha, but gave into doing it. You can see a shaded deep kinda look on some natural textures on maps, like Faulkland island for example. But it's rocky, not clothe, so it fits what the viewer kind of expects to see. Try this for me real quick: Drop opacity of the clothe texture to about 60% of what it is. Then increase the cloud layer for the dramatic look you want which will spread out your vivid contrast and depth over the entire continent, not just in small squares. Sorry if I said the word depth too many times :)

[spoiler=Textures on all continents][img]http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/5158526.jpg[/img][/spoiler] @cbt711: I haven't read your latest post yet. Please could I have feedback on textures!

[spoiler=Cloth texture less prominent][img]http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/5158528.jpg[/img][/spoiler] @cbt711: I didn't increase the cloud opacity, as I didn't feel it needed it. If you think it would help, then I'll do it.

Yeah looks like it's really coming along. The purple and green look really good. Something I failed to mention is I use different layer opacity and sometimes even different blending options entirely for different color regions. Each color as a backdrop completely changes the way the textures appear. For example, in yours, I really like purple and green, very nice looking textures and shading through out. The lighter colors seem a bit too textured - orange blue yellow. And the dark region almost isn't textured enough - dark red. So I would just play with the opacity and the brightness / contrast of the texture layer to get them all as close to green / purple's look as possible. [b]Is it just me or did you motion blur the cloud layer? And not the texture overlay layer?[/b] Side note: You somehow got a white line of pixels on the top border of Europe Mainland. Also keep in mind, this is just one opinion, and ultimately it's what Fendi will want :) Good work so far!

Virtuosity, Sorry about that, I don't know how I completely misunderstood what I was looking at. Total Fail.

@HiErebody: lol ^^, as I said earlier when I completely failed in the Melee thread, everyone's entitled to a little mistake :)