South America

ps: whats the best way to proceed? i would re-draw the rivers so that they match virtuositys picture, then add bridges where there any, then look how it looks combined with the current territory, regions and bonuses and then we will see what we get and can make adjustments...

[b]1. Orientation & Layout[/b] Maintain Current Orientation: Stick with the current view for now. (Did you draw it North/South first then rotate it? then it should be fine to rotate it back if decision is to go North Oriented) The "North" Question: We need to confirm if the team officially agreed on a fixed North orientation or if this rotation for aesthetic/gameplay fit is acceptable. [i]Hood vote acceptable with this orientation[/i] [b]2. Terrain & Geography[/b] (The "Bendable" Rules) [b]Rivers[/b]: Identify the major arteries based on Virt’s reference. We’ll categorize them into "Visual/Atmospheric" and "Gameplay Impassables." [b]Mountains[/b]: Use placeholder assets to mark the primary ranges. The focus here is on positioning rather than final fidelity. [b]Balance[/b]: Just like the France map, strategically "cherry-pick" these features to ensure the map doesn't feel cluttered or lopsided. [b]3. Navigation & Chokepoints[/b] [b]Mountain Gaps[/b]: You'll need to define where the "passes" are to allow movement through ranges. [b]Bridges[/b]: These will be the primary interaction points for the rivers. We should consider if these are destructible or fixed as we place the rivers. [i]Wait for Bishop + Virt to comment. If you don't want to waste time. Waiting on activity can be painful lol, or if you don't mind, you can go ahead and tinker with the feedback I've given, just as long as you are prepared that it might be for nothing (except experience)[/i] [b]Example[/b] - Where to put Impassables??? [i]GPT drew some cool mountains, but couldn't work out how to get them individually as a mountain pack set to be able to use[/i] [spoiler=Mountains Reference][img]https://i.imgur.com/FvFx4RG.jpeg[/img][/spoiler]

@Hoodlum the orientation you propose is off, it's a rotation of something already rotated, the result is odd because the map sheet and the massland don't have the same orientation. There's no need to add 15 rivers and 3 mountain ranges. @@SethHrab's map is well designed and geographically pretty accurate: actual rivers, actual mountains and bonus corresponding to actual states. Rarely seen such a good compromise between gameplay and geo-accuracy without me having to suggest anything. Galapagos Islands alone were a bit weird, that's true, but with the addition of the Falkland Islands proposed by Hoodlum things are more balanced now. Plus, Galapagos have a nice role in gameplay, so I'm against their removal. The layout is good as it is, we just need to remove that [u]brutal vertical compression[/u] and improve the graphics. Not so hard, I can do it myself if I want, but for now this map has [u]no priority[/u], I'm still waiting for the original author to come back and take part in this discussion, it's fair. His work got ignored for months, then one day I noticed it, I implemented and tested the map with a minimal change (it plays well) and now everyone wants to change everything! It's a bit weird. As long as SethHrab is absent I'll defend his project. @Dima, @Virtuosity and @Hoodlum: you all have to look for possible improvements and things to fix or problems to solve on the maps you are currently developping. Me too actually. So let's first finish what we have already started, then I promise we will come back to this map! Otherwise I become crazy trying to follow all maps...

yup its off, it's a reference. i dont know the original rotation - ill leave the [i]sheet[/i] and other elements up to Dima, however he ends up doing it, whoever is doing it. i sent the background requested, it's up to the artist whether they use that, and how they [b]cut [/b] it to make the rotated look accurate. easy fix btw.. i am the one that mentioned that we need South America map, and sethrab jumped on it as another project to add to his alexander the great project. i have made several maps of this area but haven't felt they were good enough to my standards to showcase them. the length of the map always the issue. so just to point out. it's not an all of a sudden interest. it's good for sethrab to get some experience and go through the process. i did lose interest in his design cause it's still an eyesore with that compression that i mentioned him to do and regretted it. with still the same issue of dimension presentation, but at least he did a bulk of the gameplay. awesome if the gameplay is tested and good, thats great to know, and good for sethrab, that's the main thing. i trust it must be good if you tested it. this is one of those projects, i think we are all interested in this area. whether sethrab or dima or yourself does the graphics, im just putting my input in the idea of making the rotation work because i know the fit of the geography is something that was what i've struggled with. when dima rotated it, i played around with rotations and it still looked bad, until the Italy layout came to mind..finally. something that might work. and after some recent research, yes I believe that the rivers are balanced and accurate enough for a game map. mountans too, from what i've seen on other game maps. also you asked me to comment on this map in particular :)

Yep, sorry @@Hoodlum if there are some contraddictions in what I have said recently. One day I say "go ahead" and the day after I say "wait please". I know, this is not very clear! This includes also what I said to @@Dima, my apologize for that. But the fact is that I am bit worried about the direction this thread is taking. Anyway I think more-or-less we agree on most of the things, especially the method Aeronautic used for Italy. There would be huge things to say about: planar rotation, compression, compression and rotation together, angle view and true tridimensional perspective (and perhaps even axonometry!). Plus another huge things to say about cartographic projections, almost irrilevant when mapping a small area, but crucial when mapping a country or a whole continent like this. I'm not speaking about making Risk maps, I'm speaking about actual cartography, however it is not much different in the end. [u]I'll keep it simple and short:[/u] before doing any rotations or perspective views I would like to try it myself and [u]see how the map looks without rotation and without compression[/u], if you allow me to do so. Perhaps you have already tried by yourself, and you noticed it cannot work, I don't know... My point is: first of all let's try the simplest thing, then let's analyse the other options. As for the geography, the most remarkable 'wrong thing' in my opinion is that the Northern part of the Andes is missing. It's clearly missing because it is not helpful gameplay wise, but perhaps we can attempt a small fix. Interesting fact highlighted by @@Virtuosity98 about the Amazon River not having bridges, I didn't know that. But I think that checking were the actual bridges are is a bit beyond our requirements (not totally beyond, just a bit). In a real war bridges are often blown for defensive purpose and provitional bridges are sometimes built for assaults. The Amazon is a giant river in a giant forest with low population density. People living there normally cross the river by boats, so I think it's still some-how militarily passable: at most we will not call them "bridges", but 'crossing points'.

[spoiler][img]https://i.imgur.com/6COHxWv.jpeg [/img] [/spoiler] bridges accoring to chat gpt. [spoiler]Major South American Rivers – Bridges & Passability 1. Amazon River Bridges: Near Manaus (Rio Negro bridge, not the main Amazon itself) Main Amazon crossings: No bridges across the main Amazon River channel Conclusion: → Effectively unbridgeable (only ferries) 2. Rio Negro Bridges: Rio Negro Bridge (Ponte Rio Negro) Conclusion: → Bridge exists (major crossing near Manaus) 3. Madeira River Bridges: Porto Velho Conclusion: → Bridgeable at key urban points 4. Tapajós River Bridges: Near Santarém (limited infrastructure) Conclusion: → Very few crossings, mostly ferries → practically hard to cross 5. Xingu River Bridges: Near Altamira Conclusion: → Some bridges, but sparse 6. Tocantins River Bridges: Marabá Palmas Conclusion: → Clearly bridgeable (multiple crossings) 7. Araguaia River Bridges: Few crossings, e.g. near Aragarças Conclusion: → Limited bridges → semi-passable 8. São Francisco River Bridges: Petrolina / Juazeiro Conclusion: → Well bridgeable 9. Paraná River Bridges: Foz do Iguaçu (near Paraguay/Argentina) Rosario Conclusion: → Highly bridgeable (major infrastructure) 10. Paraguay River Bridges: Near Asunción (limited) Conclusion: → Few crossings → semi-passable 11. Uruguay River Bridges: Uruguaiana Conclusion: → Bridgeable 12. Orinoco River Bridges: Ciudad Bolívar Ciudad Guayana Conclusion: → Bridgeable at specific points 13. Magdalena River Bridges: Barranquilla Conclusion: → Bridgeable 14. Ucayali / Marañón (Upper Amazon system) Bridges: Extremely rare Conclusion: → Effectively unbridgeable 15. Salado / Colorado (Argentina) Bridges: Multiple crossings in agricultural regions Conclusion: → Fully bridgeable Simple Gameplay Classification Practically Unbridgeable Amazon (main channel) Ucayali Marañón Large parts of Tapajós Limited / Strategic Crossings Xingu Araguaia Paraguay Clearly Bridgeable (Many crossings) Paraná Uruguay São Francisco Tocantins Magdalena Orinoco Very Important for Your Map Design The Amazon River is the only true “hard barrier” Most other rivers = soft barriers with choke points (bridges) Perfect for gameplay: Few crossings = strategic chokepoints Many crossings = open movement [/spoiler] since we have this discussion bout rivers, i redrawn the rivers as they really flow so that we can work with it and compare versions to each other. feel free to simply draw on the map rivers and bridges where u think its the best. better then rescrihing it with words lol. i personally would go for a mix between reality and gameplay, cuz its difficult to make a good map and adhere to realoty 100%. the amazon river for example is not crossable, the orinoco rover has a bas flow from gameplay perspective etc.... draw ur suggestions.

PS: dont forget! there is no perfect SA map. you can do the same theme map in many different ways, and all will be good. dont strive for perfect result here. many results couod be good. we can also make many SA maps with dif. gameplay and looks. just give me a conclusion on river flow amd bridges.

[quote=Dima]PS: dont forget! there is no perfect SA map. you can do the same theme map in many different ways, and all will be good. dont strive for perfect result here. many results couod be good. we can also make many SA maps with dif. gameplay and looks. just give me a conclusion on river flow amd bridges.[/quote] ps2: just looked at the brazil map, there are two bridges over amazonas.

Maybe I was a little too optimistic when I first saw this map, but overall, I still like this project and I hooe you guys can go ahead with it. The vertical compression is excessive; it should be reduced or eliminated altogether. Ultimately, I'm also in favor of the 'Italy style' rotation proposed by Hood, but clearly it has to be consistent between the map sheet and the land. Hoodlum is our most reliable cartographer and has actually been following this project since the beginning. So, since Sethrab hasn't shown up, I'd be happy if Hoodlum would take over the project. Virtuosity's idea of removing the small islands might have sense in the end. That would make a territory count of 91, which is a good number, already used for other maps. However after removing those two regions there will be only 2 small regions left. Not that it is right or wrong, just saying an observation. Honestly I wouldn't add other mountains other the Andes, and the rivers look correct. I don't care about actual bridge positions. I mentioned to have tested the version with 99 territories and played well, but I have not specified that it was just two games, can't be called an extensive test! :)

Well, I would rotate the map later and make all the adjustments proposed by all of you. I just wanted to get clarity on the gameplay (rivers and bridges). There seemed to be some disagreement regarding both at first, so before proceeding with the map, I suggested we reach a consensus on these two issues. That’s why I “researched” the location of the bridges—to help the decision-making process. Anyway, if Hoodlum should continue the project, I could upload all the regions, territory lines, and rivers I have drawn so far so that he can continue with it and doesn’t need to redraw everything from scratch. Another possibility is that you give me the final status on rivers, bridges, islands, etc., and I will simply implement it. One more thing: it would make sense to simply draw the proposed changes on the map. It doesn’t need to be beautiful, just clear and visible. I think that’s much better than explaining all river and bridge positions.

i have actually already redrawn excluding the falklands and galopogas islands. kept the mountains and rivers and bridges the same. i did it a while back, so i will have to find it on my desktop somewhere.

[spoiler][img]https://i.imgur.com/B5gS6US.jpeg[/img][/spoiler] had some time over easter break to muck around with what i had. using the dimensions discussed. kept dima's colour pallet. kept gameplay the same. no - islands inclusion though. [i]after i have posted it.. it looks messy lol.. big map, trying to fill it up[/i]

just saw it and gonna make a detailed feedback later, but for now just one spontaneous thing: maybe it would make sense to draw the adjacent rivers/the smaller river branches a but thinner, the same way as i did? it gives a realistic impression, as if it as a real map, cuz on real maps the smaller river branches are a bit thinner. also on a map with so many intervined rivers, it could be a way to prevent the rivers looking like worms. but all in all the first impression is positive.

Pretty cool, or let's say "cool and pretty". I like the flags, nice touch. Perhaps in the mini-map they are a bit too 'invading'. Misspelling detection: it's [b]Rio Grande do Sul[/b], NOT [i]Rio Grande do Sol;[/i] it's [b]Centro-Oeste[/b], NOT [i]Centro-Oesta;[/i] Guyana, Suriname and the French Guiana all together are sometimes referred to as [b][i]The Guianas[/i][/b], I used the latter as region name in the system. Apparently there's no room for the article, but at least an S to make it plural. Guiana is 100% part of France, should get a French flag I guess. Colonial empires still exist, what a shame!

[spoiler][img]https://i.imgur.com/RLQoyso.jpeg[/img][/spoiler] updated image. ill work on the rivers some more. but for now, i got rid of the black outline that makes it wormy at the ends. spelling mistakes corrected. got rid of the minimap flags. agree it was congested there. added a france flag