River Basin Map

I'm reading a bit the thread back... I think I like better this version with some ports less.
I would like to try different anchor colors tho, like for example orange and sky-blue (or turqoise) instead of lilac and white.

I like the crucial role of the Volga-Donskoy Kanal in this map, maybe could be mentioned or highlighted somehow to look more artificial rather than natural.

127 territories, I would have liked 128 for better divisibility in case of 8 players, but I don't want to break all games for that! It's too late now, let it stay as it is.
Everytime I ask Dima to add 1 territory,.. I think he's starting hating me for that!!

P.S. Maybe the word "Russia" can be moved over the clouds, on the up-right corner. Just an option.

Hi Dima. Just weighing in with some of my own feedback, which I've been meaning to give for a while now. I'll bullet point to save time - hopefully the tone won't seem too critical

- Gameplay-wise this map seems to be unrivalled in complexity, with semi-localised port adjacencies, 26 normal regions to consider, and 5 special port regions that traverse these normal regions. This means that the overwhelming majority of the regions have contested territories. The rivers, in combination with the empty space in the middle of the map, divide the map into many super-regions, with lots and lots of strategic chokepoints to hold and consider. Lastly, the sheer number of territories adds to the complexity of making decisions. I am a fan of the complexity, but I wonder if this map should be purchase-only (for a certain number of tokens), just to make sure people are buying this map only after having played a few games beforehand.
- I never have been a fan of portrait maps, but I don't suppose the map layout will change at this point.
- The textures and colours are beautiful, well done on those!
- I would add the outline of the anchor symbol on both sides of the "Same colored ports are connected to each other" text, and also remove the hyphen at the start.
- I think the artwork in the non-playable areas of the map is too bold and makes an already extremely complex map look too busy. The artwork is nice but the usability of the map is reduced in my opinion. Can you try reducing the opacity of those layers a little and see if it improves the overall look or not?
- The "Map created by Dima" box seems out of place where it is. A simple signature would fit better and look better in one of the corners in my opinion. I'm guessing you put the signature in a box, and specifically there, to help blend in two pieces of background art. But it does look a little off.
- The outlines of the regions are a bit too blurry and transparent in my opinion. And where the Oka and Volga form the boundary between playable and non-playable areas, I think the inconsistent line thickness looks strange. Similar issue in the southwest where the Don reaches the sea. Furthermore, there are multiple areas where the thick border colour is inconsistent - Uren/Myansk in the northeast, Vumary/Dzerzhinsnk in the centre, Ternovka/Povorino in the centre, and Salsk/Elista in the south are just 4 examples.
- The big hole in the centre of the map without any explanation does look a bit strange to be honest. Is it a mountain, a lake, or just land that has been excluded for some reason or another? I'm guessing is it just mountains/hills but it isn't labelled at all or even hinted at by textures or labels of any kind. Same goes for the non-playable areas on the east, west, and south of the map too - why aren't they included? Mountains? Hills? Other country? The whole playable map looks a bit unnatural and floaty because none of the external areas are even slightly hinted at. I hope this point makes sense.

Sorry if a lot of these issues seem nit-picky and pedantic. I really love the map, and want it to be amazing! Back when aeronautic used to be active and head cartographer, these issues would be picked up on earlier in the map-making process - maps were expected to be flawless instead of just functional or even just very good!

Let me know if you agree or disagree on any points Dima - again, I'm a huge fan of your handywork so don't take this post the wrong way

Yeah the transparent borders aren't nice and a bit inconsistent in some parts.
The void in the center I think it's just a deliberate choice for gameplay purposes.
Dima's signature there, yes a bit odd, but I don't know how to fix it with the background images.

@Dima: I think you should use dark-gray or dark-brown lines, rather than transparent black.
This version from post #13 looked better than the current one in my opinion.

@Dima, if you agree to add 1 territory then I have to temporary inactive the map and let people finish the on-going games.
I know it's a pain but it is necessary.

yes, but let me first finish/add all adjustmemts, inactive it then.

I would like to prevent people from creating new games, but okay we'll do that later on.

I made the following changes:

The lines around the map were made more visible. Previously, their opacity was reduced, which made them appear greyish. I have now set the opacity back to 100%, and did the same for the other lines as well.

I added an anchor symbol beneath the minimap and changed the anchor colors to cyan and orange.

I also added a version with reduced opacity for some of the decorative elements surrounding the map.


<a href="https://ibb.co/4gDkdfW3"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/rfL9stkN/Titelloses-82-20251227185252.jpg" alt="Titelloses-82-20251227185252" border="0"></a>

The “Map created by Dima” box is intentionally placed where it is. It serves not only as a signature element, but also as a visual counterweight to the minimap bonus box. Since both use similar pinkish tones, they balance each other nicely when viewing the map as a whole.

The central gap was deliberately kept. Geographically, much of southern Russia is relatively flat, and in gameplay terms the omitted regions are simply not needed. The design focuses on the river basin and follows a roughly circular composition. The image placed in the center helps to visually close this space and gives the map a distinct identity.

The river boundary was intentionally kept as the primary boundary instead of the gameplay area border. A thicker gameplay border would visually overpower the river and make it feel unnatural.

Overall, I would personally prefer to return to the previous version, with the exception of the updated gameplay area lines, which I think work well as they are now. The other changes do not add much in terms of design, and I am not entirely satisfied with the new anchor colors. The previous lilac tone felt more harmonious, while the cyan could work better with slightly reduced opacity.
I am also not a big fan of reducing the opacity of the decorative images. They were designed to match the color palette and visual weight of the gameplay area, and I wanted the map to feel visually integrated rather than layered or segmented.

For this map, my intention was to work with pale, slightly desaturated colors and decorative elements. Each map is treated as a small standalone artwork, and I like to experiment with different styles from project to project. Future maps will likely move toward a cleaner and more sterile visual style, but this one was deliberately designed to feel more expressive and atmospheric; it is intentionally designed to feel atmospheric, nostalgic, and slightly melancholic. Rather than aiming for a clean or sterile visual language, it embraces warmth, texture, and a sense of history.

PS: i always forget smghing.... i split kazan into east and west and increased the bonus to 6

<a href="https://ibb.co/JjRq6KJV"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/chcwf1n0/Titelloses-82-20251227194002.jpg" alt="Titelloses-82-20251227194002" border="0"></a>

The outlines are much better. Dima, you always find beautiful decorative images for your maps. Perhaps I'll let you down but I like the new version where the images have got reduced opacity. It looks more 'normal' for me, and I feel like I can focus better on the game (as suggested also by Virtuosity).
On the upper left corner, just under the map title, I see something looking like pollution smog, perhaps you can remove it.
I like the light-blue anchors, not much the orange ones, what about replacing the orange color with the original (dark) purple that you used in the early versions?

"+5/6 for controlling all ports of the same color" is so tiny, perhaps you can find a bolder font.
I strongly recommend the version with 128 territories, it's a more accurate game design.

Hmm, I’m not entirely sure about the minimap box anymore. The main map has a pentagonal shape with five sides, while the minimap box is a stretched square with four sides. Placed close to each other, those two different geometries might feel slightly off or visually contradictory.

Previously, the higher opacity helped to soften that contrast, because both shapes blended more into the background and didn’t stand out as strongly. Now that the opacity is reduced, both elements become more noticeable, and the difference in shape becomes more apparent — which might make the composition feel a bit less coherent.

I’ll think about it some more and experiment with the opacity to see if I can find a better balance between visibility and visual harmony.

In the meantime, I’ll implement the anchor color changes and increase the size of the bonus text.

Enjoy the Volga and Don map. Like the many ports. Large map is easier for my eyes. The brown colors in the bottom regions may be an issue for some but I found no issues. More vibrant colors could be better for some players.
Wished I like the FOG but usually avoid hahahaha.

this is my favourite map. i haven't read whats being discussed here or where we are at, i don't have the patience lol, but it's good to have virt back onboard for the critiques. i'll quickly say, that the background images are noticeable, and i preferred it the other way that i remember.

alright, collected some feedback from Hoodlum and other players:


Hoodlums preferance:

1. the currently uploaded version is the normal one with normal opacity.

2. this is a version with reduced opacity:

<a href="https://ibb.co/4gDkdfW3"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/rfL9stkN/Titelloses-82-20251227185252.jpg" alt="Titelloses-82-20251227185252" border="0"></a>
Hoodlum said:
30 Dec 2025, 12:41
I Prefer 2



JoRo and JCaesar69 preference:

JoRo said:
29 Dec 2025, 21:52
I like both but prefer the current version. You are an artist!!!
JCaesar69 said:
29 Dec 2025, 23:00
I’ll take a look when I get on my computer tonight!
JCaesar69 said:
29 Dec 2025, 23:26
I also prefer the current version. I am a huge fan of this map from a gameplay perspective, it had a learning curve but became a favorite of mine

Alright, i was thinking how to solve the opacity problem and satsfying all tastes/preferances:

<a href="https://ibb.co/BVJXbYzM"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/nsyH9KgJ/Titelloses-82-20251231141305.jpg" alt="Titelloses-82-20251231141305" border="0"></a>

I basicly reduced the opacity to a certain degree, not as bright as before, but not too "invisible", so that it still can be clearly recignized, but at the same time does not divert the attention from the game play area And also still serves as a binder/integrator between game play area and mini map box.