Volga & Don Rivers (HD)

[quote=The_Bishop][i]Okay, everything fine, all new games have been restarted or are starting on the new version, with 1 more territory.[/i] .... [b]Proposal:[/b] perhaps [i]"Volga & Don River Basins - Russia"[/i] could be translated in Russian and be written on the upper right corner, among the clouds. I feel like that area is too empty. And I don't feel it is Russia if I don't see something written in Cyrillic! [i]Just my thought...[/i][/quote] [spoiler][img]https://i.imgur.com/7apY3AY.jpeg [/img] [/spoiler] whats your opinion? i personally would leave the upper right corner empty, i think it look ok like this. and instead change the russia writing in the middle into russian version or put a russian version aside, to give it a russian feeling.

Uhm, no no, sorry I radically changed my mind, let fall the Russian writings. Perhaps I'd try to remove the word "Russia" from the centre and put it in the right-up corner. It is a small writing, so it will not cover the clouds. The background image in the middle is nice, and in my opinion it would look even nicer without the writing. Do you see what I mean?

144 games played. Many people like to play this map, that's nice! But I think it still needs some graphic retouch before being released. Most of all, the outlines are extremely inconsistent, with variable thickness and variable opacity, they can't stay like that. Then several other things, partially already said by Virtuosity and by me in the previous comments, partially new. I try to resume everything in one image, because images are more effective than words. [spoiler][img]https://i.ibb.co/ZzcVk8zG/Rivers-Changes.png[/img][/spoiler] As for the title [b]Volga & Don Rivers (HD)[/b] (without [i]Basins[/i]) would be more appropriate, becacause the Volga basin extends much more eastward than that, and the hole in the middle of the map is a contraddiction, because it is absolutely part of the two river basins. Everything is debatable and can be discussed, but the outlines I think there's no doubt that they need to be redone properly. @@Dima: All my critics are suggestions for improvements, not meant to disrupt the good job your doing with the new maps! You probably simply made this map a bit too fast and the result has not the same quality of the others. Nothing personal, this map just needs some improvements before going public, I'm confident you can do that.

yes, i ll see what i can dom some of the critics are good/considerable. regarding some other i am not sure. give me some time to implement some things.

[b]okay. this is what i have done:[/b] Redrew the overall map boundaries as well as the boundaries of all regions, to get rid of visual inconsistencies. Corrected territory borders that previoisly crossed regional boundaries, ensuring cleaner and more coherent transitions between territorial and regional borders. Adjusted the river boundaries so that the black dividing line is consistent and uniform all the way to the coastline. Modified the clouds and changed their color to blue, atleast woth the ones on the top left side. i kept the clouds beneath grayish to keep the transition to the picture beneath more harmonious, but i could make it bluish if necessary. Moved the title to a new position and changed the main title. alsocadded a cyryllic writing. Removed or repositioned images and initials from their previous locations. Created a "Faded out" look for rivers endings, instead of clear cut endings as before. [b]What i rejected & the reasons for this decission:[/b] The river color was not changed. Altering it would clash with the existing color palette and visually dominate the map, making the river appear unnatural and distracting. It is very wide and has bridges. The way it is now, it is good visible and recognizable. The thickness ratio between territorial borders and regional borders was intentionally kept as it is. The current balance works well: it is filigree, readable, and clearly distinguishes both border types without overpowering the design. Increasing the thickness of territorial borders is a bad idea, as it would visually overload the map and create a cluttered, grid-like appearance, especially on large-scale maps with many territories. This border approach has been consistently used on other very large maps i have done and has proven to work well especially with high territorial density maps. I kept the color of the large yellow region in the upper left, as it fits well into the overall color palette and maintains visual harmony. The heading above the minimap was deliberately placed there to clearly separate regular bonuses shown on the minimap from additional bonuses elsewhere. From a design perspective, the heading above the minimap also creates visual consistency, as similar headings are used below the minimap, resulting in a more cohesive and structured layout. [b]question[/b]: Bishop, a u sure "Regions name" would be correct? i mean its not a plural "s", therefore the ' must be correct, or? [b]here is the result:[/b] [spoiler][img]https://i.imgur.com/C10fE1K.jpeg [/img] [/spoiler] PS: regarding blue sky: i can delete the blue sky above DANILOV or add mkre skies inbetween the "RIVERS" title. Its optional, but i tend to go for delete the sky aboit DANILOV, cuz it loooks disharmonious. And maybe some bluish sky beneath DZERSHINSK would look good too, cuz now with the bug chunk of the map having a blue not gray sky, this part stands out a bit.

"Region[b]'s[/b] name"? Uhm, perhaps it's correct, I don't know... It sounds really weird to me. I do normally use that kind of sintax for people, or animals. You can use a plural attribute like "Regions name", it's fine, but the possessive with [b]'s[/b] is, if not wrong, at least unnecessary. I don't think you usually write things like, let's say, [i]tournament's game[/i] or [i]map's development[/i] or [i]river's color[/i], isn't it? Otherwise just write "Name of the region" which is the most normal phrase and we agree that it's correct.

[quote=The_Bishop]"Region[b]'s[/b] name"? Uhm, perhaps it's correct, I don't know... It sounds really weird to me. I do normally use that kind of sintax for people, or animals. You can use a plural attribute like "Regions name", it's fine, but the possessive with [b]'s[/b] is, if not wrong, at least unnecessary. I don't think you usually write things like, let's say, [i]tournament's game[/i] or [i]map's development[/i] or [i]river's color[/i], isn't it? Otherwise just write "Name of the region" which is the most normal phrase and we agree that it's correct.[/quote] [size=12px]alright, i asked chatgpt: [spoiler]Is “the region’s name” correct? Yes, “the region’s name” is grammatically correct. In English, the ’s possessive is not only used for people or animals. It can also be used for: places organizations time expressions abstract concepts Examples: the company's strategy the city's population the world's climate the river's course So “the region’s name” is completely correct. 2️⃣ Why does it sometimes sound “weird”? Many learners associate the ’s possessive mainly with people (e.g., John’s book). That’s why it may feel unusual with things or places — but it is absolutely standard English. 3️⃣ What about “regions name”? ❌ “regions name” without an apostrophe is incorrect. Correct forms would be: the region’s name (singular) the regions’ names (plural – several regions) 4️⃣ Is “the name of the region” better? “The name of the region” is also correct. The “of” construction often sounds: slightly more formal more neutral common in academic or official writing 5️⃣ About your examples tournament's game map's development river's color It depends on context: ✔ the river’s color → completely natural ✔ the tournament’s final game → natural ✔ the map’s scale → natural However, sometimes the “of” form may sound stylistically better, especially with very abstract nouns. [/spoiler] i think it sound wierd to you, is cuz ur mother language is italian and in italian they dont say "region's name", but "name of the region"; di = of; della, degli, del' and so on...

Well, then I agree with ChatGPT: [i]Name of the region[/i] sounds stylistically better and more accademic. Now please ask ChatGPT which color is commonly used in cartography to represent rivers, blue or gray?

[quote=The_Bishop]Well, then I agree with ChatGPT: [i]Name of the region[/i] sounds stylistically better and more accademic. Now please ask ChatGPT which color is commonly used in cartography to represent rivers, blue or gray? [/quote] [b]on the river:[/b] well, i used blue-gray in this map because it fits good with the overall color pattern and a stronger, brighter blue would make the river stand out visually negatively as i pointed out previously and basicly destroy the overall design pattern. The river is very thick and it has has bridges and i cannot imagine somebody to barely recognize it. [b]I also forgot to mention the channel:[/b] Both the rivers and the channel are bodies of flowing water, one is simply artificiall, while the other is natural. There is no difference in terms of gameplay and only a minor technical difference in real life (artificial vs nature-made). People will just ask whether these lines have some special purpose or not, which they dont. I am not a fan of this idea and it sounds like "busywork" or "make-work" for me. We also dont place bridges, ports, hydroelectric power plants, water purification plants or other real riverin infrastructure on maps and if do add these things, then where it suits game-play wise and not according to their real geographical position. One could also add, whether the rivers are navigatonable or not, the direction of the river flow and so on and so on... none of these seem to be impotant. I mean, the task is not to depict the whole of geographic and social reality in a risk map, but only certain aspects. Usually aspects that are important for the game--play, design or to give a map a certain "character". So yes, i would reject this idea. [b]PS[/b]: And yes, i will update the "region's names".

Sometimes too many cooks can spoil the broth, but I will weigh in with some of my own thoughts. For me, "Region Name" is best and clearest (see Navajo Nation or Battleground Bulgaria) although "Region's Name" is also grammatically correct. Dragonport has "Regions Name", which is technically incorrect, but no big deal in my opinion. I like the Russia + Cyrillic subtitle. Perhaps moving it slightly to the left so it is centered halfway between the playable area (Uren) and the map frame would improve the aesthetic? Again, not a big deal either way. With regards to the river colour, I agree with Dima that the current colour matches the rest of the map's colour palette. In my opinion the rivers are clearly recognisable, and there is no ambiguity in their location or gameplay implications. The map has been played on over a hundred times and I don't think anyone has voiced concerns over the noticeability of the rivers, so I think we should leave the aesthetic up to the artist unless the majority disagrees. Personally, I think that the fading of the rivers on the edges of the playable area looks worse than the clean cut look from before, but again, no big deal either way. Functionally, the map is complete in my opinion. Being overly meticulous on subjective details at the end of the process might cause a burnout from the artist. I know I can sometimes burn out if things drag on too much :)

@@Dima: Actually it's a canal, not a channel, and it is significantly narrower than the two rivers it connects. Anyway it doesn't matter... @@Virtuosity98: The process is very slow when the "artist" refuses any critics and suggestions, unless we ask with persistence. Nine months ago the second comment of this thread was about the rivers and one region ([i]some regions[/i] I'd say) being too similar in color, causing confusion. A minimal change occurred but in practice the issue persists. There are also several enthusiastic comments, from Hoodlum and others. I was enthusiast too, but I expected to see some improvements and a graphical finalization. Now, with some persistence, I've managed to get the outlines adjusted properly, wow! It was the minimal requirement for me, now it's acceptable. I know that several people like to play this map, that's good, I'm happy for that, but this is not a reason for skipping the graphic refinement. We have also discussed about English grammar, that's nice: many interesting things in this thread, I'm really having fun... @@Dima: The last image you posted is fine for you, or there are still things you want to change or fix? Without burning out, clearly, but also without asking every 2 weeks to unlock the map because you want to fix something.

well bishop, i dont refuse critiques and i usually follow up with adjustments proposed by others. If i dont do it, then i usually make good arguments for not doing it and present the arguments in the best way i can. I am not rejecting things out of stubborness or smthing like that. So a discussion and a rejection underlined with arguments is not the same as "refusal of any critics and suggestions". Some of them are simply not good/maladaptive/unnecessary and i try to show it. Also some proposals are simply a matter of different views and you can make arguments for different suggestions and/or solve problems differently. Also tastes can be different aswell, one person see the things, either the lines or colors, as inconsistent, the other sees the same thing as "vintage"/washed out look. Regarding meticulousity: basicly, if you want to find something to nag/complain, you can always find something. if some of you were in the military service, maybe you know/remember when the training officer was knocking over the matress cuz it had some wrinkles or forced you to fold your garderobe anew, cuz it was "badly made" (although it wasnt!). regarding the lines: i adjusted them and made them less grayish first, but it didnt solve the problem entirely, as you pointed out, only later with the second attempt now, i figured out where the problem was and how to solve it. i will adjust the image to the proposals of Vitruosity and upload it then. Also thanks Virtuosity for commenting aswell!

Honestly, I like the improvements! :thumbs: Especially the word "Russia/Россия" moved to the upper right corner, and the gray sky turned slighly blue, and the removal of that signature panel on mid-air. Rivers fading out at the edges of the map looks an absolute worthy technique in my opinion, and I clearly prefer this way than how they were before. Or if rivers have to be cut with a line, then better a thin line than a thick one... Anyway it is not really crucial. Well, the outlines also, are much better now, good job! While waiting for Dima's final edit, I begin to upload this version, which looks definetely better imo, and I'll update also the new title. @@Dima, please work just on one large image, we will get all the others [i](small, thumb, icon, banner)[/i] from that large one.

alright, i added the last improvements right now, i also was working on small image parallelly all the time, so it was also ready. so its not a big deal to upload it for me. also back then when i was making the map, i made sure to redraw some parts of the map on the small image manually, to make it look good, cuz croping decreases the imahe quality amd make some parts of themap look bad.

We need just one image 1365 pixels wide.