Moderator: Cartographers
if they're both in the song, then why not have both? from los angeles, would it work to have route 66 go east to san bernardino, then exaggerated north to barstow, with yuma connecting to san bernardino instead of to barstow (which links to las vegas instead)? mind u, i notice that all cities that connect to route 66 do so at only one point. is this deliberate and would my suggestion for barstow and las vegas spoil the desired arrangement of start positions?lostatlimbo wrote:I also don't understand San Bernadino. Geographically (and even thematically), that should be Barstow - or at the very least, Victorville. I see that you intended it as the crux between I-15 and I-10, but I think it would be more interesting to have 10 connect with LA and add Palm Springs in between, and then replace San Bernadino with Mojave. I've had the misfortune of spending some time in San Bernadino, so forgive my prejudice.
i second that.DJ Teflon wrote:Just an idea - might it be worth having non-route 66 terits as +2s? It would give more incentive for players to take them etc.
I've already changed San Bernadino to Barstow, but I'm reluctant to add another city between LA and Kingman, both because of the tight spacing and because I'm not sure how to route the connecting highways. The start territories in there are nicely split up North, South, North, South.iancanton wrote:if they're both in the song, then why not have both? from los angeles, would it work to have route 66 go east to san bernardino, then exaggerated north to barstow, with yuma connecting to san bernardino instead of to barstow (which links to las vegas instead)? mind u, i notice that all cities that connect to route 66 do so at only one point. is this deliberate and would my suggestion for barstow and las vegas spoil the desired arrangement of start positions?lostatlimbo wrote:I also don't understand San Bernadino. Geographically (and even thematically), that should be Barstow - or at the very least, Victorville. I see that you intended it as the crux between I-15 and I-10, but I think it would be more interesting to have 10 connect with LA and add Palm Springs in between, and then replace San Bernadino with Mojave. I've had the misfortune of spending some time in San Bernadino, so forgive my prejudice.
Really? So we'd giving a bonus of +1 for holding three of the territories for which this map is named, and a +2 for holding just one random peripheral territory? I'm not sure why this is an improvement, as it makes the Route cities less attractive than the non-route cities. And it seems like by giving random territories a bonus we're setting up a situation in which a player can get lucky by getting dropped next to more +2s than his opponent.iancanton wrote:i second that.DJ Teflon wrote:Just an idea - might it be worth having non-route 66 terits as +2s? It would give more incentive for players to take them etc.

Top Score:2403natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
Sure - I had started by sepia toning them all to fit the rest of the postcard, but the consensus was that there was not enough color. I've colorized them and tried to make them look overly saturated in a 1950s, kodak, technicolor kind of way. I could desaturate the colors to fit the map, but I'm also going to play with bringing more color out of the map to make the pictures seem more appropriate. I think there is a happy medium somewhere.gimil wrote:Just a passing thought but how about apply a filter (I know what one, just don't know where to find it) to reduce the amount of colours used in your photos at the bottom. Try and make them appear a little more (not to much) appearing like the rest of the main map. Sort of detaching from reality a little so that the 'realistic' photos don't clash (not that they do so much) with the not so realistic map.
Does that make sense?

Top Score:2403natty_dread wrote:I was wrong


I agree and I think you are already a little graphic heavy in that part of the map.ghirrindin wrote:The tipi doesn't belong in Arizona. Natives inhabiting the Great Plains lived in tipis, not those in the desert Southwest.
Alright, put yourself in 1952, driving through Arizona. You are nearing Navajo country, and on the side of the road next to the "Trading Post" tourist trap is what? A teepee. I know and you know that teepees aren't southwestern, but this map is about kitschy roadside attractions. I can lose the teepee, but it should be replaced with something equally kitsch.ghirrindin wrote:The tipi doesn't belong in Arizona. Natives inhabiting the Great Plains lived in tipis, not those in the desert Southwest.

Not sure I follow either suggestion.the.killing.44 wrote:1. I'd make it so the edges go off the canvas, but you can still see some of them below? Like, crop through the big "T"
2. Do something with the border/edge? I dunno, might look cool.




Don't stamps go on the back of postcards? Or is this a British thing?RedBaron0 wrote:It looks great oaktown, since you've got the map on a postcard how about adding a stamp & postmark in the top corner, around Chicago?
I like seeing the little bit of the National Geographic logo, but would there be an issue with copyright?
Top Score:2403natty_dread wrote:I was wrong

44.'s crop doesn't seem to show anything incriminating and still looks good.oaktown wrote: Copyright: this was a quick and dirty sample of what I could do to make it look like a stack of mail... I'll have to research what I can legally get away with.
Top Score:2403natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
