I will admit that it was I who gave it a C. There are many things in this map that could be improved.
Thanks for your prompt response and forthrightness. I apologize to everyone for the long post. YP's critique is well worth taking into account, and I want to address the specifics of each of his points.
1) Coastlines. Most of them are really screwed up. Take Yucatan as an example. In the north the peninsula have a littleinsee which doesn't belong there, and Belize seems like it was wiped off the map. You have to go through all the coastlines with a good atlas and clear them up.
A lot of the jaggedness of the coastline is an artifact of the resizing process. SoG wanted Mexico exaggerated compared to the rest of the map. We negotiated an appropriate cropping of Singer’s world map, used MapTweaker and a graphics editing program to translate it into a bitmap, which was enlarged to the map-size SoG wanted, then run through BMP2BIC.
Yes mexico should be oversized
F but with an even bigger Mexico would work I think.
Things to observe:
(1) Mexico is as big as it can get and stay in proportion to itself. ...
(2) Southern part of the isthmus is about 150% of its size in F above; it's not enlarged as much as Mexico.
(3) Florida was kept much smaller than it should be relative to Mexico.
(4) South America lost some of the South and East ...; it was slightly enlarged but kept small relative to Mexico.
(5) The islands both in the Caribbean and Pacific were only slightly changed in size. There placement was by hand, trying to match their original locations where possible, given the various distortions of the rest of the map.
So here's a map/BIQ for you ... it's the patchwork quilt from scaling the different parts of the map differently.
Since in this process one pixel/tile becomes several, one ends up with jagged coastlines, among other artifacts. I did not make enough effort to smooth the coast lines. In Yucatan I need to remove the two pointy peninsulas. That would leave the Bay de Chetumal looking about right I think. Belize is there, on the other hand, complete with the Rio Hondo and the surrounding marshes.
Let me know any other coastal areas that are especially jarring and I’ll correct them.
2) You completly forgot bonus grassland,
This was intentional, so that SoG could distribute it to encourage civ growth according to the needs of the scenario. A couple of clicks in the editor will randomly distribute it for anyone else’s purposes.
3) Jungle on the California peninsula makes no sense. Also add some hills and mountains where there are elevations on this island.
One of the sources I use in map design is
National Geographic's Terrestrial Ecoregions Map. The jungle is there to represent the Bahia Mangrove (Terrestrial Ecoregions Index NT (Neotropic) 1404). I did not want to use the marsh graphic as that is used for areas like the Everglades and I felt these are quite different. But it should have been limited to the two areas at about 21,31 and 25,43. The other areas should have been edited to Pine forest to represent the types of dry forest on the peninsula.
I did intend to add hills for areas above 400 meters and mountains for the areas above 1500 meters (which would be limited to the Sierra de Juarez & Sierra San Pedro Martir at the north end of the peninsula); thanks for catching my oversight.
4) Also jungle on Florida? I'm not so sure about this one, but it seems wrong.
As mentioned above jungle = mangrove in these areas. And I didn’t want Florida to be unrelieved marsh (everglades).
5) Ecuador and Columbia shouldn't have any desert. Only the southern part of Perushould have all that coastal desert.
Good catch on that. It’ll get replaced to some extent with grassland/plains/forest. Although to accurately represent the paramo I should probably extend the hills closer to the coast, which would run up against your point 6.
6) Big chunks of ugly mountains. Use a good atlas to make sure that the mountain chains are at their right locations, instead of just having big chunks in places with high elevations.
The “good atlas” I use is The Oxford Atlas of the World, 9th edition. According to it, at 25° N, for example, except for about 100 km on the Gulf of California Coast and 200 km on the Gulf of Mexico coast, the entire landmass is above 1500 meters and would therefor be mountains by the working definition. I actually have deepened the coastal plains, placed far fewer mountains/hills, and have introduced plains/grassland where they should not be (sacrificing accuracy for playability in all cases). One of the considerations for placing these “false valleys” was where minor lakes were located on the atlas map.
7) I think there should be some marshes in southern Georgia? (Not sure)
I do have the marsh extending slightly above Florida to represent the Okefenokee. The majority of Georgia is classed as NA529 (conifer forest). Based on the two months I spent at Fort Benning, which admittedly would be just off the northern edge of the map, I have to say the standard forest graphic is a more accurate representation of what I saw than the pine forest graphic, which I want to use to represent the dry forest/chaparral.
8) The Galapagos island aren't just too big island as far as I recall. (Not sure)
See my discussion as to the
problems of accurate representation of islands. The exaggeration of Mexico and compression of South America requested by SoG further complicates the issues involved. In the part of the map covering the Galapagos one tile is approx. 50 km across. Looking at map 172 of my atlas shows that only Isla Isabela covers most of a tile and the entire chain is only slightly over 2 tiles east to west.
9) More variation, add more rivers, more general detail. (Connected to 6))
The rivers are as placed on Singer's map, transfered to equivalent locations on this map. Placing every minor river would mean that almost the entire Gulf Coast of N. America, for example, would have rivers on the edge of every tile.
At some point I have to wait for the mod designer to indicate where he wants rivers and where city growth should be inhibited (as with bonus tiles). I know that one of SoG’s concerns was to concentrate the action on the Mexican civs, hence the de-emphasis of habitable and exaggeration of extent of inhospitable terrain elsewhere. He originally didn’t want the Gulf Coast or Florida there at all, but I felt that would stray too far from reality. Were I making this map primarily for general use I wouldn’t make the same choices. That’s why I clearly indicated in the db description the mod project for which it was designed.
As to more variation, without further specifics I have to point out that: I have placed variation based on “rain shadow” effects, I’ve given greater variety to Mexico than the atlas would warrant, the Amazon is meant to be virtually unplayable. I’ve noted your critique of the Pacific coastal regions, and will work on a revision. There’s not much else I can do there without LM Terrain to represent things like chaparral.
10) The Bahamas is not just one island.
You’re right. And at the scale of that section of the map (shrunk with respect to Mexico) the whole chain should probably be represented by a single tile. Which terrain would you recommend for the one tile?
11) Are those coast and sea tiles placed corrently? (Just asking)
By and large, using the depths provided by the atlas. There is some extension into the ocean to provide avenues for exploration toward the islands, including dead ends and gaps that must be crossed at risk, for to simulate the risks in exploration during gameplay.
That's basically it. The most important thing being 1), 6) and 9). But I really think you have to do it all to get a good map.
Summing up actions i need to take based on your critique:
1) I’ll correct the Yucatan, and would appreciate other eyes to point out other coastline problems
3) Baja California jungle will be limited and hills/ mountains added.
5) I’ll correct the Pacific coastal terrain of S. America.
6) If you can further refine your critique of the altitude of Mexico in light of the issues I’ve laid out I’m open-minded. For example, where would you place further valleys?
9) For me to make changes based on this point the critique would need to be more specific or I need detailed input from SoG and others.
I always appreciate a second pair of eyes (at least) to spot these kind of oversights. That’s why I post early versions of the map in the thread, hoping to improve the final map. Since you care enough to rate my maps, and you've got good eyes for critiquing a map, I’d like to incorporate your insights in the design process in future, rather than hear about them afterward.
Plenty of room for civs to expand and empires to be forged, founded or conquered. Exactly the aim of the mod. I think we have a winner here. Thankyou Blue.
A small bump to congratulate Blue. 
