Improved Mesoamerican Conquest

[Yoda Power]

Man that's one long scary post! I now realize that we have very different approaches to how a map should be, so you might feel I'm destroying your work. Everything I post is meant as constructive criticism, so if you feel I'm being a moron just tell me. I'm not going to comment on every single detail you wrote, but I'll point out the most important things.

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.

Well I don't understand why you used a premade map instead of a sattelite photo (that's what I do) to make the map. Now you have to rely on Marlas map for accuracy. I actually meant it when I wrote "You have to go through all the coastlines with a good atlas and clear them up." Yucatan was only an example of bad coastlines, but in reality they all have flaws. Just from top of my head I can recall a very straight eastern Mexican coast and a weird looking Cuba.

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.

This is where we certainly disagree. In my view elevations does not euqal mountains or hills. I often see plateaus represented with big chunks of hills or mountains, but this is wrong. Plateaus are not hills and mountains, it is mostly flat land. I've once driven from Guanajato (spell?) to Mexico City in a car. In your map that would mean we drove thorugh mountains and hills. But we didn't, we drove through a mostly flat desert. It makes no sense in reality or in a gameplay view to make areas like these.

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.

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?

The way I see it, it is better to have an accurate representation of islands, even if they are a bit oversized. For example look at the map I made for ToB. It have many slightly oversized Greek islands. However now the islands are atleast there and can have the importance they did have in Greek culture.

 

[Blue Monkey]

Man that's one long scary post!

Yeah, it took about three hours to write (can you tell I have no life?). This one only took an hour, by the way.

I now realize that we have very different approaches to how a map should be, so you might feel I'm destroying your work. Everything I post is meant as constructive criticism, so if you feel I'm being a moron just tell me.

You've made many more maps than me, so it's like an apprentice learning from a master. I'm not sure our approaches are really that different ultimately, since I tend to agree with at least the spirit of most of what you say. I invite and will enjoy your continued commentary anywhere I'm making a map.

Well I don't understand why you used a premade map instead of a sattelite photo (that's what I do) to make the map. Now you have to rely on Marlas map for accuracy. I actually meant it when I wrote "You have to go through all the coastlines with a good atlas and clear them up."

Normally I wouldn't start with a premade. Rise of Asia was done from scratch based on atlases. I also have a high res satellite image I can use for reference.
The process of this project went like this:

1. SoG wanted a bigger MesoAmerica map.
2. I offered to do one with (at someone else's suggestion) a quick crop from the largest Earth or regional map I could work from, which turned out to be Marla's.
3. After he saw the results, he then wanted Mexico enlarged and the rest relatively shrunk.
4. Working with the assumption that he wanted something quickly, I decided to go the bmp/tweaker route rather than start over from scratch, thinking it would be faster. Ultimately, even discounting learning 2 new utilities, it wasn't.
5. But I did have the advantage of a map (bitmap) that now could be easily resized and distorted. A process which went through several iterations as SoG fine-tuned what he wanted.
6. Having posted it several times for critique, and only getting responses like

   you've gotten it right this time down to the last pixel

   I went on to the next steps of placing more detailed terrain & rivers, rather than reviewing the work as thoroughly as I should have.

I have taken your criticisms to heart. Actually started reworking the map last night.

This is where we certainly disagree. In my view elevations does not euqal mountains or hills. I often see plateaus represented with big chunks of hills or mountains, but this is wrong. Plateaus are not hills and mountains, it is mostly flat land. I've once driven from Guanajato (spell?) to Mexico City in a car. In your map that would mean we drove thorugh mountains and hills. But we didn't, we drove through a mostly flat desert.

I've also had the experience of living in a substantial valley above 5000 ft. surrounded by higher mountains, so I know what you mean.

Any of us, given only an atlas to work with, without outside experience to call on, have to figure out where to put the "valleys". In the example you used, working with my (Oxford) atlas, along the line from Guanajuato to the DF the relief shadings are fairly close together, which I interpret as a lot of folding (hills/mountains) regardless that the elevation color stays the same. Looking really closely, I can see where a one tile plateau should be placed just NW of the snowcapped mountains, which would approximate the drive you're talking about.

In contrast, the area between Chihuahua and Coahuila has far fewer relief shadings, spaced farther apart. I do need to break up those hills more, especially on the eastern side, but I hope you see that I was already tending toward what you have in mind. Looking at it some more, in south/central Mexico I should shift the mountains more to the west and break up the terrain more in the east.

It makes no sense in reality or in a gameplay view to make areas like these.

I've seen maps (BICs) where everything west of China was a solid mass of mountains at least 10 tiles deep and thirty wide, to the edge of the map. And I've seen the Himalayas done like a single strand of pearls. Between both those extremes I think there's room for the flexibility of taste. Personally, I like it to involve some effort to get over ranges of mountains, especially in a scenario set in earlier eras. I will look for areas on this map I can break up the terrain more.

The way I see it, it is better to have an accurate representation of islands, even if they are a bit oversized. ...However now the islands are atleast there and can have the importance they did have in Greek culture.

Here our disagreement is not in spirit but in interpretation. In the Rise of Asia map I made, Japan is enlarged for gameplay. If I had given the Philippines the same treatment (outsized enough to be both internally proportional and detailed) it would have been larger than Japan and played too dominant a role in the game.

It's slightly specious to argue for increasing accuracy by distorting relative size, especially in areas that for the purposes of the scenario were meant to be de-emphasized. In this case neither the Galapagos nor the Bahamas had important roles in MesoAmerican culture for purposes of the scenario. This was never meant to be an accurate map, nor was I the final arbiter. At one point my client (SoG, for whom I made the map) suggested leaving out the Caribbean Islands, for example.

I want to conclude by saying that I do appreciate your willingness to share your perspective. I will both correct the faux pas you pointed out (this second exchange helped me to see even more that needs correction) and look forward to your comments during the development of my future projects. And if you know of a better world atlas I should have on hand I'm eager to hear.

 

[RedAlert]

Hi, how's the mod coming? Care to catch me up?
I had a look through the thread. I must express my admiration and gratitude to all who have been contributing to this project.

 

[againsttheflow]

5) Ecuador and Columbia shouldn't have any desert. Only the southern part of Perushould have all that coastal desert.

I don't mean to be picky buy it annoys me how many people spell Colombia wrong. I should know. No, i'm not a human "spell checker" but sombody's got to defend the poor mispelled word.

On another note, you're completely right about the desert. I happen to know for a fact that that part of Colombia's coast is one of the wetest spots on earth. Over 400 in. of percipitation a year!