Oh yes, you need to reconsider those rivers. Rivers join up into bigger ones as they go towards the sea. Its excruciatingly rare for them to fork into two. For a long river it never ever occurs that there are two main paths to the sea. Have a look at some real maps or google maps and see what we mean.
I'm kind of troubled by the mountains. The way the ranges suddenly end on the coasts seems unnatural. It could make sense to have a chain of (mountainous) islands arching across the sea, "connecting" the southern and northern mountain ranges. Little peninsulas bulging out from the mainland at those points along the coast where the mountains reach the shores would also help make it look more natural.
Sorry Redrobes, I'll have to look at some real maps and change the water.
Ghostman, I was trying to get the effects of a cliff face along the water on one side, and dwindling foothills on the other. How can I express this better?
Hm now that I look at your map again, I see that the peaks become much shorter toward the shores. I think this is the problem: they are the same shape as the mountains, only smaller. In most of the maps using symbols to represent mountains/hills that I've seen, the symbols for hills tend to be less steeply sloped and more rounded in shape than the mountains. Makes it easier to spot the difference in a quick glance.
As for the cliff face - that one might be hard to represent. I guess the easiest method would be having the mountain range meet the coast at a low angle and then run along the coast for some distance.
Alright, I changed the rivers and added forests. I think the tree colors are too bright and my pattern doesn't look near as good as Pyrandon's did. Also, I changed the water from sponge to ocean ripple, I like it a little better. What do you think?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote