[lowfighter]

In stock maps usually the river shores are painted with a dedicated color and that's done by having in map_T the river painted with the "dedicated" color normally something like that in load.ini
Water2 = land/summer/SL_CoastLine_3.tga
If you look at map_T's for these maps you see BROAD water2 strips along the "rivers". This makes it look pretty artifically because you'll see like 500- 1000 m wide strips around the river shores painted with the dedicated texture (in the example SL_CoastLine_3.tga)
I think though the best is to paint river shores manually and maybe with with a couple of textures. So don't do the strips painting in map_T .
Suppose you decided on one or two textures to use to paint the river shores. If you zoom in on some river such that you're already in detail view. Select one of the colors you want to use. Click with mouse in the middle of the river and then move the mouse along the river while repeatedly hitting insert. If you play with it you can get narrow shore strips with variable width. With repeating insert you may get like 1 km done in 4 seconds so if you have a 100 km river that would make 400 seconds, maybe not so much. Sure if you have a lot of rivers it would take a lot of time but it's worth considering..Having a couple of textures combined along the shores would add variation. These textures don't need to be dedicated only for river shores they can be used also for other terrain...
Maybe not clear what I say but I don't have much time :mrgreen:

[dunkelgrun]

Why have shores painted along the rivers at all? I've never understood it - in real life, whatever the landscape is that a river flows through, it continues on down to the water's edge. Unlike sea coasts there are no 'shores' aong rivers, except in a very small number of places. As far as the game amd mapmaking for it goes, the only time when real attention needs to be paid to a river edge is when it's flowing through woods. Some corrective work will need to be done to make sure that the trees don't stand into the river.

:cheers:

[mandrill7]

Why have shores painted along the rivers at all? I've never understood it - in real life, whatever the landscape is that a river flows through, it continues on down to the water's edge. Unlike sea coasts there are no 'shores' aong rivers, except in a very small number of places. As far as the game amd mapmaking for it goes, the only time when real attention needs to be paid to a river edge is when it's flowing through woods. Some corrective work will need to be done to make sure that the trees don't stand into the river.

:cheers:

It actually looks far better to have a river bank tile. Otherwise, you get the rows of trees and crops represented by your "fields" tiles coming right down to the rive's edge.

[CzechTexan]

hey there Mandrill, good to see you again. I've been using the technique you described for rivers on the Caucasus map. Rivers do need a border if they're surrounded by cultivated fields and other textures. Naturally, real rivers will have heavily wooded or dense vegetation bordering them. I think I've been using the texture that's used for the Bessarabia map's rivers and I think it's the one you were using on your Belorussia map. I did all this painting by hand, clicking along the rivers, painting and adding other textures to make it look more natural and help blend in....usually cultivated fields or pastures textures.

One problem I noticed if I don't have other surrounding textures is that it will leave a "triangle" looking pattern along the river with pointed edges. There is a lot of work and time involved but that's the only way to make things look more natural.

I've only done this for part of the Caucasus map so far because I'm concentrating on only 1/4 of the large map. Other rivers don't have a border and only have a plain texture that looks like grassy plains. But this type of plain border might be appropriate for some areas which naturally have fewer trees.

[dunkelgrun]

Otherwise, you get the rows of trees and crops represented by your "fields" tiles coming right down to the rive's edge.

That's how it is in Britain and most of Europe. Different techniques needed for different geography, I suppose.

:cheers:

[lowfighter]

Good discussion M8s!
Absolutely agree the shores would depend on geography. Talking about Europe:
In Romania still at least the smaller rivers are rather "virgin" that is with not much human intervention so not so far from what they were. Along the shores there's always a high concentration of trees bush and weeds sometimes so dense that it's very hard just to get at the river shore. The width of it can vary from 5 meters to 100-200 meters. I think you can still find such on small rivers in France, Germany etc, check google earth..
Some bushy textures might not be bad using to simulate that...

Otherwise, you get the rows of trees and crops represented by your "fields" tiles coming right down to the rive's edge.

That's how it is in Britain and most of Europe. Different techniques needed for different geography, I suppose.

:cheers:

[CzechTexan]

It probably depends more on if the area is prone to frequent flooding. Land area bordering rivers is fertile and good for farming. If I were a farmer then bottomland is what I'd want but not if it floods a lot. Geography and weather are big factors.

Speaking of rain and flooding...here in Texas we've had heavy rains from a tropical storm and there is flooding all over central Texas. Arlington and Austin have parts of their cities flooded.