Which one do you prefer? (A or B) /update in #12

The first one because the image of the Hoplite soldier is bigger and stands out. Also if your going to sell it online, and it's reduced to the size of an icon, that image of the Hoplite might be big enough to be visible.

The first one! The golden line in the second cover looks like a bow and it's a bit funny, looks like a Christmas present with a golden bow . In the first cover the two golden lines frame the image so they look alright. And yes, the bigger soldier image is also more catchy. If you're putting this on Amazon etc it's going to be a thumbnail and you don't want images that look like undecipherable dots on it.

For my taste, the version above works better. In the one below, the first thing noticed was the head of the hoplite half covered (distracting), and the three similarly-sized images gave it a scrapbook effect with no focal point.

In both, having the same color and font for the title and author name (and nearly the same size) is distracting. My eyes are flicking all over the cover with no focal point. Sometimes same color and font works, especially when the author's name is just as important to the reader as the title, but even then, it's the exception rather than the rule. More often, at least one of the aspects (size/font/color) is different. Sometimes all. (Others may not have an issue with it on your cover; this is just my opinion. YMMV) Perhaps Google something like "novel covers" to get an idea of how others do it. Also consider increasing the size of the hoplite to make him more prominent.

All the best,
Riv

ecerberus said:

Seems like #1 was the consensus so far, thank you!

here's an update:

Does this look better?

Click to expand...

It looks better to me, though I would be interested in a comparison without embossing on the title.

The first one. I don't think the shape of the map works as well in the second.

The embossed font doesn't bug me, but what did bother me was the partial soldier. Much better without, IMO, since the cropping was awkward--just a random leg--and it makes the whole thing look like it was quickly thrown together, even though I know that's not the case.

ETA: I usually like covers better when the title and author name don't use the same font. So, thus far, I like the version in post 5 best.

I'd lose the shield covering the soldier's leg.

Other than that - it looks awesome!!

Works for me!

I like it. To me it says non-fiction about one of the pre-AD cultures (there's a better name than that, right?)

I like historial non-fiction and would read the blurb.

Fantastic work! I really like the look of the most recent iteration!

Very nice - I like it. Clean and clear...

Much more eye-catching.

Eek--I'm late. Just wanted to chime in that I like this cover by far the best.

I think it's nice.

Fresh eyes here. I didn't see any comparison. I just went straight to #12. I love the cover. Some quibbles: 1) I didn't know what the "flame" over the "A" was. 2) I didn't know what the maroon speckles were behind "RET" 3) And I'd spruce up your name a bit. At least add a little drop shadow to sharpen it.