WHAT?! Go away, Wilshire 
If only it was that easy to get rid of me
. Alas, I will do no such thing.
it just looks flat with no trees.
Kind of agree, which might have been why I suggested it originally. Cant remember. but...
And then there is the inconsistency of style and persepctive if you do 3d mountains and the rest of the terrain is more like satellite style. So a strong vote for "keep the trees". Or if not, loose the mountains as well and do them in a satelitte style as well. No mix-and-matching!
... I think the mountains break up the flatness nicely
. Mix-and-match all the things! Besides, small things like grass/rivers/small-trees/foilage would appear flat from a satellite/plane, but bigger trees and certainly mountains still stick out. Do some zooming in on google maps, there is usualy a perspective shift that I assume comes from the differences of the satellite image (nearly directly overhead) to a plane/drone (angled view), but you can still see buildings and such with some height.
The trees have the feeling, to me, of being "stuck on" after the rest, especially where they are missing around the words. Might be less of this affect if the words are lain over top the trees (though with the current font color and tree color, this would not look good).
(at least imo and ymmv, of course)
Amicable as always.
I kind of feel like a jackass critiquing the work, so feel free to ignore me
.
