Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
    • CommentAuthorgirhen
    • CommentTimeAug 2nd 2019
    Hello all,

    I'm working on a very large scale map. It's actually my first time mapping, though I've always loved games with city/region building elements.

    I was trying to figure out the best way to handle this without having to create the same map multiple times. This map is Earth sized - 26,000 miles around or so (thanks, Fractal Terrain!). I've attached three screenshots from different levels for reference. Any thoughts on how I'm doing this would be helpful. The region I'm working on is not the main region - consider it the piece of scrap wood I'm testing on. The intended campaign locations are in three of the large landmasses near the middle of the map. My PCs are free to wreck my intended plans, which is why I'm going to flesh this world out.

    Is it good to go about this with these smaller symbols like I have? Is my piece of scrap looking like a decent start? Worth noting: The two cities I have put down so far are roughly 200 miles apart. I was thinking about putting a couple small hamlets along the path.


     photo World Map Review.jpg

     photo Map Corner Review Preview.jpg

     photo Kalvania Small Distance Review Preview.jpg
    I don't really see a problem with the size of the symbols for the areas you are creating. One thing to remember is that in many maps, the symbols are not there to represent the exact size or position of a city or a village or whatever. They are there to let the people looking at the map know that somewhere around that area there is a city/village/mountain range/river, or whatever. It's only in more modern maps where exact distances are known due to global positioning sattelites. Back in the day, they could be accurate but not to the level we have now. Consider this in your map making.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeAug 4th 2019
    Exactly what Tonnichiwa said.

    I have a map of my home county on my wall drawn by Christopher Saxton in the 16th century. It has everything on it, but the distances between things seem to have been measured more by mental perception of how long the journey seemed, rather than the actual number of miles. It is distorted to the extent that the Isle of Portland (the original UK one) is only half as long as it should be compared to it's width at the northern end - and Portland is only 4 miles long in reality, so this wasn't a huge place that was really all that difficult to measure. Saxton doesn't seem to have even used any basic triangulation to get things correct that way. (Triangulation, where you measure the distance between 3 fixed points by walking it and counting strides, gives you a pretty reasonable triangle on which to base the rest of a primitive survey within that triangle - by taking bearings to the 3 fixed points from wherever you are inside that triangle).

    This does nothing to reduce the charm of the map, which is itself a work of art.
    • CommentAuthorgirhen
    • CommentTimeAug 4th 2019
    Alright, so I'm not off target. Thanks!