More time today, and first-off, I checked the On New Macro as well as the On Open one, as I was fairly sure when I started the new file for this map, the Simple symbols set had indeed loaded. Which is where I discovered this was indeed the case, and that the correct CATALOG line should be :

@Symbols\Modern\Floorplans\Dracula Dossier\Simple.FSC

and not:

@Symbols\Modern\Floorplans\Dracula_Symbols.FSC.

The macro's easy enough to change in an existing map file drawn in this style using the edit facility. You can open it from the Drawing Properties icon on the top toolbar |CC2PRESETS| via "Settings - Map Notes", which brings up the "Select Note" pane.

Choose "OnNewMacro" and click "Edit", from where you can copy the last typed line with the correct location for the Dracula Dossier "Simple" symbols catalogue file.

Close the OnNewMacro without making any changes, and open the OnOpenMacro one the same way, then simply paste the copied text line over the last typed line there to correct it.

Before clicking "OK" to close the macro edit pane, make sure there is ONLY ONE BLANK LINE immediately below the typed line you've just replaced (try to move your cursor further down using the arrow key). If there is more than one, delete it, as if there's anything other than a single blank line there, the macro will become confused and sulk mightily at you! (That is, it won't work properly; note there MUST be one blank line there, however.)

Then save the file. You can check it's working by closing the file you've just saved and reopening it, where the 10 items in the Simple catalogue should now be showing in the symbols catalogue panel to the left of your drawing window in CC3+.

So, no need to be stumped by all the trees in a battlemap any more 😁

The tents look rather flat, very pale and a bit "ghostly" by contrast to many of the other symbols. Might be worth rethinking their use here?

Also, the bridge shadow seems to be at a different angle to all the others in the map (presumably because this has been drawn as a separate "shadow" polygon).

Yeah, I think it's a lack of the right Sheet Effects Jim. Try looking at the Winterbourne Langton sample FCW that comes with the Winter Village pack, and see how the narrow footpaths have been done there (on the ROADS Sheet). Those are a near analogue to what I was thinking of here.

For the final wolf tracks, however, you might need to be creative, and draw some suitable polygons to get the look right for footprints dragging through the snow at this scale, rather than using drawn lines. Try playing around with the Effects first though.

I can't offer a great deal more precisely, as the wolves are showing up as rectangular red Xs for me on the FCW. I thought I'd reloaded all this free stuff a while ago, but I got a number of red Xs on Quenten's Vertshusen city map for the recent mapping contest too, so I must have missed some stuff. I've never used these non-PF symbols though, so it's not really worthwhile my going through the involved rigmarole to try to load them all up again. Sorry!

I was actually thinking more about the topic title than what the style might contain, Sue, in case someone's trying a search in future for something for elsewhere in East Asia than Japan.

That's a shame, if understandable. Maybe something for the future, with a different castle, perhaps?

Actually, I wasn't talking about the grid at all, but the scalebar, which is still more or less unreadable, because it's set on top of the mountains. If it was placed on the plain-texture open land, it would be easier to read, to see how it relates to the grid size.

When you're using a grid like this, it's really important that the scalebar shows what size the grid is, especially because the grid isn't covering the whole map. This is difficult to tell currently also on both the Zaras Lake and Jibarut maps.

And on the same topic still, the As Sutat map needs some sort of scale adding!

On this As Sutat map as well, there seem to be several flat animals in the NE quarter, towards the lower left of the "Al Diqaq" label. They probably need some shadows adding, I think. Unless of course they really are meant to be flat to the surface - the carpet sheep of As Sutat, perhaps? 😉

They're good looking maps, don't get me wrong; they just need a little tweaking here and there 😊

But if the H P Lovecraft Historical Society do another boxed set of props to go with it... 😏🤑

Of course, Sue.

You should never ask the Internet and expect anything other than a resounding "Yes" to any question though 😁

The only real use I've ever made of iso maps is as visual aids, although a lot of the earliest were really illustrations of buildings/locations, not true maps anyway, and done in a fully artistic style. The first actual iso maps I recall were from the original Castle Ravenloft maps from TSR, which also included some iso drawings. This concept followed through into the original "Ravenloft - Realm of Terror" boxed set, which had both maps and building diagrams done in an iso projection, as well as more traditional top-down maps. That would be in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

I really wouldn't want to use these as tabletop battlemaps though, as the whole point of those is to show exactly where everyone is, and as iso isn't the easiest projection on which to visualise such things, I always found it better to avoid that.

This is all from many years ago though, and only as in-person visual aids, so things, and people's expectations, may have moved on. I know some of the VTT set-ups allow you to visualise layouts in a mobile fashion, almost like real-world settings, so anything from top-down to side-on, or even from below, and that can be useful for helping people visualise what's on walls or shelves and in cabinets, for instance, as well as judge angles of slopes better. That though only really works if you're either online, or have a large enough screen that people at a table can all see equally what you're trying to show.