@mike robel commented:

It does Mike, but it actually creates a Symbols Along line to do so (assuming you're meaning CA84 1930s Overland Maps). There are detailed instructions on how to set this up in the PDF Mapping Guide that comes with this Annual issue, which is worth carefully reading and following, to get the best from this style.

Map Units are simply what CC3+ recognises as the number to be used for the size-ratio of the area of your map. For an overland map, the default is that CC3+ calls 1 Map Unit 1 Mile (or 1 Kilometre if you opt for metric). This has nothing at all to do with what physical size anything will be in whatever final printouts you choose to do.

You simply draw your map to the correct ground scale and size using only Map Units (so ONLY Miles or Kilometres; forget the "inches" thing; forget the "scale ratio" thing - at this stage they're irrelevant), including any hexes, so the hex has the correct scale-size for the map as you're drawing it. If the hex has to represent an area 100 metres from flat side to flat side, say, you can check that the distance across it is exactly 100 metres using the drop-down menu's "Info - Distance" option.

If you're tracing an imported map image, make sure that's correctly scaled in the same way before you start copying it, so the scale CC3+ is using is exactly the same as that on the map image you're copying.

Once you've finished mapping, you can then export an image of whatever size and resolution you need for your final printout using the drop-down menu's "File - Save As..." option. This is the point you can finally switch to thinking about what inch-size you'd like your hexes to be; just don't worry about it before this point. At all!

Simplest way for this is probably to choose one of the "Rectangular section" graphic image export options, PNG or JPG, say, as the dialogue box allows you to set the size of your export by width and height in either pixels (and you can set the pixels per inch or per centimetre at the same time too) or physical dimensions (again, inches or centimetres). Then just select which area you want to export from your CC3+ map. If you've set your snap grid correctly, you can just use that to help draw the area you want.

If you need the hexes to be a specific physical size on the final print graphic, say 1 inch from flat side to flat side, and there are 20 columns of hexes across either the width or height of the map that fit flat-side to flat-side, it's clear you need one of those dimensions to be 20 inches. The other has to fit the hex width, which is usually around 1.15 times the flat-flat size, thus about 1.15 inches per hex, times however many columns/rows of hexes in the area you need the graphic to be.

Remember, what you're drawing in CC3+ is a map, NOT a hex-board printable for gaming on. Only the final exported graphic - which you can always resize precisely in a separate graphics-manipulation program, if you're happier using that - is where you need to worry about what inch-size what feature is meant to be.

Not a problem, Remy. There are 58 of mine in this set alone, and I know I tend to add extra complexities too.

In addition to all this (behind the scenes), we ran into a problem with a rogue fcw32.pal file I didn't even know I had, so some of the colours on the initial maps from the Embra set entered into the Atlas were wrong, and those files had to be changed, aside from everything else...

On the upside, I see we're rapidly closing-in on 750 Atlas maps now, and I'd guess once all the oustanding ones have been added, we'll likely surpass the 800 mark.

Might need to start thinking of that 1000-map contest shortly at this rate 😉

🌩️Thunderstorms permitting, anyway 😉⚡️

Very sorry to hear that @Lillhans .

Hope you can get something resolved and back to mapping (and AFV designing, naturally) as soon as possible.

Live & learn, Jim...

You might find it useful to see this PF blog posting from a few years ago. Although it's dealing with creating battlemaps from a larger dungeon map, it does have relevance for what you've been trying to do here, I think. Only chanced-upon it yesterday myself, because one of the author's random-design products was the "Deal of the Day" on DriveThru RPG, and I was hunting around for more information, because he's made very extensive use of CC3+ in mapping for his products!

Beyond the Keep Tower shadow issues, I'd suggest adding some shadow effects to all the wall towers, as they also look very flat right now.

Appreciating you may be tied to whatever the publisher wants, but you might want to add further smaller towers where the two walls join, or add crenelations along both sides of that main north wall after where the two link (on the "outer" side from the enclosed part). The crenellated wall ending at the thicker north wall just looks odd right now, because it leaves the south side of that main wall undefended.

If the brown roads/paths are just dirt, I'd suggest making all their junctions less precise (so not just where that "castle path" meets the main paved road), as unless something blocks them, folks will always cut the corner at such places, which will wear away the grass very quickly. Indeed, you might even want to consider redrawing the dirt paths as smooth polygons, rather than lines (or just add a few polygons to break up the precise edges of the lines in places; as long as they're all on the same Sheet, the Effects will blend the two into one). Unless there are obstacles, dirt paths end up getting broader and (loosely) straighter over time with use.

Shame there aren't any descriptions to go with these, though I appreciate that's not an essential requirement for the Atlas. Quite a lot don't seem to have any scale or north indicator though, of which the scale issue seems more of a problem, especially for anyone who'd only be using the image versions of the maps.

Not sure I've ever used the Blend mode, so am pleased Sue's already jumped in on that one.

The three brown areas do have a very sharp line across where the sandy lower cavern floor cuts across them, which I assumed would be addressed later on. The downside with work-in-progress topics is I'm often not clear which items are more nearly finished in them.

I'm guessing it's the general disconnect that you're finding problematic, with that darker piece each as well as the sharp dividing line where they overlie the sandy lower cavern area. Presumably, that wasn't what you wanted there. So you need to identify what the three areas are meant to be and where they are in relation to everything else nearby (higher or lower, or simply a different floor texture, say). That might give us some better ideas what to suggest to help.

Now you have this cylinder of clay on your virtual potter's wheel, Sue, you just need to start forming the vessel from it!

Amphorae looking good!

In terms of getting the right "look", while appreciating this isn't the kind of thing you can necessarily do quickly, it may be worthwhile reviewing some archaeological reports showing images of in-situ pottery remains in and from tombs. That should at least give a better impression of the general "damaged" look that subterranean burial gives to the surfaces of even intact objects (as you mentioned wishing for better detail regarding the broken columns previously, for instance).

Amphorae that contained things when entombed will usually be sealed, and at least some evidence of that will survive in the top of the neck once broken, which I can imagine will be as problematic as getting partial broken handles attached to the rest of the item. Sorry!