And that's just the size of the complete map 😉

[If so, that would be the classic mistake of using a 1:1 scale 😁]

Don't forget simple tricks like underlining or using italics (though this may not work equally well with all fonts), or changing the glow on the font (maybe using a different colour glow to represent different things, such as highlighting countries from terrain items or places). Might be worth testing dark lettering with a light outer glow, in case that could be clearer. Sometimes having a letter colouring nearly the same as the main map background (but not identical) suddenly jumps out simply because there's a light glow added to the letters.

Nice-looking map!

It might be useful to have a series of Steampunk "add-on" symbols, for things such as pipes, machinery items, odd-looking consoles and other features, ad infinitum, rather than trying to create new house, etc., symbols with the pipework, gears, and so forth pre-attached. Obviously, there will need to be new vehicles, but even there, something like a "normal" steam locomotive could be created, to which fancy pipework & co could be added to taste by individual map makers.

We've had this discussion before Mike, I fear. The reality is that most people playing board wargames aren't in the military and most never will have been, so the actual real-world map (which itself is only an abstraction of the reality anyway, of course) isn't going to be of significance for players of the game at all. Indeed for many, it will be hopelessly confusing.

The reason the last map style you showed is used so heavily in many published hex-wargame boards is it allows the game to flow easily, with players being able to immediately identify what is where, and how best to plan what they intend to try. While I can understand this brushes-up sharply against your sensibilities as a real-world field commander, this isn't how most players will think. While a field commander can look over a topographic map with trained eyes and identify the same things the abstracted game map shows clearly, hardly any game players will have that capability, which is naturally why the game map needs to so abstracted in the first place.

I think perhaps the way to approach this is to identify what the key terrain elements are that you want to reproduce in the game, bearing in mind what the capabilities are for the science-fiction forces you'll be using. For instance, if there are many units with hovercraft/GEV abilities, open ground, rivers, lakes and marshes are going to have almost no game effect for them, whereas rough ground, woods, heavily-built-up areas and steep slopes will (crude examples, but hopefully you see my point). Once you know that, you'll have a better idea what level of abstraction will work for what you need, I think.

The remainder of the Aunty MacKassa maps are now shown and discussed here.

Thanks very much everyone!

I seem to have been "living" in this first Errynor map for so long now (I started the CC3+ mapping about two years ago), it's a little strange to have reached this point. Though to be fair, I'm now so heavily invested in the next map's set, it's less odd than it might have been!

You're welcome!

Sounds very much like a dragon's been right through the symbols already - ruins, fires... 🐉

Indeed. And bulls, so representing the adventures of the Argonauts beckons. Theoi.com link for the uncertain or confused 😊 🔥🐂

Video shows, like many public performance activities, require a lot of preparation and practice at first, but they do become easier with increased experience. You might find it helpful to start from a script - even a rough sketch of the things you need to cover and in what order - to help get the pattern of what you're wanting to do fixed in mind, and then try running it through a few times to see how it works without recording, what the timing's like, and so forth. Even then, you may find it needs several takes to get the video right, which of course is where editing comes in. Plus post-production editing can add written captions or diagrams for things needing extra emphasis or explanation. The whole is a very time-consuming process overall, so you should be prepared to spend several days at least (or the equivalent amount of time spread over a longer while) getting to the point where you're happy with it.

Once you've done a few such videos, you should find it's getting a lot easier, and taking less time and effort in advance, which of course is how regular video shows operate.