Have you thought about leaving the hatching off entirely? You really only need it if there's nothing else to show what's solid and what's not, I suspect.

There's a possibility your system's showing "frames" (white lines connecting the nodes on a line or polygon). You can clear those from view using Ctrl + F, if memory serves (and if that's what was happening). It can be useful to show frames, as it makes picking out the nodes easier if you're trying to adjust them individually, but it quickly gets irritating when you're not doing that!

Nice-looking map, certainly!

If you're thinking of further tweaking beyond the point about the mountains (it's never easy deciding how much or how little you can cluster these things; it often depends on the style too, as some flow together better than others, and some styles won't overlap symbols properly), it might be worth adjusting the bitmap fill scaling for the woods and fields a little, to stop the repetition creeping in so much (most obvious in Evenwood), although that's quite a minor distraction once it catches your eye - so, sorry for mentioning it 😏😉...

I'd probably want to tweak the effect settings on the text too, especially the regional red labels that are fading into the terrain a little too much for my eye presently. Text tweaking is always one of the more difficult aspects of CC3+ mapping, as text is something the program doesn't handle as well as it might. It helps if you remember to set the fixed point before placing the text (albeit that gets a bit tedious if you need to change it every time), knowing the text may expand away from that point for different zoom and saved-image settings, or moving it about a little after placement, so that things like text on a curved line avoid having a letter over some key terrain element (always seems to happen for me...). I'd also be inclined to reduce the drop-shadow on the title text, and give that a somewhat broader outlining glow effect, just to help it stand out more than the "normal" text labels.

None of this is essential, or even all that significant, but you did invite comments!

Checking this Annual issue following Julian's query, there are further oddities about it.

Creating a new map file for a test drawing, I found there are no effects on either of the mountains sheets in a new file (the sheets set-up is to have the TERRAIN HILLS one immediately below TERRAIN HILLS 2, and TERRAIN MOUNTAINS below TERRAIN MOUNTAINS 2). When I copy those effects over directly from the Scotland map, and draw using the mountain drawing tool, I get pitting on the TERRAIN MOUNTAINS 2 sheet, just as Julian says. However, if I try drawing a new area on on the TERRAIN MOUNTAINS 2 sheet of the sample Scotland map using the default tool, that ALSO shows pits, unless I keep the area small and simple!

Both the TERRAIN HILLS sheets do come with their Glow effects emplaced in a new file, but there's no pitting with them. I wonder though if that may be because the default hills drawing tool uses only the Solid 10 bitmap fill, rather than anything textured. The default mountain tools both use the Land Brown CA91 fill.

You might also try a search on the Forum here for "Hatch style", as there have been a few folks who've previously created their own, and some of the information brought up that way might be useful.

However, I didn't find any obvious file complexity limitations mentioned, so it might be something less obvious, maybe something as odd as the length or nature of the filename, or some extra "invisible" entities in your drawing. Given the Hatch Styles are all just ordinary, if small, FCW drawings though, I'm unsure what else might be happening in this case.

If I copy the file into the CC3Plus/Hatch Styles folder, I can see the file name. However, when I try to create a new tool with it, the program crashes.

It's possible the file may be too complex to be used as a hatch style, as the ones I've been using recently (from CA20) have all been very basic, just a few simple polygons at most. But I really have no other ideas right now; sorry!