Careful, Jim:

??

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.

That's what we like to see - people solving problems before we can leap in with the wrong explanation! 😁

Glows can be tricky beasts, I've found, which sometimes don't work well with other Effects even when they're on different Sheets on a map, and in variable ways (so they might affect some things on a Sheet but not others; I have no explanation for this...). Always worth experimenting though, to see what works best for what you want.

Mystara rather passed me by @Tonnichiwa, as I'd moved on to my own version of D&D, and other RPG systems, even by the time it first featured, as the Known World (in Module X1 "The Isle of Dread" according to online sources, in 1981). I have gone back in more recent times and looked over some of what was published for the Known World/Mystara setting, though after getting back strongly involved with D&D only when 5e appeared, I've concentrated more on finding past details for the Forgotten Realms setting, because of its intimate connection with 5e from the outset.

I suspect my (ongoing) connection to miniatures (and scenery, and everything else that goes with it) is because I started out as a model-maker, and only got involved in wargaming proper a few years after that, at the end of the '60s and early 1970s. Many tabletop rule systems are, and always were slow, but most of what I've done has been for my own interest and solo, so that was never a great issue for me. And a lot of the larger-area battles are fought using the miniatures as little more than markers, so I quite understand your "scale" problems.

I never understood why so many wargames have to be "balanced", when reality very rarely is (unless somebody's really screwed-up their reconnaissance and planning), which I think is why I never took to needing a group to game with. That was just too much like chess to me, whereas I wanted to try to better understand real, or potentially real, situations.

"A" looks more natural to me too, Sue.

The cross-hatched decoration (don't know what the proper term for it is, sorry!) seems undamaged despite the roof holes beneath it. As this seems to be of fairly flimsy outer surface material (compared with the depth of roof thatching), it seems unlikely it would have survived intact when the entire thatch below it has rotted away - even if it had just broken and raggedly partly fallen-in, say. I'd guess in some cases it might partly survive sort-of intact, but not always.

It does also look a little odd that none of the holes are where the greenery is; the extra weight and implication that that's where water's collecting, so mulching the thatch down into a growing medium plants can root into, might suggest that kind of area would be ripe for collapse as well.

You should be able to create a new drawing tool using your hatch style by taking one of the existing ones that uses a hatch style (for ease), and saving it as "New", using whatever name you prefer.

You'll need to set up the hatch style though NOT in the "Properties" section, but in the "Outline" one, as an "Extra entity", clicking the "Properties" button. Under the "Hatch style" list in the "Custom tool properties" pane this "Properties" button opens, you'll need to scroll through the list to find your hatch style, and then click it. Then OK everything, save the new tool, and test it out.

Hopefully, that'll do it! If not, I'm sure one of our resident experts will leap to your aid - good luck!

@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 😉