@-Max-: I noticed that and they will have to do for now at least, the brushes I used are downloaded from DA, I don't have the links right now though, and some of them were a good size and others were very small like the trees so either I have to learn how to make my own tree brushes or find some in a better size.
@Hai-Etlik: The name "global map" is perhaps the wrong name, I named it that because in Swedish it translates into world map basically and I didn't chose the right term I guess, it's just meant to be a map of the entire world as it is and not like on a globe shape, and I just wanted a simple grid to help me with distances, I can also hide that layer if it takes away from the map. I'm not the most skilled when it comes to this but is it just the grid that is to large and needs more squares added?
Do you mean it's a "known world" as in "this is the portion of the globe shaped planet that we know about" or that "the world is flat and this is all there is of it so there are no globes the worry about at all"?
Originally Posted by Elflady
No, it's not the density. The big thing is it just doesn't look like anything that would appear on a hand drawn psuedo-historical map like this. I think it would be best off without a graticule at all I don't think any graticule really makes sense. The kind of technology the style implies wouldn't have the ability to make or use a map with a really precise linear scale.
The one you've drawn in particular has a few further problems. Visually it's just too perfect and obviously computer made. It doesn't look like part of the map. It's based on linear distance, which few real life graticules are. Almost all maps with graticules have angular ones based on latitude and longitude. The few that have graticules that are based on a cartesian coordinate system with linear dimensions like UTM are very large scale maps and are generally topographic or cadastral maps, not small scale reference maps like the one you've drawn, and it's a decidedly modern thing to do on a map.