Region of Eglephron
Heya. So this is a map I'm working on for the set of a game I'm working on. The game is going to require some strategic/tactical maps for playing the campaign on (I'm going to estimate their size at 50 km square, maybe smaller). But I decided I really need to have an overall picture of what is going on in the immediate and surrounding area to wrap my head around everything. So hence the need for this regional map.
I Don't have any of the names worked out just yet so I'm going to to just use Eglephron as a placeholder for now since I think it sounds neat.
Obviously I took a page of style straight from Viking's map of the world of Skenth for my oceans, because frankly that map is just inspirational. I fooled around with Wilbur and masks in massive frustration until I discovered one thing, which is that I don't know how to use Wilbur very well. After seeing Viking's map I thought that maybe I could manage something along those lines for the oceans. It is however a lot of work, I wasn't quite counting on it being so time consuming. Also I'm using a mouse and I can feel that after sessions a couple of hours long all that clicking the carpal-tunnel creeping into my arm :p . However I'm super pleased with the results, so my thanks to Viking for showing me the way so to speak.
As you can see I've pretty well determined the coasts, I may add a few more islands up in the NE corner, and plan on putting in a few tiny islands around. On the land side I haven't really done much other than the inland seas. The ugly black blobs are some intended mountain ranges I think. And the ugly blue lines leading south are some proposed river routes, I really want a bayou sort of area and river delta sort of thing happening in the southern bay type area. Not to sure what I plan on doing with the far north part of the map (the equator is planned to be put some where nearer the top edge, maybe just above the large crater).
In that large expanse in the middle is going to be a waste land of various terrain and biome types. This is the area where my games campaigns are planned to be set. As such I haven't really settled on a scale yet because I feel like I want a lot of room for my game site. I should get pretty good coverage of stuff I think though. The scale I put there is because I was imagining the large island to the East as roughly equivalent to Sicily in size.
The giant crater was based on the gulf of Mexico and the little bite is an obvious homage to Hudson Bay and James Bay, but then I figure it could've been a second meteor strike and also saw a bunch of pictures of craters that actually form islands in the middle with a surprising amount of frequency. Anyways on the coast of that little crater is where I intend on putting the most important city, sort of the Rome for this world. Perhaps on the little island, but more likely on the mainland next to a rive that empties there.
My concerns at this point are having a relatively realistic sort of river delta swamp thing which I think I already screwed up a little. And of coarse I am concerned about the mountain ranges. I decided to forgo being super careful and thinking about tectonic plates and such because I didn't feel like getting all caught up with that stuff and limited by realism, but at the same time I want it to work in my mind without just saying, "oh its a magic world dufus."
That was entirely too much writing and far more than I intended, sorry for the TL: DR. Here's the map so far:
Attachment 56281Done in GIMP, actual size 4886 x 2904
Last edited by Falconius; 07-22-2013 at 07:23 PM.
Reason: Typos, switched to jpg for smaller file
I like the impact crater idea.
SO I've been painting this greyscale mess for some topographical guidance but I'm totally lost now (whoops). I can't decide whether it is worth pursuing for some sort of bump map or whatever or scrapping this approach entirely. I'm torn between keeping it and ditching it. I'm also of two minds regarding of whether I want to do isometric drawn elements in the map or go for a more realistic topographical satellite photo approach. Right now I'm leaning towards ditching this entirely and doing the drawing, which will leave me leeway for my more detailed campaign maps.
The things I want represented on this map in some manner are pretty regular sorts of stuff. Vegetation, terrain, rivers and roads should there be any and major points of interest such as settlements or what have you. It could be that is too much for one map to handle well. The goal of this map I think is just an overview of things for the smaller detailed campaign maps. Maybe that is not refined enough?
Just for fun I've been playing with this in Wilbur, it turns out if you run 30 or so precipitation based erosion cycles most of the map becomes an endless expanse of green sea with some very nice looking hills.
It seems as though you intentionally blurred the height map? At any rate, although I've tried my hand at a more hand drawn style, I personally prefer Sat style maps. If you do pursue it that way, you'll get plenty of advice, either way really. You might find the Tuts on that style create possibilities and ideas you hadn't already thought of for your smaller scale campaign maps.
Mostly its airbrushed strokes, I blurred it a little on another layer to blend it together better but really I need a lot more resolution in the height map for it to work on this scale. Which I'm having difficulties with. The ocean was easier to do because of the colours I think. Also it's easier to just ignore detail in the oceans because there is no expectation or real need for it. I'll keep going over the tutorials though, there is a lot of good stuff in them, getting it in my head however...
Still having trouble deciding which way to go with the terrain indications. I've been experimenting with some poorly drawn mountains, and I have some nice Wilbur processed height maps.
I've put in the rivers and outlined the coasts though and it looks a lot better for it. All the line work was done in Inkscape and imported it to Gimp. I definitely have to fix the style of the mountains though if I'm sticking with drawn. The mountains obviously would not go directly over a river, this was just a quick thing to sort of see it in action. I've been thinking how to paint them if at all, but not come up with anything successful so far. I'm fairly certain I'd like them to at least have a white highlight.
The map colours are there just to indicate the location of the height map. They are definitely not staying being that they are terrible.
Don't know why I've taken so long to say this, but I'm digging that landmass shape. Very, very, very cool.
The mountains are really nice but looking on the greyscale map it look like some black hole tried to twist the map. Not that it's bad but I wonder if it's intentional.
Falconius, are you talking about that?
Originally Posted by Falconius
Lingdon, thanks it's comforting to hear that. I was really kind of not sure about the west, likely because there are no coasts or really any really defined features there. I'm still not entirely sure what to do with it, it's going to end up being my maps spiritual Saskatchewan I think; really boring to drive through.
Azelor, that effect was unintended, but not unliked now that you pointed it out.
Max, I'm not sure what you mean?
Ok so once I finally got my brushes to start working I've been experimenting with the mountains. I'm not sure I want to continue in this direction or not. I like the painted mountains, but they seems sort of cartoony. Maybe with a tan background and just white highlights they'd work better? I'll have to try it tomorrow. Any tips or advice would be appreciated.