World Campaign Maps (about 70 to build)

[jbgibson]

I bet you could fix the misidentification of ridgelines, by coloring them brown - their present color looks navy-black, hence distinctly riverish. Or maybe dotting them, like border lines sometimes are done - that'd make the obviously symbolic rather than tangible.

What's the significance of the two different blues in river coloring?

If I'm guessing the scale right, your rivers have some seriously implausible dividings and rejoinings. Islands along rivers tend to me modest sized; some of these seem huge. Basically, water chooses the single lowest course in any situation. Why would it ever want to flow down a less-low course, when a more low one is available? Small diversions around what you could think of as a mid-river hill *are* plausible, but that's only the smallest of them. The deeply-incised bevel you've got going with the rivers actually worsens this implausible-river problem -- one does get meanders and threading of rivercourses in dead-flat terrain, like river deltas, but your standard river 'look' has some serious banks going on, like mid-life rivers have. Outright *lakes* have essentially flat surfaces, so they could accumulate a collection of islands, but that's not what you seem to be going for.

Most of your river joins are at about ninety degrees. Without more sharper-angle connections, there aren't many cues as to which way is downstream. I honestly can't tell if the main river network on C4 drains off the south of the sheet by that ruined keep, or off the east edge.

What's your thinking on the ridgelines getting their own shadows? It makes them look like great-walls-of-china instead of lines drawn by the cartographer on paper (or screen). I actually like them as indicators of ridge networks, I just wonder if they'd work better with less emphasis. Those cousins to ridgelines you've got defining canyons do help make the drop-off obvious, but do they also need their own shadow or glow? It again makes them look like 3-d 'things' sitting there.

Is there a reason some ridges don't get ridgelines? Like the SE N-to-S one on B5. It looks just as inhospitable as the S and SW ones there.

Your overall effect is great, and if you've got techniques for generating it without a gazillion hours per sheet, your project will not only prosper but be a really amazing collection of maps!

[kewlpack]

I bet you could fix the misidentification of ridgelines, by coloring them brown - their present color looks navy-black, hence distinctly riverish. Or maybe dotting them, like border lines sometimes are done - that'd make the obviously symbolic rather than tangible.

Great ideas. I'll try some of those modifications (including not using a bevel).

What's the significance of the two different blues in river coloring?

According to my friend, the dark blue represents deep/fast flowing water. The lighter blue is shallow/slow flowing water.

If I'm guessing the scale right, your rivers have some seriously implausible dividings and rejoinings. Islands along rivers tend to me modest sized; some of these seem huge. Basically, water chooses the single lowest course in any situation. Why would it ever want to flow down a less-low course, when a more low one is available? Small diversions around what you could think of as a mid-river hill *are* plausible, but that's only the smallest of them. The deeply-incised bevel you've got going with the rivers actually worsens this implausible-river problem -- one does get meanders and threading of rivercourses in dead-flat terrain, like river deltas, but your standard river 'look' has some serious banks going on, like mid-life rivers have. Outright *lakes* have essentially flat surfaces, so they could accumulate a collection of islands, but that's not what you seem to be going for.

You are right about several elements here. Keep in mind, these maps were drawn by my friend back when he was in 7th/8th grade in 1978. So, my job is not really to "fix" the maps so much as render a fairly accurate interpretation of them that respects the lore/legacy of the campaign. There are huge amounts of content we're working with; literally boxes upon boxes, and the only guidelines I've been given are to map what's there. I have tried to make as plausible renditions as I can, though. The world being flat as a pancake could explain some of the weird river characteristics, perhaps.

Most of your river joins are at about ninety degrees. Without more sharper-angle connections, there aren't many cues as to which way is downstream. I honestly can't tell if the main river network on C4 drains off the south of the sheet by that ruined keep, or off the east edge.

LOL - Neither can I! I have numerous conversations with my friend about the line drawing maps around this sort of thing. All he really told me about the world is that "it's completely flat" with a "west to east" slope that is fairly constant. I think there is one large "crease" that runs from NE to SW on the western side of the plane that causes the rivers on the western side to flow from east to west. This is definitely fantasy we're talkin'!

What's your thinking on the ridgelines getting their own shadows? It makes them look like great-walls-of-china instead of lines drawn by the cartographer on paper (or screen). I actually like them as indicators of ridge networks, I just wonder if they'd work better with less emphasis. Those cousins to ridgelines you've got defining canyons do help make the drop-off obvious, but do they also need their own shadow or glow? It again makes them look like 3-d 'things' sitting there.

Yeah. I'll turn off the ridge FX and change to a dark brown color. Will see how it works.

Is there a reason some ridges don't get ridgelines? Like the SE N-to-S one on B5. It looks just as inhospitable as the S and SW ones there.

Yes. The ridgelines are only tactical. They indicate where it takes "one day to cross on foot", and "horse/carriage/wagon/wheeled vehicles cannot cross at all". That's kind of why I made them stand out so much. I tried a few versions without them and the first thing my friend said was "where's the ridgelines?". So they're pretty important tactical markers. The ridges where there are no ridgeline markings simply mean that those mountains are passable, even if treacherously so.

Your overall effect is great, and if you've got techniques for generating it without a gazillion hours per sheet, your project will not only prosper but be a really amazing collection of maps!

Thanks so much for the INSIGHTFUL and specific feedback. I've asked several of the same questions of my friend, and he has specific reasons for the way things are the way they are. Who am I to argue with such historic content?! I can get a map like this done in about 5 hours or so, give or take. That's still a LOT of work.

Again - thanks very much. I'll try tweaking the river forks and the ridgelines, then posting them here.

[kewlpack]

Another thing I'll do is straighten some of the meandering of the rivers. It's a bit excessive for such a mountainous area (I think). Will clean up some of the busy-ness in those areas too.

[kewlpack]

Alrighty - (on C4) fixed the river systems as much as I could. I made sure the mountain-based streams feeding the lower rivers start as dark blue (fast water). I also tweaked the merging and tributary junctions so they provide more obvious direction of the flow. The canyons are tricky, but that's the way the originals were drawn... I also took off all the FX on the ridgelines which helped clean things up too. I attached a new version in the above post and got rid of the first. I also left the ridgelines OFF of this version because... I hate 'em.

Think that the changes will work better? Seems like it to me.

Will rework B5 tomorrow.