Map of the Twin Kingdoms of Aran and Ilan - Handdrawn

[Caenwyr]

Definitely kerned for me. I'd probably prefer one with consistent kerning on all of them, rather than stretched to fit the entire range in each case. Looks good now regardless

I feel the same way. I must admit that on the shorter ranges the labels look better kerned, but imho they're really too stretched on the longest ranges. I'll toy with it a little and try to find a good balance between the two

[kirkspencer]

I think it's gorgeous, and I aspire to someday being half as good. The only thing that jars me (and even that only a little) about the labels is the double-curve some of them take.

Given the irregularity of the curves I think the mix of kerned and unkerned is good - a continuance of a secondary theme, using whichever is better for that particular label.

[Caenwyr]

Hi all,

Below is another update of the map. Most of the changes I made will be invisible (I did a major layer clean-up, leaving me with "only" 497 layers, yee-haw!), but I also played a bit with the kerning of the mountain labels, and threw around the city labels to minimize overlap with roads, rivers etc etc etc.

I'm also thinking of lowering my populations a bit, since like TheHoarseWhisperer pointed out they are somewhat on the high side. Not horribly, but still. The region we're talking about here has about the same population density (62 inhabitants per square mile) as the state of Mississippi (or for my fellow Europeans, somewhere between the population densities of Wales and Luxembourg), and is not much smaller than Australia (which has a population density of only 8 inh/sqmi). Maybe 62 per square mile is a bit much for such a large pre-industrial region. What do you think?

[Raptori]

Re: population density, I saw this link posted somewhere (I think on here, no clue where though), which could be useful. A density of 60 per square mile is classed as average according to that, so from that perspective you're sorted. However, it'd be worth double checking that the population isn't too urbanised (unless there's a reason for it) - I have no clue whether it is or not, just starting to look into this myself

[Caenwyr]

Re: population density, I saw this link posted somewhere (I think on here, no clue where though), which could be useful. A density of 60 per square mile is classed as average according to that, so from that perspective you're sorted. However, it'd be worth double checking that the population isn't too urbanised (unless there's a reason for it) - I have no clue whether it is or not, just starting to look into this myself

Hey that's cool, when calculating my populations, I used the source website yours seems to be based upon! I've been looking up European demographics as well, and those turn out to be very heterogenous. England for example had a population density almost double mine during the Medieval Warm Period (about 120/sqmi), only for it to come crashing down to less than 40/sqmi during the Little Ice Age. Turns out climatology has a LOT to do with it. Be sure to check out this website if you want to know more, it's a fun read.

[kirkspencer]

re population density, there are two general opinions among historians of population size in pre-plague (1300-1350) England. Depending on which group you listen to, England had a pre-plague peak population of 3.5-4 or 6-7 million people. England has in the vicinity of 50,000 square miles. This gives us 70 to 140 people per square mile.

That said, post-plague recovery brought the population of England/Wales to 2-2.5 million people (40-50 pop per square mile), at which it pretty much remained stable till around 1520.

Depending on whether you follow Russell or De Vries the population of Europe may or may not have done the same, though at different densities. It's important to remember these numbers are from England. It's a land in the mid- to high- latitudes (though it gets the 'warm' gulf stream as buffer) with a moderate to short growing season but good precipitation. Population density in Sweden was smaller. In Tuscany it was higher.

Bottom line: 60 pop/mi^2 is defensible. Land quality, climate, war, and (because magic) can always be used to shift things up or down.

[Raptori]

Hey that's cool, when calculating my populations, I used the source website yours seems to be based upon! I've been looking up European demographics as well, and those turn out to be very heterogenous. England for example had a population density almost double mine during the Medieval Warm Period (about 120/sqmi), only for it to come crashing down to less than 40/sqmi during the Little Ice Age. Turns out climatology has a LOT to do with it. Be sure to check out this website if you want to know more, it's a fun read.

Haha nice, I had read the source one too, but found the calculator particularly useful! Thanks for the second link, looks like it'll be interesting

[Caenwyr]

Bottom line: 60 pop/mi^2 is defensible. Land quality, climate, war, and (because magic) can always be used to shift things up or down.

unfortunately I'm not a big fan of the "because magic" logic, so I better keep this realistic . Therefore I might have to screw down the populations of Conwr and Gaendyr a notch: they've been in and out of war continuously over the last two centuries, so that must have had its impact. The western principalities should generally have a slightly lower density as well, mainly Sarand, Conwr and Cell, due to ethnic conflicts and a dirty little civil war not too long ago. Which means I'm probably gonna end up with the following numbers:

• Gaendyr: 7,5M (down from 13M)
• Conwr: 6M (down from 12M)
• Sarand: 8M (down from 9,5M)
• Cell: no changes (low enough already)

If I don't get any other remarks anymore, I'll adapt that, and post the result immediately in the finished section. If you guys do have some remarks, don't hold them in! I'm here to learn, and I can use all the help there is .

[Raptori]

Those numbers sound good to me

unfortunately I'm not a big fan of the "because magic" logic

+1 - putting stuff in that doesn't make sense breaks suspension of disbelief, even if you "explain" it as magic.

That's not to say magic shouldn't affect the world - it should. If you have powerful magic which, say, increases the the temperature of any area in which it's used, then I'd have no problems with it - as long as the logical effects on civilisation are dealt with. Increased magic use would result in desertification in habitable climates, and turn arctic areas slowly into very habitable zones. Civilisation could slowly move northwards over time, then (once they reach the highest latitudes) migrate to the revitalised south lands and start moving northwards again, depending on the recovery period. You just need a consistent mechanic for it that affects your world on every level. When it's a case of "I wanted my world to be this way, but it doesn't make sense, so magic", it doesn't work for me.

[kirkspencer]

+1 - putting stuff in that doesn't make sense breaks suspension of disbelief, even if you "explain" it as magic.

That's not to say magic shouldn't affect the world - it should. If you have powerful magic which, say, increases the the temperature of any area in which it's used, then I'd have no problems with it - as long as the logical effects on civilisation are dealt with. Increased magic use would result in desertification in habitable climates, and turn arctic areas slowly into very habitable zones. Civilisation could slowly move northwards over time, then (once they reach the highest latitudes) migrate to the revitalised south lands and start moving northwards again, depending on the recovery period. You just need a consistent mechanic for it that affects your world on every level. When it's a case of "I wanted my world to be this way, but it doesn't make sense, so magic", it doesn't work for me.

fwiw I prefer not using 'because magic' for most basic stuff. I include the line because, well the thing is that if you presume magic exists for your world it will have an impact. It's a corollary of magic and sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable. You gave a couple of cases. Less world-changing, farmers would kill for someone who could predict the weather for the next few days, and if they can bring or stop the rains? And so on and so forth. But I digress.

Bottom line I have no personal problem in fantasy worlds of whatever the designer wants. If he's going for 'realistic' then it depends on a lot of elements of which magic is neither most nor least significant. And even there, the 'experts' disagree what the maximum should be. (70 or 140 at England's peak pre-plague?)