CWBP 2 Deciding the map

[Ghostman]

An unelegant (and potentially labor-intensive) solution to the tile size issue could be to first generate a dense grid, then manually merge some of the tiles together to create larger tiles. Depending on the shape of the grid this could result in some oddly-shaped tiles, but aesthetic qualities aside that shouldn't cause any problems.

Another thing to consider is that if we're going to use the Mercator projection, then the size of mapped areas will vary greatly by latitude in any case.

I found this handy little program called DrawHexGrid that can be used to generate numbered hex grids of various configurations. Here's an example grid of 100x50 hexes:
hexgrid100x50.gif
Sadly it doesn't output vector files so resizing the grid to the dimensions of the map might be tricky.

[Azélor]

jbgibson: I think it will be necessary for mappers to collaborate since as you said, nations could stretch across more than one hexes and political borders do not match hex borders
And no I don’t think a country is a island floating in the void, it has neibors and sometimes will share some similarities (in names for example) like the Latin countries or the Germans one.

It's not that hard to create an hex grid in illustrator. Just a test but it's a bad projection for that.

Attachment 59945

[Ghostman]

An idea just occurred to me, that is so simple that I'm kind of embarrassed I didn't think of it sooner. There's really no need to have different sized tiles at different latitudes, because the issue of size distortion is not about tile size, it's all about the size of the claimed plots.

Solution: simply vary the maximum number of tiles a mapper is allowed to claim for their plot! For example, we could divide the globe into 5 belts (1 equatorial belt, 2 subpolar belts, and 2 intermediary belts) like so:

hexgrid100x50+belts.gif

Then just state some rules for the mappers, eg:

• A claimed plot on the equatorial belt may contain up to 5 tiles.
• A claimed plot on an intermediary belt may contain up to 10 tiles.
• A claimed plot on a subpolar belt may contain up to 20 tiles.
• For plots that would span across two belts, default to the lower maximum number of tiles.

This should work just as well with either hexes or rectangular grids.

[Falconius]

I don't see why it is necessary for people to collaborate unless they want to, in which case I see nothing preventing them from doing so. That is the whole purpose of the proposals we have here, to allow people greater freedom in how they approach the project. Mapping right up to the edges, mapping without buffers, and the idea that they have to specifically match the next map over all place constraints on what is happening. It will, if people border while neither map is complete it means that they have expectations and timings they have to meet. It may easily force people who would rather not have to deal with that to take it on simply to get a piece of land they want to map. For no good reason that I can discern, since we can take care of setting up the freedom required to avoid it right now.

[Falconius]

That is a really clever solution Ghostman.

[Azélor]

No I think it's necessary for people to collaborate since it a community project and not a patchwork of individual projects glued together. I am not talking about the style, they can be different. But major map elements such as mountains and names should have some consistency to avoid a mountain range ending abruptly in a 90 degree angle.

I don't understand what the problem is with distortion. If we mainly use an equirectangular projection, all tiles are of an equal size on the map. So it is fair for everyone. Of course, it's not an equal size in reality but why is that a problem ?

[Falconius]

Not really a problem, I'd just rather a more realistic representation of size equality between the maps. Also since Ghostmans suggestion is so clever I'm dying to use it now .

I'm not suggesting that major map elements would be left out. We will have a rough topographic map from which people will doubtless deviate with artistic license but will still maintain a certain regularity, so no sudden unexpected 90 degree turns. And we will also work out other main concerns for the final world map such as rivers, temperatures, precipitation, etc. People will easily be able to work from there without ruining consistency over the regions. Same with the setting as per your suggestion in the other thread. But I don't think such close collaboration should be such a forced necessity of the project and I don't think it will achieve as good of developments as we would get with more freedom.

I am entirely uninclined to view the community project as such a restrictive and forced process. We will probably always be in disagreement about this though, but c'est la vie. I am definitely approaching it more as a sewing group would a patchwork quilt. Everyone doing their own little thing and then sewing it together into one great and glorious whole. I believe this will result in more variety and a more interesting world filled with more opportunity than otherwise would be available.

[Azélor]

I guess I just misunderstood your last message(s).

[Azélor]

Suggestion: let's list some of the pros & cons of the various choices. Example - 1&5 minimize tropics, 2/3/6 have a moderate amount, and 4 has the most.

If divided into squares, 4 probably has the most that are landlocked, followed by 1,2,& 5, with 3 & six maybe more coastal bits. Having participated in several geofiction build-your-own nation games, I can say people are drawn to coasts - it's easier to envision connections & conflict. With landlocked territory one is really stuck with however your neighbors develop. Not to say interior spaces are uninteresting - if you want a silk road across vast desert expanses, skinny isthmuses won't be prospects.

In that vein, 2/3/6 seem to have the most semi-protected waters to become cradles of early shipborne transport, followed by the others. That's a maybe, depending on currents and wind patterns.

1/3/5 have some pretty isolated lands, depending on how proficient our explorers and colonists are (thinking flora & fauna as well as people). That would give us better rationale for wildly different races, critters, ecosystems.

Shall we say we're somewhere between sword age and cannons, maybe with great differences in development level? That doesn't affect the terrain, but it'll have bearing on the manmade features.

As far as inducement for voting, how about if those who vote - for anything! - get a say in the pool of continent & ocean names? Best if we have several to choose from for each, but to stick possibilities in the pool could be a perk. Sure, the myriad cultures on a fantasy world will have a myriad+1 names, in local tongues, but for *our* purposes it's a bummer to be referring to "landmass 3" and "ocean F". Common names won't tie one down - one's map doesn't even have to use latin script! :-).

A flaw in thinking, IMHO, when building a cooperative array of nations, is that many, many folk want their territory to be the best and brightest. That way lies the Lake Woebegon effect, where everybody is above average. We are pursuing this mostly to make maps, not so much to role play the nations and peoples, but acknowledgement up front that *nobody* is top dog should help. We are partly mitigating that tendency by chopping area up geometrically instead of by political boundaries, but the competitive mindset is grating to other participants. Not to say one's obviously nautical territory doesn't have extensive fleets, and considerable trade - just that I don't get to say that stretch over there outside my box is all vassal states to the Mighty My Own Empire.

What's Really Fun is the negotiation & compromise to get edges to match up.

What are some other deciding characteristics of the worldmap choices?

Good idea jbgibson !
So here’s what I think

1,2 : have no land at the poles
4,5 : have some
3,6 : have a lot
land at the poles are great but not that interesting and get distorted with this projection
...

1:

Pro: The general topography looks good and is diverse
The coast is detailed and there are also quite a lot of bays and peninsulas which I think are good to add flavour to the map.

Con: No ocean texture, the colors are a bit off. But this can be changed.
The relief seems a little blurry at some places.
Not sure I like the continent placement but it can be changed.

Other: Have some islands, a couple of continents that are not all linked but it's rather easy to travel by boat. There are a few straits, so trading can be controlled by a few countries.

2:

Pro: Have a lot of islands often packed.
The general texture looks good, especially when looking at the rivers.

Con: Coastlines could be more random.
I think the ocean texture should be more subtle and the ocean ridge too.
I would prefer a more random land placement or more space between continents.
The mountains style is ok but their placement is not.

3:

Pro: I really like the land shapes, there is quite a lot of variety. It has enclosed sea like the Mediterranean, archipelago and large continent.

Con: The map quality suggests it was stretched.
The land texture is too blurry and I think the different ocean colours should blend more.
The relief is not clear.
The coast could have more details.

4:

Pro: The color palette is really great, the texture too.

Con: maybe it was the intention but this does not look like a map.
The land shape offer possibilities but it's still too random.

5: it's mostly the same thing as 1, except that some islands are more stretched...
But I prefer the first one.

6:

Pros: Really good render, it looks like a satellite picture.
Nice topography.
The two eastern continents are interesting

Con: Some parts look stretched (western islands and the Poles) and I think it looks odd.
And I can’t say why but I don’t really like the eastern part, maybe that’s just me.
Also I think the land placement should look more random.

__________________________________________________ ___________________________

To sum up:
I think it’s important to have long coastlines but also landlocked lands. A mix of both is ideal, since civilisation develop along the coasts generally. Landlocked places are often remote as you said. Perfect for desert, mountains, high plateaus, monster horde, lost civilization... adventure. So, a combination of islands, small continent but also bigger one would be good.

And the coast should be interesting with details of different size such as bay and peninsulas to make the mapping more interesting (just like the Chesapeake Bay for example)

__________________________________________________ ____________________________

And about the Lake Woebegon effect, it's usually not a problem for me. Most of the good things have some downside and the more you develop a country, more possible weaknesses appear. This is especially true for large countries like Empires. It’s easy to put them into trouble.

[Falconius]

We should also solicit more entries.

So, anyone here who is willing to try, should take a shot and submit their worlds to this thread so we can add them to the new poll that we will put up some time in the not too distant future.

By the way I don't like the eastern part either, most of it doesn't work. I wanted to have a very large landmass though, and some landlocked waters. Now that there is time I'll probably work on it some more and resubmit it.

Edit: I suggest that we make a new deadline for new proposals (obviously including most of the older ones except number five which I hate and is mine to withdraw), say Jan 18th and then put up a new poll lasting two to three weeks, to like Feb 8th. Or maybe we should stick to rounder dates like the beginning and ends of months. Maybe new proposals till Jan 5, and then a new poll lasting to the end of the month or basically Feb 1st.