Need help with making fantasy style medieval map

[Cookiegod]

yes.

[Kilo11]

Well, it is late now and I am heading to bed soon, but I will think about it tomorrow and get back to you then!

[Derc]

Your maps look awful.
I think you should rather focus on writing more text instead.

[Kilo11]

Hey Cookiegod, I've been thinking about the fonts this morning and looking at your mock-up maps so far and honestly, I think the font you have already is best. It has a simple elegance and gets some feel of the time across, but is still very readable and nice to look at. The fact that it looks like it was written with a quill but still isn't too curliculie is also good. The only other options I have on my Word that seem halfway decent are "Old English Text" and "Parchment". However, I still think I like your font more, and I think yours fits better with your location of Italy.

[Dude with the Food]

Here's my attempt based mostly off yours and a little from one I found of 1100 France. It's not finished but tbh, it probably won't be - I've got far enough to compare it to yours and work out what I personally think may work best.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

When I say redraw the map, I didn't mean anything fancy or especially time-consuming. All I've done here is trace your map for coast/rivers with a mouse and pencil tool. No medieval cartographer ever had satellite images to judge off so don't worry with being perfectly accurate. There's the odd ugly straight section or sharp angle but that's mostly because I wasn't spending too long.



To do would be to find a way of filling in the empty spaces. Personally, I think I'd be inclined to lean towards using mountain regions as another hard border (like provinces and rivers) while having roads/cities fill the gaps (like region names). Like Kilo11 noted, where you've experimented with them, they seem far too big and invasive but I think there might be something in busying the landscape with small versions.
However, that means having an index of coats of arms either in a key or separately. It's a lot of work for something that really ought to be more practical than pretty. That's why I think you might be better off just using heraldry and then using an area's full title as the label (Duchy of Aquitaine over just Aquitaine) to use up more of the space.

This might be useful for inspiration too, just something I found.
https://www.citymetric.com/horizons/...ieval-map-1682

Hope this helps and I'm looking forward to seeing where you go with this.

[Cookiegod]

Thanks dude, you gave me some foods for thought. I'll do it similarly to yours. I think I'll fill the map with terrain features, though not in the shading way I did before.
I'll redo the map entirely and report back when I have something to show.

[Cookiegod]

I have something new for you guys:

Mountains

So this is obviously WIP.
Please ignore the fact that the parchment background is hideous and the sea not transparent at all. Those things I do later, since I'll have to play around with lots of layers for that.
Borders I'll add later and do them similarly to what dude showed me, except with a clear distinction between vassal borders and country borders. I'll not do any of the gradual colour changes, since I've realised that that was terrible, and likely also skip filling entire countries with colours, since you can't put anything in then.

I put two rivers in to give you the gist of them, but the main focus are the mountains.
The mountains are there to give us a sense of where you can travel, and where it's hard to do so. I put three shades of mountains there for different elevations, since the height difference between alps and e.g. central massif are significant. The darkest shades give us a sense where the mountain passes would be, the lightest one where campaigning would be difficult, which is why most would simply travel around those as well. I think about adding dense forrests as well, since they feature quite heavily ingame, depending on region, and would do them in a similar style to the mountains, except of course in dark green.

I think these features might be enough to fill much of the map, especially when combined with the borders, and give us the most important geographical information: Where you can go and where you can't. Where the passes are, etc. Those things are important to the story itself as well as to explain troop movements. The space left would be useful to put stuff, such as banners and arrows representing troop movements, and writings. Places of importance, especially cities, will be represented with dots and likely numbers. I might put arms in, but that'd depend on context. I might put some symbols, such as monsters and ships in the sea, since there's much space there, though I'm not sure of that.

Keep in mind all of this is once again a cutout of a much larger map, stretching across the entirety of Europe and the Mediterranean until the Caspian sea, that'll serve as a template for a multitude of maps.

So please let me know what you think. Is the mountainstyle I'm using now good or bad? Is it easy to look at for orientation/information? Would the final map be enjoyable that way?

[Lifthrasir]

Why don't you use some cartographic mountains brushes? Like these below f.e.



There are numerous free resources similar to these on the web

[Cookiegod]

fair point. I thought about that as well. But I know that if I'm to switch to that style, I'd still only be able to do that towards the end, when I've figured most of the other stuff out.

Until then I'm going to need the height map, so I can draw somewhat accurately. Why accurate? Because there are a lot of details that matter to me:

Mountain passes and gaps

So at the very least it helps me orient myself, especially with the rivers. But it's also a very easily discernable way to show travel routes, since it enables you to guess where several of the major mountainpasses are.

Or if we look at the gaps between the mountain ranges, then these are also vitally important.

Do you find the zoning approach bad? what about when I deactivate one or two of the layers?

gif

[Kilo11]

First of all, super random and cool to see the mountain palette you posted Lif, as I just copied that one to my "working map files" folder today and used it rather extensively to make my own map (it's in the most recent installment of my AAR and I'll drop in a contentbox at the end, in case either of you are interested in it).

Regarding your map Cookiegod, I think it works very well as a resource, but to my eye it is not quite right aesthetically. Again, it is really important to know if you want this more as a "look at where I went and why" sort of map, or more as a part of the storytelling (which I would say should then fit with the overall aesthetic experience; i.e. not be an Army Corps of Engineers survey map). Adding forests would certainly be a good idea, at the very least the impassable ones. Rivers are also an obvious "yes". The main question is whether you can/would be willing to map the mountains and woods via small icons like those from the map palette Lif posted, of if it's easier/preferable to you to use the terrain lines and then fill them with graded colors like you have here. It's always a choice that has to be made depending on what you want it for and what you want out of it. For me, I'd go with the prettier version which is slightly less accurate/useful, but that's just because I like pretty things

Map of Arabia (Political & Geographical)

[Cookiegod]

It's a really cool map you have made there.

Thing is that we are talking about a huge map in my case:

Gonna use the opportunity to show you minimal progress

With 5000x2500 pixels it's thrice the size of most wallpapers. So scalability is an issue. Sometimes I want to use just an outcrop, sometimes I'd need the entire map. Sometimes with a perspective. So any symbols I use would have to be a size that fits them all.

To see my map in full you should open it in a new tab and then just scroll around.

[Kilo11]

That is a monster map, but one which could be very helpful for many people doing a variety of things here on TWC. Given the size and how much work that adds for a task like copy-pasting mountain icons in a sensible way to different areas, I can see your reticence to take that route. Also, on the full size map the gradient colors to denote height look much better. On the inset smaller map it looks off for some reason, but here on the grand map it seems fine.

I was thinking, given that this map could be useful for other people later, and that it is cool in its own right, you might be able to get assistance with some things and farm out labor. You are using GIMP, right? If you want to send me the .xcf file I could add a new layer that is the mountain pictures, and make sure they fill in in a way that fits with local altitudes and also leaves open the passes, and once it is finished just send you that layer. The moutain pictures are way too small to be useful or seeable on this huge strat map, but you could paste the mountain-image layer into your main file, just leaving it hidden behind the main map layer, and only bring it forward when you want to make inset maps where there is more detail on a region.

Also, your base file which you're using to generate the map is the game's map file, right? If so, and if you want some collaboration, it might be nice to use the EBII map, since it is larger and some people might want the Magnus Mundus map instead of the smaller one. For your purposes you'd always cut off the right edge of it (and probably some of the bottom as well), but having it there would be nice in case you ever needed it (or anyone else did). Just a thought.

[Cookiegod]

No, I actually use Demis Worldmapper for this. It's not based on the ingame map.
Demis has the advantage that you can switch layers off and on, so I made sure I had several versions of the map before I started.

After that I use GIMP and Inkscape.
After some trickery with GIMP I then used Inkscapes "trace object" tool to trace various objects, creating .svg versions at the same time, which allowed me to scale the image a bit up.
That's also the reason why the coastlines have that cartoonish look on them.
With the mountains it's similar: I used Inkscape to create height maps and then chose the layers I deemed relevant yet simplified enough to be useful.

Rivers are a bit more complicated. Mostly because I don't want to draw all of them (though I did draw quite many of them, but those I don't need can always be deleted from some maps).
Many waterways/lakes that I can see on my template are actually man made and date back to the 17th century at the earliest (channels, dams).

But even when we take a part of the world where you don't have that many channels, like spain (btw., even this part is over 1000px wide), you get something crazy:

river template map

I obviously don't need all of them, though it's often hard to know which one you need.
It can also change depending on how large any particular map is.

I've already begun tracing some borders, but since the template (due to it's sheer size) is centered far away from e.g. France, much of the world is warped due to the curvature on the earth. So drawing those borders isn't the easiest thing to do. Same thing goes for cities and mountain passes. The rivers help me locate them.

Collaboration would be great, I might be able to help you with your map as well. But the main issue for now are rivers, and once I've done them, borders. Only then does it make sense to place scenery. You can see it on your own map, too. You have drawn the borders around the mountain symbols. But the desert offers much blank space, so you can be flexible with the borders. I on the other hand am forced to do it the other way round. You can certainly help me, if you want, for instance by helping me trace the rivers/and or borders in some part of the world with the path tool.

[Lifthrasir]

Try this site: https://d-maps.com/index.php?lang=en

You can have a look on maps with the main rivers only and depending on the area you want. It requiers a bit of "gymnastic" sometimes but I find it useful for the choice of rivers

[Cookiegod]

Thanks, I gave it a go, but it's often easier just to google it. Especially since the images here often are lacking in information. Some small rivers are useful for various reasons, for example when there are cities or other places of import placed on them. Others I put in so the map is somewhat balanced with regards to the empty spaces...


Tracing these rivers is surprisingly relaxing in the evenings and less tedious than I thought. And also quicker than I thought.
I've now come as far east as the Bug, Memel and Dnister rivers. Modern day Poland and Germany are complete.
My priorities from here are Spain, Hungary+Balkans, the British Isles, Africa, Asia and then finally Russia. I'm thinking about skipping Sweden, since who likes Sweden anyways (), or at least I'll prioritise it the least. It has a huge amount of rivers and lakes that have no role whatsoever.

progress?

So yeah, once they are done I think I'll move to cities, borders, forrests and maybe even roads (probably in that order).

[Kilo11]

It's looking good, and with the rivers in there I think the mountains are starting to look a bit better too. Using the graded colors for altitude like you have also has the added benefit of being more visible on the wider angle map. I think the small mountain pics would look cool and be totally sufficient on a smaller inset piece, but with all of Europe on one sheet it works to have it more schematic like this.


(P.s. would you mind putting up a link to the demis worldmapper site you're using. I found something that looked right, but I couldn't use it without a license.)

[Lifthrasir]

P.s. would you mind putting up a link to the demis worldmapper site you're using. I found something that looked right, but I couldn't use it without a license.

Here it is: http://www2.demis.nl/worldmap/mapper.asp

[Cookiegod]

It's looking good, and with the rivers in there I think the mountains are starting to look a bit better too. Using the graded colors for altitude like you have also has the added benefit of being more visible on the wider angle map. I think the small mountain pics would look cool and be totally sufficient on a smaller inset piece, but with all of Europe on one sheet it works to have it more schematic like this.


(P.s. would you mind putting up a link to the demis worldmapper site you're using. I found something that looked right, but I couldn't use it without a license.)

First part: My thoughts exactly. It doesn't necessarily work on a large scale. And if it does, then it'll still need careful placement
Second part: You don't need a license. The project shut down, which is why it's currently free to use.

A few quick points on how I use it (there's a mapper tutorial by Gigantus somewhere here on TWC but I think it's more directed towards modders):
- You zoom in on the part you need. You click and drag until you have the relevant part of the map boxed in.
- You save an image by right clicking the image and save under. It's usually a .gif image.
- I save the same image several times, each time with the following different layers activated:
-- no layer activated
-- coastlines activated (might be unnecessary, but to me it's useful for one thing in the beginning)
-- topography (hugely important, that's what I based my mountains on)
-- bathymetry and hillshading activated (just in case I want to use it, but 2bh that's almost never the case, but it'd suck if I wouldn't have it then)
-- rivers activated
-- waterbodies activated (yes, one image for every water feature, not all of them in one)
-- streams activated (relevant for you because of wadis)

So with the exception of the hillshading and bathymetry image I always only have one layer activated. Why? So they don't interfere. Because the next thing I do ist take them all apart and combine them in Gimp into one file, where you can freely play around with them as layers, and activate and deactivate them. I put hillshading and bathymetry together, since it's highly unlikely that I'm going to use them, but they are pretty and it depends on what look you go for. Bathymetry and Hillshading go well together in one image as one is only on land and one is only in the sea, so you can easily split them if need be, but you don't have to.

Waterbodies I put into its own layer, because it only shows the outline of the lakes. You want the lake to be filled. It's easier to do if you don't get distracted by the rivers while searching for them.

I realised while I wrote this that I had to redo it to make sure that I didn't leave anything out. Which means I did all that work for you.

Here you go

Link to the .zip-file incl. the .xcf-file (<- downloadlink only lasts 30 days!)

You don't have to use this template, especially if you want a different zoom, but it might still be useful as a guideline. The image is always going to be somewhat wide, so you'll always get some africa and India with it, but my philosophy has always been that a bit more doesn't hurt. You can cut the irrelevant part of the final result. There's no need to do it sooner, since it might be something you might regret.

Just remember that this was the easy part. Many of these lakes (I'm looking at you, Aswan!!!) are modern human made. As are some channels that are also visible here. And I'm not sure if those lakes between Jordan and Mesopotamia in the middle of the desert actually exist or if they're simply a temporary result when the rain strikes.
You should trace the rivers, wadis, whatever you want to use with the Path tool in Gimp.

[Lifthrasir]

@ Kilo11, all links are in the 2nd post of this thread

[Kilo11]

@Lif, thanks for the link! That'll come in very handy probably quite soon! Now I am all rearing to make some maps!

@Cookiegod, the guide is super helpful, and thanks a million for making me a copy of my area. I might take some images of my own from the website and play with what regions I'd like to include or exclude, but having all the layers already there is very nice and will get me motivated to get cracking more quickly. You're right about the issues about waterways and changes over history too. I know that a lot of these lakes are manmade (found out the hard way about Lake Nasser (that wide part of the Nile) only after I'd drawn it into my first map, and then had to delete it), which adds a small amount of trickiness, but far less overall than what is involved in tracing everything myself.

One small lingering question:
You said your map is something like 5000 pixels wide. Did you just take the saved image and then scale the map to be that big? If so, are the features still good looking, or does it get weirdly pixelated?