## Re: [ironclaw] Mapping the territory

Expand Messages
• While obviously the road has been increased in size for simple legibility, why wouldn t a large river be a mile wide? And why wouldn t an island be a square
Message 1 of 13 , Jul 1, 2005
While obviously the road has been increased in size for simple
legibility, why wouldn't a large river be a mile wide? And why wouldn't
an island be a square league in size? That's still a very small island!

Pieter van Hiel

script-fox wrote:

>Today I spent some time working with the map of Calabria published in
>the ironclaw book. After scanning it into the computer, I analyzed the
>picture, calculated what a square league was in pixels, then overlaid
>a grid on the map. Now I can look at the result and count off the
>approximate number of leagues from place to place.
>
>Really handy, but close examination makes it pretty obvious that the
>size of various terrain features are exaggerated for usability. The
>main road (Via Salutis as I recall?) is shown as two parallel lines a
>mile from each other, according to scale. I don't believe that for a
>minute.
>
>The River Granvert is much the same way- it's a mile or so wide as
>well. I really doubt I can believe that, either. Comments from the
>mapmakers? I spent some time blowing up a small island that should be
>little more than a pebble and it appears to be a square league of
>land... which seems unrealistic for it. I'm thinking of arbitrarily
>halving the scale to get a more reasonable size on things when they
>are considered on such a small scale.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
• ... wouldn t ... island! (Examines the map again more carefully before explaining) I think the size of the rivers was enhanced, just as the road was enhanced
Message 2 of 13 , Jul 2, 2005
--- In ironclaw@yahoogroups.com, Pieter van Hiel <pvanhiel@c...>
wrote:
> While obviously the road has been increased in size for simple
> legibility, why wouldn't a large river be a mile wide? And why
wouldn't
> an island be a square league in size? That's still a very small
island!

(Examines the map again more carefully before explaining)

I think the size of the rivers was enhanced, just as the road was
enhanced not only because I "found one space a mile wide", but because
a look at the rivers from mouth to source reveals the width- if taken
literally- to vary almost at random from one to three miles in width.
Example(s)-

On the western side of the Walls of Calabria, the River Granvert flows
south. Not too far before it reaches the southern tip of the walls,
another river joins it from the west. Shortly before this river joins
the Granvert, it widens to three miles across before narrowing
slightly. Not long after the two rivers join, the Granvert suddenly
narrows to not much more than a mile, before bouncing back out into
nearly three miles a league or two downstream.

Continuing to follow the river downstream, it settles into a width of
approximately 2-3 miles before being joined from the east by another
river shortly after passing the southern edge of the Walls.
Approximately 3 leagues downstream of this, the river lines abruptly
narrow- so close that the space between them nearly vanishes,
indicating a river one half of a mile wide.

Simple hydrodynamics indicates that these narrow channels, following
such broad ones, means that the water is either flowing very swiftly,
that the channels are deep, that the earlier ones were shallow, or-
more likely- some combination of all three.

In any case, I think the point is best proved when you realize that
the width of the lines themselves, indicating the riverbanks, are a
mile wide.

In other words, I submit that the river, like the road, was drawn for
effect, and not to cartographically accurate dimensions to any scale
less than one league.

And as for the island, if it were just any island, I would agree with
you. But this island is in the middle of the Granvert River! Given the
width of the lines, the island and its bridges are indistinct specks,
but those indistinct specks translate to an island of nine square
miles, with (being charitable and not stretching distances too far)
bridges of approximately half a mile in width. Such bridges are not
unknown- particularly in the present day- but they were not very
common before the 1800's when its technology allowed wrought iron and
other materials and construction techniques.

Frankly, the width of the lines mean that the detail- any detail- on
the map can not be regarded as anything more accurate than half a
mile. That's fine for an overall look- which is what this is for. I'm
simply saying that if you're going to be picky and magnify tiny
sections of the map to a relatively huge area, I think you have to
realize that the proportions are not going to hold when the size of
your map drops from a width of two hundred leagues to, say, three
leagues.
• ... You know, the Rothos Mountains probably aren t a big field of conical spikes, either. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG
Message 3 of 13 , Jul 2, 2005
On 2 Jul 2005 at 15:32, script-fox wrote:

> I think the size of the rivers was enhanced, just as the road was
> enhanced not only because I "found one space a mile wide", but because
> a look at the rivers from mouth to source reveals the width- if taken
> literally- to vary almost at random from one to three miles in width.
> Example(s)-

You know, the Rothos Mountains probably aren't a big field of
conical spikes, either.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.8/37 - Release Date: 2005-07-01
• Actually you re wrong. I ve been there...its really quite stunning ... From: ironclaw@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ironclaw@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Message 4 of 13 , Jul 2, 2005
Actually you're wrong. I've been there...its really quite stunning

-----Original Message-----
From: ironclaw@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ironclaw@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of athelind@...
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 6:57 PM
To: ironclaw@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [ironclaw] Re: Mapping the territory

On 2 Jul 2005 at 15:32, script-fox wrote:

> I think the size of the rivers was enhanced, just as the road was
> enhanced not only because I "found one space a mile wide", but because
> a look at the rivers from mouth to source reveals the width- if taken
> literally- to vary almost at random from one to three miles in width.
> Example(s)-

You know, the Rothos Mountains probably aren't a big field of
conical spikes, either.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.8/37 - Release Date: 2005-07-01

• Um, all things considered, maps don;t have to be 100% accurate in detail in order to function. There s mountians at the Rothos, and the Granvert s a river. If
Message 5 of 13 , Jul 4, 2005
Um, all things considered, maps don;t have to be 100% accurate in
detail in order to function. There's mountians at the Rothos, and the
Granvert's a river. If you know where they are, who cares about the
size or shape they are represented by on the map...

My beef is still with trying to get information on that out of print
Rinaldi supplement and getting errata for Jadeclaw.
• My beef is still with trying to get information on that out of print Rinaldi supplement and getting errata for Jadeclaw. Well I can t help you with Jadeclaw
Message 6 of 13 , Jul 4, 2005

My beef is still with trying to get information on that out of print
Rinaldi supplement and getting errata for Jadeclaw.

Well I can't help you with Jadeclaw yet, but Rinaldi's been back in print as a print-on-demand for some time now.  Check out http://www.cafepress.com/cp/browse/Ntt-rinaldi_Nao-1_Ntk-All_pv-sanguine.9021260_No-1_N-0_D-rinaldi

or go to www.cafepress.com and search for Rinaldi, since the link above will probably get split in half.  :)

LP
• ... And the walls of Calabria aren t six miles high, either? How disappointing... ... (nods) In general, you are correct. First, let me apologize to anyone who
Message 7 of 13 , Jul 4, 2005
> You know, the Rothos Mountains probably aren't a big field of
> conical spikes, either.

And the walls of Calabria aren't six miles high, either? How
disappointing...

> Um, all things considered, maps don;t have to be 100% accurate in
> detail in order to function. There's mountians at the Rothos, and the
> Granvert's a river. If you know where they are, who cares about the
> size or shape they are represented by on the map...

(nods) In general, you are correct.

First, let me apologize to anyone who thinks that I've wasted your
time by pedantically pointing out the obvious. I suppose I just needed
a bit of reassurance that I wasn't crazy when I magnified the map and
found the details lacking in scale.

Second, please understand that I am not criticizing the map or saying
it is not any good because the scale can't be trusted past a certain
point. Making the point that its resolution is limited is simply a
springboard to the main point that at finer detail, you're free to
take any liberties you want with the exact size and shape of things.

That said, it pretty much leaves me back where I started- I can
happily resize the details down to what I feel is a believable form
without worrying about departing from 'canonical' notation. As long as
everything is within a league or so of where the main map indicates,
I'm within correct parameters.
• ... Yeppers... Actually, I d have preferred a hexmap to what we have now... One of those, with 1 league hexes, would have been incredibly useful while
Message 8 of 13 , Jul 4, 2005
--- In ironclaw@yahoogroups.com, "script-fox" wrote:
>
> First, let me apologize to anyone who thinks that I've wasted
> your time by pedantically pointing out the obvious. I suppose
> I just needed a bit of reassurance that I wasn't crazy when
> I magnified the map and found the details lacking in scale.
>
> Second, please understand that I am not criticizing the map or
> saying it is not any good because the scale can't be trusted
> past a certain point. Making the point that its resolution is
> limited is simply a springboard to the main point that at finer
> detail, you're free to take any liberties you want with the exact
> size and shape of things.
>
> That said, it pretty much leaves me back where I started - I can
> happily resize the details down to what I feel is a believable
> form without worrying about departing from 'canonical' notation.
> As long as everything is within a league or so of where the main
> map indicates, I'm within correct parameters.
>

Yeppers... Actually, I'd have preferred a hexmap to what we have
now... One of those, with 1 league hexes, would have been incredibly
useful while running games...
• Is it possible to get a copy of your map with the league wide grids? Either way it would be insanely usefull. ... the ... the ... needed ... and ... saying ...
Message 9 of 13 , Jul 4, 2005
Is it possible to get a copy of your map with the league wide grids?
Either way it would be insanely usefull.

--- In ironclaw@yahoogroups.com, "script-fox" <ice_stallion@h...>
wrote:
> > You know, the Rothos Mountains probably aren't a big field of
> > conical spikes, either.
>
> And the walls of Calabria aren't six miles high, either? How
> disappointing...
>
> > Um, all things considered, maps don;t have to be 100% accurate in
> > detail in order to function. There's mountians at the Rothos, and
the
> > Granvert's a river. If you know where they are, who cares about
the
> > size or shape they are represented by on the map...
>
> (nods) In general, you are correct.
>
> First, let me apologize to anyone who thinks that I've wasted your
> time by pedantically pointing out the obvious. I suppose I just
needed
> a bit of reassurance that I wasn't crazy when I magnified the map
and
> found the details lacking in scale.
>
> Second, please understand that I am not criticizing the map or
saying
> it is not any good because the scale can't be trusted past a certain
> point. Making the point that its resolution is limited is simply a
> springboard to the main point that at finer detail, you're free to
> take any liberties you want with the exact size and shape of things.
>
> That said, it pretty much leaves me back where I started- I can
> happily resize the details down to what I feel is a believable form
> without worrying about departing from 'canonical' notation. As long
as
> everything is within a league or so of where the main map indicates,
> I'm within correct parameters.
• With the scanned map you could use the Campaign Cartographer 2 Pro from www.profantasy.com I have made a couple of maps for my wife s campaign. There is some
Message 10 of 13 , Jul 19, 2005
With the scanned map you could use the Campaign Cartographer 2 Pro from
www.profantasy.com I have made a couple of maps for my wife's
campaign. There is some learning curve since it is a CAD style
program.

Ivan
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.