Moderators: Havard, Seer of Yhog, Thorf
actually is the map at http://pandius.com/gaz13-shadow-elves-8.png the old version of this map?Thorf wrote:Note that I have changed some of the filenames from the old versions:
gaz13-shadow-elf-territories-8 --> gaz13-shadow-elves-territories-8
I will eventually be doing another variant with all the tunnel walls shown (rather than black dotted lines).
I can't check my files right now as I'm at work, but from the looks of things yes, those are both old versions of the maps currently labelled gaz13-shadow-elves-territories-8.png and shadow-elf-territories-8.png.stanles wrote:actually is the map at http://pandius.com/gaz13-shadow-elves-8.png the old version of this map?
and had http://pandius.com/shadow-elves-8.png also been renamed to shadow-elf-territories-8.png?
Anyway for now I'll leave things as they are. 
Thanks for taking the time to comment!Chimpman wrote:Love the maps as always Thorf. The following are my opinions on water and lava:
I see what you're getting at. I don't think it would be a problem though since the underground maps are already so different.Water - The different colors of water mean different things on the outer world maps (darker waters specify deeper depths). I think it might become confusing if we adopted a darker color water for underground maps. My preference would be to keep the blue color consistent with the outer world maps.
That's a good idea.Lava - The darker orange of the original colors is too dark IMO. It almost immediately focuses my eyes on the lava, and while the lave is a prominent feature of underground maps, I'm not sure that is a good thing. On the other hand, the lava in the replica map is almost too light. I wonder if it could be darkened just a little to help it stand out against sand hex background. I'd say shoot for somewhere in between of the two colors you currently have.
I'll have a go. interesting about the color palettes for underground terrain. I didn't realize. I was thinking exactly what you posted above about having different levels of water underground. I know we don't specify depth in any of the current underground maps... but I'm trying to think of a reason for not doing so should the need arise, and I can't think of one. 
(and yes, I'd be in that camp). Good catch. I must have missed those spots when I copied and pasted the cavern walls from my old updated map. In any case they're all just place holders until I can get the Poor Wizard's Almanac III map replica done.Chimpman wrote:It looks like the cavern of Losetrel, and the one immediately to the south of it, both should have a set of inner cavern walls (surrounding the gray hexes on the inside of the caverns). If we continue to use the crosshatching technique, that should probably be applied to those hexes as well.
This is something that occurred to me while looking at the New Grunland map, but should apply equally across the Shadowlands. It seems like there is an equal justification for moving the cavern walls outward from the original hex positions as there is to move it in. I'd say that both should happen, so that on average we're not loosing any underground "land" area. Of course I wouldn't move the "walls" more than 4 miles in either direction, since that would impact the 8mph map as well.Thorf wrote:The updated map is an adaptation of GAZ13’s map, implementing cavern walls similar to those seen in GAZ10’s underground map. The walls mean that there is actually a little less land area, but they seem a lot more realistic, and much less general than the hex edges.
As Grunland was an area and not a city, I'd rather have New Grunland as the area's name, and call its main city Jelden. I'd favor this solution mostly becouse it's unrealistic to have a city named as the region where it's found (by the way, this happens all too often on Mystara: Glantri City --> Glantri, Darokin City --> Darokin, Ierendi --> Ierendi, Minrothad --> Minrothad, Wendar --> Wendar, Ylaruam --> Ylaruam, Soderfjord --> Soderfjord, etc.; and that's a thing which instead happens only rarely on our world, like in Mexico City --> Mexico, and a few city-states like San Marino, Monaco and Singapore).Thorf wrote:Any opinions on this? The best I can think is that the maps show the official names, but for some reason the city of Jelden is almost universally known by the name of its region. New Grunland appears frequently in GAZ13, and most references clearly refer to the city, so I am reluctant to simply accept that Jelden is the town name while New Grunland is the regional name.
I agree this is a good argument, because Grunland was of course a region rather than a city. But you totally contradicted yourself in the latter half of your argument.Zendrolion wrote:As Grunland was an area and not a city, I'd rather have New Grunland as the area's name, and call its main city Jelden. I'd favor this solution mostly becouse it's unrealistic to have a city named as the region where it's found (by the way, this happens all too often on Mystara: Glantri City --> Glantri, Darokin City --> Darokin, Ierendi --> Ierendi, Minrothad --> Minrothad, Wendar --> Wendar, Ylaruam --> Ylaruam, Soderfjord --> Soderfjord, etc.; and that's a thing which instead happens only rarely on our world, like in Mexico City --> Mexico, and a few city-states like San Marino, Monaco and Singapore).
Aside from anything else, I'd say that Mystaran patterns are more valid for making decisions about Mystara than real world patterns. Even if a lot of Mystara is inspired by real world stuff, it's still Mystara, after all, and as you say there is huge precedent for having regions and cities with the same names. I was only trying to say that, as the identification of a region's name with its main city's name happens all too often in Mystara, there'd be no need to have another example of it, mostly when we have two official names to work with (like New Grunland and Jelden).Thorf wrote:But you totally contradicted yourself in the latter half of your argument.
), I'd favor the name 'Jelden' for the city. Note that ALL Italian provinces have their capital's name (i.e. city of Milan in the Province of Milan, city of Naples in the Province of Naples, and so on). But please note also that in cases such as these - and the ones you mentioned above - we aren't talking about historical names, but about administrative labels chosen LATER by national states.Besides, there are many more real world examples that you didn't mention.
Of course you're right, and I agree with you: in fact all the city/states/city-states you mention fall under the loose case classification I indicated in my previous post:Andaire wrote:Actually a lot of Italian and German states or city-states had the same name as the main city, not just Venice: Naples, Genoa, your own city of Florence, etc. In the HRE's era, the German city-states were too numerous to even start enumerating them (only Luxembourg remains). That was also the case in the pre-Russian Russian states (Novgorod, ...), in the Balkans, the Greek states (classical Greece, but also medieval like the Duchy of Athens). Not to mention Rome, or Byzantium.
In most of these cases, these were city-states or states built from a city, that have disappeared though nation-building.
Note that there are also instances outside of Europe, eg Tunis in Tunisia or Algiers in Algeria.
Almost all the cases you mention fall under condition (1).(1) a city which later expands to become a larger state (like the Republic of Venice, of the Empire of Rome), or (2) a region which is later given its main city's name becouse it's its most prominent feature (like the State of New York, or the moorish Kingdom of Granada).
