# Mapmaking Discussion & Philosophy (WIP/Critique) > Regional/World Mapping >  WIP: unnamed Earh-like planet

## groovey

EDIT: 13/06/15

Since the little bits of talk here and there about tectonics might be of interest to other people (look for Pixie's posts and the links to Pixie's, akubra's and ascanius' WIP), BUT since my ineptitude to get the tectonic map right means there are full pages of multiple edited versions of the same map with a lot of little variations that I figure are not of much interest, I thought making a little index of my thread might be useful for those who might be more interested in different things (tectonics, terrain, etc), especially since the thread started being about terrain and then became about tectonics, but after that I'll be back to terrain and beyond, I hope.

INDEX:
- Page 1: intro and very first and horrible version of the map and the tectonics. Terrain and tectonics.
- Page 2: second version of the map. Land masses and tectonics.
- Page 3: more tectonics and a bit of terrain experimentation.
- Pages 4-10: lots of tectonic (a bit more complex) maps versions with small but constant variations, but with very interesting and helping suggestions here and there about tectonics from my Godfather Pixie.
- Page 11. At least a final version of the tectonic map (solved 100% by Pixie).
- Pages 11-12: some whining + the continental shelves added.
- Pages 13-15: height-map.
- Page 16: surface oceanic currents.
- Page 17-18: Climate stuff (by Azelor)
- Page 19-: failed terrain atempt + height map


CURRENT STATE: stuck again. On hiatus
______________________________
-ORIGINAL POST WITH SOME EDITS-

Hello everyone! Thanks for stopping by.


- World name: Fedjia. 

That would be the name of the planet in the novel's protagonist political power's language: ground = fedgea (pronounced 'fedgia'). It's not a very attractive name I guess, but at least it's consistent with the con language and for the people using that language it would sound ok I guess. Don't know, might try to come up with a "sexier" name.

- Type: earthlike.
- Equatorial radius: 40.000Km.
- Tilt: just like Earth, I'm not trying to be original really.
- Resolution and size: 60x30cm, 300pxi.
- Realism: I just need it to be loosely based on scientific concepts and knowledge, but I don't have the capacity or the time to become a pro to get an ultra realistic planet.


A few weeks ago I started working on this world map project after many past failures to finish previous maps. I really like this project more than my previous attempts, but as with those, I got stuck on the terrain part, so I can't really go on, since I need the map mostly for world building for a novel. For now I just need a decent world map to get me the essential visual information I need of each continent, but that doesn't make me cry over how much it looks like a map a creative little child would make on Paint in 30 mins.

I made a very BASIC outline of the current tectonic plates and their overall direction, because for now I only got a grasp of the basics of it. I only needed to know the hotspots for volcanic activity and earthquakes, and also to explain the mountain range that "separates" the main central continents (which are 2 but look like 1), because it's important to the background of the story. You'll see a few mountain spots not explained by the current tectonic tendencies, but I needed them there, so the cheap explanation I got is they are the result of previous tectonics tendencies and configurations. Warning, it will make any Geologist or Geology connoisseur's eyes bleed because there must be thousands of things wrong in it. 


EDIT: I'm on the process of re-doing the tectonics.

For now I'm trying to get a basic visual "outline" of the terrain I want, with simple color layers for each type of terrain. The result is very naïve, and quite plain, especially when I add the main rivers, as simple lines (probably rivers wouldn't even be visible like this, but I need to see them for world building purposes). 



So, right now what I need is opinions and/or advice on:

1. Scale and resolution: Is it too big? I suppose for terrain only it might be, but then I'll have to make political versions of it, so I need a bit of margin to zoom in a few times before starting to see the pixels. 

2. Big mountain ranges (Like the Alpes, the Andes, the Himalayas, etc, those clearly defined on satellite views):

- In the map they're obviously the brown spots, and I'm aware of how specially horrendous the big one on the north of the central continent looks; it looks very awkward, specially at the "cross" section where the two continental plates meet to create the big mountain range that kind of isolates the two sides of the continent.

- Do they look too scarce? 

- Are they too big in scale?

- I'd love for them to be explained by the current tectonic tendencies, but they are not, only the one placed where the 2 central continents meet. As I said, I did the tectonic outline to know about volcanic and earthquake hot spots, I'd love to do outlines of different periods to explain those mountains, but it gets too complex for me and at some point it stops making sense. So considering this, would you place the brown areas somewhere else with the cheap excuse that they were formed during previous tectonic configurations, but still making geological sense?

- Please ignore the brown spots on the volcanic islands on the east of the map, they shouldn't be there at all (considering brown spots are only high altitude areas and on those islands I guess medium/low altitude would be more fitting, though I still haven't got a system to indicate such altitudes) and will delete them when I work on the map again.

3. Snow/ice: I suppose I should have more white areas? And yes, as in now, I don't have poles, which I guess is very unrealistic, my question is, SHOULD there be poles? Are they mandatory the way our planet works? Is there any semi plausible explanation my planet wouldn't have them? 

4. Deserts: I know it depends on the winds and other factors I have no idea of how to translate to a map, so superficially speaking, to be more balanced, should there be more desertic areas, or bigger? Only near the tropics?

Any input on these issues would be greatly appreciated, since right now I'm a bit lost.


P.S: About the sea I'll worry at the end if I manage to get the terrain done, for now I gratefully tried to replicate the sea in Ilanthar's Eldoran physical map, but I haven't worked on it yet to polish it.

----------


## JonPin

I think the mountains are a little bit too big on the central continent, and like you said they don't match up with tectonics. Perhaps this might serve to give you some ideas, it helped me a lot. When two plates press together they make many mountain ranges that run somewhat in parallel, like the Alps. Maybe you could model the mountains in the central continent on the Alps. The freezing poles I think are just a fact with an earth-like (same tilt) planet. The poles get very cold, since they don't get as much energy from the sun, and freeze, forming a crust of ice.

All in all, looks like a good start to me.

----------


## NedS298

It needs relief. I mean a lot of texture - you need to bring those mountains out.

----------


## groovey

Thanks JonPin. You're right, I had forgotten that the poles are directly related to the tilt of the planet... egh, I really don't care about poles (fictional) at all, but I guess I'll have to add some. I just got NASA's G. Projector, so when I add the poles I'll try them there with different projections to make sure they don't look horribly distorted if I decide to make a globe projection on the map.

And yes, I reckon I need something like the Alps in that area where the two central continents meet.

With the projector (using a 60x30cm sized image of the map, so it's equirectangular) I also realized that perhaps I put said central continents too low for the kind of temperatures and climates I'd like then to have, so right now I'm even more lost. But to make it right I'd have to make the  two central continents smaller so they fit just above the Equator approximately, which would make necessary reducing the scale of the rest of the continents and thus adding more land masses, if I want to keep the current relative sizes of all the continents to each other. So basically, I'd have to mess up the whole thing... damn reality.

NedS298. I tried making a height map using the popular technique of white and black difference clouds and then lighten and darkening at will... but I can't get it right because I don't really have the vision of it in my head, since I don't know if what I'd want would be geologically correct or possible, so I'm very insecure about it. For the mountains though, I intend to use a basic height map when I try to make the final version of the terrain, using Tear's tutorial most likely, but before I do that, I need to have this outline ready as a guide, sadly I'm not able to just improvise.

----------


## acrosome

Don't worry too much about adding random mountain ranges wherever you need them.  As long as they are older and lower- i.e. more eroded- then it's easy to explain.  Look at the Appalachians or the Anti-Atlas range.  Neither is well explained by current plate collisions.  That's because in fact they are both remnants of the Central Pangaean Range from almost half a billion years ago.  So if you add any random mountains just make them more Appalachian-like and explain them away as remnants of an ancient range.  I think that the Urals are also an ancient mountain range remnant.

That said, I think that there is a problem with your plate tectonics.  If that is an equirectangular projection, then the plates don't line up right at any map edges.  (I understand from my limited trolling around this forum that this is a common tendency among our peers.)  If you have a plate cross an east or west map edge then it must continue on the other map edge- just like if you made a continent that did so.  And yours don't.

Heck, at your south pole you've got *one* plate bountary reaching the pole- you can't have just one.  In fact, it must be zero or an even number, or it would be one _heck_ of a coincidence that there is a three-way plate nexus precisely at your north pole.  

Put your tectonic map into G.Projector and look at it in ortho view to see what I mean.  I would imagine that it's easiest (if somewhat contrived) to make both poles their own plate.

Or is this not meant to be a projection of the whole world?

Regarding climate/poles/etc.: is this a fantasy map?  SciFi?  What?  Because you can explain away almost anything with "it's magic."  And polar sun mirrors help, too.  

If neither of these apply, well, yes even then you can still have a world without icecaps.  But there is a price to be paid.  The Earth has gone through many periods where it had no permanent icepack- see this Wiki page.  In fact, current theory holds that the Earth only hosts a permanent icepack 20% of the time.  The Earth goes through periodic greenhouse and icehouse phases on about a million-year timescale- this is _different_ than glacial and interglacial periods, which only happen during icehouse phases (we are currently in an interglacial icehouse).  Of course, the average surface temperature is about 10-15C higher during a greenhouse phase- that's the tradeoff.  But in any realistic scheme if you want equatorial climates no hotter than modern Earth on an Earth-sized planet with Earth-like axial tilt and rotation and Earth-like weather patterns, then the poles will be cold and probably have an icecap.  As we are working on proving it needn't have icecaps year-round, especially if a pole doesn't have land under it, but at least in winter.  

But if you are willing to let the tropics fry then you can lack icecaps totally.

----------


## groovey

acrsome, very helpfull advice about random mountains palcement, I'll keep that very in mind.

I hadn't thought about checking the tectonics plates on the projector, great idea, because as I was making the tectonic outline my head hurt a bit when dealing with the edges of the map, so your suggestion is indeed great, tomorrow if I find a moment I'll check it out, but as you say, I'll have to make important amends. And yes, it's supposed to be a projection of the whole world.

The world is more fantasy than anything else I guess, but no magic or elves, or dwarfs, just boring humans, so it's more a custom historical world than fantasy.

Um, I think I'd rather keep the Earth temperatures and add some poles.

Great observations guys, really helpfull. At this point I don't know what to do because before focusing on terrain again, I think I need to add poles, fix the tectonics and perhaps rearrange or add more land masses. Just that might take me a bit because I can't work on the map everyday. So perhaps regarding terrain we could leave it on hold until I fix those things, and then when it's ready I'll keep in mind the climate and temperatures distribution on Earth first and the suggestions about mountains. But if you got any other observations or suggestions regarding the land masses, scale, or other things, I'll appreciate it.

I might even try to research a bit how complicated and hard would be to try different settings from Earth (like tilt, size of the planet,etc), depending on the implications of the changes (I know it affects night/day, seasons and all that) and my needs, so I could keep the current land masses but have a different climate and temperatures distribution, but it'll probably make my head hurt before I get anything clear of it. 

In any case, I'll keep you updated. Thanks for your input.

----------


## Pixie

I like your land shapes, and I think you do the right thing in not changing those too much. However, they make for a world with even wider expanses of ocean than Earth. Also the huge number of large islands in comparison with the small continents makes harder on the tectonics part...

Which, by the way, if you want to get right, you better start from scratch, as your fist attempt was messy. I spent some time looking at your plates and couldn't work any advice to make it work as it is.

Using G.projector (or a couple of oranges / tennis balls / anything round you can draw on) is a very good strategy. Stick to this workflow when at it:
- one boundary at a time (say you start with a convergent one)
- draw the boundary as you want it (you don't need to draw the entire plate)
- mark a big arrow (or a few) on top of each plate showing their movement (since you started with a convergent in this case, movement is towards that)
- on the opposite side you NEED to have a divergent boundary - either deep ocean ridge or a continent tearing apart (ridges are more common)

- repeat this a few times and you'll have almost everything covered, then you work out the side boundaries and the details.

- be sure to do this in a round medium or to check at g.projector a lot of times.

----------


## Ilanthar

I know my geology, but I'm not using tectonics to make my maps, so, I'll say that I like your choice of colours and the general shape of the lands. As NedS298, I would like to see the mountains stands out more.
And your big river on the north part of the big continent should probably go in the central sea if you're not adding mountains to explain it's current path.

----------


## groovey

Pixie, I'm afraid you're right, I need to re-do the tectonics, hopefully second time around they can also explain at least a few mountain ranges so they can be very high and sharp, not so small and eroded. I'll try to apply your suggestions as best as I can. Also, you made me think about those big islands and yes... I think too their too big to be volcanic islands.

Ilanthar, I agree my "mountains" are a bummer, but after all, the colors/terrain of the current map are supposed to be just a ready visual guide for when I try to do the final terrain with Tear's tutorial, because I'm terrible at drawing/painting and such, I have no vision for it, so I can't just improvise, I need to have a template before I work on the tutorial to do the real terrain. 

I'm not surprised I messed up with the rivers too, but for now I'll forget about them since first I've got to fix the tectonics and the climate issues. I read a bit about giving the planet a different tilt, but the consequences are too extreme and don't quite fit my story, so I'm still thinking what to do about it.

Anyway, thanks you two too for your comments.

----------


## groovey

By the way, for global temperatures purposes, does anyone know how to recreate the tropic and subtropics latitudes, in my case in Photoshop? Would a simple grid system work? I mean where to place them with a decent level of accuracy, I've tried finding some answers myself, or a ready-made template, but I think I'm not using the correct keywords because I can't find anything.

----------


## acrosome

I'm not sure what you mean by "recreate the tropic and subtropic latitudes."  If your axial tilt is, say, 23 degrees then the tropics are by definition to 23 degrees north and south, e.g.  Subtropics are from there to 30 or 35 degrees, by most definitions.

Placing lines of longitude and latitude is actually pretty easy if your map projection is equirectangular.  You just count pixels and do some division.  Or you can download G Projector (it's free), load your map in (assuming it is equirectangular, since G Projector only accepts that as input) and it will spit out images in almost any projection you can think of, including lines of latitude and longitude, if you like.

But if you mean climatology, well, that gets complex, not least because no one can really define what "subtropic" _means_.  Reading the Wikipedia article on _Koppen Climates_ might help, too, especially looking at the world climate map that is included.  Though I personally think that maps of biomes rather than climate per se is probably more useful.  

The _short_ answer is that tropical climates tend to extend from the equator to 10 or 15 degrees, then there is usually a band af aridity to _about_ 30 degrees- especially on west coasts- then temperate climates beyond that.  (Mind you, "temperate" covers everything from the humid swamps of Georgia to the frozen taiga of central Siberia.)  Tundra and other arctic climates usually start somewhere around 65-75 degrees.  On west coasts there tends to be a small band of Mediterranean climates between the deserts and the temperate climates.  The "subtropic" _climates_ that you're talking about are probably _east_ coasts between 20-35 degrees or so that _aren't deserts_.

Both sangi39 and myself are struggling through this process right now.

EDIT-- Fortuitously, Pixie is currently putting together a great tutorial on climate creation.

----------


## groovey

Very helpful post acrsome and great links, I'll check them out right now.

----------


## groovey

Well, today I could work on the project a bit and focused first on fixing my problem with climate for the central continent/s, as the novel and its historic context will take place in that scenario. Basically, I calculated where the tropics and subtropics would be (represented with very rudimentary lines) and then I rotated the land mass until the part I wanted was on the North hemisphere, between the subtropic and the called frigid zone. This way there I can get a range of temperatures similar to Eurasia, which is what I need.



But by rotating the continent I kind of broke the harmony with the other land masses, so I rearranged them a bit. Honestly, the final result is okay I guess, but it doesn't feel as nice to me as the first version did. What do you guys and gals think? Is it too bad? 



I'm especially interested in how the central and eastern part of the map looks right now, but the more I look at the continents of the West side the less I like them. The big one reminds me of an actual heart, and the little one on the west side of the islands just looks nasty, so I'd like to come up with alternatives to them in the next session. 

The volcanic islands on the south-east still are too big I think, so I'll make them smaller on the next session if I remember.

I added a land mass for the South pole, which of course is humongous because of distortion, when I import the map in NASA's G. Projector, with Orthographic projection, it looks fine I think. 



I've decided that for now in the North Pole I won't have a land mass, only an ice cap, like Earth, just because really. Question is, do I have to add said ice cap to the map? Because I've noticed a lot of Earth world maps don't, which surprised me a bit. Anyway, without the ice cap, this is how the North Pole looks right now:



How is the general feel of the land masses and the proportion of land/sea? Does it feel unbalanced or weird?

----------


## acrosome

> But by rotating the continent I kind of broke the harmony with the other land masses, so I rearranged them a bit. Honestly, the final result is okay I guess, but it doesn't feel as nice to me as the first version did. What do you guys and gals think? Is it too bad? 
> 
> How is the general feel of the land masses and the proportion of land/sea? Does it feel unbalanced or weird?


The people on this forum may not be the best to ask about weirdness.  They do some rather dramatic worldbuilding here, at times.   :Wink: 

I certainly don't find the shape of your continents _unaesthetic_, if that's what you're asking.  And "balance" is sort of a pointless concept.  Look at a map of the Earth 450 million years ago, with one large supercontinent.  Now *that* was unbalanced, and it was real.  Your world certainly seems to be more ocean and less land than Earth, but that's OK, too.

Rotating that largest continent is fine if it suits your needs for the climate in your novel.  It probably just looks odd to you because you're used to seeing it the other way, but I barely noticed.  You don't have to show icecaps if you don't want to, unless your goal is a photorealistic map or somesuch.  As you said, a lot of maps just show landforms.

----------


## Schwarzkreuz

This is always an inetresting way, to look around your map with different projections.

----------


## groovey

Today I worked a bit more on the land masses. After messing up with Fractal Terrains to get an interesting shape, and doing a bit of editing of the outline in Photoshop, I added a new big continent on the West side of the map, and edited a bit the outline of the old one that reminded me of an actual human heart. I also rearranged the islands a bit and finally I moved the whole map to the right so it was more centered on the canvas. I also filled the land masses with a plain basic green color so they stand a bit more from the sea while I get to work on the terrain. EDIT: I see that in the scale guide on the upper right I wrote 3,333 Km instead of 3.333 Km, I'll fix that the next session.



Then I worked on the tectonic plates, after a lot of brushing and erasing and checking with G. Projector, especially for the poles. They're not pretty but I take them just as a rough outline to detect hotspots for seismic and volcanic activity, and also high and sharp mountain ranges. I started to indicate the general direction of the plates, but I'm not even half way, I had to call it a day, so I'll finish it on the next session, hopefully.



Here's the North Pole:



Here's the South Pole:




And that's all I did today, but at least I think I'm done with the land masses outlines.

acrsome, you are absolutely right, I get so micro-focused on the map that I forget how after all it's a fantasy world, so almost anything can be plausible, if not possible, more or less depending on how much do you want to subject yourself to the natural laws that rule the planet.

----------


## Pixie

As they are now, your landmasses resemble Earth a lot. North and South America... Eurasia and a small version of Africa on its SW side... a few islands where Australia would be. Antartica where Antartica is. Is it all intentional?

I like what you did at the poles, especially on the north pole.

Still on landmasses and tectonics, there's a place in your map that I really love where I think some tectonics "de p.. madre" could be happening:

So the idea is a recent rift opened a significant time ago, which is spreading those continents. However, this was small moving (lost power) and a second rift opened up further south. This one had a stronger influence and made the part that was moving south move back north.. The present result is an area of strong volcanism and earthquakes, a large shallow sea between the southern continent and those islands. Those islands are recent land, a mix of mountains, volcanoes and fertile land (think java-like islands).

If you wish to take on this idea, feel free to incorporate in your map. If you don't want the hassle, I'm just as happy with it, don't worry  :Wink:

----------


## NedS298

You don't have to spend SO much time on the details. We can all appreciate and admire that you're trying to be accurate and realistic, which is good, but in the end people will look at your map and say, "wow, there's so much detail, such good choice of colours", etc, not, "wow, look at the realism of those plate tectonics!". All I'm saying is, as soon as it looks good, don't question it - just map it.

----------


## groovey

@Pixie, yes, the overall resemblance to Earth is kind of intentional. I mean, I realized not long ago that when I see a fantasy map with land masses that remind me of Earth, I connect to it more than when land masses are more random and original, it was a subconscious thing, I guess I'm a really a fan of our beloved planet. I know it's not very original, but I need to connect with the map, so I'm really fine with it. Perhaps if I'm ever done with this map for the novel, I'll try to be more original with another project.

By the way, I'm really, really intrigued about you idea about the tectonics of the area you mentioned, so in today's session I'll check it out and quickly try to represent the evolution you mention in two or three little pictures of that area, to see if I got it right, so I'll probably need your feedback.

@NedS298, I've reached the same conclusion these past days, because it's exhausting and it eats a lot of time, and I really need to get it done so I can set basic information for world-building for the novel, which involves wars, politics and a big Empire, so I need the map. After I'm done with the basics of tectonics, which I do think are important for natural disasters and mountain ranges, I'll start with terrain again. For climate/temperatures I'll simplify a lot and base it on Earth, because after all for the novel temperatures are not as important as tectonics.

----------


## groovey

I've done a VERY rough and quick representation, in three pictures, of Pixie's suggestion of tectonics on the south of the Eastern continents, but I admit I got a bit lost on some points because my understanding of tectonics it's very basic, and thus I need some clarification. Here's what I understood:

1. Land mass 4 is still attached to Land mass 2, and land mass 2 is still attached to land mass 1, but a rift opened between land 1 and 2, slowly separating both (divergent, in red). 



2. This I'm not sure is right, but BOTH sides of the rift got filled with water, separating the land masses, and eventually some crust from the lithosphere managed to reach the surface, creating the volcanic islands chain (nº3) between land 1 and 2.



3. At some point a new rift opened in land mass 2, that separated land 4 and also pushed land 2 back in the direction of land 1.




Doubts:

- In image 3 the division on land mass 1 and 2 is convergent (blue arrows) on one side and divergent on the other, how does this translate? Which direction is predominant? The one with the higher speed? How would it affect those islands? Would they remain actively volcanic no matter what which boundary direction is predominant?

- Would indeed those little volcanic islands form in step/image 2 or in 3? I didn't quite understand form Pixie's suggestion when would they arise.

- About the shallow sea Pixie, when you say southern continent you mean land 2? Would that sea also be shallow between the islands and land 1?

----------


## Ilanthar

I fully agree with the last comment of NedS298. Personnally I find inspiration in Earth shapes (making little parts big continents for example) or past/future earth. It gives immediate "coherence" without being very troubled with all the geologic/realistic questions. I often question myself about the possible complementarity of each continent to redo a pangea (the wegener puzzle), but that's all.

Even though I find that questions interesting by itself. We're far to understand and discover everything about it btw (a common thing in science, and happyly!)

Anyway, I really like what you have so far!

----------


## acrosome

Yes, once you get a map together the artists here will pounce and start critiquing and praising your aesthetics.  But in the meanwhile there *are* those here who appreciate the science.   Not many, but they are here.   :Wink: 

That island near your north pole looks kind of unnatural in the orthographic view.  On your base map it probably needs to look "smeared" east-west or "squashed" north-south more, so that it looks more natural in orthographic.

----------


## Pixie

NedS298 and Ilanthar are right in saying that a lot of this "tectonics & climate" effort doesn't get noticed once the map is finished. In fact, they can put you off from finishing a map more often than not. However, I think acrsome and others (myself included, surely!) take pleasure in this sort of what-if exercise.

This site has some of us nested in a corner, next to the ultra productive artistic cartographers, the game-masters carving a local/city/dungeon map their players can explore, the goblin/dwarf/sorcercer/fairy maps, and the etc. You really place yourself wherever you like. 
As a science freak, I try to balance between giving advice to those who seem that will take it and appreciating "things as they are" from the ones who are not interested. A few times I felt I was intruding too much and backed off. And I am aware, every time, that it's up to the map creator to decide how much time he wants to put into the fine detail.

So, having made this "disclaimer", comment on your work, groovey:
You generally understood the rationale I suggested for that area (except what you mention, the formation of those islands - I have drawn a set of pics to explain and you can find them at the end of this post).
From experience, I found that making up a tectonic planetary model is easier and more coherent when done (at least partially) from the bottom-up. That is, to figure out particular areas of the globe and then stitch them together.
Since it looks like you will take this double rift idea, consider prolonging one of those two rifts all the way to the separation between the two continents in the western side of the map. Because their shapes look like a fit, their breaking apart could be recent  :Wink: .

And now the full explanation of what I meant before. I was really unsure whether to post these or not and I considered sending a personal message instead...  this is maybe too heavy on the detail, boring for some, and all that, and it would be a huge task to create a whole planet with this level of detail - but something was telling me you wanted it  :Wink: . Feel free at any time to tell me to shut up, I won't be offended.

----------


## groovey

@Ilanthar, thanks a lot for the encouragement, the one you give now and the one you gave me when I first joined in the Guild to make a WIP thread to get help with my project, doing so has really helped me to re-think some things about it and improve it a bit. And I'm really intrigued about using little parts from Earth and making them continents, I might try having fun with it at some point.

@acrsome, indeed, that northern island looks terrible with orthographic projection, but I wasn't sure if I needed to do something about it or what, but I think I understand the logic now, so I'll try to fix it. And in my case, I doubt I'll fully please neither the artists or the more science inclined with this map, since I've had to sacrifice science over time and needs for the novel; and on the other hand I'm terrible with terrain and anything that requires an artistic vision related to painting (I've a better vision and understanding to make music and writing, which doesn't mean I'm good at them), but we'll get to that eventually, I hope.

Wow Pixie, that's a lot of fascinating history you've managed to convey in just 4 images. I would have never been able to come up with so much detail. It makes me love that region of the map a lot, it feels special now, with so much detail on its evolution. Thanks a lot for taking the time to do that, I understand much better now what you first suggested, and it has become canon. I like it a lot, specially how the islands are created.


That said, I'm very conflicted about the map in general, because part of me wanted to create a full planet and figure out everything about it in some detail (climate, currents, etc) and maybe even give it different basic traits from Earth, like tilt, revolution time, etc; but the thing is, this particular map is the base for a novel, so I can't spend so much time with all that, since those things are secondary or even less significant to the story. Terrain is the most important thing I need, and for historic purposes, basic tectonics for natural disasters. 

So with a bit of disappointment I've finally accepted that for this project I need to keep going and don't worry much about all the science behind it, and simplify most things instead. I love tectonics and I've still a lot to learn about it, but for this map for the novel I'll be happy with a rough outline. 

For example, Pixie, your suggestion for that area made it feel more special to me, I connect more with it, but I'll hardly be able to reflect it with detail on the general tectonic map, since I'll only make the present one. I will though, soon post said rough general outline of the tectonics, and I'll be very interested in reading comments about it, because I'm sure I'll need to do a bit or a lot of corrections, because sometimes I get confused. 

I know if I followed your initial advice to me in the first page of this thread about the tectonic boundaries I'd get a more organic general outline that would feel more realistic and balanced, but I'm really getting impatient. I've spent about 3 years now trying to come up with a map for this novel (in sporadic periods, of course), failing miserably, never with the tools and the modest knowledge I have now thanks to the Guild. This April when I got the inspiration to try again, I thought by now I'd have the map done, it wouldn't look very pretty, but it would do. Instead, about a whole month later I'm still working out the tectonics... So I feel a bit frustrated, I'm aware making maps takes a lot of time and work, but really, my main goal is getting something decent enough to work with the novel. If after hopefully finishing this map for the novel I work on a map with no goal but itself, I'll really worry about it looking pretty and professional.

I hope after I'm done with this project, if I manage at all to finish it, I can start a new planet from scratch and have fun figuring out everything about it with much more detail.

Sorry guys and gals for the little rants, blame my frustration at my own limitations.

----------


## Pixie

grovey, my fellow Iberian (I'm portuguese), if you are getting impatient, move on!  :Wink: 

And if you ever wish to work the detail in other area, you can simply call on help around here.

----------


## NedS298

Okay, maybe I do think that you don't need to worry about all the different elements of the map so much, but I do love a science discussion every now and then. I don't want to take this off topic, but it's so interesting...

----------


## groovey

Good day to all.

Today I haven't been able to do much. 

I made the island like shape from the North Pole plate narrower so it would look fine in Orthographic projection

Then I re-touched a bit the plates and tried to give each plate boundary a coherent general direction. I have only 11 plates and most of them are quite big, and of course their configuration is quite simplified and planned to suit my needs, when it should be the other way around if I wanted them to look and behave more naturally. I almost question if I should have bothered at all, but well, I do think it'll be useful, simplified as it is.

That said, here's my re-do of the tectonics. I realize most of the movements are either N-S or E-W, which is a bit boring and robotic, but well. Actually that describes me quite well, funny enough.







Any glaring errors or contradictions in the direction of the plates in each boundary? I'm not sure I got some boundaries directions right, I get confused when said boundaries are too irregular in shape and/or meet with more than one plate's boundary. So my main issue, I think, are the side movements, or transformation boundaries. 

I was going to try and check them in G Projector to see if I could understand better what those boundaries' directions would be, but G Projector broke down or something about "JVM could not be started" crap.

So how bad is it?

Pixie, I'm not sure either I've managed to convey your suggestion for area nº3. I moved back into land nº1 the original boundary that was on top of the islands, and created the new one just to the right side of said islands. Did I even get close to what it should look like?

Don't worry, I feel a bit more optimistic today. And anyway, once I'm done with the basic tectonics I'll move to work on the terrain again, so I'm getting there.

----------


## groovey

Small update. I've started to experiment with terrain features, since even if I need to correct the tectonics directions, for terrain purposes, the two tectonic boundaries where continental shelves meet to create young and high mountain ranges wouldn't change, the rest of the mountain ranges will have to be old and eroded, from previous tectonic activity. 

I got all the terrain layers from Tear's Sederan tutorial ready to work on, and at least for now I added a desert layer, which the tutorial doesn't specify, to at least know where I want them to be. As you can see, I didn't overcomplicate it and just placed them around the two tropics (attached you have the same map twice, one with the tropics to check desert placement, and one without tropics to focus solely on the terrain). 



The desert areas are simply the result of painting with a low opacity dry brush, since I still don't know if I need the desert layer on I'll manage to represent deserts with just Tear's tutorial, I've still not thought about adding effects to the deserts.



Then I experimented with the main mountain ranges, but boy, I hardly know what the heck I'm doing, how are they supposed to look and such. To be honest, personally I don't need them to look pretty or polished, for the novel purposes I just need them to be in place and look decently like mountain ranges, but I'd be glad to hear any comments or suggestions on how to improve them, if they are too big in scale, too small...

And I'm aware it might be hard to judge the deserts and the mountains when the rest of the map it's so bare/empty, but I don't feel like moving on to other things until I'm a bit sure about them, so I'd love to hear some feedback.

Please don't mind the flat shapes on the north of the eastern continents, they are just a visual guide for two more mountain ranges I've yet to do.

Have a nice day.

----------


## Ilanthar

Yep, it's _always_ hard to tell before it's finished, but I, like you, am just afraid to throw myself in a lot of work just for ending with something that I don't like.
And honestly, your mountains are looking just fine to me.

----------


## Pixie

> Pixie, I'm not sure either I've managed to convey your suggestion for area nº3. I moved back into land nº1 the original boundary that was on top of the islands, and created the new one just to the right side of said islands. Did I even get close to what it should look like?


You did. Exactly what I meant. 
Now, that sort of boundary created a problem for your movement with plate 7 and the boundary with plate 2. However, we can imagine the right boundaries for those two huge plates and their movements would only affect areas that are submerged. I mean, some stuff is clearly wrong somewhere else now (that's the headache with con-tectonics) but nothing that would change mountains placement.

As for the direction of the plates... yep, too robotic  :Wink: 

As for your second "advancement".. I think the mountains technique you are using is better suited for smaller scale maps. However, if you manage to get it looking good at this scale, please share the details.

----------


## NedS298

Your mountains are unusual, but not unpleasant. You seem to have put them in odd places though.

----------


## groovey

I noticed Tear's tutorial is probably best fit for continental or regional maps, but there's a lovely map that I stumbled upon a few years back in the guild's gallery when I was just a casual lurker, by Schwarzkreuz, Photo 17 of 19 from Showcase. I've always had this map in mind and I'd like for mine to have a similar feel. The author of the map said he used Tear's tutorial, though it's obvious he made the most of it and added his own touch to make it look so polished and professional.

So IF I managed to represent my mountain ranges in a similar manner to his, would they make more sense in the world map scale?

NedS298, what do you mean? Would you mind sharing your thoughts? To be honest, there are only two places on which the current tectonics dictate mountains placement, and the two of them are on the eastern continent/s (because they are actually two plates mashed together), as indicated by blue circles:



The rest of them I'm mostly free to place as I see, with a certain logic of course, as they would be cheaply explained by being the result of previous tectonics, and thus would be older eroded mountain ranges. I'm not sure where to place them though, but I know I need some in certain areas to get important enough rivers. 

Having that in mind, I'd like to hear your input.

Pixie, I'm very surprised I got what you meant right in my first try, thanks a lot again for that suggestion, that area of the map plays a somehow significant role in the story and the history of the eastern part of the map, so it's great to know it a bit better. Now I'll be focusing on terrain, but I might get back to the tectonics at some point to polish them and make them less robotic, but without interfering, too much, with the dynamic of plates 1, 2 (this one I wouldn't mind edit in shape as long as it collided with number 2 to created a mountain range), 3, 11 (to be coherent with 3) and the new one created after your suggestion, because those are the ones I need to work like they do now. The rest of them I wouldn't mind messing around more with, I could even edit the terrain as needed later on, if needed, so the revised tectonics and the terrain would match. I know this is a terrible system to make a map, but I can't get myself to do it in order, like I should. Meh, I should try to get it right, I'll try to give it more thought I guess, after all, I'm still experimenting with mountains to see if I get the hang of it so the final result is not random.

----------


## groovey

Sigh. So, I polished the plates a bit more and kind of started fresh with the directions. 

First I added the general direction of each plate, and then just started to work on the specific boundaries, but I'd like to know if I'm doing it right before doing more, because it takes some time to place each damn subduction triangle in the right angle to the boundary. I also know how I'll represent transformation boundaries, with yellow arrows, but I still don't know how to represent divergent boundaries, color would be red, but with what? Arrows in opposite directions like I did in the previous tectonic map?



Two things I need to ask:

1. The direction where the subduction triangles are pointing indicate which plate subducts into which plate right? In my case, for example, plate 8 subducts into plate 9, and nº3 to nº1 (at least north of the boundary), is that right?

2. I forgot while I wrote nº1.

From checking out different tectonic maps of Earth, I think I got the general idea of how it works, in those maps, but in mine I find it difficult to know which segments of the boundary is what when said boundary meets with more than one plate, and to know how the general direction of the plate affects each boundary meeting.

For example, what I did in boundary of nº8 and 9, would subduction happen across ALL the boundary, or in some segments it wouldn't be subduction?

Is the boundary between plate nº7 and 3 indeed a transformation one? All through it?

Sooo, I'd appreciate some advice, I've read about tectonics a bit, here and there, to understand the basics (because as I said, if I try to go hardcore on it my head hurts), but when it's time to apply it to my map... I'm not sure of what I'm doing.

And yes, I'm aware that the new polished tectonics makes the world even more similar to Earth... that's what happens when you have limited artistic vision to improvise, really, I'm almost a robot, so Mother Earth's copyright free suggestions work for me.

Also, I'd like to take a moment to thank you all for checking my WIP and giving me support, advice and opinions to keep improving it, especially since the thread is a bit of a mess: it started with terrain and tectonics, then a total re-do, tectonics, terrain, and now tectonics again... Let's hope it's all worth it and I end up with a decent finished map for the novel and world-building.

----------


## jbgibson

Keep talking - I for one am finding it all interesting!

----------


## NedS298

On a plate boundary you should have land, continents don't form perpendicularly to their corresponding plate boundary/ies (very often), look at a world tectonic plates map. South America is a good examples of this. It's because uplift will occur on the plate going over the other, which will in turn make a valley. Two plates bordering on continental crust will create even larger mountain ranges with plateaus behind them (ie. lots of land). Two ocean plates colliding will give you islands like Indonesia and the Philippines, New Zealand, and the Caribbean islands. So on both your collision and transform plate boundaries, you should have land or islands - not a whole heap of sea. Currently, all your islands are on oceanic rifts (mid-ocean ridges) which does happen but not near as often island chains on (or behind, because of hot magma from the subducting plate rising through the crust again) collision or transform boundaries.
Too late to make changes now though, don't worry about it.

----------


## Pixie

Groovey, your questions made me rethink some of my own conceptions about tectonics and plate movement and go back to the drawing board on my own "fiction planet". Thanks for that!
From start, I chose the ignore most the times that plates movement is always rotational around a fictional pole (called Euler pole). I thought for larger plates, the rotation would be very small and thus we could think about it linear terms. However, on second thought, that's not the case and it's very much the opposite. Large plates is actually where it makes a bigger difference. So, I looked around a little bit and found this interesting resources:

explaining euler pole
euler pole movement applied to the boundary between north american plate and pacific plate

I also thought of a way to picture this with PS (or Gimp): 
- create a layer on top of the the map and place a solid color shape exactly fitting the plate you want to look at
- on another layer draw a little cross to mark the euler pole of that plate
- under <edit>, select the option rotate - a small cross with a circle appears in the middle of the selection
- move that circle to the position where you placed the cross and then rotate the shape
- this allows to experiment with the plate movement and to figure out where subduction, transform and crust formation is happening

(this is an extra effort to get things right and may or may not end up to be useful, I haven't quite experimented enough with it yet - I also suspect it won't work well on plates too close to the poles)

Now, as for your specific questions:




> 1. The direction where the subduction triangles are pointing indicate which plate subducts into which plate right? In my case, for example, plate 8 subducts into plate 9, and nº3 to nº1 (at least north of the boundary), is that right?


Yes, your blue triangles are in the correct positions. 
Modern geology thinks collisions between continents are not exactly subduction, though, they just bend, fold and pile up, neither of the plates actually sinks.




> For example, what I did in boundary of nº8 and 9, would subduction happen across ALL the boundary, or in some segments it wouldn't be subduction?
> 
> Is the boundary between plate nº7 and 3 indeed a transformation one? All through it?


Try that "rotation" trick I described above.. it will show you the right answer, I think.

Also, you have the tendency to place island chains in oceanic rifts. While there's a few islands and island chains along Earth's rifts, they don't generate the New Zealand size islands you have.

I think this version is a common (I got it now, it messed up what I had and now it's awful, it will come out much better on the next try). Keep ploughing away!

----------


## groovey

The last two posts made me think a lot, my head hurts (don't get me wrong, I'm not scared of thinking, on the contrary, I love it, but I'm more fit for social science, I'm an Historian after all. Natural science on the other hand is much more complex for me to grasp). They made me realize I do need to place islands on some oceanic boundaries and that to know where exactly I need to know the rotation axis on the plates (the Euler pole Pixie introduced me to, and the technique he came up to represent it on PS or GIMP is both simple and effective, it does help me indeed), which will also help me solve my problem of not knowing the boundaries movements.

However, I'm going to need a lot of processing to figure it out and fix the map.

Quick question:

- Islands originated in divergent boundaries TEND to be smaller than those created on convergent boundaries, true or false?

- So when two continental collide, if subduction doesn't occur, how do you represent it on a map? With what symbol?

Pixie, you mean this WIP of yours? http://www.cartographersguild.com/re...ke-planet.html. I've checked it out a few times. I love what you did with the heightmap on that lovely pinguin, and observed your tectonics as a reference, so if you are going to re-do or edit the tectonics of the map, please, will you be so kind to post the updated tectonics?

----------


## Pixie

> However, I'm going to need a lot of processing to figure it out and fix the map.


Well, yes, I figured. My map will also need a lot of re-processing. Furthermore, since I found out that rotation gives very different results depending on the projection.. And then I searched the web reading stuff about it and it seems (as sure as I can be now) that the projection to get this right needs to be stereographic.
So, my task will be, in the near future, to create stereographic projections of my original map. Several of them (stereographic projection, which G.projector can produce, cannot show a whole sphere at once), one for each plate, centered on it. And then work out their movement.




> - Islands originated in divergent boundaries TEND to be smaller than those created on convergent boundaries, true or false?
> 
> - So when two continental collide, if subduction doesn't occur, how do you represent it on a map? With what symbol?


The only islands on divergent boundaries is when they coincide with a hotspot - Iceland and Azores are the only examples I can think of (as they are closest to me - I reckon most of the times it's actually no islands formed!
Even though there is no actual subduction (plate sinking and melting), I think it is represented in the same way (this is a detail we can very much not worry about)




> Pixie, you mean this WIP of yours? http://www.cartographersguild.com/re...ke-planet.html.


Yes, that's the world I am working on for some time. And yes, once I find the time to reconfigure tectonics I will post updates... Again, groovey, thanks for making be rethink my knowledge on tectonics and improve my own map  :Wink: .

----------


## groovey

As if it hadn't gotten complex enough for me, he he, now there's also the projection to keep in mind! I'll try to grasp my head around that. Does it mean the way you devised to check the rotation on PS or GIMP won't give accurate results,I mean, as simplified as it is? Because to be honest, unless the results would be VERY different from those you would get by keeping in mind stereographic projection, I think it would be enough for me.

And you don't need to thank me, It's only fair you got something back of all this, after all your suggestions and help and patience to help me understand this whole thing better.

----------


## ascanius

> Groovey, your questions made me rethink some of my own conceptions about tectonics and plate movement and go back to the drawing board on my own "fiction planet". Thanks for that!
> From start, I chose the ignore most the times that plates movement is always rotational around a fictional pole (called Euler pole). I thought for larger plates, the rotation would be very small and thus we could think about it linear terms. However, on second thought, that's not the case and it's very much the opposite. Large plates is actually where it makes a bigger difference. So, I looked around a little bit and found this interesting resources:
> 
> explaining euler pole
> euler pole movement applied to the boundary between north american plate and pacific plate
> 
> I also thought of a way to picture this with PS (or Gimp): 
> - create a layer on top of the the map and place a solid color shape exactly fitting the plate you want to look at
> - on another layer draw a little cross to mark the euler pole of that plate
> ...


I tried this out in gimp.  It adds a whole lot of complicated. Depending on the rotation, I created divergent boundaries where I had none before.  I kept this limited to only my largest plate but I realize that I have to be careful otherwise divergent boundaries would spring up all over the place.  

I have a question about the Euler poles.  From my understanding the Euler pole is an axis of rotation independent of the earth axis of rotation.  It is around this axis that the a body moves across the surface of a sphere.  Because it is circular the body would a some point reach it's starting position if no other bodies interfere.

on a flat surface couldn't this be shown with a simple compass, it won't be mathematically accurate but for the general idea it should work seeing that rotation is faster farther from an axis of rotation.

Or am I so completely off that it is better if I stop typing?  I'm gonna stop typing.

----------


## Pixie

> I tried this out in gimp.  It adds a whole lot of complicated. Depending on the rotation, I created divergent boundaries where I had none before.  I kept this limited to only my largest plate but I realize that I have to be careful otherwise divergent boundaries would spring up all over the place.


Yep, I am struggling with the same thing. In some cases the best solution is to change the shape of the plate a little. In other cases I think that local "divergence" is covered by the movement of the adjacent plates and not necessarily liked to new crust formation. In other cases, if you want a more one-direction sort of movement, it's a matter of moving the Euler pole away from the plate.

About your question about Euler poles and rotation. Yes, you could do it with a compass on a flat surface (if the map was an ortographic projection centered on the rotation axis). I say this not being the mathematical expert, which I'm not, but the guy who has been fiddling and reading around. From my experience, different projections give totally different areas of crust creation and crust subduction around a plate.

----------


## groovey

To add my 2 cents to the rotation representation discussion, this is my rough and clumsy experiment on PShop. Just tried it with two plates. 

As you can see, I filled the plates with different colors and then rotated them just a bit, enough to see what goes on on each segment of the boundaries. I borrowed ascanius' system to indicate the Euler pole and basic rotational direction of each plate.



QUESTIONS:

- If I have a boundary between two or more plates and on each side of said boundary there's a different direction, how do you represent that? In the maps of Earth's tectonics everything fits so nicely, the segments of the boundaries are always one of the three types, either convergent, divergent or transformation, I don't see any case where in one side of the boundary the tendency is convergent and on the other side divergent, for example. Is that so because Earth tectonics fit perfectly so all the sides of the boundaries are the same; it does happen but is simplified to be represented; or am I missing something big? 

Guess what I'm asking is:

- How do you represent when each side of a boundary has different directions that do not make a simple convergent, divergent or transformation boundary?

- What would that mean in the real world, if for example one side of a boundary had a divergent movement and the other a lateral/transformation movement? Would it depend on the relative speed to each other and/or their general direction as a whole?

Sorry if this is a very obvious and silly question.


- Also, in plate nº1, on the left side where it meets with plate nº12, I wasn't sure if the movement there was convergent or lateral. The white color does "push" into plate nº12, but because of the rotation, it felt to me that the movement there would be lateral.

----------


## Pixie

Well, here's a little more on a crash course on tectonics for a historian:
- the main engine for plates movement is the pull towards the areas where oceanic plate is being subducted. This excellent map is a good illustration of that.

In plate 1, to respect his, it means a movement towards the junction with 2 instead of a anti-clockwise rotation. Try moving the euler pole for plate 1 close to where you have the number 7 written down, that would also create a divergent boundary right in the middle of the ocean, where it would make more sense and it would solve your problem with that boundary.
The same reasoning applied to plate 2 means it would break in half (and actually that would explain that sea) - the land mass is being pulled into the massive sink that is the boundary with plate 5 wheres the west side of the sea is being puled into plate 1.
Of course, these are just ideas I'm throwing about and they will probably mess some of the work you have already so feel free to ignore them.

As for the boundaries that don't match in terms of absolute movement, what matters is their relative speed to each other. You can think of transform as "neutral" relative speed, so 
divergent + transform = divergent,
convergent + transform = convergent
divergent + convergent = ... hmmm, avoid that or do as you please, depends on relative speed.

----------


## groovey

Thanks Pixie, that was really clarifying, and it'll help me a lot to know what the heck am I doing.

----------


## groovey

Pixie, I've been checking out your suggestions in the map. I see now what a huge difference it makes placing the Euler pole in one position or another, which I guess it's good because it gives more flexibility and control over the rotation.



I don't know if you literally meant that plate nº2 would break in half, but that's what I had in mind before the last version I posted, where nº2 also included half on plate nº3. To be honest I like this version I post now better. Would it work the way it is now and stay true to what you said? Plate nº2 pulled into nº1 (because of general direction and rotation/subduction) and the south-east of nº3 into nº5 because of rotation/subduction. 

I need plate nº1 and 3 to pull into each other in the north to create a high mountain range "dividing" the two plates, and plate nº2 pushing on the north-west a bit into nº1 to create some mountains would also be great, thus my present proposal.

I also need volcanic islands on the south of plates 1 and 3 for colonization wars, thus why I'm so insistent of putting that island chain there btw plate nº6 and 7, but you and Ned both commented I placed most of the islands in rifts. I'm not sure if you meant those islands or the random ones I had all over the map, which I've removed for now in a hidden layer till I know where they fit (except those near the coast because I see those as an extension of the land mass). Wouldn't the subduction btw nº7 and 6, and nº6 with nº5 allow the creation of those islands there?

I don' think I managed too well to respect the principle of "the main engine for plates movement is the pull towards the areas where oceanic plate is being subducted", since I needed specific scenarios to happen to get specific mountain range areas.

I also don't think I managed to avoid convergent + divergent boundaries segments, so when it's time to add the symbols I'll have to cheat a little and decide on one or another.

The islands of the pole: could I get away with saying they are isolated continental fragments that separated from the continents a long time ago and got merged with the South pole plate, or is it too much? The little islands near said pole I could place around the little subduction area btw nº7 and nº15, or nº10 and nº15, but the bigger ones? Should I just move them to the NPole where subduction actually occurs?

All that said, do you spot anything that makes you want to rip your eyes off? Or that would improve what I have, before I start laying out the symbols on the boundaries?


P.S: Sorry for the long post, I know most of you reading are busy with your own projects.

----------


## Pixie

Congrats, groovey! To my eyes, you nailed it. This is so close to finished I am truly jealous now. You have nice land shapes and fully explained by tectonics. And this map you have, with original boundaries in black and slightly colored plates after-movement, is perfect to see your reasoning.

Three minor things you can change very quickly:
- try rotating plate 4 on the opposite direction - it would be pulled into the subduction area with 5, it would diverge from 14 (14 is already diverging there) and it would explain the small gulf on its southern junction with the mainland.
- boundary between plate 2 and 3 should be much closer to the west side. That's ocean floor being created - to the west it's the actual plate 2 and is being subducted under plate 1 (meaning, it's disappearing) and to the east side it's just adding to plate 3 (meaning, it's not disappearing). After a few million years most of the existing sea floor would be part of plate 3.
- yes, the islands along the northern boundary of plate 6 are very plausible. But it is apparent that this plate is younger sea floor, bursting through the older parts of plates 1 and 5, which means it's plate 6 which stays on top, which means islands are formed on plate 6. The best place on Earth to show something similar is Tonga/Fiji... check this picture. The curvature of those boundaries needs to be opposite though (I can draw this if the wording isn't clear)

----------


## ascanius

The map looks good.  I don't see any other problems that Pixie hasn't pointed out.  Keep up the good work

----------


## groovey

Wow, I'm honestly shocked! I know I lowered the bar of realism for my map and all, but still, I didn't really think I'd do so well on my first full try (though I did a lot of editing before having this version done). 

Thanks guys, specially you, Godfather Pixie, and you have no reason to be jealous, your little penguin alone with the heightmap kicks more ass than my whole map. 

I'm feeling a bit crappy today (had a wedding party last night, not for me, and though I didn't drink my head is resenting), so I'll be sure to fix your suggestions on the map tomorrow when I'm better suited to think.

Feeling very excited though, I've been waiting about 4 years for this moment and at least it seems I'm on the right path to get a finished, decent map, thought there's still a lot to do, first of all, get the tectonic boundaries done. I don't think I have it in me to make it look as great as Akubra did, but I might try something similar and if it doesn't work I'll just keep it ugly but simple. And I forgot for a moment that I still need to place some islands in subduction areas, but that job doesn't scare me so much.

----------


## Akubra

Hey groovey, I'm joining the others in saying that your map looks wonderful and very realistic. It seems there's another word for it, but I forgot - oh wait, I've got it: it looks _groovy_!  :Wink: 

Cheers - Akubra

----------


## Pixie

Looking forward to see that "polished" map. I've been trying to create the same sort of map and although time consuming, it isn't as difficult as it seems at first sight. Just keep in mind your rotation movements when you do it.

----------


## groovey

Hello again.

I've fixed Pixie's first two suggestions, at least I hope so (let me know if boundary btw nº2 and 3 has to be even more close to the west).

About the third point, so instead of nº6 getting subducted into nº7 and 5, it's the opposite, both nº 7 and nº5 are subducted into nº6, is that right?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about the curvature of the boundaries though, is it that nº6 has to have concave boundaries instead of convex, since it's the one "eating" the other two plates?


Anyway, while I get that clarified, I worked on the boundaries and decided to use a very simplified version of the style Akubra used, without those little straight lines vertical to the boundaries, which of course make a tectonic map more realistic, but also more time consuming to make. I will add little triangles to indicate subduction on the next session, which leads me to the question I haven't been able to answer myself: 

- From what I've read and what I see in Earth's tectonic maps, in convergent boundaries not 100% of the times subduction happens. At least in maps I've seen blue lines (convergent), but without subduction triangles (which are placed in other blue areas in the same map). Is that appreciation correct? If so, what determines when subduction does occur and when not?

So here's what I got now (some boundaries around nº6, 7 and 5 are still black until I fix point nº3 Pixie pointed out in a previous post). It looks pretty 'meh' really, visually, not pretty at all to put in a book, but well, if it manages to convey the information it'll do.



(Sigh) I feel like I'm missing something very important, because right now the tectonic map is predominantly divergent, which I guess is plausible (Earth itself looks that way to me, would you say so?) but still... and I haven't been able to identify any transformation boundary (there are cases when one side of the boundary moves laterally, but the other is convergent or divergent, so together they don't create a transformation boundary), which seems very, very suspicious to me. So what is it that I'm missing?

Edit: um, just realized most transformation boundaries are in fact those little vertical lines that break up the boundaries, but not all transformation boundaries are vertical lines, are they? I'm thinking of my fab transformation boundary: the San Andreas Fault. So is it that I just don't have any of those, or I have but I don't see them?


Thanks a lot Akubra! It's weird how much I love the word "groovy", especially since it's such an American thing (and from the 60's/70's), so I love that you brought it up.

----------


## Pixie

Hi, sorry for bluntness and hurry, I am pretty busy this week. Still, like yourselves, I am enjoying watching all our efforts moving more or less simultaneously.

On your questions, groovey:
- yes, concave instead of convex.
- some maps of Earth's plates have different representations for subduction (oceanic plates sinking) and obduction (two continental plates, neither sinks, they bend and rise) - the one Akubra referred to the other way is such a case. Careful when comparing maps, I don't think there's an established color code.
- I don't see any huge transform fault in your map, but at least part of the 4/3 boundary should be transform.

- You do have one huge ring of fire, by the way. About half around plate 5 and all the northern side of plate 6 are a very long subduction region, lots of small islands and volcanic mountain ranges should pop up in there. The islands between 8 and 9 will also be volcanic.

----------


## groovey

No need to apologize for being brief. I feel bad enough for needing your help so much, specially when you have your own project going on. Plus, you managed to solve my doubts, so thank you once again.

Awesome, I have a ring of fire. I mean, I suspected a little that I had the potential to have one, specially after watching one documentary on Earth's ring of fire, but I guess I kind of delayed checking my map for one in case I didn't, because I would have been very disappointed.

Well, I'm off to work a bit more on the map.

----------


## groovey

Another little update, thankfully advancing forward a little.



I edited just a bit of boundary btw nº11 and 12, and nº11 and 10 and moved the boundary btw 12 and 1 a bit to be more centred. I also edited a bit my original volcanic islands btw 8 and 9 so they actually stay on the right side...

Apart from that the major change is on the south-east part. I made nº6 concave and broke nº7 in two plates, that is, nº16 broke off nº7, so 16 is moving away from 7 and getting subducted by 15 and 6 (on the side). Does that make sense? I can make changes easily enough if really needed.

I added subduction zones on convergent boundaries when I thought they were mandatory, and I left a few convergent segments without subduction where I though wouldn't be mandatory, if only to have a bit of diversity, or when it was continental/continental. I guess the tectonic map is a bit bland visually with so many divergent boundaries.

I also added volcanic subduction island chains, and also a volcanic island btw nº 1 and 14 not created by subduction but mirroring Iceland's creation, but I don't know if it's actually plausible where I've placed it. Would it have to happen in the mid oceanic ridge btw 1 and 12 instead? 

What about the subduction island chains? Too many islands? Not enough?

Then I have an issue with a non volcanic island I've awkwardly placed on plate nº7. The issue is I'd kind of need it there so that the Empire on plate nº1 has a similar advantage than that of south of nº3 to get to the islands chain in the south, by shortening the purely ocean travel time (I'm aware other factors influence travel time and routes). 

The problem is: how did that isolated island end up there? My reasoning is that it was chopped off (by a rift of course) the south-east of plate nº1, where there's that big "bay", and swirled down, but I don't think it makes any sense at all with the current plates configuration; so could I get away with saying that the chopped bit ended up in 7 in a previous tectonic configuration, or it doesn't make sense anyway?


I'd appreciate any opinions and see if I can settle all this and move one to get the basic terrain and hot spots outline ready, that is: roughly indicating volcanic areas (seismic hot spots would be nice too, but since I don't have many transformation boundaries I guess it won't be as heavy as in Earth), current mountain ranges being created, and also old ones.

I have to say, after all, I'm glad I got the map back to the working table for the second time to re-do the tectonic map. It was very frustrating and I wasn't sure that I'd be able to pull it off, to be honest (at one point I felt completely lost), and yes I've spent quite a bit of time doing it, but I feel like it has paid off, so I'm really happy for that, even if any of you think I've yet things to polish on the tectonics (don't hesitate to tell me if you do).

EDIT: just noticed that the little volcanic island on the north of the east side of plate 5 (big oceanic one) is on the wrong side of the boundary, I'll fix that for the next update.

Game time: can anybody spot the two islands I ruthlessly plagiarized from good ol' Earth?

----------


## Akubra

Really nice map groovey! I love the big island arc in the southeast and the one between plates 8 and 9. Very realistic!

I must say that I am a bit confused about plate 16. If it moves away from 7 that would mean it moves in a roughly southwestern direction, right? As far as I can see 6 is moving northwards. So how can you have a subduction zone between 16 and 6? Unless I'm missing something I'd say it would be a transform fault, no?

I can't see anything wrong with the island between 1 and 14. To me, the number of islands you drew near subduction zones seem plausible. On Earth there are also subduction zones with few islands and others with many (cfr. Indonesia).

Another explanation for the island on plate 7 could be that it is a "failed continent", lying on a large continental shelf that is mainly under sea level.

I'm very glad it works out well for you! There's a lot of work involved, but if you're happy with the result (and you've got every reason to be!) all that work certainly pays off in the end. Excellent job!

Oh, and yes, I've recognized the two islands. Not sure if I can mention them here, let me do it in a cryptical way: 2 and 3. No, these numbers have nothing to do with the plate numbering, but with a way of numbering here on Earth, even in two different ways... Hope that wasn't too cryptic!

Cheers - Akubra

----------


## Pixie

groovey, I'm sorry - I misled you about the curvature on plate 6. You had it right from the start (the curvature, but the placement of the islands is right as it is now).

The island-arcs have a nice density of islands but.. they don't look like arcs in most cases - see the aleutians or the kuril islands for text-book examples.

Overall, however, you've got a terrible amount of divergent boundaries. I'm not totally convinced by that, that much oceanic crust has to be consumed somewhere.

----------


## groovey

Thanks for your comments, you were both right with your points, nº16 did need a different general direction coherent with nº7, and there was more crust created by divergency than it was destroyed by convergency, and equilibrium between those two processes is a key factor, so I tried to fix those two things. 



Did I though? Do I still need more subduction zones? It's hard for me to tell visually and today I'm in a bit of a hurry and I don't think I'll have time to work on the map anymore, but I can rearrange things a bit more if necessary to create more convergent boundaries. 

For example, I could divide plate nº11 in two on the west of the continent, creating yet another oceanic smaller plate which could create more subduction segments, either with nº5 and nº15, or even with nº11 and the other two mentioned if it's moving towards nº11 and rotating south-east anti clock-wise.

Do nº16 and 7 make more sense now?

Pixie, do I need to change the curvature of nº6 then? I have a copy saved of that shape, so I can easily put it back, but if the current shape is also "correct", I'd keep it. Does it mean then that the side "eating" another plate is usually convex, or it was only a particular observation for plate nº6?

EDIT: Pixie, I think you kind of answered to this in ascanius's thread: "[...] you have to consider the same reasoning when placing the subduction between the two oceanic plates that are converging. The one that is "sinking" should be disappearing, hence, should be narrower". So basically yes, as a good rule of thumb, since the side of the plate getting subducted should be shrinking, it would have the concave shape when the boundary is curvy, would that be right?

I'm not sure I understand very well about the islands, even after looking at map pictures of many of them. You mean that instead of following so much the outline of the boundary, they should be more linearly arched?

----------


## Pixie

Hi groovey, today I have little present for you - something I scribbled in 30 mins. It's three drawn "tips". Since you have adopted me as the "grandfather" of your project and since I want to see you done with this bit and moving on, here's some ideas:


This is the same sort of issue we were discussing with ascanius map - the age of the oceanic crust and where to place the divergent rise of new rocks in relation to limits of the ocean. If it subducts on one side and not on the other, the two sides can't be of equal width.



I think I pretty covered what I mean with the text boxes. Alternatively to this suggestion, you can have a larger chunk of land, which would have been part of the main continent long ago. This would add, potentially another continent (which could be quite thin), with a long string of volcanic mountains on one side and a passive (lowland) margin on the other, so I suspect it goes against your planned story plot.


Lastly, I hope this image ends with our mess about which curvature to draw between two plates in subduction areas. I haven't been doing the best job with words on this, so maybe a drawing settles it once and for all. And, as for your question, yes, I mean that subduction areas should be more linearly arched that what you have on a number of places.

I need to say though, all this is refinement of your already good-and-running model. Overall plates distribution and movement is fine as it is.

----------


## groovey

Very nice present Pixie, and great timing! Only days away from my birthday. Thank you, sincerely, and it means even more knowing you're a busy person and that you are working hard on your own project.

Yesterday's boundaries btw nº8 and 9:


Curvature changed:


So, apart from dividing in two plate nº11 as I mentioned, I've done a lot of polishing that may not even be very noticeable, basically boundaries' shapes, so they were more rounded, and I also changed some boundaries Euler's pole to get more subduction segment (this is especially true for nº 5 on the east and btw nº1 and 3, which now give me another very welcomed orogeny zone in the south). I hope it paid off and I didn't mess everything instead. 

I also tried to apply Pixie's suggestions as best as I could.

I know that the boundary btw nº9 and 8 should be curved the other way around, but I don't have it in me to do it today, because I'm exhausted, so hopefully I'll be able to change it on the next session, and hopefully without messing the already existing dynamic there. EDIT: changed it and posted the updated map in this very post. I reckon visually it looked better before, but well, I guess now it's more correct, isn't it?

How is the map looking now? Better, or did I mess it up even more?

Also, don't I still have too much red going on?

----------


## groovey

Forgot about my little game! Akubra, I have no idea of what you mean by those cryptic numbers, I tried to do some searches about it, but found nothing conclusive. What's the mystery about those numbers all about? What are they? 

The fun thing about those two islands I stole from Eath is that after doing so, I completely forgot about it, so when I checked Google Earth days later looking for islands chains in the west pacific, I stumbled upon them and was a bit shocked at first and was like: "wow that looks a lot like one of my big islands!", until I remembered what I did... and felt a bit silly.

----------


## Akubra

Hey groovey, I feared that the numbers might be too cryptic. OK, here's the explanation:

In order of area, the islands you copied are the 2nd and 3rd largest on Earth (if we take Greenland as the largest)The 2nd largest is divided between 2 independent countries (Indonesia and Papua New Guinea), and the 3rd largest is divided between 3 independent countries (Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei)
The islands are New Guinea and Borneo. Correct?

Cheers - Akubra

[EDIT] But now that I'm looking again, I also see Sumatra and Java. So you have copied 4 islands and not 2!...

[EDIT2] No, I'm sorry, Sumatra and Java were on a previous map, not on the latest...

----------


## Pixie

Pretty good, I think. Your "excess of red" comes from the polar plates (in my opinion) - try projecting those two using G.Projector and a stereographic projection. You'll see how awkward are their borders. Also, plate 5 is weird as it is now, but if you fix the poles, it might be fixed as well without effort.

----------


## groovey

@Akubra! Correct! And I don't even remember about having plagiarized two more even on previous versions! Since one doesn't have to worry about copyrights and and such when it comes from stealing Earth's shapes... I'll check the maps again and see if I spot the islands I didn't even remember. Oh my, the map feels a bit cheap now... I basically had to fill the map with little land masses because it was too empty, so I opted for an easy solution and just got things from Earth without any editing to make it less obvious, wish I had put more thought on in, but now I'm not going back to work on land masses shapes again, I need to keep going.

@Pixie, yes, the poles have been nagging me for a few days, since I checked them on G Projector, and I wasn't sure what to do with them because it gets confusing on the edges, but I'll have a look and see if I can figure out something without changing much, but it might be hard, specially since on the north pole I'd like to keep the subduction area on the west, but well.

----------


## Pixie

I don't think you can fix them without changes in the other plates or changes in the land masses. I mean, the south pole is fixable if the land mass is close to plates 10 and 11 and "eating up" that oceanic crust. That would make the area where it borders plate 5 and 6 the most active in terms of crust making. As for the north pole, make it move away from the triple junction with plate 1 and 2, with an euler pole somewhere within pole 2 and you get exactly what you want. You will even get a lot of subduction of plate 5 (and that could be an area with old submerged continental crust and some island arc), which agrees with its active divergent boundary being close to the south pole .

There's one principle you need to keep in mind (this one is very important): A boundary that "generates" a lot of new crust on one its plates is also generating a lot of crust on the other one - meaning, strong divergent areas have plates moving in opposite directions.

----------


## groovey

@Pixie: awkward, I just came to post my latest fix and see if it worked, could you take a look at it and tell me if it works or it would be better with what you suggest on the last post?

You were even more right than I first thought when I read your "second post ago", nº5 rotation didn't match on both sides, and the poles needed matching borders on the sides and some reconsideration (restored nº15 to its previous version, rotating anti clockwise). Did I get it eight this time?



My fear now is, don't I have more subduction than crust creation now?

EDIT: forgot the poles, I know the rotation colors in the poles don't match from side to side, but you get the idea looking at the boundaries colours, I hope.


It's ok if I've to keep working on it a bit more, I do a lot of deep breathing each time I think about it and do other things while I wait for feedback, but yeah, I'm sorry for you guys, you must be so extremely bored with my tectonic map by now, don't blame ya.

EDIT 2: oh boy, re-reading your last post, I didn't have in mind that last principle at all, sadly. Now I fear looking back at my map and see how much I messed up in that aspect.

EDIT 3: ok I looked, it's horrible and I'm scared to touch anything because altering one plate alters the other, etc, and I have no idea of how to make everything match with that principle and the others unless I start form the beginning all over again, which would be terrible considering all the time we've spent trying to make this one work.

----------


## Pixie

> EDIT 3: ok I looked, it's horrible and I'm scared to touch anything because altering one plate alters the other, etc, and I have no idea of how to make everything match with that principle and the others unless I start form the beginning all over again, which would be terrible considering all the time we've spent trying to make this one work.


Don't panic  :Smile: 
Sometimes, it's just a matter of changing location of plate boundaries, or adding micro-plates to "absorb" the mess-up. It does take a lot of time "staring" at it to see the right movement, sometimes, but it's always workable.
And you've got nice spreading areas in your map - the junction between plates 1 and 2 and between the southpolar and plate 5.

----------


## groovey

Sigh. I think I need a little break from the map to get over this. Ugh, I thought I was so close... just like the last time, and just like then I fell into the Mariana's Trench again. Need to make my way to the surface once more before I have the strength to fix all that's wrong with the tectonic map. Then  (might be a week, a month, or who knows, whenever I get over it) I think I'll try to start all over again keeping in mind all Pixie has taught me.

So Pixie, Akubra and ascanius (since our projects are a bit on the same mindset, not trying to leave anyone else out), I hope you keep going with your maps so I least I can get some consolation with seeing you all succeed. I'll be keeping an eye on them.

----------


## Akubra

Hey groovey, if it's any consolation, I feel the same about what I'm doing right now (winds and climate map). It feels like I'm on a rudderless ship going in all directions at once. Give it some time, take that break, and when you're ready take a look at your project from a distance. It'll help seeing a solution you don't yet see at this time. I'm sure you'll see light again at the end of the "tectonic tunnel"!

Cheers - Akubra

----------


## ascanius

Hey groovey.  However bad you think it is, it isn't.  I plugged your map into gplates and fiddled around a little.  I tried to match your original movements as closely as possible and I only did your continents and so far I can easily match almost all your plate boundaries with gplates.  The only thing I changed without hesitation are the Euler poles, I've noticed the poles are rarely on the actual plate but two plates over or in some cases on the horizon.  Like the poles for 1 and 8 I put in plate 12 to create an even spreading of the two plates.  So far I think I could map out your map in gplates and match the original pretty closely.

Good luck

----------


## groovey

Thanks for the encouragement fellas. 

Ascanius, how very interesting, thanks for sharing than info about my map in Gplates, surprised to hear it held up so decently.

Though I am taking a break from working on the actual map, in the back of my mind I'm subtly thinking of ways to fix the mess and still debating if I should try to make the current version work making some changes in Euler Poles, boundaries and rotation and adding microplates as Pixie suggested, or starting a new version loosely based on the current one. We'll see.

----------


## groovey

Hello again!

Well, the other day I got very demotivated about the whole thing as you know, so I took a little break, for about 24h... Feel like a drama queen now. 

Anyway, I wasn't planning to, but yesterday after writing my last post I opened the map in PShop just to take a casual look and play around with it in hope of deciding if I could fix the current model or I should start from scratch, and one thing led to another and now I got another version of the map (just the rotation, I won't do the boundaries till I get a finished working model). 



I started fixing the poles and nº1 and 3 (for the novel), and then worked my way into the rest, altering boundaries' shapes when needed and adding micro plates (ugly blobs, I know) to correct inconsistencies. I tried to keep in mind:

- General direction of the plates.
- According to that, what rotation would make more sense (towards a subduction zone).
- Avoid divergent + convergent boundaries, though in some areas, like south of nº1 and 3 with nº7, they are divergent but because of the rotation they don't seem to retract from the boundary as much/fast and nº7, which I guess is not consistent, but I didn't see how to fix it, considering I need 1 and 3 to clash into each other while being consistent with the rest of the plates they border.

What I reckon I didn't have in mind, and I guess it's significant, is how ALL the plates came to be (some I know), which one separated from which one in such, so I hope the map it's not all messed up because of that.


Please note:

- A few more of the Euler Poles are now out of the plates, so it might a bit confusing to find them, but they're not far from the plate they belong to.

- The numbers of the plates are much more out of order than before, result of adding and deleting plates as I needed, so for example now plate nº2 is somewhere else.

- nº19 and nº12 happen to share Euler pole, basically because I realized nº12's worked for nº19.


So, how does it look now? Does this version work? Any major or minor issues?

----------


## ascanius

Hey Groovy, seeing that our mentor has a busy schedule right now looks like were going to have to pick up the slack, hopefully we learned enough to walk on our own two feet.  

I took a look at your map and almost everything looks good to me.  One way you could fix the boundaries between 1, 3, and 7 is to extend the divergent boundary between plates 23 and 3 down to plate 6 cutting in half plate 7.  leave the right side as plate seven basically the way it now and on the left side extend plate 1 and 23 down to plate 6.

Also don't be afraid to break up plate five if you need to it is huge and it will also give you some space if you need it.

One other thing, this is what I do to get the east and west sides to line up.  I take my origianl image and add two inches.  I then copy the right (or left) side and paste it to the opposite side.  I then change the lines and make general adjustments to make sure they line up.  I noticed this might be of use to you do get the boundaries of the polar plates 14 and 15 to line up with each other, cuz right now they don't.  It will also most likely mean that your boundaries near the boarders are going to change a little.

I did a paint over to give you an idea of what you could possibly do.


Best of luck

----------


## groovey

Hi ascanius, thanks for taking the time to illustrate your suggestions, I agree it's a very neat solution, but what worries me is that plate nº23, Pixie (see post #43 and replace nº2 by 23) told me, helps explaining that triangle shaped sea btw 1 and 3, so I'm not sure altering 23 like that wouldn't mess up with that sea's origin?

----------


## ascanius

> Hi ascanius, thanks for taking the time to illustrate your suggestions, I agree it's a very neat solution, but what worries me is that plate nº23, Pixie (see post #43 and replace nº2 by 23) told me, helps explaining that triangle shaped sea btw 1 and 3, so I'm not sure altering 23 like that wouldn't mess up with that sea's origin?


I don't think it would mess up plate 23.  It's that southern portion that is being subducted by plate 6 but plate 23, 7 and 3 are still spreading apart.  I think of it along a timeline.  First that divergent boundary forms pushing apart those two plates.  then the divergent boundary forms south of plate 6 pushing it north where it subductes the southern part of plate 23 as time passes the last divergent boundary to from is that between plate 7 and 3.

I don't know if that makes any sense but that's the way I look at it.

----------


## groovey

Yeah, I guess it could work just as well. I'm terribly busy these days, so I'll fix that when I have the time. 

Thanks!

----------


## ascanius

yeah, I hope it works,  I might be out of it for a few days to a week.  Managed to f'up my wrist arm wrestling and i'm not a lefty.

----------


## Pixie

Hi again groovey (and co.)

Here's my take on plates 23/6/7: either leave plate 7 as it is in groovey's version, and that point between 23, 7 and 3 is a divergent triple point (which is very plausible) or... prolong the oceanic ridge (like ascanius suggests) but have a continental land mass at the north end of plate 6, this could be a breakaway portion of the continent on plate 15, and provide the islands groovey wants for his novel.
I think groovey's solution - the triple point - seems better balanced.

All the rest looks very good. I am going to have a look at your plate movements with a stereographic projection, groovey, once I have the time, but at first sight, everything seems fitting to me.

----------


## groovey

Hello Pixie! 

Glad to hear from you again, and glad to hear the new version of the map it's working, even if it needs polishing. I'll appreciate you doing that check up, but don't feel pressured to hurry, I'm a bit busy these days anyway, and I've also started to revise the outline for the novel, which takes some work too, so I've got stuff to do while you have the time to do the checkup. 

By the way, Pixie, with the revised outline, turns out the continent on plate nº9 plays a much bigger role as a setting than I initially thought, so now I'm even more glad than I already was about your first suggestion for nº9/8 and the islands in between, many pages ago.

About plates 23/6/7: I like how ascanius' suggestion would allow me to have a small land mass so near plate 1, would be juicy for world-building purposes for the novel, but if the current version works and since I get volcanic islands btw 7 and 6 to help with the novel's purposes, I'll just leave it, if only because right now I haven't got much free time to play around with it. Thanks you two for helping me to figure out that area.

----------


## su_liam

Good work!

I have to question one thing from your first post, which I don't think has been brought up.
I assume, when you said Fedgëa has a diameter of 40,000 km, you meant equatorial radius. That would be pretty earthlike. A 40,000 km _diameter_ would be tres hugenormous. Not earthlike at all, and to have human-habitable surface conditions would probably require some unphysical assumptions.

Otherwise, looking very good.

----------


## groovey

Hello su_liam! 

Thanks a lot for pointing that out! I had completely missed that. I'm going to edit that right now.

And thanks for the compliment. I love your blog, by the way, great resource and with links to other great resources, congratulations, not everyone manages to have a truly interesting and useful blog.


Also, I was checking the tectonic map in PShop and then I checked it with the rotation colors on G. Projector, and I'm confused about what's going on at the poles, I suppose because even with ascanius suggestion I'm not sure of how to represent the rotation so that both sides of the poles match without making the change of shape so sudden and weird. What's going on with boundaries btw plate nº5 on both sides and plate 14 and 15? Is the boundary of plate nº5 with nº14 (North Pole) 100% divergent and 100% convergent with nº15 (South Pole) as I thought?

--------------North Pole---------------------------South Pole (Stereographic projections)




Edit: I polished some curvatures on some plates and fixed two issues:

- Added a nº24 microplate under nº4 because on its south it was divergent but nº5 was convergent with it, so it wasn't right.
- Boundary btw nº22 and 11 was a bit messy, so I polished it.

So Pixie, I hope you didn't start doing that check-up yet so you can do it with the little changes, but if you have, since said changes aren't that significant, don't mind them. But honestly, if you are very busy and you think as it is there's nothing terribly wrong with it, just let me know (I know my tectonic model is far from perfect and could be improved giving it a bit more though, but at this point I'm good with a model that works and it's consistent within itself and overall with how tectonics work or Earth).

Edit 2: I had a bit of time, so I quickly set the boundaries colors for the current map, to get a feeling of the balance btw blue (convergent) and red (divergent), so if I need to fix things on the rotation map it's ok, the boundary colors map it's easy to edit.



I know that according to the curvature of nº13 with 12 it should subduct the other way, but since it's a oceanic + continental boundary (with a bit of continental/continental), logic would dictate oceanic sinks under continental, hence why the subduction circles point to nº12. I know that to make it more accurate the coast of nº12 there should be more plain, but I'm willing to live with that, it's one of the issues to face when you have the land masses before the tectonics.

----------


## Pixie

Haven't started yet, so don't worry. 

But I am about to take your map and have a good look at that plate 5, on a stereographic projection centered on it - I suspect it might be surprising.... I'll post back in 30 mins or so.  :Wink: 

...
...
(EDIT) 45 mins later...

(EDIT 2) a couple of hours later.... scrap everything I had posted here before, it was wrong, my bad, will redo it asap  :Wink: 
I just deleted it

----------


## Pixie

So, I have done it correctly now, I hope. The problem with the original analysis was that I was considering only the euler pole you marked and not its symmetrical pole (for computing the rotation of the part of the plate on the other hemisphere - but never mind the geometry issues, you've got plenty on your plate)

So, here's my take:

I think the movement is pretty easy to visualize, those sequences of little circles give a general idea of direction and speed. I can explain my workflow on a different thread if people are interested.


As you can see, your work is pretty consistent, congrats. One boundary of plate 5 needs change - it's northern boundary, where it looks to be transform, but it will depend on the polar plate.
The only place where it definitely doesn't fit, in my opinion, is with plate 22. As plate 5 spreads away, so should plate 22 in the opposite direction. Hence, 22 is pushed towards the continent to the east. You could also look at plate 17 again...

Finally, the northeastern tip of plate 5 with plate 12... I can't really make see how that corner is working. Crust being formed on the the NW boundaries, but plate 12 moving westward... hmm  :Confused:  you may me better off extending the north pole plate into that area.

So, overall, the devil is in the details as you know. The large plates look alright, but the microplates between them still need some ironing out.

----------


## Akubra

Ah, I was working on a reply offline, but Pixie beat me  :Wink: 

Anyway, I'm going to post it here as is. Here's what I see:

North Pole:
- 14/5 = convergent (divergent on your map)
- 14/4 = convergent (ok)
- 14/18 = convergent (ok)
- 14/1 = transform (convergent on your map)
- 14/12 = divergent (ok)

South Pole
- 15/6 = divergent (ok)
- 15/16 = divergent (ok)
- 15/10 = convergent (ok)
- 15/19 = convergent (ok)
- 15/17 = convergent (ok)
- 15/5 = convergent, but changing into transform towards the western part (divergent on your map)

Additional question:
15/10 and 15/19 are both divergent but 15 goes over 10, but under 19. I now know it is because of the curvature, but is that possible? It seems like 15 is ripping in two at the tripoint 15/10/19. This also happens with 14, going under 18, but over 4. One of my plates (Yirral) has the same thing happening to it, and I was wondering if it's ok. Looking at the Earth's tectonic map I see two places where something similar is happening, but with one crucial difference: there is a short transform fault in between. (The two places are the Western Aleutians and on both sides of New Zealand's South Island - see this map)

Cheers - Akubra

----------


## groovey

Oh my, Pixie! That's an amazing view of plate 5 and surroundings, I can see much clearer what you mean. Thanks a lot for taking the time to do that for me, I really appreciated. And I agree 100% about those damned details, they're a pain in the ass, but necessary to fix.

Thanks you too Akubra for such a clear answer on the poles and the plates they touch. I see what you mean with the last issue. I'm not sure at all about it. At one point when doing one of my first tectonic maps I wondered about it, if the triangles/circles had to point always in the same direction through the whole plate, and ultimately what I got as a rule checking for a while that map you linked was: when a plate has a subduction boundary with more than one plate, with each plate the direction can be the same or the other way around, depending, I reasoned, of relative speed and which side of the oceanic + oceanic boundary happened to be heavier or lighter, factors which would allow me a bit of freedom with it.

But to be honest, I basically made that up on my own and I guess there's more than that to have in mind. So I'd like to know too. To make it easier I might just change the circles to point to the same direction, but it'd be nice to know what the rules are for that. Edit: checking again the map... yep, it looks as I'm going to have to change the direction of some circles for sure...

Anyway, thanks again guys, you gave me plenty to work on tomorrow.

Edit: trying to fins any lead to an answer about the direction of the triangles doubt we have, I have found nothing conclusive really, just this particular non specific mention to our problem in the wiki article(Theory on origin): "A model of the initiation of subduction, based on analytic and analogue modeling, presumes that the difference of *density* between two adjacent lithospheric slabs is *sufficient* to lead to the initiation of subduction", and so, one could simplify that to justify the subduction symbols to point opposing directions along the same convergent boundary, but sadly doesn't address our specific question. I'm going to try and find a better answer.

----------


## groovey

Ok, so here we go again!



"Major" changes:

WEST:

- Plates 13/12 got the boundary fixed to make sense with nº5, and nº13 got a new Euler pole.

- Plate 5: corrected the western boundary to be 100% divergent.

- old Plate 22: got a major overhaul since it didn't fit once I cut nº5's section with 11. That area is a bit awkward because you can see the square like shape resulting from cutting that bit from nº5, so it looks a bit off to me, but I can live with it as long as the micro-plates it contains (24-27) work fine.

- Plate 17: boundaries fixed and new Euler pole position.

- new Plate 22: created to fix boundary btw nº17 and 11 so it's not convergent + divergent.


EAST:

- old plate 24 is gone because nº4 got a new Euler pole so the micro-plate wasn't needed there.

- Plate 4 also got an opposite curvature with nº14.

- Plate 18 also got a new Euler pole and a bit more of surface so its curvature matches nº4's.

- Plate 10 now has an outward curvature with 15.


I think that's all.

Well, now plate 5's boundary with 14 is a transform one, and so it's most of it on 5 with 15, except for a little bit on the west where the little bump is, which in stereographic projection, if I try to visualize the rotation, looks convergent.






So, how's it looking? Anything to fix?

----------


## Pixie

As always, positives and negatives.. Not sure about the mess left after breaking up plate 22, but the corrections on the NE corner make that area more plausible. The south pole is perfect, don't touch it again, the north pole not so much, it should move towards plates 1 and 18 (away from 12).

A major issue you still have in some places is the location of divergent boundaries very close to continental borders... that's hard to explain when the other side of that boundary is a long stretch of oceanic crust.

----------


## Akubra

I don't have much time right now, but I think I agree with Pixie about the poles. South Pole's ok, but I have trouble seeing the reason for a transform boundary between 14/5. 14 is now moving towards 5, so it should be a convergent boundary. If you change the direction of 14 and make it move towards 1 and 18 (as Pixie suggests) then I have no problem with the transform boundary.

Cheers - Akubra

----------


## Cuin

Sorry if I repeat any previous points (long thread!)

Have you considered any plate to be inert? The African plate nearly remains in place while other plates move away from it. If plate 14 was inert then a transform boundary between 14 and 5 would be fine. However, such a stable plate would probably have to be centered on a large stable craton, which doesn't appear to fit for plate 14.

My other impression is that the large number of plates (nearly double the number of plates on Earth) over-complicate your map. Sometimes less is more. 

Divergent margins can be close to subduction zones even if the width of the ocean is asymmetrical about the spreading center. On Earth, the Juan de Fuca and Cocos plates are actually the same plate (Farallon Plate). A divergent margin between the Pacific and Farallon plates was subducted underneath the N.A. plate. This was how the San Andreas transform began. 

Another detail is that divergent boundaries do not form in straight lines. They are staggered by abundant transform faults. This comes down to some physics that I haven't really looked into, but there is a maximum length of divergent boundary that is stable before it becomes segmented. Here is a picture. At a global scale this feature is visible, so if you're going for realism I would add a stepwise nature to your divergent boundaries.

Back to an earlier post, I don't see why plate boundaries are necessarily independent of N-S magnetic poles. That is actually a very neat question. Earth's dynamo is caused by movement in the outer core, which very well could be tied to convection of the mantle and thus plate margins. 

Anyhow, I really like your project! Keep it up.

----------


## groovey

@Pixie, interesting, I had assumed (big mistake when it comes to science in general) that in oceanic/continental boundary it wasn't necessary to watch out for that like with continental/continental, but it does.

Just curious, since I noticed on the boundaries' map I kept a bit of boundary 5/15 on the west convergent, but in the South pole projection I had it all in yellow, when you guys say the south pole is ok as it is, how do you mean, 100% transform or with the little convergent zone?

Hello Cuin, thanks for dropping by. Long and I guess very repetitious thread indeed for newcomers just looking for results, can't blame them. I hadn't considered an inert plate at all, I didn't even know/remember about that trait of the African one. I wouldn't have minded 14 being inert if it meant simplifying things, but there must be some specific rules or conditions for a plate to be inert, wouldn't it? I guess you can't just say, this plate is inert so it doesn't rotate or move, or can you?

I agree I might have gone a bit overhead with the number of plates. My original idea was to have about 12-14, but then one need lead to a certain situation, which required new plate divisions and micro-plates... and well. Plus when I had just about a dozen of them the model looked too simple, like a facebook game (no offense, I've played some in the past for a bit) compared to a robust PC game. Look at ascanius, Akubra or Pixie's projects, they have about the same volume of plates and their models look amazing. Of course, they have a level of understanding and execution I don't have, so they make it work and look realistic while I probably just make it look crowded and unnecessarily over-complicated. I guess that my point is you might be right in my case, but having 20-30 plates can work if you've got the skills, so it's not always a negative thing. EDIT: I'm not sure anymore why I'm "arguing", since you never say having more than a dozen plates over-complicates maps in general, just mine in particular, to which I'm actually bound to agree since I can't pull it off too well. 

Lastly, unfortunately, I abandoned any aspiration for visual realism a while ago, as it's too much for me to handle. I know divergent boundaries are not continuous, but to be honest I opted not to do them because (please read in 100% casual informative tone, because it might sound defensive, but it's not meant to):

1. Takes more work and time, that's why I use circles instead of triangles.

2. They don't really add much more information to my purposes, the boundary is mainly divergent.

3. My tectonic map is not really meant to add to my still empty gallery, it's 100% for information and terrain purposes to myself, so I've accepted it'll look ugly and rough, but as long as it fulfills its purpose I'm ok with that.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.

----------


## Pixie

Hey groovey.

As promised, I took your map to have an "fresh" look. I kept as close as possible to what you had been doing, but in some places, to reduce micro-plates, I changed the movement of larger plates or moved land masses. The following is a rough map using your color codes. I think every place is plausible as it is, but you guys tell me what you think.


This is a poor-resolution-version. Send me a personal message so we can transfer the actual work files.

Also, this was the first time I used the program g.plates and wow, I am convinced! Forget the stereographic projections, the layer rotations, etc.. It took me an hour or so to learn how to define the shape of a plate , how to set an absolute euler pole for it and to see it rotating. Then I also noticed it can draw "small circles" and that makes it absolutely easy for figuring out the path of every point.
It was so easy that I am now using it to review my stuff as well...

----------


## groovey

Woa, it looks super cool! 

At last I get to have proper transformation boundaries. I like your model a lot. 

I'm so excited to see my baby darling like this, it looks much more organic than I ever would have managed. I can't wait to get my hands on it to polish it off (visually, I wouldn't touch any of your work, it looks perfect). Since you made it so easy for me to do so, I will add the transformation bits to the divergent boundaries, heck, I might even stop being so lazy and do proper subduction triangles instead of circles. The color scheme hasn't convinced me for a while either, so I might come up with another and then add to the map a small area saying which color is what.

I can't thank you enough; I would have been stuck in this phase of the map forever.


If you are going to revise your tectonics too, perhaps it would be interesting (it would be for me) for you to post how your tectonic map was before you worked with G plates, to see how much of a difference it makes with one system or another, what do you think? I know working with G plates will probably make you apply changes that won't be comparable between the two versions of your tectonics, but still, I think it could be very interesting to see what changes g. plates leads you to.


EDIT: I'm also incredibly glad you could use my map to learn about g. plates, so you got something out of it too.

----------


## Pixie

Glad you liked it.

I think I will do a little tutorial about the way I used g.plates... that and finish the tutorial on climates... that once I finish my again-being-revisited tectonics map.  :Smile:  Uff... so much to do.

----------


## ascanius

> Hey groovey.
> 
> As promised, I took your map to have an "fresh" look. I kept as close as possible to what you had been doing, but in some places, to reduce micro-plates, I changed the movement of larger plates or moved land masses. The following is a rough map using your color codes. I think every place is plausible as it is, but you guys tell me what you think.
> 
> Attachment 65260
> This is a poor-resolution-version. Send me a personal message so we can transfer the actual work files.
> 
> Also, this was the first time I used the program g.plates and wow, I am convinced! Forget the stereographic projections, the layer rotations, etc.. It took me an hour or so to learn how to define the shape of a plate , how to set an absolute euler pole for it and to see it rotating. Then I also noticed it can draw "small circles" and that makes it absolutely easy for figuring out the path of every point.
> It was so easy that I am now using it to review my stuff as well...


Looking good.  Nice to see you trying out gplates.  It's really handy.  Didn't know about the circles though.  I don't know if you used this feature but you can have divergent boundaries auto adjust between two plates so they remain exactly in the center regardless of movements.  it's handy.

@ Groovey.  I was starting to feel the same way about my own map, that I would keep doing it forever, started doing the climate map to take a break from the tectonic map.  I'm waiting to see your next update.

----------


## Pixie

> Looking good.  Nice to see you trying out gplates.  It's really handy.  Didn't know about the circles though.


I actually only used g.plates to visualize present movement of plates - basically, working out the best euler pole for what I wanted. Then I used that euler pole coordinates as the center for small circles which was very helpful. The only features I defines were closed-plate-boundaries and I didn't use time-dependent stuff. In all honesty, that side of g.plates, which I am sure is amazing, is still beyond my ability.

----------


## groovey

Well, this is what I got out of Pixie's revision of my tectonics. I hope I didn't mess up anything, since what I had left to do was the easy part, though I wouldn't be surprised if I managed to.



The boundaries with Pixie's original outline under it, for check-ups.



After cleaning out the land shapes outlines and the boundaries that Pixie passed me, I used a different tone of blue for convergent boundaries, but red is still divergent and yellow transformation.

I did find the will to make divergent boundaries "broken" in bits, but not to use triangles instead of circles.

Then I added or edited the subduction islands. Do they look alright? Too many? Too few?

And that's about it.


Question, is there any plausible way to add some (non-volcanic) small island/s to make the south of plate 1 closer to the islands chain along nº6 and 7? I mean, the poor fellas controlling than land aren't great navigators, on open sea at least, they're much better at coastal navigation.

Also, how about convergent boundaries near coastlines? For example 5/1, in the scale of the map the boundary is roughly 200/300 Km from the coast. So would that boundary cause mountains to be created on that coast? Or is it too far?

How about the boundary on the left pointy end of nº16 with 19?


I must say I love the new tectonic map, visually it looks more attractive than the past ones, I think.


EDIT: re-posted the tectonics map, now with purple to indicate continental/continental convergence.

EDIT 2: Arrrg, just noticed a few little islands are on the wrong side of subduction, going to fix that.

----------


## Cuin

> Also, how about convergent boundaries near coastlines? For example 5/1, in the scale of the map the boundary is roughly 200/300 Km from the coast. So would that boundary cause mountains to be created on that coast? Or is it too far?


I see no reason why not, if fact this is what Japan is. It is a somewhat common tectonic phenomenon called a back arc basin where a small spreading zone forms behind a convergent zone and you get something like Japan. Also, you can get subduction in the middle of the ocean in which case you would have an island arc like the Aleutian islands.

An inert plate probably would require that there was no subduction of the inert plate on any border. This is because sinking slabs have a strong force that pulls the entire plate. This is known as 'slab pull'. Subduction of another plate under an inert plate, transform, or divergent boundaries shouldn't cause problems if you want a plate to be 'motionless'. 

I think the added transforms on the divergent boundaries look great! I like the color scheme as well. 




> Question, is there any plausible way to add some (non-volcanic) small island/s to make the south of plate 1 closer to the islands chain along nº6 and 7? I mean


Making volcanic islands would be easy, either along the divergent boundary like Iceland, or just a random hotspot like Hawaii. Non-volcanic islands are more difficult to explain. This might require a rifted segment of a plate like Madagascar. Or perhaps a carbonate platform like the majority of Caribbean islands, but I don't know what conditions this would require. What is the motivation to not use volcanic islands?

----------


## groovey

Glad you hear from you again Cuin; I was afraid I scared you off the last time since my reply always reads so defensive to me. Thanks for your input.

Well, I'm not really against using volcanic islands, in fact I love them, but what I understand is that they are much more rare on divergent boundaries, so I'm not sure what are the conditions for them to arise in some divergent boundaries and not in most of them. I mean, in a 2D map how can you tell when it would be plausible for volcanic islands (I wouldn't need them to be too big) to arise, when I have no info on depth and such?

By the way Cuin, I notice you seem to know your fair share about tectonics, but you mostly work with regional maps, at least that you've posted in the guild. Have you worked on a world map at some point? Do you have in mind tectonics logic in your regional maps? I'm just curious.


On another note, how do you guys like the names I completely and absolutely randomly came up with for my 3 favorite plates?



Keep in mind I had to adapt the names to the rules of the official con language of the Empire that had the map done (in a very distant future of course, when they figure out tectonics, or when the aliens visit the world and share that bit of info with them. Joking, not a chance, aliens are not welcome to my world, sorry). In appreciation for you input and encouragement I'll also introduce those words to the language's dictionary, since I need new words in dozens and your user names adapted to the con rules don't sound and look bad at all. In your case Picsë, I would make yours the name of the main God if he already hadn't an important needed name. But who knows, it might end up being the name of one of his sons (or daughters, since names are a bit androgynous in general there). I'll figure out the best use for it. 

In the case of Ascan, since usually the suffix -an indicates that word is a verb in the con language, I might come up for the right meaning to Ascan as a verb so it also makes sense as the name of a plate, but then I guess I'll have to add a vowel or another syllable to turn the verb Ascan into a noun.

EDIT: needed to make some changes since I realized plate 1's name would take after the name of the nation/s of that land mass. So I had to move the other two. Now Ascan is Ascantä, which now means... East. Sorry ascanius, I couldn't make the word fit to be more majestic, but it makes sense because on plate 1 they are not very fond of people on plate 2, so when they manage to constrain themselves when referring to them, the best they can come up with is "the easterns", so their land would be the East. I also had to move Picsë to the periphery for the same reason than the first, that plate's land already has a name, so the plate should take after that.

----------


## Cuin

Haha, can't scare me off! I just get busy because I am working on a PhD, which is in geology. I don't directly study tectonics, but I have it in my background. I do like to keep in mind tectonics while mapping, but I have never gone as in depth as you have. I'd like to try what you've done some day. One example of a tectonic theme I tried to emulate can be seen in this example. We see abundant evidence for flooding of a continent behind mountain building events. There are no modern analogues, but it has happened in Earth's history, and I tried to do that on the example map. In the example the bay like region is continental crust that has been flooded, and oceanic crust to the north. The oceanic crust is subducting under the continent and forming the mountain range in the north. That is my rationale at least. 

Cool names. I'm sure Pixie and Ascanius think so too!

----------


## Pixie

I'm touched by having a continent named after me. Nobody had done that for me before.  :Wink:  And I like the spelling for my name: Picsë. Do you mind if I take that word too? I keep collecting cool words for map-naming purposes.

About those islands to make the sea navigation easier from Swefendlea to the continent on plate 7. You can do one of two things: 
1 - assume there is an active hotspot somewhere close(south) of the triple junction between 9, 6 and Swefendlea - a sort of Azores (or Iceland, or Galapagos) kind of feature. You would have some land there, plus smaller islands along plate 6, southbound.
2 - assume the western side of plate 6 was separated from Arlia, just like plate 13 and then originally drifted eastward before turning to a southward movement. This bit of continental crust would now be on the boundary with plate 8 and create a longer thinner island close to that boundary - a sort of Java (or Papua).

But if you are worried about the open-sea navigation in that area, you may want to have a look at dominant winds and currents before deciding where to place the islands.

Lastly. It's so good to see you back at things you clearly love - con language and history. I'll use your expertise later on, on history, if you don't mind.

----------


## ascanius

Ok the names are awsome.  haha don't worry I like Ascanta, I am honored at having a continent named after me.  It looks really good by the way, keep up the good work.

----------


## Akubra

I could never have dreamt to have a tectonic plate named after me (or rather, my nick), but it did happen! Thanks a lot, groovey! I am honoured. I'll make sure to return the favour, probably not a tectonic plate but something else, not less important. And it might not be named "groovey" either, but an adapted form. I am not really working on a conlang yet, but I do have a few ideas. I'd like the "feel" of the language to be a mix of Polynesian, Australian Aboriginal, and probably some other elements. We'll see what I can come up with.

You guys have really been working hard on your projects. Congratulations! I haven't been able to do anything these last few days. Sometimes other things take precedence over building a conworld. I really hope to be able to continue working on my project the coming weekend. When I see all your results it's really starting to itch.

Cheers - Akubra

----------


## groovey

I'm really overjoyed to hear you fellas liked what I did with your usernames.

@Pixie, you are very free to do as you please with that word. I'll be more than glad to be helpful to you with History, but of course keep in mind each Historian has its own field of expertise, but anyway, if I know enough of the matter/s you are interested in I'll be more than glad to share my knowledge about it.

Tomorrow if I can I'll try out your suggestions for the extra islands problem. 

Believe me, at one point I was confident enough to try to do currents and winds and all that, but seeing how limited I was with tectonics, which is a topic of more personal interest to me than the others, I don't think I would get too far with the currents or winds. I'd probably take like 3 horrible, tears filled years to get them right, if I got them right at all. And so I'm afraid I'll have to place those islands where I find they fit best according to your suggestions and pretend the winds and the currents will be on my favour.

@ascanius, I'm glad you liked it and don't worry, I'm not as judgemental about the people of plate 2 like the people on nº1 are, they are a bit pompous about themselves, so the name of that part of the continent/plate doesn't carry a negative tone to me.

@ Akubra I've felt tempted a couple of times to post in your thread to ask how was everything going or something, I was a bit worried you weren't working on the project anymore after such a great start, but then I remembered you did warn us that you'd be busier eventually. 

Scratch that itch, because you'll have more scientific info about your world than I ever will, winds and all. That all is like Chinese to me, awesome but inaccessible/too much to me.

And don't worry about returning the favour, making "groovey" a decent place name doesn't seem very easy to do, so don't sweat it.

Nice to hear you are thinking about venturing in the very complex task of con-language. Beware though; it's not for the weak to get a decent one. Your choice of inspiration for the con-language is very interesting, but I guess you know that the more familiar you are with the real language/s you are trying to "emulate", the best you'll be able to translate that inspiration to a new con-language that is original and has internal coherence and follows basic linguistic rules. So I'm curious, are you familiar with that type of language?

@Cuin, awesome! A Geologist. I love you guys, in all of your specialities, a lot, you help humanity to understand our planet better and how it works, and it blows my mind.
I see what you mean about that regional world of yours. When trying to answer the question on my own I realized that said regional map was the one that made the ring bell for me as having some tectonic thought behind it, but I didn't know exactly why of course because I didn't have the info you've shared now.


Thinking about it all, maps, con-languages... I really, really don't understand at all why I get myself into these things that are too big of me, really, why must I have so much interest in this things I'm not good at? It's a bit frustrating. In my case I think it's because I love and need equally a strong sense of realism in fiction, so for me it was painful to do more writing in world-building my world without having a map of it, and of course then I'd need mountains and rivers, but of course rivers depend on mountains mostly, and mountains in tectonics, so of course I need to know the tectonics or I'd go mad... arrg.

Ah, anyway. To end this very long post I'll just say I've started to work on the outline of where mountain ranges not explained by current tectonics will be and such, a very rough visual guide it is, and I guess I'll post it soon and then... the horror again, with terrain, for which I'm stubborn about applying Tear's Sederan tutorial.

I'm a big fan of that style and plus the tutorial is manageable for me to do, but of course, it feels like the tutorial is originally though for regional/continental maps, but then, I see Saderan is a world map and Tear applied that style to a map of Earth and it looks absolutely wonderful. So I guess it can be argued that IT IS fit for world maps.

----------


## groovey

I've been experimenting toying with Pixie's two suggestions for placing some islands to make plate 1 closer to the island chain on the south. I couldn't come up with anything too convincing, at least visually. This is the best I could come up with, would this or something similar work? The distance to nº1 would still be quite big though, so I'm not sure I'm going to be able to solve this issue at all.



I still need to come up with names for the rest of the plates and do the continental shelves to call the tectonic map complete.

----------


## Pixie

Those islands are fine for island hopping navigation. You can take example from the Pacific. Islands from New Zealand to Hawaii were known and populated from the stone age. They could be known by sailors for ages, hence no effort to "discover", but unpopulated, hence, still a ground for colonization racing.

I've got to ask, though. That large sea between Swefendlea and Ascanta - wouldn't it be where largest trading coastal cities would develop? You have lots of distant territories connected by sea-way, I imagine large ports and carthage-genoa-venice-like states developing in there.

----------


## groovey

Ok, I arranged the little hotspot islands (updated the image on my previous post so I don't waste server space uploading it again with such small change) so they looked better and deleted the non volcanic island near the southern tip of nº1 and added an island shape inspired by my beautiful Mallorca a little bit nearer (about halfway) to 1/6 boundary. So that will work, won't it?

And yes, you are right, the sea btw 1 and 2 I picture like the Mediterranean sea I so much love and I was born in (not literally, I was born in a hospital, like most). So it's a big key trade area, withing the Empire and with nº2, but I figure, there might be some resources they can't get there, and thus the interest in the southern islands, for which Arlia also competes because it has a great navy for for war and for trade. Also, in the story, Arlia giving up claim in some of those southern volcanic islands is one of the conditions the Empire imposes after its civil war is over in order to "let go" of the fact that Arlia kind of "kidnapped" the Princess and then Empress of the Empire during a series of shady events, so those islands are also useful for minor plot conveniences.

----------


## Akubra

Hi groovey, sorry for taking a long time to respond... again. I haven't been able to do much over the weekend - only today I continued my tectonics map - hope to post it tomorrow.

Anyway, let's get to your question about languages. I wasn't too precise about what I mean by "the feel of the language". I didn't mean anything grammatical or such, all I meant was the general look/sound of it. Suppose you don't know a certain language and you see it written or spoken for the first time. Sometimes it makes you think of a language you are more familiar with, doesn't it? That's what I mean. I like the idea if it could have some aspects that make me think of Polynesian with lots of i's, o's and a's (such as the names for some plates I'm using: Otaia, Kiomawi), and also some aspects of Aboriginal languages (think words like Burrunguy, Nanguluwur, etc). I'm not sure if that is possible, because they are more or less each other's opposite: lots of vowels vs. lots of consonants. Anyway, for the moment I have only been thinking about it superficially.

I don't speak any of those languages, although I have lived in New Zealand for a couple of years (where one of the official languages is Maori). I have also travelled extensively in outback Australia, so Aboriginal names are not extremely "alien" to me. But that's where my "knowledge" (but I cannot really call it that) ends.

Yes, I do realize that it's a huge task. But a very interesting one. I think you can draw parrallels with creating a conworld. If you want to make your world realistic, you have to take into account tectonics, climate and what not, like we do. We're learning a lot during this process. That aspect of creating a conlang is similar. If ever I start one, I want to be serious about it and I'm certain I will learn a lot about many new linguistic topics I don't yet know about. And I think that's very, very interesting.

Cheers - Akubra

----------


## ascanius

> Ok, I arranged the little hotspot islands (updated the image on my previous post so I don't waste server space uploading it again with such small change) so they looked better and deleted the non volcanic island near the southern tip of nº1 and added an island shape inspired by my beautiful Mallorca a little bit nearer (about halfway) to 1/6 boundary. So that will work, won't it?
> 
> And yes, you are right, the sea btw 1 and 2 I picture like the Mediterranean sea I so much love and I was born in (not literally, I was born in a hospital, like most). So it's a big key trade area, withing the Empire and with nº2, but I figure, there might be some resources they can't get there, and thus the interest in the southern islands, for which Arlia also competes because it has a great navy for for war and for trade. Also, in the story, Arlia giving up claim in some of those southern volcanic islands is one of the conditions the Empire imposes after its civil war is over in order to "let go" of the fact that Arlia kind of "kidnapped" the Princess and then Empress of the Empire during a series of shady events, so those islands are also useful for minor plot conveniences.


Nice update and I think the islands work well for what you have intended.  Are you going to continue with the map adding currents, climate, mountains etc?




> Hi groovey, sorry for taking a long time to respond... again. I haven't been able to do much over the weekend - only today I continued my tectonics map - hope to post it tomorrow.
> 
> Anyway, let's get to your question about languages. I wasn't too precise about what I mean by "the feel of the language". I didn't mean anything grammatical or such, all I meant was the general look/sound of it. Suppose you don't know a certain language and you see it written or spoken for the first time. Sometimes it makes you think of a language you are more familiar with, doesn't it? That's what I mean. I like the idea if it could have some aspects that make me think of Polynesian with lots of i's, o's and a's (such as the names for some plates I'm using: Otaia, Kiomawi), and also some aspects of Aboriginal languages (think words like Burrunguy, Nanguluwur, etc). I'm not sure if that is possible, because they are more or less each other's opposite: lots of vowels vs. lots of consonants. Anyway, for the moment I have only been thinking about it superficially.
> 
> I don't speak any of those languages, although I have lived in New Zealand for a couple of years (where one of the official languages is Maori). I have also travelled extensively in outback Australia, so Aboriginal names are not extremely "alien" to me. But that's where my "knowledge" (but I cannot really call it that) ends.
> 
> Yes, I do realize that it's a huge task. But a very interesting one. I think you can draw parrallels with creating a conworld. If you want to make your world realistic, you have to take into account tectonics, climate and what not, like we do. We're learning a lot during this process. That aspect of creating a conlang is similar. If ever I start one, I want to be serious about it and I'm certain I will learn a lot about many new linguistic topics I don't yet know about. And I think that's very, very interesting.
> 
> Cheers - Akubra


Sorry to hijack this thread a little but I don't see why you couldn't mix the two natlangs to create a conlang like you mentioned Akubra.  Gonna take some time though.  Mostly you need to get the Phonemes you like and add rules to start with.  Like Groovey I also did a conlang and will be using it for the map, if I ever finish that is.  Sometimes I wonder if something is wrong with me?  I mean to put all the time in research, designing, drafting, creating lexicons, rules, and everything else for making a map and conlang.  O well I would rather be crazy than be like everyone else in my book.

----------


## Akubra

Groovey, your latest map is really looking great! I think it has a lot of possibilities for geography, climate, history, etc. I'm following your progress with a lot of interest. What are you planning to do next? I suppose you will need some form of terrain and climate. I'm currently working on a height map as a preparation for my climate map. It scared me a little, but with a good tectonics map, a rough height map isn't too big a hurdle to take (well, I'm taking a big risk saying that, as mine isn't finished yet...). Anyway, looking forward to discover you next steps.

@ ascanius: Thanks for allaying my fear about mixing languages. After all, natlangs can also influence each other a lot (just take English, originally a Germanic language, but it has been influenced a lot by Latin languages). So yes, why not mix Polynesian and Aboriginal languages. And since you and groovey have worked on conlangs before, I know where to ask for advice  :Wink: . But that is something for the future.

Cheers - Akubra

----------


## groovey

Thanks guys. I've been a bit distracted with other stuff and quite frankly, right now I'm not sure how to proceed, having called the tectonics finished, finally, thanks to Pixie. Need to come up with names for the rest of the plates but that's not important really, I can move on to other stuff and when I come up with another plate name, add it quickly, but the names have to be consistent with world-building, in other words, I need to know what the makers of the map, the Empire on Swëfendlëa, would call those places, or the land in the plates, or the seas and oceans of the plates, and since I don't know yet...

I also did the continental shelves the other day, but since I have no idea if there are specific rules to do them, I just had in mind visuals and tectonics, and I guess I'm a bit hesitant to post the results here in case they are all wrong and get stuck on the shelves as a did with tectonics, *shudders*. I got very traumatized about that.

I also got an ugly visual guide of where to place old, non tectonic mountain/elevation areas, but I'm not sure it would work, don't know if they are too many, too few, too big, too anything. So since I'm unsure I don't find the motivation to do anything with it. 

My idea was to move on with terrain already, I mean honestly guys, after my inability with tectonics has been more than proved in many a few pages, do you really have me capable of managing currents, winds and climate? In this century? I wish I could understand how to do it like you guys do,

So in short, the plan is to move to terrain now applying Tear's Sederan tutorial. First mountains, since I know where the tectonic mountain ranges are, and I got an visual outline for old non tectonic mountains/elevation, that I'm not sure of, but well. Then is to do rivers and lakes (I know if not large enough they wouldn't be visible in a world map, but I'd do them for reference), and then add grass/snow/desert coloring having as a basic guide the tropics.

But yeah, I'm feeling 100% unmotivated at the moment, since I suck at doing terrain too.

Nice to see some interest for con-languages around, lovely. Though Akubra, I'd be the last person to ask advice about it. The linguistic lingo, as hard-core tectonics, make my head hurt, so I get confused a lot by the terms and such, and I need actual examples to understand what the heck they are talking about, and that's how I try to understand what my con-language needs, so I proceed to create the rule and such, but not really understanding the deep mechanics of it, which I don't think is good. This summer I'm going to get my self some kind of English grammar for dummies to try to get more deep into it and understand how the language works.

EDIT: I also planned to do a height-map in the beginning, but the 6 Gods know I'd take a year to do it and still I would get it wrong, lol, so since I'm not able to do climate either, why bother with height-map? Oh my, I'm speeding up right into the lazy/whatever highway. Sorry guys, I just can't get over the fact that I suck so much at this mapping thing, haha, so my issues with procrastination are kicking in hard.

----------


## Akubra

Hey groovey, don't be so hard on yourself. There's really no need to do that - you succeeded in producing a tectonics map, didn't you? And a good one to boot. Nobody said the next step needs to be finished tomorrow, did they? So take your time and try to enjoy the ride. And if you don't enjoy a particular aspect, move it aside for a while and continue with something else. I found out that the clue is to take a little step at a time instead of tackling the whole mountain at once.

You know who learns the most? The one who falls and gets up the most. Heh, I just thought of how I placed the little triangles on my convergent boundaries. Almost all on the wrong side. How stupid could I be? Well, stupid or not, I got it right the next time. And from now on I will always know how it works. And guess who told me how to do it right? You! So don't tell me you don't understand much.

So what if your next map is all wrong? We're here to help each other, not laugh at one another for the mistakes we make or some perceived lack of understanding. One thing that is immediately visible and so exceptional in this forum is its constructive criticism. In so many other forums you have people tearing each other's ideas down, often with insults and completely unnecessary curse words. Not here. Not at all. That just proves that thinking and acting positively is working very well and so much more enjoyable.

You need help? No big deal. We're here. Pixie has helped you a lot. If I can help you in any way (with my limited knowledge and abilities), I'll do it gladly. All you have to do is ask. In fact, I'm going to turn it around and ask you a favour. I think I read somewhere that you're a historian, is that correct? (or does my memory utterly deserts me on that one?) I have some questions on how to consolidate some aspects of the future setup/history/consistency of my own planet. Would it be ok for you to help me a bit with that? (Oh, and it's absolutely ok for me if that's not ok for you.) I'll try to formulate them as well as I can (because my head is full of ideas, but it's a bit of a mess...). If you agree, could you just let me know if I could do that in this thread (which seems a bit awkward, I don't want to hijack it) or in a separate message to you.

Cheers - Akubra

----------


## Pixie

Take your time, groovey, and just don't delete you work. You may be a little lost as to what is next, but that's just creativity exhaustion, possibly. 

Here's a a very enjoyable read I just finished. The guy who wrote it must be a genius and neither you or I will ever be able to do this as well, but I think it'll help motivating. (If you want motivation, that is  :Wink:  )

----------


## groovey

Thanks guys, I'm sorry about the other post, I didn't mean to be such a baby. I'm a very moody person, one moment I'm in ecstatic and the next one I've a raining cloud over my head, and this affects a lot my hobbies and in turn my hobbies influence my mood.

Anyway, what stresses me the most is the fact that it's a map for a novel, and thus the novel is waiting to be written, and I can't get to it without knowing how the land on plate 1/Swëfendlëa is divided politically, culturally and in Administration, and for doing those divisions I need natural landmarks, like mountains and rivers, mostly, and for that I need to get the terrain done, that's why the idea of spending the next months trying to figure out currents, winds and climate (climate would be my most urging one to figure out) makes me wanna cry.

I promised myself I'd focus on the map for a few months, get the info needed for the novel, then start writing it. Since there's a major civil war with lots of implications, one of them regional/cultural,  I need to see how the Empire is divided in the map, and again, for that I need terrain. So it's a fish that bites its tail, the more time I spend on the map the more I delay writing, because I'm a control freak and first I need to have the map info. But then there's also music and conlangs crying for my attention as hobbies, so that's even more time I don't give to either the map or the novel... Damn I hope I find a job soon.

Pixie, I knew that's guys work, amazing work (even if he uses Comic Sans font), he makes it seems to easy to figure out. Yesterday I though about what you explained to me about lakes in your own thread, but I didn't spot any of those possibilities in mine, so I've to stick to smaller regional lakes right?

If only to keep the thread on topic and not turn it into my personal blog, how are the continental shelves? You can be honest, I won't break down if I got it wrong I promise.




And any of you guys are welcome to try me as an Historian, but as I've mentioned before, each Historian specializes in their own little thing. In college, at least in Spain, I got basic general info on all ages, without too much detail for different regions, then we got more specialized in Spanish History in all ages, and then in my university we specialized a little in our own region's history. I'm also more specialized in what here we call Contemporary History (from the French Revolution to now-a-days), and inside that, I'm more specialized in Spanish local administration and local measures of public health and beneficence/charity to avoid epidemic outbreaks and lower or eradicate infectious diseases (thanks to this I'm also familiar with the British experience on this area). Might seem we didn't learn much in university, but really, in History perhaps more than some other degrees giving its vastness, you have to do most of the learning by reading and reading for the rest of your life, depending on what your interests are, and so I'm also quite familiar with British history, which is one of the big influences in my world-building, right along with G.R.R. Martin and perhaps after them, the Roman and Persian empires when it comes to Administration.

Of course, for my own world-building purposes I've read a bit about the origin of civilizations, different systems of power and administration and such, but the best I could do for you in that area is to pass you the links or resources I have about it so you can get what you need from them, if I'm not able to directly answer your questions with a certain authority. So do ask what you need, I'll try to be as helpful as can be.


Would you guys say tectonics were easier to do than currents and winds? More difficult? About the same? Even if you haven't finished them, is the process lighter or just as hard to get right?

----------


## Akubra

No worries groovey! I imagine that what you want to achieve is not easy. And thanks a lot for wanting to help out with those history aspects of worldbuilding. I'll try to get my thoughts together and message you my questions in a few days.

Now on to your map. Guess what? I couldn't find any inconsistencies! And that doesn't really surprise me. I compared your tectonic fault lines with your shelf boundaries. I can't detect any problem. Your shelf boundaries nicely follow the subduction zone boundaries.

I really like the way you have created ocean basins, like the ones in Arlia, Swëfendlëa and Arin Ascantä. Something I didn't think of. I'm tempted to see if I can use that idea on my map (if I still can)  :Very Happy: .

The only thing I could say is that your shelves closely follow your coasts, while mine meander more freely, sometimes far from the coast. But I think that is a matter of choice rather than being correct or not.

Let's see what our fellow guild members have to say about it.

As for the level of difficulty of the different stages (my personal opinion, of course):
- Tectonics: medium difficulty (I had to learn quite a bit)
- Ocean currents: not too difficult (if you follow the rules)
- Winds: not too difficult (but I didn't go into much detail)
- Height: not too difficult (I enjoyed it, but I haven't had any feedback yet, so I hope I don't have to start all over again  :Frown: )
- Rain patterns: comparable to tectonics, I'm afraid (on the basis of what I have tried offline)
- Climate: haven't started it yet

Curious to know if other opinions vary...

Cheers - Akubra

----------


## Pixie

Yeah, continental shelves are as good as any, it's a lot a matter of personal choice. As long as they don't cross subduction boundaries, you can do whatever you like. Not following too closely the coastlines adds some flavor, but in no way makes it any more plausible.

I mostly agree with Akubra also on his take on the difficulty of each task. Tectonics, I think, it's the biggest nut cracker. Specially, because of its puzzle nature, whenever you fix something something else needs fixing.
Currents is very easy but winds have some science behind it. Heightmaps are not difficult as they don't need to be detailed when you are just looking for an overall look of the world. 
I didn't find rain patters that difficult. Just like ocean currents, it's a matter of sticking to the rules.
Then it will come temperature, then climates...

----------


## jbgibson

Groovey, when you get to feeling frustrated about not knowing enough to 'type finished copy without a draft', mapp-ishly speaking, maybe you can be consoled by the huge benefit you four(?) current tectonic mappers have been for the Guild, while working out your projects.   The thinking-out-loud you have all done has taught a bunch of us what we need to either do tectonic detailing, or else take a guess at being somewhat plausible.   Thank you (all) !   2000, 2500, 3000, and 4000 thread views are a LOT of interested readers.

As for studying English structure - good luck!  :-)   Some languages borrow words.   English follows other languages into dark alleys, knocks them over the head, and goes through their pockets for linguistic change.   Which I suppose would make it an ideal model for a conlang, so one can break rules and smoosh together dissimilar bits without anyone calling "foul!"  Your level of expression proves you have a great grasp of English from a practical stance, so don't let formal grammar drag you into a too-lengthy rabbit trail.

If the long road to get to writing is driving you nuts, go ahead and do some vignettes that could fit anywhere.   If you don't publish them, they will still be raw material, and you can tweak this family name and that river reference later, to notch them into a smooth fit in your finished terrain.   No matter what your societies, there'll always be the rebellious third son, or the crooked horse trader, or the ingenious apprentice miller who dreams of being a blacksmith-artificer and keeps breaking his uncle's waterwheel with 'innovations'.   I know (for me at least) a huge amount of inspiration comes from the setting, but there's much to be said for Just Going Ahead And Writing.

Climate, wind, and currents can all be tackled plausibly from a set of rules of thumb.   Basically, who's to argue, when professional meteorologists with decades of experience can't always figure out our own planet? :-)  There's enough room for tweaking, that if prevailing winds wind up forcing some climate zone you don't like, you can shove this wintertime persistent high a bit >thataway< and voila - now that area gets enough rain to be steppes/ grassland instead of desert.   Which in turn fits that people group of mounted nomads you had in the back of your mind....

Again thank you - you only THOUGHT you were figuring this stuff out for yourself alone :-).

Thanks for the link, Pixie - one could get lost in those tilted Earths for a LONG excursion!

----------


## groovey

Gee guys, you all gave me a bit to think about. You seem to agree that currents would be the "easier" to get done next, so I might try to do that and depending how good I am at it, then think about trying to do the rest or forget about it. I will do the height-map though, because I love them in general, and the info would be very useful for me to visualized certain settings, but also for placing rivers, right? 

You are right the shelves follow the coastline too closely, I might play a bit more with that at some point, though to do the currents I'd need to have the final shelves, shouldn't I?

@jbgibson, thank you, you bring out so many true points. I tend to forget the threads are open to everybody, thankfully, so everyone, those simply curious and those in need of this type of information for their own works, can have access to it or at least can check other members' projects as a reference. I do that a lot in fact. It's one of the greatest aspects of this wonderful community, how much info and knowledge it contains and shares with everyone.

----------


## jbgibson

One sensible order is to figure generalized wind patterns first - they can be based on nothing more than axial tilt and land placement.  One figures a N. hemisphere summer then a N. hemisphere winter set, then overlaying the two, what places plausibly would have prevailing winds from a similar direction most of the year.   That air movement will by surface drag either create or strongly influence surface ocean currents.  I'll note here that oceans have multiple layers of currents, and nobody, but nobody wants to model the lower ones too.   Well, that statement could sound like "I dare you" to SOMEbody, just not to me :-).   Your continental shelves could influence currents, or not -- surface currents honestly might only reach a  hundred or two hundred meters down.   Contrary airflow based on season could weaken a tendency of an ocean current to slosh >that< direction, or in certain interactions of land shape vs. seasonal air shifts, could even reverse a current regularly.    And all the talk of seasonal generalities of airflow don't take into account that weather is a whole 'nother set of variables laid on top of the seasonal stuff.   Don't let that added complexity bother you - call it freedom, not restriction.... you need such-and-such mounted party to get hit with a storm just >there< in their trek, there's plenty of ways to make that happen :-).   The climate generalities might dictate whether it's a hurricane, a predictable monsoon, a tornado, or a dust storm, true...

All that fun stuff can give the people living atop this landscape better ways to travel or could block reaching what might otherwise be nearby lands.   And THAT is where stories start to grow themselves.

You already have maybe the youngest/ highest mountain ranges figured based on tectonics, and those will be the biggest barriers or funnels for moisture movement.  So you *could* even go on and figure gross rainfall patterns at that point, or you could sometime before then figure where you want older mountains - fossils of previous tectonic action.  Other than the drier belts/ wetter belts that you can draw *now* based on just Hadley Celleffects, a huge driver for your climate zones is going to be "lots of water gets carried thisaway, hence this is the area for forests and fertile plains," and that sort of thing.

A fun thing to consider is that all the rule-of-thumb climate stuff is "before human effects".  Whatever dry tendencies existed in the middle of Africa, desertification there has been accelerated by overgrazing and woodcutting.  The eastern USA on a simple climate model might show a likelihood of great swaths of forests... which is about how it was before settlers cut down nine of every ten trees. (98 of every hundred?)

Currents in ocean and atmosphere will shove around a lot of heat, and provide oceanic moisture somewhere interesting to go.  Examples are the warm Gulf Stream in the Atlantic keeping icebergs *somewhat* at bay, and providing coastal northwest Europe with a bit warmer climate than latitude might suggest.   And whatever weird thing goes on in alternate years with El Nino and La Nina Pacific currents -- from weather all the way down to good years/ lousy years for certain fishing grounds, as the same part of an ocean gets washed by nutrient-rich water, or by more sterile water.

Boil that down to : I'd suggest generalized winds, then general currents, then climate zones.  Stick extra/older mountains and hills in, wherever in that process you like.     Think *slightly* from your tectonics where a widespread uplift or subsidence might be happening - that'll give you some nice drowned coast and high plateau stuff.  Those could be extras - ignore if you like since you already have plenty of complexity going on.

And when the complexity that you're indulging in overwhelms you, go out and play a game of handball, or bike thirty km, or whatever you use for alternate activity.  Tell yourself "this'll go better with more oxygen in my brain - yeah, that's the ticket!"  :-)

----------


## groovey

@jbgibson, wow, now that is a lot to take in. I'm to re-read the rich-in-info post slowly a few times to process the info, but yes, last night I watched a few educative videos about currents and it helped to understand the basics of them and how indeed I need to think about the winds first to do the surface currents. The deep ocean currents are a bit different and I'd love to try them out too if I could, but yes, first the winds, so I'll start doing some reading on that and check Pixie's tutorial and Geoff's Cookbook.

----------


## ascanius

Heya Goovey.  I look forward to seeing your work on climate, and a height map.  I suggest doing a height map first even if it's like Akubra's and only functional, this will then allow you to get your winds and rainfall.  If you need help on the climate part you can definitely ask me, I can tell you what not to do.

----------


## groovey

Hello ascanius! Good thinking, I'll work on an only functional height-map before anything else, since I was looking forward to it the most anyway. Though now that I think about it, I need to polish the shelves a bit more, then I'll do heigh-map, then winds, then current, then climate... if I don't get lost and crazy in the process, but that's the road map.

Just got a doubt about the currents and those sea basins I did on my map when doing the shelves, without realizing what possible consequences they would have... Superficial currents (the ones determined by the winds) can circulate into those basins can't they? In Earth they get into the Gulf of Mexico, so they should get into my basins right? I didn't create myself extra-complications making those basins, did I?

----------


## Pixie

Your tectonics are fine, groovey, I say stop worrying with them  :Wink: 

As for your question: cold currents tend to be deeper and narrower, so they normally follow the continental shelves. Warmer currents, on the other hand, are shallow and tend to spread out - which means, you can take more liberty with the warm currents than with the cold ones.

Those basins are great, both for history/civilization as for climate stabilization. They will probably generate their own closed currents. (google "black sea currents" and look at the images results).

----------


## groovey

Thanks Pixie, your answer calmed me down about it.

Until I get to the currents though, here's my early phase of the height-map, for info purposes, so don't focus on the pretty or the style. As in now I only have 2 levels done, 0-1.000m, in dark green, and 1.000-2.500m, in light green. I borrowed my color gradient from Pixie, but simplifying since I'm not going after so much detail.

Well, I'd appreciate some input before starting with the next levels, since the 1.000-2.500m level will be the base for the next altitude levels. I tried not to go crazy adding green light areas keeping in mind this map of Earth Pixie brought up in another thread, but even though, do I have too much light green? Do those areas look ok? Do they contradict the tectonics in any way?

----------


## ascanius

Hey.  So far what you have looks good  but it's hard to tell with just two height levels.  The northern mountain range in swefendlea looks like it should be two, is that your plan, two ranges with a low lying connection.  Keep up the gold work.  I can't wait to see what you do with that central see.  It's going to be a lot of fun to toy with later on.

----------


## Pixie

"Keep up the gold work", groovey, level 1000m looks very good.

There could be more random sport over 1000m, small remnants of old mountain ranges, lonely volcanoes, etc. These would add some realism to the map, but nothing else. Since what you really want is to figure out geographical constraints to develop your setting, ignore that push towards realism. (You can always worry about it later).

----------


## Naima

I really like the shape of the continents look very natural , how did you create them ? hand brainstorming? cloning parts of real world or by fractal terrains? Or pehraps some other system?

----------


## Akubra

I can only agree with what is said above, groovey. All looks fine to me too.

On another note, every time I look at your map I am intrigued by the names. So much so that I tried to figure out your "system". Is it ok if I have a go?

Acubrä = west / Ascantä = east / Arec = north / Orter = south / Arlia = central
Acubter (Acubrä + Orter) = southwest / Ascarter (Ascantä + Orter) = southeast
Arin = far, extreme, very / Thëand = little, small / Arinthëas = very small
Ascarec = northeast / Acubrec = northwest (not on the map, my own constructions)

...or is it just me seeing a logic that isn't there?

Cheers - Akubra

----------


## groovey

WARNING: VERY LONG POST


Hello everyone!

First of all sorry for taking so long to be back, had to focus in other stuff these past days and I didn't want to be distracted by map stuff because then I'd want to work on that and not the stuff I had to work on.

So ok, managed not to mess up the easy part of the job, yay! 

@ascanius, I forgot to mention that, the northern mountain range is indeed two: the modern one created by the convergent boundary btw Swëfendlëa and Ascantä; and the big blob to the left is an old range, that as you say, connect be connected by that 1000-2500m level.

About the central sea, since it's supposed to be my "Mediterranean Sea", which I carry in my heart, I'm very excited about it too, to see how the currents will behave in there and all that. I can't wait till I'm done with the main features of the map so I can start world-building settlements and trade routes, which I have never done before, so that will be a challenge too.

@Pixie, I'll keep in mind your suggestions about adding random bits here and then, because it makes sense and it crossed my mind too.

@ Naima, thanks, I'm very happy to hear you think that way about my continents, because in every fictional map, mine or not, I'm always thinking about the shapes of the land masses, if they feel organic or a bit constrained, and after looking so much at mine and losing perspective a bit, at this point I wasn't sure if they looked natural to others.

I came up with them messing up with Fractal Terrains, until I got interesting shapes. I saved those land masses as exported images, then in Photoshop I resized and rotated as needed, then with the help of the magic wand I selected the shape of the land and in a new layer applied the "outline" tool and that's it, I had a clean version the shape, which then I would edit a bit on some parts if needed, with the brush tool or cutting and pasting bits of that shape to rearrange them a bit. I hope I could make myself clear enough.


(Long section about my conlanging follows, skip if not interested)

@Akubra, you almost got it all right! Not sure if you're very good at it or my conlang is disappointingly easy...

Since I made a few fixes:

- Acub: west/left
- Ascar: east/right

And so Acubrä and Ascantä means something slightly different, but I don't know what yet, they're obviously a derivation of  west and east, or west/east + other word, but that's all I know for now.

You got north and south, and S-W, S-E, N-W AND N-E 100% right, even the ones you guessed on your own.

- Indris: I still don't know what it means or if it's supposed to mean something, the meaning of the original word might be lost by now, and so it's simply a name they give to that ocean section btw the south of the two continents, to the volcanic islands below and then to the west btw Swëfendlëa and Arlia. I'm not sure how to define it though, it's not an ocean on its own I think, but can it be a Sea or they simple made that up and called that area of their commercial interest a Sea, with no real foundation?

- Arin = little/small

- Thëand: thëas = island + plural -nd: thëand. In the latest version not posted yet that plate is "Picsë dir Thëand" and not simply "Picsë Thëand" (which lacked the possessive), so it means "Picsë's islands" or "the islands of Picsë".

- So Arinthëas = small island (I know it isn't small really, so I might change the name), but turned into the actual name of the island, like Iceland, or Greenland.

- Hemthëas: hem = big/great + thëas = island. EDIT: in my latest version I changed it to Hemlëa to avoid the issue altogether, so now it either means Hem=great + lëa = land, or a shortened version of Hemsey=name of a King/Emperor + lëa = land.

As with Arinthëas, I'm not sure Hemthëas should be considered an island at all, since is big enough to be a continent, thus why if needed, I could change the meaning to be similar to "Stalingrad" or the "Philippines". Since the root "Hem" gave way to the male name "Hemsey", a very common name for the King/Emperors, if I need to I can make Hemthëas be Hemlëa (Hemsey's land), shortened, either because explorers named it after him or because one Hemsey king/Emperor "conquered" it.

The matter with these two plate names is that this is a tectonic plate map I am assigning names to, as if I were the makers of the map, from Imperial Swëfendlëa. Since at that point of their history they are not advanced enough to know about plates, it's kind of weird for me to name the plates having in mind how THEY would name each one, thus the silly names like "small island" or "big island". 

For example, in a normal map they wouldn't divide Ascantä in two big pieces, so it seemed to me that if a time traveler went back to them with the tectonic map but with no names in it, and it was up to them to name the plates, they would keep the two plates that divide Ascantä related by name.

Another problem btw their level of knowledge and the need to name a tectonic map they'd have no idea about is naming the regions of the west part, which I'm not sure they even know about yet, if they do is because of Arlia, with a competent navigation technology that could make it easy to get to Picsë through the island chains, and from there to Acubrä to at least know it's there. 

Picsë was most probably named by Arlia, perhaps written "Picsi", and then normalized to Picsë by the Empire. Acubrä is definitively an imperial word though, so again I figured that if a time traveler gave them the tectonic map to be named, since they don't know much about the big North-west continent, they'd simply name it something related to the fact that is on the west, while with Ascantä, which they are much more familiar with if only by their mutual hatred and trade, they deliberately chose such a bland superficial name (and not the name the people on Ascantä would give to their continent if they ever gave it one), since all it matters to the people on Swëfendlëa (for cultural, mythical and traditional reasons) is that the people on the east suck and are not important, so they are simple "the others" who are not as great as us so they don't deserve a proper name.


- Arlia: in Arlian (of which I only have a few very basic notes on) actually means "free or freedom land": ar = free or freedom; lia = land (written 'lëa' in the Empire/Swëfendlëa). Since the language of Swëfendlëa and Arlia are related, some primitive and common roots or words are similar. 

I'm not sure yet if in Swëfendlëa (I refer to the nation because I still don't know how to name the language, sometimes I call it the Imperial Language to call it something) the word or the root for freedom will be the same, since "freedom" wouldn't be a very basic word or concept in early communities, as land or house would be. I don't think that word would be part of the language of the very early community from which both Arlia and Swëfendlëa came from, so it seems to me like the type of word that would come later on with a more advance social/political structure and by then the common ancient language would have given way to many different derivation of it considered languages on their own.


Anyway, the basic story is that the Swëfendlëa Empire originated (as a Monarchy) in the north close to the boundary with Ascantä, and then, at some specific point, by a mix of previous culture spread, religion and of course political ambition, it started to expand south after taking the whole north, all in a very long and intermittent process lasting centuries and with a heavy program of assimilation mixed with tolerance (the Roman Empire is my big model with this). 

Most communities ended up submitting to this, but a few didn't want to submit to the Monarchy-then-Empire, which they saw as an oppressor, so as it expanded, those resistant communities migrated south each time the Empire got closer down, and once they saw no way out of it, they risked into the ocean and through the islands chains (still don't know how exactly since only recently I got the map with that info and when I world-built that story I didn't have the map) got to what they called Arlia, "free or freedom land". Of course, the process is much more complex and I still need to work out the details now that I have the map, but you can get the basic idea.

Interesting enough for me is that though for the rest of the world the makers of the map (The Empire) use the names they have for those lands, for Arlia they respect the native name, so they don't name it Arlëa instead, this is a result of the long and complex relationship btw the two, mostly always tense or simply bad, but the most significant for the two lands. 

- Ënenlëa: ënen = sister + lëa = land, mashed up as an actual name for that land. The name (written a bit differently in Arlia, though I still don't know how) was given by Arlia, thus why it's a sister land, upon which Arlia has a lot of ambitions.


Hope I didn't bore anyone to death with the conlang bit if any of you decided to go through it.

Akubra, have you started to work in your conlang? Your plates have names so the question is if they mean something yet?

----------


## Naima

Groovey so far are some of the most natural I saw ... And I saw many ... Most fantasy worlds do have cool and interesting spots , but most of the time look fake or just as big islands .
I have spent two days browsing fractal worlds and I love many if the ones it generates I feel they look very belieavable even if not changed . I am instead trying to shape my world directly inside ft with the tools , but I think I exagerated trying to go too much for an earthlike shape that kind of because I have in mind some cultures befoure the land itself . Your world though looks good and enough different from Earth .

----------


## ascanius

Hey Groovey are you by any chance on the CBB or ZBB.  If you are you should add me same user name.  If your not you should check them out, great spots for conlangers.

----------


## groovey

ascanius, I know both, wonderful resources, but I'm just a lurker there. I'm a very shy person so even on the Internet is hard for me to talk with others. Thankfully in the Guild I feel comfortable enough by now so it's not a problem anymore, but irrupting in a new community is very scary for me.

Plus I'm not going to lie, I can only decipher the linguistic posts partially, there's so many technical words and such (like it should), I get confused a lot by the terminology because I'm only familiar with the most basic stuff, so some post I find of interest, but what really gets me going on my conlang building is the Language Construction Kit books and this page for general reference of what I need, because they're like conlang for dummies, and that's not an insult, it helps a lot of dummies like me.

@Naima, thanks a lot, that's a great compliment for me.

----------


## Akubra

Groovey, thank you so much for that long explanation! Very interesting stuff!

As explained in my own thread, I don't have the opportunity to contribute much this week. Next week I'll try to write a longer reply to your question. Right now I can say that, apart from the Polynesian/Aboriginal "feeling", I haven't thought much about the conlang I'd like to construct. I have a few ideas, but they are still very vague, and I'm not really sure they are feasable.

Also, I haven't had time to order my thoughts about the historical stuff I wanted to ask you. I hope I'll have time for it next week. Otherwise it'll be for the second half of August. We'll see when it's possible.

Cheers - Akubra

----------


## groovey

Hello everyone, I got my first full go at the height-map ready and I'd appreciate some feedback because I keep staring at it not being very sure of what more does it need (again, credit to Pixie for the color palette).



I tried to add few random little small 1000-2500m fragments, but I don't know, I think I'd need a few more, but when I drop some in land, and not close to the coast, they just look sad and ugly and out of place, so I don't know what to do about it.

So in what state would you say the map is, does it need fixes or is it good to go?

One thing that worries me is the implications of the height-map when it comes to deserts. I don't care where deserts will happen in most of the world, but I'd need at least the north bit of Swëfendlëa and a part or Arlia NOT to be desertic, so as it is right now, are you able to suspect if I'd get deserts there? From what I gathered, deserts depend mostly on latitude and rain shadow on mountain ranges, so I'm a bit afraid about how the mountain ranges in those two areas will affect the climate.

Thank you for reading.

@Akubra, don't worry, take all the time you need, I'm not going anywhere, I got no job and no vacation for me this summer, so I'll be here when you're back.

----------


## Pixie

No need to give me credit for the color palette, I just took it from this map:


Which I am also posting so you can take a look and compare by yourself.

In the middle of continents, any mountains/highlands would have been eroded for a long time - thus, they may not be a continuous shape, but small bits in an area. Maybe that will work better in places.

There is one area where I think some mountains are needed for scientific plausibility. Just like with akubra's map, you have a continent rifting. When that happens, mountains tend do form on both sides of the rift. So, the area where Arin Ascanta is breaking away should have some elevated terrain.

Overall, however, i think it is going fine. More highlands aren't necessarily needed apart from the northeastern side of the map. Most of your continents look like solid old cratons.

----------


## groovey

Thanks for the feedback Pixie.



Well, about the rift btw Acantä and Arin Ascantä, since most of the boundary is transformation, I wasn't sure if I had to add elevation just in the divergent bits or also in the transformation bits, for now I just put elevation in the divergent bits, and also added a lake in one of those bits, inside an elevation bit.

Let me know if I have to add elevation to the transformation bits of the boundaries

I also added a few light green bits of elevation but I don't want to overdo it, so I'll probably leave it as it is.

I don't understand exactly what you mean about the continents looking "solid old cratons".

Just out of curiosity I also tried the clouds rendering filter on the 0-1000m level so it's not so plain, but I guess it defeats the purpose of the color code system.

----------


## Pixie

Hey groovey. Looks nice as it is. If you keep each elevation level in a separate layer you can later color in shades of gray and use Wilbur for local erosion (river making). But for now, I wouldn't go into that.

The clouds trick gives it a a little more plausibilty when zoomed out, but you are right, it defeats the purpose of a proper elevation map. What you can do is use the filter as source for a selection in order to add a bit more random regions with elevation above 1000m.

----------


## groovey

Thanks Pixie.

Very interesting about the Wilbur stuff. I tried some tutorials in the past and I never quite made it, but now that I got a more solid height-map, I might try it, though I'm not sure I'm familiar with your technique. Does it also generate the lakes too? I do keep each elevation range in a different layer.

Good idea, using the clouds version to add more randoms bits of light green. Will try it soon.

----------


## Naima

> Thanks Pixie.
> 
> Very interesting about the Wilbur stuff. I tried some tutorials in the past and I never quite made it, but now that I got a more solid height-map, I might try it, though I'm not sure I'm familiar with your technique. Does it also generate the lakes too? I do keep each elevation range in a different layer.
> 
> Good idea, using the clouds version to add more randoms bits of light green. Will try it soon.


Yes. Can generate lakes , calculate erosion by precipitation and flow , it can be tricky to make it look right but its the best available around for what I know.

----------


## groovey

Awesome, but then how do you bring back the Wilbur info about rivers and lakes to an editor like Photoshop? Have you tried it? EDIT: I read your own WIP thread so I know that you are in the way working on a process from FT and all the way Photoshop, so nevermind! I'll wait and see what you do with your WIP.

----------


## Pixie

> though I'm not sure I'm familiar with your technique. Does it also generate the lakes too? I do keep each elevation range in a different layer.


oh, I do it all by hand... because I am a freak  :Wink:

----------


## groovey

You're awesome, that's what you are.

How I wish I had your hand and the skills attached to it.

Well, again, you two have made me very intrigued about Wilbur, so at some point I'll try to find the tutorial I saw once that touched that subject, but for now, once I polish the height map, I'll go for winds, as I seem to recall that was the best next step? Because it doesn't matter if I do the rivers and lakes later on does it? Once I figure out other stuff?

By the way Pixie, can't wait to see you working on your WIP again, as soon as you are less busy.

----------


## Naima

> Awesome, but then how do you bring back the Wilbur info about rivers and lakes to an editor like Photoshop? Have you tried it? EDIT: I read your own WIP thread so I know that you are in the way working on a process from FT and all the way Photoshop, so nevermind! I'll wait and see what you do with your WIP.


Wilbur allows export of all kind if maps , from river layers to heightmaps to silouettes to custom ones , the one I am looking foward to try is dreinage map , though the tests I did seem that FT gets much better at river showing , despite waldronate write its the same code. Still testing , as for pa I am starting to think about some direct gand editing on the heightmaps in wilbur...

----------


## groovey

Cool, will have to check that when the moment comes.

So, today I worked on the height-map a bit more, using the cloud rendering layer to try to add more random bits of green light (1000-2500m), instead that unintentionally lead me to revise the original big green light shapes on most continents, so they look more random and so, so which one do you like the most, the old one (image of the left), or the new one (on the right?



I think I'll give up trying to get more random smaller bits, because I find it oddly frustrating, I don't like how random "bloby" the look in the middle on anywhere.

----------


## ascanius

personally I like the one on the left the most.  the distribution of the mountains seems more uniform and less random.  The one on the right gives you too many large continuous plateaus in my opinion.  I think the one on the right would work better if they were broken up with the lowest level in places.

----------


## Naima

I prefer the one on right , if you are going to erode it , it will give a better base to start from , also the world on left is too flat and the mountains look more "planned".

----------


## Ilanthar

I'm with Ascanius on this : the left one has my preference. I think it has a more natural feeling (if it means anything).

----------


## Pixie

Hmm... something "in between"? I agree the one on the left looks more "natural", but the second, while being a little too chaotic, will look much better after some sort of erosion process.

Either way, if your purpose is purely schematic so you can get into climates and then on with your novel, I abstain from this vote, both are fine for me.

----------


## groovey

Thanks for your votes fellas. Please, before making up my mind for sure, can you take a look at this polished version of the last map? Those of you who preferred the old map, you still do?



Keep in mind I want the height-map for info purposes, I don't mean it to look stylize or anything, so don't focus on the outline of the shapes, just on the plausibility and the overall feeling of the size and distribution of the elevation. 

Thank you guys.

----------


## Akubra

Hi groovey, just got time to read your last few posts before I buzz off again. Your map looks promising, but I have one question: in some areas the 1000-2500 m. level meets the coast. Does that mean that the land suddenly drops to sea level from those heights? These heigt differences seem a bit strange, especially if you take into account your continental shelves. You would expect them to be very near the coast in these regions, but that's not always the case. Here on Earth, I don't know any comparable places. I do remember seeing the cliffs at the Great Australian Bight. At 70 m. high they were already very impressive. Angel Falls, the highest continuous waterfall in the world drops off a tepui in Venezuela, a sheer fall of almost 1000 m., but that is the highest cliff I know of. If that's the way you meant it, you have some extremely impressive coastlines. Too bad we won't be able to visit them in real life...  :Wink: 

Cheers - Akubra

----------


## Pixie

Akubra, you are maybe forgetting the point that a single pixel in a map at this scale is a significant distance. 
But at the same time, you raise a very good point, how some coastlines have a tectonic background that doesn't allow those steep coasts.

Some of your shorelines, groovey, must be very old. The southern coast of Picsë and the eastern coast of Acubrä are pretty old, even if you have plateaus close to them, erosion would have leveled a great deal of km's inland. Have a look at the Brazilian coast near Rio de Janeiro and south of it, as well as Angola/Namibia on the other side of the Atlantic - plateaus, reasonably high, but very eroded towards the coast.

----------


## groovey

Very good point guys. I agree I've abused the frequency of bestial steep coast. The only place were I really need it is in the mountain range that separates the two crashing continents on the east: Swifendlia/Swefendlea* and Ascanta, as I need it to be almost an impossible barrier (physically + culturally) to cross by land for the people on either side, so I extended the light green right to the coast. So even though the height-map is mostly orientative, I'll make the green light level retreat a bit from the coasts.

And though most of you preferred the old height-map version, I must say I feel more inclined towards the new version, so I'm torn because I appreciate your opinions a lot, since you guys are much better at this mapping stuff and I trust you must know better which version could work best.

* (I write the names differently now because I had a major Sudden Clarity Moment a few days ago, Akubra, if you want to know what happened so you avoid the silliness with your conlang let me know in private?, since I'm not sure I should talk about the conlang here, seems a bit out of topic, though it does relate to the map's names).

EDIT: I took care of the abuse of steep coasts, I think? How is it looking now? Somehow convincing enough? Please note I haven't corrected the spelling of the labels yet.




EDIT 2: I've started to play with the ocean currents (since I couldn't bring myself to have a go at the winds), following Pixie's tutorial, which I found quite easy to follow in general. Please bear with me, this is my very first attempt and I hardly know what I'm doing. I have no idea of how to solve the poles and the closed basin areas, any suggestions? The second once has the latitude lines divided in 45º squares.



I'll work on the aesthetics once I got a model running.

----------


## Azélor

It is also possible to have a East-West current near the south pole like in this map: File:Corrientes-oceanicas.gif - Wikimedia Commons

The Antarctic Coastal Current

----------


## groovey

Like this? Looking at Earth's currents maps I noticed such East-West current near the poles is drawn around 60º latitude, so I placed them there (the north one was a bit too high).

I also tried to solved some of the closed or semi-closed basins, but I'm not sure of it.

----------


## Pixie

Hey groovey. Good to see you braving the stuff you aren't confident about. You shouldn't be worried with the result, it's very good.

I'd say 90% seems to be the right place. Here's the 10% where I don't see it like you do:

- you forgot to close two loops 
 One is easier to spot, the sea southeast of Arlia (west of the word Indris, a warm current coming down along those islands forces a cold current on the other side).
 The other one stretches around the end of the map. I think you need a cold current west of the word Orter - it's too much water to squeeze in that passage, so a lot of it will just flow northwards along the island arc and join the westerly current southeast of Enenlea

- I don't think the north polar current would be so close to the continental margins - in fact, I think it would be further north and that forces "return" currents (west->east) on the continental margins

As for the smaller sea basins, treat them just as big oceans. Close to the equator, and to the 60º/70º latitude, there's a tendency to flow westward, in between, around 40º/45º, a tendency to flow easterly. Other than this is just closing the loops.

----------


## Ilanthar

Speaking of oceanic currents, I've always loved that NASA video : 



You can see the main big currents and the incredible number of smaller ones. I guess there are a lot of circling minor currents in your "?" zones.

----------


## Azélor

Oh now Groovey will want to draw them all  :Mad: 

Seriously, someone did something like that not too long ago. 
Found it: http://www.cartographersguild.com/re...tml#post224591

----------


## Falconius

Which reminds me of another link that was posted on these forums of a wind map, but it also happens to include ocean currents: earth :: an animated map of global wind, weather, and ocean conditions

----------


## groovey

Hello!

Well, sorry Pixie, I'm still not sure of how to solve the closed basins, since they only get crossed by one of the black current lines, so I can't close the circuit.

The same with the cold current east of Arlia, I'm not sure how to connect it with the black eastern 45º line, since the warm current awkwardly closes the path to the black line, and there's the warm and cold current from the Indris sea also very close, so the whole area is a bit confusing for me.

I'm not sure how those circle currents work, or if the warm, cold or what. I had seen that video, if I'm not mixing it up with another, the animation was done by Pixar.



I'd appreciate any help.

EDIT 16/08/14: sorry for the lack of updates, I've been distracted with stomach pains and fixing basic points of the conlang I'll use to add names to the map. Plus I'm not sure how to fix the currents maps, so I have to find a way to.

----------


## groovey

Hello!

Well, my solution to the area east of Arlia was to modify the ocean shelve of the southern islands to make an opening and hopefully solving the routing issues, but since I'm not really sure how currents behave out of Pixie's tutorial, perhaps it's just a silly solution. Looking at Earth's currents maps doesn't really help me since each map represents things slightly differently and don't really explain the reasoning behind it because I guess they suppose one already knows.

So anyway, what are the major flaws in my currents map right now? Any critical fix needed?



Please note I still haven't fixed the name labels to abide them to my conlang's fixes.


Atmospheric Outline

Without pretending by any means that my currents don't need fixes, I started to have a look at the next step of Pixie's tutorial and came up to this. How bad is it? What corrections does it need? And what happens to Low Pressures in the July map? Honestly, this is as far as I can get on this on my own. Warning: the map gets uglier with each layer of info I add, honestly, be careful if you are aesthetics sensitive.

JANUARY-----------------------------------------JULY


Ugh, my Equator is so bloody crammed...

----------


## Azélor

I think your oceanic currents look alright. 


About the Atmospheric Outline:

In January, the large landmasses should be high pressure and become low pressure in the hot summer. And both the ITCZ and Polar front are low pressure area. 
The L should probably be closer to the equator or the Polar front but not really in the middle of them. Except for the western continent, this is a high pressure area since it's colder. 
The south is OK, it's low pressure but not terribly low when you step outside of the ITCZ. 

In July, the ITCZ should bend more than that. Bend toward the hot continental masses. It can bend up to the 30th parallel. It's possible to have the Polar front and ITCZ to meet or almost.That's what is happening is Asia. It create a large low pressure area. It covers the Arabian peninsula, the Indian sub-continent, South-east Asia and much of China. 

The south could have a high pressure zone over the largest of the continents, but not terribly high. 



You can also look at this to help you: http://montessorimuddle.org/wp-conte...rc-490x367.png

----------


## groovey

Thanks a lot for the input Azelor, but...

I'm afraid I don't understand how the whole thing works really, to apply it to a fictional planet. So I'm not sure I should go on with all the climate stuff. I'll try to do some research when my head is clearer and if I still can't figure it out.. well, I might have to make a though decision. 

Man I'm so tempted to pay someone to finish this stuff for me, in the commissions section, but damn, I don't think I could even afford the price.

I'm so intrigued now about what the final climate outline of my world would be and how it would affect the settings for the novel, that it's hard for me to just quit it and do terrain and politics. We'll see.

----------


## Azélor

I did some tests to see what it would look like with Pixie's tutorial

Winds and pressure for January (red=high pressure, blue is low)
Attachment 67072
And July
Attachment 67073

Precipitations Juanuary
Attachment 67074
And July
Attachment 67075

map showing the dry area (only in terms of precipitations)
Attachment 67076

I think I did something wrong with the precipitations because the climates are really dry compared to my map for the CWBP. I think water should go further inland.

----------


## groovey

Holy cow Azelor! That was amazing. Thanks a lot for the time and effort it took you to do it.

If you didn't actually make any mistake with the precipitations I might have a little clash with the kind of climate I had in mind for an specific region, on the north-west of the eastern big continent, which I pictured more wet and green like central Europe, and not so dry. I might have to move the Empire's Capital to a wetter area then I'm afraid, to be coherent with my original idea.

----------


## Azélor

I will try to see if I can fix it but it's still too dry. The problem could lie with the wind directions , I don't know.

One other explication is that your world is pretty flat. You see, higher elevation reduce the temperature and thins also lower the evaporation. With less evaporation, less water is required. The flatness is not a problem if it's what you have in mind but it's likely to make the interior of the continents drier. 

They share the similarities with Central Asia. Mid latitudes, low altitude and far from the sea.
Some continents of the CWBP2 have higher altitudes near the center, so this could explain the difference.


This is the resulting climates I get but I haven't cleaned any of the maps (temperature or precipitation) before doing it so it look really messy. 
Attachment 67098

To clean it requires a certain knowledge: for example the area in the western tip of the north west continent. One part is Dfb surrounded by Dsb. The reason it is that way is because the sides of the mountains receive more rain due to the orographic lift. We consider that they have a dry and wet season because of this but they only receive slightly more rain. In fact they should all be in the same climate. Well, actually not since I haven't considered the high elevation of the mountains. It's probably eternal snow on top. 

It makes no distinction between Am and Aw but the second is the driest and most common. Am surrounds the Af climate (sometimes it's near the Cfa) while the Aw surround the hot steppes or the Cwa. It's a transition so you need a steppe between the deserts and the A's climates. Talking about steppes I think it's better now.

Csa/Csb: I'm surprised to see these climates appear so often far from the coast, particularly on the western continent. 
Cwa: is not as common as expected
Cwb appear in the north ? weird
Cwc: not sure there is any, but it's rare anyway

Cfc: is uncommon like on Earth, only 1 or 2 places
Dsa: none but all the Ds climates are relatively rare

You don't have any Dsd,Dfd,Dwd climates. Not a problem since they are extreme climates.

and that's about it.

----------


## groovey

Wow, I wasn't expecting you to go on with the next step, since I figure is a pain in the butt. Thanks a lot mate, that's amazing.

And yes, you are very on point with the height-map limitations I'm afraid, if I had understood the implications it would have on the later steps I would have done it with a better mindset.

It's fascinating to look at my world map and be able to tell which area has what climate, and how sometimes it matches what I had in mind and other times it doesn't. Absolutely fascinating, I can't stop looking at it.

----------


## Azélor

but normally deserts should be on the western side of continents, not the opposite. That is the biggest problem.

----------


## sangi39

> but normally deserts should be on the western side of continents, not the opposite. That is the biggest problem.


Just a quick question that might be related to this, but wouldn't the major wind currents around the equator be moving in the opposite direction, i.e. east to west, rather than west to east?

----------


## Azélor

Yes, your right ! And it's so obvious now that I look at my other map on climate.

----------


## groovey

Hello.

Just a quick update. I worked on a hopefully improved version of the height-map so the world isn't as flat. Of course, I feel like an dxxk for not doing it before Azelor used some of his free time to do the climate stuff with the previous version. 



So now I'm in doubt, do I stick to the new height-map and give up climate (except the untouched areas from the previous version, where the climate stuff Azelor did would still apply) or stick to the weak height-map for which I have the climate stuff thanks to Azelor? I don't know, I feel bad simply disregarding Azelor's work, who I can't thank enough for letting me have a glimpse on my world's climate, so we'll see.

Regardless of what I do, would you even say the new height-map is an improvement over the old one, that I'll re-post again below for quick reference?

----------


## Azélor

I think the differences would be small in most places.

I think that the eastern part of the north-eastern continent should be all humid (it's supposed to be more or less like N-E China). As you move west it becomes a steppe between the two elevations. That was already what i had in mind but it makes it more legitimate.

For the eastern part of the same continent: mountains would make the central and eastern part drier. Another steppe but I don't think it's dry enough for a desert.

In the center of the map,. higher elevation would turn A climates into C climates. I'm not sure if I can differentiate the vegetation of these two climates. No major impact.

S-w: the rain pattern could change a little.

N-w: you have a lot of closed basin. I'm not sure why you have so many, Is there an explanation? 
The impact on rain is mitigated since the mountains are mostly in the center of the continent. But they do make it drier. 


Note : I'm saying all of this but I haven't showed the new version of the climate map. I'll do that later today.

----------


## groovey

Thanks a lot for stopping by again Azelor. Right now you're the only factor keeping the current work and direction of map from being abandoned and just make up everything disregarding climate and natural science, which after the frenzy would bother me a lot to have to base the world-building of the novel in such a phony map.

My main goal with the new version of the height-map was to get a less dry climate for the most important area for the novel, on the north-west side of the eastern northern double continent joined by the central mountain range, since in my head the climate would be similar to that of central Europe, but I guess I failed again to do so. I can't believe the people living east to the central mountain range will get the better climate, since the people I focus the novel in, living on the west of said range, hate the eastern people to death. I bet they'd hate me for giving the easterners the better climate. Plus I figured a big part of the western culture's success to such a developed culture and political organization, in such a vast scale, would be the richness of resources and the climate, so now I'm not sure of what to do.

Is it not possible for the western side of the central mountain range to have a central European type of climate no matter what the height-map is? Are other factors preventing that, or is it simply that I put the mountain ranges in the wrong place?

And the closed basins are just random, result of the "technique" to get the altitude ranges, I wasn't sure what to make of them. I'll fix that in a moment.

EDIT: Here it is. I filled the basins or opened them. I hope it makes a little more sense now.



PD. Azelor, did you see my PMessage? Just curious, because sometimes I miss the inbox notification alert for a few days.

----------


## Azélor

Yes I saw the message but I just need some time to think about it. 

Don't your continent have names ? 

I am not actually sure if the part we are talking about should be drier. The dominant winds are moving toward the east after all and the mountains are in the north. What I could do : lower the precipitation categories by 1 or 2 and see what happens. 

here without the new elevationAttachment 67356:

----------


## groovey

Indeed the continents have names already, here's the base version of the map with the labels. The area I'm talking about for the novel is Arec Swifendlia.



Interesting, with this new climate map now said area's climate is generally similar to that of central Europe according to this map, isn't it?:


Source.

In case the winds should make that area drier like you mention, which I'd like to avoid, what could I do to avoid it? Where should I place the mountain range/s in that area? The central mountain range has to stay because of world-building purposes and tectonics, but the rest of the range I could place wherever needed to get an overall central Europe climate like the new climate map has. I'm sorry to insist so much on this, but if I end up with a dry north of Swifendlia I'd have to re-think the origins of the humongous Empire that controls the continent, since they'd have a different start than if the originated in a humid, fertile land, and I really would prefer the later.

----------


## Azélor

When I said drier I meant steppes not deserts. You can find several states that prospered in the semi-arid climate. In fact most of the antic states started in semi-arid climates. 

Fertile Crescent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Loess Plateau - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Indus River - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Persia was a powerful antic state.
Spain is also considered a steppe, but I'm not sure it is. It is really close to the Mediterranean climate, especially on the coast. Valencia is too humid to be a steppe but maybe inland.
The kingdom of Castille was quite powerful if I recall correctly, it was the great power of the time and prior to that state, Cordoba was also very influential. 

and what about Mongolia, they conquered almost all of Asia !

----------


## groovey

I guess you are right. I've been thinking about it and I guess It'll do, so I'll have to re-think the whole thing (it's for the best I guess, the model of origin and development of the Empire needed fixes and updates anyway). In fact the Persian Empire is one of my main inspirations, along with the Roman, when it comes to the organization of the Empire, so I guess it'll work.

Castille was powerful because of the american colonies, but by itself it wouldn't have done much if it had have to fight European countries in the old continent. All the riches it got from the colonies, without them Castille would have been an anecdote in the 15-16th century History (I guess it could have still been significant in the fight against the Ottoman Empire, but without the resources form the colonies I'm not sure Spain could have gotten too involved in that either).

I didn't know about the Loess Plateau case so thanks for introducing me to it.

----------


## Azélor

You probably know Spain history better than I do. I remember that after the reconquista the kingdom had some economic problems and some parts of it where scarcely populated. Portugal was in a similar state. I recall reading that it was pretty poor before establishing the colonies. They got rich but eventually lost their colonies and felt into oblivions again. 

But yet, they where powerful at that time. And don't forget that they inherited the crown of Aragon and the Habsurgs. They controlled Spain, Austria, the south of Italy, the Netherlands and some other minor territories. France even fought alongside the protestants to counter Spain hegemony in the region.

----------


## groovey

You are right, but as you said, Spain became an empire through the colonies (which were usually conquered without much pain) and inheritance, and I don't want such a sissy empire in my world to be my focus. I want an Empire by conquest, not by breeding (though some regions will be annexed this way). 

What I mean to say is that the European states (the term state means that we are talking about the 15th century and beyond) were no Rome, they fought a lot, but neither had the capacity of permanently conquer the other and keep the territory. Their strength and power in the world, in the case of the three more powerful European states of the time: Spain, England and France, came mostly from their colonies, that's what made them Empires and the main protagonists of European History pre-19th in the case of Spain and France, since England actually kicked off for good in the latter centuries. That's why I personally can't really buy that those colonial Empires were as great as Rome or other great ancient Empires.

So yes, they were powerful Empires, but because of their colonies, and that's kind of disappointing to me. I don't want a colonialist Empire, I want a conqueror Empire that annexes territory and integrates the conquered population as a real part of the Empire, with their rights and obligations.

I understand that I'm being a bit harsh with the colonialist European empires (not as a human, because their model of colonialism is repugnant to me) and that I'm totally biased towards the Ancient empires (some of which notoriously had colonies), so please don't take my comments at heart, it was mostly the fanboy in me speaking, not the Historian.

----------


## Azélor

I'm not sure how different Rome was, it had slaves and most of it's riches where stolen from the conquered.

Anyway, back to climates: do you have a deadline for this?

----------


## groovey

You're right about Rome, as I said, I'm just very biased. If I had written my previous post as an Historian, it would have been completely different since then I would have been forced to remain neutral and give due pros and cons to each Empire. The general concept I was trying to express is than Rome had to fight very tough adversaries in its beginnings and later on Carthago, a formidable enemy. So Rome was mostly a militarist empire at its core, meanwhile the later European colonial Empires were mostly economical at their core, and what I want for my Empire it's to be a warrior empire during its expansion (once done, the reduced need for troops once expansion and pacification is over would create a very interesting crisis of that model of Empire which would force a transformation form a hard core militarist empire to a more balanced one to avoid one of the reason Rome failed on the long term).

Back to climates, I don't have a deadline since the novel is all for my own enjoyment. It's just one of my dear hobbies, so no hurries. What happens is that I can't get my self to actually start writing it (I work on the outline instead) without knowing certain information from the world map (where mountains, rivers and lakes are, so then I can do a more natural division of the territory for administration purposes and to better place settlements, to know where to place the capital of the Empire, what climate each setting of the novel has, etc). Starting to write not knowing all those things bugs me, so I want to be done with the maps and rest my mind before focusing on writing, since I also have other things going on and I can't focus on all of them at once. But again, I'm in no real hurry, but if only to motivate me to do something about it,  I gave myself the rest of the year to be done with the maps and then focus on the novel.

----------


## groovey

I must admit I like the climate map the old height-map results in, but the old height-map itself looks very silly to me now, so I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable with it on the long run.

----------


## ascanius

Hey groovey.  Its nice to see you still working on your map!  Great job and keep up the good work, your further along than I am.  I've been busy lately and going to be even busier for the remainder of the year it looks like.  I'll try to drop in to see how you coming along.

----------


## groovey

Oh my dear ascanius, if I'm further along than you it's all because of Azelor doing the climate stuff, which was bigger than me. I'm not sure my map will progress much further to be honest. I tried experimenting with terrain and it was terrible, so I think I'll have to settle to finish up the map in private so it can be ugly and naive and purely work as an outline for information purposes. I've given up all hope of producing a decent looking map. It's a bit sad I guess, but well.

----------


## groovey

Hello again!

Long time with no updates, basically because I got discouraged by the lack of progress with the map. But after a few months the other day a YT video about world-building made me think about this project again, and so I'm working on it again.

I'm working with Azelor's climate map of world as a guideline. He himself has said in the past it'd need revision, especially since I added more mountain areas since then, but as for now I have no other source to work with, so it'll have to do. I don't mind fixing the terrain as needed if I get a new climate map. Hopefully he does indeed manage to automate the process of figuring out climate as he's trying to do (http://www.cartographersguild.com/sh...l=1#post271412)




Basically what I've done is:

1) Territorial (simple, I would like to try make them look pretty) borders of the Empire (Municipalities, Counties and Provinces), 6 of each in each since 6 is the magic number in the culture controlling that territory. Still to do: Regions and Hinters +other countries/societies on the rest of the continent.




2) Terrain template using the method the devs of Crusader Kings II/EUIV/Victoria (great games) used to make their terrain maps:  http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/691...terrainmap.png (I can't find the original source).

I used Azelor's climate to place the desert, plus to determine when vegetation was as a forest (on temperate climate) or as a jungle (on tropical climate). 

I used the terrain code from the above Victoria 2 terrain map. 

I still need to figure out where Marsh terrain would happen. I won't differentiate  woods from forest, and Farmland, which for me mean specially fertile terrains that's neither plains or forest/jungle, I'll wait until I have the rivers (and for that I need to be sure of the mountains placement first) to place, since I figure they'd be related.




3) With the template as a guide, experiment with terrain using Saderan's famous tutorial, which after many past tries with no success, I finally seem to be getting the hang of it. 



I need to work on how to do the mountains because though I use the more simple technique Azhel shared to do them, I'm still not sure of what I'm doing with them. 

I also need to figure the best way of painting the desert, since the base color the Saderan tutorial works upon is not right.


So this is what I've done so far since last time (I did work on the Conlang associated to the world A LOT though, so name labels will need corrections when I'm ready to do them again).

I guess I'd like some basic input if anyone is still interested on this project, as in, have I made a big mistake with terrain placement? Am I breaking any golden rule? Any problems you detect in general?


Thanks for reading!

EDIT: I officially don't know what the heck am I doing anymore with the terrain, so I'm stuck and frustrated again.

----------


## Pixie

I like your idea of turning this map into a kind of Crusader Kings / Europa Universalis map, as I am a fan of those games. I suggest one thing though, so you don't get overwhelmed by your own ambition  :Smile:  - go into regional maps now, regional also suits Saderan's style much better.

----------


## groovey

Glad to hear I'm not the only Paradox nerd around here!

Glad to hear from you again mate.

What you say it's true. For the terrain I'm basically going regional. But to work it actually helps me to see the whole world to have a general perspective and make sure all fits, so I'm conflicted about it. 

What I will do is just post a cut out of the continent in work here when I need to, after all, you all don't really need to zoom in much into the continent or the terrain style doesn't look good, it needs a certain distance to be effective.

I'm doing some more work on it at the moment but boy, I'm not good at visual stuff, the result looks so silly to me. I don't know what to do.

I EDITED the terrain work in progress in my previous post. As you can see I have no idea of how to make the desert look good and blend well.

The mountains distribution looks silly too I think?

EDIT: checking out ascanius wonderful work on terrain makes me feel like a 5 years old drawing with Paint.

EDIT 2: Pixie, I think I know what you mean about scale. Working world scale makes the scale of the terrain (mountains and vegetations) too big. The problem is I want both a world map and then regional maps, and I want the terrain of one region to match on the world map, but I wouldn't know how to do that.

----------


## groovey

Well, I've done  a lot of trying and thinking since my last post... and the conclusion I've reached is that I need a different style for the world map.

The scale of the mountains in the Saderan style is too big for the scale of a world map, even a continent map. I tried to work or Arlia since it's a separate smaller continent, but still the scale of the terrain was too big.

By the way, I realized Arlia was waay too big, so I reduced it. I hope I kept it a reasonable position from the rift.



Also, without messing up the general elevation I've already set, so it's not even more conflicting with Azelor's climate map of my world, I'd like to add a little bit more detail to it, like I tried to do with Arlia, which by the way it's not 100% final but closer to what I have in mind.



And so I'm on a quest to decide which style to do for the world map.

----------


## Ilanthar

I know how you feel. I think it's really a problem to depict the mountains on an entire world map in a "quite realistic" manner. I think contour/color code lines or atlas style with shading may be the best way, but not the simplest one.

----------


## Pixie

Well, you said it already, a whole world map doesn't add up with "realistic" mountain representation.

But, then again, most maps of Earth will not have the mountains represented. If you label cities and rivers, the mountains and deserts kinda "appear" in there, because they are the large areas without rivers/cities (deserts), and the areas without cities where the rivers start (mountains)... If you then place a single label in that area, say, in italics, with _Desert X_, or _ZY Mountains_ - it may completely do the trick!

----------


## groovey

I get what you're both saying (thanks for clearing my thoughts a bit) , I can't believe it took me so long to figure it out: the altitude templates I'm doing would actually be the "final" world map if I managed to add some texture to it, which right now I have no idea of how to (well I could then do another world map for terrain like in this one, with the saderan style, maybe, I'm actually not that skilled to pull that off).

So if I managed to get a 5 years old child drawing in Paint version of maps like this or this I'd be kind of happy.

EDIT:

I'm trying to get the world  heightmap done already. I've been experimenting and I've settle for a basic automatic technique mixing the gradient idea with part of this tutorial.

1. Render Cloud
2. Posterize at level 7, when happy with result I merged the posterization layer to the clouds layer and cut out the ocean to leave only the land.
3. From here I tried 3 gradients (I won't add exact leyends until I settle for one):


A: with the color scale from here:

RGB: 199, 184, 157 (Sand)
RGB: 133, 150, 101 (Grass)
RGB: 84, 99, 42 (Forest)
RGB: 117, 100, 93 (Hills)
RGB: 157, 144, 118 (Peaks)

Light brown is the highest, light green the lowest.



B: with color 66,99,66 only. This two are my fab.

darkest green is the highest, lighter green/yellowish is the lower.

 OR 

C: with colours from here:

12k ft+ = 229,229,179
9k-12k ft =209,209,163
6k-9k ft = 188,188,147
3k-6k ft = 168,168,131
2.5-3k ft = 137,198,137
2k-2.5k ft = 123,178,123
1.5k-2k ft = 109,158,109
1k-1.5k = 95,137,95
500-1k ft = 81,119,81
0-500 ft = 66,99,66

Light brown is the highest, dark green the lower.



Which of the 3 gradients do you prefer?

Does the heightmap in general make any sense?

There are two little areas where I'd have to modify the height a bit to match the tectonic map, but for now  I just want to find the right model.

I'd appreciate any input or critique (especially if they come with suggestions to improve the critiqued stuff).

Please have in mind:

1. The south pole obviously needs adjustments to make sense on a globe map but for now I ignore it.

2. Visually, at least from a distance, it does neither look pleasant or realistic, but I'm afraid it's as best as I can manage. I'm very mechanical in thinking and not really artistic.

3. The purpose is mostly for info and a future revision of the climate map.

4. The coast should in general be set to the lowest altitude but with the scale of the map I'm not sure I should even bother.

Thank you for reading.

----------


## Azélor

I kinda like the last gradient more than the two others but also like this one used by Pixie : http://www.cartographersguild.com/sh...ad.php?t=27903

As for the heightmap, I don't know if it was intentional but it looks completely random. That should be expected when using a cloud render. It's less problematic if I ignore the south pole because it's too distorted to be representative, but I still like the ancient versions more.

----------


## groovey

It is 90% random! 

The older versions of my heigh-map make me shudder and I had gotten the impression the consensus was that the blobs of color were too uniform, thus why I gave it another try today trying to make it less uniform and more random. So right now I'm a bit confused. 

Isn't elevation not determined by tectonics always random (in fictional maps), even if you make up a system for it?

----------


## Azélor

Yes, like with the coastline it's pretty random.

----------


## groovey

Thanks for your input Azelor. I guess I'll try to work a bit more with the current technique but modifying stuff manually to try to get something more natural.

----------


## Azélor

My comment wasn't very constructive. I'm still not sure how to go about this process. A lot of people use different random techniques or go with ''ill keep the landmass because it look nice''. Unlike climates for example, there is often very little logic/science in land placement.

----------


## Pixie

I think you were going in a better direction with your old heightmap, groovey. All the effort through tectonics and climate, and all the thought you want to put into settlements and coherent history, kind of get thrown out of the window with such a "random" process. Here's my humble suggestion: turn all your heightmaps (old and new) into grayscale layers, set them to multiply, it will get a little more chaotic and, in some way, respect the tectonics of your old heightmap... (I think). You can also try to use Wilbur (dunno if you tried it already) to get some river valleys.

As for colors, I prefer your third option. But, let me thrown in a handy pic...

Using the colorpicker, you can make a palette with as many colors as you need.

----------


## groovey

Don't worry Azelor, your opinion was useful nevertheless.

Pixie, I'll definitely try what you suggest, hopefully when I have free time again next weekend, since for now I'm too busy with a temporary job.


Thanks guys, for giving me some direction.

----------


## groovey

Hi Pixie, I just wanted to let you know I did try to try your suggestion but I'm definitely missing something to make it do anything and I'm still trying to figure out what is it. 

So I'm experimenting a bit almost each day, because I really hate my old height-maps, but I never get anything good, even when trying to arrange the blobs manually. I'll keep trying at least for a bit.

----------


## Vidgange

I'm glad I stumbled upon this thread! Sorry for not contributing anything worthwhile, but I'd like to add that quite a Paradox games fan as well  :Wink:  

I'm trying to understand all of this, tectonic movements, mountain ranges, climate and everything in between, but damn it's hard! I wish there was some YouTube videos that explained it all well

----------


## groovey

Hi Vidgange! The science part of world construction is very hard for me too and I can't say I succeed too often, but it's kind of fun trying.


For one week I've intermittently worked on a new height-map and today I've finished it, I hope. I used my last technique of render clouds + posterize, but much more controlled these time, working one area at a time and then fixing stuff manually and applying the color manually instead of with gradients, since I can't make it work like I want it to. I also redid the shelves.



The palette I got 100% from this beautiful map of laevex_esre


A few things to consider:

1. I've tried to match the tectonic info, but I've given up on super accuracy. A decent amount of it will do for me

2. I couldn't make it look pretty if my life depended on it, so I've also settled for the simplistic layering with no effects.

3. Yes, the little islands are half-assed, I don't really care much for them

4. The humongous mountain range in the top middle of the continent on the top right is caused by two continental plates colliding, so it's very high. I checked how the Himalayas  are represented in height-maps and what I got is: flat and wide. Of course it looks horrible when I tried to apply the same logic, but again, I don't care if it ugly, as long and in represents the info decently enough.


How does it work? Does it make any sense?

----------


## Akubra

Hey groovey, nice height map you have there!

I wouldn't worry about layering effects and such. It's quite clear where your heights and plains are.

About  that high mountain range: it looks like the slope gradient is more or  less the same all around. Is this intentional or not? I'm wondering if  this would happen in reality. To me it's quite relevant because I also  have a continent where two tectonic plates smash into each other. I  created a long mountain range with a steep eastern side and a more  slowly descending western side (actually with other, older mountain  ranges on it).

It also seems that many of your coastal areas drop down  quickly to the sea (some even from 2000 to 3000 metres). It strikes  me that many height levels are not completely surrounded by lower  levels. Any reason why you chose to do it like this?

I love the  colours that indicate the ocean depths. I see that some parts have  intricately formed borders while others have more "flowing" lines. Do  those two kinds of borders have different properties?

I must say  that I really like the aspect of your map, especially the colours. I  think I'll have a look what such colours would do with my planet's  appearance  :Wink: 

Cheers - Akubra

----------


## groovey

Hi Akubra! Thanks for stopping by.

The reason why the big mountain range slope is uniform is because of the technique I used to do the layering, which was quick and lazy since I wasn't sure how to go with it. I might revise it this weekend if I have time.

Yes, many coastal areas drop high. Perhaps I have too many of those. EDIT: yes, lots of them, I'll have to do lots of slight adjusments on the weekend.

The reason why the shelves (light blue) are smooth in one side and rough in another is because there's tectonic subduction going on, so the shelves have to end where the two plates meet and I figured they'd get smooth while they we're getting chewed.

I'm glad the palette from Etarek works for me too, I quite like it a lot.

----------


## Pixie

Hey there.

I think your map looks nice, visually, so this is definitely a style you can keep. As for the actual heights, the one thing that strikes me the most is the amount of inland basins that you have - by far too many places where the water will flow into a basin and create huge lakes. Over time these places either fill up with sediment and become plains or the water carves a way out of them so that the stop being closed basins.

I think a very quick pass in Wilbur would do wonders.

----------


## groovey

Interesting Pixie, so it's that bad? Are you saying it's not reallistic at all to have so many? I had thought of using some to fill as lakes later on when I work on rivers, so I mean, I don't mind it at all if in Wilbut they become lakes, I'd love it actually. 

EDIT: re-read your post, there are too many, I can reduce them. So they'd be lakes at first, then plains... sorry for my density, why is that bad? Won't Wilbur turn some into lakes connected to rivers so the water will flow and the lakes remain lakes? What do I do to make some of them lakes that will stay lakes?

My idea was to import the heigh-map, layer by layer, into Wilbur, if only to get the rivers.

----------


## Deadshade

> Won't Wilbur turn some into lakes connected to rivers so the water will flow and the lakes remain lakes? What do I do to make some of them lakes that will stay lakes?
> 
> My idea was to import the heigh-map, layer by layer, into Wilbur, if only to get the rivers.


Wilbur is actually quite unfriendly to lakes. If you want some, you must define them specifically (I believe there is a tutorial by Waldronate how to do lakes in Wilbur).
What Pixie meant was that the procedure of basin filling/incision/erosion in Wilbur will make very realistic rivers and shape the countryside by erosion.
And in this process it gets rid of almost all unnatural inland basins.

If you import your map in Wilbur (what is a very good idea for rivers and erosion) be ready that the result will not be just "adding rivers". Your whole landscape will be eroded in the process.

----------


## groovey

Oh, I wouldn't really mind then if Wilbur changes things a bit as long as the tectonic derived terrain stays plausible. I'll try it out once I'm done correcting the altitude on the coastal parts.

----------


## Pixie

As long as you use fine parameters and small steps at a time Wilbur won't change much in terms of lowland/plateau/highland... I always avoid the "all-in-one" Erosion Cycle.

----------


## selden

Groovey,

Can you provide a copy of your heightmap which is a "uniform" greyscale, with black for the lowest depth in the ocean and white for the peak of the highest mountain? 

That way, your planet can be drawn in some 3D visualization  programs so that the mountains look like bumps. At the moment, the surface looks a little flat:


(I used Celestia, in case you were wondering. One can use more complicated 3D packages, but I find Celestia to be easy to use to visualize planetary systems.)

----------


## groovey

You mean like this?



Sorry I took so long. I finally have a bit more time after a hectic week. I look fordward to see what the result is selden.

EDIT: I hope you're still around selden cos I tried but I have no idea how to import my height-map in Celestia, and can't find anywhere how to do it.


I'm slowly (since I lost motivation), fixing the coast of that height-map so the altitude along most of it is between 0-500, but to be honest, visually I like the map much better as it was. With the coast altitude's shrinked it visually doesn't look that good to me. I've finished the big continent on the right side, I still have to do the others with 0 motivation.

----------


## groovey

Hi all!

Since I'm not motivated to reduce the altitude of the coast, I decided to import the grey-scale height-map to Wilbur and apply parts of the "Fun with Wilbur" tuts to suit my needs, one to get the basic erosion (which fixed the coast but I guess diluted the altitude levels I had set) and another to get the rivers as an overlay to export. So with the map of the terrain and the rivers map, I went back to PS and this is the result.



As unpolished as it is, I think it would do for me for world developing purposes and for the novel.

Of course, if Azelor eventually developes a system to get the climate info, I'll have to use the PS layered height-map, on which the coast won't be perfect, but eh, as long as I get close enough info I'll be happy. 

I won't know where the desertic areas will be until then, but well.

BTW, this is the bump map Wilbur made:



Mm, I guess I need to research how to get some lakes too, where and how to make them in Wilbur.

----------


## Pixie

It's not that bad, groovey. The large continents look like huge flat mesas at this point, but that's something that can be sorted with time and patience on Wilbur.

If you feel burned out by all this, leave it in the backburner for a while. After all, it's just a hobby  :Wink:

----------


## groovey

Don't real world height-maps also look like flat blobs?

----------


## Ilanthar

> *By Pixie*
> If you feel burned out by all this, leave it in the backburner for a while. After all, it's just a hobby


That's very right. Sometimes, a break is even an excellent things, offering some fresh ideas and perspective. I tend to go working on something else (very different if possible) when I got bored or lost motivation. And usually, I come back on the project with a renewed envy and new ideas.

Concerning you good example, they added the shadows to give the feeling of 3D and break the flatness. You surely can obtain this kind of result in Wilbur (though my method isn't probably the best, as it is very long).

----------


## Azélor

> Don't real world height-maps also look like flat blobs?


Ha, but this is different as they are god-made blobs. 

Earth has low elevation areas sometimes stretching far inland.

----------


## groovey

Thanks for your words fellas. I think I'll indeed take a break from this WIP, officially, since with what I got I'll work on political maps and such, for private use.

----------


## groovey

Here's the political map of my world from the POV on the Empire (red on the map), with the main powers and their areas of influence (diluted colors), influence mostly through trade.



It's a simple not stylized map labeling the oceans and main seas, the big regions (all capitals) which are not really unified strong political powers, thus are not very important for the Empire or are unknown in detail to it; the main political powers (each in a different solid color); and the capital of each (black dot and italic name).

I'm content with the last map I got from Wilbur and the rivers it gave me, and for climate I've settle to work with average temperatures from Earth based on latitude, to know approximately what the cultures on each area would have to live with. That means for now I've got what I need to world-build.

I will volunteer to try Azelor's new guide to climate if that ends up happening tough.

It's not really a pretty map (it's for me to world-build), so I posted it mostly as a nod to the 4 of you who have helped me and encouraged me with my map all this time, in the labels you should see what I mean. You're part of that world somehow forever. 

Many thanks to you 4 and of course multiple other fellow guildies who tried to help or shared their input punctually.

This sounds like a goodbye, but it isn't at all. I don't even dare say it's a goodbye to this WIP because I feel it's finished, for this guild's standard it isn't, so I might revisit it on moments of greater confidence, but for now I want to focus on other stuff.

----------


## Akubra

Hey groovey, thanks for the nod!  :Wink:   I like that map. It's simple, as you say, but not everything has to be  complicated. Also, and I'm sure it has been said many times  before, if the map, the topography, the political borders,  and everything else that's on it work for *you*, then it's fine. You are the creator,  not we.

I can't say much about the political borders you've  chosen and how they relate to your topography and climate, because I'm  not yet in that phase (still struggling with my topography and such).

As a side note, I do like the way you've represented Acublia,  still completely white (and undiscovered?). It makes me think of the  maps produced during the times of the "great discoveries", when a lot of  them had large white spots marked "Terra Incognita". You can  dream away just by looking at your map and wonder if there could be an  El Dorado or a Shangri-La hidden somewhere behind that white. You never  know, do you?...

Cheers - Akubra

----------


## Pixie

Good move, groovey! Get that historical phase of worldbuilding started!!  :Very Happy: 

And, as for Guild Standards, this "rough political map" you just posted is already (and at least!!) in the top 50%... good color balance, fine labeling and realistic land masses and coastlines.  :Wink:

----------


## groovey

Yes! I'm excited to work on the History and the political context for the novel. 

I't weird cos I made it be labelled from the POV of the Empire, but at the same time the map is way too detailed for the level of advancement the world is in, and contains info even about lands not explored, but I needed it so for my own purposes.

Arlia is really the explorer nation, with a great advanced navy, so what I figure is at some point merchants from the Empire got their hands more or less honorably on maps the Arlians did, and then incorporated that info on the imperial maps. I got no explanation about the south pole land mass or the north of Acublia, not even the Arlians would have wanted anything to do there... I guess it's better not to think about it much.

I haven't made my mind at all about the land that bears your name Akubra. I didn't mean for it to have humans at all, but since I had to made Picsi have some so the Arlians could get rich (sorry Pixie, your people are under a serious crisis at the moment) trading with them for a bit for gold and silver (yes I know that sounds familiar...), it's hard to think some peeps from there wouldn't end up reaching the south of Acublia, it's hard to defend that continent would stay free of humans.

About political borders and climate... I basically placed the empire around the approximate latitudes that I know best in our planet, so the general average temperatures have the same range than from the very north of Africa to Germany, mostly so I'd be familiar with it. To divide the empire (not shown in the map) I used rivers and height as a general rule. I didn't give it much tought to be honest.

Are any of you doing some world-building with your maps, even if basic ideas of peeps living in them?

----------


## Azélor

> Yes! I'm excited to work on the History and the political context for the novel. 
> 
> I't weird cos I made it be labelled from the POV of the Empire, but at the same time the map is way too detailed for the level of advancement the world is in, and contains info even about lands not explored, but I needed it so for my own purposes.
> 
> Arlia is really the explorer nation, with a great advanced navy, so what I figure is at some point merchants from the Empire got their hands more or less honorably on maps the Arlians did, and then incorporated that info on the imperial maps. I got no explanation about the south pole land mass or the north of Acublia, not even the Arlians would have wanted anything to do there... I guess it's better not to think about it much.
> 
> I haven't made my mind at all about the land that bears your name Akubra. I didn't mean for it to have humans at all, but since I had to made Picsi have some so the Arlians could get rich (sorry Pixie, your people are under a serious crisis at the moment) trading with them for a bit for gold and silver (yes I know that sounds familiar...), it's hard to think some peeps from there wouldn't end up reaching the south of Acublia, it's hard to defend that continent would stay free of humans.
> 
> About political borders and climate... I basically placed the empire around the approximate latitudes that I know best in our planet, so the general average temperatures have the same range than from the very north of Africa to Germany, mostly so I'd be familiar with it. To divide the empire (not shown in the map) I used rivers and height as a general rule. I didn't give it much tought to be honest.
> ...


I don't do that many map and many of them are Earth map. But when i do an original map, yes, I do some background. It's almost a necessity. You need good names and a good map need some immersion. You think about it here and there and come up with a story overtime. My map of Leothwald had a lot of evocative names related to it's people and history.

Of course it was just a small map, as large as eastern Europe maybe. Therefore, I've never worked on the tectonic or climates. I just took the same characteristics as the areas more or less where the Baltic states are.

----------


## Durakken

You do realize you pretty much just transposed the Roman Empire onto your map... And the "unknown" continent is the same as it was in those days, though how it would know about the southern continents and the islands that pretty much lead to it but not it is a bit odd.

From a possibility that this is what they would know of the world... it makes no sense for them to know of Newori and Reuron if this is Middle Ages or before tech. They'd just consider that a mysterious land far to the east.

Arlia, Picsi, and Hemlia should have different ethnicities and neither Picsi nor Hemlia should be known to the empire. If anything they should only know Hemlia if it has the tech to get across the ocean and trade. Also, Arlia should also probably be hear say from those on the southern edge of Acelor, probably nothing more.

The capital of Swifendlia should likely be on the peninsula a little ways to the east. This is because it is the choke point of trade for that area. Likewise there should be a large city on the coast near Oncar.
Inalia is probably the weakest of the 3 powers.
Ontir should also be moved to the west probably, to the furthest point west of Oncar. For the same reasons as above.

That's just my opinion though

----------


## Durakken

> I't weird cos I made it be labelled from the POV of the Empire, but at the same time the map is way too detailed for the level of advancement the world is in, and contains info even about lands not explored, but I needed it so for my own purposes.


Make Multiple maps then. You can have an Overall Map and a PoV map, etc...




> Are any of you doing some world-building with your maps, even if basic ideas of peeps living in them?


Yes... The map I posted is for a Web novel I intend to write. I'm slowly getting through the geographic stage. The next part will be to place all the cities and nation borders ^.^

----------


## Akubra

> Yes! I'm excited to work on the History and the political context for the novel.


Good! I'm excited for you ...and curious too!  :Wink: 




> Are any of you doing some world-building with your maps, even if basic ideas of peeps living in them?


Oh yes, I do have ideas, since a long time actually. But I've got a bit of a dilemma, and it keeps nagging me. There are two scenario's I'm considering:

The "standard" scenario in which living beings evolve on a planet. As time goes by they develop human-like characteristics and start exploring the planet, concquering new lands, trade, wage war, and do all the things we do here ...but differently.An alternative scenario in which the planet already has animal-like and plant-like beings, but nothing human-like. Space explorers from our own Earth would end up colonizing this planet.  Of course, it would have to be a habitable planet for humans. One of the first questions to solve would be: how do they get there? They probably would need millions of years to reach the planet. First I thought about generetion ships, then I started thinking about sleeper ships, and finally a combination of those sleeper ships and embryo space colonization. I've got a few ideas about how it would go once they get there, but it's still a bit chaotic. 

In both scenarios some aspects of the lives of the inhabitants could be taken from here, and others could be quite alien to how we do things. Most of the time I do have a preference for scenario 2 though...

Cheers - Akubra

----------


## groovey

This post is mostly about world-building in response to Durakken, so if that bores you, don't bother.

Durakken, yes, as I said it, it's a weird mix of both concept map (their POV, my detailed needs), I never said it makes sense! But it works for my world-building purposes. I only posted that political map as a nod. 

You add very interesting stuff. The Roman Empire along with the Persian one are two of the main inspirations for mine, but the actual location of the Empire has changed quite a bit with each revision. Its current position came from adding a layer in PS with an average temperature map of our world and adjusted to match the latitudes in my world, the placed the empire on the continent I wanted yes, but put the limits where the temperatures worked best for me.

Picsi and Hemlia, and the other power's approximate borders, are known to the Empire only through maps they got from the other powers by shady means, the Empire doesn't have detailed maps about them. 

Arlians have advanced naval tech, both for trade and war, at the level of the Late Middle Ages let's say, so it's not so weird for me to think they'd be able to get to Picsi through the islands' chain.

Doesn't seem that farfetched for me that looking for new markets (and following rumors about new lands) the Arlians or Oncar would find Hemlia, and from there they could follow the islands on the west to Enenlia, or would find the little islands first and then get to the big lands.

Arlians got to Arlia escaping the advance of the Empire, a bit like Pilgrims that got to the Americas from England, they ended up there because of a series of reasons and mixed a bit with the natives. So they have common ethnic roots and language to the population of the area where the Empire grew from.

Arlia, Picsi and Hemlia have nothing to do with each other except trade. The light colors on the map are areas of trade influence, a bit like the Greeks and Phoenicians had going on the Peninsula Iberica before the Carthaginians and Romans came to stay.

About the capital for Swifendlia: what the 6 powers do is act as trade re-distributors among themselves, since each guards their own areas of influence so the others don't mingle on it. It took time and lots of small conflicts to get to the current frail equilibrium. 

So not much is going on on the peninsula on the external side, since trade between Arlia and the Empire can take place near the borders of their areas of influence. 

Inside the empire, I don't find the peninsula specially significant for trade (yes for defense, since it had narrow land borders and has a bit of height), since it would only be another stop on the route. I mean, they'd be enough cities along the coast on the Esilec sea, so I don't really see what a city on the peninsula's coast would be more automatically significant than the others. What am I missing?

Plus the capital stayed there through the centuries on purpose, for political reasons, since the ruling dynasty originated from around that area and they believe they're the chosen ones and that crap, so of course they'd set their capital on the sacred land where they came from. 

I agree about moving Ontir to the west to be on the mouth of the entry to Toec, near one of the two small rivers around there.

Yes, Inalia is weakest of the 3 and her navy, as the Empire's, is mostly just good for coastal navigation. Oncar probably should control the area of influence between itself and Inalia. I figure the Empire didn't want Oncar near in both of its ends (since Oncar and Arlia and the only 2 powers that can be potentially problematic), so they favored having Inalia in the middle on the North as a buffer and would have had a hand in stopping Oncar from advancing further. 

I have not figured the details about 4 of the powers and their dynamic to be honest, I'm just warming up to them existing at the moment, since I had only conceived the Empire and Arlia until I did the last map.

That said, I loved how you made me have to think about it all Durakken. I don't agree with all that you suggested, but perhaps only because you didn't add much detail in your arguments to be convinced.

From how self-assured you sounded it feels you've got experience in this sort of thing, I guess from working on your Web novel, where did you get your guidelines from? My arguments sound kind of weak against yours. I can't see any map of yours, the links on your 2012 thread are dead. If it's a project you are posting about somewhere I'd love to keep an eye on it.

----------


## groovey

Akubra, if we think about it, both of the two scenarios (the most typical when creating a fictional world) are a stretch:

- If COMPLEX life (who knows about the origins of the first living organisms) of the planet are 100% endogenous it's a stretch that in most of our worlds animals and humans are basically the same or completely the same that on Earth.

- If humans are imported to the planet, how did they get there if they come from Earth, as you very well explain in point 2?

You sound willing to let your "humans" not be 100% like us humans, so you could work out any of both scenarios if you figure out how they'd manage to do option 2. Problem for me is, in my stories I don't want magic, or science fiction and so, my "humans" have to be 100% humans, which is not realistic at all, and I don't care about fauna and flora. I just want to tell stories about humans (it makes me sound so anthropocentric, which is not what I would define myself like, but well).

I have played with the idea of setting my fictional world on Earth, for practical reasons, and that option would be the more realistic I could work with, if around the Roman times a big natural disaster took place that shattered civilizations and they kind of had to start over and eventually evolving into my fictional world. Problem was, I'm so "bored" with maps of Europe by now, mostly because I play or watch videos of gameplay of CKII and EU4 so much, plus it's so easy to tell the western countries just by the shape of the land, that it's hard to erase them from my head when I work with a blank Europe map.

I thought of focusing on beyond Scandinavia, where the land is more uniform and I can't see countries, or use North America, but it feels so tacky.


P.S.: Sorry for the double post, but my reply to Durakken was long enough on its own.

----------


## Durakken

> Arlians have advanced naval tech, both for trade and war, at the level of the Late Middle Ages let's say, so it's not so weird for me to think they'd be able to get to Picsi through the islands' chain.
> 
> Doesn't seem that farfetched for me that looking for new markets (and following rumors about new lands) the Arlians or Oncar would find Hemlia, and from there they could follow the islands on the west to Enenlia, or would find the little islands first and then get to the big lands.
> 
> Arlians got to Arlia escaping the advance of the Empire, a bit like Pilgrims that got to the Americas from England, they ended up there because of a series of reasons and mixed a bit with the natives. So they have common ethnic roots and language to the population of the area where the Empire grew from.
> 
> Arlia, Picsi and Hemlia have nothing to do with each other except trade. The light colors on the map are areas of trade influence, a bit like the Greeks and Phoenicians had going on the Peninsula Iberica before the Carthaginians and Romans came to stay.


It's not impossible, but think of it this way, Australia and North America is only widely known to us today, after the era of colonization and great ocean exploration which came after the late 1400s. Before this point all known explorations was coastal at best and not very distant at that. Island hoppers were very rare and there is no known travel to Australia (at least that I know of) and only very sparse viking travel to the Americas that as far as we can tell was a one way trip. The only other Oceanic exploration that is a posibility was Zheng He, but that is highly debated and still leaves you in the early 1400s which isn't much of a difference in tech. Guns were a thing in the late 1300s and most people don't like guns in their fantasy worlds so it dictates that if the tech follows along roughly the same path as it should for guns and ships then you probably wouldn't have any island hoppers that go back and forth on a regular basis.

That being said, there is evidence that long ago there were ships that did cross between the americas and the old world, but their existence seems have made no cultural impact at all and as such, even if their existence was known to some it wasn't a widely known thing that one would include on a map...in fact it might have been a guarded secret. I mean think about it. Let's say you knew of a place that you could get to that noone knew about. Yes it would take a 2 years to get there and get back, but doing so would mean that you'd gain access to stuff that wasn't available in your home and as a result was really rare and expensive. I'd certainly think of that as a treasure trove I might like to keep hidden from others, especially the rulers who would want to colonize so they can exploit the resources more.




> About the capital for Swifendlia: what the 6 powers do is act as trade re-distributors among themselves, since each guards their own areas of influence so the others don't mingle on it. It took time and lots of small conflicts to get to the current frail equilibrium.


The problem here is that 3 of the 6 wouldn't even interact with the others. 
Arlia, at best, would only be known as far distant traders that come from time to time, or if they are advanced beyond the others and have oceanic travel they'd be colonizers in which case the other 3 would have no real chance against them and would be played against each other. Look at what the west did to Japan, China, and Korea when they got to them. It's not pretty, but more importantly, they make very little impact in a way that the commoners know, but are influential in the background simply to get technology and goods which affect policy and attitudes the others. But they wouldn't be like you're describing.

Newori and Reuran based on their distance from each other might have naval cold wars going on between them, to control the area around them, but their territory, with 1300s and before tech wouldn't extend to the other side of the continent where the other 3 powers are so they couldn't be well known, let alone be wrapped up in a 6 way redistribution of resources of the area.





> So not much is going on on the peninsula on the external side, since trade between Arlia and the Empire can take place near the borders of their areas of influence. 
> 
> Inside the empire, I don't find the peninsula specially significant for trade (yes for defense, since it had narrow land borders and has a bit of height), since it would only be another stop on the route. I mean, they'd be enough cities along the coast on the Esilec sea, so I don't really see what a city on the peninsula's coast would be more automatically significant than the others. What am I missing?
> 
> Plus the capital stayed there through the centuries on purpose, for political reasons, since the ruling dynasty originated from around that area and they believe they're the chosen ones and that crap, so of course they'd set their capital on the sacred land where they came from.


The very simplistic answer is Trade dictates all. The more trade, the more population, the more population the more trade and the more need and ability to develop as well as support military power. That Peninsula is a major port and as it is a major bottleneck for any navy in the area that wishes to travel around in the area. It also allows for a nearly central base which means they can attack just about anywhere in the sea with a firm knowledge of how much they need to get there and back which allows for standardization which allows for increase in building speed of ships. In other words, whoever controls that peninsula controls that entire region in one way or another. So even if it isn't a capital it is a major city. But why is it the capital? If it wasn't at first it would become the capital very quickly because it can excersize it's power on the capital which means that it is either the capital or it is puppet mastering the capital. A leader recognizing this wouldn't allow it and so would make it their capital.




> I agree about moving Ontir to the west to be on the mouth of the entry to Toec, near one of the two small rivers around there.


Again where I suggested you move the capital to here is based on the power that it would have. It is a bottleneck. Harder to control and less important to the overall country, but still a very important place for the country, especially if you are thinking in terms of trade. If Arlia uses the oceans as I would assume they do then they must go by that port. If they do then they are at the very least put under threat of that city, in which case Arlians either trade there or avoid it making it a powerful or important city in maintaining balance with Swifendlia




> Yes, Inalia is weakest of the 3 and her navy, as the Empire's, is mostly just good for coastal navigation. Oncar probably should control the area of influence between itself and Inalia. I figure the Empire didn't want Oncar near in both of its ends (since Oncar and Arlia and the only 2 powers that can be potentially problematic), so they favored having Inalia in the middle on the North as a buffer and would have had a hand in stopping Oncar from advancing further.


Inalia poses no problems from it's positioning. It may have control over some of the coastal nation around it, but Oncar and Swifendlia's positioning is so powerful with reguards to all that territory Inalia is at best a neutral zone and possibly an unstable  shelter/protector of other nations in the area with them seeking protection from one of the 3. Inalia would have to be careful because if it pushes to far either of of Oncar or Swifendlia could easily crush Inalia or at the least make them struggle. In other words. Inalia's strength lies fully in balancing the equation of the other 2. If one has an advantage Inalia has to step in, because Inalia only lives so long as neither becomes powerful enough to wipe the other out, because it's position is strong for its neighbor, but in the general area it is weak against the other 2. This is a situation that the US has found itself in many atime. In fact the US is only extant because of this type of situation. Britain vs France. The US revolted with no chance of winning. France messed with Britain causing Britain to not really be able concentrate on the US which resulted in Britain just giving the US up to not stretch itself between 2 fronts. 




> From how self-assured you sounded it feels you've got experience in this sort of thing, I guess from working on your Web novel, where did you get your guidelines from? My arguments sound kind of weak against yours. I can't see any map of yours, the links on your 2012 thread are dead. If it's a project you are posting about somewhere I'd love to keep an eye on it.


I don't follow guidelines so much as I look at things and see the patterns, but in this case you're asking why I can be so certain of what I said. It's largely just a question of technology and knowing how cities come to be. In that case the guideline for a map of this depth is where are the Bottlenecks/Natural Ports. Who's going to run into each other with their tech and how will that tech interact. Also, this a fair bit easier with your map and how you've set things. Everything in your map is sea/ocean based and is very easy to predict from that because it comes down to who is the controller or governor of that sea, which are defined by easily spotable bottlenecks. On land though it is harder, only because bottle necks are harder to spot and more often than not you're creating them whole cloth rather than following a natural terrain. Another thing is we have examples of situations your countries would be in in history and we very much know that most of the reason why it is, say Rome, was able to dominate a lot of the area and where its shape came from... it's because the Italian peninsula can project it's power as I've described above while being safe.

Some other things to point out...
Swifendlia is about the size of Rome was when it started falling apart.
It's important to remember that a nation can have multiple capitals in a way. That is to say there is a Political capital which is it's actual capital and then it can have its Spiritual, Entertainment, Economic, and/or Military Capital. More often than not the latter 2 and Political are the same, but this is not always the case. For example in Japan, the Imperial Capital was not the Military Capital and in the US the Political Capital of Washington DC is not the Economic Capital which is New York. This is largely defined by its culture rather than practical reasoning. The practical reality is most nations can't split the capitals because there is usually only one major city in them or because they are sorta built on each other...

My maps suuuuuuck. I'm bad at choosing where to lay out things, names, etc, but I have a keen eye at figuring out whats wrong or right. I spend most of my time building histories and timelines which have yet to get to the stage where I can actually do and publish the thing I'm making it all for. The 2012 thing is a project that has 5 game series IP idea, at least 2 novel ideas, and a ongoing game series IP idea attached to it. Another project have 4 novel ideas and 4 game ideas associated with it. The current web novel is based on an idea I have 2 years ago, but didn't explore much into, but now I'm trying to rush and I'm gonna do it more on the fly... The map I have for this one is slow going cuz it is tedious, and it's not up because this site decided to say you no can upload those files. I have no idea why. Anyways... Those old projects I constantly revise them in one fashion or another, either in my head or written somewhere, because I have to go back and refigure a bunch out from notes I've left all over my hard drives or have lost lol. And I don't have any place I'm posting info about them because, really, I don't have the money to support what I want to do with them and I have bad luck with people helping with anything so no point in pursueing them until I can afford to do them. This latest project is more or less just writing and I hope to soon to be writing it on a wordpress thing and posting data about it as I go. I don't like the limitations of word press, but no other choice ^.^ If you want to know about that... then I'd more than willing to discuss it on the post I made in this section to not take over this thread ^.^ http://www.cartographersguild.com/sh...ad.php?t=31649

----------


## groovey

Another long post about my world-building. You've been warned. Feel free to skip

Hi Durakken. I hope you're not bored of me already. I'm loving our combo, you make me think a lot.

"Arlia, at best, would only be known as far distant traders that come from time to time, or if they are advanced beyond the others and have oceanic travel they'd be colonizers in which case the other 3 would have no real chance against them and would be played against each other."

Well this is not good because for the novel the Arlia and Swifendlia need to have a casual relationship through trade.

In my head, Arlia got rich trough trade and with the profits reinvested to keep improving their ships and keep expanding their influence. Meanwhile, the Empire is rich enough from exploiting its own resources, so it has a strong and diverse economic foundation, thus why naval trade is important, but their whole economy is not built around it. 

To be honest, I know I said Late Middle Ages, but when it comes to Arlia and their naval tech, I think more of the Spanish ships constantly going back and forth from America from the XVI century on. They managed just fine. So I don't see how it'd be so hard to keep a route going from the Acelor coast up to the Empire areas or Oncar areas. 

I agree it'd be strange to see Arlian ships on actual Swifendlia land, but mostly because of this heavy protectionism against foreigner traders, EXCEPT in few key cities on its borders where they'd be allowed in to do the redistribution.

The Empire has a great military organization, so there's no way Arlians could colonize Swifendlia, and actually, when it comes to anything else but naval tech, the Empire is way ahead of the Arlians.

"Newori and Reuran based on their distance from each other might have naval cold wars going on between them, to control the area around them, but their territory, with 1300s and before tech wouldn't extend to the other side of the continent where the other 3 powers are so they couldn't be well known, let alone be wrapped up in a 6 way redistribution of resources of the area."

Yes, I see them engaged in constant tension, and they are weaker than the other 4. 

The 6 way division is not something they came together to settle, and the Empire never would get in contact with Newori, physically or diplomatically. The division was mostly based on expanding the area of influence on the coast until two of them met, then dispute or settle a border, under the premise that for example, Oncar would want some resources from the Northern areas but without going over there, so they could get those trough trade with Newori, which would take place at the southern tip where both areas of influence meet.

The point of the areas of influence is for each to have monopoly of trade with the settlements along the coast under their influence, so even less each power would want the other powers trading directly within their ports EXCEPT in a few key cities as I mentioned before. So heavy trade protectionism within each power, which leads each power to act as redistributors with other powers. I'm aware this system has its own pros and cos, but it seems interesting to explore.

Would you say the whole concept of trade area of influence is silly? 

About the capital...I understand your reasoning now, but it feels way too exposed if I place it there, with Oncar so relatively close. Where exactly would you place the capital in this map with terrain? Note that there isn't any big rivers on the tip of the peninsula.



I hope once you get your political map where you want it, you'll explain your reasoning too, since I find world-building from maps most interesting and you seem to have clear ideas about it. Thanks for chipping in.

----------


## Durakken

> Would you say the whole concept of trade area of influence is silly?


Nope it's just where you have it doesn't make sense as it is...
A solution would be to take Newori and Reuran and set up a Silk Road between them and Inaria which if you don't want to go further would make Inaria quite a bit more powerful as it would become a center of culture and trade... Or you could create another empire between the three that is that.

Also, Arlia doesn't need to necessarily the colonial and the technology to make ocean fairing boats to do it would exist. They just didn't do it until that point and once they started doing it just about everyone did it that could. Remember China, Japan, and Korea were more advanced in several ways technologically. They just were isolationists due to their culture so you could always make up an excuse.




> About the capital...I understand your reasoning now, but it feels way too exposed if I place it there, with Oncar so relatively close. Where exactly would you place the capital in this map with terrain? Note that there isn't any big rivers on the tip of the peninsula.


Not really exposed. I little math shows that 1px = ~6km^2 on your map if your world is about the size of earh. That peninsula is several pixel wide and so far more than enough to not be exposed
However, just from the way the shape and size of the peninusla is it would probably be hard to have enough resources there. If you travel up the peninsula, and go to the left, there is 2 rivers. Skip over the first one and put it at the 2nd. The first has trade all to 1 area where as the second is spread out. And then you'd set up Fortresses on either peninsula and a fortress on the other side of the gateway one. That's probably how it would be set up imo.




> I hope once you get your political map where you want it, you'll explain your reasoning too, since I find world-building from maps most interesting and you seem to have clear ideas about it.


I had somewhat of an epiphany the other day so I tossed that city layout out and worked on a much easier layout and more realistic to the purposes, but less realistic overall..or somewhat more, i dunno. It's just more based around the idea for what it's for which isn't a "real" world to begin with. So not really interesting probably.




> Thanks for chipping in.


No problem-o

----------


## Pixie

Hey groovey and durakken!

Your posts are very interesting to follow and I couldn't help adding my two cents. I scribbled this map from info in this thread (Azelor's climates, groovey's maps) - as innacurate as it is, I think it still adds  something to the discussion. My point is that you should add some considerations about climates/biomes. First, the scribble:


(pink shows mountains/highlands, coloring is labeled)

As I see it, the Empire has an historical origin in the lands just north of the main isthmus. It's a mediterranean climate, mild and easy for early civilizations and it matches the areas on Earth where urban societies emerged. It nowadays stretches south covering most of the arable land surrounding the inner sea. Trade, colonization and conquest... Equally, it spreads north through forrested areas, occupying river valleys and such. Nowadays, the core activity in the core of the Swifendlia - that's Albiroba and other cities in that coast - will be trade between two drastically different parts of the empire. Cities closer to the strait that leads out of the inland sea will do more trade with the large prairy land close to Oncar, the capital and other cities to the west will mostly trade with the coast closer to them. I can see this leading to fierce competition and rivalry.

There are surely settlements on the eastern coast south of the empire. They will know the empire and trade regularly with it, but the mountainous terrain and the difficulty to cross the highlands to reach the inland sea makes them a backwater. This would explain why the Empire doesn't bother to control them. These will probably be visited by Arlian traders as well as Empire traders, but local politics should be always shifting. I like your idea, groovey, of having the Empire allowing for seafaring trade only in one city of the west coast. This, however, will generate pirates and smugglers... both from the north coast (based within or beyond the empire) and from those minor chiefdoms.

On to the other side. Oncar must be drooling over the huge swath of prairy land close to them but controled by the Empire. It's a very large region, possibly fertile, watered by two rivers and 10x closer to them than to the core of the empire. Any army deployed there from Oncar would have enough time to land, conquer and entrench before a force sent from the empire responds. However, if it belonged to Oncar, the empire, able to deploy a much larger army, could send one and have it land anywhere on the north coast. This army would march south and be able to conquer all down to the sea. That region is an open door for war between Oncar and the empire - at least, until it develops enough to generate a local autonomous culture and achieve independence.

Inalia is in an interesting position. It might have developed independently and have an autonomous culture. And I agree with durakken, there is probably one or more land routes across Ascarlia all the way to Reuran and Newori. I can see Inalia being the western terminus of those routes. Thus, Inalia becomes a significant power house and a trading hub. A place that the inhabitants of Swifendlia would know as a synonym for exotic ways, goods and animals, but at the same time, with a similar climate and not very different technology. However, Inalia does not control the forests-filled regions to its north. This is certainly "barbarians land" and constantly repelling hords of invaders means that Inalia cannot spare resources for expansion. And if it expands it is either north, to stop the barbarians or east, to control the silk road. I would place Inalia's capital on the west coast or close to it, by one of the rivers, instead of where you have it, although having a large trading city in there is very reasonable.

Anyway, these are just some ideas, based on the map and on likely biomes.

... groovey ... your world is definitely taking shape. I'm glad you are enjoying this part so much - this is what all that work on tectonics and climate is for !!

----------


## Durakken

> As I see it, the Empire has an historical origin in the lands just north of the main isthmus. It's a mediterranean climate, mild and easy for early civilizations and it matches the areas on Earth where urban societies emerged. It nowadays stretches south covering most of the arable land surrounding the inner sea. Trade, colonization and conquest... Equally, it spreads north through forrested areas, occupying river valleys and such. Nowadays, the core activity in the core of the Swifendlia - that's Albiroba and other cities in that coast - will be trade between two drastically different parts of the empire. Cities closer to the strait that leads out of the inland sea will do more trade with the large prairy land close to Oncar, the capital and other cities to the west will mostly trade with the coast closer to them. I can see this leading to fierce competition and rivalry.


I agree and disagree.

Firstly. There are around 6 cradles of civilization. They all originate in a river basic and all show markedly different cultures to each other which have only somewhat started to blend nowadays, though a few have been completely wiped out. These cradles form along a river and then extend out so it's not the area you're looking at, but rather the rivers.

Secondly, what you're describing I would say isn't the "origins" of that empire so much as it is the Greece to Rome.
The history would be something like main powers in the territory will be at those river intersections at first. They are the centers of trade and while none of them are too powerful the one under the E in FOREST of Deciduous Forest area and then the 1 for the 2nd river you come to if you go right will likely be the second most powerful. This would likely still be in the City-State era though and what would be where I'd put the imperial capital is probably only a fishing village or something at that time. It is only when more nations around sea start coming into being that the imperial capital will start having power as a major trade port. It will start to expand nortward and the westward to take that peninsula to the left of it and establish a fort there as well as destroy resistance that it would be able to muster if not taken. 

The north will Either have to be strong enough to hold its own, or not developed enough to be worth taking. In other words, it's like Gaul was to the Romans. The people are clearly related in terms of population spread, but they are a different branch of the spread of the earlier civilization. And they would likely be left to take much later as the important aspect of the empire is the sea so they will take land from around the ring, probably head around counter clock wise until they can build a fort on the peninsula to the right as well as that island which will allow them to move at much more rapid pace and then they will start moving north. resulting in your current political map. The future lies in 3 directions, they either continue to expand to the north and the east which if they're not careful will lose them that southern teritory around the sea, but at that point not very much an issue, but then they'll run into whatever power control the Silk Road area. which will deadlock them there. The second direction is they spread out north and south equally. This would take longer than the previous set up, but eventually you'd get roughly the same result, but maybe with less territory as it allows the Silk Road empire to expand more. The Southern part of the empire would also grow to be an unwieldly amount of land and this would lead to them likely trying what failed with Rome if they are an empire, which is to divide the empire into 2 empires. The North and the South... Although this could be handled more successfully with a system of 2 sub-emperor and then 1 overall emperor. It failed in Rome, I'd surmise in large part to the fact the overall ruler was one of the rulers of one half while the other was subordinate.
The 3rd posibility is that the empire is too much to handle for some reason and crumbles whether it's because decadency or splitting the rule or whatever, it is bound to happen.




> These will probably be visited by Arlian traders as well as Empire traders, but local politics should be always shifting. I like your idea, groovey, of having the Empire allowing for seafaring trade only in one city of the west coast. This, however, will generate pirates and smugglers... both from the north coast (based within or beyond the empire) and from those minor chiefdoms.


The problem with the Arlia is that they have to cross an Ocean and even though there are islands there Ocean is different than Sea travel. As I mentioned, the tech "existed" to do Ocean travel long before it was really used, but noone thought to use it that way. So an explanation of what's happening is something that can be, again, stolen from history, and all major powers. Arlia could have focused more on Ocean travel and trade as a result built ships and advanced that tech to do it where as the nations they're dealing with are warring with each other and mainly concerned with Sea travel so never develop that tech or rather don't have the same designs nor can they afford to invest in them to get them right, especially not for their purposes. That would solve the situation, but I'm not sure how much I believe that. Swifendlia has a pretty safe region to test in and all that so not exactly a problem. Another reason might also be due to that testing. To test correctly they'd build on the west coast of their empire which means they'd have to build a lot of infrastructure to get resources out to a port town out there and then if they have the common empire mindset of "we're the best" they'd likely not see the point with Arlia being able to do whatever they wanted at a price that would ultimately be cheaper in their view.



@grooney, Suggestion... I mentioned that there are about 5 or 6 cradles of civilization. Place 1 or 2 and see how they grow as well. And keep in mind that each cradle is a significantly different base structure. So that even though they go through the same stages, they have different quality to them. Feudal Japan and Feudal Europe are wholly different animals based on this base difference, but they are theoretically the same system and such. Same with Modern US vs Modern Japan. We live in virtually identical civilizations in many terms, but there are very pulpable differences between the US and Japan that go back to the fact that they arose from different river basin cradles... Also it might make your map a slight bit more interesting as different pressures play out. One such thing is that if Arlia is in regular contact with both groups and 1 had a massive dying off, or 1 has and 1 hasn't it indicates that they are a lot more related and connected than if one has suffered a massive die off, because most of the die off that happened in the americas happened due to viruses. If Arlia was in regular contact then those viruses aren't a problem, but if they aren't then they are. If it is a problem for 1 but not the other then it indicates Arlia is closer to one than the other in origin.

----------


## groovey

I love the Silk Road idea and you two's vision of Inalia! It gives a good reason for Inalia to keep existing and not being quite superfluous. 

Wow Pixie! The biomes map is really a good input to consider. Thanks for taking the time to do it. It's going to be very useful to me in general.

Pixie, your take on the Empire's origin and development matches mine in general terms, tough in my head the Empire would be aware how the area close to Oncar would be a hot spot for conflict, and so it'd be perhaps the second most heavily defended area of the Empire only second to the core. I need to think about Durakken's input on it though and grab a book I have around somewhere to try to get to some conclusion.

Since the Empire is big and its areas diverse in resources, I do think there's a lot of room for inner competition on trade.

Since the juicy trade takes place on the inner seas, I guess trade on the western external coast on the Empire is pretty basic and poor, and the isthmus (on its lowest elevation points, with a land route) would be the obvious point to do whatever trade is needed between both sides.

I don't know about pirates being a constant worry Pixie, that city were trade with outsiders would be allowed seems to me it'd be heavily protected, to begin with, because I see now that it'd have to be somewhere on the land close to Oncar and as I mentioned early, the Empire, being paranoid about Oncar or Arlia being around with their superior navy, would surely take measures to make the area protected?

I fear though, by Durakken's reasoning, that this city where trade would be open to the other powers should have to be the capital? Which I would not like because I want this city a bit outside the inner seas to keep the Arlians out, in fact, keeping the Arlians out of the inner seas it the main strong point in common the Empire and Oncar (and Inalia tough there's not much she can do about it) have, but of course, they want to trade with Arlia for the goods it'd get from trading in "exotic" lands where the others can't reach.

The Empire, though at the time represented on the map is about to explode in a big war because of it, is heavily centralized when it comes to administration and militarization. Oh yeah, I know the Empire will implode. In fact it lasted as long as it did because until  two or three generations it was still expanding. Once the expansion stopped because it was getting hard to handle so much territory, inner problems that got subdued for so long finally exploded. The Empire will win the war against the rebels because of the nature of the main conflict and a series of reasons, but it will never be the same and will start losing most of the regions in the next 200 years, thus at the moment the Empire has actually reached its peak and from now on will lose territory and not gain more.

About Arlia at the end of your post, Durakken, I guess you're talking about its relation with Picsi? Arlians are definitely close in origin to Swifendlia, but in my head trade with Picsi is declining because the local stronger powers fell as such and so the population scattered off and moved inland, not really because of viruses.

From what I understand, you think it's too much a stretch to have Arlia trade with Picsi at all because of tech? Then what could I do to make Arlia an important trade power then, but without being too physically close to the Empire and them having the most advanced naval tech at the moment being significant? I need this for story purposes. The easiest solution would be making Oncar be Arlia, but it's too close... in the story a princess gets kind of kidnapped by Arlia and one of the problems is the Empire doesn't have the ships to do oceanic travel to rescue her or attack Arlia, otherwise, Arlia wouldn't get away with it.

Thanks to both of you for contributing to the discussion, you bring such interesting points. I wish I could be half as useful when commenting about your projects, but I'm so limited in vision and skills.

----------


## Pixie

I can't help throwing 2 more cents..  :Razz: 

This time, concerning traveling between Arlia and Swifendlia. This started out as a short post to explain why (in my point of view) Picsi should be unknown to Arlia, but ended up as a detailed (and possibly flawed) account of the typical trade trip between Arlia and the Empire. I started drafting stuff on top of a map from groovey, then I decided to make some neater notes and suddenly, voilá, a self-standing map.


It's yours to do with it whatever you want groovey.  :Wink: 

As for pirates, I wasn't thinking about threats to the land. I was thinking about smaller armed ships that could attack trading vessels and/or smuggle Arlian goods to other ports avoiding Empire taxation.

----------


## Durakken

So I decided to do this to get how major cities arise to some degree....

black is water, brown is road, dots are settlements.

Let's assume you start with settlement A and you are expanding out from there.
You're going to travel along the water and you are going to stop every 30km.
This creates a natural layout of settlements that will grow because why clear out a new area every time you travel?


From here Settlements B and C are going to arise as major population centers either due to being at the end of the fresh water which makes it a last stop which means people are going to want to prep and buy there which means it is a perfect place to have shops OR they are a settlement based around some resource. This puts them as more important that the settlements before.


Next D and E are going to arise to import as cross roads between important settlements. F is going to arise very much the same way as A, B, and C, but it arises later due to Sea travel is going to be less important early on, but it will slowly gain more importance with it being the cross roads into that network and being just like A, B, and C being last stops.


E may build into more importance, but roads built out from C (built because it is a shorter journey and managable to walk without much water) lowers E's importance while F being centralized and being funneled into by A, B, C, and D rather than C being funneled into D and then into E which makes it rise to be even more importance.


As Sea and Ocean travel becomes more of a thing the importance of Settlement F increases and it starts controlling all in and outbound trade making it easily the more important city of the area and the connection with G across the water allows all that more trade funneled through F.



side note: This uses a river to establish roads and that works from the base of a civilization, but as a civ grows settlements go into the land areas. The important thing to remember is that roads go between resources and take the shortest/easiest route stopping about every 30km (or maybe it was 50km). All settlements need a water source. Cities grow via trade, not because their land is good. If a settlement is at the cross roads of 4 cities, but on the worst land ever, as long as it can get water that city will become the most important of the 5 cities, because the central cross road city can live off the trade coming through it.

----------


## Azélor

It reminds me of: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_place_theory

I'm certain someone did a map with this a while back but I can't find it. Maybe randigpanzrall ?

----------


## Durakken

> It reminds me of: 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_place_theory
> 
> I'm certain someone did a map with this a while back but I can't find it. Maybe randigpanzrall ?


Close, but not the same. The problem with that is that it largely is based on a grid so any answer you get is a rough estimation of what might happen where there is no other factors.

Also I forgot to mention...

Village > Town > City > Big City
The red dots are Towns.
The green are Cities.
The Purple are Big Cities.
Villages spread from towns radially at about 3km intervals. As the radius increases the City's borders increase and urbanizes villages and further out villages start having a different centralized trade center and thus forms a new Town. This is then yet another way Towns form and are placed. Though I am not sure how accurate this is because only modern cities get very big and older cities never even got close to even the first 3km radius mark in expansion. And Modern Cities don't follow this, other than Port Cities are the most powerful cities in the world still largely due to their ability to import/export large amounts of cargo over a water route even with all our ability to transport over air and land.

----------


## groovey

Pixie, what a neat contribution that map is, and the text! 

It seems the journey from Arlia to the Empire and back is a bit tougher than I thought. It seems to me that it'd be even harder for Arlia to do trade with the Empire on the East coast.  I guess the Empire would have to be Arlia's main trade buddy and Arlia wouldn't trade with Oncar at all; and that each journey to the Empire and back would have to be a well planned and costly expedition and not really casual at all. And I guess I can forget about Arlia and Picsi, without the richness from it, I'm not sure how Arlia can get the money to get the top notch navy of its time. I'll have to think of something.

Durakken, I can't wait to try out your model on the creation and evolution of settlements in relation to trade, and the concept of cradles of civilization that you mentioned in the other post. I've also picked up again "Germs, Guns and Steel" by Jared Diamond hoping to get more on this, but to be honest, I stopped reading it just a after a few chapters last time, cos he asks very intriguing questions, but then takes forever to get to a point.

Azelor, about randigpanzrall, I din't know what I was missing! He had a great world going on. However, I didn't find any mention to him working a map with that central place theory on his threads.

----------


## Durakken

> I've also picked up again "Germs, Guns and Steel" by Jared Diamond hoping to get more on this, but to be honest, I stopped reading it just a after a few chapters last time, cos he asks very intriguing questions, but then takes forever to get to a point.


Read the synopsis on wiki. It sounds like a rather worthless read unless you're a racist in which case it is unlikely to change your mind.
It argues against success came from intelligence, which is probably arguing against the whole the average African has an IQ of 70 which is used to say that all those of modern African descent have lower intelligence when the reality is that IQ tests have been shifting and has shifted upwards recently because we in the more modern world have picked up a few tricks which allow for scoring higher. Also IQ tests tend to be in some minor way biased culturally. So the argument is unneeded and thus the book is arguing against a strawman which there doesn't seem to be much point to doing...

I thought it was going to be about Native Americans which the myth is that Europeans genocided them when the reality is that it was 80-90% just viruses being transmitted one way while not going the other way due to more often than not the trip to the americas was one way so anyone who got a new virus died either in the americas or on the way back.

I'd recommend something, but all that I learned of this subject was more or less piece meal by asking how do i make this realistic which led to asking why is that like that... Which is a very fustrating way to learn a lot of this stuff because after studying one subject to figure out some core thing it usually leads you into block somewhere that is only resolved by studying another topic sorta like this... Where do I place cities > At trade route..ok where are trade routes > at rivers... ok so where are rivers > formed in water basins ok but what are water basins > low points in the land divided by the high points. ie mountains...ok how are mountains formed? > Plate tectonics... Ok how does that work > We're not entirely certain... Ok you're not helpful!

Also I read more fiction books that have philosophical or mythological bents to them ^.^ so world and culture builiding is easy, because there is a lot to draw from. I should throw some more history in my things to read, but nothing has attracted me to read it so meh.

----------


## waldronate

As Azelor alluded to, Central Place Theory is a first-order description of market networks. The major assumption of a flat space (technically, a uniform transportation cost) leads to nice overlapping circles, which tend to drop to the minimum configuration for close-packed circles, a set of nested heaxagonal grids. If you change the transport cost in certain directions (e.g. a river makes transport cheap along its length, or an imposed road network changes things, or an improvement in technology changes things), then the form and size starts to skew as you have noted.

There is a fun old book called Fractal Cities ( available at http://www.fractalcities.org/ ) that has similar discussion.

----------


## Azélor

Also, about the winds, your sailors will need to take the doldrums in consideration near the equator: http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/07....08,-4.22,1106

----------


## gilgamec

> Read the synopsis on wiki. It sounds like a rather worthless read unless you're a racist in which case it is unlikely to change your mind.
> It argues against success came from intelligence, which is probably arguing against the whole the average African has an IQ of 70 which is used to say that all those of modern African descent have lower intelligence when the reality is that IQ tests have been shifting and has shifted upwards recently because we in the more modern world have picked up a few tricks which allow for scoring higher. Also IQ tests tend to be in some minor way biased culturally. So the argument is unneeded and thus the book is arguing against a strawman which there doesn't seem to be much point to doing...


I'd say that's a pretty limited reading of the book.  True, it mentions the old racist idea that "Europeans are just smarter" but then pretty much immediately goes to, "obviously that's not true, so what _was_ the difference with European cultures?" He then comes up with evidence that the Eurasian (not just European) advantage came from a bunch of factors which compounded over millennia, including a broader pool of domesticable plants and animals and the east-west orientation of Eurasia. I'd say the book's main contribution is that it very strongly shows that all sorts of environmental factors, from what animals are near you to who your neighbours are, can give you an early lead that can get parleyed into a massive European-American level of cultural advantage.

The book is about twenty years old now; I seem to recall that Diamond made a documentary with PBS about ten years ago which included updated thinking on these issues (including the massive cultural advantage writing gave the Europeans). That might be worth looking for if you're interested.

----------


## groovey

I agree with gilgamec about Diamond's book. I only bought it in the first place because I was reassured from reviews the thesis of the book was not based in any racist premise, and indeed, I can confirm it doesn't. His whole point in the book is to look for the causes of the Eurasian advantage in development, since he doesn't think at all it has to do with race. 

Don't get me wrong, I still find the book longer than it needs to be, since he takes forever to get anywhere, but racist it is not, I wouldn't spend money and time on trash.

Yes Durakken, it happens to me a lot too, that by researching about an element I realize I have to do research on another that affects it, and on and on. It's paralizying for me sometimes because I just want to work on something, but to do it right I have to take a lot of time learning and figure out other stuff.

Wow Azelor, that link is mesmerizing. So beautiful.

Great link too waldronate! I'll check it out as soon as a have a little time.

----------


## groovey

Hi Durakken. I'm trying out your suggestion to get a model of the origins on the civilization that would be the origins on the Empire or at least of the people who then expanded to created the Empire.

 

So in the image with the poorly resized terrain from Wilbur: the whole area (N-E of the isthmus as Pixie suggested, and to which I agree) is 667x667km, and since the image is 30x30 cm, 1cm (each bold square on the grid) = 22,23km.

First of all, how exactly does the model you suggested match with the simplified progression of societies from bands to states?

 It's clear enough for me we can't be talking about nomadic bands, so at least it has to be sedentary tribes doing the expansion along the rivers in the beginning (because of population growth that basic farming makes possible, forcing groups out of the original tribe to make their own). 

So each red dot/town would be the settlement of a politically independent tribe, but then some of them would become chiefdoms (cities, in green) and gain influence over other tribes/towns, eventually getting more complex and one chiefdom defeating the others and becoming a proto state.

Questions:
- Settlements only develop in one side of the river?
- With so many ramification on my river, how do you settle a hierarchy? Which crossroad (G, H, I) is more important? Which end (A, B, C) is the most logical dominant? Is it F once trade with the coast becomes key?

----------


## Durakken

> First of all, how exactly does the model you suggested match with the simplified progression of societies from bands to states?


I think I know what your asking... For a very long time cities only held the area around it. The way that we get beyond City-States is likely more along the lines of every more complex unions and leagues of governmental bodies being agreed to.
We think of Greece as single state, but really it is a group of leagues of city-states. My thought is that each level up got less specific and more generalized laws that each step below agreed. Basically, something like how we have today with the various states and unions. We now call that UN of of Greece Leagues the Greek Culture, but it really is no different than something like the UN to the world today, just at a different scale. That didn't all happen due to war. Some, or even a majority of it was due to having to interact with these other people. So I'm pretty sure that is how to go from City to what we consider a State now adays.




> So each red dot/town would be the settlement of a politically independent tribe, but then some of them would become chiefdoms (cities, in green) and gain influence over other tribes/towns, eventually getting more complex and one chiefdom defeating the others and becoming a proto state.


You're sorta missing the reason why those green ones exist. They're red, but become green because the other red ones get funneled through them...




> Questions:
> - Settlements only develop in one side of the river?


Don't know really, but given what I've seen generally towns build bridges if the river is small enough or the edges are high enough to let the boats go through. Otherwise I'd think, more or less they do stick to one side in a general area because you're not going to jump back and forth between sides and it probably isn't the safes thing to do to have a city competing on the direct other side of the river. One side would likely eventually get destroyed, or peace would come about and the two would merge in most cases.




> - With so many ramification on my river, how do you settle a hierarchy? Which crossroad (G, H, I) is more important? Which end (A, B, C) is the most logical dominant? Is it F once trade with the coast becomes key?


Let's assume there is no sea trade at the moment...

G controls access to A and C to H.
And G controls access to H to A and C
So if we're dealing with just those 4 G is the most powerful. It is the Governor of the area, literally. It Governs the flow of trade.

you have the same situation with B, I, H, and G, but with G and H's positions reversed.

I controls E and F to H


So if you take these as 3 seperate systems H, I, and G are the Governors of their respective areas which makes them the Capital, because trade, power, etc runs through them.

But it becomes fairly obvious where the lynch pin is. H controls access from G to I, as well as to B meaning that it controls trade from 1 major city to another.

Looking at it, perhaps the easiest way to figure it out is this...
All non-crossroad major cities give them a +1. So A, B, C, F are all +1s
If one of the above major cities has to cross through a major city to get to another, add +1 to the one it crosses through... A must go through G to get to C or H so G gets +1. C must go through G to get to A or H, so add another 1 to make it +2.
That process will give you G and I a +2, and H a +1.
Now, any major city that a +2 has to go through to get through to get to another add 2 to in the same way as above... This gives H a +3.

The roads could change this balance as well because any city that is a 3 to 5 day walk away from water is safe enough to risk and thus eventually will be done rather than going down and around in various areas, like between E & H which is roughly a 2 to 3 day walk if you just walk straight there rather than follow the river. Traders would still use the river though if they can because they can carry more and it is likely roughly the same travel time (roughly speaking by boat takes 1/2 the time by walking) though I'm uncertain given that the currents of the river might slow them. But anyways, this new path way would add to the control of the area by H.

I hope that helps and explains it a bit more.

----------


## Pixie

I have to stand by gilgamec in defending the book Guns, Germs and Steel. I'm a big fan of Jared Diamond since I first read that book , and he has two more books that I consider awesome for anyone interested in worldbuilding.

In Guns, Germs and Steel, Diamond's main argument is that a small difference in the environment may lead to enormous differences in rate of civilization and in enormous advantages when two groups of people face off. That's what made me pay so much attention to tectonics and climate in my world, so that I can map those differences in the environment. 
(For example, I was reading about the bronze age recently and how making bronze demands a source of tin, which was, in the bronze age, the mineral cassiterite, which only occurs in certain places in the world, which is a very significant environmental difference from place A to place B)

----------


## waldronate

Some general rules of thumb regarding river settlements is that they tend to form:
1) at the lowest fordable point on a river
2) the highest ship-navigable point on a river
3) any other major shift in mode of transport (e.g. falls that require portage for smaller vessels or a switch from ocean-going to river vessels)


Every town needs a reason to exist in a political/market network. Just bare subsistence won't do much in a larger economy except for providing levies in a feudal society. A basic village might also be the local harvester of a specific kind of herb or wood in a local forest, perhaps providing vegetables or meat to a larger town market. A larger village might have a blacksmith, and one on a trade route might provide an inn or tavern. Towns will have markets and merchants, possibly money changers. The largest towns will have luxury goods like arms, armor, and jewelers.

The merging of two rivers won't necessarily produce a town unless there's a reason to do so. Similarly, a river mouth won't necessarily produce a town if there's a better spot within a partial day's travel (a navigable river up to a rapids with a ford at it will generate a town almost always). Settlements will be equally likely on both sides of river unless there's a good reason not to, such as impassable cliffs or hostile natives.

Market networks (towns of different sizes in an area) will develop over time. I recommend starting from an empty landscape with transport cost modifiers (easier along rivers, noting fords and impediments to navigation, fords (and later on, bridges) allow land trails to cross rivers). Then the immigrants will arrive and move at their normal rate (say, 10 miles per day) modified by equipment and terrain. If this sounds suspiciously like a boardgame, it's because many boardgames are based on the premise of moving into unclaimed territory to find resources and produce population. With a few tens of hours of work, you can create a map with resources and terrain marked, and a set of basic rules for movement, production, founding towns (usually population and production modifier), road building (movement modifier), and so on. Gather a few friends and play the game a few times (recording the map when you stop) and you will have a map that's quite plausible because it's based on market forces.

----------


## groovey

Pixie, indeed I had forgotten about Diamonds "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed", that's definitely on my plans to get, but which other of his books do you refer to for world-building?

waldronate, I get what you're saying, but I have no idea of how to reflect that on a map or in a board game! I don't' even have friends to play with! I'll have to resign to do more research.

Durakken, thanks for expanding on that! What I realize though is that I need to do more reading, and I'm working on it.

----------


## Pixie

The third book is "The World Until Yesterday" - it's not as much about civilizations evolving or disappearing, but more into how varied can cultures be and how centralized states and the rule of the law evolve as population numbers and weaponry evolve. It has a lot of examples from primitive cultures which are still being studied today, like the tribal highlands of Papua, Botswana bushmen or Amazonian tribes, and it compares their ways with the ways of the pre-industrial western world and with our days. 
I think it's a great book on anthopology for the non-anthropologist like myself.

In the meanwhile, I have to say thank you.. you shifted the discussion on this thread from climate/landmasses to history and that gave me a huge motivational push to work on something I had on the backburner for a while - the early history of my world (rise of agriculture to late bronze age and writing) - I am currently reading and working on it, thanks to you  :Wink: . Gracias amigo!

----------


## Akubra

Wow, groovey (and the others), you are moving ahead at full speed! Great! All this might give me some ideas too! I still have to thank you for your reply and ideas for my own world some days ago.
It's been a bit difficult to be online the past week, and I'm not sure about the near future. But I am sure to re-read this very interesting discussion above when I can.
Cheers - Akubra

----------


## Charerg

On the subject of which cities will grow into world powers, remember to take into consideration that trade isn't always everything. If you look at a society like Sparta, they had relatively limited trade. Nevertheless, Sparta rose to be the dominant city in southern Peloponnese. For Rome, one might say that the rules provided by waldronate apply, as it rose at the lowest fordable point over the Tiber. But one must also take into account the rich vulcanic soil of central Italy, and point out that western Italy receives more rain than eastern Italy, all of which were factors that helped in the build-up of a large population density in the Etruria-Latium-Campania area. Also, the Romans didn't necessarily start out as a trade power in the same sense as the Carthaginians or other predominantly naval trade powers of the era. Although Rome was and is in the happy position of being the crossroads between Etruria and Campania and probably a major trade center as a result, it was during its early times a land power that was more famed for its militarism than its mercantilism. 

 And some cultures, such as steppe nomads, can have a tremendous impact on history, despite the fact that they have barely any cities!

----------


## groovey

Pixie, I'm the one always in debt to you, so thank you for your patience and time.

Wow I really hope you'll feel safe sharing your results, because I think many of us will be interested and could learn a thing or two, and might even start a very interesting discussion. Will you try to apply the results into a map/s? Or just do it in writing?

Akubra, as always, very nice to hear from you and I'm following with interest your journey to solve the issue with scaling and making sure different cuts of the world adjoin. I'm dealing with this too with no ideas. But heck, first I have to figure out how to translate rough terrain features of a world scale, into regional maps. I have no idea where to start. I do like your idea of leaving bands on the sides of the maps and copying to the next one as a start guide.

Welcome Charerg! Just yesterday I was reading about Sparta, its origins and development in a Ancient History manual I got when I was getting my History degree a few year ago (boy I got some awesome hardcore books, mostly based on archeological findings, from that era, who would have told me then years later they'd help me world-building).

From what I've read, Sparta was in a quite isolated (by mountain ranges) area with limited trade. Its economy was mostly based in exploiting the resources of the area, so they were mostly autosuficient. In fact, Sparta was in origin 4 settlements, that controlled the other settlements on the area as some kind of serfs (it's a bit more complex than that).  Since they were so focused on the military aspect, it seems it was those settlements they subjugated that sustained the Spartan economy. So yeah, their development had nothing to do with trade.

However, in the same book, that starts in the Fertile Cresent around 5.000 BC, when going on each culture or power over time, trade is usually considered a key element on the development of their original polis, from which I get, it allowed their owners to have the means to expand and become dominant trough war of diplomacy.

So trade itself it's not what makes most of History's empire happen in Ancient times, or at least I wouldn't say it like that, but it does seem to be key in the origins to become polis with expansionist ambitions and I guess later on to fund the military expansions, but it might no be essential? As long as an empire controls lots of land to tax on, etc. 

I mean, one of the main motivators to expand in the Ancient empires is to control new resources centers sure, which favors trade in the end, but trade itself doesn't seem to be the main motivator for expansion? I don't know, I still have to do more reading. Perhaps it's just a matter of terminology, but for me war to control resources is not the same as war to improve our trade, unless you're a Venice type of power.

I still have to get to Rome (in that book), which I did study about at college, but not from the point of view of worldbuilding, so I need to study the case from another perspective.

----------


## Durakken

Military subjugation to control resources is the same as trade. It's not so much "trade" that does it, but the flow of resources. If you can govern a resource then you will automatically rise to a superior position to those that are at any of the other points.
If you are over a large deposit of let's call it "Militarium" then you can either hold onto that or send it out, either way that "Militarium" will cause you be more powerful and more able to project power, ie govern, over more than other areas.

Here's the thing though... regardless of how much "Militarium" you have or how many other resources you have naturally around you that you can exploit, there is a limit and there is only so many kinds resources that can appear in the same area so unless you are at trade hub you will automatically fall as a governor of lower order than the trade hub most likely, because trade hubs get stuff from further away and a more varied assortment while simple projection of power to draw those things in can only go so far and it is far less reliable.

It's really kinda simple... If I told you that I have 2 businesses. They both produce lots of gold, but business A produces between 0 and 2,000 tons of gold monthly where as B produces between 750 and 1250 monthly. And then I tell you I have this project that requires 12,000 tons of gold produced in 1 year. I ask you to decide which business should I employ to produce the gold i need for my business? personally. I'm going to go with B, because worst case scenario I end up with 9,000 tons and have to delay the project for 4 months. Worst case scenario with A... I never get the project done. Best case scenarious are that with B I get it done in 10 months and A I get done in 6 months. 

When you're talking about civilization resources and growth of empire... 6 months to never is a horrible position to put yourself in, especially when the other option is 10 to 16 months. That stability allows you to go "ok I know this is coming so I can make these plans" where as instability is really just a crapshoot as to if you have what you need to grow. That's difference between a crossroads/trade hub city and a Projection of power type city. It's the same reason why we're no longer hunter gatherers. Because when you can ensure a stable stream of what you need, it's better to rely on that rather than hope you win the lottery with the maybe never sources.

Also a thought just occured to me... This might be the reason for the difference in Asian vs European state sizes. China produced everything it needed for a long time (not sure if they still do) and so they continuously exported renewables they didn't really care about and drained the economies of the rest of the world of gold. In other words, they had/have a steady stream of natural resources from nature itself and therefor are able to project power over a large area and maintain a singular governing body overall, unreliant on trade. Europe on the other hand relied heavily on trade to get what they want which caused different bottle necks to occur and thus different governing powers to growing in those areas, creating new nations. So it might be the cases that Trade rich cultures have more nations and Resource rich cultures have fewer...or something like that. Just a thought ^.^

----------


## Pixie

> Pixie,
> Wow I really hope you'll feel safe sharing your results, because I think many of us will be interested and could learn a thing or two, and might even start a very interesting discussion. Will you try to apply the results into a map/s? Or just do it in writing?


I'll share them.  :Wink: 
But I have been a little short on time to complete what I'm doing. So far it is all is draft form. I am in the process of drafting maps to show the appearance and expansion of key transitions from stone age to modernity
- expansion of agriculture
- expansion of horse/cattle domestication
- expansion of bronze working
- appearance and expansion of systems of writing
Basically, a sort of historical atlas. And it has been fun to do it, I've been already surprised by what "must have happened" a few times... but I'll post it soon on another thread - don't want to hijack this one  :Wink:

----------


## groovey

China's Empire is definitely an historic case I want to study. Diamond talks about it around the last third of his book...but by then I was just quickly reading over, since I lost interest. I might have to check that part again.

Awesome Pixie, I look fordward to it.

----------


## Charerg

On the subject of the expansion of agriculture, it's interesting to note that agriculture can actually vary quite a bit. And the techniques utilized in said agriculture (and consequently, the lifestyle of the people doing it) also depend on their level of technology. 

For example, there's a large difference between a sort of semi-nomadic slash-and-burn agriculture that was widespread in historical times (the forests of the Mediterranean are thought to have disappeared as a result of this practice) and a truly settled agriculture. A stone-age people lacking the means to till the soil via ploughs would be fairly likely to practice slash-and-burn farming (unless the soil is soft enough to be hoed). Also, I think there was a form of semi-nomadic slash-and-burn pastoralism practiced by people in northern Europe, where tilling the soil requires ploughs before it can be turned into productive farmland. And since the peoples that brought agriculture to northern Europe lacked such, they instead used slash-and-burn to create grazing lands and relied on herds of cattle and sheep for their sustenance (primarily, some crops were probably also grown). At least in Finland the Corded Ware remains display no evidence of agriculture, but settlements were established close to meadows, and goat bones are found, which would imply this sort of lifestyle.

As an interesting historical sidenote, the migrations of the Germanic tribes during the late Roman era may be related to the practice of slash-and-burn farming (at least wikipedia thinks so). Apparently, at least the more "primitive" of the Germanic tribes (the ones living further away from the Roman border) still lived in a mobile, semi-nomadic fashion, shifting their settlements periodically. I suspect that pastoralism also played a greater role in their economy as a result of this lifestyle, since herds of cattle and sheep are easy to move around.

Another important point related to northern peoples in particular is the discovery of bog iron. Essentially, before the discovery of these ice age-formed deposits, northern Europe largely relied on imports for metals, with the majority of the populace probably still making use of stone tools. The adoption of iron was slow in northern Europe, but around 200 BC a productive smithing industry had evolved (in larger settlements).

And with that, I think I've rambled on enough for now. I hope you find the above points useful, though!

Edit: 
A small correction, when speaking of the soil in northern portions of Europe, I originally linked glacial till, which is actually a sediment type and not a soil type. The soil type in question is the podzol soil.

----------


## Pixie

Interesting stuff, Charerg, I had never heard of bog iron. I'm sure it'll be handy knowledge sometime in the future... (maybe further up in this process)

----------


## groovey

Dammit, Pixie, I forgot your great point to Akubra back then about his heightmap... Earth's elevation is quite low in general, as the map you linked there shows... I totally forgot to remember that while redoing mine. Sigh, I guess I'm not done with it after all.

----------


## Pixie

Don't feel despaired.

You used Wilbur before. You can use it again, it will carve those wide valleys for you. Or, you can just take your grayscale heightmap, and use a low opacity black brush to lower elevations in some areas (or a lot of areas) and then run wilbur just a little bit to get back to a "realistic" appearance.

----------


## groovey

Yeah, I guess I can play with the fact tha Wilbur doesn't interpret the same amount of layers/elevation levels I have in PS, so I can pretend for some purposes the land is lower with the Wilbur version, but to one day maybe work out the climate... I'll need more specific info. So we'll see.

----------


## Charerg

There's also an option in Wilbur called "Remap Altitudes" (under Filter -> Other), that allows you to adjust the relative heights. Although if you've gone through the "Fun with Wilbur"-tutorials, I suppose you're familiar with it.

----------


## Pixie

If you have your heightmap in layers in photoshop, here's one form of making lower altitudes lower. I'm assuming each layer represents a certain altitude level and that each layer is, basically, a solid color shape. If this is the case, then you can try this:

- duplicate each layer so to keep the original info and work only with the copies, hide everything else.
- under these layers place a fully black layer
- use the effect "colorize" in each layer, and set the color to pure white.
(at this point, it should be a massive white equal to your landforms)

- now, set the layers to a low opacity level (try 10%, or less, it depends on the total number of levels)
- the result is whiter where you have a larger number of layers, good, but not final

(from here you can take two options)

1:
- to decrease the overall altitude of the low lying areas, set the opacity of the lower levels to a smaller value, or increase
   and experiment until you're happy with the result

2:
- "select all" and "copy visible", paste into a new file, and "adjust levels" in order to make the grays darker

----------


## groovey

Thanks for chipping in about my altitude issue. To be honest, my head has been elsewhere lately so I haven't found the motivation to figure out what to do with it. But now that Azelor has posted his new tutorial, I guess I gotta look into it again.

----------


## groovey

Well, I revised my height-map yet again in order to correct the excess of elevation of the previous one. For now I've simplified the elevation levels, 1.000m per level. I might add 0-250m and 250-500m later one, but since for Azelor's climate tutorial levels of 1.000m are recommended, for now it'll do.

So here it is:



- Is there too much of something?
- Not enough of something?
- Any improvements ideas?

As always, its purpose is informational and to work out climate.

EDIT:

Here's my go on the superficial oceanic currents. I'm not sure if the poles are right and what the heck is going on south of the big eastern mega continent. I added numbers to land/island areas which are confusing in case you need to comment.



With 10º grid:



So what needs fixing?


Step 3 : Atmospheric pressure systems. Do these old maps Azelor did a while ago still apply? I "cleaned" them up to be overlayed to the new height-map.

JANUARY


JULY

----------


## ascanius

Hey groovey, It's nice to see your map coming along nicely.  my one critique are your oceanic shelfs, 0 to -100m, -100 to -200m.  100 meters is not a lot, but they look like they extend for hundreds or thousands of km.  also having the oceanic shelf go from -200 to 0 over the course of hundreds, thousands of km would make your coast a nightmare of tsunamis.  I would tighten up your oceanic shelfs a good bit and bring them closer to the coasts, also you may want to vary how far the extend outward, right now the are kinda uniform.  I really like the massive plateau in the south western continent.  Keep up the good work.

----------


## CarnivorousJellybean

Just following up on what ascanius said about oceans, the deepest part of the ocean is in the Mariana Trench, it's just under 11000m deep. The whole ocean averages about 3688 m deep though. You probably don't have to map out the entire ocean floor, but hopefully that little tidbit can help you with the bits you do map!

Everything you've done so far is super awesome and in-depth; it was actually this thread that inspired me to finally make an account and get grinding out my own world map! So uh, thank you  :Smile:

----------


## Azélor

The oceanic currents look right to me but the atmospheric systems, not so much. Having low pressure in winter below the high continental system is not mandatory and is probably wrong in this case. The eastern continent would not be low pressure in the west because the land is not hot enough for that. It would be average, just like in Europe or something like that. 

The high pressure system would be located further away in the east and extend northward. 

No low pressure area, resulting in an overall dry continent in winter at least, except on the western side. 


Heck, I just noticed that the winds near the equator are blowing in the wrong direction!
Same thing for the direction of the winds around high pressure systems in the south.

----------


## groovey

ascanius: nice input, I'll definitely follow your suggestions as soon as a muster some energy.

CarnivorousJellybean: I would like to map the ocean floor and I have toyed with the idea, but I have no idea on how to do it and I would require some research on how to make it fit with tectonics... but there's so much stuff to focus on! I love what you got going on with your ocean floor, looks very organic so far.

azelor: hehe, I had to check! I'm afraid I'll need assistance then, because I'm very dense and though I re-read many times and slowly, that part of the tutorial, it just doesn't click in my head.

----------


## Pixie

Hey groovey.

So you need assistance, you say...  :Wink:  well, uh, you might be right.  I had a look at your currents map and it did look a little "stiff". So I downloaded your altitudes map and started scribbling bits, just for fun, but I ended up investing a couple of hours this afternoon and this was my final outcome. I think it looks a little more natural. 
Of course, it's all educated guesses, as always. So feel free to use as much as you want and/or ignore at will.



Your world has some interesting things going on in terms of currents. One is that both north and south polar currents can close full circles around the globe - I don't know how that will make climate patterns different from Earth, but it must have some effect. Second is that you have a sort of Inland Sea, but it is oriented in a north-south manner unlike the Mediterranean, which means (I think) a larger effect in homogeneizing climates in its surroundings. Thirdly, there are a lot of places where warm waters get stuck in small gyres around the equator. This will make those areas very warm and humid, like Indonesia or Borneo.

----------


## Azélor

I reworked the pressure map and this is waht I have so far: 

January



July

----------


## groovey

Oh Gods, you two are amazing, and what great timing, cos today I was feeling miserable.

I really don't know what I did to deserve both your time like this, so thank you a lot.

I feel kind of bad that you two always have to come to my rescue. I really try to understand the climate stuff, I read both your tutorials over and over, I watch documentaries and videos relating to each step, etc... but it doesn't click when I try to apply concepts I understand to my map. I really hope you at least get some useful practice out of it. I don't mean to get sappy, but I wish I could do something useful for you two as well.

----------


## Charerg

On the subject of having the "circumpolar" currents on both poles, they'd probably have an overall "isolating" effect on arctic climates. I think similar borders would form as the Antarctic Convergence on Earth. Also, if you look at the Ice Ages they had a much greater impact on the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern. I suspect this is at least partly due to the fact that the circumpolar belt of continuous water effectively isolates the Antarctic from the rest of the Southern Hemisphere.

Essentially I think they'd act as "dampers" as any arctic airmass would have to pass over the ocean and warm up before hitting the continents. And the Northern Hemisphere would probably have a relatively mild climate compared to Earth due to the absence of any glaciers, and the presence of a deep, polar ocean.

----------


## Pixie

Gee, groovey, thanks for the compliment.

But honestly, I think it's you "feeling miserable" that makes as look "amazing" to your eyes. Anyway, you're the historian and we're the scientists - so this is our backyard. You'll be of use when we start seeding and growing civilizations.. just keep your resources at hand  :Wink:

----------


## Azélor

I'm not sure the south would have the Polar Easterlies, because it's similar to Antarctica and it doesn't have that current. 
The northern easterlies might be located closer to the pole, but that's not going to change a lot of things. 

I wonder what the ice sheets should look like in the north. Unlike the Arctic, it completely open. This means stronger currents and stronger winds because of the lack of obstacle to stop them. There are no bays or islands where the ice can clog together. It is going to freeze but the ice is prone to breakups and it will always be drifting without lands to hold it. It's probably going to spin on itself, where the polar gyre is. 

The katabatic winds of Antarctica are said to break the formation of ice. It's about the same strength as category 4 hurricane, when the winds are at their strongest. Don't expect to have lot of ice in the south, except for icebergs.

----------


## groovey

Hi again! I'm working on the winds but meanwhile, I'm trying to solve a world-building issue. So sorry for interrupting the flow.

Warning: long post on a con-History building. Feel free to pass if it's not your cup of tea.

NaNoWriMo is coming and I want to use the motivation it gives to work on one of the stories I have planned to write based on my world. But I need to re-think a couple of things regarding politics.

In the story in question, as I've mentioned, Arlia and the Empire have a tense relationship made worse by the "kidnapping" of a Princess of the Empire by an Arlian Prince. 


UPDATED VERSION WITH ARLIA AND ONCAR SWITCHED

Since in the very helpful input you all gave me a while ago I had to accept that Arlia wouldn't realistically be a trader with Picsi, I have to re-think stuff to justify Arlia being a rich nation, with both the resources and motivation to have the best ships of their era.

I considered moving Arlia to where Oncar (in green) is, but then it'd be hard to justify why the Empire wouldn't simply send a fleet to rescue the Princess, either by crossing the bottleneck between both tips (about 444km), or navigate through the coast past Inalia (in yellow) to get there. So I'm afraid that wouldn't work.

Thus for navigation to be the reason the Empire can't get the Princess back by force, Arlia is best where it is.

Trade is the only thing I can use to justify Arlian being rich and having the best ships of their era.

With Picsi out of the question to trade with and get gold from, Arlia could happen to produce highly desirable goods to export that the eastern continent would desire, making it worth for Arlia to invest on good ships to be able to get to the continent.

Does that sound reasonable? I guess Arlia's main difference could be its tropical climate so the valuable goods would have to be either unique spices and/or certain manufactured goods made with unique variations of materials. 

Generic argument I know, but would it work?

Would it also make sense for them to follow the islands chain and colonize the southern tip of Acelor, because that way they would control, for example, areas with mines to get valuable metals or gems from? I figure it must take lots of time and effort to get to said tip, but if the profit is high, it'd be worth it for them to do? 

This though, could open the chance for Arlia to trade with Oncar directly, not just the Empire.  Oncar, with decent ships, could cross the bottleneck and follow Acelor's coast a bit a meet halfway with Arlia at some point, thus reducing the re-distributor role of the Empire.


The dynamic between Arlia and the Empire changes depending on Oncar. If:

1. The colonization of Acelor's tip by Arlia  is not plausible.

OR

2. It is but trade with Oncar isn't

Then the Empire it's Arlia's only big trade buddy and thus makes both powers equally dependent on each other and gives the Empire a role as re-distributor of Arlian goods to the other powers in the continent. Trade with the Empire would take place on its western coast as the shortest, more direct route.


However, if the tip's colonization is believable, then:

- Trade with the Empire would be done on Acelor's eastern coast

- And, Arlia would trade with Oncar too because it sounds more reasonable than defending the contrary.

- Arlia is not as dependable on the Empire, since it has another (not quite massive) market to trade with.

- The Empire losses the re-distributor of Arlian goods role with Inalia and Oncar.


So I need to know which of the 2 situations is the plausible one, or if another that I haven't considered is even more likely, to figure out in the end why the heck would Arlia get in so much trouble with his major trade buddy in order to get an Arlian consort on the Empire's throne. 

Sure, if the Arlian Prince can dominate the Empress he could do stuff to favor Arlia when it comes to trade, but what benefit would be worth the risk, especially if Arlia-Oncar trade is not plausible and the Empire it's Arlia's only market? The consort wouldn't be able to turn the Empire into Arlia's colony or anything equally extreme, there'd be only so much he could do before the nobility controlling the provinces would oppose. 

Anyway, sorry for the long post, I revised it several time to reduce it as much as I could, but alas, is still pretty long. 

I'd appreciate any input, because I'm starting to think my whole premise of the story (the kidnapping) doesn't make any sense at all for Arlia to do, and that would change the whole story.

----------


## Durakken

Based on the currents I'd say there are 2 major trade routes for Arlia to the Continents...
You're gonna go to the island directly north of the Arlia label and then take that to the east to the western gulf (i think that is the correct term) coast of Acelor
The other route is much longer and you'd head south island hopping to Hemlia and then island hop north to Ascarlia's southern tip... and then from there and for the return trip you'd head west to Acelor, either heading north along it's coast or head south and try to get to the islands and back to Arlia before you drift to far west. That complete journey would probably take 2 or 3 years I'd guess. I'm not knowledgeable the specifics hear but you're talking about a trip that is roughly equivelant to a mixture of the trans atlantic travels of the colonial age along with the ships sent to explore asia which have to take a long, tedious, out of the way journey around Africa and many traders, as I recall, stayed years at their destination before returning home if ever.

The problem you have, considering that is that you haven't defined any of those regions as having anything there to make that type of travel a regular and profitable thing. I'm pretty sure most of these trips made their money on trading with each port of call which in this case there would be tons with island hopping, but that would extend the travel too.

There also lies another problem, the length of time to get between these places would be hellishly long for most of us to contemplate about ^.^ but there is a story to draw from, Helen of Troy and the Trojan War which is what you've pretty much set up, perhaps accidentally, with such travel time between the two nations.

Also, given the currents, Arlia would be fairly easy to get to if they have a fleet on that west coast as it would be a fairly straight shot down for them. It's jsut the way back would be against the currents which is never liked in sailing. So they could deploy quickly but their return would take time.


Question: What is the purpose of the Arlian Prince? Is it love or political power or lust or trying to get one over? And what is the governance of the Empire like? Changing these would change the response as a Princess with no Princes to claim the thrown would give claim to Arlia over the thrown where as with a Prince it would not, at least not directly.

----------


## groovey

Very interesting stuff Durakken. 

Pixie's currents map is essential for me to keep in mind for this stuff. What I had most difficulty with was calculating the time of the journeys... mind you, I had months in mind... years it's obviously not plausible.

So no colonies, and so, no trade with Oncar. Good to know for further development.

The Arlian prince has big brothers and daddy issues (feeling insecure compared to his siblings and wanting to please his over the top father). He and his men save the Princess while a plot to kill the Emperor and her is going on during a feast. 

Problem is, once out they're not sure where is safe to take her to, since they can't be sure who the bad guys are anymore, so for her safety and to hopefully score a point with his father, the Arlian prince decides to bring the Princess to Arlia.

The Princess, as the only surviving child of the Emperor besides the heir, a lunatic very unlikely to reproduce due to physical reasons, has high chances of inheriting the crown, IF, the war that erupts soon after the feast killing, wins on her favor, especially after her brother, the Emperor since the feast killing, dies with no issue.

The Princess is also a first cousin of the Arlian Prince through her dead mother. 

So that's Arlia's excuse if they are demanded excuses, that it was for her safety and for that reason they keep her, more so because she is their family, but of course, what they care about is to capitalize her, thus why they pressure her to marry the Prince, which she ends up agreeing with. So if her supporters at the Empire win the war the Arlia gets a consort on the Empire.


The Empire is a heavily centralized administration. My main model was Persia and the satrapy system, but not exactly.

When it comes to administration, the Empire is divided in 24 big provinces, each under the administration of a duke level noble. Legally they are civil servants of the Emperor and not Lords of the provinces personally, and they have a civil servant above and below their level who act as "spies" for the crown to know what they're up to, but in practice, as times passed by, by a combo of weak rulers and economic troubles, the crown got weaker and the "Dukes" got stronger and the position became practically inheritable as a family office.

The "Dukes" are the ones who have personal contact with the main forces of each province, so they get lots of personal loyalty from the provincial administrators under his command, and the military officers in charge of the troops recruited in the province in time of war. So in the last century and a half some "Dukes"/provinces have become quite a challenge to the crown, who has to deal with them as if walking on eggs, and hasn't dared to try and impose changes to defuse the situation, in fear most provinces would rebel.

Thus why an Arlian consort would have to be very careful not to push the Arlian card too much.

EDIT: nevermind, I'm in big trouble.

So I did some basic research on travel times with a ship like a medieval cog and a caravel.

What I got is that a cog, under not too adverse conditions, could do 40-60 miles per day, roughly 64-96 km/d.

A caravel, 65-85 mpd = 104-136 km/d.

Then I traced a rough route line from the Empire to Arlia (in green) keeping in mind the currents... and got a rough distance to travel of 8.671km... Each grid square is 1cm=667km.


A modified route from Pixie's case study because of a slight change in the currents with the new version.

So, with a cog, with optimistic conditions i could take between 3 to 5 months , and with a caravel between 63-83 days... and that's on the way of the journey where the currents help you... I won't even try to calculate the way back to the Empire.

I mean, can you image how utterly terrifying would be for a young girl who has been isolated and sheltered all her life to spend months on a ship full of men she doesn't even know at all? And how weird it could get? It's absolutely imposible to make it work.

So yeah, Arlia can't be where it is right now. I need to find a new location. I'm thinking where Oncar is again... and perhaps go with the excuse the Empire doesn't send its fleet to get her is because before the diplomatic channel is exhausted, war explodes in the Empire, shifting the focus of the Emperor.

----------


## Durakken

It's not a complete lose here.
First off, given the trade routes there really is no reason for the Arlian Prince or anyone else from Arlia to be in the Empire other than perhaps as an exotic trader that the Empire is showing it's power to.
Secondly, Based on what you've implied from the Empire's position and all that Swifendlia likely doesn't have a ship that can maintain that trip to begin with so they likely wouldn't do that.
Thirdly, The trip that you laid out is not the trip that they'd take, both because of the above reason, but also because it is assuming the Princess and Emporer would be at a harbor city that isn't overall that important.

The above solves your problem and is far more exciting to begin with... I mean how exciting is "then they got on a boat and when they got there waited to be attacked"?
What would happen is the Arlian prince might be a traveler. He's out trying to do deeds to impress his father so it's only natural that he'd be in places that others of his ilk wouldn't be.
And when he gets to the capital of the empire they would recognize the name and likely be very open to him. And then perhaps he overhears the plot. He attempts to tell the Emporer, but can't get to him.
He can however get to the princess and tries to tell her, but it's too late. He tells her as it is happening and with no other option left open he saves her and himself. There's nothing he can do as the Emporer's assassins have assumed control of the city and so they flee. The princess that is missing is assumed dead and lost in the chaos. But they make way some province to seek help, only to almost killed again. 

They escape across the inland sea and again seek aid from another province, this time prepared for being attacked. Whether this province helps them or not, they get sent south into the foreign nations and hopefully to the "colony"/"trade partner" on the western coast of the continent and then from there head to Arlia over the ocean. By this time an extended trip probably wouldn't be all that bad for the Prince and Princess... but when they get to Arlia the King and brothers are likely going to be mad or try to steal the Princess because they are bringing the internal conflict of the empire to them and also to marry the Princess generally means that you will rule the Empire in the future or your child will... You can also assume that some just like the way she looks. And then from there they'd have to flee again and you could then turn your story into an island hopping adventure ^.^ but whatever. 

Back in the empire you could have the 2 factions... The new Emporer claiming the princess is dead, killed by the assassins... against the faction that believe the Princess is alive and is the legit ruler of the Empire due to patricide being something that disqualifies someone from taking the throne. Both sides prefer the princess missing as without the princess she can safely be said to be dead while the other side knows that as long as they don't know where she is she is safe from being killed.

This sets up Arlia as the ones in pursuit of the Prince/Princess with maybe a small group from the Empire looking out for her. The travel time from the empire to Arlia in the manner they do would allow the two to grow close and for the Princess to go from someone with no experience with the world to someone who is capable by the time they leave Arlia. This also allows the story to take place over years like a lot of these events do without having that problem that you were having with the travel time between the Empire and Arlia for the Prince/Princess journet between the two. The trip would be much longer, but it would also be less claustrophobic in nature than a ship journey.


edit: >.> btw... it should be mentioned that I don't have a job nor degree in any of these associated areas that I comment about... or anything really lol. I have an associates in general sciences or something like that which took several years to get for lots of reasons ^.^ So if it's not apparent much of what I know is didactic or from low level college courses (lots of them) so if I say something that doesn't fall in line exactly with what you know, as it happened earlier with Pixie (i think) in this thread, that's why. Just thought I'd mention that since it appears to me that you and others may be much better sources than me in lots of cases and I don't want to give the wrong impression and get you messed up.

----------


## a.coldyham

All I can say is, I would read that book/series 

Sent from my SM-G357FZ using Tapatalk

----------


## groovey

First of all Durakken, thanks again for your input.

Interesting premise... but adventure stories are not really my cup of tea. I was going for a court intrigue story, which by the way I have very fleshed out/planned, but spared you all the bore.

Plus, in the beginning the Prince would never choose the Princess's needs over his father. That's precisely his character arch, so until the end he struggles but mostly favors his father instead of his wife. 

Well, my reasoning was that since the Empire would be Arlia's main trade buddy, and the shortest route in the Empire's western coast, an important city would have developed around there because of that trade route, so it could have a palace that the Emperor could have retired to for some reason. But yeah it's a bit farfetched. The feast would have to take place on a city on the inner sea, close or in the capital, on the area we discussed a while ago (the north-east tip of Acelor), and the Arlians would not be there.

So you actually gave me another reason to discard Arlia where it is and place it where Oncar is, and so Oncar would be with Arlia is and get the trade history instead.

Arlia's new position will change the dynamic with the Empire, but it still works for story purposes. So now:

1. The Empire is a re-distributor of its own goods (since it keeps away foreigner traders except in a few key ports) and of goods from Oncar (where Arlia was before) to Inalia and Arlia (now in the bottleneck where Oncar was). Its resources are quite diversified because of the different areas it controls, plus it gets "exotic" goods from Oncar.
Specialization: diversity + exotic goods redistribution.

2. Inalia has a "silk route" going on with lands on the north-east, and so it's a re-distributor of goods from the to the other 2 powers and viceversa. Inalia, more than the others, is the most dependant of its re-distribution role to be relevant. It could be a semi-Venice type of power, very rich but relatively small. Perhaps more than a unified nation is a federation of merchant republic poleis, with lots of inner competition, which makes it potentially unstable and weak if it gets too bad.
Specialization: redistribution, specially spices.

3. Arlia. What does it bring to the table? 
It's a unified kingdom with a slightly superior naval tech in the continent.
But why is it stronger than Inalia and a pain in the butt to the Empire? Could its specialty and value lay on mining colonies of valuable metals and gems? And manufacturing and trading of special quality armor and weapons and jewels for the aristocracy? It has the best metal treatment knowledge (which is very protected) so they can get better quality.
Perhaps it has colonies on his north-east coast, following the warm current north and then back home with the cold one.
Perhaps it has also colonies on Acelor's east coast following the current's circuit there.
Does this sound reasonable?
Specialization: mining and related manufacture


How difficult would be for Arlia to cross the bottleneck on its shortest point (cir. 444km) versus the warm current going up? I reckon with a cog kind of ship under not too favorable conditions it'd take about 6 days, but I'm not sure how going against the current would worsen the journey time.

----------


## Pixie

I can't help sharing my take, groovey, here goes:

- I think switching Oncar and Arlia is a wise move.

- There is still ample reasoning for Arlia to become a naval power. 
One, if its original population is composed of refugees from the Empire, they will have an emotional bond with seafaring. Two, that strait is surely crossed over and over by trade, as is the sea north of Arlia. Third, the coasts to the south of Arlia are probably deserted or semi-deserted, but populated by less developed people, and Arlia would have a key interest in monopolizing trade south of the strait.

- In terms of territory, the entire south coast of the inner east sea is probably homogenous in climate and culture, it might all be "Arlian". I see it as Iberia for Carthage - an area where resources abound and colonies thrive into major production centers. Indeed it could be an area rich in metals where superior iron (steel?) was produced. Or, being an area of prairies, it could be home to aboriginal cultures with horse riding, which would have influenced Arlian warfare to a degree where they can be a match to infantry based armies from the Empire...

- Like we discussed before, the large plains to the west of the strait would be a constant source of conflict between the Empire main cities to its north, and Arlia across the strait. If you are designing an empire with reasonably high level of regional autonomy (satrapies), then Arlia would probably invest a great deal of diplomatic resources in trying to turn those provinces to its side. Those provinces would be to the Empire what Egypt was to Rome - the bread basket.

As for your question, about crossing the currents in the "strait". I don't think it would be a problem, but in cog-era, it would be very dependant on the winds. Since the area is far from the equator and from the 45º parallel (the westerlies), winds wouldn't be constant. Sailors would have to be knowledgeable of wind patterns and wait for the right conditions before sailing east or west. (This could add some tense moments in a story, say, for a group running or for an army waiting to cross.)

----------


## Durakken

I think one of your major problems is that your map is a world map and so you want to spread out, but we're talking about an era when Europe and a small bit of Africa was the world to Europeans and Asia was the world to Asians. What you migt find of benefit to get your mind on where exactly Arlia should be is to match a real world map up to your world map, draw a circle around europe with London or Rome at it's center and then transpose that on your map to see just how much of the world is of "concern" to the Empire. 

Just Eyeing it I'd say that Oncar and Inalia are in the "far east" to them. They are the Persia or Carthage to Rome. The surrounding areas should likely be dominated by them more, but the important thing is you want to move Arlia to a place where they are sea faring, Of some level of power in the area, and friendly with the Empire. 

My question here is, how do these nations rank against each other on a scale of 10? I presume something like...
Empire = 10
Arlia = 8
Oncar = 7
Inalia = 5
Reuran = ?
Newori = ?

Given the range of their perspective and the trade routes as they stand right now... I'd say the power ranking something like
Empire = 10
Arlia = 3
Oncar = 5
Inalia = 9
Reuran = 2
Newori = 2

Oncar doesn't matter if you're not trading outside of those seas
Inalia would then control most of the eastern sea, but is weaken by it being much larger.
Arlia is should be some mystical foreign power near unheard of in the whole of the other countries
Newori and Reuran are at best equivalent to Korea or Japan which may have some minor influence indirectly, but only through whatever power exists between them and Inalia.

In short Arlia brings nothing to the table because it doesn't exist to the Empire as it stands right now.

Historically the things that brought in wealth and power are Spices, Porcelain, Drugs, Metals, and Guns.
I don't think you can go the spice route because they're in the same area of the world if you move Arlia to Oncar and thus produce the roughly same spices.
Porcelain only worked because of the fact that it came from far away thus there was a very limited supply. This wouldn't work.
Drugs not sure you want to go that route lol
Metals...This is attached to Guns more broadly as weapons and armor. Here's the thing... Iron is plentiful which is why the iron age happened...not because it was the best metal, even during the iron age. Copper, Tin, Zinc (ie Brass and Bronze) was the best up until the tempering of steel was figured out and even then Brass was an equivalent and a sign of wealth, because Copper, tin, and zinc were hard to come by and it took quite a bit of work to get the material to the same or better quality. And even then steel didn't reach the heights it did till the bessemer process allowed for large amount of iron to be processed into steel fairly quickly and accurately. The technology was there long ago, but never applied to iron btw.

So I'd say you should move Arlia to Inalia and make the teritory it covers larger, owening all that coastal area that is free now.
OR
Move Arlia to Oncar and see if there are Copper/tin/zinc mines there that they can export (which btw if they  did would likely carry the effect that they'd be treated grandly by the Emporer... Orihalcum (Likely what we call gunmetal) was said to be second in value only to Gold. So if they had rich deposits of those metals they'd surely be a force to recon with. On the other hand, you could have them be the ones who have developed the Bessemer process or Gun powder and primitive guns which would give them large amounts of capital.

For your story, if you go with the mines you could have Arlia be influencing the provinces via buying them off, but that is fairly meh imo. If you give them the Bessemer process or Primitive guns then you can really have some fun because then you can set them up as the weapons dealers which comes with it plenty of drama and instant turn abouts. Think about the scenario where one faction has a navy of thousands wood ships, only to suddenly be outclassed by a province that until then had no navy buying a single steel ship from Arlia, or the materials to do so. You can fine tune the power of Arlia then as well with how much iron they can get/have and how many forgese are active.

----------


## groovey

I like a lot the possibilities brought by having Arlia be where Oncar was, and having an edge on key metals mining and perhaps be the heir of the first culture to develop a rough but stable gunpowder to make weapons. Or maybe they stole the knowledge. So metals and guns is Arlia's special trait and edge. So no colonies for Arlia? I'd like some, if only to give it another different trait and explore ancient like colonialism.

Story wise, it'd be awesome if Arlia was actually the first power in the area to develop those new weapons, 'cos then they could influence the war with a smaller army but with new mind-blowing weapons for those facing them for the first time. So the war could be the debut of a new era of guns.

When you say "Arlia brings nothing to the table because it doesn't exist to the Empire as it stands right now", you mean even when located where Oncar was? because physically is like 444km away from the Empire, roughly 6-13 days of journey depending on the conditions.

I did what you said of using Europe as a reference. I got a world map, made it the same dimensions of my map. Very roughly, moving Eurasia for Anatolia/Turkey be where Oncar/Arlia is, Greece and Rome stand on the western tip of the bottleneck. Contact with Greece and Persia was frequent enough, so it seems plausible for Arlia and the Empire to contact a lot through the bottleneck unless said bottleneck is considered too difficult to cross.

This is what I'd want them to rank in influence:

Empire = 10
Arlia (where Oncar was) = 7/8
Inalia = 5/6
Oncar (where Arlia was, now I don't need it to be much involved in the big continent, I just need its trade)= 4
Reuran = not sure yet, perhaps high in the far east, but only indirect influence on the inner seas.
Newori = idem

I'd like Inalia to be only second to none to the Empire economically, but not as a power, so richer than Arlia but not politically/militarily superior to Arlia. Is that compatible?

I'm not sure about moving Arlia to Inalia, but if I did, Arlia's relevance in the area would be self-justified. What coast do you refer to that it should control? To the west? The east? Both?

----------


## Durakken

Island Arlia = Non-important Arlia. They are in my reckoning as far aways from the Empire as Rome is to South Africa or China. They may interact in some nebulous way such as different ends of the Silk Road, but direct interaction is non-existent, or sparsely just beginning.

Oncarian Arlia = Only relevant with trade to southern Ascarlia and Acelor or if it has some other new thing that makes them a power.

Inalia is in the same position as the Empire with regard to it's neighbors and depending on it's origins and such should have an area of control equivalent to the empire or on it's way to that position. That projection of power would end up with Inalia's territory being much if not all of Toec Thar that the empire and Oncar doesn't already control. They likely would border the empire in the northern edges, or if you want a small bit more drama you could have a neutral state between them that was created in some sort of truce.

As far as colonies... that makes it an empire, but an Island Anaria would likely control all the islands it hops to while Oncarian Alaria would likely be expanding southwardly with any nations along the coast of South Western Ascarlia paying tribute and the same of South Eastern Acelor unless the empire stepped in which it might, but that's doubtful save for that nation that border the empire's southern edges because then that is when Oncar's position would become important since the empire could not put ships to defend those regions against the might of Arlia. 

In fact if you were to place Arlia where Oncar is and history moved forward I would bet on some sort of Trade federation happening encompassing the entire southern half of both of those continents headed by Arlia with that whole chunk of the Empire breaking off and becoming part of that trade federation, of course as several different nations, but still the entire chunk of that is part of the empire at the time. much like we currently have the whole trade thing with US, Japan, Canada, UK, etc...

----------


## Vidgange

This thread is such a gem! I love it! You've really made an interesting looking world and it's a lot of fun to see it come alive with all the currents, heights and everything else. Keep up the great work!

----------


## groovey

Hi Vidgange! Thanks for your nice words.

I know I'm far from the most skilled at map making, but I feel good enough if I manage to spark or help keep alive discussions about world-building, because I love it and I feel there's not enough of it around here.

Durakken: thanks a lot for you assistance, it's been key to make up my mind...well, I still need to sit a few hours and deeply contemplate the implications of placing Arlia in Oncar or Inalia and decide which one fits best my needs, but I got the data I need. Some well deserved rep to you for your help.

EDIT:

I'll be damned Pixie, my eyes betrayed me and I didn't see you 18OCT post.

Great input! I love every word of it. I'm so glad I looked back. 

Indeed, I've settled to move Arlia to Oncar and viceversa.

Mm, I'm not sure about giving Arlia horses as an specialty tough, since they already have an edge in weapons and at the time of the story are developing the first stable gunpowder, at least on that side area of the continent (I'm not sure yet about what's going on in the far East), I don't want them to be too overpowered versus the Empire.

And about Arlia's ambition's on the west lands of the strait belonging to the Empire... I'm not sure either. To begin with, people on the Empire have a big superiority complex over anyone else, specially Arlia, who  wasn't so powerful until recent times,  and who they don't trust and don't like its colonies on Acelor's coast. 

The "Dukes" (who control the provinces) lineages are not typically local, they come from loyal men of the King/Emperors, well bred into the imperial mentality and culture. I can't see a culture with pride on the level the Greeks had about themselves be willing to give themselves up to be ruled by the Arlians, who they consider inferior. 

Some of the "Dukes" would rather be independent or the Empire be more of a federation rather than a centralized monarchy, but they know both the Empire and Arlia would fight them to get the province, so as they see is safer to stay in the Empire, but with a weak Emperor to be autonomous in practice. 

So it's mostly a cultural/ideological impediment that limits Arlia's influence on their other side of the strait.

Thanks for solving my doubts about the strait crossing, as is something I definitely need to know about for the story.

----------


## groovey

WINDS: Baby steps

I have to take it easy for my head not to overheat.

Here's what I got so far following Azelor's principles as best as I can. Let's start with January and for now forget about intensity (longer or shorter arrows) until I get the basics right. Try not to die laughing.

EDIT: So I "polished" January and I did July. Boy, I need a graphic tablet, even a cheap one... my pulse sucks so my lines hurt the eyes.

 JAN

 JUL

My main issue is, since my center and east south hemisphere doesn't have any High Pressure centers in JAN, and I don't have big landmasses there... I'm assuming it's the winds blowing to the east around the 30 degrees latitude are the ones who "send" wind to my LP systems? Otherwise I got nothing to feed those pressures with?

I'm open to all critiques to improve it.

EDIT:

Here's the latest height-map version. Changes:

- As per ascasnius on point suggestion, I shrinked the ocean shelves and on the leyend I made it 0-200m. Still a WIP though, since I need to polish it on the big eastern continent and try to make the overal outline more uneven.

- Divided de 0-1000m level in two.

- Re-did the N-W of the eastern continent and made small changes when needed elsewhere.



I really hope this is my definitive height-map, tough it looks a bit weird to me in some parts.

----------


## Pixie

> Mm, I'm not sure about giving Arlia horses as an specialty tough, since they already have an edge in weapons and at the time of the story are developing the first stable gunpowder, at least on that side area of the continent (I'm not sure yet about what's going on in the far East), I don't want them to be too overpowered versus the Empire.
> 
> And about Arlia's ambition's on the west lands of the strait belonging to the Empire... I'm not sure either. To begin with, people on the Empire have a big superiority complex over anyone else, specially Arlia, who  wasn't so powerful until recent times,  and who they don't trust and don't like its colonies on Acelor's coast.


Well, if gunpowder weapons are just "at the door", then horse-based military is old history already, so forget that. Canons (and canons in ships, mainly!) are already a military edge - the early expansion of the portuguese in SE Asia is all about projection of power from sea-going ships, so you can take some notes from there for Arlia.

Also, I like your understanding of the Empire - it sounds well thought and an open-door for court intrigue. But you are making it sound too much homogenous, culturally, for such a large area with different geographical realities. Is it just because you are simplifying things for us here at the guild?
May I ask...
How far in the past did people flee from the Empire into Arlia?
Was the Empire already as large as it is now?
Did the Empire form from military conquest of civilized areas or from expansion/colonization by a superior culture?
Are there centripetal forces within the Empire, namely, racial or cultural sub-groups? (or religious)

... and by the way, your height map is fine, and so is your draft of the dominant winds (to my eyes).

----------


## groovey

LONG POST ABOUT MY WORLD'S HISTORY (Pixie what have you done)

Ooh, canons in ships... now I'm getting excited with the possibilities... I'll definitely study Protugal's case in more detail. Boy, the Empire is going to have to watch out for Arlia after the war (in the Empire) is over... Arlia will help the Princess' side to win the war, for a price, but once that's done, their dynamic is going to change making Arlia a more equal  power in that part of the continent.

I feel a Cold War type of context going on: neither of them wants a war with each other, but there's tensions between them because of Arlia's increase in power and the Empire's resistance to give way and lose its preeminence. There's always the danger of a war between them lingering though, when both parts clash on a matter and they're not willing to compromise enough to get to an arrangement, if the matter is important enough. 

The Empire will gradually replace the old walls in its settlements, with new ones more resistant to the new weapons, and will fund secret projects to develop its own gunpowder, in order not to be so vulnerable to Arlia.

THE EMPIRE

I agree it sounds too homogeneous, but I think it's so because I only talk about it in political terms, and politically it is pretty homogeneous.

Corrupted by personal ambitions as it is at the time the novel takes place, politically the Empire is a highly centralized and bureaucratic administration. The main administrative positions (regions, provinces, counties) are high offices, and those who hold them are in theory civil servants. This means administration works the same in all provinces, because the system is imported from the "metropolis", and so it's pretty homogeneous.

The origins of the Empire are humble, in an area along an important river yet to specify (since I'm re-working the climate stuff and I need to know the biomes to choose an adequate area) but around the N-E of the isthmus that joins the left side of the big eastern continent, which centuries ago was part of one of the first civilizations to arise in that quarter (on its south) of the continent.

There, 3 small powers, as poleis (with a capital city and controlling other settlements around), had consolidated centuries after the mentioned original civilization had "fallen". So the three poleis are cultural heirs of that civilization, as were other people around. They shared the religion and many cultural customs. The three poleis, after many small useless wars for supremacy, realizing that with fighting  each other they got weaker against worst external enemies (raiders), settled into an Alliance, for which they chose a King among one of them each time the previous King died or was removed. 

But this alliance didn't kill the supremacy ambitions of the two more militaristic poleis, and eventually one of them (in a long process for which I have another novel planned but I won't get into details about because I'm already getting a too long post), managed to subjugate the other two and gradually integrate them fully to become a single political and military entity. 

Ideally the motor that helped this process was the menace of a strong external enemy, raiders again, but this time with lots of tribes organized, which gave the King that unified the poleis the perfect excuse (+ a weird religious experience the founder of his dynasty had, that gives them a "gods touch", considered inheritable by some kind of religious magic by those who carry his family name/surname) for people to rally around him and develop a professional army, thus consolidating the inheritable monarchy. 

Ideally too, these raiders would be horsemen, Mongol like, but without steppes near-by is a bit far-fetched, so I still have to figure out the details about the nature of the raiders. The basic idea is to use the concept of conflict between sedentary and nomadic entities forcing each other to develop, until one of them ends up surviving the other, or the nomadic ones go seek weaker victims, like defended here.

So anyway, the now unified hereditary kingdom began to expand north first, towards the areas were the raiders came from, engulfing settlements that had nothing to do along the way, sometimes by force, sometimes by negotiation, since the Kingdom could offer those isolated tribes or chiefdoms protection against the raiders. This would also force them to be pacific among them if they weren't already (so the Kingdom becomes an arbitrator and a pacificator). These protectorates with time would get integrated into the Kingdom. 

Once the raiders menace was placated, expansion was driven by other goals (mostly controlling resources). The expansion was done in the span of about four centuries with different rhythms, eventually transforming the kingdom into an Empire (mostly a nominal change for one of the greatest expansionist kings to claim his greatness). Some areas would have been easier to conquest than others, depending on the strength of the political entities who controlled them. 

I admit I haven't worked out this on my current map. I've had many "definitive maps" for this fictional world of mine and on each version I had to work out the expansion process chronology and who lived on those conquered areas. Heck, even if the current map the Empire has had different dimensions. For my current map, which will definitely be the definitive one, I'm waiting to have more info on the climate stuff (specially temperatures and biomes), so I can adapt the people of each area to the natural conditions of their habitat.

Again, politically the new areas were integrated or made into provinces, and the administrative model from the capital province was imported, a quite radical change for the people there but culturally... that's another story.


CULTURE AND RELIGION

It's obvious among such an amount of territory there has to exist a lot of cultural and religious diversity. I admit I still haven't worked out much details about culture and religion and the local languages or dialects, since I've focused on those elements with the original nucleus of the Empire only. I'd say along making maps, culture and religion and my weak point in world-building.

The Empire has a decent degree of tolerance towards that diversity... but if you want to be part of the elite, part of the system, you have to learn the official imperial language (an artificial phonetic and alphabetic polishing and unifying of the different dialects of the original 3 poleis), be or convert to the official religion (which is not very organized, so the key is to believe in the right Gods and their mythos explaining the origin of the world and things), and play by the social rules and customs  imposed from the capital.

So the officers and important families of each province who wanted to be relevant had to adapt to the official customs (sounds like Rome huh?). With the local elites "converted", the transformation slowly spread to the a good portion of the population in big urban settlements, while the traditional customs would survive more in the rural areas, more the further they were from the big urban centers.  

As long as those cultural and religious differences didn't become a challenge, they were tolerated. Of course, rebellions for these causes did erupt every now and then, specially soon after the conquest, and on the later centuries when the crown starts to get weak and a general feeling of decadence starts to spread, making rebels more confident. 

So I'd say the main unifying element in the Empire is the political administration, and the gradual spread of the religious and cultural customs of the original nucleus through the local elites.

ARLIA

Arlia's origins is something I have to fine tune now that it has a different location and, not long ago I revised the chronology of the 3 poleis era. Heck, when I conceived the notion that the Arlians were refugees of the kingdoms expansion the 3 poleis origin didn't even exist in my mind.

Since the expansion began around the 180's (the dynasty holding the Kingdom has a year 0, linked to the weird religious experience their founder had, a chronology which didn't catch up until now that they control the kingdom for good), and the novel's events start in 833, it gives Arlia about 650 years to develop a singular enough entity, different enough from the Empire's original nucleus, and with its common roots language to have become more singular too. The self-called Arlians (free people), eventually crossed the strait and managed to establish themselves there and grow fast versus the weak political and less developed entities around.


CHRONOLOGY

I was kind of hesitant to reveal the Empire's chronology because I'm aware how hard is to defend it survived with no major structural changes in about 6 centuries. Of course, the institutionalization and fine-tuning of the centralized administration took some time, a century or two, with administration being less organized and more based on trust of loyal men to rule new land in the name of the King... that causing trouble, and creating the need of the new administration system based on appointed officers.

The major change is the progressive decline of the crown versus the "Dukes" in the provinces after major expansion stopped about 1-2 centuries ago; and the increasing tension and fear for the crown of a big rebellion of the "Dukes" and disintegration of the Empire, which finally happens during the novel. Of course I feel many rebellions, of different intensity and causes would happen in between, so it's not like it was all dandy until then.

I have no trouble explaining the genealogical continuity of the ruling dynasty, since they can practice polygamy and also can have concubines. The hard thing would be to end up without a heir.

----------


## Durakken

The problem I see with what you've laid out is the assumption that 2 places are going to develop gunpowder when from what we know and are told in legend is that it only came about once and due to a freak accident of alchemy... So I don't see 2 places developing it let alone around the same time. But if Arlia does and the other doesn't Arlia will dominate within the next century limited only by its production capacity, but if it was limited to the point they couldn't dominate in such a way the local rise in power wouldn't happen.

Sent from my RCT6773W22B using Tapatalk

----------


## groovey

Well, I supposed how the Empire will manage to get their own gunpowder could be another interesting story for part of a novel. For example, an Arlian artisan who's in the guild that holds the secret formula, for whatever the reason is persecuted, he fleeds to the Empire for protection and for a grand compensation he can develop it for the Empire. 

I know for sure I want the Empire to get gunpowder in the next 20 years after the war to match Arlia, the details I'll figure out one day.

----------


## Pixie

Great reply, I'm thouroughly satisfied  :Wink: 

About the issue with gunpowder... you can look at how historians think paper production was transfered from China to the Middle East. (yeah, I'm setting you guys homework  :Wink:  )

----------


## groovey

Pixie, homework done. I got this, which is exactly the sort of context I have in mind.

And now, for something completely different...

TERRAINS AND POLITICAL BORDERS



So despite Pixie's reassurance, I tweaked my height map a bit more because I wasn't 100% happy about it in the top-left quarter the big eastern continent. Now I'm fine with it.

I'm still not 100% happy with the bottom right of that continent though.

On the big western continent, I cut down in to 4 pieces the big 1-2km height (lighter pink), but it still looks weird to me, not 100% happy with it either.

What I wanted to get to though, is that I did a grey scale version of the map above and imported it into Wilbur to get the rivers as an image (after applying 10% percentage noise and precipiton erosion with 25 passes, then fill basins, 10% noise, fill basins again, texture find river flow). This is what I got and imported to PS. I am aware I have to do some cleaning on it to remove excesses and rivers that grow out of nowhere. 

Since I got a new height-map and river guidelines, I need to fix the political borders on the 4 powers I know of for now in that big eastern continent, which were done on the old version. 

For the Empire, this is my idea of where the borders would be, in black:



Borders nº4 actually might be moved further north because nothing very interesting is going on there I think, to justify expanding there, especially if the area turns out to be desertic.

On the inner coast on the southern part of the continent (nº3), the expansion would be close to the coast not to far inland, but the peninsula on the right will be fully controlled.

BUT, with the new map I accidentally got a Nile like big river (nº5 in red), which I figure might be just as fertile as the Nile and thus perhaps would make the Empire interested in controlling it? It would have been tough to since I figure different people controlling said are would be enough developed politically to be hard to conquer, but not impossible. Would you say it makes more sense for the Empire to expand down along that big river rather than not?

I still have to carve some lakes into my land, but I still need to do so reading to figure out where they make the most sense.

----------


## ascanius

I still need to reread these posts more carefully and catch up but about your last question.  I looked at the map and I would think controlling that Nile like river would be a priority.  For one thing it would have a good production of food, second it is protected eat and west by mountains.  It is navigable so would help with trade along the southern coast.  Lastly it is defendable where the mountains create a bottle neck at the south of the valley.

----------


## groovey

Excellent! Exactly my thoughts ascanius. 

I'm excited about that area. I kind of wish it had happened somewhere else so it didn't remind you directly to the Nile, but well.

----------


## Pixie

That area 5 is surely a "new kid on the block" for your early history making!!  :Smile: 

Let's wait for your new climatology, but it sure looks like a place that can support a high population even from early neolithic. Whatever way you make it, I don't see that area being under tight control from the culture across the inner sea. At best, colonies with a foreign ruling elite or with a local elite, aligned with the empire, and a stratified population.

----------


## Durakken

Why not just go with it. Make it Oncar and say it has a long history with ancient glory, but time passed politics happened and it divided north and south with the north falling to the empire

Sent from my RCT6773W22B using Tapatalk

----------


## groovey

AREA Nº5. History

I am beyond excited about that area!

Area nº5 is actually divided in two, since after cleaning the Wilbur rivers layer there's a bit of space between the two big rivers there. Although, the two areas have always been historically involved, since the north river's civilization gave birth to the one on the southern river, and this southern got its own flavor with time.

Both have had a tumultuous history, both inside their areas and with one another, with different processes of unification and fragmentation, cultural evolution and demographic changes (migrations and invaders).

A few decades before the story takes place, area nº5 was again divided in two big areas, the southern one on a unified phase, but the north was in a fragmentation phase, I'd say divided in at least 4-5 units with tense rivaling relationships and in a decadence period politically and socially. So long story made short, a big war among them exploded and the Empire made a deal with one of those units to divide the area "a la Poland" in pre WW2, so that's how the Empire finally got a piece of it. 



SPREAD OF AGRICULTURE MODEL

I've worked on a basic map of agriculture origin and spread on the big eastern continent, and then the first civilization cradles, and guess what, north of area nº5 is actually the original focus of agriculture on the western side of that continent, and probably the oldest civilization cradle. 

Of course, as you said Pixie, I should wait until I have the climate stuff to do this, but my fingers were itchy.

So even though I know I will have to make changes possibly when I have the new climatology, I figured I'd have fun guessing anyway.

Since I don't know the climatic details, for now I've settled with replicating (simplified) the 1971 Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza mathematical model, the "wave-of-advance" model (getting dates from Neolithic  archeological  sites), to predict the spread of early farming on both sides of my eastern continent, since then they were in practice isolated.



The basic idea of the model, based mainly on the theory that the spread of agriculture was linked to migratory movements (increase of population forced demographic expansion) in Europe's case, which is just a theory among many trying to explain said spread of the Neolithic, is that the diffusion rate from the centre of origin averaged about 1km per year.

Here you can see a version of the map originated by said model. 

Here (PDF, pg 204) and here (PDF, pg 511), it explains a bit how it was made and its limitations. Even the same authors of said model acknowledge said limitations and in 1984 improved their model (which produced this sort of map, in pg 50).

In my case I've followed the 1971 model's pattern of representing a wave division each 500km=500 years. Again,  I've got no info on climate yet or worked out the spread in detail, so for now I'm happy with this general prediction model to start with.

I haven't seen this model applied to a bigger area than Europe, so I'm not sure if from the isthmus up (on the west side of the continent) I should place another center of spread with a south to north wave spread. Issue is, through the two tips that close up the inner sea, population would cross too and they would even get there faster (around 6.000 O.T.) than people migrating from the west side of the original focus (A)(who could get there by 5.000 O.T., around 1k years later), so I'm not sure what the orientation of the waves should point to in that area. Since those migrating from the bottleneck of the inner sea get there before it makes sense they'd determine the general direction of the waves, which  fits the direction of the waves emanating from point A.


CRADLES OF CIVILIZATION





What I have clear is that until navigation skill and tech gets to a further level, that big eastern continent, Arlia and possibly Hemlia (the little continent on the south-east) are the only one with humans. I've yet to settle when did humans manage to get and survive there on the last two.

----------


## Durakken

New question for you... Most people today don't think about calenders and watches but time keeping imo is important. So how do you reconcile time in your world? Is it based on the ruler? Some religious event? Astronomy for years? Do your people have the tech for naval clocks? Do they use a standard time? Are they still using variable hours? Do they use lunar months?

Also do they know the size of the world and that its round?

What is the rulers view on tech? Remember Rome theoretically had all our tech up till the early 1900s they just didn't use it because the rulers suppressed it or refused to support it... Further do you have a center of knowledge or is it spread out in multiple places like in modern times...

Lots of questions...just putting them out there for you go think on.

As far as the western continents that are empty. Could there be possibilities with off course arctic crazy survivor journeys? What about a second sentient species? Assuming the conditions are right there's no reason you couldn't do that.

Sent from my RCT6773W22B using Tapatalk

----------


## groovey

Hi Durakken! I haven't found the time today to think and write my answer, hopefully tomorrow I'll be able to.

Meanwhile, since the change in orientation of the spread waves on the isthmus and on the inner sea's bottleneck bugged me a bit, I tried to represent said change and the 2 different waves coming in the northern quarter of the continent. It looks a bit messy and confusing so I'm not sure it works. The chronological difference between the two waves is of 500 years, since through the isthmus (blue waves), the spread starts 500 years before it does through the other point (in red), so even tough they overlap, there's a gap of 500 years.




At this point I think I'm overthinking the matter, is there really a change of direction of the waves needed?

----------


## Durakken

Anytime there is a change of direction in movement you have a problem where the direction of spread line becomes unlinked to the radial spread date. That's a major problem with branch line that turns blue unless you mean to indicate the same vertical distance is covered in radically different time lengths.

Sent from my RCT6773W22B using Tapatalk

----------


## Pixie

Hey groovey, I'm pretty excited with your reasoning as well, as it yields interesting and surprising results.

First of all, I agree with your reasoning, that bottleneck in the East warrants for a new focal point in the waves of expansion. The map in the last post seems more reasonable than the previous one. And, looking at it, it seems that two different cultural groups clashed (or, simply, met) in the area where you plan to place your empire. These groups would have started diverging around 3,000 years before, so their languages, technologies and cultures would be very different by then.

There's a particular area where the exchange would be significant, and you could use this to "explain" the rise of a dominant culture which would later be the empire. What do you think of this?


The area signaled is where the clash seems to have happened around 5000 OT to 4500 OT.
Here's a thought: a dominant culture, "eastern" speaking, controls the area between those two rivers in around 4000 OT. A (any) given technology allows it to spread westwards, displacing the "western" speaking north and south. Later, this early mega-empire collapses but it leaves a cultural and linguistic mark. The population to its north are proper barbarians from the point of view of those who descend from the empire, the kind of nomadic tribes that could spark the formation of new centralized empires.

By the way, you've been providing excellent reading material. Thanks for those sources.

edit: there's an obvious mistake in the quick map I drew.. in blue, you should read "Western Culture", not Eastern.

----------


## Durakken

like I mentioned before those dates are wrong for when they meat and interact...

Where the blue and red line meet, assuming that they are expanding at the same pace, that blue line is getting to that cross mark in 2250 OT, which is 1750 years later due to having to travel that distance to the west first... It's also probably a bit later due to the initial starting point is lower too. Other than that the curves of the traveled path seems similar enough not to mess about with correcting for that, but yeah... those cultures get there at vastly different times.

----------


## groovey

Durakken, I finally could muster my answer to your questions.

1 . Calendars

Regarding the measurement of time, I worked on that a while ago. After checking different alternatives, I figured, since the Empire's main God is the Sun, it made the most sense their calendar would be solar, so 365 days and the mandatory leap years.

The official culture is quite advanced when it comes to Astronomy... but, it's an imperial prerogative. Astronomers are halfway between a very restricted guild and a not so secret as restricted social group that live at Court with the Emperor, with 6 (which is THE number for the Empire, because of the 6 gods they have) Masters who oversaw a few other astronomers.

The Emperor is their Boss, they work for him and the knowledge they get is for the Emperor to keep secret or divulge.  They are forbidden to share their knowledge with outsiders, becoming traitors and getting executed if they do, so they have to leave their lives behind to join the "guild".  Only the Emperor can grant access to new members when they are needed to replace those who die. 

They elaborate the yearly calendars (with festivities and special events and a brief message from the Emperor to its people), which could only be sold and distributed (in different quality and format) by the Crown (but often the Crown auctioned the right to do so to others to avoid the work).

So Astronomy is an imperial monopoly like it was in imperial China. 

I'm not sure yet what was the event that originated the Old Time, but the New Time is linked to the rebirth of the dynasty that ruled the Empire after a weird supposedly religious experience their founder  had.

That's for years, for hours I'm not sure how precise do they need to be, not much I think.


2. At the time of the story, year 833, they have no idea of how big their world is. Since they're advanced enough with Astronomy is almost a given that they had to at least have a strong theory that the world is round. 


3. Rulers views on tech. Nice dip into what you mention about Roman emperors here, weird as the source is (I wish I had found a better source to exemplify the matter).

http://www.samizdata.net/2003/07/ter...n-the-fall-of/

For the most part I want to say the Crown promoted science, directly through patronage, and officially with state Academies. They had an advance pre-industrial architecture engineering and as the Romans, were the best at water canalization to bring clean water into the settlements from decent distances, which improved the quality of life, so that and their civic urbanism (more safe and clean) were two of the selling points to win over the new conquered populations. They transformed the important enough settlements quite a bit over time.

You see, after the weird religious experience of the founder of the imperial dynasty, their polis of origin and the people of the other 2 they eventually ruled over, were considered the chosen ones by the Gods to rule over the rest (this of course is a very convenient thesis for them to defend), but they had to show their greatness over the others not just by conquering and converting them, but also by any other means that made them more advanced than the others. They had to be the more advanced power that they knew of, so any foreign tech that they stumbled upon and considered useful, they imported and perfected if they could.

Though it's true that an invention that could ultimately predictably challenge the power of the Crown would be stopped, but such inventions are hard to imagine. Since the Empire is run by bureaucracy and the nobility governing the provinces are technically officers and not feudal lords, the Empire wouldn't oppose to improvements in the economy sectors, in fact it would favor advancements that increased efficiency and reduced costs, not worried that it couldn't deal with the social conflicts it would surely generate. 

I'd say the state Academies would be the centre of most knowledge and thus they'd be one in a few important cities. Astronomy, as mentioned though, would only have a centre of knowledge at the Imperial Court and would move with it.


4. About unpopulated continents. It seems a stretch enough that island hoppers got to Oncar (not Arlia like I said in my last post) and Hemlia to be honest. Even on ice ages I think it's hard for people to the other continents and even more to survive. I don't really enjoy fantasy creatures or species, so that's a no for me.


You know, the thing is, the Empire is the one who could make the best navigation charts with stars for ships, but since they mostly do coastal, they wouldn't feel the need. The Arlians could use them more, but don't have the Astronomy knowledge. Can the Empire benefit from  selling the Arlians charts without the risk the Arlians could make their own from the ones they bought? What do you think?


Next post:  civilization map updated.

----------


## groovey

So here's my updated civilization cradles and spread maps.





Again: the dates are approximate start dates of the civilization cradles, but the area represented in colors it's its final before collapsing and leaving behind cultural inheritors.

Hi Pixie, I love your idea. I tried to represent it in the map (CIV C), with a start date of around 4.500 OT. Problem is, 4.500 O.T. is a long way from the time the story takes place, where the Empire is already like 650 years old in the New Time, so that 4.500 O.T. civ is a bit old to be its direct ancestor.

What I see happening is what you said, then that 4.500 O.T. civ collapsed but another one arose later a bit up north-east (CIV E), heavily influence by the collapsed one, the previous centuries. But, eventually E civ also collapsed, and around 1.800 O.T. a new one arose between those 2 rivers where the original agriculture spread waves met, and that 1.800 O.T. is the direct cultural ancestor of the Empire. I don't know how to represent the 1.800 civ into the map along since the area is occupied by 4.500 already.

But yes, the 4.500 O.T. civ you gave birth to will have been the ancestor of the 1.800 one in the end.

Perhaps that 4.500 O.T. civ should be a bit older, since by the year 5k each wave (blue and red) are situated near the river where they'll clash first, perhaps that civ could have arisen from the conflict with blue by 4.800 O.T. I'd even say by 4.500 O.T. blue would have already lost the battle an expand north-west.


Yes Durakken, you're right about a slight discontinuity after the isthmus. I've moved the isthmus' new center a bit to the north,  right after the isthmus elevation range ends when it touches the 5.000 O.T. wave line. The reasoning is that the funnel effect of the elevation range gets people on the area above it roughly by 5.000, with the end of the isthmus forming a new spread direction. It's still a non-exact guess.

However, I don't think it'd take till 2250 OT to get to the Isthmus and beyond from the west.

First, since the model is based on migrations mostly motivated by excesses of population, I think we have to suppose an exponential kind of demographic growth, so I don't think with the model people are just on the center of the wave each time, then expand to the sides, then expand to the next wave. I understand there's people pushing along the whole wave to begin with if the terrain allows it.

Second, on Acelor (the west-south quarter of the continent), there's most likely to be a huge desert area on the mid to north area, channeling migrations to the coastal areas, creating a funnel effect that will speed the expansion to the west a bit, but since I still can't know for sure where exactly and how big the desert will be, for now I can't work that out in the map.

So in the end, I think in fact that migrations from the north-west side of the epicenter (A) will reach the isthmus even earlier than predicted by the model, perhaps by 1-2k years, while those expanding trough the southern coast of Acelor will take a bit longer to get to the west because first they have to travel south trough the Nile like river area. In fact, the spread from the southern coast should probably have a new focus/direction of spread with a slower chronology. 

This major change once I get the desert on place will probably throw off Pixie's idea since blue would get to the area much sooner than red and spread farming. There would still be conflict with red as different cultural groups, but it'll be in the area close to the bottleneck of the inner sea.

In fact, then I think I'll have civ E be the older there, originated from blue, then red came and couldn't at first displace E, but did push blue culture south of it down back to the isthmus, then grew its own civ there (civ C) as a result of that long-term conflict. So E and C will be independent and rivaling until one of them collapsed first, most likely the oldest one, E.


Sigh, it's clear the model works best when you already know your terrain and for areas with a uniform spread direction, otherwise I'm afraid you have to create a new wave focus each time there's a major change in the orientation of the migrations, which make things messy, but I reckon interesting, conflict! I still think the model it's useful to get started and get a general idea of the spread chronology.

----------


## Ilgoth

Lot of interesting stuff on this thread. I read them all and used all my freetime after lunch! Thanks for the entertainment, will be following as you progress.  :Smile:

----------


## Durakken

Why 365.25 days in a year? Our calendar has quite the history and reasoning behind it. You know it started off as a 300 day 10 equal month calenders which was then modified to add homage to people and then leap years were made because Christians saw that easter was not in the right place for them...and someone noticed that it got out of whack again which created leap centuries and etc... 

Astronomically we have the sidereal year which we could use and it matches somewhat coincidentally. We could toss out our current calenders but that would be annoying. My point though is that using 365.25 may be easier for audiences, but if you don't have a specific reason for it it might not be best for your world and not fit in.


As far as astronomy being only for the emperor. In what way? The sky and stars are important for crops and navigation which is why long voyages out in the middle of the ocean were impossible for the most part*. Any sailor worth their salt knows the stars. Any farmer knows the seasons and the number of moons between them. In short, everyone knows the stars and planets to a much better degree than most of us to the point that you're left with relational astronomy and higher detail astronomy.

*If you don't know the way you navigate is by relative star positions. Once you can find orientation stars and you know what time it is you can do a little math and find out where you are which is more necessary the future from land you go be waves push you about and there is nothing else to orient your direction and position by.

----------


## groovey

Ilgoth, thanks for stopping by and your kind words. It never ceases to amaze me when my noob maps and ramblings raise some attention.


You got good points Durakken. I still have things to work out regarding that.

To be honest, I designed my own calendar based around the number 6 (or multiples), since it's key for the Empire. So I thought :

1 year = 12 months = 6 weeks each = 6 days each week = 432 days = too long

OR

1 year = 6 months = 6 weeks each = 6 days each week = 216 days = too short

Then I almost settled for a Greyhawk calendar re-hash, with 365 days a year = 12 months = 28 days each + 1 seven days festivals each 3 months. I loved this one.

Problem was... I have a very extensive family tree of the Imperial family and some nobility dynasties... for which I used to add birth and death dates with months and even days, and it was a pain to try to adapt dates with this calendar to a program which only works with our calendar... so for very practical reasons, I had to settle for a calendar like ours. 

Of course... that was when I added the day and month of birth and death, but by now I just add the year... so this might be my chance to make my own calendar with its own History. But of course... if the number of days in a year is too different from ours... then I'd have to be painfully careful when thinking in long term chronology, because if I end up with a 216 days year, for example the chronology for the farming spread and civilizations arising would have to be stretched by a half to match the actual lapse of time I have in mind.


My model for Astronomy being an imperial prerogative was China, as I mentioned. 

You're absolutely right common people knew their skies much better than we now, but their knowledge wasn't specialized, it was practical for what they needed and the Crown was fine with that.

The main God is the Sun, his wife the Moon being second, and the Emperor is their representative on the world, so the Imperial family has a special relationship with the sky, and to guard that special bond (if fact Astronomy grew under the Crown's wing), only the Crown gets specialized Astronomers that can predict certain astronomical events and make either modest scientific discoveries or celestial interpretations (so there's astrological elements mixed), for the Emperor to then divulge or not at will. 

This doesn't mean there weren't lots of home-made astronomers who in secret did their own observations and findings, but since specialized Astronomy and astrological interpretations were considered an Imperial monopoly, closely linked to their religious bond with the gods, they couldn't be open about it.


I was aware stars were key for navigation at night, but I figured within the Empire most navigation is done close to the coast mostly by daytime. I guess they couldn't always avoid travelling at night if they wanted to make good time though, so I guess they need those stars maps more than I thought.

----------


## Durakken

Well if the thing that is holding you back is conversion that's not a real problem thanks to Julian dating and date conversion algorithms which can convert any date you give it from the standard to whatever you come up with. 

Edit:
What I mean to say is that there is Julian dating. I don't know if you know what that is... I am guessing if you read the above you or others might be confusing it with the Julian Calender. They're not the same. The Julian date is used largely in astronomy... and I'd hope to some degree in History... which counts only days up to x amount and then just resets apparently. The beginning date is in like 1400 BCE and won't reach the next cycle for another 3000 years so we're still good to use it.

The important part about this is there is mathematical formula to go from any 365.2425 date (and with modification 365.25 date)...

As I described this I realized I was being a bit stupid... All you need to do is...

Know a date in your current system like January 5th, 515
Math it like so : 515 * 365.25 +5
Now you have the Julian date equivalent for your world and from there you just need to do the math to get the math for whatever other system (I just set up Javascript converters myself ^.^).
So if you have a year that is 6 months (btw Month means moons so probably need something to cover that problem as I assume your moon works on 28 days, but if it's closer to 36 then you start moving away from earth like conditions that might be catastrophic and unrealistic) with 6 weeks of 6 days you just divide into the answer...

So you have...
188108.75 meaning that 516 is a leap year ^.^ but we can ignore that.
188108 / 216 = 870 
days remaining: 188108 - 187920 = 188
188 / 36 = 5
days remaining: 8

So January 5th, 515 = The 8th day of the 5th moon, 870.

Doing it long hand is a lot of trouble but if you know any sorta of simple programming you can make something to handle the conversion easily. I find for myself and my timelines I like to still work in the Gregorian Calendar we all use, because it's easier to think in those terms and then after convert, or have them side by side.


I will point out that this type of calendar is probably the most cliched and probably the least realistic. I have a similar calendar centered around the number 8 and I'd get rid of it if I didn't think it had an adequate explanation for why it developed and retained itself.

----------


## groovey

Interesting. Do you think setting up some formulas in Excel will do? To automate the process you did? I acn do that, but I'm terrible at math and have 0 experience in programming, so Java sounds, even as simple as you made it sound here, too much for me to handle.

Edit:

I found this to convert any date of our system into Julian Date, so I could get the seed from there and save one step.

For Jan 5th, 515 the calculator's result is 1909165.500000, which then messes up the rest of the calculations, since it gives the year 9351 as a result in my world, not 870. What I'm I missing?

----------


## Shikotei

Ahhh, math!  :Very Happy: 

There's a few flaws in the date-calculation of yours, Durakken. 
For starters, the conversion method. Though I can get the same result using your math, several things are missing (namely the 4317 BC epoch) and the input date of D1 M1 Y1 would result in Julian Day Number 1.
You _would_ be correct if it was the _target world_'s JDN.

The Julian Date converter Groovey used is correct.
As a reference, I compared that converter's result of [Jan 1, 2000] to the example given on the Wikipedia page. Both give the same number.

The calculations that process the JDN to get to the New World JDN are slightly flawed as well.
It can result in day 0 and month 0.
For the example you used D5 M5 Y515; this resulted in D8 M5 Y870.
Try using D2 M2 Y515. It will result in M0 D0 Y871.

Using a slightly different set of formulas:
Y = floor(JDN/216);
M = floor((JDN - Y*216) / 36) + 1;
D = floor((JDN - Y*216 - (M-1)*36)) + 1;

You should now get D1 M1 Y871.




> Do you think setting up some formulas in Excel will do? To automate the process you did?


Like this?
The gray fields are input, all others are formulas.
According to my calculations, the input of D5 M1 Y515 results in JDN 188104 and D5 M6 Y870.
The slight differences (JDN is 4 lower) can be attributed to the more accurate conversion method (the one from the Wiki).

----------


## groovey

Wow, Shikotei! That's exactly what I was trying to achive in Excel, but I was very stuck. I think your set up could do the job more than fine. Many thanks.

----------


## Durakken

> Interesting. Do you think setting up some formulas in Excel will do? To automate the process you did? I acn do that, but I'm terrible at math and have 0 experience in programming, so Java sounds, even as simple as you made it sound here, too much for me to handle.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> I found this to convert any date of our system into Julian Date, so I could get the seed from there and save one step.
> 
> For Jan 5th, 515 the calculator's result is 1909165.500000, which then messes up the rest of the calculations, since it gives the year 9351 as a result in my world, not 870. What I'm I missing?


Yes because our world's JDN isn't taken into consideration, cuz its not needed and its wrong if your system is Julian rather than Gregorian... That is to say 365.25 vs 365.2425.

For your purposes you just need to know how many days have passed on your calendar since it started, not our JDN for the same date. Then you can redivide them to your new system. The problem with what I did is forgetting no 0 month  which is always problematic.

Also one of the reasons people like JDN is no BCE negative numbers so you might want to consider not starting that year 1 month 1 day 1

Edit: also the .500000 on JDN is for us peoples. Midnight is high noon for astronomers. Most people just ignore it but basically in JDN .0 is noon and begins the day while midnight .5

----------


## Durakken

Now that I'm home, if you'd like I could change a little bit of the code in one of my converters to your system... I can even make it so it can tell you how long it has been since significant events or who's alive or what not. Not hard to do, just busy work really for all those extras.

----------


## groovey

Here's the updated political map of my main continent. I've added a bunch of powers and applied Chick's shaded borders turorial.



Some of the labels are placed awkwardly because of lack of space.

I placed Swifendlia's capital back to the north side because I want it to be on the inner sea, but also besides of a major river because the capital is a planned city with an Atlantis like design with either rings or hexagons of land surrounded by water, fed from a major river. There are no major rivers on the peninsula near Arlia on the inner coast,  except in the recently conquered Nyle like area, which is not yet assimilated into the Empire culturally and politically because of its special status.

----------


## Pixie

Now you have set yourself a much more complex political reality. Your stories, given how much into court intrigue you're into, will be filled with diplomats and foreign envoys, armies being equipped and sent far away with promising officers.

For an empire like Swifendlia, the sight of fleets leaving the capital filled with soldiers filled with dreams/fears would be common and a typical source for songs/poems, wouldn't you say?

In the meanwhile, here's one more piece of advice (I did this recently and was somewhat surprised). Have a look at this continent in a different projection, an equal-area such as azimuthal. While your continent doesn't reach that far north to the polar area, the equiretangular projection is already stretching the northern section by a significant factor. In an equal-area projection, Reuran won't seem so far and the area to the north of the Empire doesn't seem so large.

----------


## selden

For example:


 :Wink:

----------


## groovey

That's a great idea, and indeed, as selden's example showed, offers a different perspective on distances.

----------


## selden

That particular projection is called "Orthographic". Of course, you don't have to use Celestia to view a map that way. Here's a similar view using G.Projector. Like Celestia, though, G.Projector needs the input map to be an Equirectangular projection (also called Plate Carrée). I used Paint.net to overlay the regional political map on an earlier full-surface map.

----------

