• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

World Gazettes

Colin

SOC-14 1K
Marquis
While waiting for another project, I'm looking at doing a line of world books. Each 128 page book would have 10-12 worlds. Each world description would have a brief section on the system and stars, and then move on to the main world. Each main world would have a big 1-page map, smaller maps for temperature and precipitation, a small resource map, a map of the major settled area(s), a city or two, a couple of scenic shots, a one-page bestiary, and about 2000-3000 words of descriptive text. There would also be new equipment, weapons and vehicles unique to each world, all illustrated.

My question is regarding maps. The standard Traveller icosahedral map is ugly, and tends to get cramped. I prefer the Hammer or Mollweide projections, but I understand the value of the standard equirectangular projection for clarity. Just in general, would people rather see: the icosahedral map, or some other projection?

Thanks.

Oh, and three books in the works: Terrestrial Worlds, Exotic Worlds, and Artificial Worlds and Space Stations. Non-OTU, but easily adapted.
 
In general the map projection used will depend on the use intended for the map.

I like the equal area projections for graphic illustration as they present a better "picture" of the world in question, but they are harder to use to plot travel (distance) between points on the world which is likely the largest usage of a map for a game.

Doing that on a world map is not so easy but the old icosahedral does a fair job without being too complicated. As a bonus (if sized large enough, or not for the really dexterous) you can make a "globe" from it.

If you can make an icosahedral with some style (but not too saturated to print out) and to scale (so that each world looks the right size next to another, i.e. a Size 1 world is smaller than a Size 6 world)* I'd say you have a winner.

* I know I tried to work this out once ages ago, can't recall how well it worked out. I vaguely recall the extremes were problems, though it might have simply been needing more than one page for the large worlds, and finding somewhere to keep my "globes" when done :)
 
While waiting for another project, I'm looking at doing a line of world books. Each 128 page book would have 10-12 worlds. Each world description would have a brief section on the system and stars, and then move on to the main world. Each main world would have a big 1-page map, smaller maps for temperature and precipitation, a small resource map, a map of the major settled area(s), a city or two, a couple of scenic shots, a one-page bestiary, and about 2000-3000 words of descriptive text. There would also be new equipment, weapons and vehicles unique to each world, all illustrated.

My question is regarding maps. The standard Traveller icosahedral map is ugly, and tends to get cramped. I prefer the Hammer or Mollweide projections, but I understand the value of the standard equirectangular projection for clarity. Just in general, would people rather see: the icosahedral map, or some other projection?

Thanks.

Oh, and three books in the works: Terrestrial Worlds, Exotic Worlds, and Artificial Worlds and Space Stations. Non-OTU, but easily adapted.

I applaud the idea.

I think that Hammer or Mollweide projections are more attractive and intuitive for players. However, they seriously distort distances and angles.

One possibility would be to do an overall Hammer/Mollweide projection, then a flat hex map of key continents (or areas in the case of low hydrographic worlds). The projection orients the players, the key map is used for adventuring.

The standard Traveller projections are painfully non-intuitive, though admittedly elegant (so long as the designer pays attention to where he allows the continents to break up on the map).

As a really radical idea, consider the mapping system from SPI's Universe sci-fi RPG. I've used them for years and I think they work better than other systems.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~avalon...erse Downloads/Star System and World Logs.zip
 
The main map should also be compatible with the smaller thematic maps, just for clarity's sake.

How about this: A large, 1 page (landscape) map, in Hammer or Mollweide (likely Mollweide). Geographic features named along with major cities/towns.

Thematic maps (temp, precipitation and resources) in the same projection. Then a smaller "distance" map, less detailed, in icosahedral. Area maps derived from ico map, in higher resolution.

Though the plan is to release these as books, a follow-on pdf could be in colour, with high-resolution maps.
 
I like that, especially the addition of thematic maps. Don't get too carried away though, 10 pages for each world of just maps might be a bit much ;)
 
I'm partial to the Traveller style maps when being used for Traveller. I don't find them difficult to understand. Yes they do split up continents. But, you will have smaller scale maps that can show your continent that isn't split and the progression to smaller and smaller scales makes sense.

For non-Traveller games, I might consider other styles, but the old trianglular maps are part of the culture for me. Same reason that modern 3d spaceship decklans look nice, but I still prefer the old 2d line art for Traveller.
 
I like that, especially the addition of thematic maps. Don't get too carried away though, 10 pages for each world of just maps might be a bit much ;)

Easy enough to do, though. Each world would have 7-9 maps: Large map, temperature, precipitation, resources, "travel" map, regional maps (1-2) city maps (1-2). Only the big map is a full page, the rest would be 1/4 at most.

OK, 8-10 maps, because the system itself would also get a map.

Other graphics include a globe view, 2 Scenic illustrations, up to 4 animals, 1-2 pieces of equipment/weapons (illustrated), 1-2 vehicles (yep, illustrated) and, on occasion, a small ship, with deckplans (1-3 per world book). No illustration bigger than a 1/4 page, most smaller.
 
Hey, this is a great idea!

Isn't a 128 page book quite ambitious, though? (go for it, always best to be ambitious!)

Those system/world chapters would make fine pdf nuggets by themselves. Maybe you could offer one or two for (paid for, obviously) downloads from drivethru, as a way of drumming up interest for the print book? :)
 
To be honest, there is more money in books than in PDFs. PDFs do have a role to play, though. Bigger maps, colour, cost. It's gonna cost me the same to produce a book as to produce a PDF. So why not go big?
 
For game use I like the icosahedral. For looks I like Winkel Tripel projection. Hammer is also fine for show.

I'd be interested in the books either way, though.
 
Just in general, would people rather see: the icosahedral map, or some other projection?
I would very much prefer a Mollweide projection to an icosahedral map.

In my view it looks better, and it also has the advantage that it is not really
difficult to transform it into one of the other standard projections, while the
right software to transform an icosahedral map into any other projection
seems quite difficult to find - or at least I was unable to do so last year
when I had that problem.
 
I'm not sure you can describe a method of projection as "ugly", surely that's a matter of how you implement the projection. I'd say that previous use of the icosahedral tends to make worlds disjointed and more difficult to visualise, though it's removes the problems of interpretation.

I came into this thead to defend the icosahedral method, but in taking a fresh look, I can see why you'd want to move to the cleaner, more intuitive look provided by Hammer or Mollweide projections. Might there be room for both types? Hammer/Molleide for presentation, icosahedral for use in navigating in-game so to speak?
 
I'm a big fan of the old GURPS space atlas series, which was also easily convertable to Traveller. If the project turns out like them then we'll have something worthwhile. And I far prefer print to .pdfs.
 
If you're actually counting votes, then mine goes to the traditional icosahedral grid. I find nothing confusing or nonintuitive about it. It's mathematically simple. The grid is useful in a game environment. And it screams "Traveller."

Steve
 
Back
Top