| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
 Posted - 18 Feb 2019 : 23:02:30
|
So one of the toughest roadblocks Ive encountered while mapping is making map Icons. Not so much the 'making' part, but rather, how much info do they need to convey? As a long-timer gamer and map aficionado, I believe the PERFECT map symbol is one that conveys what it is without need of reference, and also conveys AS MUCH INFORMATION as possible... all with a single, simplistic image.
So over the years I've been tweaking my set of map images to do just that. I've had some dismal failures, like my brilliant idea of doing racial settlements by color. So of course I decided that elves/sylvan stuff should be in green, and seafolk type settlements/locales should be in blue, etc... until you actually start to place green stuff in forests and blue stuff in water... and can't see any of it. Of course, I could go with opposite colors, but not only is that off-putting, but it doesn't always work, either. Just about anything but black or white you place in a Forest you are going to find harder to see. Now if the maps (terrain) were in B&W, then this would work... but the maps wouldn't be all that attractive. Hence, so many trade-offs. Plus, 'human' settlements are often mixed with other races, sometimes heavily. And we even have a few that are nearly a 50/50 mix of two races (some dwarf/human ones in the Silver Marches, for example). Thus, unless a settlement is ENTIRELY (95%+) a specific, non-human race, I just use the vanilla settlement symbol of a circle (of which there are now many sizes, representing all the different sizes in the D&D rules).
The only thing I came away from all that is I can have variants on a symbol. For example, the plain black square has always meant a ruin on FR maps, and the triangle used to mean a temple/church. Problem is, they are not always quite right; a 'ruin' implies it is vacant, but a LOT of ruins aren't. Some ruins are just that - typical, RW-style ruins. Others are 'occupied ruins' - a ruined town or whatever that some other group has recently moved into. I also use another symbol to denote ruins as RUINS - actual, RW-style ruins (not dungeons). The temple symbol should be easier - solid triangle for 'ruin', and empty triangle for 'in use'... except that doesn't jibe with what I've been doing with the ruins. I've been using a 'hollow' square for 'occupied'. So instead I have a church-like symbol for an operational religious facility, and then the triangles for temples in the two conditions... except that doesn't work either.
I had intended for the church symbol to represent 'goodly' (or at least neutral) deities - ones that are expected to be worshiped in most settlements. EXCEPT, that changes from country to country - in the Moonsea North, its perfectly fine to have major cathedrals to Bane, Myrkul, etc., inside city limits. No one is claiming they are 'good', but they have normal church services like any other religion. Now add-in to this that the triangle symbol on more recent (published) FR maps now means 'mountain' (for individually named peaks), and it gets even murkier. I've had to go with a whole different approach to those... and now I have to 'reinvent the wheel', because I am not entirely sure where I was going with it. Add-in that we have a whole separate symbol for 'holy site' (two if you count the ones in the Kara-Tur region), which means an 'open-air temple', of sorts, which works for for nature deities (which I've given their own symbol to), but these are not always nature deities - they are more like simple shrines. In The North, these are the Uthgardt Holy Sites. For a short time I was using the Yin/Ying symbol I had started using in The East (which works well there for those, because these are 'neutral'), but the few people I showed those to found them odd in The North.
So, I went back to the inverted half-circle (like a bowl turned upside down) from the original FR maps for that. And even though I liked the Yin/Yang in the east, I don't want my maps to have two different symbols representing basically the same thing (a site dedicated to local, powerful spirit). However, I am going that way with the temples, because actually different pantheons are represented. Like I said, it starts to get very muddled, the larger the regions you are trying to map. But I moved away from the Yin/Yang there as well - there is a much better symbol for Asian-style temples I use now. So unless I find some other use for it, the Yin/Yang is retired.
Anyway, I started this thread and this mental exercise as a way of getting back into the maps. It took me several hours to find my old map symbol file (actually, the most recent version - older ones were fairly easy to find, but as it evolved, I kept renaming it, and couldn't recall what was the last thing I named it... or where the hell I stuck it...) Nothing like having to look through over a thousand of GIMP files to try and find a needle in a haystack. So now you have some idea why I just walked away from everything some time ago.
As of right now (the main reason for the thread) is that I am reconsidering some stuff - most prominently, 'citystates'. For awhile I was using a diamond-shaped symbol for them, with the same interior stuff as the other settlements (an anchor means a 'port', and a star a capitol... although that doesn't make sense anywhere else but The Realms {Chessenta}). And that is the problem right there - we know what a 'citystate' is in every other setting, but in FR that line gets VERY hazy. Although the ones down in the old Empires and around the Vilhon are obviously true Citystates, technically, just about every settlement in The North is as well. Waterdeep is a Citystate... we just never call it one (because then it begins to sound too much like GH, or the old Judge's guild material). So I am not sure how I should approach this, because FR has never been about 'defined borders', so what a thing is on other worlds, isn't necessarily the same when translated into The Forgotten Realms. Heck, even Cormyr started out as a confederation of citystates (technically). I wouldn't even be worried about it, except we do have those 'classic' style citystates down around the Vilhon Reach. I was considering just a 'dot' in the center (like the old FR map city symbol), but since I am using other things inside that circle to denote other info, I'm not sure if I should do that. But do we really NEED to have an anchor showing a MAJOR city is a port, if its on the water? I suppose a city could be on the water and not have a port, but it would have to be a very weird situation (like high cliffs, and even then, with some ingenuity and magic, they should have some docks down at the bottom of those cliffs). That symbol actually matters more for inland towns and cities, when its on a river (like Iriaebor), but even then, you have 'docks', and you have 'major port' (the way I do rivers now, though, should provide the necessary context to know which is which - deep rivers have a lighter band in the middle, and that denotes 'ship travel' of the oceanic variety.
So, any ideas people want to toss-out? I've toyed with adding something other than a center-dot to citystates, like something sticking out the top, etc, but you really don't see that when you pan-out on a map. I used to also used a 'fortified town' symbol, for ones with a wall and and some sort of guard, but really, just about every settlement in The Realms should have that, even ones inside a country like Cormyr (and since the Spellplague, YEAH... everyone really needs walls). And then there is a last oddity which probably wasn't odd 'back in the day', but I am not quite sure how to represent it - something like those thaedar in Impiltur. Its a 'community', with no center (in other words, no actual 'town'). I would think most halflings and even some gnome communities would be set up that way (just collections of farms). A simple 'X' would work (I still use those for 'points of interest'), but it seems rather bland, and doesn't convey ANY info.
Once again, input, anyone?
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 20 Feb 2019 18:32:54
|
|
|
ericlboyd
Forgotten Realms Designer
USA
2066 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2019 : 00:11:36
|
I always kept it simple.
Black dot = town or small city
Black dot with a circle around it = large city
Star with a circle around it = large city that rules other cities (could be the capital of a nation-state).
--Eric |
--
http://www.ericlboyd.com/dnd/ |
 |
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6643 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2019 : 01:36:02
|
Or if you want something different how about a "furl" (i.e. wavy flag image) to denote a city-state.
-- George Krashos |
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2019 : 05:38:30
|
I've always preferred the simpler symbols from the old maps:
Solid Circle Town
Open Circle City
Ring Around Solid Circle Major City
Double Rings Around Solid Circle REALLY big City (Waterdeep / Calimport / etc.)
Ring Around a Star Capital City
Solid Square Fortress
Solid Triangle Misc. Important Site
Three Dots in a Triangle Ruins
Shovel / Pickaxe Mines
I remember there also used to be an open square which seemed like it was dungeons that were part mine part fortress like a dwarven city (might be the 3rd E maps that did that)... can't recall
|
Edited by - The Masked Mage on 19 Feb 2019 05:44:17 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2019 : 19:07:42
|
I actually created the little keep symbol for my maps, and noticed Mike Schley started to use it on his. 
The first one was the Cormyr map, but he's been using it ever since. The plain black square has also meant 'ruins', and many times keeps are ruins, so it got confusing. I still use the plain black square for ruined keeps, but it is a smaller square (single structure or 'small ruins', as opposed to the normal-sized black square, which could be a big dungeon, city, or some other very large, ruined complex. So two sizes for the one symbol I feel conveys enough info.
Dwarven cities I use a dwarf-head symbol (two sizes, to denote a small dwarven settlement, or city... and 'city' doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as it does for humans, pop.-wise). Also, thats only for subterranean (or mostly below-ground) settlements. I use the normal settlement symbols for above-ground (human-style) settlements. Once again it gets muddled, because of race - I use standard 'human' icons for gnome and halfling towns, even though parts are both above and below ground. However, unlike Dwarves (and Elves), they do not have their own style AND human-ish cities - their settlements are all pretty much the same, no matter where they occur, so I feel I don't need to have different symbols for them (although once-again, I am faced with the race thing - does that need to be conveyed by the symbols?)
And since I brought-up Elves, that's another one. A lot of their settlements I denote with standard human iconology, since apart from architecture, they are built along similar lines. Except for the rustic 'tree towns' (or even tree-cities), which I DO have a different symbol for. I guess what i decided came down to this - if is basically a human-style settlement, it gets the normal icon, no matter what the percentages of who lives there. Only if there is something odd (fatasy-ish) about it, like a dwarven stronghold or Elven treefort, would I use a race-specific symbol (because to me, its a very different kind of thing... and that normally indicates that folk of other races aren't quite as welcome there). Besides, if I use an elf-head for the elven settlements, it always winds up looking like Link. 
Moving away from symbology, I was playing with maps today. The High Forest one is now 'legacy' built upon a 'legacy'. The reason why I redid the Under Illefarn Anew one a few years back was because my skill-set had greatly improved, and I wanted the two maps to link-up. NOW, the differences in my skills then as opposed to the differences now is negligible... almost laughable. I am looking at this thing and its so.... DATED. Problem is, if I decided to do it all over, it wouldn't lineup with the older UIA one. Plus, I'd probably never get it done (I'm sure you guys have noticed I have BIG problem with staying focused). So I have to bight the bullet, and even though I will tweak a couple of things, I have to force myself to work at a... hmmmm... how to put it? Less-talented level? (too egotistical? I AM comparing to myself though LOL). Geeze... the terrain is all on one layer! Plus it uses the old C&P method I used over a decade ago.
I wouldn't even worry about it since the thing is 99% finished... except its not. The map for The High Forest is (for the most part - Eric's still adding stuff), but my eventual plan was to finish the whole thing (both maps) together, as one larger map, and that means filling-in a lot of terrain to make it a rectangle. Plus, I don't know if 'we' still have plans to push out past the borders of these two maps (that was a plan, but that was a LONG time ago). Then factor-in that I had adjusted these maps to better-map the then 3e geography... and now we've gone back to the old 1e/2e geography! Which I prefer (as do most of us), so now I am stuck with an amalgam version of the old and new maps, even though we are now supposed to pretend the 'new' (now old 3e) maps didn't really ever exist!!! This doesn't really matter at all for the new HF map, because it was really just the coastlines that I had 'fudged' - the interior aligns near perfectly with The North map from 1e/2e. And once again, that puts me back to redoing the coastline of the Under Illefarn Anew map which was badly affected by the changes (one the worst victims of the 3e geography overhaul). I think I have an acceptable solution, which I am working on ATM (gonna blame it all on Larloch LOL). |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 20 Feb 2019 19:15:59 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2019 : 19:16:47
|
EDIT: Might have to go back to an earlier version of GIMP. Didn't know this new one is considered 'unstable', and it crashed. Lost a small amount of work. That sucks, because everything I've done to get this version up to snuff will have to be redone again. I am going to try using it some more to see if there is any real reason to keep it - thus far, it just looks spiffier, but has no new features I can tell and doesn't even allow me to do one major thing I used to be able to do easily. It also chokes when I try to open more then two image files. Hell, on my old machine with the old version I sometimes had as many as ten images open (which would slow it down to a crawl, but it wouldn't crash).
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
Or if you want something different how about a "furl" (i.e. wavy flag image) to denote a city-state.
-- George Krashos
Thats an interesting idea - I'll have to see what that looks like. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 21 Feb 2019 00:02:32 |
|
|
|
Varl
Learned Scribe
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2019 : 13:07:25
|
| Keep it simple and use iconic items for races, such as your dwarven head for dwarves (or a pickaxe), an elegant green leaf for elves, a gemstone for gnomes, a loaf of bread for halflings, a spider for drow, etc. |
I'm on a permanent vacation to the soul. -Tash Sultana |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2019 : 18:28:44
|
I think I tried a leaf for elves - not sure what happened to that idea. I am using two different kinds of tree icons ("Damn you, grandfather tree!!!"), so that might be less confusing. I have to think on that - maybe a leaf centered in a circle for elven cities?
I like a gem for gnomes - thats clever. Bread for halflings as well, except that both might make it look like I am doing a 'resources' map. I did at one time plan to add resources to these (NO project EVER got that far).
I use a spider for... spiders. I have several monster icons I use now. I sometimes use them with a settlement icon, which makes things crowded, but for me to create a separate icon for 'monster settlement' (as opposed to the normal "these live around here" symbol) is a waste of time & energy, IMO. There are several 'orc towns', and at least one goblin village and even an ogre village (all of which can be visited by PCs... if they are daring). Drow settlements are in purple, which denotes 'underdark site' (I have three shades of purple for varying 'depths'). There are some surface Drow settlements (most notably in the Forest of Mir), so I have to think on those.
Just to clarify, ANYTIME I use a 'settlement' symbol means normal humans CAN go there (or a party of adventurers, but be wary if you have non-humans in your party your intended 'hosts' may not like). It doesn't mean you are SAFE there... but then again, what settlement are you truly safe in? Its only when I use a different symbol does it mean 'others unwelcome' (more like 'shoot on sight'). There are orcish settlements you can actually enter (you may get into a fight they purposely pick with you, but you CAN go there), and there are elven settlements that will shoot you full of arrows from afar (even if you are another elf!). Thus, why its so very hard to create the proper symbology on an FR map. EDIT: I just realized the one exception to this rule is the Underdark locales - YES, you can walk into a drow city (or Duergar, etc), but it doesn't mean you're walking back out. Then again (and once again), that kind of applies to every settlement, doesn't it?
And the problem I've run into with the monster symbols is... how far do I go? Its not supposed to be a 'you can find these here' kind of thing (we have encounter tables for that), but rather, a known tribe (group/whatever) is operating in the area. This works easily enough with for intelligent species of the bipedal variety (they should get their own symbol), and 'beasts' should not (unless there is a 'special', in which case I can denote that with an 'x'). Dragons, of course, get their own. I use two different symbols, actually - right facing is for 'good' and left-facing is for 'evil', although really, it means 'metallic' or 'chromatic', since the good/evil thing for dragons is never 100% anyway (ESPECIALLY in The Realms!) Don't ask me what symbol I use for other types... haven't run into that yet (actually, I think I used the left-facing one for a shadow dragon... oh well... I can't overthink these things!)
But there are some non-bipedal creatures which are intelligent - specifically I ran into this in Thar with the leucrotta. If I try to do a leucrotta symbol, it just looks like a dog, so that doesn't work. So, no symbol for them. On the other hand, I made a symbol for Minotaurs, which I've yet to use (not much 'clustering' of them in The Northern Realms). A solo monster (aside from dragons) does NOT get an icon on a continental map.
Dragonborn, Tieflings, and goliaths don't get their own symbols. They're 'fake news'. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 21 Feb 2019 18:37:35 |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 26 Feb 2019 : 02:14:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Dragonborn, Tieflings, and goliaths don't get their own symbols. They're 'fake news'.
If dragonborn are fake news, does that means that Gilgeam is Trump? |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 26 Feb 2019 : 02:32:50
|
Trump's got prettier hair.
The thing is, I don't really see a reason to differentiate those kinds of settlements from others (just as I have never used different symbols for Hin or gnomes). Only if there is something truly different about the settlement itself would I want a different type of icon.
Playing with coastlines all day. I think I'm happy with the result. Some rivers, too. I want to give things a more 'organic' feel (somethings always struck me as a bit too unrealistic). Nothing crazy - its like God said to Bender: “When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything at all.” |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 26 Feb 2019 17:29:41 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 26 Feb 2019 : 21:06:45
|
Today's conundrum: Settlement maps rarely - if ever - match there positioning on larger, regional maps. I've had to do some odd stuff to make quite a few of them work (I recall Silverymoon in particular driving me nuts, some years ago). The problem is, the rivers of the regional/continental maps are an abstracton - they merely represent the approximate positioning of the river, but not every twist and turn, and certainly not the actual size/width.
So today I am tinkering with Neverwinter, which is shown to be several miles inland on nearly every large-scale map. But its not... its own city map shows it right on the coast. Now, I had solved this on earlier maps by having it an 'inland bay' - a bay that is itself part of the MUCH larger river mouth (what is shown on the regional maps). Thus, both maps can be correct... except that when you do that, the bends in the river don't really work out. Every single artist who has done settlement maps put the bends they see on the larger maps INSIDE the towns... even though the settlements are less than a mile across, and the bends they are looking at are several miles away (and several miles LARGE).
As I tinker today, I realized there might be a more elegant way to solve this issue, or at least, make it less pronounced - the city scales are ALL WRONG. I am sure the grognards here are having their eyes twitch right now, but here me out; the scale NEVER made sense to begin with! I have seen this on just about every settlement map! There is NO WAY populations of those sizes ever fit inside those settlements (and we've had threads about this before). I ran into this in a big way when I redid the Daggerford map (that, and the wee little problem of the shipwright being INSIDE the city walls.. with no gate large enough to carry a boat of any decent size through!!!) Of course, fantasy cartographers (and probably most game-designers) don't really know a whole lot about the businesses they are placing on a map (like the fact ships are built in dry-docks!)
So all I have to do is say the scales are off - that they should be at least triple what they say they are, and everything works out. Instead of single-family (or single-business) structures, those 'buildings' shown on the map are also 'abstracts' - approximations of what is going on, and there are actually several different residences/shops in that one spot. Of course, this throws off map-keys... but not really. You could just say that business/home is just part for a larger complex (which just so happens to have the same shape as the included structure, if there is an individual map for the building itself).
Since this all for a fantasy game and not for maps based on reality, it doesn't really matter what perspective you take on it, because you can just 'fudge stuff' as you go along. I can continue to think the rivers (& connected coasts) are slightly more accurate (but not in width), and cities are wrong, and you guys can pretend its the rivers that are the abstracts, and settlements are perfect... even though the population sizes are ridiculous for towns covering that small a footprint.
Don't even get me started on the roads leading into and out of them.... that's a whole 'nother headache. More 'abstractions', I guess. They tend to move around quite a bit from edition to edition anyway, so I don't worry as much about them. I still laugh over the way they moved the Tethir Road in 3e... it made absolutely NO SENSE in regards to the lore surrounding its construction. Thank God its moved back to its original position (I assume, since just about everything else did). |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 26 Feb 2019 21:13:58 |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6351 Posts |
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 26 Feb 2019 : 22:46:53
|
Markustay, if this does help you, Ed said this about Neverwintian maps on his Twitter:
" The backlore is that past rulers of Neverwinter forbade publication of maps of the city "for security reasons." Which meant no maps with tags. When Lord Neverember relaxed this, we got maps with individual sites marked...but still no street names. So I've been directing traffic for gamers ever since. ;}"
So, I guess you have free license for your map in this particular instance. |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
|
|
|
Matrix Sorcica
Seeker
Denmark
89 Posts |
Posted - 27 Feb 2019 : 07:45:22
|
| Speaking of Neverwinter, will you at some time resume your work on Nentir Vale near Neverwinter? (and sorry for the threadjack). |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2019 : 02:26:30
|
Well, I'm not doing Neverwinter itself. I actually LOVE doing settlement maps, but find that the larger settlements tend to... interfere.. with my ADD (in other words, if the project is too 'expansive', then I will loose interest before I get anywhere near complete). Not sure if I didn't just get my point across (something I always worry about, hence the excessive verbiage on my part), but what I mean was that a LOT of 'coastal' cities (according to their settlement map) are just that- ON the coast. But according to the larger campaign maps, they are several miles inland - both Luskan and Neverwinter suffer heavily from this. Trying to get the coasts on the small maps to work on the larger (campaign) ones is a lot more work than it looks (one of many reasons I keep increasing my resolution).
As for that map, Matrix Sorcica - YOU CAN COUNT ON IT. I am VERY angry at myself for never finishing it. I know what happened there - I realized I was working ass-backwards, and really needed to do a high-resolution map of Faerûn (the WHOLE thing), and THEN alter it with mash-ups. Instead, my best maps were turning out to be the merged maps, and I was having to backwards-engineer them to pull the 'canon' stuff out of them. It was idiotic. You know what was even MORE idiotic? Deciding that 95% of the way through and then just stop working on a map that was turning out beautiful. Grrrrr... my brain sometimes.
And then I get sidetracked. I love this place, but the conversations here always get my mind going in all sorts of neat directions, and then I get excited about new stuff, and current projects get pushed aside. If you guys knew how many 90-98% finished maps I found on my old hard drive - maps no-one has ever seen - you'd probably be a bit upset with me. I could probably solve this (my ADD) with drugs, but I'm not really into that, and I found a bit of a work-around (which Eric could attest to) - I do my best/fastest work LATE at night (more like wee hours of the morning), when i am super-tired and half-asleep (same goes for when I do RL 'work', on the rare occasions I come out of retirement, like I did for my son's house last summer). I need to literally skip an entire nights sleep and be dead-on-my-feet... and then stuff gets done (because my brain is just to tired to 'party' and go running off in a hundred directions on me). I work best in 'zombie mode'... go figure.
Anyhow, when I looked at the Neverwinter/Netheril Vale mash-up I realized that THAT ONE was definitely one that deserves to be competed. As part of that, I will be rolling the Red Hand of Doom/Elsir Vale stuff into the far north (even though the maps work out perfectly in the shining South, where they actually belong, its not very useful down there for most DMs). It fits very well around Mirabar and the Ice Lakes region there, and since I already worked-out the logistics, it would be stupid of me to not finish that extension as well. It just kills me that I am doing the SAME EXACT AREA on two different maps (at the same time), and neither one of them are the canon, NEW Faerûn map I have been wanting to complete for years. Well, at least I'll have TONS of 'practice' for that one (and can probably re-work a lot of what I am doing on the Nentir conversion map into it... so long as I keep the scales the same). |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 02 Mar 2019 02:31:45 |
|
|
|
Matrix Sorcica
Seeker
Denmark
89 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2019 : 05:46:22
|
| I'm really, really looking forward to the Nentir/Elsir North. IMO, it's pretty much the perfect campaign map. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Map Input on symbology
