Forum

I like the map, railway lines and older style and all. It's not anachronistic to have railway lines on a map that depicts the later 19th C at all, and the style of the map doesn't detract from it at all, I'd say.

For me an atlas-styled map would just give me a feeling that I am playing a wargame (the T2k maps will look like that).

.
And I keep saying I'm not looking for an atlas styled map. And now I've said it again, for whatever good it does.

But I'm happy to learn that Fria Ligan will not provide a 1600's-style map for their game about post-war aftermath in the year 2000. That's a real relief to know.
I just hope they read up a bit on the geography first.

.

So please stop say that "immersion isn't important in Vaesen" like that goes for everyone. We all have different view of what gives immersion and what's not..

.
Indeed: I speak for my opinion. It is mine alone, and it is the only opinion I can speak for. Others may choose to agree or not as they see fit, but I can only speak for me.
As, indeed, all you can speak for is your opinion - it is actually no more universal than mine.
Nor are we required to agree.
As in any debate, I would have assumed all this was taken as a given ... but seems again I was mistaken.

In my considered opinion though, based on my experience, giving players "in-world" handouts and props as play aids is noticeably more conducive to creating atmosphere and a deeper sense of immersion than just giving them ever so embellished tabletop game aids.
For a game where immersion and atmosphere really is key, such as Call of Cthulhu, people even make special props just to enhance it to the max.
That Fria Ligan chooses to ignore this aspect suggests to me that while immersion may be important enough to make a map in a style that reminds of a certain "feel", it is not so important that they go all the way and make the map also work as an in-world handout.
Ergo, there are obviously other games where immersion is felt to be more important than in Vaesen, and if I had expected it to be as important in Vaesen as in e.g. CoC (as I did), I was clearly mistaken.
My mistake.

If you feel your experience differs from mine, you are quite at liberty to enlighten us about it, rather than just say I'm wrong.

In the meanwhile, you might consider to please stop misquoting me. I've uttered the suggestion that perhaps immersion isn't so important in Vaesen as I expected it to be. This is only an honest - and subjective - reflection based on what I outlined above.
I have at no point categorically stated that "immersion isn't important in Vaesen", period, as you falsely purport to quote me saying.
Let us please keep the debate clean and honest, shall we?

I like the map, railway lines and older style and all. It's not anachronistic to have railway lines on a map that depicts the later 19th C at all, and the style of the map doesn't detract from it at all, I'd say.

.
But surely you'd agree that it would be anachronistic to have railway lines on a map drawn in the 1600's?

I like the map, railway lines and older style and all. It's not anachronistic to have railway lines on a map that depicts the later 19th C at all, and the style of the map doesn't detract from it at all, I'd say.

.
But surely you'd agree that it would be anachronistic to have railway lines on a map drawn in the 1600's?

No. It's mythic Scandinavia. It's not the real world, it's a mythical version. You'll also notice there aren't really werewolves and ghosts in the real world, and yet there are in vaesen. Why does the style of the map they chose have to be hyperrealistic, and not it's own style? In fact, even if it were set in a mythical 1600s rather than the 19th C, it could stil have railways in it and be perfectly acceptable.

I'd also argue that it isn't necessarily a 1600s map either - it's reminiscent of the style, but you get that in all periods. There are stylised maps in all sorts of other games, including in CoC, and in use in actuality too - not every modern map looks exactly the same, and some are cartoony, done as 3d models, or 2d models, and larger scale maps often use a variety of projections. Doesn't make any of them not "real" or modern maps..

To claim that there's no sense of immersion in Vaesen is ludicrous. We get that you don;t seem to like any of the FL games, and that's fine - they aren't to everyone's tastes - but to claim that it's just your opinion and one other person's opinion, so they're equally weighted (or weighted in your favour, as you seem to pretend) is simply untrue. It's you railing against the world, it seems, as others agree that the map is perfectly fine and acceptable.

To claim that there's no sense of immersion in Vaesen is ludicrous.

.
Could you please just try to stop straw manning me?

I'll just paraphrase what I replied to Fenhorn two posts ago, but you apparently must have overlooked:
All I've said is to utter the suggestion that perhaps immersion isn't so important in Vaesen as I expected it to be. This is only an honest - and subjective - reflection.
I have at no point stated that "there's no sense of immersion in Vaesen" - you made up that quote yourself, and are now trying to pin it on me. Classic straw manning.

Let us please keep the discussion clean and honest, shall we?

They have used an older map style as inspiration for the map. It is drawn that way to create a feeling that it is old and not something taken from an atlas. Some people like this artistic map style (like me), some don't.

.
I love it, too - but that's precisely my point, don't you see?

This IS indeed an ancient style map; very much NOT something you'd find in a 19th century atlas, quite right - and that's great!!

But the reason you wouldn't find it in a 19th century atlas is because it is ancient - its style clearly dates it as about 200 years older than the19th century ... i.e. from an era when there were no railways!

So why did they go and add railway lines to it??
To me, it just seems utterly nonsensical.

The style isn't inconsistent with some late 19th century maps I've encountered in the records in the US National Archives system. Some of the published road maps for Alaska have similar levels of detail. Some have even less, but similar style. Many modern maps are rendered in styles that were common in the 1920s or 1940's... because the cartographer likes it and the customer buys it. And someone recently reprinted the map of Alaska as it existed at Statehood.

Your incredulity really seems misplaced, Vader. Perhaps out of ignorance of what really was in use. Most atlas maps can be dated to a 50 year period easily... but there are always ones that have a look from an older period in print, but with some updated information. And many maps aren't in atlases.

It's not uncommon, for example, to have fairly stylized and simplistic state maps as placemats in restaurants, especially in tourist areas. One such map wound up in records of the US Marshals Service because a Deputy US Marshal happened to make notes on it while at lunch, and filed it as was...

So there's nothing inherently "17th C" about it to me. If anything, fixed type, rather than hand scrawl, pretty much rules out 17th C style. (Remembering that most 16th C maps were hand written, then etched into plates, then printed.

My only disappointment is the lack of roads... but I can look up old atlases for those.
some old maps on wikimedia:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... e-1794.jpg note the trees and hills on this one... fairly close in style... 1794
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... l-1799.jpg totally devoid of significant decorations... and poorly outlined, too!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... y-m-50.jpg Colored political map... Mitchell, 1850. The data on the game's map is as well presented, but limited. None of the maps, tho', show much of a road grid...

Not really sure you're getting my point here, Aramis ... let's try again:

This is something I wrote about a week ago, on the subject of the pictures I had recently posted:
.

My point here is only to illustrate differences in cartographic details (proportions of land masses, how e.g. mountains are drawn, ancillary features etc).

.
And while you do see simplified details such as mountains like that on stylised maps to this day, that is not the only feature I am referring to. Those mis-proportioned landmasses is really only something you see on Texan maps...

Just to try to highlight it once more:
.

.
I fail to see the controversy in claiming that the "Mythic North" map for practical intents and purposes looks just like a 17th century map! It's all there, complete with the way the land masses are grossly out of proportion compared to their real outlines, the way landscape features like mountains are indicated, and other little details like the "sunburst" of compass lines.
Only with railway lines. And, as you say, no roads. Go figure.

Sure, you could have a map like that in 1850 ... if someone made a historical reproduction. Or as you would make one today — as a novelty map. And sure, in certain economical maps, you could see landscape features drawn like that even in professional contexts ... on maps that covered a few square miles. With a degree in human geography, I've seen a fair share of those myself. But I at least have never seen a bona fide mid-19th century map with such details that covers whole clusters of nations.
Sure, you can have old maps be updated with new information and live on past their use-by date by several decades ... but here, we're talking about two centuries out of date — the world's whole understanding of the shape of the continents' coastlines has gone through a major shift during that period, as indeed you can see from the very maps you linked. The 1850 map's coastlines follow pretty exactly the same outline you find on modern maps, while your two 1790's maps show intermediary stages, somewhere in between that and the two maps pictured above.

Fria Ligan had an opportunity to make this map an interesting and immersive in-world prop. They missed out on that opportunity, making it just a pretty game aid.
For my own part, I can only lament their choice.

It's a great map, and everything that Aramis stated is true.

For those who want maps closer in style to the 19th century, here are a couple of examples. (I personally don't care that much, but then I live in Sweden so locating places isn't the big difficulty for me.)

Here's one from 1799: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... l-1799.jpg

This one's from the early 19th century: https://digitaltmuseum.se/011024626848/ ... ia?slide=0

Here's one from 1888: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... m_1888.jpg

This one's from 1847: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... 7_copy.jpg

Only the last one is labeled in Swedish and they don't all cover the exact same area as the map in the game, but I don't think that's a huge problem if what you're after is the visual style.

It's a period map in very close to period style, save for color, Vader. That you can't accept that is more of a personal problem than a defect of the map.

Outside of gaming, I've seen similar style maps of various local features in that same "Hills and Trees" style as well - US Forest Service has some trail maps done that way.

So, your complaint about not period style? No basis in fact, only in your lack of knowledge of period maps. In period it would be an expensive luxury map, to have multi-plate color...
Your complaint about uninspiring? I find it plenty inspiring. but that's a subjective matter.

Your complaint about it not being a prop? See the bit about period style,
It's a very viable prop.
Just not one you like.