I began creating a new map this morning based on Tamriel from The Elder Scrolls games. I plan to make it more detailed than my Skyrim map (https://www.warlight.net/Map/6579-Large-Skyrim). The territories will be locations from the 5 games and TESO. I am looking for input on certain design aspects before I get too far into this project.

1. I am thinking of making the connections between territories based on the actual roads in the games. I am not positive how this will work out, but the thoughts I have had so far are to connect locations to the nearest locations on the road, as well as to the nearest cities.

2. I could do territory design in one of 2 ways I have thought of so far. The first would be to make it like my Skyrim map, with relatively random borders that connect to all the proper territories. The second (and in my opinion, better) option will be to place smaller icon territories on a larger background map of Tamriel. I think this will be better especially as I would be able to draw roads to make connections clearer.

3. The biggest problem will be what to do with areas with less known locations, like Summurset Isle, Elsweyr, and parts of Hammerfell and Cyrodiil, which haven't been featured in a game since Arena. Any suggestions for what to do here would be appreciated.

4. I plan to make the sections of the map based on the most recent game to feature them only. For example, Skyrim would be based on TESV, High Rock, Cyrodiil, and Valenwood would be based on TESO, and Morrowind would be based on TESIII.

I expect this map will have somewhere between 1000 and 2000 territories. I have not yet decided what level of detail to include as territories, because there are maps available that list things as simple as locations of special books (I'm thinking of limiting myself to named locations and perhaps places of significance such as the dragon mounds from Skyrim).

Any constructive comments will be appreciated.

LOLOWUT VS TRAINTOWN ON TAMRIEL!

Kidding aside, i like the roads idea.

Woops I misspelled Tamriel...

About time lol, I was thinking about doing this as my last map, fortunately I didnt.

1. Don't fully understand your point here. You could have a bit of both? Connect the cities, towns and villages via roads (however players could potentially conquer the entire map very quickly) and then the rest of the territories as normal?

2. A bit like this: https://www.warlight.net/Map/6121-Continent-Early-Colonial-War ? If so, I don't think you should. Have it like your Skyrim map but with space for roads in between territories.

Other than this. I think you should have rivers, lakes and mountains if you haven't decided this already. Perhaps boats? Ports? Castles/forts?

Well in part 1 I was just suggesting my 1 thought...I didn't have any others. I was thinking of something similar to that map too, and using the symbols for the territory shape. I didn't really want to make it like the Skyrim map so much because I didn't like the way the territory outlines were so arbitrarily drawn. It makes more sense to me right now that I would use the icons and mark specific places on the map because most locations don't occupy an area so much as a point.

One more thing I keep forgetting to ask about is what to do for bonuses? In my Skyrim map the region bonuses were largely random, and it was only the province bonuses and the bonuses for certain types of locations that had any sort of logic to them. Even the location bonuses were a bit strange though, because they were scattered everywhere.

Also, I'd just like to add that before I made that Skyrim map, I had actually never played any TES game...now I have played Skyrim and Oblivion and parts of Online, so I have a much better understanding of how things should fit together.

Edit: I could still do location type bonuses like I did for that first one, but separate them into province bonuses. For example, forts in Skyrim, forts in Morrowind, etc. Could this work better?

Edited 5/5/2015 23:39:32

1. Don't do roads like Apollo said. That map that he linked is one of my least favorite. The Arbitrary borders are fine.
2.See above, it looks and plays weird
3. Google it, or make stuff up XD
4.Sounds good
5. Do bonuses based on Holds in Skyrim itself, and find other ways to do it for the other realms. you can divide it up smaller too.

I hope this works out, I love TES

Alright I have most of the outlines done so far...I'll be making a couple different concepts in a small part of Skyrim and uploading them individually to see what you guys think later this weekend.

This post is to be edited to add all future map links.

Basic Tamriel Outline:
https://www.warlight.net/SinglePlayer?PreviewMap=43579

Territory Test 1:
https://www.warlight.net/SinglePlayer?PreviewMap=43850

Territory Test 2:
https://www.warlight.net/SinglePlayer?PreviewMap=43888

Territory Test 3:
https://www.warlight.net/SinglePlayer?PreviewMap=43953

Territory Test 4:
https://www.warlight.net/SinglePlayer?PreviewMap=43954

Edited 5/15/2015 14:21:09

The Basic Tamriel Outline is mostly just a starting point, in order to get the basic shape out of the way. I am going to be modifying the coastline very VERY heavily, and adding rivers and lakes as necessary.

Territory Test 1 has some very clear problems. The territories are too small to contain the numbers, but that can probably be fixed by adding circles. The territory design is also very hard to see with the very thick borders Warlight puts on territories at this scale, so I may need to change that. If you have any ideas for that, let me know. With this map design, I can include some terrain features as decoration.

The territories are connected with this reasoning (If you think it should be changed, please say why):
The Blue Palace is in Solitude, so is attached only to Solitude.
The sawmill is at the end of a road, so is attached to only the nearest territory, the farm. (If future dead-end roads attach to a main road in such a way that there is no clear closest territory, it will attach to the 2 nearest)
The farm is at an intersection, so is attached to the next territories down all the roads.
The only type of connection I haven't included (that I can think of at least) is connections between major (or at least important) cities. For Solitude, this would be Markarth and Morthal (and possibly Dragon Bridge, but if I do connect minor towns to the bigger cities, it will ONLY be to the nearest city.)

This map is at the absolute largest size it can be, so I can't make it look any better by just changing the size. If I change the territories to standard territories that fill the map, areas like this will still be just as cluttered. I could increase the territory sizes and spread them out to make them more clear, but if I keep this design I will still have to use circles for the numbers.

If you have any suggestions, please tell me.

Edited 5/13/2015 12:23:47

Alright uploaded a second version, this time without the complicated symbols. However, I dislike this one much more because of the convoluted ways the territories connect. As an example, the Katariah attaches only to the East Empire Company, which is on the other side of Solitude, so they have no direct border.

I can see you're trying to go for accuracy. The Problem with Test 1 is that the territories are tiny, and figuring out connections is difficult, but it looks really good. Test 2 is easier to play on, but the way you want to do connections makes it annoying AF. Choices:
Go Test 1 and display connections by color: Bordering locations are connected by red lines, roads are brown, major paths are grey, etc.
Do test 2 and connect all bordering territories to eachother, or use non-territory art to keep them apart.
Looking good though, keep working.

I can fix the small territory territory problem from test 1 relatively easily. I'm not sure I want to connect the territories with red lines...maybe I can come up with something less visually intrusive. I also don't want to give up the way I am doing connections, but if we decide that's what is best I guess I can do that too. I might also do smarter territory design and get almost the same result...

You don't have to use red, any color will do, I'm just saying it makes it easier to understand what's connected if you show it with lines.

Right and I'm trying to think of a way to do that without the lines, and with some other less obtrusive indicator.

I've thought of a different way to do this. I'll need to do some research to figure out some fine points, so hopefully a new test will be up in one to two days.

2 new versiones up, Test 3 and Test 4. Both use circular territories to replace the symbols, and the symbols are background images. The only difference between the two is how the territory connections are indicated. The second uses the standard line, and the first was my attempt to come up with a way to connect them without lines so that any background I draw won't be broken up by lines.

So I should probably go with the lines if I do the territory design like this right? I see 2 main reasons: Unfamiliarity for players of the other system, and difficulty making long range connections understandable. Any other thoughts?

Yes, the simple lines seem much better. I would say make sure you don't make you circles too squashed- if they are bit off the real world possisitions it is ok. Also, with graphics this detailed, I would be careful with memory.

I'm familiar with keeping memory down...I designed a 3200 territory map that has yet to be finished because of difficulties naming territories. Do you think any of the ones already made are too close together? Or are they fine so far?