"Photo-realistic Scenario Maps" Topic

So, I like to keep up with what people like about making books and scenarios. I see a trend where books like Across a Deadly Field use photo-realistic maps for their scenarios. I've always thought that simple maps were better. Drawings can more easily delineate forests lines, that sort of thing. But I don't want to live in a bubble either.

Below are a couple of maps. I threw together the photo realistic example without the little things like making sure the shadows follow the same light source, etc. I also didn't worry about heavy woods vs. light woods, or settle on how to portray elevations. So don't take these as finished examples.

What type of scenario maps do you prefer? Icon drawings, or photo-realistic?

Honestly, I prefer the top two but I am more old school in that regard. I find it easier to read.
BWW

I like the old school black and white maps with hexes or squares representing a foot. Like the ones in the JR2 scenario books and Potomac Press books and the earlier ones you did. This is isn't as distracting as some of these photo-realistic maps are, but I much prefer the black and white ones.

If I was choosing just between these I would go with the top two. As I said, I prefer the B&W maps.

I'm with Rallynow: my favorite scenario maps were the B&W ones done by Michael McCoy in the issues of Wargamers Digest.

Stick with the old school map. The photo realistic effect is not actually photo realistic, adds no discernable information, and is actually worse in that the loss of contrast slows visual interpretation.

I also prefer the top two. I also think that it is desirable to simplify the contours as much as possible so that we've got some hope of being able to represent a battle on the table. Maybe have one map with the real contours and another with a wargamer-friendly version of the contours.

I prefer the 1st two. If I want to look at a battlefield from a satellite view, I can easily do that (and do for some Napoleonic fields that I have not visited or where information related to the action is limited). I think the value in a scenario book is with the 1st form of maps. There is plenty of other information available for those who want to dig further.

I seem to be agreeing with everyone else, but I'd like to start with what was available at the actual battle. Then let your model terrain give the lay of the land.

Still a bit God-like, but an army has lots of eyes.

Number 2 for me.

Another vote for icon maps.

Brad,

In my first view was that 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' applies. However, the new items were very dark on my iPad but are much better on the PC.

I note these are lacking the difference in woods etc as you said and having that to break up the background could change appearance quite a bit, assuming the light woods go down in tone.

The other thing is that the field boundaries are not quite as clear on the new style. Again this could be color balancing as if viewed the other way round (iPad not PC) using the ability to zoom the image, they look really good.

Personally, I'd like to see these tweaks before casting a vote but I'm always keen to find work for other people! :o)

I would go with the cleaner, "old style" for one very good and practical reason: it looks great and infinitely more crisp than the other when printed out in grayscale.

That makes the map more accessible to the colorblind, or even anyone who has to sorta squint.

It even saves ink for those who buy the PDFs of your awesome books and want to print out a map to make a briefing or something.

No matter what kind you do….

PUT A BLOODY SCALE ON THE DARN THING.

Is this table 4x6 or 6x12? Is that box one foot on the table or one mile on the ground?

the first two. I find the 'realistic' one very hard to read. I have many of your books and the maps in 'musketry like thunder' I find the easiest to understand.

Now that I looked at them closer I would go with the second one. What is the point of a map if you don't show where the units go at the start of the game? I also want the name of the key positions like the first one. I guess both one and two. Still prefer the old black and white ones with the hexes or squares overlaid ed.

For strategic movement or campaigns I like the bottom two. For tactical tabletop games I like the upper two.

hahaha, and I second what Extra Crispy posted. Please put a scale on how large area and distance.

I like the top two best as well, but would prefer the elimination of the white space, which I find takes away from the overall effect.

The 4th one looks very nice, too.

Another vote for the top two – from another old git. Also, Crispy is right: put a scale on it and point us north.

Thank you all for your feedback. I prefer the top two as well. I think coryfromMissoula its the nail on the head with the word contrast. Its easy to tell the terrain features at a glance on the line drawings. That works better for somebody at a convention or their house trying to set up a game table. But as I said, I don't want to sit in a bubble and not think about current trends and what people may want.

The top two maps are from the Shiloh scenario book. So the scale was already spelled out there as 33yds per inch, and the tick marks are feet on the map. I just used them as examples here.

You gotta remember that few commanders had an accurate map of the terrain they where going to fight over -- especially true for Union commanders.

I love the story of how Meade went to extraordinary lengths to ensure the AoP had copies of the same maps right down the Chain of Command, before starting the Overland Campaign, even using brand new printing methods to ensure accuracy.

Didn't take more than a week to find out the maps although perfectly consistent, all had identical inaccuracies!

Definitely prefer Map 4.

Map 4 for me as well.

I would rather have the lines cross the map entirely instead of the tick marks. But I guess I can use a ruler and draw the lines. But instead of me doing that just add the lines.