Placement Paradox

[jeffryfisher]

Have any of you derived a scenario from an out-of-the-box map and discovered during editing that the rivers, coast-lines and/or cities are misplaced? Does this sound familiar:

"It has to be on a line north from that town, at the latitude of that eastern town, but not in that mountain range... Hey, this map is twisted!"

I'm having that trouble right now. I am wondering how much effort to put into "resculpting" rivers and mountains to correct for city misplacement (e.g. I can't just put Casper WY in its proper place if that would be high in the Rockies).

One thing I guarantee I won't bother with is cell-by-cell elevation adjustments. I'll try to put each town at an approximate elevation, and I'll try to put major mountain ranges in their place, and I'll try to have rivers run downhill, but all other corrections / roughening will be pseudo random. Nobody's going to build in the highest chiseled snowy mountains, so they're just for decoration anyway.

I hope I don't cause some student to flunk a geography quiz. At least my US History map has more correct feature relationships than the original United States map from which I started.

[Gwizz]

I've been busy, but, I do enjoy history.  I have still learned a lot from Railroad Tycoon maps.

I use to trace maps and then scale them to fit a Tycoon map, usually by eye.

About the only way to fix a river is cell by cell.  I do use the smoothing tool a lot to make the rivers level enough for building bridges.