Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Hardhead 06-23-04, 08:18 PM	I was looking at the Eberron map on the inside cover, and I was wondering, what kind of map is it? Since the Earth (and Eberron) are round, you can't make a map fit on a page without distortion. So, there are a few common ones. The oldest is the Mercator (link (http://www.progonos.com/furuti/MapProj/Normal/ProjNav/Img/mr.png)). The problem with the Mercator is that it distorts the further you get from the equator, making Greenland bigger than South America and Antartica bigger than Asia. It's mainly useful as a global map becuase left is always west and right is always east. Originally for sailors, a lot of old school maps are Mercators. It's not very popular nowadays because of the massive distortion, but it *is* a rectangle, just like the one on the inside cover of Eberron. Currently, the most popular is the Winkel Triple Projection (link (http://www.progonos.com/furuti/MapProj/Normal/ProjMAz/Img/w3-s70.png)). The distortion isn't too bad, and it doesn't curve as bad as some azmuthal projections. However, it ain't a rectangle, and the equator on Khorvaire's world map runs straight left to right, so this type of map is right out. Considering the most northern and southern continents seem to fade out, and the equator doesn't curve, I'd guess it was a Mercator with the most polar sections missing (due to lack of exploration, I guess). You'd get a map with distortion that wasn't *too* bad, but it'd still be noticable in northern Khorvaire and Sarlona (and southern Xen'drik). That's what I would guess, except compared to the map of just Khorvaire, the distortion seems to be 0. Which is completly impossible unless the ocean sizes are pure fiction and distorted beyond belief. I'm guessing that WotC just didn't really think about that (any confirmation on that Hellcow?). But it makes creating a globe of Eberron impossible. Then, I got to looking at sizes. Check out this (http://www.zachshuford.com/misc/comparison.gif) comparison of North American and Khorvaire, shown on maps of the same scale (though since the type of map that Khorvaire is being shown on is unknown, land size distortions may be a bit off. Still, you can do a single continent without *too* much distortion, so it should be mostly right). A few things stick out - "Lake" Galifar is bigger than some seas on Earth, and just about every state in America (I think it'd be the biggest in the world if on Earth). Khorvaire is a North America-sized continent. And, unlike on earth, its THE SMALLEST continent on Eberron. The world map slightly disagrees with the map of Khorvaire, though. According to it, Khorvaire is a bit smaller (but not really significantly so). Also, note that there's no Pacific sized oceans. No Atlantic, either, really. In fact, Eberron is smaller than Earth. Eberron has a diameter of about 16,000 miles. Earth's is 24,000 miles. That means Earth is about 50% larger than Eberron. Interesting. I guess it has more mass due to all the stone in the Underdark or something. Or a particularly heavy core. Who knows. :) EDIT: In my original post, I said that Khorvaire was an asia-sized continent. I misread the scale. It's been fixed in my post.
Gilgiga of the Hunt 06-23-04, 08:30 PM	Well the only thing I have to gain from thats that my seafareing Eberon campagin is right out. Well you could always blame the cartographers, perhaps the cartogphers union is cueerntly on strike for an indefinte time and all the maps were made from kids from Crazy Al's Kobold Temp Agency.
CJ1720 06-23-04, 09:10 PM	Although maps and planatary scale rarely enter into the gaming world. I'm really interested in what you're saying Hardhead, if for nothing else than for "realisms" sake. I've thought about te distortion problems with gaming world maps before, most specifically with the Forgotten Realms setting, but wrote it off as Medieval level cartography. That of course has nothing to do with it, but since adventures and people can occur amidst all of the distortion, I never gave it much thought. It would be interesting to see the problem addressed more fully, especially the impact of world mass on its formation -- I don't know much about it, but it does sound interesting.
NPC Dave 06-23-04, 09:46 PM	Based on the surface area, does anyone else find the population figures for Eberron way too low for the time period? Even accounting for the war.
Hardhead 06-24-04, 12:50 AM	Originally posted by NPC Dave Based on the surface area, does anyone else find the population figures for Eberron way too low for the time period? Even accounting for the war. Hmmm, you're right. I just roughly worked out Breland's population density. Looks like roughly .7 peple per square mile. That's, uh, that's not right. Medieval Europe (by which I mean 14th century-ish) had much higher numbers. I've seen estimates of anywhere from the twenties and thirties up to 105 people per square feet (in France, where they have good land, but still). Less than one person per square mile just isnt' sustainable, especially once you realize that Sharn is 200,000 of those people. Apparently, most of Breland is complete wilderness. Flipping through the rest of the book, I see similarly small numbers for the rest of the countries (though I didn't try to calculate population density for any but Breland). You're right, the population is way too low, even for having a war.
JBW 06-24-04, 01:09 AM	I've seen estimates of anywhere from the twenties and thirties up to 105 people per square feet That seems a bit too dense. ;) Jay
GoldTiger 06-24-04, 03:19 AM	How would you go about fixing it though. I added the pop up only 15,621,000 people on a late period middle age continent roughly the size of North America is very low. Heck I can't remember the exact # but Mexico City (Mod. day) is pretty darn close to that. Personally i think ill be adjusting that. The largest sized nations might get over a 100000 troops cant really cover that much land and start offensives with it. I had to go check the estimated population on Earth circa 1500 was 450 million. And granted alot of that was in asia but 15mil for khorvaire is pretty small even with only 2500 years of humanity being there and a recent long war i cant see such small pop. If anything humans are very efficent breeding machines.
Hardhead 06-24-04, 10:41 AM	Originally posted by JBW That seems a bit too dense. ;) Jay You'd be surprised. Europe has been totally cultivated for a *very* long time. In most campaigns your typical country has miles of wilderness between towns. But in real life, if the land was arable, then it was farmed. Medieval countries were full of towns, about a mile or so apart. Population density varried mainly because of how much arable land there was. France had tons. The Brittish Isles didn't have much - most of their population was in the south of present day England. Of course, those high numbers are for late Middle Ages. 14th centry or thereabouts, the timescale probably closest to Eberron. If you go back to the 5th or 6th century, you can get some pretty low population densities. Maybe down to five or six people per square mile. But that was mainly because of the massive plagues that still regularly gripped Europe and the fact that education was historically at it's worst at the time - no one knew how to keep people from getting sick or help them when they did. But five or six people, which is Europe at it's lowest, is still an order of magnitude higher than Eberron's, which is insane considering how well developed the Five Nations are. Yes, there's been a war, but as bad as it was, every country still has areas that were never touched by it. In terms of cities being burned down, ect, it wasn't that bad. Honestly, I think that if you added another zero onto any given countrie's population you'd come up with a good number. It's still be very low for a country of the Five Nation's sophistication, but you can explain it by the war and the fact that there's a lot more wilderness between villages in Eberron.
Razorcake 06-24-04, 11:32 AM	Well we can not really compare Eberron with medieval Europe cant we, I mean, we like did not have: -Fireball -Magic Cults -Ogres -Goblins -Demons -Dire zebras -Etc I mean, the populations numbers do not include: most monsters, dragons, etc... and all those beasts need territory too. Also yes the lands are most wilderness, there's not JUST humans like our Earth, lots of humans means lots of newborn, more races who multiply at different rates that is. Eberron is like, at constant war... and the Last War took like,,, 100 years? Thats quite some time. But do not worry, I mean, do you think the population will stay that low? I think Eberron will have a serious Babyboom now that the War is kind of over. Also, I dont care about the population realism, 20000 people in a city is more than enough for me. Edit: Now thinking of it, I think that if the nation is that advanced, that people will have ways not to get pregnant, some spell maybe? Now really think of it! In the medievals there were lots of people because well, everyone got pregnant all the time, and most of the times they did not want to be pregnat at all, I mean there was no real descensy or anything, the economy was unstable with all those people also lots of people were poor, real poor, and did not live very long. Eberron is just more Civilised then we EVER EVER were, they dont goof around all the time! Hmm about that spell... yes... although it would need to be placed at the Adult boards since some people might found it offensive, it quite is a logical idea. Sounds like a Bard level -0 spell... and a magic item with unlimited uses. EDIT EDIT: Or a artificer "imbue" spell!
Thyrwyn 06-24-04, 11:52 AM	http://www.io.com/~sjohn/demog.htm "Medieval France tops the list, with an estimated 14th-century density of 105 people/sq. mile. " not 105 per sq feet. "Some Historical Comparisons: . . . The French were blessed with an abundance of arable countryside, waiting to be farmed. Modern France has more than twice this many people. Germany, with a slightly less perfect climate and a lower percentage of arable land, averaged 87 people per square mile. Italy was similar (lots of hills and rocky areas) with 86. The British Isles were the least populous, with only 42 people per square mile, most of them clustered in the southern half of the isles." more later - gotta run now. try this, though http://www.rpglibrary.org/utils/meddemog/
JBW 06-24-04, 11:57 AM	You'd be surprised. No, not really... My comment was to point out the Sq. feet vs. sq. mile error, as the poster immediately before me has done. Jay
Hardhead 06-24-04, 12:38 PM	Originally posted by Razorcake [B]Well we can not really compare Eberron with medieval Europe cant we, I mean, we like did not have: -Fireball -Magic Cults -Ogres -Goblins -Demons -Dire zebras -Etc They also didn't have magic to help crops grow, to heal people, ect. Eberron is certainly far more advanced than Earth. And yeah, there was just a 100 year long war, but don't forget that back when France had the ~100 people per square mile density, they were in the middle of... The Hundred Years War with England, that lasted from 1337 to 1453. Admittedly, it wasn't one long war but a series of battles and wars lasting over a century. But still, unless genocidal don't really destroy the population of a country. Soldiers die, but it takes a lot of commoners to support an army, who are rarely killed in battle. To take an example I'm familiar with, the Southern US was defeated in the American Civil War, with quite a bit of destruction. Sherman's march to the sea cut a swath of destruction across the heart of the southeast, burning the city of Atlanta to the ground. Yet, most of the residents of Atlanta fled the city. Sherman didn't run around trying to kill every southerner he could find (and my impression is the last war didn't sink to such a genocidal level either). When the war was over, people moved back to Atlanta and rebuilt. (Today it's the largest city in the US by land area, sprawling over 700 square miles). It really won't matter to most DMs and players, but I do think the population of eberron is too low, even with a larger wilderness and a big war. Adding another zero to the end of their population numbers gives you a number that is still very low, compared to Europe, but is at least big enough to be within the realm of possibility.
JBW 06-24-04, 01:07 PM	It really won't matter to most DMs and players, but I do think the population of eberron is too low, even with a larger wilderness and a big war. Adding another zero to the end of their population numbers gives you a number that is still very low, compared to Europe, but is at least big enough to be within the realm of possibility. Oddly enough, I find the numbers of the monster nation and the Goblin nation to be especially low. As they are now written, there just arn't enough of them. I'd go with a ten-fold increase in overall population, and I'd increase most cities, towns, etc. by 50-150% of their listed figures. Even with +150%, Sharn would only reach 500,000 and this is less than Faerun's Calimport (yeah, I know it's like comparing apples and hand grenades, but...). It really makes it into the 'mega-city' that it is portrayed as. Jay
NPC Dave 06-24-04, 02:20 PM	I like the idea of bumping the population numbers up by 10X. For the cities, a possible alternative to multiplying by 1.5X to 3X is to say that the population number only accounts for the head of the household/taxpayer. This leaves you room to adjust the population by 2X-8X depending on average family size of each city. I wish campaign worlds would take into account population density when assigning population numbers. It is a problem that plagued many of the campaign worlds I saw, including Birthright, Ravenloft, Mystara and Dark Sun, even Warhammer. I know that these are fantasy worlds, but there is a difference between fantasy physics(magic works) and fantasy mathematics(assumed population density per square mile and actual population total don't equal each other when you do the multiplication).
Josh Wilhoyte 06-24-04, 02:41 PM	Boy, I wish the whole map projection had occured to me. That's my field :D . Still, when it comes to the population being lowed compared "realistically" to the Medieval world, I think the large complement of roaming monsters covers alot of the difference. Babies are probably being made just as fast as in Medieval Europe, (and I agree with the war over a babyboom is likely to be coming) but those damned roaming monsters probably gobble up a good chunk of them. The modern world has cancer, automobile accidents and heart disease, Eberron has living spells and displacer beasts and zombies.
shemov 06-24-04, 03:04 PM	it is much easier to decrease scale on the map. http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/eberron/Khorvairemap_72dpi.jpg Maybe 250 was to be 125 (or 150) and this is mistake only
Sebby 06-30-04, 03:26 AM	Originally posted by Hardhead ...In fact, Eberron is smaller than Earth. Eberron has a diameter of about 16,000 miles. Earth's is 24,000 miles. That means Earth is about 50% larger than Eberron... I just did the same comparisons of sizes and population, and posted them (here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=267626)) before I noticed this thread. My apologies if it seems redundant. About your estimate of Eberron's diameter: you assume that there is no missing portion on the world map in the book, and that the scale is the scale at the equator. Both assumptions may be wrong. The curving lines in the oceans (currents? winds? depths?) shown on the world map do not match from edge to edge, hinting at a missing portion. Your Pacific-size ocean might be there. The scale of the world map might be the one at Khorvaire's bissecting latitude instead of the scale at the equator. It certainly matches the scale of Khorvaire's map on page 135. Even if it is usual to indicate the scale at the equator on a world map, and not the scale at an arbitrary latitude, I am sure that the authors did not account for the distortion (an easily forgiven oversight, as they can't be expected to be experts at everything). Eberron might be Earth-sized. Originally posted by shemov it is much easier to decrease scale on the map. http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/e...remap_72dpi.jpg Maybe 250 was to be 125 (or 150) and this is mistake only If you feel the pop. is too low, multiplying it by anything from 2 to 10 is quite easy. And it does not pose the problems of reducing the scale of the map. How would you then explain the climate? You'd find yourself with the same problems as tiny Ansalon in the Dragonlance universe, wich goes from hot desert to arctic ice caps in less than 800 miles. But I do not think the low population density is a problem. In the early days of the colonization of North America, and with lots of room to grow, The french and english STILL found reasons to make war on each other. At that time, IIRC, the population of North America was about 1 million people (not counting the native pop.).