>>54409682>ignoring the entire rest of the post because you have absolutely no response for itAnd the one point you picked up is STILL wrong. There are no hills in those maps. No valleys. It's a nation-scale map drawn with a battle scale in mind, and yet the battle scale remains completely unrealized. We're shown the twisted ruin of a tree-fortress bridging some kind of chasm, with literally no idea how large either thing is in relation to the other, or to anything else on the map. The only things on these maps are vague, handwaved open stretches dotted with colossal edifices to denote an event. Hastily drawn sand-maps in war movies look better than this because, again, they're depictions of locations, not events. Nowhere are maps created so backward as they are in this style.
>>54406785 is especially egregious: the spike clusters and army routes are so divorced from eathother that the artist could neither be arsed to simply describe the arc of the troop movements to clearly indicate intent (did the south eastern force stop by Morr's Gullet, or is it just wavy for Reasons?) or to make the paths exact enough to avoid what amount to utterly superfluous stamps that couldn't even generously be called terrain. Also, how tall are the various cliffs, and how far do they run? How big are ANY of these buildings? Are they individual towers, scaled up for cartograhpical purposes, or are they markers for settlements? The detail of the tower sides, and the blood moats at their base, would suggest they're simply individual towers, but the relative scale between the moats, the rivers, and the cliffs, to say nothing of troop movements, makes their scale or intent impossible to guess.
This is because, I would wager, the answer is 'neither'. It is painfully obvious that all of these maps were created under the direction of "These fights happen. Make places for that."
