I would more likely purchase an Atlas Keléstia map square if it were set in:

12% (7 votes)
2% (1 vote)
7% (4 votes)
8% (5 votes)
22% (13 votes)
17% (10 votes)
Anywhere -- I'll buy them all.
33% (20 votes)
Total votes: 60
Tempest13's picture

Atlas Kelestia Poll

I will buy all of them, as they all expand the game world. With that being said I would love to some for Harn itself. Also a update of the Harn Regional map to include mines and more interesting wildlife like the Shorkyne map would be cool as well.

rbs's picture

Ivinia pour moi

I'm the one in charge of producing the squares but my own vote was for Ivinia because if I was GMing, I'm thinking I'd run a pilgrimage to Mt. Ilbengaad. I might need the coast of Harbaal though for the voyage there.

But we really do want to sound out what people would find useful and would pay for.

Tempest13's picture


Well, I would say you need to enjoy what you make so Ivinia would work for me. However, I would really like to see the Ivinia and Trierzon maps done up like the Shorkyne Regional Map.

cyrion's picture

I will probably buy them all...

But if I have to choose I would prefer maps of Hârn first.
And next the maps of Emérenè...

BTW You are doing a great job...

Thank you - Danke schön - Merci beaucoup

Puster's picture

All of them, but...

I voted for "I'll buy them all", but my preference would be the coasts of the Sea of Ivae first, then selected inland areas (Ivinia is pretty high on my list here) and expanding the coast towards Trierzon and the Venarian Sea. Most will travel by sea first, and following the long range trade with the maps is a good way to venture...

I am not so keen on Hârn proper, mainly because there is so much else that is totally unexplored but also to avoid heating up the cold conflict between the two companies that produce stuff. Any energy going there will not be available for creative constructive work.

HeirophantX's picture

The Rest of the World

I'm particularly hot on the Hurisea maps that have come out lately because that just happens to be part of the world I want to explore at the moment. There's just so much more of the world to see and develop!

WarHamster's picture

Anywhere but Harn

I voted for Emelrene-Palithane, however, anywhere but Harn would be my more accurate opinion/vote. Harn's been covered in so much detail already, I don't think we need yet more maps on Harn. Besides Columbia Games is doing high-resolution maps of Harn already, why do double coverage when there are plenty of areas mostly untouched in Venarive still (and I'd wager CG isn't going to touch those).

Trotsky's picture

Anywhere but Harn

I voted for Ivinia, as the most interesting area, although, as I've said elsewhere, some individual kingdom modules to put the AK maps in context would be very useful, too. But, hey, one can only expect so much at a time!

Emelrene is also interesting (not Palithane, though), and I do feel an itch to just get Shorkyne and Harbaal finished before rushing off to do something else entirely. Hurisea, not so much.

On the other hand, I've bought every AK square so far, and, if I'm honest with myself, that's not going to change. Except Harn - I don't need to pay for Harn twice, and so they are the only AK squares I wouldn't buy.

Niall 1
Niall 1's picture

I voted for Emelrene BUT

As with the others, I'd like to see the areas along the coast and the major rivers explored, as this seems the most active... cross country travel is slow and uncomfortable at best in this Era. Venerive has lots to explore... Harn is pretty much done. The last two maps, which are way off in places little traveled, don't excite my interest. The areas actively trading up and down the coast, and with Harn and Chelemby, seem most likely to be involved. The inner hinterlands can be filled in here and there.

sard's picture

Shorkyne, BUT

I could have chosen Emelrene or Haarbal just as well.
As written before, the coastlines and uptream the major rivers are the maps i'd like to see (Hlen is an exception).

rbs's picture


So after 45 votes looks like "anywhere" is the leading choice, although many who say that registered comments that they would like squares along the seacoasts.

As far as specific locations are concerned, Emélrenè-Palíthanè is the leader. No surprise there, although I thought Hârn might challenge more than it did. And there was a small but vocal group saying anywhere-but-Hârn.

I was a bit surprised that Huriséa and especially Ivínia didn't do better.

No surprise to me that Hârbáal and Shôrkýnè didn't do well, although I didn't expect that Hârbáal would get no votes at all. However, the calls for seacoast squares suggests there is some desire for Hârbáal and Shôrkýnè squares (as e.g., the Ishéres square published today), just not the areas inland.

Puster's picture

A new survey?

If you are really interested in what areas are most popular, a survey should avoid "catchalls" like "anywhere" - and perhaps also the "Hârn" option, to let some issues sleep.

You could then offer ONE vote for the remaining options, or - to get a better impression - either a rating for each (eg. 0-10 points for each option) or a total of 10 (or 100) points to distribute among the existing options. This way secondary interests do not get lost in the process.
I have, however, no idea wether this software allows for such surveys.

Anyway, in my opinion you should do what YOU want to do first. A work of interest and love is a work done well (to add some platitudes here).

BTW: I would love to see more of Harbaal or Ivinia, but the survey limited my options a bit. The same about Tarkain, Trierzon or Kamerand...

klhaviation's picture

Harn atlas

While it is true that Harn can be seen as a bit over-developed. I think KP would make a useful prroduct in Harn map squares. The current material available elswhere is greatly flawed and contradicts cannon in many ways.
KP has a greater attention to detail and the quality of cartography is great. Simply fort the fact that most of us play on Harn we would like a set of cannon maps to play on Harn.

rbs's picture


Puster, The survey software options are pretty limited.

I have at times thought about posting a survey asking something like "which of the following 5 squares would you most like to see published", but I can't see that the results would be all that helpful. Like as not, we'd have already published one of them before a meaningful number of people had voted.

As for what AK squares we at KP _want_ to do, well Jeremy has his preference and is working on that area pretty hard. In my case, I find it a bit boring to work on any single area for too long and so like to move around from area to area. This survey was meant to find out what areas are more worth my time and what areas are not.

The options given in the survey were deliberately limited to areas where we have sufficient V&R background graphics to work from. Otherwise we might well have listed Tarkain or Trierzon as options.

Puster's picture

Limited, indeed...

I assume what is really limited is your time.

So doing what you and Jeremy want to do yourself ensures both quality and motivation, the latter increasing the output.

Most of us here will buy any sector you deem worthy of making, and those with a more selective buying habit will only buy the "golden apples" of Hârndom or maps with actual use in a game. Go there when it suits you, is my advice.

What we do lack, beside maps, is stuff like "Folk and Clans of Chelemy" and an article on the Quarph nations to finish some of the actual open business, and the maritime ruleset to open a fully new can of worms (which will also lead to more demands). :-)

Trierzon... now that you mention it, wasn't that first announced for the fall of 86?

Ken's picture

Not by us! :)

Not by us! :)

rbs's picture


So TRZN A1 Máris is now out. Does that one count as a 'golden apple'?

User login

Recent comments

Keléstia Connect

Who's online?

There are currently 0 users and 23 guests online.

© 2014 Keléstia Productions Ltd. and N. Robin Crossby (1954-2008).
The opinions expressed on this website are those of their respective owners and do not necessarily reflect the views of Keléstia Productions Ltd.
Trademarks are the property of their respective owners.