Just thinking about the description, I have 18% arable land, for which the figure 20 thousand square miles is given, if you take that figure and then multiply it by the 20 people per square mile you end up with a total population of only 400 thousand. This figure fits in a lot better of what a desolate land that is mostly wilderness would look like, even in todays world. If you take the population figure it suggests of 2.2 million people, which, for some reason, is calculated on the total size of the country, and one puts it into the arable land you get a figure of 110 people per square mile, which is higher than the abundant medieval France which the figures are derived from. The way I figure it the population figure on this random generator really should have one calculated for the arable land, and another perhaps at a tenth of the strength calculated for wilderness.

The reason I'm thinking about this instead of working on the map is, because working on the map is hard. Been trying to figure out how to approach the depiction of the land the topography and such. At this scale making a map 300 x 300 miles wide there really is nothing to model as such if you are going for realism. Better off just using a flat plane with a very slight bump map for realism. So the other option is to do a stylized sort of iso map where the features are way out of proportion to reality (which is why I never understand why people worry so much about the scale of trees to mountains, like it makes a difference at that point, they are both way out of scale in any case). The problem I'm having with this stylized topographic thing is, as I said, just that it's hard and I figured I'd come and whine about here before cracking on.