Base Maps from 550 BC to Modern Day, all in UCS! - Page 333

Alex Richards · #**6641** June 15th, 2012, 05:58 PM

Egyptian copts were excluded because if Egypt is Coptic then it can have the Egypt colour, while if there's some sort of division in Egypt between a coptic Egyptian State and a non-coptic Egyptian state then we either colour the coptic one with copts and the other as Egypt, or have them outlined as Egypt.

It was for Nubia, Kush etc. etc.

I might rename that to 'Upper Nilotic State, e.g. Nubia, Kush, Sudan'.

Regarding Savoy, Venice and Milan:

1. Venice has been that colour since something like 2006. After Russia I'm not touching it with a bargepole, particularly as it usually gets used for the EU as well.

2. Adding a new colour entirely for Savoy would... well just wouldn't be something I'd like to do. Lets stick to rearrangements.

3. With this in mind, I think the majority view is just about on Green Savoy, Orange Milan, but that still needs checking.

I'm a bit unsure about just letting the addendum be completely free. That might end up being more confusing than it's worth. I'm willing to give it a go if no-one majorly objects though.

Lord Hastur of Carcosa · #**6642** June 15th, 2012, 06:03 PM

I also think the coptic color would be more fitting for Nubia or Lower Egypt. But for radically different TL there's Tacos. The HRE addendum creates a lot of confusion I think; the HRE would need colors mostly for its stem duchies, that is Saxony, Bavaria, Franconia Thuringia Swabia and Lorraine, their Circles, Austria, Prussia, Switzerland and HRE itself and Bohemia (Czech). That would make for 18 colors, including the colonial successor/minor kingdom, that we already have. Give or take a couple of other, that would be 20 colors for the cultural area of Germany, while Britain has 9 that rise to 20 if you count all colonial successors and the whole of China has only four. I think the addendum should have three-four colors instead of the current eight. Also, I think Lombardy's color could be used for WWII partisan resistance and the short lived partisan republics, but that would be a lot less clear if it was orange on brown (OTOH that may be moot, as southern Italy would be teal with brown outline, while the Republic of Salò would be a light gray German puppet, so orange would stick out).

Alex Richards · #**6643** June 15th, 2012, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Hastur of Carcosa

I also think the coptic color would be more fitting for Nubia or Lower Egypt. But for radically different TL there's Tacos. The HRE addendum creates a lot of confusion I think; the HRE would need colors mostly for its stem duchies, that is Saxony, Bavaria, Franconia Thuringia Swabia and Lorraine, their Circles, Austria, Prussia, Switzerland and HRE itself and Bohemia (Czech). That would make for 18 colors, including the colonial successor/minor kingdom, that we already have. Give or take a couple of other, that would be 20 colors for the cultural area of Germany, while Britain has 9 that rise to 20 if you count all colonial successors and the whole of China has only four. I think the addendum should have three-four colors instead of the current eight. Also, I think Lombardy's color could be used for WWII partisan resistance and the short lived partisan republics, but that would be a lot less clear if it was orange on brown (OTOH that may be moot, as southern Italy would be teal with brown outline, while the Republic of Salò would be a light gray German puppet, so orange would stick out).

I think you must mean Upper Egypt. Lower Egypt is the Delta.

And actually, most of the HRE colours were added for complicated situations of disjointed territories in the Rhineland, following the addition of the minor Bavarian, Saxon, Austrian and Brandenburgian Colours, to the extent that I don't think any of them are used outside of the Westphalian, Lower Rhineish, Electoral Rhineish or Lower Saxon circles.

You're also forgetting that the HRE is perhaps one of the most insanely complicated situations on earth which we actually have the information to be able to map.

Lord Hastur of Carcosa · #**6644** June 15th, 2012, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Richards

I think you must mean Upper Egypt. Lower Egypt is the Delta.

I never understood why "Upper" is the one further down on the map.

Quote:

And actually, most of the HRE colours were added for complicated situations of disjointed territories in the Rhineland, following the addition of the minor Bavarian, Saxon, Austrian and Brandenburgian Colours, to the extent that I don't think any of them are used outside of the Westphalian, Lower Rhineish, Electoral Rhineish or Lower Saxon circles.

You're also forgetting that the HRE is perhaps one of the most insanely complicated situations on earth which we actually have the information to be able to map.

You must be right since just reading your explanation gave me a headache.

Alex Richards · #**6645** June 15th, 2012, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Hastur of Carcosa

I never understood why "Upper" is the one further down on the map.

You must be right since just reading your explanation gave me a headache.

It's upstream, Hence the Lower Mississippi is Louisiana, while Upper Volta was inland.

wolf_brother · #**6646** June 15th, 2012, 07:50 PM

So, to review;

- Piedmont/Savoy to regain its original coloring (111/189/72), with the new orange (239/115/15) to be used for Milan/Lombardy. No other changes to the Italian states' colors.

- Addition and clarification of the new conventions regarding feudalism and statelets within the same culture.

- The new African green color (15/56/33) to be re-labled as 'Nubia/Sudan' or something along those lines. [Suggestion; Egypt (199/177/135) as 'Dominant Nilotic, e.g. Egypt' with Nubia (15/56/33) as 'Junior Nilotic, e.g. Nubia/Sudan'.]

- Removal of the HRE Addendum.

- Brandenburg/East Prussia's coloring to be changed to one of the former Addendum's colors.

Alex Richards · #**6647** June 15th, 2012, 08:07 PM

The only thing I'd go against is changing Egypt to 'Dominant Nilotic, e.g. Egypt', as that one is always going to be Egypt. It's like renaming the colours for France, England or China.

The other one's becoming Junior Nilotic though.

LSCatilina · #**6648** June 15th, 2012, 08:08 PM

I would want to point out a proposition I made to make "USSR/Dominant communist power" addition, with "Client-States".

It would be for states that doesn't fit
-influence (that would be more for backed government)
-puppet-states, that means a total lack of autonomy

By exemple, at the contrary of Hungary or Poland at some times, Rumania and RDA had a certain autonomy concering their diplomatic or economic agenda, if Soviet-sided.

Having a colour to represent these (and maybe the other, with putting only an outline) would be more accurate, in my opinion.

Emperor-of-New-Zealand · #**6649** June 15th, 2012, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

What I would propose is to put the remaing HRE colours in a "Reserve Colour" part, for anyone needing for a colour that is not listed for his map.
It wouldn't for a regular use, and certainly not for the same precise country/culture, but can be helping for ATL map that, if not radically different from OTL, have some countries making better to the point of needing colours.

I do not support this.

Making 'generic use' colours renders the point of the UCS moot. It's supposed to be a 'universal' colour scheme - a map that doesn't need a key. I.e., something the vast majority on the site can look at and say, "Oh yes, that's Britain, that's France, and that's Lombardy-Venetia".

By adding in colours and saying "use these to fill in whatever blanks you have on your map" you're essentially devaluing the 'universal' aspect of the colour scheme.

Edit: And just as an FYI, we have tried it before in the UCS, way back in the first revamp. They tried to make a 'generic state colour' that could be used to show vassals, but it was thoroughly ineffective because one would have to say "and my generic state colour goes to naton X or Y or Z". Which defeated the purpose of the UCS.

Emperor-of-New-Zealand · #**6650** June 15th, 2012, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

I would want to point out a proposition I made to make "USSR/Dominant communist power" addition, with "Client-States".

It would be for states that doesn't fit
-influence (that would be more for backed government)
-puppet-states, that means a total lack of autonomy

By exemple, at the contrary of Hungary or Poland at some times, Rumania and RDA had a certain autonomy concering their diplomatic or economic agenda, if Soviet-sided.

Having a colour to represent these (and maybe the other, with putting only an outline) would be more accurate, in my opinion.

I don't think the distinction needs to be made. Degrees of puppetry/influence/vassalisation are irrelevent, what we need is a single convention that can be used in a variety of ways (so I support keeping the convention for puppetry as it is).

LSCatilina · #**6651** June 15th, 2012, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emperor-of-New-Zealand

I do not support this.

By adding in colours and saying "use these to fill in whatever blanks you have on your map" you're essentially devaluing the 'universal' aspect of the colour scheme.

You mean you're able, without checking the key, to say me what is the colour of...let's say Vladimir-Suzail?

Futhermore, you're heavily caricaturizing or misunderstanding the proposition, it's not about "you have blanks, so fill them as you want".

It's "Your ATL have an important state that is not coloured in this key. As it's nevertheless not a radically different ATL, you have a free colour you can use if you precise what it is".

LSCatilina · #**6652** June 15th, 2012, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emperor-of-New-Zealand

I don't think the distinction needs to be made. Degrees of puppetry/influence/vassalisation are irrelevent, what we need is a single convention that can be used in a variety of ways (so I support keeping the convention for puppetry as it is).

The issue is it's not a puppety in this case, it's about client-state.

A puppet is basically that : a state that can't make an independent decision.

But, in these cases, we're talking about states that, if they are more than just "influenced" have still their own agenda.

Emperor-of-New-Zealand · #**6653** June 15th, 2012, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

You mean you're able, without checking the key, to say me what is the colour of...let's say Vladimir-Suzail?

Yes actually. It's the pale blue one, that closely resembles the colour of the sea. Just as Novgorod is the peachy one, Norse Bretwalda is brown and Ecuador is pale green.

See them enough times and they sink in. That is the whole point.

Emperor-of-New-Zealand · #**6654** June 15th, 2012, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

The issue is it's not a puppety in this case, it's about client-state.

A puppet is basically that : a state that can't make an independent decision.

But, in these cases, we're talking about states that, if they are more than just "influenced" have still their own agenda.

If they had their own agenda, they wouldn't be influenced at all, ergo it doesn't matter. Puppetry wasn't a vague term, it was a political arrangement in the case of the USSR. Regardless of what the leaders of each individual country wanted, they were there as a buffer between the USSR and the west. As part of the 'Warsaw Pact' farce, if the USSR said jump, they would jump.

LSCatilina · #**6655** June 15th, 2012, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emperor-of-New-Zealand

Yes actually. It's the pale blue one, that closely resembles the colour of the sea. Just as Novgorod is the peachy one, Norse Bretwalda is brown and Ecuador is pale green.

See them enough times and they sink in. That is the whole point.

But you're totally unable to learn one more colour, as the current point is the limit?

Or you still have the possibility of identifying some colours are "ah, these ones are for some ATL, for states not representated in the key"?

LSCatilina · #**6656** June 15th, 2012, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emperor-of-New-Zealand

If they had their own agenda, they wouldn't be influenced at all, ergo it doesn't matter. Puppetry wasn't a vague term, it was a political arrangement in the case of the USSR. Regardless of what the leaders of each individual country wanted, they were there as a buffer between the USSR and the west. As part of the 'Warsaw Pact' farce, if the USSR said jump, they would jump.

Not really : you have the exemple of Albania and Rumania refusing to follow USSR in 1968 by invading Czechoslovakia.
Economically as well, RDA and Rumania had focused on their own interest and not about feeding USSR.

And, yes, influenced countries have their own agenda, it's just an influenced agenda, in the litteral meaning.