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

[Alex Richards]

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

1)Which higher category?
Puppet-State? It doesn't reflect reality.
Dominion? I'm not sure it could be comparable to a SSR.

2)For using striping, it would be really confusing with communist guerilla/revolt striping.

It was Diagonal Striping, not the vertical striping of an unorganised Communist revolt.

It might not be as visually appealing, but the big issue is that if you lighten Soviet Red too much you end up at British Pink.

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by Alex Richards

It was Diagonal Striping, not the vertical striping of an unorganised Communist revolt.

That's an unheard of convention for me. Since when it was used?

Furthermore a diagonal striping isn't confusing with "joint occupation" striping?

I think "influence" would be the best indicator regarding that kind of situation, still.

[Simreeve]

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

Depends...

Maybe Minor Chinese State, but I'm not sure it would fit.
Perhaps Khazars/Golden Horde/Khazakstan colour?

H'rrm.
Okay, if I don't leave it blank then the latter of those two does seem the most reasonable choice.

[Lord Hastur of Carcosa]

Originally Posted by Alex Richards

It was Diagonal Striping, not the vertical striping of an unorganised Communist revolt.

It might not be as visually appealing, but the big issue is that if you lighten Soviet Red too much you end up at British Pink.

WHOA! since when do we have a 1980 QBAM, and shouldn't it be in some wiki dump?

[Alex Richards]

Originally Posted by Lord Hastur of Carcosa

WHOA! since when do we have a 1980 QBAM, and shouldn't it be in some wiki dump?

It's horrendously out of date. We never did get round to adding the QBAMs either.

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by Alex Richards

It might not be as visually appealing

Indeed, it's really not appealing, and look like a joint-occupation of Ethiopia by...Ethiopia and Soviet Union.

but the big issue is that if you lighten Soviet Red too much you end up at British Pink.

Not really. It is still distinguishable.

[wolf_brother]

Once again - there's no need for it. Why do people insist on giving communism special conventions that other ideologies don't have. What we have as is already works, there's no need to break the system in order to accommodate this. I still don't see how Influence isn't appropriate for the situations you've brought up LSCatilina.

[Simreeve]

I see that a lot of maps use the same shade for British colonies as they do for Britain itself: Wouldn't the darker shade really be more appropriate, by anaology with darker shades being used for 'territories' (as distinct from 'provinces' or 'states') within the various British Dominions or -- for that matter -- the USA?

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by Simreeve

I see that a lot of maps use the same shade for British colonies as they do for Britain itself: Wouldn't the darker shade really be more appropriate, by anaology with darker shades being used for 'territories' (as distinct from 'provinces' or 'states') within the various British Dominions or -- for that matter -- the USA?

Precisely because dominion is different of colonies.

A dominion have a more or less large autonomy, while a colony haven't (at least, not the colonized).

Furthermore, if you looked the map, you probably saw that a lot of British colonies weren't plain pink but have darker shades for protectorates. It's also to distinguish these from "regular" colonies that we use pink for these latter.

[Simreeve]

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

Precisely because dominion is different of colonies.

A dominion have a more or less large autonomy, while a colony haven't (at least, not the colonized).

Right. But I'm not asking either "Why show the colonies in Britain's shade rather than in the same shade as dominions?" or "Why not give each colony its own separate shade, just as we do each dominion?", I'm asking "Why show the colonies in the same shade as Britain itself when they have significantly fewer rights than Britain does, instead of distinguishing between 'Britain' & 'British colonies' by shade in the same sort of way that we do between 'dominion provinces' & 'dominion territories'?"...

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

Furthermore, if you looked the map, you probably saw that a lot of British colonies weren't plain pink but have darker shades for protectorates. It's also to distinguish these from "regular" colonies that we use pink for these latter.

Actually, I think that I've seen more cases in which the lightened ('Influence') shade was used for protectorates -- rather than a darkened shade -- and that useage does make sense to me.

[Beedok]

Yeah, the colonies and metropole being the same colour strikes me as wrong. Especially with the example of Algeria.

[stateless_englishman]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Yeah, the colonies and metropole being the same colour strikes me as wrong. Especially with the example of Algeria.

For the majority of its history French Algeria was part of the metropole. (Sorry if I misunderstood and that was the point you were making). While I appreciate that there might be something gained by having an extra colour for colonies, really the map is just to show the controller of an area, not the particular political governance in place.

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Yeah, the colonies and metropole being the same colour strikes me as wrong. Especially with the example of Algeria.

Except that Algeria was a weird case. Granted you have departementalisation, but the natives weren't considered as "citizens" but as "subjects" of France.

That's enough to consider it rather as a colony rather than full metropole.

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by Simreeve

"Why show the colonies in the same shade as Britain itself when they have significantly fewer rights than Britain does, instead of distinguishing between 'Britain' & 'British colonies' by shade in the same sort of way that we do between 'dominion provinces' & 'dominion territories'?"[/I]...

Because we wouldn't have any colours. Simple as that.
Or it's darker and indicate an autonomy of the population or at least its elites while being still considered as part of the colony (aka a territory without this local power)
Or it's lighter, and it's not considered as part of the colonies.

Except you can find something darker and lighter, you would have to use another set of colours. And you'll never have enough of that, at least that would be distinct enough to work.

Actually, I think that I've seen more cases in which the lightened ('Influence') shade was used for protectorates -- rather than a darkened shade -- and that useage does make sense to me.

I made a typo.

[Simreeve]

Originally Posted by stateless_englishman

While I appreciate that there might be something gained by having an extra colour for colonies, really the map is just to show the controller of an area, not the particular political governance in place.

But in that case, why the differing shades for 'states' and 'territories' in the case of the USA?

[Iori]

Originally Posted by Simreeve

But in that case, why the differing shades for 'states' and 'territories' in the case of the USA?

Because the United States is a Federation in which States have a considerable amount of rights and power where-as Territories were/are ultimately under the control of the National/Federal government and have/had far fewer rights.

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by Simreeve

But in that case, why the differing shades for 'states' and 'territories' in the case of the USA?

Because territories and states were contiguous historically. It's to avoid the confusion between them.

[stateless_englishman]

Originally Posted by Simreeve

But in that case, why the differing shades for 'states' and 'territories' in the case of the USA?

Maybe there shouldn't be. It would allow for a more simple colour scheme. I feel the reasoning for keeping it is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" - which is also a good enough reason to keep using the metropole colour for colonies. I think we've been doing both long enough for people (on this site) to be familiar with what they mean on maps.

[Iori]

Originally Posted by stateless_englishman

Maybe there shouldn't be. It would allow for a more simple colour scheme. I feel the reasoning for keeping it is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" - which is also a good enough reason to keep using the metropole colour for colonies. I think we've been doing both long enough for people (on this site) to be familiar with what they mean on maps.

That and consider the schism that the idea of changing Russia's color caused and then imaagine how much worse it'd be to change core aspects rather than just colors.

[metastasis_d]

Originally Posted by Iori

That and consider the schism that the idea of changing Russia's color caused and then imaagine how much worse it'd be to change core aspects rather than just colors.

Let the battle begin.