Discussion in 'Alternate History Maps and Graphics' started by reesetelford9, Jul 13, 2016.
But we should try to figure out what makes sense plate-wise and then go for mountains. Otherwise it doesn't make a lot of sense...
My first look at the plates with made-up names.
Many things: Climate, vegetation, biomes, elevation, rivering, ocean currents, wind patterns, ...
We should definitely keep the names "Yankee Plate" and "Confederate Plate"!
And what about giving the plate in between (the "Inverted NZ plate") the name "Sioux Plate" or "Cherokee Plate"?
Alternately, just ditch the Argentine Platelet and the Tiny Plate.
My Take: (Disregard the V thing near the rift area.)
I like this one better. I feel like the faults in the previous one are a bit random, and this one provides an explanation for all the archipelligos.
My attempt at tectonic plate naming
We should use these plates instead, they fit with the mountains and rifts better. Are the darkened islands volcanic?
I meant to put potential volcanic areas a dark red, but I took it out because I put to much in and fucked up part of the map. The rift areas, the "horn" of the southern continent, "Japan" the trench island chains near red boundaries, hotspots (basically random island chains and mountains), and the north parts of the "big island" part ib the equatorial archipelago.
plates and terrible attempts at names
With the long flat coasts in the east i assume that the main 3 continents are moving eastwards. It also looks like the middle continent is rifting from the southern one. Another thing to consider is how hotspot island chains move in relation to the plates moving. The pacific plate moves northwest and hawaii is growing in a chain with the newest, biggest, island southeast of the previous one. Islands or plates might need to be changed down the line.
Issue is that the archipelagos with the little islands are usually formed by volcanic hotspots. I thought that the little island north of the Fauxlipines needs to be on its own plate because it's too big to be formed solely by volcanic activity, too round to by caused by plates jutting up against eachother, and moving in the wrong direction to be part of the bigger chain.
Archipelagos can be formed by trenches. Also, my assumption fir the northwest island was that is was a larger New Zealand, which was formed by two plates hitting together and volcanism.
I would use @Xanthoc's proposal for the tectonic plates. Or a mix from @Xanthoc and @Aquagel8last320 .
Is anyone still interested here? Working on more of Atka?
I am making a detailed biomes+rivers+mountains map by merging some of the maps already posted and adding in more detail to them. Here's a WIP:
I am quite interested but due to a odd error with my net I cannot access this site on my laptop anymore and thus will not be able to help all that much. I have contacted my network provider and they proved to be no help.
Full physical geography map with biomes, rivers, and mountains. I encourage people to continue adding to this. I also changed a few things to the basemap while making it, mostly just adding in more lakes. I felt like some parts of the continents were rather lacking in lakes.
We can use this map to help determine the location of migrations and major civilizations. To start, where did humanity develop on this world, and how did they spread across it?
Another thing to consider: alternate astronomy. It's not too important right now, but when we develop culture, we should determine what the Atkans are seeing when they look up at the sky.
Here's the regular map with my new lakes added in:
I postulate that humanity will develop in the north-central continent, for which I propose Tulugaq ("raven") as a name. In the steppe of Tulugaq, around the river, I think there is a good place.
Separate names with a comma.