SUCK it seems just does it for ASB colonies, so Roman, Hellenic and Carthaginian Colonies, as well as other entities what Skall. dubs as ASB entities in mapping terms. Although that idea actually isn't a bad one for sure, could be useful as a general tool, unless you (Drex) are planning to make territories = colonies in the scheme
.
Just some other things i've noticed upon close looking
-Is Alta California = California (Ask as you use a very similar colour to SUCK's California for Alta California)
-Will South Sudan be in East Africa then? as it isn't mentioned in North Africa
-Libya is now just the Republic of Libya, it dropped the Arab part in 2014, and put forward its name to the UN as just Libya at the end of last year.
-Are the European African Islands (Maderia, Canaries etc) going to be under Europe then? If so, please have a native tag or two for them
.
-Maybe see if you can squeeze in some more of the berber tribes- SUCK points out the Masaesyli, the Moors (put as Mauri), Kabylia, and maybe some general location ones (N,E,S,W), though you do have a lot of the berber tribes in it seems, which makes me happy.
-(as my Mesoamerican knowledge is limited) how many Aztec (i.e. North Mexico) tribes did you put in? SUCK points out two you missed, (Tarascans and Tlaxcalans), But I think on the whole you have more- would you just say use the rest of the Mexico colours on region basis to add to that if we needed to?
-Perhaps add in some more Caribbean islands, just splintered from their pairs, such as Caicos without Turcs, Saint Kitts/ Saint Nevis (split), Antigua without Barbuda, and maybe split up dutch west indies
EDIT: On the whole though, as I've been scanning through to compare this to SUCK, as yet you might just out do SUCK on the polites you represent :O, though they are stupid comprehensive when it gets to East Asia/ Indies, so I await in anticipation to see if you consider going that far down the rabbit hole