Are you mocking me?
I didn't even say the problem. Well it doesn't kill it, but it's definitely not very happy trying to display it.
My iPad won't let me see anything on the page below that image, while all the words are shrunk beyond reading.
Map Thread XIII
- Thread starter Pragmatic Progressive
- Start date
- Status
My iPad won't let me see anything on the page below that image, while all the words are shrunk beyond reading.
No, it's reasonable if he's being serious.
But his smoke signal joke sounds like he's taunting me and saying I'm the only one complaining because my stuff is just low tech.
That better be what he's saying.
But yes, moral of the story, link the huge images instead of embedding please!
Are you mocking me?
I wasn't, but now I'm considering it.
It's especially better to link any large images if there is a lot of text in the post as well, since then everyone would have to scroll back and forth (forever) to read it.
A general colour scheme proposal for how to shade the various levels of "ownership" and "control" for regions.
Between the various schemes, I've actually seen the border+fill scheme used to indicate both my version and the exact reverse of how I intend using them. The fill colour can be replaced with white in all cases where that nation is not significant in the timeline.
The editing programs I am using don't reflect some details well (file format conversion suckiness). Joint control is supposed to be stripes. "colonising" and "rebellions" are supposed to be speckled dots. Border thickness isn't intended to be as thick as it looks in this image.
Between the various schemes, I've actually seen the border+fill scheme used to indicate both my version and the exact reverse of how I intend using them. The fill colour can be replaced with white in all cases where that nation is not significant in the timeline.
The editing programs I am using don't reflect some details well (file format conversion suckiness). Joint control is supposed to be stripes. "colonising" and "rebellions" are supposed to be speckled dots. Border thickness isn't intended to be as thick as it looks in this image.
Last edited:
Part of my MotF entry. What do you guys think of it?
(Also, can you guess the scenario?)
(Also, can you guess the scenario?
)Me too. I've grudgingly accepted that, regardless of how sensible it is to use the same shade for them, it has become the de facto standard. I'd just as happily use the paler shade for them.
I suspect the logic was that in both cases, they are scheduled for "promotion" in terms of level of self-determination... so, maybe double-up on the darkened shade for territories of dominions?
Last edited:
Part of my MotF entry. What do you guys think of it?
(Also, can you guess the scenario?
It all goes horribly wrong for Russia, and the rotw intervenes?
Part of my MotF entry. What do you guys think of it?
(Also, can you guess the scenario?
CP Britain? :3
Alex Richards
Donor
Because we have a limited possible number of colours, and historically countries either have territories/military frontiers (the US, Canada, Australia etc. Qing China) or Dominions (Britain, arguably the Grand Duchy of Finland and Congress Poland) but never both. Indeed it's arguable that the two are, in essence, mutually exclusive- for a country which uses a territorial system like the US any colonies that might become Dominions (due to being culturally similar enough to the Metropole to be granted self-government) are more likely to just be annexed, or they'll be granted full independence. Conversely for somewhere like Britain a colony will either become a Dominion, or go independent, or join the Metropole (in which case it joins it fully and immediately). It might go through a dominion stage before voting to join the metropole, but the idea of a British 'territory' in the same sense as an American 'territory' doesn't really work- even the current British Overseas Territories are more like 'colonies with self-government' than the US style 'unicorporated land to be granted representation later' territories. The only difficulty is whether it's correct to represent a colony as the same colour as the metropole when it doesn't have representation in government, but this isn't really much more confusing than using the national colour for a military occupation. Of course this being a British system things are rather complex (see below for details).
That rather falls down with how we've been forced to represent the complexities of the evolution of colonial legislatures. To whit:
Colony- national colour
Responsible Government (think Irish Home Rule but for a colony)- Dominion outline, national infill.
Unrecognsed Dominion (Rhodesia)- national outline, dominion colour
Dominion- full Dominion colour.
Now it gets rather complicated as there were too other ranks between a Crown Clony and responsible government
Nominated Government- where the colonial legislature existed, but was appointed by London
Representative Government- where the colony elected their own government, but it could be overruled from London. Most of current BOTs are either at this stage or the Responsible government stage. For this reason I did wonder a while ago about the need for a British territory colour for the representative government stage, but it never really got adopted (not that distinct really) and would (for OTL maps) basically only be for Britain (again, it's hard enough trying to do these colour schemes when you've got to make sure each country has three relatively distinct colours, let alone four).
TL;DR:
It's virtually impossible to show the completely different government approaches of the US, France and Britain during the 19th and 20th Centuries in a completely consistent manner when it comes to the allocation of colour graduations- the US worked on the basis of a desire to eventually incorporate lands directly to the nation, while Britain worked on a basis of wanting to move colonies up the ranks so they could take as many decisions as possible themselves, while still working for the best of Britain (the eventual end goal was probably the ideal of a string of African Dominions, paying their own way and sending goods to Britain who, being dominant, could still interfere if they got too uppity. Colonies were expensive after all, and if you don't have to pay administrators out of your own pocket, why bother). France did an odd mixture of the two.
Trying to map the Old Swiss Confederacy onto this (where you have US style territories within the Stadkantone in the manner of areas of land without voting rights but which were directly incorporated into the canton, and even some of the Waldkantone had similar situations, plus the protectorates in the Associate States (who sent non-voting representatives to the Tagatzung), and their territories and the Condominiums (which unlike the Associate States had no representation whatsoever in the Tagatzung and were run by two or more Cantons jointly) is virtually impossible. (For the record, I use a method of protectorate for Associate States and Dominion/Territory for Condominiums for a simplified version, adding territorial colours for Cantons and Associates when I'm doing a Switzerland specific map).
TL; DR 2:
It's complicated
Austria-Hungary.
They had military territories and autonomous zones going on. I think Russia could also work with Finland and a history of frontier zones, though I don't know if they quite fit OTL it takes very little to shift things. China has also had both autonomous zones and military frontier zones.
Its been a while since I posted a map of any kind on here. Well as usual its ASB and unbelievably bad.
The Democratic Grand People's Supreme Soviet Glorious Grand Never Oppressive Never Evil Egalitarian Just Imperial Stalinist People's Democracies of Glorious Great Grand Russia
Any blemishes on this map is either lakes or rivers or missed spots. Its terrible but its an asb map of Greater Greater Russia!
The Democratic Grand People's Supreme Soviet Glorious Grand Never Oppressive Never Evil Egalitarian Just Imperial Stalinist People's Democracies of Glorious Great Grand Russia
Any blemishes on this map is either lakes or rivers or missed spots. Its terrible but its an asb map of Greater Greater Russia!
Upvoteanthology
Donor
Its been a while since I posted a map of any kind on here. Well as usual its ASB and unbelievably bad.
The Democratic Grand People's Supreme Soviet Glorious Grand Never Oppressive Never Evil Egalitarian Just Imperial Stalinist People's Democracies of Glorious Great Grand Russia
Any blemishes on this map is either lakes or rivers or missed spots. Its terrible but its an asb map of Greater Greater Russia!
Why does it have half of Europe but not the Caucasus?
Oh, I didn't realize that. This is just an ASB over the top ridiculous Russian wank scenario.
Last edited:
That is one hell of a resistance the Danes are putting up. Also, I see the Swedes have fallen back to Gotland.
- Status