I think it would be better if you used the updated basemap, which is probably part of the reason this thread was made.
Thandean-Richardean ATL Map Database
- Thread starter Alex Richards
- Start date
I think it would be better if you used the updated basemap, which is probably part of the reason this thread was made.
wolf_brother
Banned
Have you tried imagur?
EDIT: Also, to Alex Richards; no coloring for the Scandinavian countries?
Last edited:
Sinowank ahoy! Here's IE in 1700. The map scheme could do with some Scandinavian colours, and maybe a few more African ones too- as it is, I've had to improvise and leave some states entirely blank.
Belm, I hadn't twigged it was updated. Will edit and update at some point...
It sounds like a good and promissor colour scheme, with many 'legitimist' elements of the traditional UCS. I like specially the details that allow to describe fragmented Germany, Britain, India or Italy with much more precision.
My main complains are:
-There's no colour for an italian colonial sucessor. It happens somewhat commonly, and I need it for MCIII, for example. Lighter green or lighter purple could do the trick, or use the genoese colour to Savoy and the savoyard colour to the colonial states.
-For the colonial states, geographical position is more or less important than cultural backgrounds? For example, the Brazil/Portuguese Sucessor State colour should be used to show an english-colonized Brazil or a portuguese-colonized Canada? The same question goes for Chile, for example.
-France has quite few colours, to be honest (and it's 'discontinuous vassal' colour could work as an Italian colonial sucessor, btw). I miss a south french colour for Aquitaine, Toulouse, Provence or Occitania, and *maybe* a Breton colour. These options are more relevant than the discontinous vassal usually, IMHO. The old Brazilian colour is available, IIRC, and could be used for one of them.
-Socialist France colour would be slightly useful, too, as well as Socialist Germany. There are quite a few scenarios with these nations divided, but without a Soviet Union or analogue backing them.
-It would be interesting to add Venezuela to the meaning of "spanish muslim sucessor state" colour, as this nation is frequently used in Future History scenarios.
-Southeast Asia has too many colours, IMO. I can imagine that some scenarios give much more importance to it, but I would use much more colours for Texas, California, non-communist Ideological superpower or Occitania than most of the SE. Asian colours.
-Ok, New Zealand is discontinuous, but to give it such a distintive colour that will hardly be useful to show something other than the 'obvious' in most scenarios is quite unimportant.
I suggest, also, to use Canada colour as the standard 'british colonial sucessor state' colour, and the American one as 'main independent and republican colonial nation' colour.
My main complains are:
-There's no colour for an italian colonial sucessor. It happens somewhat commonly, and I need it for MCIII, for example. Lighter green or lighter purple could do the trick, or use the genoese colour to Savoy and the savoyard colour to the colonial states.
-For the colonial states, geographical position is more or less important than cultural backgrounds? For example, the Brazil/Portuguese Sucessor State colour should be used to show an english-colonized Brazil or a portuguese-colonized Canada? The same question goes for Chile, for example.
-France has quite few colours, to be honest (and it's 'discontinuous vassal' colour could work as an Italian colonial sucessor, btw). I miss a south french colour for Aquitaine, Toulouse, Provence or Occitania, and *maybe* a Breton colour. These options are more relevant than the discontinous vassal usually, IMHO. The old Brazilian colour is available, IIRC, and could be used for one of them.
-Socialist France colour would be slightly useful, too, as well as Socialist Germany. There are quite a few scenarios with these nations divided, but without a Soviet Union or analogue backing them.
-It would be interesting to add Venezuela to the meaning of "spanish muslim sucessor state" colour, as this nation is frequently used in Future History scenarios.
-Southeast Asia has too many colours, IMO. I can imagine that some scenarios give much more importance to it, but I would use much more colours for Texas, California, non-communist Ideological superpower or Occitania than most of the SE. Asian colours.
-Ok, New Zealand is discontinuous, but to give it such a distintive colour that will hardly be useful to show something other than the 'obvious' in most scenarios is quite unimportant.
I suggest, also, to use Canada colour as the standard 'british colonial sucessor state' colour, and the American one as 'main independent and republican colonial nation' colour.
Last edited:
I think this would be better using the new basemap. I'll make one and PM it to you.
Thande
Donor
I'm working on one for LTTW but it's a bit spoilerrific so I won't post it for a while. Don't worry about chatter and map revisions in this thread as we can always post the finished maps to the Wiki afterwards so they're all in one place. Re Iori's refined basemap, I'm not using it because I don't see an easy way of transferring borders from established maps using the older basemap to it.
Alex Richards
Donor
Gaah! I've posted an insert below, but they're the same as the TCS.
The main response to this is this: The RCS was developed through the new OTL Map series when I found myself with various states without colours requiring them due to vassals, disjointed territory etc. hence the disclaimer about radically different TLs I inserted. The problem then, of course, becomes that we end up with seperate Keys for OTL and ATL maps. For your other points:
-You could use Cultural sphere colouration for non-included colonial successors, with in this example Italy then taking perhaps the Pisan or Savoyard colour, and Austria taking the 'Other state of the Austrian Circle' Colour.
-Culture is more important than Location. British loyalist Brazil would get the Canada Colour, Spanish Canada the colour for Colombia.
-Well, you could use the Disjointed French Vassal colour for Britanny (since if it is independent it will not have vassal indication, and if it is a vassal of France then the colouration still fits the key). If you can find the old Brazil colour, I can give it a go, but it may be too close to other colours. Any other suggestions welcome (there's one rejected for Burma due to clash with Thailand rather than similarity to other colours that might work)
-If there isn't a USSR analogue, but there is a Communist France and a Democratic France, would not Communist France get the USSR colour? If there is a USSR, and it's not an idealogical supporter, perhaps the colour for Spanish Communists? Notice there isn't a Communist America or Britain either. If you've got more than 3 different branches of Communism, it might almost be worth using the USSR Colour as a cultural area around the lot of them (coloured ordinarily), and then using ordinary vassal colouration where necessary.
-Consider Venzeula (or IOTL Ecuador due to Galapagos)/Muslim Iberia Successor done. It's unlikely that any TL with both Muslim Iberian and Spanish successors will have more Spanish successors than can be dealt with using Colombia, Argentina and Chile.
-You haven't seen SE Asia in the medieval period. All those colours certainly come in handy then. I did come up with colours for New England, Texas, California and Deseret at one point, but that was about a year ago, and I think they're probably far to close to other colours. I'm not sure about the non communist idealogical superpower. If there is no USSR, then that colour will fit fine. Otherwise, I'm open to suggestions for a colour, or consultation.
-New Zealand is again an OTL situation (the Pacific gets maddenly confusing otherwise, particularly as some islands were NZ but are now independent, and others nearby are still NZ).
And consider the suggestions for Canada and US followed.
Just invisible the oceans, plop it on the new base map and then fix the couple of differences. Might not be perfect, but easy and quick.
Thande
Donor
It's not that easy because the new basemap sometimes has less land rather than more in places. The only way I can see to do it is to tediously erase the original land/sea edges and paste over only the borders.
Well then you take step two: take a totally blank map, set the land colour to invisible and overlay that. (Maybe make the land border a slightly different colour while editing for ease.)
Thank you for the feedback-back!
-The alternative Italian colours can do the trick, indeed, and will be clear enough.
-Right, an unified rule helps a lot. Chile and Argentina are simply colour for 'yet another' spanish colonial states, then?
-Ha, yeah, that makes sense. I discovered that the old brazilian colour was already in use (by Scotland), but the old Zaire colour is different from every other colour - in the worst case, it's similar to Wales. I've annexed it.(It can be used for any other nation, obviously).
-The Spanish Communist colour would fit very well, indeed, or the general 'culturally linked' notation when there are lots of communist countries
-Ha, ok!
-Uhn, you're right, I hadn't before. My only concern is that, even if such area had a lot of inter invasions, controls, vassals etc, it's rare to see such kind of event as relevant enough to appear in a regular map. It may be useful to OTL maps, but not so much to show all these post 1800 maps with Texan Cuba, Californian Hawaii and CSA protectorates in the same map. This issue rises the problem of different colour schemes for OTL and ATL, but still an 'official, but not cannon' description of these nations would be interesting - and, again, more relevant in many maps than the southeast asian conflicts... but I feel this kind of discussion can take quite a lot of time.
The non-soviet ideological superpower would be something like a Technocracy wank, but ok, I never saw serious maps with this kind of thing, so nevermind. Even if there's one, the soviet colour can work quite well.
-Yeah, it's problematic when OTL obligues us to do some definitions, and I don't know how we could work arround it... at the best, it can be 'yet another british colonial state' colour, and as such could be used for Texas or California, for example.
-Yay, thanks for following them!
Again, thank you for the explanations!
EDIT: nevermind, you've just used the colour in Scandinavia.
wolf_brother
Banned
Alex Richards, thanks for the clarification regarding Scandinavia.
Some other points/constructive critiques;
-Why are there three Spanish colonial successor colors, if 'culture' is more important than 'position'? The colors for Chile and Argentina could be better used elsewhere.
-Agree with many others; why does New Zealand get a color, but several other (more qualified) states do not?
-The plethora of German colors seems a bit much. What's the difference between using the Saxon color for an ATL Saxon state and "Dominant Junior Saxon State" coloring?
-The Muscovy color and the Novgorod color seem very close. Considering these two are the most likely 'Russian' states to be seen concurrently in any ATL, they shouldn't be more differentiated.
-The dearth of French colors is, as others have said, disappointing.
-Once again agreeing with many others re: South-East Asia. I can understand why you have so many though, so you're explanation does make sense; except for the Philippines. Why does such a state gets its own coloring instead of the 'Generic' state color? Surely showing the Philippines in such a way would be enough to state that they are independent.
-The Mongol and Kazakh/Golden Circle colors seem far too close. Perhaps the Kazakh color would be better described as a general Mongol successor state?
-Relatedly, the Muscovite and Novgorod colors seem very close to the Mongol and Kazakh/Golden Circle colors.
-There needs to be a West African state/Mali/Songhai color.
-What does 'Other Indian' state refer to? Again, if culture is more important than position in determining coloring as you've stated in this thread, why wouldn't any 'other' Indian state simply receive the Generic color?
-Why are there three colors for Poland/Poland-Lithuania? In instances of "Dominant Polish State when Poland is Disunited" wouldn't the dominant state receive the Polish coloring, with the others in Generic colors but encased in the Polish coloring, showing nominal boarders?
-The Maya/Central America coloring seems very close to the USA protectorate coloring. This could be an issue in TL with a united Central America/surviving Mayan state that also features a US protectorate in Central America.
-The Romanian 'Gold' coloring seems too close to the Russian 'Gold' coloring.
-I'm not sure why some of the Balkan states require their own coloring. Again, why wouldn't the 'Generic' coloring work in situations for Serbia, Bulgaria, etc.
In general it seems like you have found a plethora of colors to useD), but then applied them in, on the face of things, odd ways. Freeing up certain colors from states that do not require a special color would allow for more differentiation between states that currently have too much alike colors, and allow for states without colors currently to have one.
My two cents; looking forward to your replies and thoughts on these matters.
Some other points/constructive critiques;
-Why are there three Spanish colonial successor colors, if 'culture' is more important than 'position'? The colors for Chile and Argentina could be better used elsewhere.
-Agree with many others; why does New Zealand get a color, but several other (more qualified) states do not?
-The plethora of German colors seems a bit much. What's the difference between using the Saxon color for an ATL Saxon state and "Dominant Junior Saxon State" coloring?
-The Muscovy color and the Novgorod color seem very close. Considering these two are the most likely 'Russian' states to be seen concurrently in any ATL, they shouldn't be more differentiated.
-The dearth of French colors is, as others have said, disappointing.
-Once again agreeing with many others re: South-East Asia. I can understand why you have so many though, so you're explanation does make sense; except for the Philippines. Why does such a state gets its own coloring instead of the 'Generic' state color? Surely showing the Philippines in such a way would be enough to state that they are independent.
-The Mongol and Kazakh/Golden Circle colors seem far too close. Perhaps the Kazakh color would be better described as a general Mongol successor state?
-Relatedly, the Muscovite and Novgorod colors seem very close to the Mongol and Kazakh/Golden Circle colors.
-There needs to be a West African state/Mali/Songhai color.
-What does 'Other Indian' state refer to? Again, if culture is more important than position in determining coloring as you've stated in this thread, why wouldn't any 'other' Indian state simply receive the Generic color?
-Why are there three colors for Poland/Poland-Lithuania? In instances of "Dominant Polish State when Poland is Disunited" wouldn't the dominant state receive the Polish coloring, with the others in Generic colors but encased in the Polish coloring, showing nominal boarders?
-The Maya/Central America coloring seems very close to the USA protectorate coloring. This could be an issue in TL with a united Central America/surviving Mayan state that also features a US protectorate in Central America.
-The Romanian 'Gold' coloring seems too close to the Russian 'Gold' coloring.
-I'm not sure why some of the Balkan states require their own coloring. Again, why wouldn't the 'Generic' coloring work in situations for Serbia, Bulgaria, etc.
In general it seems like you have found a plethora of colors to use
D), but then applied them in, on the face of things, odd ways. Freeing up certain colors from states that do not require a special color would allow for more differentiation between states that currently have too much alike colors, and allow for states without colors currently to have one.My two cents; looking forward to your replies and thoughts on these matters.
Emperor-of-New-Zealand
Kicked
Better used where? The countries need colours, and they got them.
Again, what 'more qualified' state is there now? NZ is as qualified as they get - it has non-contiguous territory which is basically the default qualification.
When both exist at the same time with vassals, as in OTL.
In OTL there was no real need for any more French colours. The French-successor and French-dominion colours are derived from the TCS, whereas the rest is for the OTL database where the colour scheme was developed.
See comment re: NZ
They're very distinctive. Kazakh colour is grey-brown and the Mongol colour is dark brown.
Why? As has been said, the RCS was developed for OTL maps, not ATL ones. The TCS was for ATLs, but they didn't feature enough to make the cut. In OTL no West African state has really had any significance.
Because throughout OTL there have existed various Indian states that hold vassals.
This I agree with.
That depends. There is no defined protectorate colouring anywhere, not even the one Alex posted in this thread, because there isn't a defined method of creating them.
Agreed, especially considering that Romania becomes a Russian vassal all the time in ATLs.
Yugoslav civil wars, vassals in the Middle Ages and Bulgaria invaded and occupied other countries throughout history. As well as the Balkan Wars themselves.
In general it seems like you have found a plethora of colors to use
My two cents; looking forward to your replies and thoughts on these matters.
Here in lies the problem. You don't seem to understand what makes a state qualify a colour; non-contiguous territory, vassals and then claims (in that order). All of the countries on the UCS have these qualifications.
wolf_brother
Banned
Is your name Alex Richards? No, it doesn't look that way. Thank you for your time, but I've asked the color scheme creator some fairly straight forward questions, as others in the thread already have, and now I'd like to get an answer.