Discussion in 'Alternate History Maps and Graphics' started by hadaril, Jan 30, 2018.
If there's one in GIMP I've not found it yet.
I have found Cage Transform to work in that manner.
No, PDN doesn't have one, which is why I can't do this.
I've never figured out how that works or what it's for.
So you first make a square (or other shape)
Then you move the boundaries of that shape. It's recommended to do this to a separate layer as just using the tool lowers the quality of the whole layer. It's not perfect but it works
February 21st, 2019:
- Added updated 117, 150, 250, 300, 400, 1250, 1300, 1350, 1400, and 1444 AD maps.
- Revised 100, 200, 476 and 500 AD
Are they in the OP? I can only find the deprecated versions.
Links should be fixed now.
If anyone wants it, here's a redone map of the world's uninhabited regions:
Basically, an area was considered uninhabited if it met the following criteria:
A - There are no permanent settlements.
B - The area is not used for agriculture.
C - Nomadic peoples do not use the area regularly.
Do you think a second color could be added to the map signifying regions where nomads live but no permanent settlements exist
Messed around in the middle east and Libya plus Albania and the caucuses mostly based on this map here
May I suggest the old dark/lighter color convention? Darker for unhinabited, lighter for nomadic lands
Looks great. Could @hadaril add this?
I should also point out that "borders" are very overused in worldas. The southern border of Ottoman Turkey in 1914 was not where it's usually placed but actually in southern Arabia. A border is not the limit of control, but rather what the international community agrees are its borders.
Like what, exactly? I've always thought you should show uninhabited regions as blank on maps showing polities, sunce there's nothing there.
You're referring to the Anglo-Ottoman conventions of 1913 and 1914?
That's true, but the conventions were somewhat confusing in that they acknowledged Kuwait as a part of the Ottoman Empire but also a British protectorate in practically all respects but name/formally. Nejd and Jabal Shammar (the interior areas of most of the Arabian peninsula) were also only sporadically under the control or influence of the Ottomans depending whether the Saudis and Rashidis (respectively) desired to curry favour with Constantinople or not (like when the Saudis conquered Al Hasa from their nominal suzerains, the Ottomans). At best the convention borders should be shown as claimed borders I think.
In general the Rashidis were supported by the Turks and the Saudis switched between suzerainty and fighting the Rashidis. It depends on when the map in question is set.
I believe Kuwait and Qatar were formally detached from Turkey by the convention, but the British were not allowed to have a formal protectorate over them.
True, but the the Saudis switched enough and the Rashidis had enough independent action that showing the Rashidis and the Saudis (at times) as protectorates of the Ottomans should be enough.
This is probably the best place to post this, because I've recently been looking into Colombian administrative divisions... So I've attempted to create a Worlda patch for the Republic of New Grenada/Granadine Confederation/United States of Colombia.
It's probably not perfect, but here it is. Please note that, due to territorial disputes with Brazil and Ecuador the external borders might not be ideal, they pretty much only affected Cauca State, so I'm discounting them here. This patch also shows both the situation when the Law of June 15, 1857 was passed (which was before the formation of the Granadine Confederation) and in 1861, when Tolima State and the Federal District of Bogota were created. As far as I know, these borders were used up until 1886. Enjoy.
Separate names with a comma.