I patched the British Isles for 100 BC to feature the Britons, Picts, and Hibernians. There is some conjecture with the placement of the borders, because the territory of these iron-age tribes fluctuated considerably.
We absolutely need a separate color for thoseWhy do we need it? Russian republics and Chinese autonomous provinces lie on the same administrative level as traditional oblasts and krais and provinces.
Another reply, please keep the subdivisions, otherwise they're just going to be patches.View attachment 587592
- New subtitle
- Patched up the colors of a few lakes in Kazakhstan
- Consistent standard of colors for coasts and borders up in the top right
- We don't need different colors of subdivision for autonomous entities
- Poland subdivisions, credit @tungsterismapping
- Burma subdivisions, my own rip
- On second thought, we don't really need Sudan's subdivisions
- Changed shades for Karakalpakstan and Badakhshan (I think that's what it's called)
- Tajikistan doesn't have a color on the NCS, so I think we should use the DCS color: View attachment 587593
Not in Worlda, no. But, IMO, there should be a map - or a set of maps, if needed - which has the 1st level subdivisions on it. I'm ok with them being separate to the main series of maps, if the subdivisions clutter things up.Literally wouldn't be possible for smaller countries.
Some of the older Worldas of course have subdivisions for everywhere; while changes to borders, coastlines, and overall shapes make some of them difficult to reconcile and some countries have changed boundaries in the intervening years, most of them should be more or less transferable with a bit of careful effort.Not in Worlda, no. But, IMO, there should be a map - or a set of maps, if needed - which has the 1st level subdivisions on it. I'm ok with them being separate to the main series of maps, if the subdivisions clutter things up.
we should probably integrate these patches into the maps