The NextGen OTL Worlda Series

Reader mode

Thanksforallthefish

hadaril said:
Sorry for yet again being absent from the thread for so long. This semester has been incredibly busy for me.


Most of the elements in those 1812, 1815, 1848, and 1861 patches were overwritten by later corrections, especially in the new world. I went back just now and added the elements that were not later patched.

Weighing in on the 2020 subdivision controversy: It's my opinion that on the main map series, subdivisions should be reserved for federal/feudal divsions, where those subdivisions have meaningful political power. However, I think a good compromise is having two maps for the [current year] map - one with the original subdivision rules, and another with as many sub divisions as possible. There's certainly good reason to have a map with those sub divisions, as they're a valuable resource. However, I feel that having them incorporated into the main map creates inconsistencies and clutter. Once the full subdivision map is done, I'll add it to the main post as a separate link.

I also went back and fixed some incorrect links (1992, 2000, 2017, 2020)
Click to expand...

Thank you, as always, for your work hadaril!

I also agree with only showing federal/confederal/feudal subdivisions, or subdivisions that are autonomous enough (i.e. modern Spain, maybe Italy) in the main maps, and a parallel map for modern subdivisions. Maybe links to patches to other historical subdivisions.

I've noticed some inconsistencies in some post-WWII that are IMO easy to fix:
  • First, the inner borders of the Soviet Union have the lighter 'provincial' border color. IMHO they should be shown with the darker 'confederal' color, since the Union Republics were, at least officially, sovereign states inside the USSR... it might have been little than words for most of its history, but it played an important part on the USSR dissolution, and we show the autonomous areas of China as such, so...
  • Second, Yugoslavia. For some reason the maps from 1960 onwards show Kosovo and Montenegro with the protectorate color and borders?? As far as I know, this was never the case. Until its dissolution, Yugoslavia was formed by it's six main republics and two autonomous provinces in the Serbian republic.
Fortunately, since borders stayed remarkably static in the Cold War Era, I made a patch that covers all these issues in a quick fix:

1604024486056.png


It should be good for all maps after WWII. Before that, it's just repainting the borders.
I've also added (West) Germany's federal borders. I do believe they have had some changes over the decades, though.
A note in Czechosklovakia; it became a federal republic only in 1968, before, it was an unitary state. (EDIT: Ah, I see that is already properly portrayed in the maps! My mistake)

Also, for this thread's consideration: My attempt at a 1836 map, for all your Victoria II needs:

1836.png


Some things, especially India, Central Asia and Africa, I'm not so sure about, but I think it's reasonably accurate. Would appreciate corrections.

And a patch for Brazil's internal divisions, much less comprehensive than my Argentina patch, but good enough for major changes between constitutions.

brazillll.png


I will continue to do some minor patches (virtually every map from 1900 onwards lacks the Argentina subdivisions for example) in the coming weeks.
 
Last edited:
erictom333

erictom333

We should maintain two maps, one with all the subdivisions and one without. Here are my latest revisions:
2020.png

2020 sub.png

Changes to subdivisions map:
  • Added Bolivia and Chile subdivisions
  • Added England subdivisions
  • Added DRC subdivisions (may need checking)
  • Added one more subdivision to Mauretania
  • Added Moravia and South Silesia
  • Added Croatian parts of Bosnia
  • Added Serbia subdivisions and Serbian claims on Kosovo
  • Added Japan subdivisions
  • Added Burma and Philippines subdivisions
  • Regularised subdivision colors
    • The dark grey is only to be used if a subdivision is above conventional first-level subdivisions (Srpska, Iraqi Kurdistan)
    • For subdivisions on the same level as first-level subdivisions (Russian republics, China, Karakalpakstan, Vojvodena, Ajaria, Gorno-Badakhshan, Gagauzia), use light grey
    • For subdivisions below first-level subdivisions (England, Greenland), use the lightest shade of the country's color
 

FancyHat

so the problem here seems to be one that the NCS has had since it was created, which is that it has a very poorly defined scope. is it trying to be the RCS, which assigns colors to specific entities based on informed but ultimately arbitrary judgments of "importance"? is it trying to be TACOS and its various descendants, which are (or at least were) made with alternate history in mind and attempt to give every state its own series of colors? it looks to me like the NCS is trying to have the best of both worlds while ending up with the worst: it's bloated with colors for small or historically insignificant states, far too many of which look very similar to each other; however, it's also not broad enough to allow people as many options as they may want.

honestly I'm not sure the NCS was ever necessary in the first place. the WorldA's got pretty limited real estate as it is, so the ceiling for detail when you want it to be easily readable is pretty low. really the RCS is probably the best resource for historical WorldA maps we've got, and it's been around for years. could it use some further revisions? probably, but it already works as is.

also, this is entirely a matter of personal preference, but I think the colors the NCS uses just look bad. there's a lot of excessively saturated colors and a lot of really unappealing browns. it's not as serious an issue as the scope thing, but I really wanted to at least call some attention to it
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top