Yup, off to the Map Threads, then.I'll get behind that.
Now how about we actually make some maps using it?
UCS Map Thread Proposal
- Thread starter Thande
- Start date
Thande
Donor
Don't forget my new UCS map thread with the Keyword Search format that ought to make it easier to find them afterwards...
Bumping this. The UCS has been showing some stress in the joints lately, so let's rediscuss some parts of it.
Firstly, the whole outlining-vs-coloring question.
Secondly, there are several countries that were historically in a position of power that do not have colors. (Thailand, Zanzibar, etc.)
And lasty, do China and Russia really need separate colors for their communist days? I don't think so. Maybe just a red color that, when outlined around a country, represents communism or socialism as the mode of economy/government of the country.
Firstly, the whole outlining-vs-coloring question.
Secondly, there are several countries that were historically in a position of power that do not have colors. (Thailand, Zanzibar, etc.)
And lasty, do China and Russia really need separate colors for their communist days? I don't think so. Maybe just a red color that, when outlined around a country, represents communism or socialism as the mode of economy/government of the country.
im not sure what you mean on your first issue...
Thailand should have a color... im expanding my own personal UCS and plan to but it here when i finish it... it will have colors for Mexico/Aztec/Toltec/etc. nations. another for Guatemala/Maya since Guatemala has a large native Mayan population, and Peru... and then other countries.
for China and Russia, yes they do. Chinese and Soviet Communism are completely different forms of communism. also, Imperial Russia and Imperial China were completely different. i think Nationalist China and Imperial China might need different colors, but thats open for interpretation.
When im finished i'll post it and then we'll decide what belongs where...
Thailand, Ethiopia, and a couple others need colors because they were in a position where they had vassals and allies who would should be shown as such on maps.
I understand the points about the Russians and Chinese, so I suppose it could stay that way. I'm not sure if the Republican Chinese need a separate color, though.
However, I don't think that Peru or Guatemala particularly need colors. Two colors for Mesoamerican states is enough because usually only the Aztecs and Mayans are shown on maps.
i concur there. i thought Ethiopia did have a color... if not then i'll toss that in.
maybe. however, Inca formed the first American Empire and then Peru remains one of the strongest countries in South America, only dwarfed in military strength by Brazil and Chile/Argentina (which i think are about even) and economically from Brazil and Venezuela/Columbia (also about even). Bolivia lost a war to the Chileans over Guano, and therefore lost its coastal lands. Chile forced Bolivia to become landlocked. Nevertheless, Peru and Brazil should have colors because one used to be an Empire, and the other is a major Powerhouse (minor compared to the rest of the world)
Ethiopia did have a color, but for whatever reason it was taken out. I object to that, of course.
I think that the Aztec, Maya, and Inca are the only Amerindian countries that need colors, and thus only these recieve them. I don't think that all the Latin American countries need colors. As is the tradition, the colors of the three Indian countries would be recycled (Mexico, Guatemala/CA, and Peru respectively), and Brazil deserves a color, but beyond that it's fine as is.
which is what i was trying to say... sorry if my words came out funky...
the Aztec/Toltec tribes were about equally powerful and lived around the same area... so i just threw that in at the same.
when you put Guatemala/CA... what did you mean by CA? Central America?
Okay. I'm not sure if the Toltecs need a color... I'll have to think about it.
Central America, yeah. Because for a couple periods Central America was united, so the color might as well be recycled for that. Also, Central America is often featured as a country in AH and has the potential to be a powerful nation.
In the first 'un, there isn't much conflict. Some people outline for influence, others filll in the middle. I don't think anything needs to be changed, especially since converting the UCS to Susanoism would destroy a large part of the anti-UCS movement.
2nd- Perhaps.
Now, 'bout the Reds 'n' such. Even though it may not make sense in the big picture, they're needed to show civil wars, and the USSR just looks so... non-commiein gold.
EDIT: How exactly do you give the Maya a colour when they weren't ever united?
Toltecs do not need a colour.
And why do the Tawantinsuya 'n' Aztecs need 'em?
And Central America: WHY?!?!?!?!
they are a Mayan People... and they controlled several City States and had had their own culture. the developed highly intricate and organized cities and were very influential in Pre-Columbian America.
i use the same color for the Toltecs as the Aztecs, again, their cultures were pretty similar and they were allied tribes. they are considered the Precurser to the Aztec Civilization. the Aztecs need it for the same reason as the Mayans. in addition, the Aztecs were fairly powerful and influential in their own right.
Central America only because its relative. it wouldn't have a color in its own right but for the reasons that Guatemala would have a color, it would. it would fill the gap between the Mayan Civilization, Spanish Rule, Mexican Rule, the Federal Republic of Central America, and then Guatemala.
In the end, Thande is the sole master of the UCS. He made it; he decides who goes in it. If you want to start your own color scheme, all the more power to you. But it was this whole 'Let's add whomever the hell we want to the UCS because they were teh awesome!' attitude that led to the UCS being reformed in the first place. It is perfectly good and elegant (or at least functional) the way it is. Adding more nations would start to make it clunky, and start us down the wrong path.
but didnt the original contain the Maya and Aztecs? even though Maya was incorrectly used for Columbia when it shouldn't have been? and then there is Brazil and Mali who had their own colors in Thande's original UCS...
granted. i like the whole Time Period idea we have now. so i want to keep that intact. but some things shouldn't have been taken off as they have influence. Personal additions are fine by my opinion as well. but Thande's Original colo(u)rs i feel shouldn't have been removed. but no new ones added.
No, I don't believe so, but IIRC Hapsburg made a key a while back with those on it.
We've actually added quite a few more countries than were on the original key (frex many of the classical societies weren't on there to begin with; only their modern counterparts) but have used the same colors to show continuation of governments and societies.
i noticed that... Aragon, Indonesia, Oman, Norway, Morocco are the new ones with new colors right?
those were nice additions and i've used them quite frequently. but many others use some others as well and some are not on there... so would anyone have a problem if i posted a proposal to fix some minor things but on the whole keeping it the same?
EDIT: also, looking at the final rendition... what is the significance of 1789?
Last edited: