X2 (Every Colour Scheme Ever Colour Scheme) Colour Scheme

A map conveys geographical information. Having a blank map, filled with whites and grays, signifies a lack of information. Last time I checked, Barbados and Dominica are both informationaly important to understanding the geography of the world in a better context. Also, being a sovereign nation is no easy task, and although your arguments for Derby may have some truth to them, Derby is not even close to being considered one of the 206 countries of the current world (excluding the Ukraine rebels and ISIS), but Barbados, Dominica, and about a hundred other "unimportant" nations are, and because of that reason they are well deserving of a color on this scheme.

I am an anthropology student, trying to get a Masters degree in the study of Oceanic cultures. I can tell you that some nations, like Nauru and the Cook Islands, do not find themselves to be unimportant in the wider world.

A map entirely of whites and greys signifies one level of information- it highlights borders indiscriminately. A map where everything has a colour is one step above this-it highlights borders indiscriminately but also signifies where two areas not immediately obviously as part of one country are. A map with only some countries coloured signifies another level of information above that- it immediately tells the person reading it that the countries have been highlighted for a reason- be it that they are the ones with major importance in world affairs, or that they have specific instances of international border complexity. That then

Nauru's importance consists of being a dumping ground for potential Australian refugees and selling her vote at the United Nations due to the complete collapse of the island's economy with the end of the phosphate mining. The Cook Islands is doing quite well for itself, but would it actually make any difference outside the Pacific Islands Forum if they had the same relationship with New Zealand as Tokelau? And certainly you have an interest in them, but would an anthropologist studying West Africa not be able to make similar arguments for why we need separate colours for the Yoruba, Nupe, Igbo, etc. etc. in a map of 1880?

Simply put, 'importance' is an utterly dreadful criterion for why a country needs a colour, and it's why I only use it as a shorthand for 'has vassals, protectorates, legally enforced influence etc. etc.'
 
Thanks for adding Darfur and (two) Nubia(s)!

Technically, I only re-labelled existing upper Egypt and Sudan to note that they cover Nubia too.

@Alex Richards I get it. You're not a fan of this colour scheme because it presents options you don't want to use. The solution is simple. Don't use the colour scheme, or use only those portions that match your purposes and not use the parts that don't. But this has gone beyond constructive criticism and entered the realms of raining on other peoples parades. This scheme exists to provide for those who want the options. Since you don't, it obviously wasn't made with you in mind and you would of course therefore find it has more bells and whistles than you want.
 
A map entirely of whites and greys signifies one level of information- it highlights borders indiscriminately. A map where everything has a colour is one step above this-it highlights borders indiscriminately but also signifies where two areas not immediately obviously as part of one country are. A map with only some countries coloured signifies another level of information above that- it immediately tells the person reading it that the countries have been highlighted for a reason- be it that they are the ones with major importance in world affairs, or that they have specific instances of international border complexity. That then

Nauru's importance consists of being a dumping ground for potential Australian refugees and selling her vote at the United Nations due to the complete collapse of the island's economy with the end of the phosphate mining. The Cook Islands is doing quite well for itself, but would it actually make any difference outside the Pacific Islands Forum if they had the same relationship with New Zealand as Tokelau? And certainly you have an interest in them, but would an anthropologist studying West Africa not be able to make similar arguments for why we need separate colours for the Yoruba, Nupe, Igbo, etc. etc. in a map of 1880?

Simply put, 'importance' is an utterly dreadful criterion for why a country needs a colour, and it's why I only use it as a shorthand for 'has vassals, protectorates, legally enforced influence etc. etc.'

Aren't you the same person that trolled all over me for including ISIS in my CM series, and then trolled me some more when I removed it to make you happy? I'm sorry, I don't have the patience for you.
 
Aren't you the same person that trolled all over me for including ISIS in my CM series, and then trolled me some more when I removed it to make you happy? I'm sorry, I don't have the patience for you.

Having just found the post- I think you'll find I objected to the fact that what you were showing was inaccurate rather than it being included at all. I suppose you could find the phrase 'a complete work of fiction' to be trolling, but in the absence of any definitive maps showing their claimed territory, a map which shows them controlling Latakia, Damascus and land on the Iraq-Iran border has at no point been truthful.

EDIT: Or perhaps it was the 'prefer to persuade others than change it myself' bit you're referring to? Because in that case it's simply long experience knowing that just walking in, taking somebody's work and saying 'no, like this' when you've already had part of a conversation on that matter is very rarely taken well. Either you present them with an alternative straight off, or you wait for a response that isn't just 'why don't you do it then' because that's not asking you to explain the reasoning, that's coming from a background of frustration and so you're not going to get to the root of why you want it changing.
 
Should I move the Anatolia palette to be at the bottom of the Europe palette?

I have things loosely organised in a Europe - Africa - Asia - Oceania - N America - S America pattern. But that means that Anatolia is separated from the Caucasus and Greece, creating a lot of scrolling up and down.

Move to Europe: Reduces scrolling. Especially when considering the minor colours in the palette, they tend to relate to geopolitics in Greece and/or Caucasus rather than the Middle East. Most OTL Anatolia-Middle East/Levant interactions only need concern the Ottomans, and occasionally either Cilicia (aka Lower Armenia). That's a lot less to hold in one's head while scrolling. Also, Turkey wants into EU.

Leave in Asia: Anatolia actually is in Asia.

I've got a similar issue relating to Greenland and Iceland. Europe or North America? And Why?
 
Should I move the Anatolia palette to be at the bottom of the Europe palette?

I have things loosely organised in a Europe - Africa - Asia - Oceania - N America - S America pattern. But that means that Anatolia is separated from the Caucasus and Greece, creating a lot of scrolling up and down.

Move to Europe: Reduces scrolling. Especially when considering the minor colours in the palette, they tend to relate to geopolitics in Greece and/or Caucasus rather than the Middle East. Most OTL Anatolia-Middle East/Levant interactions only need concern the Ottomans, and occasionally either Cilicia (aka Lower Armenia). That's a lot less to hold in one's head while scrolling. Also, Turkey wants into EU.

Leave in Asia: Anatolia actually is in Asia.

I've got a similar issue relating to Greenland and Iceland. Europe or North America? And Why?

I think you should have this order:
  • Europe
  • Asia
  • Oceania
  • Africa
  • North America
  • South America
This way, Europe leads directly into Asia, which lead directly into Oceania. North and South America also lead into each other. Nothing on the scheme really leads into Africa, but it should be between Eurasia and America for the sake of having the Old World continents together. Greenland, Greenland variant, and Vinland should be moved to Scandinavia, and I think Greenland variant should double as Faroe Islands. I apologized for continually stressing its inclusion, but since it is very likely to become independent before 2030, I consider it a prime target for coloration.
 
Last edited:

SRBO

Banned
I think it should be like this:

1. Europe
2. Asia
3. Africa
4. Oceania (Includes Maluku minus Tanimbar and other islands closer to Timor, includes Sulawesi)
5. North America (now featuring Iceland and Jan Mayen)
6. South America and Antarctica (for them ASBs m8)
 
I think it should be like this:

1. Europe
2. Asia
3. Africa
4. Oceania (Includes Maluku minus Tanimbar and other islands closer to Timor, includes Sulawesi)
5. North America (now featuring Iceland and Jan Mayen)
6. South America and Antarctica (for them ASBs m8)

While I understand Antarctica's inclusion with South America (it is closer), I must say that Iceland is not geographically nor culturally related to anywhere in North America, and the only place in the East Indies that is part of Oceania is the island of New Guinea. Since there are many OTL and ATL nations in that area, it is far smarter to group them in a category by themselves than to shove them in either Indochina or Oceania. I could also rat on you that Indonesia is culturally unrelated to the peoples of Oceania, but that would quickly escalate into the longest post ever. Also, why include Jan Mayen? There are three larger and actually populated territories in Scandinavia (where such an entity belongs) that are far more deserving of a color.
 
Since the New Russia project was abandoned, I think we're going to require two separate colors for Luhansk and Donetsk.
 
Good day! I hasten to note that, in my opinion, your scheme is the best from similar schemes. I have a couple of suggestions:
1) It is necessary to call Ruthenia region, not Russia
2) It is necessary to add a individual color for Carpatho-Rusyns
3) Perhaps the color for Silesia must be added
Advance thanks for your reply!
 
Good day! I hasten to note that, in my opinion, your scheme is the best from similar schemes. I have a couple of suggestions:
1) It is necessary to call Ruthenia region, not Russia
2) It is necessary to add a individual color for Carpatho-Rusyns
3) Perhaps the color for Silesia must be added
Advance thanks for your reply!

Not the maker of this, but...

1) In general and in most color schemes too, it's most often referred to as Russia. Also, there's a color for (probably the historical definition) Ruthenia- the west Ukraine color.

2) Well, they did have a few states of their own for a little while... It'd probably make sense to have a color.

3) Maybe? Hmm.
 
In general and in most color schemes too, it's most often referred to as Russia. Also, there's a color for (probably the historical definition) Ruthenia- the west Ukraine color.
So maybe neither "Russia" nor "Ruthenia" but "East Slavs"?
 
So, I have a suggestion for British Isles/Anglo-Saxons:

  • United Kingdom, England; Kingdom of Wessex
  • Kingdom of East Anglia; pre/non-Norman Britain
I request this change for the main reason that the kings of Wessex were the first to be crowned as the Kings of the Anglos (later renamed English) in 871, not the kings of East Anglia. In fact, East Anglia was conquered by England in 918, so for nearly half a century there was both an independent East Anglia and an independent England. If somebody had a map from this time era (I plan on making a CM series by decade until at least 1 CE), the coloration would be severely off.
 
It is strange that no one writes here for so long.
I have a couple of suggestions:
1)Make secondary hungarian state (Etelköz or Lebedia)
2)Make color palette for planets of solar system in the end of pattern (Pluto, Venus etc.)
 
It is strange that no one writes here for so long.
I have a couple of suggestions:
1)Make secondary hungarian state (Etelköz or Lebedia)
2)Make color palette for planets of solar system in the end of pattern (Pluto, Venus etc.)
Not many have posted here probably because the owner of the scheme is in self-imposed exile.
 
Ashtagon has informed her followers on Deviant Art (I am one of them) that she has stopped taking suggestions because she believes she can work faster and more freely without other people hounding her work.
 
Ashtagon's post from Deviant Art regarding currently standing questions about the X2:

Thanks for that. The problem wasn't so much the idea that people were offering up ideas for what might go in, but that they were insistent that every idea be included, and that they be included right now.

Despite anything that may or may not be implied by the scheme's name, that was never the intent. The intent is to have a colour scheme that can cover the following:

a) All generally recognised modern nations (at least those within my lifetime)
b) All historical nations that played a major role in history (admittedly somewhat prone to opinion, but should certainly include control of land generally seen as desirable, a well-documented history sufficient to be taught in high schools of countries that do not have a clear national-identity reason to do so, and large population and land (relative to the size of nation-states in that region).
c) All major tropes in commercially-published alternate history and critically-acclaimed peer-reviewed non-commercial alternate-history.
d) Other nations that I have a personal curiosity about (a very subjective one, which mostly means there are plentiful historical maps that show them [typically early modern era], or it was otherwise well-documented by historiographers who covered broad areas of history, such as Livy).

I am okay with people making suggestions, but I do regard this palette as being mostly "complete" at this stage. There needs to be a demonstrable need for the additional colours in order to draw a historical map (such as the recent extension of the South American palette), rather than just a realisation that there is a concept that exists.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding that most recent request I saw, I do not plan on adding colours for other planets. If they are aliens, they'd almost certainly fit one of the existing SF colours I have. If they are humans, they'd almost certainly be representatives of one of the existing human nations. If it relates to a map of a not-Earth planet, unless it relates to a near-future colonisation by Earth nations, it is outside the scope of this colour scheme (and I am fine with that). I have always noted that it is ridiculously easy to break any "exhaustive" colour scheme - Even the Toaster one (e.g., an 11th Congo nation, or tertiary US states, or Christianised Japan, or Hindu Canada, or ecology-conscious 'green' Iranian government, and so on). Trying to cover every concept imaginable is a task impossible to finish, and I refuse to try.

As for a secondary Hungary colour, there has not to my knowledge been a secondary ethnic Hungarian state in the Danube valley area. The two older 'Hungarian' states mentioned were quite far from that area, and if new colours were made for them, they'd not be in the SE Europe palette section. However, given that those two did not exist simultaneously with any Danube valley Hungarian state, there's no particular reason why the Hungary colour couldn't be used for them; if a secondary Hungarian colour is still needed, then "other non-Slavic eastern Europeans" seems to fit the bill.

And now, regarding a few other questions I have been collecting over the past few weeks...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q
Why is pre-Norman "England" coloured 'Wessex green' and not 'England pink'?

A
The earliest native title which made any pretence of unifying the Britons was "King of the Anglo-Saxons", used by Alfred the Great in 878 (he claimed "King of Wessex" in 871, seven years earlier). Later, Æthelstan would use "King of the English" in 927. However, given the territories and lands actually ruled, these were more statements of intent (initially at least) than statements of fact. (Or possibly they went under the axiom of "No true Englishman would not be my subject, therefore I am king of all true Englishmen".)

The first use of the title "King of England" was by Cnut the Great in 1016 (until 1035). This was as a component of the Danish-led North Sea Empire. As such, the most appropriate colour to use would be 'Danish blue'. Arguably, it could be 'England pink' (he ruled from the British Isles) or 'Wessex green' (he picked Wessex for his personal domain). But his father, brother, and son all ruled as kings of Denmark.

After that, it the title was not claimed until Edgar the Ætheling and William the Conqueror entered the scene in 1066. The Norman conquest simultaneously marks a shift in the English language due to loanwords from the new rulers, a significant permamnent change in the cuklture from island-based to something more outward-looking, and the first rulership by non-Britons based in Britain.

Essentially, the changes around 1066 were more significant than the changes in 878 or 927. That's why 'England pink' doesn't see use for the unified lands until 1066.



Q
Now that the recent "Novorossiya" project in eastern Ukraine is a non-starter, do we need new colours for the two oblasts involved?

A
The 'orange Novorossiya' colour was intended be be an alternate usage for the 'orange supranational Russians' colour. In that role, it was intended to cover the historical 18th-19th century region, which has only a small amount of territorial overlap with the rebel-claimed areas in eastern Ukraine. That a historical colour label can be used to cover a modern political situation is a happy coincidence, not the specific design focus. As two independent self-proclaimed republics (or even as a single unit), however, Donetsk and Luhansk lack stable borders and international recognition, which are key factors in determining whether a modern country gets an entry in this colour scheme.

Q
Where is the $ideology $region (e.g., fascist Chile or communist Poland) colour?

A
As a general rule, I don't plan on making separate political colours for a state unless one or more of the following applies:

- It is needed to draw a historical civil war scenario.
- That political faction achieved significant power, but has since been disowned by the modern mainstream of that country.
- That faction exists as a major plot point of a commercially published alternate time-line.
- That country or its citizens had a major and unique role in the philosophical development of that ideology.

"Pin the ideology on the region" is a task that is essentially impossible to complete, and any attempt to do so would inevitably result in a colour scheme that is impossibly long. That is not the goal of this scheme. (The goal is to have the fewest number of colours that is actually needed to cover all the stable modern OTL countries, historical OTL countries that exerted influence over broad regions, and major commercially-published ATLs).

At this stage, beyond adding a "radical government" (which can mean anything from communist to fascism to cybertechnocracy to Luddism) use for an existing low-frequency minor culture group's colour (e.g., the Sami colour can stand in for any radical Scandinavian state), there will not be any more culture/politics by region colours. The only exception to that would be if such a thing happens in either the real world and maintains that role for years, achieving notoriety at least throughout their continent, and then is disowned by the country afterwards (e.g., Franco, Hitler). I'm not expecting this to happen in the next few months. I might possibly consider that if it happens in a notable commercially-published alternate history. Again, this is a low-probability event.

Why?

Because for the most part, a "communist Britain" (or whatever combo of politics and country) is still for the most part recognisably that country. Using a different colour reduces that recognisability factor. Additionally, if all the countries in a given area are "communist" (or whatever), then it is, for that timeline, unremarkable, and as such it doesn't provide any additional information to remark on it in the map.

But "Oh no!" I hear you cry! "That means the map will lose information about the timeline!" Any decent timeline is more than just a mere map. It should come with a story, which means words. If you can't afford a few paragraphs explaining how your map came to be in that timeline, the map will always be uninteresting.



Q
How do you handle personal unions?

A
My impression is that in historical personal unions, one state is typically dominant over the other(s). Consider Sweden-Norway, England-Scotland, Poland-Lithuania, and Austria-Hungary (technically constitutional arrangement rather than a personal union). In each case, one was clearly dominant in the relationship. This dominance has a historical tendency to happen even when, on paper, the two parts are legally equal (as was the initial case with England-Scotland).

Depending on the level of independence and social equality with the dominant state the weaker partner has, I'd draw them either as a dominion (darker shade), or as a protectorate (paler shade).

I suppose in a hypothetical situation where there was a genuinely equal personal union, pick one of them (or use a unified region colour if one exists) and have that colour cover the entire nation-state.



Q
How should I use the various colours?

A
However you like. My current preference is:

* Base Colour:
** Core national lands
** conquered/occupied lands not yet organised into a government of occupation
** full-status states/provinces (e.g., USA, Canada, India, Brazil), Roman senatorial provinces
** capital districts and top-tier cities denied full state/province status (i.e., governed as territories) for constitutional reasons.

* Base colour with darker shade border
** Iberian 'kingdoms' under a 'crown'
** Nominally 'autonomous' areas with little real independence (e.g., Chinese autonomous areas, Soviet SSRs and ASSRs)

* Darker:
** Realm in personal union with Colour.
** Territory in a federation that is (nominally at least) scheduled for full statehood.
** Colony that is being prepared for full independence.

* Darker II:
** Territories within a dominion (e.g., in Canada, Australia).
** Autonomous (and "Autonomous") SSRs.

* Paler:
** organised military government
** protectorate, native reservation, bantustans
** princely states (e.g., in the British Raj)
** German reichskommissariat, occupied France, Roman imperial provinces

* Paler II:
** maritime claims
** tribal areas of a culture group where a non-nomadic culture has not yet developed.

* Outline (use case 1):
** nations organised in an alliance (e.g., EU, pre-constitution USA). (n.b., border colour is not used by an existing state in this use case).

* Outline (use case 2):
** Border Colour nation has significant "advisory" presence in region
** Region is a client/collaborator of border Colour state (e.g., Eastern Bloc, Nazi German satellite states, Roman Crimea, Vichy France, Chinese tributary states)

* Outline (use case 3):
** de jure/irredentist territorial claims

n.b. There is a known ambiguity issue with outline use-cases 2 & 3. OTL maps tend to use paler shade for outline use case 2. Another way to disambiguate is to use 'paler II' as the fill colour.
 
Top