To be fair there are a lot of people who want more territories in the US, which is why I am going to split a few more states right now. I just don't think I can publish the old version and expect any good reviews.
Nice cherry picking Joao Lins, but if we're going by historical reasons for splits, then why didn't you mention the US Civil War and early colonization of the Americas?
Because none of the american expansion since it became a country actually resulted in the loss or gain of half/a quarter of a state. The states, instead, were completely taken.
The only moment that was different was during the early moments, like the thirteen colonies, but then you'd have to split super small territories and not those lame states you have in the middle of the country.
And going by that logic, that means you'd also need a ridiculous amount of splits all around the rest of the americas, probably something unachievable.
More states should still be split to maintain a relative balance with GDP density. Not necessarily to the extreme of what they were before the edit. The fact that few states have been divided is no justification for there being so few territories. By that logic, it doesn't matter how powerful a country is, it need only have been divided historically many times for it to be large.
I've added more territories in Ohio, North Carolina, Washington, Oregon, california, georgia, pennsylvania, and Illinois for a total of eigth new ones.
Nitr01, I really do appreciate what you have to say and I do value your feedback. So thanks :)
You should merge a lot of Australian territories. They are currently a bit overpowered and many territories is not needed for custom scenarios (split it between Holland and Britain? You only need the large regions for that).
EDIT: Also, split India more. Their GDP isn't particularly good but their population and military is. Also, having more territories would be useful for custom scenarios.
I know this is a little off topic, but is there any way you can fix the Veracruz territory in Mexico? It is the one on the eastern border. There is a little dot in it. If that's intentional, feel free to keep it. It just looks strange to me.
Only 11 people voted which is a minuscule sample size. The real test is which one gets used more once published.
I suspect the black version will be played more because it offers more flexibility; you can make fantasy and historical slots that look natural. And most diplomacies you see nowadays are historical and fantasy diplomacies.
It's not too big of a deal, I got nearly a third of the redoing done tonight, and I really do want to do this just to see what it looks like completely grey. If I feel like a project I'm working on isn't top-quality, it really does discourage me and I just end up stalling. Maybe if I redo it and it looks like crap I'll at least be able to put the thought from my mind, as it really has been bugging me.
Or, if I decide that it looks significantly better, I may continue development on it. It's actually going to save me time either way though, since like I said if I don't put the issue to rest with a side by side comparison It's just going to keep bugging me and weigh down the entire development process.
