I've actually had problems with this name for every single map I've made with poland on it.

GLORIOUS! Finally someone who agrees with me that name is unbearable to write, type, pronounce or whatever!

I'll actually quote it several more times and then link this thread to Onoma and Death every day on a daily basis. #FixYourGoddamnLanguagePoland

I've actually had problems with this name for every single map I've made with poland on it.

I've actually had problems with this name for every single map I've made with poland on it.

I've actually had problems with this name for every single map I've made with poland on it.

Alright, well I may have possibly found a solution for poland that myself, Zephyrum, AND Death can agree on! Woohoo!

It is probably one of, if not the most ridiculous place names I've ever encountered(Apparently it's pronounced "Stechin").

The map looks great, an impecable balance between territory number and reasonable bonus link size, if done correctly, I think this will replace WN2014, my major complaint is that US looks to be way OP in comparison to Russia and Europe.

There really isn't any nation on earth currently that can compare to the US in power. There's a reason that the US is the only Superpower.

But, let's give it a whirl. Here are some of the Incomes for large nations on the map:

United States: 571
European union: 472
Brazil: 137
Russia: 164
China: 334
India: 103

Compared to the GDP of those places(what the bonus values are based on):

United States: $17.3 Trillion
European union: $18.5 Trillion
Brazil: $2.3 Trillion
Russia: $1.8 Trillion
China: $10.3 Trillion
India: $2.0 Trillion

And when you take into account that a larger area will always result in a higher overall country value due to having to divide it up further, You get the following results:

1. Russia being worth slightly more than India and Brazil. This is simply because although all three have around the same GDP with russia slightly lower than the latter two, Literally nobody, even some continents, beat russia as far as being big.

2. The United States being worth more than the EU and China being worth less than the EU. This is due to basically the same thing. USA is almost 2.5 times larger in area than the EU, so it gets a boost compared to the richer, yet smaller European union. Similarly, although china is about the same size as the US, it's worth less due to having only around half the GDP of the US/EU.

So, I don't believe that the US is overpowered at all. If anything, it's underpowered IMO.

The map is Great but it would be better if it was the whole world intruding the black spot and more connection.

FOURTH TOP INCOME BABY!

SUCK IT, EUROPEAN COMMIES!

if it was the whole world intruding the black spot

"black spot" = still not finished, will be added over time

Yeah, The map is still in development :)

EDIT: The link in the Op isn't the most up-to-date evrsion of the map either since this is an old thread. Here's the latest development version:

https://www.warlight.net/Play?PreviewMap=53711

Edited 3/11/2016 02:30:53

Britain should probably have a boost.
Britain's gdp is $2989, bonus is 37.
France's gdp (in billions) is $2829, bonus is 65.
California's gdp is $2202, bonus is 43.
Mexico's gdp is $1259, bonus is 69.

I've read how larger countries get larger bonus values but Britain's bonus is almost half what it should be. You could probably squeeze in another territory.

Egypt should also probably have a bonus
Egypt's GDP is 272 Billion USD and Libya is only 74 Billion USD however they are nearly equal in Bonus values. Egypt(24) Libya(21). You could fit multiple territories into Egypt.

Edited 3/11/2016 19:42:17

http://imgur.com/SOe6YLA


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Quebec_in_Canada.svg/2000px-Quebec_in_Canada.svg.png


I spotted out an incorrect provincial boundary line. That bit of land north of New Brunswick is actually apart of Quebec.

I just spotted another mistake. The northern part of Nova Scotia for some reason is apart of Newfoundland when it shouldn't be.

Britain should probably have a boost.
Britain's gdp is $2989, bonus is 37.
France's gdp (in billions) is $2829, bonus is 65.
California's gdp is $2202, bonus is 43.
Mexico's gdp is $1259, bonus is 69.

I've read how larger countries get larger bonus values but Britain's bonus is almost half what it should be. You could probably squeeze in another territory.

I could see cutting off the western half of the southern england territory, but to be honest I'm not inclined to. The territories right now are around the same size as the territories in other european countries, so cutting it into smaller pieces and then inflating it's area with this giant circle seems a bit underhanded to me.

Also, you're misunderstanding me here. Larger countries are only worth more overall since they are cut into more territories. The actual bonus values don't change, niether does my method of setting them, just the amount of them that there are.

And as for countries having a higher bonus value for having a larger area, this is true in real life. For instance, even though yes, Germany can be construed as being more powerful than russia, and in any number of hypothetical match-ups germany can totally win, that doesn't change the fact that Russia has beaten germany in major wars twice in the last 100 years.

Egypt should also probably have a bonus
Egypt's GDP is 272 Billion USD and Libya is only 74 Billion USD however they are nearly equal in Bonus values. Egypt(24) Libya(21). You could fit multiple territories into Egypt.

Egypt (24) is still more powerful than libya (21), despite libya being almost twice the size of egypt. All this is is another example of the balance between GDP and area in the map.

Edited 3/11/2016 23:19:53

The lack of Pacific Islands is concerning.

I really like what you have started, but as for the Ex-Yugoslavian Nations, I think they should have parts of their major cities and/or provinces as bonuses or just territories. This also for other small countries. Also with this expansion you should give them bigger bonuses as they are entire nations and not be equal to a mere province. Thank you and keep up the good work!

The territories are based on GDP. If these entire nations' GDP is so low they can't even match a single subdivision of other ones, the problem is within the country, not the map.

And they are too small to be split even further.

The lack of Pacific Islands is concerning.

The version I currently have uploaded to wl isn't everything that I plan to do. Many of the objects for the various pacific islands/all other small islands I've cut out of the SVG to slim down it's size for uploading. I don't technically need these objects since they'll become dots on the finished map anyway. You can look at the carribean for an example of this in practice.

I really like what you have started, but as for the Ex-Yugoslavian Nations, I think they should have parts of their major cities and/or provinces as bonuses or just territories. This also for other small countries. Also with this expansion you should give them bigger bonuses as they are entire nations and not be equal to a mere province. Thank you and keep up the good work!

Thanks for the compliment.

I'm not entirely clear on what your suggestion is. Do you want dots for big cities in smaller countries as I've done for places like Washington DC, Brasilia, or Madrid?

If so, this doesn't actually work, as territories need to be a certain size to to restrictions in the map making guidelines. In europe, tried to squeeze in basically as many territories as I could, and it pretty much can't be divided up further.
________________________________

You do raise valid point about countries vs. first-level subdivisions, but IMO there's not a real solution to this problem. I have to use a metric that I can apply to every single place on the globe to determine bonus values, and something like Military power doesn't work since most countries only have national militaries.

I could do as you suggested and just give a buff to whole countries, but I'm not sure how fair this is. As I currently have it, A country divided up into more territories will always have a higher overall value when all those territories are taken together, essentially rewarding larger countries. I'm not sure how much sense it makes to turn this metric around and reward countries for being small.

Edited 3/13/2016 04:02:03

Romania is parted the wrong way.
There were only three duchies: 1. Wallachia(played important part in uniting Romania)

2. Moldova (which also included nowadays Moldovia and parts
of Ukraine; Bucovina belongs to Moldova)

3. Transilvania (including Banat,Maramures,etc.)
Second, if you need help with native names then I can help you out with almost most of Europe
and Latin America and China.

Oh ffs not romania again :D

(No but I seriously went through all this hell with two other guys about how romania should be divided, so I'm not sure If I'm willing to redo it again)

I pretty much am using a policy of using english names. I know that I've probably been terribly inconsistent with this, but I'm not too concerned with naming. As long as the name I've used is correct in some sense it's fine by me.

Edited 3/13/2016 15:27:39

Romania is perfect as-is. Dobrogea, although was part of Wallachia for a while, for most of it's history was controlled by turks, tatars or crimean khans.

The duchy of Wallachia was originally landlocked when it first came to be a thing.

Posting the major nations incomes only makes me more concerned, you're overestimating American power. You are implying that China is stronger than Russia (3x more no less!. Looking at GDP and population is not an accurate way to judge military power,it is quite difficult to judge power based on each territory, but take this into account: http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp