I'd love to test this.

Reminds me of the War of the Spanish Succession map.

Dantiscum was the most used English name for the time.

Which is what leads me to asking the question.

Murk, do you intend on using native city names whenever you can, using modern English names when available OR using English names used at the time, like Juq suggested? There are many possible ways of naming them and it's best to use one consistent method, imo.

Although the map is very nice, the borders can be a little less choppy.

Also, France didn't technically control Indian land. I think it would be wise to make those Indian tribes independent from France's colony.

Also, even though you're cramped for space, it feels odd to see an empire as powerful as Russia have not very many territories. They were a participant in this war as well.

Amazing! Looks like one of zxctycxz's maps.

it looks like a fun map to play but its a bit ugly

Hello all. I had to leave for a while, suddenly, so sorry for the slow response.
I'll try to give you all some attention :)

---
Most importantly: consistent naming.

Murk, do you intend on using native city names whenever you can, using modern English names when available OR using English names used at the time, like Juq suggested?

For some reason, this was something I thought "I'll do it later" of, and then didn't. Now it's a mess, so thanks for all your suggestions.
If possible, I'd like to stick to historical, regional names, but for readability for most warlight players, in latin alphabet. So all suggestions/improvements for local names are welcome. I'll make that first priority today.

South America

*State of Brasil vs State of Grão-Pará and Maranhão?
This division never existed. Might make them both united on one superbonus.

On all other of your suggestions, I'll take your word for it. This distinction, however, showed up often. I believe it was a short-lived distinction, but was made nonetheless. Is that a wellspread myth or something?

Assuming your goal is historical accuracy and not balancement (hinted by the standalone bonuses that are cities), the value of the cities seems off in every way.

True. It was a mix-up between accuracy/balance/ignorance here and there. I want to make it historically accurate for now (so follow your suggestions), but it might be necessary to change it later for balances sake.

Non-European

You have been very generous with the American colonies. The French didn't directly control so much and many tribes were still independent (remove them from the main French bonus). The Amazon wasn't really colonized at this point either. The African cities are also probably worth too much (although in a 7 years war scenario, the whole non-European controlled part would probably be removed with massive stacks).

Also, France didn't technically control Indian land. I think it would be wise to make those Indian tribes independent from France's colony.

This is all very true, and I should make it more clear that the "New France" bonus (as well as Prince Rupert's Land) is Nominal control - it is also why I tried to give the tribes their own bonuses and names. From a European perspective, at that point, the land was French, though it wasn't, of course.
I would say that in a slotted game, only the cities and forts are actually French, but for the map as a whole I wanted to show the French claims (and give North America a superbonus, too).
Would it help to give the native territories bonus colours other than blue, or would that become too sloppy?

The same goes for the amazon - it isn't really worth much in this map, but I think it's strategic value is still too big (you can pretty much attack all of South America from there). I wanted to prevent black spots, though. Suggestions welcome.

For Africa, yes, I assume that if you have a slotted scenario, Africa would either be neutral or very much decreased in value. I didn't want to give the impression that the world ended at Europes borders, though - which is something that happens a lot. The nations around the colonies might not be as strong as Europe, but they are very much there, and that means making them a valid starting position for FFA games.

India

Nice effort on map.... but as an Indian, the lower right part of the map affronts me :P
I'll take time out this week to help you out on that part of the map... although I must admit, I am a novice when it comes to map making in Warlight

Gladly. Especially the Carnatic region might hold plenty of mistakes. It was hard to find which nawabs were independent, which weren't. Sometimes, the Carnatic is referred to as a kingdom of its own, other times it's only shown as "European influence", sometimes as a mess of independent fiefs. Feedback from someone who knows the history more intimately would be welcome.

Russia

You're badly misusing the Russian provinces - either make them all just geographic sites, not administrative, or put in all the Russian provinces, don't merge.

I always prefer administrative to geographic. I also like the fact that Russia doesn't have to many territories, to prevent it from overpowering Europe (as often happens in maps like these). So, I'm cautious with wanting to add all provinces - I do want to do Russian history justice, of course, so do you have any intermediate suggestions? :)

Scotland

SCOOOTLAND (ALL SCOTTISH TERRITORIES IN SCOTS DIALECT) (THE MISSING LETTERS ARE GLOT-STOPS / UNPRONOUNCED Gs/Hs & REALLY IMPORTANT)

This... This requires some consideration. It is latin alphabet, and it might be accurate, but... Well. It seems unfair to all the other countries that do not get their own local quirks in the names. Let me think about it.

Other

Reminds me of the War of the Spanish Succession map.

Only a 50 years difference, so, yeah, it's a bit bigger, but most countries have about the same shape. Especially the silly lines between the colonies are similar. Something I want to work on.

Although the map is very nice, the borders can be a little less choppy.

it looks like a fun map to play but its a bit ugly

Yup. I didn't want to improve aesthetics when there's a good chance I'll have to do borders over, yet. Would be redundant work. Once I think all the historical borders are OK, I'll start cleaning them up.

---

Alright. I'll start working on name consistency (something that really is long overdue). Might take a day or two to get it all in line. Suggestions still welcome. Thanks for the help so far, everyone!

I think splitting some of the Russian territories up.

And Silesia.

and Ottoman Empire, especially when I see Rumelia Eyalet bonus with 9 territories on 15 income that is completeable in 2 turns.

Kretoma, how would you like to see Silesia split up? More territories, two bonuses instead of one...?

And Stewie, while I'll tinker with the bonus values later, that 15 really isn't that much in comparison to most other places. In the current state of the map, if you start in one of the coastal cities, you'll have much more in those two turns, with better long-term prospects too.
Yes, it is pretty high-income as it is now, but that's mainly because I wanted one bonus of seven territories to give more income than seven bonuses of one territory - which scales bigger bonuses up to rather high values(see also Bengal or the Sikh confederacy, for example). That's something I want to discuss at a later point, for sure :)

I would advise to split the bonuses of both Saxony (into Lusatia and Saxony Proper) and Silesia (Lower Silesia and Upper Silesia).
Both Regions were battlegrounds and it does not make sense to give them less provinces than lands in England.

For this please split Saxony (the province) into Osterland, Meissen and Upper Lusatia. Rename the Province of Lusatia into Lower Lusatia.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/HRR_1400.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electorate_of_Saxony#/media/File:Electorate_of_Saxony_1648.jpg

Silesia could use an additional province, maybe two. Liegnitz could be split in two, the North called Glogau. Please give Breslau its proper location, here is a map:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlesien#/media/File:Silesia_1740-1825.png

It is in the middle of Silesia, not at the northern border.

Thank you. ^^

Edited 4/9/2016 15:57:09

Addition maps for the war:

edit: The links do not work, i am sorry. :(

Edited 4/9/2016 16:00:02

Hm. Fair enough. You are right that it was an important battle ground, but I figured it was more of a spot for armies to meet than to actually control - so the number of territories didn't need to be as high as the countries that would meet there.
I'll see how much extra territories can fit there and give it a shot. Thanks :)

(Also, Breslay is wrongly positioned, yes, but that was mainly because I prefer cities to be on borders between territories rather than islands within territories - if I give Silesia another territory or two, that would be solved)

Edited 4/9/2016 16:35:45

Cesis -> Tsesis



as a latvian that made me laugh trying to pronounce that. It's Cēsis in Latvian if that helps at all.

If possible, I'd like to stick to historical, regional names, but for readability for most warlight players, in latin alphabet. So all suggestions/improvements for local names are welcome. I'll make that first priority today.

So, do you want to use names used by the country the lands were controlled by in Latin alphabet? That sounds fair to me. Do you still intend on occasionally using English names, as in Warsaw, not Warszawa? ?I'm neutral on that, but I'd like this bit clarified, please.

^^this basic question is still not answered

On all other of your suggestions, I'll take your word for it. This distinction, however, showed up often. I believe it was a short-lived distinction, but was made nonetheless. Is that a wellspread myth or something?

I googled up a bit. It was a region of Brazil, not a whole different country. States are the administrative divisions here. Just like in the US.

It was one damn huge one, but it was still part of Brazil.

It was awfully short lived (1772-1774), then split into two states who would eventually split up even further to form a shitton of northern states.

Still, a part of Brazil. Don't know why you made them a separate bonus.

A few details on hispanic names and places:

Iberia:

- Ourense is a spanish province, not portuguese...
- Guadelajara => Guadalajara
- Caceres => Cáceres
- Badajos => Badajoz
- Ciudad => Ciudad Real
- Castile. If you want to use the english name it's alright. If you want to be consistent and use spanish as in everywhere else, it's Castilla.

America:

- Guadelajara => Guadalajara (again, aswell as the province)
- Merida => Mérida
- Havana. Just like with Castilla above, in spanish it's spelt "La Habana"
- Miskito Kingdom. Same as above. In spanish it is "Costa de Mosquitos".
- Venezuela. Back then Essequibo was a venezuelan dependency, and it was bigger and reached deeper into the Amazon.

Aswell as the southwestern third of the Colony of Louisiana more or less. Many unsettled lands which were ocasionally visited by spanish priests and had sparse presidios (garrisoned villages) which later on were territories of the independent Mexico are shown as french dependencies in the map.

Good effort by the way, I can't imagine myself immersed into this kind of work.

I don't know if these have been addressed already, but there are a few issues I have with this:

1) All of Italy had been outside the Holy Roman Empire since 1648, so Tuscany, Milan, Genoa, Modena and Parma need to be removed from that bonus. Additionally, Swedish Pomerania and the Duchy of Holstein were still in the HRE at this time, so they need to be put back in.

2) Ireland had the same political status as Hanover, so the fact that one of them is the same colour as England and the other not is slightly strange

3) Parts of the Upper Palatinate weren't trolled by Bavaria until the 1770s, but this really only affects a single territory n this map, so it's not that important.

4) The Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland didn't exist after the acts of union in 1707, they were just regions by this point. I'd just suggest simply changing the bonus names to "England" and "Scotland".


Aside from that, this looks like a really good map. It's historically accurate, well-balanced and should be interesting to conduct games on. Good job!