Ok where to begin. First of all thanks to everyone who took their time to write something nice on this thread. Secondly to note some huge changes that are going to take place: this map will overhaul the connections between big oceans (like the Atlantic/Pacific ocean) and replace them with a more sea trade connection system. Kinda like what you see in Ollie Bye's unfinished world war 1 map.
https://www.warlight.net/singleplayer?PreviewMap=31614 but a little bit different. this sea trade system will be in favor of the Europeans and allows a better use for the colonialism scenario.
Thirdly in response to your advice. @Clint Eastwood I know it sucks for mobile players but West Alaska will stay on that position and will remain there forever. If you play on the desktop version however, the West Alaska area can be noticed. The reason is I don't want to change is because I don't want to either reduce my map in size or to cut Alaska in half since that would be awful. But I do consider to put some circles next to Russia's Chukotka and act as part of Alaskan territory.
As for the Antarctican issue, no I'm currently not in favor of giving land to Antarctica. Since Antarctica is 1) a huge wasteland 2) irrelevant in every scenario 3) never used 4) no history 5) worthless in value. And to be quite frank I try to make Antarctica a wasteland in every game I create that includes it.
@apollong3 too complicated. imagine a color pallet going from blue to red. Blue represents lower numbers. Red represents higher numbers. The more blue-er the tint, the lower the value. The more redish it is, the higher the value.
@{Canidae} Kretoma I think the opposite. There's no benefit in detailling wastelands in small segments. Focussing on valuable lands seems more reasonable than to focus on areas where nobody lives.
@OnlyThePie
something like this?
