Base Maps from 550 BC to Modern Day, all in UCS!

[imperialaquila]

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

Well, Wikipedia is...kind of...

Furthermore, reading it, didn't it talks much about northern California rather than the south part that wasn't really "undevelopped"?



I would want to point the "relative" part for the southern part.

Well, that's for 1769, and shows that even when the Spanish put some effort into controlling California, their presence was still tenuous and not very felt.

EDIT: By the time of the missions, you could color in California as Spanish, but before that I think their claims were purely nominal.

[Dangimill]

I have fixed the Russian border in the 1600 map. Is the 1650 map out-of-date, or can we move on to 1700 next?

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by Dangimill

I have fixed the Russian border in the 1600 map. Is the 1650 map out-of-date, or can we move on to 1700 next?

Not for being annoying, but there's still things to change on the 1600 map.

-Europeans in North America (trade posts in New France)
-Fixing African States (divide Morocco, remove spanish some spanish towns, probably removing the claim border of Ottoman Empire...)
-Fixing German States
-Putting inner borders of Spanish Americas and, after re-reading, probably changing their color to full spanish.

I'm not knowldgable for Asia in these times, but someone should look at.

[pieman97405]

Do we have an up to date 1862(ish) map with rivers?

[metastasis_d]

Originally Posted by pieman97405

Do we have an up to date 1862(ish) map with rivers?

I only have 1861 and 1865.

[pieman97405]

Originally Posted by metastasis_d

I only have 1861 and 1865.

1861 will work.

[metastasis_d]

Originally Posted by pieman97405

1861 will work.

Got it from the Wiki, don't know how accurate it still is. Someone is bound to let us know.

[LSCatilina]

Judging by how the coasts are, it's not really a recent map.
Before the changing of colour of Romania, so I'll say...2009?

[metastasis_d]

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

Judging by how the coasts are, it's not really a recent map.
Before the changing of colour of Romania, so I'll say...2009?

For all I know it could just be barely changed from the square map to the round globe map.

[Alex Richards]

More likely to be 2010 or early 2011.

[herricks]

does anyone kno where i could get this 1885 map with rivers on it

[metastasis_d]

Originally Posted by herricks

does anyone kno where i could get this 1885 map with rivers on it

Attachment 177668

No, but since I didn't have an 1885 map before and now I do, thanks!
I'll look on the Wiki for a river map you can use to transfer.

[wolf_brother]

Originally Posted by metastasis_d

No, but since I didn't have an 1885 map before and now I do, thanks!
I'll look on the Wiki for a river map you can use to transfer.

The 1885 was still very WIP when we last left it, and we've changed quite a few conventions since then.

[herricks]

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

The 1885 was still very WIP when we last left it, and we've changed quite a few conventions since then.

well do you have a more updated map?

[herricks]

Originally Posted by herricks

does anyone kno where i could get this 1885 map with rivers on it

Attachment 177668

what all need to be changed on this map or does anyone have a more updated version

[Alex Richards]

OK. So after a very lenghty PM discussion with LSCatilina, here's a new revision of the RCS, which I'd just like to check with everyone else before I update the wiki. Major revisions:

-> Slightly streamlined set up.
-> Welsh and Irish Bretwalda equivilents banished to QBAM/SEBAM only (where we'll probably be inserting other colours anyway), as they're infrequently used and looking back all but illegible anyway.
-> A couple of colours redifined/switched around.
-> Added: North Italy (willing to switch around Savoy, North Italy and Tuscany to the best configuration), Minor Mexican, Junior Caucasus, Minor Chinese and Punjabi states. Net gain=3, all outside Europe/Middle East.

Thoughts?

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by Alex Richards

Thoughts?

Well, that's for the coulours (but didn't a USSR client states should be discussed if not added, regarding what I proposed you), but maybe we should as well update the "rebellion" border, and precise the use of outline for feudal or vassalic-equivalent states.

Finally, as I said you, I don't think this key is the most easy to use. You wouldn't mind if I put my proposition (that use the same colours) there?

[stateless_englishman]

Originally Posted by herricks

what all need to be changed on this map or does anyone have a more updated version

I can never work out which island group it is, but the Cook Islands were the independent 'Kingdom of Rarotonga' at the time, not becoming a British protectorate until the 27th October 1888.

[Alex Richards]

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

Well, that's for the coulours (but didn't a USSR client states should be discussed if not added, regarding what I proposed you), but maybe we should as well update the "rebellion" border, and precise the use of outline for feudal or vassalic-equivalent states.

Finally, as I said you, I don't think this key is the most easy to use. You wouldn't mind if I put my proposition (that use the same colours) there?

As I said, appropriating the influence works best. We don't need it for the Communist states in Africa (as in that case Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and at least half a dozen others need to be shown as US influence currently).

I'll get on the rebellion border, but could you clarify the Feudal situation.

And on going for TACOS style formatting, I've noted that the posting of that key in their thread was immediately followed by a few people asking for the inclusion or location of particular colours which were already in the key. Seeing as that's never happened with this key, I take that as evidence that the compact form is less user freindly.

In any case, most of the D/I colours will only appear on QBAM resolution or higher, at which point we'll probably be inserting extra colours as needed anyway.

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by Alex Richards

As I said, appropriating the influence works best. We don't need it for the Communist states in Africa (as in that case Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and at least half a dozen others need to be shown as US influence currently).

That's totally different. The dependency towards USSR for diplomatic recognition, weapons or even economic market were something Arab states never had.

I'll get on the rebellion border, but could you clarify the Feudal situation.

As in the 1115 map, representating suzerainity of someone on a region by an coloured border. Regarding how much the concept of "claim" pre-1648 is anachronic, it's the best solution to represent both autonomous/independent de facto states AND the real power of their suzerain.

And on going for TACOS style formatting, I've noted that the posting of that key in their thread was immediately followed by a few people asking for the inclusion or location of particular colours which were already in the key. Seeing as that's never happened with this key, I take that as evidence that the compact form is less user freindly.

TACOS used a lot of "new" colours compared to UCS/RCS key, and even changed some from this one.
Furthermore, the TACOS key doesn't include any RGB value, even for core colours.

The situation is a bit different.

In any case, most of the D/I colours will only appear on QBAM resolution or higher, at which point we'll probably be inserting extra colours as needed anyway.

Regarding how many actual colours are based on how they can be visible from worlda, I don't think it's that of a problem.