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

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

Was Romania still a tributary or protectorate though, regardless of its independence otherwise?

I don't think it can be considered like that. Tributary would mean a forced exchange of goods against "I don't attack you...for now".
I'm not sure what the exchanges with USSR can be considered as such, but if you have data on this topic...
I was under the impression that most of exportated goods were linked to the debt of Rumania rather then send to USSR by exemple.

Protectorate would imply the presence of foreign troops, as bases (contrary to the occupation where all a territory administration escape to a country).

[LSCatilina]

To resume, so far we have that?

(This is a personal proposition for the presentation of the key, and not what It would be. I precise that AR is for keeping the old presentation to avoid any misunderstanding).

[wolf_brother]

Wikipedia seems to indicate that there were Soviet troops in Romania in that period. After reading more about Communist Romania it certainly looks like Romania was in fact under Soviet influence - just because it sea-sawed from something short of total occupation to a light touch doesn't mean it wasn't under the USSR's thumb throughout that period though.

[wolf_brother]

I like the inclusion of what was missing from Alex Richards' latest key, but much prefer the latter's presentation.

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

Wikipedia seems to indicate that there were Soviet troops in Romania in that period.

Only before 1958 apparently, sourcing Wikipedia as well (wow, two contradictory articles on Wikipedia? That's unheard of!).

^ "Background Note: Romania", United States Department of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, October 2007. The text says: "The treaty also required massive war reparations by Romania to the Soviet Union, whose occupying forces left in 1958."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_...ion_of_Romania

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

I like the inclusion of what was missing from Alex Richards' latest key, but much prefer the latter's presentation.

That's okay : I wanted to have easy to search colours, with gaining place by having more little text and coloured square. As said, it's mainly following my own use of the key.

[wolf_brother]

Like I said, "just because it sea-sawed from something short of total occupation to a light touch doesn't mean it wasn't under the USSR's thumb throughout that period though." It still looks like to me it would be categorized as Soviet influenced, and certainly not some hypothetical influenced-but-not-really-influenced convention.

EDIT: Also in regards to your key, it looks like you've made some minor mistakes in translating Alex Richard's most recent RCS to your own key. Minor China/Dali's color is completely wrong, for instance.

Also, isn't the convention for statelets within a cultural sphere that has a defined border that of the statelets grey (240/240/240) outlined by the culture's own color; e.g. what is used for the Mongol tribes in the recent 1500, 1560, and 1600 maps. Or the Japanese warlords within the outline of Japan?

EDIT #2: Back on the Soviet/communist client-state kick - How would you even word & define such a hypothetical convention so as to prevent it from becoming misused or misconstrued as either Influence or Protectorate?

[Alex Richards]

Also, that Commonwealth definition is incredibly confusing. A Colonial Successor is not equivelent to a territory, and while the last two bullet points are consistent with the definition of a territory (differing only in the origin of the land of the territory', the second one is essentially the definition for a dominion, a former colony with retained power from the metropole/former colony granted home rule but with foreign policy still retained by the motherland.

There's still a couple of tweaks that need to be worked out for the rebels, but I should have the key up soon.

Also, lets shift the language discussion to that thread, it's starting to get a bit too off topic.

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

L
EDIT: Also in regards to your key, it looks like you've made some minor mistakes in translating Alex Richard's most recent RCS to your own key. Minor China/Dali's color is completely wrong, for instance.

Oops, yes, I didn't saw this one.

Also, isn't the convention for statelets within a cultural sphere that has a defined border that of the statelets grey (240/240/240) outlined by the culture's own color; e.g. what is used for the Mongol tribes in the recent 1500, 1560, and 1600 maps. Or the Japanese warlords within the outline of Japan?

I tought the convention was "when you have a color, you can use it for statelets".

For Japan I would say :
-If we have a dominant state that have the suzerainity over all others, show it and color in yellow. For the others, put them in grey statelets with yellow outline.
-If we don't have a state having the suzerainity over all, color Japan as plain yellow.

EDIT #2: Back on the Soviet/communist client-state kick - How would you even word & define such a hypothetical convention so as to prevent it from becoming misused or misconstrued as either Influence or Protectorate?[/QUOTE]

Partially independent state de facto, considered as totally independent de jure. While an influenced is independent, and a dominion isn't but autonomous, i'm not sure it would be possible to make a confusion.

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by Alex Richards

Also, that Commonwealth definition is incredibly confusing. A Colonial Successor is not equivelent to a territory

Because "foreign ruler in another court" is the same than "protectorate" or "tributary"? Between having troops or making a country paying money regularly, you have quite of a difference.
I made the same, giving exemples of what could be representated with this colour, without saying anything about their supposed "equivalence".

There's still a couple of tweaks that need to be worked out for the rebels, but I should have the key up soon.

Which ones? I tought it was that : when rebels are organized as a state, we colour them plain to point that?

While talking about Dali's colour, why it's in gold?
I mean we already have many gold/orange colours added, and this color was enough close -while being distinct enough - to China's colour to have its meaning clearer.

Furthermore, didn't this gold colour would be too close of eventual Russian and Japenese colours in China?

[Lord Hastur of Carcosa]

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

For Japan I would say :
-If we have a dominant state that have the suzerainity over all others, show it and color in yellow. For the others, put them in grey statelets with yellow outline.
-If we don't have a state having the suzerainity over all, color Japan as plain yellow.

Japan in the Sengoku period is grey with a yellow outline, with the capital as a simple yellow dot. Technically the Shogun or the Emperor was still in charge, at least nominally. There is no room on the worlda, I think, to outline every single Koku-no-Daimiyo; the Qbam may be another matter.

EDIT: the Emperor was the one in charge, but he only held cerimonial power; the Shogun certainly was not, since the Sengoku period ended when Tokugawa Yeyasu became Shogun in 1600, ending the Daimiyo system.

[Alex Richards]

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

Partially independent state de facto, considered as totally independent de jure. While an influenced is independent, and a dominion isn't but autonomous, i'm not sure it would be possible to make a confusion.

Partially independent? Where on earth do you draw the line between 'has a lot of economic and sociopolitical links leading to a vested interest in the other state being stable', and 'partially independent'? Because quite frankly you could come up with definitions for 'partially independent' that span from a colour which is used only once to one which sees the entire EU filled in as a single colour or Canada as an American client state.

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

Because "foreign ruler in another court" is the same than "protectorate" or "tributary"? Between having troops or making a country paying money regularly, you have quite of a difference.
I made the same, giving exemples of what could be representated with this colour, without saying anything about their supposed "equivalence".

They're not exactly the same, but they fit the same pattern. Being a tributary could, for example, include sending the ruler to the foreign court. There is, however, no legal similarity between Modern Canada and Puerto Rico, and as said the bullet point is essentially the same as the existing dominion category. A colour category is useless if it can be so widely applied so as to be essentially meaningless.

Which ones? I tought it was that : when rebels are organized as a state, we colour them plain to point that?

In the key, not in the thread. I need to tweak the formatting of the key to indicate them.

While talking about Dali's colour, why it's in gold?
I mean we already have many gold/orange colours added, and this color was enough close -while being distinct enough - to China's colour to have its meaning clearer.

Furthermore, didn't this gold colour would be too close of eventual Russian and Japenese colours in China?

To start, it's very distinct from Japan, and distinct enough from Russia. The only one it could be confused with is Romania, which really isn't an issue as if we've got Romania in China (or vice versa) then the RCS is probably not applicable anyway.

As for why it's Gold, same reason I objected to rearranging the Italian colours to have all Blues in the North. It's more distinct from her neighbours and helps emphasize that the state is not pure Chinese but exists instead on the periphery.

Plus it allowed me to use a colour previously suggested for China as a whole and quite well followed in a suitable situation, much like the Green-Gold Russia situation.

[LSCatilina]

EDIT: the Emperor was the one in charge, but he only held cerimonial power; the Shogun certainly was not, since the Sengoku period ended when Tokugawa Yeyasu became Shogun in 1600, ending the Daimiyo system.

Then if the Mikado is only a ceremonial figure and that if his suzerainity don't have a de facto importrence, it shouldn't be showed, and Japan statelets should be merged in worlda, as you said not enough place, and coloured yellow.

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by Alex Richards

Partially independent? Where on earth do you draw the line between 'has a lot of economic and sociopolitical links leading to a vested interest in the other state being stable', and 'partially independent'?

I don't understand a single bit of what you're saying there, sorry.

Because quite frankly you could come up with definitions for 'partially independent' that span from a colour which is used only once to one which sees the entire EU filled in as a single colour or Canada as an American client state.

Last time I checked, you didn't had an EU state. I don't think you could have a state being a client-state of the great nothingness.

For "partially independent", Canada isn't considered as tied to the USA to the point where Canada is considered as politically dependent. By exemple, is when american elections put a republican as POTUS, is the Canada changing its deep policies to fit that? No.

"Partially independent" means exactly that : You have multiple features that are independent de facto features (that can varies) that do not correspond to the "master" state interests. But, you have other ones and global positionment that are depending largely from the "master" state own positionment.

By exemple, having Gorby I at the head of USSR played a role in 1989 Rumania , and if Andropov lasted at this date, it would have changed something.

[Alex Richards]

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

I don't understand a single bit of what you're saying there, sorry.

Ok, hypothetical example. Montenegro is culturally similar with Serbia, most of her trade is with Serbia, many people within her borders feel an affinity with Serbia, if Serbia collapses, Montenegro will as well, Montenegro will often work in close concordant with Serbia, following the latters lead as it is the larger state, while Serbia sees a hostile Montenegro as a threat and so moves to keep her freindly with economic bribes and the knowledge that she is much more powerful. However, Montenegro has no formal agreement of this kind with Serbia, it is merely the consequence of the power balance in the region and cultural links.

Functionally, this is pretty similar to a client state having a degree of independence. Legally Montenegro is both de jure and de facto independent, but just diplomatically close to Serbia. Does this require showing as a client state or not?

Last time I checked, you didn't had an EU state. I don't think you could have a state being a client-state of the great nothingness.

For "partially independent", Canada isn't considered as tied to the USA to the point where Canada is considered as politically dependent. By exemple, is when american elections put a republican as POTUS, is the Canada changing its deep policies to fit that? No.

"Partially independent" means exactly that : You have multiple features that are independent de facto features (that can varies) that do not correspond to the "master" state interests. But, you have other ones and global positionment that are depending largely from the "master" state own positionment.

By exemple, having Gorby I at the head of USSR played a role in 1989 Rumania , and if Andropov lasted at this date, it would have changed something.

Client states of Germany, or dual Franco-German client states then.

Canada may be functionally independent of America on that degree, but she is largely economically tied to America by NAFTA and simple economics, she is culturally tied to America by shared language and such, she does not actively antagonise America on a wide scale by virtue of the latter's military superiority, while she also tends to follow the latter in diplomacy due to historic ties via NATO.

Simply put, this could be classed as client state status based on a certain definition.

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by Alex Richards

Snip.

Except that, in this precise case, let's say if Serbia wanted to attack Montenegro because they wanted to export massively elsewhere, you'll have an almost immediate replic from other powers (US, Germany, whatever).

But, as history showed, if Soviet Union wanted to attack a country that tried to escape its condition, nobody would have done anything. Hungary, Prague, Poland...

For EU, by exemple, if Greece leave Euro finally, if France or Germany attack the country to avoid that, the comparison would be fitting.

Again, if you think "influence" is fitting for this kind of case, I'm ok with that. Just warning it would put states as Romania and Ethiopia (in this case) at the same scale on a map.

[Alex Richards]

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

Except that, in this precise case, let's say if Serbia wanted to attack Montenegro because they wanted to export massively elsewhere, you'll have an almost immediate replic from other powers (US, Germany, whatever).

But, as history showed, if Soviet Union wanted to attack a country that tried to escape its condition, nobody would have done anything. Hungary, Prague, Poland...

For EU, by exemple, if Greece leave Euro finally, if France or Germany attack the country to avoid that, the comparison would be fitting.

Again, if you think "influence" is fitting for this kind of case, I'm ok with that. Just warning it would put states as Romania and Ethiopia (in this case) at the same scale on a map.

In which case either stick Romania is a higher category or drop Ethiopia down to the communist striping which we've used in the past to indicate Soviet backed regimes that aren't tightly bound to the USSR.

Also, lets consider that we're in a Pre WWI situation with Serbia and Montenegro. Russia is allied with Serbia, Italy wants to tempt Montenegro and we have the various alliance structures in place. As the OTL Balkan Wars show, (but more so because this is to preserve the Status Quo) what would actually be more likely to happen is that the Great Powers get ruffled, a few insults fly and we edge closer to a war, but enough people are happy to accept Montenegro remaining in the same status as before in order to prevent general conflagration that it doesn't get anywhere further than adding fuel to the future conflict. The same happened in 1908, 1910 and 1912 OTL.

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by Alex Richards

In which case either stick Romania is a higher category or drop Ethiopia down to the communist striping which we've used in the past to indicate Soviet backed regimes that aren't tightly bound to the USSR.

1)Which higher category?
Puppet-State? It doesn't reflect reality.
Dominion? I'm not sure it could be comparable to a SSR.

2)For using striping, it would be really confusing with communist guerilla/revolt striping.

[Simreeve]

What colour should be used for an Uighur state, whether centered in Sinikiang or elsewhere? 'Turkish', even if there's also a prominent [possibly Ottoman] 'Turkey' on the same map and the two are politically separate?

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by Simreeve

What colour should be used for an Uighur state, whether centered in Sinikiang or elsewhere? 'Turkish', even if there's also a prominent [possibly Ottoman] 'Turkey' on the same map and the two are politically separate?

Depends...

Maybe Minor Chinese State, but I'm not sure it would fit.
Perhaps Khazars/Golden Horde/Khazakstan colour?