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

[Alex Richards]

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

Well, apparently wolf_brother and I agree on statelets of same culture being coloured if colour avaible (mostly in order to avoid outline on outlines in many situations) and coloured with the grey you choose for colourless statelets?

I maybe misunderstanding, though.

That said, we agree earlier on putting a date of publication when we upload a map in order to avoid retro-modifications. Would you mind if I put these on the wiki on my own?

Go ahead.

And I'll add those modifications and post later today.

[wolf_brother]

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

Well, apparently wolf_brother and I agree on statelets of same culture being coloured if colour avaible (mostly in order to avoid outline on outlines in many situations) and coloured with the grey you choose for colourless statelets?

I maybe misunderstanding, though.

For statelets I use an outline if a color is available, in the same way we use a colored outline for states within the same cultural sphere. The only difference is the internal coloring; whether it be generic white (240/240/240) or statelet grey (192/192/192) Like so;

1500's Mesoamerica - note the Mayans, who have a color outline, as compared to the Chichimeca, who have no color (as I've applied the Minor Mexican State color to Tarascan).

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

For statelets I use an outline if a color is available, in the same way we use a colored outline for states within the same cultural sphere. The only difference is the internal coloring; whether it be generic white (240/240/240) or statelet grey (192/192/192) Like so;

I disagree with using an coloured outline for statelets with colour.

Let's use an exemple about discontinuous french vassals. It would necessit to have a double outline for both suzerainity and the fact they're statelets.

Furthermore, you'll have a confusion between cultural aera and statelets.
Again with this exemple, you'll meaning that COunty of Tolosa and Duchy of Brittany were of the same culture than County of Vermandois.

Finally, for Gaul statelets by exemple, while the culture could differ significantly between Belgians and Celto-Ligurians, they had extremly similar institutions and social features.

EDIT : exemple below.

[wolf_brother]

Having one solid color would imply that they're an single homogenous state, which completely tosses out the entire idea of showing statlets in the first place.

EDIT: I'm honestly baffled by your resistance to this; the Mongol tribes have been shown in such a way for eons, and the same for the Japanese warlords. Go back to when we originally opened this line of discussion in February, and the final agreement there vetted out over several pages by myself, Alex Richards, Lord Hastur of Carcosa, and yourself was "white interior with color outline where appropriate around cultures." The only change we're looking at here for that would be the use of my cultural grey as opposed to Alex's cultural white.

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

Having one solid color would imply that they're an single homogenous state, which completely tosses out the entire idea of showing statlets in the first place.

No, it imply they are state-organized.
Again, we have the choice between

1)Showing a clusterfuck of color in order to be accurate (or with showing borders, or by putting an outline), when such outline on blank call for "cultural unity" even where you don't have such

2)Sacrifice political accuracy to have an easy read of the map, and to represent accuratly the political situation instead of having a confusion between culture and society.

[Simreeve]

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

No, it imply they are state-organized.
Again, we have the choice between

1)Showing a clusterfuck of color in order to be accurate (or with showing borders, or by putting an outline), when such outline on blank call for "cultural unity" even where you don't have such

2)Sacrifice political accuracy to have an easy read of the map, and to represent accuratly the political situation instead of having a confusion between culture and society.

Perhaps we could have a special border to denote the outer edges of areas that are single-coloured but actually divided into plural statelets like this?

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by Simreeve

Perhaps we could have a special border to denote the outer edges of areas that are single-coloured but actually divided into plural statelets like this?

I don't think it would work.

We have a border for states independent of each other, and that represent the reality of Roman with Gaul, Greeks with Persians, Feudal states with Suzerain.

[wolf_brother]

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

EDIT : exemple below.

I find the first much more appeasing in your example. As I've stated already, the system you're proposing makes the area look like one state.

Also, see my own edit above.

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

No, it imply they are state-organized.
Again, we have the choice between

1)Showing a clusterfuck of color in order to be accurate (or with showing borders, or by putting an outline), when such outline on blank call for "cultural unity" even where you don't have such

2)Sacrifice political accuracy to have an easy read of the map, and to represent accuratly the political situation instead of having a confusion between culture and society.

1) Oddly no one, except perhaps myself, seems to complain about this same issue when it comes to the HRE.

2) You're choosing to sacrifice historical accuracy in favor of aesthetics.

[LSCatilina]

I find the first much more appeasing in your example. As I've stated already, the system you're proposing makes the area look like one state.

And your's make the map unreadable, while agreeing that statelets can be shown like that, and putting it like this on the key would resolve the issue.

For map mapping, I would have a certain tendency to say "if the map isn't readable anymore, that's a bad idea".

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

Having one solid color would imply that they're an single homogenous state, which completely tosses out the entire idea of showing statlets in the first place.

EDIT: I'm honestly baffled by your resistance to this; the Mongol tribes

Tribes =/= States.

February, and the final agreement there vetted out over several pages by myself, Alex Richards, Lord Hastur of Carcosa, and yourself was "white interior with color outline where appropriate around cultures."

Cultures =/= States.

If you read the thread, you'll see that you said "there no convention about it", that I answered "okay, let's make a convention then" and that we agreed about tribes and cultures border needing to be of such kind, and coloured such.
You didn't say anything when I used the plain colour statelets in maps I made later, as 1115. I didn't saw anything either against the colouring of Greek city-states from you, that would have implied for someone not psychic that you agreed with. Or in the key I proposed you agreed on, except preferring the presentation, where the convention about statelets -> plain colour appeared.

As I've stated already, the system you're proposing makes the area look like one state.

And your own makes the areas looking unreadable and looking as it was of the same culture.

1) Oddly no one, except perhaps myself, seems to complain about this same issue when it comes to the HRE.

The complain louder, I don't remember you having proposed something about it.

2) You're choosing to sacrifice historical accuracy in favor of aesthetics.

No. Gaul were understood as a particular aera, within the celtic one, historically. That's the main point that made Gaul distinct of its neighbours : state-based organisation.

Also, are you suggesting that Brittany, Toulouse and France were of the same cultural group in the Middle-Ages as a proof of historical accuracy?

[Iori]

Just my two cents, but states should only get outlines if the culture is really, really close and they tend to Unite into a larger state, like China.

[wolf_brother]

LSCatilina, we're going in circles, to no end. Lets stop talking past each other and see about some compromises. You obviously don't want any outlining, and we've already established that adding an additional form of shading isn't effective. So do you, or anyone else, have any other ideas?

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

So do you, or anyone else, have any other ideas?

The issue is we have already used pretty much all the features avaible for this kind of key. Almost astonishing considering that the first maps only have colour and wilderness as features.

Outline, Plain, Vertical striping, shades...

The only thing we still have is horizontal striping, that I show for the sake of it and still superior than outline, but inferior (imo) to the plain colour for understability.

Now, you called for other ideas.

[wolf_brother]

You keep coming back to this example of feudal France, but how often is such an issue going to realistically come up? If we're looking at an outlier here that we may be arguing over something that isn't worth fighting over.

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

You keep coming back to this example of feudal France

Because it's the exemple I came with the previous time, and because I didn't wanted to waste time by searching another map with another region than something I've already on my drive.

But if the choice of the exemple is so much an issue, let's use yours.

but how often is such an issue going to realistically come up?.

Let's see...In almost every map between Antiquity and 1648?

[wolf_brother]

No, seriously, how often and to what degree is this going to be an issue where we have multiple obligations and loyalties that absolutely must be shown. Because I still don't see a problem with outline, I still believe that using a full color fill for what's not a united state is a Huge Mistake, and I think we both agree the horizontal stripes is aesthetically unpleasing and would clutter the map even more so than it already is.

Here's 1500 with the three methods. In these examples the areas where we have multiple statelets within the same geo-cultural bondraries with unknown or undrawable borders in which we have a specific color for are the Maya, Irish, Mongols, and Japanese.

Outline;


Colored;


Horizontal Stripes;

[Ianesta]

Is the dotted outline technique dead and buried now then?

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

No, seriously, how often and to what degree is this going to be an issue where we have multiple obligations and loyalties that absolutely must be shown.

Even if it was only an issue for one for each 10 maps, just for these cases it would worth to not use it.

Just some random exemples popping now

-Palestinian/Phenician cities states with suzerainity of another power (Egyptians, Mittani, Hittites, Assyrians, Babylonians)
-Greek states with suzerainity of another power (Persia, Macedonia, Roma)
-Gaul states with suzerainity of another power (Massalia, Romans)

For each one of these exemples, it's enough to cover from -600 to (roughly) 50.

Every map showing independent feudal states (so, basically, almost every map between 900 and 1400).

So, taking care of only the exemples quoted (probably more existing, critically in Asia and in Americas) something like one millenia, if merged.

Because I still don't see a problem with outline,

Again, unreadable when it comes to little regions, to regions with already an outline (outline of suzerainity or not), and confusing when it comes to cultural considerations.

and I think we both agree the horizontal stripes is aesthetically unpleasing and would clutter the map even more so than it already is.

Unpleasing, maybe. I personally think it's unappealing more than unpleasing and would call for an adaptation time that is not needed with plain color.

Still, I tried to use something that would remove your biggest reluctance : the confusion with a unifed stated. Let's call that a tentative of compromise.
I tought you called for new ideas, but if it was for you and I staying on our previous positions, I simply not see why you asked that.

That said, it would clutter the map far less than your proposition, but as you didn't couloured the HRE statelets (when we still have a colour for that), it's simply not shown on the map.
Try to colour them, and to put an outline with an under-outline, and we'll see if it's readable.

I would add you badly applied the proposed convention. It's not grey-colour, but white-colour in order to have the color being more visible and for showing the fact we're talking of "states".

(I would add you used out-of-date maps, but that's just a detail)

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by Ianesta

Is the dotted outline technique dead and buried now then?

It would work in this case if the statelets were vassals of themselves.
As your suzerain is usually someone that is not you, I doubt if it would be appliable.

Every time I saw this dotted outline, it was for shared claim or suzerainity (as in late XIX Egypt)

[Iori]

Originally Posted by Ianesta

Is the dotted outline technique dead and buried now then?

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

It would work in this case if the statelets were vassals of themselves.
As your suzerain is usually someone that is not you, I doubt if it would be appliable.

Every time I saw this dotted outline, it was for shared claim or suzerainity (as in late XIX Egypt)

Yes, dotted lines are now only used as outlines to denote Suzerainty which is different from Protectorates or Condominiums; in general it's really only the Ottoman Balkan Vassals that actually use it for the most part.

[wolf_brother]

Originally Posted by Iori

Yes, dotted lines are now only used as outlines to denote Suzerainty which is different from Protectorates or Condominiums; in general it's really only the Ottoman Balkan Vassals that actually use it for the most part.

I thought we used color outline for Suzerainty?
RE: the RCS key.