The NEW Our TimeLine Maps Thread!

[Silverite]

I still think this is a conspiracy by the Evil Maladjusted Monitors...

[Silverite]

A separate color for North Korea and one for Argentina (for your Falklands/South American wars uses)

[Analytical Engine]

What's wrong with using the Italy colour for the Roman Empire/Republic?

[Hapsburg]

Originally Posted by Analytical Engine

What's wrong with using the Italy colour for the Roman Empire/Republic?

Because the Italy colour is used to indicate the Ostrogoths (I think- or the Lombards) in maps during Roman times. So, using the same colour for both would be a bit confusing.

Also, if anyone makes 1250 BCE Map, the Rome colour could also be used for Troy, for continuity purposes.

[euio]

Originally Posted by Calcion

A separate color for North Korea and one for Argentina (for your Falklands/South American wars uses)

Let's try for less colours instead of more, please. Argentinia doesn't need a colour just because of one event. Neither do North or South Korea.

BTW, your North Korean colour is the same as Italy.

[euio]

Originally Posted by Hapsburg

Yes it does. Sometimes, the DRC suffered rebellions- those spaces can be displayed as white with the Congo Blue outline.
Other times, they influenced nearby states, like Rwanda or Burundi.

But is Congo really that important?

They're slightly different colours. Slightly.

Then why does Rumainia have a colour?

Someone else used it, I forget who, and I added it to my UCS update.

Why?

You could use it to also indicate the Kingdom of Kongo in pre-colonial Central Africa. Just like you could use the Mali / Ghana colour to indicate the Mali Empire and Ghana Empire in pre-colonial West Africa.

Why would it need a colour?

Not really. I can tell the difference, and I'm friggin' colourblind.
Tunis/Carthage is more pastel and pale in tone.

But I think the colour should be used for Carthage only. Tunis doesn't need a colour. And I think most of these new colours look very ugly.

[euio]

Originally Posted by Hapsburg

Because the Italy colour is used to indicate the Ostrogoths (I think- or the Lombards) in maps during Roman times. So, using the same colour for both would be a bit confusing.

Why do they need a colour more than Rome?

[Silverite]

Originally Posted by euio

Let's try for less colours instead of more, please. Argentinia doesn't need a colour just because of one event. Neither do North or South Korea.

I strongly disagree. This New Universal Scheme is for everybody to use for their AH projects. If someone is doing Argentina-wanks or the Korean War this is the place to go if he's in a hurry to make a map.

Originally Posted by euio

BTW, your North Korean colour is the same as Italy.

No it is not. The Italy color is lighter and more pastel in nature, I still suspect the problem may lie within your monitor.

[Hapsburg]

Originally Posted by euio

But is Congo really that important?

Yeah.

Then why does Rumainia have a colour?

To show the times when Wallachia influenced nearby states (Moldavia), or to show when Wallachia had territories outside of Wallachia proper- the ones in medieval Greece, for instance.

Why would itneed a colour?

To show influence on nearby states. To show colonies (for ATLs wherein Mali has colonies)

But I think the colour should be used for Carthage only. Tunis doesn't need a colour.

Well, that's you.
I think Tunis deserves a colour.

[euio]

Originally Posted by Hapsburg

Yeah.

what makes it so important?

To show the times when Wallachia influenced nearby states (Moldavia), or to show when Wallachia had territories outside of Wallachia proper- the ones in medieval Greece, for instance.

That makes sense, but please change the colour to something easier to see.

To show influence on nearby states. To show colonies (for ATLs wherein Mali has colonies)

If Mali has colonies and someone needs to make a map,
1.They souldn't use the UCS at all
2.If they do, they can make up one.
If Mali doesn't have colonies IOTL, it shouldn't need a colour in OTL maps.

Well, that's you.
I think Tunis deserves a colour.

Why?

[The Sicilian]

Originally Posted by Hapsburg

Yeah.

Well, that's you.
I think Tunis deserves a colour.

From my understanding of the UCS, the colored countries are/were great powers, or had territory overseas (which, with a few exeptions, were mutually inclusive). This new version of the UCS is crowded with nations that aren't either (Serbia, Romania, Congo, Tunis ect.). And you can't justify showing some on the map because they influenced their neighbors. The US has influence all over the world, but it is only colored in the Areas it has direct control/ occupation.

[Silverite]

Originally Posted by euio

That makes sense, but please change the colour to something easier to see.

Why is this so bloody important to you? And it's just you, I don't see anyone else complaining about colors being the same.

Originally Posted by euio

If Mali has colonies and someone needs to make a map,
1.They souldn't use the UCS at all

Why? Do you have a real argument for this or are you just voicing your opinion?

Originally Posted by euio

2.If they do, they can make up one.
If Mali doesn't have colonies IOTL, it shouldn't need a colour in OTL maps.

Why bother? If you want to do it yourself, fine, but don't be a dick and deny everybody else the opportunity to easily make a map in a very short time with perfect ease in MS bloody Paint.

And the argument is weak. Colonies don't have jack to do about coloration, it is Historical Importance. Songhay? Mali Empire anyone? Why don't you deny the Austrians a color just because they didn't have any colonies. .

Originally Posted by euio

Why?

Because of it's historical importance, as a modern geographical successor to Carthage, who would also have that color (Tunis would get the Carthage color).

[The Sicilian]

Originally Posted by Calcion

Why is this so bloody important to you? And it's just you, I don't see anyone else complaining about colors being the same.

Actually, I have, and they do look the same.

Why? Do you have a real argument for this or are you just voicing your opinion?

And what is wrong with voicing your opinion, eh?

Why bother? If you want to do it yourself, fine, but don't be a dick and deny everybody else the opportunity to easily make a map in a very short time with perfect ease in MS bloody Paint.

You are rude and quite noobish. Euio is much more active on the board than you are, so hold your tongue.

And the argument is weak. Colonies don't have jack to do about coloration, it is Historical Importance. Songhay? Mali Empire anyone? Why don't you deny the Austrians a color just because they didn't have any colonies. .

Colonies have everything to do with coloration! Do you honestly thing that Belgium would have been colored if it didn't pick up the Congo!? And if we colored in any country that ever had any historical significance, then the key would be huge beyond belief.

Because of it's historical importance, as a modern geographical successor to Carthage, who would also have that color (Tunis would get the Carthage color).

Coloration (as far as I've seen) is based on two things: Colonization and major power status in the modern world. If every modern third world country that once had an powerful ancient civilization in their geographic boundaries should have a color, then why do nations like Cambodia not have colors?

[euio]

Originally Posted by Calcion

Why is this so bloody important to you? And it's just you, I don't see anyone else complaining about colors being the same.

What about Imajin?

Why? Do you have a real argument for this or are you just voicing your opinion?

I'm not just voicing my opinion, but many other people's opinions too.

[euio]

Originally Posted by Hapsburg

Because the Italy colour is used to indicate the Ostrogoths (I think- or the Lombards) in maps during Roman times. So, using the same colour for both would be a bit confusing.

Isn't Rome a bit more important?

[Atom]

Mesoamerica 1500:

[Hapsburg]

Originally Posted by euio

Isn't Rome a bit more important?

Maybe.
But, the Ostrogoths and Romans lived near each other, on opposite banks of the Danube, for a while. I think that kind of thing needs to be differentiated in maps of those periods of time.

An example being a map Thande (I think it was he) made where it showed the late Roman Empire and coloured (but not bordered) markings to show the local homelands of the various tribes. In that, the Italy colour was used to represent a Germanic tribe, and a different colour for Rome. I remember that much.

[Atom]

And now the blank Mesoamerica in 1500:

[Qazaq2007]

Atom,
Totally killer Mesoamerica maps, dude. Q

[Highlander]

I need a detailed map of Europe, during either 1330 or 1335.

Can anyone supply this?