New Map



  • Righto then. You may or may not be aware that I've been working on upgrading our map, so to speak, so as to add physical features, resources, make the map larger, make borders possible to adjust in accordance with the RP, etc. Anyway, the physical map is now done, and I can show you a purely physical one and one with borders. I'm also planning a purely political map and a resource map, which will be available tomorrow.

    This will also be an excellent opportunity for us to discuss the scale of the map, and the idea of changing RP populations to 5%, or even 2%, of NS population, or perhaps establishing some kind of mathsy formula for it. Anyway, I hope that the new map system, and the scale, and any changes to RP population, be decided upon and instituted by the end of this week.

    Anyway, the maps (thanks to Dux for hosting)!

    Without Borders
    With Borders
    Political Map
    With Numbers
    With Resources
    With Longitude and Latitude


  • Moderator

    Great maps Joe, thank you so much putting time and effort into these.

    As for limiting RP populations to 5% at most, I totally agree. The region's population is pretty much 20 times that of real life Europe, and realistically, most of our countries would be totally unsustainable with our current populations (Inquista in particular).



  • Great job on the maps I would like have south america a bit bigger but details details happy.gif happy.gif

    Does this mean we can claim colonies now?


  • Commission

    Great map on the most part however I feel that the peninsular which is now to the south of Davishire is very unappealing. It pretty much blocks my access to the ocean. It will make sea trade uneconomical and put Davishire at risk of easy blockade. It will also make the regular ferries between Davishire and other EU nations uneconomical.

    Not to mention the effects on other EU countries including Poland Lithuania. In realistic terms much of the northern arctic ocean, especially during the winter is ice and is difficult to move through. That would further isolate both Davishire and our easterly neighbours.

    I do therefore request that such a peninsular be removed.

    On the issue of population I feel that the current 10% be to high however I feel rather than giving a restriction of 5% it should be closer to 7% or 8%



  • I agree with Davishire on the peninsula, as realistically, going over it run into Arctic ice, and now the two of us can't trade with anyone.


  • Mass Effect RP

    Perhaps instead of removing the peninsula entirely, we could just add a deep water river or canal near the south of it. I quite like having a Scandinavia equivalent, and a river or something would alleviate those concerns some have.


  • Commission

    Something that is wide enough that it is not anybodies sovereign territory. Something like the English channel but with a non-sovereign gap in the middle.

    Although personally I would prefer to see it gone.



  • I could deal with a canal or something.



  • Mmmmmmmm... I don't like very much the center of my country covered ba a desert...



  • Looks amazing!


  • ECoJ

    This looks stunning! Cartographer CC3 really does deliver, even though it crashes regularly.

    As for the RP population, I definitely agree it should be brought down to at least 5% of the NS population. As already said, it's vitually impossible to sustain our nations with so many people. I would even be in favour of reducing the population to 4 or 3%, although this might make it more difficult for smaller nations to develop, which we should take into account.



  • QUOTE (Groot belgie @ September 2nd, 2014 - 10:52)

    Great job on the maps I would like have south america a bit bigger but details details happy.gif happy.gif

    Does this mean we can claim colonies now?

    South America is going to be phased out, along with North America, once no nations are actively there. It's the reason the EUOT map claims was suspended like it should have done a long time ago. So making it bigger for any point would be rather moot and unneeded since we are focusing on Europe here.

    As for colonies, you could claim them before....but now not so much and before you get any ideas Groot, its unlikely a landlocked nation would get any colonies unless it was EXTREMELY powerful...like old Rhine Ruhr.

    As for population, I believe we should work in phases considering some of us work on the extreme edge of the warlist *Cough* me *cough*, and as such would break the 1% rule without ample time to get ready for such a massive change. Personally I feel 7.5% of NS pop is good enough, but I could leave with 5%. My proposed stages, 10% down to 7.5% for a two month period, then to 5% for a two month period if we wish to go lower, then 3% for a two month period, and finally 2% if that is our end goal!

    In regards to scale of the map, I say you decide that Joe, as it might get messing especially with some people who wish to make their nations unrealistically big.

    P.S Amazing map Joe! Can't wait for it to be done! Good luck with your goals for the forums and constitution...those are the challenge.


  • Moderator

    No, we definitely do need a scale. Otherwise neighboring countries of similar proportions can claim vastly different sizes (like they currently do).

    And phasing down population overtime in increments of months is weird. It will seem like we're killing our own people slowly over time. I don't understand why we can't just have a massive change one day? No need to make complications.


  • administrators

    Great map! Regarding scale, when I did the EUOT map I tried it to be the ultimate whole-world map so it's supposed it is the same size RL Earth then it's just calculating area counting pixels. As for population, I show the same concern as Prussia regarding the 1% rule which would probably have to become a 0,5% rule or something such. I'd be in favour of switching RP population to a 5%.



  • QUOTE (Inquista @ September 3rd, 2014 - 4:40)

    No, we definitely do need a scale. Otherwise neighboring countries of similar proportions can claim vastly different sizes (like they currently do).

    And phasing down population overtime in increments of months is weird. It will seem like we're killing our own people slowly over time. I don't understand why we can't just have a massive change one day? No need to make complications.

    War lists would be heavily affected, like I said the 1% rule would be heavily affected by a sudden 1/2 the population, unless rob is willing to change things up for a small amount of time for us to get back on track and follow the regular rules.



  • QUOTE (Inquista @ September 2nd, 2014 - 3:54)

    Great maps Joe, thank you so much putting time and effort into these.

    As for limiting RP populations to 5% at most, I totally agree. The region's population is pretty much 20 times that of real life Europe, and realistically, most of our countries would be totally unsustainable with our current populations (Inquista in particular).

    Completely agree with you! Good job Joe biggrin.gif (my first post here after a long time, I'm sooooooooooooooooooo excited xD)



  • Righto then. More new maps:

    Political Map
    With Numbers
    With Resources
    With Longitude and Latitude

    The map is equirectangular in projection. You can use the co-ordinates of the longitude and latitude to work out the distance between places and the area of plots, using calculators quite easily available online. The Earth is the same size in both RP and RL. Anyway, with this I worked out that Inquista's area is roughly 3,870 sq km. Under any of our proposed RP population changes, this would make St. Dominico more densely populated than any urban area on Earth IRL - but a 2% rule would make the Inquistans only slightly more crammed in than the people of Dhaka, so that's what I'd like to suggest.

    Under a 2% rule, Inquista would have a population around 200 million, GDR 331 million, Angleter 276 million, Dux 378 million, etc. These, I think, are reasonable populations which can still reasonably grow. Among our newer nations, Prussia would be at 6.8 million and Vathopia 12.4 million - and yes, though a new person who signs up on the day they created their nation would have a population of 100,000 (currently 500,000), that would grow. And besides, there are a handful of European countries with populations below 1 million (or 500,000) anyway.

    As for people's concerns about the map - Davishire (and Poland), you'll be able to trade around Scandinavia without going north of 71 N. It is perfectly possible for ships and ports to operate at that latitude all year round - see the Hurtigruten and Murmansk. Northern Caesarea, your country is in what's quite clearly the equivalent of North Africa - in the absence of any instruction from you, I went with what is reasonable considering your country's location and the geography of its neighbour, the Duxburian Union.

    Anyway, since we ought to get things moving, if we have a day or two of further questions/queries/comments, and then we can have a 48 hour vote from Wednesday to Friday.


  • Moderator

    I cannot help but reiterate my thanks for all this work, Joe. I also support the idea for a 2% rule - which would make this region far more realistic and much more sensible (and not an overpopulated environmental wreck). At this rate we're more of a union of dozens of Chinas, Indias and Americas crammed in a small space. New nations have nothing to fear, because just within 2 or 3 weeks they will have a population greater than a vast majority of small European countries.

    Nations like NC also have nothing to be scared of, the map is an outline which you can play woth. Your desert doesn't have to be as severe as the Sahara if you don't want it. It can be much more temperate like the deserts of Central Asia. I also assume if the map doesn't have all the resources you wanted or doesn't have any at all (like some plots) nothing can stop you from claiming more, although it would be assumed you have to be reasonable and have RP justifications.



  • Once again, while I am open to the idea of a 2% rule...I suggest we do it over time or start it January 1st....since you know there are various RP aspects which will need time to prepare..the war system and the 1% rule is an amazing example. It was bad enough with halving the population, but ti remove 80% of it? That's going to wreck every military and cause a huge headache.

    My opinion, have the new populations begin January 1st, 2015, or have rob give out a massive grace period for the 1% rule.


  • Moderator

    Why January 1st? Is the Aztec calendar doomsday going to hit the EU and kill off our people? What is the point of having new players join the region using the old rules and get used to them when we might be choosing to change them suddenly? What honestly takes time to prepare? If the vote goes through it should apply, unless you legit want to RP the depopulation to whatever new years doomsday RP you have up your sleeve? Just redo your warlist. It will take some work, but so does updating your warlist after quite a few months of neglect (which we all do). Your military is tiny anyway and requires very little work. If you find redoing your already miniscule warlist to be a headache, then let's all pray for Rob who will have to deal with a heart attack. Your military is also not even in use, so your military shouldn't even matter.

    Either vote yes or no. If the answer is no, then no change. If the votevis yes, then you will have to deal with the change. Same goes for the maps. No, the maps aren't being applied over time either, so we don't need to RP tectonic shifts and Atlantis worlds suidenly emerging to form Scandinavia on January 1st.

    The EU always somehow complicates even the most simple things. Do things smart, not hard


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to NS European Union was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.