[Abandoned] - A New Asia Map

[MrBenn]

I think the white region ought to be separated into Indian subcontinent, Southeast asia and Far East (China and Japan). But judging by the look of things, that area might not be even near done just yet.

Yes - the white region will be split up (as per some of the lists in previous posts); I've yet to draw the borders for The Orient, Middle Asia, Indian Subcontinent, Indochina, Indonesia, etc.)

I think the map is going ot have to get a bit bigger... Zoom in and sacrifice the northern coast of Russia and perhaps give it a slight tilt to accommodate the shape better.

It seems to me that europe and scandinavia have no reason to be on an Asia map... you could maybe tilt and zoom in a bit, to leave them out.

I'm guess those areas are the non-playable areas.

All the more reason to show a smaller portion of them. Leaves more room for the actual playing area

There's not much I can trim off to make things fit better - the real issue is one of width, rather than one of height

I quite like Northern Europe being on the map as a non-playable area - it makes the geography feel more complete (the continent is truly Eurasia). If I were to go for a different map projection, I wouldn't get any more room where I really need it - all that would happen is that Russia would take up even more space!

I'll try and get some more time to produce a finalised draft in due course - the regions will be divided as per previous suggestions, and will still be open to debate

[natty dread]

(the continent is truly Eurasia)

You know, an Eurasia map could be interesting...

[MrBenn]

A completely accurate map of Eurasia would be incredibly challenging to represent while fitting within the constraints of the CC map dimensions...

Back on topic:

Well, you're going to have one territory that borders 7 different territories (if you connect to Japan, which I think you must). And those 7 different territories are likely going to be in at least 3 different bonus regions. So if you keep Russia as a single territory, which bonus region will it fall in? I don't think there's a satisfactory answer to that.

So would we keep it a +1 autodeploy? If we do that, on such a large map (~60 territories), one person could claim Russia early and build on it--particularly in 4-player games or fewer. You'd get the +1 and an additional 5 or so armies. So before anyone would card (I'm thinking flat rate here), you could have around 20 armies on Russia and it would be able to deny three of the bonus regions on the board permanently.

In effect, it's not so much a connection issue per se. It's the fact that there's no real way to make Russia the territory that doesn't dominate the map. But, then again, maybe we want that...

Personally, I think I'm erring on the side of keeping Russia as one big country, but include two island terrs - Ostrov Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands (not shown on the draft image above) in the same region. An alternative option is to add the Caucasus / Transcontinental countries to the same bonus region too. Sure, Russia is a strategic territory from a gameplay perspective, but I'm not convinced it's a major issue - even if it ends up as a +1 for holding a single territory (although I'd prefer not to go down that route). I'd also prefer not to go down the killer neutral/autodeploy route unless absolutely necessary.

Are there any suggestions for decent impassables between the bonus regions, such as mountains between Nepal/Bhutan and China?

[AndyDufresne]

Caspian Sea seems like it would be a fine impassable, and so too maybe the Gobi Desert, a la Mongol Empire. Traditionally well known rivers like the Indus, Ganges, and Ob.


--Andy

[MrBenn]

My comments on the continent structure only...

Here are some of my thoughts on how territories could be grouped (the number in brackets are territory counts, not bonus values):

Siberia 1-3 - Russia, (Ostrov Sakhalin), (Kuril Islands) Yes
Caucasus 4 - Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, Turkey Yes
Arabia 7-8 - Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Yemen, (Socotra), Saudi Arabia, Kuwait Yes
Levant 5-8 - Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, (Palestine?{West Bank/Gaza Strip}), Yes (Cyprus <- according to wiki part of the european continent and European Union)

Middle Asia 6-7 - Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Iran Yes
The Orient 6-11 - China, (Hainan), (Hong Kong), (Macau), Taiwan, (Tibet?), Mongolia, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, (Japanese Islands??) Yes
Indian Subcontinent 6-9 - Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, {Pakistan*}, Sri Lanka, (Maldives), (Lakshadweep Islands), (Andaman and Nicobar islands) Yes, with ref to Pakistan, it was part of India ages ago, so belongs in this subgroup
Indochina 5-6- Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam, Peninsular Malaysia* Yes
Malay Archipelego - East Malaysia*, Brunei, (Indonesia**), Philippines, Singapore, East Timor/Timor-Leste, (Papua New Guinea) <- No. Why not make Phillipines, East Timor, Papua & New Guinea (not Irian Jaya) their own small independant group, and keep Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore as the Malaccas/Malay continent.
( Indonesia** - Java, Sumatra, Sulawesi, Borneo***, Lesser Sunda Islands (Bali etc), New Guinea ) <- New Guinea is Irian Jaya
( Borneo**?? - East Malaysia, Brunei, Kalimantan ) Yes

To preserve continuity, I think I'd opt against splitting Russia/Malaysia into separate parts, but this is more problematic in the Malay Archipelago... Malalysia could be two distinct terrs in two regions, or a single terr that is in both... Indonesia could be a terr on its own, or a region made up its principal islands. Regional Indonesia could be included in the Malay Archipelago region, or the two could combine with Indochina to make a supercontinent (as per World 2.1)...

I think Malaya

These are the questions that will need some serious thought... In the meantime, I've got a new basemap to draw

As I explained to MrBenn, I've taken on another new job (I won't even try to explain my career), so I've been swamped with real-life. But I don't want to abandon this project before it even gets off the ground.

So I think where we stand, after reading what's been written and some PMs with MrBenn, is at the point where we just have to formally decide which territories are in and which are out. MrBenn can't really proceed until then with the gameplay and graphics. I don't intend to impose my will on everyone else, but I suppose I do have to be the final arbiter. So I'll present what I think the territories should be. I do have them grouped in bonus regions, but those regions can and will likely change later. Right now, let's just focus the discussion on whether or not a territory should be included.

In no way do I intend to make any sort of political statement with these selections. Some semi- or formerly autonamous regions I leave off (Hong Kong and Macau) because they seem useless for gameplay. Others I include because I think they will help gameplay, most notably Tibet and Northern Cyprus (which I realize isn't really part of Asia, but it can open up Turkey if it connects to the mainland twice).

Anyway, here are my tentative selections:

RUSSIA: European Russia, Siberia, Ostrov Sakhalin, Kuril Islands, Kamchatka Peninsula (5 territories)
HOLY LAND: Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip (3 territories)
ARAB STATES: Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq (5 territories)
ARABIAN PENINSULA: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Yemen, Oman, UAE (6 territories)
CAUCUSUS: Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, North Cyprus (5 territories)
CENTRAL ASIA: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan (7 territories)
INDIAN SUBCONTINENT: Maldives, Sri Lanka, India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan (6 territories)
SOUTHEAST ASIA: Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia (7 territories)
ISLANDS: Brunei, Borneo, Sumatra, Bali, Java, East Timor, New Guinea, Indonesia, Philippines (9 territories)
ORIENT: China, Mongolia, North Korea, South Korea, Tibet, Taiwan, Japan (7 territories)

That would give us 61 territories if I've done the math right. I don't know what the optimum starting figures are off-hand, but we can adjust with starting neutrals if need be. Also, I kind of like the idea of including Kashmir in some regard. Maybe as a killer neutral, maybe as a +1 autodeploy or maybe as part of the Indian Subcontinent. The proper nature of Kashmir could be discussed later, but if it's included it gives us 62 territories.

For now, ignoring the bonus groupings and the names of the bonus groupings... does anyone have strong opinions on the list above?

I was only half-checking the above while sorting out the basemap borders etc... I still need to finish off the Indonesian bit of the map, but most of the other borders are sorted now; hence the updated draft (which is still missing territory names at this stage):


I'll probably add a couple of extra island territories in due course; but for now the discussion should continue around sensible bonus regions, and any natural impassables that could be added in sensible places.

[isaiah40]

Caspian Sea seems like it would be a fine impassable, and so too maybe the Gobi Desert, a la Mongol Empire. Traditionally well known rivers like the Indus, Ganges, and Ob.


--Andy

What he said! Although (without really looking) the Gobi Desert probably wouldn't work as an impassable, since it does cover a lot of Mongolia, northern China and part of Russia.

You can use the Himalayas as an impassable. Also the Tien-Shan and Pamir mountains which can border China/Kazakhstan and China/Tajikistan/Afghanistan respectfully.

Looking at some rivers in the region. There is Amu Darya which flows from a high plateau in the Pamir Mtns. of central Asia, across southern Tajikistan, forming its border with Afghanistan, then northwest, forming parts of the borders between Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan and on into the Aral Sea.

The Indus River won't work because it doesn't have any natural border with countries to speak of. Unless you want to fudge it a little.

Just my couple of cents for now.

[Industrial Helix]

Impassables: Himalayas obviously... The Yalu river separates the Koreas from China... that's the only river boundary I can think of.

One possibility would be to throw the Koreas into Japan's sphere of influence... I think I was reading how linguistically they were similar and not to mention, Korea was once a Colony of Japan.

Do you intend to make Hong Kong its own territory? It could go either way.

Are you doing Japan by each of its islands?

The southern most island of the Philippines, Mindanao, is a semi-autonomous Sultanate within the Philippines. This situation similar to Sardinia or Sicily in Italy, which you gave their own space on Europa.

You should add the Maldives.

And I like the color scheme and the generally graphical direction its going. Europa is a very clear map and I think that the style is going to work great for this.

You could name it Asiatica... Europa is latin for Europe, and while Asia is latin for Asia, I noticed that in the naming of plants Asiatica is used to describe "Of Asia" and I think it might be the best option.

Has anyone given any thought to an Africa map like this?

[isaiah40]

I forgot to mention that I hope you will be doing an inset of the Holy Land to show those territories, as right now I don't think everything is going to fit there.

[Industrial Helix]

I forgot to mention that I hope you will be doing an inset of the Holy Land to show those territories, as right now I don't think everything is going to fit there.

Speaking of which... Palestine or Israel? Controversy please!

I suppose a West Bank/Israel/Gaza thing would do though really. I mean, you're recognizing Taiwan on this map which about 8 countries in this world formally do.

[isaiah40]

I forgot to mention that I hope you will be doing an inset of the Holy Land to show those territories, as right now I don't think everything is going to fit there.

Speaking of which... Palestine or Israel? Controversy please!

I suppose a West Bank/Israel/Gaza thing would do though really. I mean, you're recognizing Taiwan on this map which about 8 countries in this world formally do.

I agree. If you're doing a modern day map, then West Bank/Israel/Gaza would be appropriate, just put them in an inset please.

[rutherfoo]

One possibility would be to throw the Koreas into Japan's sphere of influence... I think I was reading how linguistically they were similar and not to mention, Korea was once a Colony of Japan.

I don't really like that idea. I don't think Korea was ever what most people consider a "colony" of Japan. At the time I assume you're referring to, Japan was invading big chunks of China as well; Korea was sort of a stepping-stone in Japan's goal to take over China.

The idea is great for the Western Hemisphere map, but not in a modern map like this.

Between 1592 and 1598, Japan invaded Korea, but was eventually repelled due to the efforts of the Navy led by Admiral Yi Sun-sin, and other forces of resistance. In the 1627 and 1636, Joseon was suffered invasions by the Manchu Qing Dynasty.
Beginning in the 1870s, Japan began to force Korwaea out of China's sphere of influence into its own. In 1895, Empress Myeongseong was assinated by Japanese agents. In 1897, Joseon was renamed the Korean Empire (1897-1910), and King Gojong became Emperor Gojong.
Nevertheless, In 1905, Japanese forced Korea to sign the Eulsa Treaty making Korea a protectorate, and in 1910 annexed Korea, although neither treaty was considered to be legally valid. Korean resistance to the Japanese occupation was manifested in the widespread nonviolent March 1st Movement of 1919. Thereafter the Korean liberation movement, coordinated by the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea in exile, was largely active in neighboring Manchuria, China and Siberia.

...

In Korea, the period is usually described as a time of "Japanese forced occupation"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Korea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_under_Japanese_rule

I read a book about this time period this past year called "The Living Reed" and it was pretty interesting. Most people don't seem to know much about the history of Korea.

Most Koreans I know would be offended that Korea would be considered part of a Japanese territory.

You should add the Maldives.

You could name it Asiatica... Europa is latin for Europe, and while Asia is latin for Asia, I noticed that in the naming of plants Asiatica is used to describe "Of Asia" and I think it might be the best option.

I like these two ideas a lot.

[Industrial Helix]

ok... I'm not saying Korea is part of Japan. I'm saying they have more linguistically and culturally in common than Korea and China do and would make for a more appropriate grouping. And they were in fact a colony of Japan for as long as Morocco was a colony of France (give or take a few years), and this was internationally recognized at the time. Yes, I realize Korea is independent. Yes I realize Korea is a separate culture.

The Germany region in Europa includes Austria, but it's not suggesting Hitler's Germany is alive and well, is it? These aren't empires being represented on the map, they're similar regions. Including Korea in the same region as Japan isn't suggesting they're the same but rather they're more similar than Korea and China would be.

[TaCktiX]

A good clean version of Asia. If you're trying to replicate the europa style of map, it's too dark, but leaving that off to the side for the present time. Russia as its own Big Damn Continent may be geographically accurate, but isn't much for gameplay. Unless there's going to be some cheapie +1 on there, I would suggest splitting it into regions purely because of its size. Perhaps Moscow, Urals (better term needed), Siberia, and Kamchatka? Something to consider as you flesh this out further.

[DAAAAAAANG]

ok... I'm not saying Korea is part of Japan. I'm saying they have more linguistically and culturally in common than Korea and China do and would make for a more appropriate grouping. And they were in fact a colony of Japan for as long as Morocco was a colony of France (give or take a few years), and this was internationally recognized at the time. Yes, I realize Korea is independent. Yes I realize Korea is a separate culture.

The Germany region in Europa includes Austria, but it's not suggesting Hitler's Germany is alive and well, is it? These aren't empires being represented on the map, they're similar regions. Including Korea in the same region as Japan isn't suggesting they're the same but rather they're more similar than Korea and China would be.

You couldn't be more wrong. Korea has its own separate culture, language, and writing system. They were always closely tied to the Chinese, however maintained their independence. There are still some borrowed Japanese words in Korean, but they are mostly for food and other items from Japan. The only place in Korea that would have any linguistic tie to Japanese would be Jeju Island in the south, because of it's location. Also, Korea was not colonized by Japan, it was occupied from 1910 - 1945 which is only slightly shorter than the French in Morocco. I don't think Korea should be considered a part of China or Japan, but if it has to be one then it should remain as China. To move them under the Japanese Empire would be ignoring roughly 4965 years of culturally linked history for the short 35 year military occupation by the Japanese.

[Industrial Helix]

ok... I'm not saying Korea is part of Japan. I'm saying they have more linguistically and culturally in common than Korea and China do and would make for a more appropriate grouping. And they were in fact a colony of Japan for as long as Morocco was a colony of France (give or take a few years), and this was internationally recognized at the time. Yes, I realize Korea is independent. Yes I realize Korea is a separate culture.

The Germany region in Europa includes Austria, but it's not suggesting Hitler's Germany is alive and well, is it? These aren't empires being represented on the map, they're similar regions. Including Korea in the same region as Japan isn't suggesting they're the same but rather they're more similar than Korea and China would be.

You couldn't be more wrong. Korea has its own separate culture, language, and writing system. They were always closely tied to the Chinese, however maintained their independence. There are still some borrowed Japanese words in Korean, but they are mostly for food and other items from Japan. The only place in Korea that would have any linguistic tie to Japanese would be Jeju Island in the south, because of it's location. Also, Korea was not colonized by Japan, it was occupied from 1910 - 1945 which is only slightly shorter than the French in Morocco. I don't think Korea should be considered a part of China or Japan, but if it has to be one then it should remain as China. To move them under the Japanese Empire would be ignoring roughly 4965 years of culturally linked history for the short 35 year military occupation by the Japanese.

Ok... i read that Korean is not tonal, unlike Chinese and much like Japanese. And then I did a little wiki search and found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaic_languages Apparently Korean falls in to the Altaic languages, which if you look at the map, you'll see includes Japan and Korea and not China... and interestingly enough Turkey.

Also, Japan had launched invasion of Korea as well sometime around 500 ad. I think because Manchuria wasn't part of China until like 1600, i think this contributes to the distant relationship between China and Korea. Though from what I've read China had its share of conflicts with Korea. It certainly is it's own culture and what have you, with its own history, language, people, ect. but I think it belongs in non-Chinese grouping because linguistically it's in the same family as Japan, it was never part of China (unlike Mongolia or Tibet), and while it was part of the Japanese Empire for like 50 years and then part of the US post war far eastern sphere of influence (well half)... so most of the 20th and I think the idea behind this map is to portray Asia as it is today.

[jasnostj]

Pakistan is geographically, historically and linguistically part of the Indian subcontinent, not Central Asia.

[jasnostj]

Why an independent Tibet (and big too!)? Trying to make a political statement?

[jasnostj]

Speaking of which... Palestine or Israel? Controversy please!

Just call it Israel & Palestine.

[darth emperor]

Maybe as it seems the japan part very small,you should add it to china and call it far east bonus.

Or you can do same as World 2.1 give a bonus for china give a bonus for japan, and if someone has china japan and korea give him more(though i dont like this idea much)


Indeed pakistan should be in the indian bonus not with central asia


Maybe for tibet could be +1 if you get it and already have china bonus,that would reflect his "indepence" and at the same time his dependence to china


For russia maybe you could split in 2 or 3...(in the last map i just see 5 borders...) altough all together is not a bad idea

[MrBenn]

I'd quite like to pick this up again....

Any further thoughts?

show

[The Bison King]

I wouldn't complain. It's a lovely map, and a fair one. A perfect Asian parallel to Europa, where all the countries relate to territories. It could use some Impassable though, and Russia could stand to be more than 5 territories.

[Evil DIMwit]

I think Russia works fine as one territory. It only borders six others, and it's hilarious.

[Raskholnikov]

A few comments:

1. Pakistan really should be included in South Asia, with India. It was part of the Raj and until 1973 it included Bangladesh.

2. China: If Tibet is included, so should be the Uighur Autonomous Region, which has also been in the news recently; as well as Hong Kong. For these regions, no claims are made about their independence - simply about their unique status within China.

3. Middle East: same idea with Palestine (West Bank) in Israel. You will probably need an insert for that region, anyway.

4. Japan: should be part of the Pacific Rim, with the Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore, etc.

6. The Russia Issue. Russia has 21 constituent republics (see map below).

Click image to enlarge.

If you regroup the smaller ones together, you could have an entirely reasonable 7 -territory Russia: Russia, Caucasian Republics, Volga Republics, Karelia, Komi, Sakha, Asian Republics.

Considering that both Russia and China are not nation-states but empires, it is only fair to show some of the key sub-units of each. India, whilst also not a nation-state, is a democratic federation, so an argument can be made to keep it as one unit.

Anyway, I think these changes would make the map more interesting to play withoud deviating from the principle of showing all Asian States.

[Evil DIMwit]

Also: Egypt's Sinai Peninsula in Asia, just as part of Turkey is in Europe.

[Raskholnikov]

True, but I never heard of Egypt being referred as an "Asian" country. Besides the proportions are reversed wrt Turkey. Most of Turkey is in Asia, most of Egypt in Africa.