Well, ian, let me say we seem to have a fundamental disagreement over the priorities of mapmaking.
iancanton wrote: this map has no theme
Sure it has a theme. It's a map of Eurasia. Every map doesn't need to be a special alternate history foray or historical battle or some such. It's a geographical map, sure, but one that fills a void that I think CC still has, namely, a map of the Eurasian continent - one that brings together both Europe and Asia.
iancanton wrote:landmass that has been divided up into regions of roughly equal size
I've already elsewhere expressed my view on this matter, so I'm not going to rehash this much further, except to say that this is on purpose. I don't think making the territories different sizes is in any way purposeful, it hurts the fundamental idea of a war game. Ie. it makes no sense at all that you can use one army to hold a land mass the size of russia, when the same army can also be fit into vatican.
iancanton wrote:pointlessly over-emphasises siberia
Siberia isn't "over-emphasised", far from it. It's hard to defend, it doesn't have much potential for growth, it's in no way a good area for someone to start from.
iancanton wrote: this is irrespective of areas that are civilised, industrialised, productive, rich or empty,
Should the classic map give a higher bonus to North America than Asia, because North America is much richer and more industrialised?
I design a map based on what makes for a fun gameplay experience. I don't think any player is going to be sighing to themselves "oh, this would be a fun map if only it adhered to the economical realities of real world better"...
iancanton wrote:with unnecessary 3-region bonuses scattered randomly
They are not "scattered randomly". A lot of thought has been put into the spread of the bonuses, and in making sure that the small, medium and large bonuses are all equally represented around the different parts of the map, which I think is something that should be done on a map of this size.
iancanton wrote: remove all four russian arctic island groups
Why would I do that? They provide connectivity at the north side of the map, which I think is a good feature.
iancanton wrote:emove all russian regions that are not federal subjects (taymyria, evenkia, east sakha) and merge all of mongolia into one region.
Yeah... No. That goes against the design principles of the map, and is in no way purposeful. The same goes for the rest of your suggestions, they're just aimed at making this map adhere to your view of what a map like this is supposed to achieve, and I disagree on it.
Like I said, we have a fundamental disagreement on what are the priorities of gameplay design here. I don't think it is the first priority of a map to represent the "busy" areas with more territories... when you think of it, an area with less/larger territories is one that you can cross faster, and a busy, industrialised area should be one where mobility is easier. So if I were to dogmatically make the busy areas have a higher territory density, it wouldn't make any sense at all.
But more than that, I don't think there's only one way to design a geographical map. I don't see why you have to necessarily look at it from a certain perspective. Dim is currently making a world map that aspires to feature all the countries in the world, with each country being one territory. And the gameplay is totally different. I wouldn't design a map like that, but it's different, and it's something new, and if he pulls it off it might be fun to play. It doesn't make sense when you consider the economic realities of the world, it doesn't adhere to the rule of "having more territories in more populated areas", but so what?
TL;DR: There's more than one way to look at the idea of designing a map, and as long as it's fun to play and reasonably balanced I think the rest is secondary.