Onoma, splitting it in several territories would be a better option.

I completely agree aout the borders though... they are just done on the mapmaker's whim, their shape is completely arbitrary at times.

World Nations 2014 is perfect as it is.
It just needs much more islands. For colonial scenarions and epic sea battles.

Less islands!

Onoma, splitting it in several territories would be a better option.

One does not negate the other, would split it too.

>China+

You can't be serious. China is OP in 2012 and 2014 to the max. China shouldn't even come close to the US because they don't even come close to the US in military strength. China's power is so fucking overrated in every game because people think population = strength when it really doesn't. If bonuses = military power (which they should - more realistic) then the US should have a strong lead, followed by Russia and then China.

Some changes I'm thinking of (that haven't been said yet):

+Svalbard

-Split California into two (maybe three) California has a huge economy and owning it should make you very powerful.

Tbh, a good update doesn't need 100 new territories. At best, 30 new ones.

Romania, Greece and some of the balkans need to split up better. Croatia could use a split, havng dalmatia separate from the rest of croatia would be good on many scenarios.

Urumqi should be split in two to nerf it's amazing expansion power.

Coastal Brazil needs some more states.

Chile needs to be split because it's just uttely underpowered for what Chile actually is. It's income should be at least comparable to northern SA countries.

South Africa and Nigeria could have like ~6 territories each.

Australia and Canada could use a few new ones, too.

Germany should split Ruhrpott and Hamburg in two, each.

Portugal can also get it's own split, in Lisbon and Porto.

India could have Delhi and Uttar Pradesh split.

Malaysia should be better set so Kuala Lumpur and Brunei aren't stuck. Same for China's Tianjin.

Riyadh and Islamabad DESPARETELY need to split. Pakistan is too weak and Riyadh is overly gigantic...

California could use a split, economically it's about as powerful as Italy.

Edited 10/31/2015 20:13:03

America's military capacity after you occupy it is huge because Americans have TONS of guns (you have no idea) that you could TRY to confiscate along with the places that build state of the art ships and planes.

Castle Bravo, bonuses should not be based on military strength. In real life, you can't build new armies quicker because you already have a strong army. You can build new armies quicker because you have a high population and a strong economy. Existing military strength can be shown in a custom scenario by setting the number of armies in a province higher. Also, 100 new territories is way too much, should be 30 new at max. Xapy, can you give some examples of countries which aren't represented (other than island nations and microstates).

Edited 10/31/2015 21:12:27

I believe 2014 got Somaliland, but maybe not. (sorry if some others have also been righted in 2014). If not...

Over 1 million folk

Somaliland
Donetsk and Luhansk (not really the mapmaker's fault; didn't gain independence until early 2014)
Levant
Puntland (not precisely a country but should certainly be made its own territory)
Palestine
Hong Kong-Macau (same as Puntland)
Qatar
Gambia
Guinea-Bissau
Kosova
Bahrain
Trinidad

Over 10 000 KM^2

Artsakh
Vanuatu
Fiji/New Caledonia (separation)
Solomon Islands
Sikkim (incorporation into India, not Bhutan; and so that India could connect to east territories)
Svalbard (autonomy)
Sahrawi/Morocco's south (separation)
Antarctica (weird case)

Somaliland, Puntland, Hong Kong-Macau, Svalbard are autonomous, not independent.
Levant isn't a country- I'm not sure where you got that from.
Donetsk and Luhansk, Palestine are not internationally recognized as independent states.
Vanuatu, Fiji/New Caledonia, Bahrain and Trinidad and Tobago are island states.
Artsakh does not exist today.
Sahrawi is represented on the map.
Antarctica doesn't really count for various reasons.
The others should be represented (as well as Bhutan)

After reading all of these long posts I've decided better not to participate in the idea to create a second World Nations map but rather quit. I don't want to object me to all of its criticism, even if I do I'll get complaints anyway. These things are all under discussion What's relevant and what's not? Goodluck finding someone else to make it.

Yup, 2014 did get Somaliland under the name Hargeysa.

Kosovo, Bahrain, Qatar and Palestine are too small to fit in the map, wouldn't have space for 2 territories. Their regions are already sorta clumped.

Donetsk fall under "Kharkov" in Ukraine. Tbh, Ukraine needs to be better divided.

Alaska could connect to British Columbia.

~~~

Rather than just a split, Brazil needs a serious rework. Like, the territories don't even make sense.

Taiwan also needs a buff. Same for Singapore.

Siberia could have split a little for better territory sizes, ones that fit the map, but have their income reduced somewhat.

Somaliland, Puntland, Hong Kong-Macau, Svalbard are autonomous, not independent.

They are unusually highly autonomous (as I noted). And Somaliland is independent.

Levant isn't a country- I'm not sure where you got that from.

From the most violent ongoing conflict in which news everywhere talks about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant

Donetsk and Luhansk, Palestine are not internationally recognized as independent states.

It doesn't matter. They're clearly independent/very important/disputed regions. Ukraine does not control Luhansk, like it or not. As for Palestine - same thing, but it can also be considered a region with very high autonomy, which is another ground for inclusion. And it is UN-majority (70.5%) recognised independent. Compare Israel 83%; not much more.

Vanuatu, Fiji/New Caledonia, Bahrain and Trinidad and Tobago are island states.

They've all over 1 million folk, and are somewhat important (especially Bahrain). Or would you rather exclude Réunion, Singapore, Indoensia, and all the other island states? What is your bias to island states?

Artsakh does not exist today.

You probably landed on this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artsakh
Here is what I am referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh_Republic

Sahrawi is represented on the map.

So there are 2 territories in West Sahara?

The others should be represented (as well as Bhutan)

In my diplomacies, the territory named Sikkim I put as Bhutan, as the land area it is on is mostly Bhutanese. That's why I'm saying Sikkim and the international isthmus should go back to India.

The countries and regions here all have considerable land area and/or population.

You can't be serious. China is OP in 2012 and 2014 to the max. China shouldn't even come close to the US because they don't even come close to the US in military strength. China's power is so fucking overrated in every game because people think population = strength when it really doesn't. If bonuses = military power (which they should - more realistic) then the US should have a strong lead, followed by Russia and then China.

China is quite weak in 2012 and 2014. It's, what, 2/3 or 3/4 America's income? In my rebonusing of it, it's about 5/2 America's income. It's a bigger economy, it's a bigger exporter, it's got some countries in financial holds. Population is a major factor in military strength, and having 4x the population generally is a great advantage.

Folk often cite military strength - do you have any idea how strong China and America are, really? Very little. They don't want to expose too much of their power. Look up Sardinnian basement for more information.

Russia is way overpowered. Declining population, economy, rich folk have been slowly leaving since ~2001, terrorism problems (especially in the past), and Kazakhs coming right in with low money and decreasing the GDP by each head. Compared to China, needs to be: 1/7; compared to America or India: 1/3; compared to Japan or Brazil: 4/5. Russia has been, since 1991, considerably weaker than what media in NATO tells.

>China more powerful than US

KEK

Even if you go by economic strength the US still wins. Also the Chinese economy is desperately dependent on America and the West but the reverse is not true. American companies and investors can simply move out of China at anytime and they're fucked. It's happening right now, actually.

Edited 10/31/2015 23:15:55

Even if you go by economic strength the US still wins. Also the Chinese economy is desperately dependent on America and the West but the reverse is not true.

According to the IMF and World Bank, China has a bigger economy, is the biggest exporter, the second biggest importer (after America), and owes about 2/3 of America's 100%< debt. There are some sources that say that America owes ~8% debt to China; show me one that isn't published by a NATO influence organisation. On other hand, China has ~40% debt and about 1/6 of it to America. So the American economy is desperately dependent on China and international relations but the reverse is not true.

Having a profile picture and name like that, I thought you would not be supporting America, but no, you probably thought Castle Bravo was one of America's finest moments.

Honestly I think that China and the US are about par for world power currently, but there is at least a general consensus that the US and China occupy the number one and two spots on the world power index in no particular order. If you guys are arguing about bonus sizes for World Nations, it really doesn't matter because almost everyone who uses it for custom scenarios changes the bonuses, making the bonuses the map creator sets arbitrary.

My personal opinion on World Nations is that it could do with a bit of touch up, and that the territories (except in the US) are terribly divided, ignoring actual administrative boundaries all over the place.

almost everyone who uses it for custom scenarios changes the bonuses, making the bonuses the map creator sets arbitrary.

I actually find it rare that 20%< boni are changed.

Really? We must be frequenting different games types then.

The really sad thing is that this map will need a remake every year. It would be so much easier if there was just one map family called World Nations and the mapmaker updated it every year. It would avoid so much map clutter.

Edited 11/1/2015 00:06:53

The really sad thing is that this map will need a remake every year. It would be so much easier if there was just one map family called World Nations and the mapmaker updated it every year. It would avoid so much map clutter.

I don't think so. What has really significantly changed from 2012 in demography and borders? Few.

The very nature of the title precludes that. Also, we don't know what kind of new borders will be drawn, conflicts, etc. in the future. It might just be that I'm overthinking this, but we'd also need to include other basically autonomous regions like the area Boko Haram controls, or the lands that the Houthis or ISIL or the government control in Yemen. My point is that with a map of this nature, frequent revisions and repeats of this thread are inevitable.