^ That, I disagree with. In size, Canada > China.

EDIT: And no. China is the strongest country in the world, and richest, economy wise. But, America does beat China in standard of living ^^

Edited 3/19/2016 22:28:40

Size: Russia, Canada, China, America, Brazil

China is only bigger if you don't include the US territorial waters. Our territorial waters are obviously much better than chinas, so they should be included.

Population: China, India, America, Indonesia, Brazil

Who cares about population?

Economy: China, America, Japan, Germany, France

Chinas economy is only bigger in one measure: PPP GDP. In nominal, the US crushes china, about 18 trillion to 10 trillion.

Strength: China, America, India, Russia, Brazil

Everyone is weak except for US, so your argument is invalid.

Edited 3/19/2016 22:32:31

Are you drunk? America's GDP is roughly 170% of China's.

China is only bigger if you don't include the US territorial waters. our territorial waters are obviously much better than chinas, so they should be included.

Territorial waters don't count. Can you live in territorial waters? Good luck setting up your house there. If territorial waters count than you probably own the UK one nice blowjob.

Edited 3/19/2016 22:33:53

Territorial waters don't count. Can you live in territorial waters?

In america you totally can.

The UK's territorial waters are also not as good as ours, so they don't count either.

Edited 3/19/2016 22:35:58

Yeah, right.

The power rangers want their Aquabase back.

Yeah well they can't have it. They're being held in custody under the patriot act.

You know, cause they're terrorists.

Edited 3/19/2016 22:38:47

Nitr01 Scotland has only 1 territory, what extra chromosomes did you get?

Now that you've seen the map I bet you aren't feeling so smug anymore. Do you have a diagnosis you wanna talk about?

But I digress.

This map is subjective and biased, it trades the undisputed truth, a perfect measurement for strength - GDP - for balance. A game creator can balance a map how they'd like, so it's great to start with a realistic map and allow game creators to work from there.

Furthermore, you can keep the balance of the map and add more territories in the US. By your own definition the map is not consistent because the US lacks the territory density of other countries.

You can live in territorial waters.

The USA is bigger than China.

There is no war in Ba Sing Se.

This map is subjective and biased, it trades the undisputed truth, a perfect measurement for strength - GDP - for balance. A game creator can balance a map how they'd like, so it's great to start with a realistic map and allow game creators to work from there.

Furthermore, you can keep the balance of the map and add more territories in the US. By your own definition the map is not consistent because the US lacks the territory density of other countries.

There are a lot of cases in which a map creator is required to sacrifice accuracy for better gameplay. One of these is having to join circles to really small territories. Another is Not having drastically uneven territory sizes. Another is, not having totally imbalanced bonus values.

In truth it wasn't realistic before either. The US is powerful on a scale that can't really be compared to other countries, and it's just not really possible to fairly represent that in a warlight map. The closest comparisons are the European Union, a union of 28 countries, or the Soviet Union, a union of 15 countries.

Edited 3/19/2016 22:46:29

The USA was broken.

No reason to have smaller territories if no significant territorial changes with those fractions of states were made.

For example...

Reasons to split Poland:
*HRE
*WW1 and WW2
*Commonwealth
*Partitions
*Second Polish Republic
*Duchy of Silesia
*Hapsburg Empire

Reasons to split the UK:
*Income disparity to other much weaker nations due to size
*Norman invasion
*Viking invasion
*Clump up a region with high population and GDP

Reasons to split American States:
*Pleasing Nitr01

To be fair there are a lot of people who want more territories in the US, which is why I am going to split a few more states right now. I just don't think I can publish the old version and expect any good reviews.

Nice cherry picking Joao Lins, but if we're going by historical reasons for splits, then why didn't you mention the US Civil War and early colonization of the Americas?

early colonization of the Americas

Alright, let's just make the West and Centre 2 territories, and the East 50 territories. Sound good?

Because none of the american expansion since it became a country actually resulted in the loss or gain of half/a quarter of a state. The states, instead, were completely taken.

The only moment that was different was during the early moments, like the thirteen colonies, but then you'd have to split super small territories and not those lame states you have in the middle of the country.

And going by that logic, that means you'd also need a ridiculous amount of splits all around the rest of the americas, probably something unachievable.

More states should still be split to maintain a relative balance with GDP density. Not necessarily to the extreme of what they were before the edit. The fact that few states have been divided is no justification for there being so few territories. By that logic, it doesn't matter how powerful a country is, it need only have been divided historically many times for it to be large.

I've added more territories in Ohio, North Carolina, Washington, Oregon, california, georgia, pennsylvania, and Illinois for a total of eigth new ones.

Nitr01, I really do appreciate what you have to say and I do value your feedback. So thanks :)

Looks great, I'm glad you were able to find a balance between the versions.

When you are ready to, I would be glad to help test the map

Hell I'll help test it.

I hope I can get it done sometime soon; I am coming up on three months development :(