I just spotted another mistake. The northern part of Nova Scotia for some reason is apart of Newfoundland when it shouldn't be.

Britain should probably have a boost.
Britain's gdp is $2989, bonus is 37.
France's gdp (in billions) is $2829, bonus is 65.
California's gdp is $2202, bonus is 43.
Mexico's gdp is $1259, bonus is 69.

I've read how larger countries get larger bonus values but Britain's bonus is almost half what it should be. You could probably squeeze in another territory.

I could see cutting off the western half of the southern england territory, but to be honest I'm not inclined to. The territories right now are around the same size as the territories in other european countries, so cutting it into smaller pieces and then inflating it's area with this giant circle seems a bit underhanded to me.

Also, you're misunderstanding me here. Larger countries are only worth more overall since they are cut into more territories. The actual bonus values don't change, niether does my method of setting them, just the amount of them that there are.

And as for countries having a higher bonus value for having a larger area, this is true in real life. For instance, even though yes, Germany can be construed as being more powerful than russia, and in any number of hypothetical match-ups germany can totally win, that doesn't change the fact that Russia has beaten germany in major wars twice in the last 100 years.

Egypt should also probably have a bonus
Egypt's GDP is 272 Billion USD and Libya is only 74 Billion USD however they are nearly equal in Bonus values. Egypt(24) Libya(21). You could fit multiple territories into Egypt.

Egypt (24) is still more powerful than libya (21), despite libya being almost twice the size of egypt. All this is is another example of the balance between GDP and area in the map.

Edited 3/11/2016 23:19:53

The lack of Pacific Islands is concerning.

I really like what you have started, but as for the Ex-Yugoslavian Nations, I think they should have parts of their major cities and/or provinces as bonuses or just territories. This also for other small countries. Also with this expansion you should give them bigger bonuses as they are entire nations and not be equal to a mere province. Thank you and keep up the good work!

The territories are based on GDP. If these entire nations' GDP is so low they can't even match a single subdivision of other ones, the problem is within the country, not the map.

And they are too small to be split even further.

The lack of Pacific Islands is concerning.

The version I currently have uploaded to wl isn't everything that I plan to do. Many of the objects for the various pacific islands/all other small islands I've cut out of the SVG to slim down it's size for uploading. I don't technically need these objects since they'll become dots on the finished map anyway. You can look at the carribean for an example of this in practice.

I really like what you have started, but as for the Ex-Yugoslavian Nations, I think they should have parts of their major cities and/or provinces as bonuses or just territories. This also for other small countries. Also with this expansion you should give them bigger bonuses as they are entire nations and not be equal to a mere province. Thank you and keep up the good work!

Thanks for the compliment.

I'm not entirely clear on what your suggestion is. Do you want dots for big cities in smaller countries as I've done for places like Washington DC, Brasilia, or Madrid?

If so, this doesn't actually work, as territories need to be a certain size to to restrictions in the map making guidelines. In europe, tried to squeeze in basically as many territories as I could, and it pretty much can't be divided up further.
________________________________

You do raise valid point about countries vs. first-level subdivisions, but IMO there's not a real solution to this problem. I have to use a metric that I can apply to every single place on the globe to determine bonus values, and something like Military power doesn't work since most countries only have national militaries.

I could do as you suggested and just give a buff to whole countries, but I'm not sure how fair this is. As I currently have it, A country divided up into more territories will always have a higher overall value when all those territories are taken together, essentially rewarding larger countries. I'm not sure how much sense it makes to turn this metric around and reward countries for being small.

Edited 3/13/2016 04:02:03

Romania is parted the wrong way.
There were only three duchies: 1. Wallachia(played important part in uniting Romania)

2. Moldova (which also included nowadays Moldovia and parts
of Ukraine; Bucovina belongs to Moldova)

3. Transilvania (including Banat,Maramures,etc.)
Second, if you need help with native names then I can help you out with almost most of Europe
and Latin America and China.

Oh ffs not romania again :D

(No but I seriously went through all this hell with two other guys about how romania should be divided, so I'm not sure If I'm willing to redo it again)

I pretty much am using a policy of using english names. I know that I've probably been terribly inconsistent with this, but I'm not too concerned with naming. As long as the name I've used is correct in some sense it's fine by me.

Edited 3/13/2016 15:27:39

Romania is perfect as-is. Dobrogea, although was part of Wallachia for a while, for most of it's history was controlled by turks, tatars or crimean khans.

The duchy of Wallachia was originally landlocked when it first came to be a thing.

Posting the major nations incomes only makes me more concerned, you're overestimating American power. You are implying that China is stronger than Russia (3x more no less!. Looking at GDP and population is not an accurate way to judge military power,it is quite difficult to judge power based on each territory, but take this into account: http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

It's not just difficult, it's flat out impossible to do that.

The goal isn't to judge military power, but... GDP. So yeah. It's pretty accurate c_c

nvm

Edited 3/14/2016 15:08:55

To judge GDP:
France = +65 (2,833,687 GDP)
Germany = +47 (3,874,437 GDP)
Netherland = +14 (880,716 GDP)

France is hugely overvalued compared to both countries with hight and lower GDP.

Size plays quite a role, specially in Europe where everything is rich; bigger country means bigger income due to income scaling being lower the higher it is.

France = 643.801 km²
Germany = 357.168 km²

Roughly 1.75x?

Europe is one big asshole for mapmakers and templatemakers alike, I guess. At times I wonder why not make an inner map of Europe xD

Edited 3/14/2016 15:22:36

Posting the major nations incomes only makes me more concerned, you're overestimating American power. You are implying that China is stronger than Russia (3x more no less!. Looking at GDP and population is not an accurate way to judge military power,it is quite difficult to judge power based on each territory, but take this into account: http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

Like Zeph said, It will be pretty much impossible. I realize that GDP and area may not be the most accurate measures to sue, but they're more accurate than population, which is what I was using previously.
___________________________

I would argue that Military strength is a poor measure of overall power in the modern day. Sure, there are still wars, but nothing even close to what we had in previous centuries. I mean come on, this isn't the 1950s where the country with more Nukes is boss.

To judge GDP:
France = +65 (2,833,687 GDP)
Germany = +47 (3,874,437 GDP)
Netherland = +14 (880,716 GDP)

France is hugely overvalued compared to both countries with hight and lower GDP.

I'm tired of people complaining about this. If you have a solution, i'd love to hear it, but it doesn't seem like anyone does.

Using a linear gdp scale instead of a exponential scale would probably fix the problem but I understand if you don't want to redo bonuses again. It is a lot of work. Would be much nicer if you could edit bonuses by clicking on the actual map.

I would have to use a shorter scale of bonus values if I were to do that. Using a linear scale makes the map... Well, linear. If I were to use something like this for example:

1-100 billion: 1
101-200 billion: 2
201-300 billion: 3
301-400 billion: 4
401-500 billion: 5
500 billion+: 6

If I do this, every single territory in africa will be worth 1, and every single territory in the US and Western europe would be 6.

Scaling it, while it may produce some discrepancies, will at least add some variety in bonus values.

Exponential scale is going to do way better. The size will still affect the countries' general value.

Russia's army of 1s will probably still outscale Germany.

So no point in such a change.

Edited 3/14/2016 20:54:46

Size plays quite a role, specially in Europe where everything is rich; bigger country means bigger income due to income scaling being lower the higher it is.

In reality surface area plays no direct role at (potential)military strength. Resources and population, and how they are used, is all that matters.

If you want to keep the Geopolitical Earth Map realistic, then do not look to surface area. For me, making France stronger than Germany makes no sense, and I can't help but see this Geopolitical Earth Map as failed by that.

Well, to be fair france has won wars against germany more than once.

If you'd like to suggest another way I could do it I'd be happy to explore it, but you haven't actually offered any suggestions, just said over and over again how much of a failure it is that france is stronger than germany.

I'm not specifically looking at surface area, it's just a logical consequence of using a scaling system that countries with more territories are worth more.

In fact, I was just looking, and World nations has similar "flaw" where germany and the UK are both less powerful than france. I think that WL players are used to this at least, even if it's not optimal.

Edited 3/14/2016 21:54:32