[Abandoned] - A New Asia Map

by **isaiah40** on Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:16 pm

AndyDufresne wrote: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.

by **Industrial Helix** on Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:29 pm

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?

by **isaiah40** on Wed Mar 03, 2010 8:08 pm

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.

by **Industrial Helix** on Wed Mar 03, 2010 9:31 pm

isaiah40 wrote: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.

by **isaiah40** on Wed Mar 03, 2010 10:32 pm

Industrial Helix wrote:
isaiah40 wrote: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.

by **rutherfoo** on Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:17 am

Industrial Helix wrote: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.

Wikipedia wrote: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.

Industrial Helix wrote: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.

by **Industrial Helix** on Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:25 am

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.

by **TaCktiX** on Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:45 pm

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.

by **DAAAAAAANG** on Sat Mar 20, 2010 6:40 am

Industrial Helix wrote: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.

by **Industrial Helix** on Sat Mar 20, 2010 9:41 am

FrancisBoyle wrote:
Industrial Helix wrote: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.

by **jasnostj** on Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:30 pm

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

by **jasnostj** on Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:34 pm

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

by **jasnostj** on Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:49 pm

Industrial Helix wrote:Speaking of which... Palestine or Israel? Controversy please!

Just call it Israel & Palestine.

by **darth emperor** on Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:57 pm

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

by **MrBenn** on Mon Jun 28, 2010 7:49 pm

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

Any further thoughts?

show

by **The Bison King** on Wed Jun 30, 2010 11:52 pm

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.

by **Evil DIMwit** on Thu Jul 01, 2010 6:59 am

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

by **Raskholnikov** on Thu Jul 01, 2010 12:01 pm

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.

by **Evil DIMwit** on Thu Jul 01, 2010 1:01 pm

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

by **Raskholnikov** on Thu Jul 01, 2010 1:13 pm

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.

by **Evil DIMwit** on Thu Jul 01, 2010 1:35 pm

I mean, Egypt might be included in the Asia map because Turkey is included in the Europa map. But then, so are some countries that are entirely in Asia.

by **Industrial Helix** on Thu Jul 01, 2010 1:35 pm

I agree with Rask on most everything except that Russia ought to be one country on this map.

by **natty dread** on Thu Jul 01, 2010 1:53 pm

I don't like disproportionate territories on a map. It just seems weird to me that you can take over and hold a huge amount of land with just one army.

So what if current country borders say that this land area is one country. "Borders" are an abstract thing anyway.

I guess what I'm saying is I'd rather see Russia divided in several territories on this map. But that's just me..

by **The Bison King** on Thu Jul 01, 2010 2:24 pm

Seconded, Russia should be divided, most most other countries should be left whole. Maybe (just maybe) West China should be it's own territory, you know the Xinjiang province since it's an autonomous region, that's only been a part of China for a little over 50 years.

by **Raskholnikov** on Thu Jul 01, 2010 3:20 pm

if you look at the map, Russia will still look like one country, because it will be the only country in its group. The 7 subdivisions would be the really existing republics - no borders are invented. So this is the equivalent to having China divided into China proper, Tibet, Uighur, Taiwan and Hong Kong. As long as the country borders are preserved and no borders are invented because real sub-divisions are used, I think even the biggest sitcklers for realism (like me) will be happy.

Incidentally, exactly for this reason I would take the Koreas out of China and include them, with Japan, in the Pacific Rim countries, This way you will have the two empires on their own, with their respective internal subdivisions. So all would be totally consistent, and the map would be more playable.

Russia as one territory makes no sense either strategically, in terms of its real weight in Asia, nor in terms of gameplay. As it is, Russia represents 40 per cent of the map. To have that as one territory really doesnt work... I'n not saying it's not possible, but it doesn't make sense.

[Abandoned] - A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Who is online