The NextGen OTL Worlda Series

[Chris S]

Just wondering again if anyone has any input on this, in regards to the US occupation/protectorates/influence in the Caribbean in the early to mid 1900s. If not, I might just mostly stick with the conventions on the older map series for the most part

The treaties giving the US control over a country's customs revenue (customs receiverships) were for quite a few Caribbean countries protectorate treaties in the sense that they formalized control of the US over their primary source of revenue (from which basically all other governmental decisions flow since without money the government can't really do anything). And unlike say maybe an IMF agreement, this was specific country-to-country and entailed far more control than merely oversight as the US would appoint an official within the country's government.

So:

Cuba was occupied 1899-1902 and 1906-1909. It was a protectorate of the US from 1902/1903 (due to the Platt Amendent which allowed the US the exclusive right to intervene in Cuba to preserve Cuban independence and good government, the Platt Amendment had to be incorporated into the Cuban Constitution before the US would withdraw in 1902 and its provisions were included in the Cuban-American treaty of 1903) until 1934 when a new treaty replaced the 1903 one and removed most of the provisions of the Platt Amendment and Cuba removed the Platt Amendment provisions from its constitution. Eastern Cuba was also occupied (sort of) in 1917-1922 (the Sugar Intervention) when US troops were given bases in the east by the Cuban government in hopes of helping to stem unrest in the area that was affecting the sugar harvest. US troops patrolled the countryside and by 1918 were also patrolling the cities.

Haiti was sort of occupied in 1914 actually as Wilson sent the Marines in that year. They removed gold worth $500,000 from the Haitian National Bank in December and it was placed in National City Bank's New York vault for safe-keeping. But I think that was a short intervention and probably too short to show up on a 1914 map. The long-term occupation began in 1915 and ended August 1, 1934. During that time if I remember correctly Haiti's constitution was altered as well as a fiscal/customs receiver appointed by the US. While the occupation ended in 1934, the fiscal/customs receivership aspect didn't end until 1941, so Haiti was pretty much a US protectorate until 1941.

Dominican Republic was occupied 1916-1924 but was a protectorate from 1905. In 1903-1905 the DR and US attempted to negotiate a treaty giving the US control over customs (and during that time US troops occupied Santo Domingo and a few other places for little over a month in 1904 due to rebel activity in the Dominican civil war) but that failed in the US Senate and in 1905 the Dominican government invited the US to take over their customs without a treaty, which the US, under Roosevelt, did with an American colonel taking over the DR's customs agency. I think that same year, the agency (now under American management) raised a new customs frontier force to patrol the porous border with Haiti. This force consisted of Dominicans with American commanders. The protectorate relationship ended March 31, 1941 according to the Trujillo-Hull Convention.

Panama was a protectorate from 1903 until 1936 because similar to Cuba, there was a 1903 treaty (Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty) that gave the US the exclusive right to guarantee Panama's independence and to intervene in Panamanian domestic affairs. This treaty was replaced in 1936 (by the Hull-Alfaro Treaty) which did away with the right of intervention.

Nicaragua was occupied in 1912 and then occupied again in 1927-1933. It became a protectorate after a treaty was ratified between it and the US giving US control over Nicaraguan finances in 1912 until 1933 I think.

Honduras had seen US troops deployed in certain areas in 1907 (in response to civil unrest and a Nicaraguan invasion that took the capital of Honduras) and 1911, 1912, 1919, 1924 (twice) and 1925. From what I can tell it wasn't a full occupation of the country. US influence was very heavy from 1911-1919 under a provisional president chosen by the US as part of an agreement to bring an end to a civil conflict. So Honduras I would show as US influenced during that time with US occupations of Le Ceiba during the 1907, 1924 and 1925 episodes of US troop deployment.


So

1902 - Cuba protectorate

1903-1904 - Cuba and Panama protectorate

1905 - Cuba, Panama and DR protectorate

1906 - Cuba occupied; Panama and DR protectorate

1907 - Cuba occupied, La Ceiba in Honduras occupied; Panama and DR protectorate

1908-1909 - Cuba occupied; Panama and DR protectorate

1910-1911 - Cuba, Panama and DR protectorate

1911 - Cuba, Panama and DR protectorate; Honduras US influenced

1912 - Nicaragua occupied; Cuba, Panama and DR protectorate; Honduras US influenced

1913-1914 - Cuba, Panama, DR and Nicaragua protectorate; Honduras US influenced

1915 - Haiti occupied; Cuba, Panama, DR and Nicaragua protectorate; Honduras US influenced

1916 - Haiti and DR occupied; Cuba, Panama and Nicaragua protectorate; Honduras US influenced

1917-1919 - Haiti, DR and Cuba's Oriente province occupied; rest of Cuba, Panama and Nicaragua protectorate; Honduras US influenced

1920-1922 - Haiti, DR and Cuba's Oriente province occupied; rest of Cuba, Panama and Nicaragua protectorate

1923 - Haiti and DR occupied; Cuba, Panama and Nicaragua protectorate;

1924 - Haiti and La Ceiba occupied; Cuba, Panama, DR and Nicaragua protectorate;

1925 - Haiti and La Ceiba occupied; Cuba, Panama, DR and Nicaragua protectorate;

1926-1933 - Haiti occupied; Cuba, Panama, DR and Nicaragua protectorate;

1934-1936 - Haiti, Panama and DR protectorate;

1937-1941 -Haiti and DR protectorate

An example map (which also shows Colombia's non-recognition of Panama until 1922 and corrected the Cayman Islands (which were shown as Cuban) and Isle of Pines/Isla de Juventad (which were shown as Mexican oddly instead of Cuban); also corrected are showing occupied countries in the primary colour instead of the territory colour since Haiti and the Dom Rep were never territories of the US but were occupied by the US and occupation is shown in the primary colour; the territory colour is really for federal systems where territories exist within a federal system):

1917

 

[Chris S]

Maps 1914-1932, edited by me in accordance with both historical accuracy and the following ruleset:

Official Colour Rules:
1. Loyal Warlord: Protectorate colour; dark gray border
2. Disloyal Warlord: Off-White fill, protectorate outline; dark gray border
3. Warlord in opposition to the Central Government: Off-White Fill; dark gray border
4. Certain warlord coalitions (i.e, Fengtian Clique after 1930) with multiple sub-cliques have a princely border around their territory for clarity
5. (Pending Hadaril's Approval) Southern and Northern governments have different colours

View attachment 474512

Nice updates, but there is some serious divergence from the traditional conventions to such a point that in this 1914 map, we are seeing 3 different things shown by the same convention:

We have Cuba outlined in the US colour but with an independent country colour within. I get that this is trying to show that Cuba is US influenced, but instead it technically shows Cuba as being US claimed (same with Nicaragua, Honduras and Panama - especially as the US colour outlining Nicragua and Honduras outlines them both collectively instead of individually). Why? Well look over at Ethiopia and Italian Somaliland (or even in Peru/Ecuador border region) - here we have claim lines in the colour of the country doing the claiming. That's the original convention and it makes sense internally within the original scheme. Now if we look at Oman here we see it is outlined in the Omani colour but filled in with the British colour. So if we are using Cuba and Panama as the basis on which to view influenced countries versus claims, then Oman is shown here as a British colony which in influenced by Oman. Italian Somaliland, British Somaliland, South Africa, Canada and the French colonies and protectorates in Africa also show up a lot of inconsistencies in the scheme used here: All the British protectorates are outlined in the British colour (as are German protectorates and Italian protectorates outlined in their respective German and Italian full colours) but the French protectorates are not outlined in the French colour. I suspect the outlining in the British, German and Italian colours is supposed to be a way to show that they are part of the British, German and Italian colonial empires, but such outlining is unnecessary because protectorates are already supposed to be considered associated with those imperial systems anyway. I also suspect that the origin of this outlining might lie in German South-West Africa where the north of the colony is in the protectorate colour, however the entirety of the German South-West Africa was a German colony but the north was an area where the colonial authorities only exercised loose control over the tribes in the area and had established a protectorate type relationship with them (hence the north of German South-West Africa was outlined in the German colour to show the entirety of the territory was a German colony, but the de facto situation in the north was that of protectorates for the tribes. The same situation didn't exist for the other German protectorates or for the British and Italian protectorates and outlining South Africa in 1914 in the British colour the way it is shown is indicating a British claim on a British dominion instead of showing it in a manner consistent with the other dominions.

 

[Chris S]

Nice updates, but there is some serious divergence from the traditional conventions to such a point that in this 1914 map, we are seeing 3 different things shown by the same convention:

View attachment 476156

We have Cuba outlined in the US colour but with an independent country colour within. I get that this is trying to show that Cuba is US influenced, but instead it technically shows Cuba as being US claimed (same with Nicaragua, Honduras and Panama - especially as the US colour outlining Nicragua and Honduras outlines them both collectively instead of individually). Why? Well look over at Ethiopia and Italian Somaliland (or even in Peru/Ecuador border region) - here we have claim lines in the colour of the country doing the claiming. That's the original convention and it makes sense internally within the original scheme. Now if we look at Oman here we see it is outlined in the Omani colour but filled in with the British colour. So if we are using Cuba and Panama as the basis on which to view influenced countries versus claims, then Oman is shown here as a British colony which in influenced by Oman. Italian Somaliland, British Somaliland, South Africa, Canada and the French colonies and protectorates in Africa also show up a lot of inconsistencies in the scheme used here: All the British protectorates are outlined in the British colour (as are German protectorates and Italian protectorates outlined in their respective German and Italian full colours) but the French protectorates are not outlined in the French colour. I suspect the outlining in the British, German and Italian colours is supposed to be a way to show that they are part of the British, German and Italian colonial empires, but such outlining is unnecessary because protectorates are already supposed to be considered associated with those imperial systems anyway. I also suspect that the origin of this outlining might lie in German South-West Africa where the north of the colony is in the protectorate colour, however the entirety of the German South-West Africa was a German colony but the north was an area where the colonial authorities only exercised loose control over the tribes in the area and had established a protectorate type relationship with them (hence the north of German South-West Africa was outlined in the German colour to show the entirety of the territory was a German colony, but the de facto situation in the north was that of protectorates for the tribes. The same situation didn't exist for the other German protectorates or for the British and Italian protectorates and outlining South Africa in 1914 in the British colour the way it is shown is indicating a British claim on a British dominion instead of showing it in a manner consistent with the other dominions.

Edited 1914 to fix mistakes (including Newfoundland being shown as a territory of Canada instead of as a dominion in its own right which it was from 1907 until 1933):

 

[Lacktoastandtolerant]

snip

Thanks, that was all very useful!

Alright, so here's the 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1920, 1932, and 1939 maps, under the cut

Spoiler: Maps

There ended up being several more minor/moderate issues I noticed, I'm not 110% sure I got everything, but I think I got everything or pretty much everything.

From the discussions above, the Caribbean is fixed, and the discrepancies with the color conventions are brought back to normal. I also changed some things I mentioned earlier, like the Thailand spheres of influence being ended in 1930/31, the Hatay State/Ankara region going to Turkey in 1939, US Islands being properly colored as territories (though also not showing the Caribbean occupations above in the territory color, as discussed above) and showing Guam as American, East Timor being shown as Portuguese, the Dodecanese properly shown Italian, and properly showing Egypt and Anglo-Egyptian Sudan.

Some additional things I noticed-St Pierre and Miquelon was shown as Canadian, it is now shown as French. The use of red lines to show Paraguayan and Bolivian claims seems unnecessary since they both have colors now, so that's changed. And there was an issue in what looks like all the maps from 1914 to 1945 in British India, first with Sindh being shown as a princely state when it should be shown with colonial color, and later with Sindh being shown as possessing part of the Gujarati princely states. This has been corrected for 1939 and before. Also, I took the initiative of adding a colored island dot thing for what is currently the US Virgin Islands, and was the Danish West Indies before partway through 1917.

There's two more things that might be added to these maps. First, there's the Portuguese-German border in East Africa following the present day lines. In WWI, the Portuguese actually gained a little sliver of land, the Kionga Triangle, on the border of Mozambique and Tanzania right by the ocean. The thing is, though, it is such a small bit of land that it would literally just be shown as the Germans having an extra single pixel of Mozambique before WWI - if even that. I think they had it shown on one of the older map series, but I don't know if any actual consensus was reached or if someone just added it and nobody removed it. At any rate, below is what it would look like. But idk if it is a large enough thing to even justify that single pixel

Secondly, just wondering if any of the stuff going on in Mexico at the time should be shown. Again, this is something the older maps did show, but again, I am not sure if it actually made sense and was appropriate for the specific date rather than just in the same year but at a different part of the year and enough to really depict. Also I don't know if the old maps were accurate or even close, in showing the situation in Mexico

 

[SnivyLink]

I think we might need to update the RCS, i noticed several spelling errors and it should probably have more colors, like a color for Palestine, and we could rename some colors, ex: Guyana and Suriname to Primary Guiana and Secondary Guiana, respectively

 

[Library of Alexandria]

Shouldn't autonomous areas have the outline of the main colour over them?

 

[Lacktoastandtolerant]

Shouldn't autonomous areas have the outline of the main colour over them?

That was never really the way it was done before a short while ago (of course we can change the conventions, but still), and probably just adds unnecessary complication.

I think this is relevant...

I suspect the outlining in the British, German and Italian colours is supposed to be a way to show that they are part of the British, German and Italian colonial empires, but such outlining is unnecessary because protectorates are already supposed to be considered associated with those imperial systems anyway.

I figure autonomous areas are similar. If they are given a different color than the main color, it would be one of the dominion/protectorate/territory/etc colors which already show the autonomous area's being part of the country. And the outline has already been used to show territorial claims on another country, so it could be confusing

 

[Chris S]

That was never really the way it was done before a short while ago (of course we can change the conventions, but still), and probably just adds unnecessary complication.

I think this is relevant...


I figure autonomous areas are similar. If they are given a different color than the main color, it would be one of the dominion/protectorate/territory/etc colors which already show the autonomous area's being part of the country. And the outline has already been used to show territorial claims on another country, so it could be confusing

Indeed. Very confusing.

I think if one is doing an individual map in a different style then outlining autonomous areas in that way can work for sure. But it seems unnecessarily complicated when one considers that we already use 3 different colours (dominion for the british/territories in federal system + main colour + protectorate/protected states/princely states/native states in Dutch East Indies) and have different colours for border (black for international borders, various shades of grey for internal borders). If I remember correctly one convention for use in autonomous areas in Russia was simply to give them a different border colour, or, if not all of the subdivisions were being shown, to only show the autonomous areas within Russia rather than all the oblasts.

The only way any outlining was done in the way it was being done recently was in southern Rhodesia from the 1920s because southern Rhodesia gained "responsible government" and was de facto like a Dominion (it fell under the Dominion Office in the British Cabinet as well during that time and through the 1930s and Rhodesia was the only self-governing colony to have a high commission in London like the Dominions). So it was coloured in with the dominion colour but had the British outline to show it was still de jure a British colour (much as how one might outline a country in its own colour but fill it in the with the country influencing it to show that outwardly it was an independent country but domestically it was deeply influenced by another country - so outwardly a British colony but inwardly had powers like a dominon). So along the same lines shown in this post.

 

[SnivyLink]

Fixed Several islands on the 1648 map, specifically The Azores, Cabo Verde, Madiera, the Ionian Islands, the Dodecanese, and the outline of Ireland

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

I figure autonomous areas are similar. If they are given a different color than the main color, it would be one of the dominion/protectorate/territory/etc colors which already show the autonomous area's being part of the country. And the outline has already been used to show territorial claims on another country, so it could be confusing

Personally I prefer it, and disagree that it's confusing at all.

One reason is that is streamlines 'territory' and 'claim' in a way that isn't jarring. For example, an early America map would show the unsettled west as being a territory, with further land claimed further west. If you just have the territory colour for the unsettled land, and then claim lines extending further west, the two colours appear separate, since the claim line colour is the nation's "base" colour. By outlining all of a nation's territory in the "base" colour you can also create a sense of unity for that polity, such as the British Empire, in a way that internal borders just don't.

Similar arguments were raised when people started using an internal border for inter-colonial borders rather than the hard border. The colonies existed as separate entities, yes, but were all part of the same empire, so what is the better convention?

In any case, it's frankly more aesthetically pleasing in my opinion, and if it were up to me maps wouldn't show claim lines at all (since they just end up confusing and inconsistent). I mean, if we're showing Muscovy's claimed territory in Siberia, why aren't we drawing arbitrary claim lines for what the Nazis wanted during WWII? Or Japan's claims in China?

 

[Library of Alexandria]

Personally I prefer it, and disagree that it's confusing at all.

One reason is that is streamlines 'territory' and 'claim' in a way that isn't jarring. For example, an early America map would show the unsettled west as being a territory, with further land claimed further west. If you just have the territory colour for the unsettled land, and then claim lines extending further west, the two colours appear separate, since the claim line colour is the nation's "base" colour. By outlining all of a nation's territory in the "base" colour you can also create a sense of unity for that polity, such as the British Empire, in a way that internal borders just don't.

Similar arguments were raised when people started using an internal border for inter-colonial borders rather than the hard border. The colonies existed as separate entities, yes, but were all part of the same empire, so what is the better convention?

In any case, it's frankly more aesthetically pleasing in my opinion, and if it were up to me maps wouldn't show claim lines at all (since they just end up confusing and inconsistent). I mean, if we're showing Muscovy's claimed territory in Siberia, why aren't we drawing arbitrary claim lines for what the Nazis wanted during WWII? Or Japan's claims in China?

Personally, I think we shouldn't have claims from a country at war at all. Speaking of war, why aren't we using the red border for two nations at war?

 

[hadaril]

Added Col. Angus's updated 1914-1939 maps, and the updated 1648 map.

As for my stance on outlining claims - Personally I really like the look of using outlines to show the unity of large empires - a good example being the height of the British Empire. I'm still not sure on my stance on how far we should go using outlines for claims, as it gets real messy real fast, and raises questions like "is this a big enough claim that's worth showing on a map", what is and what isn't a claim, etc.

Again, sorry for being inactive; I've been fairly burnt out over the past few months from working in photoshop after a long spree of working on art for a Hoi4 mod. I'll probably get more motivated once I get moved back into my dorm for my junior year of college. Once I get back to work, my priorities will likely be going through and fact checking what we have, rather than making any new maps. I feel there's been a lot of gaps I've been missing; nobody's perfect, I suppose.

I love the discussion here, and have been keeping a close eye on it, and trying to add updates as they're posted.

 

[Chris S]

Added Col. Angus's updated 1914-1939 maps, and the updated 1648 map.

As for my stance on outlining claims - Personally I really like the look of using outlines to show the unity of large empires - a good example being the height of the British Empire. I'm still not sure on my stance on how far we should go using outlines for claims, as it gets real messy real fast, and raises questions like "is this a big enough claim that's worth showing on a map", what is and what isn't a claim, etc.



I love the discussion here, and have been keeping a close eye on it, and trying to add updates as they're posted.

Nothing wrong with outlining at all. However what's needed is consistency and accuracy (think of how inconsistent and inaccurate pre-1950 China was until Kolchak did his fantastic Atlas). Outlining South Africa (a dominion) but not Canada (also a dominion) doesn't show the unity of a large empire but rather creates confusion.

Similarly outlining South Africa and Canada in the way it was done with South Africa (not outlining the British colour around all of South Africa's borders and coast but only around the border with non British posessions and along the coast) while also showing claimed borders in the same way (Ethiopia/Italian Somaliland; Bolivia/Paraguay; Ecurador/Peru; Lithuania/Poland) also creates confusion.

My suggestion is that if showing the unity of empires is the priority (and empires were often diverse places honestly and a set of graded colours was first introduced precisely to strike a balance between showing the different kinds of territory that made up an empire and the breadth/cohesiveness of such empires) then either do away with the protectorate (and where applicable the dominion) colours and just give everything the colour of the imperial centre or scrap the showing of claims or influence with outlining (influence is shown with the influencing nation's colour filled into a complete outline while claims are shown as an outline of the border claimed by the the claimant state (and thus with claims a complete outline is never supposed to occur) - so for example show Oman with the full Oman colour or show it as outright British.


Personally I see little reason to change a convention which has been working for years and people already do this differently when creating thematic maps (which is where I think outlining large empires more properly fits to be honest) instead of base maps

EDIT:

Here's a map of 1914 which does away with the graded colours in order to show the unity of the empires.

This serves the purpose of showing the unity of the empires without any contrasting colours to show differences on the ground in terms of areas of control. So Morocco, Tunisia and most of Indochina are shown the same as French West Africa and French Madagascar. Australia, Canada, Basutoland, Darfur, Hyderabad, Mysore, British India, Sikkim, British Honduras and New Zealand are all shown the same as each other.

This reminds me very much of the very first UCS-style maps which were later pretty much universally recognized for not showing the true situation as it existed (which was one of the reasons why the base map series was created in the first place).

 

[Chris S]

Personally I prefer it, and disagree that it's confusing at all.

One reason is that is streamlines 'territory' and 'claim' in a way that isn't jarring. For example, an early America map would show the unsettled west as being a territory, with further land claimed further west. If you just have the territory colour for the unsettled land, and then claim lines extending further west, the two colours appear separate, since the claim line colour is the nation's "base" colour. By outlining all of a nation's territory in the "base" colour you can also create a sense of unity for that polity, such as the British Empire, in a way that internal borders just don't.

That really only arises though for the United States because territories are being shown differently within a federal system. Once you don't show internal divisions (which aren't always necessary) then you don't get that effect. What's been happening though is that quite a few posters have always wanted the US states and territories shown on pretty much every base map (even when it isn't really that necessary).

Similar arguments were raised when people started using an internal border for inter-colonial borders rather than the hard border. The colonies existed as separate entities, yes, but were all part of the same empire, so what is the better convention?

Coming up with different shades for borders, coastlines, etc was brilliant as it helps with accuracy.

In any case, it's frankly more aesthetically pleasing in my opinion, and if it were up to me maps wouldn't show claim lines at all (since they just end up confusing and inconsistent). I mean, if we're showing Muscovy's claimed territory in Siberia, why aren't we drawing arbitrary claim lines for what the Nazis wanted during WWII? Or Japan's claims in China?

But we do show Nazi claims (Antartica) and as for what the Nazis wanted in Europe they never actually laid claim to places beyond their frontlines in Russia. They had war aims but that isn't the same as a claim which is where they lay out a legal claim to place X being already a part of their territory/legally theirs but currently being illegally (in their view) occupied by another country. It's like the difference between Manifest Destiny and the Oregon Country claims or the claimed borders of the Louisiana Purchase or West Florida dispute.

In any case much as we sometimes show base maps with internal divisions (and thus territories in federal systems like the USA, Canada and Australia) and sometimes without, we have shown base maps with the Nazi and Imperial Japanese war aims

 

[Chris S]

Personally, I think we shouldn't have claims from a country at war at all. Speaking of war, why aren't we using the red border for two nations at war?

The red border was created back when most countries didn't actually have a colour and a disputed border was needed to be shown. As most nations now appear to have a colour it isn't very useful anymore.

Besides just because two nations are at war doesn't mean their border is disputed (e.g. South Africa's invasion of Angola in the 1970s and Rwanda's invasions of the Congo in the 2000s)

 

[hadaril]

Big September Status Update Post Thing

I've been thinking over the discussion on borders, claims, and outlines, and want to weigh in again.

On the topic of the "red outline", I agree with @Chris S here. The red outline color is a holdover from the good ol' days when the UCS had like 20 colors total (Oh how far we've come ). There really was no way to show border disputes between uncolored countries other than recoloring the border. This color border remains in color schemes for niche scenarios, and is not very often used today.

After a lot of consideration, I've decided to simplify and codify coloring/outlining rules. The following should be more in line with the traditional outlining system.

What's next?
I plan going through all 70 maps to standardize the outlining to fit the pattern above. I also plan on using this opportunity to do another full review of all 70 for historical errors.
I have no idea how long this will take, but it is unlikely it will be done within the month. My goal is to have this done by the end of thanksgiving break, but that is by no means a binding release date.

I've uploaded a small update to the NCS. The changelog is as follows:
-Adjusted Saragossa
-Added secondary Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand
-Added separate Philippines
-Added New Guinea color
-Added Kosovo Color
-Changed tertiary Arabia
-Changed Ghana
-Changed Argentina to a nice blue.
-Added Secondary Argentina
-Added Secondary Brazil
-Added Amazon Natives


And yes, I know it's still august.

 

[Thanksforallthefish]

Big September Status Update Post Thing

I've been thinking over the discussion on borders, claims, and outlines, and want to weigh in again.

On the topic of the "red outline", I agree with @Chris S here. The red outline color is a holdover from the good ol' days when the UCS had like 20 colors total (Oh how far we've come ). There really was no way to show border disputes between uncolored countries other than recoloring the border. This color border remains in color schemes for niche scenarios, and is not very often used today.

After a lot of consideration, I've decided to simplify and codify coloring/outlining rules. The following should be more in line with the traditional outlining system.

View attachment 484312

What's next?
I plan going through all 70 maps to standardize the outlining to fit the pattern above. I also plan on using this opportunity to do another full review of all 70 for historical errors.
I have no idea how long this will take, but it is unlikely it will be done within the month. My goal is to have this done by the end of thanksgiving break, but that is by no means a binding release date.

I've uploaded a small update to the NCS. The changelog is as follows:
-Adjusted Saragossa
-Added secondary Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand
-Added separate Philippines
-Added New Guinea color
-Added Kosovo Color
-Changed tertiary Arabia
-Changed Ghana
-Changed Argentina to a nice blue.
-Added Secondary Argentina
-Added Secondary Brazil
-Added Amazon Natives


And yes, I know it's still august.

Yesssss, Blue Argentina, as it should be! I don't see it in the UCS picture, though? Are you sure you uploaded it?

I would also love to add my Argentina internal divisions patches to the maps once you're done, if you agree. Brazil would be good too but I don't have too much info on that.

As I see it, to keep it consistent, internal divisions should be shown in countries with federal or federal-like structures. Little point on showing the internal divisions of say, Romania, in a Worlda for example.

BTW, the Blank Worlda is missing a bit of the Arctic, I just tried to use it.

I hope I can contribute a little more to this project in these days, since it has been so useful to all of us, and your work is so well done.

As we say down here, thank you for so much, and sorry for so little!

 

[hadaril]

Link is updated now, thanks for reminding me

Sure, go ahead with the Argentina patches! Any help is good help, no matter the size

 

[Imperator Frank]

View attachment 484312

I have an issue with the third one, what if a country claims the entirety of another? Wouldn't it be visually indistinguishable from what the third one also appears as?

 

[Entrerriano]

Please please please have the southern Argentinian Provinces have completely horizontal borders (Río Negro, Chubut and Santa Cruz) since I've seen them have some sort of diagonal to it that is totally inaccurate