NES World/Regional Maps Requests Thread

Check North King's post history for it. Or check the second or third map thread.

It's the weekend panda child! If you don't have it finished, just show me what you have so far ;)
 
I did this as a current map. It is for a detailed NES I intended to run in the future...when/if I have time and enough experience for it.

5 city sizes are allocated according to their GDP's

10-30 $bn = 1 income (eg. Baghdad, Sofia)
30-100 = 3 income (eg. Warsaw, Stockholm)
100-300 = 10 income (eg. Barcelona, Istanbul)
300-1000 = 30 income (eg. London, Paris)
1000+ = 100 income (New York & Tokyo)

larger cities also have other benefits.

Capitals are red or yellow

The numbers show what I decided to name rural industry (most of the GDP of rural areas go to agricultural stuff consumed at home anyway, so this is a fraction of the actual rural GDP. I decided on it kind of arbitrarily as 10%. So in rural areas 100-300 $bn = 1 income)

USA does not have any size 1 cities, because it actually has 90 of them, so their number is rural income of 24 + 90 income from cities (it seemed too much work to place 90 cities, after placing the 70 or so larger US cities on the map)

Plus each country has a base of 1 income on top of everything.
so Albania has 1, Bulgaria 2, Romania 4 income shown on the map.

I also have some extra rules in mind to offset the unrealistic disadvantage of some nations (North Korea) due to their low GDP on paper. Iraq may also be too low due to the current situation.

Spoiler map :
New_Map2.PNG


what do you guys think?
 
Nice. (saw it in Carmen's thread yesterday) Just about the economy of Canada though, I think Vancouver should be one level higher (it's the epicenter of ALL Canadian Pacific Trade, exporting 43 Billion dollars worth of goods annually), plus its proximity to an extremely agriculturally rich area.
 
Nice. (saw it in Carmen's thread yesterday) Just about the economy of Canada though, I think Vancouver should be one level higher (it's the epicenter of ALL Canadian Pacific Trade, exporting 43 Billion dollars worth of goods annually), plus its proximity to an extremely agriculturally rich area.

I didn't consider the regional variations of GDP per capita in Canada (I assumed most developed countries don't have significant variation; yet I considered it in US). I'll look into it.

edit: Looked into it. Vancouver seems to have GDP(ppp) of G$ 85. barely didn't pass the treshold (100).
 
300-1000 is a pretty large step, why did you choose it? especailly since their are only 9-10 cities >300 could you just use them individually?

Also are you including the greater metropolitan area, which is important for european cities with their reduced sprawl; for example the greater london area's 250bn could count as another 1-3 cities or be ignored in the main city ;).

Also most Developed countires do have regional variation provided they are bigger than switzerland ;), 30-40% at least.
 
Out of curiousity, where are you finding city GDPs?
 
300-1000 is a pretty large step, why did you choose it? especailly since their are only 9-10 cities >300 could you just use them individually?

well, urban sizes tend to follow logarithmic scale. An average sized country with 5 cities larger than 1 million will approximately have 10 cities larger than 500k and 20 cities larger than 250k. So I chose a logarithmic scale. I chose 10-30-100-300-1000 because more than 5 levels would confuse the map too much I think - too many different icons.

But you have a very good point indeed. 300+ cities are very few, so it makes sense that their economies are individually recorded. Then the lower scales could have better division (10-25-60-150-400 perhaps)

Also are you including the greater metropolitan area, which is important for european cities with their reduced sprawl; for example the greater london area's 250bn could count as another 1-3 cities or be ignored in the main city ;).

Metro area of course. If you go with municipal borders (which are arbitrarily made by people) you get ridiculous differences between countries. That's why Germany has that level 4 center at Koln-Essen-Dusseldorf-Bonn-Duisburg-etc. The only time I separated metropolitan areas is if parts of it are in neighboring countries (example: the three level 1 cities of Germany, Netherlands, Belgium are actually listed as a single metro area in my population source.)

I found the metropolitan populations from world gazetteer. I found it to be the most reliable source. (I have funny hobbies, like trying to develop better population estimation algorithms)

Out of curiousity, where are you finding city GDPs?

I got the GDP/capita data from CIA factbook and multiplied with pop. For undevelopped countries I increased the GDP/capita for major cities and decreased it in rural areas. For some countries I found regional or city-wise GDP/capita, but very few.

disenfrancised said:
Also most Developed countires do have regional variation provided they are bigger than switzerland ;), 30-40% at least.

I know, but digging that info is too much work. Maybe finding that for the country a player wants can be a good homework at the beginning of the NES :)

But still, I slightly applied this effect. When a large city is very close to the edge, I pushed it over to the next level (98->100)
 
It's the old colors... :twitch:
 
When an object is visual, aesthetic is everything. If people don't like the way it looks, they won't look at it. If they have to look at it anyway, they won't like doing so. Simple facts. But it's not really my concern, so eh.
 
To back up your point:

Do you really want to play on this?
 

Attachments

  • New_Map2.png
    New_Map2.png
    172.4 KB · Views: 98
I agree, but I don't see the superior aesthetics of the new colors in comparison to the old ones.
Three reasons:

- The colors are more appropriate (reloaded version, in the original post, now has American and French blue and Mexican green from their flags in addition to the other changes)
- The colors are all distinct (multiple nations sharing the same color is just ugly)
- The South Pacific is filled in

Therefore, it is superior on three counts, and more functional to boot as a result of the latter two.
 
Three reasons:

- The colors are more appropriate (reloaded version, in the original post, now has American and French blue and Mexican green from their flags in addition to the other changes)
- The colors are all distinct (multiple nations sharing the same color is just ugly)
- The South Pacific is filled in

Therefore, it is superior on three counts, and more functional to boot as a result of the latter two.

2 I agree, 3 is unimportant (I didn't even notice) and easy to fix.

I disagree with the first one, as
a) only a few nations are given their flag colors in the new map,
b) flag colors in the world don't have enough diversity (this can be fixed by using slight variations).

I haven't seen any map in any NES with a red Turkey for example.

I actually thought of changing the colors properly (more so then the new color scheme you mention) for all nations, and no color repeated, when I have more free time. But it is not a functional fix so it is not my priority.
 
When an object is visual, aesthetic is everything. If people don't like the way it looks, they won't look at it. If they have to look at it anyway, they won't like doing so. Simple facts. But it's not really my concern, so eh.

That was Emu's reason for not invading Portugal. He liked how it looked.
 
Any "Fall of Rome" Maps floating around?
 
There's a link...near the top of the Alternate History III thread, 64th page.

It's of 450, with Huns, East and West Rome, Sassanids, Vandali, etc.
 
Much thanks :pat:
 
Back
Top Bottom