Europa [Quenched]

[Ruben Cassar]

Perhaps put "Serbia & Kosovo" instead of just Serbia - if you're not having Kosovo as a seperate place? (Apologies if I got the wrong country to add that too) - It might please both sides of the camp.

If you're having Greenland "cos it's part of Denmark" - then where are the Falklands?

Unsure about Cyprus being brown too.

C.

Falklands? Haha. What about Spain's Canary islands, Portugal's Azores, France's overseas territories...oh and let's not forget the Isle of Man and Isle of Wight!

[yeti_c]

Perhaps put "Serbia & Kosovo" instead of just Serbia - if you're not having Kosovo as a seperate place? (Apologies if I got the wrong country to add that too) - It might please both sides of the camp.

If you're having Greenland "cos it's part of Denmark" - then where are the Falklands?

Unsure about Cyprus being brown too.

C.

Falklands? Haha. What about Spain's Canary islands, Portugal's Azores, France's overseas territories...oh and let's not forget the Isle of Man and Isle of Wight!

Exactly...

C.

[MrBenn]

Greenland
I get the general impression that people like the Greenland concept. The inset bit I've got is its Southernmost tip - the whole of Greenland is the same size (or larger) than the rest of Europe. I could redraw this to be a south-western bit, or scale down the whole of greenland and include that in the inset. What do people think?

Scandinavia
'The Viking' suggested renaming Scandinavia to 'Nordic Countries.

While the term Scandinavia is most commonly used for Denmark, Norway and Sweden, the term the Nordic countries is used unambiguously for Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Iceland, including their associated territories (Greenland, the Faroes, and Åland). Scandinavia can thus be considered a subset of the Nordic countries. Occasionally, Scandinavia is used synecdochically for the entire Nordic region, especially outside the Nordic countries, and in these circumstances, the two terms can be considered synonyms.

Personally, I prefer the word Scandinavia. What do others think?

Kosovo
Now that I've quietened the debate (here) about Kosovan Independance, what do people think of Yeti's suggestion to rename Serbia to 'Serbia & Kosovo'? I have no preference.

Cyprus
Cyprus is an independant state and (as Ruben mentioned) a member of the EU. It's inclusion in the brown/Transcontinental region was a compromise that I, and others are unhappy with. Ruben suggested creating an Helenic region, consisting of Greece, Crete and Cyprus. Any thoughts on this?

Italia
The inclusion of Malta with Italy makes sense for many reasons (geographical proximity being the most influential). The name 'Italia' is slightly misleading though. Any suggestions here?

Other Territories
Gibraltar will be put back in on the next update, but that is pretty much it; unless anybody can convince me otherwise

[RjBeals]

Nice work on the borders Mr. Benn.

I really like your outer borders, but I think your inner territ borders may even be a bit to thick. I know you don't want to hear that, but I would suggest a 1 pixel brush Your legend is much much better. Color choices are great. The bolded tahoma is okay for font. But as someone said earlier, it almost clashes too much with the smoothness of the map now.

I would also suggest adding a little flare to the land masses. Like some bevel / glow / shadows. It's very flat right now. Do not go overboard with those things though. A little goes a long way.

Nice update overall though.

[Ruben Cassar]

Greenland
I get the general impression that people like the Greenland concept. The inset bit I've got is its Southernmost tip - the whole of Greenland is the same size (or larger) than the rest of Europe. I could redraw this to be a south-western bit, or scale down the whole of greenland and include that in the inset. What do people think?

Scandinavia
'The Viking' suggested renaming Scandinavia to 'Nordic Countries.

While the term Scandinavia is most commonly used for Denmark, Norway and Sweden, the term the Nordic countries is used unambiguously for Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Iceland, including their associated territories (Greenland, the Faroes, and Åland). Scandinavia can thus be considered a subset of the Nordic countries. Occasionally, Scandinavia is used synecdochically for the entire Nordic region, especially outside the Nordic countries, and in these circumstances, the two terms can be considered synonyms.

Personally, I prefer the word Scandinavia. What do others think?

Kosovo
Now that I've quietened the debate (here) about Kosovan Independance, what do people think of Yeti's suggestion to rename Serbia to 'Serbia & Kosovo'? I have no preference.

Cyprus
Cyprus is an independant state and (as Ruben mentioned) a member of the EU. It's inclusion in the brown/Transcontinental region was a compromise that I, and others are unhappy with. Ruben suggested creating an Helenic region, consisting of Greece, Crete and Cyprus. Any thoughts on this?

Italia
The inclusion of Malta with Italy makes sense for many reasons (geographical proximity being the most influential). The name 'Italia' is slightly misleading though. Any suggestions here?

Other Territories
Gibraltar will be put back in on the next update, but that is pretty much it; unless anybody can convince me otherwise

1. Greenland. Yes it must definitely stay. You could just draw part of Greenland in the upper left corner instead of using an inset.

2. Technically Finland is not part of Scandinavia. Perhaps Nordic states is a better name.

3. No because there is no country called Serbia and Kosovo. Just Serbia is the way to go.

4. I am for the Hellenic states concept since it was my idea.

5. You may not like the name Italic states but it's the best one. Remember the Vatican City and San Marino just like Malta are not part of Italy but they can be defined as Italic states.

6. I suggest making a sea link from England to Gibraltar. After all we all know Britannia rules the waves...

On a separate issue I really cannot see how you will make the Balkan region legible. If I am seeing right you have the Croatia army missing in this map. That region is a bit too cluttered. Cannot think of any solution though...

And as usual I continue campaigning for Russia to be included in the Eastern Europe cohort.

[yeti_c]

1. Greenland. Yes it must definitely stay. You could just draw part of Greenland in the upper left corner instead of using an inset.

I'm still unsure about Greenland - I don't really know how anyone can classify it as part of europe.

3. No because there is no country called Serbia and Kosovo. Just Serbia is the way to go.

Yes but there IS a country called Kosovo... and it's not portrayed on the map. Hence the compromise...

C.

[Qwert]

Its look that only Rubben here know about Serbia.
I dont understand why you Yeti, constantly request that kosovo must be on map.
Kosovo is not independent and its a part of Serbia(1244 resolution UN).Transnistria is a part of Moldova(Moldova not have power on these part of country).Abhazia is a part of Georgia,also South osettia also part of Georgia(georgia not have power on these parts of country),but most importan that these is not Independed states.

Yes but there IS a country called Kosovo... and it's not portrayed on the map. Hence the compromise...

No these is a part of Serbia,who want to be a country.For now its not country.

[yeti_c]

Its look that only Rubben here know about Serbia.
I dont understand why you Yeti, constantly request that kosovo must be on map.
Kosovo is not independent and its a part of Serbia(1244 resolution UN).Transnistria is a part of Moldova(Moldova not have power on these part of country).Abhazia is a part of Georgia,also South osettia also part of Georgia(georgia not have power on these parts of country),but most importan that these is not Independed states.

Yes but there IS a country called Kosovo... and it's not portrayed on the map. Hence the compromise...

No these is a part of Serbia,who want to be a country.For now its not country.

The problem is Qwert - your view is Biased - as you are Serbian...

C.

[Ruben Cassar]

1. Greenland. Yes it must definitely stay. You could just draw part of Greenland in the upper left corner instead of using an inset.

I'm still unsure about Greenland - I don't really know how anyone can classify it as part of europe.

3. No because there is no country called Serbia and Kosovo. Just Serbia is the way to go.

Yes but there IS a country called Kosovo... and it's not portrayed on the map. Hence the compromise...

C.

About Greenland many users have already stated why it is part of Europe.

Yeti why are you so devoted to the Kosovo cause? There must be some ulterior motives for your insistence for sure. Maybe I'm missing something?

Officially there is no independent state called Kosovo. If the UN recognised it I would gladly support your decision but it doesn't. This is a fact.

However, I think Kosovo is the less important factor of the ones mentioned that we should be focusing on.

[Qwert]

yeti
The problem is Qwert - your view is Biased - as you are Serbian...

C.

No,aim only stick with present situation,and these is that Kosovo is not independent state,and these is present situation.
Also your view is not biased? BBC tell you only truth,and you belive everything what they say.

[The Viking]

I agree with Ruben on Kosovo. It has not been recognized by neither the U.N. nor the E.U.

Yeti, I, as well as several other users, have given good, valid, reasons for why Greenland deserves to be on this map:

To yeti: Greenland is a "Parliamentary democracy within a constitutional monarchy", it has a prime minister(which is not the same as the danish one), a parliamentary, was granted "home rule" in 1978, and is politically and historically closely linked to Europe(btw, if Greenland is part of the same continent as Iceland, the Faroe Islands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland then I would say that's beyond speculation rightly named the Nordic countries, not Scandinavia).

And please provide us with some reasons for why Greenland is part of the U.S.A.

At the very least you must agree that if the Faroe Islands are on this map, Greenland should be to.
I can further extrapolate on the bolded part if you need further reasoning.
I would also suggest including Åland for that reason.

[oaktown]

the recent discussion about what to include and what to call everything is a bit troubling. I thought that the basic idea behind this map was to present Europe as it is today, politically. Hence the inclusion of little autonomous states like San Marino and Monaco that don't exactly make for easy inclusion on a map of this scale. But as Benn has quickly found out, this isn't as quite as easy it looks, as everybody has a different sense of what should be included.

Clearly, Benn has to take some liberties for the sake of making this map playable. Islands are being included that are not autonomous (Crete, Sicily, etc.), and other lands are being included that, by most geographical definitions, aren't even a part of Europe (Greenland, Cyrpus, Turkey past the Bosphorus, etc.)

My advice to you, Benn, would be to come up with some general rules regarding what you would like to include, and stick to them. That way nobody can get on your back about including A but not B. And when you come up with these rules, your first concern should be what is going to make this map playable, NOT what is going to make everybody happy.

My advice to everybody else would be to give Benn some leeway to make up his rules. This is his map, and ultimately he is going to have to make hard decisions that take politics, geography, and good gameplay into consideration.

[MrBenn]

Thanks for the feedback everybody.

One of the issues about playability/visibility is going to be the Balkans region.

While I would ideally prefer to keep all of the countries on the map, I have sketched a couple of alternative options for territory borders here:

Click image to enlarge.

[MrBenn]

I've just put up a poll so people can vote for their preferred option

[Ogrecrusher]

By the way, it's Bulgaria there, not Belarus. I'm sure you knew that though

Edit: This would be so much easier if Yugoslavia still existed! I'm not even sure what I prefer, I want everything on there, but I can see it not being practical.

[MrBenn]

By the way, it's Bulgaria there, not Belarus. I'm sure you knew that though

Thanks for pointing out my mistake...
Updated image and re-posted here to keep it on the current page:

Click image to enlarge.

[yeti_c]

I voted D for visiblity - but I prefer A for the pureness of the original map idea.

C.

[pepperonibread]

I like #2... Serbia & Montenegro was an actually country until around 2006, right? In all likelihood, countries in this area are going to change in the (near?) future, so it probably won't stay accurate for too long. But I'm good with the more accurate #1 too.

Also, I posted this earlier:

With all the nice smooth borders you've got now, I think it would be good to find a font to better fit with that aspect of the map.

[Qwert]

i Voted for A,because all other option is not normal. I thinking,who just give you these idea?

[MrBenn]

With all the nice smooth borders you've got now, I think it would be good to find a font to better fit with that aspect of the map.

I had seen that pepperonibread. The more I look at it, the more I agree. I'm still playing around with things, and will see if I can find something that fits better

i Voted for A,because all other option is not normal. I thinking,who just give you these idea?

The main problem I've got here is going to be visibility of borders (which affects gameplay and graphics), and I thought the easist way to clear this up might be to merge a couple of territories. Serbia & Montenegro was an obvious 1st choice. The merging of Slovenia & Croatia makes sense from a graphical point of view, as it gives slightly more border flexibility. Albania & Macedonia makes least sense, but was included as another option.
As I already stated, in an ideal world I would like to keep all countries in as it currently is, but am aware that there may need to be some compromise here.

[Qwert]

The main problem I've got here is going to be visibility of borders (which affects gameplay and graphics), and I thought the easist way to clear this up might be to merge a couple of territories. Serbia & Montenegro was an obvious 1st choice. The merging of Slovenia & Croatia makes sense from a graphical point of view, as it gives slightly more border flexibility. Albania & Macedonia makes least sense, but was included as another option.
As I already stated, in an ideal world I would like to keep all countries in as it currently is, but am aware that there may need to be some compromise here.

You can not create compromise in that way,to create some new country.
Mine country is Serbia not Serbia&Montenegro, when some from Slovenia or Croatia look what you want to create,they not be pleased with that,and expecialy Macedonia&Albania,in real in that country will escalating war(like in Macedonia before several years). You create Map of Europe,and you must find solution to fit all soverein European country in one map.
You can try with Balkan corner box.

[ZeakCytho]

I voted option one, since I think it's clear enough to tell borders with the numbers instead of full names. However, it seems to me that the 88s on Croatia are missing .

Also, minor graphical suggestion: the current longitude and latitude lines go on top of the water and land. The territories might be a bit less cluttered if you make the lines go over the water but under the land. Did that make sense?

[iancanton]

A and B are both good.

Greenland is a "Parliamentary democracy within a constitutional monarchy", it has a prime minister(which is not the same as the danish one), a parliamentary, was granted "home rule" in 1978, and is politically and historically closely linked to Europe(btw, if Greenland is part of the same continent as Iceland, the Faroe Islands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland then I would say that's beyond speculation rightly named the Nordic countries, not Scandinavia).

if u look on any globe, greenland is clearly part of north america and not part of the same geographical continent as the faroe islands or scandinavia (iceland is on the continental boundary). it is not part of the eu (unlike, for example, the canary islands, french guiana or martinique) and it is culturally inuit eskimo, in other words, non-european.

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/themes/rup_en.htm

exactly the reasons given above by the viking also apply to many other territories not in the european union, such as bermuda and the netherlands antilles.

talking of the canary islands, which are part of the eu but not part of its common customs area, they are the largest group of spanish islands by both area and population (larger than the balearic islands) so, by any set of consistent criteria, if the balearic islands are a separate territory, then the canary islands have a much greater claim to be on the map than greenland does. i think it's easiest to exclude both greenland and the canary islands for the simple reason of remoteness.

http://www.spain-grancanaria.com/uk/canaries-map.html

russia, if it is reduced to one territory, ought to border both poland and lithuania since, in practice, it is completely free to move its troops to and from kaliningrad without hindrance.

the proposed title, europa, is too similar to the title of the current europe map that is in play to be of use in describing the differences. i suggest that u suffix it with the year (depending on which balkan countries u choose to include), for example europa 2007 or europa 2005, to make it clear that the map is a snapshot of europe at a particular date, which saves people complaining that u've missed out this or that balkan country by mistake or worse, because of political bias.

ian.

[Ruben Cassar]

Sorry Ian but I don't agree with you on many points.

Greenland is part of Europe, definitely not part of America. In fact they are considering joining the EU again, and they already were members of the EU! It is an autonomous province of Denmark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_and_the_European_Union

Canary Islands - I agree these should be in the map but how will poor Ben make them fit? He has already enough problems as it is. Maybe he could use an inset as well in the lower left corner. But then what about the Azores? These should be in as well. So better leave both of them out at this stage.

I don't agree with naming the map 2007. In 2008 Kosovo is still not a full recognised country. But perhaps he could call it Europa MMVIII to stay in line with the Latin name or Nova Europa.

[InkL0sed]

This thread makes me go "Ack! European regionalism at its worst!" and then I dare not comment.

I like the map though.