Tinto Maps #28 - 29th of November 2024 - North America

[Pavía]

@Pavía is it possible to get a close up of the area around Minnesota, Manitoba, and the Dakotas? Some terrain there should be adjusted and I have a few inputs on names but the area is currently split on the periphery of two different maps making it hard to read some locations.

Which map modes do you want to see more in detail?

 

[Pavía]

@Pavía can I have a full view of Alaska? I'm working on a proposal for the region.

What do you mind, exactly?

 

[Pavía]

Have you changed the port of Cartagena? It has been an important port since the Carthaginians founded the city. In the map you showed the location of Murcia had access to the sea when it shouldn't have it, and even if that stays that part of coast is a lagoon where no port can be made so it shouldn't have a better natural harbor than Cartagena.
View attachment 1224971View attachment 1224972

OFC!

 

[Zebulon_Wallace]

What do you mind, exactly?

A view that the whole state. Point Barrow, the Panhandle, and the Aleutians.

 

[Pavía]

Are you looking for suggestions of historical names or for a dynamic renaming system?

For the latter I propose the following:

• For each nation that historically was a colonizer have a pool of historically used names. If the nation ends up owning the location a name was used and the location is at least a town, rename it.
• Do not use names from that pool for locations anywhere else.
• For other locations, rename them when they become a town and dynamically create names based on
  • Old world locations controlled by the colonizer with a majority of accepted culture (New York, La Nouvelle Orléans, Cartagena, Monterrey,...)
  • The nations rulers (current or former) or certain cabinet members (Jamestown, Charleston, Charlotte Amalie
  • Saints if the colonizer is catholic (San Francisco, St. Louis)

The examples are of course all to be found in the historic names pool and should not be used dynimically, but are here to explain the idea.

Historical names, but thanks for your suggestions for a potential dynamic system.

 

[Pavía]

Really excited about South America Diary.

Despite what people say, there are some pretty artificial borders in Southern Argentina, Southern Chile, and original Brazil divisions.

May I suggest this historical maps as inspiration to avoid this?

Mapas Históricos do Brasil

Legenda : Nomes em negrito demonstram autonomia administrativa. Nomes sem negrito demonstram falta de autonomia, subordinação à...

www.panmythica.com

Brazil historical inner borders, sources by the end

https://funag.gov.br/biblioteca-nova/produto/loc_pdf/1185/41/historia_do_brasil_nos_velhos_mapas_-_anexos

Old Maps superimposed with current ones, more relevant for indigenous cultures, vegetation

https://www.bibliotecanacional.gob.cl/sites/www.bibliotecanacional.gob.cl/files/2022-08/La política en el espacio.pdf
Chilean historical borders

We aren't using the Capitanias as a base for our map.

 

[Pavía]

A view that the whole state. Point Barrow, the Panhandle, and the Aleutians.

Locations?

 

[Zebulon_Wallace]

Locations?

Oh, I might have worded my request a little to local. This area but with the north slope location included too. I don't mind if you have to use multiple images to make the locations legible. Even the local maps cut the last half of the Aleutians off and put them in their own little box.

 

[AbsoluteTrash]

No natural harbour in Toronto is an odd choice - Toronto Harbour is one of the main reasons it became such a large city in the first place. The Toronto Islands (which during the game's timeframe would have still been a peninsula, until a storm disconnected them in 1858) form a natural harbour.

(A map of what the harbour would roughly look like during the game's timeframe)

 

[Pavía]

Some natural harbour suggestions:

Québec, QC
Duluth, MN
Charleston, SC
Jacksonville, FL
St. Augustine, FL
Cape Canaveral, FL
Norfolk, VA
New Bedford, MA
Providence, RI
Corpus Christi, TX
Wilmington, DL
Washington D.C

And some questions:
1. Is Philadelphia a coastal location? It would also be cool if it was.
2. Will PC have a canal building system?
3. How does the AI handle shipbuilding when they own locations in the Great Lakes? Do they have a strategy, like if they were to own the entire great lakes region and have no enemy fleets there, would they still build warships there?

Great feedback, thanks! Philadelphia would be in the location of Shackamaxon, so yes, it has a port!

 

[Pavía]

Oh, I might have worded my request a little to local. This area but with the north slope location included too. I don't mind if you have to use multiple images to make the locations legible. Even the local maps cut the last half of the Aleutians off and put them in their own little box.
View attachment 1225524

Do you mean, with this level of detail?:

 

[Zebulon_Wallace]

Do you mean, with this level of detail?:
View attachment 1225533

Yes.

 

[BirchTainer]

After doing a lot of research, I think I found some better names for areas in the bay area. (I also split up the locations into smaller ones)

Location Map (Native names) (Spanish names)

 

[Supernova47x]

Which map modes do you want to see more in detail?

Locations and terrain should be sufficient.

 

[Deleted user]

I think that there should be some centralised states in Arizona to represent the Hohokam culture which was in its classic period at the start of the game. The culture had permanent settlements and large water canals. The fac the region has so little development is a massive oversight. Also like many others here I think that there is a lack of centralised states and development in North America.

 

[Bisonmask]

I really hope their criteria for putting things on the map is "what did this look like in 1337, as best we can know" and not "how can we set up 1337 to make 1537 as accurate as possible."

Pretending some state didn't exist in 1337 when it did is far sillier than having that state not collapse as it did historically after the game has been running for 200+ years.

Also colonisation of state territory is a thing now so I'm not sure what the issue is, you can still enjoy the historical practice of ignoring native borders if you're into that

 

[Orangechrisy]

After doing a lot of research, I think I found some better names for areas in the bay area. (I also split up the locations into smaller ones)

Location Map (Native names) (Spanish names)
View attachment 1225536View attachment 1225547

Olamentko takes too much Pomo space there, and same with Petaluma and Onasatis, if Suisun gets split then it should be north south rather than east west with the south becoming part of the bay and part a Bay Miwok name

 

[jcranmer]

Several comments:

On the topic of borders: there's a lot of border gore in the American colonies caused by the friction between straight-line borders and obvious natural boundaries that were followed. The panhandles of Maryland and West Virginia caused by Pennsylvania's straight borders going near but not exactly to the Potomac and the Ohio Rivers respectively should not be retained, they just make no sense whatsoever. Similarly, I find Virginia's retention of the eastern shore rather than encompassing that as part of a Delmarva area somewhat baffling. But I am less peeved by the rectangular, perpendicular-from-the-coast nature of areas; retaining something like Illinois and Indiana in their vaguely modern contours

The implied absence of South Mountain in Maryland is kind of jarring to me; realistically, that's a barrier with few water gaps. It's probably best handled by pushing the Monocacy/Catoctin border a bit further north (covering both and then making Antietam<->Catoctin impassable, although I think that also severs Catoctin from its namesake.

The Fall Line isn't adequately represented in the map. This is a very notable geographical feature in the Eastern US marking the divide between the hilly Piedmont region and the flatter Atlantic Coastal Plain. In general, the line I see on the topographic map is generally to the west of where it is in reality. For example, Patawomeck and Nanzatico are about half on either side of the line, and the locations there should be adjusted to give the line more prominence. Further north, it seems that Patapsco, Wicontiss, Wawassan, Shackamaxon, etc. (in general, one more location coastward--I'm tempted to even include Manhattan here) should be Hills. In Connecticut, probably everything should be Hills save maybe Siccenumos (and maybe even that)--the hills run right up to the coast there.

There's insufficient wetlands on the east coast. Nauset and probably Naumkeag in Massachusetts should be wetlands (they're still wetlands today). In general, the Atlantic Coastal Plain is largely low-lying and will tend to have naturally swampy conditions if you're anywhere near water, so while say the Meadowlands in Hackensack aren't on the same scale as the Great Dismal Swamp or the Everglades, it's still clearly wetlands. I don't know what the penalty for Wetlands in the game is, but most of the actual east coast should probably be represented as wetlands (if it's not a hill) that can be cleared for a moderate one-time price.

I think there's also a general underrating of harbors on the east coast. As I understand it, basically everything inside the barrier islands on the coast ranges from "decent harbor" to "superb harbor". The big exception is probably Cape Cod of Massachusetts, so Nauxet is vastly overrated as a harbor here. Assonet and Seckong (modern-day New Bedford and, well, anything on Naragansett Bay) are shocking to me in their complete absence here, and I'd rate Patawomeck, Patuxent, and the inner coast of modern North Carolina a few notches higher with their poor development as harbors nowadays less a factor of "they're bad places for them" and more "they're too close to other superb places that have better trade links already."

I've got more commentary on things that are more mechanics related that I'll defer to a later post when I have time to write it.

 

[theolaa]

A bit after the time period it became a self-governing Moron colony

I'm dying lmao

 

[McEwanMaster]

There's insufficient wetlands on the east coast. Nauset and probably Naumkeag in Massachusetts should be wetlands (they're still wetlands today). In general, the Atlantic Coastal Plain is largely low-lying and will tend to have naturally swampy conditions if you're anywhere near water, so while say the Meadowlands in Hackensack aren't on the same scale as the Great Dismal Swamp or the Everglades, it's still clearly wetlands. I don't know what the penalty for Wetlands in the game is, but most of the actual east coast should probably be represented as wetlands (if it's not a hill) that can be cleared for a moderate one-time price.

I think there's also a general underrating of harbors on the east coast. As I understand it, basically everything inside the barrier islands on the coast ranges from "decent harbor" to "superb harbor". The big exception is probably Cape Cod of Massachusetts, so Nauxet is vastly overrated as a harbor here. Assonet and Seckong (modern-day New Bedford and, well, anything on Naragansett Bay) are shocking to me in their complete absence here, and I'd rate Patawomeck, Patuxent, and the inner coast of modern North Carolina a few notches higher with their poor development as harbors nowadays less a factor of "they're bad places for them" and more "they're too close to other superb places that have better trade links already."

Definitely agree here, especially when it comes to the areas surrounding North Carolina's Cape Fear River (centered on the province of Chicora in-game). That area has always been laced with waterways that on one hand made colonial settlement and infrastructure very difficult, but on the other hand allowed native peoples there to support maritime and riverine trade and communication with surrounding regions. There was even a time during the 19th century when the Cape Fear Region was known for its rice production, which alone indicates how much wetlands there were, whether from interior river systems, rainfall, or tidal influence.

On the topic of harbors, the Cape Fear River and its inlets allowed Wilmington, NC and its port infrastructure to flourish in the late 1700s and 1800s from maritime trade, if initially from smaller vessels due to dangerous shallows, making Wilmington North Carolina's largest city for a long time. The marine topography of the Cape Fear River also made Wilmington port very sheltered, making it a refuge from hurricanes and allowing the city to be the Confederacy's very last holdout of maritime commerce against the US Navy's blockade during the Civil War. Wilmington Port is still considered a major Atlantic terminal today.

From a maritime standpoint, the locations in the Chicora province should be significant for various reasons.