(http://www.swamphen.net/graphics/maps/navalism3.gif)
Could you put a scale to the map?
Er...
Aside from scaling from the Known Size of Tasmania, I don't think that's really possible...I just took the World Map, cropped that out and blew it up to 671px height.
Well, the Melbourne-Sidney Distance is about 710 kilometers... at least I think it's kilometers. My Google Earth is currently spitting out everything in Japanese.
QuoteI just took the World Map, cropped that out and blew it up to 671px height.
Oh great! First you blow up your ships and now you have decided to blow up your nation. ;D
BTW, what's the '4' on the map? (North of Owenga)
Ahoj!
New Zealand is some 270,000 square kilometres. Let's give the DKB one third of the population density of the Netherlands, or 2/3rds of the UK, and they can fit those 40M people into that territory.
Using Dutch figures, New Zealand should have 100M people, UK figures - 60M. If somebody complains about mountains - Switzerland density gives New Zealand 100M, Austrian - c.30M ....
Maybe revert to OTL landmass?
Borys
Quote from: Walter
BTW, what's the '4' on the map? (North of Owenga)
I was originally going to have some of the other islands numbered, with names down in the right-hand corner with 1-3. When I changed it that one slipped through the cracks.
Quote from: Borys on July 24, 2007, 10:34:29 AM
Ahoj!
New Zealand is some 270,000 square kilometres. Let's give the DKB one third of the population density of the Netherlands, or 2/3rds of the UK, and they can fit those 40M people into that territory.
Using Dutch figures, New Zealand should have 100M people, UK figures - 60M. If somebody complains about mountains - Switzerland density gives New Zealand 100M, Austrian - c.30M ....
Maybe revert to OTL landmass?
I'd
really prefer not to...
Population density: it is likely heavy along the coasts, and along the Neue Dusseldorf-Seydlitzberg (Auckland-Wellington) spine, but otherwise the interior is very pastoral and agricultural.
Quote from: swamphen on July 24, 2007, 11:01:10 AM
Population density: it is likely heavy along the coasts, and along the Neue Dusseldorf-Seydlitzberg (Auckland-Wellington) spine, but otherwise the interior is very pastoral and agricultural.
Just like Switzerland ...
And New Zealand has 2/3rds of the land surface of Japan, a mountainous country. Japan had 49M in 1907 ...
Borys
Well I can live with it either way - but (a) I don't think we should make geographic changes mid-stream and (b) one of the main reasons I stuck with the DKB in Nv3.0, instead of trading it in on something with more economic muscle as was my original thought for the reboot, was the spiffy new landmass. :)
You keep the muscle on a smaller frame?
:)
Borys
Well the points still apply, but if there's a consensus to handvavium away Brandenburgia's flab I won't raise a stink over it. ;)
(Provided it doesn't raise the Resources Question that caused Brandenburg's geographic relocation between Nv2 and Nv3 in the first place.)
Ahoj!
I'll go with the mainstream here.
Borys
Well, we can me Brandenburg somewhat bigger than NZL without all that land mass.
Given Brandenburg's "history", a Lot of Empty Space might be logical; i.e. a former colony that became Imperial HQ after a revolution back in the homeland...one might expect the population to be lower than you might think given the land area.
..have been added to the map at the top of the thread.
Note that minor lines and 600mm (Field) gauge lines are not shown.
QuoteI was originally going to have some of the other islands numbered, with names down in the right-hand corner with 1-3. When I changed it that one slipped through the cracks.
I see...
4 - Freedonia. ;D
Playinmg with Google Earth, I arrived at the following Brandenburgia. A bit cut down in size in order not to have too large area.
(http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/9893/zeelandia2cr8.png)
Lossless PNG file, a jpeg would be quite smaller.
Ahoj!
My views on NZ size are known.
Borys
Hm, it seem i was not the only one to play around with maps of NBrandenburg.
(http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/5810/brandenburgps9.png)
It needs a bit more cleanup, and cities and such things needs to be added.
Another version, which I like better. Only three times the size of NZ. I also have a higher quality png map.
(http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/8793/brand2pv1.jpg)
Swamphen, we need your comments here.
Quote from: Borys on July 24, 2007, 11:07:57 AM
Quote from: swamphen on July 24, 2007, 11:01:10 AM
Population density: it is likely heavy along the coasts, and along the Neue Dusseldorf-Seydlitzberg (Auckland-Wellington) spine, but otherwise the interior is very pastoral and agricultural.
Just like Switzerland ...
And New Zealand has 2/3rds of the land surface of Japan, a mountainous country. Japan had 49M in 1907 ...
Borys
Using the Netherlands and Japan as examples are a bit extreme...
Norway is a mountainous country of about the same size as Japan, and it hade a population of just over 2M in 1907...
If Brandenburg have the same kind of population density as Scandinavia (or Australia for that matter), a large area makes quite allot of sense.
Mountains, deserts, large inlands lakes, or polar regions make for reduced living area in the early 20th century. Clever use of the original enlarged land mass given should be good enough for most things.
Ahoj!
I might be off on this - but wouldn't Japan - and New Zealand for that matter - have more plains than Norway? Hmm, wouldn't most of Norways plains be the tundra in Finnmark (or is that Nordmark?)?
And I'm quite sure that Japanese and New Zealandese climes are milder than Norway's.
Borys
Quote from: Borys on September 20, 2007, 03:11:14 AM
Ahoj!
I might be off on this - but wouldn't Japan - and New Zealand for that matter - have more plains than Norway? Hmm, wouldn't most of Norways plains be the tundra in Finnmark (or is that Nordmark?)?
And I'm quite sure that Japanese and New Zealandese climes are milder than Norway's.
Borys
The main agriculture are in Norway are the valleys and plains around Oslo, were most people live. So there are some plain in Norway outside the tundra. And yes, Japan have a far better climate for agriculture then Norway, but my point is that using two of the worlds by far most densely populated countries as benchmark might no be a good idea.
If New Brandenburg has a pop density equal to that of present day New Zeeland, it would have 10 times the area of NZ. We can take a look at South America as well, Argentina is about at same level as Brandenburgia, and have a population density of 14pers/km2 (NZ: 15/km2) today. It seems reasonable that New Brandenburg would have a population density on about the same level as those two countries. And even then it is quite high, Argentina only had about 6m people in it in 1907, compared to about 40m today.
Ahoj!
The UK (with all of Ireland) - 120,651 sq. m - 1891 had a population of 37,732,922, and 41,5M in 1901
New Zealand has 104,471 sq. m - I see no problem with 40M in 1908.
Borys
Quote from: Borys on September 20, 2007, 05:13:56 AM
Ahoj!
The UK (with all of Ireland) - 120,651 sq. m - 1891 had a population of 37,732,922, and 41,5M in 1901
New Zealand has 104,471 sq. m - I see no problem with 40M in 1908.
Borys
Hu? the UK are almost 245k sq. km.
A NZ with 40m people on it is basically a megapolis, which seems odd considering most people have lived on the island for only one or two generations. This is why I think Argentina is a much better role-model then the most densely populated places on earth.
I see no real reason why the Brandenburgia we got on the world map should not work, and little need to shrink it.
Ahoj!
These are square miles - I took the data from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica :)
Let's not get carried away with the megalopolis bit - there are many places in the UK which are empty, like most of Scotland.
In N-verse Brandeburg could have had actively colonised New Zealand from 1680 onwards.
Borys
Very nice maps, but that last one especially makes a hash of the canon, both what I've actually posted and the "head case"...er the way I envision things when I'm writing news posts.
As I've mentioned before, the "colony turned into Fatherland" aspect covers many evils explains why there's such a large area but such a small population for that area. Much of the interior is mountainous, especially the southern parts of the country - note how there are very few cities in the south, the 'Imperial Gauge' railroad lines have not been extended down there, and how the southernmost tip is more Celtic, ethincally, than German...
So which one is the one representing Brandenburgia, epsecially the location? I think Brandenburgia=Zeelandia (so it more or less follows sea depth contours). The northern part I'd cut off, as it just blocks all the rains from Australia. The distance between Brandenburgia and Australia rather be more than 200 miles some maps suggest...
The one Korpen posted (following the land area on the world map/my map that started this thread) should, IMHO, be workable.
The northern part, outlining the Brandenburg Sound, might be dispoasble, although I have referenced that sound in the past...
The problem with Korpen's that the sea depth contours corresponding to Brandenburgia are more to the east - that's what I was drawing.
Perhaps some of the land is rather low in elevation and part of the time covered in water? Perhaps some are reclaimed lands for purposes of the naval yards and/or civilian shipyards? Dutch assistance with dykes and the like?
Quote from: swamphen on September 20, 2007, 08:02:06 PM
The northern part, outlining the Brandenburg Sound, might be dispoasble, although I have referenced that sound in the past...
There was an earthquake ...
Borys
If one is playing God by enlarging a land mass to sub-continental status, there's no reason one shouldn't also play God and move the sea-bed contours around.