I don't think this needs any other explanation... The link is below:

https://www.warlight.net/SinglePlayer?PreviewMap=41944

Edited 4/1/2015 04:47:24

I am also starting to think Beziers are much easier to work with... and learning a few things from the methods of other mapmakers has shown me how to make a good, high quality map.

This map is far more promising than your Lebanon map.
It is more neat and not sloppy.
Keep this method and your future maps will have a much higher rating.
;)

Thank you. I decided that the freehand method was not for me, and that beziers would be better.

Good move.

When working on my map, I noticed that many of the cities, towns, and districts, have two, or maybe even three different names. Some territories are clear and obvious to me as to what their names should be- for example, Aleppo could be either Aleppo or Halab, but most of the world recognizes the city's name to be Aleppo. An example of of a city with three names would be Kobani- which is ether Kobani, Kobane, or Mamayt. I obviously would not call the city Mamayt, as that is clearly not what the world uses for its name, but the media uses Kobani or Kobane interchangeably. In fact, almost all cities in Syria are like this. Dara and Daraa, Damascus and Dimashq, the list goes on. I think that what I will do is to take the extra names and put them to the territories for which I am at a loss to name. However, sometimes I might ask a question about what the proper name of a city is. In fact I have a question now:

Should I name the territory Kobani or Kobane? or perhaps even Mamayt? Since the city was pretty significant in the news recently, I want to get it right.

Dimashq and Damascus are pretty much the same bonus, you only need to take 4 countries for a 6 army income, that's not balanced. I would delete the bonus of Damascus of make those bonusses less worth, 3 army's per turn for 4 countries would be the max, imo.

Other then that, good map!

Edited 4/7/2015 21:47:35

I've been trying to think about what to do about damascus and dimashq. I am considering letting the city itself stand alone with one, reducing the damascus bonus from 3 to 2 in the process, and then dimanshq would be reduced to one. That is four total. since dimashq is not part of the surrounding megabounus, it would make the map much more balanced.

The reason why it is like how it is is because dimashq is a region just like Hims or Idilib would be, so so I want to preserve that regionality...

EDIT: I have proceeded with what I have just considered. The map is now more balanced.

Edited 4/7/2015 22:07:37

Last territory finished! See what you think. I will need to apply bonuses and name all of the territories before testing, but the hardest part is over!

Be sure to call it Syria 2011. Nowadays, the Syrian Arab controls little compared to a few years ago.

I think that whoever takes over Syria, America will still recognize it as Syria.

I think that I will also set the cities to zero, so that it is an option to make the map a "city game" if they want to. I will probably make that a standard among my future maps.

I think that whoever takes over Syria, America will still recognize it as Syria.

So? It's more important to draw maps as they are rather than how we want them to be. Renaming it to Syria 2011 is sure not to offend anybody. And if the conflict resolves to the original borders, you can name it to Syria 201X.

In all honesty, I am going to just call it "Syria" or "Modern Syria", and leave at that. Beyond the major governates, the map is based off of local cities and physical features. The territories are not subdivided based off of the local districts. If the major governates do change after the war, I will adjust the map accordingly.

I really think the best way, to avoid being criticised by others (not just me, the whole Levant and various terrorist forces in Syria back me up on this), that you call this Syria 2011, where we all agree that it was one country. It's not that clunky either, to put the 2011 after Syria.

Maybe you are right. However, you could say that for even 2011 or earlier. There is no safe way to name any part of this map. Almost all of the towns, distrits, and governates have two or even three names. No matter what I do, I probably will be criticized for using a wrong name for a territory or something like that. Take Kobani, for example. I am calling the bounus Mamayt (not quite the spelling), the city bonus Kobani, and the territory will probably be called Kobane. All of them refer to the same exact town. I am sure that with the civil war, this problem has become exacerbated, but it has always been an issue.

Edited 4/15/2015 01:29:47

Yeah, but this is just one solution to one problem.

Hey man, In all honesty, I don't care too much about any criticism my map will receive about what I name the name of the map. The only people who do not recognize the current political boundaries are the members of ISIS. The last time I checked, there were not any radical militants playing warlight, and I honestly don't think anyone on warlight will listen if a radical militant criticizes my map. In any case, the only criticisms that I care to acknowledge are those that criticize the quality of the map, like the army balance, if the borders are supposed to be overlapped-adjacent, or missing/extra connections. If I was basing my map off specifically the governete and administrative districts alone of Syria, then I could see how naming the map "Syria 2011" would be justifiable. However, that is not the case. The only part of the map that is based off of political boundaries are the superbonuses- the major governate districts. The others are based off of local towns, cities, and physical terrain. In any case, simply calling it "Syria" will be vague enough where I don't think anyone will criticize it.

The only people who do not recognize the current political boundaries are the members of ISIS. The last time I checked, there were not any radical militants playing warlight

XD good point

So? Doesn't matter who recognises it; it matters what it is.