Forum:Request help/Not sure what to think of my territory’s layout. Any feedback?

From OpenGeofiction
ForumsRequest help or feedback → Request help/Not sure what to think of my territory’s layout. Any feedback?


I don’t know whether here is the place to ask that kind of question, or whether I should ask it in the first place (figuring the kind of stuff out is half the fun of mapping on OGF, after all!). But I have a small territory, so there’s a lot of stuff to put in a small space there, and I’m not sure I’ve done it in the most sensible way. Here’s a pic:


My territory is Searavenag, on the right side of the picture, and you can see almost the whole territory on the image.

My main issue is: given the territory’s location, and the fact that it’s basically a city-state that would have relied on sea trade, at least in the past, it would make a lot of sense to have an important port. Specifically, surely the government would have wanted not to be too outcompeted by the neighbours, who all have important ports. However, I’ve set my city in a fairly narrow bay, so creating such a port would mean that it would take a lot of space and basically influence massively the geography of a large part of the country. However, I also planned my country as basically some kind of quiet and vaguely sleepy bit of countryside by the sea (think Southwest England, Normandy, etc.), so a huge port in the middle of that would be kind of an eyesore, wouldn’t it?

I know that in a way it’s a very silly question: of course, I totally can decide that it will be a small city, and my neighbours will have more ships that I do but it won’t be a problem for absolutely anyone, and mapping on OGF is supposed to be fun and lighthearted, and I’m grossly overthinking it, etc. But still, I’m curious whether anyone would have done things differently from what I did, or if there’s any feedback anyone wants to give.


This is the "request help or feedback" section, so I think this is what its' for :)
In regards to your question, I personally like the idea of having a main port set a bit back from the open sea. It actually would provide some benefits:
  • Reduces the risk of problems related to flooding or sea surges
  • Makes sea invasion more difficult and gives your nation more land area with which to surround any attackers
  • Building a bit farther away from the open ocean would likely make the ground less waterlogged, making construction easier
There are also real-world examples of important port cities built a ways away from the open ocean:
Hamburg, Germany
Bremen, Germany
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Antwerp, Belgium
Lagos, Nigeria
Abidjan, Ivory Coast
Hangzhou, China
Guangzhou, China
Kolkata, India
Porto Alegre, Brazil
In all honesty, the biggest issue I see is that the city wouldn't (at least in the current arrangement) be ruling over a lot a territory, which could theoretically make gaining significant influence difficult. However, it can happen — look at Amsterdam, which didn't control a lot of land area and was, for quite some time, ruled by the Spanish monarchs of the Habsburg dynasty. Yet Amsterdam became one of the most important trading ports of the 17th and 18th centuries, even leading out endeavors like the Dutch East India Company, which (for better or for worse) went on to establish colonies and trading posts across Asia. Dutch traders also influenced Africa and North America, and New York was initially founded by the Dutch as New Amsterdam. So apparently "small" powers like the Dutch can in fact gain substantial power even without significant territory possessions.
Hope this helps! - Anonymous21 (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)