Map's missing the lake that I labeled as Lake Baikal, but Ovi should know about the details.

Okay but I'm still gonna domesticate otters and turtles.  And are we still doing near-prehistoric creatures?  I want moas.

I don't know how realistic you want to have this, but I tried to stick to animals that have a realistic chance of being domesticated.

I mean, if you want, you can give me a list with animals you want to have added. I was thinking of adding the bison for example. I don't think it's much harder to domesticate than the aurochs. I just wasn't even sure if you people would be using this, so I restricted myself to the more likely candidates.

I decided to go ahead and do a thing.

http://imgur.com/a/4oLOy

I assume this might become handy once we get to populate the world with humans. This way you can see what domesticable animals live where. It's not all livestock, it also contains animals like wolves and cats.

Another thing I want to mention is that it also features animals that haven't been domesticated in the real world or at least not fully. However all of the animals shown here should at least have the potential to be domesticated, so you can go wild when it comes to that. Individual comments are in the link itself.

I did map the locations onto the equivalent ecozones relatively closely (some liberties are made, but they're almost negligible). That however had the effect that often the ranges which are continous in the real world are broken up into three or four sections. This is especially noticeable with the wolf. Tell me if you want to keep it as is (Which means the ecozones stay intact and makes it easier to play this game without additional worldbuilding in an area most people aren't interested in.) or if I should try to make the areas more connected. For example, having the mouflon in either arabia or europe, not both. (This would be more realistic, but would also require figuring out the individual biomes.)

A similar thing with staple crops will follow.

Flisch this looks great! You've done an impressive job, thank you so much for the time you spent.

Also, totally cool with you adding an island. We'll uh... talk about that. :3

I just realized it sounds like I actually added a landmass. That's not what I meant. I just made an existing island into Christmas Island, because we need red crab migrations. :V

And thanks!

By the way, should you guys decide on a version of mine, I can provide a more detailed map, showing localized ecozones, such as major river ecologies etc. Just let me know.

So, Ovi asked me to do some ecozone mapping onto the continents.

Here's three versions:

http://imgur.com/a/Od76U

Disclaimer: The regions simply represent the fauna and flora. A region called "East Coast" simply implies that it's the biota found on the east coast on real earth, even if it is located on the western end of the continent in PCP.

Some quick thoughts on the variations:

Alpha is relatively simple. I didn't try to map the zones too closely to the biomes, rather to the continents and how they connect. As you can see South America has a lot of Taiga and Africa has plenty of temperate woodlands. This is a simple setup, but can create bizarre situations going forward.

Bravo is a little bit more out there in terms of connectivity. Eurasia is split into three disconnected landmasses and Africa has a direct connection with North America, which is a tad strange, but shouldn't create too many issues. (Africa and North America share quite some fauna due to Asia).

Charlie is similar to Bravo in terms of me trying to focus on biome mapping rather than geographical mapping. For example, South America is bordering both Europe and Africa, a circumstance that is possibly the strangest of all the variations so far. Still I like it, because many biomes neatly map onto the ecozones. PCP has two large Taiga areas, which unfortunately are north and south, so I made the two real-life Taiga continents, Eurasia and North America, on opposing hemispheres. Mesoamerica stretches across the subtropical rim on the norther part of North America. One could imagine that a recently broken up landbridge formed between Amazonia and North America and allowed faunal interchange. Africa is really huge, but that's no problem as Africa is really big on real earth as well (it just looks small due to distortion). Also this setup allows me to have a neat transition between Arabia and India. This is by far my favourite, but you can decide which one you like best.

Also suggestions for improvements or alterations are welcome.

Also apologies for naming the British Isles 'England'. I hope there are no irish here.

I just saw the movie.

What a massive letdown. This thing is what they advertised for months as this year's cinema highlight? The long awaited sequel to a beloved franchise?

And they basically did a retrofit of episode 4-6? It's the same story, except it makes even less sense. The empire was destroyed at the end of 6 but -surprise- they're back? And they have even more resources than before, being able to built an even bigger and deadlier death star? And they recruit their inexhaustable army by adbucting kids? Seriously?

Okay, fine, let's not talk about the story. That was never Star Wars main attraction anyway. What about the atmosphere? Well apart from basically copying 4-6 what else is there? Nothing. The scenery in 1-3 was at least gorgeous. Naboo, in all its facettes, Geonosys and that weird lava planet. Let's not forget Coruscant and Kamino!

7 has... a huge sea of sand on Tattoine some random desert planet and... some trees on Hoth some random snow planet.

Okay I get it, the movie doesn't shine through atmosphere and story... Maybe it's all about the caracters. No Jar-Jar Binks surely means this movie has at least this cut out for it.

But no, most of the characters are unlikable and the rest is kind of bland. Let's quickly run through them:

• The pilot who owns the droid is not only inconsequential to the plot as a whole but also suffers from the "I try to be cool but I'm not" syndrome that hollywood seems to shove into their supposedly bad-ass characters all the time.
• The stormtrooper Finn is not only poorly characterized (Being trained for combat all your life without any emotional contact to anyone doesn't just make you second-guess killing some random people you never met.) but he also comes across as childish and incompetent. Bickering with the scrapper girl, acting like he's hot **** to Han, flipping out when he's in control over his former commander, especially at the last thing he sounded more like a street thug rather than someone who was trained for combat and brainwashed for discipline for the entirety of his life.
• The scrapper-girl was basically a plot device, rather than a person. She is not as bad as the rest, but you don't automatically shine just because the rest doesn't. She's bland and her actions are nonsensical at best. Plus she's suddenly a speshul snowflake, big surprise. Yawn. Though to be fair in a star wars movie this was to be expected.
• Han Solo didn't really feel like he fit at all. He's so much fanservice in your face that it hurts more than nostalgia makes up for it. A cameo would have been fine, but being a central part of the plot was a bad decision. The problem isn't he himself, but the whole thing around him. He just doesn't fit. It'd be like transplanting Binks into episodes 4-6. Plus nothing that made him a likable character in the earlier movies show up here. He's not snarky, or smart or even just a douche who is secretly a good guy. He's just fanservice.
• Leia Organa was even worse. I don't know if it's really the fault of her actor or the writing of her character, but she felt so emotionless in everything she did. She spent 90% of the time just standing there with a stoic face, sometimes hugging someone, again without any real shown emotion or talking to someone, again without any real emotion. It was kind of embarassing really.
• Darth Vader Junior. I don't even know where to begin with this character. He's basically the Vader reincarnated without anything that made Vader fearsome. He appears to be a little brat who doesn't get his way as soon as things go wrong. And then he takes off the helmet and... HE IS! He looks... He doesn't look like a villain at all! Or a serious person! He looks like he just made it out of puberty. How am I supposed to take the main villain of the movie seriously if he looks like he is still going to school. And with that kind of hair under a helmet. This isn't trying to hard, this is not trying at all.

It is a testament to the writing that the two only likable characters were Chewbacca and BB, the little ball droid. Furthermore it's telling that both didn't have a real speaking role.

I mean, wow. I'm not a Star Wars fanboy, not even remotely. I never really cared that much for the franchise. I watched the movies and took them for what they are, popcorn cinema, nothing deep enough to spend time thinking about after the movie ends. As such I didn't have high expectations.

But wow, after all this hype I feel... I feel swindled.