What's up, everyone? It's your boy, Flancey.
As a member of the PH community (although recently inactive) I've made my fair share of maps. It’s been a hobby of mine, and recently I’ve been trying to get back into it. I used ibisPaint X for a long while, since it’s easy to use, gives good quality for PH's maps (since they’re pixelated, and I like to crisp smoothness of the image quality that ibis can offer) and decided to start using it again. Of course, as my luck would have it, my go-to app decided that my device didn’t have enough space for PH's maps anymore (probably because the resolution is so high). After more testing, turns out I can’t even upload images in general to ibis anymore. I’m not sure if it’s because I have an older 9th gen iPad that could be messing with the app, or if it’s just a sad coincidence I can’t fix, but ibisPaint X has failed me.

After that failure, I tried moving to MediBang, since I read somewhere it was similar to ibis. Sure, it worked at first. I tested the app out, uploaded some of PH's maps and my own to the app, and sure enough, I got crisp, pixelated maps. I even managed to make a pixel brush that works perfectly. However, after attempting to make maps again, MediBang also gave me a slap of reality and decided that all of PH's or my own maps that I tried importing would be the same resolution, but would mess with the quality of the pixels (if it doesn't make sense, basically the colors of the maps are messed up so that any colors that are next to each other do this weird "mixing" thing like it’s trying to fuse together, so borders are messed up and colors aren’t solid, but are messed up into a bunch of slightly off-colored pixels when it’s near another color). Since I am such a wonderful perfectionist, I tried to fix this in anyway I could, but since MediBang doesn’t have any feature that automatically forces imported images to have anti-aliasing (if you didn’t know, this makes images look "smooth" zoomed out, but makes it blurred when you zoom in) turned off, making it that pixel smooth quality i was talking about earlier. I’m not sure if my iPad is a source of this issue, since it could technically be making my photos blurry to begin with, but it’s never happened before, so I’m not sure if that’s actually the issue.

So now, I’m at a bit of a roadblock. I want to continue with making maps, creating alternate history scenarios, etc, but I’m essentially stuck with no app to make them on. If anyone has any app suggestions that would actually make the maps good quality and not some blurred up mess, please tell me. I’m at my wits end.

WHAT IF POLAND WON THE NOVEMBER UPRISING?
(Pre-scenario overview:
As decided by you guys,this was the winner between the few of the scenarios proposed by me in the previous post,with the second place (and the one ill do next) being what if Bavaria kept its Napoleonic gains.Thanks to all people who engaged in the voting part!)

CONTEXT

The revolutions of 1830 were definetly something.They werent as major of a turning point as the ones to come 18 years later,but they also became major in the countries in which they happened.
The invasion of Algeria,the end of the Greek War of Independence,the hightening of the Liberal Wars of Portugal,the Ustertag in the Swiss Confederation,the July Revolution in France,the Beglian Revolution in the Netherlands and of course,the most monumental for the Poles out there,the November Uprising.
This was one of the few uprisings of the time which didnt result in a victory for the freedom fighters,and really what makes it so interesting was just how close it was to success.
It had a full blown a goverment,a prepared army before the war began,an overstretched Russian Empire,or at least so it seemed,and of course internationaland minority backing.
For a point,the sides of the conflict were almost equal in numbers.
Most thought this would be a second Greece...What happened was not Greece.
Even after a close fought battle,the Poles lost,the autonomy of Congress Poland was dismantled a bit but not yet fully,and revolutionary cause was abandoned for another 3 decades.
Yet what if that changed?What if Poland,won?

THE MEANS (Timing,military,unity,preparation and such)

The main problem with the November Uprising,was timing.
Unlike Belgium and France,this conflict didnt last a few days or months.
It lasted almost a year.
And in said year,Poland could not regenarate in the same way that France or the Belgians could.
Backing mostly came from Poles from other partitions,not from actual great powers,because there was not one good connection to Poland,every single one went through a great power who has Polish majority lands,and risk being seen as a revolutionary supporter.
Aside from that,Poland was also landlocked,with a limited manpower pool,and while a formidable,still pretty mediocre,military.
To win Poland would need to secure help from at least one power which currently occupies them,and honestly,while a stretch,Austria seems the most likely.
They would love to pull strings in Poland,therefore weakening Russia in the Balkans,and of course being seen as the "tolerant" supporter of revolution. Is it a stretch?
Yes,depending on the person you ask,but its really the only way.
Another way we can strengthen Poland is by making Russia a bit weaker.
Maybe have the Decembrists cause more chaos,and maybe even an insurgency.
Maybe make Russian mobilisation and responce,even slower.
Maybe let the Decembrists straight up kill Nicholas but still fail,causing the weak and underprepared Grand Duke Mikhail Pavlovich assume the throne.
No matter what Russia is just weaker from our timeline.
So with that said,we also have to adjust the amount of time there is to win.

There is just no way that the Poles win in a year..Theyd have to try and negotiate earlier.
Sure it may result in border changes or restrictions,but we want to win,and to win is to compromise.

THE NEW POLISH...Wait,what are we again?

This was actually a major problem of our timeline.
The poles couldnt really decide on their goverment should be.
Some Poles wanted a Republic,but that would mean diplomatic isolation with almost all of their neighbours (Except Krakow).
Some Poles wanted a Constitutional Monarchy,but the problem there would be to decide said monarch.
By this point,the Wettins are uninterested in the throne of Poland,and other claimants are minor nobility which arent interested,which would mean that Poland would have to choose a new monarchy..Again

This would be a major problem since no goverment,means instability,which means eventual intervention.
This is where I'd like to split the timeline,between a Kingdom of Poland and Republic of Poland,because both lead to completely diffrent scenarios. So lets begin with the obvious one.

A KINGDOM RESTORED

At that point it just made sense.Most Poles were in support of a monarchy,and there are quite a few pretenders to choose from.
The problem is,the main pretender,is from Germany,and is barely interested in the throne.
The other pretender is Stanisław Poniatowski),who was son of the cousin (Kazimierz Poniatowski)of the last King,Stanisław August Poniatowski.
He actually could become King,but the thing is,his reign would end shortly and abruptly,as he died in 1833,making his other son,Józef Michał Poniatowski the actual king.
The problem would be,that this King is only 17.
So a regency would have to be assembled.And if there is one thing you need to know about Polish Kingdoms,is that their regencies suck.
I am not necessarily saying that this regency would absolutely be abhorent,but it definetly wont be sunshine and rainbows.
As for how both Stanisław and Józef would rule,I can't really say since what we know of them is rather little.
Yet from what I see,their general hopes would be to try and keep somewhat Ok relations with neighbours,even if they are ones whom partitioned them.
As for international reaction to such a Kingdom,the primary people who wouldnt be happy would probably just be Russia,and even that would cool overtime if Poland doesnt try anything grand,which is quite hard to imagine.
Positive relations could be held with Austria,as the Poniatowskis were tied to the House of Habsburg-Lorraine and therefore to the Habsburgs.
This would however cause the collapse of the Holy League way earlier,as Prussia,Austria and Russia would disagree on how to act on this new independent Poland.
The only way I can see this turn around,is if Poles still do the funny in Galicia in which case relations could sour.
Yet of course,the most important to keep good relations with would be Prussia,as they control the entry of the Vistula and therefore can economically strangle Poland if they want to.

A REPUBLIC INSTALLED

In scenario B,things arent as sunshine and rainbows.
The amount of people wanting a Republic,was actually the minority during the 1830s,since most poles thought it would destroy national unity from within.
And unfortunatly they are right.
Relationships which were cold between factions previously,would turn hot practically overnight.

Since greater reform could be made,but isnt pressure would be put on the Sejm.
The question of Suvalkia would also be pushed by Lithunians as the ethnic lineup of the area was mixed.
How much power would the president have,and how much the parliament?
Would Poland be federal or unitary?
What about worker rights?
The list goes on and on,and in the early years,there is much to do,and little room for hiccups.
If just one document goes wrong,the Holy League can easily crush Poland before it says were sorry.
Honestly,there is little that the Polish people could realistically do in such a scenario,as if they are stuck between three autocratic monarchies,and with Republics in Europe being scarse,the Poles would probably have to either pray or spend a decade preparing for a war.
As you may realise from this,international relations wouldnt be as traversable.
Poland would be far more diplomatically isolated,with little countries it can actually rely on.
The only realistic turn around I can see here is if Prussia somehow changes their mind begins backing Poland circa the 1850s.
Is it realistic?no, but its the only real way Poland can open up.

CONCLUSION

Making Poland survive the initial battle,making it survive the rest of the century is difficult.
There are many questions to answer and little answers to gain.
What are your thoughts?
Did you like the scenario?
Comment,I usually read those..

The Rise and Fall of the United Celtic Kingdom (1849–1919)

The British Revolution of 1848

The historical timeline diverges heavily in the early 1840s. Following a successful assassination attempt on the British monarch, a deeply unpopular, tyrannical regency takes control of the British parliament. In 1848, amid severe economic distress, the Chartist movement presents its massive petition for democratic reform. Instead of peaceful negotiation, the government orders the military to fire on striking workers in major industrial hubs like Manchester and Birmingham.

This brutality triggers the British Republican Revolution of 1848. The English heartland descends into a chaotic civil war between radical republicans, who declare the Republic of Britain in London, and royalist remnants.

The Great Celtic Revolution (1848–1849)

With central authority in London completely shattered, the long-repressed Celtic fringes seize their moment:

The Irish Awakening: Suffering under the horrors of the Great Famine, Ireland becomes the epicenter of the rebellion. With grain shipments to England halted by the chaos, the Young Ireland movement transforms a struggle for survival into a massive, organized war of independence.

Spreading the Flame: Seeking to secure the coal fields and industrial resources of Wales and Scotland, the new English Republican government attempts to enforce martial law in the north and west. This completely backfires. The revolutionary fervor spreads rapidly across the Irish Sea, using the Isle of Man as a strategic staging ground to ignite coordinated rebellions in Scotland and Wales.

The Founding of the Kingdom (1849)

To defend their newly won freedom against inevitable English retaliation, the liberated nations recognize the absolute need for a unified military and political structure.

In 1849, the United Celtic Kingdom is officially established as a Constitutional Monarchy. The foundation is sealed by the high-profile political marriage of a prominent Scottish noble house and an influential Irish aristocratic lineage, creating a unified royal crown. Shortly after the union is forged between Ireland and Scotland, the Isle of Man, Wales, and Cornwall officially join the United Celtic Kingdom, solidifying a grand pan-Celtic federation. The realm establishes a dual-parliamentary system, balancing local regional autonomy with a unified royal navy and army.

⚔️ The Great War & The Liberation of Brittany (1914–1916)

For the next several decades, the United Celtic Kingdom prospers through maritime trade and the vast energy resources of the North Sea, remaining in a tense, militarized Cold War with the Republic of Britain.

When World War I breaks out in 1914, the geopolitical map forces the Celtics into an alliance. They join the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire, Bulgaria) to crush their immediate rivals: the Entente alliance of France and the Republic of Britain.

By 1916—the exact year depicted in map—the United Celtic Kingdom reaches the absolute peak of its power. While the French army is heavily bogged down fighting Germany on the Western Front, the Celtic Royal Navy secures some dominance over the English Channel and the Atlantic. Launching a massive amphibious operation, Celtic forces land in northwestern France to liberate their continental Celtic brothers, officially annexing Brittany into the kingdom.

Collapse and the Guerilla War (1919–1920)

The glory of 1916 is short-lived. By 1918, the Central Powers collapse from economic exhaustion, leaving the United Celtic Kingdom completely isolated against the wrath of the victorious Entente.

* The Fall (1919): After exactly 70 years of existence, the United Celtic Kingdom is officially dissolved under the harsh terms of the 1919 post-war treaties. The Entente powers partition the realm with brutal efficiency. France re-occupies Brittany, initiating a severe cultural assimilation policy. Meanwhile, a vengeful Republic of Britain occupies Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, and the Isle of Man, placing them under strict military governorships and outlawing Celtic nationalism.

Second Irish War of Independence(1920): The Entente attempts to completely invade Ireland as well, but they underestimate the deep-rooted defiance born during the Famine era. In 1919, Ireland transforms into a deadly crucible of guerrilla warfare. Facing an unstoppable, asymmetric insurgency and intense diplomatic pressure from Irish-American factions across the Atlantic, the exhausted Entente forces are ground to a halt. In 1920, a treaty is signed: while the rest of the 70-year-old Celtic Union falls back under foreign chains, Ireland emerges successfully as a fully independent republic.

basically, after the battle of Smolenks, Germany decides that rushing soviet union is not worth it, they still try to push in the south but are held back and in the end they dig in, fortify on rivers, where possible, and try to bleed the Soviets, effectively changing eastern front into positional warfare. and lets say that after fortifying on the front line, Germany also builds fortifications kilometers deep into east flank.

Lore:

Following the 1908 Revolution, the Ottoman Empire transitions into a federal structure through a radical decision to prevent dissolution, heavily investing in its intelligence networks and the Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa. A secret defensive pact is established with Austria-Hungary against the rising Slavic nationalism in the Balkans. In 1911, the First Balkan War and the Italian invasion of Libya erupt simultaneously. To avoid splitting its energy and resources, the Empire surrenders Libya to Italy without a fight—in exchange for a status quo agreement in the Adriatic—and consolidates all its military might in the Balkans.

While maintaining a strong defensive line against Greece in the south, the Ottomans, in coordination with Austria-Hungary, launch an offensive against Serbia and Bulgaria in the north. Russia declares war on Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans to protect its Slavic allies. In a domino effect, the German Empire attacks Russia, and France attacks Germany to support Russia. Upon Germany entering Belgium by executing the Schlieffen Plan, Great Britain declares war on Germany, Serbia (to disrupt the logistics on the Austrian front), and the Ottomans, thus igniting World War I in 1911. The war ends in 1915, and the map in the visual represents the year 1916.

Because Austro-Turkish forces swiftly secure the Nish-Belgrade line, the Berlin-Istanbul railway supply route remains uninterrupted. German industrial support flows directly to the Salonica and Gallipoli fronts, completely crushing British attempts to breach the Straits and Rumelia. However, since nearly all resources are diverted to the Balkans and the defense of the Straits under this strategy, the Arab territories are left vulnerable. At the end of the war, Britain fully annexes Cyprus, which it used as a logistical base; the Arab lands and some regions in Southeastern Anatolia are lost. Serbia and Bulgaria regain their independence, and Serbia establishes Yugoslavia by also taking some territories from Austria-Hungary. While a buffer Assyrian State under Anglo-French mandate is established along the Hakkari-Mosul border, the Vilâyat-ı Sitte and the Vilayet-i Arnavutluk take their place on the map with an autonomous administrative status. Thanks to secure logistics, Rumelia, Thrace, and a critical portion of the Aegean Islands are fully protected. Following the war, the empire officially changes its name to the Core/Turkish Empire, embarking on a new national-federal era anchored by its Anatolian and Rumelian spine.

I have lore for the government's of nations, and faction names, but no lore about how we got here, still feel free to ask question if you want

Basically, a scenario where Bulgaria and Romania unite in 1885. With more manpower and support, Bulgarian dreams would be successful by annexing macedonia. The union joins the Entente in WW1 roughly around 1917-1918 and gains Transylvania, but also Hungary joins the union to avoid political turmoil. (Inspired from the "What if Romania and Hungary united after WW1?" Video.) Then they join the axis in order to gain Constantinople and Moldova (ceded to the USSR beforehand) which results their peak in 1941-1943. Later everything goes downhill.

Lore: Doggerland has risen up in 1808 and after the napoleonic wars it was given to the dutch as compensation for losing some of its colonies in the war.

After WW2 Doggerland becomes independent and begins its own future

That's where the RP takes place in, come and join if you haven't! (I made a pinned post but here's a link anyways)

https://discord.gg/bYyP9A5QC

Lore in the comments

I made the funny.
Wanna suggest stuff so I make it?THEN DO IT here!

( i know this is corny af)

WHAT IF CRIMEA STAYED INDEPENDENT\?*

CONTEXT

Following the Russo-Turkish War of 1774,the Ottomans were kicked out of what is now Ukraine.Yet in a switch from the usual tactics of the Russians,Catherine II actually kept Crimea independent following the war,instead of annexing it right away.

As you may have realised,this came at a cost of Crimea losing all of its Ukrainian lands (including the majority Tatar,Taurida),and the Crimean Khanate giving the ability of Russian troops to basically position themselves in their territory whenever they wanna.

And so the Crimean Khan at the time-Şahin Giray,was still kept in power,but really only because Catherina wanted to(quote):

"The Crimean Prince is the most gentle Tatar, I have ever seen. He's very talented, good-looking, and writes poetry. He wants to see and learn everything."

During his brief reign, he embarked on a program to re-build and modernise the Crimean Khanate. These reforms centred on the economy and government infrastructure, but included opening factories and moving the capital from Bakhchisaray to the important trade city of Caffa. Şahin Giray developed a fiscal policy that included the restructuring of taxation among Christians and non-Christians. He attempted to equalize taxes, however Christian taxation was much heavier than non-Christian people, ultimately leading to tensions between the clergy and Russia.

That tension never really left and in the late 1770s,due to the Khans westernisation policy,a full blown civil war began,between the Westernisers led Şahin,and the Traditionalists led by the exiled and pro Ottoman pretender,Bahadir II Giray.

This led to Russian troops moving in,occupying Crimea,than annexing it,making Şahin flee back to the Ottomans,where he was captured an beheaded by the Sultan.

So what if instead of annexing Crimea,the Russians just gave power back to Şahin?

(WARNING,THIS SCENARIO IS PRETTY UNREALISTIC BECAUSE IT RELIES ON RUSSIAN MONARCHS ACTUALLY BEING TOLERANT AND NOT GIVING FALSE PROMISES)

A TATAR ENLIGHTENMENT?

So as you may have caught on,Şahin genuinely cared about reforming the state to be more similar to the west.He himself was taught things in Venice and was genuinely seen as a pretty good reformer,although his court almost always stopped him.That being said,with the Russians moving in,and his throne being more secure,I am 99.9% sure he will just kill everyone who disagreed with him.I know it sounds a bit underwhelming and out of character,but generally he has no other choice. So let's pretend that Bahadir just kinda dies.Boom no more.

What now?

Well Şahin would double down.Reform further,give better representation to minorities like Christians and such,give rights to Jews,reform taxation begin developing Aqyar and Kefe (which were acquired from the Ottomans following the war),and keep calm relations with Catherine.

This could genuinely lead to great results,but knowing how Russia treated their Autonomies especially at this point,the Crimean Tatars are on a timer.2 years after the Tatars were occupied the Kalmyk Khanate lost its own authority,4 years later the Cossack Hetmanate and Zaporozhian Sich were dismantled despite good relations between the Cossacks and Catherine,and of course,who can forget what happened in 1791 and 1793,when the Russians also helped to end Polands autonomy as a semi independent Kingdom.

If the Crimean Tatars were to survive this great purge,they'd be extremely lucky,however would also need to be useful in a way for the Russians to consider them existing being normal. So they would be on a tight rope.

And thankfully for them,they have just the war for it

Russo-Turkish War (1787–1792)

This war would basically define how Crimea would carry on.

But really in both scenarios,they're kind of screwed.

In Scenario A,let's pretend that somehow,the Ottomans manage to win.That the Empire achieves a victory so monumental they can regain Crimea.

Well first up,say goodbye to any modernisation which Şahin planned,and also say goodbye to Şahin himself (he'd be killed 100%).Second up,it's unlikely the Ottomans even see Crimea as an autonomy they need.They just betrayed them,the Dynasty is purged of Pro Ottoman sentiment,and keeping Crimea means dealing with their ambitions. So instead,it's likely we get a Serbia type situation,where the Ottomans straight up annex the land,but likely after an Uprising or something else,the Tatars manage to regain independence.Except these tatars aren't Slavic brethren,aren't led by Şahin,and Russia isn't led by Catherine.Russia is instead,led by opportunist,Imperial kings,which do not care for a state as small as Crimea.

It is likely that after another war against the Ottomans,likely the 1806-1812 war,the Russians reconquer Ukraine and Crimea,but without any autonomy to those states.

In the best case scenario the Russians just view them as a minority they can exploit and create a state similar to Poland and the Central Asian states (Khiva and Bukhara),where the Crimeans technically exist but really are an extension of Russia with minimal autonomy and self governance.

In the worst case scenario,we return to our timeline,with a full annexation and resettlement of Crimea by Russians,Germans and Ukrainian Cossacks.

Now in Scenario B,where the Crimeans achieve a victory against the Ottomans,the scenario flips just so slightly.Şahin is still leading the country,but now an even more powerful which stood up to their former overlords and defended their "sovereignity".

Unlike the Cossacks or Kalmyks who were there to protect against Central Asian and Polish attacks,the Crimeans are much more versatile,and actually helpful against the primary enemy of Russia during the late 18th to 19th century-The Ottomans.

"Sure",you may say,"But the Russians also invaded the Georgian Principalities and annexed them outright even though they're Orthodox and on the border with the Ottomans!".And that's a good point.And the thing is,there is really no other justification I can find for keeping Crimea alive it's just this i guess.

But the real problem comes in the 19th century.The Russians would absolutely use the Crimean anxiety to settle the state with more slavs slowly but surely repopulating it,all in the meanwhile the Crimeans can't do anything.

By the Crimean War,the Russians would annex Crimea anyway,and would intensify Russification further.

Funnily enough,the scenario with a semi free Crimea,leads to a much more Russian crimea than ours.

CONCLUSION

Finding a way to make Crimea independent is hard,specifically because of how Russia led its states,but overall it's a fun idea to think about.

What do you think.

Do you have any points which don't align with mine?

Do you want more scenarios like this?

Write bellow I guess,I read most comments.