Balkan Peninsula

The last two image links didn't work for me. Just timed out.

Nice update. I see what you're trying to do with the slightly thicker borders within regions to represent countries, but I think it's confusing and probably better just to make them all the same thickness.

Also, any way you could make the bigger borders appear sharper? They just just a bit fuzzy, but maybe that's just me.

Please cbt, can you try again? It works perfectly here. If you can't, I'll upload it later elsewhere.

And life, I'd like to keep country borders thicker. Otherwise there could be political problems with the regions and some users, and I think it's pretty straight-forward. You go through thicker borders when changing of region. Sharpening, I'll try it later.

I like the shadow from land to see, it looks nice.

What's with the S from Sumudija

You mean the Å  from Å umadija?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0umadija

http://oi60.tinypic.com/2wnbayd.jpg

Sharpened region borders.
Changed a few territory names.

Oh wow that does look a lot better. Only thing I can say is get rid of the random lines inside the regions on the mini map. The blue yellow and light green have lines, but no other region does. Unless there's some real life division there I don't know of, then leave it. It looks good. Also, it doesn't really have the feel of any other d12 map. So that's cool.

As far as region bonus / gameplay. You might need some natural impassable borders. For regions with 4 territories and 3 defensible borders, the bonus is actually 3, not 2 (See med states). That's a lot of bonus on a small map. Lots of defending makes for high stress high conflict games with people yelling at each other (which can happen on any map really). The looks are pretty great.

4/3+3/2.5=2.53333. Falkland Islands or United States maps have regions 4/3 with 2 bonus.

Marmara is a 2 for me because it's on a limit. Also, Southern Bulgaria gets a 2 because next to it is Northern Greece which is a 5 terr, 4 bord getting a 3, and makes too much difference.

Also, putting a 3 would be too much bonus for the map, as you say. Most regions have 3 borders to defend, except for blue and red which have 4, and the "central" yellow region with 5. This way both sides of the map offer a similar bonus.

The divisions are real countries borders. Just for easy recognising and avoiding political trouble. Not so random

Sounds good.

http://oi58.tinypic.com/ano378.jpg

Removed a few dead pixels.
Moved some labels/circles.
Changed a name.
Modified a border.

I weep that I will never be as good as you

The real border lines in three, four and five are confusing like cbt said. They look like region borders. Get rid of them or make more regions. Why not just make Albania/Montenegro a region? Slip Kosovo N or S and make the blue region have four territories? I'd go ahead and make Slovenia a region too tbh, give it a one bonus. Break up the north more. (since it's a smaller map I don't think you need an 8 territory region for people to hide in).

The big trouble I see is region bonuses and/or connectivity. If I'm playing this you look at the NW vs. East vs. South. You can defend each with three to four territory bottle necks. The NW has the easiest time of it with only four borders and 10 bonus (plus 4-6? for the territories held bonus). The South and the East would be much more contentious. The South would get 8 bonus (plus 4) and have five to six borders to defend. The East will have three to six borders with 7 bonus (plus 3-4 bonus).

Problem:

If the South wants the full eight they MUST take Anatoliki, but the East needs Anatoliki for their three border bottleneck. And the South will probably want Sofia so it only has five borders. So while they nitpick and fight over those borders, the NW player breezes to victory.

Solutions:

1. Break Nis into two regions.
2. Move Montana to Orange/3
3. Add Albania/Montenegro, this'll increase the NW bottleneck to five borders, increase the South bottleneck to 6-7. Encourages more border swapping between the three sections. And I think generally encourages a more balanced game play where the NW doesn't have an advantage.

Whew, what a mouthful, hope I made sense. (also hope I'm not retreading ground, cause I didn't read back very far lol). I know this probably isn't a huge deal and the more experienced people can say if it would be an issue or not lol, that's just how I read the map.

But it's pretty, looks good, and ready to play I think.

Well, you are mostly right... let me see what can I do.

1st. Slovenia a region would make one region with 3 --> One region with 1, another one with 3. More advantage to NW.

2nd. Albania/Montenegro as a region would make three small regions with 4 borders each... not attractive.

Take a look at this and tell me your opinion. This should somehow unbias the map:
http://i1359.photobucket.com/albums/q785/PsymonStark7/balkanb14_zps8be409ce.jpg

Minimap changed.
Added region Zaječar in Srbija.
Modified Skopje/Pelagonija border.
Reduced blue region bonus from 4 to 3.

Well that solves the only large strategical problem I saw. Like I said, it looks ready to go.

Any other opinions?

I think I like it as well. Can't see anything to improve.

Try a drop shadow or inner shadow on the Map Title (a little darker than what is there), just to see if you like it. It's pretty flat, which is great if that's what you are going for.