1. Since the baathists were never too strong in kurdistan or shia areas because they oppressed them so i think you should take it out of kurd and shia dominated areas same with al-qaeda in shia area. you should replace the baathists in kurd area with some group for kurdish independence. Also replace the baaths and al-qaeda with some shia groups. Maybe the iraqi government in all places.
Sorry, I am not quite sure I understand this suggestion. Are talking about adding more combattants or more bonus rules? or something else
2. Still think you should mix nafja and salahaddan
While I wanted to make te ethnic mix totally acurate I had to keep an eye out for playabilty. If Najaf and Salahaddan were mixed it would leave the Suni area with just 2 territories, which is real small for a bonus espeically since its more than half of the map. Currently its 4 territories with an extra 3 mixed so I think its a good comprimise between playability and accuracy.
3. Also maybe add other countries as one or two territory places because this isnt happening in a vacuum. Maybe give a bonus if you control southern iraq and iran or bonus if you have the kurdish parts of iran, sirya, and turkey along with kurdish iraq. Also if you implement this make it so that they all are neutral with a 10 garrison
I was also considering this, but I am afraid there really isnt much room, as you can see. The country of Iraq already poses difficult because many of the privinces are all squashed and Anbar is just huge no to mention the long names so the map cant get much small in the space, nor can i fit surrounding countries.
4. Maybe have a small bonus if you control shia or sunni parts of bagdad
which parts are those?
5. add arbil as a city
Arbil wasn't really a scene of any major fighting. why should i add it?
6. Not to get political but if this seems unnecessarily complicated it because the whole thing is unnecessarily complicated.
I agree... but while the map should convey the complexities it must also have a balance with playability.