New World (Help with Tectonics?)

[davoush]

Thanks Pixie,

As per your suggestion, I have deleted what was plate I, giving it instead to the other two plates.

I have made an update with several notable changes: Plate G is now subducting under plate E's oceanic crust, giving me the island arc between D and F. (I haven't drawn the islands yet).

Plate F is now one plate, being pulled toward E. E has a lot of submerged continental crust on that border, so there will probably be an island chain. Or, I could add a minor plate between E and F perhaps?

I am unsure about the boundary between F and H here (marked in purple). A 180 degree projection shows this more clearly.

I imagine K being pulled that way because of squeezing of the collision between A&C. I have just made C one large plate for simplicity's sake, but C is probably made up of several collisions.

I also have no idea about the northern edge of A & E - I don't really want a mountainous coast or a large island chain along here, so I don't know what H would be doing.

I also feel that the tectonic model here is very simple - I am lacking minor plates (Pixie's Maward and Charerg's Aduhr are inspirational). Any suggestions for where minor plates might fit nicely?

Many thanks!

[Pixie]

Plate F is now one plate, being pulled toward E. E has a lot of submerged continental crust on that border, so there will probably be an island chain. Or, I could add a minor plate between E and F perhaps?

I am unsure about the boundary between F and H here (marked in purple). A 180 degree projection shows this more clearly.

I feel it was better as it was before.

I also have no idea about the northern edge of A & E - I don't really want a mountainous coast or a large island chain along here, so I don't know what H would be doing.

Oh, such a huge ocean subducting under a massive pangaea-type continent - it's hard not to think of a mountainous coast, like the Andes or Cascadia/Alaska. You may model that particular coast after the Pacific/Eurasia boundaries, which comprise a set of smaller plates between the massive continental crust and the subduction (see Okhotsk and Philippines plates). This would have to result from oblique directions of movement between A and H, and perhaps a change of direction for H in the past 50/100 Million years.

I also feel that the tectonic model here is very simple - I am lacking minor plates (Pixie's Maward and Charerg's Aduhr are inspirational). Any suggestions for where minor plates might fit nicely?

Like I said: (1) where you had them, between B and G, (2) north of A, (3) separate the oceanic crust south of E and E itself. My model is sh.t and am I reviewing it thoroughly, so I basically full of it, really, not inspirational. But thanks for listening anyway

[davoush]

I feel it was better as it was before.


Oh, such a huge ocean subducting under a massive pangaea-type continent - it's hard not to think of a mountainous coast, like the Andes or Cascadia/Alaska. You may model that particular coast after the Pacific/Eurasia boundaries, which comprise a set of smaller plates between the massive continental crust and the subduction (see Okhotsk and Philippines plates). This would have to result from oblique directions of movement between A and H, and perhaps a change of direction for H in the past 50/100 Million years.

Thanks Pixie,

Just to clarify: when you say 'It was better before' do you mean it was better to have plate F as two separate plates moving towards E?

[Pixie]

Thanks Pixie,

Just to clarify: when you say 'It was better before' do you mean it was better to have plate F as two separate plates moving towards E?

Yes, F and E could be two mostly-continental plates (well, F already with a part substantial oceanic crust on its tail side) slowly moving towards each other. In between, oceanic crust is being consumed by them both... But, still, your map, I'm not really sure either way.