One quibble - with the white boundary lines they are now, it is hard to tell if Charax is:

(a) Coastal and there is no longer an land boundary between Ur and Chaldea (this is what the original AdvCiv map has)

or

(b) Still inland, and there is a land boundary between Ur and Chaldea.

or

(c) Still inland, but no land boundary between Ur and Chaldea (which is just mechanically weird)

The pop on Charax from 3 to 2, which I think will encourage it's use as a city site (but otherwise fairly minor effect)

As a coastal area, Babylon finds it easier to get pop into it after a disaster. As a non-coastal area, it is more fragile from Babylon's POV. If it is non-coastal, then Babylon really wants Chaldea as well.

Game balance-wise... Arabia can still assault by sea into Ur and by land into Charax (whether or not it is coastal.)

I tried to make it pretty clear that it was (a) a water border. Is it unclear to anyone else?

So, Charax is supposed to be coastal now? I didn't think it was until you said so, so I guess you could say this was unclear to me as well.

The definition of coastal says that the area has to "contain both land and water", and strictly speaking, there is no water (blue pixels) in Charax as far as I can tell.

Well, even after you reminded me twice, Velusion, I couldn't see it on your panel. I've got a guess at what you want drawn in my PBEM map.

Maybe if you move the top of the easternmost line of Charax about half of a city site to the right? If there's blue there, it might be more clear to people.

Charax as inland probably helps Babylon too much. I noticed Ur dropped from a 3 to 2 in the latest map.

Babylon probably is a bit strong, but I'm thinking a majority of it is in the AST.

You are welcome to look at what I did on the PBEM map

http://broggs.org/~mcbeth/civ/joined.png

Looks good!