Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

What are your main gripes with the map?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Victoria 3 11954 Bug Reports 7794 User Mods 539 Multiplayer 65 Suggestions 3218 Tech Support 934 After Action Reports (AARs)
Lack of detail. As in, visual detail, not even anything revolutionary - for a game so obsessed with detail, it's beyond me how they've left out landmarks previous Paradox games as far back as Victoria II and even earlier included.

Besides that, the Political view's strange style of colours - simultanously too vibrant, yet washed out. It clashes with the UI a lot, the UI gives you the whole Industrial Revolution feeling, the colours and stylisation when just looking around give an impression of someone (such as I, who cannot draw at all) drawing and colouring things in with watercolours. Hopefully that's as moddable as most previous Paradox games.
 
  • 12
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
The biggest one for me is the seeming merger of Vancouver Island with the mainland. That one needs to get fixed pronto.

As for representing so many colonies as separate tags, I broadly support it. It might not be as accurate, but it allows the player to play as those regions and build towards independence. This sort of gameplay is very appealing to me (I expect to be playing the Columbia District many times over). Representing the Philippines or South Africa as under direct control means that if you want to play as those countries, you have to start as their master and release them (which is a very ahistorical start). I do expect that over time, Paradox will add more detailed mechanics to represent the myriad relationships between master and subject.
 
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
ThatCatalanGuy said:
Yeah, you have a point, and again that's why I wasn't arguing for a total splitting of the regions in Spain.

You can see the arguably better alternatives we discussed in one of the threads about Spanish geography.
Click to expand...
This isn't HoI4 where you need tons of states nor EU4 when Spain was relevant, so yeah, 11 regions to 0.34% of the world with half percent of the population without major industrial hubs is definitely overkill, it is like squashing a fly with a intercontinental ballistic missile
 
Last edited:
  • 5
Reactions:
ThatCatalanGuy said:
The Spanish people in this forum (myself included) have already voiced their issues with the map for months at this point, with a few threads out there discussing them at great length. Still, I will gladly summarize those that I can remember off the top of my head:
  • The peninsular state-region setup has some weird clumpings of geographical areas that historically were never clumped together in the minds of any Spanish geographer – or any Spaniard's, for that matter – such as Murcia and Valencia, or Galicia and Asturias, or Euskadi+Navarra and Rioja (maybe together with Aragon, but I can't remember if they changed that) which I understand might have been merged for the sake of balancing Spain's industrial capacity, but have been done so in a way that should look off to anyone with a basic knowledge of Spanish history.
  • Of the two cities that Spain held sovereignty over in north Africa, they decided to have only one in the map and go with the less strategically important of the two (Melilla) for reasons unknown to me. Kind of ironic for a grand strategy game...
  • The overseas territories of Spain have no business in being separate tags, as historically they were not given any kind of autonomy during the 19th century, neither legal nor de-facto. The only case where I'd imagine it may remotely make any sense to have them this way is if someone wanted to roleplay the struggle for secession of these colonies. But as of the writing of this comment, I honestly doubt the in-game content has yet been tailored for the particular dynamics of the Cuban and Philippine wars of independence, or for their post-independence politics. I hope that I can be proven wrong at some point, but that's not my perception at this moment.
  • But perhaps the most egregious issue is the fact that there's no immediately visible sign of the Carlist Wars being represented in any way. For a conflict that tore the nation's countryside apart and which kept the Spanish army busy for decades, it sure looks peaceful in Spain at game-start. No open rebellion, no unrest or turmoil in the historically affected regions – at least that I've heard of, might have been corrected but I honestly have no idea – or any mention of the Carlist movement at all... it's pretty jarring, especially since this is no minor aspect of our history in the 19th century and should definitely be represented in some way, if at least in some token form that could be expanded upon when the mechanics of the game get improved over time.
Click to expand...
They fixed the Galicia and Asturias one, and Aragon with Basque regions was in Victoria 2. Apart from that I agree with your first point wholly. About your second point, I think it's about all exclaves being treaty ports so they couldn't give Spain too, but that shouldn't be the case and treaty ports need some change TBH. Third and fourth are correct too.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
That Vancouver Island is not an island is my single biggest gripe. It's hideous and really needs to be fixed.
 
  • 9Like
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
Not a gripe but I think they should release the game with a Yellow Prussia and fix it with one of the release week patches. It would be funny.
 
  • 12Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
A lot of minor mistakes, but also things like 'Baden' instead of Basel (Switzerland).
 
Steigleder said:
This isn't HoI4 where you need tons of states nor EU4 when Spain was relevant, so yeah, 11 regions to 0.34% of the world with half percent of the population without major industrial hubs is definitely overkill, it is like squashing a fly with a intercontinental ballistic missile
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not really in disagreement here. Beyond the discussion in that thread, my point now was that they should be slightly redrawn while keeping the overall number of state-regions constant.

Kaspar Osraige said:
They fixed the Galicia and Asturias one, and Aragon with Basque regions was in Victoria 2. Apart from that I agree with your first point wholly. About your second point, I think it's about all exclaves being treaty ports so they couldn't give Spain too, but that shouldn't be the case and treaty ports need some change TBH. Third and fourth are correct too.
Click to expand...

Good to hear they fixed a few of those. But the thing about the exclaves is not that I necessarily wanted to have them both, but rather that Ceuta was clearly more important in the Spanish strategy in North Africa.

Hell, the comparatively massive fortress in Ceuta, built on top of older Roman and Muslim defenses – as opposed to the meager fortifications in Melilla – should already tell you that every successive government in the area cared far more about the former rather than the latter...

So yeah, I don't mind if we can only have one. In the end, what I care about is that if we have to have one, it should by all means be Ceuta, without a shred of doubt. I understand that the devs didn't really have the time to dive into the history of this relatively minor aspect of North African history (though a Moroccan may tell you that it was a pretty big deal for them) but I hope that either them or a mod-maker eventually get around to fixing this mistake.
 
Last edited:
  • 8Like
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
I think Europe should have a bit more of detail and granularity.

And I dislike how some colonies are made separated tags from their overlord without the option to manage their buildings and army&navy.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
The Chinese administrative divisions are weirdly wrong, even though the provinces on the map could easily produce the correct borders.

They should look like this:
1665451777750.png


Instead, they look like this:
1665451832200.png
 
  • 6Like
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Yeah, nothing has changed. It's still terrible. I mean, why does Henan not include Shangqiu? Why are Nanjing and Suzhou not part of Jiangsu? The word "Jiangsu" is an abbreviation of "Yangtze River (Ch.: Yangzijiang) and Suzhou". It makes no sense for a state called "Jiangsu" not to have a Yangtze River bank or Suzhou, not least because the province's capital at the time was Suzhou. Why does Alasha League include part of Ulanqab League? Why are Jilin and Heilongjiang called "Southern Manchuria" and "Northern Manchuria". "Southern Manchuria" isn't a toponym that has ever been used by anyone but if it was it would refer to Shengjing. I don't really think Beijing should include Rehe, that should be its own state, and it shouldn't include Tianjin because that was the capital of the Zhili Governor-general during this period.

etc.

Basically, I want to see the states in China be equivalent to the provinces, and I don't see a good reason why they wouldn't be.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Linbot#6018 said:
Basically, I want to see the states in China be equivalent to the provinces, and I don't see a good reason why they wouldn't be.
Click to expand...
I don't like that idea, because those states you showed in your prior post would be too big, and also can't reproduce historical borders(Manchuria for example). Too big provinces cause bordergore, and too many cause too much micro for the player. I feel like the pdox version is a decent compromise.
 
  • 9
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Zaku said:
I don't like that idea, because those states you showed in your prior post would be too big, and also can't reproduce historical borders(Manchuria for example). Too big provinces cause bordergore, and too many cause too much micro for the player. I feel like the pdox version is a decent compromise.
Click to expand...
I concede that Dauria and Primorye should be states, and outer Xinjiang should be part of different states than inner Xinjiang. And certainly Inner Mongolia should be multiple states, it wasn't even a real administrative division to begin with. Otherwise, the "unreproduceable historical borders" you refer to elude me. Furthermore, how on earth does having fewer interactable territorial units cause more micro? That is not how it works. Also, what makes you call the pdx map a "decent compromise"? In fact, did you even actually read any of the specific objections I had to it which were detailed in the first paragraph of my post? How is any of that a "decent compromise"? None of the specifics I complained about were "y 2 many states", it was "this state having these borders or this name makes no sense".
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back