Don't forguet the fact that Argentine Mesopotamia does not exist has an actual province in game
- 2
-
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.
There is another problem,In China,Nanjing should be in the south of Yangtze River,but in game ,it's in the north of Yangtze River .ETC
Last edited:
- 2
Here's a few Finnish gripes with the map, some more important, some less:
Petsamo (first map), a part of Finland 1920-44, is not a thing. In-game it exists only as an inseparable province of a larger state that cannot be detached and transferred to Finland. Furthermore its provincial borders are based on modern Russian administrative borders (second map), which are quite different from the period-correct borders of Petsamo.
.png "1280px-Petsamo.sijainti.1938.svg (1).png")
.svg (1).png "Location_of_Pechengsky_district_(Murmansk_Oblast).svg (1).png")
That little triangle-shaped dent from 1947 found in Finland's border with Russia in the north.
Repola and Porajärvi, de facto a part of Finland 1918-20 and 1919-20 respectively, but could have been de jure to this day had things been handled differently, are not a thing.
There's no way to accurately represent the Provisional Governments of White and Olonets Karelia (the Republic of North Ingria may be too small), or later separatist states in the region. Below is one of my maps based on the maximum historical territorial extent of the states mentioned in the image.
The in-game state borders in East Karelia do not match with the historical region of East Karelia, but rather are taken from modern Russian administrative borders, which by the way don't match with period-correct administrative borders either (see #8 & 9 in the second map below, and do note that I am not advocating for those borders, but for the historical borders of East Karelia, found in the first map below, to be representable).
Petsamo (first map), a part of Finland 1920-44, is not a thing. In-game it exists only as an inseparable province of a larger state that cannot be detached and transferred to Finland. Furthermore its provincial borders are based on modern Russian administrative borders (second map), which are quite different from the period-correct borders of Petsamo.
.png "1280px-Petsamo.sijainti.1938.svg (1).png")
.svg (1).png "Location_of_Pechengsky_district_(Murmansk_Oblast).svg (1).png")
That little triangle-shaped dent from 1947 found in Finland's border with Russia in the north.
Repola and Porajärvi, de facto a part of Finland 1918-20 and 1919-20 respectively, but could have been de jure to this day had things been handled differently, are not a thing.
There's no way to accurately represent the Provisional Governments of White and Olonets Karelia (the Republic of North Ingria may be too small), or later separatist states in the region. Below is one of my maps based on the maximum historical territorial extent of the states mentioned in the image.
The in-game state borders in East Karelia do not match with the historical region of East Karelia, but rather are taken from modern Russian administrative borders, which by the way don't match with period-correct administrative borders either (see #8 & 9 in the second map below, and do note that I am not advocating for those borders, but for the historical borders of East Karelia, found in the first map below, to be representable).
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
And it looks bigger than Bremen. Wow, even both together wouldn't achieve that.
That's something that just baffles me. The fact in the 12 years since victoria 2 came out computing power has vastly improved, and on top of this better and more efficient ways to use it, and still the Victoria 3 map is as detailed as it's predecessor, and that no one has tried yet to make the jump to dynamic states. A good design of states in game wouldn't mean it would be completely arbitrary, as in real life countries had and have multiple administrative divisions with varying degrees of autonomy, different laws, and more, and there was a reason for it, and if it would be done properly in game there would also be reasons for those things to happen there.
- 3
Wasn't Australia still kind of expanding into the frontier in 1836? In fact by 1850, a lot of the central territory was still unknown to the Europeans. Yet the game starts with the whole continent under control (albeit mostly Aboriginal in culture). I'd have preferred a mostly uncharted Australia that colonial players would have to explore. Maybe give us the option to leave the central territories to the First Nations and see what a cooperative partnership might look like. Instead it appears we're starting with a fully occupied Australia, which seems less exciting from a sandbox standpoint.
- 1
As a Dutch person, I’m disappointed that they drained the the Zuiderzee a century early and wrongly. Also the same states have been used as in Victoria II, which I don’t like. Gelderland combining with North-Brabant and Limburg makes ugly borders. The same goes for the lack of Nord-Pas-de-Calais in France.
I have the feeling that the developers were either a bit lazy or running out of time to fix states in general.
I have the feeling that the developers were either a bit lazy or running out of time to fix states in general.
- 1
Speaking of free colonies, it's primo DLC fodder. Cuba and Algeria would be all the way on the one side as integrated colonies, the far other end would be client states/protectorates, then maybe two steps in between that say, Canada would go between. So you can play as the colony without shenanigans but still represent the different sorts.
- 1
Agreed completely, and even more baffling because it's literally how CK works (as the titles shift around via conquest or inheritance, so do the borders of the 'political units').
I think the missing piece is exactly that it's hard for them to figure out incentives to use it, and would probably disadvantage the AI even more against a player that is min-maxing their own borders.
- 1
I was going to reply to you a long one about how in my opinion the necessary mechanics in the game are already in place in the game, for example, bureaucracy as a cost for changing , reducing and augmenting states, having states with specific with different categories of laws thay could differ from the general laws of your country, either by you changing them directly or by it being managed by the political entities and interest groups in the state as if it were a subject state (but it isn't), but I think it would diverge too much from topic.
However, staying on topic, one change i think is more on topic is the taking of individual provinces in states and dividing states culturally. It's weird that in a era so much driven by nationalism that taking only specific provinces in a state depending on culture and dividing existing states based on culture is not a thing. And those things I think we can agree are all already ready to be implemented by simple mods in the first weeks after launch.
*Edit: misclicked reply
- 1
What's up with those Dutch cities? Nijmegen should be further south, between the two rivers, and Arnhem should be where Nijmegen is on the map. Utrecht should be more to the right, and Zwolle should be closer to the coast. Also, why Harlingen and Drachten in Friesland, what about Leeuwarden, the actual capital of the province?
The wrong naming and placement of cities seems to be a general problem across the map. Modders will have plenty of work to do.
- 1
- 1
Why are the lagoons missing?
Victoria 2:
Victoria II PC Review | GameWatcher
Victoria 2 is one of those games where it’s easy to expect more from it than it can actually give. Giving its dedicat...www.gamewatcher.com
I just really want to know why. This hasn't been an issue in any game going as far back as Vic2 if I recall correctly. I believe the last Paradox game with this issue was EU3.
I'm sorry, but what lagoons?
- 1