• 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.
Delta_Green said:
[... really awesome stuff... ]
Ah, as you can see, Paraguay is, theoretically, a land-locked country, but it has a navy composed of modern steamers (a little out-dated by the time, but warships nonetheless). I think this is a big case for a "sea-like" Plate river, up to until the paraguayan border, at least (or until Assuncion, if it´s possible).

Awesome, somebody that will actually fight for South America here. I love it. So does that mean you'll provide advice for when OHGamer gets to South America?

One thing about the river thing, I at the very least want to be consistent above being historical. So if we make the Plate river an ocean province, then every province at least as big should also be an ocean province. Sure it happened in South America in history, but if the exact same thing *could* happen in other parts of the world, then that should also be modelable. Otherwise we'll get inconsistencies.
 
XieChengnuo said:
Awesome, somebody that will actually fight for South America here. I love it. So does that mean you'll provide advice for when OHGamer gets to South America?

One thing about the river thing, I at the very least want to be consistent above being historical. So if we make the Plate river an ocean province, then every province at least as big should also be an ocean province. Sure it happened in South America in history, but if the exact same thing *could* happen in other parts of the world, then that should also be modelable. Otherwise we'll get inconsistencies.

Yeah, I will. I have very limited artistic skills, but let´s see what I can come up with. The first thing would be to correct the borders, and to do that we will need to better reshape Brazil so it "fits" better in S.America and then see what are the other inconsistencies on the rest of the borders. Not easy, and I hope OHgamer is up to it. Then, we can go over the internal states and provinces. I don´t think we need to add any new province in the region. Brazil and Argentina actually are a little crowded, I believe (but don´t quote me on that). It´s just a matter of rearranging, big rearranging.

About the river thing. Well, Not many rivers were as big and (specially) deep enough to allow warships operating on them. The Plate and Amazonas, surely. I don´t think the Nile classifies, since it´s depth is very seasonal (and we can´t reproduce that) and the delta is definetly not navigable (too shallow). The Mississipi would be big enough, but from what I´ve read it is not very deep and probably doesn´t support warships, but I might be wrong. Any Louisiana resident want to disprove me on that? I´m not that familiar with other rivers around the world, but I think that only the Congo and Yang-tze would come close to the drainage necessary, but I have no idea about them. So, in my estimate, it´s just part of the Plate, the Amazon and, maybe, Mississippi.
 
Ok, I´ll start with the border stuff.

Brazil-Vicky2.jpg


First, the "flattening" of Brazil is REALLY severe and annoying. I actually think the whole continent is afected by the problem, but Brazil get´s it worst than the other countries. It makes my country looks like a fat lady :p . I can´t really sugest where to redraw the border because the shape of the continent and the way Brazil fits in it makes it almost impossible without a complete redraw.... I have to ask OHgamer and anyone else that is involved in this: Is there any chance that we can at least remedy this problem to a degree? Or are we going to have to live with it? :confused:

Second, the province of "Santa Barbara" in the game (2105) should be in Brazil. I just noticed it is the modern-state of Roraima. I don´t know what the heck it´s doing in Venezuela. This is a SERIOUS flaw (and I´m ashamed to not have noticed it before :( ). In the 1914 scenario it is correctly in Brazil, but I´m 100% sure it was part of Brazil since the Treaty of Madrid (1750). The only land-grabs Brazil made after that were the Seven Missions in 1801, the buying of Acre and little bits of Paraguay. Returning it to Brazil will correct most of the problems with the borders with the Guyanas and Venezuela.

Following. The Brazilian-Colombian border is wrong. It´s nothing major, but what I´ve outlined above will make it better.

Now, the really bad part. Bolivia and Paraguay. I can´t honestly say how to correct it. The real problem here is because the proportions are screwed, so instead of Brazil´s border following a mostly vertical line from the triple frontier (between Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay) up to the northern point of the Brazil-Bolivia border, it follows a mostly horizontal line. I´ve drawn a line from the point of the triple frontier more or like the real frontier should be, but the line doesn´t close where it should, there´s a gap that I´ve marked with my not-so-handsome writing. I´m showing the problem, but I don´t know how to correct it without redrawing most of the continent.

The brazilian-uruguayan frontier is mostly straight, it doesn´t have that "pocket" of Uruguay. I´ve made a line that corrects that.

Now, for the other countries. The Venezuelan-Colombian frontier looks nice to me, so let´s leave at it.

Ecuador promises to be a big headache, tough. It is MUCH bigger than today in Vicky. Even with the province they are supposed to loose to Peru, it looks too big. I know the two countries have had a history of border disagreement and perhaps Ecuador really was bigger than today. We will need to look into that, but it seems that a lot of territory was Ecuatorian in name but Peruvian in fact, and that situation was ratified in the 1936 agreement and the 1941 war. I´ve drawn a modern border there, to illustrate the difference. I don´t know how much of the territory I´ve marked should be given to Peru and what should stay with Ecuador, but it needs changing.

Bolivia borders looks okay with Chile and Peru and I´ve already talked about the border with Brazil. The paraguayan border will need checking, since they too had border disputes and a war there and we will need to discover what was the status quo in 1836.

Paraguay definetly looks odd and not very much like today, but it´s the hardest one to correct. Primarily, because it lost a lot of territory in the Triple Alliance War and we need to check a good atlas to see what they had back then. They also disputed territory with Bolivia. And being located squarely in the middle of the continent transform it in a sort of "cushion" that absorb all the deformities of the other countrie´s borders, mainly Brazil. I´ve didn´t touched it because of this.

Argentina also looks a little "fat", like Brazil, but the problem is much less severe. It seems a little bit too big to my eyes too, but I don´t think it´s much off and perhaps doesn´t need any changing. It has a LOT of provinces, tough. But, well, Generalissimo can come in here and speaks much better than I about his country, so let´s leave it to him.

If we want to portray a better geography, we must make Chile even thinner. It is VERY thin in RL, and some of those provinces are too big. I don´t know if it will affect clickability, but we should make them a little less fat, at least.
 
Delta_Green said:
...First, the "flattening" of Brazil is REALLY severe and annoying. I actually think the whole continent is afected by the problem, but Brazil get´s it worst than the other countries...

I don't have time to make a thorough reply, but I'd say that the flattening of countries (other than Europe) seems to be a problem endemic to the entire world. It's caused by the fact that the ratio of length to width on a Paradox map is 2.6 -- which is really really wide.

Paradox distorts their maps in unconventional ways to try to hide this fact, but China on HoI2's map is actually in a correct projection and you'll see that it's really really stretched horizontally.
 
OHgamer said:
OK next up - the Balkans - which were in need of improvement IMHO to better reflect the nature of conflict in difficult terrain in the region.


Numbered provinces in Albania :

1 - Durres
2 - Vlore
3 - Korce

Changes :

Albania - increase 2 to 5 provinces
Serbia - increase 1 province to create a Kosovo province
Macedonia - split Skopje into Skopje and Bitola
Bulgaria - split 4 provinces, add in Vidin, Ruse, Stara Zaroga and Shumen
Wallachia - split all 3 provinces, add in Tirgu Jiu, Tigroviste and Calarasi
Moldavia - add one province, Braila
Dobruja - split into 2 provinces, add Tulcea
Trakya - split Edirne into 3 to improve defese of Istanbul - add Gelibolu and Kirklareli

total additional provinces - 15.

Balance remaining of Province IDs : 122

Contemplating adding a 4th province to what SER starts out with in 1836.

And hoping this is not too much for the density of provinces in a given section of the map. (Fingers Crossed)

Wouldn't this mean that Serbia (if increased in size) and the Danubian principalities are too large to be annexed in one go? I always had the feeling that Paradox made them 3 provinces so that they would be easy to annex. I'm no expert in Balkan history so maybe it's justifiable but it would certainly make for a great strategical change for both Russia, OE, Austria and the minors.
 
Is there any chance that Arizona and New Mexico could have their internal boundaries altered to better represent the respective claims of the CSA and USA in the American Civil War?
 
One important thing to keep in mind, the map used in Victoria is not a "perfect" map but has distortions in order to maximize the space that is available to certain parts of the world, like Europe, Middle East, East Asia, East North America that have the densest concentration of provinces. That being said, Brazil is "pretty close" in terms of its general border shape. No not perfect and could be improved here and there, but not quite as bad as, say, the Middle East. Clio intends to improve where it can, but in the end geographic perfection < ability to functionally access provinces.

And as for naval units, I really do not like the idea of turning certain rivers into oceans; even if the Amazon could have handled fairly large ships to the destroyer level, I am pretty sure that dreadnoughts and interwar era aircraft carriers would not. And since we can not limit which ships can go into which sea lanes, it would look worse, to me, to create a situation in which the British navy is sailing dreadnoughts up to Manaus or the French interwar aircraft carriers up to Asuncion. In the end rivers do not have a vital gameplay effect in Victoria, and to me it makes little sense to work around that in a desire to make the game more "HoI"-ish and make rivers an actual strategic component in game.
 
|AXiN| said:
Is there any chance that Arizona and New Mexico could have their internal boundaries altered to better represent the respective claims of the CSA and USA in the American Civil War?

Any source maps you could point me to? USA would of course have claimed the whole, but I had assumed the same for CSA.
 
Neslepaks said:
Wouldn't this mean that Serbia (if increased in size) and the Danubian principalities are too large to be annexed in one go? I always had the feeling that Paradox made them 3 provinces so that they would be easy to annex. I'm no expert in Balkan history so maybe it's justifiable but it would certainly make for a great strategical change for both Russia, OE, Austria and the minors.

It would, and that is part of the reason I think they should be given more provinces. The Great Powers would not have accepted, at least in my view, the total annexation of Serbia, Moldavia and Wallachia and their disappearance from the map. This would allow better modelling of great power rivalries in the area, since it would mean that in a Balkan War there would be the opportunity for the British, Austrians et al to prevent the "clean sweep" of the Russian forces that make the current "Tsar of All Slavs" event more common and easy to attain than it should be. And of course, players of SER, WAL and MOL would be able to breathe a bit easier as well since they will no longer face the likely change of instant annexation should they run afoul of one of the great powers.
 
OK i've done a rework to Siberia.


Region that is now part of Russia (above the red border line) had 26 provinces in Victoria. This reduces that down to 25, so a gain of one Province ID.

And the Trans-Siberian Railway can be built properly without having to detour through Yakutsk!

total additional provinces : -1

Balance remaining of Province IDs : 123
 
and into Africa

Southern Rhodesia



Adding 2 provinces. Will allow better modelling of Shona vs Ndebele regions, and the attempt by Portugal to gain control of much of the Plateau region in the north and East. Also renaming Harare to Salisbury (if the French or Portugese had colonized the region, they would not have called it Salisbury. ;) ).

Net ID Use : +2

Gold Coast



One of my pet peeve regions - base game did not depict the split of the region into Ghana-Togo-Benin as it eventually developed, and with Revolutions now out makes depicting the holdings in that region problematic.

Also split the Ghana coast a bit further to show the mixture of Dutch and British holdings that existed before the 1871 Anglo-Dutch treaty.

Net ID Use : +4

Total additional provinces : 6

Balance remaining of Province IDs : 117
 
OHgamer said:
It would, and that is part of the reason I think they should be given more provinces. The Great Powers would not have accepted, at least in my view, the total annexation of Serbia, Moldavia and Wallachia and their disappearance from the map. This would allow better modelling of great power rivalries in the area, since it would mean that in a Balkan War there would be the opportunity for the British, Austrians et al to prevent the "clean sweep" of the Russian forces that make the current "Tsar of All Slavs" event more common and easy to attain than it should be. And of course, players of SER, WAL and MOL would be able to breathe a bit easier as well since they will no longer face the likely change of instant annexation should they run afoul of one of the great powers.
Well, that's as good an argument as I need. I withdraw my case. :)
 
OHgamer said:
One important thing to keep in mind, the map used in Victoria is not a "perfect" map but has distortions in order to maximize the space that is available to certain parts of the world, like Europe, Middle East, East Asia, East North America that have the densest concentration of provinces. That being said, Brazil is "pretty close" in terms of its general border shape. No not perfect and could be improved here and there, but not quite as bad as, say, the Middle East. Clio intends to improve where it can, but in the end geographic perfection < ability to functionally access provinces.

And as for naval units, I really do not like the idea of turning certain rivers into oceans; even if the Amazon could have handled fairly large ships to the destroyer level, I am pretty sure that dreadnoughts and interwar era aircraft carriers would not. And since we can not limit which ships can go into which sea lanes, it would look worse, to me, to create a situation in which the British navy is sailing dreadnoughts up to Manaus or the French interwar aircraft carriers up to Asuncion. In the end rivers do not have a vital gameplay effect in Victoria, and to me it makes little sense to work around that in a desire to make the game more "HoI"-ish and make rivers an actual strategic component in game.

No love for South America :(
Brazil is NOT pretty close to it´s shape, I can guarantee you that. I don´t know if there are worst areas, but it is very wrong. That´s why I asked if the crew of Clio was going to make the effort to fix this, by doing some heavy reworking of the borders in South America. I guess not. Anyway, I can understand that, since it´s probably one of the least played areas in the game. Such is life. Some of the minor corrections I pointed, like the province that is wrongly in Venezuela, the Brazilian-Uruguyan border, the region between Brazil-Peru-Colombia and the whole Ecuador thing could be done, tough, since it doesn´t involve heavily modifing the borders.

I guess I´m not going to see my dream of a better internal organization of Brazil also, since I don´t have "leet" photoshop "skillz" to do it myself. As for the rivers, I would like to see it because of the Triple Alliance War, but I understand the reasons for not putting them in.
 
Delta_Green said:
No love for South America :(
Brazil is NOT pretty close to it´s shape, I can guarantee you that. I don´t know if there are worst areas, but it is very wrong. That´s why I asked if the crew of Clio was going to make the effort to fix this, by doing some heavy reworking of the borders in South America. I guess not. Anyway, I can understand that, since it´s probably one of the least played areas in the game. Such is life. Some of the minor corrections I pointed, like the province that is wrongly in Venezuela, the Brazilian-Uruguyan border, the region between Brazil-Peru-Colombia and the whole Ecuador thing could be done, tough, since it doesn´t involve heavily modifing the borders.

I guess I´m not going to see my dream of a better internal organization of Brazil also, since I don´t have "leet" photoshop "skillz" to do it myself. As for the rivers, I would like to see it because of the Triple Alliance War, but I understand the reasons for not putting them in.

I never said this mod was not ever going to consider improving the shape of the borders in Latin America, I just said that that the borders of Brazil aren't completely off - compare brazil's borders to the province borders in the Middle East which need to be divided between ENG and FRA after the Ottoman defeat in WWI - not even close to correct between Syria and Iraq, for example. However in general this map mod will work to improve the borders all over the world and bring them closer to modern borders for most parts of the world, and that will include Latin America.
 
|AXiN| said:
Along these lines.

Also, has the island of Singapore been raised?

Thanks will take a look

Re Singapore. yes it is an island. However, given how narrow the Johore Strait is, in reality it would have been difficult to prevent a hostile force at Johor Bahru being able to launch an invasion of the island with the use of naval power, and a such I think Paradox has it right in making the island attacked to the mainland. This was the lesson the Japanese taught the British in '42, and would likely have been the same had say another hostile force occupied Johore during a conflict. Without the development of massive land fortification, Singapore was highly vulnerable to invasion from Malaya, and in the end that is exactly what happened.
 
I'm happy to announce that Xie Chengnuo will be bringing his vast knowledge of graphics to this mod, and will be lead cartographer for the Clio project.
 
|AXiN| said:
Along these lines?

Hmm looking at that map, it's different from other maps I've seen where all of Arizona and New Mexico were claimed for the CSA. Personally I'd prefer to leave New Mexico with a West Province that extedns all the way N-S to reflect the importance of the Rio Grande as a natural border that Texas sought in the 1830s.

Having CSA get cores on all Arizona & New Mexico I think is better.