Cinéad IV said:
It has access at the Gulf of Fonseca, not modelled in the original Victoria map.
Haven't started LatAm yet but that will be one thing to change.
-
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.
It has access at the Gulf of Fonseca, not modelled in the original Victoria map.
Haven't started LatAm yet but that will be one thing to change.
Is there a serious misallocation of provinces for the US of A or it's just me or you are focusing on North America. Because everything seem to be focusing on NA. and not other parts of the world.
Have you guys considered re-doing the map for HOI2 DD too?... now there is a N American map that can do with some serious work on it!
Apologies for OT-ness.
Apologies for OT-ness.
HMS Enterprize said:Have you guys considered re-doing the map for HOI2 DD too?... now there is a N American map that can do with some serious work on it!
Apologies for OT-ness.
HoI is a separate system in terms of the maps from Victoria, so it would have to have its own separate set of tools from what have been created by Inferis for EU2 and currently being created for Victoria.
So before an HoI-DD map can be redone, the first step would be to create a tool to allow the map files to be manipulated in the first place.
weychun said:
North America is the first part being worked on (partially because both Xie and I are in North America) but it isn't any misallocation. If I am counting correctly North America will only see a gain of around 10 new provinces total (out of the approximately 160 new land provinces being created by reducing the number of sea provinces), and most of the new provinces in North America are being created by removing extra provinces from the Western half of North America and recycling the Province ID#s into new Eastern North American provinces.
North America and Western Europe, for the most part, are pretty well saturated in terms of total province numbers (the base Victoria map is really well done with regards to Western Europe in particular), so most of the changes will be in the nature of reallocating existing Province IDs, not adding new provinces. Where you will see more provinces in terms of numbers above what a nation starts with will be areas outside Western Europe, and Xie and I are working on that currently, though it will be a while before those maps are ready.
Sub-Saharan Africa, in particular, will be gaining a good number of provinces, as will the Balkans, Middle East, Southeast Asia and the South Pacific. Latin America is probably more of an area that will see shifts in boundaries rather than new provinces created, though a few new provinces may be added there as well.
China Maps
For those of you who can read Chinese here is a link to the highest res scan of the 1820 map from the major atlas of Chinese history (left mine back in Arizona, so I'm blanking on the exact title).
The historical map is superimposed on a modern map, and is quite complete, insofar as major cities, rivers, and provinces are concerned. You may notice some interesting political claims when it comes to "international boundaries," particularly when it comes to tributary states like Korea and Tibet. Feel free to ignore the nationalist agenda, and my apologies for the simplified characters. (at least it's not a map of the Warring States Period!)
I found one other interesing map, for your consideration. The text is a little hard to read, but if I have it correctly, in game parlance, orange is core provinces, pink is colonies (territories), and tan is satellites (tributary states).
I know this is not much of a direct contribution, but it never hurts to have more reference material.
For those of you who can read Chinese here is a link to the highest res scan of the 1820 map from the major atlas of Chinese history (left mine back in Arizona, so I'm blanking on the exact title).
The historical map is superimposed on a modern map, and is quite complete, insofar as major cities, rivers, and provinces are concerned. You may notice some interesting political claims when it comes to "international boundaries," particularly when it comes to tributary states like Korea and Tibet. Feel free to ignore the nationalist agenda, and my apologies for the simplified characters. (at least it's not a map of the Warring States Period!)
I found one other interesing map, for your consideration. The text is a little hard to read, but if I have it correctly, in game parlance, orange is core provinces, pink is colonies (territories), and tan is satellites (tributary states).
I know this is not much of a direct contribution, but it never hurts to have more reference material.
Weijun said:
Xie and mib I think are planning a rework of China, you might want to send them PMs and perhaps start collaborating together on improving the China map.
One thing that does need to be discussed are treaty ports - right now you have the situation where Tsingtao is GER in 1914 and Weihaiwei is ENG in 1914, even though effective control by those 2 was limited to the immediate port, not the huge land area reflected by the provinces. Not sure what the optimal solution would be, but the current setup is not optimal IMHO.
OHgamer said:
Right, I'd love to see/participate in a discussion about how to model the treaty ports and western/japanese spheres of influence, keeping in mind that we would like the map to follow a consistent set of rules throughout the world, and that we are working with a province limit.
The main problem is that the way Victoria models trade really ties our hands. There is a single WM, to which every country has access. IRL, treaty ports gave a country access to the Chinese market, and capitalists could build railroads and the like.XieChengnuo said:
The other aspect, of course, was using treaty ports as a naval base. Since "grant naval access" applies to the whole coast, I suppose ceding a province is the only choice. Sprinkling the map with tiny, low-population "provinces" that correspond with historical treaty ports might be the only solution, albeit inelegant.
On a side note, it seems to me that naval attrition is too small of a factor in the game. Once you have a handful of naval techs, your ships can be at sea pretty much indefinitely, so controlling ports does not mean much in-game.
Weijun said:
though with the change in colonization rules, gaining a naval base on the Chinese coast could become a way for a nation to have a spot from which to be able to colonize in the Pacific basin that they might not otherwise be able to accomplish.
So something else to consider in the whole debate is that players of non-historical colonizers (or colonizers who do not start with a good base in the Pacific basin, say France) might look to getting a treaty port as a naval base.
ok folks here is another teaser shot. This is the North Atlantic - from Newfoundland to the British Isles, western France and northern Iberia.
again this is a big file so allow some time to download - esp if you are on dialup.
An important question for everyone. For smaller provinces where clicking onto the province can be difficult and they border open seas, Xie has developed a great idea of using "nameplates" that would be next to the province, which is where one would click with the mouse to access the info on the province. See the example in this map with Saint Pierre & Miquelon. This would allow for smaller provinces to be depicted (like isolated islands a la St Pierre or provinces that should be fairly small, like Gibraltar). Functionality otherwise would be as normal, military unit would be on the actual land mass, not the nameplate, etc.
The question is do people like the look? It would not be used heavily, but would give more flexibility in depicting provinces. Of course one can argue that we really don't have to depict provinces like St Pierre & Miquelon, but it would add that extra touch of realism.
again this is a big file so allow some time to download - esp if you are on dialup.
An important question for everyone. For smaller provinces where clicking onto the province can be difficult and they border open seas, Xie has developed a great idea of using "nameplates" that would be next to the province, which is where one would click with the mouse to access the info on the province. See the example in this map with Saint Pierre & Miquelon. This would allow for smaller provinces to be depicted (like isolated islands a la St Pierre or provinces that should be fairly small, like Gibraltar). Functionality otherwise would be as normal, military unit would be on the actual land mass, not the nameplate, etc.
The question is do people like the look? It would not be used heavily, but would give more flexibility in depicting provinces. Of course one can argue that we really don't have to depict provinces like St Pierre & Miquelon, but it would add that extra touch of realism.
Right, so I briefly talked with Xie and OHgamer the other day...
There's a bunch of stuff we can do with China, including but not limited to:
1. Reshaping some funky-looking provinces and states (eg Henan, Hubei, Jiangning, Guangzhou) to either look like they should in 1836, or like they should be in 1936 (for easier port to DD, maybe?)
2. Finding an elegant solution for the treaty ports, as others have mentioned. This might actually be a good place to use the nameplate idea OHgamer suggested (though I think the nameplate has to blend in better with the map).
3. Split up the overpopulated provinces (eg Suzhou, Nantong) and perhaps the soon-to-be-overpopulated provinces into more manageable chunks. It's NOT fun managing provinces with 150 pops, as obscene the RGO output may be.
4. Split up the massively overpopulated states (eg Hubei, Henan, Shandong, Suzhou) into more manageable chunks. Again, it's NOT fun managing states with 800 pops, as awesome the factory level/output may be.
5. Better-defined borders with neighouring countries... more accurate borders, and if at all possible, draw it in a way that makes border disputes possible... Especially in East Turkestan.
There's a bunch of stuff we can do with China, including but not limited to:
1. Reshaping some funky-looking provinces and states (eg Henan, Hubei, Jiangning, Guangzhou) to either look like they should in 1836, or like they should be in 1936 (for easier port to DD, maybe?)
2. Finding an elegant solution for the treaty ports, as others have mentioned. This might actually be a good place to use the nameplate idea OHgamer suggested (though I think the nameplate has to blend in better with the map).
3. Split up the overpopulated provinces (eg Suzhou, Nantong) and perhaps the soon-to-be-overpopulated provinces into more manageable chunks. It's NOT fun managing provinces with 150 pops, as obscene the RGO output may be.
4. Split up the massively overpopulated states (eg Hubei, Henan, Shandong, Suzhou) into more manageable chunks. Again, it's NOT fun managing states with 800 pops, as awesome the factory level/output may be.
5. Better-defined borders with neighouring countries... more accurate borders, and if at all possible, draw it in a way that makes border disputes possible... Especially in East Turkestan.
For myself, i don't see what St. Pierre et Miquelon add to the game as an actual province. Just a place where the French AI will pile its divs in when it shouldn't be... i would think an extra province in quebec or elsewhere in the maritimes would be a batter choice for this NA province.
Also, whats the undefined island northeast of Iceland?
edit: One last question. Have you given some thought to including Svalbard (Spitsbergen) ? Its had settlement since at least the 17th C. according to Wikipedia iirc.
Also, whats the undefined island northeast of Iceland?
edit: One last question. Have you given some thought to including Svalbard (Spitsbergen) ? Its had settlement since at least the 17th C. according to Wikipedia iirc.
The Isles look great. One thing I wouldn't mind would be to have those borders redrawn along county lines but that's purely cosmetic of course.
There is one correction I always wished they'd made in vanilla - Manchester's adjacency to Newcastle. Now anyone who's ever had to travel between those places - like me, many times - knows there's no way to do it without passing either through or near Carlisle or Leeds. It's relatively easy to pass between Yorkshire and Cumberland because on account of the Dales and a number of passes the Pennines are not a serious obstacle SE-NW, as Erik Bloodaxe and the Settle-Carlisle railway will attest. On the other hand the Pennines are uncrossable by road or rail in a SW-NEerly direction and always were.
Therefore, as trivial as it sounds, please extend Leeds and Carlisle to meet, isolating Manchester from Newcastle.
Also, I don't know whether you mean to make a province out of the Channel Islands, but I don't think they should have one. Nor should Man. Both were completely marginal.
If we can spare another province for this already very dense area, let it be on the Scottish side of the border between Newcastle / Carlisle and Glasgow / Edinburgh, call it Berwick.
There is one correction I always wished they'd made in vanilla - Manchester's adjacency to Newcastle. Now anyone who's ever had to travel between those places - like me, many times - knows there's no way to do it without passing either through or near Carlisle or Leeds. It's relatively easy to pass between Yorkshire and Cumberland because on account of the Dales and a number of passes the Pennines are not a serious obstacle SE-NW, as Erik Bloodaxe and the Settle-Carlisle railway will attest. On the other hand the Pennines are uncrossable by road or rail in a SW-NEerly direction and always were.
Therefore, as trivial as it sounds, please extend Leeds and Carlisle to meet, isolating Manchester from Newcastle.
Also, I don't know whether you mean to make a province out of the Channel Islands, but I don't think they should have one. Nor should Man. Both were completely marginal.
If we can spare another province for this already very dense area, let it be on the Scottish side of the border between Newcastle / Carlisle and Glasgow / Edinburgh, call it Berwick.
Last edited:
Bit like this.
Note also the correction to the Chester / Nottingham area for the same reason.
Note also the correction to the Chester / Nottingham area for the same reason.
I am wondering when you get this ready will you get rid of the old map which is below the new map that you are making, it confuse me.
Bismarck1 said:
of course the final version will not include the victoria map underneath.
As I said these are all test pictures from the early design stage.