Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Announcing Clio : A new map for Victoria : Revolutions

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.
So a little summary of where we are

there are two panels left for Xie to do the artwork on, covering southern South America and the South Atlantic.

After that we will sketch in the sea zones.

Once that is finished, Xie will begin work assembling the individual panes into a single map. this may take a while, as there are 18 separate panels that need to be stitched together and made to look like a seamless single map.

Once that is done, we will post the final first draft for a period of critiques and comments. this will be the last chance that we will offer people to comment on province layout, names and the like.

while that comment process in underway, Xie and I hope that the technical work on the programs needed to be able to create the .tbl files needed for making the map game-playable will be completed. This is the biggest concern we have at the moment, that we will have the artwork ready, but not have the programs needed to do the technical work in the way that the Magellan program allows for EU2 maps. Inferis is reportedly still working on a similar program to his Magellan for Victoria, and there is now the project being undertaken by Jamie550 over at the HoI2 forum who is also attempting to create the programs needed for both HoI2 and Victoria.

Hopefully, one of these projects will come to fruition, as without those programs, the project will have to come to a halt, unless Paradox' plans to release source code offers a third alternative for the project to continue. But if the project has to turn to the source code, it will likely jeopardize the project remaining a free download, due to likely NDA limitations. As I stated in a previous post though, this would only be an option should development of programs to develop the necessary tbl files not be successful.

So the good news at this point is phase one is almost complete. The less than good news is phase two may be delayed depending on several factors currently out of our control that we must wait and see how they resolve before we can make further decisions.
 
And now South America is almost complete. Xie needs to still add the names to the provinces in the Southern half of the continent, but here is how the province setup will look



EDIT : Updated S America with names added to provinces

And with that done, Xie will move to drawing in the sea zones, then stitching the eighteen panels into one smooth map, and then we'll open the discussion for final comments. Note though you can make suggestions and comments now, go to the first post of the thread and you'll see all the major regions of the world and how they are being divided, so if you have comments, please make them now.
 
Last edited:
Have you started putting in POP's, and other stuff yet?
Great mod, BTW, I remember going on here last year and it has gone a long way. :)
 
The only major (for me :)) thing which makes me a bit confused is the Baltic and Estonian province names in Estland, Livland, Courland and Lithuania… They are absolutely anachronistic for the 90 % of V:R time period, coz these names were not in official and international use until 1920s. IMO German and Polish would feat them much better, corresponding the Polish, Russian and German elites which dominated the region during this era. Same as it was done to “Belarusian” and “Ukrainian” provinces with Russian names.

Even in English name of “Vilnius” is used only from 1920s, while before it was traditional Latin-invented “Vilna”. In this regard vanilla names for the region are much better.

Also instead of all those artificial late XXth century borders, I hope the regions would be based on something more realistic, closer to Russian imperial administrative division perhaps (especially Vilno governorship area, Courland etc)?
 
Herr Doctor said:
The only major (for me :)) thing which makes me a bit confused is the Baltic and Estonian province names in Estland, Livland, Courland and Lithuania… They are absolutely anachronistic for the 90 % of V:R time period, coz these names were not in official and international use until 1920s. IMO German and Polish would feat them much better, corresponding the Polish, Russian and German elites which dominated the region during this era. Same as it was done to “Belarusian” and “Ukrainian” provinces with Russian names.

Even in English name of “Vilnius” is used only from 1920s, while before it was traditional Latin-invented “Vilna”. In this regard vanilla names for the region are much better.
Click to expand...

Stuck with what Paradox used for the most part - given the passions that names create in those regions, I'm not about to turn this thread into an ethnic minefield because one group wants X names and another group wants Y names and then people gripe about the percent of each ethnic group POP that is in a given province, derailing the thread into a nasty ethnic flame war of the type that characterizes such squabblings among peoples from that region who perceive their own group is always being short changed.

Names stay as they are.

Also instead of all those artificial late XXth century borders, I hope the regions would be based on something more realistic, closer to Russian imperial administrative division perhaps (especially Vilno governorship area, Courland etc)?
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that one of the goals we have in this map mod is to make a map that allows people to develop modern day scenario mods with contemporary borders. Hence the decision to focus first on

1) international borders for the Victoria era
2) modern day borders to allow modelling of contemporary times (which no map in a Paradox game has, to this point, allowed successfully)
3) international border changes that happen between 1836 and 1935 (hence Vilnius Province's shape, to represent the slice that Poland took after 1921 and Lithuania re-took in wake of the Polish collapse in 1939).

Now, given in particular issues of province density, which makes adding more provinces in Europe unlikely, if you wish to suggest border changes that will help reflect the borders of the guberniia of the Russian Empire within this era and still conform to points 1-3 above AND not more provinces, please post maps showing suggested changes.
 
OHgamer said:
Stuck with what Paradox used for the most part - given the passions that names create in those regions, I'm not about to turn this thread into an ethnic minefield because one group wants X names and another group wants Y names and then people gripe about the percent of each ethnic group POP that is in a given province, derailing the thread into a nasty ethnic flame war of the type that characterizes such squabblings among peoples from that region who perceive their own group is always being short changed.
Click to expand...
Well, yes, and that why I suggest saving the old Russian and German "colonial" names of vanilla Paradox map… It is not about “ethnicity” (or nationalism) as you see – it is simply about historical anachronism: the present names are good only for the game from 1920s.

OHgamer said:
Keep in mind that one of the goals we have in this map mod is to make a map that allows people to develop modern day scenario mods with contemporary borders. Hence the decision to focus first on

1) international borders for the Victoria era
2) modern day borders to allow modelling of contemporary times (which no map in a Paradox game has, to this point, allowed successfully)
3) international border changes that happen between 1836 and 1935 (hence Vilnius Province's shape, to represent the slice that Poland took after 1921 and Lithuania re-took in wake of the Polish collapse in 1939).

Now, given in particular issues of province density, which makes adding more provinces in Europe unlikely, if you wish to suggest border changes that will help reflect the borders of the guberniia of the Russian Empire within this era and still conform to points 1-3 above AND not more provinces, please post maps showing suggested changes.
Click to expand...
My point only is for the future when you will create map regions (that ones with several provinces included when you select it on Vicy map :)). Because vanilla was not good enough in this regard. I could make sketch using your present province setup if you wish, so you could use it in future.
 
In addition, I see “Reval” and “Dorpat” are still on the map (and that Ok), but all of a sudden there are “Jelgava”, “Daugavpils”, “Vilnius”, “Liepaja” etc It would be also very… eclectic if you see what I mean.


EDIT: Also, just wonder: why islands (at last in Europe) are named not after the main town of them (like all other Vicy provinces)? Greenland, not Godthåb; Iceland, not Reykjavik etc
 
Last edited:
Herr Doctor said:
EDIT: Also, just wonder: why islands (at last in Europe) are named not after the main town of them (like all other Vicy provinces)? Greenland, not Godthåb; Iceland, not Reykjavik etc
Click to expand...

This has also been done in the Caribbean. IMO it's the best possible way to make it easy for everyone.
 
Herr Doctor said:
EDIT: Also, just wonder: why islands (at last in Europe) are named not after the main town of them (like all other Vicy provinces)? Greenland, not Godthåb; Iceland, not Reykjavik etc
Click to expand...

If you do decide to use the city names instead, I think you should use the name Nuuk not Godthåb for greenland.
(same city, Nuuk is just in the native language)
 
Here is what I mean regarding the province regions setup and names.
map895.jpg


Please, notice that Palanga is only a small coastal fishermen (nowadays tourist) village not even a city. So, it is better to replace it with Telšiai (“Telshi” or "Telshay" in the 19th century Russian). Also fixed other province names (Kaunas/Kovno, Disna) etc.

Most of changes according to this: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Изображение:Zapadnye_gubernii_Rossii_1917.jpg
 
Lord_Protector said:
Very poor choice of names for Britain if you ask me..

I mean Coventry in Gloucestershire :rofl:

Personally you should just have the counties and forget the cities
Click to expand...

that province is not Gloucestershire, gloucestershire is part of Bristol province on our map, Coventry is composed of Warwickshire and Worcestershire and the Coventry region of modern West Midlands.

And we use cities because that is what is used in victoria, region names are used in EU2/3.

Islands, it was suggested that we use Island names for provinces that are pure islands or archipelagos, as those would be more familiar than cities for the large majority of island provinces.

Herr Doctor : ah you are talking about the states (one level up above provinces) in victoria - we haven't even started that process yet, but from the looks of the lines on your map, it looks like there will be little problem integrating your states into our province setup.

The province names, though, are closed. If we start making changes to reflect one ethnic point of view for names, then we'll have the hungarians and romanians up in arms over names in transylvania, and the czechs and germans in Bohemia, and all sorts of problems in the balkans.

The city names are closed, the only change will be made is if we decide to use a different city for a province altogether.
 
Last edited:
OHgamer said:
that province is not Gloucestershire, gloucestershire is part of Bristol province on our map, Coventry is composed of Warwickshire and Worcestershire and the Coventry region of modern West Midlands.

And we use cities because that is what is used in victoria, region names are used in EU2/3.

Islands, it was suggested that we use Island names for provinces that are pure islands or archipelagos, as those would be more familiar than cities for the large majority of island provinces.
Click to expand...

I hate be a canary and be told that Norwich is now Ipswich :eek:

Nottingham is placed in Derbyshire, Birmingham is placed in Staffordshire, Holyhead is about the size of a peanut, When really the biggest place in North Wales is Wrexham and the only city is Bangor. Mid Wales should be either Powys or Montgomeryshire just because they don't have city there, Cardigan should be St. Davids or Llanelli.

Really u should ask brits before you start doing our maps.
 
Lord_Protector said:
I hate be a canary and be told that Norwich is now Ipswich :eek:

Nottingham is placed in Derbyshire, Birmingham is placed in Staffordshire, Holyhead is about the size of a peanut, When really the biggest place in North Wales is Wrexham and the only city is Bangor. Mid Wales should be either Powys or Montgomeryshire just because they don't have city there, Cardigan should be St. Davids or Llanelli.

Really u should ask brits before you start doing our maps.
Click to expand...
We did "ask brits", and this was the result of our collaboration... it was some time ago. Please read the thread before you start throwing accusations around, because it can be very hurtful.

Now, I don't mind getting into a dialogue with a group of people to arrive at a consensus at the map design, but please don't post with the attitude that you know everything and that we're just a bunch of screw-ups.

We put a lot of thought and effort into these maps, and we have been asking for feedback for over a year now. I think with that in mind, we have the right to call these "our maps" more than you do, and that it's really our perogative how we draw the provinces.
 
Lord_Protector said:
I hate be a canary and be told that Norwich is now Ipswich :eek:

Nottingham is placed in Derbyshire, Birmingham is placed in Staffordshire, Holyhead is about the size of a peanut, When really the biggest place in North Wales is Wrexham and the only city is Bangor. Mid Wales should be either Powys or Montgomeryshire just because they don't have city there, Cardigan should be St. Davids or Llanelli.

Really u should ask brits before you start doing our maps.
Click to expand...

As Xie said, we did.

And they provided several suggestions, and we incorporated them.

But allow me to answer all your points, because there are answers to justify every point of concern you raise.

Ipswich is in Suffolk, and the province in Clio contains both Norfolk and Suffolk. We chose a city in Suffolk rather than a city in Norfolk. Unless you have a major problem with Suffolk, I see no reason why the larger city of Ipswich is not as good a name for the province as the smaller (in Victoria period) city of Norwich, especially since Ipswich would expand as a port in this period, while Norwich pretty much stagnated.

Birimingham province includes Staffordshire and most of the modern West Midlands region, including the city of Birmingham. Since Birmingham and Coventry were both major industrial cities of the time period, while cities like Worcester and Stafford were inconsequential market towns, it makes more sense for a game set in the Victorian era to use the major industrial center names.

As for the choice of Holyhead, it was the major steamer connection point between Britain and Ireland, and thus was chosen because of its importance in the transportation system of the British Isles in this period. And since Bangor is also used in North America, and our stated goal is to avoid the problem with duplicate names that plagues Victoria when trying to do a province transfer in peace allocations, the decision to use Holyhead makes sense from both a gameplay and historical perpective.

As for mid and SW Wales, Cardigan is what is used in Victoria, and since the whole region isn't exactly urban, that is what we stuck with. As for Powys, that is a Welsh county name, not city name, Llandrindod is the county seat of Powys. Victoria uses city names, not regional names, for provinces, and thus to maintain the traditional basis of province names, that is why it was chosen. To use either Powys or the regional name Montgomeryshire would be an odd violation of that rule, and thus will not be used.

So, any further points you wish to have us clear up and give our justifications? This map of Britain has been up for over a year, and has been commented on, and seen as a good reproduction for Britain, by several veteran British players of Victoria active in the forums here. If it is good enough for them, I see no reason to change things, especially since the suggestions you raise either violate naming conventions in the Victoria context (which anyone who has played Victoria for more that a short period would realize is the case - Victoria uses city names, not province or region names, in major nations) or are based on failure to read the map correctly (Ipswich province includes Norfolk and Suffolk, Coventry province includes Warwickshire, Worcestershire and the eastern part of West Midlands, while Gloucestershire, which you said was in our Coventry province, is clearly in the Bristol province).

And in the end, if people do not like our map, I invite them to make their own. It's not like we're doing anything that other teams of modders could not do for themselves if they have the desire and patience to put the effort in. If you just aren't feeling our map, the opportunity to make a map to your own personal preferences is fully availble to those willing to put the time in to make it.
 
I very much doubt you asked any brit with that sense of geography. My nephew would fail his key stage 1 exams with such poor geography like that :eek:

Its typical though, Yanks thinking they can just add this place here and that place there, Don't you know people atucally live in those places you missed out and put in the wrong place, Just given you a list..
 
Lord_Protector said:
I very much doubt you asked any brit with that sense of geography. My nephew would fail his key stage 1 exams with such poor geography like that :eek:

Its typical though, Yanks thinking they can just add this place here and that place there, Don't you know people atucally live in those places you missed out and put in the wrong place, Just given you a list..
Click to expand...

fine, make your own map and offer it to the community.

I offer a complete list of every point you raise, the maps were drawn based on the borders of the historic ceremonial counties, with a few modifications as necessitated by gameplay (hence the epxansion for ex of Sheffield province beyond the borders of Yorkshire into the northermost fringe of Nottinghamshire to prevent the ability of players to move directly from Manchester to Nottingham, which would not have been feasible given transport routes in the area) and the cities were chosen based on the various criteria as listed above

(and for the record, Xie is Canadian, not American, I'm the only "Yank" here)
 
Birmingham province includes Staffordshire and most of the modern West Midlands region, including the city of Birmingham. Since Birmingham and Coventry were both major industrial cities of the time period, while cities like Worcester and Stafford were inconsequential market towns, it makes more sense for a game set in the Victorian era to use the major industrial center names.
Click to expand...

Stafford isn't the biggest place in Staffordshire, In Victorian days, Wolverhampton was apart of Staffordshire and even still the Potteries was by far larger. People would go as far as saying that the Potteries started the Industrial Revolution, It had 4 major industries in the city. Wedgwood was one of the first people to build major factories and to incorporate houses around the factories for its workers.

As for Bangor is not added because it conflicts with a North American place, What a joke, Really, You guys can't get any originality, You even have have to copy our place names, And then have the bottle to leave certian places off because it "conflicts" with others, What a joke.

Just face it, You don't have history, USA should just be blank or have Indian place names.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back