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.
Hi, I just like to inform you that in Hungary, the province name "Bekescsab" is incorrect. It should be named "Bekescsaba". I see that you ran out of space for the name, but try to squeze that "a" in it, please.

And the province of "Oradea". Every province around it is named by its hungarian name, and this area had a hungarian majority during most of the game period so this should be called by that too. It's hungarian name is "Nagyvarad".
The other is "Targu Mures", this area even now has a hungarian(szekely) majority. It should be called "Marosvasarhely".
And both areas were under Austrian/Hungarian control until 1920.(So most of the game period)

And in my opinion the province "Banska Bystrica" should be called "Žilina" as Žilina is the biggest city in that region.

And the eastern part of the province of "Gyor" should be included in "Budapest", because that area even may include parts of the city of Budapest.



If you don't believe me look in wikipedia. If you don't believe wikipedia go to a library.
(Sorry for my grammar)
 
If you are still able to make some name changes in Poland, please fix those:
- Skierniewicz to Skierniewice - I think you've just hit wrong button ;) because I can't find any reason to write this with 'z' on the end.
- Siedlice to Siedlce - just without 2nd 'i'. There are 4 Siedlice in Poland, but all of them are just little villages and not in the Siedlce region - 3 in Pomerania and 1 in Silesia.

Good luck with your map. Mumia.
 

London was the largest Port in the World..Bristol? Why do you think Bristol was more important than London as a Port?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKE3n0HNsL0

It's about the Resource Value? What you telling me that in 1836 Colonge produced more than the West Midlands?

As for going off on one, Saying that West Bromwich is a "dump", I'd love to know whats that got to do with a map of England?

Seems to me that you don't want an historical map, Instead one that undermines England and makes her weaker than what she was, In stoke on Trent for instance we had 7 coal mines (one being the biggest in the world), Massive Iron and Steel Plants which covered over 3 miles and a Ceramic Industry that was the finest in the world

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcNLDMY9nXE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HGtRZbk09k

An I'm not a brummie, You seem to love the idea that the Rhineland has to have 8 provinces but the West Midlands only one? Birmingham, You know how disrespectful that is to all the people of the West Midlands who made Great Britain what is was, Why Germany have 8 provinces in one State? What Empire did they have? Funny that a nation from only 1871? to 1918 can make such a massive impact on this game....

It truly is amazing that England is being devoid of historical fact, Typically though "Britain too strong, make her weak"...
 
Last edited:
London was a major port, yes.

But was London a major port of the British navy, and could London have bee directly seized from the sea via a fleet sailing up the Thames and landing somewhere in the estuary just east of the city. That is what your map's rendering of London is saying.

Don't forget that province density in Paradox maps are as much a reflection of military questions as economic, and I would argue even more so. Why does Virginia in the USA have 7 provinces, making it one of the largest states in the US in Victoria, when it was NOT a major economic center of the USA? Becasue the state was a major battleground during the US Civil War, and the best way to reflect difficult fighting in the old EU2 map section is to have a lot of small provinces in an area that need to be conquered.

Why are there so many small provinces along the Austria-Ottoman border in Croatia? Croatia was not a major economic center of the Habsburg state, but the density of provinces is greater than around Vienna. Once again to reflect what would likely have been a long, drawn-out military battle had the border become an active warzone during this era, which remained a distinct possibility during the timeframe of the game.

It is this reason, and NOT economic, that explains the province density of the Rhineland and much of Western Germany. There are lots of provinces in the Rhineland, Belgium and NE France not because of the economic power of the region, but to make warfare in the region more difficult, especially once you start factoring in the impact of fortresses and the bonus defense gets during the course of the game. You can't have a war of trenches in a region with only a few large provinces, you can in a region with lots of smaller provinces. Strip down the region into provinces similar to the size you propose for S England, and the French will be steamrolling in to Berlin almost every game.

And when you consider how factories work in game, you can see clearly that provinces are NOT based on economic potential, particulary not for factories. Factories employ based on a state level of production, not province level. So it matters little if the POPs are amassed in one large provinces (Birmingham as a whole) or 2-3 smaller one as you propose. So long as the POPs are in the same state they will be employed in the same factories. If the size of the POPs is an issue, it is not difficult to split POPs in game, especially with Dietmar1982's POP splitting tool, and in fact the POP files I've created for Clio start with the largest POPs being 19K (except for 1 40K pop in provinces that can support it) to ensure maximum production of RGO goods from the start. And as Palisadoes says, if it is felt the production of the Black Country is not high enough, it is a simple thing to expand the base production value of the province as well.

Where I have the greatest concern with your proposals AofE, is with London in particular and the South in general is from a military perspective. No invader of Britain since the Anglo-Saxons, AFAIK, have used the Thames Estuary as a landing zone to being their conquest of Britain. Billy The Norman landed at Hastings, and Dutch William landed IIRC at Torbay, both on Britain's south coast and at least a few-days march from London. By the 19th C the nature of what would be required for a naval invasion of Britian would have made the Thames estuary ill-suited for a naval landing zone, and landings would have been made in more geographically favored zones, such as the south coast or perhaps Norfolk-Suffolk. This is the main reason I do not support London having direct access to the sea, it badly reflects the miltary potentials of the estuary as a region where successful landings of troops to immediately seize London could have taken place.

Re the south in General, again stripping provinces from the South to the North is the equivalent of saying that if there was a landing by hostile forces say near Southampton, the first real potential for defense would have been in the Midlands. Again, given the way the military system works in Victoria, do we really want it such that enemy forces landing in say Cornwall could reach London with the fall of just 2 provinces, as your map would allow? Thus if you want to have the South of England to be as militarily balanced as the North, there really does need to be more provinces in the region, especially to the west and southwest of London.
 
Yeah I've got to say that I'd also go against the sentiment that the UK is too strong. I don't think it is strong enough, in-game. Germany instantly dwarfs the UK upon unification, which was just not the case.

With respect to West Brom... I have a personal vendetta with that place is all haha! :p Those comments were just personal in all honesty. Also, it isn't right to say that it is purely Midlanders or Northerners that 'made this country'. The south was also very important, particularly for commercial reasons (London being a financial centre, good ports, etc...).
 
Hazzaj said:
Looking at Montenegro, I can't help but ask why Podgorica is omitted
Any reason?.
Click to expand...

It would either be Podgorica or Ulcinj. Given the amount of space in the province, Ulcinj was easier to depict, and given the Montenegrins desire for a seaport of some kind during the 19th C, was strategically the more important goal during the 1878 war compared to Podgorica, even if Podgorica was larger.
 
It is this reason, and NOT economic, that explains the province density of the Rhineland and much of Western Germany. There are lots of provinces in the Rhineland, Belgium and NE France not because of the economic power of the region, but to make warfare in the region more difficult, especially once you start factoring in the impact of fortresses and the bonus defense gets during the course of the game. You can't have a war of trenches in a region with only a few large provinces, you can in a region with lots of smaller provinces. Strip down the region into provinces similar to the size you propose for S England, and the French will be steamrolling in to Berlin almost every game.
Click to expand...

The Rhineland saw no military action in the first world war and little in the second, Nevermind the Prussian-French war of 1870. I fully understand the reason why that might be the case and I agree with it too, But economically due to that they have a major upper-hand. The Rhineland has 5 coal mines in VIP2 out of 8 provinces (you think one mine in Brum=5?) An I am not complaining about that or asking to change the Rhineland, I am only comparing it to the West Midlands which is just tossed aside and made out to be nothing of importance.

Where I have the greatest concern with your proposals AofE, is with London in particular and the South in general is from a military perspective. No invader of Britain since the Anglo-Saxons, AFAIK, have used the Thames Estuary as a landing zone to being their conquest of Britain. Billy The Norman landed at Hastings, and Dutch William landed IIRC at Torbay, both on Britain's south coast and at least a few-days march from London. By the 19th C the nature of what would be required for a naval invasion of Britian would have made the Thames estuary ill-suited for a naval landing zone, and landings would have been made in more geographically favored zones, such as the south coast or perhaps Norfolk-Suffolk. This is the main reason I do not support London having direct access to the sea, it badly reflects the miltary potentials of the estuary as a region where successful landings of troops to immediately seize London could have taken place.
Click to expand...

No Nation invaded our Nation in the time-frame of this game, The last known Invasion by the French was in South Wales. The point before about London being a Royal Navy base is wrong, The Royal Navy's home port has always been the Portsmouth. For sure London stationed Naval Ships but mainly it was a Port for International Trade? Did you watch that Video? Hear what the guy said or is he lying?

Re the south in General, again stripping provinces from the South to the North is the equivalent of saying that if there was a landing by hostile forces say near Southampton, the first real potential for defense would have been in the Midlands. Again, given the way the military system works in Victoria, do we really want it such that enemy forces landing in say Cornwall could reach London with the fall of just 2 provinces, as your map would allow? Thus if you want to have the South of England to be as militarily balanced as the North, there really does need to be more provinces in the region, especially to the west and southwest of London.
Click to expand...

Britain never had a huge standing army, Right through history whether that be Norman England, Tudor England or Victorian England, We have never had Armies the size of France. If 400,000 troops landed in Cornwall, I would fully expect them to reach London within 3 days, The Capital would then be moved to Edinburgh and a mobilisation program would be enforced to protect northern england and to counter-attack the enemy. We can talk about all this but England was never in threat of a major invasion all through this time period, Who would of dreamed to take on the Home Fleet? Or the Channel Fleet in this era? I know Victoria personally set up coastal defenses but who would of defeated the Navy? Bear in Mind that The British Naval thesis demanded that the Navy had to be bigger than 3 other major navies put together.

The Map that I made was by no way a finished outline, But puts thoughts into shaping a better more realistic map of England during the Victorian Era, Imho the West Mids, East Mids, Yorks and Lancs are the most important areas and should be given the bulk of the 26 allowed provinces.
 
Last edited:
Looking Great as ever OH, still waiting for the day. Any further news on if you are going to make this HoI2 (or now HoI3) compatible? Is it in your minds at least?
 
(All of this is in reference to the "Western Balkans" map)

The Slovenia idea looks really good! Be good if you could make final adjustments to include it.

I think 'Podgorica' could be squeezed in as the province is quite long. In my opinion I think it would be more appropriate too (I've never even heard of 'Ulcinj').

Could Bitola and Skopje be switched to be on top and below one another, as opposed to side-to-side with eachother. I think having Bitola province below Skopje province would better represent Greek territorial ambitions in the region. Moreover, if the Greek forces had have reached Bitola before the Serbian forces did in the First Balkan War then what is the modern-day FYROM would've likely been split between Serbia and Greece in a way that gave Serbia the north and Greece the south (as opposed to each of them getting the western and eastern parts). Just an idea.
 
OHgamer said:
It would either be Podgorica or Ulcinj. Given the amount of space in the province, Ulcinj was easier to depict, and given the Montenegrins desire for a seaport of some kind during the 19th C, was strategically the more important goal during the 1878 war compared to Podgorica, even if Podgorica was larger.
Click to expand...

I still don't think it would be correct to omit the eventual capital of the Kingdom of Montenegro, especially when playing the 1914 scenario. By the 20th century it was already by far and away the largest city, Ulcinj by comparison only had a population of about five thousand in this period.
 
Hazzaj said:
I still don't think it would be correct to omit the eventual capital of the Kingdom of Montenegro, especially when playing the 1914 scenario. By the 20th century it was already by far and away the largest city, Ulcinj by comparison only had a population of about five thousand in this period.
Click to expand...

What do you mean in the 1914 scenario? It became the capital of Montenegro in 1945.
 
There was no 100% picture of France, so I can't finish the map of Europe. :(
 
You know, with every map mod for every Paradox game this question always comes to my mind: why is the geography in every Paradox game so bad? theres always things present like Italy being oversized or the middle east being too small. It's odd.
 
SOVNARKOM said:
You know, with every map mod for every Paradox game this question always comes to my mind: why is the geography in every Paradox game so bad? theres always things present like Italy being oversized or the middle east being too small. It's odd.
Click to expand...

It's not that Paradox gets things completely wrong - we don't have Berlin in the middle of South America, something I've seen college students do on tests - but that there are graphically things are not 100% perfect as a player might want in his "best game ever developed" creation. Now, in terms of actual gameplay this really doesn't matter that much, the important thing is how the gameplay functions at province level work, and for that you could have the graphical representation be shaped like anything, and it would still work. What the map mods to are, in the end, artisitc reworking around the basic gameplay architecture. So long as the map is legible during gameplay (which means being able to display sprites etc clearly as being in x province), it is serving its proper role in terms of what it does for the purposes of the game as a whole.

I guess the important question is this, what is more important in a game, a functioning gameplay architecture or a pretty facade, or better yet stage, upon which the action of gameplay unfolds? Given that Paradox is small, and the number of full-time employees dedicated to game development would fit in the average mini van, comfortably, I think in the end it is much better for Paradox to focus on the base architecture of the game, even if that means that the stage design is simply functional, not eye-catching, and perhaps has a few graphical errors or inconsistencies. These in the end do NOT affect how the game itself operates, rather they are simply environment. And as we all know, too many gaming companies tend to focus on the pretty environment rather than the gameplay structure, which leads to even more player disappointment. Better that Paradox focus its energies on making the gameplay solid, even if it means using less than perfect maps over and over again for their titles. It's not as if the maps are not completely functional as they are.

The good news is that with the games based on the newer EU3-engine, it is now possible for those players who feel the stage needs a bit of sprucing up to edit maps or make new maps with much, much, much less hassle than it requires to mod the map in Victoria or other pre-EU3 engine games. IN the end that is the best of all worlds and I can live with that. What we want from Paradox are games with sound foundations based on gameplay, with the option to modify the decor or other environmental elements as desired to fit our own individual tastes and preferences, including how the map looks.
 
Palisadoes said:
Could Bitola and Skopje be switched to be on top and below one another, as opposed to side-to-side with eachother. I think having Bitola province below Skopje province would better represent Greek territorial ambitions in the region. Moreover, if the Greek forces had have reached Bitola before the Serbian forces did in the First Balkan War then what is the modern-day FYROM would've likely been split between Serbia and Greece in a way that gave Serbia the north and Greece the south (as opposed to each of them getting the western and eastern parts). Just an idea.
Click to expand...

Macedonia is the way it is becuase you have the Vardar river bisecting right through the middle on a N-S axis. Hence the division of the province into 2. If we had more province ID tags and no hard limt on the number of provinces, I would have split the region further.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back