Collecting opinions on location density.

[zeruosi]

I sent this post because I found that everyone has different opinions on location density.
I would like to know the specific quantity of each opinion, so that everyone can use each reaction to express their agreement with that opinion.
helpful: Population density determines the density of locations, and the more people there are, the higher the density of locations should be.
agree: The density of locations in each region should be relatively even, unless they are indeed unsuitable for survival (such as Antarctica and Siberia).
like: It can display the true political division in history, regardless of density.
love: The density of places I like should be higher, while other places need to be rougher for my computer efficiency.
respectful disagreement: Speak your own thoughts.
haha:It doesn't matter, I don't care about this.

 

[Thrudgelmir2333]

I'm not a fan of "pre-determined importance' or 'designated protagonists', especially in games where the point is to stress the fluidity of history. If I play, let's say, Kyiv, and I manage to restore it to some kind of uber-Ukrainean empire that makes all the right moves and takes full advantage of its resources, I'd say it's frustrating, to say the least, that its cities will still be located on huge provinces, while Paris gets to be some kind of world-class central nexus of locations even when razed to oblivion.

That being said, I understand the reality of these games and what they're trying to work with and how tough it is to please everyone. I lean more towards even-distribution of area, but... I get it, that some places are more... historical-grand-strategy than others, if you will. I don't like it, but I get it.

I think this new generation of PDX games, that tries to take more after Victoria and make every bit of area's worth be measured more in population and industry details, goes some way to alleviate this, but still leaves the reality that I will always be able to create a better density of province-determined investments in western Germany than I ever will in Central Asia.

So yeah,... I don't have a good solution, because a completely fair game in this regard would require development time, planning, manpower, work, vision and even technology that'd probably be beyond anything I could reasonably expect from PDX right now. It is what it is. Maybe EUX will be amazing in this regard, but not necessarily EUV.

Best I can do in the meantime is promote inclusivity in the game. Best anyone can do, really.

 

[livebythecreed77]

I would like to see the game run first. Im sure its something the devs consider and I don't know how location density scales with performance.

From following all Tinto maps I think the current location density is generally fine. If more locations need added or merged based on feedback should not significantly impact the game.

I think the devs are doing a great job.

 

[zeruosi]

That being said, I understand the reality of these games and what they're trying to work with and how tough it is to please everyone. I lean more towards even-distribution of area, but... I get it, that some places are more... historical-grand-strategy than others, if you will.

Bro, that's true. It's impossible to please everyone.

 

[zeruosi]

I would like to see the game run first. Im sure its something the devs consider and I don't know how location density scales with performance.

From following all Tinto maps I think the current location density is generally fine. If more locations need added or merged based on feedback should not significantly impact the game.

I think the devs are doing a great job.

I think the location density still needs some modification, but at least it's much better than EU4

 

[GenericUsername1444]

The most correct answer to OP's question is to evaluate every region individually. The Netherlands and central Asia need different amounts of locations for different reasons.

I believe that in most cases, geographical diversity should primarily determine the density of locations, but traditional population numbers (partially influenced by geography itself) should be taken into account as well.

Just take a look at the Caucasus in its current iteration, it's in woeful need of more locations basically everywhere. I would argue that a doubling of the total locations here is absolutely necessary (along with a total rework of the impassables).

I won't respectfully disagree because it makes me feel bad

 

[P.Quirinius]

It depends on whether the size of the location determines how much population it can have. For example I don't want a minuscule island location like Ikaria (Aegean sea) to be able to have and feed the same population as a much bigger location (about five times bigger locations seem to be quite frequent) with the same climatic and terrain characteristics and development. I also don't want a unified Germany (in a coalition for example) to be overpowered because of the amount of locations, because HRE is represented in greater detail, just as it was in EU4 because of the amount of nations. But if the population potential depends on the size of the location, I don't care much about their size.

 

[zeruosi]

It depends on whether the size of the location determines how much population it can have. For example I don't want a minuscule island location like Ikaria (Aegean sea) to be able to have and feed the same population as a much bigger location (about five times bigger locations seem to be quite frequent) with the same climatic and terrain characteristics and development. I also don't want a unified Germany (in a coalition for example) to be overpowered because of the amount of locations, because HRE is represented in greater detail, just as it was in EU4 because of the amount of nations. But if the population potential depends on the size of the location, I don't care much about their size.

Unfortunately, the size of the location does not seem to affect the population.

 

[zeruosi]

I won't respectfully disagree because it makes me feel bad

Thank you for your kindness.

 

[Polesie Admiral]

me love more provinces, more provinces good, big provinces bad, small provinces good
p.s: by provinces i mean locations, im just speaking eu4 terms

 

[zeruosi]

me love more provinces, more provinces good, big provinces bad, small provinces good
p.s: by provinces i mean locations, im just speaking eu4 terms

I agree with your statement that playing in smaller provinces is more enjoyable. But I think some restrictions also need to be added, otherwise it may lead to your computer declaring war on you.

 

[Streamlet]

I hope they can be a similar size across the whole world, I want 'empty' areas to feel empty because of low population numbers, not because of randomly large borders.

But obviously there are limitations, the game needs to run smoothly and development takes time. I really just don't want to see any arbitrary decisions, like China's huge provinces in eu4

 

[Polesie Admiral]

I agree with your statement that playing in smaller provinces is more enjoyable. But I think some restrictions also need to be added, otherwise it may lead to your computer declaring war on you.

now seriously i think historically important places should have smaller and denser locations, like Iraq or south Africa should have smaller locations for example

 

[zeruosi]

now seriously i think historically important places should have smaller and denser locations, like Iraq or south Africa should have smaller locations for example

I don't know the importance of South Africa, but I agree that Iraq should indeed have more locations.

 

[Vohen]

It depends on whether the size of the location determines how much population it can have. For example I don't want a minuscule island location like Ikaria (Aegean sea) to be able to have and feed the same population as a much bigger location (about five times bigger locations seem to be quite frequent) with the same climatic and terrain characteristics and development. I also don't want a unified Germany (in a coalition for example) to be overpowered because of the amount of locations, because HRE is represented in greater detail, just as it was in EU4 because of the amount of nations. But if the population potential depends on the size of the location, I don't care much about their size.

I was going with the option of political/geographical considerations being the main factor, but this changed my mind.
I was thinking that, now that we have pops, more dense locations could be represented by simply... having more pops.
But that doesn't work if tile capacity has no regard for size, so having every location be somewhat the same size now makes more sense...

That said, Johan left this puzzling reply in the terrain TT:

if that was the ONLY factor.. maybe

Also, at least we'll be able to mod it...

I've just exposed pixel count of each location as a location_size trigger so modders can do whatever they want with that information.

 

[lazprune]

I put agree but to be more specific: location quantity has a gameplay impact on the road building and control systems. There should be locations with the same size except when taking into account the map projection (larger locations the further North or South we go).

However, this is an ideal scenario and I understand that it may be difficult to find data for named places or to fill the map without tanking the performences.

 

[King_Potat]

I think it is fine right now. We don't really know the final location density for all places until the final map is revealed, but we get a good idea of it after the map feedbacks. Given what we have seen so far, I'd say they've done a pretty good job at uniformity in location size to player interest and historical importance. Certain areas like America's East Coast, alongside large portions of China, India, and South Africa should be getting quite a few more locations, but other than that the locations themselves are wonderful (after they've been reviewed through TM feedbacks).

My main issue is with wasteland distribution and inland river designations, where some odd design choices have been made. I wont reiterate my point on inland river designations but you can find it here if you really want to, but the main point is that their usage is inconsistent with comparative river size. The wasteland distribution, while good in many places, is also very poor in many places. Most notably the Mata Atlantica (a point that has been beaten to death in TM#30), but also in Central Asia, Greenland (Disko Bay), Iceland (Southern Iceland), around and in the Rocky Mountains, the Amazon (tributaries mainly), and parts of the Congo (Fula People, Mbuti Pygmies, Mbenga Pygmies) where the distribution of wasteland is far too liberal. Hopefully the devs know the issues regarding most of these places and will change them accordingly.

 

[Chieron]

Unfortunately, the size of the location does not seem to affect the population.

True, in the sense that smaller locations are less limited in their capacity than they'd be combined together.
However, that population limit might not be relevant for most actually habitable areas. And the habitable areas where it does matter (like China and India) are so out of scale that the game's mechanics might get into problems trying to compensate. The actual unwieldiness of those empires could ruin their gameplay (i.e. fun). And if they are not unwieldy enough, ruin the gameplay of their neighbors. So, nerfing the most developed areas a bit could work as a compromise.

Small locations also mean more general overhead. E.g. all those location-unique-buildings require some pops to work. Otoh, the same pops might only get second-rate jobs in overpopulated locations. All those tiny locations might be great as soon as their population has grown far enough to allow more than basic buildings. But by then the 1800s are knocking.
As I wrote earlier elsewhere, the optimal population size of a location will be neither tiny nor gigantic.

I understand the wish to have high detail, though I also know that too many tiny locations leads to more annoying military gameplay, with the practically open map and many tiny sieges. Too much detail in uniform areas also makes locations exchangeable and somewhat boring.

As adding/splitting locations later should always be possible (compared to combining them, imagine those complains), I'd prefer fewer locations. That is, as few as can be justified by the political(1) and geographical(2) detail of the region. (1) also means things like major towns (in the regional context) not being merged. (2) means that the geographical classification for a location should actually represent most of the covered area.
One should avoid crass changes between adjacent areas, as well (e.,g. China/Manchuria vs. Japan, where splintered Japan has tiny locations unified China medium-sized ones with high population and Manchuria relatively large ones, despite being splintered as well).


So, I'll go with a "like" on this one, bordering on disagree

 

[MTGian]

I think three things should lead to location density differences:
1) Population - Low population regions should have fewer locations, while regions with lots of cities should have more locations. If possible, major cities should be in different locations.
2) Variety of biome/geographic conditions - Regions where a large area has the same biome/geographic conditions should have fewer locations, while areas with a lot of biome/geographic diversity should have more locations. If possible, I'd align locations around biome/geographic regions.
3) Variety of RGOs - Regions where the resources are the same should have fewer locations, while areas with a lot of resource different should have more locations (to represent those resources). If possible, I'd align locations around regions that produce different resources.

Something like that.

 

[zeruosi]

True, in the sense that smaller locations are less limited in their capacity than they'd be combined together.
However, that population limit might not be relevant for most actually habitable areas. And the habitable areas where it does matter (like China and India) are so out of scale that the game's mechanics might get into problems trying to compensate. The actual unwieldiness of those empires could ruin their gameplay (i.e. fun). And if they are not unwieldy enough, ruin the gameplay of their neighbors. So, nerfing the most developed areas a bit could work as a compromise.

Small locations also mean more general overhead. E.g. all those location-unique-buildings require some pops to work. Otoh, the same pops might only get second-rate jobs in overpopulated locations. All those tiny locations might be great as soon as their population has grown far enough to allow more than basic buildings. But by then the 1800s are knocking.
As I wrote earlier elsewhere, the optimal population size of a location will be neither tiny nor gigantic.

I understand the wish to have high detail, though I also know that too many tiny locations leads to more annoying military gameplay, with the practically open map and many tiny sieges. Too much detail in uniform areas also makes locations exchangeable and somewhat boring.

As adding/splitting locations later should always be possible (compared to combining them, imagine those complains), I'd prefer fewer locations. That is, as few as can be justified by the political(1) and geographical(2) detail of the region. (1) also means things like major towns (in the regional context) not being merged. (2) means that the geographical classification for a location should actually represent most of the covered area.
One should avoid crass changes between adjacent areas, as well (e.,g. China/Manchuria vs. Japan, where splintered Japan has tiny locations unified China medium-sized ones with high population and Manchuria relatively large ones, despite being splintered as well).


So, I'll go with a "like" on this one, bordering on disagree

I remember you, my friend. In that disastrous post from Manchuria, you are one of the few kind people.Thank you for your reply. It's always good to learn more about people's ideas.