Collecting opinions on location density.

[keaswaran]

Ideally, I wouldn’t care too much about location density - have it match the local geography or whatever. But they seem to have said in some other TTs that every location of a given climate and vegetation will have the same population capacity, and same cost for road building, and same increase of development, regardless of land area, and that seems to me like they should try to equalize the land area of locations as much as possible.

 

[TitaniumMan91]

My biggest fear RE location size is that we'll have some buildings (or whatever) the provide larger modifiers so that the more locations, the better your overall "efficiency" will be. Kinda like base tax/dev was. Since there's almost always a floor, having more mediocre areas was usually better than a few well built up areas. I had this problem a lot with the Netherlands in EU4, I had a massive economy and only the modern Dutch (plus Belgium) borders, but because of how manpower worked my armies would be in trouble after a couple large battles because my manpower couldn't keep up.

 

[Nitan17]

For me ideally locations wouldn't have any flat modifiers or properties that would make 10 locations occupying the same space and population as 1 big location better. Sounds like vanilla sadly is going to have them but this:

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

makes me hopeful that mods will be able to get rid of them and so all a higher location count means is more granularity, not more population capacity, building slots, RGO size or whatever.

With this change the size of locations would only matter for military purposes and pretty borders, without it location count translates directly into power. In the former location size can be whatever, HRE can have tiny ones while Syberia/America/China has huge-ass blobs and everything works fine. In the latter all locations in the world need to be about the same size, otherwise denser regions are plain stronger than sparser ones.

I really feel that with the moves PC is doing towards simulationism and population mattering, keeping flat location effects is a big step back.

 

[Ispil]

Based on my land thread, I think the literal "amount of land" in a given location should depend on the location's size. Consequently, location density shouldn't actually matter mechanically; the only thing should be for representing political nuance when applicable.

 

[zeruosi]

Based on my land thread, I think the literal "amount of land" in a given location should depend on the location's size. Consequently, location density shouldn't actually matter mechanically; the only thing should be for representing political nuance when applicable.

Unfortunately, that post was locked

 

[WrathfulCelt]

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

Why? I see a lot of comments like this, 'This area absolutely needs more locations', but very rarely is a reason given. Are there countries missing that should be present as tags? Are there important resources which would be difficult to fit in the present setup?
I'd find it very difficult to justify doubling the amount of locations here.

On the topic of the thread, I'm happy overall with the current density. The fact that the location size doesn't affect pop capacity is a negative in terms of realism, but the alternative is to have location pop caps vary wildly based on how much land there was, which would be bad for gameplay. In most areas of the world, it's not going to make too much difference, so I'm not too worried. The special cases of China and India need unique solutions, either advancements or buildings to make sure the overall pop cap aligns with the historic populations.

The only area of the world I'm hesitantly thinking could use more locations would be India, my impression at the time was that there weren't enough locations to properly display the political fragmentation after the collapse of the Delhi Sultanate, however, I don't know Indian history well enough to know for sure.

 

[GenericUsername1444]

Why? I see a lot of comments like this, 'This area absolutely needs more locations', but very rarely is a reason given.

I specifically avoided talking about the region in detail, as I don't want to derail OP's thread.
We have discussed our reasoning for more locations, changed wastelands, and more on the Persia & Caucasus Tinto Maps.

Are there countries missing that should be present as tags? Are there important resources which would be difficult to fit in the present setup?

So, yes to both.
It really shouldn't be so surprising — the Caucasus is one of the most geographically, ecologically, ethnically and religiously diverse regions in the world for its size.

 

[Creamu]

Eh, I expect we will see a gradual increase in density through updates/dlc as the game get further optimized and average computer hardware improves over its 10 to 15 year life span

 

[Chieron]

Based on my land thread, I think the literal "amount of land" in a given location should depend on the location's size. Consequently, location density shouldn't actually matter mechanically; the only thing should be for representing political nuance when applicable.

Generally agreed, though adding cultural diversity to the mix as well (unless pops actually mingled in the city, having them in diverse locations is probably more realistic). One should also keep in mind that integrating a location with say 500k pop will be difficult, given that this would correspond to entire areas in other parts of the world (where a slower approach is possible, integrating locations one by one).

Something that also somewhat irks me a bit is that things like soil fertility do not exist. And the RGOs are not influenced by this or climate/topography factors. As long as you are far enough from the carrying capacity (which for most of the locations is true), there is no economic difference between cold-arid sparse hills and mediterranean farmland flatland (ignoring minor effects like building costs). Even the max RGO levels are the same.

 

[lazprune]

Based on my land thread, I think the literal "amount of land" in a given location should depend on the location's size. Consequently, location density shouldn't actually matter mechanically; the only thing should be for representing political nuance when applicable.

I hadn't have the time to read all but I feel sorry for you that, after all the effort you must have put into this thread, it got locked straight up.

 

[nyetflix2]

I think the premise is too simplistic. It shouldn't be limited to one factor, but the order of operations is important. Ideally there should be a minimum density, perhaps excepting extremely sparsely populated places like Siberia. Then, the most densely populated regions should receive extra density. Exceptions can be made if all known relevant settlements, tribes, subtribes etc have been exhausted as locations, which will be rare. Then, from there, more locations should be added if needed to properly portray political geography, as much as is reasonable. Historical relevance is a bit too subjective for my taste, and population density is a great (and objective) proxy for it anyways.

I don't like the disparity in location density between India and China/Japan/Korea - I think the reason behind this is that the latter are more influential cultures today, and thus more people are likely to play in those regions. India was more influential than Japan or Korea in this period, and was much more politically fractured than Korea or China (in effect not Japan because of the rightful necessity to portray daimyos).

Realistically, I don't see an end to Europe + East Asia receiving more detail than most other places (sources are often a problem, admittedly), but any lessening of the disparity is good. And nothing against those regions, I love playing there as well.

 

[zeruosi]

I don't like the disparity in location density between India and China/Japan/Korea - I think the reason behind this is that the latter are more influential cultures today, and thus more people are likely to play in those regions. India was more influential than Japan or Korea in this period, and was much more politically fractured than Korea or China (in effect not Japan because of the rightful necessity to portray daimyos).

Thank you very much for your reply. I think there is some relationship between the missing number of locations in India and projection distortion, but in any case, the number of locations in India is still too small compared to China.
Just like when I compare Japan and China, the area of the Chinese subcontinent is similar to that of the South Asian subcontinent, both around 4.2 million square kilometers. Excluding Hokkaido, Japan's total area is about 300000 square kilometers, but Japan has more than 300 locations, China only has 1800, and India only has 1000 locations.
Even considering projection distortion, China should have nearly 3000 locations, and India should have over 2500 locations.
Both the complexity of the situation and historical records at that time allowed China and India to have a density similar to that of Japan.

 

[GeneralNoob]

Would a higher location density even change anything?


What is the difference between 5 smaller locations with a population of 10k each and one big one with a population of 50k? It is not like you get more out of it. Tax/Production is connected to your pops (to my understanding), so you arent going to make more money/profit/soldiers. It is more aesthetically pleasing to see your capital in a smaller size, but at the end of the day this is more of a visually concern?

The only big disadvantage you get from larger locations is that you can potentially put less forts and make conquest (of yourself) easier, but we yet have to see how conquest works anyways. Large locations can however also have the advantage of covering more provinces, lowering fort requirement for defense.

 

[ibvfteh]

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.

I am for relatively even locations, with the addition of: if there were almost no people there in 18th century and before - it should be a wasteland

 

[Galaxy32]

Would a higher location density even change anything?


What is the difference between 5 smaller locations with a population of 10k each and one big one with a population of 50k? It is not like you get more out of it. Tax/Production is connected to your pops (to my understanding), so you arent going to make more money/profit/soldiers. It is more aesthetically pleasing to see your capital in a smaller size, but at the end of the day this is more of a visually concern?

The only big disadvantage you get from larger locations is that you can potentially put less forts and make conquest (of yourself) easier, but we yet have to see how conquest works anyways. Large locations can however also have the advantage of covering more provinces, lowering fort requirement for defense.

More locations=more potential RGO output
More RGO diversity
More population cap per Area
It's useful

 

[GeneralNoob]

More locations=more potential RGO output
More RGO diversity
More population cap per Area
It's useful

Idk. If I have 5 provinces of wood or 1 province of wood is not going to make me richer. If we are talking about 1000 or 100 locations sure, but for a country like let's say Crimea, we are talking about 10 +/- 4 locations. It is not going to fundamentally change gameplay.

Also the population cap is influenced by many factors, which you most likely will be able to further influence with tech. All of this is relative as well. If the population cap of let's say Kiev is 500 000 and you start with 100 000 and reaching that cap takes about 200-300 years and by then you already unlocked tech to increase the population cap by another 200 000, then what is the point? It is not like you would have gained more pops with smaller locations.

A larger location may also have the benefit of getting more money for less money investment. E.g. 500 gold investment on 5 separate locations with 10k pops vs 100 gold investment on 1 locatation with 50k pop.

IMO we have to wait and see how it plays out on release.

 

[AHumpierRogue]

Thank you very much for your reply. I think there is some relationship between the missing number of locations in India and projection distortion, but in any case, the number of locations in India is still too small compared to China.
Just like when I compare Japan and China, the area of the Chinese subcontinent is similar to that of the South Asian subcontinent, both around 4.2 million square kilometers. Excluding Hokkaido, Japan's total area is about 300000 square kilometers, but Japan has more than 300 locations, China only has 1800, and India only has 1000 locations.
Even considering projection distortion, China should have nearly 3000 locations, and India should have over 2500 locations.
Both the complexity of the situation and historical records at that time allowed China and India to have a density similar to that of Japan.

Overall, I'd say that Japan should definitely be viewed as an extreme outlier. I do not think every region should strive to match Japan. But still, I don't deny that India and China probably/definitely could use more locations(a few hundred even), I just don't think they have to be fully equivalent in scope.

 

[Oglesby]

Would a higher location density even change anything?


What is the difference between 5 smaller locations with a population of 10k each and one big one with a population of 50k? It is not like you get more out of it. Tax/Production is connected to your pops (to my understanding), so you arent going to make more money/profit/soldiers. It is more aesthetically pleasing to see your capital in a smaller size, but at the end of the day this is more of a visually concern?

The only big disadvantage you get from larger locations is that you can potentially put less forts and make conquest (of yourself) easier, but we yet have to see how conquest works anyways. Large locations can however also have the advantage of covering more provinces, lowering fort requirement for defense.

Idk. If I have 5 provinces of wood or 1 province of wood is not going to make me richer. If we are talking about 1000 or 100 locations sure, but for a country like let's say Crimea, we are talking about 10 +/- 4 locations. It is not going to fundamentally change gameplay.

Also the population cap is influenced by many factors, which you most likely will be able to further influence with tech. All of this is relative as well. If the population cap of let's say Kiev is 500 000 and you start with 100 000 and reaching that cap takes about 200-300 years and by then you already unlocked tech to increase the population cap by another 200 000, then what is the point? It is not like you would have gained more pops with smaller locations.

A larger location may also have the benefit of getting more money for less money investment. E.g. 500 gold investment on 5 separate locations with 10k pops vs 100 gold investment on 1 locatation with 50k pop.

IMO we have to wait and see how it plays out on release.

I would say that smaller locations have higher potential (location size is not part of the base pop cap calculation, possible better diversity of RGO, etc).

Larger locations will be easier to affect. (one fort covers larger area, single bailiff to raise control of more, control/trade distance calculations, single road, etc.)

Assuming infinite processing power and storage, I would say even distribution (short of map projection distortions, though with infinite processing power I would think that the map would be a globe until we zoom into our desired area)

 

[viola]

helpful: Population density determines the density of locations, and the more people there are, the higher the density of locations should be.

I went with agree button, but this is worth repeating.

The game already has a way to track down population density, it's the game's population system. In EU4 you had to tie provincial density with historical population because there was no population, more provinces were always a good thing, and so richer areas needed more provinces while poorer ones could be represented with larger ones.

In PC this is no longer the case, and there's no reason to conflate these entirely different concepts. Locations should vary based on geographical details, resources, army movement, historical borders and climate. The population system deals with everything related to population density and how larger populations should give you more workforce and also more mouths to feed.

 

[zeruosi]

I went with agree button, but this is worth repeating.

The game already has a way to track down population density, it's the game's population system. In EU4 you had to tie provincial density with historical population because there was no population, more provinces were always a good thing, and so richer areas needed more provinces while poorer ones could be represented with larger ones.

In PC this is no longer the case, and there's no reason to conflate these entirely different concepts. Locations should vary based on geographical details, resources, army movement, historical borders and climate. The population system deals with everything related to population density and how larger populations should give you more workforce and also more mouths to feed.

Thank you for your reply,I warmly welcome different ideas, which are always beneficial