Well we have 5.9 million square kilometers of Antarctica so checkmate lol.
-
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.
Well we have 5.9 million square kilometers of Antarctica so checkmate lol.
Well, remember a huge chunk of Australia is unusable outback. You should be looking at arable land. Australian estimates for that are ~30-35 million hectacres. This places it in the Germany/Ottoman empire range from the table listed earlier in the thread. This means ~1200 arable land would be reasonable. That number is still wayyyy more land than what Australia has in the game (~300), which is why I highlighted how out of wack the Australian land numbers are in game. But the US has way more arable land than Australia.
- 1
- 1
Fun fact, outback represented in the game also includes grass lands, though the outback is honestly still just grass land maybe a little splotchy with dirt grass and the Simpson desert being pretty small. What does arable land actually mean like usable land for ranches because South Australia is mostly where the outback is and the whole state is a cattle ranch with ranches being the size of countries.
- 1
I was building pretty aggressively (had around a third of my pops gainfully employed), moderately deficit spending after getting LF and a -85% interest reduction. Wanted to wait until the PB finally got past 20% to really ramp it up, though, since interest would've been 0.9% at that point, and, as it stood, my credit limit was expanding significantly faster than my actual deficit. Was 2 generals/admirals away from that point.
Did make some mistakes, I reckon, but have thought about little else while patiently waiting for 1.9.6.
The main bit that bothers me with arable land is that a lot of it seems to be assigned on the basis of "this is how much is needed for the game-start peasant population". It doesn't really make much sense that basically any pop growth in so many states goes straight to unemployment if they have yet to industrialize.
- 2
- 1
I don't think it's very appropriate to judge based solely on the simple area of arable land.
In places like Australia with poor soil or Scandinavia with a cold climate, the yield per unit area of farmland would differ from that in warmer regions like Egypt or Sicily.
In that sense, arable land in a game should represent some kind of abstracted metric that reflects both the area and the yield per unit area.
In places like Australia with poor soil or Scandinavia with a cold climate, the yield per unit area of farmland would differ from that in warmer regions like Egypt or Sicily.
In that sense, arable land in a game should represent some kind of abstracted metric that reflects both the area and the yield per unit area.
- 1
yeah you know if i look on google perhaps i should be more attentfull for when it says square kilometers and square miles, i specifically looked it up in square kilomters but i guess certain country's refuse to have it depicted in that unit of measurement even if you stipulate in it google
- 1
In the context of EU5, the idea of the marginal utility of land was discussed in this context.
If you arrive at a less populated place, you get your pick of land, which usually means a more productive slice. So you can sustain yourself + x. The next guy gets a slightly worse piece, so himself + 0.9x. And so on it goes. Vicky abstracts this away and every bit of land is the same as any prior or following bit.
Not sure if low or high uses of arable land affect birth rates at all. Their used to be over- and underpopulation as distinct modifiers, but I'm not sure they remain.
Though maybe to implement such a system faithfully the abstractions themselves would need a second glance.