Do you have suggestions for the Map? Share them here!

[lunar_peasant]

the city of Bagé is located in Uruguay but it should be in Rio Grande do Sul

 

[1Chf]

I think that Alberta and Saskatchewan should be moved to the Canada strategic region. As of right now, the HBC never bothers to set an interest in the Great Plains, leading the uncolonized parts of these two provinces getting grabbed by the USA. This bordergore is so horrifying that I might just never recover from seeing it.

I also think that the border between the HBC and the US should just be given to the respective powers to avoid this. Let the indigenous nations be made enclaves of the respective powers.

 

[doctorwwho3]

Perhaps it would be good to add a third to the provinces of Bohemia and Moravia, namely the area of the so-called Sudetenland. It was a very specific and often politically active territory. After 1918, for example, the Czech Germans in this region tried to merge with Austria (and Germany). (https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsazení_Sudet_(1918))

I also noticed a small error in the area of Těšín and Bělsko. Between 1836 and 1918, this area was also part of the Czech lands.

It might also be good to redo the territory of today's Slovakia into two territories, namely Slovakia and southern Slovakia (where a large Hungarian minority lived) and make a new province of Carpathian Ruthenia.

 

[Atey]

Perhaps it would be good to add a third to the provinces of Bohemia and Moravia, namely the area of the so-called Sudetenland. It was a very specific and often politically active territory. After 1918, for example, the Czech Germans in this region tried to merge with Austria (and Germany). (https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsazení_Sudet_(1918))
View attachment 947839
I also noticed a small error in the area of Těšín and Bělsko. Between 1836 and 1918, this area was also part of the Czech lands.
View attachment 947845

It might also be good to redo the territory of today's Slovakia into two territories, namely Slovakia and southern Slovakia (where a large Hungarian minority lived) and make a new province of Carpathian Ruthenia.

What should be added is the ability to split states in peace deals.

 

[Unknown Unknown]

I haven't been following this game since release as I was fairly disappointed with it, but always felt it had potential and so I'd likely revisit.

My question is, have any of these map fixes actually been implemented yet?

 

[StaunchSquire]

Personally I'd like the states of Götaland and Svealand to be fixed as Östergötland and Dalsland(both part of Götaland in real life) are part of Svealand and it just looks off. If the issue is that it would make Götaland too powerful then why not split it into Västra Götaland and Småland + Östergötland?

 

[lordess]

Add Religion map mode
Add hidden map modes in the map menu. For instance, a more accessable way to find different populations of an culture in the map. Making it in radiant map mode. For example, I click on global view of an ethnic, but it only visibly shows the top largest states where that ethnicity is found, states where that variable is not relatively much smaller than the state with highest number of that variable, the map doesn't really differentiate them apart from states where that variable is completely absent. This is specially ironic for largest ethnic groups/religions, if there's let's say 20 million of Han chinese in one state, even if there's a state with several hundred thousands of Hans, it might show as pale or sometimes as white as states where no Han Chinese are present. The heated map mod provides a solution for this problem, but it'd be nice if it was both provided by Paradox and if it was color appropriate, showing in their shades of the appropriate color of that variable, instead of showing all variables show in the same green color, which is not fun. It'd be nice if both the number and percentage of that variable, instead of just the number.

 

[Eco_]

Hi there!

It looks like the cities of Osnabrück and Oldenburg are swapped. Theres a city south of the duchy of Oldenburg in the Kingdom of Hannover which is called Oldenburg in the game but Osnabrück in reality. The duchy of Oldenburg instead has no cities shown on the map, the capital of Oldenburg is (by surprise) the city Oldenburg.

Greetings! Vic III is such a cool game

 

[artcabal]

Paraguay should own the province of Misiones the eastern part of Formosa( In the game Misiones is in Argentina while Formosa is owned by the Guarani).

 

[Guerillonist]

The citiy of Wolfsburg (in the State of Brunswick) does not yet exist in the game's timeframe. Wolfsburg was founded in 1938 under the name "Stadt des KdF-Wagens" (~City of the "Strengh through Joy" Car) as a giant car (and later arms) factory. It wasn't called Wolfsburg before 1945. I suggest Wolfenbüttel or Goslar as replacement.

 

[BalticM]

Hello,

Having some fun playing Chile, but it's really weird to see such inaccuracy in names & geographical position of Chile states - Los Rios & Araucania:

• One problem is that current in game Los Rios state is actually covering both Los Rios & Araucania regions in real world.
• Another problem is that Araucania region in real world is to the north of Los Rios province, so it cannot be to the south of it as it is in game now for whatsoever reasons.
• And last problem is that history of Los Rios province counts from ... , well, year 2007. Some 100 years after Victoria 3 era?

Most simple solutions would be:

• Rename current in-game Los Rios state to Concepcion state (alternatively it may be renamed to Araucania, but if we follow same concept as with Santiago state, then it's more correct to have it as Concepcion state). Concepcion was 2nd Chilean city in importance after Santiago at the time, and one of only 2 administrative divisions from colonial Chile times.
• Rename current in game Araucania state to Chiloe state. Governorate of Chiloe was the most similar geographical area at some point of history to current in-game Araucania state that comes to my mind.

But if we take into account 19th & early 20th century realities, landscape, climate, natural geographical regions - map with states like this would make more sense for Chile I believe:

Also in-game 1836 Chilean population of 964k is a bit too low. According to official 1835 census of Chile population was 1.010.336 at the time, and that's not counting in Mapuche population of Araucania which numbers are largely unknown for the time.

 

[just_Madde]

Have you stumbled across an area of the world that is not looking as you’d expect it to? Is a named “hub” (city, mine, farm, etc) erroneously placed or misnamed?
Document them here! We will do our best to investigate it further!

A few things in northern Germany:
- There is a small fjord between Groningen and Emden. It covers approximately the the area between the Dutch-German border and the road that leads from Groningen to Emden.
-The city of Bremen lies directly on the Weser river, comparable to Hamburg and the Elbe river. It should also be the second largest population centre in the Elbe region after Hamburg. In the current version of the game, Bremerhaven expands a lot throughout the course of the game, while Bremen barely grows at all.
- The city of Oldenburg doesn't exist. There is a city called Oldenburg in the game, but not where it should be. Instead it is located where Osnabrück should be. I recommend that the city of Oldenburg should be located on the small fjord to the left of Bremerhaven, with the other city being renamed to Osnabrück, as it was big enough in 1836 to be included in the game.
- The state of Hamburg is very oversized. In reality the free city of Hamburg didn't own any land south of the Elbe river, which belonged to Hanover and the city of Elmshorn belonged to Holstein. It would be most accurate to make Hamburg about the size the city appears as on the map in 1836. This of course isn't possible, as Hamburg needs access to the sea, but this could maybe be solved through modeling the Elbe river as a very thin fjord from the North Sea to Hamburg, as Hamburg is the first crossing over the river anyways.
Part two in another post as the message is too long to be posted in one reply ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[just_Madde]

A few things in northern Germany:

Here we have part two:
- In the area between Hamburg and Lübeck you would find the duchy of Sachsen-Lauenburg, which was also in a personal union with Denmark, though I completely understand giving it to Holstein as it just adds another german microstate that doesn't really add anything to the game.
- There is no river connecting the Flensburg fjord to the North Sea as it is depicted in-game. There was the Eider-canal, which started in Kiel and ended where you can see the small lighthouse in-game. It also marked the border between Schleswig and Holstein. But as the canal was barely navigable by ships of the time, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to include it in the game. Instead I would advise to add the Kiel canal as a decision. (More detail in the thread linked here: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/kiel-canal.1580075/ )
- The city of Schleswig should be added about halfway between Flensburg and Kiel. It was of a similar size to Flensburg in 1836 and was a really important economical and political centre, being the capital of the duchy of Schleswig.
I know these are a lot of suggestions, but they would add a lot more visual realism to northern Germany. Thank you for being so open to fan-ideas!

Edit: Screw it I made a mod https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3061908244&searchtext=kiel+canal

 

[setiix]

Hi,
I was about to buy the game and play a strategy for the first time since the release of victoria II, but what bothers me is that the starting world map is so inaccurate in 1836, as compared to Crusader Kings 3 maps, victoria III looked a bit forgotten in term of effort spent to push us to live this experience in the fullest.
My first reaction was the borders crossing the sahara were all similar to the Berlin Conference that took place in 1886, 50 years after.
The second thing that bothered me is the Middle east borders too. Knowing at the time that the ottoman empire had almost full control of the MENA region, the borders are more than weird.

I know that I might be just talking too much about what seems for other to be a small matter, but I really like the experience and opportunity to be back in some great historical events and have the ability to alter this, so for me these inaccuracies are bothering me, moreover when it would have been a great opportunity to modify the borders through events (Berlin Conference or Sykes-Picot agreement for example) and giving even more a realist approach to the game.

Have a nice evening and thank you for reading me.

 

[Moe 3mperor]

I'm not quiet get which part exactly you are talking about, maybe some screenshots can be helpful

 

[JKComposer]

My first reaction was the borders crossing the sahara were all similar to the Berlin Conference that took place in 1886, 50 years after.

Tbf, there were no borders there irl, so any borders are going to be arbitrary there. Does look strange though

The second thing that bothered me is the Middle east borders too. Knowing at the time that the ottoman empire had almost full control of the MENA region, the borders are more than weird.

The Ottoman Empire is honestly one of the more accurate parts of the map. In fact, they are shown in some places as having *more* control than they did irl, due to the Kurdish principalities not being represented and the ottomans being shown as controlling all of modern day Libya

That being said, yea, there's *a lot* of the map that is quite inaccurate. Afghanistan, Almost all of Africa, parts of South America, etc. I really hope they improve a lot of it. The new update seems to at least improve Algeria a lot (missing a number of states still, but it's a decent approximation at least unlike how it was at release/in Victoria 2)

Part of it though, when you compare it to CK3 or Imperator, is that CK3's map probably (not an expert at medieval geo politics) isn't that much more accurate, it's just the historical information in regards to borders on a lot of the map is quite vague and so a lot of things can be approximated or have to be approximated in a way that becomes weird and inaccurate for Victoria 3. CK3 also had CK2 to build off of, while V3 only had the ancient V2 and mods to go off of in terms of already developed stuff.

 

[setiix]

Hi Guys, thank you for your reply.
As some of you asked, I am adding some maps so you can see what I mean.

In the Vic III maps, what is in square are the borders from Berlin Conf. and in a circle countries that were already colonized at the time (officially). Might have missed a lot.

I am attaching also two maps taken from the French Archives :
- the map in French is a Highschool map from 1931
- the map in German is from 1935, drawn by Hermann Berghaus and F. Renner, both Prussian geographs. In this one, if you zoom in, you can see the tribes names in sahara and their allegiances even if they were not officially drawn inside borders (that is why borders are not closed around the sahara).

In both of them you can see Algier (not Algeria), Tunis (not Tunisa) etc, as regions/duchies more than countries. By the way, Algier (Algeria) was already colonized by France since 1930.

Thank you guys for reading me and giving me time in my craziness

 

[JKComposer]

In the Vic III maps, what is in square are the borders from Berlin Conf. and in a circle countries that were already colonized at the time (officially). Might have missed a lot.

Yes, but as I wrote, although those areas are ugly and could/should be reworked, there weren't any actual borders in those areas historically, and since the game assumes the existance of borders, some sort of semi-arbitrary borders are going to end up included. Deciding to use the colonial borders (most of these borders weren't actually drawn during the actual conference, but I get your point) is honestly not that bad of a choice imo when the alternative is just other semi-arbitrary borders made up by the developers instead.

I am attaching also two maps taken from the French Archives :

Note, old maps aren't a great resource to determine actual territorial control *at all*. They can sometimes show some decent-ish indications of things, but they usually don't really display the same thing that the game is meant to represent. Algeria for example, wasn't unified at the time, rather it was controlled mainly by the Emirate of Mascara and the Beylik of Constantine, as well as a number of smaller kingdoms and tribes. Maps from the time in particular aren't going to show de facto control, but rather de jure, and often not even that but just general regions (plenty of old maps show all of Germany unified for example, long before the country of "Germany" existed. That doesn't mean that the game is wrong in showing Germany as divided by a bunch of kingdoms/principalities). And even more than that, European cartographers often had very inaccurate understandings of Africa outside of the coastal regions up until the late 1800's

By the way, Algier (Algeria) was already colonized by France since 1930.

It was claimed by France, but France only actually controlled a few coastal cities and neighboring territories in reality. The new 1.3 update later this month is pretty accurate in terms of showing that. Here's a decent map on Wikipedia showing the de-facto expansion of French territories in Algeria

Tunisia is also already correctly named Tunis in the game.

Also, you keep writing 1930/1931/1935 - that was very confusing to me for a moment, had to go check the dates of all the maps, because it's the wrong century (the maps are from the right century though).

 

[setiix]

Sorry I answered you but it didn't want to be sent so I made my answer into a jpg and attached to it.

Thank you for your time

 

[Don_Quigleone]

Sorry I answered you but it didn't want to be sent so I made my answer into a jpg and attached to it.

Thank you for your time

2 things:
1. The areas you complain about are all decentralized nations. These regions either didn't have a notion of land ownership, didn't have governments or we have no records of what their borders were. From a gameplay standpoint, where the borders are makes no difference. As others have noted, we don't really know where the borders were (and in most cases probably can't know). If you have information about where these borders actually were, send it to the devs, I'm sure they'll be grateful.
2. The map in general is a big improvement over Victoria 2 (where all the decentralized nations were just shown as being empty, just waiting to be colonized, and Africa had almost no playable tags, compared to Victoria 3.)

Overall, I wouldn't pick out the places you've highlighted as being particularly high priority, as none of these changes would meaningfully change gameplay, nor would even the most historically informed even notice. Perhaps the Sahara could have less straight lines, but then again, to describe anyone as actually living in the Sahara is a bit of a stretch anyway. There were Nomads (eg Tuaregs), but control over these regions was largely theoretical (and even today mostly still is). The nomads in these regions even today still largely live as they always have.