How will the number of locations affect gameplay for certain regions?

[bokorthedust]

each location can only produce one trade good

This isn't strictly true. While they can have only one RGO, there are building you can build to generate some of the other raw materials.

 

[Life is Comedy]

Whoo wants to play a 1000 location country from thé start ?
China is expected to BE "unified" in Players Hand.

 

[prinscky]

This isn't strictly true. While they can have only one RGO, there are building you can build to generate some of the other raw materials.

But this can be applied to any location right? It still favors area with smaller and denser locations.

 

[Thorum]

How the heck does this topic get that many dislikes during the night ?

s far as I remember the devs have explained several times that location density itself doesnt matter much.

Erm, no they haven't.
I've posted a list of six very specific issues before, none of which we have had any feedback on

"
Having 2 locations in Kerala for every 5 in Belgium means :
- 2 goods instead of 5
- 2 choices among city/town/rural instead of 5
- 2 steps to traverse them instead of 5
- a max of 2 defensive forts to siege down instead of 5. Even if total same time (say 150 days), there's a big difference between 2 75-day sieges and 5 30-day sieges...
- less potential for interesting geography
- much less building slots for the same investment
- ...
And that's assuming that the "pixeldistance" parameter which was added for mods, has been fully integrated into the calculations the game makes, preferably after using a "kilometersperpixel" parameter which changes by latitude (instead of the "number of locations traversed" as was told in the TT).
"

??? China and India are way more detailed in EU5 than they were in EU4

The difference between India/China and Europe is about the same, though, and that's the point.

 

[Thorum]

In Ming and Ch’ing China, there were roughly 1,500 counties (縣) and sub-prefectures (散州). I understand that some people prefer as many locations as possible, but personally, I would rather see the locations divided according to the historical counties and sub-prefectures. It doesn’t have to be too few, but it also doesn’t need to be excessive. Some adjustments can certainly be made to balance density, but I hope the names and shapes will remain as historically accurate as possible.

Just providing some reference here. Average county （县） during Ming dynasty was roughly 3000 km² in area,

Could you break that down by province ?
Let me say it differently : is that the average for places like Jiangsu and Anhui, or does it also include remote places like Gansu or Yunnan ?

- if it's 3000 km² average in Jiangsu/Anhui, I'd say to make the larger ones their own province, combining the smaller ones by 2 or 3, and subdivide into locations around 1000 (max 1500) km², as in western Europe.
- If it's 3000 km² average in all of Ming, then it's probably less than half that in Jiangsu/Anhui, in which case you could argue that this would be a good way to define locations, even though on the larger side (splitting in two those over 2000 or 2500 km² for those areas).

Either option would result in (way) more locations than currently shown.

I don't mind leniency for less-developable regions.

 

[j4freeman]

Even if I tend to agree with your broader point, saying EUV is a step back compared to EUIV feels a bit absurd considering how bad the imbalance is in EUIV, even after all the patches they did to reduce it.

From the map threads yes, there is in imbalance, but it feels very hard to make an argument it's significantly worse than EUIV.

 

[Thorum]

Even if I tend to agree with your broader point, saying EUV is a step back compared to EUIV feels a bit absurd considering how bad the imbalance is in EUIV, even after all the patches they did to reduce it.
From the map threads yes, there is in imbalance, but it feels very hard to make an argument it's significantly worse than EUIV.

There's a big difference between "the imbalance should have been reduced" and "the imbalance has grown worse"

I'd guess the imbalance in euv is slightly less than in euiv, but feel free to quantify that

 

[Rule Britannia]

It makes perfect sense that the location density in Europe is higher than other parts of the world. This allows for greater granularity in e.g. the HRE allowing for interesting game play within the HRE (and Europe more generally), without the cost both in dev time and performance impact of having the same location density elsewhere. I know that the devs have added a lot more flavour to non-European parts of the world over the years in EUIV and are doing the same for EUV, but we should not loose sight of the fact that the game is Europa Universalis, it should have a Euro-centric focus. There is a limit to how much the devs can do, and I for one would rather see their time and effort invested in making playing European countries as interesting as possible.

 

[JettyLoungers]

It makes perfect sense that the location density in Europe is higher than other parts of the world.

But it's not only Europe now, is it? I've mentioned other regions in Asia which aren't comparatively as bad.

This allows for greater granularity in e.g. the HRE allowing for interesting game play within the HRE (and Europe more generally), without the cost both in dev time and performance impact of having the same location density elsewhere.

I'd probably agree if not for the other points I, @Gurtannon and @Thorum pointed out. It really is a game-breaking difference.

The performance impact is a stupid argument for a multitude of reasons. Currently, there is an estimated number of 27000~ locations in the entire game. Giving China and India a few thousand each extra won't suddenly cause your PCs to catch fire. Why are you so vehemently opposed to a more richer depiction of other regions?

but we should not loose sight of the fact that the game is Europa Universalis, it should have a Euro-centric focus. There is a limit to how much the devs can do, and I for one would rather see their time and effort invested in making playing European countries as interesting as possible.

There are other ways to ensure a Eurocentric focus and railroading than simply making the rest of the world inherently crappy. And I believe that a game supposed to to be a historical sandbox for the entire world should strive to give an engaging and fleshed-out experience for all the important regions of the world during the time period.

People see this demand as some kind of affront on Europe. It isn't. Nobody wants to take away anything from Europe. It's just that other regions are deserving of better than what it is currently.

 

[ArVass]

Doesn't mean it shouldn't be impossible to have good plays elsewhere. EU4 didn't have this problem at all

EU4's is actually much much worse, because there you have a building and development cap, and no population to balance it out.

In EU5, a twice as large location might also have twice the population, twice the RGO levels, twice the amount of buildings, without reaching a cap

 

[ArVass]

But this can be applied to any location right? It still favors area with smaller and denser locations.

The limiting factor still is the workforce lol. You can build a hundred mills in a location with 15k people just aswell as in one with 150k, but only the 150k location has enough free population to actually fill all these jobsites as intended.

It shows that y'all think very much with EU4's mechanics in mind, because y'all consistently forget about population's effects.

 

[ArVass]

But it's not only Europe now, is it? I've mentioned other regions in Asia which aren't comparatively as bad.

I'd probably agree if not for the other points I, @Gurtannon and @Thorum pointed out. It really is a game-breaking difference.

"Game breaking difference" you haven't even played the game yet, how do you so confidently know that it is to the detriment of balance? Are you in the Super Secret Illuminati Beta or something?

The performance impact is a stupid argument for a multitude of reasons. Currently, there is an estimated number of 27000~ locations in the entire game. Giving China and India a few thousand each extra won't suddenly cause your PCs to catch fire. Why are you so vehemently opposed to a more richer depiction of other regions?

There are other ways to ensure a Eurocentric focus and railroading than simply making the rest of the world inherently crappy. And I believe that a game supposed to to be a historical sandbox for the entire world should strive to give an engaging and fleshed-out experience for all the important regions of the world during the time period.

There is nothing crappy about 2000 locations in China. It can be increased, if you provide a list of suggested additions and splits.

The problem with these arguments is that they are almost entirely based on an ideological argument ("I think the unequal distribution of location density is rooted in Eurocentrism, therefore to get rid of the Eurocentrism we shall equalize location density all over the world"), which is an alright opinion to have, but then proponents of this argument will then also try to base this claim on gameplay arguments for a game that is 1. not even out yet, and 2. based on half-informations and assumptions based on EU4's mechanics (which is merely a spiritual successor and basically all of its mechanics were reworked from scratch). It's also worth noting that there is an inherent cognitive bias to these arguments that "more == better" and "less == worse" (and btw the reason this cognitive bias curiously only affect the number of locations, because in EU4 only that mattered; curiously you don't seem to apply the "more = better" misconception to population per location, even though it is a VERY powerful thing to consistently have hundreds of thousands of people per location as you get a lot more concentrated population center that is much easier to manage and control).

Should China and India get more locations? Sure.
Should they get "a few thousand extra" to the point where they are as dense if not denser than western Europe? No, why? That's completely unnecessary

 

[DiabloDeVille]

Development is capped which means less granular region will always have weaker potential even if it is fully developed,

Province density is not a downside, as it basically means same, having 100 large sized location and 100 small sized locations mean same controlwise, which means you will essentially be the same large nation by having a smaller size, which will lead to your arnies march faster etc, and for a region it will direclty determine its power

Controlling entire Germany abd Italy will have the same effect as owning half of Africa just guessing, as terrain modifiers and rho production is all based on the location, having large density means you can have far more pop capacity, building cpaacity and rgo production than you would gian otherwise, the populations are only a initial limitation, they are like starting setup, what could eb argued as how strong a region is its potential, which is directly realted to location density

Isnt province size going to affect things as it did in vic2?

Fun fact during the game’s time period China’s population increased more than the European nations or any other nations in earth, so current design is not flawed but also completely wrong

% wise or by total number?

 

[Fawr]

by looking at tinto talks, it is obvious that the location density is biggest buff to a region, you havent read the tinto talks clearly

From what I've seen so far I suspect location sparsity is a huge buff. Any of those buildings that apply a buff to the whole location are much more powerful when they apply to more pops. Similarly cabinet actions will apply to provinces with more pops.

 

[JettyLoungers]

which is an alright opinion to have, but then proponents of this argument will then also try to base this claim on gameplay arguments for a game that is 1. not even out yet, and 2. based on half-informations and assumptions based on EU4's mechanics (which is merely a spiritual successor and basically all of its mechanics were reworked from scratch).

I've tried not to put speculation of mechanics and how they are implemented. I'm speaking purely regarding what I've seen in the Dev Diaries.

"It's also worth noting that there is an inherent cognitive bias to these arguments that "more == better" and "less == worse" (and btw the reason this cognitive bias curiously only affect the number of locations, because in EU4 only that mattered; curiously you don't seem to apply the "more = better" misconception to population per location, even though

I do. I take into account the starting populations, and the ridiculous levels of development arbitrarily assigned to regions of Northern China and the Ganges Plain to accommodate them. Refer back to my point regarding potential. These regions will not be able to grow as much as the rest of the world purely due to this.

It is a VERY powerful thing to consistently have hundreds of thousands of people per location as you get a lot more concentrated population center that is much easier to manage and control).

Yes, but that's not entirely historically accurate now, is it? For China, I guess to an extent, but India never had a strong and powerful centralized administration at any point in history up until even today.

Should China and India get more locations? Sure.
Should they get "a few thousand extra" to the point where they are as dense if not denser than western Europe? No, why? That's completely unnecessary

Why do you think that's unnecessary? To make it clear, I don't want either of those places to be more denser than the rest of the world either and I understand as we come closer to release, nobody should expect any massive changes when it comes to this. Perhaps post-release something can be done about it.

"I think the unequal distribution of location density is rooted in Eurocentrism, therefore to get rid of the Eurocentrism we shall equalize location density all over the world"

Yeah, no. Once again, I gave examples outside Western Europe where the problem was not as severe as it was for China and India. I just want some sense of parity and not a reduction of these regions into oversimplification

 

[ArVass]

Why do you think that's unnecessary? To make it clear, I don't want either of those places to be more denser than the rest of the world either and I understand as we come closer to release, nobody should expect any massive changes when it comes to this. Perhaps post-release something can be done about it.

You did say "a few thousand extra each", which WOULD make them more dense than Western Europe.

Yeah, no. Once again, I gave examples outside Western Europe where the problem was not as severe as it was for China and India. I just want some sense of parity and not a reduction of these regions into oversimplification

So you want parity for parity's sake?

Also, if some of these don't apply to you, that's because I'm addressing general talking points in all of these types of threads rather than only you specifically; some apply to your comments, some don't, of course.

 

[JettyLoungers]

You did say "a few thousand extra each", which WOULD make them more dense than Western Europe.


So you want parity for parity's sake?

Also, if some of these don't apply to you, that's because I'm addressing general talking points in all of these types of threads rather than only you specifically; some apply to your comments, some don't, of course.

I don't think giving the Indian Subcontinent with an area of 4 million~ square kilometres and a population above 90 million in the game's start 2000 or so more locations added to the meagre 1100 currently is such an outrageous demand considering the degree of political fragmentation, control issues, cultural and linguistic diversity and sheer population size. Ditto for China with a similar starting population, land area (3.5-4 million square kilometres) and the lower tile density (~1800 according to the Tinto Maps post).

For comparison let me give some examples of non-Western countries themselves,

Yemen:
Population-1.6 million
Locations- 75

Poland:
Population-1.9 million
Locations- 80

 

[DiabloDeVille]

I don't think giving the Indian Subcontinent with an area of 4 million~ square kilometres and a population above 90 million in the game's start 2000 or so more locations added to the meagre 1100 currently is such an outrageous demand considering the degree of political fragmentation, control issues, cultural and linguistic diversity and sheer population size. Ditto for China with a similar starting population, land area (3.5-4 million square kilometres) and the lower tile density (~1800 according to the Tinto Maps post).

For comparison let me give some examples of non-Western countries themselves,

Yemen:
Population-1.6 million
Locations- 75

Poland:
Population-1.9 million
Locations- 80

Yemen had 1.6 million in 1337?

 

[Stami]

EU4's is actually much much worse, because there you have a building and development cap, and no population to balance it out.

In EU5, a twice as large location might also have twice the population, twice the RGO levels, twice the amount of buildings, without reaching a cap

The limiting factor still is the workforce lol. You can build a hundred mills in a location with 15k people just aswell as in one with 150k, but only the 150k location has enough free population to actually fill all these jobsites as intended.

It shows that y'all think very much with EU4's mechanics in mind, because y'all consistently forget about population's effects.

This.

 

[JettyLoungers]

Yemen had 1.6 million in 1337?

It was always very populated and the core of the Arabian people. It is the only place in Arabia with a climate and terrain good enough to sustain proper agriculture outside of oasis regions

Even if lesser, that only validates my point further