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

[Foke]

Doesn't really make sense. India is less detailed in EU5 than in EU4 proportionately speaking (the locations system can hardly be considered an improvement when it happened for everywhere else in the world and the new granularity doesn't exactly map out along the lines of what it was in EU4), lol

The level of detail doesn't care about proportions. If you have a 1080p TV and decide to buy a 4K TV, but your neighbour at the same time goes from a 1080p TV to an 8K TV, does that then mean that your TV became less detailed? No it doesn't lol

 

[I like wars and maps]

I think the terrain and climate of a location will be the bigger impact. Albania got 2 locations wich arent mountains or hills in it so its safe to say its worthless to bother developing it in any capacity beyond having no alternative. Adding 19 more mountain locations might be very fun to do but it certainly wont make developing Albania any more profitable then just conquering better land that has actual Farmland locations in them too.

 

[Thorum]

Gurtannon, you should compare euiv provinces with euv locations. It makes no sense to compare the two levels called "Province"

I think the terrain and climate of a location will be the bigger impact. Albania got 2 locations wich arent mountains or hills

Would an Albania with half or a third the amount of locations still have a non-mountain location ?
Cause that's how dense similar locations in India or China are

 

[prinscky]

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 region

Ming was divided into two directives and 13 provinces, each varies greatly over size and population. The biggest one had about 500,000 km² and population of 20 million.
Jiangsu and Anhui was combined into one directive that had 220,000 km² and 30 million population, county was a better idea as it was more stable.

 

[Zerodv]

If I didn't miss anything, location size has no impact on population capacity which is calculated based on climate, terrain and other modifiers.

If paradox doesn't fix this issue then location density matters a lot, if they do I don't personally think it matters that much beyond a certain limit.

 

[Thorum]

Jiangsu and Anhui was combined into one directive that had 220,000 km² and 30 million population, county was a better idea as it was more stable.

How many of those counties are that? Goal should be at least 150 EUV locations, preferably closer to 200 for that size in that part of China.

 

[prinscky]

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.

Current info says that each location can build only one town/city, and support only one type of mills provided the location had the raw materials required. And each mill you build actually increase the pop cap of a location, so jobs of a mill will always be fulfilled, you only need to concern the food supplies. Thus the mechanics favoring smaller and denser areas.
I guess they are implementing this to balance things out, as a unified China would be too overpowered.

 

[prinscky]

How many of those counties are that? Goal should be at least 150 EUV locations, preferably closer to 200 for that size in that part of China.

Southern directive had 97 counties for the most part of Ming. The whole country had 1183 counties during most part of Ming.

 

[JettyLoungers]

The level of detail doesn't care about proportions. If you have a 1080p TV and decide to buy a 4K TV, but your neighbour at the same time goes from a 1080p TV to an 8K TV, does that then mean that your TV became less detailed? No it doesn't lol

Stick to Denmark, my guy. It's obvious you just dislike China and India.

Garbage analogy too. In this case, the levels of resolution are the same (Provinces-1080p and Locations-4K)

Not exact numbers, but if 20 provinces in EU4 are generally corresponding to 120 locations then the same 20 provinces are corresponding to almost half the number of locations in India and China (60-70)

 

[prinscky]

People can compare the maps of China and Low countries, roughly a location in China equals a province in Low countries, so obviously the Devs have to balance things out in some way~

 

[ArVass]

Current info says that each location can build only one town/city, and support only one type of mills provided the location had the raw materials required. And each mill you build actually increase the pop cap of a location, so jobs of a mill will always be fulfilled, you only need to concern the food supplies. Thus the mechanics favoring smaller and denser areas.
I guess they are implementing this to balance things out, as a unified China would be too overpowered.

You don't build a town or city, you make the location in its entirety one. A City location with 200 thousand people is equivalent to 4 city locations with 50k people each in terms of weight and mechanics.

For the latter part about "mills", what exactly are you talking about? I recall neither of those two statements mentioned anywhere in any of the TTs, and I've been paying attention.... don't you mean RGOs, perhaps? Because there is in fact one RGO per location, sure, but then there are other production buildings (including different kinds of mills), of which there can be basically as many different kinds as you want (even if there are mechanics in place that make specializing locations more profitable than building many random industries to the same location).

Perhaps you are mixing things up with some other game?

 

[ArVass]

People can compare the maps of China and Low countries, roughly a location in China equals a province in Low countries, so obviously the Devs have to balance things out in some way~

Why do they have to be equal? They are completely different kinds of places

 

[prinscky]

Why do they have to be equal? They are completely different kinds of places

What difference is there exactly?

 

[prinscky]

You don't build a town or city, you make the location in its entirety one. A City location with 200 thousand people is equivalent to 4 city locations with 50k people each in terms of weight and mechanics.

For the latter part about "mills", what exactly are you talking about? I recall neither of those two statements mentioned anywhere in any of the TTs, and I've been paying attention.... don't you mean RGOs, perhaps? Because there is in fact one RGO per location, sure, but then there are other production buildings (including different kinds of mills), of which there can be basically as many different kinds as you want (even if there are mechanics in place that make specializing locations more profitable than building many random industries to the same location).

Perhaps you are mixing things up with some other game?

What I'm saying is this new game is location based, you claim that a city location with 200,000 pop equals to 4 city locations with 50k pop, but in 4 city locations you can build 4 production facilities instead of one(assuming they all had the same type of raw materials), and there is no DEV diary says that the output of one facility in a 200k pop locations is equal to 4 facilities of four 50k pop location.
AS for mills I meant those production facilities of Saturday buildings, such as tannery, fine cloth manufactory or dye maker. I just checked that these buildings only require a certain number of workers, more people in a location don't bring more output, its the number of buildings that matters. Thus favors areas with smaller and denser locations.

 

[Foke]

Stick to Denmark, my guy. It's obvious you just dislike China and India.

Garbage analogy too. In this case, the levels of resolution are the same (Provinces-1080p and Locations-4K)

Not exact numbers, but if 20 provinces in EU4 are generally corresponding to 120 locations then the same 20 provinces are corresponding to almost half the number of locations in India and China (60-70)

And once again (believe it or not) 60-70 is in fact larger than 20

 

[Stevo76]

What I'm saying is this new game is location based, you claim that a city location with 200,000 pop equals to 4 city locations with 50k pop, but in 4 city locations you can build 4 production facilities instead of one(assuming they all had the same type of raw materials), and there is no DEV diary says that the output of one facility in a 200k pop locations is equal to 4 facilities of four 50k pop location.
AS for mills I meant those production facilities of Saturday buildings, such as tannery, fine cloth manufactory or dye maker. I just check that these buildings only require a certain number of workers, more people in a location don't bring more output, its the number of buildings that matters.

But they have said that higher level facilities have much higher outputs. That they've modelled in economies of scale. So it would be better to have a city with 200k+ pops and higher-level buildings than it would to have a number of smaller cities that can sustain lower-level buildings.

 

[JettyLoungers]

And once again (believe it or not) 60-70 is in fact larger than 20

You're not a developer, and you talk as if you're doing some favour to the other regions by throwing a bone. I'll repeat: Stick to Denmark. You don't need to derail a perfectly decent discussion with your Eurocentrism and obvious disdain for the rest of the world.

I still haven't seen a single argument from you for downgraded location density, especially in comparison to the original game (which released more than TEN years ago) and especially considering how impactful it is to the gameplay mechanics of the new game

It may be Europa Universalis, but the last time I checked it contained the rest of the world in the game map. Grow up

 

[prinscky]

But they have said that higher level facilities have much higher outputs. That they've modelled in economies of scale. So it would be better to have a city with 200k+ pops and higher-level buildings than it would to have a number of smaller cities that can sustain lower-level buildings.

Man you didn't follow. No matter what level of facilities you have, you can only have one facility in each location, and the facility in each level only employs certain number of people, big location with far more pop doesn't count. Its the number of facilities that matters, and the raw materials were also location based, so more location means more facilities, and more production output/trade values or whatever it is.

 

[ArVass]

What difference is there exactly?

They are not comparable. Netherland is an impossibly small region divided between outrageously small polities, small locations are necessary to portray the political fragmentation of it.
China on the other hand was always either one massive country, or several very large ones, where in civil wars regions several times larger than the entirety of the Netherlands routinely changes ownership like they were nothing. In China, things are on such a large scale compared to Europe that it's not really fair to compare the biggest country in the world to the smallest in Europe.

What I'm saying is this new game is location based, you claim that a city location with 200,000 pop equals to 4 city locations with 50k pop, but in 4 city locations you can build 4 production facilities instead of one(assuming they all had the same type of raw materials), and there is no DEV diary says that the output of one facility in a 200k pop locations is equal to 4 facilities of four 50k pop location.
AS for mills I meant those production facilities of Saturday buildings, such as tannery, fine cloth manufactory or dye maker. I just check that these buildings only require a certain number of workers, more people in a location don't bring more output, its the number of buildings that matters.

Here is where you are wrong, the game can be considered "location based" but only if you ignore the fact that it is actually population+building-based. Johan and the devs confirmed several times that large/populous locations with many buildings and a high RGO level are much better to have than many smaller ones.

Not only it costs the same amount of money to build a single one of the same production building in 5 locations than building 5 of them in one location, it is actually more profitable to have a less, more specialized locations according to Pavía and Johan.

Man you didn't follow. No matter what level of facilities you have, you can only have one facility in each location,

No, this is not true, you CAN build multiple different types of production buildings in the same location, only RGOs are limited to a single type per location and those can be scaled aswell, with the primary limiting factors being 1. workforce and 2. development iirc.

 

[Foke]

You're not a developer, and you talk as if you're doing some favour to the other regions by throwing a bone. I'll repeat: Stick to Denmark. You don't need to derail a perfectly decent discussion with your Eurocentrism and obvious disdain for the rest of the world.

I still haven't seen a single argument from you for downgraded location density, especially in comparison to the original game (which released more than TEN years ago) and especially considering how impactful it is to the gameplay mechanics of the new game

It may be Europa Universalis, but the last time I checked it contained the rest of the world in the game map. Grow up

I'll stick to whatever I want, you don't get to dictate that.
I have no issue with China and India, in fact I'd support that they become more detailed as long as the performance issues aren't too bad. My issue issue is with the way that you argue, because you argue a point that is just blatantly false. I have tried to explain to you again and again that it simply isn't true that there has been a "downgrade" in the level detail. If you continue to hold that belief at this point, then I'm done trying to convince you, because you're just clueless at that point. Keep throwing ad hominems though if it makes you feel better.