I photoshopped the map, showing the city proportions I feel comfortable with and the topography I hope for.

[lazprune]

actually you had it vice versa , only the texture on vegetation is hand made in imperator but reliefs are 100% generated from a heightmap data . for example look at persia and its heightmap .
also in ck2 , imperator , ck3 all you do is make a heightmap and import the map to the editor and it make highly detailed reliefs that then you tweak its elevation and passages (ask me about it i have made a dozen private mods using this method) . or if you wan your own artistic touch you can hand draw it like for vanilla ck3 or vic or at least simplify the realistic mountains with a brush . but in case of imperator instead of hand made moutains am sure they imported a real heightmap to the game .


View attachment 1295905
View attachment 1295924
View attachment 1295903


notice here in ck 2 in after the end mod how things looks like and way better than vanilla.

View attachment 1295881

meanwhile if you go to ck3 or vanilla ck2 you notice that the mountains are more of brush work and not converted heightmap

View attachment 1295888

another example of one of my own test mods

View attachment 1295895
View attachment 1295896


so yeah , so far imperator is the ONLY game that use 1 on 1 heightmap accuracy , i cant tell about this game but for ck3 and vic3 either they did smoothen the result or its fully handmade with a brush and thats why elevation look so bad in them ( well not bad bad , just bad compared to a real heightmap result)

An appreciated correction, thank you. I am even more confused now to know the devs handmade such artificial-looking 3D landscapes in Project Caesar.

 

[Viva.St.Pauli]

I agree with the brightness and saturation adjustments so much, every time I see an EU5 creator video I have an urge to adjust the settings on my monitor because it looks so cold and dark. It shouldn't be super bright and cartoony but a bit more color and sharpness would do it a lot of good to look at. In the end, the prettiness of the map is a huge factor in why we play these games.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

Big cities makes it easier to see whats happening, whereas small ones are harder to click and see

 

[Big_birdy]

Big cities makes it easier to see whats happening, whereas small ones are harder to click and see

cant you just open the location view instead of looking at the buildings?

 

[Cephei80]

View attachment 1296207

They have already shown a willingness to view aesthetic map elements as something of value for EUV.
I can't understand how this is a remotely controversial take. Paradox has been artificially inflating the price of their dlcs for years by including minor cosmetics as part of the package.

i see no inflation but opposite and again these things are cosmetics , we discussing the main map , reliefs and you or him or idk are saying thay they will fix the map through paid DLC and at this point this is just blatant accusation especially that you back your claim with cosmetics.

i wouldnt call prices of cosmetics inflated too because since dawn of time it was 4.99 dollars for usa and even cheaper elsewhere like here for me. so i wouldnt call their prices high why its value isnt even the same on every region .
also its crazy that peoples still complain of dlcs as if you dont notice that its us who ask for them. take for example african attire , they already added north african attire for free then gave us option to get more if we pay , its a choice , you can stay with vanilla or get more . its like option to buy music or not

 

[Big_birdy]

i see no inflation but opposite and again these things are cosmetics , we discussing the main map , reliefs and you or him or idk are saying thay they will fix the map through paid DLC and at this point this is just blatant accusation especially that you back your claim with cosmetics.

i wouldnt call prices of cosmetics inflated too because since dawn of time it was 4.99 dollars for usa and even cheaper elsewhere like here for me. so i wouldnt call their prices high why its value isnt even the same on every region .
also its crazy that peoples still complain of dlcs as if you dont notice that its us who ask for them. take for example african attire , they already added north african attire for free then gave us option to get more if we pay , its a choice , you can stay with vanilla or get more . its like option to buy music or not
View attachment 1296357

i wish it was $3 here

 

[Cephei80]

i wish it was $3 here
View attachment 1296365

dang , is that australian dollar ?

 

[Big_birdy]

dang , is that australian dollar ?

yeah

 

[TheRighteous]

if they dont do it i think its can be still done through modding . we can even add navigable rivers but that would mean redoing the entire map or at least a big portion of the map .
personally i cant tell how good the reliefs in eu5 are till i see places like morocco or persia and how mountains look like in them

I want to be able to experience good enough content directly without any extra steps

 

[Oglesby]

View attachment 1296207

They have already shown a willingness to view aesthetic map elements as something of value for EUV.
I can't understand how this is a remotely controversial take. Paradox has been artificially inflating the price of their dlcs for years by including minor cosmetics as part of the package.

And those look like they will be comically big on the map.

In some of the shots it also appears like the RGO buildings were being displayed in locations. I don't need the map to show me every little thing.

 

[Mef]

And those look like they will be comically big on the map.

In some of the shots it also appears like the RGO buildings were being displayed in locations. I don't need the map to show me every little thing.

The models for different RGOs can be a nice detail to differentiate locations, however they looked really bad and out of place most of the time. A few square wheat fields or a huge pile of stones showing up in locations with these RGOs just looks kind of... outdated.
I think they need to blend in with the terrain a lot better and probably be smaller too. If there were actually beautiful looking rice paddies or wheat fields blended in the terrain, this feature would be a big plus in my opinion.

 

[KiLLLLkA]

This has already come up in the thread, but I want to show - the developers had a perfect example of a game map - Imperator: Rome - the size of the cities and a realistic landscape map, created by a very pleasing picture for the eyes. Why was it necessary to change this? Why was it necessary to crank up the height of the mountains and the size of the buildings to the limit? Are there really people who like the maps from Vic3 and Ck3 more than the I:R map followers?

In general, despite the fact that I liked the game, I am rather disappointed with the graphical map. I hope this is not the final version and the physical map can still be transformed for the better (more realistic), or at least mods will provide such an opportunity (after all, changing the size of buildings should be a trivial task).

I would also like to note that I liked the addition of small details to the map (such as wheat fields, mines, gardens, etc.). I think these changes will benefit the graphical perception of the game to a greater extent.

 

[kagami1999]

what were they thinking with this goofy clash of clans art style lol

 

[Thorum]

what were they thinking with this goofy clash of clans art style lol

Both clearly got their inspiration from the civilization series (through ckiii and vicky3 for euv, obviously).

Based on the existing feedback, and having never played either, I'm quite sure euv is already the better game (with much less important characters)

 

[Aquila SPQR]

So it seems that's how the cities look like now, right?

Buildings are much smaller, similar to what has been suggested here. Docks/ports and farms are also small and look good

Resources (stone and copper?) are disappointing though. I hope it's still a WIP as I'd prefer to be them more randomly placed in a location. I'd even sacrifice visual information (the amount of copper/stone available?) for better looks (one larger copper resource visible instead of 11 tiny ones next to each other).

 

[Oglesby]

So it seems that's how the cities look like now, right?

View attachment 1302775

Buildings are much smaller, similar to what has been suggested here.

As Johan mentioned in the TT, he wasn't at full zoom.
It is hare to say if they change the size from the picture, if they did it wasn't much (I tried to find the same buildings near trees)

Docks/ports and farms are also small and look good

Resources (stone and copper?) are disappointing though. I hope it's still a WIP as I'd prefer to be them more randomly placed in a location. I'd even sacrifice visual information (the amount of copper/stone available?) for better looks (one larger copper resource visible instead of 11 tiny ones next to each other).

I personally feel that the map doesn't need all the extra bits and bobs. This isn't Civ, I don't need an icon to tell me that here be stone or there be copper.

Make the map look realistic. Don't give me random giant docks (if we judge by the gap between Kalmar and oland looks to be ~2km long). Don't give me giant stone piles, 'livestock', buildings

 

[Aquila SPQR]

Ok, you may be right. Kalmar may be just a small town with no buildings. It seems the "generic houses" are of acceptable size on both screens but the buildings players can build are oversized. Italian screen has a lot of them already built while Kalmar lacks them (except the castle).

I would be absolutely satisfied if medium sized towns with buildings built there were looking just like that Kalmar.