Only one suggestion for EU5

[zincpl]

I suspect there may be a 'look and feel' question about whether EU is a board game or a world simulator - if you are able to zoom out far enough and see space, it can be a bit immersion breaking in an odd way. From memory, it's done well in IR though.

 

[bokorthedust]

@Aldaron Yes, this question needs an answer from the dev team please

While I'm not the dev team, I'd say it isn't a question of being possible, it's a question of game style. None of the Paradox GSGs have a 3D map, it's a legacy of the board games origin of EU4, and changing to a 3D map in the games would be a departure from tradition.

 

[Aldaron]

@Aldaron Yes, this question needs an answer from the dev team please

As says, pretty much:

While I'm not the dev team, I'd say it isn't a question of being possible, it's a question of game style. None of the Paradox GSGs have a 3D map, it's a legacy of the board games origin of EU4, and changing to a 3D map in the games would be a departure from tradition.

It is not a matter of technical difficulties. Heck, I remember games in the 90's that had globes. It is more related to gameplay.

Personally, I would love to have a globe for the map, but 1) it is not my call, 2) there are gameplay issues that are more valued.

I know that many of my messages are about "how things are" and are disappointing, but it is what it is.

 

[annulen]

Using 3D would just hurt usability with no real gain besides maybe "wow effect" in a few first minutes of gameplay (if implemented properly). On the other hand, it would definitely put a high load on GPU.

Switching between different map projections makes more sense to me but it's may be more difficult to implement than just 3D globe.

 

[annulen]

As for me personally, I have only three major issues with visual representation of maps in EU4:

1. Extremely bad kerning in map inscriptions - heck, I can even try to write proof-of-concept code for curvilinear kerning, if that can help
2. Fog of war available only at very high zoom levels
3. Glaring vertical "stitch" in Pacific Ocean, where two opposite sides of map are "glued together" and all borders of sea provinces join into a single vertical line

 

[annulen]

If we are totally honest, there is no way we can make everyone happy with whatever projection is chosen for any of our projects.

The reason is very easy, it is not possible to make a perfect representation of a globe over a 2D map. When drawing maps, there are usually three factors taken in consideration: area, shape and angle. Each projection has certain proportions for each of these three factors and no projection can have all of them at 1. This means that whatever projection you draw, there will be either areas that are represented as smaller or bigger than in reality,; shapes that are distorted; or angles that are moved.

The combinations of there factors receive names as conformal (shapes and angles are preserved, but not areas); equal area (which keeps areas true but can deform shapes and change angles); equidistant (which preserves the distance between two points); azimuthal (all directions are true from a certain point of the map) and compromise (where it only tries to keep a beautiful map).

What I am trying to say is that 2D does not allow a true representation of our planet in 2D without giving up some details that might be important for some of our players.

While there is no "true" 2D representation, certain projections are traditionally used for representation of certain parts of the globe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_map_projections. In theory it would be nice if players could select projection they are more accustomed with, or that fits better the region they are playing in now.

However, convertion of coordinates between different projections can be one hell of a work.

 

[Aldaron]

While there is no "true" 2D representation, certain projections are traditionally used for representation of certain parts of the globe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_map_projections. In theory it would be nice if players could select projection they are more accustomed with, or that fits better the region they are playing in now.

However, convertion of coordinates between different projections can be one hell of a work.

It is. It would also require the engine to convert everything to that new projection for little gain.

All I can say is that newer projects should (and hopefully will) have better, more consistent, projections. A projection menu, though, is out of consideration for the reason I wrote before.

 

[Hermerico]

Eu4's projection is not even similar to a Mercator projection.

With that said Eu4's projection is a fine projection. People stress way too much about projections... I don't get it, as long as the shapes/proportions are relatively similar to reality size doesn't really matter that much.
Regional representation depends entirely on the province number, not on the size of the area.

 

[RedArmy]

My main issue is that a small northern province appears way bigger on the map than it really is.

It should not be that difficult to use local projection depending on the zooming. I mean, Google maps has this feature…

 

[grommile]

I mean, Google maps has this feature…

"A Google product does something" is a hilariously terrible metric for "it should not be that difficult".

I wouldn't be too surprised to find that Google have spent more money on Google Maps over the past seventeen years than Paradox have spent on all their grand strategy titles put together.

 

[annulen]

"A Google product does something" is a hilariously terrible metric for "it should not be that difficult".

I wouldn't be too surprised to find that Google have spent more money on Google Maps over the past seventeen years than Paradox have spent on all their grand strategy titles put together.

Also, Google maps don't need to do things like path arrows.

 

[The Colonel]

Moreso than changing the map projection, the placement of some landmasses needs to be shifted. The Americas are way too far North, which I think might be somewhat intentional as it puts the Caribbean right across the Iberians simulating their first colonies, but causes a lot of distortion otherwise. Cape Horn is a lot further South than the Cape of Good Hope and Australia

It's not a mistake, numerous PDX devs from numerous teams have talked about this on the forums. Things are intentionally shifted to fit the areas desired for gameplay into a rectangle without a lot of "dead space" empty ocean filling up the screen where unnecessary (e.g. below Africa, or including more of the islands and sea above Canada by shifting NA down).

Eu4's projection is not even similar to a Mercator projection.

With that said Eu4's projection is a fine projection. People stress way too much about projections... I don't get it, as long as the shapes/proportions are relatively similar to reality size doesn't really matter that much.
Regional representation depends entirely on the province number, not on the size of the area.

Agreed, mostly. In HOI4, it causes issues with things like plane ranges. It seems like all distances are calculated in screenspace, so this makes travel slower compared to what it should be IRL to move between provinces further from the equator, which impacts EU4 and other games as well.

 

[RedArmy]

It seems like all distances are calculated in screenspace, so this makes travel slower compared to what it should be IRL to move between provinces further from the equator, which impacts EU4 and other games as well.

This is the biggest problem imho

 

[The Colonel]

Yeah, I feel like even if it's not 100% accurate they could code a workaround that adjusts the distance as a factor of how far you are from the equator, and that would be really nice to make like Siberia and South America less of a slog. As alluded to in my other post, I'm more of a HOI player nowadays, and planes getting crippled by the huge air zones with inflated province size that their range (which is not adjusted) cannot cover is really annoying.