-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Earl Uhtred said:
Ahh, but *could* it have been? That to me is the real question. To say that it is PTI simply because no one got around to it by the end of the game's timeframe is way too deterministic for me.
Earl Uhtred said:
Hey pal, I'm half Wogga-Wogga, so back off!
I don't think sea zones and rivers should be given names on the map, it would look cluttered. Clicking on the province or hovering your moise pointer over it will tell you the name anyway. However, if someone posted a screenshot from EU1 (I've never played it) and I thought it looked okay, I'd be willing to concede on the sea zones. Rivers are too small though.
While it's a valid concern, knowing where some of the PTI is from the start will not be an issue after a couple of games familiarise us with the map, and it shouldn't be crowded enough in the PTI to get a detailed idea of where it starts and ends in any case.
What does everyone think of expanding the Siberian provinces to be unusually large, thus expanding the Siberian corridor as a whole? It would make Russia look more like it did in real life, while simulating the fact that Siberia was extremely poor. Province size could be adjusted in the files to increase travel time over the enlarged provinces, so that's not an issue. I'm not talking about removing all of the PTI in Siberia, just some of it. What I want to know is whether people think this primarily aesthetic change would have a negative impact on gameplay. One problem I can think of is that it would take less time for Russia to colonise the whole of the corridor. That can be countered to a certain extent by lowering the chances of successful colonisation of the provinces, but it's still something to keep in mind.
While it's a valid concern, knowing where some of the PTI is from the start will not be an issue after a couple of games familiarise us with the map, and it shouldn't be crowded enough in the PTI to get a detailed idea of where it starts and ends in any case.
What does everyone think of expanding the Siberian provinces to be unusually large, thus expanding the Siberian corridor as a whole? It would make Russia look more like it did in real life, while simulating the fact that Siberia was extremely poor. Province size could be adjusted in the files to increase travel time over the enlarged provinces, so that's not an issue. I'm not talking about removing all of the PTI in Siberia, just some of it. What I want to know is whether people think this primarily aesthetic change would have a negative impact on gameplay. One problem I can think of is that it would take less time for Russia to colonise the whole of the corridor. That can be countered to a certain extent by lowering the chances of successful colonisation of the provinces, but it's still something to keep in mind.
This is a discussion I've had before too.Captain America said:
While there were many areas that could have been explored and weren't in the 18th century and before, during the colonial land-grab of the 19th century meant that just about everywhere that could have been colonised was, and most of the huge areas that remained uncolonised weren't because the colonisation was impossible.
G-Klav said:
I don't see why MDS doesn't have every right to have their own maps. Without PTI if they so choose.
We can have a different map for MDS and for other mods... so I don't really see what is the problem here. It is only when we are designing for a specific mod that where PTI goes is a problem, and that should be left to the modders themselves to debate...
keep western canada, rockie mountains, amazon rainforest as PTI.
i wouldnt mind seeing the Great Lakes or Caspian Sea as navigable though.
i wouldnt mind seeing the Great Lakes or Caspian Sea as navigable though.
making them navigable is making them open to pirate spamming. I'd rather not have thatsaskganesh said:
The other possibility of introducing "better-looking PTI" embraces part of philosophy 1.
For example - one could draw Greenland including a bunch of ice, seals, Nanook of the North, etc. as part of the viewable province. That way when someone discovered it, they would be able to see that you couldn't actually expand to the north end of the province, because there was a bunch of impassable crap there.
The shortcoming of this, from the point of view of philosophy 4 people, is that that "PTI" would show up on the map as something owned by whoever owned Greenland. However, on the terrain map (rather than the political/religious maps) it would be evident that it was in fact not owned by anyone.
For example - one could draw Greenland including a bunch of ice, seals, Nanook of the North, etc. as part of the viewable province. That way when someone discovered it, they would be able to see that you couldn't actually expand to the north end of the province, because there was a bunch of impassable crap there.
The shortcoming of this, from the point of view of philosophy 4 people, is that that "PTI" would show up on the map as something owned by whoever owned Greenland. However, on the terrain map (rather than the political/religious maps) it would be evident that it was in fact not owned by anyone.
Given that I won't be the one working on these maps I won't argue much about the creation process.
However, in my opinion, PTI is there for a reason. Just because some local tribe lived there doesn't mean that it's necessary to make a province out of it. Owen makes good points on the issue. This is Europa Universalis, not Tribal Universalis. :wacko:
However, in my opinion, PTI is there for a reason. Just because some local tribe lived there doesn't mean that it's necessary to make a province out of it. Owen makes good points on the issue. This is Europa Universalis, not Tribal Universalis. :wacko:
Flame of Udûn said:
that goes for any sea zones then. maybe you shouldnt play with spammers.
yes, but you cannot bring your navy into the lakes. That means you need to have a large navy in the lakes, which can't do anything else than preventing pirates, it cannot get out.saskganesh said:
Its possible to make a province that one can walk through and discover but not colonize. Maybe some PTI can be replaced by such provinces. I wrote one like this:
province = { id = 315 construction = {
id = { type = 4712 id = 33 }
action = 9
province = 315
flags = 1
startdate = { year = 1419 month = january day = 0 }
enddate = { year = 1820 month = march day = 0 }
success = no
x = 0
y = 0
tag = REB
} }
Edit:
It means that a rebel settler is building a colony in the province between 1419-1820. So noone else can colonize it. There wont be any settler visible in the province since x=y=0 is not a visible location.
province = { id = 315 construction = {
id = { type = 4712 id = 33 }
action = 9
province = 315
flags = 1
startdate = { year = 1419 month = january day = 0 }
enddate = { year = 1820 month = march day = 0 }
success = no
x = 0
y = 0
tag = REB
} }
Edit:
It means that a rebel settler is building a colony in the province between 1419-1820. So noone else can colonize it. There wont be any settler visible in the province since x=y=0 is not a visible location.
Last edited:
Flame of Udûn said:
you don't need a large navy in the great lakes, just a single galley to beat new-to-appear pirates.
if this is the only objection to navigable inland waterways, its a small one.
Amphibeous assaults on inland provinces next to a river. Obviously warships should not be allowed to go there though.Owen said:
And as for the Amazon remaining PTI, it was colonized not just explored by 1820. So for the sake of historical accuracy, it ought to have at least medium sized new provinces and SA in general should have only small patches of PTI or none at all.
What gameplay advantage would this give?idontlikeforms said:
The Amazon Basin was mostly colonised by 1820? I can find no evidence for that at all. I expect the PTI map for AoI (ending in 1913) to have PTI greatly reduced, since the only discussion I've found so far suggests that:
Link
My initial guess is that the provinces in EU2 are pretty accurate for 1820 colonisation, but I have yet to find a map that proves this.
EDIT: I realise I may have misunderstood you. It seems the main channel of the Amazon was entirely explored and colonised by 1820, but those provinces are already in EU2, so I don't understand why you're asking for extra provinces there.
Last edited: