OK, so we are considering finally upgrading Interregnum to one of the new maps.
Neither of them satisfy anyone, of course (and not just the Polish Horde
)
I, for example, think that all the provinces deep in south and nnorth America are excessive and beyond the scope of the game. I don't even think the Yukon should be part of the EU2 world, nor Hudson's Bay. But anyway ...
There are two items, the Map (which is for players to look at) and the province.csv, which is what the game machine cares about, all those definitions.
Currently in Vanilla, all the available theoretical provinces are defined with
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;0;0;0
Now, if one was to replce MyMaps definition of
1;Alaska;coastal;exotic;indian etc etc with
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;0;0;0
Would it all be OK, and that part of the map simply never be discovered?
Neither of them satisfy anyone, of course (and not just the Polish Horde
I, for example, think that all the provinces deep in south and nnorth America are excessive and beyond the scope of the game. I don't even think the Yukon should be part of the EU2 world, nor Hudson's Bay. But anyway ...
There are two items, the Map (which is for players to look at) and the province.csv, which is what the game machine cares about, all those definitions.
Currently in Vanilla, all the available theoretical provinces are defined with
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;0;0;0
Now, if one was to replce MyMaps definition of
1;Alaska;coastal;exotic;indian etc etc with
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;0;0;0
Would it all be OK, and that part of the map simply never be discovered?