Speak for yourself! I for one am scandalized that Euskadi and Navarre are lumped in with Aragon, and Murcia-Cartagena are inexplicably included with Valencia! Shocking!
Where's South Carolina?
- Thread starter Hystarea
- Start date
-
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.
Speak for yourself! I for one am scandalized that Euskadi and Navarre are lumped in with Aragon, and Murcia-Cartagena are inexplicably included with Valencia! Shocking!
For Euskadi theres even a gameplay mechanic there, I can't see why if Catalonia is in the game Euskadi isn't as a nation.
I think that's justifiable, though. DC is in many ways its own state in real life, and during ACW, having Maryland secede and encircle DC was a perceived threat.
Slavery was legal in the capital, though the Compromise of 1850 prohibited its trade. This is why DC needs to be separate from Maryland. If Maryland gets CSA cores because it's a slave state then it can potentially secede and take the US capital with it.
It was backwards in HoI II: Euskadi but no Catalonia. Paradox should make up their minds about which Iberian minority they want to disenfranchise!
If we want to count Federal Districts then at the very least Buenos Aires and Mexico City should be their own states. I'm pretty sure there's many more federal-provinces for capitals, but what I'm trying to say, is for gameplay terms it doesn't make sense.
But it has to be that way because of the civil war mechanics. You cant have everything perfectly historical in the game, so it does make sense.
What doesnt make sense is the lack of the Cascade range.
It's typical that other countries are way worse off, like the Netherlands have only three regions when it should have ten, but it's always the Americans who complain about their states
If the Netherlands is messed up then by all means make a post about it. But don't expect anyone outside of your country to know enough about it to know if the borders are right or not. I've made a few posts in regard to the current setup for Australia in the game and suggested alternatives as I know enough about my own country's history to recommend changes. I know enough about the USA to be annoyed by Nevada-Utah among other things, but I figure that geographical inanities are Paradox's stock in trade (Stalingrad in HoI3 anyone?) and furthermore that it's something Yanks can ask to be fixed.
Keep in mind also that while the Netherlands divides itself into 10 regions, they're smaller than most in game provinces. Most of the states in V2 are roughly the same, with the less popular and less populous regions of the world having larger ones. But few are below a certain size.
By contrast all the 37 later American states IRL are larger than the Dutch in game ones, except Hawaii and maybe even that. It's only some of the original 13 colonies, the tiny ones, that aren't larger than your average European in-game state; Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Maryland (plus Hawaii). Even some of those, like Maryland, are bigger than say, Gelderland. I don't think there's anything wrong with amalgamating many of the smaller 13 colonies; Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont are "New England", while Rhode Island and Connecticut are swallowed by Massachusetts, and Delaware is incorporated into Maryland. Heck given the size of some states like Pommern or the Swedish ones even lumping all Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut into "New England" would be fine by me. But South Carolina's big enough to be split off, as is Navada/Utah.
Again, though, Paradox usually keeps even the most ludicrous mistakes in place. Let's look at my home state:
The least wrong thing here is probably Warnambool, which is just spelled "Warmambool" so no biggie. At least it's geographically at the center of that province, and is the largest town in that region. It could have been called Surf Coast, Shipwreck Coast, but Warnambool is probably more accurate. It's a good region, just misspelled.
The lack of a Bendigo here is extremely grating. It was a thriving goldrush town for a big chunk of the game and one of Australia's largest inland cities until after the game's timeframe. It is still among Australia's 20 largest cities and some of those above it didn't exist during the timeframe: Canberra, Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast, while others were only little, like Toowoomba, Townsville, Darwin, Cairns, and Geelong and Wollongong are too close to bigger cities (Melbourne and Sydney) to be their own provinces. Its omission is like the USA not having Cleveland or England not having Manchester.
That it is omitted is even more strange because Bendigo's longtime rival Ballarat is included though, even though Ballarat is much closer to Melbourne and is only marginally larger. Furthermore, the town would lie within the boundaries of the "Melbourne province"! "Bendigo" would be a more appropriate title for that province because it actually lies on the boundary of "Melbourne" and "Ballarat", rather than inside "Melbourne" as Ballarat does.
In a similar vein we have "Beechworth". At least the namesake is within the boundaries this time. But Beechworth is a tourist town of 3000 people... in the same region is Albury-Woodonga, Australia's largest inland city until Canberra and Toowoomba boomed in the latter part of the 20th century. This is like having Cairo, Illinois but not Chicago!
Melbourne lies firmly within "Melbourne's" boundaries. For part of the game Melbourne was the Empire's 2nd largest city and was considered a second London. But the province continues about 500KM north of where it should end. I know these are approximations but that's a huge license, and they've wiped out one of Australia's most historic and largest cities in the process (Bendigo). That part of Melbourne should be split between "Ballarat" and "Beechworth", renamed Bendigo and Albury-Woodonga respectively (or, ideally, Woodonga and Albury would be created from Wagga-Wagga; they're on the same spot on opposite sides of the Mighty Murray). Conceivably they could carve out a new Ballarat to balance out Bendigo, but Ballarat's not much further from Melbourne than even larger Geelong, so not including it wouldn't be so silly.
Swan Hill is a howler, because at best Swan Hill would be on the junction between "Swan Hill", "Ballarat", and "Wagga Wagga"... and if I was being ungenerous I'd say it was actually within "Ballarat". Mildura is the largest city in that province, easily, and actually lies within it rather than on the edge of it. But the region is called Mallee, so they should have named it Mallee.
Sale lies within "Sale" so that's good, but that region is called Gippsland, and Gippsland is loaded with towns roughly Sale's size, bigger and larger. Gippsland is better for a name, consequently.
What I'm saying is, P'dox bottles geographic constantly, but no matter how bad it is I don't expect them to fix it. But adding in another Yank state that is comparatively minor.
It's typical that other countries are way worse off, like the Netherlands have only three regions when it should have ten, but it's always the Americans who complain about their states
I have to +1 this.
I understand why Netherlands was split into just 3 States, it is a small country. But I think Americans whining about how not every American state is classed as an in-game state is just annoying, do you know how long it would take to invade US going through every state?
Hell, the Sinai didn't even get its own state and that is an important border on the Suez, seems kind of redundant anyone taking the Sinai if they get the Suez with it too.
That's a non-sequitur. You invade countries province by province, not state by state. As such it doesn't matter whether the USA was grouped into 5 states or 50, you still need to invade the same number of provinces. The only difference is on claiming states in peace treaties. China starts with 32 states. Russia starts with 58. Britain starts with 67. Why aren't you whining about those countries? Anyway the difference between 50 states and the current setup which has 44 is hardly a gigantic imposition (the 50 + DC - SC which is in GA - NV/UT which are amalgamated - DE which is in MD - RI and CN in MA - NH+VT+ME in "New England" which isn't actually a state = 44).
Furthermore I haven't seen any threads asking for DE, RI, CN, NH, VT, or ME to be added on their own, or even NV/UT to be split, and in fact some here would like DC added to MD which would reduce the number.
I'll tell you one thing more annoying than Americans whining about the map. It is Europeans whining about Americans whining about the map.
Being American has nothing to do with this, its really world wide cuse I wanted to know if it was only South Carolina so please stop making such rude comments towards Americans, Europeans can make a post about it if they want but that would be kinda spammy so don't just discuss it on this forum.
Every state with slavery pretty much gets CSA cores eventually, but Missouri and Maryland/Washington DC are coded in House Divided event not to secede. I split every state off and rename them for the authenticity. This takes maybe 30 minutes the first time, then you can copy the regions.txt and localization files to each new patch/mod and have realistic maps. Also I join Washington DC to Maryland...the reason they separated it was probably to make it possible for the CSA to take Maryland in a later war. However, with a modded decision to burn Washington and move the US capital thats a moot point and looks much better...In the original occupying the border states had a MTTH for them to secede and join the South, maybe that'll be added in the expansion?
I still recall the old setting in the original Victoria from 2003/2004 when I joined the forum. Back then each American state was an ingame state, which in that game made the US seriously overpowered and hard to conquer. The thing is that as the game is in English it's easy to assume that an ingame state ought to correspond to the American concept of a state. However country subdivision is very different depending on whether the country is a federation or a unitary state like France, in the latter the ingame states are more or less historical and cultural regions and in the former more political. As far as I understand Paradox has taken historical, cultural and political considerations, while at the same time considering game play effects and the geography (aesthetic borders for the win). Thus the current set-up.
Oh and I think Sweden could win this contest, in the game they are three, when they in fact should be 26
Oh and I think Sweden could win this contest, in the game they are three, when they in fact should be 26
Wouldn't it make more sense for P'dox to call the states "provinces" and the provinces "counties" or "cities" or something to that effect?
But some provinces that are sparcly populated like ones in mongolia etc dont have citys in most provinces.