• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just going to go out on a limb and say that is for cost mostly and space/processor performance, as having this "realistic" adds hundreds (possibly thousands) of provinces needed to be designed and built around the world.
 
pretty much my thoughts. Shifting the Americas up saves having as much sea on the bottom and likely means the map can be of a higher resolution.
 
Just going to go out on a limb and say that is for cost mostly and space/processor performance, as having this "realistic" adds hundreds (possibly thousands) of provinces needed to be designed and built around the world.

Yeah, it's OHGamer/Cheng Nuo's old kludge come back round again - they've used it on every map since (?) Vicky 1. I'm not a huge fan, but I see why they do it - it saves on processing resources, allows more provinces.
 
Since Vicky 2 actually. ;)
 
It has to do with game play. It's a conscious decision to make the game better.
 
It has something to do with the ocean being too big. Wouldn't ever find anything in the ocean. A dev commented on an older post couldn't find it though.
 
It has to do with game play. It's a conscious decision to make the game better.

Which was arguably understandable back in the days of Vic 2. In 2014, a proper world map wouldn't be too much to expect from a game company. All of the Americas is 30%further North than it should be. Japan is on the same latitude as Mexico and Florida is on the same latitude as Spain. Its awkward.
 
Which was arguably understandable back in the days of Vic 2. In 2014, a proper world map wouldn't be too much to expect from a game company. All of the Americas is 30%further North than it should be. Japan is on the same latitude as Mexico and Florida is on the same latitude as Spain. Its awkward.

does it really matter?
 
I don't see the problem at all. For all game-related purposes the map seems perfectly fine. Are there any good arguments for forcing some real equidistant/equal-area/conformal projection here, or does all of this just come from some purist notion?

Does it matter that Stockholm isn't at the same latitude as Anchorage, or that the tip of Greenland is higher up in relation to Iceland? Naval/aerial travel time will definitely be in the realistic ballpark anyhow, and no land masses are significantly distorted. It's a perfectly normal-looking map unless you actually try to notice the deviations. Hadn't the American continent been shifted you would have had a lot of unnecessary ocean beneath Africa and a lot of unnecessary wasteland in northern Canada, wasting map resources. Heck, even the widened English channel seems like a good design decision as the actual distances will still be representative of real life, just not graphically where you want room for unit overview and interaction.

It's not like any 2D projection can be fully representative in any case, and to use a true projection for projection's sake would quite frankly just be dumbfounded. If PDS ever switches over to a spherical map presentation we can all rejoice, but until that moment customized 2D projections, tailored to best fit the game are just fine.

Not to mention that this is also a thing that will be completely moddable.
 
Yes.

But does this REALLY matter? Is the game in any way worse off because they made a gameplay choice to save on wasted empty space?
 
In 2014, a proper world map wouldn't be too much to expect from a game company.

If Paradox were a map company, I'd agree with you, but they're not - they're a game company. They made a decision to purposely use a map that's inaccurate in a specific way because it allows for a better game, by wasting less space on ocean barren of any meaningful game impact.
 
It's a major saving on GPU power. GPUs are quite expensive so I for one welcome our drunken cartographers.
 
+1 for the drunken cartographers.
 
Considering that the Earth is a 3D object any map on a 2D surface is in fact inaccurate with massive distortions (compromises have to be made) I have no problem with the map that paradox uses. Its no better or worse than any other 2D map. But if we really want a better 2D map why not try the one below. Even this map has distortions but oh well.
world_map-foucaut.gif
 
Does it matter?

And even if it DID matter, does it matter that it matters?

This is one area where I'm happy to accept gameplay over realism. As has been pointed out, the game distances for movement will be representative of the real world so... it's a picture to play on and I'd buy the cartographers another round.

If anyone want's to complain about how distorted the landmasses are, and suggest that they should be drawn in their correct proportions, I'll just point out that you'll never be able to even find Midway, Wake or Gibraltar to name just a few of the utterly insignificant places.

OK, you could find Gib'. Everyone knows where that is right.

Right?

Edit.

Nice map redflag. I thought I'd broken my glasses!
 
Last edited:
Like many have said, and Redflag has well demonstrated, and 2D map is going to be inaccurate. The only way to really get it right is instead of a 2D map, have a modelled globe that you scroll around, but this would be a huge change and represent a new learning curve, and as Big Nev rightly points out, good luck finding Midway!

That's a rather philosophical question. Would it matter if Australia and New Zealand switched places, and they made all of South America a desert?

It would to an Australian :p.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.