• 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.
The only thing which comes into my mind could be an influence on the new(?) weather system.
 
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?

It kinda offends the eye, and the brain but to a lesser extent in my case, to have the IJN sail NORTH to attack Hawaii. Instead of having Midway as that strategic centerpiece it's sidelined pretty well to the North.
In reality Anchorage in Alaska is about on the same latitude as Paradox office in Stockholm and in-game it's close to the same but some other parts of the globe just looks off.
Now it really doesn't matter other than from a mostly aesthetic point of view but it might be something too look closer at for future games and expansions imo.
 
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.
Long ago, I started making the global map in the Fuller projection, but stopped at 18724 Province since it turned out that the HoI3 engine is not supports more. It is not as difficult as it seems.
I wanted some like:
http://itmages.ru/image/view/1998560/d8e82878
Screenshots, what I got final
http://itmages.ru/image/view/1998562/418691e1
http://itmages.ru/image/view/1998564/0fb489c2
http://itmages.ru/image/view/1998565/3d193c9e
http://itmages.ru/image/view/1998567/71e0c794
And provinces.bmp, modders should be interested
http://itmages.ru/image/view/1998570/07e8710b
Provincial boundaries made by the real administrative division
 
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.
Long ago, I started making the global map in the Fuller projection, but stopped at 18724 Province since it turned out that the HoI3 engine is not supports more. It is not as difficult as it seems. I wanted some like:
http://itmages.ru/image/view/1998560/d8e82878
Screenshots, what I got finaly
http://itmages.ru/image/view/1998562/418691e1
 
Ok that's great... and how long did that take you, now put a price on that of about 50-60 Euros per hour to cover pay and benefits.

AS a developer it's simple, this "simple" fix would cost the company probably hundreds of thousands of euros.

1. Design the new map
2. Program the hundreds of new provinces, and or thousands (This is assuming you simply took the current map and added space at top and bottom to shift, not your map)
3. Now try to balance the mechanics of the game around new provinces... For example blockading convoys around south Africa. Oh hey look there are 15 new provinces for convoys to choose from to avoid ships... good luck finding them.
4. Have to change all of their future games as well, so price multiplies by X4. I suspect since the maps are so extremely similar that they use some of the tools/provinces from HOI3 to Victoria2 to EUIII. This is why the map of EUIV and CK2 look pretty much the same, as will HOI IV.

Not worth it at all, not one penny. Glad they made the decision they made.
 
Ok that's great... and how long did that take you, now put a price on that of about 50-60 Euros per hour to cover pay and benefits.

AS a developer it's simple, this "simple" fix would cost the company probably hundreds of thousands of euros.

1. Design the new map
2. Program the hundreds of new provinces, and or thousands (This is assuming you simply took the current map and added space at top and bottom to shift, not your map)
3. Now try to balance the mechanics of the game around new provinces... For example blockading convoys around south Africa. Oh hey look there are 15 new provinces for convoys to choose from to avoid ships... good luck finding them.
4. Have to change all of their future games as well, so price multiplies by X4. I suspect since the maps are so extremely similar that they use some of the tools/provinces from HOI3 to Victoria2 to EUIII. This is why the map of EUIV and CK2 look pretty much the same, as will HOI IV.

Not worth it at all, not one penny. Glad they made the decision they made.

I don't think that's a good argument. Making a proper world map takes time and money therefore a game company shouldn't do it. Of course it takes time and money but they are gonna sell the product aren't they?
 
I don't think that's a good argument. Making a proper world map takes time and money therefore a game company shouldn't do it. Of course it takes time and money but they are gonna sell the product aren't they?

When your required to make money on a product to stay open, and this is not a required feature that would take (the developer team of 3 at the time) hundreds or thousands of hours to complete something that isn't important to the actual product then said feature is not implemented in said product.

Implementing this feature would not increase sales, would not add anything to the game, and would be a time sink, therefore is would be under the "Nice to have" or "Not Needed" group of features for a product during planning.
 
It kinda offends the eye, and the brain but to a lesser extent in my case, to have the IJN sail NORTH to attack Hawaii. Instead of having Midway as that strategic centerpiece it's sidelined pretty well to the North.
In reality Anchorage in Alaska is about on the same latitude as Paradox office in Stockholm and in-game it's close to the same but some other parts of the globe just looks off.
Now it really doesn't matter other than from a mostly aesthetic point of view but it might be something too look closer at for future games and expansions imo.


I'd say that all projections offends the eye and the brain. But we can't have a spherical representation so why forcibly stick with one projection having one good property but lacking others?

The current map is not an oversight. It has evolved to try and best suite both gameplay elements and engine limitations. I take it you want a conformal projection implemented, you being hung up on sailing north from Japan to Hawaii? That would inevitably mean distorted relative sizes for different latitudes even more so than currently, not to mention distances which would be a bad design decision for this type of game. So let's say they shift the American continent down again. Then you suddenly have a lot of wasted map area/provinces in northern Canada/Alaska, as well as the southern Atlantic, Indian ocean and the Pacific. How is that the better design?

Now, if some capital or island is in the completely wrong relative position, say Warsaw being in Ukraine or Guadacanal being closer to Hawaii than Australia, they should totally be fixed. But talking about angles, areas and distances not being right is just not sensible in a projection context. Having for example a Mercator projection would suck something tremendously size and distance-wise.

I don't think that's a good argument. Making a proper world map takes time and money therefore a game company shouldn't do it. Of course it takes time and money but they are gonna sell the product aren't they?

What do you mean by 'proper world map'? An equi-distant projection? Conformal? All projections are distorted and made to cater to some specific needs like angles or relative sizes. PDS have made a decision to employ a custom square projection which takes individual elements and some artistic freedom of what benefits the game best both performance and gameplay wise. I have yet to see a good game-related argument for forcing a real projection, let alone wasting resources on it as a developer.

Projections are not a 'make it good or make it bad' kind of deal, and there's a reason for there being a multitude of map projections out there. It's full of unavoidable compromises and it would make no sense to just pick one real projection because of the misplaced notion that it is 'truer'.
 
When your required to make money on a product to stay open, and this is not a required feature that would take (the developer team of 3 at the time) hundreds or thousands of hours to complete something that isn't important to the actual product then said feature is not implemented in said product.

Whether it is required or not is a philosophical question. The whole continent of South America is arguably not required either but most people would oppose its exclusion. It's a matter of where one draws the line. I, for one, would prefer a proper Miller projection world map.

Implementing this feature would not increase sales, would not add anything to the game, and would be a time sink, therefore is would be under the "Nice to have" or "Not Needed" group of features for a product during planning.

Implementing only features that increase sales is a slippery slope and I have a hard time believing that this is what a fan base really want. This notion is what has led contemporary game producers to spend 50% of their budgets on marketing and 20% on post-release DLCs.

What do you mean by 'proper world map'? An equi-distant projection? Conformal? All projections are distorted and made to cater to some specific needs like angles or relative sizes. PDS have made a decision to employ a custom square projection which takes individual elements and some artistic freedom of what benefits the game best both performance and gameplay wise. I have yet to see a good game-related argument for forcing a real projection, let alone wasting resources on it as a developer.

A proper world map is a map that reflects a certain projection well.
 
Last edited:
I'm fine with it. Though, having Brazil closer to Africa could make it easier to block that 'strait' (depending on how seazones are placed).
 
Whether it is required or not is a philosophical question. The whole continent of South America is arguably not required either but most people would oppose its exclusion. It's a matter of where one draws the line. I, for one, would prefer a proper Miller projection world map.

Implementing only features that increase sales is a slippery slope and I have a hard time believing that this is what a fan base really want. This notion is what has led contemporary game producers to spend 50% of their budgets on marketing and 20% on post-release DLCs.

A proper world map is a map that reflects a certain projection well.

It's not a philosophical question in terms of gameplay and development time needed.

I never said they only add features which increase sales, that is not something we think about as developers. It however doesn't add anything to the game by doing it AND doesn't increase sales by doing it, so it won't be done.

A good example:
Custom Ruler creator in CK2. Does nothing for the game, but increases sales for people who want to establish their own custom lineage through the ages.
 
It's not a philosophical question in terms of gameplay and development time needed.

I never said they only add features which increase sales, that is not something we think about as developers. It however doesn't add anything to the game by doing it AND doesn't increase sales by doing it, so it won't be done.

A good example:
Custom Ruler creator in CK2. Does nothing for the game, but increases sales for people who want to establish their own custom lineage through the ages.

Reflecting a particular map projection properly adds something to the game. Again, I'd like to use South America as an example. Does South America really add something to the game? The developers would surely save tons of time and money by just excluding it so why have South America?
 
Reflecting a particular map projection properly adds something to the game. Again, I'd like to use South America as an example. Does South America really add something to the game? The developers would surely save tons of time and money by just excluding it so why have South America?

What does it add besides a more realistic map... which would be wrong in itself because it's not a 3D Round globe.

1. South America provides resources, and a bridge to invading North America.
2. You would still need to develop and design the provinces to take the spot South America was in (unless there is a blackhole... which is even wierder???)
3. It would provide a shorter route to trade with Asia from Germany/UK instead of around South Africa and would be pretty much impossible to stop german convoys given the huge amount of space available.
4. Argentina and Brazil were pretty close to joining the Axis, as Germany was their largest trading partner before WWII. You can actually get them into the Axis and provide a pretty big distraction to the US with basing subs there.
 
Whether it is required or not is a philosophical question. The whole continent of South America is arguably not required either but most people would oppose its exclusion. It's a matter of where one draws the line. I, for one, would prefer a proper Miller projection world map.

Now that's a rather silly example. The only omitted land is the wastelands of northern Canada, Siberia and Alaska. South America can hardly be compared to that. Why is a proper Miller projection, since its neither equal-area, equidistant, conformal, nor perspective, something you'd still prefer? This 'proper' projection makes no considerations as to required gameplay or game engine properties, but luckily it can be tweaked into a custom projection well suited for the game's needs.


A proper world map is a map that reflects a certain projection well.

And again, what are the arguments for this being better than a custom projection? What are the negative game-play implications? Surely your argument can't solely be that the game doesn't use a real projection, because that holds next to no value in itself. It's still only a projection, and we're not going to navigate the sea via compass or survey areas in the game, so for example conformal or equal-area projections have no value beyond some purist notion. The current projection for one makes very reasonable concessions to allow for more provinces where they are warranted, in a ww2 context without affecting performance. It also allows greater detail in areas where unit overview would have otherwise been a quagmire, all without affecting actual unit travel distance more than otherwise.

A real Miller cylindrical projection would still have weird areas. A Gall-Peters would still have weird shapes. An equirectangular projection would still be weird in both regards. A non-rectangular such as a Dymaxion or Butterfly would still be sectional and require units teleporting from one edge to the other when moving.

There is just no point in adhering to any one true projection when game-play and game engine factors have to be considered. But i'm sure modders will make good efforts in trying to create nicer maps, and i'll do nothing but encourage them to do so.
 
There is no such thing as a projection that works well over the whole globe. Projections are flat and the globe very clearly isn't. The map has always looked weird to me but I've grown up on US maps with US-centric projections that don't make a lot of sense for a war primarily fought in Europe, Asia, and Africa.
 
Now that's a rather silly example. The only omitted land is the wastelands of northern Canada, Siberia and Alaska. South America can hardly be compared to that.

Your right, because South America was in fact even less important then areas that aren't even on the map!

We can't even initiate Operation Zitronella or Operation Wunderland. There no Northern Trace. You call them wastelands yet they had important parts of the war.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Status
Not open for further replies.