I think the next generation of paradox games will have a globe, would make EU feel especially epic.
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?
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.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: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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
A proper world map is a map that reflects a certain projection well.
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.