The map is pretty, but is my computer going to be able to run it? I hope we can turn off those trees and shadows and things.
There is no reason not to correct Algarve (and possibly others to, but I can't think of other examples).Maps looks great, graphics wise. But I feel that the historical borders vs gameplay argument is a bit forced. Historicalish borders are perfectly possible if you refrain from implementing weird, distracting shapes and if you don't increase connections between provinces. I hope Paradox would accept communty input on minor map improvents such as names, captiols and maybe shapes if they don't change balance. And if not there's always modding.
Maps looks great, graphics wise. But I feel that the historical borders vs gameplay argument is a bit forced. Historicalish borders are perfectly possible if you refrain from implementing weird, distracting shapes and if you don't increase connections between provinces. I hope Paradox would accept communty input on minor map improvents such as names, captiols and maybe shapes if they don't change balance. And if not there's always modding.
Like what, too small?Province sizes matter quite a lot though. Small border adjustments are usually fine.. but the proposals for Algarve we've seen are usually breaking a few rules.
The map is pretty, but is my computer going to be able to run it? I hope we can turn off those trees and shadows and things.
Also, it looks as if a lot more of Western Siberia and the Nevada/Colorado area is now playable
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but that is not the EU4 map, it is EU3 overlay they probably posted for future comparison.
Vic 2 uses a so called Miller projection of the Earth. HoI3 and I bet Eu3 too uses one that enlarges the Norther hemisphere and shrinks the southern.
So the map is more accurate. Except for Kamchatka, GIS software are notoriously bad at projecting the sides of the map...