The provinces are too different in size; maybe you should cut provinces like Namakzar e Shahdad in half.
-
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.
Mjaaa... The whole place is inaccessible desert. Should have 0 infra in 1936, max 10-20 today. It's not like you're gonna send troops into that province unless you are very desperate.
What about making smaller "urban" provinces for all cities that had more than lets say a population of 500 000 in 40s (evt. 50s)? That would be cool
Here are those in the US be 1940 with a population over 500 000:
1 New York city, NY ...... 7,454,995
2 Chicago city, IL......... 3,396,808
3 Philadelphia city, PA.... 1,931,334
4 Detroit city, MI......... 1,623,452
5 Los Angeles city, CA..... 1,504,277
6 Cleveland city, OH....... 878,336
7 Baltimore city, MD....... 859,100
8 St. Louis city, MO....... 816,048
9 Boston city, MA.......... 770,816
10 Pittsburgh city, PA...... 671,659
11 Washington city, DC...... 663,091
12 San Francisco city, CA... 634,536
13 Milwaukee city, WI....... 587,472
14 Buffalo city, NY......... 575,901
Here are those in Japan by 1940:
1 TOKYO ......6,779
2 OSAKA ......3,252
3 NAGOYA ......1,328
4 KYOTO ......1,090
5 YOKOHAMA ......968
6 KOBE NA ......967
Some in Latin America by 1950:
Bogotá .........647,429
Buenos Aires ....4,622,959
Caracas ..........683,659
Lima .................645,172
Mexico City ....3,145,351
Rio de Janeiro ....2,885,165
Santiago ..........1,509,169
São Paulo ..........2,333,346
Here are those in the US be 1940 with a population over 500 000:
1 New York city, NY ...... 7,454,995
2 Chicago city, IL......... 3,396,808
3 Philadelphia city, PA.... 1,931,334
4 Detroit city, MI......... 1,623,452
5 Los Angeles city, CA..... 1,504,277
6 Cleveland city, OH....... 878,336
7 Baltimore city, MD....... 859,100
8 St. Louis city, MO....... 816,048
9 Boston city, MA.......... 770,816
10 Pittsburgh city, PA...... 671,659
11 Washington city, DC...... 663,091
12 San Francisco city, CA... 634,536
13 Milwaukee city, WI....... 587,472
14 Buffalo city, NY......... 575,901
Here are those in Japan by 1940:
1 TOKYO ......6,779
2 OSAKA ......3,252
3 NAGOYA ......1,328
4 KYOTO ......1,090
5 YOKOHAMA ......968
6 KOBE NA ......967
Some in Latin America by 1950:
Bogotá .........647,429
Buenos Aires ....4,622,959
Caracas ..........683,659
Lima .................645,172
Mexico City ....3,145,351
Rio de Janeiro ....2,885,165
Santiago ..........1,509,169
São Paulo ..........2,333,346
Map for Pakistan. Names should be checked, maybe some of them were named differently in 1936.
A population of 100 000-150 000 thousand in Rawalpindi does not deserve an urban province, does it? I know Islamabad is nearby but it did not have more than a population of 95 thousand in 1951 either.
The terrain looks good but i feel things may get confusing when theres unit sprites and building images up on screen too. You may not see much in fact.
I could increase the transpareny of the terrain layer so it will not look extremly like a terrain map.
While I like the look of the terrain map I think it tends to muddle the colours too much, so unless you can tone it down a whole lot I'd say plain.
Here you can see which area my map will cover. The southern tip of South America and New Zealand are not in the frame. I already have asked lennartos to increase the map dimensions...
Europe 1949:
in 1949 the 'Trient' province (at least a part of it) should be owned by Free Territory Of Trieste (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_territory_of_trieste)..and the province of 'piran' should be named 'koper' (piran is a small city, koper is a big port for adriatic)
anyway very good work!