-
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.
Wow, well done! This looks so much better!Some feedback about the map:
1. To ensure that the land does not look as a floating paper over a distant plane of water, and ultimately so that they do not appear as differentiated entities, I would do the following:
- Draw the border with water, as a thin dark line in the land part of the limit (keep the colored border of the country color as it is, just to clarify).
- Replace the dark thick extended hatch, for a lighter blue thin shorter hatch at the coast in the water part of the limit.
- Slightly reflect the shallow coast, basins and deeps using lighter or darker water color.
This way, water and land look both as a unit map, not either floating over the other. The original is too much "float". Likewise, it improves visibility of small islands as i.e. the Aegean ones and takes advantage of the granularity of the map.
2. Furthermore, I would do the same operation in lakes, with the addition of also drawing the colored border of the country color as is seen in the border with impassable terrain. Right now, borders with lakes do not have any accentuation color of the respective country.
3. And finally, about water provinces shapes, I would make them all straight. I beg you Johan. I find it bad mixing curved and straight lines.
I have drawn a sketch of all this, and I leave down here the original and suggested map to compare.
And lastly, a question if it can be answered; could we get a toggle to reflect slightly drawn borders of locations? Not only provinces, that I suppose are those present right now I can see in the map. I love the granularity seen in TT#4 and would love to slightly see the locations borders when at this zoom level.
The suggested map already feels to me way more granular, and of a bigger scale, just by removing the "float" effect. And those all straight sea lines are just pleasing after seeing the mixing of curved and straight in the original map.
- 4
If it doesn't look similar at launch, you should make a mod for sure.
- 6
- 1
The map looks great, like a nice balance between Imperator and CK3. Without going into details and droping some nitpicks, why the slime green for Croatia again? And an even bigger shame that Republic of Ragusa/Dubrovnik isn't visible as a separate tag, was always an interesting position to play a small but tall republic surrounded by bigger powers. Anyway, nice to see the *new game* going into more detail with it's representation.
- 2
Damn! Your map edit is great! (apart from dirty colours like Mameluk vomit but that's not your fault)
- 2
I think we're right before Georgia starts getting completely obliterated by history. Like last great monarch before everything falls apart sort of late.
I wonder if we'll get a repeat of the Imperator Armenia thing. But this time with the Georgian government.
It would be easy for modding it.
And there would definitely be some mods for this.
I dislike the color for egypt in EUIV because it hurts my eyes biologically.
Anyway, the color for Mamluk is indeed kinda weird for me.
- 1
i like the blue Wallachia, and i have to agree on the fact that Mamluks and Bulgaria color better be changed
- 1
Map looks so good. I can only approve of what appears to be mountain range wastelands.
My only real gripe here is the anachronistic name of the Eastern Roman Empire...
- 4
- 2
- 2
- 1
I would prefer impassable lands to disappear when zooming out to a certain level. Current map looks not very neat
Last edited:
I am defiantly preferring the irregular convex polygons over the curves.Some feedback about the map:
1. To ensure that the land does not look as a floating paper over a distant plane of water, and ultimately so that they do not appear as differentiated entities, I would do the following:
- Draw the border with water, as a thin dark line in the land part of the limit (keep the colored border of the country color as it is, just to clarify).
- Replace the dark thick extended hatch, for a lighter blue thin shorter hatch at the coast in the water part of the limit.
- Slightly reflect the shallow coast, basins and deeps using lighter or darker water color.
This way, water and land look both as a unit map, not either floating over the other. The original is too much "float". Likewise, it improves visibility of small islands as i.e. the Aegean ones and takes advantage of the granularity of the map.
2. Furthermore, I would do the same operation in lakes, with the addition of also drawing the colored border of the country color as is seen in the border with impassable terrain. Right now, borders with lakes do not have any accentuation color of the respective country.
3. And finally, about water provinces shapes, I would make them all straight. I beg you Johan
I have drawn a sketch of all this, and I leave down here the original and suggested map to compare.
And lastly, a question if it can be answered; could we get a toggle to reflect slightly drawn borders of locations? Not only provinces, that I suppose are those present right now I can see in the map. I love the granularity seen in TT#4 and would love to slightly see the locations borders when at this zoom level.
The suggested map already feels to me way more granular, and of a bigger scale, just by removing the "float" effect. And those all straight sea lines are just pleasing after seeing the mixing of curved and straight in the original map.
- 4
Aren't there quite a few difficult to pass straights in this area ? Shouldn't those be represented visually different from other sea tiles ??
Why choose this horrible color for Bulgaria? will be confused with the color of the ottomans in middle game
- 1
- 1
- 1
I see a Theodoro! Will its' inhabitants be majority Greek or Goths? Will the Goths be part of Byzantine culture group or something separate? (Will Kejsarprojektet even have culture groups in the same sense as EU4/CK3 wherein cultures that are linguistically/geographically/historically close receiving more acceptance towards eachother?)
I am curious about the name though, is it set in stone for it to be named Theodoro? Seeing as how the city itself was named Theodoro/Doros, the rulers of that city (also the rulers of the area around it) used the title Lord of Theodoro, first attested 1361/1362 AD, which is still a while away from the game start. Whereas the title of Prince of Gothia was attested about 30 years earlier during the reign of emperor Andronikos III (that's the guy who rules the Roman Empire at game start, for a few more years, at least, until he gets deposed via civil war).
It would therefore be more period-appropriate for the realm to be known as Gothia. In addition to this, the rulers of the city were ALSO the same people who ruled the area around the city and would likely elevate their title to represent that. A Prince of Gothia would definitely take precedence in title over the Lord of the city of Doros, a title which would be included within but not elevated above the Principality itself. In conclusion, the location/province itself should of course remain named Theodoro, but the Gothic realm that rules over it at the game start should be named Gothia. (Furthermore, I consider that Gothia must be restored)
Bouncing off of that, how will province/location naming work? Will it be dependent on the culture of the owner of the location, or the majority culture of said location?
Also also, will Gothia's tributary status to the Golden Horde be portrayed in-game? Will it work similarly to CK2 or EU4's tributary system?
I have several other questions about these possibly-Ostrogoth/Greuthungi-descended lads, but I shall put them on hold until a later date when more might've been revealed via futuredev diaries Tinto Talks.
I am curious about the name though, is it set in stone for it to be named Theodoro? Seeing as how the city itself was named Theodoro/Doros, the rulers of that city (also the rulers of the area around it) used the title Lord of Theodoro, first attested 1361/1362 AD, which is still a while away from the game start. Whereas the title of Prince of Gothia was attested about 30 years earlier during the reign of emperor Andronikos III (that's the guy who rules the Roman Empire at game start, for a few more years, at least, until he gets deposed via civil war).
It would therefore be more period-appropriate for the realm to be known as Gothia. In addition to this, the rulers of the city were ALSO the same people who ruled the area around the city and would likely elevate their title to represent that. A Prince of Gothia would definitely take precedence in title over the Lord of the city of Doros, a title which would be included within but not elevated above the Principality itself. In conclusion, the location/province itself should of course remain named Theodoro, but the Gothic realm that rules over it at the game start should be named Gothia. (Furthermore, I consider that Gothia must be restored)
Bouncing off of that, how will province/location naming work? Will it be dependent on the culture of the owner of the location, or the majority culture of said location?
Also also, will Gothia's tributary status to the Golden Horde be portrayed in-game? Will it work similarly to CK2 or EU4's tributary system?
I have several other questions about these possibly-Ostrogoth/Greuthungi-descended lads, but I shall put them on hold until a later date when more might've been revealed via future
Last edited:
- 1