-
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.
Since I have now some time during holidays...
One thing on Finland:
1) We really don't need Kajaani province. I don't know what was the idea with vanilla map. Does anyone know? What's the point adding one backward province with population of 20-30k in 1836? Lose it anyway. There is no need for it.
2) If you really want to add one province to Finland you should consider adding one in western Finland. Either split Vasa province someway or use some of my ideas below with Tampere & Turku province borders.
I don't know what base you used to draw borders in Finland clearly something in 19th century but what's the exact year. I'm only asking since the border between Turku and Tampere provinces were changed several times during game span. (the city of Tampere wasn't even part of Province of Tampere til 1870)
option1:
adding red area (called Tampere, the blue province could be Hämeenlinna) west border drawn according ~1870? border.
Adding slightly more to new Tampere province. West border according 20th century. IMHO best choice.
I don't really like this option but one idea more. Just splitting the Turku Province (red province called Turku rose-Pori)
Some ideas of population of new provinces. options 1/2 starting population 1836: Tampere ~90k, Hämeenlinna ~115k, Turku ~190k.
option 3: Tampere ~140k, Turku, Pori together 250k (maybe split Turku ~140k, Pori ~110k I don't really know)
One thing on Finland:
1) We really don't need Kajaani province. I don't know what was the idea with vanilla map. Does anyone know? What's the point adding one backward province with population of 20-30k in 1836? Lose it anyway. There is no need for it.
2) If you really want to add one province to Finland you should consider adding one in western Finland. Either split Vasa province someway or use some of my ideas below with Tampere & Turku province borders.
I don't know what base you used to draw borders in Finland clearly something in 19th century but what's the exact year. I'm only asking since the border between Turku and Tampere provinces were changed several times during game span. (the city of Tampere wasn't even part of Province of Tampere til 1870)
option1:
adding red area (called Tampere, the blue province could be Hämeenlinna) west border drawn according ~1870? border.
Adding slightly more to new Tampere province. West border according 20th century. IMHO best choice.
I don't really like this option but one idea more. Just splitting the Turku Province (red province called Turku rose-Pori)
Some ideas of population of new provinces. options 1/2 starting population 1836: Tampere ~90k, Hämeenlinna ~115k, Turku ~190k.
option 3: Tampere ~140k, Turku, Pori together 250k (maybe split Turku ~140k, Pori ~110k I don't really know)
Ges,
quite like the idea of replacing Kajaani with a new SW Finland province, you are right about there really not being a need for Kajaani.
I'd probably go with your 20th c map for SW Finland.
quite like the idea of replacing Kajaani with a new SW Finland province, you are right about there really not being a need for Kajaani.
I'd probably go with your 20th c map for SW Finland.
Well, I've been looking through the entire thread, and I noticed that, until now, there were maps proposal/suggestions for Brazil in South America only, plus Mexico when Latin America is considered.
So, knowing that perhaps the team might be up to their ears with work to do, I'll offer my help with South America, as I'am somehow aware of the local historical background. The only thing I need to know is how many provinces were approximatedly allocated to each country in S. America.
Brazil = 66
Argentina = ~60?
Uruguay = 4
Paraguay = ~5?
Chile = ~10?
Bolívia = ~15?
Peru = ~15?
Colombia = ~20?
Venezuela = ~15?
Equador = ~7?
B. Guyana = ~3?
Suriname = ~2?
F. Guyana = ~2?
Which Island there will be?
Curacao, Trinidad Tobago, Falklands,
Nernando de Noronha?, Juán Fernandez?, Marguerita?, Tortuga?, Galápagos?
Thanks!
So, knowing that perhaps the team might be up to their ears with work to do, I'll offer my help with South America, as I'am somehow aware of the local historical background. The only thing I need to know is how many provinces were approximatedly allocated to each country in S. America.
Brazil = 66
Argentina = ~60?
Uruguay = 4
Paraguay = ~5?
Chile = ~10?
Bolívia = ~15?
Peru = ~15?
Colombia = ~20?
Venezuela = ~15?
Equador = ~7?
B. Guyana = ~3?
Suriname = ~2?
F. Guyana = ~2?
Which Island there will be?
Curacao, Trinidad Tobago, Falklands,
Nernando de Noronha?, Juán Fernandez?, Marguerita?, Tortuga?, Galápagos?
Thanks!
Last edited:
This looks like a very interesting project. After reading through all the text, I've a few questions/comments:
Will this be only compatible with Vicky Revolution, or also with the "basic" version of the game? I'm looking forward to buy Revolution anyway, this might trigger it.
Is there a updates map of China yet? Especially for the earlier scenarios, but also later as well, I always had the felling China was "left behind" on Paradox. It's not like China was Top-Rate in 1836 anymore, but China itself still had a production higher than any other country in the world. It was only in the 19th century's end most european countries surpassed it. I just liked to re-play history, kicking british a** in the opium war, let them smoke their poison themselves and invade Britain on time in 1914 I know it's very difficult with the provinces especially at the coast region, and I guess my chinese hasn't improved enough especially to read older maps, but if I can be of any help, I'd like to.
What I also like is the idea of cutting of some of the less important islands, but some still should be included in the game, especially those important for coal refulling... too bad Vicky doesn't have a limiter for ships like HoI had...
Will this be only compatible with Vicky Revolution, or also with the "basic" version of the game? I'm looking forward to buy Revolution anyway, this might trigger it.
Is there a updates map of China yet? Especially for the earlier scenarios, but also later as well, I always had the felling China was "left behind" on Paradox. It's not like China was Top-Rate in 1836 anymore, but China itself still had a production higher than any other country in the world. It was only in the 19th century's end most european countries surpassed it. I just liked to re-play history, kicking british a** in the opium war, let them smoke their poison themselves and invade Britain on time in 1914
I know it's very difficult with the provinces especially at the coast region, and I guess my chinese hasn't improved enough especially to read older maps, but if I can be of any help, I'd like to.What I also like is the idea of cutting of some of the less important islands, but some still should be included in the game, especially those important for coal refulling... too bad Vicky doesn't have a limiter for ships like HoI had...
Brazil = 66
Argentina = ~60?
Uruguay = 4
Paraguay = ~5?
Chile = ~10?
Bolívia = ~15?
Peru = ~15?
Colombia = ~20?
Venezuela = ~15?
Equador = ~7?
B. Guyana = ~3?
Suriname = ~2?
F. Guyana = ~2?
Wich Island there will be?
Curacao, Trinidad Tobago, Falklands,
Nernando de Noronha?, Juán Fernandez?, Marguerita?, Tortuga?, Galápagos?
Thanks!
In vanilla 1836 at least, we have:
Paraguay = 12
Venezuela = 14
Colombia = 22 (inc. 3 for Panama)
Ecuador = 8
Argentina = 58 (inc. Patagonia)
Chile = 15
Peru = 33 (inc. Bolivia)
General Guisan said:This looks like a very interesting project. After reading through all the text, I've a few questions/comments:
Will this be only compatible with Vicky Revolution, or also with the "basic" version of the game? I'm looking forward to buy Revolution anyway, this might trigger it.
Is there a updates map of China yet? Especially for the earlier scenarios, but also later as well, I always had the felling China was "left behind" on Paradox. It's not like China was Top-Rate in 1836 anymore, but China itself still had a production higher than any other country in the world. It was only in the 19th century's end most european countries surpassed it. I just liked to re-play history, kicking british a** in the opium war, let them smoke their poison themselves and invade Britain on time in 1914
What I also like is the idea of cutting of some of the less important islands, but some still should be included in the game, especially those important for coal refulling... too bad Vicky doesn't have a limiter for ships like HoI had...
Yes this map will be for Revolutions only, and provided I can keep up, eventually VIP for Revolutions as well, though the map will first be available for the base Revolutions game, since there will be a lot less rewriting of events needed to get basic Revolutions working.
on china, that is currently being developed, and I do not have maps for that yet. when they become available they will be posted.
on islands, one of the goals with clio is to be as geopolitically accurate as possible. So including St Pierre & Miquelon will give FRA a potenital base in the North Atlantic, while Heligoland under the british became a pawn in the scramble for Africa, Germany trading its claims to Uganda for control of the tiny North Sea island.
Excelent!
IMO it's everything in its right place There are just two suggestions, for gameplay purposes.
Mendoza:
The city of Mendoza and the pass through the Andes was until 1810's Chilean. Chile had to had over the city in exchange for military aid from Argentina in order to finally expel Spanish troops and end their Independence War. Therefore, I strongly suggest that the province which holds the city should shrink, so it would be possible for an human player to 'redraw' original Chilean borders in 1810.
If San Rafael becomes too big, creating that warp problem, there is another suggestion:
Second suggestion, Formosa:
Just would suggest to increase the size from the southern province (where the city of Formosa lies), because the northern province seems to me a bit too big. I say that, because the southern part was once Paraguayan (until 1871), and the part that Paraguay once held was, indeed, a bit larger than what shows the current map suggestion.
About the rest, nothing to add. Great work.
Just a last question, how much provinces?
IMO it's everything in its right place There are just two suggestions, for gameplay purposes.
Mendoza:
The city of Mendoza and the pass through the Andes was until 1810's Chilean. Chile had to had over the city in exchange for military aid from Argentina in order to finally expel Spanish troops and end their Independence War. Therefore, I strongly suggest that the province which holds the city should shrink, so it would be possible for an human player to 'redraw' original Chilean borders in 1810.
If San Rafael becomes too big, creating that warp problem, there is another suggestion:
Second suggestion, Formosa:
Just would suggest to increase the size from the southern province (where the city of Formosa lies), because the northern province seems to me a bit too big. I say that, because the southern part was once Paraguayan (until 1871), and the part that Paraguay once held was, indeed, a bit larger than what shows the current map suggestion.
About the rest, nothing to add. Great work.
Just a last question, how much provinces?
Last edited:
Will see what I can tweak with your suggestions
Currently there are 53 Provinces for Argentina with Clio. Originally ARG had 59 provinces. The main changes are in Patagonia.
Currently there are 53 Provinces for Argentina with Clio. Originally ARG had 59 provinces. The main changes are in Patagonia.
OHgamer said:
Wait just a bit... I've been talking to my father, who actually is Chilean, and it seems that ther are some long disputes for the Patagonia. Seems that we'll have the same poblems we had with Amazonia, ie one or two smaller provinces that correspond to claims both Chile and Argentina had on Patagonia, espcially in the Beagle Strait.
I'll develop a map for this... Just wait a bit before you whip another map.
Patagonia is an messy thing... Like Amazonia, its low populations led to reciprocal claims over the territory. Patagonia, when still under Spanish control, was originally Chilean, totaly, from the Pacific to the Atlantic Coast. But in order to prevent British settlement there, during the 7 Years War, all territiries eastern from Andes were transfered to La Plata, withouth formal demarcation... Now you can imagine what a mess this has become once Chile and La Plata went independent from Spain.
Once Chile ended their independence war, both countries (Chile and Argentina) agreed to divide Patagonia using the Andes as boundary. With this agreement, half of the problem was solved, but not for the godforsaken and barren lands in the Tierra del Fuego.
This tiny piece of land, full of island, were the main target to British and Franch colonial ambitions, as those island controled th acess through the Beagle Channel, Magellan Channel, as well the navigation from the Atlantic into the Pacific. These region was, literally, the gateway to the Pacific. Btoh UK and France intended to build there naval bases. Chilean settlers, which build Fort Bulnes (60km south to Punta Arenas) arrived just one year before France build there a naval base (which they had to give up when Chilean settlement was prooved to be there first).
But this region was not only disputed by colonial powers. There was no agreement between Chile and Argentina about the island. Argentina argued that Chile had no right in having acess to the Atlantic Cost, and vice versa. Although this has been the guiding line in the settling of Patagoinian claims, the island in the Beagle Channel are still disputed between both counties.
For Argentinean Patagonia, there is another modification, as the original colonization in (Argentinean) Patagonia stoped in 1834 on the northen shore from Negro and Limay rivers, I think that the provinces configuration in that state should follow those rivers (blue porvince in the map).
Additional provinces in Patagonia:
Pink = Beagle Channel Islands
Blue = Magellan Channel
Once Chile ended their independence war, both countries (Chile and Argentina) agreed to divide Patagonia using the Andes as boundary. With this agreement, half of the problem was solved, but not for the godforsaken and barren lands in the Tierra del Fuego.
This tiny piece of land, full of island, were the main target to British and Franch colonial ambitions, as those island controled th acess through the Beagle Channel, Magellan Channel, as well the navigation from the Atlantic into the Pacific. These region was, literally, the gateway to the Pacific. Btoh UK and France intended to build there naval bases. Chilean settlers, which build Fort Bulnes (60km south to Punta Arenas) arrived just one year before France build there a naval base (which they had to give up when Chilean settlement was prooved to be there first).
But this region was not only disputed by colonial powers. There was no agreement between Chile and Argentina about the island. Argentina argued that Chile had no right in having acess to the Atlantic Cost, and vice versa. Although this has been the guiding line in the settling of Patagoinian claims, the island in the Beagle Channel are still disputed between both counties.
For Argentinean Patagonia, there is another modification, as the original colonization in (Argentinean) Patagonia stoped in 1834 on the northen shore from Negro and Limay rivers, I think that the provinces configuration in that state should follow those rivers (blue porvince in the map).
Additional provinces in Patagonia:
Pink = Beagle Channel Islands
Blue = Magellan Channel
OK made the suggestions (I think I understood your ideas) in N Argentine Patagonia so that the Rio Negro is the border.
As for the Magellan Straits area, the Beagle Islands are really too small and with too little population to be given separate province status - best to merge with Chilean Tierra del Fuego. As for the Magellan Straits themselves, here is what I was planning for Chile, I think this addresses the issue fine.
As for the Magellan Straits area, the Beagle Islands are really too small and with too little population to be given separate province status - best to merge with Chilean Tierra del Fuego. As for the Magellan Straits themselves, here is what I was planning for Chile, I think this addresses the issue fine.
OHgamer said:OK how about this :
Extends Najaf down to the Saudi border (which in Iraq the Najaf wilaya actually does.)
Kuwait should be smaller towards the Saudi-border. In other words, more land to Saudi-Arabia
Tempelridderen said:Kuwait should be smaller towards the Saudi-border. In other words, more land to Saudi-Arabia
that was just a very very preliminary mockup from a few months back...the subsequent discussion further elaborated on that.
here is how the Fertile Crescent will look (posted this a few pages back, but for the sake of saving people the pain of looking back) :
with a couple slight changes in N Iraq (Mosul having a border with Turkey for ex, as noted in discussion a few pages back).
OHgamer said:OK made the suggestions (I think I understood your ideas) in N Argentine Patagonia so that the Rio Negro is the border.
Actually Rio Negro and Limay were once the border (1834), but not in our days. You should decide between either having Província Río Negro's current borders (slightly north form the Negro River, or creating a smaller version of it.
To keep its current borders and for gameplay purposes, I think there will be needed a third province, Negro River's left bank, which at the start of the GC should already belong to Argentina, while other provinces to the south should have only claim buildings on it.
Suggestion:
Again I think were talking about a province that is going to really be too low population (and really reflecting only an internal administrative change) to really warrant having another province.
Having the border at the Rio Negro does give a nice natural flow to the provincial borders, and since the game does start in 1836 when the whole area was in a degree of flux, it would make more sense I think in this part of the world to use the natural border if we do not want to have the 2 Rio Negro provinces being on both sides of the river as in the original version of Argentina i posted.
Having the border at the Rio Negro does give a nice natural flow to the provincial borders, and since the game does start in 1836 when the whole area was in a degree of flux, it would make more sense I think in this part of the world to use the natural border if we do not want to have the 2 Rio Negro provinces being on both sides of the river as in the original version of Argentina i posted.
About Rio Negro, IMO it's fine. I think it won't change nothing, having or not this small piece of land, while playing.
And now, to finish with the Southern countries in South America, we need just to have a quick look at Uruguay (since Chile is OK IMO).
Uruguay:
I'm almost sure that I did read something about Uruguay would gain 1 more province, so I've done it with 4 provinces.
Note that the green province in the North should have this format, since it was claimed by Brazil, as it belonged to Portuguese America since 1801 (Treaty of Badajoz). When Uruguay went independent (1828), this stripe of land (which corresponds to the Uruguayan Departaments of Artigas and Riviera) was claimed by Brazil until this issue was settled in 1851.
And now, to finish with the Southern countries in South America, we need just to have a quick look at Uruguay (since Chile is OK IMO).
Uruguay:
I'm almost sure that I did read something about Uruguay would gain 1 more province, so I've done it with 4 provinces.
Note that the green province in the North should have this format, since it was claimed by Brazil, as it belonged to Portuguese America since 1801 (Treaty of Badajoz). When Uruguay went independent (1828), this stripe of land (which corresponds to the Uruguayan Departaments of Artigas and Riviera) was claimed by Brazil until this issue was settled in 1851.
Uruguay
i think Montevideo should be kept strictly right along the coast, emphasizes more the internal dynamic between port and countryside that was a constant source of conflict in Uruguayan politics until at least the rise of Jose Battle y Ordonez.
i think Montevideo should be kept strictly right along the coast, emphasizes more the internal dynamic between port and countryside that was a constant source of conflict in Uruguayan politics until at least the rise of Jose Battle y Ordonez.