-
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.
XieChengnuo said:
hope Ghana was a great experience for you!
Definitely looking forward to resuming work once you get settled back into your regular routine.
I'd like to make a couple of proposals, and pose a couple of questions which the finished maps on page 1 don't cover fully yet.
Proposal # 1
I propose to add an extra province to the Kansai (Kinki) region of Japan. This would accomplish a few goals:
a)better distribute the populations of the overly stuffed provinces as they exist, and reduce the mind-numblingly large amount of splitting per province that Japan players must face in Revolutions.
b)Bring the # of provinces into line with the other important region of the Japan, the Kanto, which currently has 1 extra province.
c)Help Japan to industrialize more quickly at the appropriate time (states with larger #s of provinces are often best for industrializing in my experience)
Per this map:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Kinki-en.png
I propose to split the region around Osaka off from the rest of the Osaka province as it appears in the Clio design. The southern part would be a separate province, named Wakayama, the chief city today and the name of the clan which controlled much of the area in Premodern Japan. Its also worth pointing out that Osaka was much more directly under the rule of the Bakufu in Edo than the Wakayama domain to the south, which was a fief under a junior branch of the Tokugawa family by the Vic period. The extra province shall be obtained by merging the nearly useless Canadian provinces of Arviat and Baker Lake (1 province of a 1k inuit POP makes more sense than 2 provinces of 1k Inuits, and the less provinces up there, the better)
Proposal #2
Looking at the China mockup, I do not see this, so I am proposing that the city of Tianjin be split off from its surrounding countryside (and the coast), and made an inland enclave province. First, because of the city's importance as a western treaty port (it was often under foreign control to some degree or other during conflicts between the Qing and the Great Powers). Second, because it seems certain that Foreign defense of the city was primarily ensured by Steamers maintaining the river route between the city and the Yellow sea, rather than by any land road.
Questions:
a) I would like to know if it will be possible to implement the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Mellila in some form.
b)Looking again at the China mockup, am I correct that the small enclaves that appear to be on the map are Port Arthur, Weihaiwei, Qingdao, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Macao?
c)Referencing the list of Carribean islands on P.31 of this thread and Google Earth, I have to question the decisions not to plan to have St Martin or St Barthelemy.
On St. Martin: yes, its true the island is divided. But that is no reason not to include it. Simply use St. Eustatius as planned for the Dutch interest, and give St. Martin to the French. Its a more than acceptable compromise i think.
On St. Barthelemy: the argument i read is that it is 'too small' for the map. From Google Earth, it appears at best barely smaller than St. Eustatius or Heligoland. So by the argument presented, neither of those should really be included either.
Proposal # 1
I propose to add an extra province to the Kansai (Kinki) region of Japan. This would accomplish a few goals:
a)better distribute the populations of the overly stuffed provinces as they exist, and reduce the mind-numblingly large amount of splitting per province that Japan players must face in Revolutions.
b)Bring the # of provinces into line with the other important region of the Japan, the Kanto, which currently has 1 extra province.
c)Help Japan to industrialize more quickly at the appropriate time (states with larger #s of provinces are often best for industrializing in my experience)
Per this map:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Kinki-en.png
I propose to split the region around Osaka off from the rest of the Osaka province as it appears in the Clio design. The southern part would be a separate province, named Wakayama, the chief city today and the name of the clan which controlled much of the area in Premodern Japan. Its also worth pointing out that Osaka was much more directly under the rule of the Bakufu in Edo than the Wakayama domain to the south, which was a fief under a junior branch of the Tokugawa family by the Vic period. The extra province shall be obtained by merging the nearly useless Canadian provinces of Arviat and Baker Lake (1 province of a 1k inuit POP makes more sense than 2 provinces of 1k Inuits, and the less provinces up there, the better)
Proposal #2
Looking at the China mockup, I do not see this, so I am proposing that the city of Tianjin be split off from its surrounding countryside (and the coast), and made an inland enclave province. First, because of the city's importance as a western treaty port (it was often under foreign control to some degree or other during conflicts between the Qing and the Great Powers). Second, because it seems certain that Foreign defense of the city was primarily ensured by Steamers maintaining the river route between the city and the Yellow sea, rather than by any land road.
Questions:
a) I would like to know if it will be possible to implement the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Mellila in some form.
b)Looking again at the China mockup, am I correct that the small enclaves that appear to be on the map are Port Arthur, Weihaiwei, Qingdao, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Macao?
c)Referencing the list of Carribean islands on P.31 of this thread and Google Earth, I have to question the decisions not to plan to have St Martin or St Barthelemy.
On St. Martin: yes, its true the island is divided. But that is no reason not to include it. Simply use St. Eustatius as planned for the Dutch interest, and give St. Martin to the French. Its a more than acceptable compromise i think.
On St. Barthelemy: the argument i read is that it is 'too small' for the map. From Google Earth, it appears at best barely smaller than St. Eustatius or Heligoland. So by the argument presented, neither of those should really be included either.
IMO, it will be very nice to have St. Barthelemy because it would open an option for historical Swedish colony to exist.Gaius Marius I said:
Also, for the historical accuracy (and simply for fun) I offer to add four famous European mini-states of Andorra, Monaco, San-Marino and Lichtenstein. Or at last the last one as it is more or less important for the possible interesting historical events sequence regarding the unification of Germany and the German-Austrian relations in 1860s.
Gaius Marius I said:
This is a potential idea we can include, though I'd be more inclined to use one of the spare IDs we still have left to do this than merge the Canadian Arctic any further (which might cause issues with province warps)
The current China map is a very rough first step, based on the advice Weijun provided further up the thread. Once Xie returns from Africa and gets settlled back in his normal routine we can start looking further at the China province borders and issues such as Treaty Ports. Currenty we have not planned to have the main Treaty Ports separate provinces except for Shanghai, but depending on how Province ID tags and reworking province boundaries work out, we can potentially revisit the issue.
I would like to, though I'd prefer not to use 2 additional tags - so perhaps a merged province is possible.
That sounds right.
The Caribbean Islands are another area where we'll have to see once Xie gets into the area to see what the potentials will be for depiction of the smaller islands.
If we include St Barts, then it raises the question of includiung Montserrat and Nevis, neither of which are currently in yet had larger populations than St Barts in this period. Again it will depend on how much we'll be able to work with having the nameplates for the small islands. Heligoland could be included because there was nothing else around it to block the nameplate. The Northeastern Caribbean will be in that sense much more crowded. It may still be doable but we'll have to see what Xie says, since he is the person doing the actual graphics.
I'm not opposed to including St Barts, the issue is going to be more one of can it be included in such a way that the overall map in that region is fairly clear for those players who do not have an intimate knowledge of Eastern Caribbean geography.
Herr Doctor said:
The big issues on these microstates is that they really are too for the name of the province to fit. Other than Monaco, all of them are inland, so the use of nameplates is not an option here. Plus, given that there is an absolute upper limit on number of provinces per section, and the high density of provinces in the European section of the map, I'm not sure we'd be able to fit them in.
given the number of tags left, I think it would be more profitable to use them to better improve the geographic rendering of parts of Africa or Latin America than on very small microstates in Europe which most likely would not be separate nations and would be very difficult to click on with a cursor due to their very small size. It would be much better to use that tag to improve depictions of internal borders and better capture the sheer size of the regions in Africa IMHO, especially if this map mod does end up being adopted by VIP where there are a large number of African native states modded in.
Well, the name of the Lichtenstein province would be quite short - Vaduz naturally (as almost all Victoria provinces are named according to the main or capital cities in the area).OHgamer said:
Ah, I see. The very similar matter as was with EUII maps.OHgamer said:
Yes, I agree here fully with you. These small states could add quite nice game flavour to Europe, but not much the issue in fact.OHgamer said:
Anyway, if there ever will be any tag left at last Lichtenstein would be still nice to see in game, considering the interesting complex German-Austrian-Swiss relations around this principality in 1850-1860s.
I just saw your map for the US and I wanted to humbly suggest a couple of name changes for two provinces, one in Iowa and one in Illinois.
1 In Iowa where you currently have the province called Cedar Rapids I would recommend the name of Iowa City. Iowa City was the state capital till it was moved to Des Moines and it is located in that area of the state. Also, beyond being a grain collection and processing center Cedar Rapids is really not that important politically, since Davenport, Dubuque and Iowa City have a bit more pull in that area.
2. In the province of Illinois you have named Peoria I would suggest Rock Island. Rock Island is the point where the first railroad crossed the Mississippi river in 1856 into Iowa at Davenport. Rock Island is where George Weyrhouser began Weyrhouser (SP?) Lumber. Rock Island is the location of one of the most important Arsenals in the US. During the civil war it produced cannon, muskets and ammunition, was a location of a Confederate POW camp. And is still one of the very few remaining manufacturing facilities owned by the US Government. And last but not least, it is the Rock Island of the railroad Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific.
Cheers, Thorgrimm
1 In Iowa where you currently have the province called Cedar Rapids I would recommend the name of Iowa City. Iowa City was the state capital till it was moved to Des Moines and it is located in that area of the state. Also, beyond being a grain collection and processing center Cedar Rapids is really not that important politically, since Davenport, Dubuque and Iowa City have a bit more pull in that area.
2. In the province of Illinois you have named Peoria I would suggest Rock Island. Rock Island is the point where the first railroad crossed the Mississippi river in 1856 into Iowa at Davenport. Rock Island is where George Weyrhouser began Weyrhouser (SP?) Lumber. Rock Island is the location of one of the most important Arsenals in the US. During the civil war it produced cannon, muskets and ammunition, was a location of a Confederate POW camp. And is still one of the very few remaining manufacturing facilities owned by the US Government. And last but not least, it is the Rock Island of the railroad Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific.
Cheers, Thorgrimm
One thing that I'd really like your guys' help on would be to get your constructive feedback on the nameplates, to seee if it's a good idea, and how we can improve it at all.
XieChengnuo said:
Yes this is an important area we need people's opinions on.
So far we have used the nameplates for Heligoland, St Pierre & Miquelon, Penang, Pondicherry, and the various Micronesian islands so far drawn in.
The benefit is that they allow us to depict smaller territories and still allow players something to click on easily with the mouse.
Of course there is the aesthetic question, making it fit with the overall map - to me I don't think they detract from the look of the map at all, but we'd like to hear from others.
OHgamer said:
I think the nameplates are a great idea. They don't distract much and make clicking on the province a lot easier.
But one thing....why did you call Helgoland Heligoland...please leave the "i" out, it looks awful for a German
A minor tweak and a modest proposal for a partial rework of France, Italy and Britain
Mainly to allow representation to be more faithful the farther back in time we go (in three posts).
The part of Kustrin province circled in red could go to Cottbus, so as to give a land border between Silesia and Northern Lusace. Although it would mess up with the modern German-Polish border. Maybe to Breslau then?
Part 1 - Italy
The revisions for Lombardy, in red - a province of Mantova (it was a Habsburg holding before Brescia), a province of Sondrio (part of the Grey Leagues until the Napoleonic conquest), and revised provinces of Bergamo (or Brescie) and Milano corresponding slightly more to the borders between the duchy of Milan and the Terrafirma's backcountry.
In Firefighter-red, a small suggested tweak to Switzerland, giving the Grisons their southwestern appendage.
The Tuscany, in the same color - I'd do away with Grosseto province altogether - the area was mainly the Republic/Duchy of Siena. Similarly, the province of Siena on your map corresponds mostly to a Fiorentine county which name escapes me for now, and Livorno, in the south, goes too far inland (IMHO), hence the border changes. Note that I put the whole principality of Piombino in Siena province (including Elba - the white line is just badly deleted), mainly because of its exclave on the Sienese coastline.
I'm somewhat torn on Sardinia; Europe is already province heavy, however, the island was, prior to the Aragonese conquest, split in four states. While they were mostly in the orbit of Pisa and Genoa, at least one was directly conquered by Aragon, and part of the northern province was under Pisan influence. The red line is a slightly more faithful representation of the provincial division in the Vicky time period. The purple lines are the 13-15th century borders of Sardinia (the western part of the red line overlaps with the border between Sassari and Orestano).
I don't know if you intend to give more than one province to Cyprus, but couldn't Cyprus give one of it's three to Corsica? Corsica was a bit more populated at game start, and could probably deserve a lumber province... Although I must admit that part of me is just asking for it because I'd like to do a counterfactual in which the corsicans managed to finally obtain independence .
Separately, Savoy
For Savoy itself, if you want it split, maybe go along departmental lines - otherwise, it seems to have been a single province in the kingdom of Sardinia (and it might become a single department within our lifetime). And split that way it can also roughly represent (in a game farther back in the past) the ownership of most of the north by the count-bishops of Geneva.
Aosta, at the time, included Biella. The purple border for Novare is roughly the shape of the province in 1815 - the blue section would include the rest of Savoyese Lombardy, but it would make for a weird province, mainly shaped by the Spanish Succession Wars.
The blue line in Turin province roughly represents the border between Cuneo (south) and Turin (north) provinces IRL (at the time Vicky starts) - besides Saluzzo, however, most of the area was fairly continually the principality of Piedmont.
Mainly to allow representation to be more faithful the farther back in time we go (in three posts).
The part of Kustrin province circled in red could go to Cottbus, so as to give a land border between Silesia and Northern Lusace. Although it would mess up with the modern German-Polish border. Maybe to Breslau then?
Part 1 - Italy
The revisions for Lombardy, in red - a province of Mantova (it was a Habsburg holding before Brescia), a province of Sondrio (part of the Grey Leagues until the Napoleonic conquest), and revised provinces of Bergamo (or Brescie) and Milano corresponding slightly more to the borders between the duchy of Milan and the Terrafirma's backcountry.
In Firefighter-red, a small suggested tweak to Switzerland, giving the Grisons their southwestern appendage.
The Tuscany, in the same color - I'd do away with Grosseto province altogether - the area was mainly the Republic/Duchy of Siena. Similarly, the province of Siena on your map corresponds mostly to a Fiorentine county which name escapes me for now, and Livorno, in the south, goes too far inland (IMHO), hence the border changes. Note that I put the whole principality of Piombino in Siena province (including Elba - the white line is just badly deleted), mainly because of its exclave on the Sienese coastline.
I'm somewhat torn on Sardinia; Europe is already province heavy, however, the island was, prior to the Aragonese conquest, split in four states. While they were mostly in the orbit of Pisa and Genoa, at least one was directly conquered by Aragon, and part of the northern province was under Pisan influence. The red line is a slightly more faithful representation of the provincial division in the Vicky time period. The purple lines are the 13-15th century borders of Sardinia (the western part of the red line overlaps with the border between Sassari and Orestano).
I don't know if you intend to give more than one province to Cyprus, but couldn't Cyprus give one of it's three to Corsica? Corsica was a bit more populated at game start, and could probably deserve a lumber province... Although I must admit that part of me is just asking for it because I'd like to do a counterfactual in which the corsicans managed to finally obtain independence
.Separately, Savoy
For Savoy itself, if you want it split, maybe go along departmental lines - otherwise, it seems to have been a single province in the kingdom of Sardinia (and it might become a single department within our lifetime). And split that way it can also roughly represent (in a game farther back in the past) the ownership of most of the north by the count-bishops of Geneva.
Aosta, at the time, included Biella. The purple border for Novare is roughly the shape of the province in 1815 - the blue section would include the rest of Savoyese Lombardy, but it would make for a weird province, mainly shaped by the Spanish Succession Wars.
The blue line in Turin province roughly represents the border between Cuneo (south) and Turin (north) provinces IRL (at the time Vicky starts) - besides Saluzzo, however, most of the area was fairly continually the principality of Piedmont.
Last edited:
derAleks said:I think the nameplates are a great idea. They don't distract much and make clicking on the province a lot easier.
But one thing....why did you call Helgoland Heligoland...please leave the "i" out, it looks awful for a German
Because the map is default Anglophone - hence our use of Prague, Munich, Brussels, Venice etc.
And the name of the island in English is Heligoland.
Divi there are two problems with your suggestions :
First Clio is intended to allow formation of 20th C and modern borders - as we've stated from the beginning our goal is a map that will allow for use in mods for modern day scenarios - this is why Kustrin and Cottbus are the way they are because of the Modern Polish-German border. In questions involving borders, Xie and I from the start have said that after dealing with the borders in the Victoria time period, modern-day borders will be definite borders in game. Borders for earlier time periods that would not be reflected in either 19th C or contemporary borders will only be done via creation of new provinces. Thus rather than giving Cottbus land across the modern Polish border, we would have to create yet another new province east of the Neisse to creat the border you want. giving it to Breslau would be wrong as well, since that area is not historically, to my knowledge, part of Silesia but always a part of Brandenburg. Since there is only one Brandenburg province east of the Oder-Neisse line in our map, Kustrin, the region should I think stay with it.
Second, province density is near max in the Western Part of Europe, and at this point adding more provinces is most likely not possible because there is a hard limit number in a given region of the map.
Some of your ideas for reorganization within modern borders we can consider, but the modern borders will be adhered to and at this point adding even more provinces in Western Europe is not possible until we can get a final count and confirmation with the computer programming that we have not peaked the density in the area.
If it turns out that we still have some room, and free province IDs that can be spared, then we may still consider more tweaks in Europe. However, Xie and I have both agreed that preference will first be given to increasing province allotments to Africa, Asia and Latin America first, to better balance the overall spread of provinces and allow better historical modeling of those regions which, in the current map of Victoria, are not so easy to accomplish (Africa in particular is very difficult to model the pre-imperialist setup of native nations as being developed in VIP, so it is getting a major reworking and increase in provinces). Western Europe, already province rich, is at the bottom of our priorities at the moment in terms of adding further provinces - though rearrangements within exisiting borders is still open for discussion
First Clio is intended to allow formation of 20th C and modern borders - as we've stated from the beginning our goal is a map that will allow for use in mods for modern day scenarios - this is why Kustrin and Cottbus are the way they are because of the Modern Polish-German border. In questions involving borders, Xie and I from the start have said that after dealing with the borders in the Victoria time period, modern-day borders will be definite borders in game. Borders for earlier time periods that would not be reflected in either 19th C or contemporary borders will only be done via creation of new provinces. Thus rather than giving Cottbus land across the modern Polish border, we would have to create yet another new province east of the Neisse to creat the border you want. giving it to Breslau would be wrong as well, since that area is not historically, to my knowledge, part of Silesia but always a part of Brandenburg. Since there is only one Brandenburg province east of the Oder-Neisse line in our map, Kustrin, the region should I think stay with it.
Second, province density is near max in the Western Part of Europe, and at this point adding more provinces is most likely not possible because there is a hard limit number in a given region of the map.
Some of your ideas for reorganization within modern borders we can consider, but the modern borders will be adhered to and at this point adding even more provinces in Western Europe is not possible until we can get a final count and confirmation with the computer programming that we have not peaked the density in the area.
If it turns out that we still have some room, and free province IDs that can be spared, then we may still consider more tweaks in Europe. However, Xie and I have both agreed that preference will first be given to increasing province allotments to Africa, Asia and Latin America first, to better balance the overall spread of provinces and allow better historical modeling of those regions which, in the current map of Victoria, are not so easy to accomplish (Africa in particular is very difficult to model the pre-imperialist setup of native nations as being developed in VIP, so it is getting a major reworking and increase in provinces). Western Europe, already province rich, is at the bottom of our priorities at the moment in terms of adding further provinces - though rearrangements within exisiting borders is still open for discussion
Klar - it wasn't that important, it just seemed weird until I realized the border it was supposed to represent.OHgamer said:
In terms of priority, switching around between Lombardy and Tuscany was probably the most important suggestion I tried to make. The rest were mainly headaches because of the question of province exchanges (and untested effects on eventual game balance - Tuscany was calculated with three province from the get-go, even with the resulting mistake in geography and population it produced in vanilla). The few suggestions on France and Britain will have absolutely no new provinces.
Divi said:
Actually I like your points about Tuscany and if we remove Grosetto we could use that for another area in Italy - splitting Turin (which just seems too big to me) or adding Mantua or a split for Corsica or perhaps another province in S Italy.
And please do post your ideas in other areas for at least the boundary arrangements. England in particular I've been thinking needs to be revised (it was one of the first areas we did and I think we tried to be too similar to the original Victoria map, and I'd rather if possible use more historic English county borders.
2 - Britain
So, first, England and Wales (30 provinces, so about 5.000 sq. km. each, as a rough rule of thumb; there were 52 counties, one of which must be split in at least two, maybe three parts, so about 25 counties must be consolidated - some will be obvious; I don't think I'll show Berwick, we'll just forget it as a province name, the land area that actually changed hand is really a small speck of land north of the... ah, yeah, Tweed)
Some of the provinces are really weird (like Liverpool and Manchester; while the cities are somewhat important, they're also nearly side by side).
Okay.
Here's the revised map - I don't think it looks too inspired, honestly. Some of my changes might be nearly as debatable as the original.
Scotland and Ireland
I switched a province from Ireland to Scotland (in the event of spare tags, maybe the Shetlands could be their own province, given the distance from the mainland).
I hesitated calling the northern province Caithness or Orkney, since neither's county town was very impressive, then as now. I'm not entirely convinced by Dumfries province, but I think it feels better than having the Scottish border fully controlled by a single province.
I realized, while redrawing Ireland, that Kildare wasn't even within the borders of Kildare province, so the province of Kildare now includes it (it's the one in the mid-west of Leinster). I'd retain Londonderry rather than Armagh.
Next - French revision proposals
So, first, England and Wales (30 provinces, so about 5.000 sq. km. each, as a rough rule of thumb; there were 52 counties, one of which must be split in at least two, maybe three parts, so about 25 counties must be consolidated - some will be obvious; I don't think I'll show Berwick, we'll just forget it as a province name, the land area that actually changed hand is really a small speck of land north of the... ah, yeah, Tweed)
Some of the provinces are really weird (like Liverpool and Manchester; while the cities are somewhat important, they're also nearly side by side).
Okay.
Here's the revised map - I don't think it looks too inspired, honestly. Some of my changes might be nearly as debatable as the original.
Scotland and Ireland
I switched a province from Ireland to Scotland (in the event of spare tags, maybe the Shetlands could be their own province, given the distance from the mainland).
I hesitated calling the northern province Caithness or Orkney, since neither's county town was very impressive, then as now. I'm not entirely convinced by Dumfries province, but I think it feels better than having the Scottish border fully controlled by a single province.
I realized, while redrawing Ireland, that Kildare wasn't even within the borders of Kildare province, so the province of Kildare now includes it (it's the one in the mid-west of Leinster). I'd retain Londonderry rather than Armagh.
Next - French revision proposals
Last edited:
Rule of thumb is that the more provinces a state will have, the more of an industrial base it can develop by drawing on larger number of POP groups in each province.
England thus needs to be more provinces in the North, not fewer, to better emulate the rapid industrialization in the North of England. Southwest England, on the other hand, should have not as many since it was much less industrialized. Lancashire should be 2 provinces - Liverpool and Manchester - not having a Liverpool province would be a crime for this period, since it was THE major UK port of the period, while Manchester was the fastest growing center of urbanization in the period. Combine those with a Carlisle province as well for the rural north of Lancashire.
I'm also thinking of reworking Yorkshire into three provinces so that the industrial expansion in the Northeast can also be better illustrated : Provinces centered on Sheffield, Leeds and Hull
Similarly, Ulster having 3 allows it to be more of an industrial center (and it was the industrial center of Ireland in this period). So Ulster should stay at 3 provinces, not drop to 2.
Splitting off Argyll as a separate province in Scotland, at the expense of Dundee, seems wrong for the 19th C - Dundee would have been of more economic importance as a province center than the Argyll region. Same with having a separate province for the far north of the Highlands, just not making a lot of sense in terms of the economic development of Scotland in the Victoria period (or the 20th C)
And having a single border province in Scotland I think makes more sense. Were Scotland to be played as a separate nation in game, from gameplay POV it makes more sense to have a border province to guard the approaches to the Lowlands than have the ability to march right into Edinburgh.
England thus needs to be more provinces in the North, not fewer, to better emulate the rapid industrialization in the North of England. Southwest England, on the other hand, should have not as many since it was much less industrialized. Lancashire should be 2 provinces - Liverpool and Manchester - not having a Liverpool province would be a crime for this period, since it was THE major UK port of the period, while Manchester was the fastest growing center of urbanization in the period. Combine those with a Carlisle province as well for the rural north of Lancashire.
I'm also thinking of reworking Yorkshire into three provinces so that the industrial expansion in the Northeast can also be better illustrated : Provinces centered on Sheffield, Leeds and Hull
Similarly, Ulster having 3 allows it to be more of an industrial center (and it was the industrial center of Ireland in this period). So Ulster should stay at 3 provinces, not drop to 2.
Splitting off Argyll as a separate province in Scotland, at the expense of Dundee, seems wrong for the 19th C - Dundee would have been of more economic importance as a province center than the Argyll region. Same with having a separate province for the far north of the Highlands, just not making a lot of sense in terms of the economic development of Scotland in the Victoria period (or the 20th C)
And having a single border province in Scotland I think makes more sense. Were Scotland to be played as a separate nation in game, from gameplay POV it makes more sense to have a border province to guard the approaches to the Lowlands than have the ability to march right into Edinburgh.
Last edited:
Ya know, OHgamer, while your focus it to make this map accessible borders-wise to modern day mods, it seems to me that analyzing the requests for changes reveals that more people are actually interested in this map for modding pre-Victorian situations. So, it might be more profitable, and might draw more volunteers once its time to move past the map drawing and into converting all the game files for the new map, to consider things from that pre-1836 view.
OHgamer said:
Did you make a decision yet on the Diu/Damman as part of Goa province idea?