Distances (A look at how the world really looks)

[TheDungen]

Now I get that you don't want 80% of your map to be water, I really do, but even if you decrease the amount of water on the screen the real numbers behind the scenes should work our right. Which means that the distances from point a to point b should be closer to what they are in reality for things like colonial distance (which will be the focuses of this post.

But at the moment eu4 takes all the usual flaws we have with percieving these things (thanks to looking at flat maps and mercato's projection) and dial it up to 11.
Here are some pictures taken on the round globe from google maps.

This is the distance between portugal and brazil. It's more than the full widht of europe (from ireland to the uralic mountains) In game the colonial distance of this seems to be less than the distance between spain and italy.

This is the north atlantic. It shows very well why the first north european colonists. ended up in canada. Because north america is basically facing away from europe.

The distance from poland to canada is less than the distance from portugal to brazil. Now in reality yes the iberians colonised for a long time before anyone else came along, because no one realised the importance of colinisation. But as near omniscient players we have an edvantage that they didn't have in that regard.

Now colonial distances represent more than distances it represents currents, weather patterns suply lines and so on but still the diffrences in colonial distances between diffrent european contries should be smaller.


(also africa and south america should be waaay bigger)

 

[Evie HJ]

Your chart is not actually a valid point, because these are steamships routes - something that's explicitly noted on the map. Steamships are not wind dependent, and a lot less dependent on currents (though still affected by them). Their routes are going to be significantly different from those of sailships.

Likewise, your satellite image are perfectly meaningless, because they completely ignore two extremely important variable in sail navigation: winds and currents. Sailing a shorter route where the winds and currents are going the wrong way may well be slower than sailing a longer route with favorable winds and currents.

The dominant winds along the northern routes blow west-to-east (the so-called "Westerlies". The same goes for the currents. They're great for sailing TO Europe FROM America ; not the other way around. The dominant winds along the southern route blow east-to-west (the Trade Winds), and so do the currents. Great for sailing TO America FROM Europe.

 

[Rygel8472]

...if you look at the pilots chart you notice how there are way more routes up north than down south...

Not sure why the number of trade routes North or South from a 1900's chart for STEAM powered ships is supposed to be relevant to discussion of EUIV trade routes...

 

[shafii777]

Also saw this problem. Totally agree.

 

[TheDungen]

Well I'll be damned you just cant trust google pics any more. You type in sailign charts and it spits out steam charts. I guess I'll just have to hold on to I can pop by my parents house and get to my own maps (which are sailing maps).

And that map is a gross oversimplification the wind patterns change depending on the seasons.

And even f your were completly right the distances outside of europe are still so much greater that the distances inside europe are negliable. The enforced spain and portugal colonised much earlier is still just enforced on the fact that they did in real history, for reasons that had nothing with distances (even path distances) to do.

The reasons spain and portugal were the early colonisers had to do with them investing in that not in that their geographical position was better. In fact the reason could more be said be that their geograpical ability to compete in european politics were limited, being on the least intresting side of one of the two seas that mattered prior to the discovery of the americas. They had reasons to seek out new markets and so they did. But anyone with prior knowledge of the magnitude of what they would find (say a player with the benefit of hindsight) should be able to do the same thing.

 

[TheDungen]

Not sure why the number of trade routes North or South from a 1900's chart for STEAM powered ships is supposed to be relevant to discussion of EUIV trade routes...

Like you'd have noticed if he hadn't pointed it out.

 

[TheDungen]

Also saw this problem. Totally agree.

WQith which side of the discussion, with me or with team status quo.

 

[Rygel8472]

Like you'd have noticed if he hadn't pointed it out.

Well actually, I made the post before 'turning' to the 2nd page of this thread and even saw the other post about steamships. Which made me feel stupid for repeating something that was already pointed out...Though it isn't provable so it is a moot point. *shrugs*

A more reasonable objection that hasn't been raised, is that the map only shows USA import/exports from the matching period. Which may or may not have anything to do with export trends back in the EU periods.

Also, and more significantly. that it ONLY show USA import/exports, so many of the southern trade routes, say Caribbean or south american nations to Europe ARE not shown, and which, being in the SOUTH might reasonably be expected to increase the number of southern trade routes.

 

[Evie HJ]

I'm aware that's a simplified chart (because I wanted to have one that showed winds and currents). However, the westerlies are not quite as variable as you're implying. They strengthen and weaken over the year, but they remain the prevailing wind in those areas year-long.

 

[Heinrikr]

How about just making the practically unsailable seas into permanent "mare incognita" (unkown sea), akin to wasteland sea provinces?

 

[Evie HJ]

That would still require either enlarging the map (which I understand makes it take more time to load, etc) or have smaller and fewer provinces especially in Europe just to accomodate those water areas in a map of the same size.

That's the crux of the problem, really. Is the added geographic realism worth the cost we'd have to pay to get it, given it doesn't add gameplay value? I don't think it does.

 

[Heinrikr]

That would still require either enlarging the map (which I understand makes it take more time to load, etc) or have smaller and fewer provinces especially in Europe just to accomodate those water areas in a map of the same size.

That's the crux of the problem, really. Is the added geographic realism worth the cost we'd have to pay to get it, given it doesn't add gameplay value? I don't think it does.

How taxing on the computer would a larger map be? There are things paradox could do already to make it run smoother, like giving us an option to get rid of the animated water for example.

 

[Evie HJ]

I don't know how much, honestly, but once you start thinking about giving options and things like that- you're talking about Paradox having to do a good deal of work to add empty provinces (on top of having to alter the entire map, which is a lot of work too).

In essence, you're talking about putting a great deal of time (that could instead be spent on patches, new features, etc) on something that doesn't add much to gameplay.

 

[Heinrikr]

I don't know how much, honestly, but once you start thinking about giving options and things like that- you're talking about Paradox having to do a good deal of work to add empty provinces (on top of having to alter the entire map, which is a lot of work too).

In essence, you're talking about putting a great deal of time (that could instead be spent on patches, new features, etc) on something that doesn't add much to gameplay.

It's not as if there is a great deal of detail that needs to be put into making ocean though. I can't imagine it would be too much job to change the water to not be animated either (I think even a few mods do that). Redrawing the whole map with right propoertions and placement though, could take some work of course. This is not a top priority of course.

 

[TheDungen]

How about just making the practically unsailable seas into permanent "mare incognita" (unkown sea), akin to wasteland sea provinces?

Very few seas are completly unsailable, there are seas that you want to stay out of but on the sea everything is malleable. A lot of people have found themselves sailing where they never intended to.
And westerlies or not newfoundland was as the name implies one of the first places to be found on the north american continent. Granted the people who ended up there may not have intended to but they did.

And as for the circle that Guil showed only high pressure weather patterns spin clockwise, low pressure ones spin counter clockwise. It's all depending on the coriolis effect. There are also usually more than one weatherpattern on the atlantic ocean at any given time.

While it may be possible to approximate the smaller weather patterns as one greater it is full well possible to sail west over the north atlantic.

 

[Evie HJ]

I never said it was impossible. In fact, I explicitly said (my first post) that ideally the two routes would be about equal.

It IS possible to sail across the North Atlantic, obviously. What it isn't is FASTER, because the prevailing winds are more favorable along the southern route.

And westerlies or not newfoundland was as the name implies one of the first places to be found on the north american continent. Granted the people who ended up there may not have intended to but they did.

One of the first, but not the first - by the time it was found Columbus had made quite a few journey already.

 

[Heinrikr]

Well, I don't know anything about currents and such, so I'll leave that to you guys. I'd just be happy if they made a correct map and realistic sea currents.

 

[TheDungen]

I never said it was impossible. In fact, I explicitly said (my first post) that ideally the two routes would be about equal.

It IS possible to sail across the North Atlantic, obviously. What it isn't is FASTER, because the prevailing winds are more favorable along the southern route.



One of the first, but not the first - by the time it was found Columbus had made quite a few journey already.

Really? It was found that early? I was always under the impression that by the time mainland north america was found columbus was dead and buried. Yeah I'm not denying that the spanish and portugese were the first colonisers, I just don't like two things

1. that we're railroaded to them being the discoverers of the american continent, it should be possible however hard to beat them to it as a fair few european powers.

2. Quite how good they really are at colonising, they (and everyone who joins in later) colonise everything way faster than they did in reality. Close to the end of the game we're running out of colonizable space, but if you look at the last possible start date there is still plenty uncolonised.

 

[Ilightmaster]

Sorry to interrupt you guys here, but I remember myself reading a post from paradox that talk about realism of the map. I think they are quite aware about what you are talking about but i think they won't change a thing about it. I might be wrong but this was a discussion in the early development stages. And this is what it is now. In fact the "real" map we use to know is also non realistic, for instance Africa is way bigger than europe, and i mean way bigger. Bigger than North America, Canada, Greenland.

Even all of those reunited won't fit in a realisticly sized Africa. So i think your discussion about this Map is somehow pointless. However i have to pretty much agreed on fitted distance in the game.
Whereas i'm more interested in the correction of core distance in the game. Like for instance Jerusalem that cannot be cored from above the tiny lake it had next to it.

 

[Woifee]

One point reminds: How to help other natoins who are not at the west end of europe to colonize. Riga or Austria should also be able to spam the world with their people if they chose to.

 

[Evie HJ]

Whether or not nations not at the west end of Europe could have colonized on a large scale is a good one. The fact is, historically, it didn't happen. That could be because they didn't try, or because they weren't in position to effectively do it. Longer journeys, the fact that their communication with the colonies were a lot more vulnerable to enemies in times of war due to having to sail close to those enemies (having to go through the Channel or Gibraltar to reach your colony would be a serious hurdle).

Making it possible for them to colonize is not a bad idea, but making it as easy for them as the western powerw really is, in my opinion.