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)

 

[SFSLovenought]

While in truth Sri-lanka is the size of the iberian peninsula.

Wow, really?

 

[Woifee]

Somewhere I have read going to colonizze is mostly a social and economical issue. You need a stable government and a functioning state. One reason the germans in RL started that late.

 

[TheDungen]

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.

Did you even read my post, I already pointed out the limitations of mercartors projection. That's why I used satelite images rather than a map. And no it doesn't make the discussion pointless we should have a realistic sized africa it's just impossible to represent a (kind iof) sphere accuratly on a flat surface, as I again already pointed out. Which is why we won't have a perfect representation this time around building a map in a sphere would draw massive amounts of computing power and is probably best left for EU5 (or even 6). But wanting the numbers behind the scene to add up, which is what I asked for, is very possible. Also having a bit more realistically sized oceans would be nice, but again they've already said they won't as I recognize in the first post. I can keep nagging but it's really not what this post is about.

 

[TheDungen]

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.

The bolded part is probably a lot more important than the range itself like I said it's negliable even compared to the direct distance between europe and the americas, even more so compared to the path length of the actual searoutes.
Also you forgot the strait of Öresund. Would've made it a bitch to colonise for anyone inside of it until the sound toll was lifted.

And not every european power should be able to be the first colonizer. Or even an early coloniser. Riga or Cyprus for an example probably wouldn't. But one of the italians, the hansa, or sweden shouldn't be at that much of a disadvatantage compared to the iberians and the brittish isles.

 

[Ilightmaster]

Did you even read my post, I already pointed out the limitations of mercartors projection. That's why I used satelite images rather than a map. And no it doesn't make the discussion pointless we should have a realistic sized africa it's just impossible to represent a (kind iof) sphere accuratly on a flat surface, as I again already pointed out. Which is why we won't have a perfect representation this time around building a map in a sphere would draw massive amounts of computing power and is probably best left for EU5 (or even 6). But wanting the numbers behind the scene to add up, which is what I asked for, is very possible. Also having a bit more realistically sized oceans would be nice, but again they've already said they won't as I recognize in the first post. I can keep nagging but it's really not what this post is about.

I really didn't want to make you mad. I also like to see more information in tooltips but what i wanted to say (when i said it was pointless), was about the realistic discussion around the game. All of the rest is pretty interesting for me.

 

[Heinrikr]

Wow, really?

hmm... According to Wikipedia, Spain alone is 505,900 km2 and sri lanka is only 65,600 km2... That is suspicious. What sorcery is this?

 

[TheDungen]

hmm... According to Wikipedia, Spain alone is 505,900 km2 and sri lanka is only 65,600 km2... That is suspicious. What sorcery is this?

huh? Well I only compared them on same scale satelite images but still...

Yeah re measuring I see that while they have the same hight the iberian peninsula is much wider. But ten times still seems kind of much.

Well let me put it this way instead you can fit the iberian peninsula more than four times in the democratic republic of kongo.