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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
In the north american context, seas freezing over and icebergs are very relevent. (He says in Newfoundland). That being said, I feel that it all should (and could) be included with more dangerous, variable, and realistic weather. Something I would like to see. As for Antarctica... I am not convinced.. Maybe I am neutral, yes.
Explain to me one plausible wartime scenario involving Antarctica. No, satellite tracking facilities to communicate with the Nazi Moon Base don't count as plausible.
Explain to me one plausible wartime scenario involving Antarctica. No, satellite tracking facilities to communicate with the Nazi Moon Base don't count as plausible.
Explain to me a plausible wartime scenario involving the middle of Sahara or the brazzilian rainforest or... There are alot of theaters in game with very small chances of seeing action, But this doesnt mean they shouldn't be there.
By your logic we should just have a map of europe with surroundings (eastfront & north africa) + another map of asia/pacific, USA would be entirelly offmap...
I think another reason why we could have use of an extended the map is to allow a Soviet fleet to redeploy from Murmansk to Vladivostok the northern route in summer time.
Explain to me a plausible wartime scenario involving the middle of Sahara or the brazzilian rainforest or... There are alot of theaters in game with very small chances of seeing action, But this doesnt mean they shouldn't be there.
By your logic we should just have a map of europe with surroundings (eastfront & north africa) + another map of asia/pacific, USA would be entirelly offmap...
I think another reason why we could have use of an extended the map is to allow a Soviet fleet to redeploy from Murmansk to Vladivostok the northern route in summer time.
Well, the main problem is of course that the earth is a sphere. With Paradox's chosen map projection higher latitudes would be ridiculously distorted.
Secondly, I don't think there has ever been a surface fleet (only individual ships and they have enough problems) that has traveled the North-East passage even in Summer. With Global Warming it might be possible now or in the future, but certainly not in the 1940s.
To summarise, it would add nothing but complications.
Explain to me a plausible wartime scenario involving the middle of Sahara or the brazzilian rainforest or... There are alot of theaters in game with very small chances of seeing action, But this doesnt mean they shouldn't be there.
By your logic we should just have a map of europe with surroundings (eastfront & north africa) + another map of asia/pacific, USA would be entirelly offmap...
I think another reason why we could have use of an extended the map is to allow a Soviet fleet to redeploy from Murmansk to Vladivostok the northern route in summer time.
In those places, however (excluding Tibet, Sahara and parts of Siberia), it was possible to wage war on divisional scale. Unless you can prove that it was possible in Antarctica with 1940's infrastructure and equipment, you have no point.
Ah yes, I can already imagine "Secret Nazi Antarctica base" AAR. Also I agree with what some other people said about more unpredictable and dangerous weather, would love to see* thousands and thousands of allied sailors and infantrymen suffering in sudden storm that appeared during D-day (from Nazi weather control machine, maybe ?), and finally beating them off with handful of divisions I have in that area allowing my ubermenschen to advance deeper into Siberia.
*well not really, but I am talking from Hitlers perspective.
What do you think about extending the map? As you know, in HoI2, there are no Antarctica, Northwest/east passage, only the southern part of Alaska is represented and so on. I think it would certainly add much flavour.
I think it would add absolutely nothing to the game. Those parts of the earth played no role in the war, the only interesting thing about them would be if the game was on a globe, not a flat map and would simulate the Cold War too.
I think it would add absolutely nothing to the game. Those parts of the earth played no role in the war, the only interesting thing about them would be if the game was on a globe, not a flat map and would simulate the Cold War too.
Well mt 2 bob is that they should switch to a globe not a flat map that way it wont be distorted and can in have the lot in there artic and antarica( which is only useles becose of everoment protection treatys theres probly shit lodas of oil down there (plus my red army hords can march across the fozzen artci in there swimers to invade the captilist pigs)
Actually you can connect Siberia and North America, for the purposes of bombing missions, without having to deal with the Arctic. Just define an impassable sea province that's adjacent to both northern Canada and northern Siberia.
Agreed. Having a region like parts of the Antarctic Coast included in the map where the value of the provinces to gameplay in vanilla would be marginal at most would be a project more better suited for the developers of a map mod once HoI3 is released.
And I will wager there are already armchair cartographers making plans for such a map mod based on their knowledge of how map modding in EU3 works so that there will likely not be that much of a gap between game release and the rise of new map modding projects. Perhaps some of them will be stimulated by the ideas raised in this thread to include parts of the Antarctic coast in their plans.
In those places, however (excluding Tibet, Sahara and parts of Siberia), it was possible to wage war on divisional scale. Unless you can prove that it was possible in Antarctica with 1940's infrastructure and equipment, you have no point.
Lovely circle argument. The reason that "I have no point" is because you exlude it in your parenthesis -_-
The argument that such continents would be to large also holds no ground. Its easy and fast to compensate for this with a simple algorithm that makes the actual ingame distances shorter closer to the pole even if the provinces "looks" larger. All provinces already have their latitude defined in a 2D coordinate system (that im assuming HoI2 is using to calculate distance) so just a little extra math, no extra data work.
The point is that Tibet and Sahara are included because it doesn't require any additional "real estate" on the screen to include them. They're freebies. In order to include Antarctica you have to modify the projection or accept gross map distortions. It's an aesthetic and workload problem - it takes almost no work to include the Sahara, but a lot of work to include Antarctica.
The point is that Tibet and Sahara are included because it doesn't require any additional "real estate" on the screen to include them. They're freebies. In order to include Antarctica you have to modify the projection or accept gross map distortions. It's an aesthetic and workload problem - it takes almost no work to include the Sahara, but a lot of work to include Antarctica.
I doubt the work to include a few (they will be much larger on the map because of distorition to remain same realistic sizes) would be anything compareable to the work they already put in and will have to put in to complete 10,000provinces. 100 provinces that none of us really care about if they got realistic shape or names, with no ports or values, is no work at all compared too 10,000 provinces that most of us care alot about them getting right.
All the examples of other pointless places exist because a) they are there to fill the space between other important places, and b)there actually was a country there.
I dunno, I just don't see the value of including either pole.
Agreed. Antarctica and the Arctic should stay out. If somebody wants to make one on their own (like the EUIII map without TI) it would be fine. But there is no reason that they should put any effort into Antarctica and the Arctic, considering those areas are completely impossible and would mess up the 2-D map.
I still think we could use a few more degrees of latitude north. Not nessecarilly the poles. But freezing seas and the hazards of northly convoy and invasion routes DID have an impact and should therefor be included. Its the reason UK had to ask Sweden for passage when they wanted to help the Finns in the winter war for example. In HoI2 they can just ship massive troops direclly into finland or land in the northern parts with no worrys.
Right now everything within 2000km from the north pole is excluded, this could be reduced to perhaps 1000km.
