Well considering the versatility of modding the EU3 engine maps, why not just create a hex based map? 
Of course it would be tedious, but someone is bound to do it.
Of course it would be tedious, but someone is bound to do it.
-
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.
I love the idea of this mod. I hate the idea of adding or subtracting provinces in a given area of the world simply because it was historically important. The whole concept behind Hearts of Iron is that you can change history. Why then would the game map have artificially included or excluded provinces designed to mimic history? You can have a realistic map without artificially adding 20 provinces to a given area.
Just because Tanna Tuva was not an important battlefield in World War II doesn't mean it should be given 1 blob province. On the contrary, the very nature of the game lends itself to having equal sized provinces. For example, what if a HoI game involving Japan saw Japan decide to launch a land assault in East Asia aimed at Russia instead of attacking China? And suppose in this game the front molds itself to a point where Tanna Tuva is the key to the Soviet line. Battles rage back and forth, ultimately deciding Japan's success or failure on the Eastern front.
Now, should that battle in game be regulated to marching a month, reaching Tanna Tuva and then retreating with no org? Should it be reduced to a monolithic slugfest with no thought or strategy, where the Japanese player and Soviet player simply stack as many divisions as possible in this key area in the hopes of eventual victory?
This, of course, is what happens in Hoi2 right now when faced with gigantic out place provinces. An area that wasn't important HISTORICALLY might take on a new emphasis in one of many theoretical game worlds of HoI. With this in mind, the provinces should most definitely be as close in size as feasible to allow for historically alternate scenarios.
I also don't find it a problem having to march through multiple "useless" provinces. Divisions will conquer just as many provinces in the same amount of time. Moving through 5 small provinces takes as much time as moving through 1 large province, and the difficulty of the terrain can easily be modeled by having the small provinces have little infrastructure and harsh terrain in accord with their location (mountains, jungle etc.).
edit: typos
Just because Tanna Tuva was not an important battlefield in World War II doesn't mean it should be given 1 blob province. On the contrary, the very nature of the game lends itself to having equal sized provinces. For example, what if a HoI game involving Japan saw Japan decide to launch a land assault in East Asia aimed at Russia instead of attacking China? And suppose in this game the front molds itself to a point where Tanna Tuva is the key to the Soviet line. Battles rage back and forth, ultimately deciding Japan's success or failure on the Eastern front.
Now, should that battle in game be regulated to marching a month, reaching Tanna Tuva and then retreating with no org? Should it be reduced to a monolithic slugfest with no thought or strategy, where the Japanese player and Soviet player simply stack as many divisions as possible in this key area in the hopes of eventual victory?
This, of course, is what happens in Hoi2 right now when faced with gigantic out place provinces. An area that wasn't important HISTORICALLY might take on a new emphasis in one of many theoretical game worlds of HoI. With this in mind, the provinces should most definitely be as close in size as feasible to allow for historically alternate scenarios.
I also don't find it a problem having to march through multiple "useless" provinces. Divisions will conquer just as many provinces in the same amount of time. Moving through 5 small provinces takes as much time as moving through 1 large province, and the difficulty of the terrain can easily be modeled by having the small provinces have little infrastructure and harsh terrain in accord with their location (mountains, jungle etc.).
edit: typos
6354201 said:
That might be true, but it is also true (and more important IMO) that areas that did see fighting get sufficient provinces. Areas like Belgium, Poland and European Russia (not to mention northern north Africa).
You can argue for more (and better designed) provinces for the RoTW (America for instance needs better provinces), but that shouldn't mean taking away provinces where they're used/needed.
GeneralHannibal said:
I can understand the logic behind giving areas of obvious importance such as Belgium a few additional provinces than they would normally receive. I found the increase in provinces from HoI1 to HoI2 in areas such as Belgium and Northern France to be especially helpful in allowing for more realistic battles and maneuvers.
Having said that, this shouldn't mean that the other "less important" areas should be altogether ignored, for example, Brazil and Persia in their current HoI form. With this in mind, I'd rather have equal province sizes then horribly unequal ones.
6354201 said:
Northern France, Belgium and West Germany
Having thousands of equal province would be the best for simulating a contact line. But for amazonian jungle or Sahara desert, Paradox prefers creating great provinces...it's easier
all right i won't start again about provinces but make the maps shape like it is
not some deformations that even in ww2 did not accured
i mean something like black sea be more on the north than it is making caucasus deformed (georgia smaller than armenia)
texas being almost the size of new mexico
venezuela, columbiand peru deformed
argentina made dull brasil stiff
egypt being tinier than it is in rl between lybia and sudan
mecodonia being awful mention to yugoslavias geography
bangladesh & neighbourhood being smaller than birma
south vietnam being bigger than thailand
feyzabad region being so miraculosly fat it took half of tadjikistan only to mark there was a small tiny microscopic valley connection with china
and the primorsky krai being soviet macedonia
even in 1ww were better maps!
not some deformations that even in ww2 did not accured
i mean something like black sea be more on the north than it is making caucasus deformed (georgia smaller than armenia)
texas being almost the size of new mexico
venezuela, columbiand peru deformed
argentina made dull brasil stiff
egypt being tinier than it is in rl between lybia and sudan
mecodonia being awful mention to yugoslavias geography
bangladesh & neighbourhood being smaller than birma
south vietnam being bigger than thailand
feyzabad region being so miraculosly fat it took half of tadjikistan only to mark there was a small tiny microscopic valley connection with china
and the primorsky krai being soviet macedonia
even in 1ww were better maps!
Last edited: