The new map looks like kiddie's doodle

[steveh11]

Who plays on the political mapmode?????

Everyone i know that plays EU

Who doesn't??

Indeed! I don't know what kind of sick mind would play in other mapmode.

Who plays on terrain mapmode? You can hardly see anything there, everything is green and you have to look for those tiny borderlines...
I don't understand why that mapmode is default or even why is it in game...

The only time I leave political mapmode is to use the informational mapmodes (religion, culture, etc.) to look something up.

Same here. The political map mode IS the game. If it doesn't look good, the whole game doesn't.

I mostly pay in terrain.

Sorry Johan, the question that came instantly to my mind was not "Why???" but "HOW???" - the terrain mode just doesn't give me the information I want in a readily accessible form.
If I want the terrain info, I'll briefly flip over to it - but what I want to see is which provinces belong to or are occupied by which countries. Terrain mode looks pretty - but even with the fancy new borders in CK2 (or as shown on the EU4 screenshots) I find it much more difficult to read that info.

 

[steveh11]

The only current Paradox game whose terrain mode I actually like is HoI3, because it's colour-coded just like all the other mapmodes.

Yes, but THAT only occurred after many folk (including me) asked for the simpler terrain map.

(Even then I mostly play HOI3 in political mode, so I can more easily see where to encircle - or avoid encirclement myself. But that's OT.)

 

[RhoDaZZ]

Whether one plays in terrain or political, as long as there is a political mode, shouldn't it should be nice on the eyes as well?

It's a matter of taste of course, but in my view (again) the transparency of the colours on the map is the issue here.

Compare a very early development version of CKII (character selection):

Spoiler

CK II 1.092 (in game):

Spoiler

And then EUIV in political map mode (in game):

Spoiler

Obviously EUIV is not quite comparable to the first screenshot, but imo it still has a long way to go in terms of the harshness of the colour and terrain over CKII as it is now.

 

[unmerged(46341)]

Of those three, the first one is by far the best. There's so many lumps and mountains on junk on the last one that it totally defeats the practical purpose of even having them on the political map. Its just ugly.

 

[Chieron]

Of those three, the first one is by far the best. There's so many lumps and mountains on junk on the last one that it totally defeats the practical purpose of even having them on the political map. Its just ugly.

The lack of height features helps with the map clarity.. but those colors are garishly bright!
Toning down the height map should go a long way.

For me, the worst offender are the Carpathian mountains, they look completely out of place in either screens. Just some bright and dark spots.

 

[ABookshelf]

Second one definitely the best. Gives a little detail so you don't feel like you're playing a goddamn board game, but on the EU4 map the terrain begins to detract from the political divisions and just makes it look ugly. Especially in the Ottomans. No reason for all that mountain detail to be there it just looks dirty.

 

[Shootandrun]

Personally, the problem I have with EUIV's map is the colors... Everything looks somewhat dark, I guess? It's hard to explain. To put it simply, I wish the color choices were more like CK2 or MotE - brighter and easier to distinguish.

 

[Chieron]

Personally, the problem I have with EUIV's map is the colors... Everything looks somewhat dark, I guess? It's hard to explain. To put it simply, I wish the color choices were more like CK2 or MotE - brighter and easier to distinguish.

Um, the CK2 colors are less bright and saturated than the EU4 ones (see screenshots). Can speak for MotE. But the mountainous countries in EU4 have brighter colors, which makes the map look dirty and even bumpier.

 

[Victor Cortez]

EU4 political map looks perfect. Terrain one might not be useful but looks sexy and will attract new people to the game, I think

 

[Dorevai]

CK2's political color/transparency > EU4's

 

[lullelulle]

Of those three, the first one is by far the best. There's so many lumps and mountains on junk on the last one that it totally defeats the practical purpose of even having them on the political map. Its just ugly.

I agree, the colours looks bad, but that's an easy fix and the EU4 colours are almost as bad.

 

[Goodfortune99]

EU 4's Terrain mapmode is gorgeous but the political mapmode could be a little less mountainy but otherwise good colors.

 

[Darky]

New map looks sexy.

 

[Quintillius]

I use the terrain map when I need to know how the terrain affects the battle. I don't want to send my units to fight on mountains =\.
The colours look too shiny on the new map of EUIV for me. Also the borders are pretty ugly =\ ! The rest (UI) is fairly gorgeous!

 

[Grubnessul]

Yea, it's far too shiny. It could use a lot of watering down.

 

[Darsara]

I don't mind the terrain showing through, but the colours are definitely to bright and sharp. Should really be toned down a bit.

 

[unmerged(79411)]

I'd love to see the borders more clear in terrain mapmode.

It's so beautifull, but I just can 't see who is who in it.

If the borders where really visible, I'd play terrain mode and nothing else.

 

[.badner]

Instead of adding clearer borders to the terrainmode adding terrain to political mapmode (or an own hybridmapmode) could be a solution?

 

[LoftenHenderson]

i think it looks really ugly
id like it to be more CK2 looking

 

[TheLionHeart]

I mostly pay in terrain.

Actually I mostly pay in Euros.