Will there be an empty americas in the DLC?

[darcnyte54]

I was wondering if the dlc "conquest of paradise" might have no americas. Meaning you can keep traveling west only to find Asia. Another idea i was thinking was to have only a few small islands, a lot more realistic as a colonial nation thinking of expanding. None of these nations assumed
there was an another continent. This would also make going for an expansion idea a lot more risky. I have played a game as castile and just put
everything i had into colonization and basically had the whole Americas to myself. I only did this because I knew there was land. I know that the
dlc somewhat changes that, but I am hoping for a non-existent Americas some of the time.

 

[unmerged(109624)]

I think that would be a cool option.

As it currently stands we all know there is another continent and as such there is a massive rush to get there first.
By having an option or better yet a chance that there is no continent I feel it would add some new fun to the game.
Should be easy to implement as well.

 

[Schmoekoeksklok]

I would assume there's always pretty much the same amount of provinces in the America's.

An option like this would be a lot of fun to play with, but I don't think it would be a good standard setting :d

 

[TheBloke]

Dev comments indicate:

1. There will never be nothing there at all;
2. There will never be more provinces than there are now;
3. There can definitely be fewer provinces.

It's not been explained how much difference and variance there can be between 2 and 3. I'm guessing that they'll never let it become two small, maybe a minimum size of 50%? I think that's what I'd do.

It's fine to have variance between games, and the element of unexpected. But there's also the fact that you won't know until probably 50 years into your game what is there, and it would kind of suck if you want to play a strong colonisation game, and you get a great first 50 years, only to go over there to find nothing more than a couple of palm trees and Tom Hanks with a basketball-face-man.

 

[ggggtotalwarrio]

It's fine to have variance between games, and the element of unexpected. But there's also the fact that you won't know until probably 50 years into your game what is there, and it would kind of suck if you want to play a strong colonisation game, and you get a great first 50 years, only to go over there to find nothing more than a couple of palm trees and Tom Hanks with a basketball-face-man.

WILSON!!!!

(I had to do it)

 

[Nobak]

Dev comments indicate:

1. There will never be nothing there at all;
2. There will never be more provinces than there are now;
3. There can definitely be fewer provinces.

It's not been explained how much difference and variance there can be between 2 and 3. I'm guessing that they'll never let it become two small, maybe a minimum size of 50%? I think that's what I'd do.

It's fine to have variance between games, and the element of unexpected. But there's also the fact that you won't know until probably 50 years into your game what is there, and it would kind of suck if you want to play a strong colonisation game, and you get a great first 50 years, only to go over there to find nothing more than a couple of palm trees and Tom Hanks with a basketball-face-man.

Well, that's the risk/reward of exploring the unknown. I'd find it cool if it were represented to that extent.

 

[GamerKG]

Measurements of the time predicted the size of the Earth correctly, and at least had some sort of prediction for how far away Cathay and Nippon were. The Atlantic Ocean was just thought to be FAR too big to travel across, and the trade winds didn't seem to give an easy way to return to Europe (because they never tried...). I recall that Columbus was willing to bet on the calculations being wrong, and the Atlantic being traversable. Furthermore, his crew consisted of many Muslim & Jewish sailors/leadership who were being expelled due to the Inquisition at the time, so that's where he got a crew willing to go with his crazy idea.

If I were a scholar of that age, I would be willing to bet on SOME land, even infrequent islands, in that giant ocean. Not willing to bet my life or money on it... but I'm not as crazy as Columbus. I think its reasonable that there always be something. There's just no guarantee it is useful.

 

[Pellaken]

This is what Columbus thought he was dealing with

 

[GamerKG]

The scale on those continents is clearly off. Look at the pasted Americas compared to the hand-drawn Eurasia.

 

[darcnyte54]

Even if there are is land there, maybe only a few islands so that a whole 50 years of your game based towards colonizations is not ruined. But I think a full on colonization game is
too powerful in single player. If you can colonize first in single player, the americas are your for the taking, because no country colonizes unless they have the idea and then decide
to go out and spend resources on colonizing. This happening is unlikely as other countries hearing of the land would spend a lot of their resources on colonizations(which is what
actually happened).
No country would spend all of its resources based on an idea that there might be a large amount of land to the west. I think their should be a penalty for doing this, there is a
a likely chance of getting an americas with less than 50% of the current land, a tiny chance of nothing being there, and a small chance of getting the current amount of land.