Considering getting Arsenal of Democracy since it's on sale for $2.50 right now.
What sets it apart from Darkest Hour?
Considering getting Arsenal of Democracy since it's on sale for $2.50 right now.
Considering getting Arsenal of Democracy since it's on sale for $2.50 right now.
What sets it apart from Darkest Hour?
why did old games make their maps look messed up like this
Hi zoomer! What makes it look messed up to you? Is it the lack of 3d graphics? Or have years of playing HOI4 actually resulted brainrot?
i think it's because the map's borders look drawn from memory
>romania is a circle with a moldovan tumor
>bulgaria is a rectangle
>hungary is a ribeye steak
>belgium is a chicken breast
>albania is like half the size it actually is (for the better maybe)
>the soviet borders in europe are just a straight line up until the baltic
>completely irrelevant, but zagreb is south of the mangled sava river and now in the rough area of karlovac
It's as if someone was told to look at a 1939 atlas and then fill in the countries on a blank and utterly mangled outline of Europe.
You have never looked at a map of Europe before and you’re a complete fricking moron.Borders in real life aren’t straight lines either.
Holy seething boomer lmao
Cope and sneed these maps look like ass
PI only really got their shit together with maps in the last few years. The original CK2 was copied from CK1 and that was itself awful. Hungary used to be a circle that paid no attention to the Carpathians, some rivers or provinces were in completely wrong places (Cologne was on the wrong side of the Rhine), and the course of the Danube looked like the mapper guessed where it was. Later CK2 and EUIV DLCs brought map improvements, but they still look pretty bad. Mods with new maps are essential for both games. Imperator, HoI4, and CK3 are much better in terms of maps, but worse in every other way. PI's UI design is also still awful.
>PI only really got their shit together with maps in the last few years
Vic2's map was their first "good" map back in 2010 (in fact, the way I discovered GSG's was because alternate history autists were using the Canomer so-called "paintable" map to make their autism maps), so I wouldn't say it was in the last few years so much as they figured out what to do and then purposefully didn't do it sometimes anyway for some reason. We can speculate on what those reasons are:
Victoria II:
>accurate map because the first truly accurate maps of Europe were produced during the game's time period
Sengoku:
>accurate map to show off how good the new version of Clausewitz looked
Crusader Kings II:
>inaccurate map because maps of Europe from the game's time period were basically nondescript blobs trying to fit the T-O map mold, so a map with exaggerated features was used to give the flavor of people of the time only having inaccurate world maps to work with
March of the Eagles:
>accurate map for the same reason as Vic2, maps from the Napoleonic era were much more accurate than what was around a century earlier
Europa Universalis IV:
>accurate because they saw how everyone was using Canomer's map when playing EU3 and wanted to give players what they want
Hearts of Iron IV:
>accurate because world maps from the time period had high accuracy
(1/2)
(2/2)
Imperator Rome:
>accurate because I think they fricked up and used Ptolemy's world map as inspiration, which has many inaccuracies while at the same time having innovative features and under some interpretations showing parts of the new world
>Lucio Russo has speculated about a probable arrival of Phoenicians in the Americas in his philologic analyses of Ptolemy's Geography.[16] In his book, Ptolemy gives the coordinates of the Fortunate Isles but at the same time he shrinks the size of the world by one third compared to the size measured by Eratosthenes.[17] Russo observes that by attributing those coordinates to the Antilles, the world gets back to the right size, the geographical description given by Ptolemy fits much better and certain puzzling deformations in Ptolemy's world map disappear. Russo argues that the Antilles coordinates must have been known to Ptolemy's source, Hipparchus. Hipparchus lived in Rhodes and may have gotten this information from Phoenicians sailors, since they had full control of the western Mediterranean in those times.
Crusader Kings 3:
>inaccurate map for the same reason as CK2
Victoria 3:
>accurate map for the same reason as Vic2
>Victoria 3:
>accurate map
I wish.
I really do.
Otherwise my home town would be on the right side of the Bavarian border and the border wasn't shaped in accordance to post-WW2 administration reform.
>Victoria II:
map because the first truly accurate maps of Europe were produced during the game's time period
Overall one of the best but has some "modernity" issues in that some of the province borders are drawn after present day ones rather than 19th century ones, but the differences are usually small so not really noticeable on first glance.
>March of the Eagles:
map for the same reason as Vic2, maps from the Napoleonic era were much more accurate than what was around a century earlier
The Austrian Empire seems to be a bit of a mess, particularly around the Croatian area.
>Hearts of Iron IV:
because world maps from the time period had high accuracy
Generally at state level yes, though even then you have stuff like
, but at province level it's hot garbage.
>Crusader Kings 3:
map for the same reason as CK2
The CK3 map is actually surprisingly well done, it's one of the few aspects where it's undoubtedly superior to CK2.
HoI4 doesn't even have a proper Transnistria Governorate.
>Hi zoomer!
hi ESL
>hi ESL
Imagine using this as an insult
imagine being an esl
imagine being non-White
so an esl
NTA but the geography is more fricked up the further you go east.
The actual answer is that back then Johan and the rest were holding on to aspects of boardgame design. Tabletop games usually don't bother with too aesthetic or realistic provinces and borders since their function as a tile supercedes nearly all other aspects due to the practical neccessity of needing to be able to accomodate a game piece or dice or markers. It took Johan&co a while to start focusing on the aesthetics over pure functionality.
Honestly the new 3D graphics look boring compared to the old board game look.
board game tards
Black person
My guess is somebody wanted occupations to look more like a frontline than a province
>What sets it apart from Darkest Hour?
Worse map
Dumber AI
Lack of 1933 start
Better tech tree
It's pretty much this, if had to choose between playing darkest hour and this I'd choose darkest hour but arsenal is worth it for a few games
I would get darkest hour instead
Get DH instead. The only thing AoD has over it is less bloat of techs, but that's purely subjective (if you know what you are doing, the size of the tech tree is a non-issue). Otherwise, DH is strictly superior in every possible field and also has far more mods going with it.
Get DH
AOD is mid and has less flavour than it
retvrn to iron crovss...
Cool map but the tech tree is hot garbage
does darkest hour have any improvement mods?
depends on what improvements you're looking for, there's a ton of different overhauls for it. They're mostly on the forums and I'm not sure if they let you access them without verifying you own the game.
DH could always be accessed without owning a key. Furthermore, couple years ago they removed this requirement from all games.
im not really looking for anything specific i just like to see how people improve upon darkest hour or if anything matches up to hoi3