In a hypothetical GSG that doesn't exist yet, would the Germany on the right really be that much worse to wage war in than the Germany on the left? I've been thinking about this after seeing several anons in Darkest Hour threads make fun of the game for making the Soviet-German border be only 12 provinces long. The Germany on the left seems to be the "ideal" border density according to /vst/, but games using a density like that usually end up with a "lopsided" map where only Europe and the eastern US would have density like that, with the rest of the world being whateverthefrick, so any empire the player makes that spans across Europe would be much more province-dense than the other countries in their campaign. On the other hand, a map mainly using right Germany's province density would largely avoid these problems at the expense of making warfare in Europe slightly less interesting, but I don't know if most players are willing to pay a price like that for more consistent province borders elsewhere in the world.
CHALLENGE MODE: You can't suggest hexshits as an alternative that's better than the two choices in the OP. While hexshits are perfect for warfare, most map painting autists won't settle for their alternate history borders being so blocky.
Map on left better for units, map on right better for eco/management.
Why not use it both? You command units on smaller provinces, but economically manage these provinces together as bigger regions. In fact I think vic2 did something like that.
That's what most modern Paradox games do.
Well, last Paradox game I played is ck2, so I didn't know.
it should be the opposite: granular economic/population map for immersion and large provinces for armies
Yes, that was indeed my point.
>t. vic3 dev
>granular economic/population map
>vic 3
i wish
Could've sworn I've seen this thread before
I think I've made it once before a while ago (without the two Germanies), but it didn't get that many replies
>looks expertly designed to allow the AI generals and fronts mechanic to work well while the player Afks while the AI general plays with limited spots it can be retarted in throwing away divisions
That sounds like it'd have been perfect for Victoria 3. They wanted to simplify the warfare (even further than it already was in V2), so they could have just done larger provinces for people to throw doomstacks at each other in.
>The map on the right has less space for tactics and maneuvers, meaning the vast majority of the time the nation with more soldiers and better tech will win.
I feel like this was the vision most people had for the GSG genre 10 years ago. I remember there specifically being an emphasis on the lack of military maneuvering in Paradox blobshits, it was thought that doing really detailed tactics and encirclements was more for grognard hexshit games, which is what HOI3 was perceived to be trying to emulate (hence none of the LARPers who wanted to blob and make wacky borders picked it up and stuck with DH instead).
Map on the left is better for managing all your divisions and creating encirclements and pockets. Doom stacks will not occur with 35 divisions in one region.
Map on the right looks more like hoi4 than DH, looks expertly designed to allow the AI generals and fronts mechanic to work well while the player Afks while the AI general plays with limited spots it can be retarted in throwing away divisions.
The map on the right has less space for tactics and maneuvers, meaning the vast majority of the time the nation with more soldiers and better tech will win.
In hoi3s style of map, Hungary controlled by a competent player can neutralize a numbers and tech advantage against the Soviets or Germany even through maneuvers and cleverly tieing up evemy divisions while the player moves around them with mechanized(what actually happened during encirclements in WW2)
I totally understand why paradox moved away from the left though. Hoi is no longer a wargame and won’t return to one. It’s just a meme simulator with cheats for focus trees. Also much of the hoi2 community never moved to 3 because it took up to much attention,and In hoi3 it’s very hard to have success on fast game speeds,you have to play hour by hour because there’s 6 times more providences than in DH/4.
Huh?
Did you even play HoI IV?
Would you mind explaining the point of your post?
Hoi4 has 1/3 the land regions that hoi3 has. The map on the right is accurate, also the map on the left is less regions than Germany In hoi3.
What the frick are you smoking?
Okay now post Hoi1
I don't want to.
Interesting this actually has correct latitude alignment unlike modern PDX games (Cape of Recife south of Bight of Benin, New York on sameish latitude as Rome). Only thing off is Europe is like tilted up a bit. It always bugged me modern PDX games always make the Americas further north than they actually are like the Carribean being the same latitude as Iberia.
Make the provinces scale as your empire grows.
map on the left better for civilized (ie white or japanese) countries
map on the right is better for Black folk because who the frick cares about Black folk
Well it depends on the time period. Before ww1 you are typically going to have pitched battles and/or border skirmishes near castles and cities so the scale of the area doesn't necessarily make a difference as long as you are accurately depicting where the battles will probably take place. WW1 to WW2 would work better the smaller the province are. The battles are still focused on objectives like in the past but there's more opportunity for individuals to accomplish major victories. Post WW2 it's almost better to use large provinces, modern population is insanely huge, armies are so integrated there's hardly any real fog of war. And then most of the war is going to be fought with missiles and aircraft. Ground troops are going to mostly be securing areas rather than engaging in battles to push a front line.
province density represents historical development potential.
Germany was strongly urbanistically and industrially developed, thus it should be harder to move through than random asian steppe.
The smaller the provinces the better. Ideally they would be hexes as well to allow you to make whatever borders you wish, but if that's not an option just having very tiny provinces would be good enough.
Depends on the setting.
And bunch of other things, but mostly on the setting.
If your thread can be answered by /tg/ memes, it means it's barely related with strategy video games
did they really say that in the show from the pic? i don't recall such dialogue and i've seen the show numerous times
EU4 suffers from the left. Devs can't balance around differing province densities, so the result is Europe being the only place worth expanding into, trading with, or doing diplomacy in. Any other place, you blob since no one has the dev numbers or scalability (manufactory mechanics) to matter.
Ruined my run as "Global mercenary corp. Switzerland" when I learned the only people who could pay as much as my neighbors in Europe were giants like Vij or Ming who don't need condotierri.
Reminder that this is a solved problem
hexes are gay as frick and have no place in historical settings
In practice, all PDX games have hexagons as far as movement is concerned because it logically makes sense. If you have points plotted equidistantly from one another at the maximally efficient density and drew lines halfway in between them so they're always the same distance from every point you get the hexagon grid. The on map provinces though that you see would be stupid to be hexagons and indeed having certain terrains take longer to move through, modifying combat and economy and certain areas being impassible or inhospitable makes more sense historically and gameplay wise.
But fundamentally on a 2D plane the hexgrid is the most efficient for realistic movement because sacred geometry n shit and that's what's being used in the underlying code even if not on the map.
>PDX AI converts provinces to hexagons
Not how A* works.
PDX games use pixel distances and provinces to navigate. Pic is how AI in Risk sees the map, exception there is that doesn't account for pixel distances, only the adjacents territories.
Is it literally just the pixels? I just assumed every province had a programmed in distance to every neighboring one in game that was some arbitrary unit like the one that gets used for navla supply range
Yes, in PDX games it has been pixels.
>I just assumed every province had a programmed in distance to every neighboring one in game
No, PDX has far too lazy to use Dijkstra's algorithm.
These aren't hexagons. Into the trash it goes.