I share these particular sentiments. I could care less how provinces and cities are named. What I'm concerned with is simply the number and size of them from a strategic view. I simply feel that the larger a faction is (that is, the more territory/land/area they possess), the more provinces they should own. If, for instance, the Hungarian faction's holdings cover twice as much land as the Scottish holdings, then the Hungarians should possess about twice as many provinces. I'm more interested in geographical divisions than political/feudal borders, and here's my rationalization:Originally Posted by cegorach1
Let's pretend in a purely hypothetical version of MTW, the Holy Roman Empire (Germans) and the Kingdom of Hungary (who start adjacent to the HRE) control equal amounts of land, but that Hungary's land is divided into 2 provinces while the HRE's equally sized territory is divided into 5. If they go to war against each other, which faction has the advantage, assuming neither side has inherently superior troops? It would seem pretty clear to me that the HRE would be at a strong advantage simply due to having more "provinces", even though the two factions are equal in actual land and population.
Two reasons for this. 1) The HRE will (theoreticly) have more economic power and more production capability, due to having more cities which have been upgraded and specialized. 2) They can afford to lose provinces, while Hungary cannot. Hungary would be drasticly more damaged by losing one province than the HRE would. If Hungary were truly a smaller faction, that's understandable. But if both factions have as much land and population as the other, this is ridiculous.
Sorry to go off on a tangent, but that's my principle theory on campaign map design: "provinces" should be roughly equal in size, and should not be oddly shaped (like Dalmatia in RTW, for instance). The only exceptions I would make would be for very densely populated regions.
Bookmarks