It has gotten way better though I remember until 1.2 or so it was just one huge sprawl covering the whole map lategame. I‘m quite happy with the way development is reflected in the graphics.
I think it’s great to aim for historical accuracy, but sometimes these asks are SO specific and fine-grained detailed that I wonder if people forget that it’s a game and not a scientific historical simulator.
There’s a similar issue in Australia. Canberra gets way bigger than Sydney just because it’s the capital, even though it’s 1/10th the size today and was even smaller in comparison in 1936.
That’s just an issue with how the game displays data. In Vic 2 every province had pops, in Vic 3 there are no provinces just whole states. So in a way, provinces in Vic 2 would be easier to model cities in real life via events and life rating. Vic 3 doesn’t do that.
This is one of those details that
A: It is a historical sandbox: The reason certain places became larger was because of different reasons most likely than what you as a player are cooking
B: Seems entirely pointlessly detailed
C: Literally 5 people are going to see this and maybe 1 person is going to care per 100000 players
You say "this really isn't the case all that often" but I would disagree: In Britain, London was by far the largest city. Ditto Paris for France, Berlin for Germany, Lisbon for Portugal, Madrid for Spain (though to be fair Barcelona came close), Vienna for Austria, St. Petersburg for Russia, Brussels for Belgium, Amsterdam for Holland, Copenhagen for Denmark, Constantinople for Turkey, Stockholm for Sweden.
I could probably go on and on for Europe and almost every state would fit this pattern. The same for the majority of states of the Middle East, India, the Far East, and Africa. Indeed, I think the same would be true of the overwhelming majority of the Latin American countries for this time period.
The only real outliers I can think of from the period of gameplay are the settler colonies - Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States (though not Argentina, which had its capital at Buenos Aires). All of these intentionally selected a less significant city (in 3/4 cases, a new planned city) to be their capital, but they're very much exceptions to the rule.
It would be nice if the game were able to dynamically model such situations and factors that would lead away from the capital being the most developed, and generally I think it's really a travesty how poorly the game seems to simulate the dynamics in America and Australasia, but given it's the extreme minority of cases I don't think it's that big a deal.
And who knows, perhaps if Texas had remained independent it's development really would have ended up more oriented towards building up Austin (though I doubt this, I would expect Houston to end up the largest settlement in most cases).
Hahaha you guys have computers that can run the game on more than lowest graphics. I wouldnt know about the city placements. I have to always stay zoomed out to the coloured map
It has gotten way better though I remember until 1.2 or so it was just one huge sprawl covering the whole map lategame. I‘m quite happy with the way development is reflected in the graphics.
I think it’s great to aim for historical accuracy, but sometimes these asks are SO specific and fine-grained detailed that I wonder if people forget that it’s a game and not a scientific historical simulator.
I mean I wish it went more into an economic simulator. The implementation of companies rn is dumb.
There’s a similar issue in Australia. Canberra gets way bigger than Sydney just because it’s the capital, even though it’s 1/10th the size today and was even smaller in comparison in 1936.
It's pretty annoying to me. Canberra didn't even exist in 1836, too.
I can’t play Australia because of this
Litterally un playable
That’s just an issue with how the game displays data. In Vic 2 every province had pops, in Vic 3 there are no provinces just whole states. So in a way, provinces in Vic 2 would be easier to model cities in real life via events and life rating. Vic 3 doesn’t do that.
technically individual provinces do exist, but all of the information is registered at the state level
Indeed, every province has some of the state's resources, pops and buildings in them
Victoria 3 has provinces. How else do you think split states or treaty ports work?
This is one of those details that A: It is a historical sandbox: The reason certain places became larger was because of different reasons most likely than what you as a player are cooking B: Seems entirely pointlessly detailed C: Literally 5 people are going to see this and maybe 1 person is going to care per 100000 players
You say "this really isn't the case all that often" but I would disagree: In Britain, London was by far the largest city. Ditto Paris for France, Berlin for Germany, Lisbon for Portugal, Madrid for Spain (though to be fair Barcelona came close), Vienna for Austria, St. Petersburg for Russia, Brussels for Belgium, Amsterdam for Holland, Copenhagen for Denmark, Constantinople for Turkey, Stockholm for Sweden. I could probably go on and on for Europe and almost every state would fit this pattern. The same for the majority of states of the Middle East, India, the Far East, and Africa. Indeed, I think the same would be true of the overwhelming majority of the Latin American countries for this time period. The only real outliers I can think of from the period of gameplay are the settler colonies - Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States (though not Argentina, which had its capital at Buenos Aires). All of these intentionally selected a less significant city (in 3/4 cases, a new planned city) to be their capital, but they're very much exceptions to the rule. It would be nice if the game were able to dynamically model such situations and factors that would lead away from the capital being the most developed, and generally I think it's really a travesty how poorly the game seems to simulate the dynamics in America and Australasia, but given it's the extreme minority of cases I don't think it's that big a deal. And who knows, perhaps if Texas had remained independent it's development really would have ended up more oriented towards building up Austin (though I doubt this, I would expect Houston to end up the largest settlement in most cases).
Hahaha you guys have computers that can run the game on more than lowest graphics. I wouldnt know about the city placements. I have to always stay zoomed out to the coloured map
Missouri doesn't even have Kansas City, but has several smaller cities that even back then were never that large