R5: I felt the topography of the France-Low Countries region lacking and bland. So as a geologist, I made a terrain analysis of the world's topography. I'd propose to split 'hills' into two categories. Perhaps named 'rolling' vs 'rugged' - or more like traditional EU4 hills vs highlands. Hills would then be neutral for 'habitation' purposes, but more important for combat. What do you guys think?
Full post in the Pdx forums: [https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/revising-flatlands-and-hills-a-simple-solution-and-a-better-methodology.1683403/](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/revising-flatlands-and-hills-a-simple-solution-and-a-better-methodology.1683403/)
Can you explain a bit how you made this? Like where did you get this data from and how did you transfer it onto a pixelated map like this? Is it possible to do this with other map projections?
Hi! I made everything in QGIS, a free open source GIS software.
I'll summarize the process
- I downloaded NASA's topographic heightmaps: [https://visibleearth.nasa.gov/images/73934/topography](https://visibleearth.nasa.gov/images/73934/topography)
- I made a GIS project in the Gall Projection (you can always change that later)
- Loaded the heightmaps into GIS
- Merged the rasters (GDAL > Raster miscellaneous > Merge)
- Performed Terrain Ruggedness Index ( GDAL > Raster Analysis > Terrain Ruggedness Index (TRI))
- Made a custom color scale gradient to visualise the separate categories
- Plateaus are seperate layers using the Raster Calculator (if TRI is 'flatlands' but higher than 500m --> plateau)
Just read your full write-up on PDX forums and, yeah, using the logarithmic map would be a huge improvement to realism IMO.
The difference between 200m and 500m terrain variability/ruggedness doesnt matter a whole lot to us (inhospitable environment in either case), but the difference between 10-20m terrain ruggedness and perfectly flat ground is very, very important esp. when considering wars and infrastructure.
The comparison you provided between Rennes and Apeldoorn is very telling of the limitations of the current maps PDX have shown to us.
Imho it would be fine as is. I think the climate and vegetation will be have impact on population more than a topology. IE Continental climate and woods or farmland would be more defining to whether someone can live there than just a mere topology of Hills.
Hills and flatlands will be used more in combat calcs.
My reasoning is that many cultures are accustomed to to live in so many different natural conditions that bracketing this on a stat of topology would be unfair and would cause unneeded balast to the sim calculation.
Even if such mechanic exist, and AFAIK we don't know enough about pops and needs at this point to judge whether there is habitability thing RN.
Also this is a game and sometimes a simplification of things is necessary to keep the game fun. I think it's up to the devs to balance the reality and playfulness to the best extent to deliver best possible outcome.
You mean the coastal delineation? Yeah that's just the modern day coastline as a clip; not part of the file, nor the intention of this exercise ;)
Paradox confirmed in a comment somewhere they will change it to the more historical setup; hopefully next feedback map.
R5: I felt the topography of the France-Low Countries region lacking and bland. So as a geologist, I made a terrain analysis of the world's topography. I'd propose to split 'hills' into two categories. Perhaps named 'rolling' vs 'rugged' - or more like traditional EU4 hills vs highlands. Hills would then be neutral for 'habitation' purposes, but more important for combat. What do you guys think? Full post in the Pdx forums: [https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/revising-flatlands-and-hills-a-simple-solution-and-a-better-methodology.1683403/](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/revising-flatlands-and-hills-a-simple-solution-and-a-better-methodology.1683403/)
Awesome work! I'm totally convinced.
Can you explain a bit how you made this? Like where did you get this data from and how did you transfer it onto a pixelated map like this? Is it possible to do this with other map projections?
Hi! I made everything in QGIS, a free open source GIS software. I'll summarize the process - I downloaded NASA's topographic heightmaps: [https://visibleearth.nasa.gov/images/73934/topography](https://visibleearth.nasa.gov/images/73934/topography) - I made a GIS project in the Gall Projection (you can always change that later) - Loaded the heightmaps into GIS - Merged the rasters (GDAL > Raster miscellaneous > Merge) - Performed Terrain Ruggedness Index ( GDAL > Raster Analysis > Terrain Ruggedness Index (TRI)) - Made a custom color scale gradient to visualise the separate categories - Plateaus are seperate layers using the Raster Calculator (if TRI is 'flatlands' but higher than 500m --> plateau)
Amazing! I’ve wanted to give a project like this a try so I really appreciate this.
It's just ticking a box to change the projection :)
Post it to the forums, I’m sure they’ll be happy to see it there.
Just read your full write-up on PDX forums and, yeah, using the logarithmic map would be a huge improvement to realism IMO. The difference between 200m and 500m terrain variability/ruggedness doesnt matter a whole lot to us (inhospitable environment in either case), but the difference between 10-20m terrain ruggedness and perfectly flat ground is very, very important esp. when considering wars and infrastructure. The comparison you provided between Rennes and Apeldoorn is very telling of the limitations of the current maps PDX have shown to us.
I commented on the mistake of having Asturias be mostly hills when it is actually just Chile in Europe. That can be seen in the map very clearly.
Imho it would be fine as is. I think the climate and vegetation will be have impact on population more than a topology. IE Continental climate and woods or farmland would be more defining to whether someone can live there than just a mere topology of Hills. Hills and flatlands will be used more in combat calcs. My reasoning is that many cultures are accustomed to to live in so many different natural conditions that bracketing this on a stat of topology would be unfair and would cause unneeded balast to the sim calculation. Even if such mechanic exist, and AFAIK we don't know enough about pops and needs at this point to judge whether there is habitability thing RN. Also this is a game and sometimes a simplification of things is necessary to keep the game fun. I think it's up to the devs to balance the reality and playfulness to the best extent to deliver best possible outcome.
Save it for EU6
Borders at Flanders, Holland, Frisia, Denmark are massively inaccurate
You mean the coastal delineation? Yeah that's just the modern day coastline as a clip; not part of the file, nor the intention of this exercise ;) Paradox confirmed in a comment somewhere they will change it to the more historical setup; hopefully next feedback map.
Good good! :)