"Well, to be fair france has won wars against germany more than once."
Name one*

































































*without American help

Edited 3/15/2016 00:47:41

In reality surface area plays no direct role at (potential)military strength. Resources and population, and how they are used, is all that matters.

Actually, harder nations are considerably harder to occupy and much easier to defend.

If you want to keep the Geopolitical Earth Map realistic, then do not look to surface area. For me, making France stronger than Germany makes no sense, and I can't help but see this Geopolitical Earth Map as failed by that.

It's a consequence of warlight mapmaking. He has to keep the territories a certain size. If they are too small, Fizzer says "nope" (see: Diplomacy Huge by Belgian Gentleman). If they are too big, they disrupt gameplay (see: Urumqi in World Nations maps).

It's not failed, and it's very easy to solve; if bigger bonuses are needed, altering them isn't too difficult. As long as the scaling is consistent and sort of balanced to an extent, it's good to go for me.

France is stronger than Germany nowadays, check Global Firepower for proof. They have a stronger military.

Name one*

War of the First Coalition

Doesn't count. Germany wan't an actual country

Solution:
Make a mix of the power index of the GFP list and the GBP to get the
potential military strength of every country.
Based on the outcome of that, chance the bonus values. A Geopolitical Earth Map is expected to be realistic, not balanced.

It's a consequence of warlight mapmaking. He has to keep the territories a certain size. If they are too small, Fizzer says "nope" (see: Diplomacy Huge by Belgian Gentleman). If they are too big, they disrupt gameplay (see: Urumqi in World Nations maps).

Isn't it possible to scale the map up a bit, and divide Germany in some more territories?
Issander's Huge World has Germany with 11 territories instead of 7...

Edited 3/15/2016 11:30:34

Currently the map is at it's maximum resolution, so no more scaling up.

My guess is that It's a combination of having to use bonus links on every territory on my map, and Issanders huge world using a different, non-standard map projection. I actually seriously considered this when researching which projection to use, but I decided on this one as everyone is used to it.

I am aiming to make it realistic and i'm not sure that your anti-france campaign is really realistic to be honest. Germany is weaker than france in every metric besides gdp. You seem to be all about that global firepower index, and france is indeed more powerful that germany in that...

Edited 3/15/2016 12:08:05

How about this calculation:

Country total bonus value = ((Totalmilitary+paramilitary/10.000) *(Heavy Weapons Index Score*3)) + ((2×GDP (100 Billion of US$))
USA +543 = (23,49950 * 8,37 = 197) + 2×173,48075
Russia +352 = (33,64000 * 9,66 = 325) + 2×18,60598
China +409 = (35,03000 * 5,76 = 202) + 2×103,56508
France +83 = (3,55250 * 7,23 = 26) + 2×28,33687
Germany +92 = (2,26770 * 6,45 = 15) + 2×38,74437
Netherland +21 = (0,46500 * 6,60 = 3) + 2×8,80716

Totalmilitary+paramilitary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel

Heavy Weapons Index Score:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Global_Militarization_Index

GDP:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Edited 3/15/2016 16:15:34

It's fine as is, but if you want more balance, use rankings, not raw scores.

How about this calculation:

Country total bonus value = ((Totalmilitary+paramilitary/10.000) *(Heavy Weapons Index Score*3)) + ((2×GDP (100 Billion of US$))
USA +543 = (23,49950 * 8,37 = 197) + 2×173,48075
Russia +352 = (33,64000 * 9,66 = 325) + 2×18,60598
China +409 = (35,03000 * 5,76 = 202) + 2×103,56508
France +83 = (3,55250 * 7,23 = 26) + 2×28,33687
Germany +92 = (2,26770 * 6,45 = 15) + 2×38,74437
Netherland +21 = (0,46500 * 6,60 = 3) + 2×8,80716


Totalmilitary+paramilitary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel
Heavy Weapons Index Score:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Global_Militarization_Index
GDP:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Seems good, but It only gives values for entire countries. Perhaps the country score could be calculated and then divided proportionally between territories based on population?

I'll definitely experiment with this later tonight, try doing some small european countries this way to test it out.

Edited 3/15/2016 16:54:49

Improved formula:
Country total bonus value = ((Totalmilitary+paramilitary/1.000/2) /(√ GFP Index rating) + ((2×GDP (100 Billion of US$))

USA +635= (234,9950/2 /√0,1663= 288) + 2×173,48075
Russia +427= (336,4000/2 /√0,1865= 389) + 2×18,60598
China +571= (350,3000 /2 /√0,2318 = 364) + 2×103,56508
France +89= (35,5250/2 /√0,3069= 32) + 2×28,33687
Germany +97= (22,6770/2 /√0,3507= 19) + 2×38,74437
Netherland +20= (4,6500/2 /√1,028= 2) + 2×8,80716
Greece +15= (36,4000 /2 /√1.4853= 15)+ 2X 0,237970
Luxemburg +2
Slovenia +2
Switzerland +26
Ireland +5
Ukraine +67
Sweden +14

Ukraine being 5 time stronger than Sweden is not very accurate i think...
Switzerland being higher then the Netherlands is realistic, as their economy is almost just as big, but their army is much larger. Switzerland also ranks higher on the GFP list.
Splitting Switzerland in 2 territories is possible(in paint Luxemburg fits 2 times in Switzerland).
When looking to land only Switzerland is bigger then the netherlands: 39,997 vs 33,893.

Edited 3/15/2016 23:59:43

Working on doing a new version right now, here's the link:

https://www.warlight.net/SinglePlayer?PreviewMap=54329

I'm doing france, I decided to divide the final results by three as well. I can't put a higher value than 9 on a bonus without it being a huge pain in my butt, and It turns out that most rich places would end up jsut being nine, and thus extremely undervalued.

The idea is fine, but I feel like the moment you try to split it in the territories, it'll get weird.

I want to try it out at least. The reason I like Oranges system better is because it's not vulnerable to the same kinds of distortions with really rich places like the previous system was.

Sure, there is still going to be some amount as the minimum you can get is still 1 and the maximum still nine, but I don't think it's going to be as bad. I will have to see once I get to africa that everything isn't just ones lol.

Okay, I did france all the way, and it turns out that it actually gained three armies through rounding, so it is worth 33 instead of the 30 I estimated using Oranges formula...

Like what happened in most big world maps, difficult Arctic terrains become intercontinental express ways. Armies should travel slowly there like they do. The easiest fix is to break those large low density territories into small bonusless ones. We can even give high minus bonus to the worst of those lands, like the ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica, to represent the price one has to pay if he is dumb enough to invade from there.

Alright, well I tried Oranges formula out on most of western europe, and my first thought is that it's way too impractical. Sorry Orange :(

Maybe I'll try redoing gerrmany to squeeze in some more territories.

Berlin, Hamburg and Dusseldorf sound kinda easy to split. Maybe even Wiesbaden.

As for the UK, not too hard either. Scotland can fit in three territories if you really feel the need (ox would be proud!), Manchester can be made into two and London, 2 or 3. Maybe Cornwall, Essex and Kent regions?

I think the one problem is if you try to split Italy further. That'd probably need a whole new border rework as it is right now.

Why did you remove all the territories from the US? Now it's too small and looked weird compared to other countries.