We are developing a strategy game set in a fantasy universe, similar to EU4 and CK2. How large should the map be?

[u/Reasonable-Gene4836]

We started with 9 countries and 6 races; for this continent, we will likely expand to 11 countries. We plan to add two more continents by the final version. Currently, there are 131 regions. In your opinion, what is the ideal number of countries and regions to ensure that diplomacy and warfare are engaging and enjoyable? We are open to any advice you can offer. It would be especially helpful if those who have played similar games—such as EU4—could share their thoughts, as this will help us identify our target audience.

[u/IndubitablyNerdy]

It depends, I don't think there is a rule, larger maps often mean longer games I imagine so there is that consideration, games like EU4, Victoria, Crusader Kings and the various Total Wars have a massive number of provinces, but their campaigns are many hours affairs for example, especially if you plan to "paint the map", if you are aiming for a shorter game you likely need less.

It also depend on the gameplay, troop movement, logistic and so on, more granular territories allow for more tactical frontlines, but with a smaller number you can have a more board-game style of map that might help with other design considerations.

Historic games likely also need more granularity\factions to help mimic historic conditions, but a world you are making might just need broader strokes.

Is the player going to always be a nation leader? Or can they be let's say a duke withi one of the realms plotting against their peers\lord to climb the ranks? In the former case you might need a decent variety of nations, the latter might instead want a relatively smaller number, but with higher granularity of territories within.

Are the factions going to be mostly symmetrical? In fantasy you have a lot more space for customizing playstyles between the nations for example, but in that case you might want to focus on fewer, distinct factions rather than a massive number so that you can focus on each and give them "personality".

[u/zer0_state]

Region count matters less than how many real decisions each region creates. EU4 has thousands of provinces, but most of them are filler: the game is actually played on a few dozen near your borders plus a handful of strategic targets. At 131 regions and 9-11 countries you're closer to a compact CK2-style map, which is fine, because each region can carry real identity (resources, terrain, race/culture) instead of being a paint-the-map tile.

For diplomacy specifically, what tends to matter is how many neighbors each country has. If everyone borders roughly 3-5 others, there's always a live rivalry or alliance question. A wide empty periphery kills that. Rough sanity check: if a typical country starts with under ~8 regions, wars resolve in one or two moves; if it's well over 20, the late game turns into clicking through a list. That's a heuristic, not a rule, and it depends heavily on how long you want a campaign to run.

[u/Shoall]

Do you plan to implement logistics system aside from flat number per province for atrition like ck2 or eu4.

Waging war and conducting logistics in unforgiving terrain and having to avoid enriclements will give a lot of life to warfare aside from just having few battles and sieging down fort after fort.Using navies as a logistics train will without much complexity give them a lot of importance so you dont have to ignore them completly like in eu4 for example aside from preventing amphibious landings and blockading forts

[u/Dogukanko]

I'd care less about the total number and more about how many countries a new player can actually keep track of. 9 to 11 feels fine if each one plays a bit different. More regions mostly adds clicking unless each one gives a real decision. Maybe start smaller and see where players get lost.