• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

EU4 - Development Diary - 21st of May 2019

Hey folks, it's time for another EU4 dev diary! My name's Mike, and like my good colleague @Caligula Caesar I've been part of the EU4 Content Design team since December. We've been working on a solid chunk of Europe, and it's time to start showcasing some of this work. As @neondt has mentioned before, we've had a lot of suggestions and feedback from the community, and through further earnest exchanges we've refined the map further.

But, before we get to the end, let's talk about the process quickly, because I know that's what you truly crave.


image1_smol.png


This image is what was used to pitch the idea of what would end up becoming the revised province layout in northern Italy. As you'll see in a moment, it differs from what we ended up with in a couple of ways- Como was added later, along with a split in another North Italian province. Province 5 was originally conceived as a separate Aquileia province (since the country still exists as a releasable in Friuli, it was tempting to see what could be done with it) but that idea was eventually discarded in favor of a new Trieste province.


image2_smol.png


Southern Italy developed much closer to what the original draft envisioned. The southern half of the Italian Peninsula has only a few additions, Avellino being the one that probably sticks out the most. The island of Sicily received a bit more attention, with the island's three provinces turning into five instead. Its new divisions were guided a little bit more by game design priorities than historical divisions, as historical divisions like Sicily's real province of Trapani had sizes and shapes that would have really stuck out like a sore thumb in EU4.

Unlike the northern Italian proposal, the southern Italian one was nearly implemented as-is. The biggest difference is that “Agrigento” had its name changed to “Girgenti”, which seemed more accurate for the period. Conversely, several proposed name changes to pre-existing provinces were not implemented, as they just didn't seem necessary upon review.


“Show us the new map already!” I can hear you guys politely demanding. Fine, fine!


italy_whole.png


Three new countries were added to the map as independent states. In the far north is the Prince-Bishopric of Trent, an Austrian country in control of an Italian province. To the west lies Saluzzo, nervously wedged between Savoy and France. In Romagna, Bologna is now an independent republic coveted by its neighbors.

Alongside these three countries are a couple new potential revolters. Padua and Verona now have cores on their respective provinces and can break away from Venice if the stars align, and Spoleto now exists as a core in Spoleto province, in case the Papal State's control of Central Italy ever starts to fall apart.

If we zoom in a little, more details reveal themselves.


northern italy.png


As the conversation linked at the start of this post highlights, Como originally was not considered, but after some discussion it became apparent that the inclusion of it (or at least something north of Milan) was called for. Thus, Como's complete contours now complement the comprehensive composition of that corner.

The creation of a separate Bologna province also prompted a revision of the remnant of old Romagna province; the old province's capital is now Ravenna, and Ravenna was taken by Venice in 1440 or 1441, so Romagna now starts off under Venetian rather than Papal control, although the Papacy does retain its core on the province. I'm sure this is fine and will definitely not be a source of tension between the two countries.


southern italy.png


Southern Italy was implemented essentially as described above. Sardinia received some attention and now includes Arborea as its own province on the west side of the island, but other Sardinian giudicati were not included primarily for the sake of balance- Sassari province in northern Sardinia has only 3/3/2 development as it is, and splitting that in two would create provinces with as little development as an Uzbek province in the Steppes.

Aside from the obvious mapwork, there is one other thing we added to southern Italy:

two_sicilies.png



And there you have it! Next week, we'll be talking about missions.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
After following this discussion, I see two main issues:
- The Papal States and its vassals or their status
- Valtellina

The passion and interest for the Papal States is admirable, but it seems unreasonable to create an unique system to represent the inner politics of the Papal States given the history of the Papal States after the Italian wars. Is the independence of Bologna, the vassalage of Urbino and the exclusion of Perugia arbitrary? Yes. Do those decision matter? I guess if you're really interested in and passionated in the history of the Papal States. Ask yourselves whether the implementation of the proposed changes is really relevant for the bigger picture (world history till the nineteenth century).

After being so disrespectful towards everyone passionate about central Italy, it is hard to criticize the developers without sounding like a hypocrite. I'll try it anyways. I guess the easiest way to settle the Valtellina issue is by moving the pass between Switzerland and Lombardy from Waldstätten and Como to the new province of Illanz and Como. It would better represent the San Bernardino and Septimer Pass, be the necessary buffer between Milan and Switzerland, and might be a way to represent the "Bündner Wirren" (the mentioned conflict concerning the connection between Austria and Milan during the thirty years' war). This would work nicely in combination with an overhaul of the Italian Wars. For cosmetic reasons one could rename it Valtellina and add some territory of Bergamo. This would also end the quadratic form of former Bresica and now Bergamo and Bresica.

Also, why am I the only one who is disappointed that Venice is still that rectangle? Consider the size of Macau, Hormuz, the islands in the Strait of Malacca, and some Caribbean islands and tell me that it has to be this way to be clickable. Just change the form (I know it's the same as the discussion about the Papal States, I accept Venice's fate).
 
If EU4 had a map with a province density similar to the one from Imperator Rome, I would say "yes, add Monaco and other microstates". Unfortunately, this game can't have provinces that are so small, specially if these countries don't really play any significant role.

Maybe there could be a province modifier for some of the notable ones. Like, San Marino: +10% goods produced, or something along those lines; just recognizing that they exist, but not giving them any notable role otherwise.
 
Monaco, San Marino, Andorra and Liechtenstein are still independent today, I think that microStates have a great resilence and should have the same respectability of Luxembourg and much more importance than province of Avignon (Pope Martin V had transfered the curia again in Rome in 1420, so it was a feudal territory without particular strategic importance until French Revolution).
In the case of Monaco, we can resize Albenga and Nice provinces for create it.
San Marino territory is a mountain so it's strategic and difficult to conquer.
Historically it was a balance force in Romagna political mosaic against Rimini expansion by Malatesta Family, it was an ally of Urbino (obviously San Marino could be useful to add if the Romagna and Marche coast change with much more provinces).
San Marino was the first State to have a Constitution written in the 1600, so can give much more bonus points and progress in the age of the absolutism.
Pope recognised San Marino like independent State but in 1503 and 1739 attack them without success.
Napoleon recognised the independence of the Republic and offered more italian territory until the Adriatic Sea, but the Republic refused the offer (in EU4 things can change).
I think San Marino could play a role in alliance with the other italian republics (Genoa, Venice, Florence) for preserve its independence against the monarchy, duchy and Pope.
Andorra like Navarra could be conquered by France, Spain (Navarra, Aragon and Castiglia) and in 1607 could create a political bridge between France and Spain propedeutic for the War of the Spanish Succession.
Liechtenstein could be add like an independent State in XVIII century, like hereditary monarchy recognised by the HRE.
Liechtenstein, San Marino and Monaco are simply too small and worthless to add. The real size of some of the countries you have mentioned on the map are:
  • Monaco: Less than 1 pixel.
  • San Marino: About 3 pixels
  • Liechtenstein: About 7 pixels
  • Andorra: About 20 pixels
  • Luxembourg (modern day borders): About 110 pixels.
Apart from Luxembourg, these are all extremely small states with practically no population, and they have had zero impact history. You could MAYBE make a case for adding Andorra, but comparing either of those states to Luxembourg is not even worth attempting. Sure, you can make them larger than they really are, but there is nothing nearby any of those countries that is less worth adding than the microstate in question.
 
Maybe there could be a province modifier for some of the notable ones. Like, San Marino: +10% goods produced, or something along those lines; just recognizing that they exist, but not giving them any notable role otherwise.
Apart from a sidenote in its province history, I don't think they should be in this game. Maybe in a hypotetical EU5 with IR-province density, but not in EU4 as it is now.
 
So essentially, in terms of game mechanics, Bologna to the Papacy is like Brandenburg to the HRE; a vassal in name only, one that has to fend for itself against its neighbors. One that pays lipservice to the Pope, by politely asking for more autonomy to avoid a Papal Inderdicts or excommunication, as Brandenburg might cozy up to the Emperor to avoid Imperial Bans or Unlawful Territory. So being a disloyal vassal would not properly emulate Bologna's historical situation.

Bologna had been independent from the Papacy since 1376 and the Pope, while nominally still ruler, could not restore his authority over the city before the Milanese took it in 1401. It revolted free of the Milanese in 1442, establishing an oligarchic republic. The Pope has a legitimate claim over the city, and historically it enforced this claim in 1506 when it had the French manpower to do it. But Bologna was not a vassal of the Pope in anything but name in 1444, and would do everything in its power to preserve its status, playing politics with neighbors, and appeasing the Pope so he would not have an excuse to issue an Interdict or Excommunicate them, giving him the excuse to reassert his nominal authority over the city via arms. Mechanically, Bologna should be independent, as it better fits its situation; the Milanese didn't declare war on the Papacy to take Bologna, and no amount of improving relations by the Papacy would convince Bologna to give up its independence, as we can see historically.

The Papal Staes were similar to a mini-HRE, you could say.

But you reason too much in the terms of what EU4 is, and not what is could be.

As I said, Bologna was the seat of a Papal Legate who always tried to strengthen Papal Influence in Bologna. There was not something like this between Brandenburg and the Emperor.
Even if the Pope communicates Bologna in EU4, it would not have the Casus Belli since it does not border the province, so what you are saying is irrelevant.
The Pope saw Bologna (and the rest) as it’s rightful territory which was ruled by a powerful family while he strengthened his grip in Rome. Because a Papal States without infighting is beyond absurd.
He even had an officer there trying to use the Spiritual Authority of the Pope to influence the diplomacy of Bologna.

Second thing, which most of you seems to not understand properly, is the political scenario in Italy after dissolution of the Duchy of Romagna and the exile of Cesare Borgia. He had conquered most of the minor states and had killed the family that ruled there. So when he was exiled a power vacuum permitted the new Pope to gain control of most of those territories. Some of the remaining tried to pledge total allegiance or be conquered. The Pope declared the Baglioni of Perugia exiled, but they refused and after a war Perugia was conquered. Using the momentum, the Pope turned towards Bologna, and proclaimed that the Bentivoglio were no more Lords of the city. There was a war, but then the people of Bologna chased away the Bentivoglio and destroyed their palace, and then pledged submission to the Pope. In the meantime, Rimini was without a Lord and was swiftly conquered by Venice. The Pope did not want to renounce land that was titularly his. And so the War of the League of Cambrai happened.

As you see, it’s not really straightforward.
More than a “Declaration of War” it was a “Revocation of Land” of a vassal like in CK2 that provoked a rebellion that was put down.

It does not matter from which point of view you see it, there are three facts that emerge:

1) Perugia should receive the same treatment of Bologna, whatever it may be
2) Bologna should be an unruly vassal, or new mechanics should be added to the game (since Expansions always introduce more mechanics)
3) the Developers’ choice is completely arbitrary and thus not remotely justifiable with historical knowledge or logic. They chose based purely on their “sentiment”.
 
Can we get a not Napoleonic Italian flag please?

Also, why no Como? I'm still confused on that part.
 
If EU4 had a map with a province density similar to the one from Imperator Rome, I would say "yes, add Monaco and other microstates". Unfortunately, this game can't have provinces that are so small, specially if these countries don't really play any significant role.

Ok, I know the situation and the problem of graphic resolution of the map, but I think that some improve in Italy could be done adding much more provinces also in Tuscany, Romagna, Marche with a resize of the dimension of the provinces existent, even if the final patchwork that result could be more chaotic and less pretty like aspect and colours (they invented the zoom option also for this motive!).
Ulm is not much bigger and significant for the european history than Monaco, Andorra or San Marino.
The same Frankfurt or Aachen are not so big and are only simbolic heritage for the HRE.
Bologna, Como and Ravenna (the latter two as province belonging to Milan and Venice) or some new Sicilian or Sardinia province change very few the italian political situation, and don't create new environment for new alliances or strategies.
Italy need a view much more focused on small political actors, so it doesn't need an increase of the power for Venice and Milan in number of province hold.
Bentivoglio in Bologna is a good news but the only one, and they risk to disappear like Montefeltro after few years of the game.
Where are Sforza, Malaspina, Malatesta, Da Varano, Farnese, Orsini, Appiani? They are ALL too much small like San Marino or Monaco for implement in better the map of Italy? I hope no, because if we want a historical better experience, we need to research to recreate that environment.
We need a map of Italy with much deep focus for the detail and geopolitical particularism, especially about historical event and missions that happen in some province or faction, even if they are not so important at the start point of 1444 but only after many years.
I don't understand how could be improved the Catholicism and Pope, if doesn't have much provinces and vassals in Italy that can respond directly to him, directly or indirectly in its sphere of influence.
Pontifical States wasn't a monolithic block inside central Italy, we need much more management of the catholic roman vassals relationship, and a better mechanism in the curia election (not only based to an expense of diplomatic point for increase the % of probability)!.
We need more factions and new deep mechanism for their interaction like for HRE.
HRE is imperfect like factions and in some geographic place, but it's better and diversificate than Italy.
In conclusion, it's not true that Italy is pheripherical or less fun respect HRE, Spain or France and England.
Italy was one of the richest places in Europe even if they don't have a big manpower immediately available in 1444 for big war.
 
The Papal Staes were similar to a mini-HRE, you could say.

But you reason too much in the terms of what EU4 is, and not what is could be.

As I said, Bologna was the seat of a Papal Legate who always tried to strengthen Papal Influence in Bologna. There was not something like this between Brandenburg and the Emperor.
Even if the Pope communicates Bologna in EU4, it would not have the Casus Belli since it does not border the province, so what you are saying is irrelevant.
The Pope saw Bologna (and the rest) as it’s rightful territory which was ruled by a powerful family while he strengthened his grip in Rome. Because a Papal States without infighting is beyond absurd.
He even had an officer there trying to use the Spiritual Authority of the Pope to influence the diplomacy of Bologna.

Second thing, which most of you seems to not understand properly, is the political scenario in Italy after dissolution of the Duchy of Romagna and the exile of Cesare Borgia. He had conquered most of the minor states and had killed the family that ruled there. So when he was exiled a power vacuum permitted the new Pope to gain control of most of those territories. Some of the remaining tried to pledge total allegiance or be conquered. The Pope declared the Baglioni of Perugia exiled, but they refused and after a war Perugia was conquered. Using the momentum, the Pope turned towards Bologna, and proclaimed that the Bentivoglio were no more Lords of the city. There was a war, but then the people of Bologna chased away the Bentivoglio and destroyed their palace, and then pledged submission to the Pope. In the meantime, Rimini was without a Lord and was swiftly conquered by Venice. The Pope did not want to renounce land that was titularly his. And so the War of the League of Cambrai happened.

As you see, it’s not really straightforward.
More than a “Declaration of War” it was a “Revocation of Land” of a vassal like in CK2 that provoked a rebellion that was put down.

It does not matter from which point of view you see it, there are three facts that emerge:

1) Perugia should receive the same treatment of Bologna, whatever it may be
2) Bologna should be an unruly vassal, or new mechanics should be added to the game (since Expansions always introduce more mechanics)
3) the Developers’ choice is completely arbitrary and thus not remotely justifiable with historical knowledge or logic. They chose based purely on their “sentiment”.

But I am not arguing about Perugia, I am arguing about Bologna. "If Bologna, then Perugia" isn't an argument here.
Furthermore, the last Ruling Legate, as I can see, was Cardinal Gil Álvarez Carrillo de Albornoz, who was ousted when Bologna revolted in 1376. The ruler of Bologna in 1444 was not the Legate, but the Bentivoglio family.


In terms of game play, the Papal States does, or should, have a core on Bologna, since it has not been 100 years since 1376. Or maybe the mission of Reclaiming the Romagna, to give them a claim on Bologna. So the fact the Papal States does not border Bologna isn't an issue.


As for the Borgia situation, as Bologna was never captured by Cesare Borgia, it is not as though the city just popped into sudden independence after Pope Alexander kicked the bucket. It was still ruled by the Bentivoglio family when Pope Julius II came knocking, ostensibly to "remove the despot from power", helped by a popular revolt. The Palazzo was destroyed in 1507, *after* Julius II took the city.

As for your three facts, they are opinions.
• You think Perugia should exist in-game. That's not something I have ever disputed, and I think most people would be in favor of it.
• You think Bologna should be an unruly vassal. I think it being independent is more accurate to the history of the region, at least in 1444, but I welcome new vassal mechanics.
• You think the developer's choice is arbitrary and ahistorical. I have shown that Bologna, though technically under the Papacy, was independent enough that being a "Disloyal Vassal" should not apply. Burgundy was also technically a vassal of the French King, should we make them a disloyal vassal as well? But perhaps the choice between Perugia and Bologna was arbitrary. But maybe make some arguments for Perugia, rather than trying to crab-bucket Bologna into an ahistorical situation as well.
 
Ok, I know the situation and the problem of graphic resolution of the map, but I think that some improve in Italy could be done adding much more provinces also in Tuscany, Romagna, Marche with a resize of the dimension of the provinces existent, even if the final patchwork that result could be more chaotic and less pretty like aspect and colours (they invented the zoom option also for this motive!).
Ulm is not much bigger and significant for the european history than Monaco, Andorra or San Marino.
The same Frankfurt or Aachen are not so big and are only simbolic heritage for the HRE.
Bologna, Como and Ravenna (the latter two as province belonging to Milan and Venice) or some new Sicilian or Sardinia province change very few the italian political situation, and don't create new environment for new alliances or strategies.
Italy need a view much more focused on small political actors, so it doesn't need an increase of the power for Venice and Milan in number of province hold.
Bentivoglio in Bologna is a good news but the only one, and they risk to disappear like Montefeltro after few years of the game.
Where are Sforza, Malaspina, Malatesta, Da Varano, Farnese, Orsini, Appiani? They are ALL too much small like San Marino or Monaco for implement in better the map of Italy? I hope no, because if we want a historical better experience, we need to research to recreate that environment.
We need a map of Italy with much deep focus for the detail and geopolitical particularism, especially about historical event and missions that happen in some province or faction, even if they are not so important at the start point of 1444 but only after many years.
I don't understand how could be improved the Catholicism and Pope, if doesn't have much provinces and vassals in Italy that can respond directly to him, directly or indirectly in its sphere of influence.
Pontifical States wasn't a monolithic block inside central Italy, we need much more management of the catholic roman vassals relationship, and a better mechanism in the curia election (not only based to an expense of diplomatic point for increase the % of probability)!.
We need more factions and new deep mechanism for their interaction like for HRE.
HRE is imperfect like factions and in some geographic place, but it's better and diversificate than Italy.
In conclusion, it's not true that Italy is pheripherical or less fun respect HRE, Spain or France and England.
Italy was one of the richest places in Europe even if they don't have a big manpower immediately available in 1444 for big war.


Ulm wasn't very important, but it was still much more important than San Marino. It was an imperial city and one of the largest by area too (it was 13 times larger than San Marino). It also had an important role in the defence pacts of Southern Germany. So, despite not being significant, it was still much more important than San Marino
 
Liechtenstein, San Marino and Monaco are simply too small and worthless to add. The real size of some of the countries you have mentioned on the map are:
  • Monaco: Less than 1 pixel.
  • San Marino: About 3 pixels
  • Liechtenstein: About 7 pixels
  • Andorra: About 20 pixels
  • Luxembourg (modern day borders): About 110 pixels.
Apart from Luxembourg, these are all extremely small states with practically no population, and they have had zero impact history. You could MAYBE make a case for adding Andorra, but comparing either of those states to Luxembourg is not even worth attempting. Sure, you can make them larger than they really are, but there is nothing nearby any of those countries that is less worth adding than the microstate in question.

Ok they are all small states and worthless but perhaps also Avignon, Ulm, Frankfurt (except in XXI century!!!) and probably Como, Ravenna, some Sicilian and Sardinia province have had zero impact in the world history.
The same could be said with many other provinces in Africa, Asia and South America.
So with this criterion we should perhaps start the game not in 1444 but in 1861, 40 years after its official endgame.
Many provinces in the world map are irrelevant historically, so we should omit them for a better conquer of the world? I think it's a nonsense.
Paradox has always increase the complexity of the game, in particular the design of the map, adding much more provinces.
I understand that Monaco and San Marino are a bit forced suggestion like provinces to add, but it's a good provocation for focus much more on new dinamic and aspect of the map, in particular in a complex and charming place like Italy, the cradle of the Catholicism, Renaissance and Machiavellism.
I like gaming with my city Mantua, i buyed EU4 and CK2 because there are these parochial opportunity that lack in many other game with same historic setting.
I'm lucky that Mantua and Gonzaga were important too much to have a province on the map even if they didn't conquest the world.
The others italian players want game EU4 with the same opportunity to dive in an historical political context that can reflect their ambitions and their parochial heritage.
The next EU4 DLC want improve Italy, it's a unique opportunity for improve the map adding what many gamers consider lacking: much italian factions, more provinces, and events or missions focused on geopolitical aspect and rivalry inside the peninsula.
We need a more balance of power inside Italy.
Milan and Venice, Neaples or Sicily should not have much more manpower and provinces, because this way reduce the fun, it create a macro-State much powerful that can reduce to irrelevance the only significative news: Bentivoglio in Bologna.
Pontifical States need paradoxically much more vassals but only for decrease its monolithic power with the problem of their request of independence and for a curia and pope election much more historical near to the peninsula affairs.
In conclusion, if the Italian unity arrive officially only in 1861 there is a good reason... ;-)
 
Ok they are all small states and worthless but perhaps also Avignon, Ulm, Frankfurt (except in XXI century!!!) and probably Como, Ravenna, some Sicilian and Sardinia province have had zero impact in the world history.
The same could be said with many other provinces in Africa, Asia and South America.
So with this criterion we should perhaps start the game not in 1444 but in 1861, 40 years after its official endgame.
Many provinces in the world map are irrelevant historically, so we should omit them for a better conquer of the world? I think it's a nonsense.

What I see is that you're reaching the limit of adding provinces by comparison to memey provinces. Ibiza is a meme, does that mean you should add all memes? Well, duh.

We need a more balance of power inside Italy.

That's more like it. The map is change to accommodate for balance and representation purposes, and also make the game more engaging (even if sometimes a joke like Ibiza makes it less accurate, it's a location everybody knows so it makes up for it). In this regard for instance I think Bologna is a fine addition.

Regardless I'm more excited (or rather: fearful) about the balance changes, the map updates looks very much under control atm.
 
That's more like it. The map is change to accommodate for balance and representation purposes, and also make the game more engaging (even if sometimes a joke like Ibiza makes it less accurate, it's a location everybody knows so it makes up for it). In this regard for instance I think Bologna is a fine addition.

Regardless I'm more excited (or rather: fearful) about the balance changes, the map updates looks very much under control atm.

The creation of the province of Ravenna is a bad decision that doesn't help the balance because increase arbitrarily the power of Venice give to it a more aggressive depth in Italy than in Balkans, it can only be mitigate with an event like Agnadello Battle.
Ravenna was under Da Polenta family until 1441 before to pass under Venice until 1509.
So for 3 years, Ravenna can increase the role of Venice in Italy, and I remember that Venice have also the new province of Bergamo.
So 2 new provinces for Venice is not much a fair balance.
If Paradox pick Rimini instead Ravenna (a very close city in Romagna coast), there would be another faction Malatesta family, and much dinamic alliance.
Same bad thing the creation of Como province under Milan.
Como was under Filippo Maria Visconti until 1447 (year of his death), then there was the Abbondio Republic from 1447-1450 (the local answer to Ambrosian Republic) before to return under Milan but with Francesco Sforza.
So Como will be under Visconti without problem? Abbondio Republic will be inside the DLC for the Como province as rebel government? Como will be under Ambrosian Republic without secession? And if someone restore the duchy in Milan, it will be restore also in Como in automatic?.
Another problem is the total lack of Sforza family in Milan, like event or historical presence even if we want to restore the Duchy after the death of last Visconti and the rise of the Ambrosian Republic.
But the problem is much more complicated by the absence of provinces like Pesaro, Imola and Forlì that belong to Sforza family.
So too much arbitrary and ambiguos decision (like government in Bologna) in the choose and naming of the provinces that risk to simplify the historical situation with a representation that want to boost the two main macro-State of North Italy toward a rapid and easy unification of peninsula.
 
Last edited:
Surely Ibiza would create much fun than Como and Ravenna.
How so? It's next to two islands which fit the same role - being an island - and doesn't carry much historical gravity, unlike Ravenna. And it wasn't that strategically important as the area around Como, which also had a bigger historical role and had disputes with Milan itself, even.
 
Liechtenstein, San Marino and Monaco are simply too small and worthless to add. The real size of some of the countries you have mentioned on the map are:
  • Monaco: Less than 1 pixel.
  • San Marino: About 3 pixels
  • Liechtenstein: About 7 pixels
  • Andorra: About 20 pixels
  • Luxembourg (modern day borders): About 110 pixels.
Apart from Luxembourg, these are all extremely small states with practically no population, and they have had zero impact history. You could MAYBE make a case for adding Andorra, but comparing either of those states to Luxembourg is not even worth attempting. Sure, you can make them larger than they really are, but there is nothing nearby any of those countries that is less worth adding than the microstate in question.
I don't know if any of you guys have played Vic2's mod HFM.

It has microstates (Andorra, Monaco, etc) and they are annoying as hell. They add zero interest to the game.
 
I don't know if any of you guys have played Vic2's mod HFM.

It has microstates (Andorra, Monaco, etc) and they are annoying as hell. They add zero interest to the game.
For once I happen to agree with you.

Anyway, it's no use discussing it; the devs haven't shown any interest into them.
 
How so? It's next to two islands which fit the same role - being an island - and doesn't carry much historical gravity, unlike Ravenna. And it wasn't that strategically important as the area around Como, which also had a bigger historical role and had disputes with Milan itself, even.

My previous answer was bit joke.
Now I'm speak seriously, Ravenna has less importance during the XV century than in the Medieval period but not for Venice, because the control of every port in the Adriatic Sea was very strategic in that time.
However the problem is not Ravenna itself but the decision of Paradox to use it to increase the geopolitical role of Venice in a map that start in the year 1444.
Venice is already strong by itself and with the other new Bergamo province, it is much powerful than Milan (also with its new province of Como).
Como will be in disputes with Milan? Historically yes. But in the map of the game appear like Cremona or Parma.
I don't know if Paradox know the Abbondio Republic, so I hope it can insert in the game as a variable for some disputes with Milan.
In anycase Venice even more Milan (if there will be some rebellion in Como against Milan government) has got a province (Ravenna) that could be avoid for a much balance choose (Rimini with Malatesta, or even Forlì/Imola with Sforza, if there is no space for too much provinces in the Romagna).
 
Ulm is not much bigger and significant for the european history than Monaco, Andorra or San Marino.
Of all the German free cities to choose from, you had to choose one of the very few that actually had a considerable area and population, making Ulm look like a giant compared to those three. Ulm in the 1400's had an area of about 780 km² (compared to Monaco's 2 km², San Marino's 61.2 km² and Andorra's 468 km²). It's population was about 60 000 (in all controlled areas, not just the city itself), compared to the populations of Monaco, San Marino and Andorra TODAY of 38 300, 33 403 and 74 794, respectively. Ulm might not have had a huge impact on history, but it was certainly not worse than either of those three. There's a reason why Ulm has been in the game the whole time, while Andorra, Monaco and San Marino are still left out.

The same Frankfurt or Aachen are not so big and are only simbolic heritage for the HRE.
Frankfurt was an important free city in the HRE, and one of the larger cities in Germany. I'm pretty sure if I look up Frankfurt's population, it would also make San Marino look like a small Norwegian fishing village.

Bologna, Como and Ravenna (the latter two as province belonging to Milan and Venice) or some new Sicilian or Sardinia province change very few the italian political situation, and don't create new environment for new alliances or strategies.
How does that not add more strategic options to the game? I'm curious to hear how San Marino adds more strategic depth than an Alpine pass.

We need more factions and new deep mechanism for their interaction like for HRE.
HRE is imperfect like factions and in some geographic place, but it's better and diversificate than Italy.
Italy is much smaller than the HRE. You can only fit so many provinces in a given part of the map before it turns into a nightmare.

Ok, I know the situation and the problem of graphic resolution of the map, but I think that some improve in Italy could be done adding much more provinces also in Tuscany, Romagna, Marche with a resize of the dimension of the provinces existent, even if the final patchwork that result could be more chaotic and less pretty like aspect and colours (they invented the zoom option also for this motive!).
Where are Sforza, Malaspina, Malatesta, Da Varano, Farnese, Orsini, Appiani? They are ALL too much small like San Marino or Monaco for implement in better the map of Italy? I hope no, because if we want a historical better experience, we need to research to recreate that environment.
Without looking these up, I would guess most of those are too small to be added, yes. The setup proposed by the devs is almost perfect for the game. It's not a history simulator or just a map. It's a game, and you have to make the provinces in a size that makes it possible to interact with them without too much misery. If you want overkill Italy, you should use mods. I think Voltaire's Nightmare or Beyond Typus could perhaps satisfy your requests.

I don't understand how could be improved the Catholicism and Pope, if doesn't have much provinces and vassals in Italy that can respond directly to him, directly or indirectly in its sphere of influence.
Pontifical States wasn't a monolithic block inside central Italy, we need much more management of the catholic roman vassals relationship, and a better mechanism in the curia election (not only based to an expense of diplomatic point for increase the % of probability)!.
In conclusion, it's not true that Italy is pheripherical or less fun respect HRE, Spain or France and England.
Italy was one of the richest places in Europe even if they don't have a big manpower immediately available in 1444 for big war.
These I agree with. Italy is one of the most interesting parts of Europe, and could perhaps get a small increase in development to counter the relatively smaller map additions.

Ok they are all small states and worthless but perhaps also Avignon, Ulm, Frankfurt (except in XXI century!!!) and probably Como, Ravenna, some Sicilian and Sardinia province have had zero impact in the world history.
The same could be said with many other provinces in Africa, Asia and South America.
So with this criterion we should perhaps start the game not in 1444 but in 1861, 40 years after its official endgame.
Many provinces in the world map are irrelevant historically, so we should omit them for a better conquer of the world? I think it's a nonsense.
Paradox has always increase the complexity of the game, in particular the design of the map, adding much more provinces.
I understand that Monaco and San Marino are a bit forced suggestion like provinces to add, but it's a good provocation for focus much more on new dinamic and aspect of the map, in particular in a complex and charming place like Italy, the cradle of the Catholicism, Renaissance and Machiavellism.
I like gaming with my city Mantua, i buyed EU4 and CK2 because there are these parochial opportunity that lack in many other game with same historic setting.
I'm lucky that Mantua and Gonzaga were important too much to have a province on the map even if they didn't conquest the world.
The others italian players want game EU4 with the same opportunity to dive in an historical political context that can reflect their ambitions and their parochial heritage.
The next EU4 DLC want improve Italy, it's a unique opportunity for improve the map adding what many gamers consider lacking: much italian factions, more provinces, and events or missions focused on geopolitical aspect and rivalry inside the peninsula.
Yes, Italy was fragmented. No, that does not mean that we need all those tiny Italian states. I'm not sure why you think comparing San Marino to Avignon is a good idea. Avignon tore Europe in half for a long time with various popes, anti-popes, and anti-anti-popes and countries supporting the various popes. San Marino's greatest accomplishment in history is the endless discussions on why it should or should not be added to EUIV. Which is strange, as the answer is very clearly no.

We need a more balance of power inside Italy.
Milan and Venice, Neaples or Sicily should not have much more manpower and provinces, because this way reduce the fun, it create a macro-State much powerful that can reduce to irrelevance the only significative news: Bentivoglio in Bologna.
The balance in Italy should be around the big six (Piedmont/Savoy, Milan, Venice, Tuscany/Florence, Popeman and Sicily/Naples), not the mid-to-non-existant tier countries.

Pontifical States need paradoxically much more vassals but only for decrease its monolithic power with the problem of their request of independence and for a curia and pope election much more historical near to the peninsula affairs.
In conclusion, if the Italian unity arrive officially only in 1861 there is a good reason... ;-)
Ok, so if we can't have San Marino and some other Italian microstates, the game should just start in 1861? It's either all or nothing?

My previous answer was bit joke.
Now I'm speak seriously, Ravenna has less importance during the XV century than in the Medieval period but not for Venice, because the control of every port in the Adriatic Sea was very strategic in that time.
However the problem is not Ravenna itself but the decision of Paradox to use it to increase the geopolitical role of Venice in a map that start in the year 1444.
Venice is already strong by itself and with the other new Bergamo province, it much powerful than Milan (also with its new province of Como).
Milan also got Pavia as a new province and Venice got Padua (or Verona, it doesn't matter). Regarding how much stronger it will make them, we'll have to wait and see how much development those provinces have.

Summary: You are asking for unreasonable amounts of provinces and tags in Italy. If you want to play the game with those, you should try Voltaire's Nightmare or Beyond Typus.