• 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:
Surely, you didn't expect the map change to be the brunt of the work, right? They're the playfield, so they can't be endlessly refined, some level of balance has to be tracked, etc. I think this was done in good faith, I agree with your contradictor. Even though it's quite apparent it's not perfect, calling it a disgrace is a gross exaggeration. Likewise MT, while fun (they do make for fun times in campaigns, imo) aren't the alpha and omega of a big revamp since they're locked to a single tag (or they're crude).

The meat should come with mechanic revamps, QOL work, AI improvement, and such. We'll be fixed then. Maps and MT are just easier to present so they come first.

I never said that the expansion will be bad. I never said it will be good by definition. I said I am judging week by week what the Developers want to introduce in the game. At least only what I can judge. I would never judge anything if I didn’t know quite some things in that particular topic. Why would I judge the map of Germany if I do not know well the area? But, since we are on my ground, so to speak, I allowed myself to point out the errors, accuracies and inconsistencies. If this is a sin, I’m a sinner. If this is a crime, I’m a criminal.
 
Furthermore, the last Ruling Legate, as I can see, was Cardinal Gil Álvarez Carrillo de Albornoz, who was ousted when Bologna revolted in 1376

True. But there were still Papal Legates in Bologna:
31FDAFFA-D1EB-4E9D-B09B-5984930C2BB9.jpeg
 
First of all, the Papal States were not as simple as: the Pope did not directly rule the city so it was independent. Every vassal nation is not ruled directly by the Overlord, so there is no point here really. It was not really an Oligarchic Republic, if not nominally. But this nominal thing is now the best thing to do?

A disloyal vassal can be reined in by paying money and other things. Yes. But two, three, ten, a dozen? Did you know how many subjects did the Pope have to quell?
Even three OPM vassals in EU4 are hard to rein in for the Papal States. And if they are at high liberty desire they may ally one another (as some did) or with neighboring powers that wanted to contrast the Pope (most subjects did this). But these Lord did this not to protect their independence (who cared, since being a Papal subject had its benefits). They wanted to protect their power. If the Pope guaranteed the power of the Bentivoglio on Bologna, that would be fine. If the Pope wanted to oust them, then many other States would have helped them against the Pope. It was like this. A game of power. Not a game of “independence”.

If it really was for Independence why many invaders were welcome in Italy? Because they guaranteed the power of some families which in ten helped them. This is the fact. “Nationalism” did not exist. The notion of “nation” did not exist. They were Lords of lands they wanted to rule on. It’s the basest of reasons? Maybe. But it worked for quite some time.

I rest my case.

"Invaders?" such as France and Spain were welcomed into Italy because the system of mercenaries that was in vogue at the time was a terrible system if you actually wanted to get anything done. Machiavelli himself talks at length about how much he loathes mercenaries and auxillaries because of this. Using mercenaries was unreliable; it's how the Sforza ended up ruling Milan, at the expense of the Venetians he was supposed to be working for. Foreign armies were better organized, better armed, and had greater numbers, and less of a chance to swindle you out of your conquests... Unless the foreign king decided to keep the spoils for himself.

But anyway, we were arguing mechanics. Bologna was independent. Not as a point of pride or nationalism, but as you say, because the Bentivoglio family enjoyed the power and prestige. In name only, at this point, were they vassals of the Pope. Reality is quite a bit more complicated than game mechanics can allow for. However, using the mechanics we have, which makes more sense? An independent OPM with a Papal core, which the Pope will try his darndest to get back, allowing for the emulation of Pope Julius II's invasion and conquest, and a better representation of the Bentivoglio's political games? Or making it a vassal that, for a few hundred ducats and a few nice words, peacefully allows itself to be annexed by the Papacy it had risen in revolt from in 1376? And again, mechanically speaking, Bologna had just revolted from Milan two years before game start. There's no way they would suddenly be a Papal Vassal after that, especially since historically they were, for all intents and purposes, an independent republic. Yes legally they might be a Vassal, but their situation in-game is more accurately represented by putting a Papal core on on them, then making them a vassal.
 
True. But there were still Papal Legates in Bologna:
View attachment 483014

I did say last Ruling Legate, and meant it as "last Ruling Legate before the city revolted". I could be incorrect on who or what administrated the city before 1376. But I think those on the list were tied to the diocese of Bologna, not the administration of the city. Though in 1527, Bologna was put directly under the administration of the church, and was administrated by a Legatus a latere and a Vice Legate.
 
"Invaders?" such as France and Spain were welcomed into Italy because the system of mercenaries that was in vogue at the time was a terrible system if you actually wanted to get anything done. Machiavelli himself talks at length about how much he loathes mercenaries and auxillaries because of this. Using mercenaries was unreliable; it's how the Sforza ended up ruling Milan, at the expense of the Venetians he was supposed to be working for. Foreign armies were better organized, better armed, and had greater numbers, and less of a chance to swindle you out of your conquests... Unless the foreign king decided to keep the spoils for himself.

But anyway, we were arguing mechanics. Bologna was independent. Not as a point of pride or nationalism, but as you say, because the Bentivoglio family enjoyed the power and prestige. In name only, at this point, were they vassals of the Pope. Reality is quite a bit more complicated than game mechanics can allow for. However, using the mechanics we have, which makes more sense? An independent OPM with a Papal core, which the Pope will try his darndest to get back, allowing for the emulation of Pope Julius II's invasion and conquest, and a better representation of the Bentivoglio's political games? Or making it a vassal that, for a few hundred ducats and a few nice words, peacefully allows itself to be annexed by the Papacy it had risen in revolt from in 1376? And again, mechanically speaking, Bologna had just revolted from Milan two years before game start. There's no way they would suddenly be a Papal Vassal after that, especially since historically they were, for all intents and purposes, an independent republic. Yes legally they might be a Vassal, but their situation in-game is more accurately represented by putting a Papal core on on them, then making them a vassal.

First of all, let me say that the word “invaders is correct”. The fact that some States welcomed them as liberators is precisely what I was talking about.

Mercenaries were not the reason the “outsiders” were welcomed. It was a weakness of the Italian States. Not because Machiavelli said that mercenaries were unreliable that the Lord stopped using them, regarding them as superior. So the digression about the mercenaries is an attempt to distract me? I do not want to talk about this since it’a not the time nor the place.

Stating the Bologna was independent doesn’t make you claim true. The fact that the Bentivoglio enjoyed the power or the prestige does not make Bologna independent. Reality is more complicated that the actual mechanics, this is obvious. Then, why a Papal Core and not a Milanese core? Did you fear Bologna is gonna be annexed Day 1?

The Pope did not try their darndest to subdue Bologna. They interfered from time to time. The war against Bologna was an opportunity which was taken at the right time. The city fell and was incorporated into the papal direct domains. The Pope tried their darndest to keep all of their subjects from revolting, and alone could never do that.

The fact that a revolt happened 68 years before the game does not mean much. They revolted from the DIRECT dominion of the Pope, not from a titular dominion.

Try in the early game as the Papal States to bribe Bologna and Urbino hundreds of Ducats each + Losing prestige + Spending Mana to develop them. Their troop count and their development means that it would be hard to lower their liberty desire under 50% right in the most delicate phases of the game. When you rivals in the Peninsula try to support their independence, there will be no such thing as “peaceful awaiting of integration”. Funny that you talk about not wanting Bologna to be annexed in the early game but Urbino was annexed in the 17th Century while in the game is immediately annexed and nobody cares.

Two years are a lot of time if you are living it and want to preserve your newly found power over the city from the Milanese. Two years are a massive amount of time for extensive diplomacy and asking for protection.
Man, it was enough time to dominate the newly founded Senate of Bologna, with the Bentivoglio family quickly obtaining massive influence and then total influence over Bologna. Saying that “two years” are a short time is a serious underestimation. History is very dynamic, especially in certain parts of the world in certain ages.
 
First of all, let me say that the word “invaders is correct”. The fact that some States welcomed them as liberators is precisely what I was talking about.

Mercenaries were not the reason the “outsiders” were welcomed. It was a weakness of the Italian States. Not because Machiavelli said that mercenaries were unreliable that the Lord stopped using them, regarding them as superior. So the digression about the mercenaries is an attempt to distract me? I do not want to talk about this since it’a not the time nor the place.

Stating the Bologna was independent doesn’t make you claim true. The fact that the Bentivoglio enjoyed the power or the prestige does not make Bologna independent. Reality is more complicated that the actual mechanics, this is obvious. Then, why a Papal Core and not a Milanese core? Did you fear Bologna is gonna be annexed Day 1?

The Pope did not try their darndest to subdue Bologna. They interfered from time to time. The war against Bologna was an opportunity which was taken at the right time. The city fell and was incorporated into the papal direct domains. The Pope tried their darndest to keep all of their subjects from revolting, and alone could never do that.

The fact that a revolt happened 68 years before the game does not mean much. They revolted from the DIRECT dominion of the Pope, not from a titular dominion.

Try in the early game as the Papal States to bribe Bologna and Urbino hundreds of Ducats each + Losing prestige + Spending Mana to develop them. Their troop count and their development means that it would be hard to lower their liberty desire under 50% right in the most delicate phases of the game. When you rivals in the Peninsula try to support their independence, there will be no such thing as “peaceful awaiting of integration”. Funny that you talk about not wanting Bologna to be annexed in the early game but Urbino was annexed in the 17th Century while in the game is immediately annexed and nobody cares.

Two years are a lot of time if you are living it and want to preserve your newly found power over the city from the Milanese. Two years are a massive amount of time for extensive diplomacy and asking for protection.
Man, it was enough time to dominate the newly founded Senate of Bologna, with the Bentivoglio family quickly obtaining massive influence and then total influence over Bologna. Saying that “two years” are a short time is a serious underestimation. History is very dynamic, especially in certain parts of the world in certain ages.

I meant in game terms, two years is quite fast to vassalize an OPM, especially one that's well-developed. And again, I am not arguing about Perugia or Urbino or other dev design choices, simply why I feel Bologna should be independent. Again, we can argue semantics and history, but at this point I feel we can go no further. I understand your opinion that Bologna should be a Papal Vassal, but I am convinced that it would be better represented as an independent state with a Papal core on it. I'm not going to move from my position, so we are at an impasse. Thank you for discussing the subject with me though.
 
Italy - 301.000 km2 area, 56 provinces.
Average size of province - 5.300 km2

Germany 357.000 km2, ~97 provinces (lost the number while counting)
Average size of province - 3.800 km2

German map already is a nightmare..
Average German province is even smaller than that of Low Countries..
Historical Germany (incl. Prussia, Silesia, Posen etc.) have more provinces than France and Italy combined, yet was poorer country than any of those.
Does it make any sense?

eu4 uses the Mercator projection. Your argument is invalid
 
EUIV does not use the Mercator projection. It uses a modified Miller cylindrical projection (which again is a modified Mercator). The north-south distortion is considerably less extreme than the Mercator projection.
 
I kinda feel that military access covers the situation perfectly - after all, in your map, the relevant land is not owned by either Austria or Milan but the Three Leagues.

I think you're missing the geopolitical implications, the Three Leagues and Venice were hostile and eventually at war with the Habsburg empire but the Habsburgs continued to supply troops through the region, military access in-game cannot be given if you are at war with a nation.

I think there is some confusion about the history of the valleys of Valtellina, Bormio and Chiavenna that I was hoping to not have to type out, but in reference to the map mentioned earlier I will try to give a quick explanation. In the early 16th century the Valtellina region was owned by the Visconti and then later the Sforzas of Milan. The area was known for its wine growing, but was also an important source of revenue for Milan. Trade tolls through the Alpine valleys to Austria and Venice granted a large amount of tax income. The largest city in the area was Bormio with a population of 5000 in 1300 while the administrative capital for Milan was established at Tirano. This is where the Milanese built heavy fortification against the many Swiss incursions into the valley. By the early 16th century Milan's fortunes changed as the Italian wars ravaged the peninsula. While distracted by wars with France, the Three Leagues stormed the region, capturing the castle at Tirano. The area was officially annexed into the Three Leagues in 1512.

The Valtellina (or in German, Veltin) would remain part of the Grey Leagues until the 17th century. Tensions over religion in the region exploded, in 1620 a Catholic revolt broke out in Valtellina against the spread of Prostestantism, a massive uprising led to the massacre of 400-600 Protestants across Valtellina and Bormio and drove the rest out, a Three leagues counter offensive was mounted but fell apart before even reaching the border. The revolt was only part of a larger picture, the revolt had been encouraged and funded by Spain in order to gain a foothold in the Alps with the goal of connecting two parts of the Habsburg empire, Spain and Austria, through Italy and bypassing their regional rivals, Venice. in 1622 Spain sent troops from Italy to support the Catholic rebels. The Spanish transferred control of the region to the Pope as a Catholic peace keeping force against any other protestant incursions. In reality though the Papacy was under heavy Spanish influence and Spain continued to use the valley as a source of troop movement even though technically in violation of their own terms. In 1623, alarmed by this obvious ruse by the Habsurgs, France, Venice and Savoy signed the Treaty of Paris, agreeing to dislodge the Spanish from Valtellina.

Soon the pieces were set for the inevitable showdown between the major powers of the 30 years war. Savoy declared war on Genoa in 1625, bringing in their ally France, with Cardinal Richelieu now has chief minister while Genoa was allied with Spain. The Duke of Estrées crossed Switzerland attacking and conquering the Valtellina, causing a scandal in the Catholic Church as a Cardinal had ordered soldiers to attack Papal troops. An Austrian army in Tyrol was quickly assembled by the Duke of Feria and dislodged the French from the valley. The Austrian army then descended from the Alps and attacked Savoy, eventually leading to a cessation of hostilities and relieving the siege of Genoa. The Treaty of Monzón was signed in 1626 shortly after the Pope reinforced the Valtellina with 6000 fresh troops. The treaty granted the Valtellina valley back to the Three League with a degree of anatomy and with the assurance that Roman Catholicism would be the only allowed religion. Both Spanish and French troops were allowed to pass through the mountain. French, Spanish and Vatican troops were to leave and Vatican soldiers dismantled the fortresses. France's allies were very unhappy with the arrangements, seeing it as a capitulation to Spain, while they received nothing in return. Spain, once again in treaty violation, left their troops stationed in the Valtellina. In response France launched a second campaign against Spain in Valtellina in 1631, demanding that the province be returned to the Grey Leagues as agreed upon in the Treaty of Monzón. Although it was well known to all parties involved that, while this was the pretext for war, France now was more interesting in taking the troublesome valley for itself, which they did in 1635. Although allied to the Grey Leagues technically, the French began to implement their own direct rule. Even more wary of French domination than Habsburg domination, Catholic and Protestant Grey League nobles formed a secret pact, called the Kettlebund, to drive the French out of Valtellina and restore it to the Grey Leagues, Spain heavily funded the movement and soon an 8000 strong mercenary army defeated the French and drove them out in 1637. In 1639, a treaty called the Terms of Milan, was signed between Spain and France essentially reinforcing the previous treaty. France closed the Habsurg route from Milan to Tyrol, Spain ensured the supremacy of Catholicism in the valley and the Three Leagues had the valleys returned to them.

Valtellina would remain part of the Grey Leagues for another 158 years until the forces of the French revolution reached Switzerland. In 1797 French revolutionary forces spilled across the border and invaded, quickly sweeping through in a matter of months. Simultaneously, the inhabitants of Valtellina, taking advantage of the chaos and sponsored by the French, rose up against the Grey Leagues and declared an Republic of Valtellina, with the ultimate goal of joining the revolutionary Italian Cisapline Republic. The Valtellina Republic was annexed into the Cisapline Republic later the same year. After the Revolutionary Wars, rather than return the province, it was occupied by Austrian forces and instead incorporated into Lombardy-Venetia and back under Habsburg control.

I would say this is all rather much, much more complicated than just clicking the "right of passage" button on a diplomacy screen. Rather it represents a large scale clash of interests from across Europe. Valtellina was of military, logistical, economic and religious importance, there are few places that represent the chaos of Europe in the 30 Years War more than the Valtellina. When looking at the list of who controlled the province and how much blood was spilled for these alpine valleys over the timeline of EU4, its evident that "right of passage" doesn't represent historical fact all that well.

Duchy of Milan until 1512
Three Leagues 1512-1620
Independent 1620-1622
Papal States 1622-1626
Spain 1626-1635
France 1635-1637
Spain 1637-1639
Three Leagues 1639-1797
Independent 1797
Cisapline Republic 1797-1802
Republic of Italy 1802-1805
Kingdom of Italy 1805-1814
Austria 1814
Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia 1814-1859
 
I meant in game terms, two years is quite fast to vassalize an OPM, especially one that's well-developed. And again, I am not arguing about Perugia or Urbino or other dev design choices, simply why I feel Bologna should be independent. Again, we can argue semantics and history, but at this point I feel we can go no further. I understand your opinion that Bologna should be a Papal Vassal, but I am convinced that it would be better represented as an independent state with a Papal core on it. I'm not going to move from my position, so we are at an impasse. Thank you for discussing the subject with me though.

What happens before the game cannot be discussed in game terms. Even one of the thugs that happen during EU4 timeframe cannot be discussed in game terms. This doesn’t not mean they did not happen.

Thank you for the discussion. It has been long, but it’s better for it to be over now.
 
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.

Well, I have pick Ulm in my consideration not for the density of population or for the urban extension in the XV century, but as an example of province that not have had a huge impact on history.
Frankfurter is a circle on the map of the game, historically it was hit by Thirty Years War and by the plague with a great reduction of population until the XIX century.
Probably Frankfurter was still large as density of population respect San Marino, and it was a free city of HRE, but it's importance is opinable (if we use as criterion the impact on the world history, every free city in HRE has got few impact).
As I have wrote, San Marino is useful only if we increase the provinces number in Romagna.
Avignon had lost the curia of Pope in favour to Rome.
Avignon was important in Middle Age, not so much in XV century.
If we consider that the balance in Italy should be only around Piedmont/Savoy, Milan, Venice, Tuscany/Florence, Pope, Sicily/Naples, you got a knowledge of Germany but you misunderstand the complexity of italian history.
And technically your "italian G6" makes irrelevant not only the others existent provinces (Siena, Lucca, Mantua, Ferrara, Monferrato, Urbino) but also the new upgrade on the map (Saluzzo and Bologna).
So why put Saluzzo and Bologna on the new map, if the italian unification is a question reserved only for the "italian G6"?.
If we use your criterion in Germany we should found only Bavaria, Saxony and Brandenburg as faction, because all the others provinces are mid-to-non-existant tier countries.
I totally forgot the existence of new Pavia and Padua provinces in my previous analisys (thanks for remind me it!)
So, my previous comments is right where I observe that there is a boost for the two main macro-State of North Italy toward a rapid and easy unification of peninsula.
Como could be a rebel province of Milan, but it's very unlikely Pavia.
The same story with new Padua province under Venice.
Ravenna under Venice doesn't create new mechanism in the game and it's a more criticizable as province, because it's a choice that voluntarily reduce the chance to play as a new faction for Romagna strategic territories.
It decreases the possibility for the Pope to go directly in Bologna without declare a war against Venice and its allies.
Bologna is completely isolate from Pontifical States because Ravenna is Venice and this it wasn't true in any case (even with Venice occupation of Ravenna).
Paradox want to recreate the condition for Agnadello Battle and a Holy coalition against Venice? Perhaps, but I tend to think that it's rather a simplification and a consolidation of the role of Venice in Italy, as a form of simmetrical compensation with the 2 new Milan provinces added.
So, this is totally inaccurate, because Pontifical States has got a complex interaction with many others factions in Romagna during history (eg, during pope Borgia).
Without many other provinces in Romagna (Forlì, Rimini, Imola, or Senigallia), the result in the game is a flat simplification and a consolidation of the role of Venice in Italy, because I don't think that Paradox want create great coalition (with HRE, France, Aragon, Milan, Mantua, Savoy, Hungary, Ferrara, Naples, Dauphiné) against Venice expansion inside the peninsula for not damage the possibility of the Serenissima gamer (respect potential Milan expansion) for reach the unification of Italy.
In a update of the italian EU4 map, I hope in more factions and province (especially in Tuscany, Marche and Romagna, and Pontifical States) for more various scenario inside Italy, and much strategy like happen in HRE also inside the Pope land with the vassals.
I know that Monaco or San Marino doesn't add much more to the game (I repeat that it were a my provocation!), but I think that many others italian provinces cannot be historically treated like 2 tiny insignificant State, for not reduce the final combination of the game.
Probably I should try the mods that you suggest, in any case historically, Savoy exclused, the other G5 hasn't united Italy like the so called mid-to-non-existant tier countries.
 
In a update of the italian EU4 map, I hope in more factions and province (especially in Tuscany, Marche and Romagna, and Pontifical States) for more various scenario inside Italy, and much strategy like happen in HRE also inside the Pope land with the vassals.
I know that Monaco or San Marino doesn't add much more to the game (I repeat that it were a my provocation!), but I think that many others italian provinces cannot be historically treated like 2 tiny insignificant State, for not reduce the final combination of the game.

The fact is that there were many small principalities, counties, duchies and marquisates in Italy and other parts of Europe. If we were to accurately depict every single, independent European nation, Europe would be littered with tiny provinces only a few pixels in area. Why not add Mirandola, Finale, Incisa, Guastalla and Orange? The answer is that you only want San Marino and Andorra only because they still exist in the present-day, not because they will add any real strategic depth to the game. It's important to remember this is a game, not a 1444 world map, and that you can't just add small provinces for historical aesthetics. Sometimes, history will have to be sacrificed to make the game playable, and simplifying the map to not have micro-states is one of those sacrifices.
 
I didn't really mean averages across area that huge, but that's I see your point. Germany is slightly overrepresented for sure, but the provinces @LucaF. was asking would make Ibiza look like a whale in comparison.
One thing you should keep in mind is that the pixels in the Germany area don't represent the same area as they do in the Italy area. If you use the size of the provinces in pixels instead of km², you get this (using Victoria II borders to determine the size of Italy and Germany):
Italy: 9779 px / 56 provinces = 174.6 px/province
Germany: 14435 px / 93 provinces = 155.2 px/province
It's still below Germany, but not by as much as when you're using km², which doesn't really work on a map with a projection that isn't equal-area. To get to Germany's level, Italy would need 7 more provinces. Actually, they might only need 6, as EUIV Italy has a huge part of it missing to make space for the giant Venice island.
Italy also has the unfortunate disadvantage of having a very peculiar shape, which sort of locks you into some province shapes in certain parts of it. Germany is a lot more square, so you have more freedom to do whatever you want to the map there. Overall, it's not that bad. They're very comparable.

I think you are cherry pick my position about the upgrade necessary for the italian map in EU4 with the intent to ridiculate every possible request of change of map around the Monaco and San Marino request.
That is not a good argumentation by you.
I have wrote about San Marino and Monaco as a provocation only after many others comments about Perugia, Romagna, southern Tuscany and the request for put also families like Orsini, Farnese, Malaspina, Sforza, Da Varano in the map.
I have post the historically map of the XV century, so if Paradox want an update with a good historical reconstruction of the geopolitical Italy during the XV century, I think should focus much more on a redesign the Central Italy (Tuscany and Pontifical States) not only Milan, Venice and some Sardinia or Sicilian provinces.
If Frankfurt is a circle in the German map, I think that many other factions could be insert in italian map like vassals or independent Signoria.
 
The fact is that there were many small principalities, counties, duchies and marquisates in Italy and other parts of Europe. If we were to accurately depict every single, independent European nation, Europe would be littered with tiny provinces only a few pixels in area. Why not add Mirandola, Finale, Incisa, Guastalla and Orange? The answer is that you only want San Marino and Andorra only because they still exist in the present-day, not because they will add any real strategic depth to the game. It's important to remember this is a game, not a 1444 world map, and that you can't just add small provinces for historical aesthetics. Sometimes, history will have to be sacrificed to make the game playable, and simplifying the map to not have micro-states is one of those sacrifices.

Mirandola, Finale, Incisa, Guastalla, Orange could be a great update.
I request also Forlì, Rimini, Imola, Pesaro, Camerino, Perugia, Castro, Piombino, Massa, Carrara, Tenda.
Because we need playable factions like Sforza, Malaspina, Da Varano, Orsini, Farnese in the italian map...
Don't cherry pick my position about the upgrade necessary for the italian map in EU4 with the intent to ridiculate every possible request of change of map around the Monaco and San Marino request.
I have wrote that Monaco and San Marino were my provocation for the treatment reserved to the others provinces and factions in the map (that weren't microstates!).
The game want be a 1444 world map (Ravenna and Como respectively under Venice and Milan derive form the year of game starting), and if this is true for Germany it should be true also for Italy.
 
First off, I'd just like to say that I appreciate the effort being put in by the devs in their attempts at covering this region, and while there still remain several problematic omissions, I do want to acknowledge that as of 1.28 Italy sincerely needs all the attention it can get, and I'm glad that you are actively trying to tackle it. :)

That being said, there are a few things that I think necessary to bring to the attention of the devs, and rather than beat to death the same horses of Valtellina and the Papal States, I will instead stick to the regions of Italy I am more familiar with. I mean no disrespect of course, these are just some issues I have having looked into a few of these topics myself.

View attachment 482993


I understand that Venice is an island for gameplay reasons. But something is STILL wrong around Trieste...
The whole East Adriatic is in need of work in this regard. Dalmatia also has a weird triangular peninsula sticking out of it which does not exist if you look at maps of the region.

The province of Görz should also keep its coastline, while more land can be taken from either Istria or Carniola to make Trieste more clickable. Fiume/Rijeka should also be split off of Istria and given to Austria to represent the Habsburg- and formerly Gorizian-controlled inland portions of the Margraviate of Istria, as well as the city itself, which was under Austrian control. Furthermore, Gorizia should be an independent tag as while it was indeed a rump state by 1444, it was in no way subject to the Habsburgs and the Gorizian Counts were also Princes of the Empire (something to this effect will be out hopefully before the Balkan dev diary ;) ).

Do we really need six provinces in Sicily? The island was already in a state of decline in 1444, and though I agree with Girgenti, the other province I find to be excessive. Also, the island should be in a PU under Aragon as the island was very much autonomous and was in fact ruled by Juan II while Alfonso was still King of Aragon, so it was in a situation very similar to Navarre and was in fact ruled by the same person. However, since a PU between Navarre and Sicily would be stupid, I think one under Aragon would work better. Furthermore, the local nobility was very powerful and often impeded upon Aragonese attempts at establishing more direct rule.

Corsica should also be split between the north (Cismonte) and south (Pumonti), with the former under Genoese control, and the latter independent but guaranteed by Aragon. I made a suggestion about it here yesterday.

Otherwise, I don't really have anything else to add. Just a question: would it be possible for us to get a look at the culture map mode in one of these screenshots?
 
Well, I have pick Ulm in my consideration not for the density of population or for the urban extension in the XV century, but as an example of province that not have had a huge impact on history.
Frankfurter is a circle on the map of the game, historically it was hit by Thirty Years War and by the plague with a great reduction of population until the XIX century.
Probably Frankfurter was still large as density of population respect San Marino, and it was a free city of HRE, but it's importance is opinable (if we use as criterion the impact on the world history, every free city in HRE has got few impact).
As I have wrote, San Marino is useful only if we increase the provinces number in Romagna.
I think you are cherry pick my position about the upgrade necessary for the italian map in EU4 with the intent to ridiculate every possible request of change of map around the Monaco and San Marino request.
That is not a good argumentation by you.
I have wrote about San Marino and Monaco as a provocation only after many others comments about Perugia, Romagna, southern Tuscany and the request for put also families like Orsini, Farnese, Malaspina, Sforza, Da Varano in the map.
I have post the historically map of the XV century, so if Paradox want an update with a good historical reconstruction of the geopolitical Italy during the XV century, I think should focus much more on a redesign the Central Italy (Tuscany and Pontifical States) not only Milan, Venice and some Sardinia or Sicilian provinces.
If Frankfurt is a circle in the German map, I think that many other factions could be insert in italian map like vassals or independent Signoria.
Sorry, I thought you were serious about San Marino. Still, you can't really add most of those states on the map without it becoming a nightmare to select the provinces. If you add 2 more provinces in what in the new map is Urbino, Ravenna and Bologna, they would be smaller than Frankfurt on average. Frankfurt is fine because it's a single province, surrounded by slightly larger provinces. In Romagna it would be a mess, because they would all have to have weird shapes to fit the capital within the province and also be large enough to select. I don't understand why you are so insistent on adding these microstates over something of immense strategic value like Valtellina.

If we consider that the balance in Italy should be only around Piedmont/Savoy, Milan, Venice, Tuscany/Florence, Pope, Sicily/Naples, you got a knowledge of Germany but you misunderstand the complexity of italian history.
And technically your "italian G6" makes irrelevant not only the others existent provinces (Siena, Lucca, Mantua, Ferrara, Monferrato, Urbino) but also the new upgrade on the map (Saluzzo and Bologna).
So why put Saluzzo and Bologna on the new map, if the italian unification is a question reserved only for the "italian G6"?.
I never said unifying Italy is only for the big 6. Of course you should be able to form Italy as any of the Italian states. What I'm saying is that something like Lucca could never even dream of beating Milan in a fair fight, which is why the balance should be around the big 6. They are the real powers of Italy and decide what states get to live or die. If the balance between Venice and Milan is off, that's a lot worse than if Venice is too strong compared to Urbino. I know that's a bad example, as there is no comparison between those. Venice would need 40 extra provinces to be at the correct power level compared to Urbino.
You can't expect it to be as easy to form Italy as Urbino as it would be to do the same as Milan? A player can do it for sure. There are players who have conquered the world as Ulm and Ryukyu, so forming Italy as any of the Italian states should be easy compared to that.

If we use your criterion in Germany we should found only Bavaria, Saxony and Brandenburg as faction, because all the others provinces are mid-to-non-existant tier countries.
I totally forgot the existence of new Pavia and Padua provinces in my previous analisys (thanks for remind me it!)
So, my previous comments is right where I observe that there is a boost for the two main macro-State of North Italy toward a rapid and easy unification of peninsula.
Como could be a rebel province of Milan, but it's very unlikely Pavia.
The same story with new Padua province under Venice.
Ravenna under Venice doesn't create new mechanism in the game and it's a more criticizable as province, because it's a choice that voluntarily reduce the chance to play as a new faction for Romagna strategic territories.
It decreases the possibility for the Pope to go directly in Bologna without declare a war against Venice and its allies.
Bologna is completely isolate from Pontifical States because Ravenna is Venice and this it wasn't true in any case (even with Venice occupation of Ravenna).
Paradox want to recreate the condition for Agnadello Battle and a Holy coalition against Venice? Perhaps, but I tend to think that it's rather a simplification and a consolidation of the role of Venice in Italy, as a form of simmetrical compensation with the 2 new Milan provinces added.
So, this is totally inaccurate, because Pontifical States has got a complex interaction with many others factions in Romagna during history (eg, during pope Borgia).
Without many other provinces in Romagna (Forlì, Rimini, Imola, or Senigallia), the result in the game is a flat simplification and a consolidation of the role of Venice in Italy, because I don't think that Paradox want create great coalition (with HRE, France, Aragon, Milan, Mantua, Savoy, Hungary, Ferrara, Naples, Dauphiné) against Venice expansion inside the peninsula for not damage the possibility of the Serenissima gamer (respect potential Milan expansion) for reach the unification of Italy.
In a update of the italian EU4 map, I hope in more factions and province (especially in Tuscany, Marche and Romagna, and Pontifical States) for more various scenario inside Italy, and much strategy like happen in HRE also inside the Pope land with the vassals.
I know that Monaco or San Marino doesn't add much more to the game (I repeat that it were a my provocation!), but I think that many others italian provinces cannot be historically treated like 2 tiny insignificant State, for not reduce the final combination of the game.
Germany didn't have many large powers like Italy did. It was split into hundreds of tiny little states and a couple of bigger ones (Brandenburg, Austria, Bavaria, Saxony). Sure, Italy had its share of tiny states as well, but Italy had those large states, and even some middle sized states like Siena, Genoa, Modena and Mantua.
I don't understand why the bigger states can't have more provinces. What harm does giving more provinces to Milan or Venice do, other than increasing the difficulty of forming Italy as an Italian OPM? If anything, that's more historical.
The map is simplified because it's for a game. Adding all those microstates would not make playing in Italy an enjoyable experience for a lot of player. I know that the Papal States was not a unified state, but you just can't add all the little states that were under Papal influence. A compromise has to be made, and the new map of Italy is a really good setup, both for gameplay and for the historical start.

How about you try to make the provinces you are suggesting work? Download the map from the DD and use Paint to draw in the provinces you'd like to see. If run into problems because it's too small, you can try to imagine how hard it would be to fit all those into the province map, which is several times smaller than the screenshot in the DD.