EU4 - Development Diary - 9th of October 2018

[regne_valencia]

The province of valencia must be a grassland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horta_of_Valencia

 

[TheRipper69-PT]

I've taken a look at city positioning as well as a few other matters. First though I'd like to quote this post by @Trin Tragula which explains some of the reasoning behind such things:



The short version is that city positioning and province shapes aren't entirely a matter of historical geography. With that said, here's how Iberia is looking on my personal build right now. Once again, nations are released for the sake of example.

View attachment 409932

@neondt please consider adding Braga instead of Aveiro and introducing Setubal (sado estuary and salt produced here was very important for Portugal) between Lisboa and Beja. Just this two changes for Portugal and I think it will improve the map a lot.

 

[Naranjito]

I've taken a look at city positioning as well as a few other matters. First though I'd like to quote this post by @Trin Tragula which explains some of the reasoning behind such things:



The short version is that city positioning and province shapes aren't entirely a matter of historical geography. With that said, here's how Iberia is looking on my personal build right now. Once again, nations are released for the sake of example.

View attachment 409932

Thank you very much for the changes and for putting up with the hordes of Spaniards and Portuguese clamoring for more and more.

If you want historical liberating kingdoms, more or less:

Kingdom of Asturias: Asturias, Cantabria and Palencia.

Kingdom of Navarre: Navarra, Vizcaya and La Rioja (Castilian culture).

I think that this way you would not have problems, I say it because the Basques and Navarre are going to protest you and you may hear some complaint.

And then, forgive me for asking you a question, why do you think that Extremadura does not deserve a province and state more? and yet in Catalonia or Valencia there are so many provinces.

Thanks for everything. I know from experience that I am, I include myself, heavy.

 

[Bizkit II]

Thank you very much for the changes and for putting up with the hordes of Spaniards and Portuguese clamoring for more and more.

If you want historical liberating kingdoms, more or less:

Kingdom of Asturias: Asturias, Cantabria and Palencia.

Kingdom of Navarre: Navarra, Vizcaya and La Rioja (Castilian culture).

I think that this way you would not have problems, I say it because the Basques and Navarre are going to protest you and you may hear some complaint.

And then, forgive me for asking you a question, why do you think that Extremadura does not deserve a province and state more? and yet in Catalonia or Valencia there are so many provinces.

Thanks for everything. I know from experience that I am, I include myself, heavy.

Why Kingdom of Asturias? It became Leon Kingdom.

 

[Bobby Shaftoe]

Thank you very much for the changes and for putting up with the hordes of Spaniards and Portuguese clamoring for more and more.

If you want historical liberating kingdoms, more or less:

Kingdom of Asturias: Asturias, Cantabria and Palencia.

Kingdom of Navarre: Navarra, Vizcaya and La Rioja (Castilian culture).

I think that this way you would not have problems, I say it because the Basques and Navarre are going to protest you and you may hear some complaint.

And then, forgive me for asking you a question, why do you thi27nk that Extremadura does not deserve a province and state more? and yet in Catalonia or Valencia there are so many provinces.

Thanks for everything. I know from experience that I am, I include myself, heavy.

I would say Leon rather than Palencia, for the Kingdom of Asturias.

Why Kingdom of Asturias? It became Leon Kingdom.

It makes sense for a tag for the Kingdom of Asturias. What happens if I import a savegame from CK2 without ever having done the transition from K. Asturias to K. Leon?

 

[Mingmung]

Tiny nitpick:
- It's A Coruña instead of A Coruna
- It's Cáceres instead of Caceres

The current map of Iberia would be 'correct*' if you take this and my other (latest) feedback I posted in the suggestion-thread into account.

* Cultures, terrain and trade-goods not taken into consideration. Same for priorities; some provinces might still be better options than Aveiro, for example. Dynamic province-names are also a thing and I don't expect every city to be in the 100% exact location, they should be in the correct province and roughly in the correct place, though.

 

[Schwarz_89]

I've taken a look at city positioning as well as a few other matters. First though I'd like to quote this post by @Trin Tragula which explains some of the reasoning behind such things:



The short version is that city positioning and province shapes aren't entirely a matter of historical geography. With that said, here's how Iberia is looking on my personal build right now. Once again, nations are released for the sake of example.

View attachment 409932

Thank you for taking the time for reading the feedback of the community, as sometimes we can be picky with our concerns

As @Mingmung and others have said before (also me, in my last post here), some of the names should be changed, like all names in galician language or in spanish, but that mixture (having A Coruña, the galician name and Orense, the spanish one in the map with an independent kingdom of Galicia, for example).

The changes are great and I'll say again that i'm glad that the devs listened to us. Keep up the good work!

EDIT: I've changed the first paragraph a little bit.

 

[navaluiki]

Is there any chance of getting additional provinces? Or the final map will be like that?

 

[Mingmung]

Thank you for taking the time for reading the feedback of the community, as sometimes we can be picky and annoying with our complaints

As @Mingmung and others have said before (also me, in my last post here), some of the names should be changed, like all names in galician language or in spanish, but that mixture (having A Coruña, the galician name and Orense, the spanish one in the map with an independent kingdom of Galicia, for example).

The changes are great and I'll say again that i'm glad that the devs listened to us. Keep up the good work!

I've learned that people shouldn't feel sorry for giving feedback, as it undermines the gravity of the feedback in question.

You shouldn't apologize for giving good feedback. Not everyone posts good feedback, so that's another thing. But if you do, don't apologize. They wouldn't know the problems with the region if we didn't give any feedback. Most of us are big fans of this series, we've put many hours into the game as well as into the discussions here. My own feedback-threads, for example, take hours upon hours to make. That's because I love this game. The developers should listen to the people here, as they've shown, and continue to take all of us seriously. I mean, we might be a vocal minority, but I've seen true jewels of suggestions around here that just shine too much to be overlooked.

And about the art of giving feedback... Well, that's another discussion.

 

[Barón Rojo]

I've taken a look at city positioning as well as a few other matters. First though I'd like to quote this post by @Trin Tragula which explains some of the reasoning behind such things:



The short version is that city positioning and province shapes aren't entirely a matter of historical geography. With that said, here's how Iberia is looking on my personal build right now. Once again, nations are released for the sake of example.

View attachment 409932

Sorry but the Asturias kingdom still does not make sense. Cantabria is the birthplace of Castille, and Vizcaya is Basque obviously. It only have a slight sense as a one province country covering Asturias (maybe Lugo, being extremely generous). It is like adding Essex or Wessex to England or Babylon to Iraq, something with null historical sense; like when Almohads were in EU2.

 

[E-97]

Aragón has lost a big part of his eastern territory. Lleida hasn't got this extension. Actually is the province of Urgell and north of Tarragona province from EUIV. This new province is incorrect

 

[Barón Rojo]

Andalusia (which already exists as a formable tag for Granada if I remember correctly) has more sense as a releasable tag.
INFO HERE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andalusian_independentist_conspiracy_(1641)

 

[Metroidkirby]

@neondt This is really nice to redraw the Maghreb, things look good for Marrocco and Tunisia, but Algeria really lost a lot here. Before we had this nice area of 5 costal provinces from Algiers to Marrocco. Now it's only 3 provinces areas with hostile core creation cost.

Perhaps we could use the beyliks of the Regency of Algiers to redraw areas? They were used since the ottoman conquest in 1515 to the french conquest in 1848.

 

[Tob.Ristlin]

Asturias: The Kingdom of Asturias ceased to exist long before our start date, but it nicely fills the absence of releasable nations in the region.

YUSSSSSSSSSS

 

[Mingmung]

@neondt This is really nice to redraw the Maghreb, things look good for Marrocco and Tunisia, but Algeria really lost a lot here. Before we had this nice area of 5 costal provinces from Algiers to Marrocco. Now it's only 3 provinces areas with hostile core creation cost.

Perhaps we could use the beyliks of the Regency of Algiers to redraw areas? They were used since the ottoman conquest in 1515 to the french conquest in 1848.

There are some errors here and there, though.

 

[withche.07]

@neondt This is really nice to redraw the Maghreb, things look good for Marrocco and Tunisia, but Algeria really lost a lot here. Before we had this nice area of 5 costal provinces from Algiers to Marrocco. Now it's only 3 provinces areas with hostile core creation cost.

Perhaps we could use the beyliks of the Regency of Algiers to redraw areas? They were used since the ottoman conquest in 1515 to the french conquest in 1848.

Actually @omar44 gave good suggestions here for Maghreb, he also has maps.

For Tunisia I would do something like the map I uploaded.
1. Tunis
2. Bizerte
3. Béja, should be a grain province
4. Kef
5. Kairaouan
6. Nabeul or Hammamet
7. Sousse
8. Monastir
9. Djerba
10. Sfax
11. Gabes, I mean you can't have the gulf of Gabes without Gabes
12. Gafsa
13. Tataouine

Also there is big free domain book about Corsair territories on web I posted in my thread, I guess it includes data about towns and population in region. I don't have time yet to read it fully but it might be good reference for detailed Algiers:

I concluded my suggestions here in another post:

I have found further information about corsair activities in this book: (I wish I had full book): Christendom Destroyed: Europe 1517-1648

According to data these are known corsair territories: Sale, Oran, Algiers, Bougie, Tunis, Djerba, Tripoli. As far as I know most of these, especially Tunis, Djerba, Tripoli were subjugate pirate strongholds under Ottomans flag.

Data also includes further details for Jan Janszoon and Ivan Dirkie de Veenboer (Süleyman Reis).

I could also find one public domain book about Barbary Corsairs here in archive.org
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.276990
The Barbary Corsairs by Stanley Lane Poole

I am planning to read it

 

[coegho]

They would be imposed if anyone was being forced to use them. Are Galician speakers that say Moscova or Bruxelas imposing these exonyms on the inhabitants of these cities?

Read some history. The imposition of Castilian language in Galicia is a well known fact. Nobody went to Russia to teach Russians that their language was a "dialect of Galician" and try to eradicate it at all levels.

Galicia has never been conquered by Spain, Castile or any other Spanish kingdom. It's been ruled by whoever was ruling the kingdoms of Asturias, Leon and Spain, successively, since the 8th century until this day.

From the late middle ages and up until the 19th century, having an education in Galicia meant for the most part being educated in Spanish, because this was the language of the administration, centred in Castile. Nobody had an evil plan to eradicate Galician, which was the collection of popular romances spoken by most people, with Spanish being increasingly spoken in the cities. People who spoke Spanish whether inside or outside Galicia would use traditional Spanish names such as Orense and La Coruña for places in Galicia, and would use whatever Galician name it had when referring to a place that didn't have a Spanish name.

With 19th century Romantic literary movements, Galician was standardised and promoted as an appropriate language for literature and education. With no one suppressing anything.

During Franco's dictatorship the state tried to get everyone to speak Spanish, it didn't use Galician in education or in dealings with the administration and it promoted Spanish as the proper language as opposed to what it saw as backward Galician. At this time many local place names were crudely adapted to Spanish, such as the famous case of Sanjenjo.

This is most definitely not the case since the transformations of the late 70s and early 80s. The regional administration today works mostly in Galician, it promotes its use and calls places by their Galician names. Also people have been educated either both in Galician and Spanish or only in Galician, when nationalists were in power.

I struggle to see any imposition today or at any time other than the four decades of dictatorship. Both Galician and Spanish have been spoken in Galicia to varying degrees before, during and after the only period of repression and imposition there has been.

A different matter is that of those that want to make everyone in Galicia speak one language, of which there are many more in power that want only Galician than only Spanish. In general, most people seem to be fine with letting people choose what they want to speak and they use Spanish or Galician place names when speaking Spanish on a case by case basis. So many say Orense while viewing Sanjenjo as a ridiculous adaptation.

Well, that's simply not true. Galicia was a separate kingdom with its own laws, and there were A LOT of dynastic wars between Galician and Castilian nobility, both with diferent sociopolitic interests. Galicia lost all of them. That's all.
Also, "having an education in Galicia meant for the most part being educated in Spanish", well, maybe, that's why everybody spoke Galician, because nobody had an education in Galicia except for the local elites imposed by Isabel and Fernando during the process known as "Doma e Castrazón".

 

[Tob.Ristlin]

Sorry but the Asturias kingdom still does not make sense. Cantabria is the birthplace of Castille, and Vizcaya is Basque obviously. It only have a slight sense as a one province country covering Asturias (maybe Lugo, being extremely generous). It is like adding Essex or Wessex to England or Babylon to Iraq, something with null historical sense; like when Almohads were in EU2.

Asturias was a principality from centuries before the EUIV timeline, with its own institutions since exactly the starting time of EUIV (and separate from those of Leon), which btw declared themselves sovereign after they revolted against Napoleon, also within the game's timespan. If Galicia, Catalonia and Valencia are releasables, Asturias can definitely be so as well.

 

[tommassi]

Well, everyone was saying Crunia or Cruña in the XV century, Coruña became a more accepted name much later, and that's a documented fact. I suppose you can read Galician, take a look at this:
https://ruc.udc.es/dspace/bitstream...d=E2F65D8A5395489C368541B65125CF68?sequence=1

Castilian people indeed call it "La Coruña", and that name appears in some old documents because, you know, they were called "Dark Centuries" for a reason, Galician language was totally marginalized at that time because of its subsidiary role inside of the Castilian crown. It's not a big deal, I know, is the same toponym with the article gratuitously translated to Castilian. But the truth is, today "La Coruña" is an incorrect toponym (the only legal one in Galician or Castilian is "A Coruña"), and its use creates a lot more controversy between Galicians than "A Coruña" or simply "Coruña". And the same happens for Catalan toponyms and, in a lesser degree, Valencian and Basque toponyms. If you consider that "nationalist", well, I repeat, the only legal form is the "Galician" one in all Spain today, is the Spanish law a "Galician nationalist" one? I suggested Crunia or Cruña as a way of totally evade that debate with a technically correct medieval form, but I suppose that this wasn't an option for you.

This thing with the names is getting downright silly. I guess the only legal name for London is London and I doubt you go around saying London while speaking in either Galician or Spanish.

Sorry I'm replying to your message, because it's getting annoying on both sides. But I had to choose one.

PS.- If the name of the province is so important to any of you, just mod it. Easy as hell to do.

 

[pauletx]

Read some history. The imposition of Castilian language in Galicia is a well known fact. Nobody went to Russia to teach Russians that their language was a "dialect of Galician" and try to eradicate it at all levels.

Wont be fair just using Galician names when playing as Galicia, and using Castilian names playing as Castille? At least your culture is represented, wich is far more than some of us can say.