Tinto Maps #12 - 26th of July 2024 - Germany

[Inzano]

My suggestion for south east HRE. I came up with it as a compromise between reviewing Tinto Maps, community suggestions and various historic data.

View attachment 1172522

	AREA:	PROVINCE:	#	TERRITORY:		OWNER:	vassal of:	RGO:
AREA:	CARNIOLA
		Krain	1kra	Ljubljana	Laibach	Habsburg		Stone
		(blue)	2kra	Kranj	Krainburg	Habsburg		Iron
			3kra	Novo Mesto		von Pettau	Salzburg	Livestock
			4kra	Bled		Brixen		Iron
			5kra	Postojna		Habsburg		Wool
			6kra	Kočevje		Ortenburg		Wood
		Gorz	1gor	Gorizia		von Gorz		Clay
		(yellow)	2gor	Tolmin		von Gorz		Mercury
			3gor	Trieste		Free Imperial City		Salt
		(Lower) Stiria	1sti	Marburg	Maribor	Habsburg		Wine
		(green)	3sti	Ptuj	Pettau	von Pettau	Salzburg	Wine
			2sti	Celje	Cilli	von Cilli		Stone
			4sti	Windishgratz	Sloven Gradec	von Cilli		Lead
	DALMATIA
		Istria	1ist	Capodistria	Koper	Venice		Salt
		(purple)	2ist	Rovigno	Rovinj	Venice		Lumber
			3ist	Pula		Venice		Wine
			4ist	Pazin		von Gorz		Olive
			5ist	Buzet		von Gorz		Fruit

@Palando and I each increased the density of locations in our proposals in order to bring the area of Slovenia closer to HRE. In your case for Carniola and Gorizia you actually proposing even worse what the devs have us prepared. They even mapped the locations more historical.

 

[Palando]

My suggestion for south east HRE. I came up with it as a compromise between reviewing Tinto Maps, community suggestions and various historic data.

View attachment 1172522

	AREA:	PROVINCE:	#	TERRITORY:		OWNER:	vassal of:	RGO:
AREA:	CARNIOLA
		Krain	1kra	Ljubljana	Laibach	Habsburg		Stone
		(blue)	2kra	Kranj	Krainburg	Habsburg		Iron
			3kra	Novo Mesto		von Pettau	Salzburg	Livestock
			4kra	Bled		Brixen		Iron
			5kra	Postojna		Habsburg		Wool
			6kra	Kočevje		Ortenburg		Wood
		Gorz	1gor	Gorizia		von Gorz		Clay
		(yellow)	2gor	Tolmin		von Gorz		Mercury
			3gor	Trieste		Free Imperial City		Salt
		(Lower) Stiria	1sti	Marburg	Maribor	Habsburg		Wine
		(green)	3sti	Ptuj	Pettau	von Pettau	Salzburg	Wine
			2sti	Celje	Cilli	von Cilli		Stone
			4sti	Windishgratz	Sloven Gradec	von Cilli		Lead
	DALMATIA
		Istria	1ist	Capodistria	Koper	Venice		Salt
		(purple)	2ist	Rovigno	Rovinj	Venice		Lumber
			3ist	Pula		Venice		Wine
			4ist	Pazin		von Gorz		Olive
			5ist	Buzet		von Gorz		Fruit

I don't see why we need a 'compromise' and what the actual 'upgrade' of your proposal is.

Carniola has the same amount of provinces like it has now. The difference is that you killed Bischofflack and replaced it with Krainburg. The borders are a bit different, so that now Laibach is by far the biggest province of them all. Moreover, Rudolfswerth was a foundation of the Habsburgs, so it still should be their's. If the complicated landholding of this region is to be depicted, more provinces really have to be added here.

It also seems like you want to remove Cividale and maybe even more of the Aquileian provinces.

The only properly new provinces compared to the PDX map are Windisch Grätz and Wolfsberg, but the former was owned by the Habsburgs and not by Cilli. You also extended the borders of Leibnitz and Völkermarkt further south which doesn't really make sense, e.g. the Salzburger territory round Leibnitz was extremely small. Windisch Grätz is not even in your province (you even marked the locations, so that's a bit odd).

In Istria you only added Gafers so that the modern Slovenian borders can be represented, as it seems. You also moved Rijeka to Croatia and want to make Cirknenz smaller.

So in general it is a downgrade in most provinces and a mixed bag in others.

 

[Znikii]

No, Aquileia stays the same. My bad for not putting more effort into it. Monfalcone and Cividale are under the Bishops of Aquileia in the area/province of Aquileia and Friuli, bordering Gorizia and Trieste.

While I understand the sentiment for granularity, since it’s a prerequisite or at least the first and easiest thing to do in order to achieve better historical accuracy of Voltaire’s Nightmare, what you and some others are proposing is the developers' night terror. The matter of fact is that there are other criteria and reasons that determine the size and granularity of territories: population size, economic power, historic prestige, gameplay balance (neighboring areas and provinces not differing too much in size from one another, somewhat equal distribution of resources), and fun (army movement, variety in game plan options).

Regarding the historicity of the 1337 game start… Does 200 years of prior history and ownership matter if titles changed hands in 1336? Or is it smart and prudent to also consider what is about to happen 50 years down the line? Or in 1550? What about shifting borders? Should de facto or de jure reality take precedence? And then there is drawing borders and deciding how to split the world according to the late 18th century (more than 350 years later from the start of the game!) political reality. Is this even a historically honest thing to do?

My guidelines in how to do all the borders were:

1. First to look at the situation in 1337, without going too far into the past or future for easy answers.
2. Get the understanding of how things stood at the time, about the political development and changes that happend over first half of 14. centruy.
3. Then, I crafted well-rounded territories around major settlements or trade routes with respect to topography.
4. Final touches were made for gameplay-balance considerations.

There is just no good reason to have sparsely populated, mountainous, heavily forested areas, with poor soil and unkind weather as in northern and southern Carniola, to be full of territories, like we are in the middle of Tuscany.

Carniola: I felt like 6 territories were just right. What I found lacking was how those provinces were positioned, so I reworked borders between them so topography, rivers, and ancient trade routes are all taken into account, so transitioning an army from one to another makes more sense. I replaced or combined Bischofflack with Krainburg because they are close together and because Krainburg was a political and economic center of the whole area long before Ljubljana was.
Rudolfswerth (Novo Mesto) wasn’t even established yet, so Lower Carniola (German: Unterkrain; Slovenian: Dolenjska) might be a better, more historical name. The devs did mention we will get dynamic names, not just for cultures, but also for major urban settlements changing territorial/provincial names, right?

And why didn’t I give Rudolfswerth to the Habsburgs? Because they didn't have direct control over it in 1337, and not for quite some time. The political reality was just like the majority of the HRE at the time: a patchwork of fiefs, leases, feudal lords holding titular titles, and local ministeriales, all of them holding some kind of obligations or fealty to another. Truly a Voltaire's nightmare.
But, in the matter of Rudolswerth, the Archbishop of Salzburg was probably the strongest player in Lower Carniola at the time (1337), followed by the von Cilli family, then the Spanheims-Ortenburgs & Meinhards of Gorizia. Meaning, the Lords of Pettau as vassals of Salzburg were delegated to manage all of Salzburg's possessions in Styria and Carniola.

The territory I marked as Windischgraz could just as well be named Völkermarkt, Bleiburg, or Unterdrauburg... I thought the Cillis are the best candidates for ownership since they already had a lot of possessions on both sides of the upper Sann river. And again, the Habsburgs didn’t hold this area directly, at least not at this time.

Capodistria (Slovenian: Koper; German: Gafers) as well as other towns in the same territory like Pirano (Slovenian: Piran) and Umago (Slovenian: Umag; German: Humag), just like all the other major coastal towns on the Istrian Peninsula like Rovinj, Parenzo (Croatian & Slovenian: Poreč), or Pola (Croatian: Pula), are all of Roman or Byzantine origin with uninterrupted continuous urban living since ancient times. They were important trade hubs for everything going inland toward Vienna, Prague, and Budapest, as well as major suppliers of banking services (several Florentine and Venetian banking dynasties had longtime residents living there with their families). If anything, in 1337 all of those towns were arguably more important than either Trieste or Rijeka. Their decline and the rise of Trieste and Rijeka came only later, after the Venetians held the coastal Istrian towns for a long while and used them as Stato da Mar alongside Habsburg-Venetian rivalry, which meant the decline of those towns and the economic rise of cities like Trieste and Rijeka.

Capodistria (does anyone know a better name for the collection of those pearls of cities between Umago and Capodistria?) if you look hard enough, you will notice, is part of Istria, and thus Dalmatia. So anyone can decide for themselves whether its existence is only to possibly recreate modern Slovene borders (hahaha, and Balkans being the Balkans, the fact that Umag would be Slovene would definitely spark a war).


And yeah, I moved Rijeka (Fiume) to Dalmatia/Croatia since it was never properly integrated into the HRE. Its similar beginning as Trieste (free commune), with its position in northern Lika, protected between the Dinaric Alps, Istria, and the sea, meant that German lords were always far away, safe behind the mountains and forests, while Venetians held the sea and Istria, eyeing their next conquest. Thus, the ever-present Croat-Hungarian crown was always a much better guarantee than some German noble too busy scheming and warring for Imperial glory or distant inheritance somewhere in distant cold lands of Bohemia or Bavaria.

Not that I want to make Cirnenz smaller, I just didn't bother to draw every border on the Mediterranean coast so you can be satisfied..... hmmmm, Why are you bothered if I made it smaller? Doesn’t small mean more granularity? Meaning more of an upgrade to your standards?
But I digress....

You may not see, nor understand, what the actual upgrade of my proposal is. But that's okay.
What matters is that the devs get some different opinions on the matter. There is no point in uploading yet another Voltaire's nightmare in HD resolution with granularity fading away into being indistinguishable from reality.

 

[Inzano]

No, Aquileia stays the same. My bad for not putting more effort into it. Monfalcone and Cividale are under the Bishops of Aquileia in the area/province of Aquileia and Friuli, bordering Gorizia and Trieste.

While I understand the sentiment for granularity, since it’s a prerequisite or at least the first and easiest thing to do in order to achieve better historical accuracy of Voltaire’s Nightmare, what you and some others are proposing is the developers' night terror. The matter of fact is that there are other criteria and reasons that determine the size and granularity of territories: population size, economic power, historic prestige, gameplay balance (neighboring areas and provinces not differing too much in size from one another, somewhat equal distribution of resources), and fun (army movement, variety in game plan options).

Regarding the historicity of the 1337 game start… Does 200 years of prior history and ownership matter if titles changed hands in 1336? Or is it smart and prudent to also consider what is about to happen 50 years down the line? Or in 1550? What about shifting borders? Should de facto or de jure reality take precedence? And then there is drawing borders and deciding how to split the world according to the late 18th century (more than 350 years later from the start of the game!) political reality. Is this even a historically honest thing to do?

My guidelines in how to do all the borders were:

1. First to look at the situation in 1337, without going too far into the past or future for easy answers.
2. Get the understanding of how things stood at the time, about the political development and changes that happend over first half of 14. centruy.
3. Then, I crafted well-rounded territories around major settlements or trade routes with respect to topography.
4. Final touches were made for gameplay-balance considerations.

There is just no good reason to have sparsely populated, mountainous, heavily forested areas, with poor soil and unkind weather as in northern and southern Carniola, to be full of territories, like we are in the middle of Tuscany.

Carniola: I felt like 6 territories were just right. What I found lacking was how those provinces were positioned, so I reworked borders between them so topography, rivers, and ancient trade routes are all taken into account, so transitioning an army from one to another makes more sense. I replaced or combined Bischofflack with Krainburg because they are close together and because Krainburg was a political and economic center of the whole area long before Ljubljana was.
Rudolfswerth (Novo Mesto) wasn’t even established yet, so Lower Carniola (German: Unterkrain; Slovenian: Dolenjska) might be a better, more historical name. The devs did mention we will get dynamic names, not just for cultures, but also for major urban settlements changing territorial/provincial names, right?

And why didn’t I give Rudolfswerth to the Habsburgs? Because they didn't have direct control over it in 1337, and not for quite some time. The political reality was just like the majority of the HRE at the time: a patchwork of fiefs, leases, feudal lords holding titular titles, and local ministeriales, all of them holding some kind of obligations or fealty to another. Truly a Voltaire's nightmare.
But, in the matter of Rudolswerth, the Archbishop of Salzburg was probably the strongest player in Lower Carniola at the time (1337), followed by the von Cilli family, then the Spanheims-Ortenburgs & Meinhards of Gorizia. Meaning, the Lords of Pettau as vassals of Salzburg were delegated to manage all of Salzburg's possessions in Styria and Carniola.

The territory I marked as Windischgraz could just as well be named Völkermarkt, Bleiburg, or Unterdrauburg... I thought the Cillis are the best candidates for ownership since they already had a lot of possessions on both sides of the upper Sann river. And again, the Habsburgs didn’t hold this area directly, at least not at this time.

Capodistria (Slovenian: Koper; German: Gafers) as well as other towns in the same territory like Pirano (Slovenian: Piran) and Umago (Slovenian: Umag; German: Humag), just like all the other major coastal towns on the Istrian Peninsula like Rovinj, Parenzo (Croatian & Slovenian: Poreč), or Pola (Croatian: Pula), are all of Roman or Byzantine origin with uninterrupted continuous urban living since ancient times. They were important trade hubs for everything going inland toward Vienna, Prague, and Budapest, as well as major suppliers of banking services (several Florentine and Venetian banking dynasties had longtime residents living there with their families). If anything, in 1337 all of those towns were arguably more important than either Trieste or Rijeka. Their decline and the rise of Trieste and Rijeka came only later, after the Venetians held the coastal Istrian towns for a long while and used them as Stato da Mar alongside Habsburg-Venetian rivalry, which meant the decline of those towns and the economic rise of cities like Trieste and Rijeka.

Capodistria (does anyone know a better name for the collection of those pearls of cities between Umago and Capodistria?) if you look hard enough, you will notice, is part of Istria, and thus Dalmatia. So anyone can decide for themselves whether its existence is only to possibly recreate modern Slovene borders (hahaha, and Balkans being the Balkans, the fact that Umag would be Slovene would definitely spark a war).


And yeah, I moved Rijeka (Fiume) to Dalmatia/Croatia since it was never properly integrated into the HRE. Its similar beginning as Trieste (free commune), with its position in northern Lika, protected between the Dinaric Alps, Istria, and the sea, meant that German lords were always far away, safe behind the mountains and forests, while Venetians held the sea and Istria, eyeing their next conquest. Thus, the ever-present Croat-Hungarian crown was always a much better guarantee than some German noble too busy scheming and warring for Imperial glory or distant inheritance somewhere in distant cold lands of Bohemia or Bavaria.

Not that I want to make Cirnenz smaller, I just didn't bother to draw every border on the Mediterranean coast so you can be satisfied..... hmmmm, Why are you bothered if I made it smaller? Doesn’t small mean more granularity? Meaning more of an upgrade to your standards?
But I digress....

You may not see, nor understand, what the actual upgrade of my proposal is. But that's okay.
What matters is that the devs get some different opinions on the matter. There is no point in uploading yet another Voltaire's nightmare in HD resolution with granularity fading away into being indistinguishable from reality.

Now explain to me why Carinthia can have 12 locations, which has 10,327 km2, approx. 190k inhabitants in 1300*, while Carniola has 9,904 km2 and approx. 250k inhabitants in 1300 and deserves only 6 locations? And where is the horror of the developers you are talking about now?

* The average population in Austria in 1300 was 25 per km2, but Carinthia is more mountainous, so it and Carniola had a ratio of 0.75. The missing population was found in Styria and Proper Austria, where there are more flat areas.

 

[Palando]

No, Aquileia stays the same. My bad for not putting more effort into it. Monfalcone and Cividale are under the Bishops of Aquileia in the area/province of Aquileia and Friuli, bordering Gorizia and Trieste.

Well, you drew some lines there, and Udine even is delineated fully in your proposal. You even switched its position and removed Gemona

While I understand the sentiment for granularity, since it’s a prerequisite or at least the first and easiest thing to do in order to achieve better historical accuracy of Voltaire’s Nightmare, what you and some others are proposing is the developers' night terror. The matter of fact is that there are other criteria and reasons that determine the size and granularity of territories: population size, economic power, historic prestige, gameplay balance (neighboring areas and provinces not differing too much in size from one another, somewhat equal distribution of resources), and fun (army movement, variety in game plan options).

None of the proposals I have seen here are even remotely close to Voltaire's Nightmare, and you should maybe know better that Voltaire's statement is absolute rubbish. You're also polemising here against all of the current player proposals. Please show me this purported 'nightmare' you are speaking of. Apart from my proposal, I have only seen @Inzano 's and that one is far from being out of touch with the rest of the HRE territories of the Habsburgs.

Also if you don't like granularity then maybe EU V is not the game for you and you should return to EU IV. This game's goal is not to have the same density like its predecessor but to be a significant upgrade to it.

Regarding your points of consideration:

• Population size: well, you're the one pushing for 600k Slovenians in 1337 here, so you want them all crammed in a couple of locations? Now I disagree with you on those numbers but please be at least conistent. Either Slovenia was a mountainous waste or it was crammed with people to the point that it'd have a 3x or higher population density than other European territories.
• Economic power also correlates to the population size. The more people live somewhere the more food they need, so Slovenia surely had to produce tons of food to feed that many. So again you either should be consistent or lower your population claims to reasonable amounts.
• Historic prestige seems like an umbrella term that can mean a great number of things. Now we can all agree that places like Paris or Vienna need to be included no matter what, but I don't see your point here. This game needs many more locations and you can't just reduce it to the names that everyone knows.
• Gameplay balance: all other HRE territories have a higher density, even more so the rest of Styria or Carinthia or also Italy. So that's a point for more granularity.
• Fun is again subjective. We all can agree that too small provinces can be a problem but the devs have delineated what is too small and none of the provinces that I have seen for Carniola are smaller than what is the norm in other regions.

Regarding the historicity of the 1337 game start… Does 200 years of prior history and ownership matter if titles changed hands in 1336? Or is it smart and prudent to also consider what is about to happen 50 years down the line? Or in 1550? What about shifting borders? Should de facto or de jure reality take precedence? And then there is drawing borders and deciding how to split the world according to the late 18th century (more than 350 years later from the start of the game!) political reality. Is this even a historically honest thing to do?

Well, what's your point here? All of the maps shared here for Carniola are depicting the Habsburg's progress after 1335. You can hardly say that's too far back in time. You make it seem like everyone else looked for border changes in Ottonian or Salian times while you were the only one to look forwards. Anyway, @Inzano and I have taken the borders as they were until the 16th century, which is 200 years of the game's time span. There are some differences where he has taken more earlier borders also into consideration, while I have also tried taking into account later on. Both of those are perfectly fine. But when I think about my EU IV experience, then the early game was there far more important and fun. This might change in EU V but it is to be seen.


Also to your point about the 18th century: yes, it also has to be taken into account, however you didn't do that yourself. Your borders don't follow those later divisions. Though, I also want to note that Bischoflack was owned by Freising until the end of the HRE which means for basically the whole timeframe of the game.

My guidelines in how to do all the borders were:

1. First to look at the situation in 1337, without going too far into the past or future for easy answers.
2. Get the understanding of how things stood at the time, about the political development and changes that happend over first half of 14. centruy.
3. Then, I crafted well-rounded territories around major settlements or trade routes with respect to topography.
4. Final touches were made for gameplay-balance considerations.

Sorry, you also didn't consider the 14th century if my eyes don't deceive me.

The overlay shows that e.g. the Ortenburger Krain doesn't fit with your borders. The same applies to the border between Carinthia and the Mark an der Sann. You also gave the Gorizians half of the Freisinger territory. Just to name the most apparent things.

There is just no good reason to have sparsely populated, mountainous, heavily forested areas, with poor soil and unkind weather as in northern and southern Carniola, to be full of territories, like we are in the middle of Tuscany.

Ok, so where did those famed 600k Slovenians live? I digress again, but then why does Carinthia or Tyrol have such a high density, although it should be comparable (same region, all in the HRE and there are many more similarities).

Carniola: I felt like 6 territories were just right. What I found lacking was how those provinces were positioned, so I reworked borders between them so topography, rivers, and ancient trade routes are all taken into account, so transitioning an army from one to another makes more sense. I replaced or combined Bischofflack with Krainburg because they are close together and because Krainburg was a political and economic center of the whole area long before Ljubljana was.
Rudolfswerth (Novo Mesto) wasn’t even established yet, so Lower Carniola (German: Unterkrain; Slovenian: Dolenjska) might be a better, more historical name. The devs did mention we will get dynamic names, not just for cultures, but also for major urban settlements changing territorial/provincial names, right?

So why did you give Pola 5 territories when it's size is around half as big as Carniola's? I guess you'd argue with the territory and population sizes again, but then do you also want to reduce the granularity in Carinthia and Styria, too? I find it odd that you mention comparable sizes earlier, but then are so adamant about Carniola getting for whatever reason far bigger provinces.

And why didn’t I give Rudolfswerth to the Habsburgs? Because they didn't have direct control over it in 1337, and not for quite some time. The political reality was just like the majority of the HRE at the time: a patchwork of fiefs, leases, feudal lords holding titular titles, and local ministeriales, all of them holding some kind of obligations or fealty to another. Truly a Voltaire's nightmare.
But, in the matter of Rudolswerth, the Archbishop of Salzburg was probably the strongest player in Lower Carniola at the time (1337), followed by the von Cilli family, then the Spanheims-Ortenburgs & Meinhards of Gorizia. Meaning, the Lords of Pettau as vassals of Salzburg were delegated to manage all of Salzburg's possessions in Styria and Carniola.

The area was already owned by the Habsburgs. It's just that it was founded by Rudolf later.

The strongest power in Lower Carniola were the Gorizians. Salzburg only owned a couple of scattered territories as did Freising. Salzburg didn't even own one of the major settlements, whereas Görz owned Seisenberg, Möttling and Tschernembl and basically more than half of your province.

The territory I marked as Windischgraz could just as well be named Völkermarkt, Bleiburg, or Unterdrauburg... I thought the Cillis are the best candidates for ownership since they already had a lot of possessions on both sides of the upper Sann river. And again, the Habsburgs didn’t hold this area directly, at least not at this time.

Why did you put different names on the map and not Windischgrätz?

Capodistria (Slovenian: Koper; German: Gafers) as well as other towns in the same territory like Pirano (Slovenian: Piran) and Umago (Slovenian: Umag; German: Humag), just like all the other major coastal towns on the Istrian Peninsula like Rovinj, Parenzo (Croatian & Slovenian: Poreč), or Pola (Croatian: Pula), are all of Roman or Byzantine origin with uninterrupted continuous urban living since ancient times. They were important trade hubs for everything going inland toward Vienna, Prague, and Budapest, as well as major suppliers of banking services (several Florentine and Venetian banking dynasties had longtime residents living there with their families). If anything, in 1337 all of those towns were arguably more important than either Trieste or Rijeka. Their decline and the rise of Trieste and Rijeka came only later, after the Venetians held the coastal Istrian towns for a long while and used them as Stato da Mar alongside Habsburg-Venetian rivalry, which meant the decline of those towns and the economic rise of cities like Trieste and Rijeka.

Capodistria (does anyone know a better name for the collection of those pearls of cities between Umago and Capodistria?) if you look hard enough, you will notice, is part of Istria, and thus Dalmatia. So anyone can decide for themselves whether its existence is only to possibly recreate modern Slovene borders (hahaha, and Balkans being the Balkans, the fact that Umag would be Slovene would definitely spark a war).

I don't have anything against adding Gafers but it was your only addition with which you can better recreate the current Slovenian borders. Granted it's not absolutely optimal but then again what is the point of all of it? You neither follow the 14th century borders, the 17th/18th century borders nor the modern borders.

And yeah, I moved Rijeka (Fiume) to Dalmatia/Croatia since it was never properly integrated into the HRE. Its similar beginning as Trieste (free commune), with its position in northern Lika, protected between the Dinaric Alps, Istria, and the sea, meant that German lords were always far away, safe behind the mountains and forests, while Venetians held the sea and Istria, eyeing their next conquest. Thus, the ever-present Croat-Hungarian crown was always a much better guarantee than some German noble too busy scheming and warring for Imperial glory or distant inheritance somewhere in distant cold lands of Bohemia or Bavaria.

Not that I want to make Cirnenz smaller, I just didn't bother to draw every border on the Mediterranean coast so you can be satisfied..... hmmmm, Why are you bothered if I made it smaller? Doesn’t small mean more granularity? Meaning more of an upgrade to your standards?
But I digress....

The Lords of Duino who owned Rijeka back then pledged their fealty to the Habsburgs only ca. 30 years after the game starts (1366). Before that they were scheming with Görz against Aquileia. So after all, Rijeka was guaranteed by the Habsburgs. This must come as a shock to you because you seemingly don't like "some German noble too busy scheming and warring for Imperial glory or distant inheritance somewhere in distant cold lands of Bohemia or Bavaria."

Not that I want to make Cirnenz smaller, I just didn't bother to draw every border on the Mediterranean coast so you can be satisfied..... hmmmm, Why are you bothered if I made it smaller? Doesn’t small mean more granularity? Meaning more of an upgrade to your standards?
But I digress....

It might've been an upgrade if it wasn't for the borders that are worse than the current PDX territories for representing the 14th century.

You may not see, nor understand, what the actual upgrade of my proposal is. But that's okay.
What matters is that the devs get some different opinions on the matter. There is no point in uploading yet another Voltaire's nightmare in HD resolution with granularity fading away into being indistinguishable from reality.

You're right that I fail to see the benefits, as your proposal neither properly depicts the situation in the 14th century nor the one in the 17th / 18th century; let alone improves on what there currently is.

You really seem to hate the HRE, don't you? And really seem to be a fan of Voltaire's opinion piece, don't you?

I have to say that I can only laugh about your last claim.

 

[Inzano]

Well, you drew some lines there, and Udine even is delineated fully in your proposal. You even switched its position and removed GemonaView attachment 1172684


None of the proposals I have seen here are even remotely close to Voltaire's Nightmare, and you should maybe know better that Voltaire's statement is absolute rubbish. You're also polemising here against all of the current player proposals. Please show me this purported 'nightmare' you are speaking of. Apart from my proposal, I have only seen @Inzano 's and that one is far from being out of touch with the rest of the HRE territories of the Habsburgs.

Also if you don't like granularity then maybe EU V is not the game for you and you should return to EU IV. This game's goal is not to have the same density like its predecessor but to be a significant upgrade to it.

Regarding your points of consideration:

• Population size: well, you're the one pushing for 600k Slovenians in 1337 here, so you want them all crammed in a couple of locations? Now I disagree with you on those numbers but please be at least conistent. Either Slovenia was a mountainous waste or it was crammed with people to the point that it'd have a 3x or higher population density than other European territories.
• Economic power also correlates to the population size. The more people live somewhere the more food they need, so Slovenia surely had to produce tons of food to feed that many. So again you either should be consistent or lower your population claims to reasonable amounts.
• Historic prestige seems like an umbrella term that can mean a great number of things. Now we can all agree that places like Paris or Vienna need to be included no matter what, but I don't see your point here. This game needs many more locations and you can't just reduce it to the names that everyone knows.
• Gameplay balance: all other HRE territories have a higher density, even more so the rest of Styria or Carinthia or also Italy. So that's a point for more granularity.
• Fun is again subjective. We all can agree that too small provinces can be a problem but the devs have delineated what is too small and none of the provinces that I have seen for Carniola are smaller than what is the norm in other regions.

Well, what's your point here? All of the maps shared here for Carniola are depicting the Habsburg's progress after 1335. You can hardly say that's too far back in time. You make it seem like everyone else looked for border changes in Ottonian or Salian times while you were the only one to look forwards. Anyway, @Inzano and I have taken the borders as they were until the 16th century, which is 200 years of the game's time span. There are some differences where he has taken more earier borders also into consideration, while I have also tried taking into account later on. Both of those are perfectly fine. But when I think about my EU IV experience, then the early game was there far more important and fun. This might change in EU V but it is to be seen.


Also to your point about the 18th century: yes, it also has to be taken into account, however you didn't do that yourself. Your borders don't follow those later divisions. Though, I also want to note that Bischoflack was owned by Freising until the end of the HRE which means for basically the whole timeframe of the game.

View attachment 1172702

Sorry, you also didn't consider the 14th century if my eyes don't deceive me.

View attachment 1172703

The overlay shows that e.g. the Ortenburger Krain doesn't fit with your borders. The same applies to the border between Carinthia and the Mark an der Sann. You also gave the Gorizians half of the Freisinger territory. Just to name the most apparent things.


Ok, so were did those famed 600k Slovenians live? I digress again, but then why does Carinthia or Tyrol have such a high density, although it should be comparable (same region, all in the HRE and there are many more similarities).



So why did you give Pola 5 territories when it's size is around half as big as Carniola's? I guess you'd argue with the territory and population sizes again, but then do you also want to reduce the granularity in Carinthia and Styria, too? I find it odd that you mention comparable sizes earlier but then are so adamant about Carniola getting for whatever reason far bigger provinces.

The area was already owned by the Habsburgs. It's just that it was founded by Rudolf later.

The strongest power in Lower Carniola were the Gorizians. Salzburg only owned a couple of scattered territories as did Freising. Salzburg didn't even own one of the major settlements, whereas Görz owned Seisenberg, Möttling and Tschernembl and basically more than half of your province.





Why did you put different names on the map and not Windischgrätz.


I don't have anything against adding Gafers but it was your only addition with which you can better recreate the current Slovenian borders. Granted it's not absolutely optimal but then again what is the point of all of it? You neither follow the 14th century borders, the 17th/18th century borders nor the modern borders.

The Lords of Duino who owned Rijeka back then pledged their fealty to the Habsburgs only ca. 30 years after the game starts (1366). Before that they were scheming with Görz against Aquileia. So after all, Rijeka was guaranteed by the Habsburgs. This must come as a shock to you because you seemingly don't like "some German noble too busy scheming and warring for Imperial glory or distant inheritance somewhere in distant cold lands of Bohemia or Bavaria."



It might've been an upgrade if it wasn't for the borders that are worse than the current PDX territories for representing the 14th century.

You're right that I fail to see the benefits, as your proposal neither properly depicts the situation in the 14th century nor the one in the 17th / 18th century; let alone improves on what there currently is.

You really seem to hate the HRE, don't you? And really seem to be a fan of Voltaire's opinion piece, don't you?

I have to say that I can only laught about your last claim.

I don't know why he marked Velenje, when Slovenj Gradec would be above it, Slovenska Bistrca is Windisch-Feistritz in German. But I know it's confusing, because we have some settlements that start with the name Slovenska/Slovenj. And I don't know why he mentioned Slovenska Bistrica on the map in the first place. In my proposal, both settlements are located in their own location. But I left Slovenska Bistrica as Bistrica, because at that time it was not called that.

What surprises me the most is that he gave Celje the raw material stone, when it is known for grain and the production of beer or hops. And Slovenj Gradac (Velenje), lead which is better known for coal production. In addition, he set the border to the modern border from 1918/19 for Slovenj Gradec, or rather, I now understand, the Mežica mine then falls into this location. The lead and zinc mine Mežica is one of the oldest mines in Europe, with the first written mentions from 1665, which was used until 1993.

 

[Palando]

I don't know why he marked Velenje, when Slovenj Gradec would be above it, Slovenska Bistrca is Windisch-Feistritz in German. But I know it's confusing, because we have some settlements that start with the name Slovenska/Slovenj. And I don't know why he mentioned Slovenska Bistrica on the map in the first place. In my proposal, both settlements are located in their own location. But I left Slovenska Bistrica as Bistrica, because at that time it was not called that.

Yeah, I edited my post after I had another look at it. It's just a bit confusing to have different names mentioned. It's also all the more confusing because the owners of some territories don't align with the name (Rudolfswerth to Salzburg and not to Habsburg, Windischgrätz for Cilli and not for Habsburg).

 

[Znikii]

Ingame area of carniola&carinthia =/= historoc duchies of carniola and carinthia.
~650k slovene pop takes also in cosidiration people living Udine-Balaton lake and from Graz/central carinthia to north-western coast&hinterlands of istria.... so all of em, not just those living in core lands
The marks are ment for territory. Not individual urban settlement.
The names on the map comes from topographic map I used as a base layer.
I increased the granulanity of lower styria and istria, so stop trolling.
Habsburg started to take direct control of those places in the end of 14.cent with Leopold 3 and Rudolpf 4, but only with significant progress even later when bunch of ppwerful families
were on decline or died out....
But around the game start in ~ 1337, if you go dig into archives you will learn that as soon as they inherited those places they passed em on as rewards, leases, colleteral, bribes,...
So from now on, cite sources, for all your claims, and not generated maps who, as you well put, can be intepretated as you whish...
And I will do the same.
Oh and Carinthia has a big basin with many valleys and plateau, which makes for a much larger agricultural area size suitable for farming than rugged steeped hills dominating carniola. And furthermore Karawanken alps act as a barrier for rain comeing from the south. Meaning that carniola expriance much more rainfall in late summer and automn, which is very bad for rippenong and harvesting of crops. Furthermore platua and basin in carinthia makes ot much more esier to extract mineral ore from the ground compared to carniolan geology.... so please start to read real maps and study scientific data, because i have a feeling you are just trolling me ....

 

[Polesie Admiral]

will the peasants' war be a thing?

 

[Palando]

Ingame area of carniola&carinthia =/= historoc duchies of carniola and carinthia.
~650k slovene pop takes also in cosidiration people living Udine-Balaton lake and from Graz/central carinthia to north-western coast&hinterlands of istria.... so all of em, not just those living in core lands

I do realise that. You shouldn't forget that there were also some Bavarian settlers in those areas, which also increases the population of those areas. This all would make those territories extremely densely populated. They'd need to 3x their current population for that.

I increased the granulanity of lower styria and istria, so stop trolling.

It's not only about adding provinces but also about the correctness of those provinces, e.g. the owner of the province. I will correct you on that, so sorry if you feel offended.

Habsburg started to take direct control of those places in the end of 14.cent with Leopold 3 and Rudolpf 4, but only with significant progress even later when bunch of ppwerful families
were on decline or died out....
But around the game start in ~ 1337, if you go dig into archives you will learn that as soon as they inherited those places they passed em on as rewards, leases, colleteral, bribes,...

I think we're all aware here how the feudal system worked, but this is not CK. Therefore, all those minor vassals are represented as directly owned by that given tag. So obviously those are not represented in EU V; only major vassals are. Thus, if we say that the Habsburgs owned Windischgrätz, we mean that they held it directly or via a direct minor vassal (Cilli was not a subjugated vassal of their's)

So from now on, cite sources, for all your claims, and not generated maps who, as you well put, can be intepretated as you whish...
And I will do the same.

Most of the maps for Austria I have posted here are from the historical atlas of Austria ("Historischer Atlas Österreich" by Manfred Scheuch), e.g. this one

The map I posted earlier is also confirmed / confirming this

Oh and Carinthia has a big basin with many valleys and plateau, which makes for a much larger agricultural area size suitable for farming than rugged steeped hills dominating carniola. And furthermore Karawanken alps act as a barrier for rain comeing from the south. Meaning that carniola expriance much more rainfall in late summer and automn, which is very bad for rippenong and harvesting of crops. Furthermore platua and basin in carinthia makes ot much more esier to extract mineral ore from the ground compared to carniolan geology.... so please start to read real maps and study scientific data, because i have a feeling you are just trolling me ....

Ah yes, just insult me if that makes you happy.


Btw, you still haven't acknowledged that your provinces don't follow the partitions of the 14th century or of later times (17th/18th century). Or do you have some different map that supports your vision?

 

[Myrello21]

As a geography enthusiast and a resident of this region, I would like to offer a few suggestions:

Locations

• Wörgl should be Hopfgarten. Hopfgarten has been a market town (Marktgemeinde) since 1362 and thus has been the economic centre of the region. Wörgl, in contrast, isn't even located in this area and also was merely a small farming village before the construction of the railway line.
• St. Johann in Tirol should just be St. Johann (or St. Johann im Pongau), as St. Johann in Tirol is a different town.
• Galtür should be renamed Landeck and should border Nauders.
• Obergurgl should be removed. The location is too small and Obergurgl is just a tiny village.
• Linz lies south of the Danube, the location Linz should therefore be renamed Leonfelden (market town since 1356). Lambach in return should be renamed Linz and it should also include the easternmost part of the location Wels.
• Schlanders should be Glurns (Glorenza), which became a town in 1304.
• Feldbach (town since 1884) should probably renamed Radkersburg (town since 1299).
• Gänserndorf (town since 1958) should be renamed Marchegg (town since 1268).
• As it has already been pointed out, Kufstein and Kitzbühel should be owned by Upper Bavaria at the start of the game, while Zell am Ziller and Hopfgarten should be owned by Salzburg.

Provinces

• Lungau should be renamed Murtal, as Lungau is further west. The province should also include the location of Leoben.
• The remaining locations of the province Leibnitz should rather be called Western Styria (Weststeiermark).
• The province Hartberg should then be renamed Eastern Styria (Oststeiermark). Alternatively both Western Styria and Eastern Styria could merge into a single province, which would then be called Central Styria (Mittelsteiermark).
• The province Styria should be renamed Lower Styria (Spodnja Štajerska, Untersteiermark)
• Lienz should be part of the province South East Tirol due to its larger historical connection to Tyrol than to Carinthia.
• The provinces Zillertal and Kufstein should merge to become Tiroler Unterland (Tyrolean Unterland).
• Oberinntal could similarly be renamed Tiroler Oberland (Tyrolean Oberland).
• Unterinntal could then be called Mittleres Inntal (Central Inntal).

Topography

In map 1, I added impassable terrain where it definitely should be:

• between Nauders and Telfs
• between Nauders and Imst (Nauders instead borders Landeck)
• between Garmisch and Telfs
• between Garmisch and Schwaz
• between Schwaz and Steinach (it may already be there, but it is difficult to see)
• between Zell am Ziller and Hopfgarten

Spoiler: map 1

proposed location of impassable terrain (red), proposed new location borders and names (yellow), Obergurgl removed

Cultures

I think it would be justified to include the Walser people as their own cultural group. They differ enough from the other Alemanic groups and are often depicted as their own ethnic group (See maps 2-4) . Furthermore, they played a significant role as colonizers of high-altitude areas throughout the Central Alps (Bätzing, 2015, pp. 68-69).

Spoiler: map 2

language groups in the Alps (Bätzing, 2015, p. 59)

Spoiler: map 3

original Walser homeland (yellow), Walser settlements establishes between the 12th and 14th centuries (brown), abandoned Walser settlements (light brown); (walliserdialekt.ch/walser-und-walsersprache)

Spoiler: map 4

Walser migration routes (Max Waibel: "Walser", in: Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz (HLS); hls-dhs-dss.ch/de/articles/007950/2013-08-20/)

Population

Some of the population maps seem to be quite off. I can't provide population data for each location individually, however Bätzing (2015, p. 69) estimates that the population of the Alps (for extent see map 5) peaked at 3.2 million before the region was hit by the Black Death in 1348.

Spoiler: map 5

Alpine area according to Bätzing (2015, p. 334)

Sources:
Bätzing, Werner. Die Alpen – Geschichte und Zukunft einer europäischen Kulturlandschaft. Munich, 2015.

 

[Palando]

As a geography enthusiast and a resident of this region, I would like to offer a few suggestions:

Locations

• Wörgl should be Hopfgarten. Hopfgarten has been a market town (Marktgemeinde) since 1362 and thus has been the economic centre of the region. Wörgl, in contrast, isn't even located in this area and also was merely a small farming village before the construction of the railway line.
• St. Johann in Tirol should just be St. Johann (or St. Johann im Pongau), as St. Johann in Tirol is a different town.
• Galtür should be renamed Landeck and should border Nauders.
• Obergurgl should be removed. The location is too small and Obergurgl is just a tiny village.
• Linz lies south of the Danube, the location Linz should therefore be renamed Leonfelden (market town since 1356). Lambach in return should be renamed Linz and it should also include the easternmost part of the location Wels.
• Schlanders should be Glurns (Glorenza), which became a town in 1304.
• Feldbach (town since 1884) should probably renamed Radkersburg (town since 1299).
• Gänserndorf (town since 1958) should be renamed Marchegg (town since 1268).
• As it has already been pointed out, Kufstein and Kitzbühel should be owned by Upper Bavaria at the start of the game, while Zell am Ziller and Hopfgarten should be owned by Salzburg.

Hopfgarten was only a recent foundation in 1337. The administrative centre of that area was Itter until Hopfgarten took over in the 17th cenutry (it still was called Gericht (court) Itter at that point). Therefore, it should be Itter in 1337, because that was valid for more than 300 years. Actually, the whole Brixental was still owned by Regensburg until they sold it in 1380/5. I forgot about that but corrected my earlier proposals.

I agree that Landeck should replace the less important Galtür.

However, Schlanders was also of importance because the Lords of Schlandersberg came from there. They seem to generally prefer the fortresses in those regions.

Topography

In map 1, I added impassable terrain where it definitely should be:

• between Nauders and Telfs
• between Nauders and Imst (Nauders instead borders Landeck)
• between Garmisch and Telfs
• between Garmisch and Schwaz
• between Schwaz and Steinach (it may already be there, but it is difficult to see)
• between Zell am Ziller and Hopfgarten

Spoiler: map 1

View attachment 1172898
proposed location of impassable terrain (red), proposed new location borders and names (yellow), Obergurgl removed

Cultures

I think it would be justified to include the Walser people as their own cultural group. They differ enough from the other Alemanic groups and are often depicted as their own ethnic group (See maps 2-4) . Furthermore, they played a significant role as colonizers of high-altitude areas throughout the Central Alps (Bätzing, 2015, pp. 68-69).

Spoiler: map 2

View attachment 1172899language groups in the Alps (Bätzing, 2015, p. 59)

Spoiler: map 3

View attachment 1172900
original Walser homeland (yellow), Walser settlements establishes between the 12th and 14th centuries (brown), abandoned Walser settlements (light brown); (walliserdialekt.ch/walser-und-walsersprache)

Spoiler: map 4

View attachment 1172901
Walser migration routes (Max Waibel: "Walser", in: Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz (HLS); hls-dhs-dss.ch/de/articles/007950/2013-08-20/)

Population

Some of the population maps seem to be quite off. I can't provide population data for each location individually, however Bätzing (2015, p. 69) estimates that the population of the Alps (for extent see map 5) peaked at 3.2 million before the region was hit by the Black Death in 1348.

Spoiler: map 5

View attachment 1172902Alpine area according to Bätzing (2015, p. 334)

Sources:
Bätzing, Werner. Die Alpen – Geschichte und Zukunft einer europäischen Kulturlandschaft. Munich, 2015.

There probably should also be impassables between Itter (your Hopfgarten, PDX's Wörgl) and Mittersill because you would need to pass through Kitzbühl to reach Mittersill from Itter.

Likewise St. Johann and Berchtesgaden should be separated.

 

[generalez]

@Palando, you deleted the location of Villingen in your south Swabia proposal. But I think Villingen needs to be kept as fortified location as it had some important events during PC time frame.
- In the 13th century Villingen was a free imperial city (therefore an eagle in its coat of arms) and it could gameplay wise be released from Austria as free imperial city again
- Just 11 years before the game start (1326) Fürstenberg sold Villingen to Austria, therefore gameplay wise Fürstenberg can have a "core" and "cb" for this location
- so why fortified? Unsuccessful sieges (3x) of the city by the Swedes (unbelievable, or? @Johan ) and Württemberger during the Thirty Years War (1633/1634) and unsuccessful siege by the French Marshal Tallard during the War of the Spanish Succession (1704)

PS: I hope selling/buying locations will be a diplomatic action, seems to be a common thing at that time

Sources:
Wikipedia (german) for "Freie_und_Reichsstädte"
Wikipedia (german) for "Villingen-Schwenningen Geschichte"
City Homepage of Villingen-Schwenningen "History of Villingen"

 

[Gianvitus]

How are you going to handle all the small fragments of land held by Teutonic Order and spread all over the Empire? Maybe you can add a special building for monastic orders that can be build in other countries that allow it, which gives more manpower or something like that

 

[Palando]

@Palando, you deleted the location of Villingen in your south Swabia proposal. But I think Villingen needs to be kept as fortified location as it had some important events during PC time frame.
- In the 13th century Villingen was a free imperial city (therefore an eagle in its coat of arms) and it could gameplay wise be released from Austria as free imperial city again
- Just 11 years before the game start (1326) Fürstenberg sold Villingen to Austria, therefore gameplay wise Fürstenberg can have a "core" and "cb" for this location
- so why fortified? Unsuccessful sieges (3x) of the city by the Swedes (unbelievable, or? @Johan ) and Württemberger during the Thirty Years War (1633/1634) and unsuccessful siege by the French Marshal Tallard during the War of the Spanish Succession (1704)

PS: I hope selling/buying locations will be a diplomatic action, seems to be a common thing at that time

Sources:
Wikipedia (german) for "Freie_und_Reichsstädte"
Wikipedia (german) for "Villingen-Schwenningen Geschichte"
City Homepage of Villingen-Schwenningen "History of Villingen"

The issue is that there just is not enough space for Villingen. Rottweil, the County of Fürstenberg and the Lordship of Triberg don't leave any space for Villingen.

EU V starts in 1337, so I'd rather pick a free city which actually was one in 1337 and lasted until the end of the HRE. This applies to Rottweil which even expanded its territory but doesn't to Villingen which ceased to be one even well before 1337. Rottweil was also an independent actor that allied the Swiss Confederation shortly in the 15th century. Fürstenberg endured until the end, too.

 

[Znikii]

Most of the maps for Austria I have posted here are from the historical atlas of Austria ("Historischer Atlas Österreich" by Manfred Scheuch), e.g. this one

Thank you for sharing this picture and confirming yourself as a troll.
Or do you maybe need help reading numbers and colours from the map?

 

[Palando]

How are you going to handle all the small fragments of land held by Teutonic Order and spread all over the Empire? Maybe you can add a special building for monastic orders that can be build in other countries that allow it, which gives more manpower or something like that

The Teutons own Mergentheim in their current map, which was one of their largest holdings within the HRE.

 

[Mingmung]

Thank you for sharing this picture and confirming yourself as a troll.
Or do you maybe need help reading numbers and colours from the map?

My man, I have known Palando for a while now. We once made some suggestions for EU4 about Austria and the HRE in general.

Let me tell you one thing; He is not a troll. He has put dozens, probably hundreds of hours into making suggestions, he knows the German language and the general area, has a lot of German sources and is open for discussion. He's an expert on this very complex area.

Basically all of his comments here in this thread are thought-out, listing pros and cons of certain suggestions made by others and done for one reason alone: To make the HRE-map as accurate as possible. His criticisms on your comments are well-founded (he explained his view in a objective way, in-line with Paradox' current design principles), and we shouldn't opt for ad hominems here.

 

[Failtier]

Probably a bit late, but in case you are not modeling locations after districts, but important settlements instead, I would like to make some suggestions for renaming locations in Brandenburg:

Wittstock to Pritzwalk
Wittstock and Pritzwalk were both granted city rights in the mid-13th century. Yet Pritzwalk was a member of the Hanse and was already well established as an administrative center of the Prignitz during the Middle Ages. Moreover, Pritzwalk was a major trade city with some level of autonomous jurisdiction and a market center which served the entire region and beyond (see this monograph published on the 750th anniversary of Pritzwalk).

Herzfelde to Bötzow (Oranienburg)
Frankly, I have never heard of Herzfelde, not to say that this place doesn't exist, but I question Herzfelde's significance. If you look at this map of Niederbarnim, you will see Herzfelde as part of eastern Niederbarnim. This is a result of the Prussian reforms of 1817; before, Herzfelde was part of Oberbarnim. I have already pointed out the difficulties / inconsistencies of using location names instead of districts, but let's stay with the current Project Caesar borders (which are very much post-Napoleonic) and assume that Herzfelde represents Niederbarnim.

In Niederbarnim, there are two settlements that are way more significant than Herzfelde: Oranienburg (formerly called Bötzow) and Bernau. The city of Bernau was important for beer brewery and is still a popular destination for day trips (I've been there). But administratively, it wasn't (Wiki). Bötzow, on the other hand, had a castle built in the 13th century and served as an official residence (Amtssitz). In 1650, Friedrich Wilhelm gifted Bötzow and the surroundings to his wife Louise Henriette von Oranien, and the newly built castle was henceforth called "Oranienburg," which was then used for the entire city (Wiki).

Freienwalde to Eberswalde
I understand the reasoning here to say that Freienwalde was used as a domain residence since 1618, but Freienwalde is beyond that pretty insignificant. It was first mentioned in 1316; Eberswalde, meanwhile, was a fully established city which served as the trade hub of Oberbarnim from 1317 onwards (Wiki). Moreover, different than Freienwalde, Eberswalde was directly governed by the Markgraf of Brandenburg whereas Freienwalde was a Mediatstadt rule by the von Uchtenhagen dynasty until 1618 (Wiki). Today, Eberswalde is also much more recognizable while Bad Freienwalde is mainly known as a spa resort.

*edit* I agree with Palando that Havelberg should remain as its own tag, and the location of Havelberg includes the city of Perleberg (which I consider as the most important city of Prignitz). Also, having both Pritzwalk and Wittstock as separate locations would represent the situation with the Bishopric of Havelberg more accurately.

 

[Palando]

Probably a bit late, but in case you are not modeling locations after districts, but important settlements instead, I would like to make some suggestions for renaming locations in Brandenburg:

Havelberg to Perleberg
Perleberg was historically much more significant than Havelberg and later served as the capital of Westprignitz (since 1817). There is no documentation about when Havelberg was granted city rights whereas for Perleberg, it's documented for 1239. In 1309, Perleberg became member of the Hanse (Wiki), and Havelberg only became Hanse member in 1359 (Wiki). Moreover, in contrast to Havelberg, Perleberg had a castle (Gänseburg) which indicates that the city had a significant population and was administratively important. Perleberg was also the leader of the Prignitz League of Towns (Prignitzer Städtebund) in the 14th century (Wiki).

Wittstock to Pritzwalk
Wittstock and Pritzwalk were both granted city rights in the mid-13th century. Yet Pritzwalk was a member of the Hanse and was already well established as an administrative center of the Prignitz during the Middle Ages. Moreover, Pritzwalk was a major trade city with some level of autonomous jurisdiction and a market center which served the entire region and beyond (see this monograph published on the 750th anniversary of Pritzwalk).

Herzfelde to Bötzow (Oranienburg)
Frankly, I have never heard of Herzfelde, not to say that this place doesn't exist, but I question Herzfelde's significance. If you look at this map of Niederbarnim, you will see Herzfelde as part of eastern Niederbarnim. This is a result of the Prussian reforms of 1817; before, Herzfelde was part of Oberbarnim. I have already pointed out the difficulties / inconsistencies of using location names instead of districts, but let's stay with the current Project Caesar borders (which are very much post-Napoleonic).

In Niederbarnim, there are two settlements that are way more significant than Herzfelde: Oranienburg (formerly called Bötzow) and Bernau. The city of Bernau was important for beer brewery and is still a popular destination for day trips (I've been there). But administratively, it isn't. Oranienburg, on the other hand, had a castle built in the 13th century and served as an official residence (Amtssitz). In 1650, Friedrich Wilhelm gifted the settlement and the surroundings to his wife Louise Henriette von Oranien, and the newly built castle was henceforth called "Oranienburg," which was then used for the entire city (Wiki).

Freienwalde to Eberswalde
I understand the reasoning here to say that Freienwalde was used as a domain residence since 1618, but Freienwalde is beyond that pretty insignificant. It was first mentioned in 1316; Eberswalde, meanwhile, was a fully established city which served as the trade hub of Oberbarnim from 1317 onwards (Wiki). Moreover, different than Freienwalde, Eberswalde was directly governed by the Markgraf of Brandenburg whereas Freienwalde was a Mediatstadt rule by the von Uchtenhagen dynasty until 1618 (Wiki). Today, Eberswalde is also much more recognizable while Bad Freienwalde is mainly known as a spa resort.

I agree with the last two. Only let me point out that Herzfelde is located north of Templin, i.e. Herzfelde currently isn't in its own province.

Regarding Havelberg and Wittstock:
I already pointed out to you that the political situation of this area was different to those later maps. In 1337, the Bishopric of Havelberg still existed. It encompassed Wittstock (where the de-facto residence of its bishops was), Havelberg (the eponymous capital) and Perleberg.

The Bishopric already exists in their current iteration of the map and it was one of the bigger tags in this area. Therefore, I object to its removal. What I have suggested is to redraw the borders of the provinces for better representation:

Lenzen and Pritzwalk were both owned by Brandenburg in 1337, whereas Havelberg (with Perleberg included) and Wittstock were owned by the Bishopric of Havelberg until the Protestant Reformation.