There will be content regarding Stefan Dusan, and also about his succession, yes.
- 31
- 6
- 2
-
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.
Showing developer posts only. Show all posts in this thread.
We prefer to avoid heavy railroads; so it should be avoidable (as the forming of the Serbian Empire, in the first place).
- 30
- 9
- 2
- 2
Hi! I think that the design of the events for the creation of the Voivodeship of Moldavia will be a DHE that fires for Hungary after some triggers, creating it as a type of subject (probably a March), with one of the options allowing the player to switch and play with it. Ideally, we would have some follow-up events allowing the country to break free from Hungary, also after getting some triggers, so there's a feeling of progression in the gameplay (starting from scratch -> becoming independent from Hungary -> ????).So excited to play in this region! I've got some feedback about Moldavia, but first a question - is there a good way to play as Moldavia from game start? Something like starting as the Golden Horde and releasing and playing as Moldavia, or via event? Maybe you start as Hungary and can invade the Golden Horde and release Moldavia as a march, and one of options is to switch to play as Moldavia (I guess that's technically possible via EU4 mechanics too, but it would be cool if it was part of the event chain)? If releasing from the Golden Horde is the only option, would the event chain still trigger to get Hungary to support your independence?
As for my feedback, for the cultures, I think people have already said everything I have to say, I think it should either be a single Romanian culture (strongly prefer this), or a separate Moldavian culture, or at the very least rename Wallachian to Vlach. The culture in the region should also be a lot more diverse, there were Slavic and Turkic people in the region as well.
I'll mostly give feedback on the location distribution, as the locations in Moldavia are way too big currently compared to its neighbors. First just some nitpicks, as other people have pointed out the diacritics for ă, ș, and ț are wrong. There's also a bunch of provinces that have the letter î in the middle of the name - this is communist era orthography. Nowadays the rule is to use î if it's the first/last letter, â otherwise. In Moldavia I see 3 provinces with this mistake, Cîmpulung Moldovenesc, Bîrlad, and Hîrlău, which should be Câmpulung Moldovenesc, Bârlad, and Hârlău respectively.
For my map changes, I've mostly based it off of this map (which I'll refer to further as the reference map), as well as English and Romanian Wikipedia. The map shows the biggest cities and the feudal lands partitions of the country in 1483. When creating the provinces, I made sure all settlements I've used have been historically attested before 1500, which should match the current locations: Soroca (1499), Iași (1408), Orhei (1470) etc.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Moldova_(1483)-en.png
These are the changes that I really hope to see to the map:
View attachment 1159185
Now for some of my other suggestions, here's the map I managed to cook up:
- Split off Siret and Baia from Suceava. These cities were capitals of the principality during the 14th century: Baia (1343–1354), Siret (1354–1388). I also think Cernăuți should go further south, so that recreating historical Romanian borders / the historical split of Bukovina is possible. (source)
- I am biased on this one as Chișinău is my hometown, but I really think it has to be included. It was first historically attested in 1436, and became the capital of the governogate of Bessarabia under Imperial Russian rule - granted this is in 1812 but that's still within the game's timespan. It'd be a shame not to include what is today the second largest Romanian city.
- I think the Prut river should cleanly split the provinces. It was a very important split in the early 1800s, as Russia annexed the land between the Prut and the Dniester as an important strategic position, creating a separation that lasts until today between Russified-Romanians to the right and the other Romanians to the left. Without this split, it would be impossible to end the game with accurate Russian Empire borders. For this, I split off Ungheni and Tigheci. Ungheni was attested in 1462, however for Tigheci I couldn't find more information other than it being present in the reference map as a feudal land "capital". As an alternative, Târgu Sărății could work - it was attested as the old name of Leova in 1489, but it's existence is controversial. (source1, source2, source3, source4)
- Finally, Cahul should be renamed to Șcheia, it was only named Cahul in 1835. (source)
View attachment 1159189View attachment 1159190
For the map above, I mostly tried to follow the current borders in game. I've also tried creating another map from scratch, only referencing the reference map and its feudal partitions. Thus this is what I'd ideally have in game if it were up to me:
- Reshaped Șcheia, Tighina, Ismail, and Chilia to be able to recreate modern Moldova borders. Also added Lipcani for that purpose.
- I could not find evidence of Tulnici, Tutova, or Cudalvi as settlements in medieval Moldavia, so I took them out. Cudalvi also seems to be a typo as someone else pointed out.
- I used this list of fortresses in Moldavia: https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_cetăților_moldovenești
- I only included settlement that mention being attested historically before 1500 in Romanian Wikipedia.
View attachment 1159191
View attachment 1159192
I probably got some things wrong, I'm by no means an expert on this, I'm sure I also skipped some possible settlements, but I hope I was able to help a little bit with increasing the province density. I will edit this post later with sources + thoughts for each new location, for now I have to catch some sleep.
- In this version I also added the locations of Bugeac and Adâncita.
Regarding the cultures, I think that it doesn't make much sense to have Moldavian as a division from the start, as the polity wouldn't exist yet; however, I find it very reasonable to have it be created after one of these events, to portray the differentiated regional identity of Romanian-speaking people.
Also, thanks for your feedback! I think that we won't be able to have so much location density in the area, as we need some balance, but we'll most likely add some more.
- 31
- 5
- 2
@Zeprion I think that our workflow is kind of clear, but I'll explain it one more time.
Each week we post a Tinto Maps DD, for a region. We ask the community to post their feedback in these DDs, as it's the easier way for us to look at it, reply to it, and gather it in an organized way. Some time after (usually, some weeks), we put each Tinto Maps region into our development pipeline again, and we make the review of it. When we think that all the feedback has been gathered, analyzed, and implemented, we share the review with the community, to show the results of their feedback, and to also have an extra feedback/sanity pass.
Given this workflow, what is useful for us is:
- Posts in the Tinto Maps DDs with detailed feedback, if possible supported by sources.
- Links to specific posts in other threads open by the community, with the results of, maybe, months or weeks of discussion.
What is not useful for us is:
- Threads outside the Tinto Maps that are not linked in the Tinto Maps (we might be reading them, yes, but is way easier for us if you link us here the results of the discussion, again, as we can review the feedback way more faster, in an organized way).
- Repeating the same post several times in the same DD, as then you are making 'noise', that is making us more difficult to gather the different feedback.
- Complaints about previous PDX projects. This is Project Caesar, and I think that we're quite clear on what we are asking from the community for it, and the results we're giving in return (you can check any of the previous 3 Tinto Maps Review, for the Low Countries, Iberia, and France).
Three more things. Our maps will never be perfect, and will always have errors. However, we want to make them the best possible, as this is why we are taking so seriously the community feedback in this project. Let's put it this way: we have several Spanish content designers in the team (as Paradox Tinto is based on Sitges, Spain), who care a lot about our region, and we still had several errors to correct in the Iberian map, that we could tackle thanks to the community.
The second is about our care or carelessness about specific regions. We try to put the same care on each one, although sometimes it's easier, and sometimes it's harder. But, at the end of the day, we want a consistent result in all of them. We will devote to all of them the time we might need to, in due time. Because, for example, in the Polish/Baltic/Ruthenian Tinto Maps we have whooping 52 pages, with over 1,000 thousand posts to review. So we will continue following our working schedule, in order to make this possible.
Finally, we don't have anything against Romanians, or any other peoples or cultures, and we do care about all of them at the same level. We have a Romanian culture group (how that works, will be explained in a future Tinto Talks), that includes Wallachian, Transylvanian, Aromanian, Istroromanian (a culture that I didn't mention in the DD, but that is present in 3 locations, Buzet, Pazin, and Rovinj), and potentially Moldavian, if created by the events I just mentioned a couple of posts above. So we think that is quite a decent representation of the culture.
Each week we post a Tinto Maps DD, for a region. We ask the community to post their feedback in these DDs, as it's the easier way for us to look at it, reply to it, and gather it in an organized way. Some time after (usually, some weeks), we put each Tinto Maps region into our development pipeline again, and we make the review of it. When we think that all the feedback has been gathered, analyzed, and implemented, we share the review with the community, to show the results of their feedback, and to also have an extra feedback/sanity pass.
Given this workflow, what is useful for us is:
- Posts in the Tinto Maps DDs with detailed feedback, if possible supported by sources.
- Links to specific posts in other threads open by the community, with the results of, maybe, months or weeks of discussion.
What is not useful for us is:
- Threads outside the Tinto Maps that are not linked in the Tinto Maps (we might be reading them, yes, but is way easier for us if you link us here the results of the discussion, again, as we can review the feedback way more faster, in an organized way).
- Repeating the same post several times in the same DD, as then you are making 'noise', that is making us more difficult to gather the different feedback.
- Complaints about previous PDX projects. This is Project Caesar, and I think that we're quite clear on what we are asking from the community for it, and the results we're giving in return (you can check any of the previous 3 Tinto Maps Review, for the Low Countries, Iberia, and France).
Three more things. Our maps will never be perfect, and will always have errors. However, we want to make them the best possible, as this is why we are taking so seriously the community feedback in this project. Let's put it this way: we have several Spanish content designers in the team (as Paradox Tinto is based on Sitges, Spain), who care a lot about our region, and we still had several errors to correct in the Iberian map, that we could tackle thanks to the community.
The second is about our care or carelessness about specific regions. We try to put the same care on each one, although sometimes it's easier, and sometimes it's harder. But, at the end of the day, we want a consistent result in all of them. We will devote to all of them the time we might need to, in due time. Because, for example, in the Polish/Baltic/Ruthenian Tinto Maps we have whooping 52 pages, with over 1,000 thousand posts to review. So we will continue following our working schedule, in order to make this possible.
Finally, we don't have anything against Romanians, or any other peoples or cultures, and we do care about all of them at the same level. We have a Romanian culture group (how that works, will be explained in a future Tinto Talks), that includes Wallachian, Transylvanian, Aromanian, Istroromanian (a culture that I didn't mention in the DD, but that is present in 3 locations, Buzet, Pazin, and Rovinj), and potentially Moldavian, if created by the events I just mentioned a couple of posts above. So we think that is quite a decent representation of the culture.
- 89
- 24
- 8
- 8
- 1
- 1
By the way, I think this is the Tinto Maps with fewer negative reactions, and the feedback so far is great, even if the community was expecting some Balkanic mayhem. I'll be out for a few days from now, so expect less replies from my end, but we'll keep reading you. Cheers!
- 66
- 6
- 5
- 4
- 1
- 1
'Ok, today's Tinto Maps is looking kind of calm, let's see what happened in the Balkanic one.'
'500 unread posts over 25 pages, and more than 40 direct mentions...'
'grandpasimpson.gif'
PS: I'll try to make some more replies next week, thanks for your patience in the meantime!
'500 unread posts over 25 pages, and more than 40 direct mentions...'
'grandpasimpson.gif'
PS: I'll try to make some more replies next week, thanks for your patience in the meantime!
- 36
- 5
- 4