-
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.
Looks nice
I'm happy you've added the location of Ptuj since it was a very important city. But still think it would be cool if Austria was split into the duchies of Styria, Austria, Carinthia and Carniola. Also the region of "Slovenia" is kinda wierd, since the name of Slovenia for the land where Slovenes live wasn't really used back then. For eu4 time period it would make more sense to make a region called "Inner Austria" and would include the regions of Styria, Carniola (Slovenia on the map shown above) and Carinthia
I'm happy you've added the location of Ptuj since it was a very important city. But still think it would be cool if Austria was split into the duchies of Styria, Austria, Carinthia and Carniola. Also the region of "Slovenia" is kinda wierd, since the name of Slovenia for the land where Slovenes live wasn't really used back then. For eu4 time period it would make more sense to make a region called "Inner Austria" and would include the regions of Styria, Carniola (Slovenia on the map shown above) and Carinthia- 2
- 1
Fair enough. Imo as it's only 5 categories there's no particular need for a gradient.
I think clearly distinguishable colors are more important so you instantly know which terrain you're dealing with.
I'm probably still wearing EU4-goggles regarding the color for hills, but I find those grayish tones to be pretty instantly recognisable from both flatlands and mountains.
Imperator had a burnt orange for hills too, iirc, so not particulary a hill I'm willing to die on (hehe).
- 2
- 1
I think this map was much better than the original but I have a few things to say. First off I believe slovenian should be it's own dialect because names are different in it compared to Serbian or Croatian. For example Ivan - Janez, Franjo - France and Matija - Matjaž along with these some city names are different for example Beč - Dunaj (Vienna). Also I believe the province of Gradec should be renamed to Slovenj Gradec as Gradec should be the flavour name of the Slovenian dialect for Graz so it could cause some confusion.
- 3
This may be delusional, but I'm crossing my fingers that there will be some type of local "thing" for peat. Although peat was traded, I could see the argument that it was mainly used locally. So, it would be overkill to make it a good.
But, if there is just nothing, then that's really disappointing. I just don't see how they do justice to the economy of the region without it.
(this is my last post on the topic - this is supposed to be about German feedback)
- 4
With all due respect to your work and research, unfortunately North Tyrol is in some ways worse than before the rework. I get that there where too many very small locations so you removed them. That's understandable. I also understand that it's hard to portray what is passable or impassable terrain. Several people gave suggestions regarding the impassability of the Northern Border to Bavaria and you decided to add one small wasteland that is basically inconsequential. While I personally would've liked to see most of the border impassable I understand that Reutte, Schwaz and Kufstein do technically have a pass and can be considered passable in terms of gameplay but please improve what you did in the middle there. Innsbruck is now Southwest of Schwaz and the Schwaz location kinda wraps around Innsbruck in the North contrary to actual geography or political borders. The city of Innsbruck itself is now in that weird Northwestern appendix of the Schwaz location. My suggestion is to extend the Innsbruck Location in the North, directly up to Garmisch and importantly extend the wasteland West of it through the entire new northern Border of the Innsbruck Location. See my terrible drawing down below. Thanks
- 9
- 1
- 1
Brandenburgerish just reads and flows oddly to me. How about just Brandenburger?
Didnt even realized there were plateaus at map until seeing your post lol
- 3
I have a small suggestion and a question .
In Tyrol where you put Galtür should be Landeck geographical speaking as it is right at the top of the impassable terrain in real life and the one next to it that I currently Landeck should be Imst.
As for my question: In Styria where you put the iron deposit is the famous “Erzberg” which means ore mountain translated. They started mining iron there in the middle-ages and are still doing it to this day. For a certain type of iron ore it is still the largest deposit in the world. There even is a folktale about how the mountain is completely made of iron ore and will never go empty. So my question would be if there is a modifier that represents this huge amount of high quality iron ore in this region?
Thanks
In Tyrol where you put Galtür should be Landeck geographical speaking as it is right at the top of the impassable terrain in real life and the one next to it that I currently Landeck should be Imst.
As for my question: In Styria where you put the iron deposit is the famous “Erzberg” which means ore mountain translated. They started mining iron there in the middle-ages and are still doing it to this day. For a certain type of iron ore it is still the largest deposit in the world. There even is a folktale about how the mountain is completely made of iron ore and will never go empty. So my question would be if there is a modifier that represents this huge amount of high quality iron ore in this region?
Thanks
- 2
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
As a Swiss, I have to say I hate the way the "Neuchâtel" province is set up (also later the western switzerland area due to that). Basel and Solothurn just dont belong to western Switzerland (which is French-Speaking). Especially Biel, but also Monthey and Martigny fit there way better.
One possible to solve this would be the following: Give the Biel location to Neuchatel province, move Solothurn and Basel locations to the Aargau province and potentially give Lucerne location to Waldstätten province. Aargau could then be renamed to Basel, since it had the Prince-Bishop. Monthey could also be given to western switzerland, but not necessarily if the area is deemed to small otherwise.
- 8
- 4
- 1
248 days later since the release of the Ireland and Britain tinto map, and no end in sight. Life is relentless. Its Celtover.
On a positive note, this looks really good cant wait to so play in the HRE!
On a positive note, this looks really good cant wait to so play in the HRE!
- 2
I'm not gonna mention what was already mentioned in the first comment about Bohemia (like the fact Eger should be a vassal imperial city), but here is a list of nitpicks:
1) Kłodzko should be renamed to Kladsko or the German Glatz.
It was part of Bohemia until the end of 18th century and part of Prussia/Germany until the end of WW2.
Even when Germans became a majority around 14–15th century due to Ostsieldung, that 'location' still had a Czech speaking minority until the last century when it was given to Poland after WW2.
Germans were moved out and the Czech minority either moved to Czechoslovakia or was reeducated to use Polish.
Either way it was something that didn't happen until after the end of game timeline, so using the Lechitic name just doesn't make sense even if that 'location' used to be a language continuum bridge between Czech and Silesian back in the day.
2) If the Šumava/Böhmerwald/Bayerwald mountains get mountain provinces, then it doesn't make sense for the more mountainous North-East of Bohemia border with Silesia to not have mountain provinces. Šumperk at the bare minimum.
(Part of the issue is that a lot of provinces historically had lowland core and just stretched towards uninhabited mountains which is easily noticeable in the Silesian locations from Bolesławiec to Świdnica.)
Source: A Map of slopes ie "mountainousness".
3) Rakovník, should be part of Praha province, not Žatecko, but I understand the need for at least 3 locations for a province to exist.
4) More of a question: Was the population of Lusatia fixed? Because in the last Germany tinto maps Lower Lusatia had more people than the entire region of Moravia and both Lusatias as a whole had 0,9M population which is really close to the modern 1,2M people living there today, so something somewhere is wrong.
(population of Moravia reflects more figures from 13th century, by the end of 14th century Moravia had around 1M population and Bohemia 2M, so since I doubt the game will let you double your population in the first 50 years, something needs to be adjusted)
(source is Czech)
5) On the topic of Lusatia, why the German names of locations? I get places where they are or became the majority, but places where they didn't and that are under Bohemia or Lower Lusatia should use Sorbian placenames
6) Still on the topic of Lusatia, if Alsace gets to be a region with 2 provinces, why are Lower and Upper Lusatias split between Saxony and Brandenburg? Such split became a thing only due to Prussian administration in late 18th century.
7) Development of Hradec Králové 'location' should be increased, after Prague/Praha, Kuttenber/Kutná Hora and Pilsen/Plzeň it was the richest town in the Bohemia Region
8) Lamentation over 'location' sizes and number of locations. I get that Bohemia would be way too big of a blob for one region to have so many provinces and locations, but the way all games worked so far end up underrepresenting Bohemia since it gets disadvantaged by other places with bigger locationcount and ensuing bonuses from resources and building bonuses. I hope population statistics counterbalance this so it doesn't end up with similar situation to ck3 867 startdate.
1) Kłodzko should be renamed to Kladsko or the German Glatz.
It was part of Bohemia until the end of 18th century and part of Prussia/Germany until the end of WW2.
Even when Germans became a majority around 14–15th century due to Ostsieldung, that 'location' still had a Czech speaking minority until the last century when it was given to Poland after WW2.
Germans were moved out and the Czech minority either moved to Czechoslovakia or was reeducated to use Polish.
Either way it was something that didn't happen until after the end of game timeline, so using the Lechitic name just doesn't make sense even if that 'location' used to be a language continuum bridge between Czech and Silesian back in the day.
2) If the Šumava/Böhmerwald/Bayerwald mountains get mountain provinces, then it doesn't make sense for the more mountainous North-East of Bohemia border with Silesia to not have mountain provinces. Šumperk at the bare minimum.
(Part of the issue is that a lot of provinces historically had lowland core and just stretched towards uninhabited mountains which is easily noticeable in the Silesian locations from Bolesławiec to Świdnica.)
Global Mountain Explorer 2.0
Online tool for the exploration of three global mountain datasets
rmgsc.cr.usgs.gov
3) Rakovník, should be part of Praha province, not Žatecko, but I understand the need for at least 3 locations for a province to exist.
4) More of a question: Was the population of Lusatia fixed? Because in the last Germany tinto maps Lower Lusatia had more people than the entire region of Moravia and both Lusatias as a whole had 0,9M population which is really close to the modern 1,2M people living there today, so something somewhere is wrong.
(population of Moravia reflects more figures from 13th century, by the end of 14th century Moravia had around 1M population and Bohemia 2M, so since I doubt the game will let you double your population in the first 50 years, something needs to be adjusted)
(source is Czech)
5) On the topic of Lusatia, why the German names of locations? I get places where they are or became the majority, but places where they didn't and that are under Bohemia or Lower Lusatia should use Sorbian placenames
6) Still on the topic of Lusatia, if Alsace gets to be a region with 2 provinces, why are Lower and Upper Lusatias split between Saxony and Brandenburg? Such split became a thing only due to Prussian administration in late 18th century.
7) Development of Hradec Králové 'location' should be increased, after Prague/Praha, Kuttenber/Kutná Hora and Pilsen/Plzeň it was the richest town in the Bohemia Region
8) Lamentation over 'location' sizes and number of locations. I get that Bohemia would be way too big of a blob for one region to have so many provinces and locations, but the way all games worked so far end up underrepresenting Bohemia since it gets disadvantaged by other places with bigger locationcount and ensuing bonuses from resources and building bonuses. I hope population statistics counterbalance this so it doesn't end up with similar situation to ck3 867 startdate.
- 7
- 2
Currently it feels like Italy is missing some important locations, such as Forlì, which was the capital of Papal southern Romagna and was of political importance in the early renassance.
Last edited:
- 7
- 1
Thank you so so so so much for adding those lakes!!!
I was begging for this on the eu4 modding community for years. This is such a big enhancement for the immersion <3
Me as a bavarian loves to see lake starnberg and chiemsee <3
They really round up the environment and region to make the map feel less like a blank paint mess but more like a real life counterpart to identify with <333333
I was begging for this on the eu4 modding community for years. This is such a big enhancement for the immersion <3
Me as a bavarian loves to see lake starnberg and chiemsee <3
They really round up the environment and region to make the map feel less like a blank paint mess but more like a real life counterpart to identify with <333333
- 2
I disagree that there isn't a need for a gradient. With distinct colors the brain (at least mine) still has to use that extra second to find the link the between what color equals what terrain type. With the gradient the brain instantly recognises that the yellow-orange is the intermediate stage between the green of flatlands and orange-red of mountains. It is second nature for the brain since this has been standard for terrain on maps throughout ones life (e.g. the maps that could be rolled down in classrooms).
- 2
Some addenda:In general there are many improvements I like, e.g. the Bavarian borders now better represent the divisions, the borders of the Bishopric of Havelberg, Alsace, Holstein, Toggenburg and of the Margraviate of Burgau to name just a few. There are still some improvements I would personally make. Here's a list grouped by geographics from north to south (for now only for the political ownership because other things need more time to check):
Northern Germany:
- What I think is Gollnow, should be owned by Stettin.
- Lebus was conquered by Brandenburg in 1325. Its bishop fled to Poland until 1354, so a vassal tag of Brandenburg wouldn't represent this either, I'd say.
- Oldenburg should lose Elsfleth to Friesland, as they acquired it only in 1350
- I would've liked to see Wildeshausen to represent Brema's southern territories below Bremen.
- At least (Neu-)bruchhausen owned by (Neu-)bruchhausen would have been neat. The provinces there seem to have been redrawn.
- H.P. is supposedly Holstein-Pinneberg owned by Schaumburg, isn't it?
Central Germany:
- Meiningen's overlord in 1337 was Würzburg. In 1344, its overlord, bishop Otto II, even asked Louis the Bavarian to grant it the same rights as the Free City of Schweinfurt.
- Chemnitz should go to Meißen, not Landsberg.
- Torgau's county was still ruled by the Counts of Torgau in 1337 (Bodo of Torgau in 1337).
- Pirna was owned by Bohemia from the reign of Václav II (1293) until the reign of Wenceslaus, King of Germany (1405). This is why I suggested adding Bischofswerda in its east, and give that to Misnia (Bishopric of Meißen). Nearby Königstein actually derives its name from this period (there were no Saxon emperors or kings at that time). Alternatively, Pirna could be changed to Dohna and then owned by the Burgraviate Dohna.
- Schwarzenberg would be renamed to Waldenburg if it was up to me, as there were many smaller independent states in this area. The Lordship of Waldenburg (Heinrich of Waldenburg in 1337) would represent the three small independent worldly rulers of the region (Burgraviate of Meißen and small territories owned by Colditz), as a third Meißen would probably be too much at that point.
- Braunlage, as it used to be called, could become Walkenried, which would be its own tag, an imperial abbey.
- Mühlhausen is rather huge, so I would've hoped for the addition of Mainz's Eichsfeld (Heiligenstadt and maybe even Langensalza)
- Wertheim, owned by the Counts of Wertheim, could be added next to Lohr and Würzburg. It existed until the mid of the 16th century.
- Kaiserslautern was owned by Balduin of Trier since 1332. The Palatinate didn't get it until 1356. See also https://www.1000-jahre-mainzer-dom....toren/Burgard/burgard_BalduinvonLuxemburg.pdf or https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiserpfalz_(Kaiserslautern).
- Kirrweiler maybe could be added as western territory for Spira (Bishopric of Speyer), now that a Palatine connection to Kaiserslautern is no longer needed.
- Sponheim could be split to also include the Rhinecounty with Grumbach as its capital ("Rheingrafschaft").
- Rees could be changed to Duisburg, which would be owned by Berg, as Duisburg was far more important as a former free city.
- Cochem should be owned by Trier and not by Daun. Daun was an extremely small state, so it certainly shouldn't be that big. If you want to add here some interesting borders, then Virnburg for the Palatinate would be a neat option.
- Ahrweiler could be changed to Neuenahr, as Cologne's territory in this region was extremely minor. Neuenahr would then be its own tag.
- Gumersbach should again change back to Mark, which got it in the 13th century.
- Sadly you didn't add the Free City of Cologne
Southern Germany:
a) Bavaria
- Miesbach was owned by the County of Hohenwaldeck which broke free from Freisinger overlordship around 1300, so they should be independent in 1337.
b) Franconia
- Schwabach was owned by Nassau(-Hadamar) until 1364, so it shouldn't be owned by the Burgraves of Nürnberg in 1337.
- Kulmbach was still in the possession of the Counts of Weimar-Orlamünde. It was only inherited by the Burgraves of Nürnberg in 1340.
- Pegnitz should be owned by Leuchtenberg. They only sold it to Bohemia in 1357, and Pegnitz was never owned by Bamberg.
- Mellrichstadt was acquired by Würzburg in the 13th century, so it should be owned by it and not Henneberg in 1337.
- Brückenau belonged to the Abbey of Fulda until 1816. You previously made it an independent tag but it was always Fulda's (with some rebellions in between).
- Schweinfurt would be, I think, better represented as subjugated Free City (vassal of Henneberg), as they bought their freedom themselves only a few years after the game starts.
- Hohentrüdingen owned by the tag Truhedingen could be carved out from Dinkelsbühl and Weißenburg. .
c) Swabia
- Kaufbeuren's removal is odd. It was an Imperial City, so certainly shouldn't be part of Augusta Vindelicorum.
- Heidenheim was owned by the Counts of Helfenstein, so it should be one tag.
- Kirchberg is far bigger than it was historically. The western part of it could become Ehingen held by Berg-Schelklingen and the eastern part Mindelheim held by Hochschlitz.
- Riedlingen should be owned by Hohenberg, as they bought it from the Habsburgs in 1314. The Habsburgs only got it back in 1680, when Riedlingen's burghers paid back the mortgage on their own expenses.
- Triberg should also be owned by Hohenberg, who inherited it in 1325 from the Counts of Triberg. It only became part of Austria in 1355.
- Böblingen was owned by the Palatine Counts of Tübingen until they sold it to Württemberg in 1344.
- Calw was sold to Württemberg in 1345 by the Palatine Counts of Tübingen. One half of the County of Calw was already acquired by Württemberg in 1308, so this might have caused some confusion here.
- Oberndorf, the old province, could be split into Nagold (owned by Hohenberg, bought by Württembergin 1364) and Oberndorf (owned by the Duchy of Teck) or Sulz (owned by the Counts of Sulz)
- Villingen, as far as I'm concerned, should be changed to the Free City of Rottweil, which was far more important than Villingen. The current Austrian exclave was extremely miniscule compared to others like e.g. Altdorf.
- Balingen was owned by Zollern-Schalksburg and didn't join Württemberg's column until 1403 (Zollern-Schalksburg also owned Mühlheim). Württemberg's only southern territory at that time was Sigmaringen, which they again lost in 1399.
Austria:
- It appears that you decided to remove many exclaves. But it wouldn't be the HRE without bordergore, so I hope you'll return to the previous iteration and maybe even expand there with more. Kirchberg and Attersee again to Bamberg (or switch Attersee with Mondsee for Lower Bavaria). Waidhofen an der Ybss, Oberwölz and Enzersdorf to Freising. Traismauer to Salzburg. Velden, Riedegg, (Eferding) and St. Pölten to Passau.
- I would've liked to see the County of Schaunburg as vassals of Austria. The Luxembourg Emperors tried weakening the Habsburgs by granting them more priviliges but this failed. However, they retained several exemptions until the reign of Maximilian I. Schaunberg bought the city of Eferding from Passau in 1367, which at that time was actually the most important town of the area.
Bohemia:
Ceterum censeo, Eger should became a Free City subject of Bohemia, as mentioned in the Bohemian flavour thread:
Tinto Flavour #6 - 14th of February 2025 - Bohemia
Hello, and welcome one more week to Tinto Flavour, the happy Friday when we take a look at the content of the new, super-secret Project Caesar. Today we will be travelling to the Kingdom of Bohemia, a charming place that is worth setting video...forum.paradoxplaza.com
- Illereichen was owned by the Lords of Echberg from 1330 until 1667 (see https://web.archive.org/web/20160304001409/http://www.altenstadt-vg.de/index.php?id=0,26) and not the Counts of Kirchberg. The Lords of Echberg also got Mindelheim from Hochschlitz in 1339.
- Parsberg should either be renamed to Dietfurt (or Hohenburg if the Bishopric of Ratisbona should be included)
- Riedlingen should be owned by Hohenberg (1314-1364).
- Oberndorf should be owned by the Duchy of Teck (or alternatively changed to Sulz, owned by the Counts of Sulz)
- Nagold should be owned by Hohenberg; it was only bought by Württemberg in 1364.
- Bonndorf belonged to the Landgraviate of Stühlingen until 1614. Until then the Counts of Lupfen were the Landgraves, not the Habsburgs.
- I would rename Birkenweil to Grumbach and create the Rhinecounty tag for it.
- Parchim, Malchow and Malchin should be owned by the tag Parchim (rename Waren).
- Güstrow and Waren should be owned by the tag Güstrow.
- 4
- 1