Tinto Maps #9 Carpathia and Balkans Feedback

[otaats]

I think you are replying to the wrong person/comment

Oh, you're right.

 

[Fehervari]

Rough estimate for population of large-ish (2500<) settlements or settlement clusters (not locations) in Hungary. The estimation utilises the number of "factors of interest" (local existence of parishes, provostries, ecclesiastic centres, places of authentication, markets, fairs, privilege, paulines, friaries) and multiplies with 510 (country average). Using country average is not the most optimal approach, but it still gives us more or less okay estimates:

FULL_NAME	COUNTY	Population		xcoord	ycoord
Buda-Óbuda	Pilis	14790		19,03385​	47,50175​
Esztergom	Esztergom	13260		18,73521​	47,79695​
Várad	Bihar	11730		21,94703​	47,05313​
Pécs	Baranya	9690		18,22799​	46,07712​
Székesfehérvár	Fejér	8670		18,41002​	47,19055​
Zágráb	Zágráb	8160		15,97851​	45,81543​
Eger	Heves	7140		20,37323​	47,89933​
Nyitra	Nyitra	7140		18,07638​	48,30614​
Győr	Győr	6630		17,63438​	47,68824​
Veszprém	Veszprém	6120		17,9015​	47,09801​
Eperjes-Sóvár-Nagysáros	Sáros	5100		21,23931​	49,00183​
Sárospatak (Satoraljaujhely)	Zemplén	5100		21,56873​	48,31969​
Bodrog-Hajszentlorinc (Bodrogsziget)	Bodrog	4590		16,61312​	45,74871​
Gyulafehervár	Erdélyi Fehér	4590		18,97408​	45,79247​
Csázma	Körös	4590		23,56984​	46,06756​
Bács	Bács	4080		22,85759​	47,80167​
Csanád	Csanád	4080		19,13457​	47,77055​
Vác	Nógrád	4080		20,58517​	46,13679​
Pozsony	Pozsony	4080		17,11216​	48,14445​
Szatmár-Németi	Szatmár	4080		20,75167​	49,00009​
Szepesváralja (Almás)	Szepes	4080		16,80193​	47,04966​
Vasvár	Vas	4080		19,23648​	45,39273​
Kassa	Abaúj	3570		21,25884​	48,72046​
Kolozsvár (Kolozsmonostor)	Kolozs	3570		22,02778​	48,46389​
Kalocsa	Solt	3570		23,58978​	46,76771​
Lelesz	Zemplén	3570		18,98404​	46,52812​
Pécsvárad	Baranya	3060		18,97334​	47,78297​
Garamszentbenedek (Petend)	Bars	3060		19,62097​	44,9795​
Dés-Désakna	Belső-Szolnok	3060		16,59803​	47,68908​
Visegrád (Domos)	Pilis	3060		18,41377​	46,15867​
Sopron	Sopron	3060		23,87873​	47,14159​
Szavaszentdemeter	Szerem	3060		18,55904​	48,34558​
Szekszárd (Hidas-Ebes-Csatar)	Tolna	3060		18,4937​	46,25746​
Zalalovo (Keresztur, Pacsa, Szentandras, Szelce)	Zala	3060		16,60635​	46,84829​
Titel	Bács	2550		20,14824​	46,24837​
Szeged	Csongrad	2550		24,4891​	47,13926​
Ság	Hont	2550		17,59192​	48,37898​
Zdenci (Veliki?)	Körös	2550		23,79711​	46,56468​
Pozsega	Pozsega	2550		25,6012​	45,65798​
Nagyszombat	Pozsony	2550		20,29132​	45,20455​
Somogyvár	Somogy	2550		24,15272​	45,79777​
Karos-(Komár)	Somogy	2550		17,72644​	45,43026​
Beszterce	Szászföld	2550		18,80475​	48,973​
Brassó	Szászföld	2550		17,09101​	45,6645​
Nagyszeben	Szászföld	2550		18,95​	48,075​
Torda	Torda	2550		17,38554​	45,83165​
Zniováralja	Turóc	2550		17,65016​	46,58323​
Verőce	Verőce	2550		17,12221​	46,55527​
Zalavár	Zala	2550		17,15683​	46,66996​

 

[purplephoton]

I figured it would be like this, but that didn't stop a lot of users from criticizing me for being negative before the feedback thread was out. Well, it's been out, and those same people are now the ones reassuring us that in a year or two paradox will finally get to fixing the Balkans. I get it, there's a subsection of users, high on hype, who will defend the devs' decisions no matter what, and it's not like most players really care about the map outside of Western Europe, but the way this whole thing was handled left a bad taste in my mouth.

I can't quite tell if you're lumping me into all four categories, but I'd like to point out that, despite hypothesizing that the Balkans will get a review in a few years and defending Tinto, I do in fact care about the map outside of Europe. If you don't believe me, go through any of the three Sub-Saharan Africa feedback threads. Or Central America. And I think I posted something in Maghreb as well.

 

[Inzano]

I can't quite tell if you're lumping me into all four categories, but I'd like to point out that, despite hypothesizing that the Balkans will get a review in a few years and defending Tinto, I do in fact care about the map outside of Europe. If you don't believe me, go through any of the three Sub-Saharan Africa feedback threads. Or Central America. And I think I posted something in Maghreb as well.

I don't think it's a rule that most people outside of Europe don't care about other regions, it's more that if you don't know, for example, what it was like in Africa, you won't comment and make suggestions, you probably wouldn't give any, because it's stupid to spoil the picture. I also followed and liked those outside of Europe who were passionate and showed a lot of knowledge. But I didn't comment because most of my knowledge of history comes from Southern Germany, Northern Italy, the Western Balkans. Elsewhere in Europe I have more than general knowledge. Outside of Europe, I only have a few bits and pieces. I suspect that many members of this forum have a similar opinion, which is why there are so few posts on threads outside of Europe.

I know you contributed a lot to the suggestions for African cultures and languages, I hope they will be taken into account.

 

[Pangloss110]

First of all, chill a bit.

Second, in this very thread it has already been said how the invasion of Hungary to Bulgaria was through Wallachia. Hungary and Bulgaria do not need to share a border.

Third, the existence of the Despotate is one of those things quite up to interpretation/debate. There is not a clear and undisputed source that proves its existence, at most we can guess.

Fourth, Plovdiv is actually ingame on the correct side of the Maritsa.

Fifth, suggestions are only that. We do check them, research them to check that things are correct and implement them when our schedule allows if we agree to introduce them.

I do not like policing people, so feel free to think whatever you want. I also have no intention of looking for a confrontation, but people should really calm down a bit and be more respectful, nobody here is trying to downplay any region.

Hopefully this post gets us all to a better place.

@Aldaron I don't know how it's in other threads but since there's a lot of discussion in this one and I'd say a lot of pretty good suggestions and things that could improve the game so would you consider releasing another map of the Balkans. It doesn't have to be soon, more like when you repolish this part of the world. It would show the people that further discussion in threads like this aren't useless.

 

[Aldaron]

@Aldaron I don't know how it's in other threads but since there's a lot of discussion in this one and I'd say a lot of pretty good suggestions and things that could improve the game so would you consider releasing another map of the Balkans. It doesn't have to be soon, more like when you repolish this part of the world. It would show the people that further discussion in threads like this aren't useless.

That is not my call. So it is not in my hands.

Besides, the first feedback did not stop some people complaining about the same things (whcih is fair, but adds little to the discussion since the decision has been made).

I personally love this part of our map, but there is an amount of time I can devote to each region as the list of things to do is enormous. I would like to reiterate that the map will be revisited if needed in the future (I have 100's of posts bookmarked, not including all those that we have already covered), but people really need to relax a bit and not let their passion blur the good atmosphere we have in this forum.

Also, and even if it sounds a bit as a stereotype, mods exist and will exist and if anyone disagrees with any of our decisions, they can modify that part of the game to their liking. As a modder myself it is one of the reasons I started and I encourage everyone to try to do their own mods to satisfy their needs.

With this I am not trying to end any kind of discussion by claiming something like "if you do not like, make a mod". At all. What I am trying to say is that we do not need to take things that we do not like soooo seriouesly when we do have ways to solve it.

 

[ArVass]

That is not my call. So it is not in my hands.

Besides, the first feedback did not stop some people complaining about the same things (whcih is fair, but adds little to the discussion since the decision has been made).

I personally love this part of our map, but there is an amount of time I can devote to each region as the list of things to do is enormous. I would like to reiterate that the map will be revisited if needed in the future (I have 100's of posts bookmarked, not including all those that we have already covered), but people really need to relax a bit and not let their passion blur the good atmosphere we have in this forum.

Also, and even if it sounds a bit as a stereotype, mods exist and will exist and if anyone disagrees with any of our decisions, they can modify that part of the game to their liking. As a modder myself it is one of the reasons I started and I encourage everyone to try to do their own mods to satisfy their needs.

With this I am not trying to end any kind of discussion by claiming something like "if you do not like, make a mod". At all. What I am trying to say is that we do not need to take things that we do not like soooo seriouesly when we do have ways to solve it.

As long as the handful of jarring location/province/terrain/urban location errors are corrected, I am happy, and I'm actually going to say this: these few errors are what would bring this area of the map from "almost perfect" to "perfect".

People complaining forget how far this map has gone from the first draft and how incredibly well done it is. It is really close to perfect imo

 

[kagami1999]

in this very thread it has already been said how the invasion of Hungary to Bulgaria was through Wallachia. Hungary and Bulgaria do not need to share a border.

If that's so, then I can't find the post. Are you saying that Hungary owned part of Wallachia bordering Bulgaria? Why isn't that reflected in the map? If you're instead saying that Hungary used "military access" through Wallachia to attack Vidin, that's one thing... But how did they establish a 4-year long province centered on the city and incorporate it into their administrative apparatus if it wasn't even geographically connected to Hungary? It's difficult for me to comment on a source I can't see, but what I do know is that there's a post in this thread proving that the fortress of Kladovo east of the Timok valley was in Bulgarian hands during the late 14th century:

And an interesting historical fact we know about it is that, according to a Hungarian charter from 1396, and I'm pulling this straight from the Bulgarian wikipedia page of the city, just translated to English: "On August 18, 1396, the Hungarian King Sigismund, during the Danube Crusade he led, crossed the Danube at Kladovo and entered Bulgaria, and in the charter from Neograd of the same year, he noted the city as Bulgarian."

This is supported by another comment from 14th-century German traveler Johann Schiltberger stating that Bulgaria starts at the Iron Gates (east of the Timok valley):

I was in three regions, and all three were called Bulgaria. The first Bulgaria extends there, where you pass from Hungary through the Iron Gate. Its capital is called Vidin. The other Bulgaria lies opposite Wallachia, and its capital is called Tarnovo. The third Bulgaria is there, where the Danube flows into the sea. Its capital is called Kaliakra.

Considering that Serbia and Bulgaria's last confrontation was at Velbazhd in 1330, there's no way this land could've been Serbian in 1337 and seized by Bulgaria somewhere down the line. From my side of things, and indeed, most people on this forum, Hungary and Bulgaria sharing a border in the Timok valley is the most logical and straightforward explanation here. I've said this before, but the Manchuria map is chock full of speculative borders and historically untestified tribal locations, so why is the barrier of entry so high for sources pertaining to the Balkans but not elsewhere?

Third, the existence of the Despotate is one of those things quite up to interpretation/debate. There is not a clear and undisputed source that proves its existence, at most we can guess.

Wait a minute... Are you saying that you think the Despotate never exist at all? Well that's a big reversal from what Pavia said, it's also easily disproven by a cursory search on the topic revealing that numerous Southern, Central, and Eastern European sources referenced an independent domain in Dobruja, one of which I already quoted in this post. Dobruja's rulers also issued their own coinage, but the evidence is already so overwhelming that this fact is basically redundant, you might as well question the existence of any 14th-century Balkan polity if your standards are that high.

I'll assume you meant that there isn't a source directly telling us when the Despotate was established. In that sense, you're right that we have to "guess", but we can make an extremely educated guess given the strong evidence suggesting that its existence precedes 1337. I'm just going to quote my own post on the matter, which I think does a good job justifying that position:

In short, the Despotate was a domain of the Terteroba clan, which lost the imperial throne of Bulgaria to Michael I Shishman in 1323 but retained their authority in Karvuna, later expanding it to Silistra and the Danube delta. Initially, Balik accepted the Byzantine title of Archon and embraced the Patriarchate of Constantinople to assert his independence from Tarnovo. Indeed, the first record of an autonomous ruler in Dobruja is from 1346, when Balik intervened in the Byzantine civil war (1341-1347) on behalf of Anna of Savoy. However, the first mention of Varna under the ecclesial jurisdiction of the Constantinople rather than Tarnovo comes from a 1323 codex, indicating that Balik likely created his domain that same year – which coincides with the dethronement of the Terteroba clan in Bulgaria. Despite this, the exiled Terterids never surrendered their political identity – Venetian, Lithuanian, and German sources all used the name Bulgaria as a synonym for the Despotate. (Source: ДОБРУДЖАНСКОТО ДЕСПОТСТВО - КЪМ ПОЛИТИЧЕСКАТА, ЦЪРКОВНАТА, СТОПАНСКАТА И КУЛТУРНАТА ИСТОРИЯ НА ДОБРУДЖА ПРЕЗ ХІV ВЕК, page 67, page 197)

All of this info is available in Georgi Atanasov's "ДОБРУДЖАНСКОТОДЕСПОТСТВОКЪМ ПОЛИТИЧЕСКАТА, ЦЪРКОВНАТА,СТОПАНСКАТА И КУЛТУРНАТА ИСТОРИЯ НАДОБРУДЖА ПРЕЗ ХІV ВЕК", available on academia.edu and partially translated into English. Atanasov doesn't get everything right, but he's the preeminent Bulgarian historian on Dobruja and he always cites his sources.

You said that the date of Karvuna's establishment is up to debate, and I'd like to ask, where is the other side of this debate? I see that the Despotate's wikipedia page (which is awful, by the way) states 1356 as the year of its inception, but that's totally unsourced. We know the following things:

- The Despotate was ruled by the Terteroba clan
- The Despotate was in ecclesiastic union with Constantinople, its earliest ruler also carrying a Byzantine title and acting on a military alliance with Byzantine empress Anna of Savoy
- The Terteroba clan was dethroned in Bulgaria's imperial capital in 1323
- The first reference to Varna, the largest city in Balik's domain, as an ecclesiastic holding of the Patriarchate of Constantinople coincides with the year that the Terteroba clan lost power in Tarnovo (1323)

Given the strength of Atanasov's case, I'd really like to see what the argument for Karvuna coming into existence at a later date is.

Fifth, suggestions are only that. We do check them, research them to check that things are correct and implement them when our schedule allows if we agree to introduce them.

Here's the issue. People are under the impression that if they put in the time, cite their sources, elaborate in sufficient detail, dot their i's and cross their t's, etc... that Paradox can be persuaded to change the game accordingly. Exceedingly little of that has happened in the Balkans, and in Bulgaria in particular. The justification is usually some vague and impossible to debate statement about conflicting sources, which is very handwavey behavior. If you were laying those sources bare and putting them up for debate, that would be one thing, but you aren't. I hope you can understand that from my -- and not only my perspective -- I see no way to interpret this as anything other than a) a lack of interest in the region's history, or b) a refusal to deviate from a pre-established vision for reasons unknown to us, the users.

I do not like policing people, so feel free to think whatever you want. I also have no intention of looking for a confrontation, but people should really calm down a bit and be more respectful, nobody here is trying to downplay any region.

People have been giving Paradox the benefit of the doubt, and most continue to do so. At the end of the day, we're all unpaid fans sinking our time into these suggestions because we want to see the game become the best that it can be. It's just very demoralizing to see that it's been handled this way, and I think you'll see diminishing returns on community feedback if you stay the course.

 

[Aldaron]

If that's so, then I can't find the post. Are you saying that Hungary owned part of Wallachia bordering Bulgaria? Why isn't that reflected in the map? If you're instead saying that Hungary used "military access" through Wallachia to attack Vidin, that's one thing... But how did they establish a 4-year long province centered on the city and incorporate it into their administrative apparatus if it wasn't even geographically connected to Hungary? It's difficult for me to comment on a source I can't see, but what I do know is that there's a post in this thread proving that the fortress of Kladovo east of the Timok valley was in Bulgarian hands during the late 14th century:

This is supported by another comment from 14th-century German traveler Johann Schiltberger stating that Bulgaria starts at the Iron Gates (east of the Timok valley):

Considering that Serbia and Bulgaria's last confrontation was at Velbazhd in 1330, there's no way this land could've been Serbian in 1337 and seized by Bulgaria somewhere down the line. From my side of things, and indeed, most people on this forum, Hungary and Bulgaria sharing a border in the Timok valley is the most logical and straightforward explanation here. I've said this before, but the Manchuria map is chock full of speculative borders and historically untestified tribal locations, so why is the barrier of entry so high for sources pertaining to the Balkans but not elsewhere?

No, I said that foreign armies crossing a foreign land to access a third is not uncommon.

The crossing was indeed via Kladovo but:
1) Wikipedia is not a primary soruce
2) The fact that the crossing was a Kladovo and they entered Bulgaria does not necesarily mean that Kladovo was Bulgaria (not saying the contrary either, but contesting that "factness" of this.
3). The Timok area was contested and most likely divided between both realms at the very least.

Wait a minute... Are you saying that you think the Despotate never exist at all? Well that's a big reversal from what Pavia said, it's also easily disproven by a cursory search on the topic revealing that numerous Southern, Central, and Eastern European sources referenced an independent domain in Dobruja, one of which I already quoted in this post. Dobruja's rulers also issued their own coinage, but the evidence is already so overwhelming that this fact is basically redundant, you might as well question the existence of any 14th-century Balkan polity if your standards are that high.

I'll assume you meant that there isn't a source directly telling us when the Despotate was established. In that sense, you're right that we have to "guess", but we can make an extremely educated guess given the strong evidence suggesting that its existence precedes 1337. I'm just going to quote my own post on the matter, which I think does a good job justifying that position:

All of this info is available in Georgi Atanasov's "ДОБРУДЖАНСКОТОДЕСПОТСТВОКЪМ ПОЛИТИЧЕСКАТА, ЦЪРКОВНАТА,СТОПАНСКАТА И КУЛТУРНАТА ИСТОРИЯ НАДОБРУДЖА ПРЕЗ ХІV ВЕК", available on academia.edu and partially translated into English. Atanasov doesn't get everything right, but he's the preeminent Bulgarian historian on Dobruja and he always cites his sources.

You said that the date of Karvuna's establishment is up to debate, and I'd like to ask, where is the other side of this debate? I see that the Despotate's wikipedia page (which is awful, by the way) states 1356 as the year of its inception, but that's totally unsourced. We know the following things:

- The Despotate was ruled by the Terteroba clan
- The Despotate was in ecclesiastic union with Constantinople, its earliest ruler also carrying a Byzantine title and acting on a military alliance with Byzantine empress Anna of Savoy
- The Terteroba clan was dethroned in Bulgaria's imperial capital in 1323
- The first reference to Varna, the largest city in Balik's domain, as an ecclesiastic holding of the Patriarchate of Constantinople coincides with the year that the Terteroba clan lost power in Tarnovo (1323)

Given the strength of Atanasov's case, I'd really like to see what the argument for Karvuna coming into existence at a later date is.

I am saying that there is no proof that the Despotate existed in 1337. We can again, guess, which even you concede, so not adding them is inherently no worse than adding them.

Here's the issue. People are under the impression that if they put in the time, cite their sources, elaborate in sufficient detail, dot their i's and cross their t's, etc... that Paradox can be persuaded to change the game accordingly. Exceedingly little of that has happened in the Balkans, and in Bulgaria in particular. The justification is usually some vague and impossible to debate statement about conflicting sources, which is very handwavey behavior. If you were laying those sources bare and putting it up to debate, that would be one thing, but you aren't. I hope you can understand that from my -- and not only my perspective -- I see no way to interpret this as anything other than a) a lack of interest in the region's history, or b) a refusal to deviate from a pre-established vision for reasons unknown to us, the users.

People have been giving Paradox the benefit of the doubt, and most continue to do so. At the end of the day, we're all unpaid fans sinking our time into these suggestions because we want to see the game become the best that it can be. It's just very demoralizing to see that it's been handled this way, and I think you'll see diminishing returns on community feedback if you stay the course.

The point here is that with all due respect, writing a wall of text does not mean that we are forced to add it to the game, specially when I check the sources and we decide based on what its gathered.

Saying that little changes have been done to the Balkans or specially to Bulgarie is not true and I invite you to check the changelog.

You are entitled to your own opinion, I am never going to criticize that, but do not try to guilt-trip me because it will not work. Also, the feedback topics where never a place to debate. They are not a bidirectional thing and have never meant to be so.

 

[Pangloss110]

That is not my call. So it is not in my hands.

Besides, the first feedback did not stop some people complaining about the same things (whcih is fair, but adds little to the discussion since the decision has been made).

I personally love this part of our map, but there is an amount of time I can devote to each region as the list of things to do is enormous. I would like to reiterate that the map will be revisited if needed in the future (I have 100's of posts bookmarked, not including all those that we have already covered), but people really need to relax a bit and not let their passion blur the good atmosphere we have in this forum.

Also, and even if it sounds a bit as a stereotype, mods exist and will exist and if anyone disagrees with any of our decisions, they can modify that part of the game to their liking. As a modder myself it is one of the reasons I started and I encourage everyone to try to do their own mods to satisfy their needs.

With this I am not trying to end any kind of discussion by claiming something like "if you do not like, make a mod". At all. What I am trying to say is that we do not need to take things that we do not like soooo seriouesly when we do have ways to solve it.

Thanks for replying man, just like @ArVass said I thought that the biggest contribution we give rn is the little things, like my problems with the language in Dubrovnik or some other guy pointed out that Dalmatian coast is much better natural coast than depicted...(I can only speak for Croatia as I know about it). I think mods are great more for ahistorical stuff and the decorative stuff like the fact that many people don't like 3D character portraits. Also I know you had to hop on to calm the situation a bit but for the most part (even in the Balkans) the conversation is fairly polite as far as I could tell. In the end we all know how big the game is so just remember that we aren't writing posts here to say "My opinion now!" but we are saying "We believe this is wrong because () this is how you can tweek it to make it better".

 

[Inzano]

No, I said that foreign armies crossing a foreign land to access a third is not uncommon.

The crossing was indeed via Kladovo but:
1) Wikipedia is not a primary soruce
2) The fact that the crossing was a Kladovo and they entered Bulgaria does not necesarily mean that Kladovo was Bulgaria (not saying the contrary either, but contesting that "factness" of this.
3). The Timok area was contested and most likely divided between both realms at the very least.


I am saying that there is no proof that the Despotate existed in 1337. We can again, guess, which even you concede, so not adding them is inherently no worse than adding them.

The point here is that with all due respect, writing a wall of text does not mean that we are forced to add it to the game, specially when I check the sources and we decide based on what its gathered.

Saying that little changes have been done to the Balkans or specially to Bulgarie is not true and I invite you to check the changelog.

You are entitled to your own opinion, I am never going to criticize that, but do not try to guilt-trip me because it will not work. Also, the feedback topics where never a place to debate. They are not a bidirectional thing and have never meant to be so.

When I saw this long text wall, I already had it in mind, not again, the skirmishing.

 

[kagami1999]

No, I said that foreign armies crossing a foreign land to access a third is not uncommon.

And is annexing land you have no geographic connection to common? This isn't the HRE we're talking about, I don't see a reason or precedent for Hungary to wage a war of conquest against Bulgaria if the two didn't share a border. The Banate of Vidin would be a very unique and anomalous enclave if that were the case, its existence would be entirely reliant on Hungary's ability to secure passage through Wallachia (which to my knowledge, was not a Hungarian vassal in 1337). Oh, and by the way, Wallachia literally fought Hungary to wrestle back control of Vidin on Bulgaria's behalf.

1) Wikipedia is not a primary soruce

Sorry, I'd order the book that page is citing, but something tells me it would be in vain.

2) The fact that the crossing was a Kladovo and they entered Bulgaria does not necesarily mean that Kladovo was Bulgaria (not saying the contrary either, but contesting that "factness" of this.
3). The Timok area was contested and most likely divided between both realms at the very least.

It... it literally says that Bulgaria starts at the Iron Gates. That's where Kladovo is. Here's the direct passage from Johann Schiltberger's travelogue, translated into Bulgarian in the book "1396 - Никополската Битка в съдбата на България, Балканите и Европа", page 144.

In addition to that, the quote talks about passing through the Iron Gates from Hungary to Bulgaria, not Serbia to Bulgaria.

I am saying that there is no proof that the Despotate existed in 1337. We can again, guess, which even you concede, so not adding them is inherently no worse than adding them.

That's not true though, there's no medieval chronicle directly spelling out "this lord ruled Karvuna independently in 1337", but there is ample evidence pointing to that conclusion, which I cited. By your logic, half or more of the assorted african/siberian/native american tribal nations in the game shouldn't be there because nobody wrote down that they existed in X location during the game's start date. Also, if your plan is to have Dobruja spawn in at some point anyway, wouldn't it be better to just have it there at the start so people don't have to go through the hassle of tag switching?

I am never going to criticize that, but do not try to guilt-trip me because it will not work.

Yeah, that's not what I'm doing. I'm not guilt tripping you for ignoring my wall of text, I'm being critical because the game contains bad history and you're resisting every attempt that people make to correct that.

 

[Pangloss110]

And is annexing land you have no geographic connection to common? This isn't the HRE we're talking about, I don't see a reason or precedent for Hungary to wage a war of conquest against Bulgaria if the two didn't share a border. The Banate of Vidin would be a very unique and anomalous enclave if that were the case, its existence would be entirely reliant on Hungary's ability to secure passage through Wallachia (which to my knowledge, was not a Hungarian vassal in 1337). Oh, and by the way, Wallachia literally fought Hungary to wrestle back control of Vidin on Bulgaria's behalf.
View attachment 1300521

Sorry, I'd order the book that page is citing, but something tells me it would be in vain.

It... it literally says that Bulgaria starts at the Iron Gates. That's where Kladovo is. Here's the direct passage from Johann Schiltberger's travelogue, translated into Bulgarian in the book "1396 - Никополската Битка в съдбата на България, Балканите и Европа", page 144.
View attachment 1300488

That's not true though, there's no medieval chronicle directly spelling out "this lord ruled Karvuna independently in 1337", but there is ample evidence pointing to that conclusion, which I cited. By your logic, half or more of the assorted african/siberian/native american tribal nations in the game shouldn't be there because nobody wrote down that they existed in X location during the game's start date. Also, if your plan is to have Dobruja spawn in at some point anyway, wouldn't it be better to just have it there at the start so people don't have to go through the hassle of tag switching?

Yeah, that's not what I'm doing. I'm not guilt tripping you for ignoring my wall of text, I'm being critical because the game contains bad history and you're resisting every attempt that people make to correct that.

All of those are weak sources, I recommend you start practicing necromancy.

 

[kagami1999]

All of those are weak sources, I recommend you start practicing necromancy.

I'll get right to it after the Hungarian wizards teach me how to teleport from Budapest to Vidin.

 

[ArVass]

And is annexing land you have no geographic connection to common? This isn't the HRE we're talking about, I don't see a reason or precedent for Hungary to wage a war of conquest against Bulgaria if the two didn't share a border. The Banate of Vidin would be a very unique and anomalous enclave if that were the case, its existence would be entirely reliant on Hungary's ability to secure passage through Wallachia (which to my knowledge, was not a Hungarian vassal in 1337). Oh, and by the way, Wallachia literally fought Hungary to wrestle back control of Vidin on Bulgaria's behalf.
View attachment 1300521

This conquest happened in the 1360s, not in 1337. In the 1360s, Wallachia was a Hungarian vassal: Nicholas Alexander swore fealty to Louis in 1354, and Vladislav I actually seems to have cooperated in the Hungarian occupation of Vidin.

Most of your argument stems from viewing this situation in some sort of "vacuum", which you should never do.

 

[kagami1999]

This conquest happened in the 1360s, not in 1337. In the 1360s, Wallachia was a Hungarian vassal: Nicholas Alexander swore fealty to Louis in 1354, and Vladislav I actually seems to have cooperated in the Hungarian occupation of Vidin.

There's no evidence that the peace signed between Bulgaria and Serbia after the Battle of Velbazhd in 1330 ever broke, so I don't see how the land could have changed hands. And the point stands that it's very, very weird for Hungary to annex a province they aren't geographically connected to, especially if their access to it depends on the flimsy loyalty of a third party. All I'm saying is, what's the more likely scenario here?

 

[Inzano]

For a few more pages, we won't be allowed to talk about another country.

 

[Pls fix HRE]

And the point stands that it's very, very weird for Hungary to annex a province they aren't geographically connected to, especially if their access to it depends on the flimsy loyalty of a third party. All I'm saying is, what's the more likely scenario here?

Annexing land you dont have a direct connection with was happebning often enough as we saw with Austria Vidin is also at the Danube so Hungarians can literally sail there without needing to step foot on Wallachia.

Thoguh I gotta say I didnt realise the Bulgarian Hungarian border was talked about enough for the devs to respond to it. Thought only the region wich shall not be named had that much traffic caused by it.

 

[kagami1999]

Annexing land you dont have a direct connection with was happebning often enough as we saw with Austria Vidin is also at the Danube so Hungarians can literally sail there without needing to step foot on Wallachia.

Thoguh I gotta say I didnt realise the Bulgarian Hungarian border was talked about enough for the devs to respond to it. Thought only the region wich shall not be named had that much traffic caused by it.

Well damn, I guess you got me there... Anyway, Bulgaria should be able to fabricate a claim on Vienna, it's right there on the Danube after all, and uh, they don't call us third Rome for nothing.

Actually, now that I think about it, why didn't the Ottomans just sail to Vienna as soon as they got Nikopol or some other port on the Danube? If only you were there in the 14th century, you'd be Murad's strongest strategist and we'd be arguing in Ottoman Turkish right now.

 

[EneaBako]

@Aldaron I feel disappointed by how the southern Balkans are represented, particularly regarding Albania. As an Albanian player, its frustrating to see our region either barely acknowledged. In many builds, it feels like Albania is treated as Greek region, with no Albanian population in the south despite historical claims or cultural distinction in the region.

Additionally, the Serbian rule under Stefan Dusan, which historically ended around 1365 (correct me if Im wrong), seems to be frozen in-game. This prevents the natural emergence of smaller countries and provinces, effectively erasing the opportunity for nations like Albania to have a meaningful playthrough. The mechanics just dont allow that country to breathe, to form, or to fight for survival in the way it should.
I know it might sound a little bit weird, but there are players like me who only play as their own country through EU3, EU4, Victoria 2, Victoria 3, HOI3, HOI4 you name it.
I hope i get to see game where small countries, have a real and fair shot.