1.27 Poland and Romania; Feedback for provinces

[Mingmung]

Hello there,

Some feedback for Poland and Romania. If the devs want a more 'correct' Poland/Romania (at least one without mistakes), then they could just copy this work. I took great care to place the towns in the correct locations, I mainly used Google Maps for this, but also historical maps like these ones:
- https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Podział_administracyjny_I_RP.png
- https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Partitions_of_Moldavia.jpg
- https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Tara_Romaneasca_judete_1601-1718.svg

#1 Notec: The Notec is a Polish river, it doesn't make sense as a province-name. The Prussians used the German name (Netze) for a district there when they conquered it, but the Polish never did. The current capital of this province is Notec (it was Bydgoszcz before, but this city isn't located here, but in the province of Inowroclaw), but the Notec is a river, as mentioned earlier. The capital and province-name should be Naklo (nad Notecia).

Sources:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netze_District
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakło_nad_Notecią
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noteć

#2 Inowroclaw: The current capital of Inowroclaw is Inowroclaw (2), but the location is actually that of Bydgoszcz (1). The position of the town of Inowroclaw should be changed to the correct one (2).

#3 Kujawy: The capital of Kujawy is currently Wloclawek (2), but it's actually in the incorrect position and should arguably be Brzesc-Kujawski (1), which was the seat of the voivodeship. So, I suggest renaming the capital to the latter and placing it in the correct spot.

#4 Tarnow: The capital is still in the location of another city; Rzeszow. I moved it to the correct location.

#5 Przemysl: Moved the capital of Przemysl (1) a little bit. Also took off a chunk of the province itself and gave it to Lwów. Drohobycz (2) is actually located within the confines of this province instead of its own province.

#6 Lwów: The capital-city isn't located within the current province. Moved the capital to the correct location right beneath the town of Belz. Had to chip away a bit of Przemysl to do this.

Source:
- https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Podział_administracyjny_I_RP.png

#7 Halicz: Renamed this province to Halicz and moved the city a bit to the right position. This is currently still the province of Drohobycz, but that town wasn't located here.

#8 Kolomyja: Kind of the same situation as the one above; Renamed this province to Kolomyja and moved the city a bit to the right position. This is currently still the province of Halicz, but that town wasn't located here. Also took a bit off this province and gave it to Suceava (Moldavia), as the important town of Cernauti isn't even located there currently. It was incorrectly drawn in the basegame of EU4. The town of Kolomyja was sometimes contested between the Polish kings and the Moldavian voivodes.

Sources:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolomyia
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernivtsi [/SPOILER]

#1 Severin: Took a small bite away around the river for Ottoman-controlled Vidin. Otherwise, nothing has changed.
#2 Craiova: The current name (Oltenia) makes no sense if the historical area has been split into two provinces (one of which is Severin). So, renamed it to Craiova, its capital. Also moved the town a little bit.
#3 Tirgoviste: Nothing has changed.

#4 Ilfov/Bucuresti: Modern-day Romania does indeed have a country which is called Giurgiu and the town/stronghold did indeed exist and was of importance on the Danube. Only one slight problem here; it was conquered by the Ottomans around 1417, to control traffic on the Danube. I'd personally change the capital and name to Bucharest. Vlasca or Ilfov might be better names for the province itself, though, with Bucharest as capital. I know it didn't exist yet, but so have more cities in EU4 (like Sulimaniyeh in the Kurdistan region). Bucharest is more than important enough to warrant some attention, it even has its own mission.

Anyway, Giurgiu makes zero sense and is a modern mistake.

Sources:
- https://www.britannica.com/place/Giurgiu-Romania
- https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Tara_Romaneasca_judete_1601-1718.svg

#5 Buzau: The location of the city itself is plain wrong, so fixed that.

#6 Suceava: Moved it to the right spot and took a chunk away from Kolomyja (already talked about above). Terrain should be woodlands or hills and it definetely needs some dynamic province-names.

#7 Iasi: Changed the shape to fit the historical divisions more, as well as the partitions. The city had to be moved to the correct location, too. The province is now entirely on the right bank of the Prut river.

#8 Birlad: It's name could use a slight change, namely to Bârlad. Only bit a little part of it and gave it to Iasi. Its current dynamic province-names are still the same as the ones the old EU4-province of Moldava had.

#9 Tighina: Elongated it a bit and gave its 'capital' (stronghold of Bender/Tighina) the correct spot on the map.

#10 Basarabia: Moved the capital of Chilia to the correct position, as well as cutting the province at the Danube-delta to make way for an Ottoman-controlled Dobruja/Tolcu province.


Terrain-types (especially in Romania) and dynamic province-names (which are entirely lacking for all new provinces here) should be looked at in general, as well as the data for later start-dates. If you guys need more info/sources on those issues, I can provide that. Although it shouldn't be hard to find on the internet.

EDIT: Drohiczyn, Dobrzyn and Poznan have been fixed in the past few months.

 

[Mingmung]

Mostly yes. Like I said, some important towns like Uman and Bila Tserkva should be represented on the map, as well as as Rivne indeed should be called Lutsk as @BalticM said. I also think that the Left Bank (east to Dnieper) is still way too sparse - some important historical locations like Baturyn and such as I mentioned above should be there.

Anyway, here are Lithuania-Ruthenia fixes I can talk about. I'll leave most of the territory of modern Belarus aside since I lack knowledge about their administrative divisions, especially historical.

View attachment 406299​

Well, let me start with Odesa. As the biggest Ottoman fort there and the location of the biggest interest for the most part of the EU4 timeframe, I suppose that they mean Khadjibey as a province capital. I mean, what else could/should be it be? The location is fixed as it is a bit off.
As a secondary question I would like to know why Dniester Estuary is not represented. It is a damn gulf, albeit shallow, which is not passable even nowadays. Here is a photo to understand how big it is, it is actually big enough that it separates Edisan and what is called Budjak nowadays (aka that southern Moldovan province).

Spoiler: Dniester Estuary

View attachment 406300

I have no idea what is that town in Yedishkul. There is basically a steppe even nowadays and small settlements.
I have 0 idea why that part of Donbass is called Mansur. Mansur duchy/principality was far more in the north, in the severian lands - in the territory of Poltava, Sumy and western Kharkiv regions. They were the founders of the influential Hlinsk noble family, their descendants played a big role in the Lithuanian duchy, their ancestor (Mamay) is a part of a folk culture and a legend.
This said, I will repeat what many people said before: Ryazanian culture is an ahistorical term. What is that supposed to be? There was a Severian culture and it makes way more sense. What is the reasoning behind this name?
I have no idea why Kyzyl-Yar is called that, maybe there is some logic I miss, but I don't recall that name being in historical annals.
Now, the last thing - in the Golden Horde. Bahmut? Why is it called like that? I know that there is Bakhmut in the province EU4 calls Mansur, standing on the Bakhmut/Bakhmutka river, and the city was founded in XVI century.

Given the issue with Mansur and Severian culture being called Ryazanian, I think that these are very important things to fix. It is humiliating that even Eastern Africa has more proper cultural divide and names than Eastern Europe. Not to mention province density - and even if we count in Wild Field, it is still less dense than Ogaden. Ruthenia is less province-wise represented than Poland, Muscovy and East Africa, it definitely needs some love! Otherwise, the region misses a huge chunk of history and a reason why XVII century turned out to be very brutal for everyone and especially for Commonwealth.
Realistically, I have my doubts that Ruthenia will get a rework in EU4 and so lets just fix Mansur, Severian culture, Dniester Estuary and other things if possible.

Most of Crimea is called after the Nogay tribes living there or rivers, just like the rest of the East-European steppes. Anyway, we should stick with the provinces at hand, not with other regions.

 

[fr-rein]

Most of Crimea is called after the Nogay tribes living there or rivers, just like the rest of the East-European steppes. Anyway, we should stick with the provinces at hand, not with other regions.

Yes, but Mansur is most likely a wrong name. As well as Bahmut as I suspect - especially because Bakhmut river is in place of Mansur province!

 

[Mingmung]

Yes, but Mansur is most likely a wrong name. As well as Bahmut as I suspect - especially because Bakhmut river is in place of Mansur province!

Not really the topic of this thread, though. This is one just about the wrongs on the new 1.27 map of Poland and co.

The Steppes haven't gotten an update since Art of War.

 

[fr-rein]

Not really the topic of this thread, though. This is one just about the wrongs on the new 1.27 map of Poland and co.

The Steppes haven't gotten an update since Art of War.

Can agree with that.
I don't see any other major issues in this case (except for Ryazanian culture which should be Severian, but I heavily doubt it'll be changed...).

 

[Mingmung]

About one week untill the launch of this patch.

Let's hope they've taken our feedback into consideration...

 

[BalticM]

This is how high-detail Grand Duchy Lithuania should look like. Still unfinished. Need some more research on left bank.

States

• Samogitia
• Lithuania
• Black Ruthenia (Upper Neman)
• Polesia (Pripyat)
• Minsk (Berezina)
• White Ruthenia
• Smolensk
• Volhynia
• Podolia
• Right Bank Ukraine

Still to come:

• Chernihiv (5 provinces)
• Left Bank Ukraine (5 provinces)
• Sloboda Ukraine (5 provinces)
• Yedisan (~4? provinces)
• Zaporizhia (5 provinces)
• Russian Severia (5 provinces at least, least clear part yet)
• Upper Oka (5 provinces, mostly non-GDL)

Not sure if Uman province is good choice. It didn't exist in 1444 and could be replaced by Zvenyhorodka.
But existance in 1444 is problem for some more South Ukraine provinces.

 

[fr-rein]

This is how high-detail Grand Duchy Lithuania should look like. Still unfinished. Need some more research on left bank.

View attachment 406455

States

• Samogitia
• Lithuania
• Black Ruthenia (Upper Neman)
• Polesia (Pripyat)
• Minsk (Berezina)
• White Ruthenia
• Smolensk
• Volhynia
• Podolia
• Right Bank Ukraine

Still to come:

• Chernihiv (5 provinces)
• Left Bank Ukraine (5 provinces)
• Sloboda Ukraine (5 provinces)
• Yedisan (~4? provinces)
• Zaporizhia (5 provinces)
• Russian Severia (5 provinces at least, least clear part yet)
• Upper Oka (5 provinces, mostly non-GDL)

Not sure if Uman province is good choice. It didn't exist in 1444 and could be replaced by Zvenyhorodka.
But existance in 1444 is problem for some more South Ukraine provinces.

Spoiler: GDL from DD

Qutie a few changes, especially to Lithuania and Belarus region were done and they are a big progress. I still think that Ruthenia needs more province and update to Podolia in your map looks wonderful.
I need to say that in case of Ruthenia it is often underrepresented due to being raided and war-torn quite a few times in the history. However, it is at the very least ignorant to say that it doesn't deserve representation on the level of, lets say, Poland, Muscovy and others in terms of provinces. It was quite populated and the number of Ukrainians (Ukrainian Ruthenians) was comparable to Poles, which means that by no means for some reason Left Bank, Cherkasy or Podolia should be presented as huge swaths of land.
Instead, it would be fair to make more provinces there and make them suffer from historical Tatar raids, which would lower development as it was historically and keep in check the local development, going as far as to raid even Muscovy and give it, Cossacks and PLC a pressing reason to stop Crimean Khanate from devastating the border regions. The very implication of the current size of the provinces on the left bank that they were as populated as the steppes is idiotic and sad. And I don't even mention how Zaporozhia is awful as of now (being called a mere Horde), how Cossacks do not play the role they played once or how national ideas for Ruthenian states were ignored both in the Third Rome and Polish update.

 

[Mingmung]

Spoiler: GDL from DD

View attachment 406538

Qutie a few changes, especially to Lithuania and Belarus region were done and they are a big progress. I still think that Ruthenia needs more province and update to Podolia in your map looks wonderful.
I need to say that in case of Ruthenia it is often underrepresented due to being raided and war-torn quite a few times in the history. However, it is at the very least ignorant to say that it doesn't deserve representation on the level of, lets say, Poland, Muscovy and others in terms of provinces. It was quite populated and the number of Ukrainians (Ukrainian Ruthenians) was comparable to Poles, which means that by no means for some reason Left Bank, Cherkasy or Podolia should be presented as huge swaths of land.
Instead, it would be fair to make more provinces there and make them suffer from historical Tatar raids, which would lower development as it was historically and keep in check the local development, going as far as to raid even Muscovy and give it, Cossacks and PLC a pressing reason to stop Crimean Khanate from devastating the border regions. The very implication of the current size of the provinces on the left bank that they were as populated as the steppes is idiotic and sad. And I don't even mention how Zaporozhia is awful as of now (being called a mere Horde), how Cossacks do not play the role they played once or how national ideas for Ruthenian states were ignored both in the Third Rome and Polish update.

Please keep in mind that this thread has been called to life because of mistakes on the map, not of underrepresentation.

I suggest you'd be better off if you made a suggestion-thread about the GDL itself? With all the proposed provinces you want + backstory.

 

[Mingmung]

Ugh... I just don't really get it why we haven't heard anything yet.

It's not as if the placement and naming of cities is arguable in this case, or something. Please tell me otherwise.

Just advocating for corrections; not game-altering additions.

 

[withche.07]

I have written about my suggestion with Despotate of Dobruja in my thread, there could be some alive (or core) Byzantine ally, trade league partner of Genoa, OPM Turkish beylik here in that region with Orthodox religion. (Some historians suggest rulers were Cuman Turkic, some suggest they were Turkish Gagauz migrated from Seljuks and converts to Orthodoxy, they had direct family ties to Byzantine royals) Ofc we need more information and I hope our friends here may know couple of things.

This is bit more extended for this thread but I somewhat feel like there could be representation of Orthodox Gagauz Turks in game:

Links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seljuks_in_Dobruja
http://blacksea.ehw.gr/forms/fLemmaBodyExtended.aspx?lemmaID=12392
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Despotate_of_Dobruja

Details:
1. Ottoman expansion into the Balkans
Contacts between the Balkans and Turks coming from Asia Minor date from the mid-thirteenth century. In 1261, the Seljuk sultan Izzeddin Keykavus II lost his throne and fled with a large following to the Byzantine emperor, who in 1262-3 settled them in the Black Sea area from Varna to the estuary of the Danube, the dry steppe country later known as the Dobrudja. The full story is related by Yazicioglu Ali in 1424, in his adaptation of Ibn Bibi’s thirteenth-century Selgukname. Sultan izzeddin soon fled to Crimea, where he died much later. His followers remained behind under the leadership of the charismatic dervish San Saltik Dede, whose deeds were recalled by the Arab traveller Ibn Battuta, who in 1331 visited the town of Babadag in northern Dobrudja, where the saint was buried. After the death of their great leader (in 1297-8, according to the contemporary Saradj) some of the Turks returned to Anatolia and settled in what then had just become the emirate of Karasi, while others remained, and entered converted to Orthodox Christianity Byzantine service. Under their leaders, the Despot Balik, Culpan, Balik’s son Dobrotic and grandson Ivanko, they maintained their political independence from Bulgaria as the principality of Dobrudja, which existed from the 1330s till the final annexation by the Ottomans under Mehmed I in 1417. As a people they became known as Gagauz, a corruption of Kaykavus. The name of the province, Dobrudja, derives from Dobrotic. Already in the 1260s the Byzantines started to fear the power of these Turks, who, according to Yazicioglu Ali, numbered 'ten to twenty thousand persons '. 8 When Izzeddin fled to Crimea, the emperor, Michael VIII Palaeologos, captured his younger sons. One son converted to Christianity, together with his followers, and they were settled by the emperor in the Macedonian town of Verria (later Karaferya, Verroia). When Verria became Ottoman (1387), these Seljuks became vassals and served in the Ottoman army. Yildinm Bayezid resettled them around Zichne in Macedonia, where they remained as a sizeable Turkish-speaking Christian group until well into the twentieth century.

2. After the great Mongol invasion of Eastern Europe (1240-41), a large region, from the outflow of the Don to Constantinople and further east, towards Slovenia, was turned into tribute-paying dominions by the Tatars. The discovery of coins dating from circa 1300 led to the identification of statal entities controlled by the Mongols, but also by Byzantium, at Tulcea, Niculiţel, Isaccea and Măcin.18 The restoration of Byzantine rule in the region of the lower Danube during the reign of Michael VIII Paleologus (1258-1282) led to consistent colonization of Byzantine-controlled areas in the land of Dobrudja/Dobrace ili by the Anatolian Turks of the Seldjukid Sultan Izz ed-Din Keykavus II.19 The companions and disciples of the dervish Sari Saltuk Dede, who arrived in the Istro-Pontic territories around these times, founded the town Babadag. Evliya Çelebi wrote about the merging of the Anatolians with the native Vlachs, which resulted in the Dobrudjan population known as citaq.20

So Despotate of Dobruja was somekind of original entity in region, under heavy influence of Byzantine Greek incorporated with Bulgars and Turks.

Details about ruler Dobrotitsa:
Dobrotitsa's ethnic origin is disputed, in consequence he is considered by some a Bulgarian[6] noble kindred of the Terter dynasty (from the Cuman Terteroba clan),[7][8] to others a Vlach (mostly by Romanian historians),[9]and to others a Christianized Turk.[10] Venetian sources from the late 14th century refer to Dobrotitsa as a "despot of Bulgarians" (DESPOTUM BULGARORUM DOBROTICAM) and to his realm as "parts of Zagore (Bulgaria) subordinate to Dobrotitsa" (PARTES ZAGORAE SUBDITAS DOBROTICAE).[11]

Details about Dobruja:
1. The principality was spun off from the Second Bulgarian Empire (followed by other frontier regions of Bulgaria such as Vidin and Velbuzhd) around 1340 under Balik (member of the Bulgarian-Cuman dynasty of Terter according to some authors[2]) and placed itself ecclesiastically under the Patriarchate of Constantinople. A "Metropolitan of Varna and Carbona" was mentioned in 1325. Under Balik's son Dobrotitsa(1347–1386; ruling with the title of "despot" after 1357) the principality came to its greatest power and extension and the capital was moved to Kaliakra.
In 1346 or 1347, the principality was plagued by the Black Death, transmitted by Genoese boats from Caffa before they finally brought it to Sicily, Genoa and the whole of Western Europe. The principality had its own navy, which also engaged in piracy forcing the Genoese to complain, and possibly took part in an operation off Trebizond. In 1453, the Ottoman navy at the siege of Constantinople was initially led by one admiral Baltoglu, a Bulgarian convert from the former principality.

2. Byzantine Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos, who had just recaptured Constantinople (modern İstanbul) from the Latin Empire, was a relative of İzzettin. However, he had allied himself with the Mongols of Baghdad (who’ll soon be called Ilkhanids) and instead of supporting İzzettin, he kept İzzettin as a refuge and settled İzzettin's partisans to the area between Varna in Bulgaria and the estuary of the Danube (1262–1263), a region which later on was named as Dobruja (Turkish: Dobruca). After an unsuccessful revolt in Byzantine Empire, İzzettin fled to Crimea, which was under Golden Horde rule. But his followers stayed in the area allocated to them. Their new leader was Sarı Saltık Dede, whose tomb is in Babadag, modern Romania.[2]

So country was just seized by Ottomans right before game timeline I believe it could be added as claims in region as some unique country as Genoa's trade league partner with Turkish (Gagauz)/Bulgar community in region, under heavy Byzantine influence + Even family tree has Cuman Turkic branch Terter dynasty.

 

[Mingmung]

I have written about my suggestion with Despotate of Dobruja in my thread, there could be some alive (or core) Byzantine ally, trade league partner of Genoa, OPM Turkish beylik here in that region with Orthodox religion. (Some historians suggest rulers were Cuman Turkic, some suggest they were Turkish Gagauz migrated from Seljuks and converts to Orthodoxy, they had direct family ties to Byzantine royals) Ofc we need more information and I hope our friends here may know couple of things.

It didn't exist anymore in 1444. The Dobruja (towns of Tolcu and the like) should be under direct Ottoman control.

Anyway, this thread is more about feedback for the 1.27 setup than for new tags/provinces altogether.

 

[withche.07]

Thanks for informing me, I actually thought it could exist through releasable core in that one province (similar to non existing beyliks all around Anatolia or country named Nitra) It could be somewhat unique Orthodox country permitted to form Rum as they had direct ties to Seljuks

 

[Mingmung]

I'm kind of pissed; they haven't incorporated one bit of the feedback into 1.27 (launch).

The positions of the cities of Wloclawek (capital of Kujawy), Bydgoszcz (Notec), Inowroclaw, Halicz, Drohobycz, Lwow, Tarnow, Iasi, Suceava, Bender (Tighina) and Buzau are all 100% wrong. Bialystok is also still the capital of Palenké, which should be Drohiczyn (already in the correct location).

It's almost embarassing. I was really looking forward to playing Poland again, but this messed-up setting really holds me back. How long until it will be updated again, 2 years? It's really disheartening.

@neondt what went wrong? Good feedback is normally incorporated or at least adressed. While bug-fixes and balance are more important, a lot of love gets poured into the setting, usually. I just don't understand this.

 

[Palando]

I'm kind of pissed; they haven't corporated one bit of the feedback into 1.27 (launch).

The positions of the cities of Wloclawek (capital of Kujawy), Bydgoszcz (Notec), Inowroclaw, Halicz, Drohobycz, Lwow, Tarnow, Iasi, Suceava, Bender (Tighina) and Buzau are all 100% wrong. Bialystok is also still the capital of Palenké, which should be Drohiczyn (already in the correct location).

It's almost embarassing. I was really looking forward to playing Poland again, but this messed-up setting really holds me back. How long until it will be updated again, 2 years? It's really disheartening.

@neondt what went wrong? Good feedback is normally incorporated or at least adressed. While bug-fixes and balance are more important, a lot of love gets poured into the setting, usually. I just don't understand this.

I'm also displeased with the development distribution, as we've got quite many provinces that have as much dev as Arabian desert provinces, while having around the same size as those ...

 

[Aramenian]

sad even the Mazovian flags have not changed

 

[Mingmung]

sad even the Mazovian flags have not changed

Yeah, but that was honestly the least of my worries.

 

[Mingmung]

@DDRJake could you please 'fix' this?

 

[DDRJake]

While we like these suggestions, they came in a bit too late to make it into the 1.27 Update (where time was unusually tight due to the GDPR update we had to do). We'll be looking to see about putting them into a future update.

Thanks for the suggestions!

 

[Mingmung]

While we like these suggestions, they came in a bit too late to make it into the 1.27 Update (where time was unusually tight due to the GDPR update we had to do). We'll be looking to see about putting them into a future update.

Thanks for the suggestions!

You're a hero. You really put me at ease, knowing that.

Thank you! My apologies for whining so much.

 

[Aramenian]

interesting in what region will the new DLC focus, I think it may be the Balkan region or the Scandinavian-Baltic region?