Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

IGC - the province thread

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
Kurland and the Knights never were contemperary. The Knights of the Sword (the Livonian sub-branch of the Teutonic Knights) had become independent of the Teutonic Knights when the Order collapsed during the Reformation and the subsequent formation of the Duchy of Prussia from Order's home territories in 1525. Of course, the Swedes, Russians, and Poles all came in for the kill, and the lands of the Knights of the Sword were invaded and divided. The last Headmaster of the the Knights only managed to keep a portion of his lands (the Duchy of Kurland) by submitting to the Poles and secularizing his lands in 1561. So the remaining lands of the Knights merely transformed into the Duchy of Kurland; maybe this change could be added into the game as a historical event in 1561?
 
It is never easy to ditch a nation completely in EU, and Kurland was no exception. If it were to be reinstituted, it would require the removal of some other nation. I think it would make sense in that case to move Riga with the CoT to Livonia. We would lose Dorpat as a city in the game, but...

Perhaps it is time for a poll. ;)
 
Originally posted by Doomdark
It is never easy to ditch a nation completely in EU, and Kurland was no exception. If it were to be reinstituted, it would require the removal of some other nation. I think it would make sense in that case to move Riga with the CoT to Livonia. We would lose Dorpat as a city in the game, but...

Perhaps it is time for a poll. ;)
Click to expand...

First, if Kurland should return, then the easiest way would be to use the inactive Hugenottes TAG. It would also be the only way I would agree, because I *strongly* resent and oppose the removal of any of the other nations just because of Kurland.

Secondly, also Riga with the CoT would definitely have to be moved, because it was the base of the wealth of the "Livonian Order of Teutonic Knights" (which is the full title for the whole organisation since the amalgam of the Teutonic Knights with the Sword Brethren in the 13th century). Let´s not forget, that exactly because the dutchy of Kurland at that time didn´t include the important wealthy Northern part of the province with Riga (and the CoT) it was in the end dismissed as a seperate entity.

Problems of this solution:

If moved, Riga would be located in the wrong place geographically, which would be really odd, too (along with the inevitable removal of Dorpat from Livonia). The incorrectly hardcoded province boundaries sadly prevent any satisfying solution here. So we have to think about the issue, whether the reinstitution of Kurland would not maybe pose more problems than it would solve. Many people who are content with the present solution would surely complain then about the inaccuracy of the city location (and they would have a point, too).

Hartmann
 
Of course, Hartmann, I agree with you... I am rather satisfied with Kurland belonging to the Knights. However, it does make quite a lot of sense for Riga to be grouped with Livonia. For example, if you look at 1700.inc, Kurland has been given to Sweden as a compromise, since Riga was Swedish, but the Kurland province was actually firmly in Polish hands.

A little poll can never hurt.
 
I wonder if someone can explain the reasoning as to why Persia is given province 523 (Kara Kum, Samarkand). They never controlled it historically. It was controlled by the Uzbeks mainly during this time frame, although other minor nations controlled it briefly as well.The Timurid empire, which controlled the area of Persia as well, did control it in the 1400s, but they had collapsed and are not Persia.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~rs143/timurid.jpg is a link showing Persian territory (Safawid Persia, bottom map). Samarkand is in the Khanate of Bukhara to the right of Persian lands.
It also shows how Persia expanded to the East into the provinces of Mekran, Baluchistan, maybe Kalat by 1512. Something they will never do as the AI, unless they are given those provinces at the start.
 
Originally posted by Crook, Hartmann
Belisarius:

I am trying to convince Hartmann to rework the Uzbeks and rename them Bukhara for that matter, see my post in "leaders for all nations" thread. You're right, the area wasn't controlled by Persia until 1740.

Crook

Samarkand will go to Uzbeks next round. That´s for sure.

Hartmann
Click to expand...

Well, it's a question of early or late historical accuracy. They were known as the Uzbeks until about 1598, then became the Khanate of Bukhara. But still the same "empire".
For Samarkand, can we increase it's population beyond 700? Samarkand was really a minor COT and had been around for centuries. It was considered so desirable that Babur, founder of the Mughal empire, conquered it 3 times before finally giving up and turning towards India.
 
Last edited:
Hello all,

Thank you to everyone who has helped to make the IGC; it has really increased my enjoyment of EU. With respect to provinces, I didn't notice any discussion of Tula in this thread (I hope I didn't simply overlook it). According to my version of Nicholas Riasanovsky's "A History of Russia," it appears that the principality of Tula was acquired by Moscovy during the reign of Basil II (no later than 1462). I see no reason to believe that Tula reverted to Poland-Lithuania between that time and 1492. I think that the EU map is pretty inaccurate in this region - Ryazan and Tula should border each other - but it seems that Tula should belong to Russia.

Maybe someone who is better versed in Russian history (I took only one college course) will have a better idea if this should be the case. Thank you in advance.
 
unreliable:

You're absolutely right, Tula did belong to Moscow, but so did Kursk. Unfortunately, if we try to be absolutely historically correct Poland wouldn't have too much left :). It's more of a question of gamebalance than historical accuracy. Actually, Lipetsk and Tambov should probably belong to Ryazan, and not Kazan, but we can't change the map to accomodate this.

Cheers.

Crook
 
Since we're on this topic...

Turkey should own Kerch as well as Azov. Since Azov is a huge province, we probably be better off leaving it to Crimea, as Turkey controlled only the city.

Bukhara was actually a COT, Samarkand was completely devastated by the war. This will probably be done in a later version of IGC, since we would have to readjust the production and income values for the provinces.

BUKHARA all the way!!!
 
Originally posted by Crook
Since we're on this topic...

Turkey should own Kerch as well as Azov. Since Azov is a huge province, we probably be better off leaving it to Crimea, as Turkey controlled only the city.
Click to expand...

Somewhere in the General forum I once explained in more detail, why this shouldn´t be done. In brief it´s this: Turkey owned exactly the port cities/fortresses, but nothing else in the Hinterland (even with Kerch). Their holdings in Azow and Kerch were not connected. But giving them Kerch and Azow provinceswould have the weird consequence of Turkey having a large connected area there. Also Crimea would be swiss-cheesed. There´s one possible solution to this as according to some maps in 1493 Crimea owns Lugansk. Another possible solution is the one You described, Kerch province is smaller at least. Still I don´t like it that much (I once had tested it btw.). Again it´s the "ugly" map which prevents any 100% accurate solution.

Hartmann
 
I´m convinced. Turkey now has Kerch. You will see it in the next version.

Hartmann

PS: Azow is out of the question, though, because of weird huge connected territory
Click to expand...

Exactly like I proposed :). Actually, it's kind of funny, if you read the history of Peter's (the Great that is) Azov campaigns, you would see, that it took the longest to finalize the peace treaty, since the biggest question was how much land goes with Azov.

Hartmann: I'll start working on modifying the data for the Bukhara provinces, including possibly changing their colonial status. I'll post my changes here, so we can discuss them.

BTW, in my current game (I play as Russia, but peacefully :) ), Spain got a civil war event, and half of their possesions in Central and South America were in rebel hands. Yet Mexico didn't form :(.
Serbia actually did. Your choice for a Mexican capital (Tampico) is actually questionable, Spain quite rarely builds a city there, maybe that's part of the problem?

Crook
 
I think we should defenetly add COT in Astrakhan or Bukhara. Without this COT all this territories depends from Novgorod and this means no trade income for Sibiria and may be Uzbeks (I do noot know which CoT Uzbeks use). This happends because SIbiria did not know about Novgorod province. They did not know province and COT, but there trade income goes to Novgorod. Without this money Sibiria looks not very good country to play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back