Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Important note: erroneus borders

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.
Right then:

1) Jerevan had anothr name at the time, cant remember which though.
2) Found a map of those little russian nations that broke off, byellorussia should have the 'lithuanian corridor' accept for vilno.

As they say: that´s all folks.
 
Oh by the way, Verdun (Metz) is going to be renamed St. Mihiel (Metz) because if it was called 'Verdun', then it would have to be French in later scenarios, which would put them in the odd situation of being in a giant salient jagging into Germany occupied territory.
 
StephenT said:
There's been some talk about renaming provinces, with Leningrad and Stalingrad being the most glaring examples of the problem. Unfortunately, as we know, the map is hard-coded. We can edit provinces.csv, but that would lead to problems with the map not agreeing with the pop-up boxes and information screens, which would be very confusing to people unfamiliar with the old place names.

However, what do people think of this as a solution?

Petrogradmap.gif


If this seems like a good idea, then we need to agree on what place names to change. I've come up with this as an initial list:

RUSSIA
722 Brest-Litovsk (Brzesc nad Bugiem)
788 Petrograd (Leningrad)
770 Yelisavetgrad (Kirovograd)
845 Tver (Kalinin)
863 Mariupol (Stalino)
865 Yekaterinoslav (Dnepropetrovsk)
1224 Salsk (Proletarsk)
1225 Tsaritsyn (Stalingrad)
1237 Vyatka (Kirov)
1245 Kuznetsk (Stalinsk)
1431 Pishpek (Frunze)
1436 Dushanbe (Stalinabad)

GERMANY
606 Posen (Poznan)
647 Bromberg (Bydgoszcz)

AUSTRA-HUNGARY
563 Trent (Bolzano)
618 Pressburg (Bratislava)
725 Lemberg (Lwow)

Plus a couple of really useful changes: :)

FRANCE
554 Verdun (Metz)

BULGARIA
872 Dedeagach (Thessaloniki)

I'm sure that there are more - lots of obscure Siberian provinces named after obscure Communist politicians, for example. Also, some of these changes might be politically controversial, since names like "Pressburg" and "Bromberg" were the names the foreign overlords used for their conquered territories. So I'm open to comments and suggestions from people more knowledgeable in these areas.
Click to expand...

Dont even think of changing the Thessaloniki name.1st you should have checked better because Dedeagash is the Turkish word for Alexandropolis which is a city in Greek Thrace and 2nd Thessaloniki by that time was firmly in Greek hands as it should and not in Bulgarian as in HoI( :mad: ).The name in Bulgarian is Solon.
 
StephenT said:
There's been some talk about renaming provinces, with Leningrad and Stalingrad being the most glaring examples of the problem. Unfortunately, as we know, the map is hard-coded. We can edit provinces.csv, but that would lead to problems with the map not agreeing with the pop-up boxes and information screens, which would be very confusing to people unfamiliar with the old place names.

However, what do people think of this as a solution?

Petrogradmap.gif


If this seems like a good idea, then we need to agree on what place names to change. I've come up with this as an initial list:

RUSSIA
722 Brest-Litovsk (Brzesc nad Bugiem)
788 Petrograd (Leningrad)
770 Yelisavetgrad (Kirovograd)
845 Tver (Kalinin)
863 Mariupol (Stalino)
865 Yekaterinoslav (Dnepropetrovsk)
1224 Salsk (Proletarsk)
1225 Tsaritsyn (Stalingrad)
1237 Vyatka (Kirov)
1245 Kuznetsk (Stalinsk)
1431 Pishpek (Frunze)
1436 Dushanbe (Stalinabad)

GERMANY
606 Posen (Poznan)
647 Bromberg (Bydgoszcz)

AUSTRA-HUNGARY
563 Trent (Bolzano)
618 Pressburg (Bratislava)
725 Lemberg (Lwow)

Plus a couple of really useful changes: :)

FRANCE
554 Verdun (Metz)

BULGARIA
872 Dedeagach (Thessaloniki)

I'm sure that there are more - lots of obscure Siberian provinces named after obscure Communist politicians, for example. Also, some of these changes might be politically controversial, since names like "Pressburg" and "Bromberg" were the names the foreign overlords used for their conquered territories. So I'm open to comments and suggestions from people more knowledgeable in these areas.
Click to expand...

The italian name is "Trento" not "Trent".
Just if you want to respect the map names :).
 
The ancient mar said:
Dont even think of changing the Thessaloniki name.1st you should have checked better because Dedeagash is the Turkish word for Alexandropolis which is a city in Greek Thrace and 2nd Thessaloniki by that time was firmly in Greek hands as it should and not in Bulgarian as in HoI( :mad: ).The name in Bulgarian is Solon.
Click to expand...

Bulgaria needs access to the Aegean. Giving them that province is the only way.
 
StephenT said:
I'm sure that there are more - lots of obscure Siberian provinces named after obscure Communist politicians, for example. Also, some of these changes might be politically controversial, since names like "Pressburg" and "Bromberg" were the names the foreign overlords used for their conquered territories. So I'm open to comments and suggestions from people more knowledgeable in these areas.
Click to expand...
Dunno about obscure names, but you should rename Molotov to Perm...
 
Allenby said:
Bulgaria needs access to the Aegean. Giving them that province is the only way.
Click to expand...

To do with it what exactly?Maybe a strong navy-no not that,maybe a colonial power-certainly not.So what was the real reason giving them access to Aegean and please dont tell me the story about common borders between Turkey and Greece.I btw tried to write some events like the Thessaloniki landings of Allied troops and the Dihasmos it produced in Greece,some really historical events only to leave it because a region mostly Greek by the time was given to Bulgaria.Dont get my wrong,has nothing to do with ultra patriotic feelings just isnt correct historically and the purpose of that decision make things worst.
 
The ancient mar said:
To do with it what exactly?Maybe a strong navy-no not that,maybe a colonial power-certainly not.So what was the real reason giving them access to Aegean and please dont tell me the story about common borders between Turkey and Greece.I btw tried to write some events like the Thessaloniki landings of Allied troops and the Dihasmos it produced in Greece,some really historical events only to leave it because a region mostly Greek by the time was given to Bulgaria.Dont get my wrong,has nothing to do with ultra patriotic feelings just isnt correct historically and the purpose of that decision make things worst.
Click to expand...

I´d say that discussion is finished, Bulgaria is stuck with thessaloniki, weather you like it or not :)
 
ZgB is right, unfortunately HOI's map is made for WWII not WWI so we had to make do with what we had. Bulgaria had access to the Aegean, and giving them Thessolonika is the only way. What they do with it is up to the Ai or the player. Attempting to rehash decisions made over a year ago will ensure that nothing new ever gets done. At this point the only way map changes are going to be made is for gameplay reasons (such as when we originally gave Denmark Schleiswig-Holstein [the name which escapes me at the moment] because Copenhagen could be reached from it, but later on we found that you could reach it from another German territory, thus we gave it back to Germany.).
 
The ancient mar said:
To do with it what exactly?Maybe a strong navy-no not that,maybe a colonial power-certainly not.So what was the real reason giving them access to Aegean and please dont tell me the story about common borders between Turkey and Greece
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't I tell you about the common border between Turkey and Greece? That and the fact that Bulgaria had access to the sea absolutely necessitates the province going to Bulgaria, and forms the central points with regards to this issue. If Bulgaria wants to build a Mediterranean Fleet, then it shouldn't be stopped by unrealistically taking the province and giving it to a Greece, whose only claim in TGW to the territory is the fact that in the original HOI it is called 'Thessaloniki'.
 
Just a few answers.

I know that giving Thessaloniki to Bulgaria is already predecided and not much can be done to change it.I still beliave however that by doing that wrongs are more than positive.
It was posted that Bulgaria had access to the Aegean-true but the area kept by them was(Victoria's terms-check the map there) Alexandropolis area only which is 1/3 of the area in HoI map.
It was said that they should be able to build navy,well given the techs they have and the industry,buildying a dissent navy is out of the question since it wouldnt be even a match for the smaller navy of this European part.Even more they have Varna with port capacity to build and deploy ships.So navy realisticly is out of the question for them.
About giving with Turkey to Greece.Well anybody has tried to play Greece maybe to tell me what hte chances all of Greek army attack Constantinople and take it from a land based hex?Well i did and can tell you that are very few.Why,well its ottoman capital and AI is well guarding it in games i have tried to do it.Even more Turkey has a lot more potential and army so it is much more easy to defend against anybody.In reallity Bulgarians stopped in Chatalza fortifications during Balkan war 1 and never managed to go forward(keep in mind that their army was 2-3 times troops and guns Greece could field and didnt change during WW1).Even more,in HoI TGW terms and real world there was a 50% chance Greece would not join war with Antante at all if King Constantine prevented in polotical strugles which makes the possibility of an attack smaller.
About the claims greece had by that time well check better.There was in south Albania a huge greek minority that was never given to Greece althought Greek troops did take some lands there in Balkan war 1 so here is one of the claims,the rest could easilly be Dodekanisa and Rodos from Italians since they were with 100% Greek population.
Now i beliave that the above explain quite well why it wouldnt be a problem giving Greece the area.
As i said its already(unfortunatelly decided) so untill something changes end of discussion.
 
We make choices based on strategic situations.

2 Key Facts:
Bulgarian territory was in between Greece and Turkey.

A Bulgarian port existed in the Aegean.

How much of the province was Greek is irrelevant. Greece does not gain strategically by getting that territory, Bulgaria gains by having access to the Aegean and Turkey gains since there is a buffer between Greece and Turkey. That's 1 down for Greeks not getting any strategic gain, 1 up for Bulgaria getting an Aegean port so their fleet, however small, wouldnt be holed up in the Black Sea, and 1 up for Turkey bordering Bulgaria only. 3-0 to us.

Your only desire to see Salonika go to Greece is because you are Greek yourself, and as you admit, a fervent patriot. Your above explanation of "Bulgaria can't build a fleet and Ottomans can defend themselves" are not convincing.

I refute them here and now:
1) Who says the Bulgarians only need it for a fleet? Why can't the Central Powers use it as an Aegean base? Greece has more than enough access to the Aegean. Bulgaria has none if you take the province away from them.

2) Who says the Greeks themselves have to attack Constantinople? The British or the French can land in Salonika and launch a land campaign, which completely negates any need for a Gallipolli campaign. Had Greece a direct land border with Istanbul, I'm sure Britain would have been most pleased. Far easier to conduct a massive land campaign than to land people on beaches. As for the Greek army faring poorly despite getting to Istanbul, bear in mind Russia often mauls Turkey. Forcing Turkey to guard against (A) Possible Gallipollis 2) Greece would mess up their ability (which is already pretty terrible) to stand up to the Russian Bear. Bear in mind also that Greece already can attack across the Aegean sea to take Smyrna (Izmir), which is totally unrealistic, walking across the Aegean sea. Having Turkey border Greece in Istanbul also would put much more strain against them.

Get access from Bulgaria you say? Well Britain is welcome to try, but I don't think they'll have much luck. If they succeed good for them, as Bulgaria in TGW and in 1914 did border Istanbul.

3) As for Greece not joining the Entente, in that case they would still have an incentive to go after Bulgaria to take Bulgaria's Aegean port, which is consistent with history. Bulgaria meanwhile would have to watch out for Greek irredentist claims. Greece has more than a few opportunities to join the Entente, action_c in 22001, action_b in 22002, they grant access in 22003, they join the Entente in action_a in 22004. Since Bulgaria and Turkey join the Central Powers in the overwhelming majority of the games, you'll find Greece joining the Entente, or at least granting access, is a very common occurrence.

4) Unlikely as it is, what if Bulgaria and Greece join the Entente? That would have Istanbul bordered by two hostile states. Istanbul was bordered only by Bulgaria at the point.
Click to expand...

TGW takes the view that our policy is consistent with our goal of remaining true to strategic situations in 1914. Therefore, there is no need for any change.

Using the logic of name belonging to a certain country, therefore it should go to that country, we'd have Germany holding Torun, Austria holding Krakow, making the Russian tongue totally different. You could use the same logic and say "Russia does poorly anyway", but giving Germany a direct land border to Warsaw doesn't cut it. Neither does allowing them to attack Belgium from the south or Greek or the Entente to launch a direct frontal assault on Constantinople.
 
Last edited:
If you insist on continuing

1)Central powers have mre than plenty ports in the Aegean for their pathetic Medit. fleet so giving them one more does nothing.
2)Antante troops did land in Thessaloniki to help Serbs but proved ineffective untill later in the war when their attack knocked Bulgaria out of the war and opened the belly of Central powers open for invasion from the south.As about Gallipoli,yes it did happen but the point of the game:any historical game is not to represent what happened only but also and mainly what could have happened and Antante troops marching against Constantinople was possible.As for a march to Smyrna well complaints to developers not me since i have nothing to do with it.As about the Greek events for joining the war keep in mind that from the beggining i said that i PLAY Greece therefore i am not the AI who will decide upon preditermind events,instead make my own policy of whether i will go or not against anybody.
3)From the beggining i said that my post has nothing to do with fervent patriotism ar anti-Bulgarian feelings so i suppose that you should have paid little more time reading my post instead of thinking things i havent said.
4)About the "not convincing" points that Bulgaria cant build fleet i suggest go play with her and tell me what kind of fleet you manage to build and how this navy made an important appearance in the area and then you will be convinced by your self for it.As about Ottoman defence and British troops there,well normally Antante should not have enought troops to march against Constantinople and second if the city has a level 2 land fort as it should then check if the AI will ever made it.Of cource if you are a human Antante player with or without land connection its easy to get the city since human players can do much beeter than their original counterparts or the AI.
Once again i suugest that try read and understand what i am saying and not what you beliave i wrote before making a decicion on whether i am wrong or not.
 
ptan54 is perfectly right. Bulgaria had territory between Greece and Turkey.
Tessaloniki I think it's a way too big as province to be given to Bulgaria. Since there is no way to modify the map or any other closer territory that can do the job, Tessaloniki it's the only province fit to be given to Bulgary.

Ptan54, still I insist you should put italian flag among Germany and Austria-Hungary flag in the Winning Screen.
Your logic fails: even if Italy left Triple Alliance, that was made in 1882 between three european powers and mean nothing if Turkey, when Italy leaves the alliance, remains the third major power.
That's incorrect as much as the name "Entente". The Entente was made between Great Britain and France in 1904 and then become Triple Entente with Russia adhesion.
 
Lord Fabbro said:
Sorry in that case, you answered me the first time so I though you were in charge :D.


ARGHHH sorry, Zucker is my target :D.
Click to expand...

What? No, <I am just a plain self-taught modder that isn´t in the real team, I´d better fit in with the contributors :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back