MKJ's Map - Discussion Thread

[Mad King James]

True I did say that, then went and contradicted myself
I think I'm over "the incident", though I'm not even going to touch Poland or Lithuania ever again. They can draw their own goddamn map.

 

[almoravid]

Then sorry for mentioning Zaporozh'e in my P.S... Don't want to bring the traumatic memories back.

 

[Mad King James]

The city of Zaporozhia is on the EAST bank of the river, unless you are proposing I split off the uninhabited southern part :wacko:

 

[Guinnessmonkey]

True I did say that, then went and contradicted myself
I think I'm over "the incident", though I'm not even going to touch Poland or Lithuania ever again. They can draw their own goddamn map.

lol


I totally understand.... I must have made 1,000 polish unitnames lists for HoI before I simply washed my hands of the situation and finalized it.

Mini suggestions, upon a second look over:

A: The "Serbia" prov could be a bit prettier, aethetically. Seems kinda irregularly drawn as it is now, but I understand if there really was no alternative.

B: Word really can't describe how happy I am at the Aegean and Adriatic coastlines... Just wanted to mention that.

C: My gut tells me that some of the Romanian provs should be cut up a bit... A 3 (as opposed to 2) prov Wallachia should do, as well as 2 provs for Moldovia. Not sure if Bessarabia should get cut up, too. My background here isn't really that expert, so if folks who know the area better say otherwise I'll give in. I'd just like a greater degree of consistency in the Balkans as to how many provs per region..... That and I HATE 90 degree angle prov dividing like we have in Wallachia currently. It always looks artificial and looks even worse when a nation owns one but not the other.... Though yes, I know... Specifics would be better than open-ended criticism. I'll poke around and see what I can find.

D: Seeing Puglia divided into two (or three, if Campania is divided in two... Hell Sicily could use 3 provs) couldn't hurt. Sure, that's partially just so that my Ottoman invasion of Italy looks prettier on the map, but still. It IS a big prov for Italy. Though I'm sure y'all had good reasons for the way it is now...


Anyway... I'll keep pokin' about. Lemme know if this is the kind of situation where you're so overwhelmed that I really should be searching through threads to doublecheck that I'm not bringing up an old, dead debate. Right now I'm just goin' "fresh perspective". Sort of a "de novo" review.

 

[unmerged(29041)]

What are your reasonings? I pointed out all of mine and there really wasn't any dispute with them other than czuse the vanilla has that many and cause people think it should. But in case you forgot here it they are again:

• Spain does not have a high population density except around Tejo and Granada, though its population density is greater than places like Africa

• 
  
  Not true, the Ebro Valley and the North were also highly populated. Take a look here.
  
  

  [*]During this era, 1419-1820, there were no major wars in the area. Only Castile vs. Granada and Granada was on its last legs.

  
  Again not true, I could provide a list, starting with the Spanish war of Succession.
  
  

  [*]There was only the three border changes, two with Granada and the annexation of Aragon by Castile

  
  You are forgetting the Rousillon, that changed hands several times
  
  

  [*]The economic and military power can be represented with higher taxes and manpower, so no need for more provinces there.

  
  So can they in other countries that are getting new provinces. If the balance is to be kept, new provinces have to be added on that basis. Let's not forget the increase in BBs.
  
  

  [*]The cultural differances were mostly related to Portugal, Granada and the remnant Moors, Spain. Except for around the south, there really wasn't much diversity.

  
  The cultural differences with Portugal are similar to those with Galicia, Catalonia or the Basque area. Cultural differences were not very determinant in national borders.
  
  

  [*]Castile in the early game is too much of a powerhouse and becomes a regional bully as it is now.

  
  And so it should, it conquered half of the world, including almost all of Italy. It was a lot stronger than France up until 1600, at least in terms of success.
  
  

  [*]Neither Castile nor Aragaon need help in staying alive.

  
  This is not a good argument. I have not seen anybody saying that only small weak countries should be given new provinces.
  
  EDIT: BTW MJK your map is getting better and better. I still don't see why the Baleares should be 2 provinces as others have said. And in my opinion Viscaya should really be Guipuzkoa. Take a look at the above link to see one of the reasons. Another is historical. Guipuzkoa was invaded by the French several times, and Spain and England launched an invasion of France from there around 1510, during the wars of the League of Cambrai.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Not true, the Ebro Valley and the North were also highly populated.

Where are your sources? I didn't see anything backing your claims on the density up. I posted a while ago my source which came from the UN tracking on global population growth: Population Growth Worldwide
There was a higher density around Madrid area.
True the maps are from 1700+, but you'll notice throughout 200 years Iberia was fairly stable...its doubtful that there was much change outside southern Spain during the inquisition of any major population density change.

Again not true, I could provide a list, starting with the Spanish war of Succession.

All interal wars which are represented with rebels or minor wars not worth mentioning, or wars that had no territory shift, or atleast ntoicble on the EU2 map.

You are forgetting the Rousillon, that changed hands several times

My bad. Still that doesn't warrent more than 1 additional province in and of itself.

So can they in other countries that are getting new provinces. If the balance is to be kept, new provinces have to be added on that basis. Let's not forget the increase in BBs.

What the RotW or even RoE does doesn't matter here. If it did, then everywhere that has a legitimatly recognized goverment, ie not colonizable, should have the same level of diviison. That, just for Europe, would mean everyplace would haveto be devided along the lines of size as Germany.

The cultural differences with Portugal are similar to those with Galicia, Catalonia or the Basque area. Cultural differences were not very determinant in national borders.

Here i'm talking more about process of coversion from one culture to another.

And so it should, it conquered half of the world, including almost all of Italy. It was a lot stronger than France up until 1600, at least in terms of success.

Not to the extent they are now. They expand on all fronts. To conquering Portugal, Granda, Aragon, Navara, Southern France, Italy, Northern Africa (all the way to Egypt). Certainly you can't tell me that's historic.

This is not a good argument. I have not seen anybody saying that only small weak countries should be given new provinces.

Not in and of itself, but given, except for your comment on Rousillon

 

[Mad King James]

Spain having many, albeit somewhat poor provinces that nevertheless have plentiful manpower, propped up with gold income will have exacly the effect I want it to have:

Spain will do tremendously well in the early game, where tech differences are minimal and inflation hasn't hit yet, and with the flood of Aztec gold and the rich Low Countries to offset that inflation somewhat, will rapidly become a superpower. Spain then embarks on conquering North Africa. Then they will lose the low countries, inflation will catch up with them, and we won't even need fakery like the State Bankrupcy event. They'll be stuck with a lot of poor provinces, many with the wrong religion and culture, high inflation and a dependency on gold income.

The reason why Spain does ahistorically well, and ahistorically poorly in the early game, is because this cannot be accurately portrayed with the current number of provinces in Spain. Right now Spain has a handful of rather rich provinces, which regardless of what happens will always keep them powerhousing along tech wise, and has to be artificially handicapped with stupid events in order to force them into decline, instead of their decline being the inevitable result of their circumstances and decisions.

Portugal is the same, Portugal was actually quite a poor country, but because their country is "compressed" into three provinces, they are artificially rich. Portugese provinces should be about half as wealthy as they are now, and Portugal should not be a 'small techie-beast' like it is. Also Portugal is a reasonably large country. Best solution is to add two provinces.

Gameplay concerns are my primary concern here.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Spain having many, albeit somewhat poor provinces that nevertheless have plentiful manpower, propped up with gold income will have exacly the effect I want it to have:

Spain will do tremendously well in the early game, where tech differences are minimal and inflation hasn't hit yet, and with the flood of Aztec gold and the rich Low Countries to offset that inflation somewhat, will rapidly become a superpower. Spain then embarks on conquering North Africa. Then they will lose the low countries, inflation will catch up with them, and we won't even need fakery like the State Bankrupcy event. They'll be stuck with a lot of poor provinces, many with the wrong religion and culture, high inflation and a dependency on gold income.

The reason why Spain does ahistorically well, and ahistorically poorly in the early game, is because this cannot be accurately portrayed with the current number of provinces in Spain. Right now Spain has a handful of rather rich provinces, which regardless of what happens will always keep them powerhousing along tech wise, and has to be artificially handicapped with stupid events in order to force them into decline, instead of their decline being the inevitable result of their circumstances and decisions.

Portugal is the same, Portugal was actually quite a poor country, but because their country is "compressed" into three provinces, they are artificially rich. Portugese provinces should be about half as wealthy as they are now, and Portugal should not be a 'small techie-beast' like it is. Also Portugal is a reasonably large country. Best solution is to add two provinces.

Gameplay concerns are my primary concern here.

For Portugal:
As i said adding Tejo i agree with..however the other province can be added offshore.

What you want to do with Castile/Spain won't help its power in the early game, just make it worse. It might help later on, but actually just lowering the overall wealth of the provinces will help that as well.

 

[unmerged(29041)]

Where are your sources? I didn't see anything backing your claims on the density up. I posted a while ago my source which came from the UN tracking on global population growth: Population Growth Worldwide
There was a higher density around Madrid area.
True the maps are from 1700+, but you'll notice throughout 200 years Iberia was fairly stable...its doubtful that there was much change outside southern Spain during the inquisition of any major population density change.

I'll get you the data in a couple of weeks when I am back from vacation. That world map looks laughable to me if you want to interpret its pixels. Old data is hard to come since people were not counted, but bonfires or households, that were the tax income units. You have also to take into account the big drain to the population of Spain that came from emigration to the New World, which was very significant. That did came from Spain's manpower.

Regarding to the rest, I see is more a matter of opinion, and I fail to see how increasing every country's provinces but Spain is going to improve gameplay.

 

[Zelvik]

Dont know if it was mentined before but in the map Nieder- and Ober- Österreich have changed places. Nieder- should be to the east of Oberösterreich.

BTW I know that it is a gameplay decission but to have the danube as border between Austria and Bohemia looks very strange.

PS: Its Nieder not Neider for the Bayern provinces too.

 

[Twoflower]

BTW I know that it is a gameplay decission but to have the danube as border between Austria and Bohemia looks very strange.

The problem is that two-province Austria needs to be split along the Enns, not the Danube. A north-south split for Austria is entirely ahistorical and results in the inability to represent Linz, which beyond doubt was more significant than anything in Austria north of the Danube, and several historical situations where Upper and Lower Austria were owned by different people.
The split into Lower and Upper Austria is much more important than the split into Austria north and south of the Danube, and therefore if we can divide Austria into two provinces, we should divide it into Upper and Lower Austria and place both provinces south of the Danube, since the larger part of both parts of Austria was south of the Danube.
Thus we can either live with the Danube being the border between Austria and Bohemia (and there are certainly going to be worse inaccuracies with river placement even in the new map) or split it in three provinces - Upper Austria, Lower Austria and Austria north of the Danube.

 

[Twoflower]

All interal wars which are represented with rebels or minor wars not worth mentioning, or wars that had no territory shift, or atleast ntoicble on the EU2 map.

Hmm, the War of Spanish Succession or the Peninsular War were "internal wars without any territory shift noticable on the EU2 map"? Funny, we obviously have different history books...

My bad. Still that doesn't warrent more than 1 additional province in and of itself.

Gibraltar being annexed by the British, Navarra being annexed by Aragon, Catalonia becoming independent twice and Portugal being part of Spain for 60 years do not count then I guess...

What the RotW or even RoE does doesn't matter here. If it did, then everywhere that has a legitimatly recognized goverment, ie not colonizable, should have the same level of diviison. That, just for Europe, would mean everyplace would haveto be devided along the lines of size as Germany.

The comparison of Iberia to the Holy Roman Empire might not matter, the comparison of Iberia to France, Britain and the Ottoman Empire certainly does matter. Spain and Portugal are not "everywhere that has a legitimately recognized government", they are two of the 10 most important countries of the EU2 period and as such deserve special attention and even more so considerations of how changing their competitors massively will affect them and what they might need for the sake of balance.

Here i'm talking more about process of coversion from one culture to another.

Can you enlighten me on the relevance of this argument when discussing province additions?

Not to the extent they are now. They expand on all fronts. To conquering Portugal, Granda, Aragon, Navara, Southern France, Italy, Northern Africa (all the way to Egypt). Certainly you can't tell me that's historic.

Except for Southern France, they indeed did all that.... and I believe you are exaggerating a bit; Castile/Spain doesn't perform like that in all games.

EDIT: For the record, I'm not taking a stance on Iberia, just arguing against bad arguments

 

[unmerged(17856)]

Here i'm talking more about process of coversion from one culture to another.

Can you enlighten me on the relevance of this argument when discussing province additions?

by 'relevance', surely you mean 'specifics'? As generally, the relevance of cultural composition is quite obviously a large concern for provincial boundaries that are either constituting multiple counties and/or slicing through counties themselves. Plus, with 20+ free cultures, and all these new provinces...well you get the idea

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Hmm, the War of Spanish Succession or the Peninsular War were "internal wars without any territory shift noticable on the EU2 map"? Funny, we obviously have different history books...

The Penesular War came near the end of the game, a part even some here want not to model. Even so by then even with a 1520 scenerio history won't be anything like it was iwhen the war started.

The War of Spanish Succession. also comes late in the game, but not quite so much as the Penesular War. Bur more importantly mainland Spain really had no noticble changes.

And in both cases, both wars were in the latter part of the game. 1700 in fact. More than 1/2 the game sees Castile region fairly stable, especially considering almost every other nation in Europe.

Gibraltar being annexed by the British, Navarra being annexed by Aragon, Catalonia becoming independent twice and Portugal being part of Spain for 60 years do not count then I guess...

Either those are starting as new countries and I'm mostly just talking about the region of Castile or, in the case of Catolonia, can be represented fine without new provinces.

The comparison of Iberia to the Holy Roman Empire might not matter, the comparison of Iberia to France, Britain and the Ottoman Empire certainly does matter. Spain and Portugal are not "everywhere that has a legitimately recognized government", they are two of the 10 most important countries of the EU2 period and as such deserve special attention and even more so considerations of how changing their competitors massively will affect them and what they might need for the sake of balance.

That does not automaitcally translate into more provinces.

Can you enlighten me on the relevance of this argument when discussing province additions?

by 'relevance', surely you mean 'specifics'? As generally, the relevance of cultural composition is quite obviously a large concern for provincial boundaries that are either constituting multiple counties and/or slicing through counties themselves. Plus, with 20+ free cultures, and all these new provinces...well you get the idea

I'm taking about the process of cultural expansion as it encroaches over an existing culture in a progression that can be tracked over time and spreads from one area to another, not everywhere at once.

Except for Southern France, they indeed did all that.... and I believe you are exaggerating a bit; Castile/Spain doesn't perform like that in all games.

Unless it gets unlucky, yes. Occasionally it has gotten unlucky, but that isn't the norm.

 

[unmerged(21523)]

There are way too many Greek names for Anatolian provinces, Anatloian provinces should get Turkish names as the Ottoman Empire should own them in 99 games out of 100, that Europeans continued to use anachronistic names for places in the Near East is irrelevant. While we're at it, Leptis Magna in North Africa is a Roman name and really anachornistic. It should have an Arab/Berber name to reflect the people who actually inhabited the place all through the EU timeframe.

 

[Toio]

i support MJK map

q. Have u replaced Negroponte with Naxos ??

 

[unmerged(9404)]

When are you going to put the rest of the rivers in the map? (elbe, oder, maas, seine, rhone po etc.)

You might need to fudge some borders to fit them.

 

[Norrefeldt]

There are way too many Greek names for Anatolian provinces, Anatloian provinces should get Turkish names as the Ottoman Empire should own them in 99 games out of 100, that Europeans continued to use anachronistic names for places in the Near East is irrelevant. While we're at it, Leptis Magna in North Africa is a Roman name and really anachornistic. It should have an Arab/Berber name to reflect the people who actually inhabited the place all through the EU timeframe.

I agree. Seemed MKJ had a hard time finding good names though.

 

[Zelvik]

The problem is that two-province Austria needs to be split along the Enns, not the Danube. A north-south split for Austria is entirely ahistorical and results in the inability to represent Linz, which beyond doubt was more significant than anything in Austria north of the Danube, and several historical situations where Upper and Lower Austria were owned by different people.
The split into Lower and Upper Austria is much more important than the split into Austria north and south of the Danube, and therefore if we can divide Austria into two provinces, we should divide it into Upper and Lower Austria and place both provinces south of the Danube, since the larger part of both parts of Austria was south of the Danube.
Thus we can either live with the Danube being the border between Austria and Bohemia (and there are certainly going to be worse inaccuracies with river placement even in the new map) or split it in three provinces - Upper Austria, Lower Austria and Austria north of the Danube.

As I said I understand its a gameplay decission to not have rivers run through provinces especially with Lower Austria it looks strange as the danube virtually divides the province into a northern and southern halve.

One question to you. When did Upper Austria change its owners? IIRC apart from the Innviertel which was Bavarian until 1779 and shortly became Bavarian with part of the rest of Upper Austria during Napoleons era it stayed Austrian for the whole of the EU timeperiod.

 

[unmerged(11496)]

It looks great, yet I fear it to be unplayable due to an abundance of non-clickable provs once icons and sprites are factored in.