Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

MKJ's Map - Discussion 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
Regarding the Swedish provinces:
There's a bit inconsistency of when the å, ä and ö are used. Either we should never use them, or use them for all province names IMO.
Skane should be called Skåne in Swedish, or probably Scania in English.
Calmar and Småland were historically never separated.
Västergötland is misplaced, since it's South and west of the big lake Vänern, half of the Småland province. What you have as Västergötland should be called Värmland, or Bergslagen perhaps. But then we would miss the important Västergötland. I'd prefer to replace the rather insignificant Bohus (correctly called Bohuslän) and take away the western part os Småland to get it back. It feels weird to add a never-existing Calmar province, and lose important historical ones.
 
Well, if you will remove “Black Russia” I would be really most pleased with this variant. :)


Also, do not you find Polotsk region and the borders around a little strange?.. :confused:
 
First of all I like your work. Now turning to Scandinavia...

Finland looks great. Much better than the Finland that turned up in the Scandinavia thread IMHO. Denmark looks good to, but there nevers was debate here. :)

Norway. I would prefer the province setup from the Scandinavia thread. Here Bergen covers your Kristiansand province, but your Christiania province is parted in a northern (Eidsiva/Oppland) and southern part (Akershus/Viken). Christiania shouldn't be the name of the province, but only the name of the capital city in the southern part.

Sweden. Is Norrbotten really needed? I would merge it with Västerbotten. Smaland should be parted in two following the lake. The eastern part should be merged with Calmar and be called Småland. The western part should be extended so that it seperates Bohus and Halland and renamed Västergotland. Västergotland should be renamed Värmland or Dal.
 
I'm afraid you overdid Sweden a bit, it isn't too bad in vanilla and to be honest I think it's more correct than yours is now. Northern Sweden needs to go back to what it was, with the correct shape of Lappland and Västerbotten and Norrbotten merged (why would they be seperated?). I also think Jämtland -Härjedalen province was correct before and didnt need the rework. Gästrikland is only a small part of your current Gästrikland province, so naming it Hälsingland would probably be more accurate. It might also need a little reshaping.

In Southern Sweden, as Norrefeldt said Västergötland on your province is actually Värmland, Västergötland is further south between the two lakes. Svealand is very good, but could be named Mälardalen since Svealand is about all of central Sweden. Småland and Kalmar should probably be merged and pushed a bit further down to make place for Västergötland and perhaps Östergötland? Sweden should also have a western port either a seperate Älvsborg province or part of Västergötland, as historical. Älvsborg was a fortress in the area that was very precious to Sweden and guarded the river which goes from there to Lake Vänern. Denmark captured it twice, and both times Sweden ahd to pay a huge ransom to get it back. Skåne needs to be reshaped, in fact I think all of Sweden needs to be widened slightly, and Mälaren (the tounge of water going through Stockholm) needs to be narrower, especially where it's bordering the Baltic Sea (where Stockholm was founded on both sides of the lake).

Sorry to sound like a whiner, your map looks really great btw. See this as constructive advices, and implement what you think is good and leave out the rest. Thanks :)

EDIT: IMHO, you could also add a small PTI in Western Lappland to represent the high mountains and tough climate there, as well as prevent ahistorical northern warfare. This could also be done between Österbotten and Karelia, but, both PTI's are quite controversial and has been debated furiously in the Scandinavia thread as you might have noticed ;) Up to you and the HC there I guess
 
Last edited:
First of all, this map is great, except for Sweden which looks VERY wierd, most of it has already been stated, so I'll move on to another pet peeve of mine:



Province Naming Conventions!

Maybe it's just me, but we NEED some sort of universal AGCEEP standard for how to name our provinces. The current model both in vanilla and on this map is for some provinces to be named in English and some in their native languages... We should decided upon a standard and go with it.

With that out of the way there is still the issue of province being named after cities when there are acceptable "provincial" names available:

1. Roma -> Lazio
2. Rügen -> Vorpommern (and Pommern -> Hinterpommern)
3. Kassel/Darmstadt -> Ober/Niederhessen
4. Strasburg -> Nordgau (Or at least Strassburg/Strasbourg!)
5. Venezia -> Veneto
6. Erevan -> Armenia
7. Nicomedia -> Bithynia
8. Adrianople -> Rumelia
...
 
And of course my crazy old Swiss idea:

anti_strunt said:
On Switzerland, here is a rough draft of how I would imagine it done...

swiss7sx.png


Provinces would be Vaus (capital Geneve), Bern (capital Bern), Schwyz (capital Zürich) and Thurgau (capital St. Gallen). In 1419 the Swiss would only own Bern and Schwyz while Vaud would be Savoyard and Thurgau would be indepedant (IIRC?).
Click to expand...

Or at the very least move the area corresponding to Valais to province "Bern" and change Geneve to "Vaud"...
 
Scandinavia looks much better with your last update. :)

A few comments though...

I'm sad to see Bohus go, and I see no need of splitting Svealand into Uppland and Södermanland. :(

Finland has to many provinces now. My suggestion is merging Österbotten and Tavastland, and renaming Sakunta into Tavastland. Another option could be to merge Kexholm and Karelia.

However I do very much like the fact that there is no land connection between Västerbotten and Österbotten. :cool: I hope we can "steal" a strait for a connection between Uppland and Finland. That would be great.

EDIT: It would be very nice if you edited your post when you update your map. Just so we know something has happened. ;)
 
I agree with Sutekh that Uppland and Södermanland doesnt really have to be seperated, especially since Stockholm would be in between them, both cities should have Stockolm has capital really :wacko:

Sweden looks much better now too, you just have to make southern Sweden wider so that the north-south borders south of Stockholm are much more vertical. Skåne also looks weird and needs to get wider in the south.

I'm also happy you added PTI, but I dont think it should go as far south as it does. The coastal territory isn't nearly as harsh as the inland mountains. Extending Västerbotten and Österbotten to the current Swedish-Finnish border would be fair I tihnk, and adding Torneå river between them.

Merging Bohuslän and Viken is also a horrible idea imo, since Bohuslän became Swedish 1658.
 
Hey, Scandinavia actually looks quite nice now, just 2 opinions (except some name stuff which still applies):

1. 4 provinces for inland Finland? 2 would more than suffice IMHO.
2. Still partisan to an Älvsborg province separate from Västergötland...
 
Last edited:
anti_strunt said:
2. Still partisan to an Älvsborg province separate from Västergötland...
Click to expand...
Älvsborg would be to small IMHO. Not to mention all the other arguments against it, which is listed in the Scandinavia map thread. However here is not the place to debate it all over. Thought I'd mention it just so MKJ knows that the waters are divided on that issue... I would complain about an Älvsborg I just don't think it add all that much.
 
"Strunt" is Swedish for (verbal) rubbish. ;)



Anyway, some name-stuffings:

1. Roma -> Lazio
2. Rügen -> Vorpommern (and Pommern -> Hinterpommern)
3. Kassel/Darmstadt -> Ober/Niederhessen
4. Strasburg -> Nordgau (Or at least Strassburg/Strasbourg!)
5. Venezia -> Veneto
6. Erevan -> Armenia
7. Cherson -> Jedisan
8. Minsk -> Belorussia
9. Sevilla -> Andalucia
Click to expand...
 
My two cents on Scandinavia:

Västergötland: I desperately want an Älvsborg-province to be able to model the 1563-1570- and 1611-1613-wars properly. See the Scandinavia-thread or just ask if you have any questions regarding this.
Viken: It'd be a sad not to split Viken in a Bohuslän-province and a Viken-province since Bohuslän was part of Sweden for about half of the EU2-timespan.

Uppland/Södermanland: Nice idea, it'd certinly help to model the dutchies during the 50 years after the death of Gustav Vasa in 1560.

Västerbotten/Österbotten: Should have a land-connection. It wasn't at all uncommon to travel between Sweden and Finland across land during winter. Some cities along the northern coast were founded only to make the trip easier...

Finland in general:
I like! I really like the lakes, looks great. Some might argue that too many provinces have been added...

EDIT: Typo: Vårmland should be Värmland
EDIT2: Kexholm should have a common border with Ingria, just as it was back in the day...
 
Last edited:
Sute]{h said:
Älvsborg would be to small IMHO. Not to mention all the other arguments against it, which is listed in the Scandinavia map thread. However here is not the place to debate it all over. Thought I'd mention it just so MKJ knows that the waters are divided on that issue... I would complain about an Älvsborg I just don't think it add all that much.
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, the province would involve not only the city and the fortess, but also the surrounding hundreds. It also became a separate administrative entity later on in the EU2 timeframe...
I won't argument that further here though! :D
 
MKJ, thanks for having decided to continue your fantastic job on the map and especially for listening to constructive criticism (for example in Scandinavia and with Courland) :)
A few suggestions on Hungary:
  • there should be a province representing the Burgenland split off from the west of the "Pannonia" province. The four counties of Ödenburg (Sopron), Wieselburg (Moson), Eisenburg (Vas) and Pressburg (Poszony) had a German majority and were permanently contested between Hungary and Austria. During the EU2 era, a large part of the Burgenland (excluding Pressburg) was owned by Friedrich III from 1444 to 1480 and again passed to the Hapsburgs in 1491. A separate province is justified both because of the different culture and because of the special history.
  • A more difficult question is what to do about Pressburg/Poszony. The city and the area around it were almost entirely German in the EU2 period and did not have much to do with the Slovak counties northeast of them - e.g. Pressburg was the only part of today's Slovakia that did not join in the revolts of Stephan Bocskay and Imre Thököly. In some ways, merging Pressburg with Burgendland would be more accurate than merging it with West Slovakia, however about half of the city of Pressburg and most of the county of Pressburg were north of the Danube and Pressburg was, unlike the Burgenland, not ceded to the Hapsburgs in the 15th century. The potentially most correct solution would probably be a separate province just for the County of Pressburg - this would be quite a small province then, though.
  • I think it might be good to have the Tisza river, or at least design province borders according to the flow of the river - the historical districts in the east of Hungary were called Cistybiscania and Transtibiscania because they were situated west and east of the Tisza. The eastern of the two provinces would then basically represent Sathmar, Maramaros and Crisana, i.e. the counties in the east of the Kingdom of Hungary that were part of Transsylvania in the 16th and 17th century
  • the two provinces southwest of the Danube would be very good to have. The eastern one would represent the area east of the Balaton, which is the very core of the Kingdom of Hungary - with the cities of Ofen/Buda, Stuhlweißenburg/Szekesfehervár, Gran/Esztergom and Fünfkirchen/Pécs - and of which most fell to the Ottomans in 1541 - 1543, while the western province would represent the area between the Balaton and the Raab river, with the cities of Raab/Győr and Weißbrunn/Veszprém that was constantly fought over between Hapsburgs and Ottomans. I don't know about the names "Pannonia" and "Valeria" which afaik and iirc are ancient Roman province names, but don't care terribly ;)
This means that I would like to see the following provinces in Hungary:
- Posonia (the western half of the current Poszony province), capital Pressburg
- "West Slovakia" (needs a better name, the Slovakia province plus the east of the Poszony province), capital Nitra
- Burgenland (anachonistic name, I know, I'd appreciate a better suggestion; split off from the west of the Pannonia province, govering approximately the area east of the Raab river), capital Ödenburg or Eisenstadt
- Pannonia, capital Győr
- Transdanubia (the Valeria province), capital Buda
- Cisdanubia (the Pest province), capital Szeged
- Cistybiscania (the west of the "Carpathia" and Bihar provinces), capital Kosice
- Transtybicania (the east of the "Carpathia" and "Bihar" provinces), capital Nagyvárad/Oradea
 
Twoflower, what are your thoughts on Switzerland?
 
Hallsten said:
My two cents on Scandinavia:

Västergötland: I desperately want an Älvsborg-province to be able to model the 1563-1570- and 1611-1613-wars properly. See the Scandinavia-thread or just ask if you have any questions regarding this.
Viken: It'd be a sad not to split Viken in a Bohuslän-province and a Viken-province since Bohuslän was part of Sweden for about half of the EU2-timespan.
Click to expand...
Don't think an Älvsborg province fit in this game. It would be awfully insignificant. If fine with losing Bohuslän as a province, and even Halland could be merged with Skåne as far as I am concerned, since they mostly shared the same fate. Sweden had very little population and shouldn't get too many provinces.
 
Norrefeldt said:
Don't think an Älvsborg province fit in this game. It would be awfully insignificant. If fine with losing Bohuslän as a province, and even Halland could be merged with Skåne as far as I am concerned, since they mostly shared the same fate. Sweden had very little population and shouldn't get too many provinces.
Click to expand...

I think it's sad not to model the dynamics of what's today western Sweden when we have the opportunity to do that. Important border-revisions should be modelled properly and Älvsborg with the surrounding area can be very tasty in terms of both historical and fantasy-ish events.
Moreover I don't quite buy the "too few inhabitants"-argument when Ireland has 11 provinces. I agree that Finland could lose one province though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back