-
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.
![Sute]{h](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/styles/paradox/owneditems/avatars/Stellaris_pre_order/s/stellaris_avatars_fungoid_12_special.png){kind=avatar}
Then Halland and Bohus isn't the place to cut. Both of these are Danish and Norwegian not Sweden. I know they become Swedish eventually, but not for the first half of the game. However provinces in Finland and the Svealand in two might be good places to cut.Norrefeldt said:
Halland is needed to ensure better survival capacity for Denmark against random wars. Bohus is an acceptable compensation for Norway losing Finnmark in the north.
EDIT: Halland actually adds more to gameplay than Fyn. So if it provinces numbers here I would rather cut Fyn. But I think Denmark deserves both.
Halland needs to be in. To represent Denmark's (very important) holdings in southern Sweden with only a single province is bad, very bad.
It's a nice try, I must say I like it. There are some suggestions though:
- There are lots of tiny, non-playable provinces in HRE, Italy and the Low Countries. I'm not sure this would be the best idea to have them all on the map.
- IS Kracow SHOULD BE either Kraków or Cracow
- IS "Semgalia" SHOULD BE "Semigalia"
- IS "Braclav" SHOULD BE either "Braclaw" (Polish spelling) or "Bratslav" (Russian transcryption)
- IS "Podlasia" SHOULD BE "Podlachia" (or "Podlasie" in Polish)
- IS "Mazovia" SHOULD BE "Masovia"
- Red Ruthenia could really be split onto two provinces, for instance onto Lwów (northern part) and Halicz (southern part) or onto Lwów (western part) and Trembowla (eastern part)
Derby and Powys look abit too big. I think drop the Severn and wack a new province in there called west-midlands and rename Derby to east-midlands. ATM Powys is too far into England.
The shire's (york, oxford etc) should be changed to the full shire name imo, so Yorkshire, Oxfordshire, Glouchestershire etc.
The shire's (york, oxford etc) should be changed to the full shire name imo, so Yorkshire, Oxfordshire, Glouchestershire etc.
I don't think so... it would be so small text that it would be near unreadable. Leaving out "-shire" makes it larger... and larger is better.Van Engel said:
As for Britannia:
1. Three provinces for Wales? I could understand two, but...?
2. Isn't the "Grampians" a name invented by some 19th century wannabe "historicans"?
3. What he said about the -shires.
4. The Island of Man? What did it do post-1419?
1. Three provinces for Wales? I could understand two, but...?
2. Isn't the "Grampians" a name invented by some 19th century wannabe "historicans"?
3. What he said about the -shires.
4. The Island of Man? What did it do post-1419?
Yup, I know that. That's why it should be either Krakow or Cracow (and not Kracow), Masovia instead of Mazovia and Podlachia instead of Podlasia.Sute]{h said:We use English names were at all possible.
In addition, a common English convention is to use the local names if no English name exists - that's why I proposed some alternatives to the wrong names on the map. Or perhaps you were referring to something else?
Cheers
What was the reason for seperating Essex from East Anglia? I guess you were thinking of the ECW when you put in Oxford? And, why not use Gloucester? It's not much extra space but it's still extra space by dropping the 'h'.
I agree.Norrefeldt said:
Agreed. Wales is short-changed. The major marcher lordships were from north to south: Chester, Shropshire (Salop), Hereford and Monmouth. I'm not inclined to agree that Denbigh, Montgomery, Radnor etc. should be included in 'England'. Wales was Wales, the marches were the marches. There are significant reasons to seperate the two: culture, as well as the sheer amount of independence granted to the marcher lords which should be reflected in the tax values. It's unfortunate that tax value is tied into manpower so much - the marcher lords should be a significant source of manpower, but should be giving the Crown much less taxes.Van Engel said:
I agree, though I think if they cannot fit then the shortform is fine.Van Engel said:
Ok. Reading the names I just got the feeling that they were primarily the native ones. Sorry.Halibutt said:
o
Well, nothing to be sorry for. Just in case I re-post my list of suggestions withsome comments attached.Sute]{h said:Ok. Reading the names I just got the feeling that they were primarily the native ones. Sorry.
- There are lots of tiny, non-playable provinces in HRE, Italy and the Low Countries. I'm not sure this would be the best idea to have them all on the map.
- IS Kracow SHOULD BE either Krakow or Cracow (both English, with the earlier being more popular lately - and closer to the original Polish name of Kraków
- IS "Semgalia" SHOULD BE "Semigalia" - just a typo
- IS "Braclav" SHOULD BE either "Braclaw" (Polish spelling) or "Bratslav" (Russian transcryption) - the name on the map doesn't exist IRL, nor it exists in English - hence either of the local names should be used
- IS "Podlasia" SHOULD BE "Podlachia" (or "Podlasie" in Polish) (Podlachia is a latinisation used in English from time to time, though the Polish name of Podlasie is much more popular in English)
- IS "Mazovia" SHOULD BE "Masovia" (just a typo)
- Red Ruthenia could really be split onto two provinces, for instance onto Lwów (northern part) and Halicz (southern part) or onto Lwów (western part) and Trembowla (eastern part)
Last edited:
anti_strunt said:And of course my crazy old Swiss idea:
Quote:
Originally Posted by anti_strunt
On Switzerland, here is a rough draft of how I would imagine it done...
![url]](http://[url]http://img30.exs.cx/img30/6483/swiss7sx.png[/url])
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?).
Or at the very least move the area corresponding to Valais to province "Bern" and change Geneve to "Vaud"...
Twoflower, what are your thoughts on Switzerland?
Here goes your comment
Since a perfectly accurate setup in Switzerland would require at least 20 provinces - and is thus obviously impossible -, we can only try to represent certain things. These things are (in no particular order of importance):
- the territorial development and expansion of Switzerland, i.e. there should be at least something for Switzerland to conquer in EU2
- the religious breakdown, i.e. usually half of Switzerland's provinces should become catholic and the other half reformed. Completely reformed Switzerland is to me among the five biggest and most annoying historical errors in EU2.
- important cities. Bern, Zürich and Genève should, if possible, be represented as province capitals
- political attitude, most notably the allegiance in the Alter Züricherkrieg of the 1440s that we should have events for
On the base of that, I'd suggest the following provinces:
- Zürichgau, capital Zürich: represents the Zürich, Aargau and Thurgau cantons. Aargau was conquered from Tyrol in 1415, Thurgau in 1460 and Zürich allied with Emperor Friedrich III in 1442 which resulted in the already mentioned Alter Züricherkrieg. This province is the province that the Hapsburgs should have a core on or at least be able to gain a core on and should be used to represent the Swiss allies of Friedrich III in possible events for the Züricherkrieg. Zürich was the city of Zwingli, the province should therefore almost always become reformed. The province should probably also cover the St. Gallen, Appenzell and Glarus cantons.
- Waldstätte, capital Luzern: represents the Uri, Obwalden, Nidwalden, Luzern, Schwyz and Zug cantons. These are the oldest and most conservative cantons of Switzerland that have always remained staunch catholics and enemies of all centralist tendencies. This province should get nasty province revoltrisk events whenever owned by a foreign nation and always remain catholic. The province should graphically also cover the Graubünden canton.
- Bernerland, capital Bern: represents the Bern and Jura (was part of Bern until the 20th century) cantons, i.e. the holdings of the biggest and strongest place in the Swiss Confederation, Bern. Should usually become reformed and, like the Waldstätte province, be quite defiant to foreign conquerors. It should graphically also include the Solothurn and Basel cantons.
- Romandie, capital Genève: represents the Genève, Vaud and Valais cantons and thus basically most of francophone Switzerland. These cantons were in 1419 still owned by Savoy; the main benefit in having them is that they allow for a participation of Switzerland in the Burgundian Wars (against Charles the Bold) to make sense. The name is at best cheesy, but still better and a more general term than any of the three canton names. The province should usually remain catholic, with a certain, say 33 percent chance of becoming catholic. This isn't truly justified when just considering that both the Genève and Vaud cantons had a solid calvinist majority - while Valais mostly remained catholic -, however Switzerland should in most games be half catholic and half reformed, and the fact that the province also at least to some extent represents the catholic Fribourg and Neuchatel cantons can at least partially serve as justification. The two mentioned cantons of Fribourg and Neuchatel should graphically be included in the province
So, in comparison with your setup, the things I'm inclined to disagree with are:
- having the western, "French" province, not include Valais, for the simple reason that this province probably needs to be usually catholic
- using St. Gallen as province capital; the canton of St. Gallen only joined Switzerland in 1803
- putting Zürich together with the Central Swiss cantons; these were religiously and politically in very different camps
I also think my province names are somewhat better, though that is a matter of taste
On another note, I really like the lakes
Btw, at the risk of being considered insane, it might be worth trying to introduce a "Ticino" province. Albeit a tiny province - that would need to be enlarged with territory of the Graubünden canton -, this would have two benefits:
1. It would allow for the involvement of Switzerland in the Italian wars to make sense
2. Since Ticino would of course be a catholic province, Valais could be added to the Bern province and we could avoid making the Romandie province catholic, which is sorta fake (we would then usually have a 2 to 3 ratio between catholic and reformed provinces, but that wouldn't be too disastrous I think)
I am aware of the issues with such a small province, of course
EDIT: changed Bern to Bernerland
Last edited:
Your map is very good. A grand thank you for making Russia. Some things still are wrong, however.
- "Taropez" is wrong. The town is spelled as Toropets, or Toropetz.
- "Novgorod Seversk" is normally spelled as Novgorod Seversky or Novgorod Severskiy
- Perm should be on the banks of Kama
- You have no Kursk! Add it please, as it's an old, important city, not just a site of a tank battle.
- Tula goes too far south. In 15th century, it was on Moscow's southern border.
- "Diametta" is much less common then "Damietta". Any special reason why you use it?
- "Taropez" is wrong. The town is spelled as Toropets, or Toropetz.
- "Novgorod Seversk" is normally spelled as Novgorod Seversky or Novgorod Severskiy
- Perm should be on the banks of Kama
- You have no Kursk! Add it please, as it's an old, important city, not just a site of a tank battle.
- Tula goes too far south. In 15th century, it was on Moscow's southern border.
- "Diametta" is much less common then "Damietta". Any special reason why you use it?
If you want graphics, here you goFlame of Udûn said:
This is how it should look imo (excluding the PTI). The rivers are Torneå (in the north) and Göta Älv (in the south). The provinces are:
1. Lappland (eastern part PTI)
2. Västerbotten (northern part PTI, but connected to Österbotten)
3. Jämtland
4. Hälsingland (Alternative names: Ångermanland, Gästrikland, Medelpad in that order. The province is a merge of these four provinces)
5. Dalarna (Bergslagen or Dalecarlia?)
6. Värmland
7. Mälardalen (Alternative names: Svealand, Södermanland, Uppland)
8. Bohus (Bohuslän?)
9. Västergötland (could be split into making one as small as possible province in the west representing the fortress of Älvsborg)
10. Östergötland
11. Småland
12. Gotland
13. Halland
14. Skåne (Alternative names: Scania, Skåneland)
Provinces that could possibly be merged are either 9 and 6 or 5 and 6. 10 and 7 could also be merged if we need the provinces elsewhere. If those provinces are poor I dont see the reason for that though.
9+6=Västergötland
5+6= Bergslagen or Dalarna/Dalecarlia
10+7= Mälardalen or Södermanland
Last edited:
Sute]{h said:
My thought exactly. What now is called Tavastland is something else altogether: the largest, western and northern part should belong to Österbotten and southeastern part to Savolax, southeastern part to what now is called Satakunta but which actually would be better called Tavastland.
I do not agree. Kexholm and (Vyborg) Karelia should remain separate, as the first was longf part of Novgorod, while the second belonged to Sweden.
I do not agree with that either. Tornio was the hub of all trade in Lapland throughout the 16th century and was the largest merchant town in the North at the time.
Piedro
Get rid of Aydin and split it between Smyrna (IZMIR!!!) and Caria.
Lesbos should be Chios. Chios was held by the Genoese longer.
Is Georgia important enough to warrant five or six provinces? Three would be better, two would be best. Kartli and Kakheti can be merged into one province. All the rest can be merged into another.
Get rid of the central Arabian provs. A state didn't exist there until the late 18th Century, and it really wasn't much of a state.
That third tier of provinces under Algeria can go.
Ghadams and Fezzan really add nothing. They can go.
Tabuk can be merged with Akaba.
Tripoli shouldn't be seperate from Lebanon.
Four province Bosnia? Three is fine, and Bosnia and Banja Luka should be split east and west, instead of having three north to south provs.
You should rethink Croatia also.
Again, the names for Thrace and Rumelia should be reversed.
Why not call Candia Crete?
Make Bihar larger, at Temes' expense.
I don't suppose it would be possible to seperate Cattaro, Durres, and Valona? The Venetians shouldn't be able to just march from one to another.
Ancona should be given its proer name, La Marche.
Cherson needs to be split. Yedisan needs to be split off from it.
Lesbos should be Chios. Chios was held by the Genoese longer.
Is Georgia important enough to warrant five or six provinces? Three would be better, two would be best. Kartli and Kakheti can be merged into one province. All the rest can be merged into another.
Get rid of the central Arabian provs. A state didn't exist there until the late 18th Century, and it really wasn't much of a state.
That third tier of provinces under Algeria can go.
Ghadams and Fezzan really add nothing. They can go.
Tabuk can be merged with Akaba.
Tripoli shouldn't be seperate from Lebanon.
Four province Bosnia? Three is fine, and Bosnia and Banja Luka should be split east and west, instead of having three north to south provs.
You should rethink Croatia also.
Again, the names for Thrace and Rumelia should be reversed.
Why not call Candia Crete?
Make Bihar larger, at Temes' expense.
I don't suppose it would be possible to seperate Cattaro, Durres, and Valona? The Venetians shouldn't be able to just march from one to another.
Ancona should be given its proer name, La Marche.
Cherson needs to be split. Yedisan needs to be split off from it.
My first thought was a merging of Österbotten and Tavastland, and renaming Satakunta to Tavastland. The Kexholm-Karelia solution was a poor alternative. However the number of provinces in Finland do need at reduction at least by 1 preferably by 2.PiedroAillard said:
I could accept a connection between Österbotten and Västerbotten if:PiedroAillard said:
1 There is a river between them.
2 And we get a strait connecting Finland and Uppland, which will ensure that warfare with Russia doesn't happen primarily at Österbotten-Västerbotten.
Still I do prefer no connection at all which will ensure that naval power in the Baltics play a vital role.