Garbon said:
Well that would be historic ingnorance...
When will you call Ingermandsland, St. Petersburg????
Well not my map, but I intend to play it, and by that a natural interest in making it as good as possible.
-
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.
Well that would be historic ingnorance...
When will you call Ingermandsland, St. Petersburg????
Well not my map, but I intend to play it, and by that a natural interest in making it as good as possible.
Filip de Norre said:
St Petersburg was founded in 1703, so it was named that way only 100 years against 300 years before, when nobody new about Peter the Great.
Hardly good example, but Ivanogrod(sp?) would be much better city name, since it was founded much earlier (by Ivan, what an imagination those people had, Alexander founded dozon or more Alexandrias, and these guys
)
zdlugasz said:St Petersburg was founded in 1703, so it was named that way only 100 years against 300 years before, when nobody new about Peter the Great.
Hardly good example, but Ivanogrod(sp?) would be much better city name, since it was founded much earlier (by Ivan, what an imagination those people had, Alexander founded dozon or more Alexandrias, and these guys
Well it's my point, today everybody knows that the provine in EU II, Ingermandsland, today contains St. Petersburg, which were founded at the conquest of the area under the great northern war.
The Turks didn't dominate the cities in Anatolia, and they didn't rename the cities before 1920. So why should there be names which comes from the 20th centry in a game spanning from 1419-1819????
We may be seeing Bushville, Blairbergh, Rooseveltland Wilsonland and Zdlugasznan (poznan
)
Filip de Norre said:
Actually that's not it at all. I'm quite tired of every little nitpick based on someone's whim, sudden notion about how the game operates, knowledge gleaned from a source that unfortunately can't be revealed to the rest of us, or that gained from a random website.
I'm focused on getting this map created and released. To that end, I'm not going to make sudden last minute changes for everyone that strolls into this or any thread. I'm moving forwards with the current province names, but feel free to complain and suggest other names, when you can actually see what names are on the map.
Garbon said:
Well, that's not my point, I'm just telling what I think would be most correct, adding to the debate of creating it most historic correct as possible. But as long as you are creating the map, it's up to you, as you said yourself, nitpicking can be done later.
sorry, if I caused any frustration
eh, by the way, do you have a screenshot to show how your progress?, or is that still the same as that on page 1
Filip de Norre said:
I would be interested as well (I am one of those nit-picking guys as well
), but seriously: you mean link in the first post? I see "click for big version" but nothing is clickable (or am I using wrong OS and browser )
zdlugasz said:I would be interested as well (I am one of those nit-picking guys as well
there should be a picture of the map, click on that, for larger image. the link is the picture.
Some browsers can't display "big" images. A problem tied to used version perhaps.
Filip de Norre, I have to agree with Garbon that we need to get the map out. As soon as we can. After all, we are not discussing how the provinces should be set up, which is the big thing here, and names can be changed with later releases of the map if necessary (and sources are provided). Any name ideas you and I have will have to wait. Once we have a map it will take a long time of community effort to adopt all events, and correct possible mistakes and errors on the map can be done during that time to. That's the most efficient way of moving forward at this stage.
Norrefeldt said:
ehh? didn't I say that myself to Garbon on page 70????
but agreed
Filip de Norre said:ehh? didn't I say that myself to Garbon on page 70????
but agreed
Except that you also asked me to release an update of the map for everyone to view. I won't do that, as that would invite nitpicking.
Prince Ares said:When will this map be ready with AGCEEP? (2.0).
Apparently.Mad King James said:
So it will never be used for AGCEEP, only for MYMAP-AGCEEP? That is realy bad for the "true" AGCEEP mood, because it will not get an historical map like this.Mad King James said:
Last edited:
Again, there is another map which the HC collaboratively worked on, which incorporated many elements of the other new maps, and which Garbon will be releasing soon.Prince Ares said:So it will never be used for AGCEEP, only for MYMAP-AGCEEP? That is realy bad for the "true" AGCEEP mood, because it will not get an historical map like this.
Prince Ares said:Good, good, good!
I thought you liked vanilla map?
I like the vanilla map's textstyle, wich I think is better than MyMaps and WATKs ones. I however don't like that it has to few provinces and that areas like Arabia, Mongolia and inner Africa is PTI.SunZyl said:
I might try MyMap-AGCEEP one day. Is it good?
o