My thoughts on changes to the map

[Lysistrata]

I only installed CK2+ yesterday, and I must say, all in all, I'm happy with the changes made to the map. Splitting Lolland from Sjaelland and making Hungary the right shape in particular.

However, there are a few changes I'm iffy about, like making Italy a de-jure part of the HRE, and a few miscellaneous issues in Italy inherited from vanilla (e.g. Aquileia not being in Italy, Mantua being in Verona instead of Modena, etc). (Speaking of Italy, why isn't Maurizio Galbaio the Doge of Venice in 769 anymore, like he historically was? And are there any plans to break up the Italian culture?)

I also feel some parts of the map have been neglected a bit, especially the Balkans and Georgia. I've attached my proposals for what should be done in Georgia (new counties (and Albania/Hereti) in white, new county names in black, duchy names in green, duchy borders in yellow).

I also noticed that Moldavia has been left untouched, and Ragusa and Neretvani are still de-jures of Serbia, when they in fact, were never controlled by Serbia, to my knowledge.

 

[zeress]

We have no plans to change the map in any way for the appreciable future, whether that be new cultures, new provinces or new de Jure assignments.

EDIT: That's to answer your question on if we have plans to do so anyways

 

[Rylock]

However, there are a few changes I'm iffy about, like making Italy a de-jure part of the HRE

Is there a particular reason it shouldn't be?

and a few miscellaneous issues in Italy inherited from vanilla (e.g. Aquileia not being in Italy, Mantua being in Verona instead of Modena, etc). (Speaking of Italy, why isn't Maurizio Galbaio the Doge of Venice in 769 anymore, like he historically was? And are there any plans to break up the Italian culture?)

I'm fine with adjusting Aquileia and/or Mantua -- but I need some actual support for your reasoning that isn't "because I think so". Even wikipedia links are fine, but I need a little more to go on before I start making de jure changes...otherwise it just turns into a ping-pong fest where the de jure borders change according to the last person to pipe up with their opinion on them.

As for the Doge of Venice, I've no idea. Is ours different than vanilla's?

There are no plans to break up Italian culture, no.

I also feel some parts of the map have been neglected a bit, especially the Balkans and Georgia. I've attached my proposals for what should be done in Georgia (new counties (and Albania/Hereti) in white, new county names in black, duchy names in green, duchy borders in yellow).

Outright "no" to adding new map provinces, sorry. Not without a truly compelling reason.

I also noticed that Moldavia has been left untouched, and Ragusa and Neretvani are still de-jures of Serbia, when they in fact, were never controlled by Serbia, to my knowledge.

As above, I'd need a bit more support than that before I made de jure adjustments.

 

[Slayen]

Is there a particular reason it shouldn't be?

I would say the fact that the Imperial control over Italy was tenuous at best and often in name only would be a decent enough reason.

Just going off of the wiki article (I know, I know), the picture it pants sounds more like what one would face with non-dejure vassals, than with dejure vassals. What with various emperors having to try an reassert imperial authority with military force.

 

[sejemaset]

Historically the HRE had issues with vassals pretty much everywhere. It's kind of how the HRE "worked"

 

[Baron1807]

Best would be if you cut Aquileia out of Carinthia and add Trent/Trient to the Duchy of Tyrol. That would make the best border for the kingdom of Italy.

 

[Rylock]

Historically the HRE had issues with vassals pretty much everywhere. It's kind of how the HRE "worked"

Yeah, that article is really a description of "low to none" Crown Authority, as opposed to any kind of de jure issue. At least that's how I read it.

To everyone else: insofar as other de jure comments go, again, I'm not changing anything without some convincing evidence to back it up.

 

[Baron1807]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tyrol

"
In 553, southern Tyrol was incorporated into the Lombards' Kingdom of Italy, northern Tyrol came under the influence of the Bavarii, and western Tyrol became part of Alamannia—the three areas meeting at present-day Bolzano.
In 774, Charlemagne conquered the Lombards, and as a consequence, Tyrol became an important bridgehead to Italy. In the eleventh century, the Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire granted the counties of Trento, Bolzano, and Vinschgau to the Bishopric of Trent, and the county of Norital and Puster Valley to the Bishopric of Brixen"
If i remember correct Bozen is in c_Trent. Until 1918 it was part of Tyrol. Even today in Trient (Welschtirol) the ruling party is using the name Tyrol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trentino_Tyrolean_Autonomist_Party

 

[Rylock]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tyrol

"
In 553, southern Tyrol was incorporated into the Lombards' Kingdom of Italy, northern Tyrol came under the influence of the Bavarii, and western Tyrol became part of Alamannia—the three areas meeting at present-day Bolzano.
In 774, Charlemagne conquered the Lombards, and as a consequence, Tyrol became an important bridgehead to Italy. In the eleventh century, the Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire granted the counties of Trento, Bolzano, and Vinschgau to the Bishopric of Trent, and the county of Norital and Puster Valley to the Bishopric of Brixen"
If i remember correct Bozen is in c_Trent. Until 1918 it was part of Tyrol. Even today in Trient (Welschtirol) the ruling party is using the name Tyrol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trentino_Tyrolean_Autonomist_Party

Okay...but I'm unsure why this justifies taking c_trent out of d_lombardia (and therefore also out of k_italy) and making it de jure d_tyrol and k_bavaria\k_germany.

It was controlled by whomever also owned Tyrol in the 11th century, absolutely. That does not require it to also be their de jure territory.

 

[Baron1807]

Just thought because Tyrol was a bridgehead against Italy and balance reason. So d_lombardy would have the same amount of counties. I think the meaning of de jure is who controls it most of the time so from the 10/11 century the castle Tyrol (near b_meran in c_Trent) gave the region it's name until now. I met people from Trient and they see themselves as Tyroleans not Italians (some not all of them there had been mayor Italianisation)

 

[sejemaset]

This discussion kind of makes me wish counties could dejure drift.