-
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.
The densely forested Black Forest that we know today is a product of the 19th century.
Before that, it was woodland in various stages of deforestation, sometimes more, sometimes less, but it was never the dense monoculture forest that it is today.
- 3
- 2
You make some good points. However, I still stand by my point that these province names sound weird in English.
I agree with you on Münchner Schotterebene and Fränkische Schweiz and your suggestions of Upper Bavaria, Upper/Middle Franconia etc. I don't know why the devs didn't go with these, as I think they are way better than the current ones (which have a weird almost touristy vibe to them), even if the province outlines didn't exactly match up with the areas these historical names referred to.
Another option would be to name provinces after major cities (so Munich instead of Münchner Schotterebene), like they did in Iberia, Bohemia, Poland, Italy...
It's not technically a mix of German and English, graben in English is a technical term from geology used for a type of valley (which the Rhine Valley happens to be). In my opinion it's better to avoid these technical terms in favor of more easily understandable names like Upper Rhine Valley. The usage of "Oberrheingraben" in German doesn't really affect the English name.
I know, that's why I wrote "type of plain". Again, I think the pedological specifics aren't as important as comprehensibility. No one knows what a börde is, everyone knows what a plain is. Although this one is less bad, as the name at least has precedent before the 19th century (afaik).
And I do think this one is too long (one of a few three word provinces) and also to my knowledge anachronistic (first attested in the mid-1800s). By the way, my criticism isn't exclusive to the names I mentioned, those were just the ones that first caught my eye.
I agree with you on Münchner Schotterebene and Fränkische Schweiz and your suggestions of Upper Bavaria, Upper/Middle Franconia etc. I don't know why the devs didn't go with these, as I think they are way better than the current ones (which have a weird almost touristy vibe to them), even if the province outlines didn't exactly match up with the areas these historical names referred to.
Another option would be to name provinces after major cities (so Munich instead of Münchner Schotterebene), like they did in Iberia, Bohemia, Poland, Italy...
- 3
- 1
Hey Brema is the archbishopric right? Then why is it part of the Hansa?
- 1
Aren't you Hungarian? If so, you have no right to make fun of us Germans over the length of our words (megszentségteleníthetetlenségeskedéseitekért)
- 6
- 1
These depictions are very exaggerated. If you look at old cadastres from the beginning of the 19th century, you will see that Slovenia is still very forested, compared to this picture where you think it is bare.
Habsburg Empire - Cadastral maps (XIX. century) | Arcanum Maps
- 1
I don't understand... if you have Moravia and Bohemia separate, why not Austria having Styria, Carniola and Carinthia?:/
- 4
The location of Cavalese should belong to the Trentino province not Süd Tirol(which needs to be renamed to South Tyrol) and it needs to be connected to the location of Trento as there is a small valley that allows the passage of both people and armies between the two places
- 4
yes this depiction is exaggerated but its not that easy to find maps from middle ages about forestation.View attachment 1256658
These depictions are very exaggerated. If you look at old cadastres from the beginning of the 19th century, you will see that Slovenia is still very forested, compared to this picture where you think it is bare.
Habsburg Empire - Cadastral maps (XIX. century) | Arcanum Maps
maps.arcanum.com
have a look at your source:
This area has only one real wood (Ernstbrunner Wald) but his is in the neighbouring location (Hollabrunn) and not in the location I think should be changed to grasslands.
Yes there are small woods and I guess in 1337 there were some more, but the deforestation of this area hast started long time before and for the PC-era this location is dominated by grasslands by far.
Also the location in the west beside vienna (Tulln an der Donau) should be Grasslands an not wood, but at least you can argue that it is woods because the viennese forrest is also the eastern part of this location. but the location itself is mainly grass- and farmlands.
- 1
Can you guys actually rename the following dynasties?
"de Luxembourg" to "von Luxemburg" it was a german dynasty and not a french one
"de Savoy" to "di Savoia" it was an italian dynasty not a french one
"d'Alsace" to "von Elsass" or if this meant to be the "Châtenois" dynasty rename it to "von Kastenholz" or "von Lothringen" as it was a german noble family not french, and Elsass remained ethnic german up until the 20th century.
"Celjski" to "von Cilli" also a german noble family has nothing to do with slovenians.
"d'Ivrée" to "di Ivrea" italian noble family not french.
For the regions - Slovenia to "Krain" or to the latin for Carniola. "Slovenia" is a modern day term for that region it didnt existed at the time
"Alsace" to Elsass
"Lorraine" either to Lotharingia or Lothringen
"Cologne" to Köln
Also i do recommend to seperate Tirol from Trentino. Maybe add it to Veneto. Modern day Tirol+"Südtirol" one region Trentino is different. Trent was taken by the Austrians later. Tirol was a previous duchy and Trent and Tirol was not united for centuries to come.
"de Luxembourg" to "von Luxemburg" it was a german dynasty and not a french one
"de Savoy" to "di Savoia" it was an italian dynasty not a french one
"d'Alsace" to "von Elsass" or if this meant to be the "Châtenois" dynasty rename it to "von Kastenholz" or "von Lothringen" as it was a german noble family not french, and Elsass remained ethnic german up until the 20th century.
"Celjski" to "von Cilli" also a german noble family has nothing to do with slovenians.
"d'Ivrée" to "di Ivrea" italian noble family not french.
For the regions - Slovenia to "Krain" or to the latin for Carniola. "Slovenia" is a modern day term for that region it didnt existed at the time
"Alsace" to Elsass
"Lorraine" either to Lotharingia or Lothringen
"Cologne" to Köln
Also i do recommend to seperate Tirol from Trentino. Maybe add it to Veneto. Modern day Tirol+"Südtirol" one region Trentino is different. Trent was taken by the Austrians later. Tirol was a previous duchy and Trent and Tirol was not united for centuries to come.
Attachments
Last edited:
- 6
- 3
- 1
One more suggestion - from the ethnic map i think the german population is waaaay underpresented.
During the mid 14th century the "Ostsiedlung" or "Drang nach Osten" was very real. Huge portions of Bohemia and Poland had German majority already. Prague was also a mixed ethnic city with significant German minority, Krakow also.
I can't see the the trace of "Ostsiedlung" in any case, the ethnic map literally looks like a post ww2 map.
During the mid 14th century the "Ostsiedlung" or "Drang nach Osten" was very real. Huge portions of Bohemia and Poland had German majority already. Prague was also a mixed ethnic city with significant German minority, Krakow also.
I can't see the the trace of "Ostsiedlung" in any case, the ethnic map literally looks like a post ww2 map.
Attachments
- 7
.png){kind=avatar}
Those maps indicate time not percentage. I think they can not be used to prove representation, only presence. The current culture map has that presence.
- 1
- 1
the name of the dynasty changes based on the character's culture , so de Luxembourg because the ruler of Bohemia John has french culture, his son Karel is Czech so the dynasty name would change to Lucembursky(i think)
- 3
- 2
- 1
The map does show German presence in all of those areas.
Also, in 1337, Germans were still spread out pretty far. It took some time for German populations to consolidate, that's when actual majority German areas developed.
- 1
- 1
I dont think that the dynasties has dynamic names. The noble family from Luxemburg is a german one not french. So it's "von Luxemburg" and not "Luxembourg" with an O either. The founder of the house was Heinrich, and he was ethnic german.
Even Hungary had a significant ruler from the von Luxemburg dynasty and we call Sigismund von Luxemburg as "Luxemburgi Zsigmond", the dynasty is still von Luxemburg, not "Luxemburgi".
- 3
For the Carpathian - Balkans tinto talk I've also recommended to add the lost Hungarian fiefs to Austria back to Hungary. These tiny little lands were lost and sold to Austria in the 15-16th century. But it was originally part of Kingdom of Hungary.
As the original border was the Leita river. And the "Zillingdor" and "Sárfenék/Scharfeneck" fiefs were lost to Austria in the 15th century.
As the original border was the Leita river. And the "Zillingdor" and "Sárfenék/Scharfeneck" fiefs were lost to Austria in the 15th century.
- 5
- 4
- 1
- 1
They did confirm that dynasties do in fact have partially dynamic names, that the prefixes like "de", "von", "di" etc. change depending on culture of the ruler. Which is why for example Bohemia is "de Luxembourg" (as John is considered French in the game) but Moravia is "Luxembourg" (because Charles is considered Czech, probably), or Naples is "d'Anjou" but Hungary is just "Anjou".
- 1
- 1
- 1
HRE map looks great. The deep blue is too blue. Its shade/tint doesn't match the others and it's impossible to read the name of the country behind it.
- 5
- 2
- 2
Topographic feedback
The distinction between hills and flatlands for Germany is impossible to do objectively. The large majority should be considered 'rolling hills', but which location should be abstracted to flatlands vs proper hills is open for debate. I tried my best to make some sort of logical distribution that makes sense for central Germany and Bohemia, although compromises have to be made.
Nevertheless, the current hill density is way too high, while Southern Bavaria could use some plateaus for the parts that are slightly less fertile (indicating the Bavarian foothills). I included a simplified Soil Quality Index map for reference.
Around the fringes of the Alps I indicated a general reshuffling of all categories for several locations (e.g. Salzburg into hills instead of mountains, some large mountain valleys into plateaus,...), while some were indicated as mountains that should be grasslands (like Ljubljana).
Also the Jura, Vosges and Black Forest should have 1 mountain location each.
I switched the color scheme back to the old variant for clarity of the flatlands-plateau indications.
For Wetlands: in modern times the majority of Europe's wetlands have been drained over the course of the centuries (link to original paper), most notably after the industrial revolution. That said, most wetlands are constrained to the river's floodplains, which are not terribly large for the most part of Northern Europe. Along the Elbe, Weser and Oder rivers there are some sizable floodplains though, which warrants an extra wetlands location here and there (although it often isn't spanning the entire location). Also some reshuffling near Frisia.
Note that my indications of wetlands are subjective.
The distinction between hills and flatlands for Germany is impossible to do objectively. The large majority should be considered 'rolling hills', but which location should be abstracted to flatlands vs proper hills is open for debate. I tried my best to make some sort of logical distribution that makes sense for central Germany and Bohemia, although compromises have to be made.
Nevertheless, the current hill density is way too high, while Southern Bavaria could use some plateaus for the parts that are slightly less fertile (indicating the Bavarian foothills). I included a simplified Soil Quality Index map for reference.
Around the fringes of the Alps I indicated a general reshuffling of all categories for several locations (e.g. Salzburg into hills instead of mountains, some large mountain valleys into plateaus,...), while some were indicated as mountains that should be grasslands (like Ljubljana).
Also the Jura, Vosges and Black Forest should have 1 mountain location each.
I switched the color scheme back to the old variant for clarity of the flatlands-plateau indications.
| Current topographic layout (reverted color scheme) | Suggested topographic layout (reverted color scheme) | "Changelog" of suggestions |
| 
| 
|
| Terrain Ruggedness Index | DEM (exaggerrated color scheme for 0-2500 m) | Indicative soil fertility (Soil Quality Index) brighter = better |
| 
| 
|
For Wetlands: in modern times the majority of Europe's wetlands have been drained over the course of the centuries (link to original paper), most notably after the industrial revolution. That said, most wetlands are constrained to the river's floodplains, which are not terribly large for the most part of Northern Europe. Along the Elbe, Weser and Oder rivers there are some sizable floodplains though, which warrants an extra wetlands location here and there (although it often isn't spanning the entire location). Also some reshuffling near Frisia.
Note that my indications of wetlands are subjective.
| Types of Wetland, if present (GLWD) | Water depth during 100-year event flood (risk proxy) | Relative abundance of Peat (PEAT-ML) |
| 
| 
|
Last edited:
- 14
- 7
- 4
- 2
Great! but what about the climate and the vegetation? Are you not going to do a feedback because they are good already?
- 2
- 1