• 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.
Firstly, superb job and updating the map. I have noticed however some differences in province names and locations i.e. some provinces are named after locations which do not exist. Idk if it is all of them but here is a list with my suggestions for change + some other easy fixes:
- Chęciny to Kielce (or add Chęciny location)
- Szczyrzyc to Oświęcim (or add Szczyrzyca location)

- Częstochowa to Lelów (it was the capital of powiat)
- move Siewierz location from Tesin province to either Kraków or Częstochowa/Lelów province
- Wschowa location should be transfered from Poland to Głogów, Casimir III only took it in 1343
- Włocławek location should be renamed to Brześć Kujawski since it served as the capital of a duchy and later both powiat and voivodeship
- Płock, Rawa and Czersk should be either independent or (if the have to) vassals of Bohemia rather than Poland, Masovian dukes were famously stubborn to recognize Polish king's authority - going back and forth between Poland, Bohemia and Teutonic Order (TO)
- if you will revise the starting war between Poland and TO then Kuyavia and Dobrzyń provinces should be owned directly or as vassals by TO with 'Surrender of Maine' type event for Poland to get them back (when I have some time I will draft a possible event regarding the 1343 Treaty of Kalisz which ended the 'phony war' between Poland and TO)

P.s. Feels good to have some much work put into your homeland. Waiting for what you'll do with Scandinavia feedback, hoping for some Skåne love!
Few corrections:
Rawa and Czersk were not vassals of Bohemia (Płock was for the life of the duke).
Kuyavia and Dobrzyń were not occupied by TO at the start of the game. Also, while temporarily occupied during the war, they were not owned or vassalised by TO before or after finish of the war, so transferring ownership wouldn't make sense here.
 
  • 4
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
You might notice that provinces are more historical now, following the powiaty and voivodeships of the nations depicted.
Excellent piece of work!

I was astonished when realized how closely the borders of powiats are followed (if anyone would like to check themselves, here is the map of voivodeships and powiats of the Crown: https://data.atlasfontium.pl/documents/497/link). It looks wonderful!

Will come back later with some minor improvement suggestions. Well done.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
1725319160235.png
 
  • 14Haha
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
No pagan minorities in east slavic and estonian lands? That's my only issue, otherwise it looks great. I wish you at least added placeholder animist, so much potential alt scenario content with that
 
Last edited:
  • 3
Reactions:
This was suposed to be my first reply but I was preoccupied with some other forum discussion. I must say you did your job well, the feedback was enormous and you managed to process it and revitalize the region completely. My first reaction to the prefeedback proposition was a little too harsh. It was done with good intentions in mind and I am more then happy that those concerns and disbeliefs on my part were premature. The attention to details regarding the historical borders of the region is excellent and the map as a whole is a work of art truly. Yes there are some naming inconsistencies but they can be fixed easily. Good job one more time @Pavía and I hope that the quality of your work will remain the same for both the future minor tweaks to the region as well as other areas entirely.
 
Latvians mixing that deep into Lithuania Proper is an interesting choice for sure. (No recorded sources of Latvians as a specific nation back then.) Also as I mentioned a few times, Lithuanians lived in eastern Lithuania not Aukstaitians. Lithuanian is an early European nation, kind of shame it's not even present here.

I will pull out a hard quote to prove Lithuanians were around
Omnis Russia ad Litwinos deberet simpliciter pertinere. - Algirdas

All of Rusia should belong to the Lithuanians
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Religion:
View attachment 1182555
Not many changes regarding the religious setup of the region, as we've distributed them a bit differently in some places.

Hello, this is - as you can see, my first post on the forums. I'm glad to be here!
However, I'm afraid my first post is going to be a bit of critique.

The fact that - and I have seen multiple users mention this - the northern Baltic is entirely Catholic feels like a pretty notable oversight.
I know how hard it is to add more religions, and I know the effort that goes into making religions distinct.
I do completely understand how difficult it is to spend time adding a religion, even barebones, in a region that might only exist as a revolter, that a fragment of the population might play.

However, only a few years from the start date, the Saaremaa revolt/St. George's Night will occur.

Whether it was primarily a pagan/native Estonian uprising against German domination, anti-Catholic revolt, discontent from rural citizens against urbanisation, or all of the above - the primary instigators and fighters were Estonian pagans.
Now, they might exist as minority population across Estonia, although I haven't seen that mentioned.
But it feels like they should be - at the very least - stripes throughout Estonia, and a slight majority in Saaremaa/Ösel.

Here's what I'd suggest:

If you already have a religion/placeholder for the Sámi, it could serve here, too.
Even if barebones, because I do understand the already ballooning size and how there are larger, more important sites to focus on.
(And as a lurker, I've really enjoyed seeing the looks we've had at Central and Southern Africa, and hope they will get some tender love and care!)

But I have to stress this one, because it's close to my heart.
Hopefully it can be considered in the period of fine-tuning.
If not, I nevertheless appreciate the amount of time on tweaking things, and taken to interact with a community.
It can be draining, but even people who rarely talk or contribute appreciate it.

Thank you!..
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
I disagree. Lithuania was once a kingdom when Mindaugas was baptized and crowned. Vytautas later sought to be crowned as well, aiming to elevate Lithuania from a Grand Duchy to a Kingdom, which would have asserted Lithuania’s independence rather than being seen as a junior partner to Poland. After all, a Grand Duchy is often considered a lesser title than a Kingdom.

If Lithuania were to convert to Catholicism on their own terms (without entering a personal union under another power), they should become a Kingdom. If they remain pagan, they can still retain the title of Grand Duchy, or ‘Didžioji Kunigaikštystė,’ as this title was considered equivalent to a kingdom, at least by the locals, before Christianization.
Poland has nothing to do with it, they wanted to be recognized a kingdom after the conversion because the ruler of Lithuania was already calling himself as such but the Pope didn't want it since he was the only one who could declare who was king or not, seeing this as act of superiority to the catholic church the Pope never agreed to elevate Lithuania as a Christian kingdom
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
It's a very very very minor nitpick, but would it be possible to rename Silesian German to something else? It just feels a bit off, especially when none of the other German cultures use the word German.

Even if it was to be changed to something like Lower Silesian, Schläsisch, or just Schlesisch.

EDIT: Wrong on the using German in the name point. I forgot the rest of Germany exists, but I'm not necessarily a fan of those either.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
Reactions:
It's a very very very minor nitpick, but would it be possible to rename Silesian German to something else? It just feels a bit off, especially when none of the other German cultures use the word German.
That's not true, there are 4 German cultures with German in their names: Baltic German, Transylvanian German, Silesian German and Carpathian German.
 
  • 3Like
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
Poland has nothing to do with it, they wanted to be recognized a kingdom after the conversion because the ruler of Lithuania was already calling himself as such but the Pope didn't want it since he was the only one who could declare who was king or not, seeing this as act of superiority to the catholic church the Pope never agreed to elevate Lithuania as a Christian kingdom
You’re talking about Gediminas, but I was referring to a previous King of Lithuania, Mindaugas, and a later Grand Duke, Vytautas (15th century). There is a significant difference here. The Pope didn’t recognize or appreciate Gediminas referring to himself as a king because he was pagan. Do you really think that a century later, when Lithuania had been Christianized, the Pope withheld the title of kingdom because of Gediminas’s letters?

If you had done some reading on this topic and Lithuanian history in general, you would understand that Lithuania held the title of Grand Duchy due to very specific circumstances under the PU with Poland, and not because the pope had beef with Gediminas a century earlier. Again, if Lithuania had been Christianized on its own terms, it would have been a kingdom.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
You’re talking about Gediminas, but I was referring to a previous King of Lithuania, Mindaugas, and a later Grand Duke, Vytautas (15th century). There is a significant difference here. The Pope didn’t recognize or appreciate Gediminas referring to himself as a king because he was pagan. Do you really think that a century later, when Lithuania had been Christianized, the Pope withheld the title of kingdom because of Gediminas’s letters?

If you had done some reading on this topic and Lithuanian history in general, you would understand that Lithuania held the title of Grand Duchy due to very specific circumstances under the PU with Poland, and not because the pope had beef with Gediminas a century earlier. Again, if Lithuania had been Christianized on its own terms, it would have been a kingdom.
If you say so then I will refrain from arguing any further, you cleraly know more about this than me but I still stand by my proposal from a gameplay perspective rathen than an historical one
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
If you say so then I will refrain from arguing any further, you cleraly know more about this than me but I still stand by my proposal from a gameplay perspective rathen than an historical one

Apologies if I came across as a bit rude (Just woke up and haven’t had my coffee yet :D). I agree that playing as a Grand Duchy might be interesting for some. However, a Christian ruler might prefer to be a King rather than a Grand Duke. I think a good compromise would be to allow the option to change titles whenever the player wants or fulfills certain requirements. Or by events.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Apologies if I came across as a bit rude (Just woke up and haven’t had my coffee yet :D). I agree that playing as a Grand Duchy might be interesting for some. However, a Christian ruler might prefer to be a King rather than a Grand Duke. I think a good compromise would be to allow the option to change titles whenever the player wants or fulfills certain requirements. Or by events.
It's fine no problem, to me the type of title helps me with the flavour of the campaign I wanna play so that it looks less repetitive when I play with a different religion and I guess it also depends if the the title of grand duchy is considered to be on the same tier as a kingdom, a duchy or something in between
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
That would be a very appropriate way of naming them.
In fact I would love it if there was a game option to call every single culture by its endonym (similar to the "Byzantium/ERE" game option).
Endonyms should NEVER be used for cultures unless there is no equivalent English term that differs from it. I like the suggestion of an endonym setting though, since it would let players who want endonyms to be satisfied, while preventing the normal game from getting clogged up with them.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions: