Tinto Maps #9 Carpathia and Balkans Feedback

[Pavía]

@Pavía, is there any particular reason that you never share the Towns map mode?

It definitely is something worth giving feedback on, and we know it exists, so why not?

:

I'm a bit reluctant, as we have a lot of balancing work yet to be done, so asking for feedback at this stage won't really be that useful. But we're looking forward to sharing those maps later on, yes!

 

[Pavía]

1) Could you please explain why have the Rusyn been eliminated and merged with the Galichians?

I think that Rusyn culture should be restored. They were a unique culture on the border of the broadly understood Ukrainian, Slovak and Romanian cultures groups.

We received a ton of feedback in the main post to consider the Rusyn as the modern Ruthenian inhabitants of the southern side of the Carpathians, something that we've considered. The question here is if they should already be considered distinct in 1337, which is kind of doubtful.

 

[SaintDaveUK]

Yes make Naples more of a dark Purple/blue tone

I think a blue hue would represent the French heritage of Naples the best, while not insulting the imperial purple.

if not purple, for Naples you could go Red. Its coat of arms is red and gold anyways. If both look bad you could try with a light blue I guess? It's the colour naples is nowdays most associated to

Blue, like its flag, it is a french led kingdom anyway so it fits.

I would think a deeper and more Blue-ish Purple to align more closely with the D'Anjou House that the Kingdom of Naples' Flag is based on would look quite good!

I mean, you could go for a darker, more imperial purple for the Unholy Roman Empire, but if we're talking Naples, I think a France-like, dark blue might work? They're ruled by the Anjous then, after all.

Swap the colours of Byzzie and Naples and make Naples' colour slightly darker and more blue-ish purple. Like how they were in eu4!

Is something like this ok?

 

[Pavía]

@SaintDaveUK correct me if I'm wrong but I thing that the name Achaia to describe this polity is wrong as I think it was the Roman probince, I'm pretty sure that the correct name of the medieval principality is Achaea
View attachment 1221443

True, just changed it to Achaea.

 

[Pavía]

View attachment 1221441
Kotor, Varna, Burga, Demetrias and Durres definitelly should have some natural harbor bonuses

Noted, because, well, yes!

 

[Pavía]

The last time I reviewed this thread on Monday, it was on page 12. Today is on page 31. We will need to add 1 or 2 extra years of development to the project, just so @Aldaron can keep up with the pace of the feedback received.

 

[Aldaron]

 

[Aldaron]

First of all I want to thank people for their passion. However, if I continue seeing people being uncivil to each other I will close the thread and throw the key to the ocean. We all have opinions about different matters, and that it is totally ok. If we all agreed on everything, life would definitely be very boring but we must avoid name calling or insulting behaviors. This is just a friendly reminder.

Besides, eternal discussions about the same topic, once and over again are not helpful, as it is not having to read walls of text for small details. I am reading the same arguments, petitions and suggestions several times already. Many of you seem to not believe me when I say that I have read all your posts. This is very time consuming and puts we away of actually including things ingame, so think about the consequences of your writings so they are efficient.

Also, I would like to say that as much as I would love to invest as much time as needed in every region, this is simply not possible. We are a company and have to allocate time the best we can. I know this might be seen as disappointing, but it is the best we can do. One can never please everyone. I beg you guys to be understanding with this.

Finally, if your suggestions are not included, please let it be. Yes, I might have overlooked something. Yes I might be wrong on certain areas. In spite of that, I can promise you that after reading (I will say again so people really marks this in their brains) all your posts, I have done my own research too and thought about all the info I gathered together to make a decision. Not everything has a clear and only answer, so I would ask you people to respect the decisions we make and not open the wound continuously. As I said before, we will never make everyone happy, and this is something we all have to learn to live with.

In the same fashion, as much as I would love to explain why we made this or that decision, this would not be an efficient use of time as we could get dragged in eternal discussion and not use that time in actually correcting or adding things to the game.

Think about all the games that have been created to this day. Think about it for a few minutes and ask yourself if you have ever found a game that depicts your region (or your favorite one) better than Caesar is doing right now. We are not going to make it perfect, but we are putting all our souls in making it the closest we can.

Damn, y'all are still going on with this?


Also, @Aldaron can you give us a mid-review changelog/a list of what you ended up correcting after the feedback sometime?

@Pavía in the one in charge of that. However, I do not think we will add a changelog about the feedback of the feedback as this is all very time consuming and we have to be efficient with the use of time. Sorry again if this is disappointing.

 

[Aldaron]

I think everyone's opinions regarding this topic have been posted enough times already and the issue we are noticing is that it is rapidly deteriorating into clashes between forum users.

These posts are meant to help us make Caesar as good as it can possibly be. It will also mean that despite not everything being 100% objective with only one solid answer, there will be room to interpretation and we will need to make decision that will make someone unhappy. Sorry about that beforehand but we have to make decisions.

What I am personally not happy to see, because I once again want to reiterate that I read every post in every Tinto Map thread, is people being disrespectful to each other. I already wrote about this in the past and I will do it again now. If people insist in using this forum to have fights with others we will close the thread and summarily close any other that is related to it. We will also talk with moderators so that they keep an eye on the threads and on the users that ignite the fires. Do not force us to act. Your choice.

We would also like to say that going round the same topics for dozens of pages is of little use and only helps making people (including us devs) tired of reading about it. It is a mood killer so please do your part by avoiding these things. I am well aware that certain topics ignite feelings about our identities and nations, but please let's remember that we are a community bounded by our love for GSGs and we should at least try to be civil to each other.

 

[Aldaron]

@Aldaron, did you (I mean you and the team) use some research or models to determine the climate of certain location? I’m asking here (not in Tinto Talks #45 thread) because it concerns some provinces in the Balkans – in particular North Dobruja and parts of South Dobruja, South Muntenia and East Muntenia. Most of their locations are classified as Cold Arid climate. The game’s explanation about Cold Arid is the following:

Cold Arid
Wheat Production -10%
No Precipitation
Max Winter is Mild
Cold arid represents an area that has a severe lack of available water but experiences winters.


I could not find anything (papers or models) about the precipitation of this region during the 14-19 century. Even if we consider that the climate was drier than now due to the lower temperatures during the Little Ice Age, it is very unlikely complete absence or very little precipitation. Moreover, the “Wheat Production -10%” modifier does not seem to correlate to the reality because those provinces are well known as some of the best to grow wheat on the Balkans even during the Middle Ages and later periods as well.

I’m posting some modern data bellow in the spoiler. I’m fully aware that this data is not applicable for the game period. However, we can see how the temperature and precipitation differ in comparison to neighboring locations. In the "% precipitation" column is the percentage of a certain location compared to the precipitation of Veliko Tarnovo, which appears to be most rainy among all in the table. Aytos is considered Oceanic in-game but the modern data show that the precipitation is close to the Dobrich’s one (Cold Arid, in-game Karvuna location). Some locations in Macedonia Area, considered Cold Arid in-game, are also included. Veles (if the data is correct) seems to be closest example to cities/towns experiencing Cold Arid climate nowadays such as Astana, Aktau, Astrakhan, Ulaanbaatar, Semey etc.

Spoiler: Temperatures & Precipitation

City/Town​	Location​	Climate​	Temperature​	Precipitation​	% precipitation​	Source​
	(In-game)​	(In-game)​	Annual daily mean [°C]​	Annual Sum. [mm]​
Dobich​	Karvuna​	Cold Arid​	13.2​	537​	78.97​	Link​
Silistra​	Drastar​	Cold Arid​	13.2​	513​	75.44​	Link​
Varna​	Varna​	Cold Arid​	12.8​	516​	75.88​	Link​
Tulcea​	Tulcea​	Cold Arid​	11.9​	494​	72.65​	Link​
Constanța​	Constanța​	Cold Arid​	12.6​	467​	68.68​	Link​
Buzău​	Buzău​	Cold Arid​	11.7​	531​	78.09​	Link​
Odessa​	Odessa​	Cold Arid​	11.3​	470​	69.12​	Link​
Burgas​	Burgas​	Subtropical​	13.3​	558​	82.06​	Link​
Sozopol​	Sozopol​	Subtropical​	15.5​	565​	83.09​	Link​
Aytos​	Aytos​	Oceanic​	14​	539​	79.26​	Liink​
Yambol​	Hiambouli​	Subtropical​	14.4​	570​	83.82​	Link​
Bucharest​	Bucuresti​	Continental​	11​	648​	95.29​	Link​
Veliko Tarnovo​	Tarnovo​	Continental​	11.6​	680​	100​	Link​
Melnik​	Melaeniko​	Cold Arid​	14.6​	643​	94.56​	Link​
Sandanski​	Melaeniko​	Cold Arid​	14.6​	505​	74.26​	Link​
Strumica​	Strumica​	Cold Arid​	13.4​	459​	67.5​	Link​
Štip​	Štip​	Cold Arid​	12.6​	474​	69.71​	Link​
Veles​	Veles​	Cold Arid​	15​	369​	54.26​	Link​
Serres​	Serres​	Cold Arid​	16.6​	493​	72.5​	Link​
Thessaloniki​	Thessaloniki​	Cold Arid​	16.8​	450​	66.18​	Link​
Katerini​	Hatera​	Cold Arid​	15.7​	448​	65.88​	Link​
Kočani​	Kočani​	Continental​	12.9​	538​	79.12​	Link​
Blagoevgrad​	Blagoevgrad​	Subtropical​	13.5​	560​	82.35​	Link​
Skopje​	Skopje​	Subtropical​	12.6​	483​	71.03​	Link​
Kavala​	Kavala​	Mediterranean​	16.4​	601​	88.38​	Link​
Sofia​	Sredets​	Continental​	10.9​	626​	92.06​	Link​
Astana​			3.9​	338​	49.71​	Link​
Aktau​			12.6​	169​	24.85​	Link​
Astrakhan​			10.9​	231​	33.97​	Link​
Ulaanbaatar​			0.2​	273​	40.15​	Link​
Semey​			4.4​	303​	44.56​	Link​

So I’m interested in how did you determine the climate? Also is the climate “static” for the whole in-game period (14-19 c.)? Or the climate will be completely dynamic and the temperatures will plummet in the 17th century thereafter start to rise again. If I understood it correctly, the dynamic part is only whether the winter will be mild, normal or severe.

Thank you in advance!

We use Koppen to determine the climate, using the data from the beginning of the XXth Century as @Sulphurologist recommended as it is very similar to that of 1337.

I have not touched the modifiers applied myself and will probably change as we balance things. It is all I can say.

Aldaron when he's mad at us, of course.

Otherwise, with a like, they let you know whether the information is useful. Sometimes they also comment on something, but that's rare.

I am not mad at anyone, but as you might imagine, having people calling names to each other is not what a healthy forum is.

In any case, as I have stated several times, I post from time to time when there are questions that I am best to answer, but otherwise I am not in the group of devs that are responsible of posting in the forums (which you all know who they are).

Also, as much as it can surprise some people, reading and answering every post is incredibly time consuming and while I am sure many of you guys appreciate our posts, I am even more sure that you guys prefer we work on Caesar instead.

 

[Aldaron]

Me too. Truth be told, I did not have the energy to shorten it down. Maybe I should. The top 100 maybe.

@Aldaron Could you please comment on how long a name list should be?

The approach is different to that of, for example, EU4. So there is technically no limit.

 

[Pavía]

I think that Aldaron was very clear a few weeks ago, but apparently, not everybody has gotten the message, so I'm intervening to make a rule: We won't be accepting any more posts about Moldavia on this thread. Both parties have given their opinions, shared sources, etc., and we think it's enough for our work. Continuing with this topic will only pollute the thread, and overshadow other people's contributions on other topics. Please respect this decision, or otherwise, we will need to take further measures.

 

[Pavía]

No more posts about Moldavia in this thread, whether they're 'sarcastic' or not. Last warning.

 

[Aldaron]

This is what gets to me, Hungary and Bulgaria sharing a border in 1337 is one of the most grounded, uncontroversial suggestions in this thread and yet it was shot down so arbitrarily. Pavia also says that the Despotate of Karvuna will spawn by event sometime after the start date, but by all logical accounts the polity already existed during the 1320s. There are even more glaring issues, Plovdiv (a major city!) isn't supposed to be part of Bulgaria in 1337 (it was seized from Byzantium in 1344, oh, and it's supposed to be south of the Maritsa, not north of it), yet even that they get wrong. There's no way that I can look at all of this and not lose confidence in the devs, it demonstrates either an exceptionally poor, cursory understanding of history or a conscious choice to pursue a certain vision in spite of history.

First of all, chill a bit.

Second, in this very thread it has already been said how the invasion of Hungary to Bulgaria was through Wallachia. Hungary and Bulgaria do not need to share a border.

Third, the existence of the Despotate is one of those things quite up to interpretation/debate. There is not a clear and undisputed source that proves its existence, at most we can guess.

Fourth, Plovdiv is actually ingame on the correct side of the Maritsa.

Fifth, suggestions are only that. We do check them, research them to check that things are correct and implement them when our schedule allows if we agree to introduce them.

I do not like policing people, so feel free to think whatever you want. I also have no intention of looking for a confrontation, but people should really calm down a bit and be more respectful, nobody here is trying to downplay any region.

Hopefully this post gets us all to a better place.

 

[Aldaron]

@Aldaron I don't know how it's in other threads but since there's a lot of discussion in this one and I'd say a lot of pretty good suggestions and things that could improve the game so would you consider releasing another map of the Balkans. It doesn't have to be soon, more like when you repolish this part of the world. It would show the people that further discussion in threads like this aren't useless.

That is not my call. So it is not in my hands.

Besides, the first feedback did not stop some people complaining about the same things (whcih is fair, but adds little to the discussion since the decision has been made).

I personally love this part of our map, but there is an amount of time I can devote to each region as the list of things to do is enormous. I would like to reiterate that the map will be revisited if needed in the future (I have 100's of posts bookmarked, not including all those that we have already covered), but people really need to relax a bit and not let their passion blur the good atmosphere we have in this forum.

Also, and even if it sounds a bit as a stereotype, mods exist and will exist and if anyone disagrees with any of our decisions, they can modify that part of the game to their liking. As a modder myself it is one of the reasons I started and I encourage everyone to try to do their own mods to satisfy their needs.

With this I am not trying to end any kind of discussion by claiming something like "if you do not like, make a mod". At all. What I am trying to say is that we do not need to take things that we do not like soooo seriouesly when we do have ways to solve it.

 

[Aldaron]

If that's so, then I can't find the post. Are you saying that Hungary owned part of Wallachia bordering Bulgaria? Why isn't that reflected in the map? If you're instead saying that Hungary used "military access" through Wallachia to attack Vidin, that's one thing... But how did they establish a 4-year long province centered on the city and incorporate it into their administrative apparatus if it wasn't even geographically connected to Hungary? It's difficult for me to comment on a source I can't see, but what I do know is that there's a post in this thread proving that the fortress of Kladovo east of the Timok valley was in Bulgarian hands during the late 14th century:

This is supported by another comment from 14th-century German traveler Johann Schiltberger stating that Bulgaria starts at the Iron Gates (east of the Timok valley):

Considering that Serbia and Bulgaria's last confrontation was at Velbazhd in 1330, there's no way this land could've been Serbian in 1337 and seized by Bulgaria somewhere down the line. From my side of things, and indeed, most people on this forum, Hungary and Bulgaria sharing a border in the Timok valley is the most logical and straightforward explanation here. I've said this before, but the Manchuria map is chock full of speculative borders and historically untestified tribal locations, so why is the barrier of entry so high for sources pertaining to the Balkans but not elsewhere?

No, I said that foreign armies crossing a foreign land to access a third is not uncommon.

The crossing was indeed via Kladovo but:
1) Wikipedia is not a primary soruce
2) The fact that the crossing was a Kladovo and they entered Bulgaria does not necesarily mean that Kladovo was Bulgaria (not saying the contrary either, but contesting that "factness" of this.
3). The Timok area was contested and most likely divided between both realms at the very least.

Wait a minute... Are you saying that you think the Despotate never exist at all? Well that's a big reversal from what Pavia said, it's also easily disproven by a cursory search on the topic revealing that numerous Southern, Central, and Eastern European sources referenced an independent domain in Dobruja, one of which I already quoted in this post. Dobruja's rulers also issued their own coinage, but the evidence is already so overwhelming that this fact is basically redundant, you might as well question the existence of any 14th-century Balkan polity if your standards are that high.

I'll assume you meant that there isn't a source directly telling us when the Despotate was established. In that sense, you're right that we have to "guess", but we can make an extremely educated guess given the strong evidence suggesting that its existence precedes 1337. I'm just going to quote my own post on the matter, which I think does a good job justifying that position:

All of this info is available in Georgi Atanasov's "ДОБРУДЖАНСКОТОДЕСПОТСТВОКЪМ ПОЛИТИЧЕСКАТА, ЦЪРКОВНАТА,СТОПАНСКАТА И КУЛТУРНАТА ИСТОРИЯ НАДОБРУДЖА ПРЕЗ ХІV ВЕК", available on academia.edu and partially translated into English. Atanasov doesn't get everything right, but he's the preeminent Bulgarian historian on Dobruja and he always cites his sources.

You said that the date of Karvuna's establishment is up to debate, and I'd like to ask, where is the other side of this debate? I see that the Despotate's wikipedia page (which is awful, by the way) states 1356 as the year of its inception, but that's totally unsourced. We know the following things:

- The Despotate was ruled by the Terteroba clan
- The Despotate was in ecclesiastic union with Constantinople, its earliest ruler also carrying a Byzantine title and acting on a military alliance with Byzantine empress Anna of Savoy
- The Terteroba clan was dethroned in Bulgaria's imperial capital in 1323
- The first reference to Varna, the largest city in Balik's domain, as an ecclesiastic holding of the Patriarchate of Constantinople coincides with the year that the Terteroba clan lost power in Tarnovo (1323)

Given the strength of Atanasov's case, I'd really like to see what the argument for Karvuna coming into existence at a later date is.

I am saying that there is no proof that the Despotate existed in 1337. We can again, guess, which even you concede, so not adding them is inherently no worse than adding them.

Here's the issue. People are under the impression that if they put in the time, cite their sources, elaborate in sufficient detail, dot their i's and cross their t's, etc... that Paradox can be persuaded to change the game accordingly. Exceedingly little of that has happened in the Balkans, and in Bulgaria in particular. The justification is usually some vague and impossible to debate statement about conflicting sources, which is very handwavey behavior. If you were laying those sources bare and putting it up to debate, that would be one thing, but you aren't. I hope you can understand that from my -- and not only my perspective -- I see no way to interpret this as anything other than a) a lack of interest in the region's history, or b) a refusal to deviate from a pre-established vision for reasons unknown to us, the users.

People have been giving Paradox the benefit of the doubt, and most continue to do so. At the end of the day, we're all unpaid fans sinking our time into these suggestions because we want to see the game become the best that it can be. It's just very demoralizing to see that it's been handled this way, and I think you'll see diminishing returns on community feedback if you stay the course.

The point here is that with all due respect, writing a wall of text does not mean that we are forced to add it to the game, specially when I check the sources and we decide based on what its gathered.

Saying that little changes have been done to the Balkans or specially to Bulgarie is not true and I invite you to check the changelog.

You are entitled to your own opinion, I am never going to criticize that, but do not try to guilt-trip me because it will not work. Also, the feedback topics where never a place to debate. They are not a bidirectional thing and have never meant to be so.

 

[Aldaron]

@Aldaron I feel disappointed by how the southern Balkans are represented, particularly regarding Albania. As an Albanian player, its frustrating to see our region either barely acknowledged. In many builds, it feels like Albania is treated as Greek region, with no Albanian population in the south despite historical claims or cultural distinction in the region.

Additionally, the Serbian rule under Stefan Dusan, which historically ended around 1365 (correct me if Im wrong), seems to be frozen in-game. This prevents the natural emergence of smaller countries and provinces, effectively erasing the opportunity for nations like Albania to have a meaningful playthrough. The mechanics just dont allow that country to breathe, to form, or to fight for survival in the way it should.
I know it might sound a little bit weird, but there are players like me who only play as their own country through EU3, EU4, Victoria 2, Victoria 3, HOI3, HOI4 you name it.
I hope i get to see game where small countries, have a real and fair shot.

The migration of the Albanians towards the rest of Epirus and Greece was starting in 1337 according to most sources. Despite that, I have already included a few Albanian minorities in those places. Expecting Albanian majorities in 1337 is far from historical, unless you can prove otherwise.

Everything you are discussing in most of your posts happens after 1337. That is why the result is different.

It is cool that you being Albanian wants to play with Albania, but the reality is that 1337 was not a great year for your people. It is what it is. I have tried to be as faithful as possible to history, without preferences.

 

[Aldaron]

This!

Spoiler: intermezzo joke

Should be your signature and first response to walls of useless text

I would love to read a TT on how this very problem shaped and steered certain decisions during the crafting and refining of the EU5 map from its early ideas and plans at the start of game development and onward.

The TT would be photos of me losing my mind reading stuff, trying to get everything together and then bumping my head with a wall. This during 10s of hours. Nothing pretty to see.

 

[Aldaron]

If the major Albanian migrations into Greece begin around 1337, then why do Arvanites exist as a culturally distinct group from other Orthodox Tosk Albanians?

The "major" part is key there.

It is the big migrations into Epirus what has not yet happened according to the sources I have read.

If we go full technical, the name of these Albanians in the rest of Greece should not be Arvanite, but since they are the Albanians that have been hired mostly as mercenaries around the Frankokratia era, that were hellenized and later known as Arvanite I thought it would be a nice compromise.