What about to make a bit improved design of DH map with some fixed mistakes?

[Rodolphe123]

Nick 3210 , Thank you for the details informations. It is usefull.

I made and I will make suggestions that are secondary to most important theater (Soviet-german war and german-wetsern allied war).

I definitly agree that these theaters have to improved in priority.

Again, it is a great think that you improved the overall map actually and in previous posts that you made in the past, and your knowledge about oil consumption, etc. was usefull.

I am aware that Vilochka could agree to implement some of others changes that I proposed or not at all, and it is normal. If changes are made in many secondary theaters, it would gives the opportunity to play many different countries in a more interesting manner. If you are tired to play Germany, USSR, USA, UK, Italy, you could play Japan. Turkey, Australia, British Raj in a more realistic manner.

If Vilochka agrees to do wide changes, I understand that it would be be done over a long period of time, like many months, or a year...

Good day !

 

[Lord Rommel]

Just to be sure: Where are cross-sections on the map at all?
I cant think of many (or any?)?

I think some provinces on the map were shaped for the reason to prevent such a "cross situation" in the first place. And from my point of view its "good map design" when u can avoid these elements. So I think u try to cheat around with your cross sections. On one side u are arguing for "total realism" and at the next point u talk about cross sections. Dont get me wrong but here I have my own point of view plus your own proclaimed vision broken by your map design.
Lets think of these cross sections. In "reality" these places were a crossing somewhere in no-man's-land? So what would happen when an army would attack from Cherkassy to Pervomasik and when an army would attack from Uman to Kirovograd. In real battles conditions all maps would colide on a big battlefield - in your design suggestion they would pass without interfering. For me that sounds aweful "unrealistic" and "far from historical points".

So these are the area where I think the map isnt designed well.
Or where u have to make a sort of compromise.

 

[Nick3210]

Just to be sure: Where are cross-sections on the map at all?
I cant think of many (or any?)?

I'm sorry! I was really mistaken! The vanilla map is full of one-pixel-cross-blocks. But there really isn't a single cross-connect in this points! I've just checked it and was surprised to find that it's really 100% only cross-blocks, and not a single cross-connect. Very very wrong fake Map.

It's just that I put the right connections/blocks in all these one-pixel-points in my map a long time ago, so I was sure there also are cross-connections in vanilla too.

OK, so what I'm doing is really a new concept that doesn't exist in vanilla DH.

OK, then let me voice this my revolutionary new concept!

Instead of completely incorrect (not corresponding to real geography) 100% cross-blocks in vanilla DH, we must to set true connections/blocks corresponding to real geography in all these 1-pixel-points-crossing of vanilla DH map:

- if there is a connection in reality, there must be a connection
- if there really is a block there, there must be a block.

So, аre there any objections to this absolutely obvious thing that needs to be done?

Alternatively, you can just set blocks to all the new cross-connections that arise during improving the map. This way you can keep adhering to incorrect vanilla Map conception of 100% blocks in 1-pixel-poits-crossing of vanilla map provinces.

 

[Lord Rommel]

I'm sorry! I was really mistaken! The vanilla map is full of one-pixel-cross-blocks. But there really isn't a single cross-connect in this points! I've just checked it and was surprised to find that it's really 100% only cross-blocks, and not a single cross-connect. Very very wrong fake Map.

It's just that I put the right connections/blocks in all these one-pixel-points in my map a long time ago, so I was sure there also are cross-connections in vanilla too.

OK, so what I'm doing is really a new concept that doesn't exist in vanilla DH.

OK, then let me voice this my revolutionary new concept!

Instead of completely incorrect (not corresponding to real geography) 100% cross-blocks in vanilla DH, we must to set true connections/blocks corresponding to real geography in all these 1-pixel-points of vanilla DH map:

- if there is a connection in reality, there must be a connection
- if there really is a block there, there must be a block.

So, аre there any objections to this absolutely obvious thing that needs to be done?

For some reasons I'm afraid now because I'm not sure what u are planing

 

[Lord Rommel]

[Maps deleted]

Current "alpha" for Romania.

I need opinions:
The new "load" would made use of a lot of new provinces...
BUT when needed u could merge the following:
Torda with Cluj.
Targu Mures with Miercurea Ciuc.

The yellow marks are the "hungarian-romanian boarder" after the 2nd vienna dictate. That is the reason why i didnt changed the base boarder lines.

 

[Nick3210]

For some reasons I'm afraid now because I'm not sure what u are planing

It's very simple, I plan just follow realism for my mod - if there are doubled cross-connections in reality in the "1-pixel-crossing of four provinces", then it should be on the game map, if there are doubled cross-blocks in reality, then there should be the doubled cross-blocks.

The vanilla map is full of "1-pixel-crossing of four provinces" and seems in 80% of cases, all these blocks in these places do not correspond to reality.
In my mod, I fixed all these rude errors of the vanilla map a long time ago.

But! Fortunately, connections and blocks are not a hard seting of the map, so any modder can do with them as he sees it.
If you prefer the convenience of the map and 100% certainty that any "1-pixel-crossing of four provinces" 100% has no connections, you can continue to adhere to this principle of vanilla DH map. No problems at all.

I think some provinces on the map were shaped for the reason to prevent such a "cross situation" in the first place. And from my point of view its "good map design" when u can avoid these elements. So I think u try to cheat around with your cross sections. On one side u are arguing for "total realism" and at the next point u talk about cross sections.

Undoubtedly, I'm too lazy to add always an extra fifth province between the four, for only one reason - just to kill the 'cross-connection design'.
In this regard, I am really cheating but I am not sacrificing Realism, as you say (on the contrary, I am setting realism where it does not exist in these cross-points on the vanilla map!) but I sacrifice the comfort of the player, who will need to click on the province and check if there is a connection or not.

Cross-connections are needed exactly for realism, for the cases if in reality 4 provinces actually have a cross intersection for both opposite pairs.

Lets think of these cross sections. In "reality" these places were a crossing somewhere in no-man's-land? So what would happen when an army would attack from Cherkassy to Pervomasik and when an army would attack from Uman to Kirovograd. In real battles conditions all maps would colide on a big battlefield - in your design suggestion they would pass without interfering. For me that sounds aweful "unrealistic" and "far from historical points".

Okay, let's look at the map of this cross-connection case in Ukraine.

There are no secondary rural roads on this map, but even without them, we see excellent road and railway cross-connections between opposite provinces.
Regardless of whether we make a special 5th province of Novo-Ukrainka with the center of coordinates in Novo-Mirgorod or just leave this area as cross-connection design, in any case, we are completely correctly implementing the real direct connections Cherkassy-Pervomaisk and Uman - Kirovograd. Therefore, I completely do not understand the reasons for the accusations of "For me that sounds awful"unrealistic" and "far from historical points". My cross-connections are based on real maps, on real roads, they really exist, so they based at full realism and historicity. And my cross-connections are forced decisions for disign due to real geography, not due to my fantasy or ill will.

 

[Rodolphe123]

View attachment 1276544
Current "alpha" for Romania.

I need opinions:
The new "load" would made use of a lot of new provinces...
BUT when needed u could merge the following:
Torda with Cluj.
Targu Mures with Miercurea Ciuc.

The yellow marks are the "hungarian-romanian boarder" after the 2nd vienna dictate. That is the reason why i didnt changed the base boarder lines.

I believe that Torda could be merge with Cluj, and Targu Mures with Miercurea Ciu. It would reduce the map work to do.

Thus, Targu Mures would become a mountain terrain (it is almost a moutain part in reality).

All these changes add realism and strategic depth in Romania, while it is an important country for oil ressources and it's large army in WWII.

Good work again !

 

[Lord Rommel]

It's very simple, I plan just follow realism for my mod - if there is a connection in reality in the "1-pixel-crossing of four provinces", then it should be on the game map, if there is no connection in reality, then there should be a block.

The vanilla map is full of "1-pixel-crossing of four provinces" and and seems in 80% of cases, all these blocks in these places do not correspond to reality.
In my mod, I fixed all these errors of the vanilla map a long time ago.

View attachment 1276579

But! Fortunately, connections and blocks are not a hard seting of the map, so any modder can do with them as he sees it.
If you prefer the convenience of the map and 100% certainty that any "1-pixel-crossing" of four provinces 100% has no connections, you can continue to adhere to this principle of vanilla DH map. No problems at all.


Undoubtedly, I'm too lazy always to add an extra fifth province between the four, for only one reason - just to kill the cross-connection.
In this regard, I am really cheating but I am not sacrificing Realism, as you say (on the contrary, I am setting realism where it does not exist on the vanilla map!) but I sacrifice the comfort of the player, who will need to click on the province and check if there is a connection or not.

Cross connections are needed exactly for realism, in the case if in reality 4 provinces actually have a cross intersection for both opposite pairs.

Okay, let's look at the map of this cross-connection case in Ukraine.

There are no secondary rural roads on this map, but even without them, we see excellent road and railway cross connections between opposite provinces.
Regardless of whether we make a special 5th province of Novo-Ukrainka with the center of coordinates in Novo-Mirgorod or just leave this area as cross-connection, in any case, we are completely correctly implementing the real direct connections Cherkassy-Pervomaisk and Uman - Kirovogradskaya. Therefore, I completely do not understand the reasons for the accusations of "For me that sounds awful"unrealistic" and "far from historical points". My cross-connections are based on real maps, on real roads, they really exist, so they based at full realism and historicity.

View attachment 1276610

So sticking with "your" map I cant see a problem.
I guess the thick grey lines are "bigger roads" - classified as "Rollbahnen" by the Wehrmacht.
So I assume thick grey roads are "main roads" and the small more dotted lines are -well- rural type of roads.
With that I have to assume that "main traffic" is done from Uman to Cherkassy and from Cherkassy so Kirovograd and from here to Pervomaisk. That would create a layer like this for me:

OR u do the other solution and keep the cross section and force players to dicide.

With this you would lose the Pervomaisk - Cherkassy direct link - okay. But I bet that the ingame result would be better. Furthermore here is my wild theory that u could need the control of Uman or Kirovograd anyways when u want to send traffic from Cherkassy to Pervomaisk.

I guess the concept of getting "all roads" to the map is a goal way out of touch with the DH map and the scale and size of the entire map and game.
Plus keep in mind that railroads - the real deal in ww2 - arent on the map anyways. So i guess when u would aim for important connections rail roads would be the better connection device.

The map is more about represenation and not about 100% accuracy.
Even with your map I guess there are way more roads or pathways that could be used.
But its a military game about movement, positing and troop organisation.
So I would sacrifice perfect road layout to get better more "historical fitting playability".

I bet when u would look into the battles in the area there will be no "push" from Cherkassy to Pervomaisk without bypassing Uman ir Kirovograd and vice-versa.
U could do the trip with a truck, okay. But not with armies in the field.

 

[Lord Rommel]

I believe that Torda could be merge with Cluj, and Targu Mures with Miercurea Ciu. It would reduce the map work to do.

Thus, Targu Mures would become a mountain terrain (it is almost a moutain part in reality).

All these changes add realism and strategic depth in Romania, while it is an important country for oil ressources and it's large army in WWII.

Good work again !

Jeah. I'm leaning in that direct too. My romanian friend described the entire area as a sort of hill dominated terrain or high plateau.
So with merging the provinces u would get a similar result, keep the terrain of the area and make bypassing from the south or a direct straight cut from the north more likely. Sounds somewhat historical familiar... Not sure what the defenders of the Dukla pass would say...

 

[Nick3210]

With this you would lose the Pervomaisk - Cherkassy direct link - okay. But I bet that the ingame result would be better. Furthermore here is my wild theory that u could need the control of Uman or Kirovograd anyways when u want to send traffic from Cherkassy to Pervomaisk.

I guess the concept of getting "all roads" to the map is a goal way out of touch with the DH map and the scale and size of the entire map and game.

So I would sacrifice perfect road layout to get better more "historical fitting playability".

Unfortunately, here I can only state the fact that I will never be able to agree with such an anti-realistic concept.
I am absolytely convinced that "Players and Gameplay should adjust their tactics and strategies to realistically made map" and not the other way around what you are suggesting - "The map should adjust to Gameplay and Players, disrupting real geography and real logistical connections".

The removal of the real undeniable Cherkassy-Pervomaisk road junction is absolutely unacceptable to me.

Here I remember your suggestion to remove the absolutely obvious connection Poltava-(new)Kharkov. I'm afraid your disregard for real logistics is too great and exceeds all reasonable limits. You are easily ready to remove not even controversial connections, but even the most obvious indisputable connections between provinces.

I bet when u would look into the battles in the area there will be no "push" from Cherkassy to Pervomaisk without bypassing Uman ir Kirovograd and vice-versa.
U could do the trip with a truck, okay. But not with armies in the field.

It's funny, but it seems on this map there are arrows that go through Cherkassy province to Pervomaysk province, bypassing Uman and Kirovograd.

In any case, I sure it's wrong to limit the player's logistics variability to accurately following the historical routes of the troops, removing other real roads. Even if Germany had not moved through Cherkassy to Pervomaisk, this would not have been a reason to remove this really existed connection Cherkassy - Pervomaisk.

It's also funny that there are no arrows on the route you suggested Uman - Kirovograd. But this does not mean that there could not be such a route! This obvious connecting also must be on the map!

OR u do the other solution and keep the cross section and force players to dicide.

Exactly. You can follow DH concept and set cross-blocks there if you disagree win cross-connections there.

 

[Lord Rommel]

U will never be able to simulate such a movement on any DH map.
But that is again the problem that we fundamentally disagree on game design on the first place.

Based on the map it looks like a strike to Uman blocked by soviet forces and another push to Pervomasik.
With Pervomaisk the Wehrmacht moved west. The big question of the map is: did german units moved into Kirovograd because it looks to me that elements of the "3 MK". I guess its the 3rd motorised corps with the 13. and 14. PzDiv. By looking into its histories it seems to me that parts of these divisions went into Kirovograd while the mass was bypassing the town for a fast encirclement. So with the overall historical movement I guess that control areas (map areas) are way more important. I'm quiet sure that the 3. Armeekorps (motorisiert) wouldnt have bypassed Uman or Kirovograd without sending elements to the towns in the trial to capture it.

I guess the design u are aiming for would fit better to a HoI 3 or 4 map and not to the HoI 2 mmap design.

WIth the historical movements in mind there is full no design argument I can see that would force a "cross section" in the first place because based on the map I would see a "Uman province controlled by germans" moving units into the western direction. That could be done with any of my 2 suggested solutions.

So all in all I guess u are digging onw layer too deep for your "map ideas". U try to get down to the division or regimental level where I try to stay on the overall highter levels for overall movement.

I guess the best solution would be an answer from @Vilochka.

E.g. my entire suggestions are based on my overall thoughts of "highter level" or "general movement" and not onto small rural road and regimental level of movement.
So I stay in the level we german like to call the "Operational level".

 

[Rodolphe123]

I carry on with my mad suggestions.

For Australia :

- I suggests to encircle it with coastal provinces and to diminish the emply interiors provinces. The number of provinces would remain the same with my suggested changes.

- Actual Australia is like that :

View attachment 1272795

I suggest something like that :


View attachment 1272796

It could be improved again, but what do you think of it ?

Here I have revised the Australia map, in case it would be changed someday by Vilochka.

I have considered Territorial divisions when possible, geography and climate.

Many provinces are changed. I would detail it if needed by Mr map master.

It seems there is no road in the central west Autralia, so I blocked 3 connections. More blocking are probably needed at the north and center east.

Here is the new proposed map :

Here is the geographic map of Australia :

Here is the climate map of Australia :

Here is a 1936 roads, railways and adminsitrative map (with ¨air route¨ also) :

Here is a 1931 railway map :

 

[Rodolphe123]

Unfortunately, here I can only state the fact that I will never be able to agree with such an anti-realistic concept.
I am absolytely convinced that "Players and Gameplay should adjust their tactics and strategies to realistically made map" and not the other way around what you are suggesting - "The map should adjust to Gameplay and Players, disrupting real geography and real logistical connections".

The removal of the real undeniable Cherkassy-Pervomaisk road junction is absolutely unacceptable to me.

Here I remember your suggestion to remove the absolutely obvious connection Poltava-(new)Kharkov. I'm afraid your disregard for real logistics is too great and exceeds all reasonable limits. You are easily ready to remove not even controversial connections, but even the most obvious indisputable connections between provinces.



It's funny, but it seems on this map there are arrows that go through Cherkassy province to Pervomaysk province, bypassing Uman and Kirovograd.

In any case, I sure it's wrong to limit the player's logistics variability to accurately following the historical routes of the troops, removing other real roads. Even if Germany had not moved through Cherkassy to Pervomaisk, this would not have been a reason to remove this really existed connection Cherkassy - Pervomaisk.

It's also funny that there are no arrows on the route you suggested Uman - Kirovograd. But this does not mean that there could not be such a route! This obvious connecting also must be on the map!

View attachment 1276628


Exactly. You can follow DH concept and set cross-blocks there if you disagree win cross-connections there.

Mr Nick 3210, how many cross connections have you made on your USSR map at this point ?

Because, if the number is not to high, any player will have the choice to accept the connections or to block it.

Obviously, is there is massive number of new provinces like that, it would take longer time for those who disagree.

I have an important question for you, I know that you work on USSR map for the time being, but when you look at the european map of Lord Rommel, do you in general agree with the proposed changes ? Because, we don't want to build something that you disagree, everybody would lose it's time in that case.

I asked these questions in order as much as possible to have an agreement to build a map useful for everybody. With many players who research the map, we gain time and we share useful knowledge to improve the map and the game ultimately !

 

[Nick3210]

Mr Nick 3210, how many cross connections have you made on your USSR map at this point ?

Because, if the number is not to high, any player will have the choice to accept the connections or to block it.

That's a good question. Let's check it!

At the moment, in the checked areas, I have the following statistics on cross-points:

- 2 correct vanilla double cross-blocks saved unchanged (Astrakhan and Nakhichevan zones)

- 3 incorrect vanilla double cross-blocks are saved in order to set the correct double cross-connection there (Efremov, Balta, Konotop zones)
(But I don't force anyone to do this, you can keep cross-blocks there if you don't like cross-connections)

- 4 (!) erroneous vanilla double cross-blocks have been removed and replaced with comfortable visual connections for one pair of provinces and, accordingly, visual block for the other pair. (Volokolamsk-Moskva, Ryazan - Yelets, Konstantinovsk - Kotelnikovo, Tula - Kirov)

- 4 new cross-points have been added in order to set double cross-connections there.
(Naro-Fominsk, Kursk, Krivoy Rog, Kirovograd zones)

Thus, after adding 7 (!) new provinces to the map, I did not increase the total number of cross-points!
I deleted 4 old cross-points, added 4 new cross-points and kept 5 old cross-points.
Anyone who wants to follow the 80% erroneous vanilla map concept of "cross-points are always only cross-blocks" with no problem can continue to follow this concept and to set double cross-blocks in these new cross-points too.

I know that you work on USSR map for the time being, but when you look at the european map of Lord Rommel, do you in general agree with the proposed changes ? Because, we don't want to build something that you disagree, everybody would lose it's time in that case.

I can't delve into the nuances of Europe right now. When we get to Europe, I'll just make sure that your suggestions don't violate common sense and match the real road map.
I rather trust your proposals for adding/dividing new provinces, but I will need just to make sure that they correspond to common sense and the real roads map. Because now I've started to have some concerns about this, because it turned out that we had completely incompatible concepts with Lord Rommel regarding the need to follow real road ways when creating connections between provinces.

 

[Nick3210]

U will never be able to simulate such a movement on any DH map.

I guess the design u are aiming for would fit better to a HoI 3 or 4 map and not to the HoI 2 mmap design.

So all in all I guess u are digging onw layer too deep for your "map ideas". U try to get down to the division or regimental level where I try to stay on the overall highter levels for overall movement.
E.g. my entire suggestions are based on my overall thoughts of "highter level" or "general movement" and not onto small rural road and regimental level of movement.
So I stay in the level we german like to call the "Operational level".

I already make it.
Proper connections between provinces based on the real road network ensure proper simulation of troop movements.
With such large provinces as in Hoi2, we are definitely playing the game at the division level, not the brigade level. And the connections between provinces simulate the movement routes of exactly divisions, not brigades. I don't even know why you're talking about brigades.

Let the player decide which of the possible ways to move his troops, without limiting it only to the historical routes that the German generals chose.

It seems to me that exactly you are very involved in deep analyzing the train of thought of the German generals and trying to determine the 'only true route for the movement of troops'.

And I'm just making the right connections on the map, according to the real roads, leaving it up to the German generals and to the players to decide which path to choose of all true really existing pathes.

 

[Lord Rommel]

I already make it.
Proper connections between provinces based on a real road network ensure proper simulation of troop movements.
With such large provinces as in Hoi2, we are definitely playing the game at the division level, not the brigade level. And the connections between provinces reflect the movement routes of divisions, not brigades. I don't even know why you're talking about brigades.

Let the player decide which of the possible ways to move his troops, without limiting it only to the historical routes that the German generals chose.

It seems to me that exactly you are very involved in deep analyzing the train of thought of the German generals and trying to determine the 'only correct route for the movement of troops'.

And I'm just making the right connections on the map, according to the real roads, leaving it up to the German generals and to the players to decide which path to choose of all true really existing pathes.

I try to explain my point of view. Thats all. And when "my german files" will help me. Unlike to soviet letters and documents I understand everything in german

To be fair we could have taken any other area.
It wont change my point of view that cross sections are a bad design and should be eleminiated at all points when possible.
I designed all elements on my maps with that in mind; movement - conncetion - general routes - geographics - historical routes - large towns/important markings.
The entire Romania design is based around these concepts.
And I will continue with these principles for my suggestions (and that is the point; these are my suggestions and no final designs).

 

[Rodolphe123]

I already make it.
Proper connections between provinces based on the real road network ensure proper simulation of troop movements.
With such large provinces as in Hoi2, we are definitely playing the game at the division level, not the brigade level. And the connections between provinces simulate the movement routes of exactly divisions, not brigades. I don't even know why you're talking about brigades.

Let the player decide which of the possible ways to move his troops, without limiting it only to the historical routes that the German generals chose.

It seems to me that exactly you are very involved in deep analyzing the train of thought of the German generals and trying to determine the 'only true route for the movement of troops'.

And I'm just making the right connections on the map, according to the real roads, leaving it up to the German generals and to the players to decide which path to choose of all true really existing pathes.

Could you please post a picture of your actual USSR map from the Ural up to western USSR borders (Romania, Poland, Slovakia).

I'd like to look at your complete actual work if it is possible.

 

[Nick3210]

It wont change my point of view that cross sections are a bad design and should be eleminiated at all points when possible.

I totally agree with that. Cross-points are really bad design that is uncomfortable for the player. I don't make them out of malice, but only if geography force me to make them. Therefore whenever possible, I try to delete these cross-points, as I already wrote, I already deleted 4 such vanilla cross-points.

It's the same story as Shanghai. I hate pop-ups windows on the map design. But pop-ups window is the only right decision to create Japanese zone in Shanghai.

 

[Nick3210]

Could you please post a picture of your actual USSR map from the Ural up to western USSR borders (Romania, Poland, Slovakia).

I'd like to look at your complete actual work if it is possible.

As I wrote earlier, we will not be distracted by unimportant regions now. So now I check only the territories to the west from Moscow-Caucasus.

 

[tioperete]

View attachment 1276544
Current "alpha" for Romania.

I need opinions:
The new "load" would made use of a lot of new provinces...
BUT when needed u could merge the following:
Torda with Cluj.
Targu Mures with Miercurea Ciuc.

The yellow marks are the "hungarian-romanian boarder" after the 2nd vienna dictate. That is the reason why i didnt changed the base boarder lines.

would have loved that your map showed a bigger part of romanian borders in Moldova to set a couple more of coordinate lanes
the main problem of your map is that you didnt correct Olt and Mures rivers, that leads to missplacements, some errors and more difficult design of provinces that would be easy to draw.

As you can see I redraw the rivers, old incorrect courses are in green.
In total I will propose 4 new provinces and the recover of Bistrita, 2 of them are in the Black Sea Coast that you didnt rework the other 2 only ideas to share that I don't really see mandatory, and deleting 1 or 2 provinces of the ones you did.

River Somes, that was not included in vanilla, could be used for some border, Satu Mare lies in the northern bank while Oradea is in both sides of Crisul Repede. Adjusting Oradea to the river shapes and keeping the plain seems legit for me. Somes should make the border also from Nyíregyháza to Satu Mare, so use a little "license" there changing its route to fit the frontier.
About your division there into Satu Mare, Baia Mare and Cluj, I'd use only Baia Mare as mountain terrain, forgetig about Cluj by the moment. I know you loose a bit of the Satu Mare plain, but following the Somes it gives you a nice province. Or If you prefer to keep more fidelity to terrain, reshape in some way it having the 2, Satu and Baia Mare, but Satu Mare way to Cluj have to be through Baia Mare or "Zalau"
Also here, following the Somes lane, we recover Bistrita from south part of your Baia Mare province and maybe taking a very little part of Cluj to give a bit more spot to the mountains. Thats nice also cause that way we block the pass from Baia Mare to Piatra Neamt as you did, but the one from Bistrita would be open.

I marked Bistrita river in the map but is very incovenient for province shaping, and is not that big except in Piatra Neamt and Bicaz.
Piatra Neamt, Suceava and Bacau seems fine.
I recommend a little modification in the Botosani - Iasi border, to allow Botosani direct way to Bacau.

Arriving into de Black Coast you will see two provinces in yellow, thats Tulcea and Cetatea Alba with the Danube river arm correction in Sulina-Tulcea border. Tulcea would be the way from Constanta to Galati and Braila.
Cetate Alba would be connected to Cahul and Chisinau, but rather than Cetatea Alba, that would be province name, I'd use the coordinates from Tatar-Bunar.

Moving back inland, I'd make Ploiesti and Focsani directly border, that would represent Buzau crossroads for them, a direct way instead having to make a detour by Braila or Brasov.
Ialomita river in Braila - Calarasi border is a bit missplaced, nothing really important. But here a question opens. Do we want to follow its curse until the Carphatians? Devs only used it in Braila - Calarasi border, to be honest Ialomita is not a big thing, but if we eant to use it, then Targoviste has to be separated from Ploiesti. Even I marked it in yellow in the map, I'm not in favour of this option, so my opinion here is to just correct a bit the river between Braila and Calarasi.

I marked the pixel connection between Dobrich, that should be renamed as Bazargic, and Giurgiu. I don't remeber if cross-border is allowed there in game, but I think they shouldnt border.

Following with Wallachia, Ramnicu Valcea and Pitesti additions seems perfect.
Set river Jiu in the map, but implementing it would lead to 2 new provinces that I didnt even mark, Calafat from Craiova and Targu Jiu from Turnu Severin. I dont seee any advantage on doing this, so I prefer just to ignore the existance of river Jiu. But I'd like that you think about changing the terrain from Turnu Severin to hills.

Returning to Transylvania, as I moved from Bistrita to Piatra Neamt and then followed the circle, I say again that the main problem here is the mess devs did with Mures and Olt rivers. As you can see, they were completely bad done being carried even to the Hungarian border from Vienna Award. Let's continue with Crisul Repede and Oradea. This river comes from Cluj area and separates the Apuseni mountains. I don't see it important enough, but its the division into Northern and Southern Apusenis. If we decide to set the river, the Zalau province has to be separated from Cluj. Terrain here should be mountains according to me, but I've not really anything against not expanding the river and keeping it as part from Cluj as hills, as the only key way there would be Satu Mare to Cluj -also Oradea in some schematic sense-.
There in the Apuseni, as I corrected Mures river, you have now the well designed cut from Brad and Alba Iulia. Here you could merge Brad and Alba Iulia if you want, but I like the addition of Brad.
Deva, Sibiu and Medias are fine. Just need to reshape a bit according to the correction of the rivers. Same goes for Turda, but in this case the error is minimal so can be ignored.
With Olt river corrected, Vălenii de Munte is completely innecesary. It joins Brasov with its corrected borders, as all the provinces that border Brasov have direct road to there. We ignore here the last part of Arges river that enters the mountain area, and do the same with Ialomita if we used it before instead not expanding it.

And to finish, the Székelyföld. You can see in the green lane from the old map with the incorrect position of the rivers. Compare to the cyan lane. Is Targu Mures the province that should have the Mures and Olt confluence, so a reshape of Targu Mures and Miercurea according to the rivers.


I know the map will be hard to see with all the colors etc, but It's easy to understand if you're eyes are not bleeding XD