Better trade nodes for balkans and central europe and minor trade node corrections.

[Entrone]

Hello guys! I would like to present you my ideas on polishing trade nodes in Europe a bit.

My new proposal:
New Lower Danube node circled in red, Upper Danube coloured white (including Moravia and Slavonia too)

-First of all, if Lower Danube has to be an inland node, then just move Dobruja to Constantinople node (only Tolcu and Silistre should be moved though, Tarnovo is fine in Danube node, it's not part of Dobruja, neither coastal). I'm not sure it does matter at all?

-I'd trade Crimea -> Lower Danube route for a Constantinople -> Lower Danube, which was definately more important, and with some imagination, could represent Genoese activities also.

-Looking north, White Sea should turn into a start-node (without inflows). Hardly doubt that big number of trade goods would go from Novgorod towards the White Sea in Eu4. Maybe after these times.

-Novgorod should flow towards Kiev, not vica-versa. Kiev node should also get an outflow towards the Baltic (Daugava, Memel rivers). Also added a new Persia -> Astrakhan flow.
Kazan -> Astrakhan should stay.

-Kiev -> Krakkow replaced by Kiev -> Crimea -> Krakkow. The eastern part of Via Regia (the Krakkow-Kiev route) shrinked, mostly disappeared after the Mongol incursions. It's place was taken by a Baltic route to Novgorod and by the Dniester trade from the Black Sea.

-I find Western European trade quite good, and I guess the direct Alexandria -> Venice and Alexandria -> Genoa flows intended to represent the Republics' trade penetration in the middle east.

-I also befriended Ragusa node. With the new patch there's enough provinces for both nodes to coexist.

Spoiler: Older ideas

So first of all, I think the Ragusa trade node.. doesen't represent well the situation. It always bothered me.
It was quite an important city for a period of time (as it was pointed out in several suggestions concerning dalmatian culture and splitting dalmatia province), but it had nothing to do with let's say Athens or Varasd, which provinces are right now in the Ragusa tradenode.
But the Danube was a very important river at the time, trade between Constantinople and Wien happened mostly through it, and didn't have anything to do with Ragusa.
So i propose to change Ragusa into Lower Danube, and Wien to Upper Danube. Maybe also Crimea to Black Sea.
Somehow like this:

Lower Danube could be an inland tradenode, including Transylvania, Alföld, Serbia, Wallachia, western moldavia, eastern bosnia, and part of Bulgaria. The coastal provinces of Ragusa could be divided between Constantinople (Greek ones, imo) and Venice (adriatic).
As the devs said the region will get an update, so potential new provinces could boost this node a bit bulkier than it may sound.

Trade flows could be also changed a bit:
Crimea/Black sea -> Lower Danube
Constantinople -> Venice
Constantinople -> Lower Danube (instead of Ragusa)
Constantinople -> Tunis
Constantinople -> Genoa i'm not sure about, maybe rather through Tunis?
Lower Danube -> Upper Danube
Lower Danube -> Venice
Venice traded with the Levante intensively, without having to face rivals on the balkans. Neither Hungary, neither the serbs, neither Ragusa could disturb venetian trade for long. This was their main advantage. And the current Venice tradenode's number of provinces is less than half than that of current Genoa (22 to 51 if my I counted well).
So i think a direct trade connection between Venice and Constantinople, and an alternative one through the Danube would represent both the Adriatic/Aegean region, and the Danube region better.


Edit: there's my new version:

Sources:
Danube basin:
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...4640@1447790233522/The-Danube-River-basin.png

 

[BeyondExpectation]

https://www.photobox.co.uk/my/photo/full?photo_id=501572828617

For me this link just goes to the Photobox home page.

 

[Metroidkirby]

Regarding your minor corrections, you should probably keep in mind that all provinces of a state must be in the same trade node.

 

[Entrone]

Regarding your minor corrections, you should probably keep in mind that all provinces of a state must be in the same trade node.

Well that's true, i didn't notice it

 

[Mic199]

Regarding your minor corrections, you should probably keep in mind that all provinces of a state must be in the same trade node.

Well that's true, i didn't notice it

At the moment there is no issue with adding provinces from the same states to different trade notes. It is just sort of an unspoken rule not to do this. I recently suggested changing the tradenodes file to actually assign states to trade notes, instead of provinces:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...es-with-states-rather-than-provinces.1145153/

 

[Lor360]

Hello guys! I would like to present you my ideas on polishing trade nodes in Europe a bit.
So first of all, I think the Ragusa trade node.. doesen't represent well the situation. It always bothered me.
It was quite an important city for a period of time (as it was pointed out in several suggestions concerning dalmatian culture and splitting dalmatia province), but it had nothing to do with let's say Athens or Varasd, which provinces are right now in the Ragusa tradenode.

The problem is Ragusa traded as far away as England even before EU4s date. Yet in EU 4 there is no way to simulate trade that doesnt follow a straight line conecting provinces. Ragusa traded in a huge number of nations/provinces, yet if you remove its trade center it will end up a one province nation with 0.9 tax and 0.2 trade in 1444. Considering Ragusa should start as a rival of Venice in EU4, its not okay that it gets less trade income than 3 province Siberian tribes.

 

[Entrone]

The problem is Ragusa traded as far away as England even before EU4s date. Yet in EU 4 there is no way to simulate trade that doesnt follow a straight line conecting provinces. Ragusa traded in a huge number of nations/provinces, yet if you remove its trade center it will end up a one province nation with 0.9 tax and 0.2 trade in 1444. Considering Ragusa should start as a rival of Venice in EU4, its not okay that it gets less trade income than 3 province Siberian tribes.

That Ragusa traded as far away as England, has nothing to do with it's trade node. And that they traded, not necessarily mean that trade was so significant, that we should represent it somehow.
What I wrote doesen't mean that Ragusa was neglectable, it means that most part of it's trade node had more important connections to either Venice or Wien or Constantinople (as I mentioned Varasd or Athens for example).
I didn't mention removing it's trade center, because neither I would agree with it I mean breaking up/change the currently Ragusa named trade node.
It's hard to represent it's power in 1444 as an OPM, but I agree it could see more importance, to be able to rival Venice.

 

[Em Ay Ef]

I definitely agree that the commercial importance of the Danube merits a trade node for the Hungarian Plain. Cutting Ragusa to make room for it seems a bit harsh, as the South Adriatic and Ionian Sea coasts, and even Aegean Greece, were indeed very important to the Venetian ability to trade outside of its home area; a strong Genoese or Aragonese presence in the South Adriatic and Greece should be able to redirect a lot of trade away to the west, which is really difficult to model when these areas become part of the Venetian node. One possible solution is to extend Constantinople to the west so that it encompasses Epirus and Ragusa, thus becoming the arena where Venice and Genoa can compete for control of the East Mediterranean trade. What do you think?

As a side note, I'm inclined to entertain the idea that perhaps what we need is a much greater number of somewhat smaller trade nodes, depicting a number of alternative trade routes for increased competition.

Getting back to the OP, I also love the idea to move Sicily into Tunis's sphere of influence; this gives African trade more exposition in the Mediterranean. Moravia in Upper Danube also makes sense; after all this region is way more accessible from Vienna than it is from the Elbe River valley.

And now that it was suggested to have Romandy (and thus the entirety of Switzerland) in the Rhine node, thus giving it adjacency to both of the end nodes across the Alps, maybe it might be worthwhile to experiment with actually allowing the Rhenish node to feed into Genoa and Venice? After all, the commercial success of northern Italy was partly due to its role as a middleman in the gateway into Germany, so it makes perfect sense to actually depict these connections in-game.

 

[Sanguine Caesar]

I have to agree with @Lor360 on this. Taking away Ragusa's trade node would kneecap them far too much, and their position as the European gateway to Anatolian and Middle Eastern trade was simply too important historically.

That being said, a Danube/Carpathian trade node would be an interesting concept to play around with, but I would still say to keep the Ragusa node and have both.

On Sicily, ever since the Norman conquest the island was oriented towards Italy, and after the Aragonese arrived its trade went mostly in the direction of Spain. Therefore, Sicily should either stay in the Genoa node, or if that massive node were split in half (Genoa in the east, and Valencia in the west) it could be part of the Valencia node. Its ties to North Africa were basically eradicated by the Spanish Inquisition, and even before then it became cut off from the Arab world after falling to the Normans in the 11th Century (though for a while, Ifriqiya was under Sicilian control as the "Kingdom of Africa" but I do not recall the situation lasting more than 100 years at most.

 

[Em Ay Ef]

I have to agree with @Lor360 on this. Taking away Ragusa's trade node would kneecap them far too much, and their position as the European gateway to Anatolian and Middle Eastern trade was simply too important historically.

That being said, a Danube/Carpathian trade node would be an interesting concept to play around with, but I would still say to keep the Ragusa node and have both.

Full agreement, that'd be ideal. If feasible.

On Sicily, ever since the Norman conquest the island was oriented towards Italy, and after the Aragonese arrived its trade went mostly in the direction of Spain. Therefore, Sicily should either stay in the Genoa node, or if that massive node were split in half (Genoa in the east, and Valencia in the west) it could be part of the Valencia node. Its ties to North Africa were basically eradicated by the Spanish Inquisition, and even before then it became cut off from the Arab world after falling to the Normans in the 11th Century (though for a while, Ifriqiya was under Sicilian control as the "Kingdom of Africa" but I do not recall the situation lasting more than 100 years at most.

That's all true, but if Sicily is hypothetically reconquered in game by a North African tag, and culture-converted, wouldn't Tunis take over as the trading hub for the island? Planning the trade layout, we can't rely too much on real history, as this is very much subject to change in game.

And it doesn't strike me as unbelieveable that if Aragon or the Italians want to keep Sicily in their orbit under the suggested new layout (where Sicily is part of the Tunis node), they should make an effort to safeguard the island against the influence of its close African neighbor, i.e. send ships towards Tunis with the intention of establishing and maintaining a strong presence there.

In an ideal world I imagine it might be fun to have a separate trade node for southern Italy and Sicily, perhaps even including Tunisia (but not the rest of North Africa) to emphasise this maritime region's importance as the only connection between the eastern and western halves of the Mediterranean.

 

[Entrone]

While I still stick to the removal of the Ragusan trade node, as this and the Constantinople are just AWFUL. Constantinople shouldn't extend north of the Danube, especially not into Transylvania, and if Ragusa exist it should be sticking to the coast. I will redraw my version soon, also keeping in mind that states should stay at the same node.

I love your idea to include one more node in Southern Italy, but we disagree on which regions should it include. The Aragonese/Spanish control of Sicily doesen't mean trade was flowing only towards Spain. And we have the transfer trade system to represent that.
I feel like geographical and historical ties should be considered above all when decisions are made on these questions.

Regarding this part, I would leave the Aragonian, Provencal, North-western italian regions to the Genoese node, and my future node there, probably named after Sicily, or called 'Central Mediterranean' (Potential centers: Napoli, Tunis, or as a compromise, Palermo, which was one of the biggest cities of Europe back then) would include: Campania, Calabria, Sicily, Tunisia, Djerba and Tripolitania. Additional possibilities include: Apulia (right now Venice), Sardinia-Corsica (although it would be weird to see Corsica there, but Sardinia fits here better imo).
All of these (excluding Corsica but including Roma) would be 27 provinces. Pretty decent imo. As i saw intercontinental nodes are not too popular, but for the representation of cultural differencies we have a lot other modes, culture, religion, regions etc.. Regarding trade nodes I like diverse ones, like English Channel or Gulf of Aden. At this region, probably every important power of the mediterranean had merchants and agents, struggling to gain the control.

Also with this new node, we would need to alter the ones in north africa. My pick would be: as the Tunis node is largely absorbed, I would make the remaining join forces with eastern 'safi', (which is also pretty nonsense), creating the Berbery Coast, aka Algir trade node in North Africa between Sevillan and Sicilian provinces.
Northern provinces of Safi node to Sevilla, southern ones to Timbuktu node. And one more node could be added to West Africa, possiblities include representing Sahel, or split Timbuktu into Lower and Upper Niger, potential centers Jenne, Timbuktu, Gao. Or my favourite: Make Timbuktu a trans-sahara node with southern Marocco and Sahel, with the remaining southern parts of Timbuktu reworked to be simply Niger.

Ah, I realized it's hard to imagine all of these, so I will draw a map soon.
Until that looking forward for your criticism, advices, ideas

 

[Aussiehawker]

Well, the entire trade system needs to be changed.

But as long as Trade nodes are kept, maybe keep the Ragusa node but make it smaller. Naples's and Papal State's section of Venice node, Albania, Ragusa and the eastern Adriatic. The trade provinces would be Ragusa, Bari, Ancona and one of Venice's provinces. Likely Dalmatia.

Then make the inland node as suggested.

Genoa would need to be dramatically made smaller. A Southern Italy (Western Naples and Papal States, Sicily, Northern African Coastline in Tunis ), Aragon (Coastal Aragon and Coastal Mediterranian Safi) and Provence (Southern France and parts of Italy like Savoy) could be carved out of it, and be nodes that feed into it.

I think France ought to have an inland end node in Champagne, while Spain would get one in inland Castille+Aragon. I could see the argument for the Ottomans getting one in Constantinople, as long as the trade could flow past it within stopping in the node. Which I will elaborate on below. And be made smaller, since it is much too big.

One idea is that trade nodes would have far more connections, but control of a gap could allow a controlling power to close it. For example, Crimea could have a connection straight to Genoa, Venice, Southern Italy and Ragusa. BUT this connection could be closed if a power controls the Turkish Straits (Dardanelles, and the Bosphorus) or taxed (with part of the tax value automatically being collected by the controlling power even if they aren't collecting in the node). There can also be exemptions, like the Ottomans allowing a friendly Ragusa to trade through it except a tax collection but blocking a hostile Venice and Genoa.

I think this would add some needed complexity to trade and recognise the strategic importance of trade routes. So a similar example could be Denmark having a similar trade node representing the Sound Toll.

But in the example of Ragusa, a Ragusa or other power that becomes very powerful in the Adriatic, controlling both sides could choke Venice's trade. But this would majorly piss them and other Adriatic powers off.

Powers could break the tolls or blockage by seizing provinces or inflicting particular War goals. Maybe even add a mechanic to force free trade through, like the Copenhagen Convention peacefully if enough powers gang up on the offender.

Tolls or Blockading the trade could require certain fort levels or ships assigned to the duty, and depend on the difficulty of enforcing it. So the Ottomans wouldn't need much to enforce the toll, because of the short distance they are covering. But doing the same to the Adriatic would require a lot more and would have a certain level of slippage anyway from smuggling or running it. While perhaps Alexandria would be very easy to block, as there is no direct sea route, rather a sea-land-sea connection. So before the Ottomans take Egypt, the Mamluks would only be taxing trade that flows past them and onto Italy. But when they take it, they can block the Italians, representing the historical cutting off of the Silk Road.

Blocking the trade would have to be less profitable (and more provoking to everybody) then simply taxing it. But it would still be useful to lose maybe a few ducats if your foe ends up losing ten ducats for example.

 

[Entrone]

Well, the entire trade system needs to be changed.

But as long as Trade nodes are kept, maybe keep the Ragusa node but make it smaller. Naples's and Papal State's section of Venice node, Albania, Ragusa and the eastern Adriatic. The trade provinces would be Ragusa, Bari, Ancona and one of Venice's provinces. Likely Dalmatia.

Then make the inland node as suggested.

Thanks for your thoughts

Well, the initial idea to update trade nodes came, because I felt like, while Ragusa was of course an important town, it just wasn't as impactful as Venice. Venice was among the worlds 10 biggest cities for a long time of the game, waging war against great powers, while Ragusa became a de facto vassal pretty soon. And I don't think the Adriatic is big enough right now to have 2 different trade nodes.
And if Ragusa can have a trade node, then why, lets say, Lisbon can't? I think that city would deserve it more, and Seville is pretty big. Strategically it's cool now, but I can imagine a Lisbon node to transfer trade power rather northward to Bordeaux and English channel, than eastward to Seville, if the played decides to do so.

(Also, how would exactly removing the ragusan node would decrease their impact? They barely have any even right now. This could be changed with better ideas, and they could build their Trade League to be quite decent, stronger than they were historically)

Genoa would need to be dramatically made smaller. A Southern Italy (Western Naples and Papal States, Sicily, Northern African Coastline in Tunis ), Aragon (Coastal Aragon and Coastal Mediterranian Safi) and Provence (Southern France and parts of Italy like Savoy) could be carved out of it, and be nodes that feed into it.

I think France ought to have an inland end node in Champagne, while Spain would get one in inland Castille+Aragon. I could see the argument for the Ottomans getting one in Constantinople, as long as the trade could flow past it within stopping in the node. Which I will elaborate on below. And be made smaller, since it is much too big.

I agree on Genoa, I carved out that Southern Italy, nearly exactly the same that you mentioned, with the addition of Tripolitania. While Naples was far the most important city, the center could also be on Palermo, Sicily.
I would leave the rest inside the Genoa node, as now it would be just right in size.

But regarding end nodes, I totally disagree. At early staged Venice and Genoa were unquestionably the most important trading centers, while at later stages the La Manche Channel became more important with Netherlands, England and Northern France. Neither Spain nor southern France was such a typical end node, as they lacked the strong manufacturing industry that was prevalent in Flanders and Northern Italy back then. Not to mention Constantinople. One of the main reasons why that city became so important is it's strategical position, as east-west trade happened mostly through it. The Ottomand started taxing goods passing by, it was one of the reason why western european turned towards the oceans to find new routes. I cut the latter down to size though.

One idea is that trade nodes would have far more connections, but control of a gap could allow a controlling power to close it. For example, Crimea could have a connection straight to Genoa, Venice, Southern Italy and Ragusa. BUT this connection could be closed if a power controls the Turkish Straits (Dardanelles, and the Bosphorus) or taxed (with part of the tax value automatically being collected by the controlling power even if they aren't collecting in the node). There can also be exemptions, like the Ottomans allowing a friendly Ragusa to trade through it except a tax collection but blocking a hostile Venice and Genoa.

While it's a good idea to represent the straits in a bit more interesting and interactive way, with permissions and special taxes, I find 'straight connections' between let's say Genoa and Crimea just ridiculous, completely nonsense. How would that exactly happen? They either have to pass the straits, or choose (inland) big river nodes, which s longer and more difficult, so no wonder they historically opted to trade through the sea.

Powers could break the tolls or blockage by seizing provinces or inflicting particular War goals. Maybe even add a mechanic to force free trade through, like the Copenhagen Convention peacefully if enough powers gang up on the offender.

Tolls or Blockading the trade could require certain fort levels or ships assigned to the duty, and depend on the difficulty of enforcing it. So the Ottomans wouldn't need much to enforce the toll, because of the short distance they are covering. But doing the same to the Adriatic would require a lot more and would have a certain level of slippage anyway from smuggling or running it. While perhaps Alexandria would be very easy to block, as there is no direct sea route, rather a sea-land-sea connection. So before the Ottomans take Egypt, the Mamluks would only be taxing trade that flows past them and onto Italy. But when they take it, they can block the Italians, representing the historical cutting off of the Silk Road.

Blocking the trade would have to be less profitable (and more provoking to everybody) then simply taxing it. But it would still be useful to lose maybe a few ducats if your foe ends up losing ten ducats for example.

Now these are good ideas, an option when making peace, to force free trade/end sound toll sounds good. The blocking mechanic could be integrated to the embargo mechanic, which is also a pretty weak option, with rather diplomatic consequences.

 

[Entrone]

So there's a sketch of my ideas. I found an older map that doesen't have arrows, so I used it, and vaguely outlined a few provinces added since, just to make province density more visible, as some areas got severely buffed.
So there's the map:

As I mentioned, I completely divided the Ragusa node between Venice (adriatic part), Constantinople (greek part), and the Lower Danube node in it's place (inland parts). Wien could be renamed Upper Danube. It became such an important city only later.
Other spectacular change is the addition of Central Mediterranean/Naples node. While Sicily is positioned more centrally, Naples was one of the biggest cities back then, rivaling Venice, Paris, Constantinople. Even for that they would deserve a bit more attention, but the main reason behind it is the need for a 'transitional' node between Alexandria and Constantinople on the east and Genoa (and probably also Venice) on the west. There trade powers can wrestle to transfer trade towards their direction.
(Edit: with the upcoming Europa-patch some of these areas may see a bunch of new provinces. I would enlist Croatia, Bosnia, Dalmatia, Rascia and Albania, maybe Northern Greece states to Ragusa, but even after the update I think it would feel small and weak, especially compared to it's neighbours.)

Smaller changes include changing the so called Safi node (which I find nearly useless, and safi wasn't such a big center), into a trans-saharan node, reflecting trade from the Niger river, through Timbuktu towards Europe. Adding the whole moroccan coast to Seville is not necessary, there's room for other new nodes, I would pick Lisbon (with Portugal, Northern Spain, Macaronesia), or a strenghtened moroccan node between Timbuktu and Seville, if it's necessary.

Thoughts?

 

[fr-rein]

Crimea-Danube active river trade is not something that happened historically or was a huge factor, at least until after Southern Ukraine and Odesa became relevant.
The only trade that happeneed there was Moldavia-Transylvania via Brashov(?) city, but even then it was a local trade and barely justifies a huge trade flow into Danebe trade node.

A very good suggestion otherwise, no wonder that it probably influenced developers in making Pest trade node.

 

[Entrone]

Crimea-Danube active river trade is not something that happened historically or was a huge factor, at least until after Southern Ukraine and Odesa became relevant.
The only trade that happeneed there was Moldavia-Transylvania via Brashov(?) city, but even then it was a local trade and barely justifies a huge trade flow into Danebe trade node.

A very good suggestion otherwise, no wonder that it probably influenced developers in making Pest trade node.

The chance was there for the trade to flow, as it did sometimes in history. That in Eu4's timeline this region was heavily contested doesen't mean there were no connections or something. They were just more troubled.
My main reason to make this thread was to change the Ragusa trade node, which I think doesen't make sense. I'm glad they've added Pest, but imo it corresponds too much to country borders. For example Moravia state could go to Wien node, so not every bohemian province is in the same node.
Also I'd like to redesigne Wien and Pest into Lower and Upper Danube, possibly with the complete reshuffling of the Ragusan node to the surrounding ones.

 

[fr-rein]

The chance was there for the trade to flow, as it did sometimes in history. That in Eu4's timeline this region was heavily contested doesen't mean there were no connections or something. They were just more troubled.

There was, but the problem is that the very logic of Black Sea trade for millenias was about arriving to Constantinople and only after it go to the other trade ports. Georgia didn't trade with Pest. Crimea didn't go there directly.

Did Crimean ships sail to Wallachia? No.
Did they sail to Pest? No.
Was there an overland route from Crimea to Transylvania & Pest? No.
At best they sailed to Constanza, and this pretty much means that they still went to the Constantinople trade node - meaning a classic Crimea-Constantinople-Pest link.

So in the current configuration, this trade node makes no sense. If it included "Eastern Balkans" and was with Silistria and Moldova it would be plausible, but in this configuration it isn't just an overstretch but a simple history disregard.

My main reason to make this thread was to change the Ragusa trade node, which I think doesen't make sense.

I can agree, but in your case you heavily warp Pest trade node. Do you realize that now a significant chunk of Crimea trade will be always passing Constantinople and ahistorically flow into Pest directly regardless of circumstances? And that is all overland as control of Silistria wouldn't even matter - so who cares if Danube Delta or ports there could be used?

 

[DanubianCossak]

I would just like to point out that prior to modern times and certain dams being built, terrain adjusted and channels constructed, sailing from the Black Sea into Danube toward Belgrade was difficult overall, and impossible for any large ships until 19th century because of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Gates

It was possible, but it wasnt something you would do for massive amount of trading, youd only do it if you absolutely had to.

 

[fr-rein]

I would just like to point out that prior to modern times and certain dams being built, terrain adjusted and channels constructed, sailing from the Black Sea into Danube toward Belgrade was difficult overall, and impossible for any large ships until 19th century because of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Gates

It was possible, but it wasnt something you would do for massive amount of trading, youd only do it if you absolutely had to.

Not to mention Danube Delta, which made ship navigation much harder. And even given that we can see that Crimea didn't trade with Wallachia in any direct way like trade route suggests.

 

[BalticM]

I'm experimenting with trade nodes, and at this moment my Europe looks like this:

Danube-Carpathian area is still one of the areas where I cannot make my mind.

One problem here is that province density is well below the level of surrounding regions and it will be even more so after next update..
Hungary deserves like 10-20 provinces more.
Wallachia should be split into Greater & Lesser Wallachia at very least with some 8 provinces in total.
Moldavia into Bessarabia & Moldavia with some 8 provinces in total.
Bulgaria into 3 states of Bulgaria, Silistra-Dobruja & Northern Thrace with some 12 provinces in total.
I divided Danube basin area with that in mind already.

Second problem is that it's very difficult to pick correct trade nodes for Wallachia & Moldavia, those just don't seem right in any of trade nodes I try to fit in.

Anyway for Danube I have this:

Wien (Upper Danube)

• Austria-Slovenia
• Bavaria
• Swabia
• Moravia

Pest (Middle Danube north of Drava)

• Hungary-Slovakia
• Transylvania

Beograd (Middle Danube south of Drava & Lower Danube)

• Slavonia (can be moved to Pest node if desired)
• Bosnia
• Serbia
• Northern Macedonia
  
• Wallachia
• Moldavia
• Bulgaria (Danube valley area)

On bright side I am extremely satisfied with my rework on Novgorod & Oka trade nodes. White sea trade node is just of no use today and Novgorod is much much richer early on in my setup.

Some MUST BE connections I think:

1. Seville -> Bordeaux
2. Safi -> Tunis (Tunis is African end destination of Saharan trade routes, no connection between Safi & Tunis is weird)
3. Persia -> Astrakhan

Non-sense connection in game:

1. Tunis -> Seville (neither historical, neither logical, neither makes Seville more rich, can't understand this one at all. Should be removed I think)