Absolutely, those claims are sadly missing, especially the West Banat one which was highly contentious with Hungary and apparently almost resulted in a war between the two hence why Hungarians only took the in-game state of Vodjvodina and Germany administered West Banat with the rest of Serbia. West Banat at the time had a Romanian minority, though they weren't super small, the closest demographic to start date, 1931, shows the Romanian population being 10.65% and the next one, 1948, shows 9.25%. So you could argue they might be able to get a core on West Banat after doing some later focus on Romanianization of the state. It would be hard to justify Romania getting cores on Alfold or Carpathian Ruthenia though, both had a Romanian minority but they were extremely small and it would take decades and some horrible actions to successfully Romanianize both states. If you're interested in reading about the West Banat issue in WWII between Romania and Hungary, I recommend this little piece of a paper, it's quite interesting and further proves that the common belief of the Axis being a big friendship alliance of fascist and authoritarian/totalitarian leaders to be completely wrong, and in fact, many times were against each other.
I find 10% of the population being too small for a core. With a core, you get 100% of manpower. This could work if you have a population of at least >30% of your population, and even that is a stretch, as you have 70% of people who are opposed to your rule but you get 100% of manpower and no ressistance. There could be a Romanianization decision or focus, but to get the population from 10% to 50% in a few years would be way too over the top. Unless full cores, partial cores and minor cores are made, I believe West Banat is better off as a Romanian claim.
Most likely, however not to everything, it seems like a lack of research was done for Romania, many things are not portrayed well at all, though that is a common problem with pre-MtG focus trees. Claiming Transnistria is already in the focus tree, problem is that the dev team has this problem, and they continue it to this day, of making a focus of a claim on a certain area into a generic "Annex Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" wargoal. No claims or cores usually, just go annex an entire country over a claim that is the point of a focus.... Regarding the stance on Romania annexing Transnistria or no, that would be quite interesting and I was unaware of that so thank you for inforing me, this could be turned into a choice for the player/AI if going historical, Transnistria should be made into a puppet, representing the Governorate, after acquiring the land, similar to a Reichskommisariat, once the Soviet Union collapses, or maybe once they're close to it, Romania can have the choice of annexing them to fully use the land or using it to gain back lost land from Hungary, so a skilled Romania would be able to keep the Transylvanian land and annex Transnistria but if unable to you have the choice to expand east or return west.
The problem is that claiming Transnistria does not claim Transnistria. It only gives Romania a wargoal against USSR. Making it just as likely that Germany will take Transnistria in the peace deals. Good idea, it would work great as a puppet similar to a Reichskommisariat and then have the decision to either fully annex it or ask Germany if they want Transnistria in exchange from land lost to Hungary.
My main thing is that I like having historical regions be represented properly and Hotin in the Bessarabia region so to me it should stay in Bessarabia. I think I misunderstood your original map and line proposal so sorry if I'm confusing you here. Hotin is a Bessarabian town and was annexed by the Soviet Union and put into the Ukrainian SSR into the modern day Chernivtsi Oblast which still exists to this day as the old territory of Northern Bukovina and Northern Bessarabia. If you're confused with what I mean feel free to ask for clarification.
That is correct, Hotin was part of Bessarabia but was put into the Ukrainian SSR after the annexation. Similary to South Bessarabia.
I'm aware that the Soviet Moldavia is not actually Moldavia itself, both the full and proper versions, I'm just calling it Moldavia since that's what its name was. This is why I hate that Moldavia (Moldova in-game, I don't know why since it wasn't called that....) was added several patches ago, especially straight away at start. Moldavia should not be releaseable until after the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, and while my previous point says I believe that Hotin should stay in Bessarabia which would create ahistorical borders in the result of a Soviet break up, I would argue that a Soviet rework is ahistorical so perfect post-Cold War national borders aren't guaranteed and while are nice to have, shouldn't be guaranteed. Regarding Moldavian cores at start, I hate that it's a thing and think it should be removed, Moldavia should not get cores until after the Soviet occupation, on top of that, the Ukrainian cores need to go, there was only one county in Southern Bessarabia that had a significant Ukrainian population and it was still a minority, in fact it only made up roughly 20% of the population for that county alone, the other three Southern Bessarabian counties did not have anything close to 20%. I would make it possible for after Romania fully reintegrates Bessarabia, basically win the war against the Soviets, that the Moldavian cores be removed. However, when Moldavia's cores are spawned they should get cores on the full version of Moldavia, so Moldavia proper, Northern Bessarabia, Southern Bessarabia, North Bukovina (Renamed Bukovina) and Southern Bukovina (Your new state) states in my opinion, making it possible for someone to use them as a small puppet to take more land from Romania and feed to their Moldavian puppet. Now on the topic of regional cores and a break up of Romania, I am conflicted on this but we could maybe add Wallachia and Transylvania cores, making Romania fragile and ripe for a breakup if someone else takes them down, I'm mostly thinking this since we have Moldavia and Transylvania was confirmed recently, may as well add the last one, Wallachia, has a possible small tag. I would make Wallachia have Muntenia, Oltenia, Northern Dobruja (New state) and Southern Dobruja (Renamed current Dobruja state), and Transylvania would have Northern Transylvania, Transylvania, Crisana and Banat.
I would argue that post-Cold War national borders could be interesting. A player may wish to expand that way and start World War III. I personally did so several times. There are of course mods for this, but mods also have extra features that I would rather not have.
I also discussed that previously:
I believe the only reason Southern Bessarabia was made into an Ukrainian core is because it's today part of Ukraine, which is an absurd reasoning.
The break up of Romania into Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania makes sense but only if it comes from the outside, and the regions you suggest are correct. While the Romanians lived in different countries for centuries, they were more like the Italians and less like the Yugoslavs. There was nobody to claim
"We are Transylvanians, not Romanians" in the same way some people would claim
"We are Croats, not Yugoslavs" in Yugoslavia. Where as Yugoslavia was seen as a conglomeration of people, Romania was more like the same people who were separated after birth and now they reunited.
I'm still iffy on adding a Transnistria state, I see some use but it's still not needed in my opinion, guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Regarding Hotin once again, it's already in Bessarabia, I thought your original talk on it was to move it to Bukovina?
My original talk was presenting both version and letting the users/developers decide.
Absolutely agreed, it also should be called Moldavia and not Moldova, it wasn't called Moldova until after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and on top of that Moldova is just Moldavia but in Romanian, so fitting the time and region name, it should be Moldavia.
Some additional claims that could work, these would never be cores but for those who want an uber aggresive Romania then you could add claims:
- The three northern Bulgarian states, effectively pushing the border back to protect the capital from Bulgarian aggression!
- Stanislawow and if you split Lwow into two states, a north and south, you could add the south, this is just border smoothing because if we take Transnistria, West Banat, Carpathian Ruthenia, Alfold and the proposed Khmelnytskyi it would be hideous in the north, also pushes the Romanian border to the edges of the Dniester which was claimed like you said
That would work better as a formable nation: Kingdom of Dacia.
The darker orange is the core Dacian heartland and the lighter orange are the regions they expanded to throught the centuries.
It includes as cores:
- 2/3 Transnistria regions
- The Polish region above Northern Transylvania.
- West Banat, Alfold or Carpathian Ruthenia.
It gains as claims:
- Central Hungary
- The 1/3 left region of Transnistria
- One more upper Polish region.
- Vojvodina and the 2 big regions of Serbia
- The 3 top regions of Bulgaria.
- Dobruja is already a Romanian core, they were Greek colonies back then.
- Czechoslovakia
This is obviously very unrealistic. But so if Byzantium and Holy Roman Empire. It's a just for fun formable nation.
steamcommunity.com
