Map changes in westhern europe

[NaiveCarto]

Population seems more important for provinces and going by this, Egypt should not be much weaker than Anatolia (5 million compared to 7 million).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1000

Though I think the most important thing would be to have provinces better reflecting the shape of the Nile, as we see in EU4.

Abbasids (Iraq) have a population of 1.2 million, which is a quarter of what Egypt has. Though I'm not saying we shouldn't have more provinces in Iraq (and compared to how many there are now in Palestine, perhaps we should) - I just think that Egypt is in a worse state at the moment.

When Abbasid controlled Al-Sawad, it had lost controlled of Al-Misr and Alexandria( in fact Abbasid has loose control of land west to Iraq) , this is what I have studied from Abbasid geographic books.
Population is most important...I agree with it with my two hands raised, I can not stand these men in EU4 forum said "Population dosent means development".
The popultion of Iraq seems too small to let me believe it, this need a reversion or something bad caused by chaos before.

I found the population of Abbasid only include Baghdad city,a city with 1200k pop in 1000.....

 

[C4st1gator]

There are a lot of changes for the better in the Holy Roman Empire.

• Köln, Mainz and Trier finally in their correct position? (As well as you can fit Trier) Wonderful!
• Berg is there, which is a pleasant surprise.
• Nassau seems gone, but it might be for the Better, as the Kaiserstadt Fritzlar has made an appearance. Will Karl der Große be the holder of this title in 769?
• Aschaffenburg and Frankfurt make an appearance.
  
• A lot of new territories in Brandenburg. Lausitz has been moved into de jure Brandenburg?
  
• A wild Görlitz appears on the map. It changed hands often throughout its history.
  
• Worms, Trier, Kempten, Augsburg, who is the oldest city in germany?
• Ostfriesland has been doing some stretching. Will that affect its de jure kingdom?

All in all the province borders look much better. I guess the overall number of holdings will stay largely the same, with some new free holding slots, that allow a rich player to reenact the population growth in the 13th century.

Cultural Name Suggestions:
Liege(Français)/Lüttich(Deutsch)/Luik(Nederlands) make it a prince bishopric?
Olomuoc(Češki)/Olmütz(Deutsch)

 

[Spartanlemur]

When Abbasid controlled Al-Sawad, it had lost controlled of Al-Misr and Alexandria( in fact Abbasid has loose control of land west to Iraq) , this is what I have studied from Abbasid geographic books.
Population is most important...I agree with it with my two hands raised, I can not stand these men in EU4 forum said "Population dosent means development".
The popultion of Iraq seems too small to let me believe it, this need a reversion or something bad caused by chaos before.

I found the population of Abbasid only include Baghdad city,a city with 1200k pop in 1000.....

I think you might be right about Baghdad (I assumed it was an administrative region, but checking the source, it likely just refers to the city itself).

Population does seem the most important thing, because it's the basis of everything else.

This is partly comparing incomparable. Iraq at that time was under a period of turmoil, while Egypt was just after entering the peak of its power.

While Fatimid conquest of Egypt was one single successfull operation, Iraq during Buyid period was full of various wars, raids and other instability. Still I think the 1.2 million estimate is little too small.

Your assumption is correct though, since after the 10th century Egypt was more stable than Iraq, which was already behind its best times.

However, Egypt as it is in game is quite powerfull even now. Although it is mostly due to the Mamluk mercenary band being Egypt's vasal.
I also agree that Egypt would deserve some nice adjustment, but not a drastic power-rise.

Ireland currently has 19 provinces, and Egypt has 18.

If we look at Egypt's modern population, wee can gather a rough idea as to just how many people the territory can support relative to its neighbours (possibly useful for looking at relative province potential, which is total number of potential holdings).

It's hard to say how powerful it should be, but I think it's reasonable to say it should be larger than it is now, if not much more powerful. We should remember that with the increase in European province counts, crusaders are probably going to be stronger.

 

[Serenity84]

Egypt is already very strong due to the Mamluks. That compensates for any deficiency in territory. Though giving it more holdings is a better solution than a mercenary company many people overlook

 

[Spartanlemur]

Egypt is already very strong due to the Mamluks. That compensates for any deficiency in territory. Though giving it more holdings is a better solution than a mercenary company many people overlook

But if you're not a Mamluk, and want to form, say, a Coptic Egypt, you're going to have a tough time of it, and will have to expand somewhere else to build strength.

Or if you conquer Egypt on a crusade and form a Christian kingdom there, you're going to be weaker than you should be. If whatever caliphate rules Egypt needs to be weakened, it'd be better to just weaken the Mamluk mercenaries.

Alternatively, the number of holdings in Egyptian provinces could be cut, allowing Egypt to become strong if people wish to make it so.

There was a thread discussing the problems of the Mamluks two years ago, and perhaps the ideas there should be taken on-board (nerf them, make them more realistically volatile, or nerf them until they are made more realistically volatile).

Egypt should not suffer because of an OP mercenary company.

Though as it stands, the Byzantine Emperor is becoming stronger from more provinces (Christian crusaders too), so I don't really see why it would be so bad that the Abbasids grow in strength to match. It's not as though new provinces need to have six holdings each

 

[caledonsteve9]

As someone from Scotland who likes to play there as well, I do wonder why Skye is not a seperate province from the outer hebrides as historically it was consistently changing hands, also is there a chance that you could do something similar as Ck2+ map of North Scotland where Ross and Caithness are divided to include Cromarty and Sutherland.

 

[elvain]

Population does seem the most important thing, because it's the basis of everything else.

It is the most important, but we should take into consideration also other things. In order not to repeat myself, you can check my signature and read my analysis about how various countries especially in the muslim world are misrepresented, or click here: What went wrong with CK2 Islam

Ireland currently has 19 provinces, and Egypt has 18.

If we look at Egypt's modern population, wee can gather a rough idea as to just how many people the territory can support relative to its neighbours (possibly useful for looking at relative province potential, which is total number of potential holdings).

It's hard to say how powerful it should be, but I think it's reasonable to say it should be larger than it is now, if not much more powerful. We should remember that with the increase in European province counts, crusaders are probably going to be stronger.

First of all you should note that number of provinces does not represent population. It shows the level of atomisation of the land. There is total number of holdings what represents power, not number of provinces.

Egypt has always been one of the most centralized countries in the world. It indeed makes sense to have much fewer provinces than other countries in order to allow its rulers to hold the land by themselves. Egypt can easily have fewer provinces than Ireland, but more than twice the holdings and due to other game's parameters more than 3-4 times larger levies than Ireland (even without Mamluks as vasalized mercenaries). So plain province count means nothing.

 

[elvain]

But if you're not a Mamluk, and want to form, say, a Coptic Egypt, you're going to have a tough time of it, and will have to expand somewhere else to build strength.

Or if you conquer Egypt on a crusade and form a Christian kingdom there, you're going to be weaker than you should be. If whatever caliphate rules Egypt needs to be weakened, it'd be better to just weaken the Mamluk mercenaries.

Alternatively, the number of holdings in Egyptian provinces could be cut, allowing Egypt to become strong if people wish to make it so.

There was a thread discussing the problems of the Mamluks two years ago, and perhaps the ideas there should be taken on-board (nerf them, make them more realistically volatile, or nerf them until they are made more realistically volatile).

Egypt should not suffer because of an OP mercenary company.

Though as it stands, the Byzantine Emperor is becoming stronger from more provinces (Christian crusaders too), so I don't really see why it would be so bad that the Abbasids grow in strength to match. It's not as though new provinces need to have six holdings each

As I said in my previous post, and as I've been saying for at least 2 years, you're of course right that Egypt, nor any other muslim country should suffer for its misrepresentation in this game. The overpowered mercenary companies are only a tool to balance it without too much work and it causes serious downsides elswhere, just as you describe (Egypt controlled by non-muslims is substantialy weaker than it should really be).

But adding many more provinces will not really help, because the country needs to be kept centralized. The fact that its population throughout various times was peaking between 6.5 - 5.5 millions shows us the true limits of pre-modern economy. We can't really take modern figures as potential for medieval or any other pre-modern period. That said Egypt in 11th century was almost at its full potential and I believe the game should reflect it by having most of its holdings built up (OTOH for gameplay reasons and the unused potential I think 1 holding should remain unbuilt in each of Egypt's provinces, but not more than one).

I think that the total number of provinces should not be dramatically increased, but all provinces in Lower Egypt should have 6 holdings and Cairo and Alexandria 7 and at the same time the game should totally rework the relation between muslim countries' population and military power.
We should keep in mind that unlike in feudal Europe muslim empires didn't raise their armies from local populations. Their military power was mainly based on tribal armies and slave-mercenary armies. The territories like Egypt or Iraq were not military, but economic powerbases. The desert or semi-desert regions like Arabia, Syrian desert, Maghreb or Turkestan provided much stronger military power than areas like Ifrikiya, Egypt or Syria. Making them military powerbases would only distort the reality even more.

EDIT: For instance I'm thinking about the need to re-work also territories like Persia, although it was already reworked with previous DLC. But now since all surrounding regions are receiving substantial boosts, Persia/Middle East update might get outdated

 

[Voy]

-snip-

Maybe they should utilise the centralisation laws more by adding some higher levels to Egypt's title history? I feel like that's barely used at all in the database.

 

[Spartanlemur]

It is the most important, but we should take into consideration also other things. In order not to repeat myself, you can check my signature and read my analysis about how various countries especially in the muslim world are misrepresented, or click here: What went wrong with CK2 Islam

Good suggestions.

I agree with you about Egypt - the thing that I dislike most about it is how it seems to have a handful of large provinces which don't properly follow the Nile.

First of all you should note that number of provinces does not represent population. It shows the level of atomisation of the land. There is total number of holdings what represents power, not number of provinces.

Egypt has always been one of the most centralized countries in the world. It indeed makes sense to have much fewer provinces than other countries in order to allow its rulers to hold the land by themselves. Egypt can easily have fewer provinces than Ireland, but more than twice the holdings and due to other game's parameters more than 3-4 times larger levies than Ireland (even without Mamluks as vasalized mercenaries). So plain province count means nothing.

The number of provinces is linked to population, with holding size being the more accurate indicator (and where cities are Constantinople-sized, they're split across multiple provinces).

It's not true that Egypt has always been centralised (though it has through most of its history), and it was the natural dispersal of power along the Nile that likely led to the downfall of the Old Kingdom, as the level of administration required to keep up with economic growth empowered local leaders.

It has been more centralised than most other places, owing to the region's basis in the Nile river, but this does not mean that it didn't require or allow for (because single rulers can hold multiple provinces in CK2) more local administration.

 

[MBlanz]

Sadly lake constance is still not connected to the rhine :-(

 

[Ksiendzu]

Can anyone put this map on modern boundaries? I can not do it, and I'm very curious about the effect. Especially where Kyrgyzstan is.

 

[LesMiz]

Here ya go.

View attachment 399535

But why Saarbrucken instead of Pfalz? Maybe it's in there now that Nassau's gone? But it'd be so awkward to see "Counts of Saarbrucken" while there are neither "Counts of Nassau" nor "Counts of Pfalz" in-game... Actually, the new province of Fritzlar (or rather, the changed province of Fritzlar from Nassau) is also quite a surprise. I understand that it had connections with early Frankish and German kings, but what roles did Fritzlar play in actual history? I personally think that historical names of (more famous) states such as Pfalz or Nassau/Hesse(n) are more meaningful than Saarbrucken or Fritzlar, regarding provinces. Saarbrucken and such could be holding names.

 

[Thure]

Sadly lake constance is still not connected to the rhine :-(

It is. By rivers. The Vikings wouldn't be able to sail all the way to Lake Constance. That would be hilarious.

But why Saarbrucken instead of Pfalz? Maybe it's in there now that Nassau's gone? But it'd be so awkward to see "Counts of Saarbrucken" while there are neither "Counts of Nassau" nor "Counts of Pfalz" in-game... Actually, the new province of Fritzlar (or rather, the changed province of Fritzlar from Nassau) is also quite a surprise. I understand that it had connections with early Frankish and German kings, but what roles did Fritzlar play in actual history? I personally think that historical names of (more famous) states such as Pfalz or Nassau/Hesse(n) are more meaningful than Saarbrucken or Fritzlar, regarding provinces. Saarbrucken and such could be holding names.

There was no 'Counts of Pfalz'. 'Pfalz' is just a title like 'Kingdom'. It was the 'Pfalz bei Rhein' or 'Palatinate by Rhine'.

 

[Pbhuh]

But why Saarbrucken instead of Pfalz? Maybe it's in there now that Nassau's gone? But it'd be so awkward to see "Counts of Saarbrucken" while there are neither "Counts of Nassau" nor "Counts of Pfalz" in-game... Actually, the new province of Fritzlar (or rather, the changed province of Fritzlar from Nassau) is also quite a surprise. I understand that it had connections with early Frankish and German kings, but what roles did Fritzlar play in actual history? I personally think that historical names of (more famous) states such as Pfalz or Nassau/Hesse(n) are more meaningful than Saarbrucken or Fritzlar, regarding provinces. Saarbrucken and such could be holding names.

Large provinces such as pfalz got split. It is now Mainz, Saarbrucken and another one. Same with Brandenburg, also now 3.

 

[LesMiz]

There was no 'Counts of Pfalz'. 'Pfalz' is just a title like 'Kingdom'. It was the 'Pfalz bei Rhein' or 'Palatinate by Rhine'.

I know, but that's how the game system depicts it.

 

[neutrondecay]

There are a lot of changes for the better in the Holy Roman Empire.

• Köln, Mainz and Trier finally in their correct position? (As well as you can fit Trier) Wonderful!
• Berg is there, which is a pleasant surprise.
• Nassau seems gone, but it might be for the Better, as the Kaiserstadt Fritzlar has made an appearance. Will Karl der Große be the holder of this title in 769?
• Aschaffenburg and Frankfurt make an appearance.
  
• A lot of new territories in Brandenburg. Lausitz has been moved into de jure Brandenburg?
  
• A wild Görlitz appears on the map. It changed hands often throughout its history.
  
• Worms, Trier, Kempten, Augsburg, who is the oldest city in germany?
• Ostfriesland has been doing some stretching. Will that affect its de jure kingdom?

All in all the province borders look much better. I guess the overall number of holdings will stay largely the same, with some new free holding slots, that allow a rich player to reenact the population growth in the 13th century.

Cultural Name Suggestions:
Liege(Français)/Lüttich(Deutsch)/Luik(Nederlands) make it a prince bishopric?
Olomuoc(Češki)/Olmütz(Deutsch)

It's looking good. A few things I'd like to see:

• Liege to be a Prince-Abbacy as a custom title.
• Just as we now have the three electoral sees of Mainz, Trier and Köln, They should rearrange the NW end of the County of Lorraine and the neighbouring provinces to make room for the Prince-Bishopric of Toul, to go with Metz and Verdun.
• The County of Mark should be separated from Berg.
• The Counts Palatine should have their correct titles and county names instead of being Counts of Pfalz (or of other places without the 'Palatine' qualifier).

Although many of these distinctions were especially important in the Reformation and the Early Modern period, most if not all of them first appeared within the CK2 era.

nd

 

[BurnBird]

It is. By rivers. The Vikings wouldn't be able to sail all the way to Lake Constance. That would be hilarious.

Yes, totally connected by rivers

 

[Thure]

View attachment 399825

Yes, totally connected by rivers

Ah... that's what you meant. Yes that should be changed.

 

[Wenceslaus II.]

There was no 'Counts of Pfalz'. 'Pfalz' is just a title like 'Kingdom'. It was the 'Pfalz bei Rhein' or 'Palatinate by Rhine'.

Except for Oberpfalz.