Map modification(South-Central Europe)

[unmerged(27913)]

I like short names ^_^

Montenegro and Herzegovina are difficult names to put in provinces like these -- especially when Herzegovina's size has been reduced.

This is, of course, strictly speaking from an artist's perspective and not a historian's, of course.

Montenegro in Slavonic would be Crna Gora so it would fit.
But ok...Hum and Zeta....I don't have objections, I just wanted provinces to have more modern sound to it....after all this game goes up to 1820s.

Btw. what about other provinces having native names? I mean if we can have German, Italian, Russia, etc...names we can have native names for these proinces as well.

Hmm . . . Not so sure about that.

The Adriatic should stay as is. Throughout much of EU2, Istria & Dalmatia & Ragusa were in Italianate hands. At any rate, a case could be made that the natives on the coast were primarily Illyro-Roman rather than Slav.

For Istria I agree to some point, for Dalmatia I don't. Istria had rather fair "ammount" of Italians living there(some 30%) so I don't mind Istria having Italian-English name but as said there was more than 50% Croats there and some 10% Slovnes so I think it should still have it's slavonic name. Dalmatia was even more Slavonic. It should definately have Slavonic name.

And btw. Illyro-Roman natives are still living on the coast...it's just that they speak Croatian.

Carniola/Kranjska, I'm rather indifferent, although I'd lean towards Krain for size, simplicity & relative neutrality.

P.S. -- Very, very pretty maps! Congrats Xie!

Actually I think that would be fine. Carniola was anyway for that whole part under German rule, still as I said it had absolute majority of Slavonic populations(Slovenes) and I think that because of that it deserves to be called by it's native(Slovenian) name - Kranjska.

Rythin I think thats a bit too many provinces there in Poland. I know POland is big country but still provinces should be a bit bigger. Prussia and the upper two provinces on the Baltic/North Sea are fine. 2, 6 and 14 should be united into Wielkopolska/Posen province.
Province 15 should be divided(somewhere around the middle) between Mazowia and Malopolska which I think should be renamed to Cracow/Krakow.

bluelotus thats and interesting map. It will certainly help. I need to look at some old Austro-Hungarian maps and then I'll try to come up with something.

Btw. I noticed that Austria-Tyrol region needs a bit of revision as well.
Ostmarch should IMO be divided with one part(east going to Austria) and the west becoming a separate province plus some small part of Salzburg province.
Salzburg would instead get some part of Tyrol on the east.
The modified Ostmarch and Austria provnces would become Lower and Upper Austria.

Or maybe the better would be just to merge Ostmarch with Austria, ater all Ostmarch is a bit stupid since Austria was Ostmarch so when we look at it we have two East Marks which is ridiculous. Tyrol definately needs some revision though since it's too big IMO.

 

[Rythin]

Rythin I think thats a bit too many provinces there in Poland. I know POland is big country but still provinces should be a bit bigger. Prussia and the upper two provinces on the Baltic/North Sea are fine. 2, 6 and 14 should be united into Wielkopolska/Posen province.
Province 15 should be divided(somewhere around the middle) between Mazowia and Malopolska which I think should be renamed to Cracow/Krakow.

And I have just heard there are too few provinces Uniting 2, 6 and 14 is impossible from gaming (mainly MP) point of view.

 

[bluelotus]

But Hungary we have in EU has pretty much different dimensions that one presented in the pic

Maybe this will be fine. BTW that was the regional map of Hungary , but if you want an another , i will give you the shire map of Hungary

 

[unmerged(27913)]

And I have just heard there are too few provinces Uniting 2, 6 and 14 is impossible from gaming (mainly MP) point of view.

In what way?
When I look at this map I see that Wielkopolska(Great Poland) region is too much to the south. I see that Little Poland/Krakow region is too small. I see Mazowia being too small as well.

If you are going to divide Poland like that no province should then have the name Wielkopolska and Malopolska...these regions were far bigger to be represented by some small almost tiny provinces in comparison.

 

[Twoflower]

Btw. I noticed that Austria-Tyrol region needs a bit of revision as well.
Ostmarch should IMO be divided with one part(east going to Austria) and the west becoming a separate province plus some small part of Salzburg province.
Salzburg would instead get some part of Tyrol on the east.
The modified Ostmarch and Austria provnces would become Lower and Upper Austria.

Or maybe the better would be just to merge Ostmarch with Austria, ater all Ostmarch is a bit stupid since Austria was Ostmarch so when we look at it we have two East Marks which is ridiculous. Tyrol definately needs some revision though since it's too big IMO.

The key to Austrian and Hungarian changes is correcting the flow of the Danube.
Austria's province could basically match today's federal states of Austria, as shown on this map:

I.e. we would have:

• Niederösterreich (Lower Austria), with the city of Wien; the province should be south of the Danube, which means that we need to make the Danube flow a bit more north (on the northern province border) than it actually does
• Oberösterreich (Upper Austria), with the city of Linz; the same is true here as for Niederösterreich, i.e. we should make the Danube flow north of the province
• Steiermark (Styria), with the city of Graz, just like on the map; if the river, the Mur, is added (e.g. as part of the Drava), it should flow south of the province
• Salzburg, with the city of Salzburg, like on the map (the visible "hole" in the northwest of the federal state was occupied by the independent ecclesiastic state of Berchtesgaden, that became part of Bavaria in 1810; it could be part of the Salzburg province to make it look "prettier")
• Kärnten (Carinthia), with the city of Klagenfurt, like on the map
• Tirol, with the city of Innsbruck, should of course include South Tyrol on the EU2, i.e. stretch further south; if the Inn river is included (which might be a good idea since it would protect Bavaria from Austrian invasion), it should flow north of the Tirol and Salzburg provinces
• Vorarlberg, with the city of Bregenz, is rather small and could as a EU2 province be expanded a bit at the expense of the big Württemberg and Tirol provinces; it is not urgently needed, but this way the large Tirol province is sized down a bit
• today's Burgenland province of course did not exist yet in the EU2 timespan, but was created only in 1920 when the German-speaking area on the west border of Hungary was given to Austria; it should not be an EU2 province as such. Distribution of the area needs to be discussed within the discussion on Hungarian provinces.

 

[Rythin]

In what way?

First of all, terrains that now belong to Lubusz Voivodship (Kustrin province in game terms) were German for many years and when you merge them with Poznan you will get huge uber blob that you won't know which country should own at the beginning of the scenarios (because half would be German and half Polish). Tax income is also an issue, because when you merge three (!) provinces into one, you steal lots of money from the country thus you make it more susceptible for invasions. Finally, like ryoken said, who is definately experienced mp player, these terrains are very often theatre of battles and the fewer provinces you do, the fewer strategical possibilities you will have there.

When I look at this map I see that Wielkopolska(Great Poland) region is too much to the south. I see that Little Poland/Krakow region is too small.

Yeah, that's right, I should extend Lesser Poland towards Great Poland a bit. However this discussion is somewhat not up-to-date, as we already agreed a new map should be done from the beginning, not basing on the existing one.

I see Mazowia being too small as well.

Can't agree. Well, of course it could be a bit larger in the north and east, but the differences are only pixels so they don't matter. Compare Mazovia to the Kustrin province, you will see they are almost the same in size - only recently due to new administrative partrition of Poland, so called 'Mazovia' changed to rather something big. Historically it is no bigger than any other province.

If you are going to divide Poland like that no province should then have the name Wielkopolska and Malopolska...these regions were far bigger to be represented by some small almost tiny provinces in comparison.

I am pretty sure you are wrong. Well, yeah, Lesser and Greater Poland were really big, but you can't ignore the existance of Sieradzkie or Radomskie, which are very often wrongly counted as Greater Poland. Notice that actual borders were never defined and those terrains penetrate each other. Like Kieleckie was said to be a part of Lesser Poland just as Piotrkowskie and Greater Poland. I think when naming provinces we should be compromise.

 

[Rythin]

Guys from eufi.org/agceep presented a bunch of great ideas in this thread.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

[*]Niederösterreich (Lower Austria), with the city of Wien; the province should be south of the Danube, which means that we need to make the Danube flow a bit more north (on the northern province border) than it actually does
[*]Oberösterreich (Upper Austria), with the city of Linz; the same is true here as for Niederösterreich, i.e. we should make the Danube flow north of the province

As I said partitioning "Ostmarch" into two parts with eastern going to Austria and the West along with part of norhtern province "Salzburg" in the original we should get these two provinces. Of course Danbue needs to be moved on up on the current border of Ostmarch and Czech provinces.

[*]Steiermark (Styria), with the city of Graz, just like on the map; if the river, the Mur, is added (e.g. as part of the Drava), it should flow south of the province

Adding Mur or Mura is imposibble. Styria is already covered in this modificiation so I don't we should meddle with it.

[*]Salzburg, with the city of Salzburg, like on the map (the visible "hole" in the northwest of the federal state was occupied by the independent ecclesiastic state of Berchtesgaden, that became part of Bavaria in 1810; it could be part of the Salzburg province to make it look "prettier")

Slazburg should be modified in such way that it looses it's northern part while adding to it north-east part of Tyrol

[*]Kärnten (Carinthia), with the city of Klagenfurt, like on the map
[*]Tirol, with the city of Innsbruck, should of course include South Tyrol on the EU2, i.e. stretch further south; if the Inn river is included (which might be a good idea since it would protect Bavaria from Austrian invasion), it should flow north of the Tirol and Salzburg provinces

I am not sure if there is enough space for Carinthia.

[*]Vorarlberg, with the city of Bregenz, is rather small and could as a EU2 province be expanded a bit at the expense of the big Württemberg and Tirol provinces; it is not urgently needed, but this way the large Tirol province is sized down a bit

Voralberg as a province IMO is totally insignificant and was throuout history always associagted with Tyrol and other neighbouring provinces/duchies/counties.

I agree as well that Burgenland/Gradisce should not be in.

Rythin although I do not agree with you I am totally behind you. Btw. Poland-Baltics should have it's own thread. After all Poland is not in South-Central Europe.

 

[Hive]

I played around a bit with Greece. I'm not 100% happy about it yet, but have a look at it:

 

[Rythin]

If there's Lesbos, then I like it

 

[unmerged(27913)]

*ahem* Hive have you looked at the maps Xie made on my suggestions? Those Albanian-Epirus provinces don't look compatible with my propositions.

 

[Hive]

*ahem* Hive have you looked at the maps Xie made on my suggestions? Those Albanian-Epirus provinces don't look compatible with my propositions.

I never promised to make my maps compatible with anyone else's but my own.

I focused on Greece with this map, without taking anything else into consideration. Though Albania was really placed rather weird before...

 

[Underhand]

I played around a bit with Greece. I'm not 100% happy about it yet, but have a look at it:

*cracks knuckles* Finally, a bit of land I know a lot about

Looks decent. I like the addition of Epiros and Lesbos, but what are you going to do about the fact that Lesbos is so tiny? A city icon would likely entirely hide one of the islands.

On to the names. I like the choice of Attica. One would think that Thessaly would be a better choice as it's in the centre of the province and quite large, but it's a longer word and could easily be confused with Thessaloniki. Speaking of which, Thessaloniki and Adrianople are city names. Surely it would be better to go with province names here? Perhaps 'Macedon' or 'Macedonia' for Thessaloniki (whichever of the two is the area, rather than the ancient kingdom) and 'Gallipoli' for Adrianople, and expand the province into the Gallipoli peninsula? Renaming 'Ionia' to 'Euboea' I like.

One last thing: why Morea rather than Pelopponesus? I know that the original map also calls it that, I'm just curious. Is it because it's shorter?

 

[Hive]

Looks decent. I like the addition of Epiros and Lesbos, but what are you going to do about the fact that Lesbos is so tiny? A city icon would likely entirely hide one of the islands.

Just "decent"? Bah you.

My 'Lesbos' province is all 3 islands there (I can't remember the name of the two others, but I bet you can ) - so there's sort of a triangular area to put that stuff in. An alternative is artificially making the Lesbos island itself a bit larger, like is eg. done with Malta.

The reason why I made this province is to give Venice and Genoa more stuff to fight for. Genoa held these islands up untill sometime in the 16th century.

The Epiros province I made because, well, the current situation is rather wacked. It was an obvious choice imo.

On to the names. I like the choice of Attica. One would think that Thessaly would be a better choice as it's in the centre of the province and quite large, but it's a longer word and could easily be confused with Thessaloniki. Speaking of which, Thessaloniki and Adrianople are city names. Surely it would be better to go with province names here? Perhaps 'Macedon' or 'Macedonia' for Thessaloniki (whichever of the two is the area, rather than the ancient kingdom) and 'Gallipoli' for Adrianople, and expand the province into the Gallipoli peninsula?

Attica, I chose because Athens is the capial city of that province - and I do still plan to have the major city in that province being Athens. Simply as that.

I was considering to have a Macedonia province above Thessaloniki (I don't know too much about the area above Greece, so don't sue me if I'm off here ), so decided to "put a hold" on that name. But maybe you are right... which one is best, 'Macedon' or 'Macedonia'?

About Adrianople/Gallipoli, I don't really know anything about that province - and more or less "stole" it from CK.

I might also add that the 'Adrianople' province is the one I'm currently most unhappy with... could I justify making it flatter, like Thessaloniki, and make a Slavonic province out of the northern part of Thrace? Or am I off here?

Renaming 'Ionia' to 'Euboea' I like.

I have been craving for such a change. I considered 'Aegian Isles' first for this province and next for the Lesbos province, but scrapped it for being too long. How this 'Ionia' province ever ended up in the Aegian Sea in the first place is beyond me...

One last thing: why Morea rather than Pelopponesus? I know that the original map also calls it that, I'm just curious. Is it because it's shorter?

I never heard the name 'Pelopponesus' before, I must admit... but now that you mention it, I do think it's too long. I hope you can live with 'Morea'.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

if you want to rename Morea then rename it to Achaia.

btw. as I sadi before I think you should consult maps Xie made here in this very thread and do something with Albnian accordingly.
As I said northern part would be Dyrrachion(Durres) while the lower part would be Epirus. As it looks now it would cut in three provinces which is wrong.

 

[unmerged(10777)]

Hive,
Your map is a great improvement over the original; however, the choice of provincal names is rather off, as Underhand noticed above. Don't you think "Attica" is a bit...anachronistic? Hellas is far more appropriate, IMO--the region was the Theme of Hellas, if I'm not mistaken, during the Byzantine era, and it's a general label for the entire province, not just the Athenian portion. Still, I wouldn't really mind using that name. Also, "Adrianopolis" is VERY out of time here--the city was the Ottoman capital in 1419; therefore, I propose "Western Thrace" or simply "Thrace" and give your "Thrace" province the title of "Constantinople" (if it would fit). Also, the "Euboea" province could be renamed "Cyclades" (this was used in EU1, no?). "Peloponnisos" is the current and ancient appellation to that land (from "Pelop's Isle," right?), but I do believe "Morea" or "the Morea" was in common use throughout the period...and, yes, it is short. "Macedonia" is much more preferable to "Thessaloniki." I might be wrong, but we should settle the native/English name thing: I prefer the more accurate transliterations that reflect the way in which a Greek would pronounce the names (e.g., "Thrakia," "Attika," "Konstantinoupolis"), but most are more familiar with the Latin ones (e.g., "Thrace," "Attica," "Constantinople"). If one accepts Slavonic names as above, one should be able to cope with better Greek transliterations--as you yourself have done with "Epiros" rather than "Epirus."

 

[Underhand]

If you knew me, you'd be used to the fact that, coming from me, 'decent' and 'not bad' mean 'fairly good' Heh, even when explaining how I tone down praise, I tone down the praise

Yes, I can see how Genoa having a chunk of the Aegean would make things interesting.

The Epiros province I made because, well, the current situation is rather wacked. It was an obvious choice imo.

Indeed.

I see where you are coming from in using the name 'Attica' but it still looks a little odd to me. Attica is tiny. It is (erring on the generous side) one fifth of your province. Would there be justification to split it into two provinces, Attica and Thessaly? If you look at this map, in 1401 (you're doing this for your Age of Imperialism mod, so it's relevant ) in Attica there were 'Latin Powers'. In this map, however, it appears to belong to Venice in 1400. In both maps, what would be Thessaly is owned by the Ottomans. Personally I think it would look better, too.

Between Macedonia and Macedon, I must admit I'm not sure which is better. If forced to choose I would go with Macedonia, as I think that's the region, rather than the kingdom.

I would say you are justified in removing the northern part of Thrace. I am less sure about the 'Adrianople' province. It would probably be okay, as Greek culture was much stronger on the coast than inland. I had considered suggesting you name it 'Thrace', but couldn't think of anything to name the current Thrace province other than Constantinople. Naming the province after its capital city might not be so bad in this case, as Constantinople was an extremely important city, and the province really should just be the city and its surrounding area, but enlarged a bit to fit everything in.

if you want to rename Morea then rename it to Achaia.

Achaia is only part of the Peloponnesus, isn't it? Morea's fine if, as Sandolfon says, it was used throughout the period. And Underhand like short words

 

[unmerged(10777)]

I do like how Macedonia has been shortened--this leaves more room for a Slavonic province where the current F.Y.R.M. (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) exists; however, I have no idea what this province would be called in this time period. I believe Constantine XI's original title (before he became the Emperor) was "Despot of the Morea"--thus, Morea would be an accurate title, I suppose, for this period. Does anyone wish to confirm this?
EDIT: Yes, Achaia covers only a small bit of land in the province--Latin princes held the region till the Byzantines managed to absorb it into their own small holding in the region, If I'm remembering correctly.

 

[Underhand]

I prefer the more accurate transliterations that reflect the way in which a Greek would pronounce the names (e.g., "Thrakia," "Attika," "Konstantinoupolis"), but most are more familiar with the Latin ones (e.g., "Thrace," "Attica," "Constantinople"). If one accepts Slavonic names as above, one should be able to cope with better Greek transliterations--as you yourself have done with "Epiros" rather than "Epirus."

Konstantinoupolis? That's even longer than Constantinople. Other than that I'm inclined to agree with you on the local transliterations. They seem more elegant. A certain amount of discretion should be maintained though, to avoid silliness and/or ugliness.

However, as Terry Pratchett wrote, there are few problems that cannot be solved by a sufficiently large ego. Whatever advice and opinions we offer, Hive will have the final word, so we'll just have to trust him to be sensible. (We're watching you though, Hive, so you'd better not screw it up )

 

[unmerged(10777)]

Underhand,
Yes, we must make sure the name is correct and short--also, considering the Turks took Constantinople and made it their capital, one would want a more "neutral" term than the blatantly Greek "Konstantinoupolis." Well, if we want native transliterations..."Corfu" should be "Kerkyra," "Rhodes" should be "Rodhos," "Crete" should be "Kriti," "Cyprus" should be "Kypros," etc. Perhaps we should just stick with Latin/English usages to avoid confusion? From what I've read in the Western Europe thread, they seem to be having trouble with this problem, too.