I really really hope Egypt will have at least as many provinces as it did in EU3, from what I saw in the video, it did not.
We have not removed any provinces in that part of the world as far as I know.
Province & border correction and improvement thread.
- Thread starter unmerged(193360)
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
We have not removed any provinces in that part of the world as far as I know.
What do think of my ideas concerning the Scandinavian/Northern part of the map? (scroll down)
To keep the game-balance you could make Greenland a large terra-incognito province, thus freeing up one more province to be used in Southern Scandinavia as the new Göteborg/Älvsborg province. Greenland only had a few trading posts during the EU4 timeline.
Last edited:
Then maybe the island should be part of the Sjælland province instead, otherwise you cannot depict the borders correctly past 1660.
Btw. aren't the Åland Isles small and insignificant, as well?
Didn't the Åland Isles play a major part in the Great North War? Maybe that's why they're included separately.
Bornholm and Blekinge also played a major part in the Dano-Swedish War of 1658–60 (Danish: Anden Karl Gustav-krig, Swedish: Karl X Gustavs andra danska krig).
If Bornholm and Blekinge are parts of the Skåne-province, then the Åland Isles are an equally insignificant part of the Finland-province. Just, as Älvsborg in EU3 is an insignificant part of Västregötland, even though the Älvsborg/Göteborg-region played a major role in the Kalmar War (1611–1613).
If Bornholm and Blekinge are parts of the Skåne-province, then the Åland Isles are an equally insignificant part of the Finland-province. Just, as Älvsborg in EU3 is an insignificant part of Västregötland, even though the Älvsborg/Göteborg-region played a major role in the Kalmar War (1611–1613).
No, I don't live on Bornholm or in Blekinge. But I'm seeing the world from the opposite side of the Swedish view. When it comes to the importance of Isles and provinces in the many Dano-Swedish wars.
The Danes really wanted to cut Sweden away from the Kattegat. If the Danes had won a clear victory in the Kalmar War, then they would have demanded the Swedish coastline bordering Kattegat, incl the important Älvsborg Castle. However, the Danes could not hope to demand all of Västregötland.
I simply want to have more realistic historic borders in EU4.
Last edited:
I just watched the developer diary and saw Iberia still has no trees at all. Just as a reminder I will post this again:
"1. There are no trees at all in the map, which is a nonsense, considering nowadays (after centuries of cutting trees down) Spain has the second biggest forestal mass in the european union. You can check it at eurostat http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cac...-09-993-EN.PDF search in page 20. There is a nice map.
If you want more historical sources i can point you to Strabo, which in the third book of its "Geography" dedicated to Hispania, said that Hispania was a big landmass of mountains and forests. Sorry i could not find a translation of That sentence of Strabo in english.
I know Strabo and Eurostat data are both far away from the games time frame but, if, apparently, there were big masses of forests during Strabos time, and there are nowadays, i think its safe to assume thta there were also large forest masses during the game, especially because in the terrain map of Spain i have seen in the screenshots thread i have not seen A SINGLE tree.
2. I have seen thta there is snow in the cantabric sea provinces and in the Pyrinees anod nothign else. That is not correct. The cantabric sea provinces should NOT be covered by snow. Snow is rare, very rare at seaside. In fact, it should be the big Plateau of Castille the one that shoud be covered by snow (during winters, only the north part up to Madrid). Have in mind the plateau has ana average height of 600 meters and its far from the seaside (well, more than far, it´s surrounded by mountains that keep the moderating influence of the sea away from Castille). Thta provokes hars winters. So, snow should fall in Castille while not in the cantabric sea provinces.
If you want more info feel free to ask, i will try to help"
"1. There are no trees at all in the map, which is a nonsense, considering nowadays (after centuries of cutting trees down) Spain has the second biggest forestal mass in the european union. You can check it at eurostat http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cac...-09-993-EN.PDF search in page 20. There is a nice map.
If you want more historical sources i can point you to Strabo, which in the third book of its "Geography" dedicated to Hispania, said that Hispania was a big landmass of mountains and forests. Sorry i could not find a translation of That sentence of Strabo in english.
I know Strabo and Eurostat data are both far away from the games time frame but, if, apparently, there were big masses of forests during Strabos time, and there are nowadays, i think its safe to assume thta there were also large forest masses during the game, especially because in the terrain map of Spain i have seen in the screenshots thread i have not seen A SINGLE tree.
2. I have seen thta there is snow in the cantabric sea provinces and in the Pyrinees anod nothign else. That is not correct. The cantabric sea provinces should NOT be covered by snow. Snow is rare, very rare at seaside. In fact, it should be the big Plateau of Castille the one that shoud be covered by snow (during winters, only the north part up to Madrid). Have in mind the plateau has ana average height of 600 meters and its far from the seaside (well, more than far, it´s surrounded by mountains that keep the moderating influence of the sea away from Castille). Thta provokes hars winters. So, snow should fall in Castille while not in the cantabric sea provinces.
If you want more info feel free to ask, i will try to help"
Finally the developers take a look at our maps
Please say something about mind as well. A few things before you do, don't mind the strange shaped Nagybánya province, I've posted to solutions for that back when I've made this sketch. Many people argued that Hungary's province shapes are bad because Poland can't conquer them "nicely". That argument I think is just stupid since the AI will be smart as never before and Poland should befriend Hungary, not conquer it. BUT! the most important is the position of Pécs (Pecs on your map). Even if you don't consider to integrate this map the only and most imprtant thing I ask for is to position Pécs properly, not into nowadays Slovakia!
I'd like to make a couple of suggestions about the map of Poland posted in the last Development Diary. Some provinces are misplaced, some cities lay outside the borders of provinces they are supposed to be capitals of. I have to admit, however, that this is the best Paradox's map of Poland so far.
Here is my proposal (which is both, historically and geographically accurate, I believe) on how to tweak this:
Here is my proposal (which is both, historically and geographically accurate, I believe) on how to tweak this:
.png){kind=avatar}
I agree with both ideas you said. Lack of green color in Iberia and the fact that cantabrian coastline is warmer and with less snow than the biggest mounts and north-center of the peninsula. If winter is going to affect now to gameplay, it should affect the right regions.
For the screenshots i've seen until now appear to use the CKII map, where Iberia looks more like Africa. Sure we will see the map changed in the year until the game is launched.
EDIT: Watched again CKII map while playing and I no longer find Iberia arid. I'm confused if it has been this shape all the time or it is due to a fresh chante...
Last edited:
I am going to add two ideas of my own. I dont know if developers are already working in something like this or if it is a completely crazy and difficult to make this in a EU game, but I'll still post in case somebody cares.
1. Ports and sea provinces in CASPIAN SEA. I saw this also posted by PiriReis in the "What would YOU like to see in Europa Universalis IV?" thread, but with no response:
I think with new trade mechanics and fleet importance, the Caspian sea can become an interesting point in trade route between Asia an Europe, with Russia very much implicateon gaining trade income throught, for example, Astracan. I don't know the reason navigable Caspian doesn't exist in previous Paradox games (countries getting big useless navies with no communication with ocean), but new trade thing can be a reason to do it.
2. A "Vatican" province in center of Rome province wich can be used as refuge by the papacy when a Christian country annex Rome (I am thinking of Naples, Tuscany, HRE, Byz...or whoever wantws to form Italian Nation). This will allow the pope to still exist without having to fly to a foreign archbishopric. This should be a province that no catholic country (even no other christian country) can annex, to let the pope leading something and bother you to give Rome back. Of course Muslim (heatens) would be able take it and force the pope to fly to, for example, Achileia, Avignon, Cologne or Riga or whatever.
I know problems can happen here, with a province on the middle of another (I haven't seen such thing in another game), while picking the province, or moving armies throught it. I think anything can be discussed.
1. Ports and sea provinces in CASPIAN SEA. I saw this also posted by PiriReis in the "What would YOU like to see in Europa Universalis IV?" thread, but with no response:
I think with new trade mechanics and fleet importance, the Caspian sea can become an interesting point in trade route between Asia an Europe, with Russia very much implicateon gaining trade income throught, for example, Astracan. I don't know the reason navigable Caspian doesn't exist in previous Paradox games (countries getting big useless navies with no communication with ocean), but new trade thing can be a reason to do it.
2. A "Vatican" province in center of Rome province wich can be used as refuge by the papacy when a Christian country annex Rome (I am thinking of Naples, Tuscany, HRE, Byz...or whoever wantws to form Italian Nation). This will allow the pope to still exist without having to fly to a foreign archbishopric. This should be a province that no catholic country (even no other christian country) can annex, to let the pope leading something and bother you to give Rome back. Of course Muslim (heatens) would be able take it and force the pope to fly to, for example, Achileia, Avignon, Cologne or Riga or whatever.
I know problems can happen here, with a province on the middle of another (I haven't seen such thing in another game), while picking the province, or moving armies throught it. I think anything can be discussed.
They won't put a province inside another province. It just won't happen. They'll also never do anything of the sort of "which no Christian country can annex".
It was an idea on my mind allways I played an italian country on EUIII. I even tried to include it in a small mod for myself, but it didn't work (none of my province-mods worked well)
I know problems exist, but the idea can't be so horrible...
I know problems exist, but the idea can't be so horrible...
I have some suggestions on my region, the current country of Belgium, based on the map I found at the game announcement.
I noticed that the county of Flanders now is divided in 3 provinces. Not a bad decision I think, seen the importance and wealth of this region. The borders seem to me a bit arbitrary, but I can understand this is for practical and gameplay reasons. There should however at least be a change in the names. The northern part seems to be named Antwerpen, while this city was never part of the County of Flanders, it was situated on the other side of the river Scheldt in the Duchy of Brabant (so the province here named Brabant). The most important city in the province seems to be Gent (located where the rivers Scheldt and Leie join) or maybe Brugge (till the end of the Middle Ages the most important trade city in the region).
To the south another province is created with the name of Ghent, however the city of Ghent (or Gent in Dutch) obviously lies outside this province. With just a minor adjustment of the borders, the name of the province can be kept, and the province to the north can then be named Brugge.
There is then a third Flemish province to the west (more or less current French Flanders) of which the name isn't clear, but it seems to keep the name of Flanders (Vlaanderen). As it's only a minor part of the County of Flanders, it might be better to also name it after a city. The most important was the inland city of Lille.
The Duchy of Brabant is still separated in two provinces, the provinces of Breda and Brabant. As the County of Brabant isn't united in one province either, I suggest also changing the name of the southern province to one of its cities. The most important are Antwerpen (the economical capital) and Brussel (the political capital).
Further to the east I see that a province named Limburg is part of Burgundy, but most of the territory of the current province of Limburg was at that time part of the Prince-Bishopric of Liège, since they annexed the County of Loon in 1366. There also existed a Duchy of Limburg ruled by the Dukes of Burgundy, but this Duchy occupied a much smaller part of the territory of current Limburg.
And finally, while Limburg might better be added to Liège, Namur however never was part of the Prince-Bishopric. The county of Namur was ruled by the Dukes of Burgundy at that time, while only the southern part of the current province of Namur (the region around the city of Bouillon, which often operated more independently as the Duchy of Bouillon) was part of the Prince-Bishopric. Adding Bouillon isn't recommended however, as it might make a mess of the map.
Hope this advice might be of any help.
I noticed that the county of Flanders now is divided in 3 provinces. Not a bad decision I think, seen the importance and wealth of this region. The borders seem to me a bit arbitrary, but I can understand this is for practical and gameplay reasons. There should however at least be a change in the names. The northern part seems to be named Antwerpen, while this city was never part of the County of Flanders, it was situated on the other side of the river Scheldt in the Duchy of Brabant (so the province here named Brabant). The most important city in the province seems to be Gent (located where the rivers Scheldt and Leie join) or maybe Brugge (till the end of the Middle Ages the most important trade city in the region).
To the south another province is created with the name of Ghent, however the city of Ghent (or Gent in Dutch) obviously lies outside this province. With just a minor adjustment of the borders, the name of the province can be kept, and the province to the north can then be named Brugge.
There is then a third Flemish province to the west (more or less current French Flanders) of which the name isn't clear, but it seems to keep the name of Flanders (Vlaanderen). As it's only a minor part of the County of Flanders, it might be better to also name it after a city. The most important was the inland city of Lille.
The Duchy of Brabant is still separated in two provinces, the provinces of Breda and Brabant. As the County of Brabant isn't united in one province either, I suggest also changing the name of the southern province to one of its cities. The most important are Antwerpen (the economical capital) and Brussel (the political capital).
Further to the east I see that a province named Limburg is part of Burgundy, but most of the territory of the current province of Limburg was at that time part of the Prince-Bishopric of Liège, since they annexed the County of Loon in 1366. There also existed a Duchy of Limburg ruled by the Dukes of Burgundy, but this Duchy occupied a much smaller part of the territory of current Limburg.
And finally, while Limburg might better be added to Liège, Namur however never was part of the Prince-Bishopric. The county of Namur was ruled by the Dukes of Burgundy at that time, while only the southern part of the current province of Namur (the region around the city of Bouillon, which often operated more independently as the Duchy of Bouillon) was part of the Prince-Bishopric. Adding Bouillon isn't recommended however, as it might make a mess of the map.
Hope this advice might be of any help.
Thinking about the rather arbitrary boundary between the provinces of 'Ghent' and 'Antwerpen' as they exist on the map below, I suggest that maybe the northern part of Flanders could be divided along the border between the French Kingdom and the HRE. This border followed the river Scheldt and while the lands of Flanders within the Kingdom were known as 'Kroon-Vlaanderen' (Crown Flanders), the lands within the HRE were known as 'Rijks-Vlaanderen' (Imperial Flanders).
The northern part of 'Kroon-Vlaanderen' can than become a province named Gent and the southern part maintains it boundaries (but maybe with the name of Lille as I suggested in my previous post), while 'Rijks-Vlaanderen" can become a province named Aalst (the most important city in this former county, which was also known as the 'Land van Aalst'). Implemented on the map this could look something like this:
The northern part of 'Kroon-Vlaanderen' can than become a province named Gent and the southern part maintains it boundaries (but maybe with the name of Lille as I suggested in my previous post), while 'Rijks-Vlaanderen" can become a province named Aalst (the most important city in this former county, which was also known as the 'Land van Aalst'). Implemented on the map this could look something like this:
Four provinces for Brabant would make sense, they had an internal division of 4 kwartieren: Antwerpen, Brussel, Leuven, Den Bosch/'s Hertogenbosch. Antwerpen is important enough for it's own province, and there's plenty of space for Den Bosch ('s Hertogenbosch was a more important city than Breda). It's hard to say whether there's enough space for both Brussels and Leuven as a province.
The county of Loon definitely ought to be a separate province in Liège, as it was about half the territory of the bishopric and ought to be in the German/Low Countries culture group. It's probably best to join the narrow strip of territory with Maastricht on the other side of the Maas to it, as that's too narrow to be adequately presented and was a mess of small territories anyway during the game period. Right to the east the duchy of Jülich/Gulik is missing, while Aachen is way too big: it was a relatively small and quiet city state, despite its glorious past as Imperial capital. Call that province Gulik and let Aachen be the capital.
Bouillon could be the western, Walloon, province of Germanic Luxemburg.
It's probably too small for the map, but the city of Köln was a free city, in contrast to the surrounding bishopric of Köln. Naturally the bishop and the city often clashed, and were sometimes to be found on opposite sides of a battle just to settle their internal disputes.
More to the North, it seems strange to represent Friesland, Groningen and Overijssel as just one province, as in the relevant time frame universities were founded both in Leeuwarden and Groningen.
The county of Loon definitely ought to be a separate province in Liège, as it was about half the territory of the bishopric and ought to be in the German/Low Countries culture group. It's probably best to join the narrow strip of territory with Maastricht on the other side of the Maas to it, as that's too narrow to be adequately presented and was a mess of small territories anyway during the game period. Right to the east the duchy of Jülich/Gulik is missing, while Aachen is way too big: it was a relatively small and quiet city state, despite its glorious past as Imperial capital. Call that province Gulik and let Aachen be the capital.
Bouillon could be the western, Walloon, province of Germanic Luxemburg.
It's probably too small for the map, but the city of Köln was a free city, in contrast to the surrounding bishopric of Köln. Naturally the bishop and the city often clashed, and were sometimes to be found on opposite sides of a battle just to settle their internal disputes.
More to the North, it seems strange to represent Friesland, Groningen and Overijssel as just one province, as in the relevant time frame universities were founded both in Leeuwarden and Groningen.