Quick poll regarding Wallachia/Moldavia

[Thrac]

How many players in here think that Wallachia/Moldavia in the current version and in the upcomming one ar underpowerd/missreprezented and totally missregarded?
Just a remainder in the current build Wallachia has 2 provinces and Moldovia 3, in Common Sens Wallachia gets 3 and Moldavia stays at 3.
In the mid XV cenceury both countrys combined had a territory of 180.000 square km .... thats allmost 4 times the size of Switerland and had a population of around 1million.... Germany had around 8 and the British Islands had around 3.5 And both countrys in a avrege raised armys of around 10k men to fight.
So, any thots?
And please dont start with 'Eastern Europe'.... Eastern Europe started to exist as a conotation after WW2 and it should'v ended 25 years ago. Untill ww2 it was just Europe
PS. same is applyed for Transylvania

 

[Koivin]

Don't expect positive feedback, the existence of the eastern tech group and the ridicule the balkan improvement suggestions get speaks volumes.

 

[Adrian Gaming]

How many players in here think that Wallachia/Moldavia in the current version and in the upcomming one ar underpowerd/missreprezented and totally missregarded?
Just a remainder in the current build Wallachia has 2 provinces and Moldovia 3, in Common Sens Wallachia gets 3 and Moldavia stays at 3.
In the mid XV cenceury both countrys combined had a territory of 180.000 square km .... thats allmost 4 times the size of Switerland and had a population of around 1.5 million.... Germany had around 8 and the British Islands had around 3.5 And both countrys in a avrege raised armys of around 10k men to fight.
So, any thots?
And please dont start with 'Eastern Europe'.... Eastern Europe started to exist as a conotation after WW2 and it should'v ended 25 years ago. Untill ww2 it was just Europe
PS. same is applyed for Transylvania

Romania/Wallachia/Moldavia is underrepresented in EUIV because of their vassalage to the Turks for centuries. Making them a great or even regional power, while not impossible (you can see people have done this) takes away from that idea. The ability to hold Wallachia and Moldavia in vassalage is just historical, which is why Moldavia is a March of Poland and Wallachia usually becomes a vassal of the Ottomans.

Now, this probably is not meant to be mean or racist; its historical. Whether one has one view or another, Wallachia and Moldavia were not independent sovereign countries for much of their existence. It's not meant to be bigoted or condescending to anything Eastern European, Romanian etc. It's just the way history played out. Paradox has just done their homework and designed the countries that way. They shouldn't be critiqued or called racist or bigoted because of that.

 

[randomguy123]

3 province wallachia?

quick! buff the ottomans before they become op

 

[Dreadlord]

Historically the Romanian pricipalities put up serious resistance and mischief agains Ottomans. I dont understand how this could be represented in game as it is

 

[somanite]

How many players in here think that Wallachia/Moldavia in the current version and in the upcomming one ar underpowerd/missreprezented and totally missregarded?
Just a remainder in the current build Wallachia has 2 provinces and Moldovia 3, in Common Sens Wallachia gets 3 and Moldavia stays at 3.
In the mid XV cenceury both countrys combined had a territory of 180.000 square km .... thats allmost 4 times the size of Switerland and had a population of around 1.5 million.... Germany had around 8 and the British Islands had around 3.5 And both countrys in a avrege raised armys of around 10k men to fight.
So, any thots?
And please dont start with 'Eastern Europe'.... Eastern Europe started to exist as a conotation after WW2 and it should'v ended 25 years ago. Untill ww2 it was just Europe
PS. same is applyed for Transylvania

That's interesting. I don't really know much about the histories of these two countries, but its nice to learn something new. Knowing this now though, it does seem sensible to make changes to their sizes on the map, and manpower/tax modifiers. I'd certainly support such an action for the sake of more historical accuracy. On the other hand, I don't consider the developers particularly sensible when it comes to making decisions about how to represent the world, given this game's inclusion of nonsense like technology groups. I just hope that the next iteration of EU handles such things better.

 

[tobias.mb]

Are those poulation numbers for modern day Romania? I couldn't find any sources (though I didn't really search long). Could you post yours?

 

[Thrac]

I

Romania/Wallachia/Moldavia is underrepresented in EUIV because of their vassalage to the Turks for centuries. Making them a great or even regional power, while not impossible (you can see people have done this) takes away from that idea. The ability to hold Wallachia and Moldavia in vassalage is just historical, which is why Moldavia is a March of Poland and Wallachia usually becomes a vassal of the Ottomans.

Now, this probably is not meant to be mean or racist; its historical. Whether one has one view or another, Wallachia and Moldavia were not independent sovereign countries for much of their existence. It's not meant to be bigoted or condescending to anything Eastern European, Romanian etc. It's just the way history played out. Paradox has just done their homework and designed the countries that way. They shouldn't be critiqued or called racist or bigoted because of that.

To keep it short.... i dont see a 2-3 province Napels or Norway.

 

[Thrac]

Are those poulation numbers for modern day Romania? I couldn't find any sources (though I didn't really search long). Could you post yours?

Modern day pop for Romania i think i somewher around 20 milion in the country and 2-3 milion abrod.... not counting the 4 milion from Rep. of Moldavia

 

[Dakilla TM]

Historically the Romanian pricipalities put up serious resistance and mischief agains Ottomans. I dont understand how this could be represented in game as it is

That is true, and isn't it shown in their NIs? Like better fort defense and higher attrition for enemies?

 

[Adrian Gaming]

I

To keep it short.... i dont see a 2-3 province Napels or Norway.

Have you ever heard of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies or Denmark-Norway or Sweden with a personal union over Norway? Not the same situation.

 

[Adrian Gaming]

That is true, and isn't it shown in their NIs? Like better fort defense and higher attrition for enemies?

Wallachia has 100% increased coring cost; Moldavia does not, probably because it is under the protection of Poland and so it is unnecessary until it is taken from the Polish sphere of influence.

 

[Clownie]

Wallachia has 100% increased coring cost; Moldavia does not, probably because it is under the protection of Poland and so it is unnecessary until it is taken from the Polish sphere of influence.

Moldavia has +50%, but they unlock it later.

As for the Romanians being underrepresented: no, not by much. They're in the wrong culture group and there are too few Romanian provinces, and Wallachia could stand being a bit richer (but they'll be significantly more powerful next patch, since Wiz has confirmed that the Balkans are getting higher development, and Wallachia gets another province), but they shouldn't be a regional power. Wallachia and Moldavia were both decentralised, having trouble mustering large armies. There's no way to model that in-game since they're few provinces and LA doesn't work realistically for all situations, so compensating by making the provinces poorer than the demographics may suggest makes sense.

 

[Chamboozer]

Wallachia and Moldavia were at times able to raise hugely disproportionately sized armies compared to their states' resources, but that's not a problem with the representation of them in particular, but with the representation of militaries worldwide.

Wallachia and Moldavia were both decentralised, having trouble mustering large armies.

Stephen the Great was reported to have raised an army of 200,000. While that number is obviously inflated to an extreme degree, it doesn't really give the sense of Moldavia having trouble raising large armies.

 

[Thrac]

Have you ever heard of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies or Denmark-Norway or Sweden with a personal union over Norway? Not the same situation.

Kingdom of the Two Sicilies not in EUIV timeframe and you meen the PU slash vassalage of Norway under danish/sweed rule

 

[RadRussian]

EU4 is not a historical simulator, it's a game.

There are no supply lines, existence of standing army, huge number of troops (albeit, nothing like pre-WON, where AI could easily wield twice their force limit), ridiculously cheap unit maintenance, unreasonably long wars, etc

So yeah, I'm not surprised. Besides, if they could stand a chance against Ottomans, in the game it would mean that Ottomans won't be blobbing fast enough, so it's not historical either.

 

[Thrac]

EU4 is not a historical simulator, it's a game.

There are no supply lines, existence of standing army, huge number of troops (albeit, nothing like pre-WON, where AI could easily wield twice their force limit), ridiculously cheap unit maintenance, unreasonably long wars, etc

So yeah, I'm not surprised. Besides, if they could stand a chance against Ottomans, in the game it would mean that Ottomans won't be blobbing fast enough, so it's not historical either.

True, but then you look at the Teutonic Order in the upcomming expansion.... it seems they will put a fight against Poland

 

[in heaven]

Wallachia and Moldavia were at times able to raise hugely disproportionately sized armies compared to their states' resources, but that's not a problem with the representation of them in particular, but with the representation of militaries worldwide.



Stephen the Great was reported to have raised an army of 200,000. While that number is obviously inflated to an extreme degree, it doesn't really give the sense of Moldavia having trouble raising large armies.

You cant make system flexible enough to make 3 province minor raise huge armies. Talking about real life armies is abit irrelevant when discussing about eu4 countries. In this game, all countries can raise smaller armies than in real life.. I mean venice in 1410 had 3300 ships, ottomans in 1453 had around 94,000 troops. None of countries have armies as big as they had in real life.

 

[Chamboozer]

You cant make system flexible enough to make 3 province minor raise huge armies. Talking about real life armies is abit irrelevant when discussing about eu4 countries. In this game, all countries can raise smaller armies than in real life.. I mean venice in 1410 had 3300 ships, ottomans in 1453 had around 94,000 troops. None of countries have armies as big as they had in real life.

OP was asking if Wallachia and Moldavia are misrepresented, I was merely pointing out that in this regard they are. Doesn't mean that other countries around them are any better.

 

[oblio-]

Wallachia and Moldavia have just 1 problem in EU4, the same as Albania: there's no guerilla warfare.

Neither Wallachia or Moldavia should ever win a long war 1v1 versus the Ottomans, Poland or Hungary, unless those countries are exhausted.

But they should be able to bleed them dry provided the right conditions.
Unfortunately the EU4 combat system does not allow this.

However, there are changes coming in 1.12 and we don't yet know their impact. So I can't really say anything before playing the new version.