small border nitpicks

[PANGI]

I know most of the players are starting the game in 1444 anyway, but still there are some wrongly distributed provinces in later scenarios which can be easily fixed:

1. scenario 1701 has wrong austrian-ottoman borders. since treaty in karlowitz in 1699 until 1718 autrian border looked like this (the yellow line):

and in the game should look this:

2. prussian borders should look like this - i mean the border with saxony especially:
EDIT: i noticed the border is fine in game until prussia took the silesia in 1742. since then is lower lusatia transferred to prussia which is wrong

niederlausitz/lower lusatia was part of the saxony since 1635 and was not prussian until 1815:

also i made dotted line for the eastern tip of vorpommern/western pomerania because it was part of prussia since 1720...although game names the eastern province as greifswald which was indeed still swedish until 1815. however optically the province look more like a part which prussia took from sweden by stockholm treaty in 1720:

3. croatia was part of hasburgian domains since 1527 so the border with ottomans should look like this:

moreover the provinces göle, beckerek and temesvar should be transylvanian and province szolnok should be habsburgian but only until 1552 since these lands were taken by ottomans in 1547-1552 - as you can see with the map below: thin red line is state before 1547
also county of máramaros should belong to the transylvania and not habsburgs

4. and last very small nitpick: i know small alpinian province between salzburg and austria is not accesible but unlike other non-accesibile provinces it seems to have white austrian color (or is that snow?) however i believe it should be colored (if colored and not blank as other non-accesible prov) according to holder of salzburg province, because its shape clearly resemble intention to follow this historical shape

 

[Dracolithfiend]

The provinces of Provence and Draguignan should be a part of the HRE from 11 Nov 1444 until 1481.

 

[9Zakarious6]

4. and last very small nitpick: i know small alpinian province between salzburg and austria is not accesible but unlike other non-accesibile provinces it seems to have white austrian color (or is that snow?) however i believe it should be colored (if colored and not blank as other non-accesible prov) according to holder of salzburg province, because its shape clearly resemble intention to follow this historical shape

Wastelands are colored dynamically based on the owner of the majority of provinces touching said wasteland, which allows said owner's name to also stretch across the wasteland. This is able to be disabled in the settings if you want all wastelands to not be colored.

 

[PANGI]

Wastelands are colored dynamically based on the owner of the majority of provinces touching said wasteland, which allows said owner's name to also stretch across the wasteland. This is able to be disabled in the settings if you want all wastelands to not be colored.

Thank you. Didnt know that. Will check that...

i made small gif to better illustrate how border development in kingdom of hungary should look like (imho):

1526 - state before battle of Mohács
1527 - state after splitting the kingdom between Ferdinand I and Janos Zápolya
1541 - Ottomans conquered central Hungary
1552 - Ottomans conquered east part of central Hungary
1606 - treaty of Zsitvatorok
(1664 - treaty of Vasvár - not reflected)
1699 - treaty of Karlowitz
1718 - treaty of Passarowitz
1739 - treaty of Belgrade

orange - jagiellonians
white - habsburgs
green - ottomans
violet - transylvania

 

[Dracolithfiend]

Michigan makes no sense. For some reason France is never granted control of the region. Colonies such as Detroit are accurate until 1783 when they abruptly go from British Control to Patawatomi control until 1807. This is totally ahistorical and I am not sure who thought it up. Fort Michilimackinac. Fort Mackinac, and St. Ignace are apparently non existant. Also the region would not have been called "Michigan" by natives. That is the British way of saying "Michilimackinac" which is the French name for a major trade post taken from the Ojibwe word "Michigamaa" which essentially is the word used for "The lake" aka the Great Lakes. The straights of Mackinac should probably become a major tradepost for the region in the 1600's by the way. As the following map shows it was incredibly important in the Fur trade as the destination for all furs coming out of Lake Michigan and Lake Superior and all surrounding land.

Spoiler

Large bodies of water were the highways back then hence why the French felt it important to build a fort there and the British later on built a stone fortification. Although it doesn't rival the star forts in the lowlands of France and Belgium it surely was a massive undertaking in such a remote place. What's interesting is the French get cores on the land in game starts after 1 January 1716 but never control the land. Making a separate provence based on the islands and forts in the area would make a lot of sense as it was separately controlled until the mid 1800's.

/rant

 

[bestbrian]

It's been stated elsewhere that bookmarks after 1444 are no longer being supported, so there should not be any changes from Paradox on these matters. I friendly modder, however, might take these issues under advisement.

 

[Trin Tragula]

It's been stated elsewhere that bookmarks after 1444 are no longer being supported, so there should not be any changes from Paradox on these matters. I friendly modder, however, might take these issues under advisement.

That's not accurate. We don't balance for the later bookmarks but we do fix history bugs in them. It's just very, very, rare to get any bug reports for them.

Bug forum is however the right place for it

@PANGI I will be looking into your suggested changes. The color of the Salzburgian wasteland is automatic though and nothing we can do much about (and has no in game effect anyway).

 

[Evie HJ]

The situation in the Great Lakes (and west of the Appalachians, really) was incredibly complex, thanks to the multiple layer of control and claims. At some point (eg, in Michigan post-1783), you would have three different tags with a claim to owning the province in game: the British (who held the forts), the Natives (who held the rest of the province) and the Americans (who had the legitimate claim under European law since Britain ceded it in 1783). Unfortunately, there aren't enough provinces to represent all those subtleties in depth, so some choices had to be made.

If you look at US history 1783 onward, a lot of effort had to be spent on actually gaining the Old Northwest from the natives who lived there. The British presence, meanwhile, amounted to helping those same natives cause trouble for the US. That's best represented, in game, with native control of that region.

Of the alternatives, giving those provinces to the US, would make the US unrealistically powerful in 1783, able to immediately challenge for control west of the Mississippi. On the other hand, giving those territories to the British would force the US to fight Britain a second time, and win a pretty overwhelming victory. While there was an historical second US-British war (1812), it most certainly was not an overwhelming American win - and much of the region changed hand (from Natives to US) before 1812.

Of those, the one that come closest to approximating real history in the region is native control. Hence, native control in the game.

In general, the situation on the ground was much more complex than European maps with their largerly imaginary (in North America) lines liked to illustrate. Using those maps, or the establishment of outposts, as a hard and fast rule would result in a starting situation that can never even come close to representing the actual historical situation.

 

[Vaximillian]

The provinces of Provence and Draguignan should be a part of the HRE from 11 Nov 1444 until 1481.

You want France to fight the emperor for Provence? Why though.

 

[Trin Tragula]

Provence not being in the empire is down to how the HRE mechanics work in the game it's a conscious decision to have gameplay better reflect history even if the setup itself does not (and it's not the only such decision that was taken in regards to the HRE, you could argue the Teutons should be a member as well for instance, even if their lands should not).
Biggest reason for the state of Provence is what @Vaximillian brought up.

Decisions like that aren't always easy (and there are a lot fewer about than one might think), it's good to have them questioned at the various points of the game's existance but they are nonetheless the kind of thing we have to do sometimes

 

[Republic of Mercury]

Provence not being in the empire is down to how the HRE mechanics work in the game it's a conscious decision to have gameplay better reflect history even if the setup itself does not (and it's not the only such decision that was taken in regards to the HRE, you could argue the Teutons should be a member as well for instance, even if their lands should not).
Biggest reason for the state of Provence is what @Vaximillian brought up.

Decisions like that aren't always easy (and there are a lot fewer about than one might think), it's good to have them questioned at the various points of the game's existance but they are nonetheless the kind of thing we have to do sometimes

Do you think we might one day see a rework of how hre membership / land-ownership works? For example, it seems odd to me that if France conquers Lorraine and removes the land from the Empire, then, if the Emperor later forces them to release Lorraine, Lorraine won't actually be a member of the empire anymore, and there's no way for the emperor to invite or force them to join. And while I can take the land, core it, add it back to the empire and then release them: a, I lose prestige for liberating an HRE prince via return territory, or spend a diplo-slot to release them as a vassal, and b, I get full ae for the land, despite it being, from the empire's point of view, a reconquest war.

The netherlands never leaving the HRE slightly bugs me too, although so does the fact that there's almost no incentive for them to do so.

 

[Tsadiq]

Do you think we might one day see a rework of how hre membership / land-ownership works?

What comes to mind (for land-ownership) is implementing actual cores via the add/remove from HRE function for the HLR (Holy Roman Empire) tag. Adding a province to the HRE adds the core and these cores do not get lost as long as a province is not removed from the HRE. After getting removed they are lost as usual (150 years in German culture group, 50 otherwise).

But they have to be treated as special: The HLR can't be released (until the last reform was passed anyway), the Emperor treats them as "own cores" (can Reconquest them and can be forced to revoke them), etc.

 

[Dracolithfiend]

The netherlands never leaving the HRE slightly bugs me too, although so does the fact that there's almost no incentive for them to do so.

They automatically leave when they are formed by the player. I assume it works the same for AI.

Provence not being in the empire is down to how the HRE mechanics work in the game it's a conscious decision to have gameplay better reflect history even if the setup itself does not (and it's not the only such decision that was taken in regards to the HRE, you could argue the Teutons should be a member as well for instance, even if their lands should not).
Biggest reason for the state of Provence is what @Vaximillian brought up.

Decisions like that aren't always easy (and there are a lot fewer about than one might think), it's good to have them questioned at the various points of the game's existance but they are nonetheless the kind of thing we have to do sometimes

Thank you for replying on this. Is there any reason a shadow empire like event or even inheritance event can't be used? That would bring it even closer to history. Currently 9/10 games result in the excommunication of Provence in the first few years. Followed by Austria, Burgundy, France, Papal state, Savoy etc. all declaring war. Making it imperial for the first 35~ years would make it a lot more interesting.

 

[Van der Gent]

I know most of the players are starting the game in 1444 anyway, but still there are some wrongly distributed provinces in later scenarios which can be easily fixed:

1. scenario 1701 has wrong austrian-ottoman borders. since treaty in karlowitz in 1699 until 1718 autrian border looked like this (the yellow line):

and in the game should look this:

Regarding Syrmien: According to this detailed map of Syrmia (de: Syrmien), Austria controlled 2/3s of the province during the referred time and therefore it should probably be in Austrian hands. The Ottomans lost so large a part of the province that they disbanded the Sanjak of Syrmia in 1699.

 

[klingonadmiral]

Brandenburg/Prussia should also own Cleves after 1614. Currently both Cleves and Mark go to the Palatinate (later Bavaria), but OTL that war of the Jüllich Sucession ended with the territory of the Duchy of Cleves split between Bandenburg and the Palatinate pretty much according to the borders of the two provinces ingame. The small, isolated territory would become very important later as the nucleus of the Prussian Rhineland.

 

[PANGI]

...and if you want another tiny spot on HRE face: Ruppin was independet county until Brandeburg seized it in 1524, although in 1444 probably vassal of Brandenburg already

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrschaft_Ruppin

 

[Trin Tragula]

...and if you want another tiny spot on HRE face: Ruppin was independet county until Brandeburg seized it in 1524

This is actually in the game though covered by events. The Ruppin province is larger than just the counts domain though

 

[Van der Gent]

You want France to fight the emperor for Provence? Why though.

Provence not being in the empire is down to how the HRE mechanics work in the game it's a conscious decision to have gameplay better reflect history even if the setup itself does not (and it's not the only such decision that was taken in regards to the HRE, you could argue the Teutons should be a member as well for instance, even if their lands should not).
Biggest reason for the state of Provence is what @Vaximillian brought up.

I can understand the decision, but I feel you really ought to re-evaluate that stance:
Well, firstly: Why not have France fight the emperor? Provence wasn't taken by force. There should be an event that lets France inherit Provence should there be no heir.

Castile conquered Aragon through marriage and France did the same with Brittany. So why not add a France-Provence union through marriage event if provence has a female ruler? That way France has two ways to get Provence, and should both fail, Provence should leave the empire due to the shadow kingdom event and after that France will be free to conquer Provence without opposition from pesky emperors. Marriage union or inheritance should naturally both force provence to leave the HRE as that means Provence is firmly within France's SoI and outside of the Emperor's.

That would be more accurate and also more fun for players playing Provence. One one hand you'll be protected by the emperor for between 60-100 years but on the other hand you risk having to leave the empire and be part of a personal union under France from which one would have to seek friends to support Provençale independence in order to break free. I'd love it. French minors have always been fun, I've thought so ever since EU2 and they do deserve a little bit of extra love and attention.

 

[grommile]

Provence being in the Empire seems likely to have negative implications for Savoy and the Pope.

 

[Republic of Mercury]

They automatically leave when they are formed by the player. I assume it works the same for AI.

I've only ever seen the AI form the netherlands once. The rest of the time they're spawned by the "The netherlands declare independence!" event, which doesn't remove them from the empire.