The World according to Kasperus (or yet another map thread)

[Kasperus]

@the_genius

For more precise look at details of the maps I uploaded earlier the grayscale images from photoshop. They are on 1:2 scale but that should show enough detail w/o eating up all my webspace Below a quick link for Europe:
http://home.student.uva.nl/kacper.vandenheuvel/europa.png

@Herr Doctor

I do not understand on what you based your Lithuanian provinces division??

My division of Lithuania represents the historical borderchanges, for this period being:
-the loss of eastern principalities on upper Oka and Vyazma region to Russia before the 1569 union (=Vyazma and Severia to MOS)
-the achievement of Smolensk in late 16th century wars (=Smolensk to POL)
-the Andrusovo (sp?) treaty of 1667 (=SMolensk, Ukraina & Zaporozhe to RUS)
-a treaty with Turkey in 1672 ceding them Podolia (=Podolia & Caminiecz to TUR, back to POL in 1699 iirc)
-1st partition 1772 (=Mstislav & Polotsk to RUS)
-2nd partition 1793 (=Belarus, Podolia, Zyomia & Caminiecz to RUS)
-3rd partiion 1795 (=WIlna, Samogithia and Wolyhna to RUS, Podlasie to PRU)

I cannot discern in any case the 3 partitions on your map well, which makes your division therefor unacceptable.

This gigantic unhistorical “Belarus” (I hope you know how many ethnographically, geographically, traditionally different regions you put into this one single big artifical province?), extremely strange paradox-like Volhynia, odd Polotsk (it placed wrongly and includes the big part of historical Livonia).

In my borders they can be nicely divided ethnically and religiously as ruthenians/lithuanians/balts and catholics/orthodox which is enough as that's what eu abstracts in regard to culture. Polotsk is not wrong, it includes area of Livonia since I decided against inclusion of Dyneburg for balance reasons for now. Might include it later if actual ingame tests require it though.

I already was complaining about this issue at the MKJ’s map thread: Polesie should be definitely made a separate province from Volhynia, Belarus should be reorganized the way so it will not provide quick unhistorical move from the Baltics through the bogs of Polesie and Prypiat’ directly to Ukraine…

These are not necessary for the political changes. Strategical position of Belarus otoh is showed by the use of rivers (otherwise it was a relatively easily passable province indeed). Movement time can be, if needed, adjusted by Sizemodifier.

Finally it is even hard to imagine Lithuania with your map - without Ukrainian lands it will be just only four-five extremely large provinces (reason?).

In 1419 LIT has 14 or 15 provs in this setup. When they lose Ukraina, historically in 1569, they are annexed by Poland. There is no historical reason for the earlier period to simulate the post-1569 border and there is no historical reason to simulate this artificial border for Lithuania after the union, when it is annexed.

47 - Samogitia, 46 - Vilnia (Lithaunia), 21 - Troki, 22 - Podlasia, 43 - Navahradak, 42 - Polesia, 45 - Minsk (and please, not “Belarus”, “White Russia”, “White Ruthenia” or any other such marginal thing), 53 - Polotsk, 54 - Vitebsk, 55 - Smolensk.

There are too many provinces for your Europe of course, but you can unite 53 and 54 (Polotsk and Vitebsk – in your map it’s in Russia…) with the same province borders, 21 and 46.

Of course it is your vision and I just wish to give you know how the region could look more historical. But I for sure like your Poland’s division. The Lithuanian is the way worse IMO.

On your map I cannot simulate the partitions. Which diqualifies it as such. I could not merge your 21 and 46 because of that reason. Vitebsk is on my map either in Mstislav or Polotsk province, both Polish till 1772 in this setup so I see no problem here... Other divisions are as such not needed but will make Lithuania overperform balancewise and is as such unwanted. And well, you might like it or not, but names like 'Belarus', 'White Ruthenia' and 'White Russia' are names widely used in international literature like historical atlasses and as such much better known to at least 95% of the eu2 players than names of settlements that were not even cities by west-european standards (Minsk being perhaps an exception, though I'm not even sure of that...).

In general, your map is a nice map, showing internal administrative/historical divisions better than mine does. Which is fine but has no use at all for this game, for international balance in Europe nor for anything else than aestethical reasons. I didn't use administrative (or 'historical') divisions anywhere else, unless they depicted actual stateborders during the game, so I don't really see any gamewise reason to do it here either.

 

[Herr Doctor]

-1st partition 1772 (=Mstislav & Polotsk to RUS)
-2nd partition 1793 (=Belarus, Podolia, Zyomia & Caminiecz to RUS)
-3rd partiion 1795 (=WIlna, Samogithia and Wolyhna to RUS, Podlasie to PRU)

I cannot discern in any case the 3 partitions on your map well, which makes your division therefor unacceptable.

On your map I cannot simulate the partitions. Which diqualifies it as such. I could not merge your 21 and 46 because of that reason. Vitebsk is on my map either in Mstislav or Polotsk province, both Polish till 1772 in this setup so I see no problem here... Other divisions are as such not needed but will make Lithuania overperform balancewise and is as such unwanted. And well, you might like it or not, but names like 'Belarus', 'White Ruthenia' and 'White Russia' are names widely used in international literature like historical atlasses and as such much better known to at least 95% of the eu2 players than names of settlements that were not even cities by west-european standards (Minsk being perhaps an exception, though I'm not even sure of that...).

Why? I partition: 53-54 (Mstislav & Polotsk), II partition: 45 (Belarus; well, is it really so important to have a border that existed two years in all history?), III partition: 47, 46-21, 43, 42 (WIlna, Samogithia and the rest)…

And why you cannot merge Vilna and Troki (21 and 46)? They both were annexed to Russia after the III partition. Podlasia (22) to Prussia…

Finally the partition borders are extremely artificial (mainly used the rivers and several lesser administrative units of the Grand Duchy) to base a balanced map on them.

White Ruthenia is historical but very amorphous region (as there never was any exact mean what to understand under it and you can see this on the original maps since the 16-18 centuries), which was mostly associated in the 15-19 centuries with Polotsk-Vitebsk-Smolensk region, not Minsk voivodship and very neighbor lands. Minsk was not a really big city in fact of course.

 

[Herr Doctor]

Also why did you name Krakow province with the name of some tinny duchy here?

 

[Kasperus]

Why? I partition: 53-54 (Mstislav & Polotsk), II partition: 45 (Belarus; well, is it really so important to have a border that existed two years in all history?), III partition: 47, 46-21, 43, 42 (WIlna, Samogithia and the rest)…

Perhaps it is not so important history-wise to include a border that lasted for 2 years but gamewise it is because of how I simulate the partitions: 1st and 2nd by event, 3rd by war. While first two have fixed outcomes, third is variable, which means the 1793 can ingame last for much longer than these 2 years. And that is gamewise much more than an administrative border...

And 53-54 do not include really the Gomel nor Mohylev region which were also seceded to Russia. In my river-setup this would make the Minsk province much smaller and it would make no sense to keep it at least merged with 43, which brings me back to 2 province-divided Belarus here and then 2nd Pt border is more logical.

And why you cannot merge Vilna and Troki (21 and 46)? They both were annexed to Russia after the III partition. Podlasia (22) to Prussia…

Uhm, no. the whole region west of Niemna was annexed to Prussia. So unless your river here is wrongly placed 21 would go to Prussia, which makes merging of your 21 and 22 more logical, which I did.

Finally the partition borders are extremely artificial (mainly used the rivers and several lesser administrative units of the Grand Duchy) to base a balanced map on them.

Balanced map for what? For a game they obviously are. Natural borders, like rivers have a strategical meaning which administrative borders have not. Therefor the latest are artificial, gamewise, but also history-wise since they are prone to change. Heck, Russians changed the administrative borders of their P-L and I want to simulate with this map about 130 years of that period. I would go crazy if I had to make a map simulating both P-L, Russian, traditional and actual political borders on the same map.

White Ruthenia is historical but very amorphous region (as there never was any exact mean what to understand under it and you can see this on the original maps since the 16-18 centuries), which was mostly associated in the 15-19 centuries with Polotsk-Vitebsk-Smolensk region, not Minsk voivodship and very neighbor lands. Minsk was not a really big city in fact of course.

Well no, in fact there was no big city at all in P-L till ~1800, with exception of Danzig and Thorn for some time perhaps. Which makes it even less compelling to put a very divided map in which cities, even with starting pops of around 1000, which will end up like metropolia of 200k-300k per average by 1819...
And based on actual atlasses Belarus region was considered the region on both size of upper Dniepr, thus also the lands east of and up to Minsk. Since alike the fact that I do not represent administrative borders on my map I will not even try to represent accurately borders of abstract territorial terms which varied by time and place enormously, the name Belarus can be easily applied to any province around upper Dniepr w/o being really unhistorical. And since I again prefer this kind of names above city-names I took Belarus. But well, if it is really that offensive to call that region Belarus I can change it to Minsk .

Also why did you name Krakow province with the name of some tinny duchy here?

Whaa? Krakow is in Malopolska province which is the historical name for that region.

 

[cool-toxic]

Hey Kasperus
can you upload the .tbl files?

 

[Herr Doctor]

Perhaps it is not so important history-wise to include a border that lasted for 2 years but gamewise it is because of how I simulate the partitions: 1st and 2nd by event, 3rd by war. While first two have fixed outcomes, third is variable, which means the 1793 can ingame last for much longer than these 2 years. And that is gamewise much more than an administrative border...

And 53-54 do not include really the Gomel nor Mohylev region which were also seceded to Russia. In my river-setup this would make the Minsk province much smaller and it would make no sense to keep it at least merged with 43, which brings me back to 2 province-divided Belarus here and then 2nd Pt border is more logical.

Well, 54 did include the entire Mohylov region. And only extremely small part of Reczyca poviet (with Homel) was incorporated to Russia with this partition. So, there is no need to give it all. And I hardly could agree that 1793-1795 border is a good choice to make a province for 1420-1820 (and further in case of your map) period. But it’s your map

Uhm, no. the whole region west of Niemna was annexed to Prussia. So unless your river here is wrongly placed 21 would go to Prussia, which makes merging of your 21 and 22 more logical, which I did.

It’s not logical, as Podlasia became part of Poland in 1535 while Troki remained Lithuanian until partition. After partition only about 1/3 of my present Troki province was given to Prussia (and even 2/3 of this one was returned to Russia shortly, only Suwalki region remained Prussian in result).

Well no, in fact there was no big city at all in P-L till ~1800, with exception of Danzig and Thorn for some time perhaps. Which makes it even less compelling to put a very divided map in which cities, even with starting pops of around 1000, which will end up like metropolia of 200k-300k per average by 1819...

In the XVI century Polotsk had population 10.000, Vilnia 25.000 (in the XVII century), Slutsk 3.000-4.000, Niasvizh 2.000-3.000…

And based on actual atlasses Belarus region was considered the region on both size of upper Dniepr, thus also the lands east of and up to Minsk. Since alike the fact that I do not represent administrative borders on my map I will not even try to represent accurately borders of abstract territorial terms which varied by time and place enormously, the name Belarus can be easily applied to any province around upper Dniepr w/o being really unhistorical. And since I again prefer this kind of names above city-names I took Belarus. But well, if it is really that offensive to call that region Belarus I can change it to Minsk .

No you can name the way you like but to have in mind what this name really meant

Whaa? Krakow is in Malopolska province which is the historical name for that region.

Malopolska is historical name for about 1/3 of Poland (Krakow, Lublin, Podlasia, Sandomierz…) And Wielkopolaks for the rest of Poland. Krakow voivodship is the west part of what in your map “Sancz”.

http://www.geocities.com/kirylaf/maps/map4.txt
http://www.geocities.com/kirylaf/maps/map2.txt

 

[the_genius]

Hi Kasp .. thanks for the link

one thing, I just wanna protect Spaniard's interest on Iberian map, since they have complain a lot since I know ...

(but I don't know if you have already correct this but here they are)

- Algrave should be Algarve
- Saragossa should be Zaragoza (spanish way of the name suits more)
- Belatha should be Lisboa or Lissabon

I believe that those are the only objections I might have o .. the rest of Europe is really good, specially Germany, the fights on the HRE will be very interesting

I wanted to check this section of the map (Europe) since is the most interesting part for me, I really prefer the european affairs; in fact, I don't like the southamerican section given the fact that is too detailed and has a lot of provs, that might suit for mods like AoI, but it gives too much to that area, but hell, it's just my opinion (also, if you can rename "Caraca" to "Caracas", I'll be very pleased.. thanks lol)

Well, above that, your graphics are so awesome, the level of detailed of islands and coastlines are impressive, I really want to play with a map like this .

 

[Hive]

- Algrave should be Algarve
- Saragossa should be Zaragoza (spanish way of the name suits more)
- Belatha should be Lisboa or Lissabon

For what it's worth, I agree with all 3 suggestions... though I suspect the first to be a matter of a minor spelling mistake.

 

[Kasperus]

Well, 54 did include the entire Mohylov region. And only extremely small part of Reczyca poviet (with Homel) was incorporated to Russia with this partition.

But you drawed your Dniepr differently. When drawed accurately much more ofthat prov would fall off

So, there is no need to give it all. And I hardly could agree that 1793-1795 border is a good choice to make a province for 1420-1820 (and further in case of your map) period. But it’s your map

Well, if the choice is a border that has some use for political setup simulation and one that has none at all I will choose the previous. I could have merged Belarus with my Wilna province adn Wolyhna as well wasn't it that these would require different culture and religion.

It’s not logical, as Podlasia became part of Poland in 1535 while Troki remained Lithuanian until partition. After partition only about 1/3 of my present Troki province was given to Prussia (and even 2/3 of this one was returned to Russia shortly, only Suwalki region remained Prussian in result).

Uhm, Lithuania became part of P-L in 1569 as did thus all its territories while Podlasia as you talk about it was a small territory with quite variable borders, w/o any really important settlements though. Since I have Bug river which is important for partitions as border my Podlasia is even smaller. And since in 1419 half of the rest was owned by Masovian princes this province cannot be in any realitic way simulated at all if not part of the whole area up to Niemna river, which is thus both usable for partition 3 (as ALL of it went to Prussia - not Troki, but Troki was also on the other part of Niemna) and in 1815 ALL of it went to Russia. So again, I can impossible merge your 21 and 46, which leaves me unnecessarily many provinces here.

In the XVI century Polotsk had population 10.000, Vilnia 25.000 (in the XVII century), Slutsk 3.000-4.000, Niasvizh 2.000-3.000…

I doubt these extremely optimistic estimations for Polotsk and Wilna of which at most Vilna reached a population of more than 10.000 in late 16th or early 17th century (though the estimations given by Boguslawska/Topolski don't even give it that many inhabitants). Polotsk had never more than 10.000 inhabitants in the era that it was part of P-L.
But even if your numbers were correct, compared to European average for ~1600 P-L had no real cities other than Danzig, other than in name. Oh, and of course, ~1600 all these cities reached its peak. As you know the average amounts of inhabitants of P-L cities about halved if not worse in the period of 17th and early 18th century wars...

No you can name the way you like but to have in mind what this name really meant

Words can mean very complex things but for something like a game these are nothing else but labels. Truly, I'm always surprised how much importance some people put to that tiny little detail in pdox games

Malopolska is historical name for about 1/3 of Poland (Krakow, Lublin, Podlasia, Sandomierz…) And Wielkopolaks for the rest of Poland. Krakow voivodship is the west part of what in your map “Sancz”.

I suggest you to first look at your maps closer my friend before you argue with me again on this one

 

[Kasperus]

Hi Kasp .. thanks for the link

np

one thing, I just wanna protect Spaniard's interest on Iberian map, since they have complain a lot since I know ...

(but I don't know if you have already correct this but here they are)

- Algrave should be Algarve
- Saragossa should be Zaragoza (spanish way of the name suits more)
- Belatha should be Lisboa or Lissabon

The first is obviously a typo, as Hive correctly observed and I'll fix it. I can make Belatha -> Lisboa yeah, found the name to sound stupid already. Np with Zaragoza either. Names of provinces in general I can change the easiest, changing actual shapes of provinces takes me much more time. I will adjust it before the 'official' release of the map, together with Minsk and whatever else comes around till then

I wanted to check this section of the map (Europe) since is the most interesting part for me, I really prefer the european affairs; in fact, I don't like the southamerican section given the fact that is too detailed and has a lot of provs, that might suit for mods like AoI, but it gives too much to that area, but hell, it's just my opinion (also, if you can rename "Caraca" to "Caracas", I'll be very pleased.. thanks lol)

Wel, that's your opinion but well, 19th century was quite interesting in the America's. And well, pdox included even too few provs for that region for the actual game-period so I think these additions are more than justified And certainly it is not overkill (Europe otoh...).
Caraca was according to my maps the name of an Indian tribe here and since I used these names literally w/o changes of form or whatever I cannot fullfil your request here if at least for once I wish to be consistent, sorry

 

[the_genius]

Caraca was according to my maps the name of an Indian tribe here and since I used these names literally w/o changes of form or whatever I cannot fullfil your request here if at least for once I wish to be consistent, sorry

.. it was known (and it still are) that tribe as its plural name, not the singular, I mean: The Caracas Tribe; that's why spanish settlers named the city, Santiago de León de Caracas. Well, my request is mostly that I got the creeps seeing that region called Caraca ... I mean, sounds pretty weird for me.. as I'm living in "Caracas"

And (not to diminished your job in the map, its pretty accurate ) my objection of that southamerican section is with the european-colonizing/conquering point of view, that is going to be a real pain doing that.... but that's just it ... I really likey this map Kasp.. keep going

 

[Kasperus]

.. it was known (and it still are) that tribe as its plural name, not the singular, I mean: The Caracas Tribe; that's why spanish settlers named the city, Santiago de León de Caracas. Well, my request is mostly that I got the creeps seeing that region called Caraca ... I mean, sounds pretty weird for me.. as I'm living in "Caracas"

And (not to diminished your job in the map, its pretty accurate ) my objection of that southamerican section is with the european-colonizing/conquering point of view, that is going to be a real pain doing that.... but that's just it ... I really likey this map Kasp.. keep going

I'm still in doubt about Caracas. Although I aknowledge your argument, it kind of seems to me a quite typical way of words in Spanish to get an -s in the end which is less obvious in English where you would clearly talk of the Caraca tribe, even in plural if I'm not mistaken. But well, I'll see...

And I don't think it will be a pain if I work a bit more on colonization, giving nations more colonists overall, giving more nations a fair chance at colonizing by habdling out more explorers/conquistadors and give more countries colonial ai's and such. After all SOuth-America should be more than just Spain and Portugal. The Dutch, French and English were active here as well, even the Germans And in the end the American revolters can finalize the colonization - an idea I already worked out in my modified AoI, which I wanted to make Hive implement, but then that lazy bastard quite modifying eu, forcing me to subvert his mod now


On totally unrelated note, since I'm finishing a bit more the various remaining islands, what do pople think should be included yet and how of islands? Hawaii - is 2 enough or would a depiction a la MKJ with 4 islands, representative for 4 Hawaiian kingdoms from before unification of 18th century make more sense? What about the Galapagos - the biggest pacific islands not yet included but not really good for anything? Easter Island? Marquesas? Marshall islands (for 19th cent. Germany)? Line islands (part of Kiribati)? Some other fancy, almost uninhabited pacific atoll? Somewhat outstretched Alaskan coast? Baffinland? Atlantis?

 

[Hive]

On totally unrelated note, since I'm finishing a bit more the various remaining islands, what do pople think should be included yet and how of islands? Hawaii - is 2 enough or would a depiction a la MKJ with 4 islands, representative for 4 Hawaiian kingdoms from before unification of 18th century make more sense? What about the Galapagos - the biggest pacific islands not yet included but not really good for anything? Easter Island? Marquesas? Marshall islands (for 19th cent. Germany)? Line islands (part of Kiribati)? Some other fancy, almost uninhabited pacific atoll? Somewhat outstretched Alaskan coast? Baffinland? Atlantis?

Hawaii 4 provs? Hell no! Either keep it 2 or make it 1 (which I'd do). 4 is definately overkill imo.

As to all the other islands/atolls you mention, I'd say no... well you *could* do the Marshalls, but that's the only one of the mentioned islands I'd even consider.

Actually, I read a lot about the Pacific islands when I was working on my own map and trying to determine which to include and which not. If you're interested, I could show you my (unfinished) ID layers for those regions...

 

[unmerged(10894)]

Kasperus, I wouldn't worry too much about there being more provinces to colonise. Colonisers can be completely cut off by the late 1500's as it is, a little slowing of the pace will be good for things.

 

[Kasperus]

@Hive
Please do. Or simply list the chains you included. I made my own oceania research but I wouldn't mind a 2nd opinion.

@Bocaj
I do not really worry either, but nevertheless I want to give more ai-countries a better chance on colonizing. Also as in sp various colonial nations do not perform, sometimes even do not appear in the game. In such a case colonization of colonial 'demi-gods' should have been more likely but such countries do hardly get a fair chance in early game anyway. I'm thinking of Scandinavian countries, Italian republics, Some German states, Austria, Scotland, Courland and Japan - all countries with 'some' more or less succesful historical 'colonial' attempts that didn't work out as they were blocked off by the big 6. But if (some of) these 6 do not exist for whatever reason other ai should take it over .

 

[Hive]

@Hive
Please do. Or simply list the chains you included. I made my own oceania research but I wouldn't mind a 2nd opinion.

Hmm, I'll see if I can remember them all... been while. o

I'll list every island I have included east and north of Papua New Guinea. Provinces marked with an '*' are already in the game:

Rabaul*
New Ireland
Bouganville Island
The Solomon Islands (as 2 provs)
Mikronesia
New Caledonia
Vanuatu
The Fijis*
Tuvalu
The Marshalls (yeah forget what I said before, do add them )
Samoa
Hawaii* (as 1 prov)
The Bonin Islands
The Mariane (sp?) Islands
Ryukyu
The Kurils
Palau (left of Mikronesia, I *think* Palau is the name)
The Bikini Islands
Tahiti*
The Aleutes*

I think that's all... but can't rule out that I have forgotten one or two.

Oh, and although it's not in the Pacific, I thought I'd mention that I also added The Seychelles, the Maldives and The Comores (correct name in English? Too lazy to look it up atm...o) around Africa/India. Can't remember whether you have them included.

Please be aware that the above names are not final province names, as I didn't get to the naming part. It's just geographical descriptions.

 

[Kasperus]

Hmm, I find some of choices rather peculiar. Two provs for Solomons but only one for Hawaii or Fiji, both bigger, more important, with bigger populations... is it just for these 13 years that ze Germans claimed a part of it? And no Tonga?

I see no reason for inclusion of separate New Ireland, also no reason for the almost uninhabited Bonin or totally uninhabited Bikini atol (unless your Bikini islands is something else). I included Gilbert islands which seems to me as more important than Tuvalu, and were claimed by 3 nations at some point. The rest, except for Marshall isles I have on my map already; So I think I'll add only these yet.

 

[Hive]

/me gives Kasperus the evil eye

 

[unmerged(10894)]

Just as a little ammendment to Hive's list... for spelling. :wacko:

Bouganville = Bougainville
The Fijis = Fiji
Mikronesia= Micronesia
Mariane = Mariana

Comores = Comoros.

Palau is the right name too.

 

[Kasperus]

Well, the first 4 I use quite different names though already... somewhat more native