Galicia and Transylvania are indeed there for alternatives, though they both have a historical basis for the period, including:
-The Transylvanian uprising: it'd be too early for a Romanian state to be accepted, so they'd have to be a Transylvanian state first (which also wasn't a too distant memory). It's potential to exist also gives greater incentive to put the rebellion down - you don't want a mass secession, which is rarer if under a normal revolt with the tag.
-Greater autonomy in the Kingdom of Hungary (considered along with the Croatians).
-Various Galician rebellions: again, the same as for the Transylvanian uprising - extra incentive to put it down so it doesn't secede as a seperate state.
-Autonomy of the Galician parliament: there aren't any events for independence as a satellite yet, though they could be implemented in a future Grossosterreich chain.
There's also that point about carving up Austria nicely without allow Poland to form, which is another argument for including Galicia.
So no, I don't think they are pointless. They are there for very plausible alternatives - alternatives which historically were considered.
As for Macedonia, well the IMRO eventually disintegrated along ethnic lines, and so for the short period of time which a united Macedonia might have been likely (i.e. a multi-ethnic IMRO existed), it would give rise to a state which had Bulgarian, Serbian and Greek as national cultures (and therefore be very overpowered). The quick disintegration along ethnic lines is what we have focused on in the 'Struggle for Macedonia' chain, and so the conflict is modelled, primarily, as a power struggle between the Balkan powers, rather than the short-lived dream of an independent and multi-ethnic Macedonia.
All of that said: we do listen. IIRC it was you, Voss, who suggested the possibility of gaining Polish as an accepted culture for Austria, as well as the implementation of Belarus for the historical WW1 outcome; both of these suggestions we have implemented in this latest version.
