Org Mobile Site
Thread: Wallachia is not Bulgaria !
This is probably somewhat of a subjective view (I'm Romanian), but come on... Wallachia and Bulgaria as a a single province?! 
And thus not representing Bucharest that was/is a major European city, by far more important to represent than Iasi, the capital of Moldavia which has its own province. It just seems so stupid... Why not make one province for Romania (minus Transylvania) and one for Bulgaria? These two people have little in common geopolitically, culturally, ethnically,....you name it. And they never formed a common state (although I do remember reading something about an attempt of forming a joint Bulgaro-Romanian state, but that was more of an idea.. ). They just thought "Oh, these two regions are close together, lets just make them into a province." 
Its like taking Savoy (Italians) and Provence (French) and putting them together...
Are there more of these booboos in the game? I didn't really get to look around that much yet...
And thus not representing Bucharest that was/is a major European city, by far more important to represent than Iasi, the capital of Moldavia which has its own province. It just seems so stupid... Why not make one province for Romania (minus Transylvania) and one for Bulgaria? These two people have little in common geopolitically, culturally, ethnically,....you name it. And they never formed a common state (although I do remember reading something about an attempt of forming a joint Bulgaro-Romanian state, but that was more of an idea.. ). They just thought "Oh, these two regions are close together, lets just make them into a province." Its like taking Savoy (Italians) and Provence (French) and putting them together... Are there more of these booboos in the game? I didn't really get to look around that much yet...
Aren't all those provinces under austrian and/or ottoman control in the game? Meaning they aren't their own states?
I'm no historian but I highly doubt the ottomans or the austrians actually cared about which countries had been there before them and as such divided their administrative regions as they saw fit.
This is mostly speculation however, so don't freak out if I'm completely wrong.
I'm no historian but I highly doubt the ottomans or the austrians actually cared about which countries had been there before them and as such divided their administrative regions as they saw fit.
This is mostly speculation however, so don't freak out if I'm completely wrong.
They are, they do fall under Austrian control, and therefore it's up to Austria or Ottomans about how they get labeled. Infact I've discovered several regions in the game if you conquer as another nation will change the name of the province you conquer.
If they rebelled and became thier own province it may be a diff matter but where as Savoy is it's own nation in this time frame, Bulgaria holds no such privleage, much like Hungary it's just under Austrian rule.
If they rebelled and became thier own province it may be a diff matter but where as Savoy is it's own nation in this time frame, Bulgaria holds no such privleage, much like Hungary it's just under Austrian rule.
Time frame is 1700 false or true?
So Europe map is http://www.euratlas.com/history_euro..._map_1700.html
And in my opinion CA shows again a lack of history culture.
No comment
So Europe map is http://www.euratlas.com/history_euro..._map_1700.html
And in my opinion CA shows again a lack of history culture.
No comment
Yeah, I've noticed that as well, it's kind of stupid just to rename Walachia Bulgaria. But, hey, it's just a game, maybe in the expansion we'll get France owning England, who knows?
Wallachia and Moldavia were otoman vassals in 1700 they should be like the Crimean Khanate and yes merging Wallachia with Bulgaria is annoying for us a Romanians but most of the provinces in the game have very little to do with historical accuracy.Anyway i don't remember any total war game to big on history so don't sweat it. I'm waiting so we can mod it into reality the map at it's current state is somewhat ridiculous from my view as a history buff it resembles risk more then history.
People fidn the oddest things to get worked up on 
Originally Posted by Squints:
People fidn the oddest things to get worked up on
Yes they do, especially when they have like 3rd grade knowledge of European history and are ...bothered... when they see what nonsense is presented to the average bloke playing such a game, which then believes that back then Bulgaria really did stretch all the way to the Carpathians People fidn the oddest things to get worked up on
How would you feel if I told you the Earth is not round? That's how I feel when I see that part of the map. And yes, I am probably exaggerating all of this because I'm from around there, but that doesn't mean that CA is doing a good job of educating people on the true history of he era --- not that it does that in any of its TW games... I know it's a game and not an encyclopedia, but still.. primary school level history knowledge for me..
I think CA's reasining might be somewhat understandable in this matter...
During this era, Moldavia changed hands several times between the Russians and Ottomans, whereas the rest of the Balkans pretty much stayed in Ottoman hands until the 19th century hit and bits of it started to fall off.
So...they get their own province, Wallachia gets to be a bit of somebody else.
[/shrug]
Just an idea.
During this era, Moldavia changed hands several times between the Russians and Ottomans, whereas the rest of the Balkans pretty much stayed in Ottoman hands until the 19th century hit and bits of it started to fall off.
So...they get their own province, Wallachia gets to be a bit of somebody else.
[/shrug]
Just an idea.
Originally Posted by Olimpian:
Are there more of these booboos in the game? I didn't really get to look around that much yet...
Are there more of these booboos in the game? I didn't really get to look around that much yet...
They have the Ghoorkas (Ghurkas) being unique to Kashmir when IRL Ghurkas are from Nepal.
Well, there also aren't thirteen colonies in the thirteen colonies. I'm sure this isn't due to ignorance; I find it hard to believe that CA didn't know the thirteen colonies were made up of... well... thirteen colonies. It's not because CA is stupid and doesn't know history, it was a design decision. I really don't think it's a huge deal, and it likely streamlines the game. I'm sure some mods will be out soon that will have a more historically accurate map. For now, just use your imagination and try to enjoy the game. It is a game, after all.
Edit: yes, I know all thirteen colonies hadn't been founded by 1700, but I think you see my point notwithstanding.
Edit: yes, I know all thirteen colonies hadn't been founded by 1700, but I think you see my point notwithstanding.
Lol who cares anyway!
Originally Posted by General SupaCrunk:
Lol who cares anyway!
Yeah, I guess I should have expected that kind of feed-back from some people, but I seem to have become quite used to a more historically-accurate-inclined community, 'down' at the Europa Barbarorum subforum. It's just too bad that if you're a history buff and like to learn while you are playing you can't really do that in TW games, just in some mods like EB that focus on such things. Oh well, here's hoping some guys with the skills and time will redo ETW as it should be Lol who cares anyway!
While we are at it, anyone care that casualty rates in most battles of the era were in the 15%-30% range (not 50%-99%, as we see in this game) . . .
Not saying combining/misnaming provinces is ideal, but if we are talking historical simulation, there are alot more pressing issues.
Not saying combining/misnaming provinces is ideal, but if we are talking historical simulation, there are alot more pressing issues.
CA has to keep the number of provinces manageable. It does them no good to include all the provinces of every single race and ethnicity that believed themselves more important historically than they really are.
There's always been too much "my race is more important than your race" chest thumping here and it gets old really fast. People outside these provinces don't care. Period.
There's always been too much "my race is more important than your race" chest thumping here and it gets old really fast. People outside these provinces don't care. Period.
Originally Posted by Olimpian:
This is probably somewhat of a subjective view (I'm Romanian), but come on... Wallachia and Bulgaria as a a single province?! And thus not representing Bucharest that was/is a major European city, by far more important to represent than Iasi, the capital of Moldavia which has its own province. It just seems so stupid... Why not make one province for Romania (minus Transylvania) and one for Bulgaria? These two people have little in common geopolitically, culturally, ethnically,....you name it. And they never formed a common state (although I do remember reading something about an attempt of forming a joint Bulgaro-Romanian state, but that was more of an idea.. ). They just thought "Oh, these two regions are close together, lets just make them into a province." Its like taking Savoy (Italians) and Provence (French) and putting them together...
Are there more of these booboos in the game? I didn't really get to look around that much yet...
I don't have much business in this thread and my comment will be a single and very short. There is a point and I catch it Olimpian. It is an annoying mistake but... ~:sigh:~ fact is a fact. It seems it has been unfluenced by the euro integration, maybe. This is probably somewhat of a subjective view (I'm Romanian), but come on... Wallachia and Bulgaria as a a single province?!
And thus not representing Bucharest that was/is a major European city, by far more important to represent than Iasi, the capital of Moldavia which has its own province. It just seems so stupid... Why not make one province for Romania (minus Transylvania) and one for Bulgaria? These two people have little in common geopolitically, culturally, ethnically,....you name it. And they never formed a common state (although I do remember reading something about an attempt of forming a joint Bulgaro-Romanian state, but that was more of an idea.. ). They just thought "Oh, these two regions are close together, lets just make them into a province." Its like taking Savoy (Italians) and Provence (French) and putting them together... Are there more of these booboos in the game? I didn't really get to look around that much yet...
Or just ignorance. 
Or maybe a reminder that Romania and Bulgaria shall work more with each other... who knows! 
Originally Posted by andrewt:
CA has to keep the number of provinces manageable. It does them no good to include all the provinces of every single race and ethnicity that believed themselves more important historically than they really are.
There's always been too much "my race is more important than your race" chest thumping here and it gets old really fast. People outside these provinces don't care. Period.
Hahaha... you do not get the point. This is not a race thing. It is purely about real history. If that is how things really, undoubtably, and uncontestably were, why change things? I mean, just stick Walachia with Moldavia and you got a nice Romanian province and a nice Bulgarian province. Simple and straightforward. CA has to keep the number of provinces manageable. It does them no good to include all the provinces of every single race and ethnicity that believed themselves more important historically than they really are.
There's always been too much "my race is more important than your race" chest thumping here and it gets old really fast. People outside these provinces don't care. Period.
And about no one else caring, I find that very ignorant. People should care abut European history. The real history, not Hollywood's history. And I think it is to be expected that people from a region will expect accurate representation and complain about the lack of it because...well...they know. Do you expect a guy from France to start complaining about the misrepresentation of Syria? Well maybe he would if he were somewhat documented on the subject. But of course the most history you know is that of your country/region/etc.. Would you like your home country to be absorbed into one of its neighbours, knowing it is just plain bull? Maybe you wouldn't care, but you should. But I guess history is more like scifi for ever more people...
PS: Please note I did not/am not/will not offend anybody here (or at least am trying not to), I'm just thinking out loud about the disinterest in knowing where we came from and what was before us ; and am a bit disappointed that some have taken all that I have said as a nationalist outburst, when it was not intended to be so.
For the guys who don;t care about history true it doesn't really matter for you guys the game is fun because of battles more then the campaign.
For us historically minded people historical reality is important leaving the Wallchia issue behind I'd say having France and Spain as one province is totally ridiculous.
Playing as unlocked Genoa i took France and Spain in 20 turns now is that really possible? A small city state conquering the two strongest powers in western Europe in 10 years is just mind boggling.
The Genoese might have had a population of what 2-3 million at best and France and Spain 100 million
they could have just charged the Genoese bare handed and won.
Unless the Genoese had at the least some machine guns i don't see how they could have made it
As for the thirteen colonies the reason they exist as a nation is the American market
But as i said before to everybody enjoy the game. For those of you expecting a more historically accurate game i say why did you didn't you play Medieval 2 or Rome? And also don't worry the mods will certainly fix this at some point
For the rest just understand us we like history and some of us are patriots it's the feeling that's all.
I don't blame CA they are a company and as any company their first and foremost objective is to make money .
For us historically minded people historical reality is important leaving the Wallchia issue behind I'd say having France and Spain as one province is totally ridiculous.
Playing as unlocked Genoa i took France and Spain in 20 turns now is that really possible? A small city state conquering the two strongest powers in western Europe in 10 years is just mind boggling.
The Genoese might have had a population of what 2-3 million at best and France and Spain 100 million
they could have just charged the Genoese bare handed and won.Unless the Genoese had at the least some machine guns i don't see how they could have made it
As for the thirteen colonies the reason they exist as a nation is the American market
But as i said before to everybody enjoy the game. For those of you expecting a more historically accurate game i say why did you didn't you play Medieval 2 or Rome? And also don't worry the mods will certainly fix this at some point
For the rest just understand us we like history and some of us are patriots it's the feeling that's all.
I don't blame CA they are a company and as any company their first and foremost objective is to make money .
You're right The historian, I'll just go back to playing EB till Empire Total Realism or something comes out.
Being honest, I could see this thread turning out into a flame war with more provocative comments such as "It is not even a real country" (real: meaning none of the great powers).
Anyway, look on the bright side of life, your area of the world is in the game. There is a void spot in the middle of the Europe map covered by trees. I am sure my nation actually does exist and not a void hidden by an invasion of trees in the middle of Europe. (It is actually hidden by the Alps in reality.
)
Anyway, look on the bright side of life, your area of the world is in the game. There is a void spot in the middle of the Europe map covered by trees. I am sure my nation actually does exist and not a void hidden by an invasion of trees in the middle of Europe. (It is actually hidden by the Alps in reality.
)That sir is the most impromptu use of Humor I have seen in a long times.
I bow to you sire
I bow to you sire
Maybe CA thought the Swiss are too neutral to cause any trouble... 
On the serious side, it is a pretty dumb way of getting rid of a 'delicate' problem regarding your none-the-less existant country. Condolences
On the serious side, it is a pretty dumb way of getting rid of a 'delicate' problem regarding your none-the-less existant country. Condolences
Originally Posted by Olimpian:
Hahaha... you do not get the point. This is not a race thing. It is purely about real history. If that is how things really, undoubtably, and uncontestably were, why change things? I mean, just stick Walachia with Moldavia and you got a nice Romanian province and a nice Bulgarian province. Simple and straightforward.
And about no one else caring, I find that very ignorant. People should care abut European history. The real history, not Hollywood's history. And I think it is to be expected that people from a region will expect accurate representation and complain about the lack of it because...well...they know. Do you expect a guy from France to start complaining about the misrepresentation of Syria? Well maybe he would if he were somewhat documented on the subject. But of course the most history you know is that of your country/region/etc.. Would you like your home country to be absorbed into one of its neighbours, knowing it is just plain bull? Maybe you wouldn't care, but you should. But I guess history is more like scifi for ever more people...
PS: Please note I did not/am not/will not offend anybody here (or at least am trying not to), I'm just thinking out loud about the disinterest in knowing where we came from and what was before us ; and am a bit disappointed that some have taken all that I have said as a nationalist outburst, when it was not intended to be so.
Hahaha... you do not get the point. This is not a race thing. It is purely about real history. If that is how things really, undoubtably, and uncontestably were, why change things? I mean, just stick Walachia with Moldavia and you got a nice Romanian province and a nice Bulgarian province. Simple and straightforward.
And about no one else caring, I find that very ignorant. People should care abut European history. The real history, not Hollywood's history. And I think it is to be expected that people from a region will expect accurate representation and complain about the lack of it because...well...they know. Do you expect a guy from France to start complaining about the misrepresentation of Syria? Well maybe he would if he were somewhat documented on the subject. But of course the most history you know is that of your country/region/etc.. Would you like your home country to be absorbed into one of its neighbours, knowing it is just plain bull? Maybe you wouldn't care, but you should. But I guess history is more like scifi for ever more people...
PS: Please note I did not/am not/will not offend anybody here (or at least am trying not to), I'm just thinking out loud about the disinterest in knowing where we came from and what was before us ; and am a bit disappointed that some have taken all that I have said as a nationalist outburst, when it was not intended to be so.
I'll be blunt. If CA included everything that you guys want included, Empire would be completely unplayable. You'd have over 100000 provinces and you'd still not be finished with one grand campaign by 2015 even if you played 100 hours a week.
For all I care, Ottoman Eastern European possessions could be one region called Ottoman Eastern Europe. It's not because I'm ignorant of history. It's because you're ignorant of modeling. There's a reason a barbie doll doesn't have every single organ in the human body and it's not because Mattel is being ignorant of the human anatomy.
The fact is, there are always abstractions where games are concerned. There's no historical data to suggest that line infantry are 50% better in melee than militias rather than 60%. Game provinces are the same. There should be a set amount of provinces to control game length. After you hit that mark, certain provinces should be cut from the game or combined with another.
You can deny it is a nationalistic outburst, but it really is a nationalistic outburst. You're upset that your country is one of the regions that got put on the cutting floor or combined with another province. Look at my join date. I've been at these forums ever since Shogun and there's always no end to complaints by people wondering why their end of the boondocks isn't included in the game.
Don't worry, I am sure once there are mod tools out, it will be a quick rename for your problem. I am sure the Irish cringe every time they see it under British control, unfortunately for them, that is accurate of the time period.
To andrewt Europa Universalis or Hearts of Iron have ten time 20 times the provinces in empire and they don't fall apart sorry it's not 1980 it's almost 2010 your PC can model some 500+ regions even at this level of graphics, this is not Risk or Axis and Allies.
PS: I think we should delete this thread cause it'll just flame us up all of us. It's counterproductive.
PS: I think we should delete this thread cause it'll just flame us up all of us. It's counterproductive.
Originally Posted by andrewt:
I'll be blunt. If CA included everything that you guys want included, Empire would be completely unplayable. You'd have over 100000 provinces and you'd still not be finished with one grand campaign by 2015 even if you played 100 hours a week.
For all I care, Ottoman Eastern European possessions could be one region called Ottoman Eastern Europe. It's not because I'm ignorant of history. It's because you're ignorant of modeling. There's a reason a barbie doll doesn't have every single organ in the human body and it's not because Mattel is being ignorant of the human anatomy.
The fact is, there are always abstractions where games are concerned. There's no historical data to suggest that line infantry are 50% better in melee than militias rather than 60%. Game provinces are the same. There should be a set amount of provinces to control game length. After you hit that mark, certain provinces should be cut from the game or combined with another.
You can deny it is a nationalistic outburst, but it really is a nationalistic outburst. You're upset that your country is one of the regions that got put on the cutting floor or combined with another province. Look at my join date. I've been at these forums ever since Shogun and there's always no end to complaints by people wondering why their end of the boondocks isn't included in the game.
I'll be blunt. If CA included everything that you guys want included, Empire would be completely unplayable. You'd have over 100000 provinces and you'd still not be finished with one grand campaign by 2015 even if you played 100 hours a week.
For all I care, Ottoman Eastern European possessions could be one region called Ottoman Eastern Europe. It's not because I'm ignorant of history. It's because you're ignorant of modeling. There's a reason a barbie doll doesn't have every single organ in the human body and it's not because Mattel is being ignorant of the human anatomy.
The fact is, there are always abstractions where games are concerned. There's no historical data to suggest that line infantry are 50% better in melee than militias rather than 60%. Game provinces are the same. There should be a set amount of provinces to control game length. After you hit that mark, certain provinces should be cut from the game or combined with another.
You can deny it is a nationalistic outburst, but it really is a nationalistic outburst. You're upset that your country is one of the regions that got put on the cutting floor or combined with another province. Look at my join date. I've been at these forums ever since Shogun and there's always no end to complaints by people wondering why their end of the boondocks isn't included in the game.
Neah, I'm just so intrigued why they didn't just draw the borders a bit more logically. I never said there should be an extra province there, just different borders. I think I already stated that in an earlier post - do I express myself that bad?
Just because you have 1000+ posts and are here since the stone age doesn't count as an argument in a discussion as far as I am concerned. I have seen my fair share of nationalist threads. If you think this is one of them and I am nothing but an over-crazed Romanian that wants every Romanian county in the game.... it must mean I am very bad at expressing an idea.
Originally Posted by The historian:
To andrewt Europa Universalis or Hearts of Iron have ten time 20 times the provinces in empire and they don't fall apart sorry it's not 1980 it's almost 2010 your PC can model some 500+ regions even at this level of graphics, this is not Risk or Axis and Allies.
PS: I think we should delete this thread cause it'll just flame us up all of us. It's counterproductive.
To andrewt Europa Universalis or Hearts of Iron have ten time 20 times the provinces in empire and they don't fall apart sorry it's not 1980 it's almost 2010 your PC can model some 500+ regions even at this level of graphics, this is not Risk or Axis and Allies.
PS: I think we should delete this thread cause it'll just flame us up all of us. It's counterproductive.
There's a reason I don't play Europa Universalis. I tried it once and the game just bogs down. Remember Civ 2 late game? I spent 20-30 minutes per turn just moving all my workers.
I made that comment not because of processor speed. Sure, a computer can model 10x the regions that the game currently has, but how much longer will turns be if you have to manage 10x the provinces and how long will the game be if you have to conquer 10x the provinces?
Originally Posted by Olimpian:
Neah, I'm just so intrigued why they didn't just draw the borders a bit more logically. I never said there should be an extra province there, just different borders. I think I already stated that in an earlier post - do I express myself that bad?
Just because you have 1000+ posts and are here since the stone age doesn't count as an argument in a discussion as far as I am concerned. I have seen my fair share of nationalist threads. If you think this is one of them and I am nothing but an over-crazed Romanian that wants every Romanian county in the game.... it must mean I am very bad at expressing an idea.
Neah, I'm just so intrigued why they didn't just draw the borders a bit more logically. I never said there should be an extra province there, just different borders. I think I already stated that in an earlier post - do I express myself that bad?
Just because you have 1000+ posts and are here since the stone age doesn't count as an argument in a discussion as far as I am concerned. I have seen my fair share of nationalist threads. If you think this is one of them and I am nothing but an over-crazed Romanian that wants every Romanian county in the game.... it must mean I am very bad at expressing an idea.
Probably a misunderstanding on my part. I understood your first post as saying Wallachia and Bulgaria should be two separate provinces instead of what it is currently. I think the number of provinces in game is good enough. The only ones I think should be split are France and Spain, which should be 2-3 provinces each.
Yes i remember Civ 2 endgame didn't stop me from playing.
As for Europa Universals you need a new computer Andrewt
no offense meant i'd buy it for you if i could EU is a great game my greatest dream is a EU series-Total war series combination.
That would be the most perfect game ever would probably take till 2015 to complete but i'd savor every moment of it.
As for Europa Universals you need a new computer Andrewt
no offense meant i'd buy it for you if i could EU is a great game my greatest dream is a EU series-Total war series combination.That would be the most perfect game ever would probably take till 2015 to complete but i'd savor every moment of it.
My computer can easily handle it. By bog down, I don't mean it taxes my system. I mean I found it full of tedious micromanagement. Some things are better off automated or abstracted out of games.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO