Alright, this idiocy has gone on long enough. I'm talking of idiocy from both sides, and I'm a Romanian. Now, let's get some facts straight.
1) Transylvania was not under Hungarian control in 1080, at least in no administrative sense. No Comites in Transylvania are mentioned until 1113, when we finally get a mention of the Comitat of Bihor. The, we get Dobica and Crasna in 1164; Solnoc in 1166; Cluj, Alba, and Timis in 1177; Caras in 1200 etc. One only needs to look at the fact that King Ladislaus established the first Transylvania bishoprip in Varad in 1094, this being only on the outer fringes of Romania today. At most you can say this was a conquest in progress at 1080. Many regions in fact retained autonomy for a long time, like Maramures and Fagaras. Besides, it makes it more interesting as well if the Hungarians actually have to conquer Transylvania, as it must have happened historically.

2) A Romanian state should be included. Wallachia and Moldova had much more pronounced successes in the Middle Ages than say, Moravia, Bohemia, Serbia, 2nd Bulgarian Empire, Scotland, or Denmark. Wallachia, Moldova, and Transylvania were the only regions to remain autonomous of Turkish administration, and this is an undeniable historical fact. None of these regions ever became Turkish provinces, and vassalship was often sporadic, and fluctuated between many of the expansionist neighbors. Of pretty much every nation in Eastern Europe, Wallachia and Moldova were the only ones to retain autonomy throughout a continuous history. In fact, I have a vivid image of a map from 16th century, showing the three principalities (Wallachia, Moldova, and Transylvania) bordering the Turks on pretty much all their borders except the very North. Mircea the Old at one point even played an important part in Ottoman politics, trying to destabilize the Ottoman throne after Bayezid's death. Mircea the Old, Vlad III Tepes, Stephen the Great, Alexander the Good, John the Brave, and Michael the Brave all played pronounced roles in international politics, whether it was against Teutonic Knights, Hungary, Poland, or the Turks.

It is wrong to show Wallachia/Moldova as rebels, because the progress on the map would be ahistorical. The rebel states always become weaker as the game progresses, but in the case of Wallachia and Moldova, we see the CONSOLIDATION of two states. They actually became stronger with the course of history, though their territory never grew significantly. For this reason, at least Wallachia should be shown as an EMERGING STATE, as that is what it was historically, becoming its own consolidated principality in 1330. They are effectively an Eastern synonym for the Swiss, with Posada being similar to the battle of Sempach politically. If Switzerland becomes an Emerging State, there is literally no reason to not have Wallachia as at least an emerging state, if not a fully playable faction. Switzerland never expanded either, so that is no reason to not include a Romanian principality.

Not to mention the Orthodox Christian factions are severely lacking on this map. In Vanilla TW, there were only two factions! In this, there are 4 at most. Wallachia could act as an important political, cultural, and military weight in Southern Europe. At the very least, Wallachia should replace Bulgaria (2nd Bulgarian Empire) as Wallachia is pretty much in the same region but had greater political longevity (never losing autonomy).

[NOTE: I use autonomy, not independence. While none of these states were ever provinces of the big players that surrounded them, they often had to pay ransoms for their peace.]