Suggestions and Requests

[AbsintheRed]

Interesting to see both sides of the argument.
For now I just want to add one thing:
for example in case of Morocco, we represent Almohads, Almoravids, Marinids within the same civ...
We do not have those as a separate civ (no matter where did those dynasties come from), but we do represent the whole timeline. Same for Arabia.
I think different parts of this setup is valid for both against and for a separate Normandy civ, just wanted to add this aspect to the conversation too.

 

[DC123456789]

He didn't 'unite' England and Normandy, he conquered England. The Angevin Empire was a composite state, the Kings of England controlled part of France through a sensechal and various vassals. It was in no way a single 'united' realm.

What's your argument anyway? You think Norman Sicily should be a separate civ but Norman Normandy shouldn't? Why do you think that should be the case, given that you want both of them to take control of what you claim should be indie cities?

Ultimately it remains a massive historical anachronism in the game that most major civs spawn with a small core and have to conquer their historical realm (France doesn't control France, Germany doesn't control the HRE, Spain doesn't control Spain etc) whilst 'England' just flips and settles their core like there was nothing there.

Within the confines of what we can represent in Civ, he definitely united England and Normandy. Unless they were autonomous enough to be considered vassals or independent cities the details of how exactly the feudal relationships worked isn't really all that relevant.

I don't really have an argument here - not everything has to have a point. All I'm saying is that a 1066 Norman England start, while definitely problematic in lots of ways, does make a certain amount of sense and is a way (if not a very good one) of making sure that England has continential possesions, which were rather important to the French-English dynamics for pretty much all of the Middle Ages. The main concern I have really with a seperate Anglo-Saxon civ is that it would be very short-lived, only about 250 years under the suggestions you've made, which would IIRC be the shortest-lived civ in the game besides the Dutch (who have the compensating factor of being in the lategame - I think the Anglo-Saxons would be the shortest by quite some margin by turns). Simply extending the English civ backwards to include the Anglo-Saxons would work a bit better IMO from a purely gameplay perspective, though the question then becomes how to represent their continential holdings in an appropriate way (a conqueror event from England to Normandy would be, to say the least, interesting).

If your main problem is that England flips all its core for free then that could probably be easily remedied by just spawning with Normandy and a big stack in Sussex to conquer a bunch of independent cities. I do remember AbsintheRed saying that the cities representing the Anglo-Saxons (i.e. for the Danes to conquer and the Norwegians to raid) get autorazed so that the human English player can do whatever setup he/her wants, so I don't know how that plays into it.

I'd also like to add that something that no one's really been talking about - whether or not England gets split - is a proper representation of the Plantagenet inheritance of Aquitaine, which was in some ways even more important (certainly held longer) to the Angevins than Normandy was. Now I don't know how you would implement this short of RFCE++'s inheritance events (which I find are a bit rigid and inflexible) or a conqueror event (which comes with its problems, not least that the English inherited, not conquered Aquitaine), but I find it rather jarring that it's left out.

 

[Swarbs]

Interesting to see both sides of the argument.
For now I just want to add one thing:
for example in case of Morocco, we represent Almohads, Almoravids, Marinids within the same civ...
We do not have those as a separate civ (no matter where did those dynasties come from), but we do represent the whole timeline. Same for Arabia.
I think different parts of this setup is valid for both against and for a separate Normandy civ, just wanted to add this aspect to the conversation too.

This is true, although the difference is that these were dynasties rising up from within the existing empire. They generally came to power via civil wars rather than outright invasions and conquests, and didn't massively change the outlook of the respective Arabia / Moorish empires. The Norman conquest was entirely different, and did mark a significant change in the outlook of England, from isolated and internally focused island nation to major European power. I think that's work reflecting in the two civs.

Either way, I appreciate it's likely going to be a long time before anything actually happens with this.

 

[Swarbs]

Within the confines of what we can represent in Civ, he definitely united England and Normandy. Unless they were autonomous enough to be considered vassals or independent cities the details of how exactly the feudal relationships worked isn't really all that relevant.

But the key thing is united through conquest, and it was the conquest of one civilization by another, not a load of separate cities in England suddenly turning around and deciding that they now belonged to the guy who just appeared on the south coast. If you think they are too short lived, just extend the final goal to 1400AD and add in the requirement to have a higher score than Burgundy, France, Germany and Spain. After all, it's the ahistorical goal so we can be as creative as we like, subject to testing and feasibility.

If your main problem is that England flips all its core for free then that could probably be easily remedied by just spawning with Normandy and a big stack in Sussex to conquer a bunch of independent cities. I do remember AbsintheRed saying that the cities representing the Anglo-Saxons (i.e. for the Danes to conquer and the Norwegians to raid) get autorazed so that the human English player can do whatever setup he/her wants, so I don't know how that plays into it.

No, the main problem is that they are independent cities to start with. It's not like Denmark or Norway, who largely attacked petty kingdoms during the Viking raids. England was a coherent civilization that was conquered by a separate one, and that's what I think the game should strive to represent. No one's saying that the Ottomans should spawn a big stack to conquer a bunch of independent cities in Anatolia and the Balkans, or Spain should spawn a big stack to conquer independent cities in Andalusia. The simple fact is that the current mod represents pretty much every major conquest of one civ by another, except the Norman conquest which is an ahistorical and completely reversed flip of indie cities.

I'd also like to add that something that no one's really been talking about - whether or not England gets split - is a proper representation of the Plantagenet inheritance of Aquitaine, which was in some ways even more important (certainly held longer) to the Angevins than Normandy was. Now I don't know how you would implement this short of RFCE++'s inheritance events (which I find are a bit rigid and inflexible) or a conqueror event (which comes with its problems, not least that the English inherited, not conquered Aquitaine), but I find it rather jarring that it's left out.

Tbh I think those kinds of historical events are best left out of RFC mods. The whole point is to see how history unfolds differently as you play. It would be very inflexible to have something that specific happen, same as if we forced an arbitrary union of Spain and Aragon, or created the Kalmar Union via a marriage event, rather than the Danish conquest UHV. The focus should be on the major events which created civilizations, not the specific events which later shaped them imo.

 

[DC123456789]

But the key thing is united through conquest, and it was the conquest of one civilization by another, not a load of separate cities in England suddenly turning around and deciding that they now belonged to the guy who just appeared on the south coast.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. It's not like the Normans in Sicily, or the Magyars in Hungary, for example, magically united all of the states in the area peacefully either - they had to conquer each one, one by one.

If you think they are too short lived, just extend the final goal to 1400AD and add in the requirement to have a higher score than Burgundy, France, Germany and Spain. After all, it's the ahistorical goal so we can be as creative as we like, subject to testing and feasibility.

I'm not talking about the human experience, I'm talking about how much time an impact it'll have under the AI given that we expect it to be conquered by the Normans around 1066 most games. Obviously a competent human player can make most/all civs survive indefinitely. @AbsintheRed do you know how many turns a civ like that would have?

No, the main problem is that they are independent cities to start with. It's not like Denmark or Norway, who largely attacked petty kingdoms during the Viking raids. England was a coherent civilization that was conquered by a separate one, and that's what I think the game should strive to represent. No one's saying that the Ottomans should spawn a big stack to conquer a bunch of independent cities in Anatolia and the Balkans, or Spain should spawn a big stack to conquer independent cities in Andalusia. The simple fact is that the current mod represents pretty much every major conquest of one civ by another, except the Norman conquest which is an ahistorical and completely reversed flip of indie cities.

Not sure if you meant to cite two examples where that actually happened historically.

Tbh I think those kinds of historical events are best left out of RFC mods. The whole point is to see how history unfolds differently as you play. It would be very inflexible to have something that specific happen, same as if we forced an arbitrary union of Spain and Aragon, or created the Kalmar Union via a marriage event, rather than the Danish conquest UHV. The focus should be on the major events which created civilizations, not the specific events which later shaped them imo.

The mod, ideally, should be balanced so that it generally follows history overall, even if any individual game is going to have a fair ampunt of variance. E.g. Spain should usually conquer Andalusia. Poland/Lithuania should usually conquer Ukraine. Austria should usually conquer Hungary. The Ottomans should usually conquer the southeast quarter of the map. (And as has been mentioned before, Hungary should not be a massive superpower that dominates east/southeastern Europe and tops the scoreboard every other game.) Not once, ever, though, have I ever seen England manage to do anything other than conquer northern France, never the south - and that only if France collapses. Instead of 400 years of conflict and struggle between England and France that often dominated the politics both kingdoms, we have England flipping a single city and losing it shortly afterwards - and then that's that for English-French wars. Not only does it make for a disappointing English representation and experience, it also makes for a disappointing French representation and experience. TBH it would be as bad as not representing, say, the Seljuk invasions of Anatolia (I mean, the Ottomans will take care of them eventually, right?) or the Aragonese/Spanish involvement in Sicily. Is it necessary? No, not really. But that doesn't make it any less disappointing when it's not represented.

 

[Swarbs]

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. It's not like the Normans in Sicily, or the Magyars in Hungary, for example, magically united all of the states in the area peacefully either - they had to conquer each one, one by one.

Yes and I would hope when Sicily is added it needs to conquer Sicily rather than just being given it. The Magyars are different as they created Hungary out of disparate tribes. There was no single "Hungary" before they created it, but there was an England. That's what I'm getting at.

I'm not talking about the human experience, I'm talking about how much time an impact it'll have under the AI given that we expect it to be conquered by the Normans around 1066 most games. Obviously a competent human player can make most/all civs survive indefinitely. @AbsintheRed do you know how many turns a civ like that would have?

Perhaps, but equally England might survive the invasion in several games, creating an interesting alternate reality where Normandy remained a vassal of France.

Not sure if you meant to cite two examples where that actually happened historically.

What do you think happened historically? The Ottomans and Spanish kingdoms both had to defeat and collapsed the incumbent civilizations (Byzantines and Almohads) before they could mop up the fragments that remained. That's what should happen with the Normans - they attack and collapse England with a powerful stack, then mop up the indies.

Not once, ever, though, have I ever seen England manage to do anything other than conquer northern France, never the south - and that only if France collapses

That could probably be addressed by improving the AI warmap for the Normans, and giving them a stronger military focus. AI England is currently very weak, and that's largely because they have to found cities 600 years after France and thus have a terminal economic disadvantage. If the AI captures existing developed cities in England they will be better able to compete with France on an even footing.

 

[DC123456789]

Yes and I would hope when Sicily is added it needs to conquer Sicily rather than just being given it. The Magyars are different as they created Hungary out of disparate tribes. There was no single "Hungary" before they created it, but there was an England. That's what I'm getting at.

This isn't really all that relevant I suppose but you do realize that the Magyars are traditionally held to have formed a single political unit (insofar as a tribal/nomadic people can) when they conquered the Pannonian Basin, right?

Perhaps, but equally England might survive the invasion in several games, creating an interesting alternate reality where Normandy remained a vassal of France.

I don't really think something the civ being interesting and relevant on should depend on them surviving an event that they are expected to lose to in most games.

What do you think happened historically? The Ottomans and Spanish kingdoms both had to defeat and collapsed the incumbent civilizations (Byzantines and Almohads) before they could mop up the fragments that remained. That's what should happen with the Normans - they attack and collapse England with a powerful stack, then mop up the indies.

What do you think happened historically? The first main wave of the reconquista happened in the First Taifa Period after the Caliphate of Cordoba collapsed, and the second one happened after the equivalent of all of Andalusia declaring independence. The Ottomans were able to conquer Anatolia because the Sultanate of Rum had completely collapsed, and the Balkans because a) the Byzantines were an irrelevant husk after a massive civil war (really at the held the equivalent of, like 3 or 4 cities by the time the Ottoman conwuests began), b) the Bulgarians were declining and divided, and c) the Serbians had completely collapsed. They were able to rise because Anatolia ans rhe Balkans were divided into dozens of states constantly fighting with one another. But I digress, it's not really relevant.

The English actually did submit fairly quickly after Harold's death and then William's capture of London (of course they did not stay submitted for several years afterwards).

That could probably be addressed by improving the AI warmap for the Normans, and giving them a stronger military focus. AI England is currently very weak, and that's largely because they have to found cities 600 years after France and thus have a terminal economic disadvantage. If the AI captures existing developed cities in England they will be better able to compete with France on an even footing.

One could only hope, but I personally have my doubts about the AI being able to project their power over the channel. Your point about the more deceloped cities is good though and could probably be addressed even in the current build simply by not autorazing the Anglo-Saxon cities before the (AI, at least) English spawn.

 

[Edmund Ironside]

I don't really think something the civ being interesting and relevant on should depend on them surviving an event that they are expected to lose to in most games.

I think it might be fun as England getting the chance to rewrite history, and having to fight off and survive the Norman Conquest. Williams had a different nickname before he became the Conqueror, and he certainly was a lucky one!
So many things had to go his way. Harold having to fight a major battle so soon before the Norman invasion. Harold choosing to fight William after force marching his army down south (when it was William who needed the battle to happen much more than Harold did, due to limited supplies and support). Then at the battle itself, Harold arguably had it won until his shield wall lost discipline. Even losing the battle would not have been such a major problem for the English, as long as Harold had survived. Even Harold dying didn't have to be the major disaster it was, if there had been any adult royal males around to continue the fight. In summary William got very lucky!

I certainly think you can have the English spawn earlier and still have UHVs which occur after the Norman Conquest, to represent alternative timelines where the Norman Conquest fails.

However if it is decided to change absolutely nothing about the English, and to keep their spawn date and UHVs exactly the same, then may I humbly suggest changing their names to Normans, as having the English spawn on the date of one of their most devastating defeats in history just seems a bit weird!

Also it sounds like whatever is decided, that the Normans/English could do with a bit of a buff.

 

[Swarbs]

This isn't really all that relevant I suppose but you do realize that the Magyars are traditionally held to have formed a single political unit (insofar as a tribal/nomadic people can) when they conquered the Pannonian Basin, right?

Yes, that's my point. They became a single political unit at that time, around 895AD, which is when the they are recognised as a civ in RFCE. They settled and subjugated the reason fairly peacefully which is why they flip it. Completely different from the Norman conquest of the single political unit of England.

I don't really think something the civ being interesting and relevant on should depend on them surviving an event that they are expected to lose to in most games.

That's not why they are interesting and relevant, they are interesting a relevant as they were a major civ at the time and would impact on other games. Even if AI England is wiped from the board in 1066 in nearly every game, their presence still adds richness and challenge for a human player, and also for Scotland, Norway and Denmark which will have to interact with the English civ rather than just bullying the indies to win their UHVs.

What do you think happened historically?

What did happen historically. A combination of internal collapse and external pressure saw one civ replaced by another. You have overlooked the battles of Quart de Poblet, Las Navas de Tolosa and Bapheus in contributing the collapse and decline of centralised Moorish and Byzantine power in the two regions. Whilst none were as fully decisive as Hastings, they still saw one civ conquered by another, which is why RFCE represents them as such rather than just having Spain or the Ottomans flip the entirety of Iberia / Anatolia and the Balkans. Same as should happen with England and Normandy.

 

[DC123456789]

Yes, that's my point. They became a single political unit at that time, around 895AD, which is when the they are recognised as a civ in RFCE. They settled and subjugated the reason fairly peacefully which is why they flip it. Completely different from the Norman conquest of the single political unit of England.

Um, I'm really not sure what to say about this other than no, it really wasn't a peaceful event at all, and they most likely already formed a single political unit back when they were still on the steppe.

That's not why they are interesting and relevant, they are interesting a relevant as they were a major civ at the time and would impact on other games. Even if AI England is wiped from the board in 1066 in nearly every game, their presence still adds richness and challenge for a human player, and also for Scotland, Norway and Denmark which will have to interact with the English civ rather than just bullying the indies to win their UHVs.

Well considering that most of the Norse invasions occured when England was still divided, technically the independent cities are more accurate. Anyway it would really depend on how England spawns; would it be e.g. just Wessex and you/the AI has to conquer the rest of England yourself, or do you flip it all for free?

What did happen historically. A combination of internal collapse and external pressure saw one civ replaced by another. You have overlooked the battles of Quart de Poblet, Las Navas de Tolosa and Bapheus in contributing the collapse and decline of centralised Moorish and Byzantine power in the two regions. Whilst none were as fully decisive as Hastings, they still saw one civ conquered by another, which is why RFCE represents them as such rather than just having Spain or the Ottomans flip the entirety of Iberia / Anatolia and the Balkans. Same as should happen with England and Normandy.

No, not really. The area a civ flips is based mostly on their historical extent at around the time when they spawn, sometimes with adjustments for gameplay. You mention Bapheus, but that part of Ottoman expansion is actually covered in their flipzone since those areas were conquered before they spawn ingame. Spain only flips the north because that's what they controlled initially and didn't manage to conquer the south for many centuries, while the Normans were in control of all of England by the end of 1066 and firmly in control about 5 years later.

 

[Swarbs]

Um, I'm really not sure what to say about this other than no, it really wasn't a peaceful event at all, and they most likely already formed a single political unit back when they were still on the steppe.

Actually historians agree it was mostly peaceful. The area was divided and depopulated so it was more of a migration than a conquest, other than the subjugations of Moravia and Nitra which are outside their flip zone.

Well considering that most of the Norse invasions occured when England was still divided, technically the independent cities are more accurate. Anyway it would really depend on how England spawns; would it be e.g. just Wessex and you/the AI has to conquer the rest of England yourself, or do you flip it all for free?

As I said before, England would spawn in Wessex and compete with the Vikings. AI England might need a boost I agree, but then so do AI France and Burgundy at the moment.

Spain only flips the north because that's what they controlled initially and didn't manage to conquer the south for many centuries, while the Normans were in control of all of England by the end of 1066 and firmly in control about 5 years later.

Do you not see your contradiction here? Spain only flips what it controlled initially and has to conquer the rest. So why don't the Normans flip what they controlled initially, i.e. Normandy, and have to conquer the rest? After all, no one is suggesting Spain should spawn in 1469 when it became more recognisably Spain, rather than Leon/Castille/Navarre.

 

[DC123456789]

Do you not see your contradiction here? Spain only flips what it controlled initially and has to conquer the rest. So why don't the Normans flip what they controlled initially, i.e. Normandy, and have to conquer the rest? After all, no one is suggesting Spain should spawn in 1469 when it became more recognisably Spain, rather than Leon/Castille/Navarre.

There is good precedent for civs spawning only when they became large enough to be relevant, e.g. Ottomans spawning in 1356 rather than earlier in the 14th century. Norman England, as currently implemented now, spawns in 1066 when they became a large political entity rather than just another French duchy and so it is not unreasonable that they flip the areas they conquered in 1066-1070.

 

[Swarbs]

There is good precedent for civs spawning only when they became large enough to be relevant, e.g. Ottomans spawning in 1356 rather than earlier in the 14th century. Norman England, as currently implemented now, spawns in 1066 when they became a large political entity rather than just another French duchy and so it is not unreasonable that they flip the areas they conquered in 1066-1070.

Not really - the precedent is generally for a civ to spawn when they become a coherent political entity and began their rise, as you noted for the Hungarians previously. I've pointed out in another thread that the Ottomans are an outlier in this regard in that they spawn quite a long time after they became coherent. 1300 is a better date for them, the main problem was locating a viable capital for them which won't impinge on Constantinople.

For example, Bulgaria on spawn was a small regional power, no larger or more relevant than the other migrators, but they spawn when they reached the Byzantine Empire, not when they expanded through conquest in the 800s. Novgorod's spawn in the founding of the city, Poland's is the coronation of Mieszko and the transformation of a tribal state into a feudal one, and Spain as we've already established is just one of many petty kingdoms which was no more relevant than the others of the time.

Perhaps most conclusively, Scotland spawns with the capture of Edinburgh by the Kingdom of Alba, when it was one of many kingdoms in modern day Scotland, not when they became a large political entity which was much later.

 

[DC123456789]

Not really - the precedent is generally for a civ to spawn when they become a coherent political entity and began their rise, as you noted for the Hungarians previously. I've pointed out in another thread that the Ottomans are an outlier in this regard in that they spawn quite a long time after they became coherent. 1300 is a better date for them, the main problem was locating a viable capital for them which won't impinge on Constantinople.

For example, Bulgaria on spawn was a small regional power, no larger or more relevant than the other migrators, but they spawn when they reached the Byzantine Empire, not when they expanded through conquest in the 800s. Novgorod's spawn in the founding of the city, Poland's is the coronation of Mieszko and the transformation of a tribal state into a feudal one, and Spain as we've already established is just one of many petty kingdoms which was no more relevant than the others of the time

The main difference between those civs and a potential early spawning Normandy (and Ottomans too) is that they were historically significantly larger at the point when they spawn or would spawn - large enough to be a viable civ. Even a 933-borders Normandy would have the smallest spawn area in the game, probably surrounded by a hostile France too.

Perhaps most conclusively, Scotland spawns with the capture of Edinburgh by the Kingdom of Alba, when it was one of many kingdoms in modern day Scotland, not when they became a large political entity which was much later.

There may have been other kingdoms in what is now Scotland, but by 960 Alba was clearly the most powerful and largely dominated the other kingdoms as subjects or vassals, save for the Norse in the Western and Northern Isles.

On an entirely different note. Can something be done about the utterly misplaced Banat province - specifically, the one that covers Oltenia, Vidin, and the Belgrade area, but none of what's traditionally considered part of Banat? It just doesn't make any historical or geographical sense to me at all.

 

[Swarbs]

The main difference between those civs and a potential early spawning Normandy (and Ottomans too) is that they were historically significantly larger at the point when they spawn or would spawn - large enough to be a viable civ. Even a 933-borders Normandy would have the smallest spawn area in the game, probably surrounded by a hostile France too.

Doubt they'd be surrounded by France - the French usually haven't taken Brittany by that time. Tho' they probably would need a buff. Maybe the AI could flip England, but the human player needs to conquer it?

Either way, at least we are in agreement that they are historically appropriate, the only issue is designing and balancing the gameplay.

On an entirely different note. Can something be done about the utterly misplaced Banat province - specifically, the one that covers Oltenia, Vidin, and the Belgrade area, but none of what's traditionally considered part of Banat? It just doesn't make any historical or geographical sense to me at all.

Agree with this - Banat should be the region currently called Hungary, and the current Banat should probably split, with Sumadija having the western part and the eastern part included in Moesia.

Does any civ need Banat for a UHV?

 

[AbsintheRed]

On an entirely different note. Can something be done about the utterly misplaced Banat province - specifically, the one that covers Oltenia, Vidin, and the Belgrade area, but none of what's traditionally considered part of Banat? It just doesn't make any historical or geographical sense to me at all.

Agree with this - Banat should be the region currently called Hungary, and the current Banat should probably split, with Sumadija having the western part and the eastern part included in Moesia.

Does any civ need Banat for a UHV?

Well, the Banat you are talking about became what it is after the Ottoman conquests in the area:
The territory of the modern Banat did not form a separate territorial unit in medieval Kindom of Hungary, it was an integral part of it.
At the time of the medieval Hungarian kingdom, the territory of modern-day Banat appeared in written sources as "Temesköz".

Originally, the Banats/Banates (Bansag in hungarian) were dominions held by Hungary in the northern Balkans for longer periods of time, from the 12th to the early 16th centuries.
Some parts belonged to the Kingdom of Hungary continuously for a couple hundred years, but most changed ownership quite a few times (initially with Byzantium, later with the Serbian principalities and Wallachia).
While the name might be a little misleading, the province in the game is meant to represent that.
These are the hungarian Banats in the second half of the 13th century:

 

[DC123456789]

Well, the Banat you are talking about became what it is after the Ottoman conquests in the area:
The territory of the modern Banat did not form a separate territorial unit in medieval Kindom of Hungary, it was an integral part of it.
At the time of the medieval Hungarian kingdom, the territory of modern-day Banat appeared in written sources as "Temesköz".

Originally, the Banats/Banates (Bansag in hungarian) were dominions held by Hungary in the northern Balkans for longer periods of time, from the 12th to the early 16th centuries.
Some parts belonged to the Kingdom of Hungary continuously for a couple hundred years, but most changed ownership quite a few times (initially with Byzantium, later with the Serbian principalities and Wallachia).
While the name might be a little misleading, the province in the game is meant to represent that.
These are the hungarian Banats in the second half of the 13th century:

I figured that it would be some Hungary-specific thing.

Could the province at least be renamed? Because you might be the juat about only person who didn't jump immediately to the normal definition of Banat and then get very confused.

 

[Swarbs]

Originally, the Banats/Banates (Bansag in hungarian) were dominions held by Hungary in the northern Balkans for longer periods of time, from the 12th to the early 16th centuries.

I think that's what confuses the issue - as far as I know Banates were territorial units in Hungary, but also many Slavic countries, ruled by a Ban. There were also Banates of Bosnia, Ratimir, Pribina and others across the Balkans over that period. So it is a bit confusing to have only one province named using that convention imo.

Maybe Oltenia would be less confusing, as the province does form the area between the Danube and the Olt river, although it is a bit stretched out.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Could the province at least be renamed? Because you might be the juat about only person who didn't jump immediately to the normal definition of Banat and then get very confused.

I think that's what confuses the issue - as far as I know Banates were territorial units in Hungary, but also many Slavic countries, ruled by a Ban. There were also Banates of Bosnia, Ratimir, Pribina and others across the Balkans over that period. So it is a bit confusing to have only one province named using that convention imo.

Renaming is absolutely on the table, I never thought that is a good name for the province.
Actually originally I planned to implement it as 2 provinces (with Oltenia becoming separate, but both were too small that way), and do not like the way it is now.

Unfortunately there isn't enough space to represent enough separate provinces in the area.
The Balkans could use a couple more, with all the shifting borders it had throughout the middle ages, but I think we should avoid having too many small provinces.
Btw, there was a separate Croatia province at some point, which was removed for the very same reasons.

 

[El Bogus]

Maybe this suggestion goes into a complete different direction than Absinthe wants the mod to go but here is my idea, anyway:
I would like to have more variety in tile improvements in the form of "empty" pastures, camping huts and plantations. Pastures and plantations would give +1 und camping huts would give +1 (+2 next to a river).
My idea is that you could build pasture on hills when you don't want a mine and can't build windmills yet.
Plantations could only be built on Palm Forests and maybe could even spawn plantation ressources like mines do with metals/gems. They would obviously have a great synergy with my suggestion of slavery over at the civics thread.
Camping huts would be an option for your Woodland and Dense Forests if you can't chop or lumbermill them, yet.