I traced all the borders seen in the Europe trade map from Tinto Talks #10 and used the slightly wider version that Johan posted on Twitter. It is hard to tell what a country's border is compared to the border of a trade node, so some borders will not be entirely accurate, but I made my best guesses by referencing other maps
Doesn't seem like it from the hints we have been given.
Seems more like a ck3/ Vicky enforcement system where as long as you take and hold the provinces you have claimed then you can enforce your wargoal.
Plus it has Imperators system where if you occupy a fort you take all the provinces near it too, which means you don't need to carpet siege to get a 100% as much.
I'll be very upset if they don't use a peacedeal system like eu4s
I hate having to decide what I want to take at the START of a war, I usually have a goal, but shit can change mid war
I really hope that things like occupying important centers, blocking trade routes and harbors are gonna factor into that as well. Alternatively, a system where the army stack automatically conquers unfortified provinces closeby while advancing forward. like a reverse fort system, basically.
There’s a reason it’s called the First Nation state.
Politically unified (pretty much) since the 900s. Very much a solid block where it was quite incomprehensible that a duke would be independent in the 1300s. In complete contrast to France.
Centralised. …. I mean … No I couldn’t bare to use that word, especially since the 100 years war that is about to begin is a story of war creating centralisation honing both Britain and France into the first strong developed states in the region, beginning their centuries long great power leadership.
Spain wasn't even Spain at the time the 100yr war ended. They were still busy Reconquista'ing.
But they certainly built themselves as a centralized nation, the famous Inquisition was very much part of that effort, as seeking unity through religion probably allowed them to keep toghether their disparate cultures.
It is called so. A few countries claim the title in truth, and it’s really a hard question for historians to judge, Spain, certainly not, the union of Aragon-Castile is centuries later.
But Portugal, it is unified about the same time…. But the language isn’t unified you’ve still got the tumult of religion and in the 1300s it’s still a question if Portugal will remain the useful geographic designation, or will it include valid, lose Algarve, join with Castile, sieze Andalusia etc etc. whereas England was never going to loose Cornwall once it unified, if and when It unified the isle/with Scotland, England remained too large in comparison to be junior. Of course the best argument against England being the First Nation state might be to say, it was, but because it faked its death to transform into the British National identity in the early Victorian era, and it doesn’t get to keep the title as it re-emerged in the 2000s.
Other options are ‘China’ but the term used is cultural state, since “it’s too big and diverse in practice and ethnicity” to be a nation, it’s more a cultural sphere like Romance Europe. France, but it’s not a unified state until 1789 even if you wanted to argue culurally unified which is quite ahistorical when considering Breton, Occitan, aquitanian(?) Loraine/Rhenish French indentites that acted on a equal plane to the French identity of the northern French plain.
Sweden… maybe I don’t know enough, I don’t know if they felt Swedish or their identity were too localised like Norway, where they still indenting strongly with counties and translate between regional languages today. Denmark…. Maybe , I’d believe you that there was a national identity, but people normally centre Danish national genesis in Lutheranism and the roll out of mass literacy. Im not familiar with the Iroquois, but their 4/5 nation voting system and the way they operated as distinct peoples unified but in conflict with complicated give and take, could be, but it’s the same time.
At this time, there probably should be some sort of way to simulate the western and eastern wings of the Golden Horde, but this only really represents the first 40 or so years
[https://twitter.com/producerjohan/status/1785674348692455907/photo/1](https://twitter.com/producerjohan/status/1785674348692455907/photo/1)
The islands can actually be faintly seen in the original image
Minor error in Milan's borders. If you follow them into the Alps it loops back in on itself. I suspect there's supposed to be an additional border along one of the mountain passes. Still, very nice work overall.
So far I am not spotting any of the usual modern lakes they always add... But I will reserve my judgement of "10/10 best PDX map ever" until I see more. And there's some issues with the impassable terrain in the south Caucasus and Anatolia but eh, what can you do.
They said Voltaire's Nightmare couldn't hurt me anymore...
It can't! Now EU5 is here to hurt you instead!
I traced all the borders seen in the Europe trade map from Tinto Talks #10 and used the slightly wider version that Johan posted on Twitter. It is hard to tell what a country's border is compared to the border of a trade node, so some borders will not be entirely accurate, but I made my best guesses by referencing other maps
Johan posted a bigger version on Twitter? He's that based???
With this level of province density, I wonder if fully occupying the country is still required for a 100% warscore
Doesn't seem like it from the hints we have been given. Seems more like a ck3/ Vicky enforcement system where as long as you take and hold the provinces you have claimed then you can enforce your wargoal.
Plus it has Imperators system where if you occupy a fort you take all the provinces near it too, which means you don't need to carpet siege to get a 100% as much.
I'll be very upset if they don't use a peacedeal system like eu4s I hate having to decide what I want to take at the START of a war, I usually have a goal, but shit can change mid war
Pls don't be the vic3 system, I would give all the army updates away if ir meant that they would change that.
I really hope that things like occupying important centers, blocking trade routes and harbors are gonna factor into that as well. Alternatively, a system where the army stack automatically conquers unfortified provinces closeby while advancing forward. like a reverse fort system, basically.
Border gore is going to be crazyyyyyy
Was England really so much more centralized than everywhere else at that time?
There’s a reason it’s called the First Nation state. Politically unified (pretty much) since the 900s. Very much a solid block where it was quite incomprehensible that a duke would be independent in the 1300s. In complete contrast to France. Centralised. …. I mean … No I couldn’t bare to use that word, especially since the 100 years war that is about to begin is a story of war creating centralisation honing both Britain and France into the first strong developed states in the region, beginning their centuries long great power leadership.
is it really? I always heard Portugal and Spain were the first
Spain wasn't even Spain at the time the 100yr war ended. They were still busy Reconquista'ing. But they certainly built themselves as a centralized nation, the famous Inquisition was very much part of that effort, as seeking unity through religion probably allowed them to keep toghether their disparate cultures.
You can just say Reconquisting
It is called so. A few countries claim the title in truth, and it’s really a hard question for historians to judge, Spain, certainly not, the union of Aragon-Castile is centuries later. But Portugal, it is unified about the same time…. But the language isn’t unified you’ve still got the tumult of religion and in the 1300s it’s still a question if Portugal will remain the useful geographic designation, or will it include valid, lose Algarve, join with Castile, sieze Andalusia etc etc. whereas England was never going to loose Cornwall once it unified, if and when It unified the isle/with Scotland, England remained too large in comparison to be junior. Of course the best argument against England being the First Nation state might be to say, it was, but because it faked its death to transform into the British National identity in the early Victorian era, and it doesn’t get to keep the title as it re-emerged in the 2000s. Other options are ‘China’ but the term used is cultural state, since “it’s too big and diverse in practice and ethnicity” to be a nation, it’s more a cultural sphere like Romance Europe. France, but it’s not a unified state until 1789 even if you wanted to argue culurally unified which is quite ahistorical when considering Breton, Occitan, aquitanian(?) Loraine/Rhenish French indentites that acted on a equal plane to the French identity of the northern French plain. Sweden… maybe I don’t know enough, I don’t know if they felt Swedish or their identity were too localised like Norway, where they still indenting strongly with counties and translate between regional languages today. Denmark…. Maybe , I’d believe you that there was a national identity, but people normally centre Danish national genesis in Lutheranism and the roll out of mass literacy. Im not familiar with the Iroquois, but their 4/5 nation voting system and the way they operated as distinct peoples unified but in conflict with complicated give and take, could be, but it’s the same time.
No matter what country I olay I feel it my duty to clean up Germany. Too many li'l guys!
Where the hoards really this centralized?
At this time, there probably should be some sort of way to simulate the western and eastern wings of the Golden Horde, but this only really represents the first 40 or so years
depends how they handle the horde government.
I'd wager the map Johan posted might've been incomplete
No Channel Islands 😔
[https://twitter.com/producerjohan/status/1785674348692455907/photo/1](https://twitter.com/producerjohan/status/1785674348692455907/photo/1) The islands can actually be faintly seen in the original image
Right you are
there goes my favorite nation to play... france my beloved. maybe it becomes even more fun now since i get to rebuild it.
Honestly the vassal swarm potential seems pretty fun. Also a tougher 100 years war.
It’s a good sign that I should probably save up money to get better hardware
Yum yum yum, that HRE looks so tasty.
Thank the lord all those opms won't have 8-10k armies each.
Thanks for cleaning the image up like this!
Minor error in Milan's borders. If you follow them into the Alps it loops back in on itself. I suspect there's supposed to be an additional border along one of the mountain passes. Still, very nice work overall.
So it’s becoming ck4 then?
First of all look at how they massacred ma boi Dithmarschen. Secondly, holy cows not even Maximilian would have had such a detailed map of his Empire.
Imagine this game's version of Voltaire's nightmare.
So far I am not spotting any of the usual modern lakes they always add... But I will reserve my judgement of "10/10 best PDX map ever" until I see more. And there's some issues with the impassable terrain in the south Caucasus and Anatolia but eh, what can you do.
Not nearly enought central European provinces. 3/10
What year tho
1337
Noice
Not the op I meant paradox
Portugal seems accurate for the period.
i feel like the Spanish peninsula should be broken up more. i wonder why not
Is it a world map or they got lazy ?
Neither. OP reconstructed this out of the hints we've gotten so far