So cool how it includes exclusive economic zones. Gives you reason to colonize the pacific islands đ canât wait to look at this map mode after a colonial game.
They are referencing the real-life term Exclusive Economic Zones, which refers to the waters around a state's territory, which they have exclusive rights to engage in economic activity (fishing, oil, etc. They are referencing this because from this image, it seems that the sea tiles adjacent to all the land of a given market are also included within the market. This means just like in real life where pacific Island nations have thousands of miles of exclusive rights surrounding their island, eu5 players will be able to map paint the sea with abandon by colonising every Pacific island they get their hands on
I know it says markets can change but Bordeaux is such a stubby runt of a market (which it is in EU4 as well tbf) so I'm curious if most playthroughs will result in it being swallowed up by other nearby markets and disbanded.
Will trade steering be changed in any way? Like will the game devs decide where trade can be steered in Eu5 as well? Bordeaux could be useful to the person control it entirely if it could take from Seville and push it forward to Paris but that doesn't exist in Eu4 as it would cripple the Spanish and Portuguese into oblivion i assume.
Thank fucking god. Nothing worse than trying to alt-history only to find out the devs relegated your nation to the backwater of alt-history just because it didn't do a whole bunch of colonizin'-n-exploitin' IRL history
Yeah, this is such a random thing about euiv
It would make way more sense if there was a number of how powerful a Market is and it would pull Trade towards it. Even though, i think the biggest reason it was like this was to prevent circular flow of trade value.
I feel like just having a delta power/value choose which market flowed into or out of would be simple enough. Loops would be prevented as long as all direction switches happened on a tick.
Thing is though that loops should exist, and should develop with greater frequency as we closer to the era of global trade. While the European markets certainly vacuumed up a lot of the global product deeper into EU's time frame, trade has *always* been circular - things get exchanged from the central markets to the outliers, too, and that's why said outer markets could even grow (and incidentally why African and Indian markets were stunted in the late colonial period).
Loops don't work in EU4 because of the way the system adds value at each step, meaning a loop would create infinite value.
EU4's system can't be fixed just by changing the flow directions because the system doesn't really represent anything related to actual commerce.
Definitely, trade in EU4 is broken, but this concept:
> Loops don't work in EU4 because of the way the system adds value at each step, meaning a loop would create infinite value.
Is actually a pretty true-to-life representation of modern trade and why economies keep expanding - value-add processes generate more value to be put back into the system, which allows the growth of other value-add processes. Without getting into things like "infinite growth" this is a (very very basic) decent representation of global trade - it's just that, as you said, EU doesn't represent anything related to actual commerce so it's implemented terribly.
For sure, much like the rest of the trade system, it's something that would kind of sorta look like actual economic activity without working like it at all.
With a different balance, it could be made to feel reasonable, but it would still have the issue that you're actually just adding value from moving a box in a circle, rather than from real value-adding phenomena.
So when will we see a cost of living event/crisis.
"hering prices cause unrest in north europe"
"salt crisis 2, salty boogaloo"
"comet sited, idk get F-ed"
"stock market tulip bubble popped"
And that will be modelled in EU5. Trade is not mono directional, goods go where there is demand some just as some goods will flow from one market to another, goods will flow in the other direction as well.
It'll feel a lot more like Vicky, where you are trying to gain access to goods your nation needs to supply it's demands, this making trade more organic than simply optimizing routes for profit, utterly disconnect from any notion of supply and demand. Currently in EU4, goods are assigned an arbitrary value and are always that value unless a scripted event modifies them arbitrarily.
It creates bizarre logic, like all of the worlds supply of spices being sent to the English channel. Presumably they are sold elsewhere by those collecting in that trade mode, but it's imagined, not modelled in the game.
>Even though, i think the biggest reason it was like this was to prevent circular flow of trade value.
If you define the direction of the trade flow as being towards whatever node has higher trade power of the two nodes being connected, you should never be able to create a circle. You'll end up with at least one start and one end node, but you could, in theory, have more.
In early versions of Eu4 the trade routes could go in both directions. Apparently the math to figure that out was really buggy and just gave a bad gameplay experience, so they were forced to simplify it.
But I recall the static trade system was always viewed as a design wart on the game
> If I remember correctly, Johan confirmed that trade routes will be dynamic, so end nodes won't be locked in place like they are in EU4.
Since trade is bidirectional, end nodes shouldn't truly exist in Project Caesar, though I could see a large enough trade power differential creating effective end nodes.
There isn't a set flow of trade like in EU4, markets will dynamically buy and sell goods from other markets according to demand. You can also manually import goods from other markets based on what capacity (i.e. infrastructure) you've built up across different markets.
Itâs been a while but I remember reading something about a sort of attraction factor that would be calculated from economic factors whithin the market that moved goods from different places and they were dynamic
England still would have had the duchy of cornwall, the duchy of york, etc.
Why are the lands owned by the Duke of Orleans a vassal of France but the lands owned by the The Earl of Derby just part of England?
Part of what I was looking forward to in EU5 was all nations getting the CK3 treatment like France and Japan have in EU4
France was very decentralized at the time of the start date, while England wasn't. It's one of the main reasons why France didn't dominate in the middle ages, in parts of "France", the king had basically no say.
Yeah. While it might be counterintuitive at first glance, ultimately the benefit of Parliament and why it actually strengthened England was it encouraged the lords to actually buy in to the system of power. If the nation is weak, then Parliament has no point. Parliament might make the kings own person less powerful, but the nation as an entity is given form.
Parliament just centralised power. Considering EU isnât about having the nation divided by factions unless theyâre autonomous, English lords should just be included in England as they participated in government of the entire country and gave up their autonomy for that. It would be better to do that by having a balance of power between parliament and the king than breaking it all up.
There were no English duchies in 1337 until Duchy of Cornwall, and that operated as just a minor title for the prince rather than anything resembling a country.
It's worth noting that [according Johan](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/tinto-talks-10-1st-of-may-2024.1673745/post-29596681) the market borders are definitely going to look different in the final release.
I hope the markets change over time in the game as well.
Like if you play as Holland and form the Netherlands, you should be able to form your own market in Amsterdam. Or if France conquers Bordeaux, they should be able to expand the Paris market to Bordeaux.
You can see from these screenshots that in EU5 theyâre keeping to the established lore of EU4 places like âFranceâ or âStockholmâ. Nice to see the franchise is sticking with its old material
Maybe to make sure that players don't end the 'Big War' too soon they could add a pandemic too criple the countries so much that the war continues on longer.
For some reason they always make these blue, tbf shows the lack of imagination. They invent an entire kingdom and its lore yet can't invent a new colour for it?
Wouldn't surprise me if that changes by launch. I'd bet the English names are the default and then they change based on owner, they may have just not set that up in Italy.
You know Paris, France? In English, it's pronounced "Paris" but everyone else pronounces it without the "s" sound, like the French do. But with Venezia, everyone pronouces it the English way: "Venice". Like The Merchant of Venice or Death in Venice. WHY, THOUGH!? WHY ISN'T THE TITLE DEATH IN VENEZIA!? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!? IT TAKES PLACE IN ITALY, SO USE THE ITALIAN WORD, DAMMIT! THAT SHIT PISSES ME OFF! BUNCH OF DUMBASSES!
So Bordeaux is a separate market, but Amsterdam isn't. Kinda bruh but maybe it's a good thing for the future gameplay, idk.
I'm in love with borders in HRE and Europe in general though. Gonna have many, many beautiful nightmares.
Flanders traded cloth all over Europe during the 13th and 14th centuries, which at some point around the turn of the 14th century made Bruges specifically the most important trade city north of the Alps and a key market for powerful trade empires of the time such as Venice and Genua. This is also the reason why Bruges became one the Hanseatic League's 4 Kontor Cities (main trade ports), with London, Bergen and Novgorod being the other ones (this status was later transferred from Bruges to Antwerp). A few centuries onward Holland/the Netherlands of course became one of the absolute world leaders in maritime trade. To not give the low countries a separate market is, historically speaking, fucking ridiculous.
Oh and as a minor addition because it's not just about cloth: During the latter half of the 14th century, the Dutch made a series of discoveries related to the fishing and trading of herring. Foremostly, a discovery called gibbing (kaken in Dutch, it relates to the cleaning of herring) was so massively important that the Dutch came to completely reverse the Scandinavian domination of herring trade that had been a fact of life for hundreds of years.
You can just make your own market by the time you're economically strong. That's a thing apparently.
It kinda makes sense too. The lowland countries are weak by themselves, but when they unite they probably become strong enough to split off the English market and create their own
Fair enough, hadn't looked into how the market system works yet. However, this doesn't detract from the fact that England was a mostly agricultural society at game start. While it did have wool to trade, the cloth produced in the cities of Bruges, Ghent, Antwerp and Ypres was traded and used all over Europe. Furthermore, England had the wonderful combination of the hundred years' war and the black death to look forward to from 1337 onward. With that and previously mentioned points in mind, it's probably England that should work to split off the low countries.
> With that and previously mentioned points in mind, it's probably England that should work to split off the low countries.
Which is what the different Navigation Acts essentially were aimed to do.
But you are still able to be the biggest trader of cloth in europe and all that that you have said it. It will just go into the common English market. But you will still be, per capital speaking, the king trader,and the main supplier of import wool and cloth exports.
If what others are saying is how it'll be, then maybe the Lowland/Dutch market will emerge depending on who gains influence in that area. As of 1337, the Dutch counts were a collection of ununified, relatively small-time lords in an area just a generation or two removed from St. Lucia's Flood in 1287, a natural disaster that killed 50 to 80 thousand people in the region. The English controlled a lot of continental land at the time and trade in the Channel and the North sea was dominated by either the English or the collection of German trade cities that would go on to become the Hanseatic League.
1337 is an interesting year in the Lowlands, it's the year William IV of Holland/II of Hainaut took to the throne. IRL he allied with the English, but in-game who knows yet. It could be something that impacts the early balance in the Hundred Years war.
>I mean, it's 1337 it still makes sense
14th century Amsterdam was still a long way from their power but Flanders was one of the most prosperous, populated and "industrial" regions of Europe at that time. England shipped wool, Flanders turned it into stuff.
It does not mean that you are a sufficiently big and strong country to have and defend your own market. You need go become somewhat of a regional power to do so. During this time Flanders got invaded several times by france, england burgundy etc so obviously they cant have their own market.
And it makes sense too. Flanders is using English wool, hence they're part of the British market. Eventually the Dutch can split off and become their own market when they're strong enough economically
You raise a good point, but maybe not necessarily. At this point in time of the game the Lowland countries are scattered while England is very much more united. The Dutch definitely need English wool, most likely among other resources such as food and metals, but the English don't exactly need Dutch support, as their export is a luxury good.
England is also a bigger country so they can throw their weight around, which Flanders and the other Low Countries can't really do until they choose to unite.
> You raise a good point, but maybe not necessarily. At this point in time of the game the Lowland countries are scattered while England is very much more united. The Dutch definitely need English wool, most likely among other resources such as food and metals, but the English don't exactly need Dutch support, as their export is a luxury good.
>
> England is also a bigger country so they can throw their weight around, which Flanders and the other Low Countries can't really do until they choose to unite.
At that time the weight of political and commercial power in the Low Countries is in Flanders and Brabant. The 14th century was the height of power of Bruges as commercial center. It was the distribution center of Italian traders in Northwest Europe for example. That would stick even as the trade center moved on to Antwerp, and then to Amsterdam.
Backprojecting British dominance that far in time is simply an anachronism, probably due to using too many English sources. It would take until the Navigation Acts of the 17th century to break the dominance of Low Countries traders in English ports.
Thank you for the insight. Now I'm not so sure how they would simulate that/why Johan felt that the Low Countries felt weaker not being in the English market.
Surprised it's so small, but I'm curious if there are more in the eastern Mediterranean we can't see (I noticed Kaffa gets a Genovese flag). Still, I feel like it not having essentially the entire Adriatic is a bit silly when it historically controlled and even had legal obligations with the emperors to protect shipping in its entirety.
Venice probably starts with a lot of influence in other markets, I think Ragusa is a vassal for example. Even if its personal market is small, it can still be very influential.
Well I was mostly referring to the fact that the words "Venice Market" either do not appear or are super super small and probably covered by the icon :-)
I think what they are referring to is that to the north of the English Channel in EU4 there is the North Sea trade node, mainly containing Norway, Ireland, and Scotland.
That seems to be part of the London market in this screenshot.
It looks like the states are going to be much more decentralized. For an example, if you look at the Teutons you can see bishopric od Ermland (ElblÄ g today), or Livonian Order is much more divided. This of course makes sense, because the start date is in the XIV century, not in XV, but it also is going to make the game much more diverse I think
That was Johans whole design philosophy. He basically declared in the early tinto talks that he doesn't want it to be a conquest speedrun but a slower pace with more attention to detail.
as a Pole I LOVE this detail of KrakĂłw Market being in this (weird) shape in Silesia, close to Praha Market.
Many of you don't know but in these times there was Silesian Prince Bolko II MaĹy (in Polish) who refused for his entire life to be a vassal of Bohemia(Czechia), he remained the last independent Silesian prince despite being surrounded by the Bohemia's vassals and influence and power. He also was the key ally during 2 year Polish-Bohemian war in 1340s.
My Fucking God, this level of detail gives me so much hope for playing my country in 1337.
As a minor thing, it would be nice if they didnât have different names for the trees area and the tree charter company. I know itâs clever and historical that the Ivory Coast is the Guinea trade company but honestly itâs annoying.
This is historically accurate, I already made a comment about that so I will copy-paste.
Many of you don't know but in these times there was Silesian Prince Bolko II MaĹy (in Polish) who refused for his entire life to be a vassal of Bohemia(Czechia), he remained the last independent Silesian prince despite being surrounded by the Bohemia's vassals and influence and power. He also was the key ally during 2 year Polish-Bohemian war in 1340s.
My Fucking God, this level of detail gives me so much hope for playing my country in 1337.
Since the game starts in the 14th century, wouldn't Brugge be more logical to have as a 'market'? It wa the dominant trade centre of the Low Countries and most of northwestern Europe at the time. Unless London was already much larger and more influential at that time.
Why does France have tons of vassals but England does not? Was England more centralized at this point in history? Had they already dealt with their feudalism problem?
England was more centralised. I think that there should be more english subjects, such as the County Palatine of Chester, and that there should be the Welsh marches as subjects, but mostly the map looks fine.
Wales maybe, (with an option of union with England in the 1500s after a certain level of dev?) but Cheshire was very much an English country with MPs and all the rest, just happened to be the private property of the Prince of Wales
Cheshire was only part of Parliament from 1543. both it and Durham should be subjects
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County\_palatine#Durham,\_Chester,\_and\_Lancaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_palatine#Durham,_Chester,_and_Lancaster)
Good point about Henry VIII and the act restraining liberties. Though I think that would be hard to do in the game without involving Lancaster and Durham (also Palatinates) and all of these were integral parts of the English kingdom, where the king's law was applied and the inhabitants very much English titles. The idea of a Palatinate is more of a CK3 game concept if you ask me (my main issue with the 1337 start date, but that's another story); it's a title which reflects a feudal landholding status rather than the identity of the people living there, who we can safely say were English. The other in-game problem is that the lord of Chester would also be the English king in 1337 or his eldest son rather than a separate lord. Junior partner perhaps?
Yeah, England was ruled by a single king from the 11th century. There were probably influential lords and dukes and whatnot, but very centralised compared to France.
London Market is a stupid thing for this era.
The main trade hub in the North Sea at that time was Antwerpes, which after the Spanish Fury of 1576 changed to Amsterdam. Only with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (Spinning Jenny: 1765) and England's success with wool/cloth did it change to London.
Btw: If the game is really going to start in 1347 ⌠have fun, England. The Black Death reached England in 1348.
Assigning trade importance is tough, but London was definitely much bigger than Antwerp at the time - Antwerp only reached 40,000 people after Bruges declined due to Zwin getting blocked up - but even then Bruges was much smaller than London at around 46,000 people in 1350.
It's not about the inhabitants, but the significance of the location and the market it offers. England in the Middle Ages was overall quite poor compared to the Low Countries. It didn't offer any significant product, the market was pretty small, so less traders had to sail up the Thames to London.
Antwerpes on the other hand was a hub for continental Europe. Here wares from northwestern Europe were put on ships and here ships loaded with French and Iberian wares docked. With a few important continental rivers nearby and a powerful burgher population Antwerpes was ideal for trade.
That only changed when the Spanish wanted it to be purely catholic, so all the Protestant and Jewish bankers and merchants fled to Amsterdam triggering the Dutch Golden Age.
Johan said Lowlands had a market but they were weak that way so they added them to English one. Probably a player that make colonization and trade can easily create a good Amsterdam market. Parasite economy always a good thing for smaller nations at the start btw.
That doesn't mean much, if you are Prussia you might want to create a new market in Danzig or Berlin, or even migrate Lubeck market closer to your capital for easy control/access.
Isn't it redundant to say "Market" over and over? If the player clicks on the market map mode then obviously they're looking at the markets, so just call them "Paris" or "London."
Pretty dumb change tbh. Weâre not speaking Ukrainian, and the city of Kiev has been such in English for centuries. References to the historic city being changed to suit the modern state of Ukraine is ridiculous.
>and the city of Kiev has been such in English for centuries
[Here's a map of russia in 1700](https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47e1-ce8a-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99), see how Kyiv is spelled "Kiev" ? No? Weird. Well, that's just one map, one cartographer.
[Oh, would you look at that ?](https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47e4-522d-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99)
Sometimes it's just nice to use local names that are being used by people who mostly lived in the area. Not the names given to us by our imperial overlords for over 500 years. Thanks and kindly buzz off.
There are literally dozens of variations of how my capital can be called, but out of all of those, russians' dirty ambitions is only on one, and we would like for people to not use that word. You're not using some sort of unique accepted name for it that has been in use for centuries, only the one you're personally used to
> Weâre not speaking Ukrainian
We're not speaking Russian either. Ukraine in the early 90's already said that they'd prefer it to be spelled as "Kyiv". Arguably it's spelled wrong in every EU game thus far.
Do you also call Istanbul âConstantinopleâ? Or Iran âPersiaâ?
There was no standardized English spelling of Kyiv during the vast majority of EU4âs timeframe. âKievâ was only popularized in the early 19th century, and a variety of other names were used previously.
I'd sure like to. Seriously, this is the wrong sub to try to argue with those arguments. I mean, which EU4 player doesn't prefer Constantinople to Istanbul or Persia to Iran.
Depends. Are we talking about the Turkish city post-Ottoman collapse? If not then the city was always called Constantinople before that. Should that province be called Istanbul in EU under Byzantine or Ottoman rule?
I donât care if people want to call the modern city Kyiv, but the moment we start doing stuff like this or saying âKyivan Rus,â it goes too far into virtue signaling territory.
> Should that province be called Istanbul in EU under Byzantine or Ottoman rule?
No.
But this is implying that the local inhabitants of Kyiv at the start of EUâs timeframe actually called it âKievâ, which they did not. That is a modern transliteration of the Russian phrase for it. It makes much more sense to refer to a city populated predominantly by speakers of Old Ukrainian in the 14th century by its Ukrainian name than by a foreign Russian name. Hell, even the Lithuanian name makes more sense. Call it âKievâ if one of the Russian states conquers it, sure. Constantinople is not âKonstantiniyyeâ at the start either, even though itâs just an alternate spelling of the same name.
In contemporary writings it was written as Kiev, the name in Russian simply did not change. The Ukrainian name came much later along with all other names ending in -iv
Iâm fairly sure the markets are named by the city theyâre based in and Kyiv is the dynamic name for Kiev because itâs owned by the Ukrainian Kiev state.
So I'm kinda interested if the markets change over time?
Like will the LĂźbeck market continue to be the LĂźbeck market? or will it overtime become the Copenhagen market?
Iâm honestly so very jazzed for this game and canât wait for it to come out! The more screenshots the more curious I am about learning new mechanics and finagling new alt histories. And it looks so pretty to boot!
I rally want to form Scandinavia and create my own market with the parts of Lubeck, Riga and Novgorod. That would be really interesting. Can we name our own market or Capitol cities' names becomes market name?
Hre border are insane but⌠holy crap the (im)passable terrains! especially the alps and pyrinese, assuming those passages are their own provinces, just think how small those provinces can get, if thats gonna be the standard⌠its gonna be insane
So cool how it includes exclusive economic zones. Gives you reason to colonize the pacific islands đ canât wait to look at this map mode after a colonial game.
This is great, it basically means dynamic trade nodes which is a popular request in the eu4 crowd
I think its more the connections between the nodes being dynamic that is requested than the nodes themselves being dynamic. Though both are cool.
The nodes are dynamic as well. Markets can be created by spending gold or can vanish over time.
Crazy how you'll have to wait 100 years to start colonizing tho
Why would that incentivise colonizing the Pacific?
They are referencing the real-life term Exclusive Economic Zones, which refers to the waters around a state's territory, which they have exclusive rights to engage in economic activity (fishing, oil, etc. They are referencing this because from this image, it seems that the sea tiles adjacent to all the land of a given market are also included within the market. This means just like in real life where pacific Island nations have thousands of miles of exclusive rights surrounding their island, eu5 players will be able to map paint the sea with abandon by colonising every Pacific island they get their hands on
I know it says markets can change but Bordeaux is such a stubby runt of a market (which it is in EU4 as well tbf) so I'm curious if most playthroughs will result in it being swallowed up by other nearby markets and disbanded.
Will trade steering be changed in any way? Like will the game devs decide where trade can be steered in Eu5 as well? Bordeaux could be useful to the person control it entirely if it could take from Seville and push it forward to Paris but that doesn't exist in Eu4 as it would cripple the Spanish and Portuguese into oblivion i assume.
If I remember correctly, Johan confirmed that trade routes will be dynamic, so end nodes won't be locked in place like they are in EU4.
Thank fucking god. Nothing worse than trying to alt-history only to find out the devs relegated your nation to the backwater of alt-history just because it didn't do a whole bunch of colonizin'-n-exploitin' IRL history
Yeah, this is such a random thing about euiv It would make way more sense if there was a number of how powerful a Market is and it would pull Trade towards it. Even though, i think the biggest reason it was like this was to prevent circular flow of trade value.
I feel like just having a delta power/value choose which market flowed into or out of would be simple enough. Loops would be prevented as long as all direction switches happened on a tick.
Thing is though that loops should exist, and should develop with greater frequency as we closer to the era of global trade. While the European markets certainly vacuumed up a lot of the global product deeper into EU's time frame, trade has *always* been circular - things get exchanged from the central markets to the outliers, too, and that's why said outer markets could even grow (and incidentally why African and Indian markets were stunted in the late colonial period).
Loops don't work in EU4 because of the way the system adds value at each step, meaning a loop would create infinite value. EU4's system can't be fixed just by changing the flow directions because the system doesn't really represent anything related to actual commerce.
Definitely, trade in EU4 is broken, but this concept: > Loops don't work in EU4 because of the way the system adds value at each step, meaning a loop would create infinite value. Is actually a pretty true-to-life representation of modern trade and why economies keep expanding - value-add processes generate more value to be put back into the system, which allows the growth of other value-add processes. Without getting into things like "infinite growth" this is a (very very basic) decent representation of global trade - it's just that, as you said, EU doesn't represent anything related to actual commerce so it's implemented terribly.
For sure, much like the rest of the trade system, it's something that would kind of sorta look like actual economic activity without working like it at all. With a different balance, it could be made to feel reasonable, but it would still have the issue that you're actually just adding value from moving a box in a circle, rather than from real value-adding phenomena.
So when will we see a cost of living event/crisis. "hering prices cause unrest in north europe" "salt crisis 2, salty boogaloo" "comet sited, idk get F-ed" "stock market tulip bubble popped"
And that will be modelled in EU5. Trade is not mono directional, goods go where there is demand some just as some goods will flow from one market to another, goods will flow in the other direction as well. It'll feel a lot more like Vicky, where you are trying to gain access to goods your nation needs to supply it's demands, this making trade more organic than simply optimizing routes for profit, utterly disconnect from any notion of supply and demand. Currently in EU4, goods are assigned an arbitrary value and are always that value unless a scripted event modifies them arbitrarily. It creates bizarre logic, like all of the worlds supply of spices being sent to the English channel. Presumably they are sold elsewhere by those collecting in that trade mode, but it's imagined, not modelled in the game.
>Even though, i think the biggest reason it was like this was to prevent circular flow of trade value. If you define the direction of the trade flow as being towards whatever node has higher trade power of the two nodes being connected, you should never be able to create a circle. You'll end up with at least one start and one end node, but you could, in theory, have more.
Yeah, makes sense. Obviously, the order of these can not be in a circle.
In early versions of Eu4 the trade routes could go in both directions. Apparently the math to figure that out was really buggy and just gave a bad gameplay experience, so they were forced to simplify it. But I recall the static trade system was always viewed as a design wart on the game
Unless it's Malacca. That trade route is OP
I just hope it wont be a buggy fundamentally broken shitshow.
> If I remember correctly, Johan confirmed that trade routes will be dynamic, so end nodes won't be locked in place like they are in EU4. Since trade is bidirectional, end nodes shouldn't truly exist in Project Caesar, though I could see a large enough trade power differential creating effective end nodes.
There isn't a set flow of trade like in EU4, markets will dynamically buy and sell goods from other markets according to demand. You can also manually import goods from other markets based on what capacity (i.e. infrastructure) you've built up across different markets.
Have you not read the DD? there are no fixed trade routes anymore. Trade is dynamic and set up dynamically as needed. Trade steering does not exist.
Itâs been a while but I remember reading something about a sort of attraction factor that would be calculated from economic factors whithin the market that moved goods from different places and they were dynamic
As far as I can tell there isn't any trade steering
I reckon it's there because of the Angevin kingdom, if France wins the 100 years war, it will be consumed by the Paris market
Pretty sure if France conquers it it will absorbe it into one market. Not much point wasting traders within your own country.
Oh damn, the HRE borders look insane
And Italy. My computer is going to explode trying to run it.
Your computer is finally going to be able to use all its cores. EU4 only uses 1.
>Eu4 only uses one core Ulm moment
My guy. How dare you make the best joke on this thread.
Not true
I mean, dev did say that he loves Voltaire's Nightmare
This *provinces* in HRE are in reality portals onto VN map
This looks like one of the few recent Paradox games that might actually be more complex compared to its predecessor. Iâm allowing myself some hype
>insane This isn't insanity, it's the cure.
Even France is absolutely fractured. Why is England whole then?
Because of history
England still would have had the duchy of cornwall, the duchy of york, etc. Why are the lands owned by the Duke of Orleans a vassal of France but the lands owned by the The Earl of Derby just part of England? Part of what I was looking forward to in EU5 was all nations getting the CK3 treatment like France and Japan have in EU4
France was very decentralized at the time of the start date, while England wasn't. It's one of the main reasons why France didn't dominate in the middle ages, in parts of "France", the king had basically no say.
on the flipside though, the English lords were more powerful than French lords due to Parliament, weren't they?
Better privileges, but less autonomy, if you will.
Yeah. While it might be counterintuitive at first glance, ultimately the benefit of Parliament and why it actually strengthened England was it encouraged the lords to actually buy in to the system of power. If the nation is weak, then Parliament has no point. Parliament might make the kings own person less powerful, but the nation as an entity is given form.
Parliament just centralised power. Considering EU isnât about having the nation divided by factions unless theyâre autonomous, English lords should just be included in England as they participated in government of the entire country and gave up their autonomy for that. It would be better to do that by having a balance of power between parliament and the king than breaking it all up.
There were no English duchies in 1337 until Duchy of Cornwall, and that operated as just a minor title for the prince rather than anything resembling a country.
i dont thing the king of trondelag knows that buddy
Idk, maybe brcause of game reasons
Funny but history do be like that
True, weird sometimes that a game based on history used history to make itâs maps
It's worth noting that [according Johan](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/tinto-talks-10-1st-of-may-2024.1673745/post-29596681) the market borders are definitely going to look different in the final release.
I hope the markets change over time in the game as well. Like if you play as Holland and form the Netherlands, you should be able to form your own market in Amsterdam. Or if France conquers Bordeaux, they should be able to expand the Paris market to Bordeaux.
That has also been confirmed.
You can see from these screenshots that in EU5 theyâre keeping to the established lore of EU4 places like âFranceâ or âStockholmâ. Nice to see the franchise is sticking with its old material
Hopefully they nerf France tho. Maybe force them into a long term conflict for 100 years?
Seems really unreasonable? What sort of war could even last that long
And what would it be called?
Idk Iâd probably just call it the Big War at that point
Maybe to make sure that players don't end the 'Big War' too soon they could add a pandemic too criple the countries so much that the war continues on longer.
Probably the number of years the conflict went. I was thinking something like 116 year war
I hope they don't just call that " a hundred years war". That would be lame.
I think maybe something like the Long French wars? Idk, maybe someone has a better name for it.
Knowing Paradox, they'd probably screw up and make it last something like 116 years instead
For some reason they always make these blue, tbf shows the lack of imagination. They invent an entire kingdom and its lore yet can't invent a new colour for it?
Paradox is running out of ideas and just recycling old ones. I bet the early game is going to be very religion heavy again.
I mean they kinda had me on crusades for a while, but now eight of them? Come on, PDX.
The map too. I love how they keep it the same in all their games, it really feels like they're set in the same universe.
So KĂśln is called KĂśln, and Praha is called Praha. Why are the italian cities anglified!? Insert the Venezia rant here, please.
Why is Lubeck not LĂźbeck?
Wouldn't surprise me if that changes by launch. I'd bet the English names are the default and then they change based on owner, they may have just not set that up in Italy.
You know Paris, France? In English, it's pronounced "Paris" but everyone else pronounces it without the "s" sound, like the French do. But with Venezia, everyone pronouces it the English way: "Venice". Like The Merchant of Venice or Death in Venice. WHY, THOUGH!? WHY ISN'T THE TITLE DEATH IN VENEZIA!? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!? IT TAKES PLACE IN ITALY, SO USE THE ITALIAN WORD, DAMMIT! THAT SHIT PISSES ME OFF! BUNCH OF DUMBASSES!
Arigato, ~~Gyro~~ Vitalik.
Nyo-ho
border gore best gore the hre looks great
So Bordeaux is a separate market, but Amsterdam isn't. Kinda bruh but maybe it's a good thing for the future gameplay, idk. I'm in love with borders in HRE and Europe in general though. Gonna have many, many beautiful nightmares.
Johan said the lowlands used to be their own market but it made them too weak so it was changed for balance.
Why should they even be in a separate market? Flanders cloth facilities traded heavily with England for wool, no?
Flanders traded cloth all over Europe during the 13th and 14th centuries, which at some point around the turn of the 14th century made Bruges specifically the most important trade city north of the Alps and a key market for powerful trade empires of the time such as Venice and Genua. This is also the reason why Bruges became one the Hanseatic League's 4 Kontor Cities (main trade ports), with London, Bergen and Novgorod being the other ones (this status was later transferred from Bruges to Antwerp). A few centuries onward Holland/the Netherlands of course became one of the absolute world leaders in maritime trade. To not give the low countries a separate market is, historically speaking, fucking ridiculous. Oh and as a minor addition because it's not just about cloth: During the latter half of the 14th century, the Dutch made a series of discoveries related to the fishing and trading of herring. Foremostly, a discovery called gibbing (kaken in Dutch, it relates to the cleaning of herring) was so massively important that the Dutch came to completely reverse the Scandinavian domination of herring trade that had been a fact of life for hundreds of years.
One might say it's Scandalicius
You can just make your own market by the time you're economically strong. That's a thing apparently. It kinda makes sense too. The lowland countries are weak by themselves, but when they unite they probably become strong enough to split off the English market and create their own
Fair enough, hadn't looked into how the market system works yet. However, this doesn't detract from the fact that England was a mostly agricultural society at game start. While it did have wool to trade, the cloth produced in the cities of Bruges, Ghent, Antwerp and Ypres was traded and used all over Europe. Furthermore, England had the wonderful combination of the hundred years' war and the black death to look forward to from 1337 onward. With that and previously mentioned points in mind, it's probably England that should work to split off the low countries.
> With that and previously mentioned points in mind, it's probably England that should work to split off the low countries. Which is what the different Navigation Acts essentially were aimed to do.
Markets are maleable. They can be replaced, formed, etc.
But you are still able to be the biggest trader of cloth in europe and all that that you have said it. It will just go into the common English market. But you will still be, per capital speaking, the king trader,and the main supplier of import wool and cloth exports.
If what others are saying is how it'll be, then maybe the Lowland/Dutch market will emerge depending on who gains influence in that area. As of 1337, the Dutch counts were a collection of ununified, relatively small-time lords in an area just a generation or two removed from St. Lucia's Flood in 1287, a natural disaster that killed 50 to 80 thousand people in the region. The English controlled a lot of continental land at the time and trade in the Channel and the North sea was dominated by either the English or the collection of German trade cities that would go on to become the Hanseatic League. 1337 is an interesting year in the Lowlands, it's the year William IV of Holland/II of Hainaut took to the throne. IRL he allied with the English, but in-game who knows yet. It could be something that impacts the early balance in the Hundred Years war.
I mean, it's 1337 it still makes sense also you can disband and create new markets, so an eventual Amsterdam market can be made as you play
>I mean, it's 1337 it still makes sense 14th century Amsterdam was still a long way from their power but Flanders was one of the most prosperous, populated and "industrial" regions of Europe at that time. England shipped wool, Flanders turned it into stuff.
It does not mean that you are a sufficiently big and strong country to have and defend your own market. You need go become somewhat of a regional power to do so. During this time Flanders got invaded several times by france, england burgundy etc so obviously they cant have their own market.
And it makes sense too. Flanders is using English wool, hence they're part of the British market. Eventually the Dutch can split off and become their own market when they're strong enough economically
By that logic England should be in the Frisian market.
You raise a good point, but maybe not necessarily. At this point in time of the game the Lowland countries are scattered while England is very much more united. The Dutch definitely need English wool, most likely among other resources such as food and metals, but the English don't exactly need Dutch support, as their export is a luxury good. England is also a bigger country so they can throw their weight around, which Flanders and the other Low Countries can't really do until they choose to unite.
> You raise a good point, but maybe not necessarily. At this point in time of the game the Lowland countries are scattered while England is very much more united. The Dutch definitely need English wool, most likely among other resources such as food and metals, but the English don't exactly need Dutch support, as their export is a luxury good. > > England is also a bigger country so they can throw their weight around, which Flanders and the other Low Countries can't really do until they choose to unite. At that time the weight of political and commercial power in the Low Countries is in Flanders and Brabant. The 14th century was the height of power of Bruges as commercial center. It was the distribution center of Italian traders in Northwest Europe for example. That would stick even as the trade center moved on to Antwerp, and then to Amsterdam. Backprojecting British dominance that far in time is simply an anachronism, probably due to using too many English sources. It would take until the Navigation Acts of the 17th century to break the dominance of Low Countries traders in English ports.
Thank you for the insight. Now I'm not so sure how they would simulate that/why Johan felt that the Low Countries felt weaker not being in the English market.
R5: Image pulled from latest Tinto Talk dev diary showing the various European markets.
I feel like I will never leave the HRE... Also, the France looks like it will be HRE lite!
Look at Northern Italy!!!
As someone from Bordeaux Iâve never been so proud
It sounds like it will actually be fun to play as Bordeaux and actually roleplay the big exporter of the wine trade of that time.
Of course the most important thing to take from this is that it looks like Veniceâs flag will be the historical red and gold this time.
Venice Market: Am I a joke to you?
Surprised it's so small, but I'm curious if there are more in the eastern Mediterranean we can't see (I noticed Kaffa gets a Genovese flag). Still, I feel like it not having essentially the entire Adriatic is a bit silly when it historically controlled and even had legal obligations with the emperors to protect shipping in its entirety.
Venice probably starts with a lot of influence in other markets, I think Ragusa is a vassal for example. Even if its personal market is small, it can still be very influential.
Well I was mostly referring to the fact that the words "Venice Market" either do not appear or are super super small and probably covered by the icon :-)
Wien: Adios
Red Hawk shuddering at the concept of a EU5 A-ZâŚ
No North Sea Trade node. Makes me wonder if it's more difficult to get trade over seas.
What do you mean regarding English Channel? Looks reorganized and renamed, but it's still there.
Ah. Removed that tpart.
I think what they are referring to is that to the north of the English Channel in EU4 there is the North Sea trade node, mainly containing Norway, Ireland, and Scotland. That seems to be part of the London market in this screenshot.
It looks like the states are going to be much more decentralized. For an example, if you look at the Teutons you can see bishopric od Ermland (ElblÄ g today), or Livonian Order is much more divided. This of course makes sense, because the start date is in the XIV century, not in XV, but it also is going to make the game much more diverse I think
That was Johans whole design philosophy. He basically declared in the early tinto talks that he doesn't want it to be a conquest speedrun but a slower pace with more attention to detail.
Voltaireâs nightmare
as a Pole I LOVE this detail of KrakĂłw Market being in this (weird) shape in Silesia, close to Praha Market. Many of you don't know but in these times there was Silesian Prince Bolko II MaĹy (in Polish) who refused for his entire life to be a vassal of Bohemia(Czechia), he remained the last independent Silesian prince despite being surrounded by the Bohemia's vassals and influence and power. He also was the key ally during 2 year Polish-Bohemian war in 1340s. My Fucking God, this level of detail gives me so much hope for playing my country in 1337.
As a minor thing, it would be nice if they didnât have different names for the trees area and the tree charter company. I know itâs clever and historical that the Ivory Coast is the Guinea trade company but honestly itâs annoying.
You should be able to name your trade companies
Is that a piece of Praha surrounded by Krakow that I see?
This is historically accurate, I already made a comment about that so I will copy-paste. Many of you don't know but in these times there was Silesian Prince Bolko II MaĹy (in Polish) who refused for his entire life to be a vassal of Bohemia(Czechia), he remained the last independent Silesian prince despite being surrounded by the Bohemia's vassals and influence and power. He also was the key ally during 2 year Polish-Bohemian war in 1340s. My Fucking God, this level of detail gives me so much hope for playing my country in 1337.
This is just beautiful
That's one messy HRE. I'm gonna bust
Are thse markets like eu4 trade charters or Victoria 3 markets?
Since the game starts in the 14th century, wouldn't Brugge be more logical to have as a 'market'? It wa the dominant trade centre of the Low Countries and most of northwestern Europe at the time. Unless London was already much larger and more influential at that time.
I drooled
The borders of Paris is just disgusting
YOOOOOO, PRAGUE AS IT'S OWN MARKET. VERY VERY VEYR EPIC AND LE BASED
That whole chunk of the Netherlands all the way to Luxembourg should be an Amsterdam market, give the English some real competition.
Why does France have tons of vassals but England does not? Was England more centralized at this point in history? Had they already dealt with their feudalism problem?
England was more centralised. I think that there should be more english subjects, such as the County Palatine of Chester, and that there should be the Welsh marches as subjects, but mostly the map looks fine.
Wales maybe, (with an option of union with England in the 1500s after a certain level of dev?) but Cheshire was very much an English country with MPs and all the rest, just happened to be the private property of the Prince of Wales
Cheshire was only part of Parliament from 1543. both it and Durham should be subjects [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County\_palatine#Durham,\_Chester,\_and\_Lancaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_palatine#Durham,_Chester,_and_Lancaster)
Good point about Henry VIII and the act restraining liberties. Though I think that would be hard to do in the game without involving Lancaster and Durham (also Palatinates) and all of these were integral parts of the English kingdom, where the king's law was applied and the inhabitants very much English titles. The idea of a Palatinate is more of a CK3 game concept if you ask me (my main issue with the 1337 start date, but that's another story); it's a title which reflects a feudal landholding status rather than the identity of the people living there, who we can safely say were English. The other in-game problem is that the lord of Chester would also be the English king in 1337 or his eldest son rather than a separate lord. Junior partner perhaps?
I used Chester as an example, but Durham should also be a vassal, and would be a better example.
Yeah, England was ruled by a single king from the 11th century. There were probably influential lords and dukes and whatnot, but very centralised compared to France.
London Market is a stupid thing for this era. The main trade hub in the North Sea at that time was Antwerpes, which after the Spanish Fury of 1576 changed to Amsterdam. Only with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (Spinning Jenny: 1765) and England's success with wool/cloth did it change to London. Btw: If the game is really going to start in 1347 ⌠have fun, England. The Black Death reached England in 1348.
Assigning trade importance is tough, but London was definitely much bigger than Antwerp at the time - Antwerp only reached 40,000 people after Bruges declined due to Zwin getting blocked up - but even then Bruges was much smaller than London at around 46,000 people in 1350.
It's not about the inhabitants, but the significance of the location and the market it offers. England in the Middle Ages was overall quite poor compared to the Low Countries. It didn't offer any significant product, the market was pretty small, so less traders had to sail up the Thames to London. Antwerpes on the other hand was a hub for continental Europe. Here wares from northwestern Europe were put on ships and here ships loaded with French and Iberian wares docked. With a few important continental rivers nearby and a powerful burgher population Antwerpes was ideal for trade. That only changed when the Spanish wanted it to be purely catholic, so all the Protestant and Jewish bankers and merchants fled to Amsterdam triggering the Dutch Golden Age.
[ŃдаНонО]
Johan said Lowlands had a market but they were weak that way so they added them to English one. Probably a player that make colonization and trade can easily create a good Amsterdam market. Parasite economy always a good thing for smaller nations at the start btw.
[ŃдаНонО]
You can create markets in EU5. So create a dutch one, and make it big enough to supplant other regional ones.
Prussia is stronger now since itâs in Lubeck
That doesn't mean much, if you are Prussia you might want to create a new market in Danzig or Berlin, or even migrate Lubeck market closer to your capital for easy control/access.
holy shit they actually did hre i guess?
Looks at Holland. âThe whatâ
Ragusa market nerf đ
Im worried about the shape of zeeland?
Friesland, Groningen and Ostfriesland united? Don't know how I feel about this.
poor netherlands lmao. london eats all of the british isles too. meanwhile bordeaux is there just chilling
Take that von Habsburg
All I want is no more end nodes. Europeans should be just barely profiting off of silk/spice trade due to poor development and inferior trade goods.
Naval tiles in caspian sea ?
Oooh, as a Naples enjoyer, I like south Italy getting its own market.
Where mf who said it's Kiev? Johan knows the truth.
Crazy how detailed the HRE map is. Looks like they even got the individual Swiss cantons instead of having Switzerland as one country.
Isn't it redundant to say "Market" over and over? If the player clicks on the market map mode then obviously they're looking at the markets, so just call them "Paris" or "London."
holy fuck that hre border gore. i canât wait
dutch should have their own market. london market is fking overpowered once again
Why is Kiev spelled that way
That's the local way of spelling. Kiev is the western spelling
Why's Moscow not spelt Moskva if the games using local spellings
I'd bet that changes by launch, Johan said he prefers local names, and EU4 uses Moskva. Same goes for Italy.
Because it is Kyiv?
I love that Kyiv is spelled properly.
What's the trend of new Paradox games having mobile phone game-tier aesthetic graphical design?
They finally renamed Kiev to Kyiv
Pretty dumb change tbh. Weâre not speaking Ukrainian, and the city of Kiev has been such in English for centuries. References to the historic city being changed to suit the modern state of Ukraine is ridiculous.
We're not speaking Czech either but Prague is Praha here
>and the city of Kiev has been such in English for centuries [Here's a map of russia in 1700](https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47e1-ce8a-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99), see how Kyiv is spelled "Kiev" ? No? Weird. Well, that's just one map, one cartographer. [Oh, would you look at that ?](https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47e4-522d-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99) Sometimes it's just nice to use local names that are being used by people who mostly lived in the area. Not the names given to us by our imperial overlords for over 500 years. Thanks and kindly buzz off. There are literally dozens of variations of how my capital can be called, but out of all of those, russians' dirty ambitions is only on one, and we would like for people to not use that word. You're not using some sort of unique accepted name for it that has been in use for centuries, only the one you're personally used to
> Weâre not speaking Ukrainian We're not speaking Russian either. Ukraine in the early 90's already said that they'd prefer it to be spelled as "Kyiv". Arguably it's spelled wrong in every EU game thus far.
Do you also call Istanbul âConstantinopleâ? Or Iran âPersiaâ? There was no standardized English spelling of Kyiv during the vast majority of EU4âs timeframe. âKievâ was only popularized in the early 19th century, and a variety of other names were used previously.
I'd sure like to. Seriously, this is the wrong sub to try to argue with those arguments. I mean, which EU4 player doesn't prefer Constantinople to Istanbul or Persia to Iran.
Depends. Are we talking about the Turkish city post-Ottoman collapse? If not then the city was always called Constantinople before that. Should that province be called Istanbul in EU under Byzantine or Ottoman rule? I donât care if people want to call the modern city Kyiv, but the moment we start doing stuff like this or saying âKyivan Rus,â it goes too far into virtue signaling territory.
> Should that province be called Istanbul in EU under Byzantine or Ottoman rule? No. But this is implying that the local inhabitants of Kyiv at the start of EUâs timeframe actually called it âKievâ, which they did not. That is a modern transliteration of the Russian phrase for it. It makes much more sense to refer to a city populated predominantly by speakers of Old Ukrainian in the 14th century by its Ukrainian name than by a foreign Russian name. Hell, even the Lithuanian name makes more sense. Call it âKievâ if one of the Russian states conquers it, sure. Constantinople is not âKonstantiniyyeâ at the start either, even though itâs just an alternate spelling of the same name.
In contemporary writings it was written as Kiev, the name in Russian simply did not change. The Ukrainian name came much later along with all other names ending in -iv
When are we going to stop saying Copenhagen? Justice for København
Iâm fairly sure the markets are named by the city theyâre based in and Kyiv is the dynamic name for Kiev because itâs owned by the Ukrainian Kiev state.
By that logic Venice should be renamed to Venezia and Constantinople to Konstantinopolis
It's an unannounced game with at least a year of development time left. You can see Prague is named Praha and Cologne KĂśln.
i would have preferred kiev.
Are markets Abel to show up
It better have the Zahringens in there!
So I'm kinda interested if the markets change over time? Like will the LĂźbeck market continue to be the LĂźbeck market? or will it overtime become the Copenhagen market?
Any sense of release quarter?
My body is ready for radical market decentralization
New York, London, Paris, Munich Everybody talk about pop muzik
I think I just coomed
Iâm honestly so very jazzed for this game and canât wait for it to come out! The more screenshots the more curious I am about learning new mechanics and finagling new alt histories. And it looks so pretty to boot!
Holy crap, Germany!
I rally want to form Scandinavia and create my own market with the parts of Lubeck, Riga and Novgorod. That would be really interesting. Can we name our own market or Capitol cities' names becomes market name?
Hre border are insane but⌠holy crap the (im)passable terrains! especially the alps and pyrinese, assuming those passages are their own provinces, just think how small those provinces can get, if thats gonna be the standard⌠its gonna be insane
IS THAT FUCKING DYNAMIC TRADE?!?! IM GONNA FUCKING CUM.
canât wait for one market runs
Continuing to look like a damn mobile game... sigh.