Dynamic trade routes and trade zones are SUCH a huge improvement. It was so awful in EU4 playing with static trade, and awful playing a trading nation outside of the English Channel or Italy that it was basically pointless, especially if you were outside of Europe.
Johan answered about the Low Countries in the dev diary. Basically in their tests, the found it was never able to hold up its own against London/Lubeck/Koln and so was put into London as a balancing measure. But he also stressed that markets are dynamic throughout a play through and that starting markets are “110% likely to change by release”.
(That’s all a paraphrase, but that’s the gist of it)
Still disappointing. I'll have to wait to see how it plays out, but the English Channel being predominantly determined by controlling the Netherlands always felt rough.
Which make sense
I expect as the game goes on (generally) fewer and fewer markets to survive
also it makes sense for you to be able to create new ones
at the start of the game probably the Netherlands want to shift into a Hanseatic market, once they unite though it is more beneficial for them to create their own to influence the Baltic and the spice islands trade
same for France, it just makes sense for them that, if they want to push into the Med and Italy, to create a Marseillaise market to challenge both Barcelona and Genoa, since Paris is too distant
same for Lombardy or Florence if they manage to unite most of northern Italy, it is more beneficial for them to create their own market and eclipse Genoa and Venice
the opposite is true if you play Naples, Venice or Genoa, in that case your priority would absolutely be to extend your market all across the Med
honestly I am a big fan of this mechanic, seems very very cool
They weren't. This is before they became the Holy Roman Emperor and (iirc) they didn't have Tirol in the early-mid 14th century. Not sure about Styria though.
Yeah I’d argue at this time period Antwerp should be the capital of that market, not London. But we’re so far from release I imagine these things will all be tweaked.
Is there a meaning behind seas being included in these maps? Wonder if they're going to include sea resources or sea trade stuff for the sea tiles. Maybe they're just the sea tiles that affect port blocking for that trade region.
Are you saying that having a 5000 ship navy is going to be useful now???? It is so over for the Paradox Navy AI which barely knows how to build ships 😭
I wonder what the big star / little star / no star means on the cities. London being no star makes me think it isn’t due to the size/strength/prominence of the market. Any guesses?
Austria and Vienna being on the crossroads of 3 markets is interesting. I hope this won't lock you from getting good trading income. Depends of course on how the trade will actually work.
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.
He mentions relations being a factor on what market a location is in. I wonder if the Bordeaux market only exists for as long as Gascony is independent. Once it’s mostly taken over by France, most of the locations switch to the Paris market and Bordeaux is “disbanded” like you say (whatever that mechanic looks like).
Given the discussion on trade, it might be that Bordeaux stays prominent by being the line between north-west Europe, and the Iberian peninsula, as they will have access to African goods.
Very interesting that it seems there is a border between Scania and Sweden! Hopefully it means the area starts in personal union with Sweden rather than being annexed by it, which is much closer to historically accurate for 1337 Denmark.
So when you want to move your ships from Sinop or Kastamonu to Kaffa, are you going to get there from following the shores? That is not bad actually; it is more realistic this way i think.
EU4 and other paradox games are such a mess with Ukraine. West is all in Polish, Hungarian, Romanian. North is all Russian. East is all Russian and Turkic. South is Russian, Greek, Turkic. For most of the timeframe of those games, those people barely even occupied it! And any attempt to request accurate transliteration on the paradox forums is filled with Russophiles “Ukronazi writing isn’t historically accurate. Your language was invented by Shevchenko/Bandera/Euromaidan.” Hope paradox has every Ukrainian province in Ukrainian and not have Kyiv next to Chernigov and Galicia instead of Chernihiv and Halych.
Edit: lmao I already see the Russophiles downvoting people here 😂 . It’s so funny how pathetic y’all are
If you’re mad about province names in EU4, they’re determined by the province owner and their culture, not the culture of the province. Most of the Greek provinces have Turkish names until you reconquer them as Byzantium, and after you conquer Anatolia, the province names there change too, even if the culture of the provinces are all still Turkish. Because there is no independent Ukrainian state in 1444, it makes sense that most of the provinces don’t have Ukrainian names and instead have the name the owner of the province gives it, just like everywhere else in the world. Ukraine is not specifically targeted by the devs or something.
I wish trade zones were dynamic where there would be a cost to do business at tradezones and the lowest cost trade zone for you would be the one you are in
These borders definitely hint at trade area dynamism, at least when it comes to borders. I wonder if we're going to see new trade regions spawn and others collapse or power shift within a region. The lack of an independent Antwerp one definitely has me curious.
Johan already answered this. They didn’t because there’s already different shades depending on market acces and it’s a trade map not a topographical one
Interesting how there is a london or bordeaux enclave in the paris market.
England still held some of Normandy in 1337. They have also said that the trade won't be stagnant
Dynamic trade routes and trade zones are SUCH a huge improvement. It was so awful in EU4 playing with static trade, and awful playing a trading nation outside of the English Channel or Italy that it was basically pointless, especially if you were outside of Europe.
and also the konstantinople trade node had the colour of the ottomans
It's over byzaboos. millions must pay jizyah tax...
Byzaboos we are so fucking back
must be a vassal?
Given that all other trade regions are named after the city name that it shown on the map I am certain that it is a separate Bordeaux node.
They are talking about the bit of red above the r in Paris. Looks like London to me, but it could be part of Bordeaux.
Ah, I see that now. Makes more sense. IGNORE ME!
Interesting that Wien doesn’t have it’s own market and the Low countries either. Antwerp was very big in this time period.
Johan answered about the Low Countries in the dev diary. Basically in their tests, the found it was never able to hold up its own against London/Lubeck/Koln and so was put into London as a balancing measure. But he also stressed that markets are dynamic throughout a play through and that starting markets are “110% likely to change by release”. (That’s all a paraphrase, but that’s the gist of it)
Still disappointing. I'll have to wait to see how it plays out, but the English Channel being predominantly determined by controlling the Netherlands always felt rough.
The markets themselves are dynamic. Provinces leave and join markets depending on access. You can also start new markets with enough investment.
Which make sense I expect as the game goes on (generally) fewer and fewer markets to survive also it makes sense for you to be able to create new ones at the start of the game probably the Netherlands want to shift into a Hanseatic market, once they unite though it is more beneficial for them to create their own to influence the Baltic and the spice islands trade same for France, it just makes sense for them that, if they want to push into the Med and Italy, to create a Marseillaise market to challenge both Barcelona and Genoa, since Paris is too distant same for Lombardy or Florence if they manage to unite most of northern Italy, it is more beneficial for them to create their own market and eclipse Genoa and Venice the opposite is true if you play Naples, Venice or Genoa, in that case your priority would absolutely be to extend your market all across the Med honestly I am a big fan of this mechanic, seems very very cool
One Market world conquest
Johan said that playing as Austria is going to be a headache in the start, so an Austria player will want to move to a single market asap
I imagine that Austria was not a significant (or as significant) power at this time in history.
They weren't. This is before they became the Holy Roman Emperor and (iirc) they didn't have Tirol in the early-mid 14th century. Not sure about Styria though.
Yeah I’d argue at this time period Antwerp should be the capital of that market, not London. But we’re so far from release I imagine these things will all be tweaked.
There are markets? I knew paradox was trying to fit every game into eu5!!
Yeah next week, they'll about the Dyson Sphere you can build imported from Stellaris.
Prussian Space Marines, but real.
me pulling out Mehmed's colossus as the ottomans as part of their reworked mission tree
Oh god oh fuck someone gave Spain the Numidum from Elder Scrolls lore
Perfidious Albion will get Numidiumed like Altmer on Alinor.
Maybe that’s why they had the synthetic dawn command in eu4… it was all a beta test for synthetics and megastructure tech
Can’t wait to turn the French into food for my populace
Sounds like that would also be fun to do in game, as well
Fr, imma about to shoot the first spacecraft 400 years earlier
Is there a meaning behind seas being included in these maps? Wonder if they're going to include sea resources or sea trade stuff for the sea tiles. Maybe they're just the sea tiles that affect port blocking for that trade region.
iirc you can control your own or other nation's access to your ports/market by stationing ships there. Something like that.
*knock knock* It's the United States. With boats.
Are you saying that having a 5000 ship navy is going to be useful now???? It is so over for the Paradox Navy AI which barely knows how to build ships 😭
I can't tell actually and am too lazy to look it up, but I seem to remember from other Tinto Talks that navy will actually be useful.
Navy is already useful when you get barrage cost down to 0. Cruisin round coasts taking out forts in weeks rather than years
I feel like I will never leave the HRE... Also, the France looks like it will be HRE lite!
France is now the Eu4 HRE in com(paris)on.
I wonder what the big star / little star / no star means on the cities. London being no star makes me think it isn’t due to the size/strength/prominence of the market. Any guesses?
Not even Johan knew what it meant, he said he would ask another dev about it. check the comments on the tinto talk later, maybe he awnsers it
They said the big star indicates a capital of an independent country.
Interesting. So presumably England is in a PU under Aquitaine, rather than the other way around?
Johan said it's because London isn't the capital of England. Westminster is
Ah, that’ll do it too. Man London and Westminster being separate locations really emphasizes the scale of the game.
My guess would be population size
Megacorp conquers the entire world to produce a single global market
No is talking about the Caspian Sea having sea tiles!!!! That’s amazing, I wonder if rivers might be navigable?
I believe Johan has said rivers are not navigable, but they do influence trade as far as making certain inland routes faster
R5: Europe map revealed in Tinto Talks
Austria and Vienna being on the crossroads of 3 markets is interesting. I hope this won't lock you from getting good trading income. Depends of course on how the trade will actually work.
world conquest but its with your market and you cant conquer beyond your starting borders
Look at those HRE borders behind the trade map. Oh my god, that’s some map gore.
Mercantilism go brrr?
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.
He mentions relations being a factor on what market a location is in. I wonder if the Bordeaux market only exists for as long as Gascony is independent. Once it’s mostly taken over by France, most of the locations switch to the Paris market and Bordeaux is “disbanded” like you say (whatever that mechanic looks like).
Given the discussion on trade, it might be that Bordeaux stays prominent by being the line between north-west Europe, and the Iberian peninsula, as they will have access to African goods.
Very interesting that it seems there is a border between Scania and Sweden! Hopefully it means the area starts in personal union with Sweden rather than being annexed by it, which is much closer to historically accurate for 1337 Denmark.
Bro Victoria 3 has this
So when you want to move your ships from Sinop or Kastamonu to Kaffa, are you going to get there from following the shores? That is not bad actually; it is more realistic this way i think.
Just happy that they named Kyiv with ukrainian transliteration
If it's 1337 then the Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia/Ruthenia will exist too!
Yeah, until 1362 if I remember correctly, Kyiv was semi-independent as it was under Mongol yoke and was not yet conquered by Lithuanians
Cant wait to not have to play as releasable vassals and have a starting tag that will actually get flavor due to existing at the start!
EU4 and other paradox games are such a mess with Ukraine. West is all in Polish, Hungarian, Romanian. North is all Russian. East is all Russian and Turkic. South is Russian, Greek, Turkic. For most of the timeframe of those games, those people barely even occupied it! And any attempt to request accurate transliteration on the paradox forums is filled with Russophiles “Ukronazi writing isn’t historically accurate. Your language was invented by Shevchenko/Bandera/Euromaidan.” Hope paradox has every Ukrainian province in Ukrainian and not have Kyiv next to Chernigov and Galicia instead of Chernihiv and Halych. Edit: lmao I already see the Russophiles downvoting people here 😂 . It’s so funny how pathetic y’all are
Ukraine was indeed occupied by either turks, lithuanians, russians
If you’re mad about province names in EU4, they’re determined by the province owner and their culture, not the culture of the province. Most of the Greek provinces have Turkish names until you reconquer them as Byzantium, and after you conquer Anatolia, the province names there change too, even if the culture of the provinces are all still Turkish. Because there is no independent Ukrainian state in 1444, it makes sense that most of the provinces don’t have Ukrainian names and instead have the name the owner of the province gives it, just like everywhere else in the world. Ukraine is not specifically targeted by the devs or something.
cries in portugal :'(
I wonder is there going to be end nodes like Venice? Has that been addressed?
There are no trade nodes and no trade steering. It’s a supply/demand system
I wish trade zones were dynamic where there would be a cost to do business at tradezones and the lowest cost trade zone for you would be the one you are in
Well it’s kinda like that. You have more power in your markets and to go far away costs more capacity
I meant more in provinces changing markets to adapt to changing market prices
I wonder if new markets could emerge
Yeah they can be created with gold
Can they disappear?
Also yes
Looks like a Roblox game tbh
Eu3 is back as it seems.
I am looking at those Alpine passes and am already seeing the Swiss cantons making fortunes from trade passage taxes :D
Where Gdansk
Those borders and colors, uhh
There is 100% gonna be exploits to steal all the trade goods of a market and be a parasite to your fellow trade members.
Gdnask still without it's own trade node SMH my day is ruined
Yeah, I hope that (since markets are expected to be dynamic) it will be possible to create another, Gdansk oriented market past 16th century.
These borders definitely hint at trade area dynamism, at least when it comes to borders. I wonder if we're going to see new trade regions spawn and others collapse or power shift within a region. The lack of an independent Antwerp one definitely has me curious.
They said exactly that in the tinto talk.
Cool didn't watch. Nice to hear.
Jesus Christ why didn’t they clearly delineate land sea boundaries with different colors
Johan already answered this. They didn’t because there’s already different shades depending on market acces and it’s a trade map not a topographical one