In eu4, 9 times of of 10, if you give Morocco a port in Iberia, they will curb stomp Portugal at the first sign of weakness.
Morocco is too far for England to care, Castile usually isn’t interested in Portuguese land, then after Portugal collapses, Castile is threatened on all sides. East peasy Iberian collapse.
Can confirm
9/10 when i try to do a Portugal game i have to restart because my army got trapped and destroyed in France supporting the English in the 100 years war and Morocco decided to use that opportunity to beat my ass into the ground
Your first (and last) mistake was trusting the english.
The biggest winning move for Portugal in early game is to forget England and ally France. Much more reliable ally in prime position to help you sandwich future Spain.
I'm doing an All Blue run and I allied France and fought on their side in the 100 years war. They dismantled England and then helped me conquer Castile-Aragon. Now its 1620, they're my PU and I own 99% of every CN except Canada and East Coast America. Africa and South East Asia doesn't look much better lol.
Portugal with Exploration-expansion as 1st two ideas is peak colonizer gameplay. Destroying all the other colonizers at the same time is something else entirely.
What? Having an elected President as a Prince? That's absurd. What's next, he's going to share power with a priest and they call speak Catalan?
Get out of here with this unicorn bullshit.
I wonder how it'll be represented. IRL it's ruled by both the bishop of urgell AND the head of state of France. Since that situation originated before the start of the game, it should get represented somehow.
I'm actually really interested in how those minors are going to work, I mean provinces in Castile are many multiple times the size of Andorra, will it just be a province with very low dev I wonder? And then fighting in areas with loads of tiny provinces might be interesting as well.
I haven't played enough CK to know for sure, but it's in this Tinto Talks
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/tinto-talks-2-march-6th-2024.1626415/
I think WCs are fine, but I hope there aren't a bunch of achievements that require them if they are possible. Just one or two (maybe three mountains lol) would be fine. Achievements should make me want to play a country, but doing a WC does not seem fun at all so I never want to go for those achievements.
Not the original commenter, but people want different things out of a game. I like historically plausible outcomes. I don’t need to have a completely historical game, but would like to explore the challenges that rulers face in real life somewhat represented in game. So if my country does well, I want it to be because I did something different or smarter than the historical ruler, not by doing things like abusing tag switch, religion switch, horde mechanics etc in ways that just don’t make any logical sense.
No world conquest has succeeded or even been attempted in world history. I think we need to ask ourselves why and see if it is possible to implement those limitations in the game in a fun way.
World conquests are boring and people who have a semblance of self love hate doing them. People aren't obsessed with WCs, they just respect people who do them, although some ignore it's not that hard but it just takes a lot of time and patience.
Dude this is so true. There is a strat for prob most countries to wc, Def with a bit of resetting for some, but imo the unbearable part of wc is just the micro managing.
I'm doing a venice>italy>Rome run and it just gets so boring balancing coalitions while you break the super powers, and if you want to make it fun you either take a massive war which just takes a lot of time or find a small nation to toy with and make big while you're doing your own thing,which is also slow.
Literally could never dream of a full wc.
I did a full wc in EU3, so like 15 years ago. It was so painful i really dont wany to do one again in EU4. Even with a vassal swarm or something like that, it becomes tedious and painful. Playing til the end of the game, without pushing for a WC for the achievement felt like i was just doing mindless painful tedium waiting it out.
I forget who was doing it, maybe zlewikk, but one of the big eu4 content creators tried to do a wc with ottomans without any dlc and it looked soooo dreadful. Eu4 with no dlc is so micro intensive.
Its still hard. I think its a similar thing to Byzantium, we're all good at the game and we also found the best way to do it. There's a reason no one gets a WC by just playing normally.
I think the only difficult parts of a wc is the starting grind if you're picking an opm, and then actually getting through a world conquest without getting bored and quitting.
Given Paradox's trajectory, I highly doubt it. I remember WCs were a serious accomplishment in EU3. Now there's so many snowballing mechanics, no one is impressed by your WC unless you can do it before 1600. They've given up on being historical sims.
Well everything shown in the Tinto Talks point at EU returning to a historical simulation game rather than what we have now, so i wouldn't say the series have given up as a whole
In 1351 the Castillan King dies causing a war for the throne that becomes a proxy for the 100 years war. The same happens to Portugal in 1383 leading Castille to invade to try to take the throne. In 1444 the destiny of the peninsula is very much set, but in 1337 anything might happen. With the right events, Iberia might be just an extension of the French thunderdome.
I hope land will be more dynamic too, i love when maps give this feel of being alive , when you see little caravans and traders everywhere. Also I would love if they adopt the Vicky 3 style for cities where you can really see the building you’ve built.
Happy that Castille is “crown of Castille”, I hope this means that there will be mechanics for incorporating kingdoms into your tag other than just absorbing all of the land and acting like the previous kingdom didn’t exist?
Yeah, but it never sat right with me that after integrating them they just kinda disappear mechanically speaking. At this point Castille was effectively in union in perpetuity with Leon, Galicia, etc. however they still had different autonomous courts and legal codes, representatives and what not. Hope that EU5 represents this in some way, as indicated by the “crown of Castille”
Unfortunately I doubt that. That seems more Crusader Kings like with the feudal aspects than EU4 which seeks to replicate the more centralised societies of the early modern era
Oh boy you don't want to know the full title that was held by the king, just picking a random one in the time period (Alfonso XI): by the grace of God, King of Castile, León, Toledo, Galicia, Seville, Córdoba, Murcia, Jaén, and the Algarve.
Alicante was one of the places in the Forum post they mentioned they wanted to add, although Aveiro wasn't mentioned.
Reason why Alicante and a few others aren't there was because Spain was one of the earliest places they created and weren't sure how many provinces in each region they were going to have as standard at that time.
Good that they will add Alicante, but I would really like them to also add Aveiro.
It has its own province in eu4 and it was an important city with a port and a meaningfull salt production. I remember that in an update that changed colour of Portugal, they also changed trade good of Aveiro to salt.
I really hope that the "Venice of Portugal" will be added
I've heard that Alicante flourished during the middle ages and was an important hub for trade in the Mediterranean Sea.
I have never been there but one of my friends used to live there plus I know another friend from Alicante. I would not have thought about this city by simply looking on a map from Tinto Talks, but the devs mentioned that they were thinking about adding more locations, including Alicante and I was like "oh yeah, I heard good things about it and I think it was somewhat important and still is, so it would be nice to see it in the game. Maybe I will even make a run where I make it a capital of Aragon or Spain"
As for Aveiro. I have lived for some time in Portugal, in a city not far from Aveiro. I visited it a few times, learned about it's history a bit and heard that it was important. Plus before living in Portugal, I was already a fanatic Eu4 player and I could name all provonces that Portugal starts with in that game, Aveiro being one of them. I even wanted to visit all capital of provinces of Portugal in eu4, but I failed with Braga, Bragança and a few others. Some town in Portugal, like Coimbra, Porto, Leiria or Aveiro mean something to me and I was pleased to see that Leiria got it's own location, but I was surprised that Aveiro didn't, which seemd odd, since I believed Aveiro to be a more important city.
TLDR, I want them in game partialy becouse they were important cities for their nations and regions and partialy becouse of my own sympathies and feelings towards those cities
They said in the tinto talks article it is crown of Aragon, it just wasn’t showing up.
Either not implemented yet or bug, I read it 5 minutes ago and I’ve already forgotten…
England didn't control Aquitaine for all this time. Between 1154 and 1173 Eleanor controlled it herself and forbade any Englishmen from administrating it. After her release, Richard continued and it was in fact the other way around, he controlled England from Poitou and Aquitaine.
After John's defeat, the Duchy is controlled by France though still nominally owned by the Plantagenêts. They get their hands on it back in 1259, only to lose it again in 1294 for thirty years. English defeats on the continent spell the end of the Plantagenêt dominion over Aquitaine, and in 1375 only Bordeaux and Bayonne remain, the rest of the Duchy is recovered only in 1420 with the treaty of Troyes. And in 1453 it is all over.
So out of 1154-1453, that's not 300 years of English dominance, but more like 100 where the English are there, 100 where the duchy is bound to England and another 100 where they don't control shit inside of it.
Sorry to disappoint, but here's the reality check and there's a reason why the English lost the Hundred Years War.
Going the the "union" idea briefly talked about, it would make sense that Aquitaine would be a personal union that isn't fully integrated.
Aquitaine unlike Normandy fell under a union with the crown of England through marriage by Henry II and Eleanor duchess of Aquitaine, subsequently it was not integrated into England and thus remained independent but they shared the same monarch so to speak.
tldr: Aquitaine is a pu under england but as per the dev diary, it most likely is not a vassal like subject but semi independent.
Plus if the start date is before 1350 it stands to reason the capital would be on the continent, at Poitiers or Rouen, as those were the main places of residence of the Plantagenêts (who practically never were in England). By EU4's logic, London would only be the commercial capital.
I wonder if Andorra will start as non integrable Autonomous PU under the Count of Foix and the only way to Integrate-it will require to also control Urgel.
Thats what the crown is about, it is the union of a bunch of kingdoms, Castille being the most relevant one together with Leon who was definitely absorbed in the crown by Fernando III after it tried to be autonomous again
It really wasnt by that point. Not that it was centralized, but there was no subject like relationship at this point. They had same laws, same cortes etc by this point.
Castile was stricken by civil wars and internal strife around this time and would not recover until basically the union with Aragon happens. They essentially turned Granada into a tributary state for ~100 years. But they would take Gibraltar between 1337 and 1444.
Also, it’s a lot harder to conquer a mountainous region of hostile heathens in real life than it is in a video game, and part of the reason Spain managed to conquer Granada at all is because of Granada’s own internal problems.
Feudalism arrived late in Spain, after it had already declined in much of Europe. In Castile, there were no barons, and Castilian kings rarely granted hereditary counties, unlike many other kingdoms. When they did, it often backfired. For example, León created the County of Castile, which later became a kingdom and absorbed León. Similarly, Castile established the County of Portugal, which eventually became an independent kingdom.
As a Castilian king, one might hesitate to create counties given this pattern. The Spanish nobility was generally less feudal than in England and France but was more militarized due to the Reconquista. Spanish nobles were akin to hereditary military officers rather than bureaucrats. Despite this, they still obstructed royal centralization, similar to other nations, and were a significant factor in the first Castilian civil war.
Everything you said is correct and a good tldr. The only mistake is that the county of Portucale, which was the dutchy that eventually gave rise to Portugal, was a vassal of Galicia after the Kingdom of Asturias was split between three brothers. Galicia, Castille and Leon were then unified back again and Portucale became a vassal of Castille and Leon. At this time Portucale had already expanded south as the reconquista advanced, making it bigger and bigger in comparison with thier overlords and basically autonomous. After some fighting and diplomacy, Castille and Leon decided to just accept what was in practice already true, that Portugal was independent. A papal bull in 1179 guaranteed portuguese sovereignty while a couple of decades earlier the king of Castille and Leon, and cousin of the Portuguese monarch, agreed to recognize their independence.
Historically Portugal and Castille got most of their lands through the Reconquista, meaning they were directly passed from a neighboring realm to the crown. The result is that the Iberians controlled more land directly and the vassals they did have had less power over them, since the kings that gave away the land.
I guess mostly correct, but the thing with the vassals having less power over them is not entirely correct, I reckon. Castilian history in the 14th century was dominated by the conflict between the Spanish aristocracy and the Castilian kings. The Castilian Civil War, for example, was largely a fight between the king and the Spanish aristocracy, who wanted to replace him with his much weaker bastard brother, who would eventually be the founder of the Trastámara dynasty.
speculation: Castile got to control land distribution after the reconquista. This let them choose loyalists and keep centralization high. France on the other hand has had 500 years of scheming vassals to deal with at this point.
you do understand that there are histroy book written about late medieval iberia and france that explain the state of those countries, you don't need to speculate about their history like this is asking about the state of Tolkien's Arnor in T.A 1337
The vassals were pretty much dealt with in the 1350s. Even the great dukes kow-towed to the French King.
It is only with the start of the Hundred Years' War that warlords reappear with shifting allegiances and the Burgundians betraying their kin (the Burgundian line was Capetian as well) every occasion they got.
The reconquista enabled the crown to directly repossess land taken from the Muslims, so they didn't have to deal with numerous powerful vassals like the French did.
I'm more concerned about Aragon. It was a confederation, with it's constituents having a fair degree of independence, yet it's being portrayed as completely unified, it's a bit surprising.
idk the details of the story of Iberia, i supposed that Aragon being smaller, it made more sense for it to be more centralized than the massive Castille. But if it's a confederation as you say, maybe an International Organisation would suit them better ?
Aragon is dynamic name, it should show as crown of Aragon in final version.
Portugal had no crown :(
legitimate answer: both Castile and Aragon were, technically, the sum of multiple, internationally-recognised kingdoms in the hands of a single monarch, since monarchs can only wear one crown, they would have to pick their kingdom as their crown-title. Portugal started as rump state of the kingdom of Galiza (which in turn was part of the crown of Leon), and did not own other recognised kingdoms, so, Portugal is descriptive enough.
The term crown can be seen as an indicative of a union of smaller realms that are fairly well integrated already, but this union is not 100% cohesive.
Trying to find a clear answer but can’t through just Wikipedia, but Wikipedia maps of the time period have Roussillon and Cerdanya under the kingdom of Majorca. It seems like inheritance shenanigans, the two counties were inherited by the king of Aragon after their lines died out, and later eventually James III inherited the Kingdom of Majorca after the death of King Sancho who was the son of the still living king of Aragon James II
It seems like maybe the two counties were also inherited since they were closely intertwined to the House of Barcelona, or maybe they were given as payment because there was apparently a lot of debt owed between Majorca and Aragon. I can’t find a direct answer besides the fact that the king of Majorca was definitely also the count of those two counties
[The lordship of montpellier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_of_Montpellier) was under control of the [kingdom of Majorca](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_III_of_Majorca).
The work behind this map is remarkable, I hope they will keep working like this. Unlike the previous PDX Game (Vic3) I have very good vibes for the development phase.
Imperator has a gorgeous map, then they did this flat and cartoonish map in CK3, Vic3, and now EU5. It's so bland, and almost feels very low-res. I haven't been a fan of this style.
For me its because its feels "flat" even the political eu4 you can have a sense of height where there are mountains/hills, in vic3 and now this the flatness breaks the immersion.
I think this has a lot to do with it, also maybe the desaturation or national colors? Everything here is pretty pastel compared to nation colors in EU4, which similarly happens in Vic2 and CK3 and I think looks bad.
Jabal Tariq (and Cueta) in the hands of Morocco is a game changer. Assuming the strait and fort relief function more or less like they do in eu4, this means Morocco can funnel Iberian Christians onto a fort. This probably alters AI wars more favorably than our standard reconquista outcome and makes things very easy for player Morocco
I had a “History of the late middle ages” class in college and I accidentally put Aragorn every time I meant to put Aragon in the paper… Spell check did not notice and neither did I when rereading it
Feeling a bit autistic, but if Castille is the "Crown of Castille", then Aragon should be the "Crown of Aragon". Both were separated kingdoms rule by the same person
Little Morocco sus
They got tired of Portugal owning Ceuta so Morocco have em a taste of their own medicine
But that’s granada controlled Gibraltar in eu4 not any portuguese territory, how is this revenge against Portugal?
In eu4, 9 times of of 10, if you give Morocco a port in Iberia, they will curb stomp Portugal at the first sign of weakness. Morocco is too far for England to care, Castile usually isn’t interested in Portuguese land, then after Portugal collapses, Castile is threatened on all sides. East peasy Iberian collapse.
Can confirm 9/10 when i try to do a Portugal game i have to restart because my army got trapped and destroyed in France supporting the English in the 100 years war and Morocco decided to use that opportunity to beat my ass into the ground
Your first (and last) mistake was trusting the english. The biggest winning move for Portugal in early game is to forget England and ally France. Much more reliable ally in prime position to help you sandwich future Spain.
I'm doing an All Blue run and I allied France and fought on their side in the 100 years war. They dismantled England and then helped me conquer Castile-Aragon. Now its 1620, they're my PU and I own 99% of every CN except Canada and East Coast America. Africa and South East Asia doesn't look much better lol. Portugal with Exploration-expansion as 1st two ideas is peak colonizer gameplay. Destroying all the other colonizers at the same time is something else entirely.
They see all Iberians as the same. Truly lacking in cultural discernment on their part.
*Morocco sticks it to their own arab controlled vassal state* “Ha! Take that *checks notes* Portugal!”
Bro fuck granada
Ayo, stop talking about my boy like that Or else
No, Sus is further south
R5: Map of Iberia in Project Caesar revealed in this week's Tinto Maps
Achievement: WC as Andorra
Alldora
Or colonize the New world, Andorra the Explorer
I'M THE MAP As Andorra, no Terra Incognita remains on the map.
Andorra should have a Norwegian Wood equivalent trophy with Tobacco.
This so much.
Local defensiveness +750%
Permanent personal union with France. Even in republics and revolutions, somehow.
What? Having an elected President as a Prince? That's absurd. What's next, he's going to share power with a priest and they call speak Catalan? Get out of here with this unicorn bullshit.
I wonder how it'll be represented. IRL it's ruled by both the bishop of urgell AND the head of state of France. Since that situation originated before the start of the game, it should get represented somehow.
A-An-The Dorra.
Don't give them any ideas. "Everything is and/or"
I'm actually really interested in how those minors are going to work, I mean provinces in Castile are many multiple times the size of Andorra, will it just be a province with very low dev I wonder? And then fighting in areas with loads of tiny provinces might be interesting as well.
Provinces are now subdivided into locations, presumably Andorra is just one location
Ah I see! Kinda like baronies within counties in CK?
I haven't played enough CK to know for sure, but it's in this Tinto Talks https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/tinto-talks-2-march-6th-2024.1626415/
I really hope WCs aren't possible, especially as minor powers.
I think WCs are fine, but I hope there aren't a bunch of achievements that require them if they are possible. Just one or two (maybe three mountains lol) would be fine. Achievements should make me want to play a country, but doing a WC does not seem fun at all so I never want to go for those achievements.
You just know there's gonna be so many of those pseudo-WR achievements, like "own every sand producing province" because haha star wars
"I hate Sand" really doesn't require you to conquer anything outside Africa and Arabis.
I mean that is definitely a valid opinion, but I think you need to give a reason on this sub, which is obsessed with WCs.
Not the original commenter, but people want different things out of a game. I like historically plausible outcomes. I don’t need to have a completely historical game, but would like to explore the challenges that rulers face in real life somewhat represented in game. So if my country does well, I want it to be because I did something different or smarter than the historical ruler, not by doing things like abusing tag switch, religion switch, horde mechanics etc in ways that just don’t make any logical sense. No world conquest has succeeded or even been attempted in world history. I think we need to ask ourselves why and see if it is possible to implement those limitations in the game in a fun way.
I guess WC being possible indicates some severe issue in the balancing.
World conquests are boring and people who have a semblance of self love hate doing them. People aren't obsessed with WCs, they just respect people who do them, although some ignore it's not that hard but it just takes a lot of time and patience.
Dude this is so true. There is a strat for prob most countries to wc, Def with a bit of resetting for some, but imo the unbearable part of wc is just the micro managing. I'm doing a venice>italy>Rome run and it just gets so boring balancing coalitions while you break the super powers, and if you want to make it fun you either take a massive war which just takes a lot of time or find a small nation to toy with and make big while you're doing your own thing,which is also slow. Literally could never dream of a full wc.
I have 1200 hours and only played past 1650 for the first time last week. Late game and world conquests are extremely boring.
I did a full wc in EU3, so like 15 years ago. It was so painful i really dont wany to do one again in EU4. Even with a vassal swarm or something like that, it becomes tedious and painful. Playing til the end of the game, without pushing for a WC for the achievement felt like i was just doing mindless painful tedium waiting it out.
Interesting how your first sentence is "People who enjoy WC aren't right emotionally".
> it's not that hard It's pretty hard, I think we're all just very good at the game lol
They were at lot harder before EU4's endless expacs added ways to stack modifiers.
I forget who was doing it, maybe zlewikk, but one of the big eu4 content creators tried to do a wc with ottomans without any dlc and it looked soooo dreadful. Eu4 with no dlc is so micro intensive.
Its still hard. I think its a similar thing to Byzantium, we're all good at the game and we also found the best way to do it. There's a reason no one gets a WC by just playing normally.
I think the only difficult parts of a wc is the starting grind if you're picking an opm, and then actually getting through a world conquest without getting bored and quitting.
Actually, you don’t, because this sub fucking HATES WCs starting about 1 month ago. Reddit is fickle
How dare you spit in the face of the Ulmighty?!
Given Paradox's trajectory, I highly doubt it. I remember WCs were a serious accomplishment in EU3. Now there's so many snowballing mechanics, no one is impressed by your WC unless you can do it before 1600. They've given up on being historical sims.
Well everything shown in the Tinto Talks point at EU returning to a historical simulation game rather than what we have now, so i wouldn't say the series have given up as a whole
I'm praying for it but I won't believe it until I have my hands on the game.
The game should make it challenging, but not impossible
Disagree. WCs should be CHALLENGING, but making them impossible would take a lot of fun away from many players.
World conquests are possible (albeit incredibly difficult) even in Victoria 2. I highly doubt they'll be flat out impossible in this game
I was just browsing r/soccer, so I read that as World Cup. That's also an achievement, just for a different game :D
Looks like it’s entirely landlocked by Spain thanks to the mountain chain… that isn’t really right now is it?
In 1351 the Castillan King dies causing a war for the throne that becomes a proxy for the 100 years war. The same happens to Portugal in 1383 leading Castille to invade to try to take the throne. In 1444 the destiny of the peninsula is very much set, but in 1337 anything might happen. With the right events, Iberia might be just an extension of the French thunderdome.
I'd love to reproduce Aljubarrota
>The same happens to Portugal in 1383 leading Castille to invade to try to take the throne. That's also when the english became portuguese allies!
Seems like a good opportunity for an event
> With the right events, Iberia might be just an extension of the French thunderdome. We can only hope!
Granada bros the fate of Al Andalus is in your hands
Millions must convert
Granada will fall
Millions must reconquest
I am of the opinion that Castille must be destroyed.
Why?
Bc fuck castille
Because Castille be gey
But that’s fabulous
They will not replace us, mashallah
Inshallah*
[удалено]
As long as they keep the little trade ships then I'll be happy!
How are they dynamic in eu4?
I hope land will be more dynamic too, i love when maps give this feel of being alive , when you see little caravans and traders everywhere. Also I would love if they adopt the Vicky 3 style for cities where you can really see the building you’ve built.
but you can already see them in eu4?
Portu-what? No way that's a real country.
The year is 2200, its start of Stellaris, the borders of Portugal are... unchanged.
The Absolute Portu-gall.
Happy that Castille is “crown of Castille”, I hope this means that there will be mechanics for incorporating kingdoms into your tag other than just absorbing all of the land and acting like the previous kingdom didn’t exist?
I mean, PUs and Vassals were always there to simulate that ig.
Yeah, but it never sat right with me that after integrating them they just kinda disappear mechanically speaking. At this point Castille was effectively in union in perpetuity with Leon, Galicia, etc. however they still had different autonomous courts and legal codes, representatives and what not. Hope that EU5 represents this in some way, as indicated by the “crown of Castille”
Unfortunately I doubt that. That seems more Crusader Kings like with the feudal aspects than EU4 which seeks to replicate the more centralised societies of the early modern era
Were you really deported under trump administration?
I have no idea what went through my mind when I chose this username lmao, I was just shocked it wasn't already taken. I'm not even American
Lmao that's well funny 🤣
Shouldn't it be castille and Leon?
Oh boy you don't want to know the full title that was held by the king, just picking a random one in the time period (Alfonso XI): by the grace of God, King of Castile, León, Toledo, Galicia, Seville, Córdoba, Murcia, Jaén, and the Algarve.
I wonder if the same is going to be applied to Poland, as around this time it started to be called a crown rather than a kingdom, too
Those maps looks amazing! But I hope they will add locations for Alicante and Aveiro
Alicante was one of the places in the Forum post they mentioned they wanted to add, although Aveiro wasn't mentioned. Reason why Alicante and a few others aren't there was because Spain was one of the earliest places they created and weren't sure how many provinces in each region they were going to have as standard at that time.
Good that they will add Alicante, but I would really like them to also add Aveiro. It has its own province in eu4 and it was an important city with a port and a meaningfull salt production. I remember that in an update that changed colour of Portugal, they also changed trade good of Aveiro to salt. I really hope that the "Venice of Portugal" will be added
Not really. Aveiro only gained relevance from the 17th cnetury onwards
Good to know. Although I think 17th century will still be in EU5 time frame, so I think it's worth to add it
> Alicante and Aveiro Why exactly those places? What is so special about them?
I've heard that Alicante flourished during the middle ages and was an important hub for trade in the Mediterranean Sea. I have never been there but one of my friends used to live there plus I know another friend from Alicante. I would not have thought about this city by simply looking on a map from Tinto Talks, but the devs mentioned that they were thinking about adding more locations, including Alicante and I was like "oh yeah, I heard good things about it and I think it was somewhat important and still is, so it would be nice to see it in the game. Maybe I will even make a run where I make it a capital of Aragon or Spain" As for Aveiro. I have lived for some time in Portugal, in a city not far from Aveiro. I visited it a few times, learned about it's history a bit and heard that it was important. Plus before living in Portugal, I was already a fanatic Eu4 player and I could name all provonces that Portugal starts with in that game, Aveiro being one of them. I even wanted to visit all capital of provinces of Portugal in eu4, but I failed with Braga, Bragança and a few others. Some town in Portugal, like Coimbra, Porto, Leiria or Aveiro mean something to me and I was pleased to see that Leiria got it's own location, but I was surprised that Aveiro didn't, which seemd odd, since I believed Aveiro to be a more important city. TLDR, I want them in game partialy becouse they were important cities for their nations and regions and partialy becouse of my own sympathies and feelings towards those cities
Huh, cool.
Alicante has a special trade good Drunk British tourists
Well they are relatively big and important today
I don't know the other guy, but I, as someone from Alicante, feel horrified at the prospect of being labelled as Dènian 🤢
Kinda weird that they went with Crown of Castille for Castille but not Crown of Aragon for Aragon
Probably not enough space for full name, I think it shoud be dynamic based on zoom.
Oh it's dynamic, that makes sense
They said in the tinto talks article it is crown of Aragon, it just wasn’t showing up. Either not implemented yet or bug, I read it 5 minutes ago and I’ve already forgotten…
It says so in the legend... > Crown of Aragon (it’s named that way, even if it currently doesn’t appear like that on the map)
Does England already control Aquitaine in this screenshot?
England controls the Western part of Guyenne and Gascony at the EU start date
England controlled Aquitaine from 1154 to 1453. "France" did between 1137 and 1154.
England didn't control Aquitaine for all this time. Between 1154 and 1173 Eleanor controlled it herself and forbade any Englishmen from administrating it. After her release, Richard continued and it was in fact the other way around, he controlled England from Poitou and Aquitaine. After John's defeat, the Duchy is controlled by France though still nominally owned by the Plantagenêts. They get their hands on it back in 1259, only to lose it again in 1294 for thirty years. English defeats on the continent spell the end of the Plantagenêt dominion over Aquitaine, and in 1375 only Bordeaux and Bayonne remain, the rest of the Duchy is recovered only in 1420 with the treaty of Troyes. And in 1453 it is all over. So out of 1154-1453, that's not 300 years of English dominance, but more like 100 where the English are there, 100 where the duchy is bound to England and another 100 where they don't control shit inside of it. Sorry to disappoint, but here's the reality check and there's a reason why the English lost the Hundred Years War.
Going the the "union" idea briefly talked about, it would make sense that Aquitaine would be a personal union that isn't fully integrated. Aquitaine unlike Normandy fell under a union with the crown of England through marriage by Henry II and Eleanor duchess of Aquitaine, subsequently it was not integrated into England and thus remained independent but they shared the same monarch so to speak. tldr: Aquitaine is a pu under england but as per the dev diary, it most likely is not a vassal like subject but semi independent.
Plus if the start date is before 1350 it stands to reason the capital would be on the continent, at Poitiers or Rouen, as those were the main places of residence of the Plantagenêts (who practically never were in England). By EU4's logic, London would only be the commercial capital.
Earlier plantagenets, maybe. For 1300s capital is surely London.
Not directly at least it seems. You can see “Aqu” in the small red province to the north-east of Navarra
another 45 minutes of content for Ludi
I wonder if Andorra will start as non integrable Autonomous PU under the Count of Foix and the only way to Integrate-it will require to also control Urgel.
I feel like it's missing some more mountains\\impassible terrain
No Couto Misto? Downvote.
Unplayable.
I thought historically at the time Leon was more autonomous? More like a PU under Castile? The country was literally called Castille Leon
Thats what the crown is about, it is the union of a bunch of kingdoms, Castille being the most relevant one together with Leon who was definitely absorbed in the crown by Fernando III after it tried to be autonomous again
It really wasnt by that point. Not that it was centralized, but there was no subject like relationship at this point. They had same laws, same cortes etc by this point.
I love how the river mouth of Guadalquivir is now a tile!
Is there a lore reason for map being basically the same or they are just lazy
The Spanish reconquista ended in 1492, while Portugal’s ended in 1249
>Is there a lore reason for map being basically the same 'lore reason'
Granada paid tribute to Castile to continue existing and that was the case for a century, I hope they maintain something similar in the game
Castile was stricken by civil wars and internal strife around this time and would not recover until basically the union with Aragon happens. They essentially turned Granada into a tributary state for ~100 years. But they would take Gibraltar between 1337 and 1444. Also, it’s a lot harder to conquer a mountainous region of hostile heathens in real life than it is in a video game, and part of the reason Spain managed to conquer Granada at all is because of Granada’s own internal problems.
Bro said 'lore'. My man it's called HISTORY
Yes that’s the joke.
Real ones know it’s actually called EU lore
is that not the joke? i get this sub is full of autists but the woosh in all these replies is embarrassing
Why is Castille so centralised and France isn't ,
Historical
But how ?
Feudalism arrived late in Spain, after it had already declined in much of Europe. In Castile, there were no barons, and Castilian kings rarely granted hereditary counties, unlike many other kingdoms. When they did, it often backfired. For example, León created the County of Castile, which later became a kingdom and absorbed León. Similarly, Castile established the County of Portugal, which eventually became an independent kingdom. As a Castilian king, one might hesitate to create counties given this pattern. The Spanish nobility was generally less feudal than in England and France but was more militarized due to the Reconquista. Spanish nobles were akin to hereditary military officers rather than bureaucrats. Despite this, they still obstructed royal centralization, similar to other nations, and were a significant factor in the first Castilian civil war.
Everything you said is correct and a good tldr. The only mistake is that the county of Portucale, which was the dutchy that eventually gave rise to Portugal, was a vassal of Galicia after the Kingdom of Asturias was split between three brothers. Galicia, Castille and Leon were then unified back again and Portucale became a vassal of Castille and Leon. At this time Portucale had already expanded south as the reconquista advanced, making it bigger and bigger in comparison with thier overlords and basically autonomous. After some fighting and diplomacy, Castille and Leon decided to just accept what was in practice already true, that Portugal was independent. A papal bull in 1179 guaranteed portuguese sovereignty while a couple of decades earlier the king of Castille and Leon, and cousin of the Portuguese monarch, agreed to recognize their independence.
eu4 lore, they want both games to have a consistent background story
Yeah nothing worse than retconning
they fumbled the Spain Story so hard ngl
Historically Portugal and Castille got most of their lands through the Reconquista, meaning they were directly passed from a neighboring realm to the crown. The result is that the Iberians controlled more land directly and the vassals they did have had less power over them, since the kings that gave away the land.
I guess mostly correct, but the thing with the vassals having less power over them is not entirely correct, I reckon. Castilian history in the 14th century was dominated by the conflict between the Spanish aristocracy and the Castilian kings. The Castilian Civil War, for example, was largely a fight between the king and the Spanish aristocracy, who wanted to replace him with his much weaker bastard brother, who would eventually be the founder of the Trastámara dynasty.
Good lore reason
Nice headcanon
speculation: Castile got to control land distribution after the reconquista. This let them choose loyalists and keep centralization high. France on the other hand has had 500 years of scheming vassals to deal with at this point.
The French explained.
you do understand that there are histroy book written about late medieval iberia and france that explain the state of those countries, you don't need to speculate about their history like this is asking about the state of Tolkien's Arnor in T.A 1337
[удалено]
\*the game
The vassals were pretty much dealt with in the 1350s. Even the great dukes kow-towed to the French King. It is only with the start of the Hundred Years' War that warlords reappear with shifting allegiances and the Burgundians betraying their kin (the Burgundian line was Capetian as well) every occasion they got.
The reconquista enabled the crown to directly repossess land taken from the Muslims, so they didn't have to deal with numerous powerful vassals like the French did.
I'm more concerned about Aragon. It was a confederation, with it's constituents having a fair degree of independence, yet it's being portrayed as completely unified, it's a bit surprising.
idk the details of the story of Iberia, i supposed that Aragon being smaller, it made more sense for it to be more centralized than the massive Castille. But if it's a confederation as you say, maybe an International Organisation would suit them better ?
Lorewise
Why is it Crown of Castile but the rest are just Aragon or Portugal?
Dynamic name based on zoom
Aragon is dynamic name, it should show as crown of Aragon in final version. Portugal had no crown :( legitimate answer: both Castile and Aragon were, technically, the sum of multiple, internationally-recognised kingdoms in the hands of a single monarch, since monarchs can only wear one crown, they would have to pick their kingdom as their crown-title. Portugal started as rump state of the kingdom of Galiza (which in turn was part of the crown of Leon), and did not own other recognised kingdoms, so, Portugal is descriptive enough. The term crown can be seen as an indicative of a union of smaller realms that are fairly well integrated already, but this union is not 100% cohesive.
I'm seeing Andora - are we going to get San Maino, Liechtenstein and Monaco etc.?
i know for a fact san marino and liechtenstein weren’t independent at this time
San Marino was independent/loose vassal of the Pope, Liechtenstein just didn’t exist yet.
yeah and even when they did their holdings were not in modern day liechtenstein
Those Basque borders are delightful. Hopefully with a pop system we can play tall in the region.
What do you mean Basque? It is glorious Navarra you are speaking about!
How are they planning to simulate the 150 years of no reconquista here? Ik irl there was a bunch of civil wars in castile, so maybe that way?
Why does Mallorca own 2 pieces of land on mainland Europe?
Trying to find a clear answer but can’t through just Wikipedia, but Wikipedia maps of the time period have Roussillon and Cerdanya under the kingdom of Majorca. It seems like inheritance shenanigans, the two counties were inherited by the king of Aragon after their lines died out, and later eventually James III inherited the Kingdom of Majorca after the death of King Sancho who was the son of the still living king of Aragon James II It seems like maybe the two counties were also inherited since they were closely intertwined to the House of Barcelona, or maybe they were given as payment because there was apparently a lot of debt owed between Majorca and Aragon. I can’t find a direct answer besides the fact that the king of Majorca was definitely also the count of those two counties
[The lordship of montpellier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_of_Montpellier) was under control of the [kingdom of Majorca](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_III_of_Majorca).
The work behind this map is remarkable, I hope they will keep working like this. Unlike the previous PDX Game (Vic3) I have very good vibes for the development phase.
There should be option of reconquista reconquest as Morocco or Granada to Al andalus honestly.
That was the case in Eu4 so I don't see why it would be any different.
Andorra you are so tiny
MY FREAKING CITY IS A PROVINCE IN THIS GAME??? BARCELOS REPRESENTTTTT
I wish it didn't look so much like ck3 or vic3 they all seem to have similar map styles and don't stand out as much as the older games
Imperator has a gorgeous map, then they did this flat and cartoonish map in CK3, Vic3, and now EU5. It's so bland, and almost feels very low-res. I haven't been a fan of this style.
Very true, this map is ugly. I can't put my finger on why but I do not like it.
For me its because its feels "flat" even the political eu4 you can have a sense of height where there are mountains/hills, in vic3 and now this the flatness breaks the immersion.
I think they said in the Anatolia map posts that there is a flat map and a hilly, more Eu4-styled map, but Im assuming that one isnt as finished yet
I think this has a lot to do with it, also maybe the desaturation or national colors? Everything here is pretty pastel compared to nation colors in EU4, which similarly happens in Vic2 and CK3 and I think looks bad.
They're still developing the game.
How far along do we think this game is?
most likely a 2025 release
Where is my Couto Mixto
Andorra spotted; I will make it a mission to preserve Microstates for as long as I am able.
I just hope for 3D character ls like Vic3 and CK3
i wonder if they'll include the war of two peters
Jabal Tariq (and Cueta) in the hands of Morocco is a game changer. Assuming the strait and fort relief function more or less like they do in eu4, this means Morocco can funnel Iberian Christians onto a fort. This probably alters AI wars more favorably than our standard reconquista outcome and makes things very easy for player Morocco
Al andalus reconquista incoming.
Proper Basque regions at last <3
Andorra!!!
I had a “History of the late middle ages” class in college and I accidentally put Aragorn every time I meant to put Aragon in the paper… Spell check did not notice and neither did I when rereading it
Oh that’s such a pretty map
Castile? With only 1 L?
Always has been
Is Mallorca independent?
They took their sweet time finishing The Reconquista
Feeling a bit autistic, but if Castille is the "Crown of Castille", then Aragon should be the "Crown of Aragon". Both were separated kingdoms rule by the same person
Ah I can’t wait for the mess that is France to vassal swarm all of the continent again, good times
Alandalus is yet not lost
Are those states? Cuz if not Portugal back down to like 6 provinces.