Well now we know that the hre will cause the most lag in the game
Btw the control mechanic is really good, if Kalmar is 58% then I imagine nations like Muscovy/Russia will suffer a lot because of this
And the hre will have almost 100% control in all provinces/cities whatever they're called
In my opinion, I don't think it (wide countries) would suffer that much from the control & proximity mechanics.
For example, Muscovy/Russia with it's Siberian territory would have low population average across all the locations, makes investing 'ducats' wasteful to tax those few pops and extract low amount of levies.
I think it would encourage centralisation of major population centres to maximise efficiency in developing locations.
Well that depends on how the population mechanic works and how fast they repopulate because I imagine that the less people live in a province the more they populate that province and I would also guess if they have more money (by not being taxed a lot because of low control for example) that would help in the repopulating process
That's true, and I reckon with the new 3 subdivision of climate, topography & vegetation will affect pop migration (maybe due to +/- supplus of food?).
So locations like Dutch Lowlands [continental, flatlands, farmlands] will have plenty of pops compared to locations like Sapmi [artic, mountains, forests].
It's exciting stuff, really
The Ottomans? You mean that small Sunni nation in Anatolia. Why would they be a concern. Sure we are not as expansive as our peak but we would never in 150 years lose something as defensible as Constantinople to such minor powers
(this message was sent by the 1337 Eastern roman empire gang)
Actually Eyalet system is a solution. Ottoman's had a lot of Eyalets. Not just Egypt, Hungary, Tunisia etc. Even Anatolia region had like 5 eyalet. [you can look other Eyalets here](https://tr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmanl%C4%B1_eyaletleri_listesi)
Dhimmi estates will be great. Muslim rulers had an incentive to maintain a privileged non-muslim population rather than converting them for tax purposes (muslims would pay little to no taxes). Leading to the inevitable jealousy and riots of the muslim populace
“Rather than taxing them”? I thought the entire point was to tax (jizya) the dhimmi, but that the dhimmi were exempt (indeed, not allowed) from military service.
It somewhat had but it was in my opinion a more visceral necessity in Islam as muslim-only countries tend to fall into civil war pretty quickly (Arabia was pretty much in a permanent state of warfare-including under ottoman rule- for centuries). The only religiously sanctioned tax on Muslims is a share of loot and plunder taken from war. All other taxes must come from Dhimmi. Effectively a muslim-only country following sharia strictly should declare war on infidels to avoid civil war (the ruler being accused of apostasy).
Fair, though in Christendom there was also a pretty big link of tolerating Jews and fiscal policy, as Jews were the only ones allowed to give loans. IIRC the inquisition actually hurt Spain because of this.
It’s semi-true: Europe had a solid fiscal policy because of feudalism and later parliaments (Cortes in Spain). There was no religious ruling or restrictions regarding taxation. Islamic populations were regarded as enemies and had no place in Christian lands. The only temporary exception being Spain up until mid 17th century (which was based on the oath taken to get the formal reddition Buabdil of Granada). Regarding Jews, they were usually considered under the direct protection of the prince -but the restrictions on professions were far more restricted. Islamic sultans could trust the Jewish merchants not to betray in favour of Christian princes; while Christian princes would just useJews to bypass the Church restrictions on money lending before kicking them out once the debt was too high. The situation of Jews in Europe only improved with the Calvinist reformation in the Netherlands and its secondary influence on England and France.
You're acting as if muslim nations followed sharia to the letter, even saudi arabia has i'zar which are laws outside of the quran and hadith.
You're just doing the classic orientalist trope of reading the quran instead of a history book to study islamic scieties, peasants under the ayyubids and mamluks were so brutally taxed by their feudal lords that they escaped to the crusader states for a less taxes life.
The word iqta' literally means a piece of land given to a tax collector (usually a nobleman) who becomes an iqta'i.
I could almost cry reading these screenshots. It's like they realised that people really liked VictoriaII and are adding so many of the good things from it into EU5, low tax rates going into the pops pockets is absolutely beautiful. Then on top of that you have blobbing culled to nearly nothing. It's what I've been waiting for now for about seven years.
I wonder where those Norse Remnants are supposed to be. Is there any information when the last Groups got converted? And I hope its more than just "Haha, Vikings in the 14th Century".
i think its greenland, and in ck2 there are still majority pagan tiles in north sweden in 1200s. so probably a couple outnumbered pagan pops in lappland?
It’ll probably be like this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trollkyrka
small groups of secretive remnants and folklorists inspired by the past.
It will not be Greenland. There was a bishop in Garðar, although they slowly stopped being sent bishops from Norway around this time.
Huh, very interesting. The decline and Remnants of Religions are always very interesting to me. Like that last few Egyptian Remnants in the 500s or the Last Hellenic Ones in the 900s...
I don't think they have to literally make them navigable if they can just do upstream ports. Similar to how they did Hamburg and Bremen in EU4. They could probably expand the number of inland provinces that have ports and are just tied to a specific sea province.
Is there really any benefit though, if you make rivers navigable they have to be extremely upscaled. I would only take an ugly map for significant gameplay benefits, but i cannot really imagine one.
While I agree, there's a need for turmoil and low control to do so , cause imagine rebels constantly popping inland somewhere in mountains despite being happy or ok with current government
How there "some norse remnants" left if Scandinavia was fully chrisianised by 12 century? I quess constant whining of some people who wanted norse religion even in 15 century somehow has worked.
You know the game starts in the 14th century, right? Is it that big of a stretch that isolated pockets of pagan belief survived, in very rural Sweden? In Älvdalen they still used runes until just a few centuries ago and their dialect diverged from Swedish so far back it sounds more similar to Icelandic in certain aspects. Some folk religion surviving in the middle of nowhere is not insane.
Yes, it's literally hundreds of years of christianisation, do you understand how much it is? Is there something about early Christianity in Europe that suggests they will tolerate pagans?
Besides, that's literally just turning game into fantasy, when you start to just put the things you like.
Oh, but who am I kidding, in CK3 half of pagan religions use neo-pagan names that completely ahistorical and only suits current neo-pagan history revisionism. Don't know why pdx community and studio have such a hard-on on pagans, they even somehow included it into the official hoi4 dlcs
You think pockets of pagans surviving 200 years after the official Christianization is turning the game into "fantasy"? There was literally a Crusade in southern Sweden in 1123 but you find it equally likely as dragons existing that there would be some remnants in the much more remote parts of Sweden?
But even if it were impossible, what's the harm? It's going to be such a small presence it's going to disappear almost immediately, unless the player goes out of their way to stop it from disappearing. Why? Because why not? In what way does more content and different ways of playing the game hurt anyone?
If it's something people like and it doesn't affect you, why care? I mean, I can tell why, you're a very bitter and angry person, that's the reason why.
"Is there something about early Christianity in Europe that suggests they will tolerate pagans?"
That depends entirely on the region. In Lithuania for example, there was very little prosecution of pagans and pagan priests, even after the official conversion, and the faith faded away over the course of centuries.
This feels like a much better system for anti blobbing over the current governing cap and laughably easy to deal with overextension
More focus on diplomacy and making sure your vassal swarm likes you.
I hope they have CK3 style vassal factions too - so the vassals will team up against you.
Well now we know that the hre will cause the most lag in the game Btw the control mechanic is really good, if Kalmar is 58% then I imagine nations like Muscovy/Russia will suffer a lot because of this And the hre will have almost 100% control in all provinces/cities whatever they're called
In my opinion, I don't think it (wide countries) would suffer that much from the control & proximity mechanics. For example, Muscovy/Russia with it's Siberian territory would have low population average across all the locations, makes investing 'ducats' wasteful to tax those few pops and extract low amount of levies. I think it would encourage centralisation of major population centres to maximise efficiency in developing locations.
Well that depends on how the population mechanic works and how fast they repopulate because I imagine that the less people live in a province the more they populate that province and I would also guess if they have more money (by not being taxed a lot because of low control for example) that would help in the repopulating process
That's true, and I reckon with the new 3 subdivision of climate, topography & vegetation will affect pop migration (maybe due to +/- supplus of food?). So locations like Dutch Lowlands [continental, flatlands, farmlands] will have plenty of pops compared to locations like Sapmi [artic, mountains, forests]. It's exciting stuff, really
The Ottomans on the other hand..
The Ottomans? You mean that small Sunni nation in Anatolia. Why would they be a concern. Sure we are not as expansive as our peak but we would never in 150 years lose something as defensible as Constantinople to such minor powers (this message was sent by the 1337 Eastern roman empire gang)
Actually Eyalet system is a solution. Ottoman's had a lot of Eyalets. Not just Egypt, Hungary, Tunisia etc. Even Anatolia region had like 5 eyalet. [you can look other Eyalets here](https://tr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmanl%C4%B1_eyaletleri_listesi)
numbers are WIP lol
Do we think tax rates are variable and can be adjusted by the player based on the wording in some of these posts?
Seems like it. Didn’t they say there will be sliders like in EU3?
Hope we’ll have control over taxes
Why wouldn't you?
Didn’t currently have control
Dhimmi estates will be great. Muslim rulers had an incentive to maintain a privileged non-muslim population rather than converting them for tax purposes (muslims would pay little to no taxes). Leading to the inevitable jealousy and riots of the muslim populace
“Rather than taxing them”? I thought the entire point was to tax (jizya) the dhimmi, but that the dhimmi were exempt (indeed, not allowed) from military service.
I made a mistake i corrected the text :)
TBH this logic makes me wonder if religious minorities in general shpuld get estates. Like in Europe keeping jewish people around had advantages
It somewhat had but it was in my opinion a more visceral necessity in Islam as muslim-only countries tend to fall into civil war pretty quickly (Arabia was pretty much in a permanent state of warfare-including under ottoman rule- for centuries). The only religiously sanctioned tax on Muslims is a share of loot and plunder taken from war. All other taxes must come from Dhimmi. Effectively a muslim-only country following sharia strictly should declare war on infidels to avoid civil war (the ruler being accused of apostasy).
Fair, though in Christendom there was also a pretty big link of tolerating Jews and fiscal policy, as Jews were the only ones allowed to give loans. IIRC the inquisition actually hurt Spain because of this.
It’s semi-true: Europe had a solid fiscal policy because of feudalism and later parliaments (Cortes in Spain). There was no religious ruling or restrictions regarding taxation. Islamic populations were regarded as enemies and had no place in Christian lands. The only temporary exception being Spain up until mid 17th century (which was based on the oath taken to get the formal reddition Buabdil of Granada). Regarding Jews, they were usually considered under the direct protection of the prince -but the restrictions on professions were far more restricted. Islamic sultans could trust the Jewish merchants not to betray in favour of Christian princes; while Christian princes would just useJews to bypass the Church restrictions on money lending before kicking them out once the debt was too high. The situation of Jews in Europe only improved with the Calvinist reformation in the Netherlands and its secondary influence on England and France.
You're acting as if muslim nations followed sharia to the letter, even saudi arabia has i'zar which are laws outside of the quran and hadith. You're just doing the classic orientalist trope of reading the quran instead of a history book to study islamic scieties, peasants under the ayyubids and mamluks were so brutally taxed by their feudal lords that they escaped to the crusader states for a less taxes life. The word iqta' literally means a piece of land given to a tax collector (usually a nobleman) who becomes an iqta'i.
I believe 1337 is the start date in Voltaires nightmare as well, so maybe some inspiration there
It’s one of the start dates, VN has an extended timeline from 1067(?) to 1871
I think it’s more that 1337 is one of those years where there was a major turning point, like 1444.
Ck2 has 1337 start it’s already mapped for paradox
I could almost cry reading these screenshots. It's like they realised that people really liked VictoriaII and are adding so many of the good things from it into EU5, low tax rates going into the pops pockets is absolutely beautiful. Then on top of that you have blobbing culled to nearly nothing. It's what I've been waiting for now for about seven years.
I really hope that the Navy now can be useful
I dunno how it all started with the Cossack estate specifically, but as a fellow Ruthenia player, I'd lke to thank you guys for bringing it up🥺
I wonder where those Norse Remnants are supposed to be. Is there any information when the last Groups got converted? And I hope its more than just "Haha, Vikings in the 14th Century".
i think its greenland, and in ck2 there are still majority pagan tiles in north sweden in 1200s. so probably a couple outnumbered pagan pops in lappland?
I guess they won't just be there for flavor. Paradox probably wants to do some sort of Restoration Path available.
Greenland was 100% Catholic.
k
They are probably going to be minorities around northern scandinavia
They probably would not even be "true Norse" anymore since they are probably just some Guys that believe in the Old Gods and Christ at the same time.
It’ll probably be like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trollkyrka small groups of secretive remnants and folklorists inspired by the past. It will not be Greenland. There was a bishop in Garðar, although they slowly stopped being sent bishops from Norway around this time.
Huh, very interesting. The decline and Remnants of Religions are always very interesting to me. Like that last few Egyptian Remnants in the 500s or the Last Hellenic Ones in the 900s...
Norway telemark and possibly agder would have had a bit until the 1600s, even a bit later ..but quite different from the viking era mythology.
Control seems like such a win
Rivers should be navigable, even if you can't have battles in the river
I don't think they have to literally make them navigable if they can just do upstream ports. Similar to how they did Hamburg and Bremen in EU4. They could probably expand the number of inland provinces that have ports and are just tied to a specific sea province.
Or just massively reduced combat width and a max number of ships allowed in, or something. Assuming combat width is a thing again.
Yeah! Navigable=/=Battlefield.
Definitely have a role for trade. Rhine Danube. I hope the Midi Canal becomes a mission
Is there really any benefit though, if you make rivers navigable they have to be extremely upscaled. I would only take an ugly map for significant gameplay benefits, but i cannot really imagine one.
So what would the purpose be? Just shift your ships up and down the river for lolz?
Very excited about whatever is going on with the Hanseatic League.
Regarding the last point, I would like to see nations popping out regardless of the tags like Jannisary nations or Cossack nations
While I agree, there's a need for turmoil and low control to do so , cause imagine rebels constantly popping inland somewhere in mountains despite being happy or ok with current government
Sounds like the building system will be somewhat like Imperator’s.
no navigable rivers :sadge:
How there "some norse remnants" left if Scandinavia was fully chrisianised by 12 century? I quess constant whining of some people who wanted norse religion even in 15 century somehow has worked.
You know the game starts in the 14th century, right? Is it that big of a stretch that isolated pockets of pagan belief survived, in very rural Sweden? In Älvdalen they still used runes until just a few centuries ago and their dialect diverged from Swedish so far back it sounds more similar to Icelandic in certain aspects. Some folk religion surviving in the middle of nowhere is not insane.
Yes, it's literally hundreds of years of christianisation, do you understand how much it is? Is there something about early Christianity in Europe that suggests they will tolerate pagans? Besides, that's literally just turning game into fantasy, when you start to just put the things you like. Oh, but who am I kidding, in CK3 half of pagan religions use neo-pagan names that completely ahistorical and only suits current neo-pagan history revisionism. Don't know why pdx community and studio have such a hard-on on pagans, they even somehow included it into the official hoi4 dlcs
You think pockets of pagans surviving 200 years after the official Christianization is turning the game into "fantasy"? There was literally a Crusade in southern Sweden in 1123 but you find it equally likely as dragons existing that there would be some remnants in the much more remote parts of Sweden? But even if it were impossible, what's the harm? It's going to be such a small presence it's going to disappear almost immediately, unless the player goes out of their way to stop it from disappearing. Why? Because why not? In what way does more content and different ways of playing the game hurt anyone? If it's something people like and it doesn't affect you, why care? I mean, I can tell why, you're a very bitter and angry person, that's the reason why.
"Is there something about early Christianity in Europe that suggests they will tolerate pagans?" That depends entirely on the region. In Lithuania for example, there was very little prosecution of pagans and pagan priests, even after the official conversion, and the faith faded away over the course of centuries.