• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Tinto Maps #3 - 24th of May 2024 - France

Greetings, and welcome to the third Tinto Maps! Last week we received a great amount of feedback regarding Iberia, which we’re working on, and this week we also reworked the map of the Low Countries, which we’ll show soon.

For this week, we’ll be taking a look at France, up until its current modern borders (which you’ll notice are quite different from the 1337 borders):

Countries:
Countries.png

When portraying the political situation of France in 1337, we had a few options. On one extreme, we could make it a ‘centralized monarchy’, like England or the Iberian ones, but with a much lower degree of control over its territories. Conversely, we could have a ‘French Crown’ IO, similar to the HRE. We decided to go with the middle term, which represents the French Crown lands with the country of France, and its networks of appanages and vassals as different subjects. We think that this way we can portray the progressive centralization of the crown under the reigns of Philip II, Louis IX, and Philip IV, while also portraying the powerful jurisdictional powers of the French feuds. We have two types of subjects in France, by the way: vassals, which represent the regular fief mouvants, and appanages, which were the feuds granted to members of the royal family, that could eventually revert to the French Crown.

You may also notice that there might be a problem incoming related to a couple of English possessions in the mainland, the County of Ponthieu, and, especially, the Duchy of Aquitaine, as well as the Channel Islands of Jersey and Guernsey which comprise a dangerously close non-core location of England (they aren’t big enough to be a worthwhile subject country, even if that might be a more accurate representation).


Locations:
Locations.png

An interesting distribution of locations. Some names may be a bit long, so, please blame the French, not us, and ask if you want to know which location it is.

Provinces:
Provinces.png

We are aware that we have a severe inconsistency here, which is naming the provinces after locations instead of provincial and regional names (we were not very sure about what naming convention to use when we crafted this map). So we would be glad to receive feedback on the names that you think would fit. E.g.: Artois instead of Arras, Anjou instead of Angers, etc.

Terrain:
Climate.png

Topography.png

Vegetation.png

We’ll also read your feedback regarding the terrain of France, although we already know of some issues to correct (e.g.: changing the vegetation of the Landes to sparse instead of forests.

Cultures:
Cultures.png

Although there are two big cultural divisions of the French cultures, Langue d’Oil and Langue d’Oc, we think that their regional subdivisions would make the situation more accurate for 1337, where there is a long way until the cultural unification of France.

Religions:
Religion.png

Not a very interesting situation, only 0.80% of the population is of a different religion (Judaism). We haven’t portrayed any Catholic heresy yet, maybe Cathars should still have some room in the Languedoc, as Montaillou, an Occitan Village from 1294 to 1324, points to? Also, while taking this screenshot, we improved the view of this map mode, making it more responsive to zoom levels.

Raw Goods:
Raw Goods.png

The gold mines in the center of the map are going to die, as they were exploited only in recent times. Which other changes do you suggest?

Markets:
Markets.png

Paris already had replaced the fairs of Champagne as the main trading center of the region, driven by the growth of the crown lands and the royal power in the 13th century. Apart from that, we have the market at Bordeaux in Aquitaine.

Population:
Population.png

Pops with colors.png

Population, and also how it looks with colors when you have the country clicked (Paris, centralizing France since Hugh Capet…).

And that’s all for today! Next week we will move to the North-Eastern part of Europe, as we will take at look at Poland and the Baltic region. Cheers!
 
  • 208Love
  • 165Like
  • 5
  • 4
Reactions:
Did people complain already about poor Jura Mountains representation and lack of hills around Dijon? Or shall I start?
Yeah I don't really understand that region. The Swiss Plateau has plateau terrain? Because of the name? The elevation really isn't that high, it's more like a basin between the Jura and Alps than an actual plateau. Its elevation isn't significantly higher than certain plains in Southern Germany or Bohemia.

I mentioned Pontarlier with its wheat before, it just looks strange since it's right in the Jura mountains. I guess it's really difficult to represent them, because they're so 'long' and have valleys in between where people live. Maybe the ridges should be impassable?
And why there are no provinces producing mustard, hmm?
Spices for Dijon? :p
No horses in Camargue! They were only used locally and were explicitly forbidden by law to be bred or exported outside the region (they were very specific to the region and would have made terrible horses anywhere else).
That's sad, on one hand the horses were clearly important, on the other hand they can't really be included if they couldn't be traded.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Take into consideration that the Duchy of Burgundy existing in 1337 is different from that rising in the 15th century, as it's not even the same dynasty governing (the House of Burgundy, under Odo IV; Philip the Bold is not even born), neither the same lands. This poses us the challenge of creating an extreme railroad to recreate the conditions of the 'rise of Burgundy' that you mention. In any case, we want to read your opinions on the matter, to make the best decision regarding the possible Burgundian content.
I understand your point but personnally I would really really not mind if you added a bit of railroad to represent the rise of the duchy. I feel like this is a huge part of the immersion that is involved. The duchy became a central actor in the middle of the HYW (1363 when Jean II Le bon give it to his son Philippe, the great father of Philippe III Le Bon, and father of Charles Le Téméraire, the famous) and kept being a central actor until 1477.

It adds so much depth to the regional gameplay (like Britain or Provence) !

:D
 
  • 5Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
The prevalence of olives as a raw good in central France is quite odd. There are even sources in Alsace? What does this represent? I doubt that olives grow that well in this climate.
Blue livestock, green wheat and yellow fish are non-optimal choices for colors.

"Aix-en-Provence" should not be a province name. It's just too much of a mouthful. "Provence" sounds fine to me, even though that province covers only the southwestern part.
"Chalons-en-Champagne" is similarly awful to read (and was called Chalons-sur-Marne until quite recently). "Chalons" probably would suffice as a name for location and province. The other places called Chalons are tiny.
 
  • 5Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
"Aix-en-Provence" should not be a province name. It's just too much of a mouthful. "Provence" sounds fine to me, even though that province covers only the southwestern part.
Surely it would be Aix?
Edit: Actually never mind, Provence is probably better for the province than just the name of a city.
Or maybe Var?
The way the provinces are drawn in Provence doesn't really allow for good names I guess.
 
Last edited:
Why part of the Pyrenees has an arctic climate and no bit of the western Alps has it?
Shouldn't the climate of at least a part of the Alps be colder and harsher than that of the Pyrenees?
Cause in this map seems the opposite.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Exactly, that's why you shouldn't do it,. Extreme railroad = bad. Burgundian succession wouldn't work except as a "global" mechanic. You can't plan the demise of a quasi-kingdom one hundred years in advance, while it didn't even form yet.

As for the "rise of Burgundy", I'm not so sure how it happened historically. A cursory look seems to indicate it has been mostly done by inheritances, a situation which is hard to portray otherwise than with a revamped PUs mechanic. I would certainly not want whole chunk of territories changing hands seemingly randomly a century after the start of the game.
Okay but Burgundy was probably the strongest or one of the strongest duchies in France in this era, so it should have a decent chance of growing in power naturally (particularily if there are "lucky nations" in the game)
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Why the need for "Paris Market" and "Bordeaux Market". If everything is a market, could we write "Paris" or "Bordeaux", or "Parisian" and "Bordelais".
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
There won't be a 'Burgundian Inheritance' as in EUIV in this game, we've already fixed too many bugs about that in the last patches of EUIV.
But will the mechanics for handling the succession of personal unions be sophisticated enough to possibly recreate what happened in the historical Burgundian inheritance?

I think that's a pretty good benchmark to measure whether the game can successfully model the kinds of tensions arising between feudal claims (reverting to the crown upon extinction of the male line) vs dynastic claims that would certainly be present in 1337 Europe.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Dear @Johan, and @Pavía we like a lot of what we’ve seen so far, but this one thing

No, it's a fiefdom of England.

I don't think that we will be able to solve this matter, considering that France and England could not do so back in 1337...

Now seriously, we've considered the English possessions in France to be under England, as that's the closest approach to how they were governed daily.

looks like this moment

First of all, we have the current ruler, which in Rome is called the Consul. In a decision to make it more into a fun engaging game, where you care about your characters, you only have one consul in rome, and they serve for five years.

once again.



Dear @Johan and @Pavía , @Biegeltoren ‘s suggestion

I had wondered if english possessions in France would be in a PU with england, while also being a subject of France. Are these things mutually exclusive? How come you decided to go with this setup?

is the only accurate way to depict the situation at the startdate.

In 1337 (and since the 12th century) Aquitaine, the Channel Islands, and Abbeville were fiefs of France held by the same person (Edward III in 1337, his ancestors before him) who was also king of England.

The King of France was legally able to revoke these fiefs, and this was one of the causes of the HYW.

If the game mechanics don’t allow vassals in a PU with an outside nation to choose to side with their union partner instead of their overlord, then something is wrong with the mechanics.


other isssues:

  • Alsace seems unchanged. @Silver_Falcon ‘s suggestions were ignored.
  • Why is Monaco missing? You’ve added Andorra, but Monaco was arguably more important at the Startdate (and afterwards). The starting ruler had good connections to both France and Naples. Monaco won independence from Genoa just a few years earlier, but was reconquered 20 years later. That should provide some dynamic action in the area.
  • You’ve added Norse pops but no Cathars (and Waldensians and Fraticelli)? At least some of them should be still around, and while without a player’s intervention they should be converted to Catholics in short order, a player should have the ability to reverse their fortunes. (without mods!)


We hope Project Caesar will be a good game at launch, but it looks very raw at the moment.
 
  • 8Like
  • 5
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
View attachment 1137995
Population, and also how it looks with colors when you have the country clicked (Paris, centralizing France since Hugh Capet…).
This is the first map of the game I've seen that I really don't like. The colors might be unique to France's centralization in Paris and look different in more level countries, but this instance has two really weird visual quirks for me. First, the roll up of pops being different than unselected is really weird with color added. Second, the coloration without the numbers makes it hard to access the actual information.

I'd really appreciate seeing some additional countries in this map view to see if maybe this is a "bad" one-off, but if it isn't maybe a tint shading - (blue for France when selected and tint levels reflect density for example) would be better.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
It could be the core of a mechsmics. It hould be improved, by making it generic:

Let us say the 10 modt powerful subjects (perhsps waited by size, events, distance from Paris, etc) become more likely to intermarry and inherit for 150 years.

Results:
- more naturally bigger subjects with likely higher liberty-desire
- but also a slowly consolidating France, unless one rival manages to permanentely tear away.
- perhaps it is Flandre, but perhaps Foix or perhaps none in the end.

Advantages:
- no gamey under these conditions territories are forced from owner to another owner.
- no weird Burgundy and Flandre are OP because of reasons.
- more replayability & "natural" developnent.

Example:
A player(Navarre)-AI(Foix)-combo tears through France. What would you wish for?
A) increasing lokelihood of consolidation of Foix
B) BAMM --> Fandre inherits most of the subjects, overtaking France
C) BAMM --> The Palatinate inherits half of France.
(I know a manipulated question. However I want something, which on the one hand gives France a change, but on the other hand had a natural way for all of France' subjects to coalesc and to seek outside help independant of the tag.)

I just saw your answer, and I personally think it's a very good idea, to see what the developers think !
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Any source for that?
Silver was a big deal in the Ore Mountains on the Saxon side and in Tyrol. Bohemia had some of the Ore Mountain silver too, and of course Kuttenberg, but I never heard that it was that much ahead of everyone else.
Upper Hungary (i.e. Slovakia) was known for its gold, not sure about silver.

And of course, any European silver production was completely invalidated as soon as the market was flooded with silver from rich mines in Bolivia and Mexico in which millions of slaves died of exhaustion or mercury poisoning.
So any modifier that makes European mines especially rich is highly questionable.
I did a quick search among my saved links, these are the ones I could gather at the moment:

1716569898288.png

In the first quarter of the 14th century, the Bohemian Empire, taking advantage of the turbulence in Hungary, seized the leading role in the economic life of Central Europe through its rich silver production. The money markets of Poland, Hungary, Austria and the neighbouring German principalities were dominated by the Czech garas, completely eclipsing the territorial currencies of the countries and provinces concerned. With the inevitable decline of the mining industry in Hungary, the already rapidly expanding Czech silver mining industry became even more important, and Wenceslas II took full control of the economies of the neighbouring countries by imposing a ban on the export of precious metals[20]. The economic policy of the Czech kings was mainly criticised by Austria, and above all by Vienna, which had until then controlled the noble ore-producing areas of Hungary and Bohemia and the intermediary trade between Germany and Italy[21]. However, the consolidation of the Hungarian kingdom threatened Bohemia with a serious economic crisis. Hungary was the only European country that could compete with the Czech Republic in the mining sector with the certainty of success, and it could only maintain its leading position in this field by sharing the same position as Hungary. However, cooperation was also desirable for the Hungarian king, because Czech competition could jeopardise the success of his ambitious plans for a finance policy, which were in the initial stages. The favourable natural conditions predestined the two countries to take the leading role in the Central European financial market by common consent. More than half of Europe's silver production, and with it that of the whole known world, 11/12 of Europe's gold production, and at least one third of the gold production of the whole known world, came from the mines of Hungary and Bohemia[22]. Around 1325, relations between the two rulers, who had hitherto been enemies, were aligned.
page 184
1716571126493.png

The boom in the mining regions of the Garam, Spiš and Transylvania had an explosive effect on gold and silver mining. It is not possible to give an exact figure for the production of precious metals in the mid-14th century, but some estimates suggest that the bulk of European gold production - some suggest that 90% - came from Hungary. The country's gold production may have reached or even exceeded 1500 kg per year. One figure may give an idea of the abundance of precious metals in Hungary: Queen Elizabeth, the mother of Louis I the Great, carried more than 6.5 tonnes of silver and 5 tonnes of gold on her trip to Italy in 1343, and minted a considerable amount of money. The sudden arrival on the market of precious metals and money of this magnitude had serious economic consequences.
page 18/24
1716571895909.png

page 9/110
1716572570274.png


For this last one I can't link the actual paper, but the description below mentions the source and contains an excerpt:

One could probably find more similar stuff with a little bit of further digging, but i think it's enough for the time being.
And of course, any European silver production was completely invalidated as soon as the market was flooded with silver from rich mines in Bolivia and Mexico in which millions of slaves died of exhaustion or mercury poisoning.
So any modifier that makes European mines especially rich is highly questionable.
The mines depleted or became less economical to exploit due to various other reasons (wars, instability, New World), but that doesn't mean their importance until then shouldn't be taken into account. Depletion of gold mines was already a thing in EU4, surely PC could keep and refine that feature to properly depict all ages covered by the game.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Just finished reading it, this is my feedback off-the-tongue with what i saw, may come back later with more – and better-based – thoughts on Baguetteland, although i'd like to use this opportunity to congratulate the team on the work of not only the game but also the feedback-following, i don't quite remember seeing anything like this for a game before. So very much thank you Tintopals :).

Seeing the political map, i have some questions concerning how the Navarre-France conundrum will be represented in-game, Évreux is a french vassal, the Count of Évreux is the King of Navarre, i assume Joan is the in-game ruler of Navarre (as she was queen in her rights) and the Évreux-Navarre PU is presented by a marriage relation between both (to be made PU on their son's accession), but i find rather jarring the absence of Joan's french lands in the map, and the fact that some of these are apparently being thrown under as "Évreux". When Joan gave up her rights to the french throne in 1329, she also gave up claims to the County of Champagne & Brie (which is accurately shown as french crownland), but in return got land in her own name as well, quoting wikipedia:

View attachment 1138115
This is important because crucial to her reign in Navarre is the fact that both King and Queen of Navarre would most of the time be living in France (her husband showed up more in Navarre than herself, also) with Navarre itself being ruled by french stewards, she clearly showed preferrence to her french domains and simply reality isn't as well depicted if you have a Navarre with Joan as ruler, with the ruler of Évreux as consort, but no PU with a french tag for her lands there. The Angouleme lands are seemingly under the Évreux tag (border with Aquitaine), the same for the Longueville (northern coast) and Mortain (Normandy) – for Mortain even the borders aren't right apparently, they seem to be the Angevin-era borders, Joan's grant from her uncle seems to have included lands in the Côtentin peninsula, as can be seen from her son's – Charles II of Navarre – inheritance:
View attachment 1138119
Notice how it's mentioned that his mother had received the Normandy lands.

Besides that, i wonder if you'll deal with the historical ongoing contract (That is, Joan has to give up her crown to her son if he reaches 21 years of age before she dies) between Crown and Estates, you've replied to a question saying that there will be an event dealing with the Valentinois, i assume the same will be true for Angouleme? (The french crown acquired it sometime before Joan's death, i didn't get how, but her son seemed pretty mad when the crown gave it to the la Cerdas, anyway), tl;dr: Where Angouleme tag for my gal Joan? Giving her french lands to the husband's tag is literally machism!

Anyway, about locations and provinces, a few suggestions on changing names:
- Tolosa should be San Sebastián, the town is noteworthy, yes, but before the second half of the 14th century, San Sebastián was the main port of Gipuzkoa, and Bilbao gives the name for the neighbouring location, so not naming the main port at game start seems odd, specially considering that later in the game's historical time period San Sebastián would also clear Tolosa in terms of importance.
- There is Oloron (a noteworthy center for Transpyreneean trade) and Pau, but no Orthez (slightly to the west of it), which is the actual capital of Béarn at the time, as the court transferred to Pau in 1464. I'm not actually demanding any specific change here, since i can't bother with tracing where exactly the three are in the map (as in comparing the real life map with the game one), but i do think that it would be strange for the actual capital to not be in the game at the release date. Also, i hope Mont-de-Marsan gets the deserved love! It was an actual city at game-start, it would be...a Let Down if one started the game with just a rural undeveloped location to show for it.
- On provinces, i absolutely think you should go for not-location names, it simply flows better, it's almost free immersion. Location Place in Place Province sounds BORING, Location Place in State Province sounds AWESOME, or something like that. Anyway, you get it! Provinces should have their own, province-y names!

A question: are we ever getting culture-accurate location names for Brittany? It would be so cool!

On cultures, i will corrobate a previous comment on the relying off language boundaries – Not that i disagree heavily with it, but i think that in France's case it can get a bit too much arbitrary, because the whole patois identity often was more microcosmic (at level 1 you speak the language of your village, at level 2 you identify with the people of the villages which you can properly understand). The thing is that, pointing a problem and not entertaining solutions isn't exactly the kind of thing i like to do, so i'm giving my two cents on it.

The Breton/Gallo differentiation is valid, as it was, a core part of Brittany's Late Medieval/Early Modern cultural zeitgeist was its division between Lower (Celtic) and Upper (Romance) Brittany, which was made already in the 14th century (between "Brittania gallicana" and "Brittania britonizans") as of John T. Koch (ed.), Celtic Culture: a historical encyclopedia, Volumes 1-5 (2006), p. 244. But i think the borders shown in the map are innacurate to the time, though, and represent a much more modern (i speak, 18th/19th century) state of things. This map can help us:
View attachment 1138147
It's a bit messy, but i'd say fairly accurate, anyway, look at the 1500 line there. Now consider that we are in 1337, and Upper Brittany (where it is the most urban and dense-populated) was very heavily affected by Black Death and 100 Years War shenanigans, we should be much closer to the 1200 line. That is, Redon should be predominantly Breton, Guérande should be something along the lines of 60/40 to Gallo, funnily enough, the north seems to be fairly accurate (although, if not the case, Gallo should be around 30-40% in Saint-Brieuc, and the majority of burgher pops).

But more importantly, it should be a bigger culture, it is, in fact, not simply "Romance Breton", it is a frontier culture generated during the period of the Marches of Neustria, and should extend further by this time: The area where it is minority under Poitevin should be dominant Gallo (with Poitevin minorities), and Avranches/Mortain both should have a sizable (~30%) minority. I'd also argue for Mayenne to be Gallo, because there's almost no isogloss between its eastern dialects and Mayennais, while Angevin and Mayennais were always considered separate patois, i understand that there's no reason for a single-location Mayennois culture, but i think it would be much more accurate if Mayennois was to be subsumed into Gallo rather than into Angevin, considering that, there should be slight Angevin minorities in Mayenne, and slight Gallo minorities in Laval. Also, burgher pops in Lower Brittany should have a significant Gallo component, as they were often "imported" during the founding of new towns.

There are some reasonable potential mergers, too. Poitevin and Saintongeais maybe, i think Franc Comtois should be subsumed under Bourguignon, mostly due to identitary evidence (as of, we know that during the game's time period, being "Burgundian" was a thing, and the Free County of Burgundy was obviously part of such identity), that song about Picards and Bourguignons comes to mind. Talking of Bourguignon, isn't that culture extending a bit too much to the north? I really don't know a thing about that, just asking because sometimes questions brings problems to light.

LAST THING! There should be Gascon (probably burgher?) pops on Tolosa/San Sebastian, since many towns on Gipuzkoa were founded by the settling in of Gascon populations from the more-urban region north of the Pyrenees, as can be seen here (it's in Spanish, sorry anglos). I also find it kinda strange that there are no significant basque minority in the province between Laredo and Bilbao (can't read it), since Castro de Urdiales was the border for majority Basque-speaking land by c. 1200, there should be some in Laredo, too, but i wouldn't expect them to appear on the map because too small of a minority.

Better men than me can talk about terrain, climate and goods, that's not my trade (not on this region, at least), but i do agree on including the Cathars remnants in the map! Also, where the Waldensians? I want them!

Again, thank you (incl. regular forum readers, this was a very long post lol) for your time! Also, for some reason i had to edit in 60% of my post because it was getting spam-flagged for no apparent reason, so well, that was frustrating.
I just noticed what was getting my post spam-flagged, it was a link hyperlinked to the "as can be seen here (it's in Spanish, sorry anglos)", when i copy-pasted the link got lost and the forum accepted the post, with the affirmation now unsourced! I tried to edit it in right now but it still gets the post (including this one) spam-flagged. The link is in basque, apparently the forum spam-sensor is racist, LOL. You can search "GASCONES EN GIPUZKOA ATZO ATZOKOA" and look it up online, though.