• 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 #6 - 14th of June 2024 - Great Britain & Ireland

Hello everyone. @Pavía and the rest of the Content Design team are busy working on the feedback for the previous Tinto Maps, so I'm standing in for this week.

I'm @SaintDaveUK, some of you might have seen me here and there on the forums, but the long story short is that I work on a very secret game whose name I am contractually obligated to redact. That's right, it's ███████ ██████!

This week you get a double-whammy, mostly because it’s really hard to show Britain on its own on a screenshot. Partly to side-step the “British Isles” naming controversy, but mainly because the gameplay of them both is so different, this part of Europa is divided into 2 distinct regions: Great Britain and Ireland.

Climate​

The mild Oceanic climate (Köppen Cfb) dominates the isles. Where it cools towards the inland Pennines and the Scottish Highlands (Köppen Cfc), we represent it with the wintry and dreich Continental climate.

climate.jpg




Topography​

The isles are dominated by green and pleasant flatlands and low rolling hills, the peripheries punctuated by rocky mountains and craggy highlands.

We would like to add some more impassable locations in northern England and the Scottish borders to make manoeuvres a little more interesting and strategic, but would like suggestions from people more familiar with the Pennines.

[Edit: 16 June added the missing map]

topography.JPG


Vegetation​

The great moors, bogs, and fens are represented by Sparse vegetation, meanwhile much of the land is still wooded.

vegetation.jpg




Raw Materials​

The raw goods situation aims to reflect the economic reality of medieval Britain. Shepherding was common on every corner of the islands, a lot of the wool produced was sold to the industrial hub of the Low Countries to be manufactured into cloth, which was in turn sold back to British markets.

The further north-west we go, the less fertile the terrain, and as such the greater reliance on pastoral farming such as livestock over wheat. The western hills and valleys also expose a greater number of mineral delights, including the historic stannary mines of Devon and Cornwall.

raw_materials.jpg




Markets​

As you can see the two starting markets are London and Dublin. Aside from London we could have chosen almost any town, from Aberdeen to Bristol. We chose Dublin as it was the main trade centre in Ireland, and also because it handsomely splits the isles to the East and West of the Pennines, demonstrating the impact that terrain can have on dynamic Market attraction.

They are both shades of red because they are coloured after the market centre’s top overlord country – market control is a viable playstyle and we like to think of it as a form of map painting for countries not focused on traditional conquest routes.

market.jpg




Culture​

We have decided to go with a monolithic English culture. We could have forced the introduction of a second Northumbrian or even third Mercian culture, but typically they were not really considered separate peoples. The English, though diverse in origin and with a variety of dialects, had already begun to coalesce in the face of the Viking invasions hundreds of years before.

Scotland, conversely, is a real porridge of cultures. The Lowland Scots (who speak a dialect of Northumbrian English that later develops into the Scots language) dominate their kingdom from their wealthy burghs, and are gradually encroaching onto the pastoral lands of the Gaelic Highlanders. The Norse-Gaelic clansmen watch from the Western Isles, with some old settlements remaining around Galloway. The far north, ironically called Sutherland, retains some Norse presence.

Wales, conquered for around a century by this point, plays host to English burghers looking to make a few quid, as well as the descendants of Norman adventurer knights in the marcher lordships, but is still majority Welsh-speaking from Anglesey to Cardiff.

The Anglo-Irish (representing the spectrum from Cambro-Norman knights to the so-called ‘Old English’ settlers) live in great numbers in the south-eastern trading towns from Dublin to Cork, as well as in smaller numbers in frontier outposts.

The cosmopolitan towns across the isles are also home to people from elsewhere in Europe, most notably Flemish weavers from the Low Countries, though their numbers are too small to impact the mapmode.

The Norman ███████ dominates as the ██████████████ for both of the kingdoms and their subjects. The conquest of 1066 is no longer fresh, but the continuing bonds between the aristocratic classes of England, Scotland, and France have kept the French language alive and strong.

culture.jpg






Religion​

I decided that it's not even worth taking a screenshot of the Religion map mode. There are tiny minorities of Jewish people in some Scottish and Irish towns (they had been expelled from England), but they are so small in number they don't even register on the map mode

Other than that, it's all Catholic. But not for long.

> John Wycliffe has entered the chat.


Areas​

Based on the 4 provinces of Ireland (sorry Meath) and splitting England roughly into the larger Anglo-Saxon earldoms which have some similarity with the modern Regions (sorry Yorkshire).

areas.jpg





Provinces​

We have fixed the colours of the Provinces mapmode so you can see the individual provinces a bit more clearly. These are largely based on the historic counties, which have remained fairly constant throughout history, while merging some of those that are too small.

We’ve almost certainly offended someone.

The ancient Scottish shires are pretty messy and difficult to coalesce into neat provinces, so any suggestions for better arrangement there would be very welcome.

provinces.jpg




Locations​


You might notice that the locations in Ireland are varyingly written in both English and in Irish. This is because we have the new system up-and-running where we can name Locations by the primary culture of the country they are owned by.

This means that for example London might be called Londres if it was ruled by a Catalan country. It’s currently a WIP feature and we might add more elements, such as a game setting to base the name on dominant culture of the location instead, or to just use default (English) names.

locations.jpg




Government Types​

As with most of Europe, most of the countries are under some monarchy or another, but the Irish tuathas begin with the Tribe government type. This, among other mechanics such as [redacted] helps to give them a very unique playing style in Europe.

government.jpg


Countries​

England

England of course stands as the dominant kingdom in the isles. Despite having a lot of power resting on the barons, the country is fairly unitary even at this point, with very little practical separation between the crown’s power in somewhere like Kent versus Yorkshire. However there are notable exceptions.

The powerful Burgesses estate in the City of London enjoys ancient freedoms from royal power, while the king peers in from the Crown’s seat of power in neighbouring Westminster.

The County Palatine of Durham is not represented by a country, but buildings that give the Clergy Estate a huge amount of power in the locations it is present in. This also ties into political gameplay as a ██████████ ██████.

The newly created Duchy of Cornwall—the only duchy in England at the time—would also not be represented well by the Cornwall country, being a disparate set of manorial holdings that are ironically mostly in Devon. Cornwall of course exists as a releasable country though.

The Isle of Man is a little less certain. For now we have it as a subject of England. On paper it was a ‘kingdom’ awarded to William Montagu, the king’s favourite, however we aren’t sure if he actually wielded any real power on the isle. It changed hands between England and Scotland numerous times in this period, but in practice it appears to have been governed by a local council of barons. Any more details on exactly what was going on here in this period would be greatly appreciated.

These decisions have been made because as England heaves itself out of the feudal system, we thought it would be best if the small-fry inward-looking internal politicking is handled through the Estates and [redacted] systems, and then the diplomacy tracks are freed up for the English player to behave more outwardly against other major countries.

Wales

Though subjugated by conquest, Wales was not formally annexed into the Kingdom of England until the mid 1500s. As such the principality begins as a Dominion subject under England.

Those familiar with Welsh history will note that historically the Principality of Wales didn’t extend much beyond the old kingdom of Gywnedd. Much of the country to the southeast was in fact ruled by marcher lords, which we represent with a powerful Nobility estate in the valleys and beyond.

There is an alternative vision of Wales that I would like to gauge opinion on, and that is expanding it to include the Earldom of Chester and the marches on the English side of the modern border. If you are an Englishman familiar with modern borders this might look alarming, but these lands were also constitutionally ambiguous parts of the “Welsh Marches” until the 1500s. This will hand over to the Wales player the full responsibility of dealing with the marcher lords, allowing England to focus on bigger picture issues like beating France.

Ireland

Ireland is going through a moment of change. English royal power is centred on the Lordship of the Pale, the king’s Dominion ruling out of Dublin Castle. However, it struggles to keep a grasp on the rebellious Hiberno-Norman earls scattered around the island - some of whom remain as vassals, some of whom have managed to slip free of royal control.

The Tanistry system of succession endemic to the Gaelic Irish has its advantages, but it can also lead to chaotic feuds between rival branches. The so-called Burke Civil War has fractured the powerful Earldom of Ulster into rival Burke cousins who jealously feud over their shrinking lordships in Connaught. Native Irish princes of the north have reconquered most of their own lands from the de Burghs, but there are also two rival O’Neill cousins who style themselves King of Tyrone either side of the River Bann.

The feuding Irish lack a unifying figure, but anyone powerful enough could theoretically claim the title of High King. The former provincial kingdoms, such as Meath and Connacht, enjoy the elevated rank of Duchy, giving them a slight edge in the High Kingship selection.

Scotland

The chancer Edward Balliol continues his attempt for the Scottish throne, with England’s tacit permission. It’s hard to determine the exact lands held by Balliol in 1337, but we know his disinherited loyalists hold the castle of Perth while his English allies had seized large tracts of the lowlands from Bruce. Balliol has also bought the loyalty of the MacDonald and the other Hebridean galley lords by granting them remote land on the west coast of the mainland.

Meanwhile, Scotland’s canny regent Sir Andrew de Moray launches his decisive counterattack as his true king, David II de Bruce, waits in exile in France.

political.jpg


Dynasties​

We know about Plantagenet, Balliol, and Bruce, so I've zoomed in on Ireland to show the ruling dynasties of the various chieftains and earls.

dynasty.jpg


Population​

Excuse the seams and the greyscale mapmode. We have something better in the pipeline...

population_country.jpg
population_location.jpg




Well, thats it for now!

As always the team is eagerly awaiting your feedback and looking forward to the discussions. We’ll try to keep on top of the thread, but we have a teambuilding activity this afternoon so it might be a little more sporadic than usual!

Next week: Anatolia!
 
Last edited:
  • 218Like
  • 99Love
  • 7
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
France has 14 (18 including french- bretons, lowlanders and alpine, plus 1 non-french bretons) seperate regional cultures. England could be justifiably represented with 2 (with 6 more non-English cultures in the British Isles).

And as for the reason, it's mainly about what should or shouldn't be a 'default' outcome; a lot of Paradox games are essentially implictly railroaded because decisions about the history is based on a view of how things turned out, rather than how they looked at the time.
  • In CK2/3, the Anglosaxon Kingdoms are Duchies because they historically unified. A lot of the gameplay drives countries towards the De Jure Kingdoms present at gamestart (which is why the 800s start almost never comes to resemble the 1060s start), so the Anglosaxon kingdoms are destined to unify, whereas Bohemia and Moravia will likely remain seperate and Lotheringia will likely remain.
  • In EUIV, the trade mapmode essentially forces the flow of wealth towards Europe and guarentees that England/Netherlands, Venice and Aragon/Genoa will be the main trade hubs in every game.

Other games are over a short enough timeframe that the level of railroading is less of a problem, but for the several-centurary CK and EU games, it becomes really noticable.

So the purpose in having English culture started split and then being unified as a result of how the England player plays is that it allows the game to go in different ways - in some cases you might get a unified British Isles, in others you might get a continuous errosion of power leading to a fragmented set of states across the British Isles.

I don't think France having a swarm of cultures is a reason for England to follow suit. The issue here is that France has way too many cultures. At least 4-5 of them could easily be merged into other ones. Rather, we should be arguing for France to have less cultures, and I believe that will be the case as a lot of divisions there don't make that much sense or are unnecessary. The circumstances there are also widely different, and the issue of minority cultures and languages and 'vergonha' remains a controversial situation in the country even nowadays.

England's fate as a unified bloc with a unified identity was practically on a railroad by 1337 as I've mentioned. There's little about a speaker of Northumbrian or Mercian that sets himself genuinely apart from his southern counterparts. You'd have to go further back in time to genuinely impact that. Personally, I would rather not have any games where England becomes a mess between cultures as it is to a degree implausible and a bit silly. From a gameplay point of view, England being unique from most European countries with its unified culture is also a plus.
 
  • 15Like
Reactions:
I propose a Balkanization of Scotland for 1337. The Scottish magnates are very powerful and independent in 1337 - since 1250 the kings of Scotland granted increasing amounts of power to their magnates, and Robert the Bruce solidified his rule by increasing those grants. Unlike in England, the powerful magnates of Scotland had consolidated holdings, and they were vital in supporting David II against Edward Balliol, because Balliol was supported by the Disinherited who stood to gain lands held by those magnates.

I would even go so far as to argue that instead of having Scotland on the map at game start, the war is between Bruce with various Scottish vassals and Balliol supported by the English - if Edward Balliol became King of Scotland, he would have almost certainly paid homage to Edward III as his overlord and accept

The most powerful magnates in 1337 were as follows: Robert Stewart, the future Robert II, High Steward of Scotland, heir to his eight years younger uncle David II; John Randolph, Earl of Moray, holding a massive amount of land from Inverness to Elgin, as well as the rich lordship of Badenoch; William MacTaggart, Earl of Ross; William de Moravia, Earl of Sutherland; Malise V of Strathearn, Earl of Caithness and Jarl of Orkney, with a claim on Strathearn, which was stripped from him by Edward Balliol and is coveted by Robert Stewart; and, of course, John of Islay, Lord of the Isles, controlling most of the Hebrides - although his holdings in 1337 should be smaller than they are shown right now.

Using the excellent maps updated by hellfiremat and Batcats, this is a rough political map of Scotland with Bruce vs Balliol and the various magnates as vassals.
View attachment 1150211
View attachment 1150212

In 1336, Andrew Murray recaptured Bothwell and drove Balliol and the English to a few fortresses - Perth and Cupar in the north and Stirling and Edinburgh just to the south. Balliol's strongest hold was in Galloway and Lothian, but William Douglas was leading rebellion in Lothian, represented by holding Selkirk Forest. Similarly, Dunbar Castle was under seige but was only a few months away from outlasting the seige.

Steward, Moray, Ross, Sutherland, Caithness, Dunbar, and Uist are all vassals of Bruce and support David II.

The Isles is an interesting question. First of all, Arran was not held by the Isles for at least another century - Arran was the site of a royal castle. Kintyre as well was not held by John of Islay quite yet, instead being mostly under the control of Robert Stewart. The isle of Skye is another point - The Earl of Ross had been feuding with the Islemen for a long time, and Skye doesn't actually fall under the control of the Isles until they took Ross in the late 1300s. Furthermore, John MacDonald shared the leadership of the Islemen with his cousin Ranald MacRuairi, who is Lord of Uist and Garmoran. John was married to Ranald's heir and sister Amy, and wouldn't take control of Uist and Garmoran until Ranald was killed by the Earl of Ross in 1346. In 1337, John of Islay was Lord of Islay, Mull, Ardtornish, and Lewis and Harris. Technically, John had paid homage to Edward III and Edward Balliol, but it doesn't appear that he ever provided any support before Balliol was driven out of Scotland and it would make sense to represent Islay as a disloyal vassal or even not a vassal at all, but have an event which has whoever wins the civil war can regain that vassalage, maybe one where the AI always accepts the vassalization while a player could choose to try and fight for indepdence. I would include the grant of Lochaber from Moray and Kintyre from Steward to the Isles as part of that vassalization.

From the Wars of Scotland 1214-1371 by Michael Brown, here's a map of the magnates of Scotland from 1357-1371
View attachment 1150224
At this point, Robert Stewart has gained the throne as Robert II and begun to consolidate land under his sons and kinsmen, but you can see that the Isles, the Highland earls, the Earl of Dunbar/March, and the Earl of Douglas (the title was technically not granted until the 50s, but Douglas gained huge lands in Lothian after driving out Balliol as a favorite fo David II.

One small note about Sutherland. Sutherland had competition in the area with the MacKays of Strathnaver, who could be considered to hold Durness and Tongue, and it could make sense to put Durness and Tongue as held by Bruce but with lots of autonomy to represent that.

Here's a version using the existing politcal map of Scotland:
View attachment 1150226


Sources:

THE WARS OF SCOTLAND 1214-1371 by Michael Brown
THE KINGSHIP OF DAVID II, 1329-71 by Michael A Penman
A small nitpick: I wouldn't give St Andrews to Balliol. The only two cities north of the Firth of Forth held by Edward Balliol/the English were Perth and Cupar. The earl of Fife had switched to supporting David II a few years before game start, and I think it would be overplaying things to represent Cupar with St Andrews.

On my map, I would agree with leaving Assynt and Strathnaver (Durness and Tongue) as Bruce held in such a breakdown. I think Sutherland only started aqcuiring these in the 16th Century.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I don't think France having a swarm of cultures is a reason for England to follow suit. The issue here is that France has way too many cultures. At least 4-5 of them could easily be merged into other ones. Rather, we should be arguing for France to have less cultures, and I believe that will be the case as a lot of divisions there don't make that much sense or are unnecessary. The circumstances there are also widely different, and the issue of minority cultures and languages and 'vergonha' remains a controversial situation in the country even nowadays.

I would again strongly recommend against considering the current-day situation when looking at the history relevant to the game's timeframe. (Doubly-so in this case, where I think it would almost certainly weaken your position).

Overall though, as I said in the thread relating to the representation of England's Palatinates, I think we need to see how integrated autonomous regions (like Daimyos) are represented before we can draw up final conclusions on England. It may well be that as you say the divisions in England are better represented with political granualrity than cultural, but at the moment, as far as we have seen, I think it is fair to say that England at least appears too unified compared with its neighbours, which I think is why people keep starting threads about it.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Winchester still isn't in the area of Winchester,
Now we do have Lymington, Lymington should be the forest terrain rather than Southampton.
(I'm happy if anyone with more knowledge changes the major city in the New Forest)

The new forest where two of William the conqueror's sons died "hunting". Definitely should be a ROYAL forest with forest terrain.

I think Lyndhurst is considered the capital of the new forest. None of the towns in the area have grown because of the protected nature of the park. Bournemouth was historically part of Hampshire but afaik it was mostly an unimportant fishing town that grew rapidly in modern times
 
Last edited:
I propose a Balkanization of Scotland for 1337. The Scottish magnates are very powerful and independent in 1337 - since 1250 the kings of Scotland granted increasing amounts of power to their magnates, and Robert the Bruce solidified his rule by increasing those grants. Unlike in England, the powerful magnates of Scotland had consolidated holdings, and they were vital in supporting David II against Edward Balliol, because Balliol was supported by the Disinherited who stood to gain lands held by those magnates.

I would even go so far as to argue that instead of having Scotland on the map at game start, the war is between Bruce with various Scottish vassals and Balliol supported by the English - if Edward Balliol became King of Scotland, he would have almost certainly paid homage to Edward III as his overlord and accept

The most powerful magnates in 1337 were as follows: Robert Stewart, the future Robert II, High Steward of Scotland, heir to his eight years younger uncle David II; John Randolph, Earl of Moray, holding a massive amount of land from Inverness to Elgin, as well as the rich lordship of Badenoch; William MacTaggart, Earl of Ross; William de Moravia, Earl of Sutherland; Malise V of Strathearn, Earl of Caithness and Jarl of Orkney, with a claim on Strathearn, which was stripped from him by Edward Balliol and is coveted by Robert Stewart; and, of course, John of Islay, Lord of the Isles, controlling most of the Hebrides - although his holdings in 1337 should be smaller than they are shown right now.

Using the excellent maps updated by hellfiremat and Batcats, this is a rough political map of Scotland with Bruce vs Balliol and the various magnates as vassals.
View attachment 1150211
View attachment 1150212

In 1336, Andrew Murray recaptured Bothwell and drove Balliol and the English to a few fortresses - Perth and Cupar in the north and Stirling and Edinburgh just to the south. Balliol's strongest hold was in Galloway and Lothian, but William Douglas was leading rebellion in Lothian, represented by holding Selkirk Forest. Similarly, Dunbar Castle was under seige but was only a few months away from outlasting the seige.

Steward, Moray, Ross, Sutherland, Caithness, Dunbar, and Uist are all vassals of Bruce and support David II.

The Isles is an interesting question. First of all, Arran was not held by the Isles for at least another century - Arran was the site of a royal castle. Kintyre as well was not held by John of Islay quite yet, instead being mostly under the control of Robert Stewart. The isle of Skye is another point - The Earl of Ross had been feuding with the Islemen for a long time, and Skye doesn't actually fall under the control of the Isles until they took Ross in the late 1300s. Furthermore, John MacDonald shared the leadership of the Islemen with his cousin Ranald MacRuairi, who is Lord of Uist and Garmoran. John was married to Ranald's heir and sister Amy, and wouldn't take control of Uist and Garmoran until Ranald was killed by the Earl of Ross in 1346. In 1337, John of Islay was Lord of Islay, Mull, Ardtornish, and Lewis and Harris. Technically, John had paid homage to Edward III and Edward Balliol, but it doesn't appear that he ever provided any support before Balliol was driven out of Scotland and it would make sense to represent Islay as a disloyal vassal or even not a vassal at all, but have an event which has whoever wins the civil war can regain that vassalage, maybe one where the AI always accepts the vassalization while a player could choose to try and fight for indepdence. I would include the grant of Lochaber from Moray and Kintyre from Steward to the Isles as part of that vassalization.

From the Wars of Scotland 1214-1371 by Michael Brown, here's a map of the magnates of Scotland from 1357-1371
View attachment 1150224
At this point, Robert Stewart has gained the throne as Robert II and begun to consolidate land under his sons and kinsmen, but you can see that the Isles, the Highland earls, the Earl of Dunbar/March, and the Earl of Douglas (the title was technically not granted until the 50s, but Douglas gained huge lands in Lothian after driving out Balliol as a favorite fo David II.

One small note about Sutherland. Sutherland had competition in the area with the MacKays of Strathnaver, who could be considered to hold Durness and Tongue, and it could make sense to put Durness and Tongue as held by Bruce but with lots of autonomy to represent that.

Here's a version using the existing politcal map of Scotland:
View attachment 1150226


Sources:

THE WARS OF SCOTLAND 1214-1371 by Michael Brown
THE KINGSHIP OF DAVID II, 1329-71 by Michael A Penman
Very interesting idea. This probably does represent the 1337 situation quite well. I think a balkanized Scotland would need to be balanced by mechanics seriously portraying Balliol’s ongoing campaigns as difficult and deeply unprofitable for England, with France also subsidising (and later arming) Scotland. Particularly as the Hundred Years' War heats up and the Scottish theatre becomes peripheral to that conflict.

I’ve attached a couple of quotes that relate to just before, and just after the start date to illustrate the economic cost as well as the particularly devastated nature of Lothian as we unpause in 1337. A successful Scottish campaign should require a lot of rebuilding and consolidation. None of this directly relates to the map, but I think it is useful for the balance of the initial setup.

South of the Forth, a ruthless campaign of forfeiture of freeholders was taking place in Lothian together with the calculated burning of crops and houses and the carrying off of chattels. This was total war of conquistadores, involving deliberate plunder on a huge scale, such as had been practised in Ireland in the early 1200s or would be used in France later in the fourteenth century. It went far beyond the policy of Edward I, who had intended that conquest in Scotland would be followed by a new order. Edward III was in process of creating a wasteland rather than a pale. (70)

By mid-1337, the disinherited had been forced back into a triangle of land in the south-west. Edward could no longer rely on a Balliol administration to hold the north for him, or even on a Scottish civil war to supplement a war of conquest. His devastation of the fertile plain of Lothian meant that his expenditure on garrisons and castles was five times as great as his income from Scotland. (71) Although a massive expeditionary force was assembled in 1335 and there were campaigns in every year up to 1338, his attention was increasingly being diverted towards France.

Both from Scotland: a New History by Michael Lynch

I don’t have access to the mentioned sources but they are:

(70) G.W.S. Barrow, ‘The aftermath of war: Scotland and England in the late 13th and early 14th centuries’, Trans. Royal Hist. Soc., xxviii (1978), 122-5. The general significance of vastatio, a war of economic attrition, is discussed in Davies, Domination and Conquest, 40.

(71) J. Campbell, ‘England, Scotland and the Hundred Years War in the 14th century’, in J.R. Hale et al. (eds.), Europe in the Late Middle Ages (London, 1965), 186.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I think it is fair to say that England at least appears too unified compared with its neighbour
That's the thing though, England was significantly more unified than it's neighbours, that is what allowed it to go toe to toe with France, Scotland and the Irish lords.

And as for the reason, it's mainly about what should or shouldn't be a 'default' outcome; a lot of Paradox games are essentially implictly railroaded because decisions about the history is based on a view of how things turned out, rather than how they looked at the time.
Games like EU4 need railroading or else nations will have no flavour and will just be red coloured nation vs blue coloured nation and there's no real way to do that except looking at what actually happened.
 
  • 6Like
  • 1
Reactions:
The changes being made and involvement of the community continues to blow my mind. I hope I helped with my small edition previously, and cannot state enough how amazing the work @Pavía @SaintDaveUK @Johan and the rest of the team are putting into this game.

This is truly something special, both in terms of community outreach influencing design and the sheer scale of positive constructive feedback.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
France has 14 (18 including french- bretons, lowlanders and alpine, plus 1 non-french bretons) seperate regional cultures. England could be justifiably represented with 2 (with 6 more non-English cultures in the British Isles).
Portugese is 1, Castilian is 1, Andalusian is 1, Aragonese is 1, Basque is 1, Irish is 1, Welsh is 1, Sicilian is 1, Neapolitan is 1, Croatian is 1, Bosnian is 1, Polish is 1. French really isnt the one to compare to
And as for the reason, it's mainly about what should or shouldn't be a 'default' outcome; a lot of Paradox games are essentially implictly railroaded because decisions about the history is based on a view of how things turned out, rather than how they looked at the time.
  • In CK2/3, the Anglosaxon Kingdoms are Duchies because they historically unified. A lot of the gameplay drives countries towards the De Jure Kingdoms present at gamestart (which is why the 800s start almost never comes to resemble the 1060s start), so the Anglosaxon kingdoms are destined to unify, whereas Bohemia and Moravia will likely remain seperate and Lotheringia will likely remain.
Theyre not kingdoms because the heptarchy would be tiny, which paradox doesnt like even if historical. Same reason welsh and irish kings are dukes not kings
  • In EUIV, the trade mapmode essentially forces the flow of wealth towards Europe and guarentees that England/Netherlands, Venice and Aragon/Genoa will be the main trade hubs in every game.
Not if you get india + persia together
Other games are over a short enough timeframe that the level of railroading is less of a problem, but for the several-centurary CK and EU games, it becomes really noticable.

So the purpose in having English culture started split and then being unified as a result of how the England player plays is that it allows the game to go in different ways - in some cases you might get a unified British Isles, in others you might get a continuous errosion of power leading to a fragmented set of states across the British Isles.
Which countries in period that have a history of being unified broke up and were never reunified? An independent scotland is more interesting than balkanised england despite a long history of english identity
 
A small nitpick: I wouldn't give St Andrews to Balliol. The only two cities north of the Firth of Forth held by Edward Balliol/the English were Perth and Cupar. The earl of Fife had switched to supporting David II a few years before game start, and I think it would be overplaying things to represent Cupar with St Andrews.

On my map, I would agree with leaving Assynt and Strathnaver (Durness and Tongue) as Bruce held in such a breakdown. I think Sutherland only started aqcuiring these in the 16th Century.
That's fair. I used St Andrews to represent Cupar because the English actually reinforced the garrison there in 36 and drove off the Steward, but the siege of Perth is significantly more, well, significant.
 
I would again strongly recommend against considering the current-day situation when looking at the history relevant to the game's timeframe. (Doubly-so in this case, where I think it would almost certainly weaken your position).

Looking at the game's timeframe you will see the most efficiently and centrally run major kingdom in Europe able to wage a war against a country many times its population for years. Splitting it up will impair that fact to no good end that cannot be served by provincial modifiers or some smaller arrangement of autonomy.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
Looking at the game's timeframe you will see the most efficiently and centrally run major kingdom in Europe able to wage a war against a country many times its population for years. Splitting it up will impair that fact to no good end that cannot be served by provincial modifiers or some smaller arrangement of autonomy.
Not to mention the cultures will all need to be granted full rights seeing how all englanders were treated the same if the state religion
 
Let me propose a counter-solution
The core issue is that Englishmen from Winchester and York couldn't understand each other, used different vocabulary, syntax and orthography. Additionally, Scots and Northern English are sometimes even considered the same dialect of Middle English.

Modern classification of Middle English dialects.jpg

The only reason that Scots and English developed differently was that they were part of different Kingdoms which interrupted intermingling in the border regions. If in an alternate history scenario Scotland took over Northern England down to the Humber, it is not crazy to imagine that the "Northern" dialect of English would instead develop alongside Scots as a Southern dialect of Scottish.

A simple solution, which would also allow Paradox to keep the granularity in France and could help improve other culturally and linguistically diverse regions is to make culture a three-tiered system. You'd have dialects, which are part of cultures, which are part of a larger group. Dialects are part of cultures like cultures are part of culture groups in EU4. This might sound strange, but keep in mind what a dialect really is:
a form of a language that people speak in a particular part of a country, containing some different words and grammar, etc.​
above is from Cambridge dictionary

Let me explain how I'd imagine this'd work. For example, you'd have a Midlander dialect in England which is part of the English culture, which in turn is part of the British culture group. Similarly, you'd have an Andalusian dialect, part of Castilian culture, part of Spanish/Iberian culture group. You could use this system to represent cultures and the ethnolinguistic situation in India a lot better than in EU4 too.

I'm uncertain myself if this level of granularity would be good for the game, but I'm curious to get you guys' opinion.
 
  • 8
  • 5
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Edit: this was originally a reply to a separate thread about English culture, that's now been merged. I also now realise in hindsight the my joke in the first line referencing my own post (this one) is kinda really weird, but removing it now would ruin the flow so i can't.

Hey, a post advocating for splitting english that provides evidence, i'm very pleasantly surprised.
This also got me thinking, some people keep advocating for more cultural splits, and others for more cultural unity, and imo each have their own pros and cons.
More cultural splits means more granularity for gameplay, with a unified english culture it becomes harder to rp a northumbrian state because you lack a distinct culture from english, but on the other hand this would make it harder to rp a unified english state, and would make england feel blander and more similar to the split cultures of the continent.
The most common solution i've seen proposed is to split cultures as much as possible in the setup, but provide decisions to unify cultures, and while it does provide a solution, a lot of people have pointed out that very sudden cultural shifts like that aren't very historical, and i've never seen anyone properly flesh out the idea, but i think i have a decent way to flesh out the idea while keeping it somewhat historical.

The idea:
We have pops that can be simulated, so why not simulate how they feel about their culture? For this i suggest 2 more pop meters, nationalism and unitarianism (the second name might need some work). Nationalism is simply how strongly they feel about culture, and works to scale the effects of unitarianism, while also making unitarianism harder to change the higher nationalism is. It goes from 0 to 100. Unitarianism is how much they put their cultural group before their regional identity, going from -100 to 100. These will both play into proclaiming cultural unions, or cultural splits.
Now, the only downside is that i'm not a historian, so i have no idea how realistic these are, or what should effect them. So please, if you have historical knowledge let me know how to do this better, and suggest actions that could change them. I think the rest of the idea should work gameplay-wise though, even if the actual pop measures need to be changed drastically.

Cultural unions:
Cultural unions all create a new culture group, with two types: cultural group unions, where the new culture takes the name of the cultural group, will be available at some threshhold like being an empire, or controlling half the pops of your cultural group; and national unions, where the new culture takes the name of the nation, probably more situational and scripted, but with a lower threshhold.
Taking the decision will put assimilation pressure on all pops with unitarianism greater than 0, scaled by their unitarianism and nationalism, so a pop with a maximum of both will convert near instantly, but one that's barely unitarian with almost no nationalism will probably take decades or worse, centuries. Any pops with unitarianism less than 0 will be dissatisfied scaled with the same metric as the assimilation. This will make unions far more gradual, and can often end up violent as you have to persecute remaining regional minority groups that you weren't able to convince peacefully, while i'm not historian, from what i've read on the forums this is usually the case.
It also won't necessarily lead to a permanent full union of a culture group, and as i'll go over in cultural splits, even if it does it won't be permanent.

Cultural splits:
Cultural splits will also create a new culture, splitting off from a larger one, and sometimes encompassing other cultures. It will require holding only a minority of a larger cultural union. It will take the name of the nation that made it, except for perhaps some scripted ones, and will work almost as the inverse of a cultural union. Pops with lower than 0 unitarianism will convert, and pops with higher unitarianism will be unhappy. Cultures in the same culture group can also all assimilate to this new culture, but with some extra malus to assimilation for not being the primary culture.

Example applying to england:
England starts the game as a cultural union, with perhaps some fringe english cultures not being assimilated yet. Should england then be balkanised, conflict between the newly created states could lead to lower unitarianism and higher nationalism, with many of them eventually being able to proclaim cultural splits, leading to many new english cultures from northumbrian to kentish.
So with most games england would remain unified due to being incredibly powerful and already a cultural union, but it's entirely possible to balkanise and divide england if you so wish. Similarly with france, most games would lead to a centralised and nationalistic france declaring a cultural union, but it's entirely possible to prevent that from happening.
These culture changes aren't meant to be a common occurence in games, as the massive hit to pop satisfaction in otherwise happy, culturally close pops will make it almost always lead a short-term destruction of your internal functions and many seperatist movements, but if you're safe internationally and have played your cards right making your pops happy it could be a huge long term help to your stability.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 3
Reactions:
locations GB.png
Provinces.png

I updated my map Slightly for spelling errors or to nudge some locations, as well as created a Province map. Again, it is also an agglomeration of several others' work as well, so credit to them for the ideas (mostly Wales and Scotland)

Seeing the updated location map from Paradox, I do have some notes regarding that, in which hopefully some ideas here help, seeing as the discussion for this past Friday's map continues
Starting from the South:
-CORNWALL: If Bodmin is to be the new location, I would recommend thirding out Cornwall instead of awkwardly splitting Bodmin and Launcester mid-peninsula to the point where both locations barely contain their namesake settlements.

-DEVON: I don't recommend Bideford as a 6th location in Devon, I would re-merge it with Barnstaple, while expanding Okehampton's and Bampton's borders north slightly, and splitting Plymouth instead for Totnes. Totnes became one of the wealthiest cities in England for quite some time, and held strategic importance between Plymouth and Exeter

-SOMERSET AND GLOUCESTERCHIRE: I would recommend moving Bristol BACK into where Portishead is and removing Portishead. Meanwhile, expanding Now Bristol and Bath a bit more north, while filling in the remaining with Gloucester. Cheltonham and Cirencester should both extend further west.

-DORSET: Dorchester is not at all where it should be, as the town sits just north of Weymouth. I propose Dorchester should squeeze inbetween the other locations, while Weymouth extends West to make up for the lost pixels north of the location.

-WILTSHIRE: Chippenham should go back to its original orientation of north/south with a border to Salisbury as there was a direct connection between the two. I'm assuming Swindon will be renamed, I believe Warminster to be the best choice here. Amesbury is fine, however I will add my voice to suggest Marlborough instead, but I won't be picky about that.

-HAMPSHIRE: Winchester location NEEDS to move south and west. I would shrink Southampton as most prominent roads connected it only to either Winchester or Salisbury, It's weird seeing a direct connection to Reading. With Winchester eating into Southampton and Portsmouth, I think it could handle spitting out Basingstoke to the Northeast.

-KENT: Canterbury is barely, if even in its namesake location. I would recommend expanding into Dover, then expanding Rochester East as well. Possibly get Dartford or Gravesend out of Rochester and some of Southwark to shrink Middlesex down.

-SURREY: Extend Guildford some into Reigate to make location slightly bigger

-BERKSHIRE: Reading needs to move East, Abingdon needs to move slightly South so Oxford is actually in its location.

-ESSEX: Chelmsford NEEDS to move East. With it being a Center of power not even in its location, its terribly awkward to me stretching it to Harlow. Cut into Prittlewell and Hedingham. would also rename Hedingham to Halstead. Lastly, I would Cut London and the old space of Chelmsford and create either Brentwood or Thurrock, both important for different reasons, Brentwood for Market and Pilgrimage importance, Thurrock for its Strategic and defensive components.

-CAMBRIDGESHIRE: Royston here is debatable. Split at the time between Hertford and Cambridge, it does bother me to have it as just part of Cambridge. I would personally not use Royston, and instead move Cambridge and Ely South in order to fit Peterborough back on the map.

-LINCOLNSHIRE: With Shifting all the locations North for Spalding, both Skegness and Grimsby are barely in location. I would take away Spalding's Coastal access with Boston, so both Skegness and Grimsby can move south along the coast and cover their towns better. Lincoln should expand Northwest into Grimsby.

-NORTHAMPTONSHIRE: Naseby quickly lost importance after the Black Plague. I would move Northampton to this location, nudging it slightly south to Compensate, while renaming Northampton to Daventry. Corby should be renamed to Kettering. Corby is viable as a market town, though Kettering held more importance in the region.

-SHROPSHIRE: Shrewsbury should be where Ludlow is and expanded to the Northeast into Oswestry. Telford should be where Shrewsbury currently is, it can also be named Madeley. Ludlow could be added as another location in the south of the Province.

-LANCASHIRE: Preston should be more South. Wigan can be cut from Liverpool, Liverpool is still too big.

-EAST RIDING: I think Norton should be scrapped and Beverly added back, though Selby is a welcome addition. I think Beverly is just too important during the game's time frame to leave out. The Norton location can be used, and just expanded South to Hull.

-YORKSHIRE/NORTH RIDING: I believe Northallerton is still a better choice instead of Bedale. meanwhile Thirsk could still fit, and Pickering is a great fit between York and Scarborough.

Lastly,
-CUMBRIA: Not sure what happened here, Penrith should be between Appleby and Carlisle. Cockermouth should go back where it was before and either Whitehaven or Egremont should be where Cockermouth now is.

I do hope my recommendations are taken into consideration, as well as what I compiled from other suggestions for strategic impassables to make the region really interesting!! Much more obvious on my Province map I provided where the recommended Impassable terrain is.
 
  • 7Love
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
So the same but different culture would depend on how cultures get along and if there is to be a cultural group that makes certain groups get along better/convert faster than others.
 
EDIT: Originally this text was in a thread proposing a subdivision of English culture

I highly disagree with creating as many cultures as possible in every region. The regions will lose their uniqueness. I think it's better when some cultures are more unified while other are fragmented. And there is no need to push fragmentation everywhere.


Returning then to what I think is the main question, how should England be divided culturally?
In my opinion there are 4 reasonable options.
Question for the question
Does culture difference == only language difference?
Or it's a shared history, ideals, intrests, rituals, customs?
I think this answers everything:

We have decided to go with a monolithic English culture. We could have forced the introduction of a second Northumbrian or even third Mercian culture, but typically they were not really considered separate peoples. The English, though diverse in origin and with a variety of dialects, had already begun to coalesce in the face of the Viking invasions hundreds of years before.


keep a monolithic English culture, which culturally makes the most sense for the time period, however is highly linguistically insensitive to the situation in 1337.
Here you even say it yourself. It's a culture map not a language map
 
Last edited:
  • 6Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I just hope paradox actually puts forward and shows a coherent system to determine which cultures make the cut and which don't, people can make all the suggestion they want to make but if they do so based on completely different subjective criteria then that's not helpful in making a good global culture setup.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
Reactions: