Noted, it seems about 50:50 whether "mac" is shown upper or lowercase in articles about historical Gaelic people, so I went for the style which I think is a bit easier to read.
- 10
- 5
-
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.
Showing developer posts only. Show all posts in this thread.
The state of Britain....
(not the first time I've said that)
At this point I'm mostly looking for feedback on attributes of the locations more than shape or number of them.
(not the first time I've said that)
At this point I'm mostly looking for feedback on attributes of the locations more than shape or number of them.
- 30
- 18
- 2
That places it here, and I can't see a good way to shift the locations around to make it interersting for gaemplay. I think I will delete it outright.
- 18
- 1
Norse-Gael represents a continuum of Scandinavians who have been Gaelicised (they speak Irish and have adopted some Celtic manners). People such as Ostmen, Hebridians, Manx. And, in the south-west Scottish mainland, Galwegians. Mostly they don't have much association with Norway any more, but in this period they were still understood to be foreign settlers.
Norn are a different settler group of Scandinavians who have not been Gaelicised and still speak Norse languages. They also are generally more politically associated with Norway than Scotland or Ireland.
- 24
- 8
No, I've assumed all Scandis outside the Northern Isles and Sutherland are gaelicised. Though it would be interesting if we had a better guess on that.
- 15
- 3
Scottish pearls are from freshwater mussels that used to grow up rivers like the Tay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freshwater_pearl_mussel
- 19
- 4
lymington, retford, chelmsford, windsor, gloucester, okehampton, penrith
- 11
- 2
- 1
Looking forward to your final recommendations. From a gameplay perspective my primary thoughts are to generally err to the side of Wool when there is a choice, as we want that to be the base industry for Britain. Also something we are missing is beeswax but I suppose its pretty hard to find that at a greater scale than cottage industry.
Last edited:
- 15
- 1
A sketch of the marcher lordships if they were countries on the current map.
I don't think gameplay will support the intention very well without designing a IO or something, but thats a lot of effort so I can't guarantee this is the direction we will take for release. But it's a conversation starter at least.
A weird thing I notice here is how England, Wales, and Chester, essentially 3 countries representing crown interference, now exist in close proximity in several places. I'm leaning towards merging the Earldom of Chester into the Principality of Wales, maybe moving the capital of that to Chester.
I don't think gameplay will support the intention very well without designing a IO or something, but thats a lot of effort so I can't guarantee this is the direction we will take for release. But it's a conversation starter at least.
A weird thing I notice here is how England, Wales, and Chester, essentially 3 countries representing crown interference, now exist in close proximity in several places. I'm leaning towards merging the Earldom of Chester into the Principality of Wales, maybe moving the capital of that to Chester.
- 28
- 5
- 2
The ancient kingdoms as Welsh culture releasables, as a big releasable Wales tag didn't feel right.
- 22
- 7
- 2
- 1
It's currently an impassable water to make traversion between North and South principality difficult and also to prevent Powis access to the Irish Sea
- 8
- 2
- 2
Cheshire and Wales I understand, but why is Northumberland—Cumbria labelled as "not taxed" in this map?I was successful at finding a couple of articles that geographically show the wealth distribution. I'll show some results from the better of the two (it was a response to the first). The article is "The Geographical Wealth Distribution of England 1334 - 1649" by RS Schofield (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2592561?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents). It is behind a registration wall.
Here is a graph for 1341 wealth distribution (shading code is in the next image)
Here is a graph for 1515 wealth distribution.
Here is a table that includes the numerical ratings for both.
* - As referenced in the image, Kent is higher than is shown here because of the Cinque Ports. I found another article that rated Kent as the same as Gloucestershire for Lay wealth only (14th century data). So, I think it makes sense to add 3.5 points to the Kent scores for both Lay and Lay + Clerical for 1334. Unfortunately, I haven't found a way to adjust the 1515 data set.
** - Oh, ignore the 2x in the column headers of the table. That was done to make the lay number and the clerical number compatible. One was based on income, while the other was based on movable goods, so an adjustment was done, which is the 2x shown.
*** - The graphs shown are the lay and clerical combined. My assumption was that Paradox did not break them out. I can present the lay graphs only, if people want to see those images.
Some Reflections:
1) Norfolk and the area around the Wash estuary was a wealthy area in the 14th century. That is not reflected in the Paradox map at the moment. That area jumped off the page as the most incorrect to me. It's supposed to be high, but instead is low.
2) I referenced Somerset above as a well off area. It looks like that was more of an early 16th century thing than a 14th century thing. In fairness, my sources were 16th century, so that actually kinda makes sense.
3) If you look at the numerical ratings, there are some really low ratings for the north and southwest in the 14th century. Lancashire, the North and West Riding, and Cornwall and Devon are all in single digits, which really stands out when most counties were at least double that. My guess is that if Northumberland was listed, it would also be in the same company. I'm less certain of Durham because of the prince bishopric thing, but it probably wasn't high. The hard part in figuring out where those ratings should be is that we don't have values for Wales/Scotland to compare against, but they seem a bit high to me at the moment.
I haven't gone through county by county, but those were the ones that jumped off the page to me. Norfolk/Wash area too low (by a lot), Cornwall/Devon/north too high (by a little).
- 1
A sketch of reworked population based largely on @Vispian 's posts in the previous thread, thoughts?
- 17
- 6
- 1
@SaintDaveUK
I noticed the topographic classification is still largely unchanged in the 3d map video. Are topography changes still in the pipeline somewhere?
If not, I'd like to reiterate that the designations for hills in the region are way too harsh when compared to how the rest of the map was handled.
Everywhere else the rolling hills are designated as flatlands.
This current harsher designation of the British Isles would be an arbitrary nerf, due to the more subjective interpretation of geography (considering the proximity impact, negative modifers,...). No way that these following modifiers should be active in what amounts to almost 50% of the region:
View attachment 1335357
That and a whole other range of remarks I made in my previous comment here:
3D map Current topography Terrain Ruggedness Index Suggested Topography Changelog of suggestions View attachment 1335355 
now looks a bit more like your suggestion
- 10
- 7
- 2
We restricted the rivers globally to ones that meet a certain threshold of width and length. The original design included rivers like the Liffey but with that threshold basically every location in Europe and Asia had a river which removed all the significance of the mechanic.
- 5
- 3