Tinto Maps Special Edition - 6th of January 2025 - The World

[Lord_Telchar]

How does “Continental Germanic” sound?

I actually really like that! It clearly communicates the meaning without being too clunky.

Imo that thinking should be applied generally (including the perhaps controversial groupings of the slavic languages ) - groups of mutually intelligible vernaculars (mutually intelligible in that they are part of a dialect continuum - just because a hansa-merchant doesn't understand a swiss farmer doesn't make the whole family not mutually intelligible)

 

[Bigsoulja9]

I do think the dev map is ridiculous and its distinctions are exaggerated. Yemen, Central Asia, Ethiopia and Mesoamerica being so low dev seems inaccurate and borderline biased, especially when compared with higher dev places that are random backwaters in say Balochistan or the rural middle eas

Most of Africa in general needs higher development.

Is Adal as vassals in the somalia regions?

As far as I can tell, it really shouldn't control this much land.

 

[Bigsoulja9]

I also have to ask the same about a lot of locations in the western steppe and Central Asia.

Then again, if I remember they’ve also said development was cultivation. But since cultivation and how built up a location is have usually gone together (except for the hinterlands where it’d be redundant to build more unless good soil was especially dense or cultivation was soil degradingly intensive), I think most of what I said stands.

And I’m now wondering how/if PC will have soil degradation at all, or if productivity will just be the same as fertility.

Yes, I recall learning that the Eurasian Steppe was actually quite interspersed with cities. Pastoralist dominated, yes, but not lacking in notable settlements.

With respect to cultivation, however, Nigeria's "black void" makes even less sense. Nigerian land was well-cultivated, supporting some of the highest urbanism rates in Africa (the country is still one of the most urbanized in Africa, to this day).

In 1337 I would expect Makuria and Alodia to be well ahead as this predates the rise of the Kingdom of Kongo. On the other hand, it’s missing a couple kingdoms (or Seven) that were greatly commercially important and, judging by all the maps I can find, the current setup is probably underestimating the extent of existing states.

Kongo as we understand it did not exist at this period, but it emerged in an already-functional political culture. I discuss this here and here. So it does make sense, in my opinion, for it to have some level of development.

That would be a surprise to me. Looking at how a lot of the territory Axum abandoned as it pushed to more secure highlands (not exclusively due to diplomatic and commercial isolation) was absorbed into or was the core of new kingdoms, I wouldn’t think there would be that significant of a decline. Growth would have been restricted by the immense commercial value of the southern Red Sea mostly transferring to the Arabian side, so I can see how there might have been some decline.

Even so, the “Bahr Melash” (“Medri Bahri” in Tigrinya, both “Land of the Sea”)—consisting of the traditional provinces of Hamasien and Seraye—is described as having a great significance to Ethiopia that declined in the 1600s.

The issue here is that rate of urbanism does not equal importance of a location. Ethiopianists broadly agree the state lacked even a true "capital" during the medieval period, because emperors regularly moved from location to location. A few sites (Barawa, Tegulat) buck this trend and lasted as long-term settlements, most did not. Muslim-dominated regions to the East are more heavily associated with urbanism than "Christian"-associated sites in the Western highlands, even though the former were often made subject to the latter.

 

[EuropeChef]

I’d definitely keep them separate. If you’re grouping them as one, you may as well group all of them. And, if not for Old English becoming Middle English last century, English too.

Yeah I agree, that is one thing I've been debating about on here for a bit now.

I can’t entirely agree on Frisian being weird as a separate language since it’s grouped with English for a number of reasons (doubtlessly closer before the influence of Anglo-Norman of course).

The reason why I find it weird is because they have Frisian as a separate language and Low Saxon apart of the bigger "German" language. When English, Low Saxon and Frisian are all apart of the North Sea Germanic/Ingvaeonic subdivision. So you could say that Low Saxon is closer to Frisian and English than it is to Dutch or German. But the map shows otherwise.

Now I'm fine with keeping Frisian separate, but in that case they should also make Low Saxon a separate language (just like Frisian). I think the best solution for that would be to follow the subdivisions of West Germanic, so North Sea Germanic, Weser-Rhine Germanic and Elbe Germanic. Or if they want, they can also follow the West Germanic grouping itself (like they seem to sorta? be doing right now), so this would include Frisian in the current "German". But not English imo due to the Norman influence at that point. But at that point I disagree with the use of the word/name "German", but I believe you've read about it before from me, so no need to explain. I also would like to add that I myself would prefer them using the subdivisions of West Germanic instead of West Germanic itself. As I believe this is more historically accurate.

How does “Continental Germanic” sound?

Honestly I'm fine with most things except modern names for modern Languages, like German, Dutch, etc. So with that criteria Continental Germanic would be fully fine imo!

 

[King_Potat]

What about this, excuse my bad drawing skills
View attachment 1241457
I used the map form my location suggestions

Greenland west coast should be navigable, not only because of the Danish but also the English who went as north as Smith Sound, which is also beyond the map edge. So for that I would make sea tiles there navigable up to the very edge of the map.
East coast of Melville peninsula was explored in 1821 to 1823 however beyond that it should be impassable.
Baffin I would make only partially navigable on east coast, however its west coast would not be navigable at all. The area was only fully explored in 20th century apparently.

Hell yeah, looks good.

 

[JohnCro]

Hell yeah, looks good.

Thanks

 

[Korninut]

Does anybody know if they will introduce a colorblindness mode? I struggle with shades of green and red, so the dev map mode is really hard for me to read.

 

[jfgkenya11]

Question: is prosperity and devastation present at the start of the game? If so, could we see a prosperity/devastation map?

 

[matfer13]

Can you change the name of the ruling house of Castile back to of Ivrea? Right now they have the same name of house of Burgundy in Portugal, which is wrong since they are two different branches

 

[matfer13]

Comments on the Current Sea Tiles:
I am pretty sure these are being worked on, and are not high priority, but I'd still like to note issues with them anyways in the current setup.

View attachment 1240948

1. The bay of Bengal should be filled in as real life trade routes routinely went through it in various ways (without having to go around the coasts or south of it to traverse it).

Trade Routes in Bay of Bengal circa 1580-1600 (Subrahmanyam, 1990, p. 150):
View attachment 1240949

2. The sea of Okhotsk should be more filled in given its relatively low ocean depth and its fishing and whaling industries being able to not-unsafely operate and traverse the insides of the sea of Okhotsk. Not saying the whole thing should be navigable, just more of it, particularly the sharp edges which make no sense to include.

3. Should probably be navigable, or else it would look quite odd.

4. Sea tiles should be extended to access Disko bay locations, hopefully to be added when the Greenland review is implemented because it would not make sense to not have the most habitable land in Greenland represented in some way. Maxipuchi's (in coordination with YashaCarry and Sulphurologist) posts on the matter of new greenland locations in Disko bay (found here, and their RGOs and Terrain found here) being the benchmark for this extention of sea tiles north.

Also, while not seen in the main screenshot, there should probably be a sea lane between Hawaii and Micronesia, or else you have to use the sea lanes either north or south of them, which doesn't make much sense.

I don't think that the first point is right for 1337 and if it was then it probably was only in rare occasions, even in 17th century the majority of non European traders travelled close to the coast for safety reasons as many Asian ships at the time were not designed for the high seas and to avoid the monsoons of the Gulf of Bengal, so I think it makes more sense to have it as a sea lane that you need to explore later in the game to show that you have gotten better sailing technologies

 

[theEXPERTpt]

I came here to see why only the Lisbon area had a Harbour. Especially when you consider that a lot of ships sailing to the New World also departed from the Algarve, and was the first port of calling on the Continent for those ships returning to Europe too.
So what is the goal here, that a Portugal player *must* build extra Harbours himself? If that's the case, it will only punish the newbie player...

Yes, and considering the amount of good harbours in the game, I don't know why there's is so much good harbours in Siberia but not in Portugal.

 

[King_Potat]

I don't think that the first point is right for 1337 amd if it was then it probably was only in rare occasions, even in 17th century the majority of non European traders travelled close to the coast for safety reasons as many Asian ships at the time were not designed for the high seas and to avoid the monsoons of the Gulf of Bengal, so I think it makes more sense to have it as a sea lane that you need to explore later in the game to show that you have gotten better sailing technologies

That risk should probably be modeled with monsoons themselves (closer to coast = less damage or something along those lines), not artificially restricting the player away from actual routes, thereby the player can take the risk of whether or not they gamble with the monsoons when they take those routes. This risk can then be further mitigated with tech but the option to cross the Bay of Bengal through the current impassible terrain should be an option.

 

[Zerodv]

. I think the best solution for that would be to follow the subdivisions of West Germanic, so North Sea Germanic, Weser-Rhine Germanic and Elbe Germanic.

This is not a real subdivision, it's something people take out of context from Tacitus writings and there has never been a strong linguistic argument for this subdivision. The actual subdivision of Low German, Mid German and High German are more useful

 

[Sevonen]

Harbors:
View attachment 1238996
We're also showing the map of European harbors, as that was not shown previously. Feel free to give your feedback!

Turku and Kalmar having 0 levels in natural harbour feels wrong, as they were both shipping towns way back in 1337. what determines whether a location has a natural harbour and which doesn't?

 

[Ekyman]

Turku and Kalmar having 0 levels in natural harbour feels wrong, as they were both shipping towns way back in 1337. what determines whether a location has a natural harbour and which doesn't?

Whether the natural geography is particularly suited for a port. Whether there was actually a port there or not is irrelevant, and there can easily be historical shipping towns without natural harbors.

These are our current (Spanish-centric) standards, which we're trying to make as viable as possible in the rest of the world:
# -25 - Cliffs - South of Chile
# 0 - Flat Coast - Barcelona
# 25 - Bay - Palma de Mallorca
# 50 - River Port - Sevilla
# 75 - Deep Bay - San Sebastián
#100 - Closed Very Defensible Estuary - Ferrol

 

[marze1992]

Is government in some Ireland states tribal!?

 

[matfer13]

Ajuran was a theocracy, with some monarchich elements but the ruler was an Imam

 

[FlyinigPigletFin]

Why dont some places have a government type even though there are tribes there?

 

[Kotyk-durkotyk]

Why dont some places have a government type even though there are tribes there?

Because these are stateless societies (in-game term Societies of Pops) without central power. And they are unplayable gor the moment.

 

[Gianvitus]

May I suggest - as many people already did in Italian Tinto Map and Italian feedback Tinto Map - to change the areas of Emilia and Marche to match the modern (and actually old) regiona borders?