Well I was busy so here's my replies catching up to thread (no feedback of my own yet):
Someone explain this one to me.
View attachment 1255617
How does a landlocked location have
pearls as an RGO?
River pearls were important in the time period, I'm quoting the section from my feedback in the original Germany thread:
While we don’t think of Germany as a pearl producing country today, pearl harvesting in rivers was actually something that was done during the time period. The relevant species of mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) is very sensitive to pollution and is almost extinct in European rivers nowadays, but they were thriving before industrialization. Their pearls were smaller than the ones from the Persian Gulf, but still highly prized and you can see them in many portraits of bishops or nobles.
Bavaria was the prominent producer and at times restricted pearl ‘hunting’ as a monopoly for nobles.
Adorf in the Vogtland was another center for pearl production, supported by Venetian settlers, and has a pearl museum today.
Suggested locations for pearls: Neuburg an der Donau, Plauen
Two pearls locations were added, as suggested.
BTW, a funny consequence of this change is that there are now a pearl location (Adorf) and fish location (Tirschenreuth) in a region that's hundreds of kilometers away from the coast.
According to scientific data, the northern German lands had around 30% – 60% forestation in 1500, that also corresponds to pre-Black-Death XIV century (because of reforestation after the plague).
I have a feeling that all that large northern German grassland area is not particularly right. Even in the mid-XIX century there were fore forests than on your map:
View attachment 1255511
Image from
The prehistoric and preindustrial deforestation of Europe (Kaplan et al., 2009)
View attachment 1255613
Raubkammer forest and all wooded areas around should probably be returned
Disagree, while it's hard to tell where exactly woodlands were located in Northern Germany, they were sparse and as far as I know, it's generally accepted that the Lüneburger Heide (i.e. "Raubkammer and all wooded ares around") wasn't forested at all at the start of the game.
The linked paper lists forest cover on usable land for Germany in 1350 as
9.9% so I don't know where 30%-60% comes from...
There could be some woodlands here and there in Northern Germany (I would say the same for the Netherlands, but they still have those weird full-on forest locations, which makes Northern Germany stand out), but it's very hard to tell exactly where, because German forests have changed so much over the last 200 years.
There are plenty of maps with the dialectal distribution of German, and we have though and discussed it quite in-depth, including our German content designers, of course. We still think this is the best possible division for the region.
Then I would be curious what the reasoning is for splitting Markish and Brandenburgish.
Markish is defined based on dialect, Brandenburgish based on geography. So there are Brandenburgish dialects that aren't Markish and there are Markish speakers outside of Brandenburg. But I don't see why the game should make that distinction? Why not just group all Markish speakers in Brandenburg with the Markish culture?
incredibly sad that Coblenz crosses the river
View attachment 1255517
There was a lot of arguments against that
Yeah that's something I still absolutely don't like. It looks weird to me to have the Middle Rhine Basin associated with Mayen rather than the much more important city of Koblenz/Coblenz.
From how vegetation was done in this map, it's clear that they want to associate farmland with individual locations that are good spots for population growth, and giving it to Mayen rather than Coblenz is unfortunate.
Especially since Montabaur is an obvious location that can be separated out on the right bank of the Rhine, in my opinion. Maybe, too small, though.
cause you added almost no location and to both of them the feedback felt very much disregarded
What? The France rework was amazing and had lots of locations added, it's just Italy that stands out.
I'm frustrated that they haven't added peat. They did add beeswax (I saw at least one), which is good, but I just don't know how you do justice to the Netherlands economy without peat. According to the books that I have on the subject, peat was a big deal and gave the Netherlands a significant advantage. It was coal before coal, but easier to produce.
Anyway, I did a post on the subject and one on the importance of heat-energy in general, so not sure what else there is to do.
It's unfortunate yeah.
I've been able to let it go, in the sense that peat was used for heating in houses and fuel for urban industries like salt production, and breweries, brick making etc.
I think I haven't seen lumber for heating in the game (iirc?), and I don't think peat was used for metallurgy purposes (also iirc, probably
@Mef can correct me here). In that sense, I can agree with pdx for not comparing peat to coal, as it was used more like firewood.
I'd love to see peat extraction as a building to boost urban industries within the same area, or something along those lines.
I can understand that peat, especially from a modern perspective, wouldn't make the cut to be included as its own resource, but I agree that it would be unfortunate if it was missing completely.
Unless something changed recently that I'm not aware of, we haven't really seen that much actual fuel use in production buildings that were shown, so maybe there is some room for adjustment.
The Tools Workshop seen
here for example just directly turns iron/stone/copper&tin into tools! No charcoal/coal needed for the forging.
My personal idea for handling fuel consumption would be requiring it as a separate input in certain buildings (kind of like maintenance cost), which can be satisfied either by lumber, coal or building it on wetlands (maybe only for certain cultures) or woods/forest for charcoal.
en.wikipedia.org
