-
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.
However, I have been in the preception of my head for some time whether Istria should be part of Croatia. Would it be better if it were part of Carniola or Friuli? Historically, if we look back a century (13th century), the Trieste region was organizationally part of Istria, and later it was more closely linked to Carniola. At the same time, it was culturally influenced by Friuli. And Istria, along with Carniola, were also under the rule of the Andechs Counts. On the other hand, Littoral was never a single entity or politically united, even under Habsburgs, that's how this area was just perceived, because Istria, Trieste and Gorizia (and Gradisca) were each their own March County/Free City/County, so with my current proposal, it would be treated as such.
What is your opinion?
What is your opinion?
noto and modica should probably produce sugar, the two location were famous sugar producer, modica later became famous for "modica chocolate" (thanks to import of cocoa and the production of sugar in there) and noto for "avola rum" (cannamela rum to be exact, cannamela was the name of the sugar produced in sicily).
btw sicily was the biggest produced of sugar in the mediterranean and in the game timeframe was one of the most important internationally until the american slave trade (1700ish), so having more region with sugar might be needed to represent this.
for curiosity sake sicily even used sugar as money because of how valuable and diffused it was in sicily. it was also one of the very early example of capitalist business.
"noto" was also a big producer of wine and olive oil (which would make olive fine) but i think sugar would fit more as it was produced in the whole of sicily and these cities were famous for their production of it more than other cities (outside palermo) and currently only palermo has sugar making the sugar production in sicily not as good as it should historically be.
btw sicily was the biggest produced of sugar in the mediterranean and in the game timeframe was one of the most important internationally until the american slave trade (1700ish), so having more region with sugar might be needed to represent this.
for curiosity sake sicily even used sugar as money because of how valuable and diffused it was in sicily. it was also one of the very early example of capitalist business.
"noto" was also a big producer of wine and olive oil (which would make olive fine) but i think sugar would fit more as it was produced in the whole of sicily and these cities were famous for their production of it more than other cities (outside palermo) and currently only palermo has sugar making the sugar production in sicily not as good as it should historically be.
- 2
- 1
Unsure whether this is already a feature, but please make it so the Italy formable isn't locked behind owning specific locations but rather owning a minimum amount of locations within the Italy region, especially because a lot of the ambitious rulers that wanted to unify the peninsula came from the south, specifically the kingdom of Naples (the most known one being Ladislaus of Naples, which managed to conquer much of Italy before dying from a STD) and it wouldn't make sense for a ruler to reach all the way to Tuscany but not being able to crown itself king of Italy because the don't own Milan or Genoa or Turin or whatever the requirements may be
It also works because Northen Italy, being denser location wise, could also unify Italy by conquering the Cisalpine+Tuscany region without reaching all the way to Rome, while the southern countries would need to conquer all the way to the Cisalpine border, which gives an intresting "Two paths" playstile for a possible Italy formation
It also works because Northen Italy, being denser location wise, could also unify Italy by conquering the Cisalpine+Tuscany region without reaching all the way to Rome, while the southern countries would need to conquer all the way to the Cisalpine border, which gives an intresting "Two paths" playstile for a possible Italy formation
- 5
- 4
- 1
Yeah, the argument makes sense, but these well reasoned points won't stop me from renaming the territory 'Caelia/Ceglie'Regarding the issue of Francavilla, in Puglia, certainly in 1337 it was a "casale" of very recent creation and of small dimensions, having been founded on September 14, 1310, and certainly Oria was an important center, but it must be considered that Europa Universalis V is a game set in the Modern Era and not in the Middle Ages.
The game covers a period that goes from the Late Middle Ages to the Napoleonic Wars and beyond (1337-1836) and precisely during the Modern Age, especially in the 17th and 18th centuries, Francavilla became the most important center between Brindisi and Taranto, far surpassing Oria and other neighboring centers, especially when the city was administered by the Imperiali dynasty.
Oria is, however, present in Crusader Kings II as a fief of Barony rank and I believe that in that case it is much more suitable for the medieval historical period.
Storia di Francavilla Fontana - Wikipedia
it.wikipedia.org
Michele Imperiali (junior) - Wikipedia
I agree with choosing a city that best represents the territory in the historical period covered by the game.
Oria was certainly important, but in the Middle Ages, so much so that it is linked to the figure of Emperor Frederick II of the Holy Roman Empire. A little curiosity: the current name of Francavilla is Francavilla Fontana, in which "Fontana" indicates the mythical water source in which the Byzantine icon of the Madonna was found and is linked to the foundation of the city.
, I Hope this will be possibile.
The Tusco-Emilian Appenines should be all mountains and impassable, with a few passes such as Futa. The mountains are not high but they are rugged and very forested and prevented quick passage all along the Emilia-Tuscan boundary until about 150 years ago. That's also the line that divides Italy culturally and linguistically. North of it is Gallo-roman languages, south is italic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italo-Western_languages#/media/File:Romance-lg-classification-en.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italo-Western_languages#/media/File:Romance-lg-classification-en.svg
- 1
Also the position of Florence, Prato, Pistoia and Pescia appears messed up. You have to go though Pescia from Pistoia to Lucca, and Pistoia-Prato-Florence should be allineated better, they are extremely close, within 40 km. Prato's province should be north of the city, not south of it, it's the valley of the river Bisenzio, which flows from the Apennines. The area called Prato currently is actually the mid-Arno valley, i.e. Empoli and Vinci.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ries-with-Pistoia-Prato-and-Florence-2021.ppm
West and North of Pistoia is very rugged, same with North of Prato (Bisenzio Valley). To go to Lucca from Pistoia you have to go south-west through Serravalle, Montecatini and Pescia. The cities are close to the mountains because south of them it was marsh. So it was really a narrow piedemontan line that you could travel through East -West, and 2-3 passes (Cisa, Futa) North-South. The weather of those mountains was also very cold up until 50 years ago or so, with lots of snow and practically impassable in winter.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ries-with-Pistoia-Prato-and-Florence-2021.ppm
West and North of Pistoia is very rugged, same with North of Prato (Bisenzio Valley). To go to Lucca from Pistoia you have to go south-west through Serravalle, Montecatini and Pescia. The cities are close to the mountains because south of them it was marsh. So it was really a narrow piedemontan line that you could travel through East -West, and 2-3 passes (Cisa, Futa) North-South. The weather of those mountains was also very cold up until 50 years ago or so, with lots of snow and practically impassable in winter.
Last edited:
- 2
Absolutely this...
By the start date Papacy should have italian cities at least as vassals since they were de-facto independent (and often at war between each other). Even Rome itself was more or less in state of anarchy (as written extensively by Cola di Rienzo) and the struggle between Guelphs cities (pushing for the return of the Pope) and the Ghibelline ones (striving for indepency or Imperial rule) should be the main focus of the region. Also leaving behind the rise of (ma' boy) Giovanni di Vico and the Crusade (!!!) lead by Egidio Albornoz to subdue him is not only a wasted opportunity but plain hystorical rewriting: the fortresses Albornoz built are still standing and the main tourist spots over here (Spoleto, Narni and, to a lesser extent, Piediluco) or integral part of the local history (like the 3 times demolished Fortessa del Cassero in Terni).
I mean, you have a situation served on a silver plate: with factions, hystorical events (The Rome Republic, the shifting nature of the Abbey of Farfa, the Papal Purges, an entire Crusade!) and multiple possible endings that all together create interesting gameplay opportunities and instead you went with the "Big White Blob with a modifier" that's just plain wrong!
- 5
- 2
I agree with all this and think that this would also make for more interesting gameplay for papal players.
- 4
First of all, thank you Paradox for reminding me how passionate I am about ancient economics. I'll keep posting about other agro-economic curiosities, with the hope that you won't mind my contribution.
So, let's talk Sicily. I can see that Siracusa produces olives. While not inherently wrong, Siracusa was emblematic for its production of citrus. Nowadays Siracuse is especially known for its lemons, but it is a fruit that started being widely consumed in the 17th century. You can easily go with the location of Siracusa producing fruit... or sugar.
Surprisingly, Siracusa and other parts of Sicily also cultivated the sugarcanes introduced by the Arabs during the 8th century, and the production of this "white gold" continued up until the end of the 16th center, when climate changes made its cultivation difficult. Nonetheless, the marquises of Avola (location of Noto) insisted on producing sugar, making that specific part of south-east Sicily a producer of rum in the following centuries. So you could place sugar in the location of Noto.
If you want to keep a certain balance in the raw goods found in Sicily you could also move the production of olives to the location of Mistretta, a region without a particularly iconic production (as far as I could verify).
I still think there should be more locations producing olives in Sicily, but I can't really pick a place. Perhaps, since there's sugar production in Palermo already, you could keep olives in Noto or switch the two RGOs.
So, let's talk Sicily. I can see that Siracusa produces olives. While not inherently wrong, Siracusa was emblematic for its production of citrus. Nowadays Siracuse is especially known for its lemons, but it is a fruit that started being widely consumed in the 17th century. You can easily go with the location of Siracusa producing fruit... or sugar.
Surprisingly, Siracusa and other parts of Sicily also cultivated the sugarcanes introduced by the Arabs during the 8th century, and the production of this "white gold" continued up until the end of the 16th center, when climate changes made its cultivation difficult. Nonetheless, the marquises of Avola (location of Noto) insisted on producing sugar, making that specific part of south-east Sicily a producer of rum in the following centuries. So you could place sugar in the location of Noto.
If you want to keep a certain balance in the raw goods found in Sicily you could also move the production of olives to the location of Mistretta, a region without a particularly iconic production (as far as I could verify).
I still think there should be more locations producing olives in Sicily, but I can't really pick a place. Perhaps, since there's sugar production in Palermo already, you could keep olives in Noto or switch the two RGOs.
Attachments
Last edited:
- 5
- 3
- 1
Rieti and Sabina should either be controlled by Naples, potentially as a vassal to represent the high autonomy of the local nobles, or just independent
The same should go for other major settlements in southern Latium such as Terracina and Anagni, especially thanks to the Caetani of Gaeta, you can either give them to Naples or a new "Caetani" tag, chunks of the Velletri location were also given to this dinasty but the city itself remained independent
The pope had zero control over these lands, if fact it was him who granted chunks of southern Latium to the Caetani for Nepotism (the pope was also part of this dinasty)
The same should go for other major settlements in southern Latium such as Terracina and Anagni, especially thanks to the Caetani of Gaeta, you can either give them to Naples or a new "Caetani" tag, chunks of the Velletri location were also given to this dinasty but the city itself remained independent
The pope had zero control over these lands, if fact it was him who granted chunks of southern Latium to the Caetani for Nepotism (the pope was also part of this dinasty)
- 1
The matter is not who has control, but whose formally are those lands: indeed, those locations will be papal locations with 0 control
- 1
I think the de facto is far more intresting then de jure, it makes things far less uniform and clear and thats what makes an intresting region
Also the southern Latium cities were independent in de jure too, as in previous popes gave them a very clear cut autonomy, im pretty sure some of them even had a seperate papal bull just to state their independence
Found one:
Last edited:
- 2
For the de facto autonomy there's already the control machanic
- 1
True but keep in mind that these cities had their own armies, with their own diplomacy and depending on the period they were subject of one another, that's stuff you can't show with slapping 0 control in Latium
Like for Velletri, it was in a constant struggle against Rome, not the Pope, but the city of Rome (and the nobles who controlled it) itself, this subjection was created when the rival city of Fondi sieged Velletri and they had to ask for help, the Romans came to help lift the siege but ended up installing their own Podestà effectively making the city a subject
This complex diplomacy can't be shown with low control, and that also means that there's a lot of events that can't be shown because independent cities are given to the Pope even when he had no power
- 2
- 1
Would you mind if I started summarizing the topic you're talking about in the dedicated thread I created?
- 2
Hi there! A casual screenshot of a map fix that we've just implemented in the game:
- 111
- 20
- 2
LETS FUCKING GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Also, did you do a similar thing for Hormuz and Tenochtitlan?
- 18
- 10
- 4
- 3
- 1
