I'm fairly new to the community. I was introduced to EU4 a few months ago by a friend of mine, and I've enjoyed it very much. I especially appreciated how much detail and flavour was given to areas outside of Europe which was something completely unexpected for me. So many interesting mechanics, national ideas, mission trees, regional breakdowns and so much more. It was almost a dream come true.
Sadly right now, I see EU5 going back on it a lot. One glaring thing I noticed while looking at the Tinto Maps was just how terrible something like the tile density was in China and India: two of the biggest, most populated, diverse and wealthiest areas of the world before the Industrial Age. In India's case, with a great deal of political and regional fragmentation too.
I mean, all of Han China only having ~1800 locations and all of India only having ~1100 while the rest of the Old World being incredibly spoiled by finer depictions and granularity is just... heartbreaking.
From what I've read, locations and development are tied to the potential of a territory. Things like population capacity, buildings count, province sizes, max clergymen (from what I can tell, essential for research) and market control all appear to be very tied to this mechanic. The fact that most of the good territories in these regions when it comes to geographic factors are assigned a ridiculously high development value to allow them to sustain high populations at the start, instead of just breaking them apart and not limiting their future potential, is silly. If anyone would like to clarify or add to this, they'd be welcome to
Sadly, I foresee this as a crippling of these regions. Europe and Catholicism will be destined to remain at top and the players in these other terrible regions will be forced to senselessly expand, get into trade exploits or attempt other cheese strategies. These regions will always fall behind and suffer due to no reason other than implicit European superiority and potential, and that just pisses me off.
Sadly right now, I see EU5 going back on it a lot. One glaring thing I noticed while looking at the Tinto Maps was just how terrible something like the tile density was in China and India: two of the biggest, most populated, diverse and wealthiest areas of the world before the Industrial Age. In India's case, with a great deal of political and regional fragmentation too.
I mean, all of Han China only having ~1800 locations and all of India only having ~1100 while the rest of the Old World being incredibly spoiled by finer depictions and granularity is just... heartbreaking.
From what I've read, locations and development are tied to the potential of a territory. Things like population capacity, buildings count, province sizes, max clergymen (from what I can tell, essential for research) and market control all appear to be very tied to this mechanic. The fact that most of the good territories in these regions when it comes to geographic factors are assigned a ridiculously high development value to allow them to sustain high populations at the start, instead of just breaking them apart and not limiting their future potential, is silly. If anyone would like to clarify or add to this, they'd be welcome to
Sadly, I foresee this as a crippling of these regions. Europe and Catholicism will be destined to remain at top and the players in these other terrible regions will be forced to senselessly expand, get into trade exploits or attempt other cheese strategies. These regions will always fall behind and suffer due to no reason other than implicit European superiority and potential, and that just pisses me off.
- 64
- 11
- 3
.png){kind=avatar}
