Tinto Maps #12 Germany Feedback

[Mef]

but by that logic why not just group all latin languages as latin.

Because the historical situation isn't the same across all the different languages?
I can't comment on French or Italian, if there's something wrong then that should be posted in the respective threads. All I'm saying is that it's perfectly fine for Low German and Dutch to be part of German.

 

[Pbhuh]

Because the historical situation isn't the same across all the different languages?
I can't comment on French or Italian, if there's something wrong then that should be posted in the respective threads. All I'm saying is that it's perfectly fine for Low German and Dutch to be part of German.

Historical situation is always difficult, just look at modern brazilian portuguese vs mainland portuguese or latin american spanish vs iberian spanish.
From what I personally have noticed and understand from others, mind you, this is merely my opinion, the distinction between most western romance language, (apart from french) is about as much as all west germanic varieties today. Make of that what you will, especially going back in time another 200-300 years it will be hard to say, but to me that says something about the degrees of seperation that should be in use.

Now there is another element of course which is political reality, Germany is united today, so German is unified as such, with the Dutch seperating off earlier and forming their own variety. Meanwhile the Romance world split up much earlier into distinct countries, with only some overlaps still existing (Catalan being grouped with Occitan and Galician with Portuguese)

All I want is consistancy and a clear demarkation of where the border is.

 

[Chieron]

All I want is consistancy and a clear demarkation of where the border is.

There is no such thing in linguistics, especially considering the long time period it is supposed to apply to.

Do also consider that split/no-split has some gameplay consequences which may or may not be desired in the system. If the hierarchical classification system produces better results with one setup in a region, then use that one, even if you decide the other way in another region.

 

[Lord_Telchar]

Historical situation is always difficult, just look at modern brazilian portuguese vs mainland portuguese or latin american spanish vs iberian spanish.
From what I personally have noticed and understand from others, mind you, this is merely my opinion, the distinction between most western romance language, (apart from french) is about as much as all west germanic varieties today. Make of that what you will, especially going back in time another 200-300 years it will be hard to say, but to me that says something about the degrees of seperation that should be in use.

Now there is another element of course which is political reality, Germany is united today, so German is unified as such, with the Dutch seperating off earlier and forming their own variety. Meanwhile the Romance world split up much earlier into distinct countries, with only some overlaps still existing (Catalan being grouped with Occitan and Galician with Portuguese)

All I want is consistancy and a clear demarkation of where the border is.

What matters most I think is the historical perception, and that is partly coloured by the political situation at the time - for example English back then (and in fact up until quite recently) was still part of the west-germanic dialect continuum, but was still perceived differently from "deutsch/dutch". There was a dialect continuum of the romance languages back then as well, but the Aragonese complained when at the court in Madrid only "Castilian" was spoken, they clearly thought of their language as not being the same. In contrast to that, the Hansa traders thought of their language as the same language the emperor in Vienna spoke, even though the geographic distance was much greater than between Zaragoca and Toledo.
German very easily could have developed into multiple modern languages like the Romance did, we could have Austrian, Swiss, Prussian and Dutch, but due to historical coincidences the people in Bern think of their language the same as the one in Berlin - well maybe except for the odd Chuchichästli

 

[Salix]

I commented on the last one and this one went besides me.

First of all the most important:

I didn't find videos, if changes were made.

Two comments were absolutely correct and will be reapeatd.

The province Heilighafen, should have polabian minority(It was the main settlement area after the wendish crusade)
And Heilighafen doesn't make sense. in 1350 there are 5 towns with Stadtrecht. Oldenburg in Holstein (Starigard), Neustadt in Holstein, Fehmarn, Lütjenburg and Heilighafen. The least important ones are Lütjenburg und Heilighafen.
In the middle ages Oldenburg in Holstein would be the most important one. Afterwards it would be Neustadt in Holstein.

Due to other reason, it would split this anyway. Like drawn. One part Oldenburg and one part Neustadt.

The next thing what did this region produce:

In the South Neustadt exported mostly salted Hering, like Lübeck. (Lübeck did raid it some times) It did though not produce salt in quantities, but has the oldest Fischerei Innung (Fishing Guild) in Germany. Also most other costal town were big in fishing. Most other things were agriculture, because this region is very Fertile!!!!

And later it made Danish Warships, a reason it was raided three time by the swedish.

A reason the region should be wooded.

Oldenburg and Fehmarn, also produced Fish and agriculture goods, but more important was wheat. As Lübeck even bought a lease for the Wheat from Fehmarn and was quite important in this regard. This region was also quite wooded and still is. (also make it wooded)

So Neustadt would be fish and OIdenburg would be wheat. (Though wooded might not be important, Grasland can be okay I don't know the cut off and features)

I took my time and read all comments. I also spent 3 hours researching, so my information is factual. One of them was a 1 hour video about medieval agriculture in that region...

I saw a claim in the comments, that utter bullshit. Schleswig-Holstein has low fertility. It's one of the most productice agricultural state in current Germany, but was also since the Stoneage well populated, though with massive regional difference.

Schleswig-Holstein has three(four if you divided the Geest) distinct soils/regions)
On the west coast, we have marshes. High fertility, labour intensive to make farmeable. Similar to the Netherlands. As not many people lived there, it took the HOI 4 time period and bunch of force labour to make it all farmable. So look at the Dutch and other North Sea German regions to how to handle it.

In the middle we have the Geest. That were there is not much fertile soil.

Then we have the east with a Jungmoränenlandschaft or also called östliche Hügelland (Eastern Hilllands) which is also fertile and where always the most population has and had been.

Dark Green Fertile(like Dutch) lighter browns not fertile regions. Dark brown very fertile regions.

Population wise it still recivied settlers in the East. It was less settled than West Germany, but more than most of former slavic regions.

 

[KingLouie]

I stumbled upon the map below of the Swiss Federal Statistical Office and thought it could be useful for adding some smaller bits of impassable terrain in the Pre-Alps. The map shows the population of each canton in 2000, but the white areas are more interesting: they show unproductive areas which, with exceptions like some Alpine passes, aren't suitable for passage either.

Source of the map:

Bevölkerungsdichte 2000 [Kantone]

Die Karten zeigen die Entwicklung der Bevölkerungsdichte, um einen analytischen Vergleich über einen langen historischen Zeitraum aus heutiger Sicht zu ermöglichen.Es ist zu beachten, dass sich innert dieses Zeitraums die zugrundeliegenden Methoden und Definitionen (Bevölkerungskonzepte) zum...

www.atlas.bfs.admin.ch

 

[Mef]

I saw a claim in the comments, that utter bullshit. Schleswig-Holstein has low fertility. It's one of the most productice agricultural state in current Germany, but was also since the Stoneage well populated, though with massive regional difference.

You can't use modern agricultural productivity, because agriculture has changed a lot. Schleswig-Holstein and Lower Saxony are two of the most agriculturally productive states today, but they have significant areas with Geest and not much soil that's naturally very productive (Lower Saxony does have the Börden in the South of course). Modern fertilizers and irrigation can help with making average soil very productive, but people in the time period didn't have access to that.

Schleswig-Holstein has three(four if you divided the Geest) distinct soils/regions)
On the west coast, we have marshes. High fertility, labour intensive to make farmeable. Similar to the Netherlands. As not many people lived there, it took the HOI 4 time period and bunch of force labour to make it all farmable. So look at the Dutch and other North Sea German regions to how to handle it.
In the middle we have the Geest. That were there is not much fertile soil.

Exactly, so both the western marshes and the Geest (around half to two thirds of the state) were not good farmland in this time period.

 

[Rudolf Nechvile II]

I hope that it's not too late for map feedback to still be taken into account, but I realised the location distribution in Upper Austria still bothers me, especially the placement of Linz in relation to Wels. Linz actually lies north of Steyr and east of Wels (not north-west). Also, considering that Sankt Georgen is also an extremely small location, I'd rather it be combined into what is currently the "Gmunden" location so that the rest of the space can be better redistributed. Thus I propose the following:

Key:
1. Linz
2. Wels
3. Gmunden
4. Vöcklabruck
5. Grieskirchen

My proposal would keep the number of locations the same, where St. Georgen is removed to create space for Grieskirchen, and Linz is placed more accurately in relation to Wels and Steyr. Even if you don't agree with redistributing and renaming the locations, I'd at the very least like to see Linz and Wels placed correctly. It wouldn't be ideal, but even a name swap would be better than the current setup...

I used the modern districts of Upper Austria as reference, but even so, the exact shape of the districts isn't as important, per se, as the placement of the locations in relation to one another:

 

[SzalonyNiemiec]

I don't know how I feel about "German" being one language at this point. Because even nowadays the various german dialects are truly distinct. It's not like the difference between British english and texas english and australian english. Not even like the difference between cockney and scottish english, which sound very differently from each other but for me as a non-native are still quite understandable. It's more like English and Scots and only marginally closer than standard german is to other germanic languages. I'm german and I grew up in western germany learning standard german in school, and at home. I can vaguely understand saxon or kölsch (cologne dialect) but öcher platt (aachen dialect), luxemburgish, dutch or the kind of bavarian a villager would speak are more or less indecipherable to me in spoken form (when it's written you can usually guess what it means). And I can only imagine these differences (especially the inner german ones) to be more striking a few hundred years ago, before the printing press and later political efforts led to a slow standardisation of german. Maybe at least make the dialects more granular, saxon being in the same dialect as kölsch, being in the same dialect as luxemburgisch is low key crazy...

 

[Chieron]

And I can only imagine these differences (especially the inner german ones) to be more striking a few hundred years ago, before the printing press and later political efforts led to a slow standardisation of german. Maybe at least make the dialects more granular, saxon being in the same dialect as kölsch, being in the same dialect as luxemburgisch is low key crazy...

Don't forget that the dialect level in EU5 seems to be used mostly for things like name localizations and naming lists. Adding additional dialects probably doesn't do much.
Also, the standardized language might've had less influence on the dialects than you expect, while time allowed dialects to diverge further (even though there is a common influencing factor in the standard language e.g. as a source for new words).

 

[Viva.St.Pauli]

I don't know how I feel about "German" being one language at this point. Because even nowadays the various german dialects are truly distinct. It's not like the difference between British english and texas english and australian english. Not even like the difference between cockney and scottish english, which sound very differently from each other but for me as a non-native are still quite understandable. It's more like English and Scots and only marginally closer than standard german is to other germanic languages. I'm german and I grew up in western germany learning standard german in school, and at home. I can vaguely understand saxon or kölsch (cologne dialect) but öcher platt (aachen dialect), luxemburgish, dutch or the kind of bavarian a villager would speak are more or less indecipherable to me in spoken form (when it's written you can usually guess what it means). And I can only imagine these differences (especially the inner german ones) to be more striking a few hundred years ago, before the printing press and later political efforts led to a slow standardisation of german. Maybe at least make the dialects more granular, saxon being in the same dialect as kölsch, being in the same dialect as luxemburgisch is low key crazy...

Technically we already have the dialect distinction in the game with the 3 groups (Low German, Middle German, High German), the question remains if the devs really want to truly seperate the 3 into distinct groups, and what to do with Frisian and Dutch.

 

[Inzano]

I stumbled upon the map below of the Swiss Federal Statistical Office and thought it could be useful for adding some smaller bits of impassable terrain in the Pre-Alps. The map shows the population of each canton in 2000, but the white areas are more interesting: they show unproductive areas which, with exceptions like some Alpine passes, aren't suitable for passage either.

View attachment 1299054

Source of the map:

Bevölkerungsdichte 2000 [Kantone]

Die Karten zeigen die Entwicklung der Bevölkerungsdichte, um einen analytischen Vergleich über einen langen historischen Zeitraum aus heutiger Sicht zu ermöglichen.Es ist zu beachten, dass sich innert dieses Zeitraums die zugrundeliegenden Methoden und Definitionen (Bevölkerungskonzepte) zum...

www.atlas.bfs.admin.ch

I don't agree with this, because if we look at the Gotthardpass example, Disentis (red) fought with Urseren and Uri (green) for this mountain pass. And this in 1331/1333, just before the starting date. So they were already in use or were becoming useful during the game.

Source:https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursern, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthardpass

 

[KingLouie]

View attachment 1299636

I don't agree with this, because if we look at the Gotthardpass example, Disentis (red) fought with Urseren and Uri (green) for this mountain pass. And this in 1331/1333, just before the starting date. So they were already in use or were becoming useful during the game.

Source:https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursern, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthardpass

That's exactly why I wrote "with exceptions like some Alpine passes"

Of course those and other main passes are vital and shouldn't be closed. But there could be some smaller additions like impassable terrain between Interlaken and Wolhusen, Monthey and Faucigny, Bellinzona and Como or Frutigen (which should have Thun north of it, not Bern directly) and Gruyères.

 

[Lord_Telchar]

That's exactly why I wrote "with exceptions like some Alpine passes"

Of course those and other main passes are vital and shouldn't be closed. But there could be some smaller additions like impassable terrain between Interlaken and Wolhusen, Monthey and Faucigny, Bellinzona and Como or Frutigen (which should have Thun north of it, not Bern directly) and Gruyères.

quite frankly it's impossible to simulate the (im)passability of the alps with the systems in place properly - in the real world it's much easier to go from Altdorf to Schwyz than to Brig, or from Bludenz to go to Feldkirch than to Galtür, but in the game they're all just mountain provinces - perhaps an additional "mountainpass" movement/supply/control malus should be implemented

 

[Inzano]

quite frankly it's impossible to simulate the (im)passability of the alps with the systems in place properly - in the real world it's much easier to go from Altdorf to Schwyz than to Brig, or from Bludenz to go to Feldkirch than to Galtür, but in the game they're all just mountain provinces - perhaps an additional "mountainpass" movement/supply/control malus should be implemented

They actually simulate this with winters when the locations are not passable, if they have mountainous landscapes and the right climate.

 

[Lord_Telchar]

This is just around the area I'm familiar with adding all the location crossings that are actually mountain passes - feel free to add all that I missed, and from other areas
Edit: one I'm seeing right now that I missed is between Chiavenna and Zuoz

 

[Lord_Telchar]

They actually simulate this with winters when the locations are not passable, if they have mountainous landscapes and the right climate.

yeah but still, not all crossings between mountain provinces are over passes, many are just going down/up the valley. Going from Davos over Werdenberg to Feldkirch in winter is perfectly fine, you're just travelling along the Rhine in a pretty big valley

 

[Inzano]

yeah but still, not all crossings between mountain provinces are over passes, many are just going down/up the valley. Going from Davos over Werdenberg to Feldkirch in winter is perfectly fine, you're just travelling along the Rhine in a pretty big valley

If I remember correctly, it only applies during severe winters.

 

[KingLouie]

quite frankly it's impossible to simulate the (im)passability of the alps with the systems in place properly - in the real world it's much easier to go from Altdorf to Schwyz than to Brig, or from Bludenz to go to Feldkirch than to Galtür, but in the game they're all just mountain provinces - perhaps an additional "mountainpass" movement/supply/control malus should be implemented

I know, believe me. But right now, can walk up to Frutigen from west, north and east without any problem and then you face a huge mountain range. I just thought it would feel more like approaching the Alps if there were some smaller impassable mountain ranges before you stand right in front of the massive ones.

View attachment 1299704
This is just around the area I'm familiar with adding all the location crossings that are actually mountain passes - feel free to add all that I missed, and from other areas
Edit: one I'm seeing right now that I missed is between Chiavenna and Zuoz

Between Martigny and Aosta would be another one. And in theory between Martigny and Sallanches, but they decided not to put impassable mountains between Monthey and Faucigny (yet).

If I remember correctly, it only applies during severe winters.

I think movement should be stopped in every province with severe winter, but only during the severe snow of course. But mountain locations (in the Alps) should be much more likely to experience severe snowfall. The Alpine passes shown by Lord_Telchar should not be crossable in normal winters either. But honestly I'm not sure if a more granular system like this is in scope for the game or even the release version.

 

[Inzano]

I know, believe me. But right now, can walk up to Frutigen from west, north and east without any problem and then you face a huge mountain range. I just thought it would feel more like approaching the Alps if there were some smaller impassable mountain ranges before you stand right in front of the massive ones.


Between Martigny and Aosta would be another one. And in theory between Martigny and Sallanches, but they decided not to put impassable mountains between Monthey and Faucigny (yet).


I think movement should be stopped in every province with severe winter, but only during the severe snow of course. But mountain locations (in the Alps) should be much more likely to experience severe snowfall. The Alpine passes shown by Lord_Telchar should not be crossable in normal winters either. But honestly I'm not sure if a more granular system like this is in scope for the game or even the release version.

The problem is that we should have more mountain categories, as suggested by Sulphurologist, which would be a greater indicator of higher mountains like the Alps, Himalayas, etc. But as we know, the developers don't agree, or at least they don't indicate that things would change in this direction.