Additional UK province

[nephilim2k]

Been looking up at the provinces of the UK as a whole. I found one that was reasonably important and isn't included in the game.

Bedfordshire - it was housed Roman market towns (notably Dunstable), which later become a royal burying ground - Queen Eleanor being one such buried there.

Also it was a huge wool producer for the English, and later a straw hat producer (becoming the world leader in straw hats).

Additionally, during the civil war (1600s) it was one of the main opposing powers of the king. The shire reeve (later sheriff) of Bedford itself also held power over Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Essex and London Boroughs north of the river Thames.

I feel it would be a good addition to the game, as a spawning point for the roundhead/cavalier civil war.

 

[TheDungen]

Well, they should at least fix the awful looks of Österbotten. It's literally impossible to form any nice borders there!

Well I don't think they'll make any map changes this time around. As I understand it making map changes breaks saves.

 

[Martin_Mortyry]

As I understand it making map changes breaks saves.

So do massive gameplay changes such as estates. I think the devs mentioned somewhere that all the "big expansions" will be breaking saves, and the Cossacks are certainly huge.

 

[Vaximillian]

Occasionally you get someone who thinks the Isle of Wight should be a separate province.

They actually do? Wow.

 

[CrabHelmet]

I would agree Scotland and Ireland should be prioritized for new provinces as far as British Isles are concerned. England could have couple new provinces squeezed into it but like you said, it's pretty dense.

England was most wealthy country of the entire region due to its location and its proximity to the Continent so it make sense for it to be dense and more developed than Scotland or Ireland. Although... I don't know if Ireland was just as developed as England before its subjugation by latter because I think it started to lag behind since then. I do know for the fact, though, that England was more wealthy than Scotland as the James VI of Scotland will testify to that upon accession to the English throne as James I.

Ireland's population in 1500 was ~800,000. England's (excluding Wales) was ~2,500,000 [both from The Population History of Britain and Ireland 1500-1700, R. A. Houston]. Roughly speaking, England should have about 3.125 times the base tax Ireland does. In EU4, England has 265 development to Ireland's 48, which is vastly out of proportion. Ireland would be more accurately represented with 85 total development. If you distribute that development as evenly as it currently is, that naturally implies you could, very fairly, double Ireland's province count.

Similarly, Scotland's population in 1500 was also around ~800,000. They have 58 development when they should also have roughly 85, and thus could see, fairly, a roughly 60% province increase.

Wales population in 1500 was ~250,000. They should have a tenth of Englan'ds development, or 26 development. They currently have 13. Again, you could double Wales' provinces in the same way you could Ireland's.

England is not the country in the British Isles that needs focusing on.

 

[Ariphaos]

Development is not population. Development should never be population.

 

[CrabHelmet]

Development is not population. Development should never be population.

No, but at the very least it should have some tie to population. Prior to the last ~70 years of the game, land productivity was very similar essentially everywhere in Eurasia. Given that the base amount of wealth that can be taxed in any given location (which... pretty definitively is base tax) is dependent on how much you produce, and productivity per person was the same, the base amount of wealth that can be taxed is at least a function of (although not exclusively correlated with) population. The correlation between manpower and population is even more obvious. There are obviously factors that change this, both rooted in historicism (the Irish relied until very late on a barter economy which makes taxation difficult) and gameplay (too strong an Ireland presents troubles for England). Nevertheless, the idea that England should be relatively twice as powerful as it was with respect to Ireland both completely ignores historicism by being so out of scale, and worsens gameplay (conquest of Ireland is something an English player does very easily and never has to worry about with respect to unrest).

Ireland needs more provinces.

 

[grommile]

Making Ireland's development add up to the historical ratio of the English and Irish populations in 1444 would not hurt England.

It would buff England - or maaaaaybe Scotland if England gets bogged down fighting France - because there is no unitary Ireland in 1444, just a bunch of fractious minors who usually hate each other due to the rival mechanics. The power differential between, say, 15 and 42 development is honestly pretty small.

 

[CrabHelmet]

Making Ireland's development add up to the historical ratio of the English and Irish populations in 1444 would not hurt England.

It would buff England - or maaaaaybe Scotland if England gets bogged down fighting France - because there is no unitary Ireland in 1444, just a bunch of fractious minors who usually hate each other due to the rival mechanics. The power differential between, say, 15 and 42 development is honestly pretty small.

Not necessarily true. If you double the provinces somewhere, you double the rate revolt risk builds up, which increases the rate of rebels.Those rebels are then stronger because they have more development.

 

[Soph]

Isle of Skye!

 

[grommile]

Not necessarily true. If you double the provinces somewhere, you double the rate revolt risk builds up, which increases the rate of rebels.Those rebels are then stronger because they have more development.

Same religion; because there's more of them, they go accepted; raise autonomy, what unrest?

 

[AhoyDeerrr]

Not necessarily true. If you double the provinces somewhere, you double the rate revolt risk builds up, which increases the rate of rebels.Those rebels are then stronger because they have more development.

With 85 development getting accepted culture on Irish would actually be super easy, so if anything revolt risk would decrease not increase. I do agree though, Ireland defiantly needs a buff both in province number and development, if this did happen it would probably make sense to also make Ireland a little more accurate in terms of starting countries.

 

[Ariphaos]

No, but at the very least it should have some tie to population. Prior to the last ~70 years of the game, land productivity was very similar essentially everywhere in Eurasia. Given that the base amount of wealth that can be taxed in any given location (which... pretty definitively is base tax) is dependent on how much you produce, and productivity per person was the same, the base amount of wealth that can be taxed is at least a function of (although not exclusively correlated with) population. The correlation between manpower and population is even more obvious. There are obviously factors that change this, both rooted in historicism (the Irish relied until very late on a barter economy which makes taxation difficult) and gameplay (too strong an Ireland presents troubles for England). Nevertheless, the idea that England should be relatively twice as powerful as it was with respect to Ireland both completely ignores historicism by being so out of scale, and worsens gameplay (conquest of Ireland is something an English player does very easily and never has to worry about with respect to unrest).

Ireland needs more provinces.

Manpower is not just population, it's the ability to raise troops from that population. Base tax is not just the population's wealth, it's the ability to extract it from them. Production is not just the productive capacity of the people, it's the ability for it to be directed.

England was extraordinarily efficient at this for centuries prior to EU4's start date. It's population was a fraction of the realms it roughed up.

Ireland needs more provinces - sure - ideally, there shouldn't be any static provinces. Until we get something close to that, Ireland is going to be food.

 

[CrabHelmet]

Same religion; because there's more of them, they go accepted; raise autonomy, what unrest?

I mean, this is an entirely different issue - the accepted cultures system is terrible and needs a really bad rework.

Manpower is not just population, it's the ability to raise troops from that population. Base tax is not just the population's wealth, it's the ability to extract it from them. Production is not just the productive capacity of the people, it's the ability for it to be directed.

England was extraordinarily efficient at this for centuries prior to EU4's start date. It's population was a fraction of the realms it roughed up.

The ability to raise troops is manpower efficiency - e.g., Levee en Masse gives manpower efficiency and not a base manpower increase. Similarly, the ability to extract tax is already modelled through tax efficiency. The base values don't reflect your ability to do so, they are the base (duh) amount possible before your ability to do so is considered. By your logic, once England annexes Scotland through the Act of Union, Scotland's base tax should go up because the Union government implemented a more effective taxation system throughout Scotland. This is obviously silly, the more appropriate action would be having the same base tax for Scotland before and after, but Scotland having lower tax efficiency.

 

[grommile]

I mean, this is an entirely different issue - the accepted cultures system is terrible and needs a really bad rework.

*cough* hopefully a really good rework

 

[CrabHelmet]

*cough* hopefully a really good rework

Brain couldn't decide between "needs a good rework" and "needs a rework badly" and decided to fuse them. :S

 

[grommile]

Brain couldn't decide between "needs a good rework" and "needs a rework badly" and decided to fuse them. :S

Yeah, I know that feeling.