Countries ranking by total development (1444)

[lecobra92]

Ming has 8 technology...?

 

[Frozen Yakman]

Uzbek also only has an income of 7.66. Development is not comparable to the old base tax system.

 

[ahyangyi]

Ming has 8 technology...?

Weird, how did they manage to get 2 tech with the shitty emperor and chinese tech group?

 

[yerm]

Lithuania is PROBABLY too high, but it is logically supposed to be. First, it's just a ton of territory, no way around it by sheer quantity just like Uzbek. Second, Kiev and the surrounding area should absolutely have extremely high production values for grain.

 

[zamieo]

I mean... Medieval Europe...

How does that matter? Why would France, Castile, Aragón, all of Italy, the HRE, England, etc. all wage war for land that was essentially useless? Let's not get it twisted, Naples was full of malaria infested swamps, but it also had a good strategic position and it wasn't poor at the start of the game.

Shouldn't Lithuania be much less developed than it is? Much of the south was effectively unsettled or very sparsely settled land with no major settlements.

Weren't the unsettled parts highly fertile, though?

 

[Tavior]

Totally curious here, are there people who consider themselves a single-nation player the way someone would say they are a protoss player? If so, what's the reasoning?

Have you play as Muscovy all the way to 1700s? If not. I will explain my reason behind my frustration with a "second BBB" in eastern Europe.

One) Muscovy already have a "hard time" with how much admin MP they have to spend over the 1444 to 1500 to achievement a nearly "historical IRL performance". Ignoring the moving the first idea from 4th admin tech to 5th admin (technically it affect everybody). It is a challenging play style that I just happen to like.

Two) Muscovy was hit hard by the hard cap on picking two idea in a row for the first two open slot. Religions for expanding into Christian and Muslim lands before they can consolidate (especially even more true now than before given what we know of poland/Lithuania's development vs Muscovy). Expansion for Siberia has to be delay until the 1540ish or vice versa which is not ideal.

Three) I don't consider myself an expert on Muscovy in EU4 or anything like that. Having said that. I have noticed that AI Muscovy seem more often likely to implode and PLC will just grow unchecked.

In 1.9 version, I just had a Wallachia --> Romania, Dracula's Revenge achievement, game where I had France/Fully formed Russia as my allies and I tried to carve a land passage to Russia. I was forced to white peace out justbecause it would take too long to get the wargoal score even after considering admin effective.

 

[ahyangyi]

Hungary buffed

 

[CrabHelmet]

Wasn't the unsettled parts highly fertile, though?

Yes... but good luck doing anything about that, as the area was constantly raided by Crimean Tatars.

If anything, Lithuania should have less total development than, e.g., Poland - there's a reason Poland became the dominant partner despite the Jagellions being of Lithuanian stock.

 

[dwelch]

Compare that to a siberian steppe khanate. I'd wager the tribes there didn't exactly develop the land...

I'm just saying don't be surprised that Europe hasn't always been on top! Also don't forget that the Steppe Khanates were also some of the most powerful military-political entities of their era!

 

[corbenic]

Yes... but good luck doing anything about that, as the area was constantly raided by Crimean Tatars.

If anything, Lithuania should have less total development than, e.g., Poland - there's a reason Poland became the dominant partner despite the Jagellions being of Lithuanian stock.

Wasn't that because Poland was a kingdom while Lithuania was a duchy?

 

[CrabHelmet]

Wasn't that because Poland was a kingdom while Lithuania was a duchy?

Yes, but Poland was a kingdom because it had been a sufficiently important Catholic nation to receive a Papal bull granting it a Kingship; Lithuania was not (or rather, had been, and then declined - it was briefly the Kingdom of Lithuania, after all).

 

[birincikalite]

Yes... but good luck doing anything about that, as the area was constantly raided by Crimean Tatars.

If anything, Lithuania should have less total development than, e.g., Poland - there's a reason Poland became the dominant partner despite the Jagellions being of Lithuanian stock.

It's not like Lithuania had full control over all its lands though... I believe a centralised Lithuania would be more productive than Poland. So I guess that's why Lithuania is so developed, because it doesn't represent weaknesses of Lithuania but rather single potential of provinces themselves. Also that makes sense in cases like some countries breaking free there.

 

[CrabHelmet]

It's not like Lithuania had full control over all its lands though... I believe a centralised Lithuania would be more productive than Poland. So I guess that's why Lithuania is so developed, because it doesn't represent weaknesses of Lithuania but rather single potential of provinces themselves. Also that makes sense in cases like some countries breaking free there.

Even if Lithuania had full control over these provinces (which it didn't), they weren't valuable anyway. They were called the Wild Fields for a reason; nobody lived there. Any settlements there tended to be subsistence farms by single families. You can't tax those. If you want to represent the natural fertility of the area, then give it all a terrain which lowers development cost so that Lithuania can develop it with some effort; however, it should start with very low development. It was effectively newly colonized or even uncolonized land, 1/1/1 would not be in anyway unfair for large areas.

 

[CzokletMuss]

Even if Lithuania had full control over these provinces (which it didn't), they weren't valuable anyway. They were called the Wild Fields for a reason; nobody lived there. Any settlements there tended to be subsistence farms by single families. You can't tax those. If you want to represent the natural fertility of the area, then give it all a terrain which lowers development cost so that Lithuania can develop it with some effort; however, it should start with very low development. It was effectively newly colonized or even uncolonized land, 1/1/1 would not be in anyway unfair for large areas.

Yup. Population density in the eastern parts of the PLC was rather low:

 

[mursolini]

Even if Lithuania had full control over these provinces (which it didn't), they weren't valuable anyway. They were called the Wild Fields for a reason; nobody lived there. Any settlements there tended to be subsistence farms by single families. You can't tax those. If you want to represent the natural fertility of the area, then give it all a terrain which lowers development cost so that Lithuania can develop it with some effort; however, it should start with very low development. It was effectively newly colonized or even uncolonized land, 1/1/1 would not be in anyway unfair for large areas.

Wild fields were rather small chunk of land actually, less than 1/5 of Lituinian lands.

The only reason they were called "wild", was that they (and some further into them) were rairded by Crimean slavers. Now, think for a moment, what territories do slavers raid, populated, or not?


But, sure, post us a population estimate figure, if you want.

Yup. Population density in the eastern parts of the PLC was rather low:

Am I interpriting this map wrong, or it actually shows eastern territories of Lituinina having higher "urban network dencity"?

Besides, 1650 map is, hardly a good argument for 1444 star.

 

[n00bypl4y3r]

Yes, but Poland was a kingdom because it had been a sufficiently important Catholic nation to receive a Papal bull granting it a Kingship; Lithuania was not (or rather, had been, and then declined - it was briefly the Kingdom of Lithuania, after all).

At the Congress of Lutsk in 1430, Vytautas was proclaimed King of Lithuania, but the crown, which was sent from the Holy Roman Empire, was taken along the way so it was never recognized.

 

[TheDanish]

Weird, how did they manage to get 2 tech with the shitty emperor and chinese tech group?

Very strange. I just fired up EU4 to see what techs Ming starts with. Still 2-2-2.

 

[CrabHelmet]

Wild fields were rather small chunk of land actually, less than 1/5 of Lituinian lands.

The only reason they were called "wild", was that they (and some further into them) were rairded by Crimean slavers. Now, think for a moment, what territories do slavers raid, populated, or not?

Poorly populated areas, actually - heavily populated areas have defenses. Lightly populated areas are free pickings. If you're just going for booty, you hit up cities; but if you want to take back slaves you actually have to capture people alive. That's difficult to do on the field of battle.

But, sure, post us a population estimate figure, if you want.

Letukienė, Nijolė; Gineika, Petras (2003)'s Istorija. Politologija: kurso santrauka istorijos egzaminui cites 2,800,000 as the population of Lithuania in 1400, with 400,000 of that Lithuanian and the rest largely Ruthenian. Poland at the same time has 3,000,000 - so even just by raw population count, Poland is ahead (although only marginally). The major difference is not population count though, but urbanisation. You can't tax subsistence farmers - they live on subsistence, they don't produce excess crops to tax. You can't tax tiny village communities either - it costs more to have a taxation system in place than you raise in taxes. Lithuania, compared to Poland, was far less urbanized. The Ruthenian population was pretty heavily dispersed.

Poland plus Mazovia, in EU4, should have at least 15-20% more development than Lithuania.

Am I interpriting this map wrong, or it actually shows eastern territories of Lituinina having higher "urban network dencity"?

No. The smaller the number, the smaller the distance between major urban areas. Large figures therefore mean less dense (it's a confusing way to present the datat, but there you go).

Besides, 1650 map is, hardly a good argument for 1444 star.

If anything, a 1650 map will flatter Lithuania in comparison.

 

[Koivin]

Perhaps give eastern and southern Lithuania the blacksoil modifier in grain provinces: +100% goods produced and some development cost reductiom at the expense of some initial development. What do you guys think?

 

[mursolini]

Poorly populated areas, actually - heavily populated areas have defenses. Lightly populated areas are free pickings. If you're just going for booty, you hit up cities; but if you want to take back slaves you actually have to capture people alive. That's difficult to do on the field of battle.



Letukienė, Nijolė; Gineika, Petras (2003)'s Istorija. Politologija: kurso santrauka istorijos egzaminui cites 2,800,000 as the population of Lithuania in 1400, with 400,000 of that Lithuanian and the rest largely Ruthenian. Poland at the same time has 3,000,000 - so even just by raw population count, Poland is ahead (although only marginally). The major difference is not population count though, but urbanisation. You can't tax subsistence farmers - they live on subsistence, they don't produce excess crops to tax. You can't tax tiny village communities either - it costs more to have a taxation system in place than you raise in taxes. Lithuania, compared to Poland, was far less urbanized. The Ruthenian population was pretty heavily dispersed.

The first and second point are in quite a conflict. Ruthenia was the closest part to wild fields, but had a population close to that of Poland, being smaller geographically.

How are those poor, loosely populated areas?