DEVS: Why are Irish provinces all woods?

[Wagonlitz]

While one or two 'woods' provinces might be warranted, these would need to have their trade goods changed to 'naval supplies'.

The all Fish and Grain is just sad.

Remember that while it shows as entirely made up of one type of terrain in game it is a simplification. So there is no problem having woods produce say grain. Now why woods were chosen I don't know; probably because they had the highest percentage back in the more detailed terrain system.

The map just isn't optimal.

Indeed; and such silly things as most of Germany being dense forests were brought up by those of us who were sad about the simplification of the terrain system.

 

[Atlantians]

Indeed; and such silly things as most of Germany being dense forests were brought up by those of us who were sad about the simplification of the terrain system.

Ironically, the woods/forests of ancient Ireland and Germany both kept the Romans out.

Romans hated woods. Especially dense woods.

They would have never colonized the New World.

 

[Wagonlitz]

They would have never colonized the New World.

Didn't those woods originate from the population collapse from diseases?

 

[Eff518]

Didn't those woods originate from the population collapse from diseases?

Even if it did it wouldn't change anything, as that collapse happened before any major colonisation was started.

 

[Wagonlitz]

Even if it did it wouldn't change anything, as that collapse happened before any major colonisation was started.

I our timeline; you won't know whether or not he Romans would just keep to the Caribbean and Mexico initially like the Spaniards or go straight for the American east coast. If they go straight for it it wouldn't necessarily end up heavily wooded.

 

[myrsl0ken]

Didn't those woods originate from the population collapse from diseases?

I read a paper somewhere arguing that the reforestation following the depopulation north america was so extensive it trapped enough carbon dioxide it might have triggered or at least worsened the little ice age!

 

[Wagonlitz]

I read a paper somewhere arguing that the reforestation following the depopulation north america was so extensive it trapped enough carbon dioxide it might have triggered or at least worsened the little ice age!

It wouldn't have triggered it since the climate is connected with the solar activity and the Sun was in the Maunder minimum at that time. But it could have worsened it; don't know, but sounds plausible.

 

[User4035]

I read a paper somewhere arguing that the reforestation following the depopulation north america was so extensive it trapped enough carbon dioxide it might have triggered or at least worsened the little ice age!

What depopulation of north America?

 

[Wagonlitz]

What depopulation of north America?

When the Europeans discovered America they brought diseases with them---in particular small pox; that devastated the Americas due to them having been isolated.

 

[User4035]

When the Europeans discovered America they brought diseases with them---in particular small pox; that devastated the Americas due to them having been isolated.

Central and south America.
North America was still nomadic tribes so there wasn't much population to de-populate.

Unless there some new archeological evidence found in the last 10-15 years that shows otherwise.


I think that the statement about this depopulation increasing the forests and causing a climate change during the little ice age is just some scholar trying to get some papers published.

They do this all the time, publish theories based on little evidence.

 

[Wagonlitz]

Central and south America.
North America was still nomadic tribes so there wasn't much population to de-populate.

Unless there some new archeological evidence found in the last 10-15 years that shows otherwise.

Weren't there agricultural societies on the East Coast? There at least is some Portuguese? records telling about how the horizon was filled with smoke plumes from settlements all the way down the east coast in the early 1500s. And there is the Mississippi culture. And that culture around California which had cave cities.
And there was some Spanish explorer in the early 1500s who traveled much of the American south and as far as I remember he encountered settled people.

And to nitpick then Central America is part of North America.

 

[User4035]

Those settlements were long gone before the little ice age.

The population densities are nowhere near anything needed to affect a climate shift.

And we separate central and north America when talking historically as an easy means of reference because many different things happened in those locations.

 

[Zak Preston]

I would also ask why are there so few Irish (and Scottish) provinces! =)

 

[User4035]

I would also ask why are there so few Irish (and Scottish) provinces! =)

That's only because they gave more provinces to Italy.

 

[Daema]

Unfortunately there's a good deal of backwards projection with how Ireland is portrayed in EU4. The reason Ireland is as small as it is today is due to centuries of British (mis)rule, with laws banning the Irish from walled towns, repeated genocides, lots of bloody rebellions, and the siphoning off of taxes and resources to England.

There's none of that in game, though. It's small and weak from the start, and there's little you can do to change it, short of wasting mana on development, even if you manage to unite Ireland and keep it independent (thus avoiding the worst of British rule).

Ideally, it would have maybe 3-4 more provinces, a trade node in the Irish Sea, a slight bump in development (~10), and more accurate terrain (Meath should be farmland, Ulster - hills, Connacht - highland, Leinster & Munster - woods or grasslands). That way developing the provinces will be a bit more feasible if you're playing in Ireland, but they'll stay poor and the trade value will be siphoned off if England conquers it.

Events for some of the Irish rebellions would be nice, and a more fleshed out 'Wars of the Three Kingdoms'. And more generally, it would be nice if putting down rebellions sometimes reduced development in provinces.

 

[Sharples88]

I was thinking at tech 16, which I think is "land clearance" technology in Administration, you should be allowed to remove wooded terrain that'll take several years and cost something like a lot of money, or negative events to happen for those that hunt around that region, autonomy rises, ect. After removing woodland it will either go into grass-land or farm-land. Maybe at some other technolgy you should be allowed to convert grass-lands into farm-land, basically the same as removing woodland, albeit a little different with events.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Naval supplies represent scarce resources like pitch, tar and mast timber not just 'trees' and 'food'.

Putting a major source of naval supplies right on England's doorstep is backwards. Irish forests didn't reckon in British strategic thinking - alternatives to the easily disrupted Baltic pitch / mast supply certainly did, and contributed to colonial expansion into the Americas, southern India and Australasia as alternatives were sought. They should have to strive for those supplies, just as they did in history.

 

[Zqrfmb]

I think Dublin should get a CoT only if you unite ireland and get some more development than what the island starts with, but as far as I'm aware there's no plans for dynamic or conditional centers of trade.

 

[fornever1]

Perhaps it ought to be a vassal at the start of the game, or in a personal union?

Well they did own Dublin and the area directly around it. This area was known as the Pale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pale
However most of the area in the "Meath" Provence was owned by Irish lords at the start if the game. The English only really gained control of the Provence around 1556 with the Tudor conquests. I believe they should have Meath as a separate Provence from Dublin under the control of Meath.

 

[Wagonlitz]

Those settlements were long gone before the little ice age.

Sure; but the reforestation also happened long before the little ice age---and happened pretty much immediately after the settlements disappeared. The forests were already there when the British arrived in the early 1600s.

The population densities are nowhere near anything needed to affect a climate shift.

Why did you claim it was a possibility then?