There are alot of ways to make vassals a non factor in CK3. But back to EU4, we are literally playing in the age where the Kings put the estates in their place and took almost complete control of the countrys policys and actions at a macro level. At most you can hope for the early parts of the game having you wrestle with your estates.
Estates, not POPs, should be the central mechanic of EU5
- Thread starter Ivashanko
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
1) It is too easy to make vassals a non-factor. I personally believe that if they were a constant factor throughout the game it would make the game more enjoyable and more strategic.
2) Don't get too hung up on the actual word 'estates'. Many of EU4 estates already don't refer to what historians would consider estates. The mechanic could also be called 'Interest Groups' or 'Factions'. I'd prefer it if the mechanic were called 'Factions', but I didn't want to draw comparisons to EU4's factions.
And no state ever has or ever will completely neuter its internal factions.
Last edited:
- 5
There was a bit more of that, to various extent, in many Western European nation. Countries that went Protestant (or Anglican) confiscated church lands and sold them (often divided into small plots) to the public, creating a "middle-class" - non-noble small land owners who would employ people to do the actual farming and that would give both land owners and tenant farmers some income which was creating demand for more goods and so on...
This makes sense to me. To some degree Vic2 has that aspect - desire for various laws/issues was essentially a "voice of POPs" and the player would interact with them by passing (or not passing those laws). If estates were to refine and expand that concept that would be a very good mechanism
- 6
- 1
Do you know what percentage of the overall male population joined the nascent middle class in places like Prussia or England? Genuine question.
I would love to see the Reformation have a massive impact on both estates and POPs, and not just when it comes to religion.
Last edited:
The biggest pro of a POPs model isn’t in the interaction with the state, but in improving the economic model. While Vic2’s economy was by no means perfect (necessitating a money fudge) it did provide an Avenue for more dynamic trade. A POPs model in EU5 could also do the same, perhaps more importantly negating the need for one-way trade.
Granted, it could not be a cut and graft operation from Vic2 - POPs not getting their needs shouldn’t simply migrate to the New World - but instead those POPs could discourage growth in provinces (or more importantly, encourage it when the get their needs). Additionally, those needs not being met would drive discontent and therefore uprisings.
Finally, to the OP I see no reason why POPs and Estates couldn’t co-exist. It would make the game even more interesting! I can interact with my Aristocrats via their Estate which then effects their POPs - sounds really cool! Additionally POPs would allow more nuance with religions as well - if I take actions tolerating certain religions it will show up in lowering POP tensions. Again, immersive, peacetime gameplay.
Granted, it could not be a cut and graft operation from Vic2 - POPs not getting their needs shouldn’t simply migrate to the New World - but instead those POPs could discourage growth in provinces (or more importantly, encourage it when the get their needs). Additionally, those needs not being met would drive discontent and therefore uprisings.
Finally, to the OP I see no reason why POPs and Estates couldn’t co-exist. It would make the game even more interesting! I can interact with my Aristocrats via their Estate which then effects their POPs - sounds really cool! Additionally POPs would allow more nuance with religions as well - if I take actions tolerating certain religions it will show up in lowering POP tensions. Again, immersive, peacetime gameplay.
- 6
- 2
well pops should go to the new world if they're discontent, honestly. Not in the numbers they do in victoria 2, but a large reason why people went to the new world, at least from britain, was because of discontent - financially (try your luck in the colonies,) religiously (puritans and catholics starting communities in the colonies,) etc.
of course it's not universal, but that could be handled with policies of some sort. france and spain didn't have large-scale migration for example and had more of a trading empire with natives forming the bulk of the population, though you obviously still had some migration.
of course it's not universal, but that could be handled with policies of some sort. france and spain didn't have large-scale migration for example and had more of a trading empire with natives forming the bulk of the population, though you obviously still had some migration.
What needs? All you needed back in the day was a roof over your head and food. Most countrys were self succifient with their food since otherwise you have a famine happen. The 19th century is not reflective of the 15th to 18th century.
- 7
- 1
yes, peasants certainly never rioted or revolted over feeling they didn't have their needs met during EU's time period.
- 5
They did for many reasons. None wich can be solved by importing grain from Livonia.
- 5
why not? there's a famine, so peasants are upset and lacking their needs. you import grains to feed them - what's wrong with that exactly? I don't really understand what you are trying to say with this.
- 4
Great Famine of Estonia (1695–1697) - Wikipedia
- 4
- 1
Are you suggesting that importing grain has no impact on whether people die of starvation? I’m guessing a not. A more reasonable point would be, that a frictionless global market like Victoria 2 does not make sense in eu4. If this type of thing is implemented, there should be mechanics to represent how much less connected the world was in this period and the difficulties of transportation, especially for high volume/perishable goods.Swedes and Finns still died of starvation despite of thisGreat Famine of Estonia (1695–1697) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
edit: to bring this back to the thread topic, maybe the influence and power of the merchant guilds is an important determinant of a nation’s ability to trade freely.
- 2
- 1
I am suggesting that countrys lack the ability to quickly enough transport food to stop a famine. If you manage to give me examples where wide areas had a famine wich got fixed by just importing grain from somewhere else be my guest. Not to mention the original post was how "satisfying" pops needs does not reflect why peasents revolted as we see in the HRE itself with the peasent revolts wich happened cause they wanted more rights and not more bread on their table.
I think we agree on the importance of recognizing transportation issues. It’s hard to find a famine that gets “fixed” since itthen not a famine. I’m not an expert on this - did food really not get traded on a significant scale in this period? Your link suggests it did, but it could be an exception.
On revolts, I think it depends whether you count the idea of peasants leaving their land and turning to robbery and things like that, which certainly happened. if revolts are defined as sort of armed political demonstrations than I think you’re probably right. Regardless, I at least agree that revolt shouldn’t be the only or primary consequence of missing needs in a system like this. Emigration, depopulation, decreased ability to extract resources, disruption of trade etc. should come first.
- 2
Why are we focusing on food, when population demands went much further than that?
Luxury goods have been transported for thousands of years along the Silk Road to answer to these demands, and the cheapening of transportation costs after the discovery of the Cape Route and the New World was one of the defining socioeconomic changes of the period.
All of a sudden, goods that were previously limited to the upper classes in Europe found their way to the masses.
Tea, sugar, tobacco, coffee, spices and many more had become part of the European daily lives by the 18th century.
The injection of capital brought by this commerce improved wages, cemented financial institutions and ultimately paved the way for the industrial revolution.
It cannot be understated how important this dynamic was, and it was in this exact period (between the 15th and 18th centuries) that everything changed dramatically.
Luxury goods have been transported for thousands of years along the Silk Road to answer to these demands, and the cheapening of transportation costs after the discovery of the Cape Route and the New World was one of the defining socioeconomic changes of the period.
All of a sudden, goods that were previously limited to the upper classes in Europe found their way to the masses.
Tea, sugar, tobacco, coffee, spices and many more had become part of the European daily lives by the 18th century.
The injection of capital brought by this commerce improved wages, cemented financial institutions and ultimately paved the way for the industrial revolution.
It cannot be understated how important this dynamic was, and it was in this exact period (between the 15th and 18th centuries) that everything changed dramatically.
- 5
- 4
Unfortunately I don't. I don't know if any sources even define middle class for that period. I remember reading the estimates for town/city population was somewhere in 15-20% range in England by 1700s. The levels of income are harder to estimate, however there was a large growth in trade of tobacco/sugar/coffee/tea and that's not kind of a good the rich would buy in large amounts, so the portion of population that could afford those goods was growing.
- 2
Vic2 implementation of the market wasn't accurate even for majority of Vic2 time period (and prestige-based order fulfillment makes little sense). EU5 would need its own trade mechanism - I don't think any Paradox game got trade right yet. Transportation costs and capability would need to be one of the major factors to get a realistic model.
- 4
Not hugely. It was pretty minimal at the beginning of EU4's timeline (in esp. Europe), and improved over time (again esp. in Europe). As already mentioned, transport by road remained difficult. You had to carry the food for your animals - and buying fodder on the way was less reliable than today.
Also.. I'm pretty sure Estonia was a customary exporter of grain - not an importer. One of the 'frictions' you mentioned in an earlier post could be customs and politics. In a perfect market, grain should be sent where the price is highest (which can still be bad socially). But if local Estonian nobles receive 20% of the grain as rent payments (for instance), and resolve to sell it none of it in Estonia (where there's famine) but in Stockholm (where admittedly there's also famine) because that is expected by their monarch - that sounds like an imperfect market too.
Frankly a lot of markets had trade big barriers/friction within the timeline of Victoria 2 as well. The Estonian Famine sounds a little bit like the Irish Potato Famine.
Last edited:
- 1
I just want to say good luck to Johan with all these genious game designers on the forum.
It reminds me my boss that was hardly criticized for its decisions. As an answer toward us, he sent us an excel file with a list of possible decisions and asked us to choose in our view the better decisions (without even justifiying it). The conclusion was that in our department, none of us had the same decision outcomes combination.
All I can see with all these recent threads is a huge Dunning-Kruger effect with people thinking things are easy while they are not. The goal of a company is not to design the game which is cool for you but the game that will create the highest sales. And I am not sure if anyone of you are capable of this.
It reminds me my boss that was hardly criticized for its decisions. As an answer toward us, he sent us an excel file with a list of possible decisions and asked us to choose in our view the better decisions (without even justifiying it). The conclusion was that in our department, none of us had the same decision outcomes combination.
All I can see with all these recent threads is a huge Dunning-Kruger effect with people thinking things are easy while they are not. The goal of a company is not to design the game which is cool for you but the game that will create the highest sales. And I am not sure if anyone of you are capable of this.