• 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.
Duuk said:
Except, of course, for Portugal, England, Holland, the Hanseatic League, Venice, Genoa, and a host of other countries that had per-capita incomes that would blow the mind of a modern country. :D

But still, most countries, even a majority of the "majors" did base their wealth in ownership of land.
 
Stingray said:
But still, most countries, even a majority of the "majors" did base their wealth in ownership of land.

If we are going to have discussions like this someone get a history book with the various breakdowns. I did alot of research into this a couple of years ago and it was facinating - EU was waaaaaay off reality.
 
Mowers said:
If we are going to have discussions like this someone get a history book with the various breakdowns. I did alot of research into this a couple of years ago and it was facinating - EU was waaaaaay off reality.

In which way?
 
Stingray said:
Most countries wealth was based on the amount of land they owned and could tax, not the amount of merchants or their trade.

Yeah, which is why I proposed the province count system. :) I thought he was arguing something with me. Bah, I have these sorts of misunderstandings a lot, it seem. :wacko:
 
Duuk said:
Except, of course, for Portugal, England, Holland, the Hanseatic League, Venice, Genoa, and a host of other countries that had per-capita incomes that would blow the mind of a modern country. :D

And France, Poland, Spain, the Ottoman Empire, Prussia and Austria all had wealth that was based on land ownership. ;)
 
5678 said:
In which way?

I cant remember exactly now, but I remember being surprised. It was mainly spanish income I was interested in. I have a good book on it but its in storage atm. But the point was that get the exact details, its not only interesting but would be very useful for this very important debate.
 
5678 said:
And France, Poland, Spain, the Ottoman Empire, Prussia and Austria all had wealth that was based on land ownership. ;)

Yup. I agree. But there shouldn't be, for GAME PURPOSES, a One Shining Path. Otherwise, why would anyone play as the Dutch?
 
Duuk said:
Yup. I agree. But there shouldn't be, for GAME PURPOSES, a One Shining Path. Otherwise, why would anyone play as the Dutch?

But where the HRE is concerned, wealth was very much based on land ownership, so in the confines of this thread, tying province ownership to wealth isn't a bad thing. :)
 
5678 said:
But where the HRE is concerned, wealth was very much based on land ownership, so in the confines of this thread, tying province ownership to wealth isn't a bad thing. :)

Now, for THAT purpose, yeah I agree. The Doge of Venice was never going to be the HRE.
 
AKjeldsen said:
That's a really good idea.



"Your Imperial Majesty, Brandenburg is growing more independent and forgetful of their duties to The Empire.

A. Declare war!
B. Spend money on an important ceremony to reinforce the prestige of the Empire.
C. We have more important matters to deal with."

Yea, something like that. And, of course, historical events with big consequences would be good too. :D I would hate for the HRE to be so dull and unimportant as it was in EU2.
 
Duuk said:
Yup. I agree. But there shouldn't be, for GAME PURPOSES, a One Shining Path. Otherwise, why would anyone play as the Dutch?


Couldnt agree more.

We need a simple but EVOLVING system where values and trade patterns change and often beyond the control of the player thus making the one strategy solution redundant. Nations should be given relative freedom to attempt to evolve towards a set up that maximises their returns on a given economic situation but unless they are lucky they are unlikely to be able to keep up.