Patch 1.19 small map updates

[Hipster_on_Ice]

Totally off topic but the south really isn't known for its agriculture. It was known for its cash crops antebellum such as tobacco, cotton, and indigo but these were a few large plantations. The high amounts of swampland, poor soil quality, and low populations really made for few substance farmers.

Technically speaking, cash crops are still agriculture. The fact that into the 20th century there was still large scale sharecropping, even after the abolition of de jure slavery, speaks to the type of economy it was.

 

[Dracolithfiend]

Technically speaking, cash crops are still agriculture. The fact that into the 20th century there was still large scale sharecropping, even after the abolition of de jure slavery, speaks to the type of economy it was.

Yes but comparably there were few plantations. Probably something like 100 new England farms to every southern plantation. Of course neither of the regions come close to the Midwest. The amount of farms there is just stupid.

Edit: also plantations pretty much went into decline after the civil war. They still exist to this day sure but you can probably count them on one hand and they are more tourist destinations than farms.

 

[Grand Historian]

Totally off topic but the south really isn't known for its agriculture. It was known for its cash crops antebellum such as tobacco, cotton, and indigo but these were a few large plantations. The high amounts of swampland, poor soil quality, and low populations really made for few substance farmers.

It depends on which timeframe and state we're talking about. The areas that would become North Carolina and West Virginia were dominated by substistence farmers instead of a planter aristocracy.

And while not only are cash crops a form of agriculture, the south is still known for being 'rural' - a common stereotype of southerners is most of them being bumpkins.

 

[grommile]

It depends on which timeframe and state we're talking about. The areas that would become North Carolina and West Virginia were dominated by substance farmers instead of a planter aristocracy.

While one could certainly describe certain areas below the Mason-Dixon line as farming "substances" (tobacco), I believe the word the two of you are looking for is "subsistence".

 

[Grand Historian]

While one could certainly describe certain areas below the Mason-Dixon line as farming "substances" (tobacco), I believe the word the two of you are looking for is "subsistence".

Thank you.

 

[Immortal Impi]

Totally off topic but the south really isn't known for its agriculture. It was known for its cash crops antebellum such as tobacco, cotton, and indigo but these were a few large plantations. The high amounts of swampland, poor soil quality, and low populations really made for few substance farmers.

This is not actually true. There were large populations of yeomen, small farmers, and marginal farmers in the pine barrens and the piedmont in the south. The south was overwhelmingly rural with fewer large cities than the North, and this situation stayed the same even after the civil war.

There were a few areas with larger plantations (which more or less map to the slave populations), but wherever you had lower populations of slaves you had more yeomen farmers, smallholders, and marginal subsistence farmers.

 

[Xinkc]

THE ALPS!

Gross. I don't like how Savoie is split from Piedmont. If the Swiss take back Vaud and Wallis then Savoy is going to be in for a bad time.

 

[NorthernXY]

Probably why they eventually sold it, and Nice, to France.

 

[Metz]

When they get to work on the Netherlands it will make Burgundy stronger so then France will have to be buffed a bit, which means that England may get a few counties (Wales could be 4 provinces and Scotland could get Glasgow). France could have Nemours and Bearn split for starters.

 

[Grand Historian]

When they get to work on the Netherlands it will make Burgundy stronger so then France will have to be buffed a bit, which means that England may get a few counties (Wales could be 4 provinces and Scotland could get Glasgow). France could have Nemours and Bearn split for starters.

Or, alternatively, we can just give France back their vassals.

 

[Xinkc]

Or, alternatively, we can just give France back their vassals.

You want to give me nightmares?

 

[Grand Historian]

You want to give me nightmares?

Well, we can always toss in something for the League of the Public Weal. The centralization of France was one of the most important stories of EU4's time and it's not exactly told in current gamestate.

 

[Metz]

Or, alternatively, we can just give France back their vassals.

That could work but development-wise they should have at least 2 more provinces instead of boosting ones they have. It would also make wars in France more strategical.

Giving France her vassals back could work as well but they would have to have high liberty desire so that France doesn't become abusive manpower-wise. This would also show how France historically tried to centralize its power and reduce the autonomy of local nobles.

 

[gronak]

You want to give me nightmares?

I feel like France is too centralised at the start. It would be more realistic to have their vassals back.

 

[Metz]

Well, we can always toss in something for the League of the Public Weal. The centralization of France was one of the most important stories of EU4's time and it's not exactly told in current gamestate.

League of Public Weal could be a nice event chain that affects Burgundy and France. If it fails then it leads to the Burgundian inheritance. If it works then it leads to Burgundy obtaining kingdom status.

 

[Metz]

Following defeat in the Hundred Years' War, English landowners complained vociferously about the financial losses resulting from the loss of their continental holdings; this is often considered a contributory cause of the Wars of the Roses.

Hundred Years War ending -----> War of the Roses for England and League of Public Weal for France. England dealing with the War of the Roses will make it too busy to interfere with France's League of Public Weal.

In keeping with the policies of previous Capetian and Valois monarchs, Louis asserted the supremacy of the king within the territory of France. Over the course of the preceding centuries, and during the Hundred Years' War, the French kings effected an administrative unification of the country. Unlike Germany, which languished as a miscellany of feudal factions, France emerged from the Middle Ages as a centralized state. But this centralization was opposed by the League of Public Weal, whose nobles sought to restore their feudal prerogatives.

Charles the Bold, as heir to the duke of Burgundy, whose fiefs in France included Flanders, and who held the Imperial lands of Holland and Brabant, sought to make the Duchy of Burgundy independent of the French throne and aspired to forge it into a kingdom of his own between France and Germany stretching between the North Sea on the north and the Jura Mountains on the south; and from the Somme River on the west to the Moselle River on the east. This kingdom would restore the ancient kingdom of Lotharingia—approximating the former domains of the Frankish Emperor Lothair I.

A France player's goal would be to lower its vassals liberty desire and absorb as many vassals as it can. The remaining vassals then end up allying Burgundy during the war of the League of Public Weal. If France wins, then the Duke of Burgundy automatically dies triggering the Burgundian Inheritance event. This would be more realistic than waiting for the Duke to die all of a sudden.

 

[Xinkc]

Well, we can always toss in something for the League of the Public Weal. The centralization of France was one of the most important stories of EU4's time and it's not exactly told in current gamestate.

True enough but I have bad, bad memories of the French vassal swarm.

I feel like France is too centralised at the start. It would be more realistic to have their vassals back.

I agree, but the very concept of France having its vassal swarm back hurts me.

 

[Metz]

Furthermore,

In the late 15th century Duke Charles the Bold conceived the project of combining his territories into a "Third Kingdom of Burgundy" with himself as its fully independent monarch. Charles even persuaded the Emperor Frederick III to crown him as a king at Trier. The planned ceremony did not take place because the emperor fled during the night of September 1473, due to his displeasure with the duke's attitude. This ultimately ended the duchy as an independent realm with the defeat and mutilation of Charles at the Battle of Nancy.

If Burgundy wins the war of the League of Public Weal, they become a kingdom like Bohemia within the HRE.

This linked event chain could make Europe more interesting and add plausible challenges. Would be nice to see a Burgundian Kingdom competing with Austria, France, and England.

 

[Grand Historian]

Furthermore,



If Burgundy wins the war of the League of Public Weal, they become a kingdom like Bohemia within the HRE.

This linked event chain could make Europe more interesting and add plausible challenges. Would be nice to see a Burgundian Kingdom competing with Austria, France, and England.

You know, you really ought to make a thread on this in the suggestions forums. It sees like you have a lot of good ideas on how this can be an excellent inter-connected even chain. And it can hopefully be the basis to a rework of the BI.

 

[Metz]

You know, you really ought to make a thread on this in the suggestions forums. It sees like you have a lot of good ideas on how this can be an excellent inter-connected even chain. And it can hopefully be the basis to a rework of the BI.

I will probably do one tomorrow. I will look into putting it all together and explaining.

This may be similar to how countries in HoI4 have different paths which ultimately affect other nations.

I'm sure there can be an event chain between Poland, Lithuania, and HRE. Likewise for Russia and the Ottomans, Scandinavia (Kalmar), etc.