Unpopular opinion: some provinces should be removed

[durbal]

I think you’re right, but also wrong. It doesn’t seem like there’s any direct real world analog to the development number that would have the numbers for Ireland and central Italy at game start make sense. But that really illustrates that development does not have a direct real world analog and is a game mechanic first and a simulation mechanic only as a distant second.

Here's the real world analog: Perugia, a region with real infrastructure, literature, demographics, and technology (and mentioned in literature 50 years before in Boccaccio's Decamaron) and at the forefront of the Renaissance, vs. Kildare, a region where some of the oldest extant structures were monasteries and bartering was still the means of commerce. Let's not pretend to act like we can't figure out which one should be ahead of the other in calculatable game terms.

 

[MatthewP]

Here's the real world analog: Perugia, a region with real infrastructure, literature, demographics, and technology (and mentioned in literature 50 years before in Boccaccio's Decamaron) and at the forefront of the Renaissance, vs. Kildare, a region where some of the oldest extant structures were monasteries and bartering was still the means of commerce. Let's not pretend to act like we can't figure out which one should be ahead of the other in calculatable game terms.

I could nitpick this, but you’re missing the point. I agree with you that any reasonable real world comparison of something like “development” would put Perugia ahead. But thinking about it that way is a waste of time. development will never consistently make sense as a description of how the world was in 1444. It’s not supposed to; dev numbers are picked primarily to get a specific game experience or effect or outcome, not to try and faithfully render a moment in time.

 

[durbal]

I could nitpick this, but you’re missing the point. I agree with you that any reasonable real world comparison of something like “development” would put Perugia ahead. But thinking about it that way is a waste of time. development will never consistently make sense as a description of how the world was in 1444. It’s not supposed to; dev numbers are picked primarily to get a specific game experience or effect or outcome, not to try and faithfully render a moment in time.

That's very reductionist as an argument. Dev numbers are picked to show the state of things at a certain time and why things proceeded from that point in time. That's quite literally what the game is about. The amount of development in provinces and the game rules and world state in general are all there to get a specific game experience -- and if the hills of Ireland need to be more developed than central Italy in 1444 by design then that means something is way off. For the record I don't think something is way off -- I just think the 'content designers' thought it'd be mega cool to MAGI (make Ireland great again) and lost the plot.

 

[MatthewP]

That's very reductionist as an argument. Dev numbers are picked to show the state of things at a certain time and why things proceeded from that point in time. That's quite literally what the game is about. The amount of development in provinces and the game rules and world state in general are all there to get a specific game experience -- and if the hills of Ireland need to be more developed than central Italy in 1444 by design then that means something is way off. For the record I don't think something is way off -- I just think the 'content designers' thought it'd be mega cool to MAGI (make Ireland great again) and lost the plot.

I don't think saying dev is primarily about gameplay is reductionist. The game does not work the same way as the real world. If you want to get reasonable outcomes, let alone fun outcomes, zooming in on a single attribute and fine tuning it to completely match history in some intuitive sense is not a good approach. This is how you get Ming conquering Asia. Or, we could go through the historical record for every country and figure out the size of its treasury in November 1444 and give it the right number of ducats. Except it would be a disaster and totally unbalance the game.

So, if you're approaching the issue of the dev of Ireland without an explanation of how your suggested change would improve the game, just "it's not a perfect reflection of 1444," respectfully, you need more. I don't think it's at all a tough case that more provinces and not having everything be 3-4 dev makes playing in the British Isles more fun without hurting playing anywhere else.

Now, Ireland were actually super strong and doing ridiculous ahistorical things, that would be another story. But we both know it isn't.

 

[durbal]

So, if you're approaching the issue of the dev of Ireland without an explanation of how your suggested change would improve the game, just "it's not a perfect reflection of 1444," respectfully, you need more.

No, the people that decided Kildare should be more developed than Perugia in 1444 need more. I'm fine I think.

 

[balmung60]

Dev numbers are picked to show the state of things at a certain time and why things proceeded from that point in time

I have played enough South/Southeast Asia to know that's not the case. Dev numbers have long nebulously included developments hundreds of years after the start of the game, such as cities that would be destroyed long after 1444 having much lower development than smaller cities that were not later destroyed. Development values are less an attempt to reflect 1444 and a lot more of a general vibe on the developers' part.

 

[Twoflower]

Ireland in 1444 compared to central Italy shouldn't even be close in any terms represented by pretty much anything someone can claim development to represent in EU4. The fact that they'd even be comparable is silly. Let's say it like the nonsense that it is -- Kildare has more dev than Perugia at game start.

1. Why exactly is that? I gave some actual historical population numbers - your argument is basically a "Poor Paddy" meme that is based on early 20th century Ireland and popcultural depictions.

2. I do not know where you get that "bartering was a means of commerce" in Ireland in 1444. It was not. Again, the game should not be designed on the base of memes and hibernophobic, colonialist stereotypes.

3. Maybe the development of Perugia is a a little on the low side. I am not an expert on its economical and demographic state in 1444, and on how much it was affected by the relatively recent Black Death and the Italian Wars. The facts that Perugia is an ancient city and mentioned in the Decamerone are maybe interesting, but do not replace a substantial argument about its actual economic prosperity.

4. Perhaps Kildare's development should be a little lower. However, you are citing the most highly developed province in all of Ireland with a whopping development of 9. Dublin's province has a development of just 8 - and Dublin actually was quite a prosperous and important city with international trade ties already in the 15th century (not on the scale of Firenze, Rome or Milan, obviously - but these have a development of 28, 25 and 21, respectively).

5. Obviously, Italy should be more prosperous than Ireland in 1444 - nobody said that it shouldn't.
"Central Italy" is a rather loose term. If you include just the three states of Lazio-Umbria, Marche-Abruzzo and Tuscany: these have a total development of 163 in 1444. That is almost twice the development of the whole island of Ireland (which is, as already said, 88).
Your argument is against a strawman, and again, either quite ill-informed or not in good faith.

 

[Kapi96]

Strongly disagree! Paradox haven't added enough provinces. I'd definitely like to see some more in Africa at the very least. Plus South America desperately needs an impassable mountain range for the Andes.

 

[wobarch]

North America just has to many provinces (and tags). I played now some games there, and while the mechanic feels quite cool now, its just toooo much little guys with no love and to much needless provinces. You could easy delete 1/4 of the provinces/merge them, and there would be almost no one miss them. Not really on the coast, but inlands its crazy small provinces at some places. This would have given room for adding more strategy depth for the african continent. Westafrica really needed more stratetig barriers and wastelands

 

[necro84]

That's very reductionist as an argument. Dev numbers are picked to show the state of things at a certain time and why things proceeded from that point in time. That's quite literally what the game is about. The amount of development in provinces and the game rules and world state in general are all there to get a specific game experience -- and if the hills of Ireland need to be more developed than central Italy in 1444 by design then that means something is way off. For the record I don't think something is way off -- I just think the 'content designers' thought it'd be mega cool to MAGI (make Ireland great again) and lost the plot.

Ireland in 1450 had population of 0.7m, Danemark had 0.6, Sweden also 0.6, Norway 0.3. Denmark and Sweden have over 100 development, Norway 83 so very close to Ireland's 88.
France had 14m, England 3.5m, whole Iberia 8m - does it mean France should start with 4 times more dev than England and almost twice as much as Castille, Aragon, Portugal and Granada combined?

I also think comparing city size isn't good - some regions had more small towns and villages, other had big cities and the biggest city mid XV century were Beijing and Vijayanagar with almost 4 times more population than Paris, Venice and Granda - 3 biggest cities in Europe in 1450

 

[Twoflower]

Ireland in 1450 had population of 0.7m, Danemark had 0.6, Sweden also 0.6, Norway 0.3. Denmark and Sweden have over 100 development, Norway 83 so very close to Ireland's 88.
France had 14m, England 3.5m, whole Iberia 8m - does it mean France should start with 4 times more dev than England and almost twice as much as Castille, Aragon, Portugal and Granada combined?

I also think comparing city size isn't good - some regions had more small towns and villages, other had big cities and the biggest city mid XV century were Beijing and Vijayanagar with almost 4 times more population than Paris, Venice and Granda - 3 biggest cities in Europe in 1450

Population numbers aren't the only thing that should matter indeed, development is an abstraction that cannot be "objectively" measured by any historical data.
If we're being exact, overpopulation was one of the factors that contributed to the famine in Ireland in the 1840s - it could be argued that more people made Ireland less rather than more "developed" at that time.

However, the "realism" argument about Ireland's development compared to Italy was being made by durbal against a more gameplay and game balance based perspective
And it was being made in bad faith by singling out the most highly-developed province in Ireland against one of the least developed in Italy. The average development in Ireland really is quite low compared to anywhere else in Western and Central Europe.

My main point, though, is against the singling out of Ireland, which - to me - seems to be based on a stereotypical view of Ireland that is particularly inaccurate regarding the EU4 timespan which was prior to several events that created the stereotype.

 

[Wixelt]

Strongly disagree! Paradox haven't added enough provinces. I'd definitely like to see some more in Africa at the very least. Plus South America desperately needs an impassable mountain range for the Andes.

China is particular is like a 5 minute sketch of how dense the region really was/is.

 

[durbal]

Ireland in 1450 had population of 0.7m, Danemark had 0.6, Sweden also 0.6, Norway 0.3. Denmark and Sweden have over 100 development, Norway 83 so very close to Ireland's 88.
France had 14m, England 3.5m, whole Iberia 8m - does it mean France should start with 4 times more dev than England and almost twice as much as Castille, Aragon, Portugal and Granada combined?

I also think comparing city size isn't good - some regions had more small towns and villages, other had big cities and the biggest city mid XV century were Beijing and Vijayanagar with almost 4 times more population than Paris, Venice and Granda - 3 biggest cities in Europe in 1450

I never mentioned population specifically...if anything it should've been more obvious that I don't think dev is represented by just population based on my post comparing Perugia to Kildare.

My main point, though, is against the singling out of Ireland, which - to me - seems to be based on a stereotypical view of Ireland that is particularly inaccurate regarding the EU4 timespan which was prior to several events that created the stereotype.

You're super hung up on trying to right some supposed misconceptions about Ireland in the late Middle Ages and Early Modern period. The thing is though is that they aren't really misconceptions based on a 'poor paddy' meme or whatever else you called it. Ireland was economically and politically impoverished especially compared to continental Europe. That's not really something to dispute. You just keep saying that it's a 'stereotypical' view or whatever else which is actually just you stereotyping me.

I singled out Ireland not to bash it, the Irish, or anything else like that. I called it out because I recalled when Paradox did something like doubled the development in Ireland when they added new provinces without actually redistributing development among them. If they did the same to any other region I'd call it out all the same.

 

[Twoflower]

I never mentioned population specifically...if anyone it should've been more obvious that I don't think dev is represented by just population based on my post comparing Perugia to Kildare.

You're super hung up on trying to right some supposed misconceptions about Ireland in the late Middle Ages and Early Modern period. The thing is though is that they aren't really misconceptions based on a 'poor paddy' meme or whatever else you called it. Ireland was economically and politically impoverished especially compared to continental Europe. That's not really something to dispute. You just keep saying that it's a 'stereotypical' view or whatever else which is actually just you stereotyping me.

I singled out Ireland not to bash it, the Irish, or anything else like that. I called it out because I recalled when Paradox did something like doubled the development in Ireland when they added new provinces without actually redistributing development among them. If they did the same to any other region I'd call it out all the same.

You made outlandish claims:

- "Paradox decided to make Ireland great again" - haha, very funny. No. They gave it a proper strategic and economic depth and ended an inaccurate representation as a backwater.
- "Ireland ended up with more dev than central Italy". No, it did not. It has a total dev of 88. Even with the most narrow definition of "Central Italy" that includes just Lazio-Umbria, Marche-Abruzzo and Tuscany, those three states alone have a dev of 163. Your statement is factually wrong. It would not hurt to admit that.

It also does not help that you keep referring to the one Irish province that has a development of 9, with all other provinces lower than that. That is just a disingenuous way to make your point.
And your claim that "Ireland was economically and politically impoverished" certainly is something to dispute. I do not know where you get that. Would you care to provide a source about that?
Just a few relatively quickly searched internet sources:
https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2019/...g-the-renaissance-a-remarkably-vibrant-place/
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/...nce-an-overlooked-period-in-history-1.3864918
https://www.britannica.com/place/Ireland/The-14th-and-15th-centuries

and during the remainder of the 14th century there was a remarkable revival of Irish political power, which was matched by a flowering of Irish language, law, and civilization

I reacted to this because I remembered the memey reactions back then when those new Irish provinces were added, which I found a bit offensive (not because I would happen to be Irish, but because I would like this forum to be better than throwing around incorrect stereotypes to bash Paradox).

 

[Jia Xu]

If the game is so bloated that adding a few provinces is causing the engine to buckle, then perhaps it's time for them to announce EU5

 

[durbal]

You made outlandish claims:

- "Paradox decided to make Ireland great again" - haha, very funny. No. They gave it a proper strategic and economic depth and ended an inaccurate representation as a backwater.
- "Ireland ended up with more dev than central Italy". No, it did not. It has a total dev of 88. Even with the most narrow definition of "Central Italy" that includes just Lazio-Umbria, Marche-Abruzzo and Tuscany, those three states alone have a dev of 163. Your statement is factually wrong. It would not hurt to admit that.

It also does not help that you keep referring to the one Irish province that has a development of 9, with all other provinces lower than that. That is just a disingenuous way to make your point.
And your claim that "Ireland was economically and politically impoverished" certainly is something to dispute. I do not know where you get that. Would you care to provide a source about that?
Just a few relatively quickly searched internet sources:
https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2019/...g-the-renaissance-a-remarkably-vibrant-place/
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/...nce-an-overlooked-period-in-history-1.3864918
https://www.britannica.com/place/Ireland/The-14th-and-15th-centuries



I reacted to this because I remembered the memey reactions back then when those new Irish provinces were added, which I found a bit offensive (not because I would happen to be Irish, but because I would like this forum to be better than throwing around incorrect stereotypes to bash Paradox).

They added a bunch of provinces without considering that they doubled its development. This was during the dark times when Paradox was just going around the world, waving magic wands, and adding mission trees, provinces, and development in order to sell 'Immersion Packs'. Their intention wasn't to correct misconceptions or anything of the sort (and if you find evidence to the contrary, let me know but I won't be waiting expectantly) -- their intention was to sell a crappy DLC, and to do so they decided to Make Ireland and Britain Great Again in the new RULE BRITANNIA IMMERSION PACK -- BUY NOW ONLY $10.

When you include the largest and most important city in the world at the time (Rome) and the center of a watershed moment in history (Florence) in a peninsula with a population over 15x Ireland's and at the forefront of technology, trade, culture, and pretty much the center of the world at the time then yeah, that 163 dev is certainly double Ireland's. My original definition was excluding those cities because they warp the numbers, but you'll have to take my word on that (hence why I mentioned Perugia since it doesn't have such cities). You could use Lucca as an example too maybe, but I didn't.

And those sites aren't comparing Ireland to anything. They're just saying 'Ireland has a rich history' or chronicling events. It also was impoverished compared to pretty much everywhere else in Europe at the time, which was the statement that I made and none of your top Google results say anything to the contrary from what I see.

A quick set of excerpts since you're having a hard time accepting that Ireland wasn't in fact just misunderstood:

Commercial activity was limited by the absence of a widely circulated native coinage, and with few Gaelic urban centers or sizeable port towns available to export surpluses, trade remained generally localized. Gaelic society, moreover, did not produce an identifiable merchant class, and the responsibility for trade was left to chiefs who rarely built their own ships and relied instead on the English infrastructure to carry their goods over long distances.

Commerce, both internal and external, was further facilitated by the ready availability of specie: a mint in Dublin produced native coins in the king's name until its closure in about 1506; afterward, the English community imported its coinage from England. Barter was not uncommon, especially in areas removed from urban centers.

Economy and Society from 1500 to 1690 | Encyclopedia.com

Economy and Society from 1500 to 1690At the beginning of the sixteenth century there existed in Ireland separate Gaelic and English political and cultural communities that, taken together, formed something approaching the modern notion of a collective economy and society in Ireland. Source for...

www.encyclopedia.com

Again, I am not intent on bashing Ireland. I used it as an example where Paradox screwed up and added tons of dev to a region when they added a bunch of provinces. Their intent was not to correct a misrepresentation of the region -- their intent was to sell a DLC.

Stop with the hypernationalism too. It's largely what caused the whole mess with provinces being added to begin with.

 

[Twoflower]

They added a bunch of provinces without considering that they doubled its development. This was during the dark times when Paradox was just going around the world, waving magic wands, and adding mission trees, provinces, and development in order to sell 'Immersion Packs'. Their intention wasn't to correct misconceptions or anything of the sort (and if you find evidence to the contrary, let me know but I won't be waiting expectantly) -- their intention was to sell a crappy DLC, and to do so they decided to Make Ireland and Britain Great Again in the new RULE BRITANNIA IMMERSION PACK -- BUY NOW ONLY $10.

When you include the largest and most important city in the world at the time (Rome) and the center of a watershed moment in history (Florence) in a peninsula with a population over 15x Ireland's and at the forefront of technology, trade, culture, and pretty much the center of the world at the time then yeah, that 163 dev is certainly double Ireland's. My original definition was excluding those cities because they warp the numbers, but you'll have to take my word on that (hence why I mentioned Perugia since it doesn't have such cities). You could use Lucca as an example too maybe, but I didn't.

And those sites aren't comparing Ireland to anything. They're just saying 'Ireland has a rich history' or chronicling events. It also was impoverished compared to pretty much everywhere else in Europe at the time, which was the statement that I made and none of your top Google results say anything to the contrary from what I see.

A quick set of excerpts since you're having a hard time accepting that Ireland wasn't in fact just misunderstood:

Economy and Society from 1500 to 1690 | Encyclopedia.com

Economy and Society from 1500 to 1690At the beginning of the sixteenth century there existed in Ireland separate Gaelic and English political and cultural communities that, taken together, formed something approaching the modern notion of a collective economy and society in Ireland. Source for...

www.encyclopedia.com

Again, I am not intent on bashing Ireland. I used it as an example where Paradox screwed up and added tons of dev to a region when they added a bunch of provinces. Their intent was not to correct a misrepresentation of the region -- their intent was to sell a DLC.

Stop with the hypernationalism too. It's largely what caused the whole mess with provinces being added to begin with.

Let us just agree to disagree, I don't think there is much of a point of continuing this discussion, and it is starting to derail the thread, which was not my intention, but fully to blame on me

"Hypernationalism" is a somewhat weird accusation, though. I am neither Irish nor do I have any Irish or other Celtic ancestry that I know of. I just think that your argument does have a very uncomfortable resemblance to anti-Irish stereotypes that used to be very prevalent in the Anglosaxon world (both in Britain and in the "No Irish need apply" USA) and were a pretext for English suppression and elimination of Irish culture.

The important game-relevant point is: I am very happy about the detail present in Ireland and several other areas of the world right now. I would still like to see a rework of Scandinavia and the Baltic area, which feel a bit neglected right now.
I also do not happen to think that the development in Ireland is in general too high right now, neither for game balance nor for "historical realism". That does not rule out smallish adjustments to some provinces (for example Dublin in comparison to Kildare ).

 

[AvengedK1ng]

.

When you include the largest and most important city in the world at the time (Rome) and the center of a watershed moment in history (Florence) in a peninsula with a population over 15x Ireland's and at the forefront of technology, trade, culture, and pretty much the center of the world at the time then yeah, that 163 dev is certainly double Ireland's. .

Rome wasn't the largest city of the time? It had decreased massively since the roman era, Florence was also not the only Renaissance city

 

[AvengedK1ng]

Ireland in 1450 had population of 0.7m, Danemark had 0.6, Sweden also 0.6, Norway 0.3. Denmark and Sweden have over 100 development, Norway 83 so very close to Ireland's 88.
France had 14m, England 3.5m, whole Iberia 8m - does it mean France should start with 4 times more dev than England and almost twice as much as Castille, Aragon, Portugal and Granada combined?

I also think comparing city size isn't good - some regions had more small towns and villages, other had big cities and the biggest city mid XV century were Beijing and Vijayanagar with almost 4 times more population than Paris, Venice and Granda - 3 biggest cities in Europe in 1450

Yeah that recent reddit mod which bases development off population alone without losing development from plague or famine makes china massively op

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

I disagree with removing provinces for the sake of fewer provinces.

I wholeheartedly agree with removing provinces from already overcrowded places such as Southeast Asia, North America and (unpopular opinion) the HRE, France and the British Islands if it means we can get more provinces in greatly neglected places such as South America and Subsaharan Africa.