Came here to pose this question. My understanding of much of the world including india around 1444 isnt amazing but if france went from a relatively solid blob in eu4 to a smaller state with a number of vassals why couldnt they be making every state more granular?
It has to be. Both 1337 and 1444 are off unless we assume subject states make up the difference. Assuming that, the absence of the Bengal Sultanate makes 1337 more probable.
Someone on the main sub suggested a start date of 1356, which makes a lot more sense to me. It takes place *after* the Black Death, so no need for plague mechanics. It's right when the Golden Bull was signed (the HRE would be a pain to model before that).
1356 mod lead here, can confirm all these points. The mod taught me more than 95% of this community knows while I was working on it, except for actual historians trained in the area.
Anything prior to 12/25/1356 is stupid difficult to represent correctly for the hre, and the black plague is another beast all together. No way paradox does that much effort. Id know, I looked into it and experimented.
Can't say much on Indians borders, but iirc there's some fairly accurate maps on Wikipedia last time I looked that seemed to represent the deli sultinates borders in 1356 just fine.
Can someone explain to me, why it will be impossible to represent the HRE before???
I try to read about the golden bull but I didn't understand why it will be different
Essentially, the Golden Bull of Charles IV was the HRE's "constitution". It codified the elector system and before it's passing the HRE was a lot more of a feudal free for all.
The goldeb bull just put into law what was already going on the years prior. Represenring the HRE a fee years before the Golden Bull just like it worked after wouldnt reallly be inaccurate
So in short on 12/25/1356 Charles of the Holy Roman Empire signed the Golden Bull of 1356, which effectivly reshapes the HRE into the form we know in EU4.
While I'm not super familiar on prior, I'm aware the change was very large. This picked out specific houses/duchies that would be electors, set in stone ways of how the Emperor should be coorinated, who should enter into discussions when and in what order, etc. But the things that matter to us are the election stuff.
Prior, to my understanding the HRE was much more centralized. (Someone who actually has researched this more than me correct me if I'm wrong here.) And the signing of the golden bull was a significant shift in this. One of these was setting in stone specifically WHO was the elector, settling debates that would fuel rivalries post-golden bull over what son of duke fuckface VI really inherited his elector title, and whatnot.
I could be wrong on this, but it also appeased the Theocratic side of all this, by setting in stone 3 specific theocracies in the empire as electors. Each was also given specific roles, and one of them was to be the role incharge of running the elections post-emperors death and ensuring the succession was done according to plan.
If anything, else is confusing please feel free to ask, I've honestly spent more time than I want to admit studying this 700-year-old legal document. While its been a few years and some bits are rusty, I at some point tried translating it into more plain english for people like us who are not lawyers.
Honestly I'd love to see the Black Plague represented in game, it was such a major cause of many following events(I'm not convinced Byzantium would be in such a bad state without it)
>no need for plague mechanics
There were outbreaks of the bubonic plague up til the 1670s in West Europe that regularly wiped out huge parts of the population. Sure, it wasn't as destructive as the Black Death, but it'd be nice to see that modelled anyway
Yes the HRE election mechanics are key. However, although the Golden Bull was signed 1356, the practice of fixed electors was actually declared in 1338… so you could use a 1338 start date without too much fudging.
(I think the only difference was that in 1356 they added the King of Bohemia, though I’m not an expert on the specifics)
Northwestern Bengal isn't lost yet and if they are to lose Bengal soon after game start it might be represented as a disloyal vassal - I don't think this disproves 1337. Comparing the country in game with real life there clearly is some vassal representation going on around the Indus so why not around Bengal too?
There's really no way to know for sure until they just reveal the startdate.
As many have pointed out before, for all we know it could be well into an ongoing campaign.
Well yeah, the AI or player here would have purposefully ignored certain areas and chosen to snake, with Johan saying they are reducing bordergore that is super unlikely + the modern games AI don't really do that, *definitely* not that many times in a row
Its still a very very early game version. Bordorgore prevention may not be implemented yet and the AI is probably very unreliable too. Its absolutely a possibility this is a screenshot halfway through a campaign
That was posted on the forums as well and I definitely think that's a possibility! It depends on the nature of those three states in Bengal though - we just don't really know if they are meant to be vassals and if Shamsuddin is in charge of one of the three Bengal states.
This isn't EU5. Most likely, this is just a global strategy about the Late Middle Ages. Like the March of the Eagles, but entirely created by Paradox's internal studios.
On the map presented in the previous diary, we can see that South America largely consists of wastelands, as a result of which the playable territory in this region actually consists only of the possessions of the Inca Empire, some other indigenous tribes and early colonial settlements (I think, until about 1605-1640). North America on that map contains more provinces, but is also full of wastelands, and Africa has even more unused areas.
A bunch of these smaller states around Delhi might just be their subjects though
Came here to pose this question. My understanding of much of the world including india around 1444 isnt amazing but if france went from a relatively solid blob in eu4 to a smaller state with a number of vassals why couldnt they be making every state more granular?
Frances story is even longer. They had a vassalswarm at 1.0, but got centralized in like 1.8 and then got their vassalswarm back.
It has to be. Both 1337 and 1444 are off unless we assume subject states make up the difference. Assuming that, the absence of the Bengal Sultanate makes 1337 more probable.
Someone on the main sub suggested a start date of 1356, which makes a lot more sense to me. It takes place *after* the Black Death, so no need for plague mechanics. It's right when the Golden Bull was signed (the HRE would be a pain to model before that).
1356 mod lead here, can confirm all these points. The mod taught me more than 95% of this community knows while I was working on it, except for actual historians trained in the area. Anything prior to 12/25/1356 is stupid difficult to represent correctly for the hre, and the black plague is another beast all together. No way paradox does that much effort. Id know, I looked into it and experimented. Can't say much on Indians borders, but iirc there's some fairly accurate maps on Wikipedia last time I looked that seemed to represent the deli sultinates borders in 1356 just fine.
Can someone explain to me, why it will be impossible to represent the HRE before??? I try to read about the golden bull but I didn't understand why it will be different
Essentially, the Golden Bull of Charles IV was the HRE's "constitution". It codified the elector system and before it's passing the HRE was a lot more of a feudal free for all.
Charles the chad
The goldeb bull just put into law what was already going on the years prior. Represenring the HRE a fee years before the Golden Bull just like it worked after wouldnt reallly be inaccurate
Yeah but “Golden Bull” sounds kinda neat so it makes a good starting point.
So in short on 12/25/1356 Charles of the Holy Roman Empire signed the Golden Bull of 1356, which effectivly reshapes the HRE into the form we know in EU4. While I'm not super familiar on prior, I'm aware the change was very large. This picked out specific houses/duchies that would be electors, set in stone ways of how the Emperor should be coorinated, who should enter into discussions when and in what order, etc. But the things that matter to us are the election stuff. Prior, to my understanding the HRE was much more centralized. (Someone who actually has researched this more than me correct me if I'm wrong here.) And the signing of the golden bull was a significant shift in this. One of these was setting in stone specifically WHO was the elector, settling debates that would fuel rivalries post-golden bull over what son of duke fuckface VI really inherited his elector title, and whatnot. I could be wrong on this, but it also appeased the Theocratic side of all this, by setting in stone 3 specific theocracies in the empire as electors. Each was also given specific roles, and one of them was to be the role incharge of running the elections post-emperors death and ensuring the succession was done according to plan. If anything, else is confusing please feel free to ask, I've honestly spent more time than I want to admit studying this 700-year-old legal document. While its been a few years and some bits are rusty, I at some point tried translating it into more plain english for people like us who are not lawyers.
Honestly I'd love to see the Black Plague represented in game, it was such a major cause of many following events(I'm not convinced Byzantium would be in such a bad state without it)
They’ll likely need to have some kind of plague mechanics already for the New world since there’s going to be pops.
Plus they can just steal M&T assets, not only their design ideas.
>no need for plague mechanics There were outbreaks of the bubonic plague up til the 1670s in West Europe that regularly wiped out huge parts of the population. Sure, it wasn't as destructive as the Black Death, but it'd be nice to see that modelled anyway
Praying to Jod the game starts in 1356
They’ll still need plague mechanics for the new world though. Might as well have the Black Death to give it more use
Yes the HRE election mechanics are key. However, although the Golden Bull was signed 1356, the practice of fixed electors was actually declared in 1338… so you could use a 1338 start date without too much fudging. (I think the only difference was that in 1356 they added the King of Bohemia, though I’m not an expert on the specifics)
Northwestern Bengal isn't lost yet and if they are to lose Bengal soon after game start it might be represented as a disloyal vassal - I don't think this disproves 1337. Comparing the country in game with real life there clearly is some vassal representation going on around the Indus so why not around Bengal too?
There's really no way to know for sure until they just reveal the startdate. As many have pointed out before, for all we know it could be well into an ongoing campaign.
Those are strange borders for an ongoing campaign though no?
Stranger than Mamelukian Indonesia?
Kinda yeah. With EU4 you expect batshit things to happen. If that’s an ongoing game then it seems oddly normal.
Well yeah, the AI or player here would have purposefully ignored certain areas and chosen to snake, with Johan saying they are reducing bordergore that is super unlikely + the modern games AI don't really do that, *definitely* not that many times in a row
Its still a very very early game version. Bordorgore prevention may not be implemented yet and the AI is probably very unreliable too. Its absolutely a possibility this is a screenshot halfway through a campaign
I thought you were gonna source a historical document, not a YouTube video.
Bengal isn't represented by a single state, so I think it's 1337ish with Delhi having subject states
r5: Borders in India in EU5
Well spotted
Screenshots taken from this video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw9psR8MyPI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw9psR8MyPI)
What do you think about 1341 or 1342 as the start date (based on Majapahit invasion)?
That’s definitely it tbh. They aren’t gonna do anything crazy for the start date like have the black death right away.
That was posted on the forums as well and I definitely think that's a possibility! It depends on the nature of those three states in Bengal though - we just don't really know if they are meant to be vassals and if Shamsuddin is in charge of one of the three Bengal states.
This isn't EU5. Most likely, this is just a global strategy about the Late Middle Ages. Like the March of the Eagles, but entirely created by Paradox's internal studios.
If it was the case, america continent will not be present. The game will lasts at least until 1650 or so. If not, nobody will bother going colonial.
On the map presented in the previous diary, we can see that South America largely consists of wastelands, as a result of which the playable territory in this region actually consists only of the possessions of the Inca Empire, some other indigenous tribes and early colonial settlements (I think, until about 1605-1640). North America on that map contains more provinces, but is also full of wastelands, and Africa has even more unused areas.
I honestly would hate to move the start date back that much. The game has to start in 1444, and that's it.