💯

Oh damn, I hadn't even thought about the fact that we'll be going into the Black Death pretty much straight away

The Irish will just have to console themselves with the knowledge that the rest of the world actually likes them.

The correct name imo

It is the correct geographical name, get over it.

@@henryglennon3864 Lol savage.

why are the irish so fragile?

EU5 with pollution mechanics

Correctamundo

bro fell off

Opinion fell off.

126 likes in 3h, bro fell off

133 likes in 4 hours bro fell off

Thanks for this word. Now I know what I am too.

@@SereglothIV One of us! One of us! One of us!

And here I thought it was just my autism lol

the first time I played eu4 I encountered a triple negative somewhere in the UI and just sat there staring at it in disbelief

I don’t perceive the ambiguity here. It’s not much different from a “this statement is true/false” condition.

How???????????

I wouldn't worry about that for now. At the moment everything is going to be in code jargon for easy debugging and I doubt it will make it into the final game. For all its flaws Vicky3 does at least show that Paradox are getting better at communicating - even if they did go a little mad on the whole tooltips inside tooltips inside tooltips thing

Something like 50% of the population died in countries like England and France so it actually seems about right.

Mods will fix it?

I like both so an option to toggle would be best.

​@@Oxley016 Imperator has a mode for full on political map and also one that's transparent political and becomes terrain when you zoom in. I honestly like the terrain mode when zooming in but I'm more glad that it has both

@@harku123 Indeed, me too!

I also saw it at Red Hawk's yesterday but I still don't know what that is. A mod? A tournament? An event? Or what?

I think the reason was they wanted to create a somewhat independent dutch market that wouldn't get completely absorbed by the english one within a few years

English weren't particularly known for being great seafarers and traders quite at this point, that starts to occur much more over the couple centuries following game start.

@@Oxley016yeah but that just means it’s poorly represented later. If there are dynamic market changes or something this works fine but England seems underrepresented

@@oldylad I am quite sure it is a somewhat dynamic system.

And is a pre black death number.

I'm autistic so I much prefer codey language.

@@MrShadowThief”I’m autistic so I like apples”

It’s also before the Black Death.

England doesn't have Normandy in 1337. King John lost it in 1204 and Henry V got it back in 1419.

Well 30-50% of england died to the black death. The population went from 6 ish million to 3-4 million, which would line up with the 5.4 million shown and figures laith says.

Yes, that, but also it is pre black death numbers. England and France lost roughly 50% of their populations to the plague.

That might be one of the ways that allows the English to be competitive with France during the 100 years war

yeah the drainage efforts in the Fens really only took off in the mid 17th century

England was already on it's way to limiting feudalism quite significantly at this time having created the Magna Carta that granted more basic rights to serfs than was normal across Europe over 100 years before EU5 game start. By the time EU4 game start comes around it was pretty close to abolishing feudalism 'thanks' to the effects of the Black Death killing roughly 50% of the population meaning land owners needed more flexibility with the peasant workers being allowed to come and go between estates when needed.

The Marcher Lords are there - just as strong nobility. In the Tinto Maps they talked about if the Marcher Lords should be put under England to be their problem or not. I agree that the Marcher Lords should probably be independent/under England as a subject.

Go tell them then. They have taken advice before.

You're confusing the principality with the pre Rhuddlan kingdoms. This is all post statute of Rhuddlan and accurately reflects the 4 lordships for the most part. Even Chester was lumped in with Fflintshire. Yes Wales existed within the Kingdom of England but with a separate legal system, language and culture - English common law was introduced but much Welsh law was maintained until 1536 until dissolved by a "Welsh" monarch. Given Glyndwr created an (albeit brief in historical terms) internationally recognised independent Welsh state not long after this, I think structuring it like this in the game so you can have similar events play out is fine.

@@someoneinoffensive I'm sorry, Wales being on the map is egregious and an embassament to the games purported desire for histoical accuracy. In EUV I am going to click on Wales and "play" as that "country". This makes no sense. The administration of Wales was conducted by three independently appointed and seperate English bureaucrats. The Justicar of North Wales, the Justicar of South Wales and the Warden of the Marches. The overall administration of Wales was conducted by a council of English bureaucrats based in London. So who am I playing as? The Warden's had no power over each other's lands, or the Marcher Lords, so at best I would rule a few small counties as a Justicar of the north or south. So am I playing as the "Prince of Wales" (who will stop being the prince as soon as his father dies) in London and my cabinet will be the council in London? This situation is just laughable.

@@casio6651 Wales is still within the Kingdom of England. This just accurately shows that bureaucratically they weren't administered from London but Caernarfon. Your idea of country is a bit 19th century and Wales doesn't meet your criteria for that for another 200 years. It's not egregious, and one of the reasons the several acts of union took hundreds of years to implement is the fact the Welsh nobility were largely left intact and brought into the system. You'll be able to play as one of these nobles, you won't be able to play as Llewellyn the last or 'the principality'.

Could also be a work in progress thing. Plus while laith here says it's unreasonable for London alone to have higher population than Irish regions that doesn't reflect the current situation in present day. London has the similar amount of population as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland combined. So to me it make a whole lot of sense for the high population in London.

Because in England lots of people understand the history of the name. It comes from a modern English shortened form of the Anglo-Saxon English name 'Ēast Seax' which is itself short for 'Ēastseaxna rīce' which means 'Kingdom of the East Saxons'.

No

It's pre Black Death

It is the correct geographical term, cope seethe mald.

@@Oxley016 found the tan

@@kevgl27 Call me what you wish if it makes you feel good, I don't care. Although it has nothing to do with politics and it has everything to do with facts, however.

@@Oxley016 you keep telling yourself that, pal. Irish people aren’t British islanders. Leave your colonial terms at the door. They don’t teach you shit in school in Britain. Anois, ciúnas Sasanach.

@@Oxley016 😂😂 if it isn’t political then why does only one of the 2 involved countries recognise it? Almost as if it’s just colonial horeshite

He is far closer to the truth in talking of small differences than you are. The Scottish border could have settled anywhere from the Highland line right down to the Trent depending on how various events play out. The difference between someone from Carlisle or Bamburgh and someone from Selkirk or Edinburgh would be less than between people from Carlisle and London or Plymouth or from Selkirk and Oban or Ullapool. Someone from Wessex would have a deal of difficulty dealing with someone from Aberdeen but someone from Newcastle, Keswick or even York would have much less difficulty. Just look at the place names. Aberdeen would be right at home on the Welsh coast alongside Aberystwyth, Aberdovey, Abermothach (Barmouth) and Abertaff (Swansea). In fact if Vespasian hadn’t been preparing an invasion of Ireland Aberdeen could well be the name of Chester. Which of these are north or south of the border? Fraserburgh, Edinburgh, Bamburgh, Peterburgh? Kirkcaldy, Selkirk, Kirkland, Brydekirk, Kirkoswald, Kirkby Stephen? Or Scotby, middleby, Dunnerby, Rickerby? Or Wigton? Your sense of difference across the border has much more to do with Walter Scot and tartan shortbread boxes than the Scots dialect or anything going on in the 14th century.

@@davidwright7193 Scots is a language, not a dialect.It was previously far more divergent than it is now and it was not mutually intelligible. Lowland Scots are Scots, not English people, speaking a germanic language does not make someone english....

@@thevis5465 What evidence do you present for your assertion that Scots was not mutually intelligible with English in the 13th century as it is today, and as 18th century Scots is to a modern English speaker? All those names are descriptive and contain the same elements, each list contains names from Scotland and England. You will find Kirkland’s, Kirkoswald’s, and Wigton’s on both sides of the border. What you seem to have forgotten, and what everyone who makes this argument forgets, is that English dialects vary significantly, and did so more in the past than today. That the further north you go those dialects contain more and more elements of Scots in both lexis and pronunciation. The further south you go in Scotland the more the Scots dialects contain elements of Court English. That is there is a cline within which the actual political border is unnoticeable. As for the idea that someone from the Southern Uplands doesn’t share any cultural traits with someone 40 miles south who lives the same way, in a similar landscape, and with whom they share a mutually intelligible language. But that they do share a culture with someone 200 miles to the north who lives a different lifestyle in a significantly different landscape and speaks a language which our southern up lander has never heard and can’t understand a word of. Do you realise just how daft that makes you sound? I think you have overdosed on shortbread with a thistle stamp in a tartan box, along with tales of some French-Italian teenager.

Victoria 3 is so bad i regret pirating it

@@boxedtoast To be fair, all of this is in an effort to make him suffer.

There's 4, Leinster, Ulster, Munster and Connacht

No. Why?

Yes Their was but meath was destroyed in 1172

@@fnansjy456 the game starts in the 15th century, doesn't it?

@@joundii3100 I was talking about mide