EU5's COUNTRY TYPES EXPLAINED!

[@Lord_Lambert]

Edit: Army Based Countries CAN own land. That is my bad, I got things backwards.

[@McHobotheBobo]

@Lord_Lambert That makes ABC countries shattering when their army is dead make a lot more sense

[@SirThinksalot2023]

I think the Prussia ABC based comment was just someone fundamentally misunderstanding what a ABC is

[@dardade3277]

@@SirThinksalot2023 which is very fair imo. This mechanic was JUST introduced and there's nothing like it it any other Paradox game (or NON Paradox game tbh)

[@CameronAB122]

I think vampire clans in Anbennar should be building countries!! All of them together could have an IO called the Masquerade!

[@flsicario4696]

I think it would be more rude to group the peoples in say the Ivory Coast into "people groups" when it was a lot more diverse than just a few big "people groups' and seeing as (to my knowledge) there are not records of true landed societies being present, having them represented as just pops with their individual cultures and such is better. IMO

[@vispian7688]

The issue as a historian it's not fair to say but Vic3. It is 1300 many of the groups have only just migrated to West Africa for example. Many of these groups were still organised along kin ships. It is only when you start to get to the late 1400s and 1500s they are organised into clans and other more civil structures. A great example of this was the creation of Dahomey. Horizontal in the 1300s, clan SoP in the 1500s, Settled in the 1600s. Would be cool if by events or situations we see this transition

[@PalaiologosKomnenos]

The VOC translated from dutch ( Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie) to english is just the United East India Company not to be confused with the English East India Company (basically the meme, of copying homework and trying to not make it look like a copy).

[@florianjongejeugd3902]

technically it's united east-indian company

[@knighterrant882]

Great to see that they don"t go the Vicky 3 route.

[@neptun6761]

perhaps they are actualy playing the game themselfs this time if they would have at least once played a full game to 1936 they would have known how bad the combat system is. So I asume the deves never finished a game...

[@knighterrant882]

@@neptun6761 Vic 3 was made by people who hated Vic 2. And thankfully it seems Eu4 is being made by people who love Europa

[@benismann]

seems like johan doesn't like vic3 that much.... Hmmm...

[@TheAnalyticalEngine]

The Building-Based Country could be some kind of special "city state" building It would be interesting to see just how moddable the different types of non-territory owning countries are. Could the building based countries include, say, universities or the holdings of various HRE microstates ruled by knights or monasteries, that are just too small to fit on the map

[@RasakBlood]

I mean its just buildings. You can rename them and theme them to fit what ever you want in a mod.

[@RasakBlood]

People need to read more and make up stuff less. Army based nations will be 99% just the same as normal nations. They just have an extra life line and an extra weakness.

[@MrTohawk]

ABCs could also be mercenary companies

[@FireDrage]

24:56 As far as I understood Army based countries can own locations they just don't need it to survive. But yeah, it doesn't make that much sense, but at the same time I get why they think so or getting at, I suppose. It was mentioned that the main disadvantage was they could easily shatter into multiple pieces if they didn't have an army and could technically do everything a location based country could if I didn't miss or misunderstand something.

[@Shayrin2]

"Army Based Countries This type of country is very similar to the location based countries with a few differences. While they can still do everything that a location based country does, they also have one strong advantage and a strong disadvantage in comparison." My understanding is that they (can) still own locations. Also, and that was what I've been worried about for the past months, but the gameplay loop for those Banking Countries is, from what we know so far, absolutely horrendous. It's cool that it exists, but I simply cannot fathom, at least personally, having fun with it from start to end of the game. And I especially won't be playing those on a regular basis. Like I said, still cool. Not playing 500 hours with those. And as a final note, and I think that's a question that was misunderstood and it wasn't properly answered, but can a land-based country own buildings in another country. This is ESPECIALLY relevant for holy orders such as the Teutonic Order, which in the 1300s had dozens of chapters in Greece, Italy, France and throughout the HRE, on top of their prussian and livonian lands. Can't wait to have the game in hands, keep up the good work Lambert !

[@Xetosphere]

I was going to comment on this as well. I believe ABCs can own land as well, that's how they get money and manpower. But if they were to lose their whole army they might break into several smaller countries (like happened to some of the hordes I believe). "The disadvantage, depending on your point of view, is that if the country does not have an army at all, it can shatter into multiple pieces."

[@peterosborne8315]

​@Xetosphere yeah lamberts not quite understanding this one. Banking countries are also just a type of building country not their own thing

[@RasakBlood]

Next weeks talk is literally about buildings in other nations. And they talked about that specific Teutonic situation in the responses and more or less confirmed it. So yea normal nations will be able to have buildings in other nations. To what degree we will see in the next talk.

[@Shayrin2]

@@RasakBlood must have blanked out, good to know.

[@Shayrin2]

@@peterosborne8315 well they are their own things as they have special mechanics for their banking nature. Sure they belong to an overall bigger class but they are a different subset from, say, a trading company. Which still leads me to my concern regarding those countries : fun for their novelty, but overall quickly forgotten.

[@Deepstinkt]

The stockade seems perfect to protect your supply chain or vital ressources in general, like you probably dont want to build a fort on a gold mine, since that is pretty expensive, but a stockade? why not.

[@McHobotheBobo]

9:31 I agree we don't want too much mess on the map, however these areas are definitely severely underrepresented. The Kingdom of Buganda had existed for a *century* at this point and it seems difficult to me to call most or even any Bantu groups to be truly horizontal societies in this period

[@MattFerr100]

Johan said that the stockade doesn't give a zone of control therefore I assume it works as an additional defensive bonus to forts at best or as a cheaper fort you want to use to protect smaller towns

[@herkles5416]

In regards to bankers, I want to start as the banking house of medici, take over florence, become masters of florence, and then turn it into the grand duchy of florence. :D

[@DaDunge]

20:00 It's how they started out but the east india company sure as hell controlled land eventually.

[@Dsingis]

Lambert, we have seen steppe nomads own land on the map already, and Johan said steppe nomads are army based countries. Where do you get this idea from, that army based countries cease to be army based countries when they own land?

[@Aarlaeoss]

Australian tribes being playable was the most egregious

[@cadian101st]

Yet many African Bantu chiefdoms weren’t, despite having metallurgy and agriculture. It really was absolutely ridiculous and inconsistent

[@robr3633]

They should have been. They were sovereign nations just like any other, even if they didn't have states.

[@roysobak1421]

Army based countries should take income and levies from locations with low control.

[@genew3452]

I think what is most exciting about societies of pops in Project Caesar will be the potentials that modders will have to add content post-release for these societies to reflect alternative opinions regarding how these societies can be represented in game. That is one of the best things about Paradox games in the end, they give modders most of the tools to allow taking the base game in directions that the developers may not have considered.

[@DaDunge]

11:15 They're not talking about the bankers asking for power they are talking about the bankers buying an army and taking one.

[@randomperson6988]

I hope we can error on the side of adding an many people groups as possible

[@Gurbuyten1146]

Nice video dude!

[@lisyekseremssko5578]

Army based countries could also have vassals that give them manpower and supply their growth, it's easy to imagine a horde holding a couple land-based vassals as manpower and tax income. Appear, subjugate, and reap the benefits of a settled lifestyle while never settling yourself. But Army-based countries will be able to own land directly too. Not just a not reinforcing rebel but a mobile force controlling land and vassals through the sheer power of the army, not through economic power of a different settled group. I would love to see Army Based countries realized as huge autonomous split able stacks holding some regions in forced obedience. That would make spawning new rising powers very easy, and making the game more dynamic through it's course. As Mughals could spawn as an Army-based tag, subjugating Indian nations and later integrating them into a land based country. You don't need to " steal " lands to spawn new tags, just spawn an Army based one and make them declare war for where they would like to start their new domain.

[@papiew1]

Stockades sound like a good idea in the new world, if garrisons take tech in consideration. Would also be hiatorically accurate, for the first colonies.

[@galdorofnihelm6798]

I'm unsure how I feel about trade companies being building based countries, as they eventually grew to own lands themselves too, like the VoC and British East Indian Company, we all know how powerful they became. Maybe there should be some systems of them bring able to change into a land based country/company, as it's already a vassal I'd imagine. Or would it be that the building based trade company will make the countries it takes land of be subjects, that could be interesting actually

[@-.blake.-]

Id imagine stockades are going to mainly be used early game by smaller nations, just to act as some form of defense for countries whos income wont allow them to actually construct castles Think like Irish counties or OPMs in the HRE

[@jalleonothing5946]

I would build the stockade in locations with forts to increase the forts garrison size.

[@Bawhoppen]

A mod that makes Prussia an army-based country would be really funny though

[@DaDunge]

14:00 There are definitely examples in history of condottiere buying themselves a fiefdom.

[@TheBestMCScavenger]

here's a potential solution to the non-settled nations not appearing on the map. Have a map mode for them that colors them kinda like the victoria 3 religion map. if there's multiple religions in a state, it'll color it slightly differently than if there's only one religion

[@MrgalaxyGamer101]

Johan says that the steppe hordes are ABCs. They can own land. It just sounded like you thought ABCs couldn’t own land.

[@benismann]

25:25 welcome to pdx community.

[@DaDunge]

I don't mind there being some "empty" locations (I'm on record suggesting several more palces in southern Scandinavia that should be empty) but that is a lot of empty locations and what is the point of having those locaitons in the game?

[@Aarlaeoss]

You have it backwards. We won't be able to mod the current alternative country types. But we *could* make new alternative types. Johan's example was a navy based country. He said it would be easy. (Anbennar's remnant fleet comes to mind)

[@BurgerPrintz]

I’m curious how they will represent natural wonders like the grand canyon. Also the Mississippi river will be OP if they do it historically correct

[@ilianceroni]

About tag-less locations, if (IF!) the only interaction with those “empty” locations is colonisation, than it’s a terrible choice by the devs as it implies those pops are there just to be colonised, reproducing European propaganda used to commit genocides as a game mechanic. HOWEVER, in previous maps we saw those locations are inside markets, which implies they have some form of relations with states etc. which could mean there is more then one way to interact with them. I think I can’t form an opinion until a tinto talks on the reactions to colonisation and/or a tinto talks on diplomacy, where we could learn we actually have a way to interact with them without committing genocide. Maybe you can influence them to create a state that became your vassal, maybe you can support them in resisting colonisation and have them giving you armies/mercenaries. There should be something to mimic event like the Franco-Indian war (1754-63), in which Native Americans sided with France against the British empire because french colonists were less expansionist, more firendly and usually established trade agreements instead of being hostile. These type of historical events should be able to happen “organically” from the game systems, but we currently miss a couple of them so it’s too early to be sure.

[@RibPullRick]

What happens if an army-based country sieges a province of there own culture?

[@connorvic3]

The easiest game to world conquest in is so not victoria 3 it took me arounf 800hours to wq in vic 3 vs 400 in eu4

[@manaintolerantmage]

Regardless of your experience, World Conquest is easier in Vicky 3.

[@Niriik]

Huh cool

[@ResandOuies]

wish you'd actually read through the DD of video before doing these.Might make it easier to grok the content. Seems like you always get something very wrong and go on a rant on something that's not correct. ABCs this time around

[@benhayward2597]

Prussia isn't an ABC, they're a CBA xD

[@alexisdespland4939]

to protect new colonies probably.

[@alexisdespland4939]

make colonazation o go faster in stockaded locations.

[@dmitrijstrofimovs2596]

It is understandable why it's called "Project Caesar" i stead of Eu5. It's not simply a sequel , it's an entirely new thing

[@burntbybrighteyes]

Project Caesar is just a working title. The game will be called EU5.

[@vattghern257]

Why would they bother with societies of pops then? You can't interract with them anyway

[@tribblier]

I would guess that you can do diplo with them

[@mallow5828]

Very disappointed. I was under the impression that the point of societies of pops was to embody the real nationhood of these civilizations and their dynamic interactions with other nations and states, but now they're defeating that purpose by continuing to otherize indigenous communities by framing them as static obstacles to inevitably be steamrolled by imperialist powers. I really dislike the apparent inability of the devs to break free of this implicitly colonialist view of the world.

[@zimtwiers9726]

I do have yo say it is also hard to show this nationhood, as their is often a lack of written sources. As a game in a historical setting it is also somewhat bound by how history played out. However i do hope they can model as much as they can with the tool available

[@mallow5828]

@@zimtwiers9726 Indigenous nations should still be playable tags. In a game based on historical divergences it is more than reasonable to both play as them and to forge new paths in which they aren’t just a cardboard cutout for Europeans to kill off when the age of colonization comes. Even without written sources, we have more than enough oral history and archaeological evidence to back it up.

[@tribblier]

You will play as the central authority in this game. Therefore it shouldn't be possible to play as countries without this central authority. To be represented on the map there should be some sort of central authority for other nations to treat with, otherwise what's the point? You cant do diplo with a disunited and diverse group of people, there's no one to talk to. You can do diplo with chiefdom style proto-kingdoms which are represented by the current system. Also just for gameplay reasons playing as a stateless society would be so alien it would be a completely different game and not really work at the GS scale. Native American tribes in Eu4 were boring because of this.

[@mallow5828]

@@tribblier Then change the game. These stateless nations still had law (even if not unified systems of law) and mechanisms to regulate trade, conduct diplomacy, raise armies, etc. Even if there was no central authority, they still acted (sometimes as groups) to influence political developments in their region and across the world. They were as sovereign as any state, they were just decentralized. Limiting the game to solely "centralized authorities" leaves the great steppe hordes out entirely, as they relied on decentralized administrations to maintain control over their conquered territories. "It would be too alien" is not an excuse to not represent these nations, because they absolutely existed and influenced the course of history dynamically and actively. You're also neglecting the fact that centralized states DID make treaties with decentralized nations. They did it all the time. The US was literally BUILT on broken treaties with indian nations. They shouldn't be excluded just because it would be easier to pretend that they didn't have any capacity to act as sovereign nations. They weren't just the colonist's wet dream of lawless hordes of savages awaiting European civilization.

[@tribblier]

@@mallow5828 Oh right! Yeh let's completely redesign the entire game as to provide content for a handful of countries that players will barely touch! I mentioned it being alien because there is clearly a focus on internal management and buildings, for tags that don't even really control one location how is that even going to work? It doesn't, it was crap in EU4 because frankly a GS is the wrong sort of game to simulate the smaller scale of non-centralised societies. Hordes definitely had a set central leadership system, just because control was limited doesn't mean it doesn't exist. These non-tags don't have any central leadership at all. Also the American tribes do have tags and did have central councils with sufficient control over a large enough area to be represented.