Reviewing the EU5 map for gameplay and history

[@bigangryscotsman]

So basically the whole game will come down to how well they SIM Timur beating the crap out of anything with a pulse.

[@lightworker2956]

Great video. In real life the English didn't want to give up Aquitaine because it was stupidly rich and populated, while the rest of the British isles were poor and under-populated. Whereas at least in EU4 terms, Aquitaine are just some nice provinces but nothing exceptional, so indeed you'd rather focus on getting Ireland and Scotland quickly, which in-game are much more valuable. This ties into the larger issue that IRL, France was MUCH richer and more populated than England was (England was just much more centralized). Meanwhile in EU4 their development is pretty close. The wikipedia page "List of regions by past GDP (PPP)" lists at 1500: France 10,912 millions of dollars versus UK 2,815 millions of dollars. So France has like 4x England's GDP at 1500. In actual history, the UK only has France's GDP around 1820, well after the start of the industrial revolution. If from England's perspective their French provinces aren't just "nice but nothing exceptional" as in EU4 but are instead a HUGE part of their total wealth / pop / development, then it would nudge them to maybe have an actual and serious fight with France. A problem of EU5 is that players expect countries that are powerful in ~1800 to be powerful at game start in 1337. But the reality is that England, Brandenburg, Sweden and Denmark for example just weren't that powerful in 1337. However players would complain if those countries were historically poor at game start. Good point that you can't have England win the 100YW as that wins the game -- unless the game controls mechanisms that means that they'd be horribly decentralized / administratively overstretched in that case? France had a tough time already just managing France itself, I imagine running an English - French realm would be even harder.

[@Shinshinvariety]

Yeah you got the gist of it all right there

[@eligoldman9200]

Looks like there’s going to be more lucky nations I guess.

[@emilianohermosilla3996]

@@lightworker2956 such a great comment!

[@niewiarygodny6853]

22:42 You missed 1 thing. Bohemia is in that war on Teutonic side, it was showed when they been talking about Eastern Europe.

[@MattFerr100]

35:15 not really the Ottomans in 1337 were far from dominating, they were strong but so were the Karamanids, Eretnids, Germiyanids...that's why it took them so long to unify Anatolia which happened after they conquered the balkans, if it wasn't for their "advantage" they obatined in Europe they could have been wiped out by one of the other beyliks

[@randomguy-kn1wl]

It is true that the other turkish beyliks were stronger than the ottomans in these times and that is why they conquered southeast europe first. Plus the circumstances against europeans were better because the other beyliks knew the turkic warfare tactics unlike the europeans. This made it way harder to fight them.

[@despot_of_snow_leopards]

You are right about the Balkans/Anatolia. The Byzantines were pretty much a Greek state (they only had Greeks, Aromanians, and Albanians) inside their country, and they were plagued by civil wars. One civil war will happen in about 10 years that will be a gateway for Serbia to conquer Thessaly, Epirus, and Macedonia, and for the Ottomans to conquer Gallipoli. As for the battle that occurred between the Serbs and Ottomans, that is the Battle at Maritsa in 1371, where Serbian king (TLDR Serbia after the death of Emperor Dušan in 1355 became the GOT and split into warring lords where the strongest was) Vukašin basically died while outnumbering them 12:1. Historically, actually for the period of 1337, it should be 50:50 for who will win between the Ottomans and Serbs. Bulgaria indeed was irrelevant because after Emperor Ivan Asen in 1241, the Mongols kinda ruined their power for the next 50 years, and after that, when they consolidated, they were dominated by the Byzantines and Serbs, which is the reason they weren't a threat. Indeed for the Ottomans, they mainly should have a buff against the Byzantines and against Turkish sultanates (with the exception of the Karamanids and Eretnids who were more resistant), so they would have power mostly in Anatolia and in the Balkans if they beat the Serbs. As for Hungary, at this point, they were at their highest (after the rule of King Matthias). They were pretty much ruled by the Anjou dynasty that was in Provence and Naples, created Moldavia as a buffer state, and pretended to Poland after the Piast dynasty, so they should have the potential to be like a Danube empire in Central Europe. Fun gameplay for Georgia also, tho.

[@emilianohermosilla3996]

Serbians vs Ottomans would be such a cool watch!

[@MattFerr100]

Good video although one thing I have to point out is that you speak of the game from an EU4 player's persoective which is ok but we must not forget that many mechanics of this game are most likely different from Eu4 and therefore have a different impact to the gameplay, things like PUs and war have already been confirmed to behave differently and god knows how culture, religions and vassal relationships will be. About the Hundred years war I'm sure there is gonna be something to keep England wanting to press the claim on the throne and I'm also pretty sure that it's gonna be more difficult for France to keep its vassals in line and have the war(or wars) for France last more than 5 years

[@TesaLegitimusVonAtti]

There is literally a "situation" that will encompass both countries and trigger a chain of events.

[@margustoo]

You forgot to mention Mali who are at the height of their power and whose fall will be quite interesting to prevent (if devs design it right). Or you could play Songhai or some other African state and be that downfall.

[@Vengir]

We're living inside an EU5 game where the player played as Timur and got bored after a while.

[@Ariaelyne]

Paraphrased from the Tinto Maps Russia reveal; Muscovy's ruler, Grand Prince Ivan Danilovich is also the ruler of Nizhny Novgorod and Kostrama as well the elected ruler of Novgorod. He is the Grand Prince of Vladimir, so acts as the enforcer of the Tatar Yoke International Organization. All of which Princes are tributaries of the Golden Horde, not vassals.

[@celdur4635]

Your vision is way, way to railrody, holy shit.

[@nicbahtin4774]

I wander how the graphics will look like it definitely should be better looking the Victoria 3. the best looking Paradox map for now. they should continue toping the best looking map with each new game.

[@edelwei2492]

idea of them to release braindead sister of ck3 as a eu5 gave me heebie jeebies but the map vanished all my fears

[@2Cows]

3 videos in a week! We are being spoiled.

[@goldenmairon2371]

Yeah, I am glad he still makes videos even if he's not too big on KZbin.

[@celdur4635]

I don't know where this myth that Naples didn't develop due to Spain came but i've heard it a couple of times and it makes no sense. Spain stopped controlling Naples in the 1714's and it was super rich at the time. So much so that it could pay almost as much as Castille to furnish troops to fight in Italy.

[@thecherrypi9718]

Good Video Hash.

[@EXODUS-d2q]

The Teutonic Order was given land (not leased) by the Polish Duke Konrad I of Masovia in 1226. The context is that Lithuanians, Prussians and Jatvingians raided Masovia heavily and created a lot of damages. The duke basically was desperate since he couldn't defend his land against the powerful enemies, so he invited the order in the hopes that they would help. They did after all stabilize the situation and in effect german settlers colonized the region.

[@СаняХацуне]

I really hope that they drastically remodel institutions and how they work, or at least do something for the ottomans, the ottomans were a threat to europe until the late 17th century and "embraced" the printing press in early 18th. Apart from that i hope they model iran and how much of a threat it posed to ottoman rule more historically, both the Timurids and Safavids. In eu4 it's a nothingburger

[@MegaMladen1]

I like what you said about serbia and the ottomans and I’m totally with you that it should be between these two. I have some things to add to this topic. -bulgaria: will become a vasall in the near future of serbia. -greek territorys will be under serbia in the near future, besides the southmost (acheo-smth) part and thrakia. - with these gains Dusan the Mighty declares himself as Emperor of all serbs,greeks and bulgarians. And focuses wholly on the ottomans, because he sees the danger that is coming- he was negotiating with the pope to help him, but the pope wanted the empire to convert to catholism, dusan rejected. -the battle on the marica is indeed one of the fucking biggest mistakes in whole history (sorry turks) but just shows the biggest advantage the muslims had over christians in these times and it‘s the alcohol! Dusan the mighty (potential 6-3/4-6 leader) gets poisened and dies - our army gets whipped out while beeing sleeping drunk. The army was way inferior to the ottoman army in numbers and also cavalery whise. Ottomans power came throught the conquest of the greek and bulgarian territorys - declaring themself as „sultan of rum“ which is the emperor of rome. Summa summarum: Dusan and Serbia had the chance to whip out the ottomonster before it breeds but failed because of rakija…

[@jasonferaco2543]

So the HRE with the entire map

[@thestaringbarbarian]

This video has denied me my oats

[@mord2507]

Everyone would be calling Byzantium the "Empire of the Romans". That was their name at the time. Only during the Renaissance did they start calling it Byzantium.

[@Shinshinvariety]

The Europeans literally called it the Empire of the Greeks Or Byzantium or even worse, the Greek Kingdom It was the Greeks themselves or the Arabs who called it the Roman Empire.

[@vericulum6810]

It was called Greece. They didn't call that themselves and neither do modern Greeks it doesn't change the fact it was called Greece by other people.

[@rnd.0m458]

@@Shinshinvariety The term Byzantine wasn’t widely used before the 15th century. The terms “empire/kingdom of the Greeks” or “empire/kingdom of Constantinople” were used by Europeans to refer to the eastern Roman empire for centuries even before the 4th crusade as the title of Roman Empire had been given to the Germans. Outside the catholic world who followed this trend of not calling them Roman, basically everyone called them Roman. To take the perspective that they can’t be called Roman is very Eurocentric, I believe it’s more genuine to use endonyms. As such we will call the ottomans “ottomans” not “Turkish empire” and the mamluks “mamluk sultanate” instead of “the Egyptian kingdom”. Following this trend we would call the eastern romans as they referred to themselves. I see no reason to abandon endonyms here and not for any of the other empires, kingdoms and peoples.

[@dieselface1]

@@Shinshinvariety The Europeans never called it "Byzantium" while it existed. And I'm curious what you think makes it not Roman?

[@BurnBird1]

"English Isles" really makes you lose some credibility...

[@alonk1060]

Omg, hoi5 will be real? I think im going to be sick

[@carlose4314]

Why are you pronouncing 'reconquista' like that?