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
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.
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.
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.
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
3 videos in a week! We are being spoiled.
Yeah, I am glad he still makes videos even if he's not too big on UA-cam.
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.
Yeah you got the gist of it all right there
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.
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.