EU4 but TRADE GOODS determine your COUNTRY? 

already posted that idea for him

@@gamgamesplayer4506you are first😎

And aggressive expansion is turned off

Me when Eu4 players are being euro centric:

Mali should get salt for exactly that reason, you know, the thing that made him rich.

Mali definitely should have had either salt or gold.

Mail sucks ass in EU4 and dies early because if it’s disaster

@@legitplayin6977 players of a Eurocentric game are Eurocentric? Who would’ve thought

Sun set invasion

Alternative: move every country in Europe to the new world and leave Europe uncolonized

Base game

He already did a tech 32 natives video

@@gamgamesplayer4506 bro it was only like 5 nations that got tech

Mali?

Inca?

tea is not british, they took it from china

I would have said coal, but this has *depth*

@@jeanpal295 just like those poor, poor sheep.

@@toasterofdoom9629 3 inches isn't very deep. But it is big, I can tell you that. It's waaay above average

Doing God's work

It’s a shame more people aren’t :(

modding pdx games is super easy lmao

@@australiananarchist480 do I seem smart enough to even mod Minecraft? 😂

@@zook7104 no dude, its seriously piss easy. youll just need to find a text file somewhere, and change "wheat" to "salt" or whatever.

Kinda wild that people will protest fossil fuel usage but also oppose nuclear power 😂

it’s why i love russia and sweden’s eco so much, split fur/copper is kinda perfect for the early-midgame when it matters most

It’s something I would consider for sure

Hey hey I'm strongly against nuclear energy. Not just because of the potential dangers of Chernobyl like disasters but also because we have wat better alternatives. Actual green energy like wind, solar and water energy should be subsidized and expanded into oblivion. You said your a physicist so you may have a answer to that question: what happens to the nuclear waste? I have never seen a actual answer to that. Doesn't the nuclear waste stay poisonis for over a thousand years? Where could we store it with the 100% certainty that it won't harm anyone? And don't atomic plants need a ungodly amount of cooling? Again I'm not a expert by any means but I read about rivers in France going dry because they where used as cooling devices? I'm not a anti-nuclear hardliner by any means I'm really open to change my mind but for all that I know nuclear energy seems like a unnecessary dangerous source of energy when we have completely safe technology at hand. I wouldn't stop any nuclear power plants at the moment as we are in the middle of a energy crisis but I definitely wouldn't expand them either. You may have the expertise to change my mind on that tho. Would love a response. Have a wonderful day my friend.

​@@derdude6214 First, let me address your concerns about nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is a significant problem associated with nuclear energy production. But, it's not to say that all forms of energy production generate waste. For example, solar panels require toxic chemicals during their manufacturing process, and wind turbines require large amounts of rare earth metals. When it comes to nuclear waste, there are several options for disposal. One of the most common methods is to store it deep underground in geologically stable formations. This is already being done in several countries, including Sweden, Finland, and France. Additionally, advanced nuclear reactors, such as molten salt reactors, can use nuclear waste as fuel, which reduces the amount of waste that needs to be stored. Now, regarding the issue of cooling, it is true that nuclear power plants require a lot of water for cooling. However, this is not unique to nuclear plants. All thermal power plants, including those that burn fossil fuels, require cooling water. There are, however, several advanced nuclear reactor designs that do not require water for cooling, such as the aforementioned molten salt reactors. Finally, let's consider the benefits of nuclear energy. Nuclear power plants produce large amounts of electricity with zero greenhouse gas emissions. This makes them a great option for combating climate change. Additionally, nuclear power is a reliable source of energy that can provide baseload power, meaning it can supply electricity 24/7, unlike some renewable energy sources that are intermittent. In conclusion, while nuclear energy does have its challenges, it's important to consider it as part of a mix of energy sources needed to meet growing energy demand while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. While yes we have seen some terrible tragedies due to nuclear reactors, but those are usually attributed to low quality reactors and human errors, or in some other case very unfortunate series of events, this is not to say that nuclear energy is the ultimate solution for all, its to say that maybe if we put more effort into researching it we might find an actually clean and powerful energy source

@@user-py1gl6xm4f Thank you for the explanation! I do still believe that natural sources of energy should be a priority but Nuclear does seem to be the better in between technology compared to gas or fossil fuels. The waste and cooling do however still put me off. Solar panels and Wind turbines do need a lot of rare and also dangerous material to be produced but Nuclear power plants seem to produce toxic waste non stop. Dont the storing facilities get pushed to their limit at one point? I think wants there is a actual solution that reduces the toxic waste to such a degree that it's basically not even a matter of issue anymore then Nuclear should be considered as a long term energy supply. The cooling is unfortunate but you made fair point as the other energy gaining methods we currently use during the process of decarbonization do require a similar amount but are even less green in return. So thank you again for your comment, I really appreciate it. I hope we continue the research on all kinds of power plants so thar we can diversify the economic landscape of that sector to stay secure at any given moment. Have a wonderful week my friend.👍

@@derdude6214 Comparing nuclear energy to green energy is not necessary. They can supplement each other. What you need to compare, is what Germany did. Coal and especially brown coal versus nuclear energy. Because Germany closed their nuclear reactors in favor of (brown) coal. Also in Belgium they are thinking about closing nuclear reactor and going for gas reactor instead. Can you tell me, as an environmentalist, whether you prefer (brown) coal or nuclear energy?

@@Rhand007 You're definitely right that's what I wrote in my second comment aswell but I think green energy should still be the log term goal. I think it was a mistake to close down the nuclear power plants whilst relying on fossil sources but I do think that neither should be the final solution.

I would if there’s been relevant changes!

Casually mentions nuclear incidents that’s happened 30-40 years ago as if technology hasn’t advanced since then 😂 Ignorance is bliss

I love Germans, but I dislike your government. Same with my own country 😂

@@Chewbert👍 Same here, I love the USA and the Americans, but your government not so much at the moment. I hope that things will lock up for both our countries in the future.

@@benwest2112 ditto man, wishing you all the best

@@Chewbert Thank you, same to you!

The squeaky wheel gets the grease, as we say

Because government told me nuclear bad! 😂

I hope you are joking

My favorite vacation spot is US owned Kabul