@@SuperAzoz99 Al Ghaib literally means something not seen by normal people in arabic. So he is revealing to us something that us mere mortals can't see.
Johann: "Yo, wouldn't it be wild if we added all the best bits of EU: Rome, Imperator, EU1-4, and Victoria 1-2, all into the same game? Like, who can stop me? I'm mutha-flubbing Johann!" Also, Monuments will probably be fairly easy to mod into the game in some fashion. Just add them as a building with a unique province requirement. Simple. I've been modding every Paradox game since EU2. There's usually a work-around for stuff like this.
The 'starving out a nation' makes me think of how much harder proper blockades were even late in this era compared to Vicky3 to HoI4. Even the British navy placing France under blockade and managing to intercept a fleet escorting grain-ships. They "won" the engagement, as it were, but the grain-ships got through anyway, so failed at upholding the blockade part.
I'm sure we will hear more about it in the future, but the fact that he stated "safe path", there's a thought there that you could engage in possibly hostile relations to block transit of food to harm rivals? like, you could force a famine. maybe not, maybe reading too much into it, but... could be interesting.
also blockading... imagine if you are playing in the Med and you control only Sicily, and your market is centred in Rome. If you get blockaded you are prevented from interacting with that market... very interesting situation there
Johan did confirm that you could starve if you were blockaded as an island nation. Now we just gotta see if land trade routes can also be blocked, or even certain goods like blocking steel imports to damage their weapons production or blocking wood imports to hurt naval production
i am fine with monuments not being present, I always felt they were iffy but I suppose CK2 style ones were you can build them and they give a local bonus could be cool
So from the bit mentioned about control and how control affects other countries too I think logistics, markets and control share the same efficency network and each country/guilde/trade ("state") group make their own nodes to control. See the noble estate tax building that helps to give control but increases their power. Then also I believe a earlier diary said a province you own can be under their markets control. This to me suggests that built networks of roads/rivers/sea and buildings vary how much control each "state". I can easily see the trade/banking guilds building banks which give them control that gives them a type of tax but is done in countries they dont own. (See how there are countrys with no owned land stated) This means the western schism if solved quickly will give the papal state potentially a lot of thinly spread control where they get some gold from built cathedrals. Remember church taxes didnt go to states they went to the church. Its why Henry the 8th went after them in england for the money he needed.
I remain cautiously optimistic. Really interested to hear about that new peace deal system, because I don't want to have to siege down forts to win wars all the time, especially now that doing so could mean starving the population in provinces I want to conquer. Also, hopefully the existence of private trade ventures means we're also getting private colonial ventures as well.
that was something I thought as well. maybe related to the colonization and trade company aspect, instead of the abstract "native assimilation" perhaps.
I think the tax breakdown makes perfect sense. The Crown has access to only 10% of the potential/ perceived wealth of the provice. Your not taxing the provice directly instead your taxing the local estates that tap into that wealth. Wheres the other 90 ducets? Bandits, buried in fields treasury of local warlords being exchanged amongst those who dont see the crown as legitmate. It exists but on paper doesnt. but could if you can extend control. I think whats been laid out is a great system and we dont need the game to keep track of ever single ducet
you should have different pop types, for example jannisaries, mamelukes, rajputs or samurais were all professional soldier classes, but which worked differently enough to warrant different estates with different interactions, which is why I think it will be a bit weird for sioux, amazonian, or maori tribesmen to have the same interactions. Maybe having generic estates can be done, with many interactions' availability depending on the pop type, ethnicity, and empowerment (I don't think colonial US should get stability for sending their few sioux tribesmen on a vision quest for example)
Perhaps there will be a two-tier market system: one for perishable goods (food) which will be dependent on some kind of proximity measure, and another for all other trade goods.
Sad to see that Monuments won't make it into EU5😔 , I do think the end year will be 1836, just for those who want a megacampaign without skipping 1821 - 1836.
I agree that mercenaries are "free" troops. Like, every game I've done where I start as a super small country, my strategy has been to use mercenaries against my neighbors until I can maintain an army myself.
Lambert if I was a gambling man, I'd bet on 1790, or somewhere close to be the end date. To avoid the long 19th century, industrialization and the core of neo-imperialism. It would be and likely difficult to get a simulation to properly model the drastic population changes brought on by industrialization for it to impact less than 10% of the game. Assuming the end date won't massively overlap with victoria 3
My hope is for a bit earlier than that. Itd be nice if there was an inbetween game for the 7 years war, american independence, french revolution and napoleonic wars.
@@Lord_Lambert The problem is that's a period of lot of socie-economic upheaval that results in very little change. So it'd be difficult to make a historically accurate game that's fun, and models the politics and economics of just that period.
Anyone thought about the idea that they baited us with the 1337 start date? The games features seem very universal. Could be that it might have timestamps earlier than 1337. Maybe thats why they don’t call it EU5 flat out.
Yeah I really doubt it. Population numbers that we've seen seem to largely be spot on, so research definitely went into the 1337 start date. To do that work just for a bait seems farfetched. Plus yeah, as Jaiyro said, there will only be a single start date.
When asked "How will serfs be handled? Will they be slaves or peasants?" the response was "peasants with x and y" from Johan I take that to mean that pops will have modifiers attatched to them, and serfs will be commoners (peasant got renamed) with some kind of serfdom modifier.
@@Lord_Lambert first of all, thanks Lambert!! It’s awesome that you’re able to retain all of this information and then went through the trouble of getting it for me! I’m so glad I found your channel! Secondly, will commoner pops be subdivided? Like, of 100k commoners, 50k are serfs, 10k are free peasants, 20k are laborers/miners, and 20k are urban workers? I don’t have a deep understand of the late medieval labor market, but I know that free labor became more prominent over time.
Island blockade question got me thinking. I hope there will be more destruction options unlike in EU4 button raze province and give debuff. Like invading before harvesting season and burning all the fields, or destroy centers of production or docks. Or like cover land with salt or something. I feel genocidal today i guess, for some reason.
