We need to talk about Trade Winds 

3:40 I have read that least for some ships/boats broad reach might be faster than running downwind, due to how sails are shaped and constructed and placed.

Carlos Bacellar by any chance?

@@pedrolmlkzk *Foda pra caralho*

i have 2.5k hours and all i knew about them was "arrow on map look cool"

​@@StarGamerGirlavarage eu4 player , doesn't know anything not useeful. Midmacing life is our job and making economy go up

@@muratonuryilmaz5385 my job in Europa universalis 4 is "force limit get big"

What did you think the green arrows in the ocean where?

@@huskadog7748 I mean most of the playerbase doesn't play with colonisation system as it is kinda repetitive and boring (I think they don't know about genocide button) .

This and the lack of what we'd call guerilla warfare are my biggest grippes with EU4. Historically even by the time of Victoria 2/3 the US-Indian wars were still ongoing, yet in game the entirety of the Americas are "pacified" by the mid 1600s. Not to mention that implementing a proper "small, decentralized forces doing hit and run attacks on a larger foe" would massively help improve rebellions as well.

@@crazeelazee7524 I agree, but guerilla warfare is impossible to implement in a grand strategy game.

@@Passer__ You technically could by giving provinces huge negative modifiers, kind of like how hoi4 gives you bad national spirits to represent those things. It would just be an unfun annoyance though and not really something you engage with unless it was like +90% attrition for armies in the province.

I'd also added to the list the complete disregard of the supply mechanics and the whole idea about certain areas being impossible to traverse by huge armies. Like it makes absolutely no sense to see when I play say Russia or some horde to see my enemies from the other side of the world to march across this whole world with their whole army just to occupy fucking 3 dev provinces in Siberia. It doesn't make sense from any angle you look at it. Like literally, Russia colonised whole of Siberia with armies almost never comprising more than a thousand men. More ragtag bands of adventurers than armies. Even when there were conflicts with huge empires like say the sieges of Albazin by the Qing dynasty in the mid 17th century. None of the sides had more than several thousands people present. The defenders were counted in hundreds even. It was simply logistically impossible to bring stacks of hundreds of thousands of men. They'd be all dead long before reaching those wastelands from either side. The same is true about the Spanish conquest of Americas. Which brings us to another issue, the complete disregard of the European/Gunpowder empires' superiority in technology. Neither Russians, nor Spanish needed equal amounts of troops to defeat the natives. Five hundred men with guns were enough to topple a mesoamerican empire or a Siberian khanate. I do hope these things will be addressed in the "project Caesar".

​@@michael_crowThe spanish didnt conquer the aztecs and incas through gunpowder, but through diseases and those empires internal power struggles. The europeans only really started gaining a major advantage in technology during industrialization. Of course they did have some advantage from better technology but that was not wat really allowed them to conquer so much. I would definintly love to see those diseases and other things represented in eu5

Yup, and even then, barely.

I feel like they exist specifically as they do to keep England and France from colonizing before Portugal and Spain.

@@TheGreatDanishIf that’s the case, they’re not working. Britain always takes the whole New World by 1600.

They also effect trade, atleast they state it, but trait getting steered into the direction of the wind will flow better than against it. dont know the modifier tho but if you hover over the winds (trademapmode) its stated what they do.

Epic

3:40 is what you mean and no not directly into it but slightly as seen on the image.

@@WeedmanSkirr hey reading comprehension much?

@@citricdemon writing fail by you and i pointed it Out. Dont worry i got what you meant Just corrected how to say it.

@@WeedmanSkirr you're sub 40 IQ

No fair you can, but I am also under that impression that this 'technique' was invented in the 15th/16th centuries, as Baltic Traders frequently reported being unable to sail into the wind for example. Furthermore, it still does mean that you are doing so very very slowly.

@@LemonCake101 Fairly sure tacking was always a thing, although modern boats (and longships, but they weren't exactly popular with the iberians during the age of sail) are waaay better at it. There were improvements made during the 15/16th centuries to make it easier (more advanced rigging and hull designs for example), but it was always a fundamental skill (we know greeks and romans did it for example). I would imagine that the reason they used those routes wasn't because it was impossible to sail along the African coast, but that it was just massively inefficient. It's like having a Jeep and choosing to drive to another city completely offroad instead of taking the highway. Why would you? It also becomes a logistical nightmare as you'd need far more supplies (or resupply off the african cost, have fun), and require a lot more active effort & skill by the crew instead of just riding the wind. So obviously I'm not arguing that there's no reason they chose not to sail along the coast, just pointing out it's perfectly possible to sail against the wind (upwind). The worst thing that could happen would be for there to be *no* wind. That's when you're actually hosed. You'll take a roaring storm over total quiet.

@@TheRealXartaX Fair enough: I was very much under the impression the technic more specifically was invented in the 15th/16th century, as there are also some sources I saw from the 14th about Hansatic Merchants lamenting about being unable to progress against the winds.

@@LemonCake101 That was probably more to do with the rigging they had than the lack of technique. Square rigged galleons (which the spaniards used a ton for example) notoriously sucked at sailing upwind. This is why you saw the emergence of ship types like Caravels which were far better at it.

@@TheRealXartaX that would make sense

I mean normally go for a WC, get a bunch of merchants + level 3 nodes for the navy tradition, and the army tradition is just... sieging half the planet (you get +2 per won siege)

I did it as Great Britain

Its the transatlantic trade in the... music instrument, yes.

For sure...

Ah thanks for the clarification! I do remember reading somewhere that straight from behind is not the best, but I couldn't get a source there with google so I decided to not claim something that could be wrong.

Most ships at the time used square rigged sails which simply depend on being pushed for propulsion. It took until relatively recently before airfoil based sails became common and allow for faster than wind travel.

@leutnev how do i find you

​@@LemonCake101 any claim to the "fastest course to the wind" is a bit dubious, since it depends so much on the boat. For the big liners of that era I think it is safe to say that courses with the wind from behind are faster (since that is what the ships were made for!). Modern boats can achieve better speeds on other courses, but if you use a sail like a gennaker you can still achieve more speed downwind. If you look at some of the last cargo sailship types like windjammers, they are still mostly square rigged which makes them more suitable for downwind courses.

​@@PetrifiedNightmaressquare and airfoils are not the only two options. Fore-and-aft rigging has been around since the 15th century in Europe.

Good point, I didn't think about that!

Nothing to do with trade we are good :P

For sure

I remember there was a mod that turned big rivers into very thin sea tiles, which made many landlocked provinces into coastal ones. I hope they do the same in the Project Caesar. With streams, of course, so it would be hard to sail against a stream.

@@pelinalwhitestrake3367 I've seen it both in HOI 4's old world blues mod and in EU 4's Antebellum mod, where ships could sail through some major rivers. It's hard not to notice ships going between the Black and Caspian seas, lol.

​@@pelinalwhitestrake3367Ck3 also did it in base game for major rivers. Unfortunately eu5 is confirmed to not have navigable rivers. They might use them for the trade system implementation though.

Rivers at least have centers of trade to represent that, although they could do with a bonus to supply limit and development cost for major rivers, or something like that. Transporting troops up a river requires small ships with oars and is much easier for people along the river to stop so it'd be a ton of work to include that for not much effect, whereas trade winds could work just by greatly boosting their effects + adding them to the other oceans + maybe making colonial range factor return trip in as well. That and in an ideal world they'd have seasonal monsoon winds in the Indian Ocean, but still easier than making river travel work.

You can on non-square sails, this is one of the big sailing innovations being done in the 15th century. For older boats from for example the 13th century used in the Baltic, the honest reality was… no.

@@LemonCake101 as far as I know it was even more inefficient and slow as you needed to be more to the side of where the wind was blowing from, but still doable, but wouldn't bet my life on it since I don't have personal experience with that.

@@crusader8102 fair enough: to be clear you do have more experience in this clearly, I just remember reading around that the non-square sail innovations helped with that, and a couple sources of Baltic Trades basically '13th century coping' about being unable to progress against the wind, at all.

@@LemonCake101 I mean just to be clear, even with modern sails going against the wind you will make progress easily 2-3 times slower than with the wind, so I'd guess with square sails it'd be even worse, meaning persistent wind blowing from where you're trying to go makes long range travel at least unfeasible. Also, just wanted to say that it's really neat that you're willing to admit you may have been wrong, shit's rare on the internet. And also great vid.

@@crusader8102 Thanks! But yeah to be clear, the research for the 'progress against Wind' claim was 3 historical sources total, and my experience sailing personally is... I was on a sailboat once when I was 7. No reason to die on hills unless I am fully confident in my beliefs, and that applies more to Eu4 then claims around sailing. Thank you for popping into the conversation!

Sorry

It's time

That's fair too, at the end of the day you have to choose something to not care about.

Looking good from the maps in fairness!

:)

Yes

physics is fun

Math names be funny sometimes like the as for mentioned hairy ball theorem or the cox-zucker machine

Distances are done literally by province distance in pixels basically: more provinces doesn’t make distance increase.

Wow, that's really cool! I have a very 'hobbyist/enthusiast' level of understanding here, so I hope I didn't get too many things wrong. That is a fascinating career path, I mean how do you/your company make money if you don't mind me asking? I am assuming you are no longer transporting trade goods to and from China for example.

Ah fair

I don't think that's possible

Lads! I broke his English!

@@theorixlux fixed it

@@LemonCake101 damn... Was really hoping it was supposed to be read "I don't (desperation).... That's /p o s s i b l e/"

@@theorixlux ah sorry

I looked at it, and it is getting more interesting, but there are not enough modifiers in the game right now for that to work in my opinion

Rip

Fair enough!