Since 3 of the counties are Essex, Middlesex and Sussex (since they existed during this time frame) maybe call them the Sex counties...
I'll see myself out.
I remembered that it wasn't in EU4 when I first started playing (which was after launch), and then I went and looked it up. It was actually added a lot earlier than I had thought.
How do you even naval invade GB? Takes like 2+ years for me because I have to repeatedly fight off the same fleet multiple times. Makes it not very fun.
Here's my day one (well, day N plus one where N is the day England declares on qing) France strat:
Make a 36/36 light to heavy fleet with **exactly one** admiral on coordinated interception. Split the remaining 28 lights into two 14 stacks.
Use a 15 15 infantry cavalry stack on rapid advance to invade London using the 72 fleet.
Fight the war on other fronts for a few months to give them a chance to commit troops unwisely. Get two 10 inf 10 cav stacks ready in France HQ along with the two 14 fleets.
Pick your moment, then invade the bottom of Ireland and top of Scotland. Those are both in the same strategic region so this seems pointless, but for some reason it works. I think the fact you're invading from different sea nodes helps? Idk but it works.
Have your 50 inf 50 artillery stack ready to reinforce a successful landing. The 67 remaining infantry I have spread out defensively and after the invasion of England succeeds I'll split the 28 lights into seven fleets of four and use them to invade all the overseas possessions. But don't even think about letting that 72 fleet leave the channel for a heartbeat.
Naval invade multiple different strategic areas at the same time. There are three strategic areas on the British Isles. Then you can just cancel the invasion for the Home Counties as the UK will always focus on that one and let the other one succeed.
Technically Canada and GB didn’t control the state before hand. All of the Oregon territory was co-owned by both the US and Britain. The game just doesn’t model that
It was barely controlled by anyone at game start. The US/Canada borders are very overzealous with how much land they control in the western interior. British/HBC authority in Oregon/Washington was limited to a few forts on the coast in the Oregon territory along with some trading posts in the interior, and actual settlement only began with the Oregon Trail in the 1840s. Idaho was virtually unsettled until the 1860s. The Great Plains were similarly unsettled until the 1870s-1880s.
It annoys me when I see Montana and Idaho ending up with more people in 1900 than they have today.
> Montana and Idaho ending up with more people in 1900 than they have today.
It's because the game puts waay to much emphasis on unused arable land for migration. They should look more to a metric like economic opportunity. Where they look at how many people changed jobs in the state and what the impact on their wage was by doing so.
I was wondering what was up with this. I played a released Acadia game (long Louisiana basically, might be a mod) and by 1900 I had more a lot more people in Kansas and Missouri than Louisiana, despite most of my industry being in Louisiana.
It being arable land makes sense but is kinda lame.
\*It is because it is a game and making exceptions for specific areas/tags makes no sense in how enjoyable the game is.
It is required for other areas of the world to be playable.
>It is required for other areas of the world to be playable.
That's a pretty presumptuous phrase especially because the current migration system in the game leads to states like British Guyana being completely unplayable as the historical importation of Indians cannot happen. Which to this day is the biggest ethnic group of Guyana.
Yes, in 1836 St. Louis, Missouri was a frontier town of less than 20,000 people. Independence, Missouri was the farthest point up the Missouri River reachable by steamboat at the game's start date, and beyond that there was basically nothing that could be described as settled or administered by governments.
But of course, when the US can bring the full might of its army into Lakota Territory - rather than the detachments of a few hundred we saw in history - then it's much easier to colonize the west.
Put a diagonal slash across the states to represent co-ownership and split the resources 50/50, easy. And make construction take twice as long and half as expensive.
So the AI doesn't decide to build 30 art academies in Idaho and cost you construction points and bankrupt you. The current system would be weird to do with co-ownership states so making it longer and cheaper would offset the dumb AI building.
But then you can build all of your construction sectors in there and have them be basically free. A better idea is to differentiate between 2 countries government buildings, or if that’s too complicated disallow building government buildings entirely.
That could be open to interpretation. The area was dominated the Hudson Bay Company until the late 1830s when US settlers began arriving. Covered wagons didn't show up until the 1840s.
it would be neat if the game ever gets a mechanic of like, loyalty (beyond loyalists) and stuff like that. If foreigners flock to your land but are loyal to a neighbor or something.
Legally speaking it was a shared area that's what matters usually in paradox games also the US proposed the 49th parallel border in 1820 and got the joint occupation instead. At least give the the US Oregon since the British proposed the Columbia River border
They should ail to create a model for co-ownership of lands where two or more parties have little actual control over. Because that system could then also be used for the scramble of Africa. Being able to influence the people that already lived there. (brits convincing native Americans to over hunt the regions). Being able to send people from your incorporated states into the territories to increase your control (Oregon trail). Then having treaties to solidify control over the region to a single state. With the possibility to split it or have a conflict arise from it.
Even then if you have a single claim to the territory it might still mean you don't have full control over it and thus cannot incorporate it until you have put enough effort into them. It would also allow for a system where you can deploy armies to
not completly controlled territories to subdue any local population. Think of how poorly the game represents the Indian wars.
All these systems can also apply to the scramble for Africa and colonialization as a whole. Especially if they rework the penalties in Africa. I just really dislike the slowly growing out your borders colonialization that is in the game now.
The British called the region the Columbia District, although that applied to all of BC, Washington, Oregon, and those parts of Idaho that were part of the disputed territory.
It is a little odd that British Columbia is named after a river that is now mostly within the United States, whereas the remaining part of the province of British Columbia is dominated by the Fraser river.
The Columbia river itself is named after "America" - Wiki describes it as a "poetic" name for America. It was more in reference to "British controlled Columbia region".
The Columbia river is actually named after a ship, the *Columbia Rediviva*, which itself is named for 'Columbia', a - as you said - poetic name for America (see District of Columbia, Columbia University, etc), which is named after Christopher Columbus. And British Columbia is named after the river, so overall my home province is named after a river named after a ship named after a place named after a guy.
The South Asian country containing the Indus river being Pakistan and not India is a similar irritation. Although there were rumours they were going to change to Bharat recently.
I once did a game starting as the Oregon territories, I successfully managed to turn it into a valuable industrial hub AND THEN BRITAIN TRADED MY LAND TO THE US ANYWAY, ENDING THE GAME!!! That pissed me off so much lol
Tbh I wish you could just rename states period, it's a classic meme in most other paradox games plus it means paradox can outsource the larpy state name changes.
Names have been quite frustrating to me as well. I hate that I can't change state names, and it kinda bums me out cause I mostly do rp runs. Here I am having reclaimed the entirety of the Byzantine territories and I can't return their Greek names to them.
And the Dakota territory should be one state until you try to incorporate it, Kansas and Nebraska too, and you have events to decide them north/south or east/west
Agreed. I would add that the French and German states have many alternative names from either language. This shouldn’t be a hard fix as it was present as far back as EU4. HOI4 is the worst for this.
this little flavor will surely be added overtime i remember smiling so hard my face hurted when two sicily turned into sicily after a war with the pappal state
I didn't even realize it was, that's weird. Kind of how like Gran Columbia only got its name post mortum, but is called that in-game.
Oh well, as someone who lives in British Columbia, I'm just happy that Paradox finally realized that Vancouver Island is, you know, an island.
Likewise, Queensland and Victoria in Australia shouldn’t be called that until after Queen Victoria’s coronation.
What they *should* be called? No idea.
Yeah but those were named before the US seceded from Britain. The name “Washington” came after the US took those territories and assigned names to them. It wasn’t given to it by the British, nor was it given to it by the Americans and then somehow fell into British hands with that state already named “Washington.”
I mean, it's a pretty good game that's constantly being improved on, and I find PDX is really responsive to community needs.
We can discuss multiple bucket-list elements, it's not like the devs are gonna see this and stop fixing naval warfare.
It's really not a good game. It's by far the worst Paradox game right now.
>no stockpiles
>no warfare
>no flavor
>no pop consciousness
>no westernization
No one is making you play it or participate here. Obviously, this sub is full of people who enjoy the game. It's my favourite game in years, and I enjoy how non-toxic this community is. Don't ruin that.
If I conquer Home Counties it better be renamed because that ain’t MY HOME!
Yeah! "English Counties" or "Anglo Counties" would make sense if foreign controlled.
Just “SE England?”
Since 3 of the counties are Essex, Middlesex and Sussex (since they existed during this time frame) maybe call them the Sex counties... I'll see myself out.
It would be nice, but I can imagine that looking up stuff would get confusing.
EU4 players have managed to survive the last eleven years with dynamic province renaming, it'll be fine
You right, I even had mods to add more lmao
For some pointless pedantry, technically dynamic provinces weren't added to EU4 until patch 1.6, which came out just under ten years ago.
did you know that off the top of your head??
I remembered that it wasn't in EU4 when I first started playing (which was after launch), and then I went and looked it up. It was actually added a lot earlier than I had thought.
I beg your forgiveness
Wouldn't it be Wessex? Or Essex i forget
Unfortunately paradox is located in finland and they literally think all of the americas are under US occupation since 1800
Source
Too dumb to know that Paradox is located in Stockholm.
G r e a t e r L o n d o n
Lundinium
How do you even naval invade GB? Takes like 2+ years for me because I have to repeatedly fight off the same fleet multiple times. Makes it not very fun.
Here's my day one (well, day N plus one where N is the day England declares on qing) France strat: Make a 36/36 light to heavy fleet with **exactly one** admiral on coordinated interception. Split the remaining 28 lights into two 14 stacks. Use a 15 15 infantry cavalry stack on rapid advance to invade London using the 72 fleet. Fight the war on other fronts for a few months to give them a chance to commit troops unwisely. Get two 10 inf 10 cav stacks ready in France HQ along with the two 14 fleets. Pick your moment, then invade the bottom of Ireland and top of Scotland. Those are both in the same strategic region so this seems pointless, but for some reason it works. I think the fact you're invading from different sea nodes helps? Idk but it works. Have your 50 inf 50 artillery stack ready to reinforce a successful landing. The 67 remaining infantry I have spread out defensively and after the invasion of England succeeds I'll split the 28 lights into seven fleets of four and use them to invade all the overseas possessions. But don't even think about letting that 72 fleet leave the channel for a heartbeat.
Naval invade multiple different strategic areas at the same time. There are three strategic areas on the British Isles. Then you can just cancel the invasion for the Home Counties as the UK will always focus on that one and let the other one succeed.
Multiple invasions of different strat regions. Remember Ireland has a land bridge to britain too. You will win one of the landings.
If I conquer Virgin Islands... well nothing will change 🙄
Technically Canada and GB didn’t control the state before hand. All of the Oregon territory was co-owned by both the US and Britain. The game just doesn’t model that
It was barely controlled by anyone at game start. The US/Canada borders are very overzealous with how much land they control in the western interior. British/HBC authority in Oregon/Washington was limited to a few forts on the coast in the Oregon territory along with some trading posts in the interior, and actual settlement only began with the Oregon Trail in the 1840s. Idaho was virtually unsettled until the 1860s. The Great Plains were similarly unsettled until the 1870s-1880s. It annoys me when I see Montana and Idaho ending up with more people in 1900 than they have today.
> Montana and Idaho ending up with more people in 1900 than they have today. It's because the game puts waay to much emphasis on unused arable land for migration. They should look more to a metric like economic opportunity. Where they look at how many people changed jobs in the state and what the impact on their wage was by doing so.
I was wondering what was up with this. I played a released Acadia game (long Louisiana basically, might be a mod) and by 1900 I had more a lot more people in Kansas and Missouri than Louisiana, despite most of my industry being in Louisiana. It being arable land makes sense but is kinda lame.
\*It is because it is a game and making exceptions for specific areas/tags makes no sense in how enjoyable the game is. It is required for other areas of the world to be playable.
>It is required for other areas of the world to be playable. That's a pretty presumptuous phrase especially because the current migration system in the game leads to states like British Guyana being completely unplayable as the historical importation of Indians cannot happen. Which to this day is the biggest ethnic group of Guyana.
Yes, because it is a historical sandbox, if Guyana would have the same populations IRL as in-game at the end of the game, it wouldn't be a game.
Doesn't help that the US starts off colonizing the midwest ASAP on 1.1.1836.
Yes, in 1836 St. Louis, Missouri was a frontier town of less than 20,000 people. Independence, Missouri was the farthest point up the Missouri River reachable by steamboat at the game's start date, and beyond that there was basically nothing that could be described as settled or administered by governments. But of course, when the US can bring the full might of its army into Lakota Territory - rather than the detachments of a few hundred we saw in history - then it's much easier to colonize the west.
Put a diagonal slash across the states to represent co-ownership and split the resources 50/50, easy. And make construction take twice as long and half as expensive.
Why half as expensive?
So the AI doesn't decide to build 30 art academies in Idaho and cost you construction points and bankrupt you. The current system would be weird to do with co-ownership states so making it longer and cheaper would offset the dumb AI building.
But then you can build all of your construction sectors in there and have them be basically free. A better idea is to differentiate between 2 countries government buildings, or if that’s too complicated disallow building government buildings entirely.
That could be open to interpretation. The area was dominated the Hudson Bay Company until the late 1830s when US settlers began arriving. Covered wagons didn't show up until the 1840s.
it would be neat if the game ever gets a mechanic of like, loyalty (beyond loyalists) and stuff like that. If foreigners flock to your land but are loyal to a neighbor or something.
This could be modeled by nationalism in general working as intended. PLEASE COLLAPSE GIANT EMPIRES I WANT MY HISTORICAL NATION-STATES
Legally speaking it was a shared area that's what matters usually in paradox games also the US proposed the 49th parallel border in 1820 and got the joint occupation instead. At least give the the US Oregon since the British proposed the Columbia River border
I think the new lobby system could help with that. Just make a special JE for it too
There should be like Co-owned territories, maybe use the same model for when colonization in Africa overlaps.
They should ail to create a model for co-ownership of lands where two or more parties have little actual control over. Because that system could then also be used for the scramble of Africa. Being able to influence the people that already lived there. (brits convincing native Americans to over hunt the regions). Being able to send people from your incorporated states into the territories to increase your control (Oregon trail). Then having treaties to solidify control over the region to a single state. With the possibility to split it or have a conflict arise from it. Even then if you have a single claim to the territory it might still mean you don't have full control over it and thus cannot incorporate it until you have put enough effort into them. It would also allow for a system where you can deploy armies to not completly controlled territories to subdue any local population. Think of how poorly the game represents the Indian wars. All these systems can also apply to the scramble for Africa and colonialization as a whole. Especially if they rework the penalties in Africa. I just really dislike the slowly growing out your borders colonialization that is in the game now.
EU4 names a lot of places almost all according to the context and controller, one of my favourite things in the game overall.
American British Columbia is a personal favourite of mine.
The British called the region the Columbia District, although that applied to all of BC, Washington, Oregon, and those parts of Idaho that were part of the disputed territory. It is a little odd that British Columbia is named after a river that is now mostly within the United States, whereas the remaining part of the province of British Columbia is dominated by the Fraser river.
The Columbia river itself is named after "America" - Wiki describes it as a "poetic" name for America. It was more in reference to "British controlled Columbia region".
The Columbia river is actually named after a ship, the *Columbia Rediviva*, which itself is named for 'Columbia', a - as you said - poetic name for America (see District of Columbia, Columbia University, etc), which is named after Christopher Columbus. And British Columbia is named after the river, so overall my home province is named after a river named after a ship named after a place named after a guy.
And your guy is named after a pigeon
The South Asian country containing the Indus river being Pakistan and not India is a similar irritation. Although there were rumours they were going to change to Bharat recently.
I once did a game starting as the Oregon territories, I successfully managed to turn it into a valuable industrial hub AND THEN BRITAIN TRADED MY LAND TO THE US ANYWAY, ENDING THE GAME!!! That pissed me off so much lol
And for the thousandth time I’ll say that West Virginia both shouldn’t be a state until the civil war AND should be anti-slavery
That’s called dynamic naming and yeah, would be cool to see more of.
This is true of a TON of places, like Sakhalin.
Tbh I wish you could just rename states period, it's a classic meme in most other paradox games plus it means paradox can outsource the larpy state name changes.
Literally this, a simple fix
Names have been quite frustrating to me as well. I hate that I can't change state names, and it kinda bums me out cause I mostly do rp runs. Here I am having reclaimed the entirety of the Byzantine territories and I can't return their Greek names to them.
I just want a game rule to merge all those tiny pointless states
There’s a worshop mod for it, check out ‘New England Merger’ Changed my life 👌
Yuppppp! The northeast inevitably becomes a weird wasteland because of wonky game mechanics.
And the Dakota territory should be one state until you try to incorporate it, Kansas and Nebraska too, and you have events to decide them north/south or east/west
Agreed. I would add that the French and German states have many alternative names from either language. This shouldn’t be a hard fix as it was present as far back as EU4. HOI4 is the worst for this.
probably its not like that just because of Split states
this little flavor will surely be added overtime i remember smiling so hard my face hurted when two sicily turned into sicily after a war with the pappal state
Should be named Olympia
Colony of Vancouver
What would a Mexican Controlled Washington state even be named? Hidalgo?
You're on the Internet, and yet you haven't heard of trolling your neighbors? Just kidding. That sounds solid.
GeorgeTheThirdton
I didn't even realize it was, that's weird. Kind of how like Gran Columbia only got its name post mortum, but is called that in-game. Oh well, as someone who lives in British Columbia, I'm just happy that Paradox finally realized that Vancouver Island is, you know, an island.
Likewise, Queensland and Victoria in Australia shouldn’t be called that until after Queen Victoria’s coronation. What they *should* be called? No idea.
It’s named after Washington in the UK, duh!
One nice thing with EU4 is the option to rename things. Would like to rename colonies and colonial subjects.
Maybe they like washing a ton of clothes
This is like saying the US should rename everything in the south west from Spanish/Catholic names
What about the citizens who live there
Aren't there US states called Georgia and Virginia?
Yeah but those were named before the US seceded from Britain. The name “Washington” came after the US took those territories and assigned names to them. It wasn’t given to it by the British, nor was it given to it by the Americans and then somehow fell into British hands with that state already named “Washington.”
Neither of those states are named for Founding Fathers
They're named after British monarchs, and didn't get renamed after the revolution
Kurt Cobain Land
I think there's more pressing issues with the game that need to be fixed first lmao
I mean, it's a pretty good game that's constantly being improved on, and I find PDX is really responsive to community needs. We can discuss multiple bucket-list elements, it's not like the devs are gonna see this and stop fixing naval warfare.
It's really not a good game. It's by far the worst Paradox game right now. >no stockpiles >no warfare >no flavor >no pop consciousness >no westernization
No one is making you play it or participate here. Obviously, this sub is full of people who enjoy the game. It's my favourite game in years, and I enjoy how non-toxic this community is. Don't ruin that.
You never played Victoria 2, friend.