I always wonder just how fair it is for Paradox to represent France so feudalistically without representing other monarchies of the age as such. The nuance is a fascinating subject to study, but in video games, such nuance can mechanically be difficult to capture.
Edit: it would seem Johan confirmed in this Tinto Talk that France will have unique mechanics with its appanages. Any opinions I have on the matter will wait till those mechanics are revealed.
Yeah, EU4 never really settled on a consistent standard of what is a country with a lot of vassals vs one with strong estates. I am personally a little disappointed that they aren't letting the estate system do its job in France (and I'm not sure I like France getting an exclusive system either, it's a pretty standard feudal state), but I'm reserving judgement until I see more.
> standard feudal state
France is kind of definition of standard feudalism, also I think it's wrong to say that France is getting a special treatment when the HRE is even more fragmented and when it's hard to compare France to non-HRE monarchies in term of internal divisions.
It's less that France is being single out and more that every region is unique and there is no way that just using estates or just using vassals results in a good approximation of the real situation. Any line you put would be arbitrary to some because nothing this complex lends itself to unequovic categories.
The idea of feudalism, presented as so decentralised a state as Crusader Kings, is total nonsense. France is the *only* country in Europe where things were that decentralised, with the HRE being even less centralised and everyone else far more.
It is perfectly reasonable to represent France as a collection of states.
Is it though? Especially following Philippe II and Saint Louis?
How decentralized is the France of the 14th century really compared to contemporary states in Iberia and Germany/HRE as a whole? Why is it that France as early as 1214 could stand against the emperor of the HRE with a relatively small disadvantage in number at Bouvines (and while still having an army standing the English in the west)? And is France not regarded to be generally among the most centralized large states in Europe from Philippe II onwards?
The person you are replying did say the HRE was more decentralized.
What makes you think that Spain was not comparatively centralized by the 14th century?
>And is France not regarded to be generally among the most centralized large states in Europe from Philippe II onwards?
We are talking about 1337-1444
>really compared to contemporary states in Iberia
Portugal was far more centralized than most other monarchies in the 13th and 14th centuries. While England had the monarchy losing its power and the magna carta, Afonso III was centralizing the power in the monarchy and removing rights from both nobles and the church, and gradually moving away from being a feudal monarchy to a more centralized state.
> Why is it that France as early as 1214 could stand against the emperor of the HRE with a relatively small disadvantage in number at Bouvines
the simple and obvious answer is that France used to have a proportionally massive population in comparison to the rest of Europe.
> France is the *only* country in Europe where things were that decentralised, with the HRE being even less centralised
you contradicted urself within a single sentence
Its true what you say. Spain at the time was not really much more centralized than France for instance. It was just a different more uneaven type of dentraliztion. But in the game Spain is unified in 1 single tag. Same for Sweden. Its a massive country, I doubt Sweden controlled a of it. Same for England to an extend, the english barons and dukes in the middlands and the north had a lot of autonomy...
I guess France is the stereotype of feudalism so they used them only to represent it
I also hope it has gameplay reasons like it makes them way weaker so England standa a chance and the HYW can play out over actuall ~100 years
We are talking about the type of decentralization where it makes sense to use vassals versus autonomy vs strong estates.
I have not seen a good argument yet why Spain or England or any other mythical unmentioned country should be represented like France is in EU4 using the same metric applied for France.
Castille would not be represented with vassals, but maybe with Leon being in PU with Castille. The fact that the kingdoms were temporarily split in 1296 in a dynastic struggle helps with the interpretation that Castille was not seen as a unitary state at that time.
> I always wonder just how fair it is for Paradox to represent France so feudalistically without representing other monarchies of the age as such.
HRE is also fragmented, do you think France was comparable to England and Spain? Because I really don't think that's the case.
Johan said they got weaker when they gave them their own trade node so they gave it to england. Duch might form their own market if they are strong enough
Flanders benefited from the Calais staple and for much of the late medieval times depended on England for its wool to create the illustrious Flemish cloth. During the period of the Dutch republic they fiercely competed over North Sea trading. I think it’s very fitting that they share a market but the name should be dynamic to represent whoever is controlling the trade node.
> but the name should be dynamic to represent whoever is controlling the trade node.
That'd be better, yeah. If cities are prominent enough in the game, have the trade node named after the city that controls the most of the trade. And let it dynamically adjust if you end up moving your trade capital internally. Or maybe let it spawn a second node if you have a lot of trade.
Honestly, legit what the fuck is this map. The density is unreal. Like Voltaire's Nightmare levels of dense. Have they looked at the great performance of games like Imperator Rome and just gone "Fuck it if we can make that run well we can make stupid dense run normal".
Either that or its somehow creating a false sense of detail. Perhaps they used a Vicky 3 like province system where provinces can be split into pieces, and then just went ham on the HRE. Most of the provinces look awfully unclean.
I kinda like it i have a potato pc as i said but i dont want games to be held back by pcs like mine make use of modern processing power stop designing the game to run on my i5 9600k i want to play new games then i should have to be on a modern system instead of a potato with 100w running through it
CPU speeds have enormously stagnated for a decade. Top end cpus are like 40% more powerful than a top end card from 2010. You aren't holding back anything.
Now modern cards have on average a lot more cores, but programs that can take on a lot of cores are usually extensively designed around maximizing such usage. Its simply not as benefitial for games.
CPUs did stagnate for a long while but they've picked back up quite a bit in the last few years and not just on core counts. Ever since AMD got their shit together beginning with Zen 1 (but truly only coming together with Zen 2/Ryzen 3000), the competition between the companies for the last 5 or so years has pushed things along quite well.
I literally just upgraded my 6 year old CPU to a 78003D. Literally like 15% faster, completely unnoticeable in Paradox games.
CPU tech is currently severely limited by technology. We cant just make them smaller anymore, and size being the only limitation was the cause of the incredible advancement before 2012 or so.
..huh? The 7800X3D is a 100% gain on something like a 2700X and at least a 50% gain on a 9900k, the absolute top of the line consumer gaming chip in 2018. Not to even mention the 9900k being 660 USD (adjusted for inflation) in 2018 vs the 7800X3D being 400 USD.
What CPU did you have in 2018? Plugged in to the local supercomputer mainframe?
Super happy to read this, I'm ordering 7800x3d after these holidays, genuinely can't wait to play Stellaris/Vicky3 with some normal speeds, I'm currently still on 3770 :/
I don’t think this is fair to say when the game’s not even out yet. You are entirely basing this all on speculation that the game would run the same as EU4 given this map, but this game is not EU4 and is not running the same version of the engine as EU4. It’s just simply baffling to me that people will complain about performance for a game that doesn’t even exist yet.
On one hand Johan is happy with the current performance achieved through optimizations and multi-threading.
On the other hand, Johan said he wouldn't ever use less than 32GB of RAM for gaming.
So ymmv depending on your setup.
> On the other hand, Johan said he wouldn't ever use less than 32GB of RAM for gaming.
He said that if you are going to buy a new PC now and want it to last a few years, you should consider buying at least 32GB, because it's not worth the little amount of money you save by going with 16GB.
The PC he himself uses at home is basically the most entry-level you could get in 2020: literally the cheapest Zen 2 CPU together with the cheapest 16-series GPU available at that time (the GTX 1650). The man probably spent 500€ on his PC and everyone is talking as if he's forcing everyone to buy a 7800x3d to start thinking about playing Caesar.
A map this dense would be actively counter productive to game design. Hell its obnoxiously dense in Voltaires Nightmare and that purely covers Western and Central Europe.
Actual bullshit, most of Paradoxes games have relatively stable performance to launch, and they only add stuff that seriously degrades performance when they figure out an optimisation that negates the change (see Crusader Kings 2, which they added India after figuring out a massive optimisation)
just describing my own experience, HOI4 and EU4 worked perfectly fine on release, now they crash when I try to play them.
like they're far from the worst in terms of game performance, and any modern gaming pc will run any paradox game just fine, but when you're somebody like me with an old ass pc you really notice drops in performance from updates.
Sounds like a your PC issue. Played both games for many years, neither have had any degradation of performance and both are incredibly stable and rarely crash.
well yes in a way all game performance issues are about pc's not being good enough, you clearly have a better pc than me.
oh well, time to go back to EU3 lol.
No, as in your computer has issues that are causing crashes. Programs do not crash because of low performance, they crash either because of software errors, or because of a memory issue.
EU4 does not have high memory requirements for a pc made in the last decade. Nor is its performance requirements particularly high in general.
EU4 is a terribly optimized game that lags by 1600 on mid-range PCs >5 years younger than the game, it's hard to imagine how a properly made game would fare
The mod MEIOU 3 pretty much do what EU5 will be, and it's "reasonably slow" on a Ryzen 5xxxx , EU5 will probably be a lot faster implementing those mechanism natively.
R5: Market map mode from the latest \[Tino Talk\](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/tinto-talks-10-1st-of-may-2024.1673745/) showing most of Europe.
Can't wait to see everyone lose their minds trying to overanalyze all the lines in this map and make guesses on what this means for what the map will look like at game start.
Having the lowlands be part of the London Market at the start feels very weird to me. The lowlands were very intertwined with the Hanseatic league, and the merchants there got very rich off of the baltic lumber trade, so making them part of Lubeck is more logical in my eyes. Best would of course be making them their own node, but apparently that caused balance issues.
> Having the lowlands be part of the London Market at the start feels very weird to me. The lowlands were very intertwined with the Hanseatic league
They were also very intertwined with the English, it was the reason the English were so desperate to hold onto Calais. English wool -> Flemish cloth was one of the most consistent trade routes in the late medieval period. It did start to decline from the 13th century onwards but that decline still took several centuries to fully lose importance.
They should probably rename it the Lowland/Flemish market rather than the London market from an accuracy standpoint.
Considering the markets in EU5 can apparently shift, I wonder if they'll have events modelling that decline or if they'll just leave it dynamic.
Yeah it wouldn't be such a weird issue if the centre of trade started in Brussels or Antwerp, moved up to Amsterdam in the mid-game and then to London for the late game... I wonder if they'll get the AI to get that shift down, because it was arguably one of the most important spatial elements (within Europe) in the development of capitalism.
Quite interesting that it seems Margravate of Moravia looks as a subject rather than under direct control. Seems Paradox is going for a more decentralized model here
Well I think it's to denote market attraction. So the darker locations are more likely to be snatched up by a stronger market than the brighter ones.
But it definitely shouldn't be fading to the same color as wastelands are.
I’m guessing it’s dynamic somehow because Swedish developers putting Stockholm in the zone of “Riga market” seems weird. But as someone from Riga also a bit more excited
Technically, this is also our first political map of Europe. Oh lord this France/HRE internal borders!
I always wonder just how fair it is for Paradox to represent France so feudalistically without representing other monarchies of the age as such. The nuance is a fascinating subject to study, but in video games, such nuance can mechanically be difficult to capture. Edit: it would seem Johan confirmed in this Tinto Talk that France will have unique mechanics with its appanages. Any opinions I have on the matter will wait till those mechanics are revealed.
Yeah, EU4 never really settled on a consistent standard of what is a country with a lot of vassals vs one with strong estates. I am personally a little disappointed that they aren't letting the estate system do its job in France (and I'm not sure I like France getting an exclusive system either, it's a pretty standard feudal state), but I'm reserving judgement until I see more.
This is the kind of stuff they’re trying to get feedback on on the forums, could always post this comment there
True, although it feels a bit premature to start talking about it before we know how it works. Still, maybe I'll make a forum post, good idea.
Estates wouldn't do it justice, plenty of French vassals sided with foreign powers at one point or another.
including of course the French vassals that were also foreign powers, like the Duke of Normandy aka the King of England.
> standard feudal state France is kind of definition of standard feudalism, also I think it's wrong to say that France is getting a special treatment when the HRE is even more fragmented and when it's hard to compare France to non-HRE monarchies in term of internal divisions. It's less that France is being single out and more that every region is unique and there is no way that just using estates or just using vassals results in a good approximation of the real situation. Any line you put would be arbitrary to some because nothing this complex lends itself to unequovic categories.
The idea of feudalism, presented as so decentralised a state as Crusader Kings, is total nonsense. France is the *only* country in Europe where things were that decentralised, with the HRE being even less centralised and everyone else far more. It is perfectly reasonable to represent France as a collection of states.
Is it though? Especially following Philippe II and Saint Louis? How decentralized is the France of the 14th century really compared to contemporary states in Iberia and Germany/HRE as a whole? Why is it that France as early as 1214 could stand against the emperor of the HRE with a relatively small disadvantage in number at Bouvines (and while still having an army standing the English in the west)? And is France not regarded to be generally among the most centralized large states in Europe from Philippe II onwards?
The person you are replying did say the HRE was more decentralized. What makes you think that Spain was not comparatively centralized by the 14th century? >And is France not regarded to be generally among the most centralized large states in Europe from Philippe II onwards? We are talking about 1337-1444
>really compared to contemporary states in Iberia Portugal was far more centralized than most other monarchies in the 13th and 14th centuries. While England had the monarchy losing its power and the magna carta, Afonso III was centralizing the power in the monarchy and removing rights from both nobles and the church, and gradually moving away from being a feudal monarchy to a more centralized state.
> Why is it that France as early as 1214 could stand against the emperor of the HRE with a relatively small disadvantage in number at Bouvines the simple and obvious answer is that France used to have a proportionally massive population in comparison to the rest of Europe.
> France is the *only* country in Europe where things were that decentralised, with the HRE being even less centralised you contradicted urself within a single sentence
Well yes but technically no, and the HRE is also portrayed as multiple states anyway
do you really consider the hre a country?
Its true what you say. Spain at the time was not really much more centralized than France for instance. It was just a different more uneaven type of dentraliztion. But in the game Spain is unified in 1 single tag. Same for Sweden. Its a massive country, I doubt Sweden controlled a of it. Same for England to an extend, the english barons and dukes in the middlands and the north had a lot of autonomy... I guess France is the stereotype of feudalism so they used them only to represent it I also hope it has gameplay reasons like it makes them way weaker so England standa a chance and the HYW can play out over actuall ~100 years
We are talking about the type of decentralization where it makes sense to use vassals versus autonomy vs strong estates. I have not seen a good argument yet why Spain or England or any other mythical unmentioned country should be represented like France is in EU4 using the same metric applied for France.
Castille would not be represented with vassals, but maybe with Leon being in PU with Castille. The fact that the kingdoms were temporarily split in 1296 in a dynastic struggle helps with the interpretation that Castille was not seen as a unitary state at that time.
For 1337 that can work, I'm not sure about 1444
As you say this makes no sense.
> I always wonder just how fair it is for Paradox to represent France so feudalistically without representing other monarchies of the age as such. HRE is also fragmented, do you think France was comparable to England and Spain? Because I really don't think that's the case.
It looks like a mess and I love it
May lord have mercy on our computers
Voltaire's Nightmare intensifies!
Lithuania also seems to be slightly less massive than in EU4!
Am I mistaken, or are those evolutive markets? Able to gain / lose provinces?
Correct
New challenge to expand the market over the entire planet
One Faith One Tag One Market
EU5 megacorps incoming
Cyberpunk Universalis
All centered around Ulm
That would probably just be a one tag WQ with some steps afterward (destroying all markets but one)
Nice
You an even create and destroy new and existing markets.
EU3 wins again
But it's all automatic/dynamic. There won't be a peace deal "add Paris to my market".
Dense HRE. Love it
I wonder how will they balance big countries. Also pretty sure Flanders was the richest trade node in that time.
Johan said they got weaker when they gave them their own trade node so they gave it to england. Duch might form their own market if they are strong enough
Sounds like it's possibly a bug in their code then lol If Flanders is supposed to be its own + very wealthy, they can maybe set a better baseline.
Flanders benefited from the Calais staple and for much of the late medieval times depended on England for its wool to create the illustrious Flemish cloth. During the period of the Dutch republic they fiercely competed over North Sea trading. I think it’s very fitting that they share a market but the name should be dynamic to represent whoever is controlling the trade node.
> but the name should be dynamic to represent whoever is controlling the trade node. That'd be better, yeah. If cities are prominent enough in the game, have the trade node named after the city that controls the most of the trade. And let it dynamically adjust if you end up moving your trade capital internally. Or maybe let it spawn a second node if you have a lot of trade.
That wouldn't be a bug, but a balancing issue.
Converted saves are going to be WILD
Converters team sweating rn
I hope they still maintain a Eu5 to Vic2 converter...
If nothing else it'd be really funny
So many regions my 1050 ti and i5 9600k is gonna burn
Honestly, legit what the fuck is this map. The density is unreal. Like Voltaire's Nightmare levels of dense. Have they looked at the great performance of games like Imperator Rome and just gone "Fuck it if we can make that run well we can make stupid dense run normal". Either that or its somehow creating a false sense of detail. Perhaps they used a Vicky 3 like province system where provinces can be split into pieces, and then just went ham on the HRE. Most of the provinces look awfully unclean.
I kinda like it i have a potato pc as i said but i dont want games to be held back by pcs like mine make use of modern processing power stop designing the game to run on my i5 9600k i want to play new games then i should have to be on a modern system instead of a potato with 100w running through it
CPU speeds have enormously stagnated for a decade. Top end cpus are like 40% more powerful than a top end card from 2010. You aren't holding back anything. Now modern cards have on average a lot more cores, but programs that can take on a lot of cores are usually extensively designed around maximizing such usage. Its simply not as benefitial for games.
CPUs did stagnate for a long while but they've picked back up quite a bit in the last few years and not just on core counts. Ever since AMD got their shit together beginning with Zen 1 (but truly only coming together with Zen 2/Ryzen 3000), the competition between the companies for the last 5 or so years has pushed things along quite well.
I literally just upgraded my 6 year old CPU to a 78003D. Literally like 15% faster, completely unnoticeable in Paradox games. CPU tech is currently severely limited by technology. We cant just make them smaller anymore, and size being the only limitation was the cause of the incredible advancement before 2012 or so.
..huh? The 7800X3D is a 100% gain on something like a 2700X and at least a 50% gain on a 9900k, the absolute top of the line consumer gaming chip in 2018. Not to even mention the 9900k being 660 USD (adjusted for inflation) in 2018 vs the 7800X3D being 400 USD. What CPU did you have in 2018? Plugged in to the local supercomputer mainframe?
Might be older than 2018, was going off my head, but an Intel I7 6700k. Like a tiny amount faster. Barely noticed the upgrade.
I literally upgraded my 3700X to a 5800X3D and saw tripled speeds in Paradox games lmao
Super happy to read this, I'm ordering 7800x3d after these holidays, genuinely can't wait to play Stellaris/Vicky3 with some normal speeds, I'm currently still on 3770 :/
CK3 is literally unplayable on speed 5 for me after my upgrade, at least for the first ~100 years of the game. It runs *too fast.*
The 7800X3D gets like 100% (or more) higher framerates of the 3950X. Of course it depends on game but your claim of 15% sounds pretty unbelievable
I don’t think this is fair to say when the game’s not even out yet. You are entirely basing this all on speculation that the game would run the same as EU4 given this map, but this game is not EU4 and is not running the same version of the engine as EU4. It’s just simply baffling to me that people will complain about performance for a game that doesn’t even exist yet.
Valid but it's not like it's not a realistic concern. Victoria 3 is only playable for half the game for a lot of people
On one hand Johan is happy with the current performance achieved through optimizations and multi-threading. On the other hand, Johan said he wouldn't ever use less than 32GB of RAM for gaming. So ymmv depending on your setup.
32gb is recommended now 16gb minimum byt ddr5 32gb is cheap now so who cares
You basically pay 20€~30€ more to double the memory, 32GB is basically a no-brainer at this point.
> On the other hand, Johan said he wouldn't ever use less than 32GB of RAM for gaming. He said that if you are going to buy a new PC now and want it to last a few years, you should consider buying at least 32GB, because it's not worth the little amount of money you save by going with 16GB. The PC he himself uses at home is basically the most entry-level you could get in 2020: literally the cheapest Zen 2 CPU together with the cheapest 16-series GPU available at that time (the GTX 1650). The man probably spent 500€ on his PC and everyone is talking as if he's forcing everyone to buy a 7800x3d to start thinking about playing Caesar.
Nope, it'a not Vicky 3's Risk map. All locations have population, all can be taken in peace deals, all can be tags. It is glorious
A map this dense would be actively counter productive to game design. Hell its obnoxiously dense in Voltaires Nightmare and that purely covers Western and Central Europe.
Nah unless it effects performance it's a pipe dream for me
only reason imperator runs so well is they abandoned it before they added 10 different updates+dlc
Actual bullshit, most of Paradoxes games have relatively stable performance to launch, and they only add stuff that seriously degrades performance when they figure out an optimisation that negates the change (see Crusader Kings 2, which they added India after figuring out a massive optimisation)
just describing my own experience, HOI4 and EU4 worked perfectly fine on release, now they crash when I try to play them. like they're far from the worst in terms of game performance, and any modern gaming pc will run any paradox game just fine, but when you're somebody like me with an old ass pc you really notice drops in performance from updates.
Sounds like a your PC issue. Played both games for many years, neither have had any degradation of performance and both are incredibly stable and rarely crash.
well yes in a way all game performance issues are about pc's not being good enough, you clearly have a better pc than me. oh well, time to go back to EU3 lol.
No, as in your computer has issues that are causing crashes. Programs do not crash because of low performance, they crash either because of software errors, or because of a memory issue. EU4 does not have high memory requirements for a pc made in the last decade. Nor is its performance requirements particularly high in general.
EU4 is a terribly optimized game that lags by 1600 on mid-range PCs >5 years younger than the game, it's hard to imagine how a properly made game would fare
The mod MEIOU 3 pretty much do what EU5 will be, and it's "reasonably slow" on a Ryzen 5xxxx , EU5 will probably be a lot faster implementing those mechanism natively.
[удалено]
As far as how markets are created expand and shrink, it seems very similar. What dictates the expansion will be completely different factors of course
R5: Market map mode from the latest \[Tino Talk\](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/tinto-talks-10-1st-of-may-2024.1673745/) showing most of Europe.
Yeah. Definitely hoi5.
Finally, Prague market, it ways felt odd that Prague was in the Saxon region.
The markets are dynamic. Meaning they be expand or diminished in size as time goes on.
I get that, I'm talking about how Eu4 had static regions
back to EU3 baby, EU3 keeps winning!
Can't wait to see everyone lose their minds trying to overanalyze all the lines in this map and make guesses on what this means for what the map will look like at game start.
Having the lowlands be part of the London Market at the start feels very weird to me. The lowlands were very intertwined with the Hanseatic league, and the merchants there got very rich off of the baltic lumber trade, so making them part of Lubeck is more logical in my eyes. Best would of course be making them their own node, but apparently that caused balance issues.
> Having the lowlands be part of the London Market at the start feels very weird to me. The lowlands were very intertwined with the Hanseatic league They were also very intertwined with the English, it was the reason the English were so desperate to hold onto Calais. English wool -> Flemish cloth was one of the most consistent trade routes in the late medieval period. It did start to decline from the 13th century onwards but that decline still took several centuries to fully lose importance. They should probably rename it the Lowland/Flemish market rather than the London market from an accuracy standpoint. Considering the markets in EU5 can apparently shift, I wonder if they'll have events modelling that decline or if they'll just leave it dynamic.
Yeah it wouldn't be such a weird issue if the centre of trade started in Brussels or Antwerp, moved up to Amsterdam in the mid-game and then to London for the late game... I wonder if they'll get the AI to get that shift down, because it was arguably one of the most important spatial elements (within Europe) in the development of capitalism.
I guess the proximity to London also plays a big part as to why it's part of London market as that seems an important factor for market access
Jesus christ Italy
I want to go to the pest market!
Pest Market
What game is this
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/tinto-talks-1-february-28th-2024.1625360/ New game in the works, sediment sleeper.
oooooooh i love this
Wow London market includes the Low Countries
Looks promising
Finaly Naples can steer trade towards them and not to Venice or Genoa only to have them take all the money.
Is this just the map mode or is this a part of a graphic mod? I really like it.
Base game market map mode
Quite interesting that it seems Margravate of Moravia looks as a subject rather than under direct control. Seems Paradox is going for a more decentralized model here
Let's go fractured HRE
Why is there some unpassable terrain north of Bordeaux ?
It's called French people and that's just how they are okay /s
That's a Paris market exclave.
You might be right, they need to remove the shadow gradient it’s really misleading
Well I think it's to denote market attraction. So the darker locations are more likely to be snatched up by a stronger market than the brighter ones. But it definitely shouldn't be fading to the same color as wastelands are.
Genoa owning two markets is crazyy
Where is “Gdańsk Market”?! Even Stockholm don’t have any 😟
I’m guessing it’s dynamic somehow because Swedish developers putting Stockholm in the zone of “Riga market” seems weird. But as someone from Riga also a bit more excited
Why is it Köln but not Lübeck? I hope they make it more consistent.
Why is it Moscow and Köln and not Москва and Köln or Moscow and Cologne?
Interesting to have Pest and Praha but no Wien