I hope in EU4 there is more of an incentive to play into the late game! Hopefully the model you have set up is good at keeping rapid expansion in check and leading too a more fun end game this time around.
The 3 tiers...
- Thread starter Johan
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
I hope in EU4 there is more of an incentive to play into the late game! Hopefully the model you have set up is good at keeping rapid expansion in check and leading too a more fun end game this time around.
I would put only one of those instead of Sweden, which is nowhere near to deserve such an attention on the expense of other, far more important countries.. Netherlands is not because as you already explained, it's not a guarantee that it will be formed. Poland isn't either because if it would be, it would always become the Big Red Blob we saw so many times in EU3. But yes, Poland could be there too. Would make more sense than Sweden.
Sorry that I was so heretic that I dared to criticize an idea posted by Paradox
By the way, how are your basic comprehension skills? Because you didn't manage to understand what I wrote, and also tried to insult me instantly.Well, we disagree here. For instance, it was the Spanish Armada England was afraid of, not the Irish.
Last edited:
Wow man look at a history book, the english were scared to hell of the irish during the spanish armada, the Spainish were allied with ireland (the catholic connection) and were going to use the isle as a base to conquer England, again ireland was one of england/britains greatest weaknesses.
Because Ireland wasn't a weakness but really a large source of manpower and food? Because Ireland itself did pretty much nothing in this era other than get abused?
Lol another fellow that knows alot. Geuss you didnt ever read about all the revolts ireland had, many of which were successful in this time period not to mention the plots they were apart of with other countries regarding the downfall of england, so yah i dont know how you cant call that a weakness.The man power the english did get usually came back to haunt them. You could actually say ireland served as manpower for france and spain if you ever heard of the infamous wild geese, all the irish regiments and nobles that served for those countries in hopes of freeing ireland.
Last edited:
Well, just give Irish territories higher revolt risk then. No need to give nations anything special for revolting.
I just want ireland to be easier to unite, it was hard as hell in Eu3 there should be more events or unique national ideas to help them, because historically they were able to unite and stomp the english out on different occasions. Higher revolt risks wont help anyone but maybe if all the the irish provinces had claims/cores against each other and meath that would help and it would be correct due to the fact that many irish lords were trying to unite the isle at the starting period of this game.
How exactly do you justify to make a country that gets devoured by its neighbours, including Sweden which you don't want in the top tier, to be tier 1?
Ireland is too easy to unite. Its not hard. You don't need claims in EU3, -2 stability for a war of aggression is nothing for a 1-2 province minor. The form Ireland decision doesn't require any cores and then gives you them for free. The only difficult bit is waiting for your ally to beat England for you. With spy provoked patriot rebels you don't even need to get Meath in a peace deal.
Ireland never united as an independent country. Irish revolts would be events for an England controlling Ireland, a independent free Ireland would have no need to have events representing their revolts against a country that isn't controlling them.
Asking for ahistorical united Ireland to be a tiered nation is like asking for Italy or Germany to get the same treatment. Conaught and Tyrone deserve it as much as Serbia or Wallachia.
If England doesn't have any events that makes them feel like they would be better off giving up on Ireland then that would be a mistake. Unless England gets an option to release a united Ireland in a personal union with them we aren't going to be playing Irish rebels.
Irish rebellions are a major part of the history of England. The way EU handles countries Ireland isn't one of them.
Ireland never united as an independent country. Irish revolts would be events for an England controlling Ireland, a independent free Ireland would have no need to have events representing their revolts against a country that isn't controlling them.
Asking for ahistorical united Ireland to be a tiered nation is like asking for Italy or Germany to get the same treatment. Conaught and Tyrone deserve it as much as Serbia or Wallachia.
If England doesn't have any events that makes them feel like they would be better off giving up on Ireland then that would be a mistake. Unless England gets an option to release a united Ireland in a personal union with them we aren't going to be playing Irish rebels.
Irish rebellions are a major part of the history of England. The way EU handles countries Ireland isn't one of them.
Good english is important because it makes you understandable.
Scotland is far from just England's puppet, especially seeing as they were (at least briefly) dominant in Great Britain.
Whilst I will admit Ireland had importance, it wasn't really an independent colonial power, or an independent trade hub, or somewhere that went out and conquered other countries. At most it was a rebellious part of Great Britain during the period after it was forcibly integrated.
China on the other hand is a major trading nation, and was the regional power for most of the time frame, albeit under two different sets of rulership.
In exactly the same way that England was concerned the spanish armada would be able to gain harbour in Scotland, Sweden, Orkney or the Shetlands.
Ireland at the period was legally part of England (or at least the title of "Lord of Ireland" was held by Elizabeth), it wasn't an independent nation, and thus the Spanish seeking harbour there can't be modelled unless the game allows for them to get friendly rebels giving control of the province to them.
Yes, these revolts were so successful that the well know independent King of Ireland took his place at international meetings of kings, and their plots to cause England's downfall were successful, utterly destroying it as a world power.
Irish regiments and nobles serving for other countries would be handled as mercenaries, which ever way these are handled in EUIV, or perhaps, should they rise during a war, as nationalist/separatist rebels.
There's a reason why Ireland takes effort to unite - you need to beat England to it. Why should there be something to make it easier to do something ahistoric, whilst preventing the historical result of Ireland being eaten up by England, and essentially held as a part of the English, and later British crown until 1919 or 1922 (depending on your politics).
Just because many lords were trying to unite an area doesn't mean that they should have legitimate cores/claims on each other. After all, England was trying to unite Ireland to itself - does this mean England should start with the whole of Ireland cored? Of course not.
You guys both make good points and i respect that but in Eu3 there was actually two time periods in which you could litterally play as a unified ireland corresponding to events i already mentioned. Lol i've always done that stratergy your talkin about closet skeleton but it always took so long to get control of meath and the stability hits really hurt from getting the other three provinces not to mention the unreal amount of infamy you would accumulate. It basically would screw yah up for future ambitions and you need all five provinces to get the create ireland event which you never knew when was coming. I was hoping they would make a storyline for like tryone in which the oneills and odonnells unified ireland and drove the english out, this actually happened and they were backed by the spanish. If not that just give all the provinces cores on each other in ireland. I just like taking one of those provinces and turning it into a colonial empire, I know a lot of people like to do the same, its awesome to see your progress, thats what makes the game fun.
Theres nothing ahistoric about it Dread ireland defeated england numerous times. It would be nice to take the country at those moments and then make your own path with it like they did in Eu3, but i like playing from the start time of the game.And about the cores, England didnt have any big interest in ireland, they had there trade hub in meath and they were happy it wasnt until the Ulster campain on the English did Elizabeth I try to gain real control of Ireland.
Last edited:
Event? You must have played quite an early version. It's been a decision for a long time now. One you can take immediately you have all the provinces.
Besides, 8 infamy is very little to worry about. That's gone in a few years if you're careful.
Give me some dates when united Ireland was even de facto independent for any length of time between 1400 and 1800. The only point I can think of is during the Commonwealth era, and that was more "rebellious but not actively suppressed".
You guys both make good points and i respect that but in Eu3 there was actually two time periods in which you could litterally play as a unified ireland corresponding to events i already mentioned. Lol i've always done that stratergy your talkin about closet skeleton but it always took so long to get control of meath and the stability hits really hurt from getting the other three provinces not to mention the unreal amount of infamy you would accumulate. It basically would screw yah up for future ambitions and you need all five provinces to get the create ireland event which you never knew when was coming. I was hoping they would make a storyline for like tryone in which the oneills and odonnells unified ireland and drove the english out, this actually happened and they were backed by the spanish. If not that just give all the provinces cores on each other in ireland. I just like taking one of those provinces and turning it into a colonial empire, I know a lot of people like to do the sam
24 infamy for 3 whole OPMs and then another 4 for Meath (if you're an idiot and don't just save up the gold and spies). 16 for 2 OPM annexisations, 4 for a vassailisation only delays you 10 years and will mostly be gone before you've beat England.
No, Ireland were the loyalists in the Civil War, England was the rebels. It was basically the era of history where Britain decided to have a joke at its own expense.
Yah dread there was the Irish Catholic Confederacy in 1641 and there was the nine years war in the 1590s, they simulated both these events in Eu3 and made ireland playable, the 1641 one was fun because scotland was revolting at the same time, you could ally with them and kick the hell out of England.Skeleton your off by a century, your talking about 1919. And your probably right dread i hadnt played Eu3 in a while was more interested in vicky2 and CK2 where the irish rocked.
Last edited:
You are of course right. I keep getting mixed up since I've always got a CB or mission on those provinces, or I'm taking them all at once from elsewhere.
And yeah, I'll give you that one about Ireland being the loyalist force.
OK, so the confederate war. Independent for about 11 years, and then "crushed" (to quote wikipedia). So, that was highly successful then.
The nine years war (which took some finding...). I've only got wikipedia available to me at this time of night as a reference, but it suggests that the Irish couldn't take the towns, cities and castles. The Spanish support was a mere 4000 men, so they don't seem to have been massively sincere in their support in that corner of the ongoing Anglo-Spanish war.
Equally successful, and hardly a defeat of England.
As for Skeleton's reference to the civil war, he's talking the Cromwellian or Parliamentarian/Monarchist civil war in the 1600's.
As for cores if the Irish Lords are trying to unite Ireland, since England was trying to unite Ireland to itself, why not also give those cores to England?
I just really hope they simulate the nine years war again, it was the biggest conflict england was involved in during the elizabethan era. Hugh oneill and hugh odonnel united ireland and crushed the english throughout there campaign with superior troops and tactics. The very last battle the Spanish arrived at wrong destination and the english had to use spies to split up the irish army, only way the English could fight and hold out. No need to down play it dread, the irish took everything the only last holding the little englishmen mountjoy had was The Pale. Lol im irish i know my history. Lol and buddy 4,000 men is a lot for the time considering Englands largest raised army during the same era was 12,000 men, better check your facts some more. The English had to raise everything they had and use spies to stop the irish in the last battle, Ireland was definetley one of Englands greatest weakness and problem of the time. A country more than 4 times the size of ireland couldnt even handle it.
Last edited:
Europe should be England, Spain, France and Russia. Asia should be China and Japan, and the remaining two should be the Ottomans and Portugal.
I think that gives the fairest representation of the big powerblocks of the time, and they all, barring Russia, are near/next to each other.
- Status