Trade Policy: Free Trade
Economic Policy: Interventionism
Religious Policy: Pluralism
Citizenship Policy: Full Citizenship
War Policy: Anti-Military
Let's just say, it's very unlikely. But from 100.000 scenario, it is possible that once it happens.
MM has a very big timeline. During this period many great Empires appeared and fallen. I don't get all this whining about ahistorical outcomes. How historical is Teuton Order that was send to christinize Lithuania transformed into greatest German state and in the end united Germany as a single great nation? How historical is tiny Muscowy fighting hordes and conquering all the Rus into biggest empire defeating every invader?
Most unplausible things in EU3 where mechanics added for "historical" purposes. Like that thing with you unable to just annex country you've conquered. When EU3 just went out there were no way to make you think before you click button "Annex France". Now with advanced economy, rebels, culture and infamy you can let player annex anything if he desires to dive into sea of infamy, destroyed trade and endless rebels. And he'd get plausible outcome of ruined country.
So France conquered by England is not ahistorical. Not allowing to do so is ahistorical just as much as making it easy or making it falloutless.
England, Spain, France, or Ottoman Empire, maybe Muscovy/Russia are obviously quite powerful nations with a lot of potential, able to retain or expand their status from 1453 to 1820. Habsburgs, Prussia or Netherlands - not necessarily with 1453 PoD. They should be sometimes replaced by say - Scandinavia, Poland/PLC/Lithuania, Bohemia, Hungary or Burgundy, depending on the course of the game.
Last edited by Tornadoli; 24-04-2012 at 17:02.
Too cool for a signature.
It was Brandenburg not "Teutonic Order -> Duchy of Prussia" that transformed into "greatest German state". Elector of Brandenburg was fortunate to inherit duchy of Prussia, because its last duke was mentally incapable and died without male successor. Later another elector of Brandenburg forged king title out of his most smallest and poorest province, after his predecessor was able to detach duchy from Polish crown vassalage with the help of Swedish arms.
In German minors history there are lot of similar events when state existence depended whether duke or count had any son and how many of them (gavelkind succession).
There were at least two moments during this game's timeframe when Habsburgs almost died out naturally.
Also "tiny" Muscovy was allied (not fighting against) with horde, under which protection it was able to conquer every Russian principality one by one.
That's the big problem with Hearts of Iron, I think: many unbelievable crazy historical events (that were affected by luck and great people) are very easy to trigger in there, like that Munchen business. But it's history, and it's indeed harder to get to more "plausible" and predicted outcomes there.
Same thing for EU3: I started in 1399 and in 1750 I can suddenly enact Prussian army reform though my country development was nothing like real Prussia's.
Too cool for a signature.
I'd like a historical game, but MM should have given me some historical info on how the hell do I get a province. And give me a choice to go unhistorical and still get something - like getting other port or rent small port without a province and still get benefits. I understand that western trade presence is hard to reflect with EU country border system (the province is yours or you can't do there anything) and I hope MM the game is better on that part.
If you choose to not get Goa, you establish trade with India anyway and get tradebonuses. I think it's better to not conquer Goa. Goa is non-core, wrong culture, wrong religion and non-core center of trade gives you infamy.
There is plenty of eventtext of the historical info how you got the province, if you choose to conquer it by the event.
Too cool for a signature.
sometimes its fun to throw a wrench or two into the world. Like a portugal that forgets about exploring the west, and instead conquers vandalia and continues by colonising and conquering the entire african continent.
Then move their capital to africa, while making everyone a good catholic portuguese.
And probly gifting the old portuguese provinces to spain, just to make a clean shift from the old into the new.
Covered in gold, indigo, ebony and ivory
..oh and plenty of slaves.. all 10+ million
(These slaves were told to serve their masters as if they were serving Christ, with morals, faithfulness, and respectfullness (Ephesians 6:5-8 KJV))
Constantly foiled in my grand plans, palying EU2
No 200 Conscription centers in russia and a standing army of 4.000.000 (patched)
No Dow serbia, and with a 100% victory, demand 6 provinces from Ottomans (patched)
No quick defeat of manchus, converting capital & release -> christian china as vassal (patched)
Still can in EU3
Spam russia with nothing but market-type buildings and ultimately have 300% trade efficiency
I think that devs not commenting on this thread can be sadly answered by 'MMtG tries to recreate early 19th century world with England, France, Austria, Russia, and Prussia as the great powers.' It was already present in the mod where, for example, Poland-Lithuania had ridiciolous -5_everything "Polish_blob"modifier, while Portugal benefited from free exploration/colonization events, or event-freed Prussia received cores on Pomerelia out of blue. Or am I wrong?