EU4 - Development Diary - 31st March 2016

[RobRoy3]

Well, my problem is that the situation you outline is already quite silly. But even if he did start calling himself Emperor of Rome (which I doubt, to be honest), he wouldn't put a big fat SPQR on the flag. And so on. Have you seen those Roman ideas? The whole thing is moronic.

I'll grant that he wouldn't be likely to trot out trappings like SPQR on the flag. But he already called himself Roman Emperor.

 

[BannerofRome]

Hate to say it, cause I love formable Rome, buuuut requiring that much territory makes it impossible to actually play a game as them in vanilla. I'd much rather have an achievement for reacquiring the full extent of them empire, and be able to actually form it quicker (maybe by regaining something resembling Justinian's conquests.)

 

[Demetrios]

Nope, since the two kingdoms of Burgundy both went south instead of north. Lotharingia on the other hand fits much better with where Burgundy actually conquered land. Plus I might be mistaken, but as far as I am aware it was Lotharingia and not Burgundy the emperor planned on giving the duke of Burgundy before he fled during the night.

No, he was going to give him the title "King of Burgundy", as it was an extant title among those of the Emperor's that could still be given (as the Emperor was also King of Germany, Italy, and Burgundy). In fact, the idea of "Burgundy" = "Low Countries" still was around in the 1770s during the War of the Bavarian Succession, when the Emperor proposed trading his Low Countries provinces and the title "King of Burgundy" to the Elector of Bavaria in return for Bavaria proper.

I agree if a formable "Lotharingia" were to be made, it should be formable by Lorraine and Brabant, as they were the two legal heirs to Lotharingia as a state. But Lotharingia would need to stand on its own merits - stating that if we have a formable Roman Empire we should also have a formable Lotharingia is a bit disngenous since once lasted nearly 1500 years (arguably over 2200 if you count "Rome" as a single governmental entity through its entire history from Romulus to Mehmet), while the latter was around, discontinuously, for only about a century.

 

[Dalieux]

Because, you know, forming the Roman Empire in the early modern period is not at all silly.

It certainly doesn't make sense in the context of what actually happened in history, because we have the benefit of hindsight.
But you are assuming the national context of the time would be the same regardless of any historical changes, and I think this is where your logic fails. You are disconsidering how important the consequences of a different outcome of a war would be, for example. Had the germans won WWII, maybe we wouldn't have opinions and ideas like the ones we have now. Had napoleon never been born, maybe france wouldn't have expanded so much. Had the royalty supressed the French Revolution, maybe nationalism wouldn't have been an idea as widespread as it was. Had England won the Hundred Year War, it's possible the world would have become a very different place in 1500 (other politics, other ideas, other influences).
In Chaos Theory we can't simply assume that the way things happened in real life HAD necessarily to have happened this way. One minor change in history has the power of changing everything. A reality where a king dies at the age of four is forever completely different from the one where he dies at the age of 70.

 

[Hikuran]

At first glance I thought this is some April jokes
But this is for real!!!

 

[Blindbohemian]

It certainly doesn't make sense in the context of what actually happened in history, because we have the benefit of hindsight.
But you are assuming the national context of the time would be the same regardless of any historical changes, and I think this is where your logic fails. You are disconsidering how important the consequences of a different outcome of a war would be, for example. Had the germans won WWII, maybe we wouldn't have opinions and ideas like the ones we have now. Had napoleon never been born, maybe france wouldn't have expanded so much. Had the royalty supressed the French Revolution, maybe nationalism wouldn't have been an idea as widespread as it was. Had England won the Hundred Year War, it's possible the world would have become a very different place in 1500 (other politics, other ideas, other influences).
In Chaos Theory we can't simply assume that the way things happened in real life HAD necessarily to have happened this way. One minor change in history has the power of changing everything. A reality where a king dies at the age of four is forever completely different from the one where he dies at the age of 70.

Okay, let me rephrase.

Because, you know, reforming the Roman Empire in the early modern period with a point of divergence in 1444 isn't silly.

(It's absolutely absurd. I demand a formable Gondor, Mordor and Third Reich in the next patch).

 

[Siggerad]

Why call Mare nostrum the new DLC if only have sailors, auto blocked, and all is africa new nations, corruption, antiblop territories.

 

[Strager]

April fools?

 

[IceTytanFang]

April fools?

Bit late for April Fools. Try the HoI4 devs, I hear they're talking about changes they've done to the National Dog since it's first Dev Diary!

 

[Lord_P]

Rome? Ehh... ummm...

Wasn't it pretty much a dead nation by this point? Also Roman culture? I thought Roman culture was meant to represent the cultures of Italy before the shattering of Rome.

 

[Tweakee]

If you don't like the Roman Empire in the game, breathe easy - you'll never see it.

I see no reason to worry about an option that only exists if the player -really- tries for it.

 

[Carmilla]

Thanks for the precision. My history isn't great.

I don't think that it really change my overall point thought (i.e. Rome was a great republic for a while so they should also get republican tradition if they get legitimacy).

Don't worry. I was just correcting you 's all so others didn't jump on you for it. If you ask me, and I think someone else said it already, any NI's that give legitimacy while being a monarchy, should give repub tradition if they're a republic.

Rome? Ehh... ummm...

Wasn't it pretty much a dead nation by this point? Also Roman culture? I thought Roman culture was meant to represent the cultures of Italy before the shattering of Rome.

Dead only in the sense that it had less than a decade left before it died to the sound of ottoman cannons yes. Roman culture still existed as well, but it changed massively over the thousand years since the various crisis that hit since the crisis of the third century as all cultures are wont to do over massive spans of time(and huge losses of territory).

 

[PsysmicSound]

New map colour for Karaman? Good, I guess. Too much medium/dark blue/aqua in that part of the world.

 

[Lot]

Honestly I can't imagine a country that conquers this much land would throw away their national identity. If anything they'd claim to have surpassed Rome.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

Honestly I can't imagine a country that conquers this much land would throw away their national identity. If anything they'd claim to have surpassed Rome.

Maybe. They would definitely not trade in their language and customs to mimic a dead people, though. If France reformed the Roman Empire, "Roman" would be the same as French from that point on. If Spain did it, "Spanish" would be the Roman culture.

The primary culture of the Roman Empire should be that of whichever nation formed it.

 

[Lot]

Maybe. They would definitely not trade in their language and customs to mimic a dead people, though. If France reformed the Roman Empire, "Roman" would be the same as French from that point on. If Spain did it, "Spanish" would be the Roman culture.

The primary culture of the Roman Empire should be that of whichever nation formed it.

Well if you're willing to throw away your national spirit (ideas) after 2 to 3 hundred years of conquering you might as well embrace a new culture.

 

[Chlodio]

What is that supposed to mean? I find your post deeply and personally offensive. I have been playing Civ since 1994 and EU since 2001, yet i also have a Masters degree in History which -i am fairly certain- guarantees i do not hate it. In any case, it's not your place to wonder why i play EU and it certainly is not your right to categorize gamers like me as "such people" who belong to "their kind".

It wasn't mean to be offensive, we don't insult people intentionally because such bullying only causes unnecessary resentment. We were simply suggesting that they would reconsider their choice of games because they feel unsatisfied with the game as they've already suggested adding Civ/Total War features such as hex map, throne room and 3D battles. Such additions would kill the nature of the game such is the case with adding the Roman Empire as formable nation.

And you with Masters Degree In History approve of adding fantasy nations to this originally historical game that slowly becomes more and more fantasy game with such additions?

 

[Angelos]

"we" ? Do you represent a group or something?
Anyway, your historical "purism" is totally groundless, considering EU (and Vicky, CK and HoI for that matter) is a game whose stated purpose is to allow the player to alter the past. Every time you play, you create a "fantasy nation" even by just conquering a single province that did not historically belong to the player's nation, or by conquering a historical province a single year too early or too late. Forming a historical nation like Italy or Germany too early (as per EU achievements, i.e. the implied will of the game designer), is as much a fantasy as restoring a Roman Empire too late.
By playing a grand strategy game, as i assume you do, you have already accepted that history is to be altered in-game, the scale of the alteration being relative to your ability. Otherwise, the next time you choose to play a historically doomed state like Venice, Aragon or Byzantium, you should just surrender on the spot to preserve historical accuracy.
I believe that your historical purism is appropriate and should be expected only from books or other non-interactive, non-fiction mediums.

 

[Xia]

"we" ? Do you represent a group or something?
Anyway, your historical "purism" is totally groundless, considering EU (and Vicky, CK and HoI for that matter) is a game whose stated purpose is to allow the player to alter the past. Every time you play, you create a "fantasy nation" even by just conquering a single province that did not historically belong to the player's nation, or by conquering a historical province a single year too early or too late. Forming a historical nation like Italy or Germany too early (as per EU achievements, i.e. the implied will of the game designer), is as much a fantasy as restoring a Roman Empire too late.
By playing a grand strategy game, as i assume you do, you have already accepted that history is to be altered in-game, the scale of the alteration being relative to your ability. Otherwise, the next time you choose to play a historically doomed state like Venice, Aragon or Byzantium, you should just surrender on the spot to preserve historical accuracy.
I believe that your historical purism is appropriate and should be expected only from books or other non-interactive, non-fiction mediums.

Still find it funny people complain about historical inaccuracies that THEY HAVE TO CARRY OUT (even AI France won't be conquering enough land to form the Roman Empire), whilst ignoring some of Paradox's actual historical flaws.

 

[WeissRaben]

"we" ? Do you represent a group or something?
Anyway, your historical "purism" is totally groundless, considering EU (and Vicky, CK and HoI for that matter) is a game whose stated purpose is to allow the player to alter the past. Every time you play, you create a "fantasy nation" even by just conquering a single province that did not historically belong to the player's nation, or by conquering a historical province a single year too early or too late. Forming a historical nation like Italy or Germany too early (as per EU achievements, i.e. the implied will of the game designer), is as much a fantasy as restoring a Roman Empire too late.
By playing a grand strategy game, as i assume you do, you have already accepted that history is to be altered in-game, the scale of the alteration being relative to your ability. Otherwise, the next time you choose to play a historically doomed state like Venice, Aragon or Byzantium, you should just surrender on the spot to preserve historical accuracy.
I believe that your historical purism is appropriate and should be expected only from books or other non-interactive, non-fiction mediums.

Sigh. Okay. Let's make an example.

You toss a coin. It comes out as tails. This is OTL, IRL, call it however you want.
You toss a coin. It comes out as head. This is alternative history of the most plausible kind: solid, probable consequences of an event, that however did not happen OTL.
You toss a coin. It falls exactly on its rim. This is shaky alternative history: it's not like it is impossible, but I mean, what are the odds?
You toss a coin. The coin doesn't fall. Trumpeter penguins hack down the door and start painting the Mona Lisa. This is ASB. There was nothing in how the coin flew, fell, in the air, in the pavement, in anything, that would make it possible.

I am okay with the first two, and somewhat with the third. Not with the fourth. A nation conquering Europe, saying it is Rome (not the successor, not the heir, but literal Rome) and starting to wear tunics, togas, and speaking Latin, is solidly in the fourth section. Removing the Roman culture part helps taking it to the third section.