After Leviathan, this game needs a huge revamp/balancing update.

[Battlex]

It's actually totally the opposite, though. Pips are marginal while having military idea groups is everything.

In addition, there was never a point in the game where the AI ever made conquests of considerable degree in Asia. National idea power creep has very little to do with the AI being somewhat passive, even against extremely technologically inferior nations. I've been playing since 2014 and never before have I seen a European make headway in South Asia.

Additionally, the one area they do make considerable gains in (Africa), it's actually to an an unhistoric degree.

People are fingering the wrong issue for why Europeans do not expand in Asia much. They never did very much, even before institutions leveled the technological playing field (on a trivial level, as I stated).

I've seen Britain in like 1 game conquer Malaysia but that was after dharma I'm pretty sure.
It's more player vs AI where I want it to be more a push over to conquer than out of a desire for AI to historically conquer the east
AI won't be able to conquer the east because it lacks the ability to use its navy well as a player would

 

[PyroMegaManZ]

If Aboriginal tags in Australia are now playable states, why have uncolonized territory in the map at all? Certainly the blank provinces in Africa and the Americas on the whole had levels of civilization at parity with or more advanced than those in Australia or Polynesia (barring some Amazon jungle and South Georgia island).

Certainly we should have a threshold for what constitutes a civilization with a TAG in this game and what doesn’t. Otherwise I’ve got news for everyone here: human beings were present on most parts of the world map in 1444...

Clearly we can't just cover the world map with every single tag that existed in the world at the time to properly reflect the true nature of human civilisation. I would also say that any forms of comparing the progress of these nations to each other on a scale of "level of civilisation" is always going to be skewed to some sort of view. One could say that prior to guns becoming the norm across European armies, they would have been mind blown to think there was a civilisation out there that had mastered a weapon capable of being used and returned to your hand all in the one action (in fact we know when the British arrived that they believed the Aboriginal people must have traded with Malaya or China to get these weapons, as they believed them too advanced). One could also say that the idea that there was a people out there that sailed far across open and dangerous oceans, on some occasions reaching the Americas (as more evidence is revealing every day) would have certainly shocked Europe.

But what we can do other than represent all tags on Earth is to incorporate ideally a few tags per region, culture group or religion that is currently known of to have existed in this era. By doing it this way each area of the world can ideally have a portion of their history and culture reflected, and their influence on world history demonstrated in some manner. This is why we only have fifty nations in the HRE compared to the real several thousand distinct territories (many of which could be determined to be nations to some capacity), or why Ireland only has the nations it does now, or why Japan only has the nations it has now. This provides some sort of opportunity to bring to life some degree of history that would otherwise never have been demonstrated. It seems certainly true that many on this forum and around the world weren't/aren't aware of what we now have some fraction of knowing in terms of Aboriginal society and history, and so by having some reflection of this people into the game we as historians are able to learn more about the world.

There are also regions (like the interior of Australia, the Gobi Desert, or the Amazon Forest) that had such a smaller number of people that it has often made it more convenient to reflect more populous region nearby to these said regions.

 

[PyroMegaManZ]

Tribal assemblies are very different to athenian democracy or to the roman Republic which are in turn very different to modern democracies.

Well at the very least provide a definition as to what counts as a tribal democracy versus Athenian/Roman democracy versus modern democracy? Having a voting system with electorates and electing members to sit in a parliament debating laws with the presence of lawyers to advise what is legal and public servants to put these laws into actions sounds a whole heap like democracy. It isn't just elders meeting together to rule a nation as you have previously suggested tribal democracy involves.

 

[Battlex]

Clearly we can't just cover the world map with every single tag that existed in the world at the time to properly reflect the true nature of human civilisation. I would also say that any forms of comparing the progress of these nations to each other on a scale of "level of civilisation" is always going to be skewed to some sort of view. One could say that prior to guns becoming the norm across European armies, they would have been mind blown to think there was a civilisation out there that had mastered a weapon capable of being used and returned to your hand all in the one action (in fact we know when the British arrived that they believed the Aboriginal people must have traded with Malaya or China to get these weapons, as they believed them too advanced). One could also say that the idea that there was a people out there that sailed far across open and dangerous oceans, on some occasions reaching the Americas (as more evidence is revealing every day) would have certainly shocked Europe.

But what we can do other than represent all tags on Earth is to incorporate ideally a few tags per region, culture group or religion that is currently known of to have existed in this era. By doing it this way each area of the world can ideally have a portion of their history and culture reflected, and their influence on world history demonstrated in some manner. This is why we only have fifty nations in the HRE compared to the real several thousand distinct territories (many of which could be determined to be nations to some capacity), or why Ireland only has the nations it does now, or why Japan only has the nations it has now. This provides some sort of opportunity to bring to life some degree of history that would otherwise never have been demonstrated. It seems certainly true that many on this forum and around the world weren't/aren't aware of what we now have some fraction of knowing in terms of Aboriginal society and history, and so by having some reflection of this people into the game we as historians are able to learn more about the world.

There are also regions (like the interior of Australia, the Gobi Desert, or the Amazon Forest) that had such a smaller number of people that it has often made it more convenient to reflect more populous region nearby to these said regions.

Japan already has far excessive. HRE wouldn't be thousands of tags because no one is going to have the abbeys, reeves, and imperial knights in.
A disunited mecklenburg really wasn't too much for the devs to add, especially if we could have had the historic Swedish exclaves.

 

[Battlex]

Well at the very least provide a definition as to what counts as a tribal democracy versus Athenian/Roman democracy versus modern democracy? Having a voting system with electorates and electing members to sit in a parliament debating laws with the presence of lawyers to advise what is legal and public servants to put these laws into actions sounds a whole heap like democracy. It isn't just elders meeting together to rule a nation as you have previously suggested tribal democracy involves.

Ping me on Tuesday about this and I'll right a sufficient answer

 

[BlazeKnight_]

Aborigines vs aboriginal is not the N word, and It's absurd that you would accuse me of that.

I literally took around 10 seconds to look this up on Wikipedia:

The term Aborigines has become somewhat politicised, with declining usage in recent decades, as many consider it offensive "because it has racist connotations from Australia’s colonial past", while others still prefer to be called Aborigine, because Aboriginal has more directly discriminatory legal origins.

Regardless, it is good to express cultural concern as an outsider, instead of just saying that usage of a word is okay and that it isn't offensive.


Now to the actual topic of the thread: the main problem with EU4 is that, as a Eurocentric-based game that is nearly a decade old, it fundamentally lacks different gameplay mechanics that change how the world outside Western Europe works. No, I'm not talking about adding a single ahistorical subject type and a poorly done empire mechanic (East Asia) or just adding tags everywhere (most tribal areas).

In addition, EU4's system of development makes the game impossible to represent historically. There are no penalizing features for owning land, other than pathetic revolts that die down in a few years or the player management of more borders and land. In EU4, all land is good and all land gives value - if not for economic purposes then definitely for strategic purposes, such as colonizing random islands in the Pacific as Naval bases. There is no difference between Europe, East Asia, and Central Africa, other than the number that the provinces have in them and the number that affects how much it costs to increase the first number.

There is also no penalizing features for the land itself, other than increased development cost (which need to be drastically increased, because its absurd that Arctic Glacial provinces can even be developed at all) and slightly increased attrition for certain terrain types, which caps anyways.

M&T is a good model to look at. In M&T, what's the difference between settled and tribal land? The difference is that the settled land has lots of urban development and value, while the tribal land is unpopulated, underdeveloped, and highly autonomous. They also kept the terrain combat width modifiers, which explains how much smaller countries are able to stand up to the might of larger neighbors, & increased the price of war, because looting actually matters & money spent on the army is money not invested into the nation's cities.

Ofc M&T is not a perfect version for EU4, but it is substantially better than anything EU4. The funny thing is, EU4 also has mechanics like this, but the numbers are so toned down that nobody notices. State Maintenance, which is increased by distance from capital, autonomy, unrest, terrain modifiers, climate modifiers, attrition, etc. Government types are really unexplored in this game. The new 1.31 "Tribal State" is a good example of how gov types can completely change how a nation plays the game.

If EU4 wants to be a more realistic game, then there needs to be costs for governing land, not arbitrary things like Governing cap or Corruption from territories. Then we can begin modeling why different areas developed in different ways technologically.

 

[Alyosha]

Clearly we can't just cover the world map with every single tag that existed in the world at the time to properly reflect the true nature of human civilisation. I would also say that any forms of comparing the progress of these nations to each other on a scale of "level of civilisation" is always going to be skewed to some sort of view. One could say that prior to guns becoming the norm across European armies, they would have been mind blown to think there was a civilisation out there that had mastered a weapon capable of being used and returned to your hand all in the one action (in fact we know when the British arrived that they believed the Aboriginal people must have traded with Malaya or China to get these weapons, as they believed them too advanced). One could also say that the idea that there was a people out there that sailed far across open and dangerous oceans, on some occasions reaching the Americas (as more evidence is revealing every day) would have certainly shocked Europe.

But what we can do other than represent all tags on Earth is to incorporate ideally a few tags per region, culture group or religion that is currently known of to have existed in this era. By doing it this way each area of the world can ideally have a portion of their history and culture reflected, and their influence on world history demonstrated in some manner. This is why we only have fifty nations in the HRE compared to the real several thousand distinct territories (many of which could be determined to be nations to some capacity), or why Ireland only has the nations it does now, or why Japan only has the nations it has now. This provides some sort of opportunity to bring to life some degree of history that would otherwise never have been demonstrated. It seems certainly true that many on this forum and around the world weren't/aren't aware of what we now have some fraction of knowing in terms of Aboriginal society and history, and so by having some reflection of this people into the game we as historians are able to learn more about the world.

There are also regions (like the interior of Australia, the Gobi Desert, or the Amazon Forest) that had such a smaller number of people that it has often made it more convenient to reflect more populous region nearby to these said regions.

Abstracting to include fewer advanced societies in Europe does not equal giving tribal societies a level of sophistication they did not have. Why bother having colonists? Which parts of Australia are blank and why? It’s a sideshow which is being put forward to distract from the rickety foundation of the game.

 

[PyroMegaManZ]

Abstracting to include fewer advanced societies in Europe does not equal giving tribal societies a level of sophistication they did not have. Why bother having colonists? Which parts of Australia are blank and why? It’s a sideshow which is being put forward to distract from the rickety foundation of the game.

Well in the same way I don't know how they decide which HRE or Irish nations to reflect in the game, I wouldn't know how they decide which Indigenous nations to include in the game. I presume it is based on which nations they have greatest access to reliable information about or the most influential one's in their region. It is quite an abstraction of my point that the game should have some tags to reflect Indigenous nations, to then say colonists have no purpose anymore; once again I am not advocating for a world purely covered in tags (as this is not possible in any sort of accurate way), just for a few more tags to provide a reference to a greater variety of history and culture around the world.

Additionally, read even just a handful of the non-exhaustive list of sources I provided earlier in this thread and you will realise it is a completely incorrect view to interpret the many Indigenous nations of Australia as "insufficiently sophisticated" to exist in the game. It is understandable to hold this view because this is all we were allowed to know about the First Nations people of Australia until a couple of decades ago (and even since then many have deliberately tried to suppress this information) but if we are ever to fully appreciate world history and especially the history of Australia it is important that organisations like Paradox are able to promote this history and give people the opportunity to learn more. One of the beautiful things about games like EU4 or Civ 6 or AoE 3 is that even just beyond giving us lots of world-conquering fun, it also teaches us many things about history that schools would rarely ever teach.

As I initially stated right from the beginning, I understand that some people hold frustrations about the state of the game in terms of bugs, but it is entirely unfair to extrapolate this as constant justification to block representation of different cultures and nations in EU4. There should always be balance between adding new historical immersion and fixing old bugs (and this new DLC is including about 2000 bug fixes I believe they indicated).

 

[Streletz]

Clearly we can't just cover the world map with every single tag that existed in the world at the time to properly reflect the true nature of human civilisation. I would also say that any forms of comparing the progress of these nations to each other on a scale of "level of civilisation" is always going to be skewed to some sort of view. One could say that prior to guns becoming the norm across European armies, they would have been mind blown to think there was a civilisation out there that had mastered a weapon capable of being used and returned to your hand all in the one action (in fact we know when the British arrived that they believed the Aboriginal people must have traded with Malaya or China to get these weapons, as they believed them too advanced). One could also say that the idea that there was a people out there that sailed far across open and dangerous oceans, on some occasions reaching the Americas (as more evidence is revealing every day) would have certainly shocked Europe.

I'm sorry, but where did you get that information from? This seems as alt history.

Nobody would be shocked to learn the existence of boomerangs in middle ages, as there were widely known and used from the stone age period all across the world. The oldest boomerang we know has 30.000 years, and was found in Polish Carpathia. The Pharaoh Tutankhamun had a collection of a hundred boomerangs buried with him, including the self returning type, 3300 years ago.

The only reason why boomerangs are associated with Australia, is because it was one of the sole places in the world where it hasn't been replaced by more effective slings and bows while Europeans landed there (but it was also widely used by Navajos, and some Amazonia and African hinterland tribes)

The fact that the indigenous population didn't adopted more efficient tools, is a proof in itself of a technological isolation, and absence of regular trade contacts, including "nearby" Philippines and Malaysia that used bows and slings for hunting way before Europeans and Arabs get there.

For travels to the new World, that seems extremely doubtful to me, and recquire some sources. The only thing I found after a quick googling is an article saying exactly the opposite.

The researchers acknowledged that news of the Australasian-South American connection might spark ideas of an ancient sea voyage in the public's imagination. But the genetic model the team developed shows no evidence of an ancient boating expedition between South America and Australia and the surrounding islands at that time, the researchers said. Rather, the team emphasized, this ancestry came from people who crossed the Bering Land Bridge, probably from ancient coupling events between the ancestors of the first Americans and the ancestors of the Australasians "in Beringia, or even in Siberia as new evidence suggests," Hünemeier and Araújo Castro e Silva told Live Science.

"What likely happened is that some individuals from the extreme southeastern region of Asia, that later originated the Oceanic populations, migrated to northeast Asia, and there had some contact with ancient Siberian and Beringians," Araújo Castro e Silva said

 

[PyroMegaManZ]

I'm sorry, but where did you get that information from? This seems as alt history.

I am not sure which bit you are referring to, but most of my message except for the bit about Polynesian sailing is contained within the sources I provided earlier if you wanted to peruse through them.

Nobody would be shocked to learn the existence of boomerangs in middle ages, as there were widely known and used from the stone age period all across the world. The oldest boomerang we know has 30.000 years, and was found in Polish Carpathia. The Pharaoh Tutankhamun had a collection of a hundred boomerangs buried with him, including the self returning type, 3300 years ago.

The only reason why boomerangs are associated with Australia, is because it was one of the sole places in the world where it hasn't been replaced by more effective slings and bows while Europeans landed there (but it was also widely used by Navajos, and some Amazonia and African hinterland tribes)

The fact that the indigenous population didn't adopted more efficient tools, is a proof in itself of a technological isolation, and absence of regular trade contacts, including "nearby" Philippines and Malaysia that used bows and slings for hunting way before Europeans and Arabs get there.

They do believe the boomerangs a few Pharaoh's were buried with were self-returning types, but they lacked any significant combat potential i.e. they lacked the sheer scope of range and power of the designs used by Australian Indigenous people (and it is mostly for this reason that the boomerang is associated with Australia, as it was mastered as a weapon and a tool in ways no other culture had managed). It is certainly true that no sling-and-stone is within the realm of a weapon or a tool compared to the boomerang designs used in Australia, and it is why it was still used even when Australian Indigenous nations developed "more advanced" weapons.

Take for instance one of the other weapons they designed (before they begun trading with Indonesia and the Philippines in the 500's onwards) which was a weapon that worked very much like the ballista and operated in quite a similar way. It was capable of firing spear-like-bolts over a large distance and it was capable of being used to fire at a rapid rate for use in larger battles. The primary reason they didn't adopt the bow and arrow (which they were very much aware of through their trades) is because it was obsolete compared to the ballista-like weapon they employed and the boomerang design they used (I unfortunately cannot remember the name, but it was a crazy sight to behold when elderly people were able to use it to shoot bolts at blinding forces).

For travels to the new World, that seems extremely doubtful to me, and recquire some sources. The only thing I found after a quick googling is an article saying exactly the opposite.

The researchers acknowledged that news of the Australasian-South American connection might spark ideas of an ancient sea voyage in the public's imagination. But the genetic model the team developed shows no evidence of an ancient boating expedition between South America and Australia and the surrounding islands at that time, the researchers said. Rather, the team emphasized, this ancestry came from people who crossed the Bering Land Bridge, probably from ancient coupling events between the ancestors of the first Americans and the ancestors of the Australasians "in Beringia, or even in Siberia as new evidence suggests," Hünemeier and Araújo Castro e Silva told Live Science.

"What likely happened is that some individuals from the extreme southeastern region of Asia, that later originated the Oceanic populations, migrated to northeast Asia, and there had some contact with ancient Siberian and Beringians," Araújo Castro e Silva said

Essentially the main evidence found in the last twenty years (because prior to this it was believed impossible that any non-European nations had managed cross-ocean exploration by this point) is that in South America there are colonies of chicken which are nearly genetically identical to chickens only found previously in Polynesia, that in Western North America they had many words in their language to describe people sailing from the ocean (which was long before Europe sailed ships to that part of America) and their ship designs were nearly identical to those used in Polynesia at the time, and that there are Indigenous nations in South America that share genealogy that is significantly different from nearby Indigenous nations and is strikingly similar to that of the Polynesian people.

Analysis of this evidence and triangulating it all has led to the suggestion that Polynesians likely arrived in South America in 900 (about two hundred years after landing in Easter Island) and likely landed in North America around 1300. Additionally, considering how Easter Island was about equal distance to sail to as Easter Island was to sail to South America in terms of traversing open ocean it wouldn't seem technologically unlikely. This does lead me to another fact, the people of Easter Island are believed to be one of the few people that independently developed written language sometime around 1500, but this was wiped out by pirate raids in the 1800's sadly.

 

[schnizzle]

EUIV has one glaring issue, that is only rarely mentioned: the developers focus on adding new features while completely ignoring the ones made in the past.

[...]

One big update focused exclusively on fixing bugs and improving balance and the game becomes infinitely better.

Hard agree with your overall point, a major rebalancing is necessary and your list is an important starting point. We should however accept that eu4 will never be a historical simulation that really deserves to be called that, rather than being a fun game taking many liberties for gameplay's sake. I was already typing out a page long take on a comparison between the current game and what a potential eu4 as historically accurate as possible would be like, when I realized that this would require it's own thread. But I am of the opinion that while a rebalancing is necessary, making the game completely historically accurate is a mistake.

Hearts of iron III is one of my favourite paradox titles. And it's pretty realistic. I much prefer it over hoi4 in many ways. But as unrealistic as it is, in Hoi4 you can actually achieve and influence something if you're playing a minor nation and that gives it so much more replay value. In Hoi3 at some point you played all the major nations and try out a minor and realize you can't do anything. That's much more realistic. It's not fun though. An even more realistic and historical experience would make it impossible for the axis to win. But then it's not even close to being fun. This is a good analogy for the eu4 realism Vs gameplay conundrum. Balance it out, yes, but if you make it too historical it's not fun anymore. African nations can't unite their continent against European gunpowder armies and the Aztecs can't conquer America. But those are fun campaigns. That's the most important part. If you have an entirely realistic Eurocentric eu4 it would always be the same nations dominating. There's not much replay value in high-realism

 

[Aussiehawker]

@PyroMegaManZ We arent down voting you because we are evil racists or don't know what we are talking about. Its because you are clearly making up, or vastly exaggerating everything.

it doesn't mean these nations were incapable of proper standing armies (which many Aboriginal nations did have).

They did not have standing armies. Hunter Gatherer being trained hunters capable of minor skirmishing is not a army. They had no organisational capacity, and their society can not handle a campaign. They had to hunt constantly, and their dependants were attached near constantly. Their fighting units were the men of the tribal unit. Which were typically only 50 people and at most, a hundred or so. The adult males capable of fighting for said tribal unit would only be a dozen to thirty. Coalitions of more occasionally happened, but never reached a single EU4 1000 stack.

And you are saying that the Aboriginal nations did not have centralised, active systems with competing politics and warfare between the many nations of this region? Just because Euro-centric history is slow on the uptake in terms of recognising many Indigenous nations around the world as anything more than hunter-gatherers that had no impact on history doesn't mean that these nations are "ahistorical kingdoms". 99% of Hungary players are going to hit the cultural conversion button anyway, it's more mana friendly (there is only about twenty Hungarian culture group provinces in the game).

No, they didn't. They absolutely did not have centralised systems. They didn't have kingdoms. They didn't have a leader that ruled over enough of them to constitute an economy. They didn't have the capacity to conquer each other, it was duels or raiding. This means either aboriginal tags will either be sitting there for 200-300 years waiting for a European tag to arrive so they can do a bullshit westernisation (they never had the capacity to modernise) or they will be conquering each other, in a bullshit way

Clearly we can't just cover the world map with every single tag that existed in the world at the time to properly reflect the true nature of human civilisation. I would also say that any forms of comparing the progress of these nations to each other on a scale of "level of civilisation" is always going to be skewed to some sort of view. One could say that prior to guns becoming the norm across European armies, they would have been mind blown to think there was a civilisation out there that had mastered a weapon capable of being used and returned to your hand all in the one action (in fact we know when the British arrived that they believed the Aboriginal people must have traded with Malaya or China to get these weapons, as they believed them too advanced). One could also say that the idea that there was a people out there that sailed far across open and dangerous oceans, on some occasions reaching the Americas (as more evidence is revealing every day) would have certainly shocked Europe.

But what we can do other than represent all tags on Earth is to incorporate ideally a few tags per region, culture group or religion that is currently known of to have existed in this era. By doing it this way each area of the world can ideally have a portion of their history and culture reflected, and their influence on world history demonstrated in some manner. This is why we only have fifty nations in the HRE compared to the real several thousand distinct territories (many of which could be determined to be nations to some capacity), or why Ireland only has the nations it does now, or why Japan only has the nations it has now. This provides some sort of opportunity to bring to life some degree of history that would otherwise never have been demonstrated. It seems certainly true that many on this forum and around the world weren't/aren't aware of what we now have some fraction of knowing in terms of Aboriginal society and history, and so by having some reflection of this people into the game we as historians are able to learn more about the world.

There are also regions (like the interior of Australia, the Gobi Desert, or the Amazon Forest) that had such a smaller number of people that it has often made it more convenient to reflect more populous region nearby to these said regions.

War boomerangs don't return. Light boomerangs are the ones to return. And the British were not impressed.

Well at the very least provide a definition as to what counts as a tribal democracy versus Athenian/Roman democracy versus modern democracy? Having a voting system with electorates and electing members to sit in a parliament debating laws with the presence of lawyers to advise what is legal and public servants to put these laws into actions sounds a whole heap like democracy. It isn't just elders meeting together to rule a nation as you have previously suggested tribal democracy involves.

Are you seriously claiming that they had electorates, lawyers, public servants and budgets. You know that is bullshit.

 

[PyroMegaManZ]

@PyroMegaManZ We arent down voting you because we are evil racists or don't know what we are talking about. Its because you are clearly making up, or vastly exaggerating everything.



They did not have standing armies. Hunter Gatherer being trained hunters capable of minor skirmishing is not a army. They had no organisational capacity, and their society can not handle a campaign. They had to hunt constantly, and their dependants were attached near constantly. Their fighting units were the men of the tribal unit. Which were typically only 50 people and at most, a hundred or so. The adult males capable of fighting for said tribal unit would only be a dozen to thirty. Coalitions of more occasionally happened, but never reached a single EU4 1000 stack.



No they didn't. They absolutely did not have centralised systems. They didn't have kingdoms. They didn't have a leader that ruled over enough of them to constitute a economy. They didn't have the capacity to conquer each other, it was duels or raiding. Which means either aboriginal tags will either be sitting there for 200-300 years waiting for a Europuan tag to arrive so they can do a bullshit westernisation (they never had the capacity to modernise) or they will be conquering each other, highbrow so absolute bullshit a d



War boomerangs don't return. Light boomerangs are the ones to return. And the British were not impressed.


Are you seriously claiming that they had electorates, lawyers, public servants and budgets. You know that is bullshit.

I have never made reference or even suggested that there is some evil conspiracy or racism going on, just simply a part of history that has rarely been explored properly. We can never further our understanding of history without first exploring it in every capacity and this sometimes requires challenging commonly held views. If you did read through the sources in one of my previous posts though you would know that every single word I am saying is simply paraphrasing these documents. You can't just say I am wrong without even reading a single source to ascertain for yourself if you believe in the reliability of the research contained within said source.

Are you seriously claiming that they had electorates, lawyers, public servants and budgets. You know that is bullshit.

I will respond to this point directly though because I understand that this wording is rarely used as we generally only apply such wording to the modern or Western equivalents of these positions. My purpose in using this wording was to demonstrate in a relatable manner the true meaning of the positions that people held in these societies. For instance when they conducted elections, each different area of the nation was split into its own voting bloc that would vote for a representative on their behalf to head to their parliament (in the same way an electorate works now-a-days). Their lawyers were people that spent their entire lives producing new laws and interpreting existing laws, keeping a detailed list of all laws and advising the government of the day on what they may legally do (also as part of this position they were required to keep track of alliances and other treaties). I used the term public servants to describe the people that conducted censuses, divided land into portions that were allowed to be farmed and portions where people could live, and provided for the transport of medicine and food to communities that may be struggling (essentially people that worked on behalf of the government to provide services). Budgets refer to the collecting of food and other resources (their main currency in most nations was rare dyes) before divvying it out across the population of the nation to some capacity.

So in general no-one uses this wording, but these positions more-or-less apply directly to the positions these people held. For everything else in your message I won't say the same things I have said for the last ten messages, so please just refer to the sources instead of just saying "you are wrong".

 

[John the John]

EU4 starts to be a meme. It's time for EU5.

All Paradox games are memes. What's your point?

 

[Aussiehawker]

You can't just say I am wrong without even reading a single source to ascertain for yourself if you believe in the reliability of the research contained within said source.

We arent down voting you because we are evil racists or don't know what we are talking about.

I even explicitly referenced Henry Reynolds in my second post in this thread, which directly quotes you. Here it is again.

They deliberately didn't fight pitched battles, which is what Eu4 represents. Professor Henry Reynolds, whose expertise in frontier warfare described their warfare against the British as an individual or small unit guerrilla warfare. There was resistance, but it was flatly not the fight a single pitched battle and occupy a province style of Eu4 warfare. Nor would there be an Aboriginal tribal commander marching thousands of troops into the lands of his neighbours to 'conquer' their lands. There was inter-tribal warfare, but there were no holding borders like Eu4. Some HRE states had small armies, but they fought and were organised similar to their larger counterparts, and would add their armies in coalition when called up.

I'm not a moron who knows nothing of Australian history. The Fact is, Aboriginal nations frankly Do not fit as Eu4 style tags. They should be represented by colonial events, not thoroughly blatant ahistorical distortion.

Aboriginals fiercely fought, but there was zero doubt as to the outcome once settlers arrived. That is absolutely not the case for the Meso American and Andean Native Americans, who did have possibilities of ousting the Europeans and did have complex enough societies to adapt to technology. There were actual attempts by Native Americans to seriously adopt firearms and European innovations, as did the Polynesians. The Aboriginal people never seriously took up firearm warfare, except as colonial police working for the British. Nor did they form durable confederations of resistance, as the Native North Americans did. They fought largely as solitary bands. That is not a tag.

European domination was even more in doubt when it came to Asia, with Near East powers like the Ottomans and Hordes serious threats to European powers, and the Indian and Chinese empires, the equal of any European in terms of wealth and power, for most of the length of the game. They were properly complex societies, of millions, not mere hundreds.

Why devote Dev time to this, instead of the hundreds of issues that people regularly complain about? Why not expand the seriously lacking missions of most tags? Add more events and flavour?

 

[PurpulaPhoenixum53]

By looking at what other sources we have as well as how credible an oral story can be

I think the best example of this is the Illaid. Illaid is more than just a story, it was meant to be an oral history that archaeology is starting verify did actually happen. This why as historians we often start with oral history first for some areas then work our way into some more modern written sources, or rely entirely on oral sources. In-game this means that some things may sound a bit "fantastical" but are really going off of what he have for sources.

 

[Deliberus]

All Paradox games are memes. What's your point?

what a strawman that's not even true...

 

[Alyosha]

Why devote Dev time to this, instead of the hundreds of issues that people regularly complain about? Why not expand the seriously lacking missions of most tags? Add more events and flavour?

Exactly this. The tags that are being added are being ADDED. The argument that many of us have made is that this time could be better spent elsewhere.

 

[Triplebassist]

Exactly this. The tags that are being added are being ADDED. The argument that many of us have made is that this time could be better spent elsewhere.

It was mentioned at announcement that these tags were added on a developer's private time. The opportunity cost of bug fixes, or even other content, doesn't really apply when something is done off-hours

 

[schnizzle]

It was mentioned at announcement that these tags were added on a developer's private time. The opportunity cost of bug fixes, or even other content, doesn't really apply when something is done off-hours

also adding tags barely takes time. sure they're fleshed out a bit more than just having a name, colour and flag but it's really not that time consuming. I don't mind having them in game, as they surely will make for an unusual campaign many people might enjoy, but it's ridiculous to pretend they had enough organisation etc to warrant being put into the game, like certain african civilisations do.