Culture groups and union nations or where is my Arabia

[ColonelSanders]

I. Seeing how new expansion adds even more provinces (which is an awesome thing) thus making WC even more tiresome (which is an awful thing) I was wondering what are the odds that decision "form Arabia" will make it into the game, It would give me the incentive I need to get the Jihad achievement Arabia sprawled across the Asia, Africa and Europe looks so much cooler than Nejd.
II. Don't you think that this game misses quite a few union nations? I mean we can form relatively unimportant nations like Hanover, Westphalia, Kurland Sardinia-Piedmont Malaya, Bukhara, so why can't we form nations for whole culture groups like Arabia, Yugoslavia, something for tribes in North America, Turkic nomads in central Asia and Indochina [Thailand (or Siam) and Burma (or Myanmar) seem cooler than Ayutthaya (which gets its name from a city) or Taungoo (which gets its name from some dynasty) - this one is just my feeling still union nation for Indochina seems like a sweet idea] at this rate Soviet union will make it into the game before Arabia. would be fun actually. Russia spreading communism before it was invented, EUIV version of sunset invasion...
III. Culture mechanic - don't you think that culture system feels a bit old, crude and could use a total revamp? Right now It's actually more profitable to not culture change provinces, unless you like to paint map in political, cultural and religious map-mode. My idea for a change is too convoluted and would switch the focus of this game to culture management, so I won't bother You guys with reading it but please share Your thoughts on this subject.
IV. This is probably a pointless question, but are there any chances that difficulty of WC will decrease rather than increase in the next patches? Actually it's not about difficulty but about patience as WC is a tiresome grind... Also what's the point of aggressive expansion at this point? I mean we have war exhaustion to simulate the stress of wars, coalitions to simulate diplomatic repercussions of said wars, war score to restrict excessive expansion in a single war, nationalism to simulate unhappiness of people that were conquered, do we really need another expansion-retarding mechanic? It seems strange that people in England (that was at peace for a few decades, has good legitimacy and stability) get uppity because I took 7 provinces in India in a quick and effortless war. At this point in time I openly despise this mechanic...

 

[Ololorium]

While I like the idea of new formables, most of the nations you propose are outside of the timeframe (especialy Yugoslavia and Indochina). Arabia too, because Arab nationalism began in the XX century. But it would be nice to form "The Caliphate" as any Muslim nation.
Also, it was said that WC will be impossible in the new patch.

 

[GabbyDieJaeger]

Germany is also decidedly outside the EU4 timeframe, but you can form that, so that's not much of an argument. Although I'm very much against Yugoslavia, compared to something like Scandinavia, Arabia and Siam/Thailand seem pretty reasonable, and would be pretty nice for roleplay reasons I suppose.

 

[Chlodio]

While I like the idea of new formables, most of the nations you propose are outside of the timeframe (especialy Yugoslavia and Indochina). Arabia too, because Arab nationalism began in the XX century. But it would be nice to form "The Caliphate" as any Muslim nation.
Also, it was said that WC will be impossible in the new patch.

You're seriously complaining about "out of timeline" game has even states that never existed and many nations that can be formed that were formed after Yugoslavia was.

 

[dharper]

You're seriously complaining about "out of timeline" game has even states that never existed and many nations that can be formed that were formed after Yugoslavia was.

Out of curiosity, what countries in EU4 were formed only after 1918? I didn't think there were any.

 

[cpm4001]

I'm not really opposed to new formable nations, because they're not that hard to add into the game. So there's naught wrong with that part of your suggestion However...

I mean we can form relatively unimportant nations like...Kurland...

Kurland?! Unimportant?!
(Don't worry, the above IS a joke...I just think Kurland's really extremely cool.)

 

[Utretch]

Out of curiosity, what countries in EU4 were formed only after 1918? I didn't think there were any.

Syria and Iraq I suppose, though that depends on how you define the country as a country...

Ultimately it shouldn't matter if a nation WAS or WAS NOT formed during EUIV's timeline, but rather if it was a plausible outcome to form during the time period.

 

[Te. Kenzo]

Germany is an old concept, a simple name for who conquer that land, Jugoslavia is different, is a concept that need the panslavism of the south slav, but i find more interesting the egemony of a nation in the area.

Ultimately it shouldn't matter if a nation WAS or WAS NOT formed during EUIV's timeline, but rather if it was a plausible outcome to form during the time period.

exactly, is so simple in my opinion. I'm not opposed to new formable nation, but I they should remain in the feel of modern age. For example in Victoria II, I don't like things as Byzantine Empire, Babylon or PLC (Last one becouse "steal" the scene of a simple Poland, Krakow if expand should create Poland, and not PLC )

 

[Willem IV]

But a culture union arabia would have been plausible.

 

[Sol717]

I mean we can form relatively unimportant nations like Hanover, Westphalia, Kurland Sardinia-Piedmont Malaya, Bukhara but why can't we form nations for whole culture groups like Arabia, Yugoslavia, something for tribes in North America, Turkic nomads in central Asia and Indochina

These were actual states that were more important than some of these nations would be. (e.g. Sardinia-Piedmont formed Italy and exists in later starts.)

[Thailand (or Siam) and Burma (or Myanmar) seem cooler than Ayutthaya (which gets its name from a city) or Taungoo (which gets its name from some dynasty)

They are both to my knowledge city names - which is related to the whole "Mandala" system of the time period where states were named after cities.

Right now It's actually more profitable to not culture change provinces

Per history - most xenophobic states were xenophobic due to their ideology.

You're seriously complaining about "out of timeline" game has even states that never existed and many nations that can be formed that were formed after Yugoslavia was.

Some people want these states removed.

 

[Chlodio]

Out of curiosity, what countries in EU4 were formed only after 1918? I didn't think there were any.

You really can't think of any?

Federal Republic of Central America - 1823
Greece - 1829
Italy - 1861
Romania - 1866
Germany - 1871
Ireland - 1922
Hindustan - 1947
Malaysia - 1948
Jerusalem - never after medieval age
Quebec - never as independent post-colonial state
Lousiana - never as independent post-colonial state[/B]

Some people want these states removed.

And I want states actually being called what they were during their time, but that won't happen, because there is too many blind people.

 

[CrabHelmet]

Federal Republic of Central America - 1823
Greece - 1829
Italy - 1861
Romania - 1866
Germany - 1871
Ireland - 1922
Hindustan - 1947
Malaysia - 1948

I'm not sure Ireland, Italy, or Germany count, because for all three there was at least the concept of a state and the approximate borders it should have - Ireland was a Lordship in Union with England/Great Britain for some time, and the Kingdoms of Italy and Germany were titles held by the Holy Roman Emperor. The others all qualify, though.

 

[ahyangyi]

I'm not sure Ireland, Italy, or Germany count, because for all three there was at least the concept of a state and the approximate borders it should have - Ireland was a Lordship in Union with England/Great Britain for some time, and the Kingdoms of Italy and Germany were titles held by the Holy Roman Emperor. The others all qualify, though.

I'm not sure about India either. Surely the Maurya Empire and Gupta Empire were unified enough, Mughals were unified enough and even British India was unfied enough. So that a unified nation in that area hardly surprises anyone.

 

[Rufo]

Arabia will be formable as a culture union in 1.8.

 

[Kansai-kun]

Arabia will be formable as a culture union in 1.8.

Will Egyptians be able to form it?

 

[tapewormlondon]

All this talk about if it is plausible, did it happen etc shouldnt really be the main focus. I should be is it fun?

CK2 added a load of empire titles that are not plausible, but it sure is great fun creating them! The more formable nations the better in my opinion.

 

[Rufo]

Will Egyptians be able to form it?

Yes.

 

[grisamentum]

But it would be nice to form "The Caliphate" as any Muslim nation.

There's already a decision to "unify Islam" which is described as being "the caliphate."

Moreover it doesn't make sense to form "the caliphate" in this time period because there was a relatively well-recognized caliph during the entire period.

To complicate matters further there is a Muslim decision for "adopt the title of caliph" if you have a good military ruler.

In short it's far more complicated then you imagine.

 

[Lys91]

I. Seeing how new expansion adds even more provinces (which is an awesome thing) thus making WC even more tiresome (which is an awful thing) I was wondering what are the odds that decision "form Arabia" will make it into the game, It would give me the incentive I need to get the Jihad achievement Arabia sprawled across the Asia, Africa and Europe looks so much cooler than Nejd.
II. Don't you think that this game misses quite a few union nations? I mean we can form relatively unimportant nations like Hanover, Westphalia, Kurland Sardinia-Piedmont Malaya, Bukhara, so why can't we form nations for whole culture groups like Arabia, Yugoslavia, something for tribes in North America, Turkic nomads in central Asia and Indochina [Thailand (or Siam) and Burma (or Myanmar) seem cooler than Ayutthaya (which gets its name from a city) or Taungoo (which gets its name from some dynasty) - this one is just my feeling still union nation for Indochina seems like a sweet idea] at this rate Soviet union will make it into the game before Arabia. would be fun actually. Russia spreading communism before it was invented, EUIV version of sunset invasion...
III. Culture mechanic - don't you think that culture system feels a bit old, crude and could use a total revamp? Right now It's actually more profitable to not culture change provinces, unless you like to paint map in political, cultural and religious map-mode. My idea for a change is too convoluted and would switch the focus of this game to culture management, so I won't bother You guys with reading it but please share Your thoughts on this subject.
IV. This is probably a pointless question, but are there any chances that difficulty of WC will decrease rather than increase in the next patches? Actually it's not about difficulty but about patience as WC is a tiresome grind... Also what's the point of aggressive expansion at this point? I mean we have war exhaustion to simulate the stress of wars, coalitions to simulate diplomatic repercussions of said wars, war score to restrict excessive expansion in a single war, nationalism to simulate unhappiness of people that were conquered, do we really need another expansion-retarding mechanic? It seems strange that people in England (that was at peace for a few decades, has good legitimacy and stability) get uppity because I took 7 provinces in India in a quick and effortless war. At this point in time I openly despise this mechanic...

Indochine is a colonial name, it come from the French and is made from India and China and was called a such as it was between India and China. 1) that sound pretty dull, 2) if anyone in the area had conquered the whole zone I doubt they would have called themselves the place between China and India...

 

[beckermt]

Yes.

Yay!! MORE FORMABLE COUNTRIES!! WHeeeee