Europa Universalis IV Developer diary 15 - Et tu Brute?

  • 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.
Why Rome is needed to form Italy? Historically Italy was formed without Rome and later conquered this city. ( Remember about heroic fight of Papal zuaves). If catholic wants to form Italy but don't want to fight with pope - he should have possiblity to unite Italy without Rome.

Yes, in the 19th century. Prior to that, the Italian unification was seen as impossible without Rome. Napoleon's Kingdom of Italy doesn't really count in my book, as it was merely a puppet. Even during the unification in the 19th century, it was also seen as unlikely without Rome. But they made a compromise. This is why the capital was moved from Piedmonte to Firenze, to signify the intent of getting Rome, which seemed impossible being protected by France.

I'd say, that while unification without Rome happened historically, it was more the exception than the rule. And besides, it happened outside of the timeframe, when things were different.

Also, what that other guy said.
 
but who would actually change their rulers to king anyway (after going republic)? Sure, maybe if you thought the republic was more work than it gives, but then you probably will never do it again in any of your games in such a way, because you would know better and just not go republic!

maybe the ai might do it, but how would it be done? well, have fun coding it !!!
 
but who would actually change their rulers to king anyway (after going republic)? Sure, maybe if you thought the republic was more work than it gives, but then you probably will never do it again in any of your games in such a way, because you would know better and just not go republic!

maybe the ai might do it, but how would it be done? well, have fun coding it !!!

That's the point, it's the risk you play when you try to keep that really awesome leader in charge.
 
thanks johan, obviosuly i like the effort you are putting in to making the dev diaries (as im sure they can be a pain if your very busy) but can you tell us when we will start to learn about game mechanics in new diaries like the trade route one.
 
Yes, in the 19th century. Prior to that, the Italian unification was seen as impossible without Rome. Napoleon's Kingdom of Italy doesn't really count in my book, as it was merely a puppet. Even during the unification in the 19th century, it was also seen as unlikely without Rome. But they made a compromise. This is why the capital was moved from Piedmonte to Firenze, to signify the intent of getting Rome, which seemed impossible being protected by France.

I'd say, that while unification without Rome happened historically, it was more the exception than the rule. And besides, it happened outside of the timeframe, when things were different.

Also, what that other guy said.

I agree, but the only problem I find is it would move the Pope to some other random place, instead of him staying in Rome as he did in real life. (That is, if it worked like it did in eu3)

So I agree that it is the exception that Rome was not taken for Italy, but it is almost a rule that the Pope would stay in Rome (unless forced out... which I cannot see happening by the doing of an Italian unification, they would at least let him stay in his pretty churches)

So what should be done about this?



One idea I have, is an event or a decision, that you have an option kick the Pope out of Rome after you conquer it (such as in an Italian unification). And if you do not kick him out, he would just still be based in Rome, but will not have any provinces and will not just dance around the map's theocracies. (of course, one could have also an event or decision to give Rome back to the Pope)


those are just some random ideas

though you might disagree with the problem i thought up anyway :p
 
Yes, in the 19th century. Prior to that, the Italian unification was seen as impossible without Rome. Napoleon's Kingdom of Italy doesn't really count in my book, as it was merely a puppet. Even during the unification in the 19th century, it was also seen as unlikely without Rome. But they made a compromise. This is why the capital was moved from Piedmonte to Firenze, to signify the intent of getting Rome, which seemed impossible being protected by France.

I'd say, that while unification without Rome happened historically, it was more the exception than the rule. And besides, it happened outside of the timeframe, when things were different.

Also, what that other guy said.

Surely though, conquering the Pope would only hurt the idea of an italian unification, unless north Italy went protestant or something.
 
That's the point, it's the risk you play when you try to keep that really awesome leader in charge.

but there is no risk! You will know if it will revert! and what madman would, if he wants to stay republic, keep the same leader if he is under 20% tradition?!

i mean, if you know you are under 20% tradition, you will know not to elect the same leader twice. so there is no risk anyway, unless you do not know how much tradition you have or unless it is based on chance if it reverts via a percentage change of it happening tied to the tradition

actually, this might be a good idea

have the chance for it to revert to a monarchy tied to the tradition, such that, if you have 50% tradition, you can still have a chance to revert if you elect the same leader! (just a much much smaller chance than if you were at say 20%)
some arbritrary numbers:

if at 50% tradition, one has a 50% chance to revert to monarchy if reelects same ruler (well, maybe it could be, at 50% tradition, there is a... 10% chance? or 25%... i dont know!)

anyway, i am tired so sorry if i am insane :p
 
about the italian unification and rome, I posted some weeks ago that it could be solved by making a small province inside or beside rome where the pope can remain after rome became Italian capital. some sort of "Vatican province", wich can exist from the start. But I really don't know if this will make more problems than what it solves.

EDIT: unique ideas and flavor for smaller countries like milan sounds great, but I wonder if the rest minors will get all the same generic NIs or it will depend on the region or the features of the country.
 
Surely though, conquering the Pope would only hurt the idea of an italian unification, unless north Italy went protestant or something.

well, at least for the revolutionaries, many of them did not really care about the Pope and wanted to take all of his land and leave him with his churches

but that was in a different era than EU4 I suppose
 
Surely though, conquering the Pope would only hurt the idea of an italian unification, unless north Italy went protestant or something.

In the EU4 time frame? Yes. Not so much in the 19th century, where the Pope's powers were lessen.

But on the other hand, there wasn't the same desire for Italian unification prior the 19th century, because it would only be seen as a political entity rather than the will of the people. And with France and Castille fighting over Italian provinces, you can imagine they would oppose any Italian unification strongly.

But unifying Italy in this time frame is such an exceptional case, that I believe including Rome is necessary. Furthermore, it should piss off any country with interest in Italian lands.
 
I've always played milan in EUIII . It's a great country to play.
 
to stop it happening to often would be my guess.

Then you should ask the permission of the HRE emperor to create it because he held the legal right to this title since the middle ages. All-in-all it's very unlikely to form Italy peacefully. On the other hand if the HRE is disassembled or you can convince the Emperor of your right to the title by force then you have every legal right to form the Kingdom.
 
thanks johan, obviosuly i like the effort you are putting in to making the dev diaries (as im sure they can be a pain if your very busy) but can you tell us when we will start to learn about game mechanics in new diaries like the trade route one.

like republican tradition or cultural conversion ?
 
In the EU4 time frame? Yes. Not so much in the 19th century, where the Pope's powers were lessen.

But on the other hand, there wasn't the same desire for Italian unification prior the 19th century, because it would only be seen as a political entity rather than the will of the people. And with France and Castille fighting over Italian provinces, you can imagine they would oppose any Italian unification strongly.

But unifying Italy in this time frame is such an exceptional case, that I believe including Rome is necessary. Furthermore, it should piss off any country with interest in Italian lands.

My main problem is that while creating an Italian Italy should be something incredibly exceptional and worthy of praise; I don't like the idea that a possibly staunch catholic ruler would need too go to war with the Pope to create it. I would prefer that they would need the recognition of the HRE and Pope to legitimize their reign (Along with basically most of Northern Italy.

I'm still most certainly going to unite Italy under the Ambrosian flag. :)
 
Republican Traditions sound interesting. Could this simulate political decay in Noble Republics, or is there something special in store? Also - great to see event pictures.
 
I think I start to like the NI system. It will make balancing so much easier. If one random nation feels OP or always fail, I can simply tweak or change its bonuses.