Formable Nation Guessing Thread
- Thread starter Ryousan2k
- Start date
-
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.
Or at least a 'Greater Rhodesia' formed by South Africa or some released colonies. Possibly a Mali Empire or Songhai? Or a 'Union of La Plata' or Gran Colombia in South America.
With Gran Colombia being a thing, might the Peru-Bolivia confederation be a option?
I wonder to go along with the Australia-Hungary achievement if they'll include a meme decision to form it.
Last edited:
The restored Norman empire should be formable, but be different from the Franco-British union allowing for a Norman republic.
I would also like to see a formable Australasian Confederation (Australasia-Hungary?), Centroamerica, the Spanish Empire (Naples and possibly S. America) and a restored Aztec Empire, or an Incan Empire (Chile, Ecuador, Peru).
What Im wondering if they would include really obscure ones: Timurid Empire? Mughal Empire? Yuan China? We need more national Tags more than ever!
That's an invention of Kaiserreich, any historical move to unite Australia and New Zealand (in as much as such a thing was actually a thing at the time, which it wasn't really) would have been in the form of making New Zealand a state of Australia, as it was offered in 1901. The notion of forming a "confederation" out of a country that was so recently federated is a little bizarre.
Another interesting addition would the Peru-Bolivia Confederation: But this poses a question. When it comes to restoring some dead nation you would be only required to hold the constitutent parts of said Nation(such as Peru & Bolivia in this case) or all the historic territory? The COnfederation possesed territory in Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay in addition to what was eventually lost to Chile
I can see other countries, such as Byzantium facing a similar dilemma
I can see other countries, such as Byzantium facing a similar dilemma
Probably it's just whatever Paradox thinks makes sense for each decision. Given the shapes of states available, I think all these formables will be at best rough approximations of their historical borders.Another interesting addition would the Peru-Bolivia Confederation: But this poses a question. When it comes to restoring some dead nation you would be only required to hold the constitutent parts of said Nation(such as Peru & Bolivia in this case) or all the historic territory? The COnfederation possesed territory in Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay in addition to what was eventually lost to Chile
I can see other countries, such as Byzantium facing a similar dilemma
Look, if the HOI devs added the Franco-British Union as a viable option, anything can happen.
Which was historically proposed. As was New Zealand becoming a state of Australia (four decades prior to the game's focus), but the name "Australasian Confederation" is nonsensical. If New Zealand had agreed to join Federation, the country would still be called Australia. If it was later admitted, by choice or by force, the country would still be called Australia.
For the reverse situation, there is hay to be made over "West Island" but nothing that cosmetic tags can provide.
An issue I can see is that since formables will give cores, it's always going to be immensely beneficial to take the decision. Thus, the conditions either have to be obscure so they won't come up in a normal playthrough or the nation has to be fairly plausable. That doesn't leave many options outside of the ones already mentioned.
The Franco-British Union was never intended, in either France or Britain, to be a permanent and lasting single nation.
On the British side, the Union was considered as a last-ditch plan to save the French navy, and stop the French from surrendering. The two nations were to share a joint military command, citizenship, currency and foreign trade policy. It should be viewed as a temporary measure, one that was not that different to what materialised when the French government-in-exile was in London.
Meanwhile, in France, the deal was:
a "last minute plan" to steal its colonies, and a "fusion with a corpse".
Apparently, "be[ing] a Nazi province" was preferable to becoming a British Dominion" for most Frenchmen/women.
Indeed, the idea of a Franco-British Union was not entirely new. After the Entente Cordiale had been signed, Fernand Braudel described the two nations as a single unit, and a union was proposed during the Suez crisis.
Conversely, New Zealand was asked to join in the Commonwealth of Australia in 1900, something that would have provided a much closer union than the mooted Franco-British union.
Back to HoI, perhaps a NF/decision could join the two Pacific nations?
I can't for the life of me figure out what you think I'm trying to say if you think this is a rebuttal of it. It certainly can't be what I actually said, because you seem to think that New Zealand being invited into Federation is news to me, despite my clearly referencing this fact already. You have apparently forgotten already that you were the one who brought up the Franco-British union. I'm not even sure if you know what the formable nations this thread is talking about actually are; they are cosmetic tags you can switch to by decision after you control the necessary territory. The National Focuses you propose already exist. There is absolutely no need for an accompanying cosmetic tag, and certainly not one that only makes sense in the minds of Kaiserreich devs.
Sorry, I rather lost focus on the issue at hand with my rant earlier. I apologise for this.
However, I still think that Australia-New Zealand could be formed after Australia (having left the Commonwealth) annexes NZ, in order to stop issues with unrest in NZ (resulting in a loss of political power gain, perhaps?).
Sorry for the whole Franco-British Union thing, I rather lost the plot.
However, I still think that Australia-New Zealand could be formed after Australia (having left the Commonwealth) annexes NZ, in order to stop issues with unrest in NZ (resulting in a loss of political power gain, perhaps?).
Sorry for the whole Franco-British Union thing, I rather lost the plot.
No worries, water under the bridge.
For clarity, my objection is not to the concept of a union of Australia and New Zealand (which is beyond the scope of this thread) but to it being called specifically "The Australasian Confederation". Could a more historically reasonable tag be introduced with this mechanic? Perhaps, although I'd expect actual history (even ancient history, c.f. Byzantium) to take precedence.
