Formable nations...... question for devs, and players.

[Chieron]

I thought Brazil was in EU3. I remember an event that make most of South America Brazil's cores.

Only as a revolter, not formable. Colonial nations don't really work as formable nations/ unions.
As far as missing formable nations are concerned, Two Sicilies sounds good. Otherwise.. maybe Siam?

 

[Stormhound]

Illyria/Yugoslavia, call it whatever you want (ponyland of endless freedoms and libertys deluxe) but there has to be something for the Balkan nations to transform into

They already have something to transform into...a morass of isolated backstabbing constantly-warring city states that never gets anywhere because each one loathes all the others profoundly.

Oh, wait, they already have that, guess that's why the word "Balkanize" is in the dictionary. :rofl:

 

[Stormhound]

Ehhh. I'm not sure how I feel about ahistorical nations popping up.

Why exactly would that be a problem? After all, just how close did the US come in the 1770's to being an "ahistorical nation"?

I think if it's reasonably plausible...strong links in culture and religion, for instance...there shouldn't be a problem with it. Part of the idea, methinks, is to allow us to explore alternative history...not just slavishly recreate actual history.

 

[Hugus]

I honestly don't get the question Byzantium vs Greece. Byzantium was the shattered remains of Rome. It was an Imperial nation that once aggregated the greek-speaking peoples in the East. Greek-speaking because it was both the cultured language and the "lingua franca" of trade. Not culturally Greek. We are not in the Low Middle Ages timeframe in which one could argue Alexandria, Antioch and the like were Greek cities.

By the 15th century Greece (or Hellas) could be a formable nation with Achaea, Morea and Athens as suggested above. Cores in Larissa, Thessalia, Macedonia, Edirne, Naxos, Corfu, Thrace, Crete. Maybe (just maybe) in the shores of Asia Minor too.
Byzantium would still be the Imperialistic nation that would strive to dominate the whole of the Eastern Mediterranean as it once did: Greece, Macedonia, Thracia, Dacia, Southern Italy, Illyria, Asia Minor, Trebizond, Armenia. And then Syria and Egypt. And then Mesopotamia, Africa, Mauritania...

Why can't they both be possibilities? It'd be the same as saying you couldn't form Ireland, because their lands are part of what would became the United Kingdom in 1801.

I'd like to see Greece and Ireland as suggested above.
Hispania (Portugal+Castille+Aragon): It almost happened as there was an heir to the three kingdoms recognized by the Estates of them all: Infante Miguel of Portugal (1498-1500). His mother (the heiress of Castille and Aragon) died in childbirth and the child died aged two. And then, for something completely different: the Habsburgs inherited. Business as usual

Italia was an old dream, although it only came to pass in the XIX century: hope it's in too.
I think someone also suggested Burgundy. Or Lotharingia: something that expresses the ambition of the Dukes to get a crown of their own.

At the beginning of the XVI century the Jagiellonian dynasty ruled Lithuania, Poland, Hungary and Bohemia. They were not all under a PU because Casimir IV willed that his eldest (already King of Bohemia and Hungary through is mother), would not inherit Poland and Lithuania also, that passed to the younger sons. Anyway it should be possible to form some kind Jagiellonian Empire.

 

[unmerged(80402)]

Problem with USA is that EU does not reflect colonial revolutions well enough. IMO as said before by me a few times, there should be other game for this.

 

[grandadmiralbob]

Honestly, I like almost all of the ideas that all of you guys have said. I don't think anyone would like, especially in the long term, a game where only historical nations existed. I like some smaller German states, like Westphalia, to be in-game. But anyways, what can we do to get them added in the game itself. I'm a little tired of fighting against either Britain, Spain, France, etc. etc. in my European games, so imo, there should be more options. Wouldn't it be interesting if the Dutch, the Illyrians, and some muslim state dominated Europe in game?

On a side note, I STRONGLY support that other guys idea for a Siam, and to the other guy that made the 2 Balkan jokes, I have two things to say. and :l

 

[Riza]

Love the Hispania idea Hugus put forth.

All the ones I'd love to see have already been raised.
Germany (Maybe the North German Confederate instead? or maybe when you conquer all Germanic culture you could form a Greater Germany like in March of the Eagles?)
Austria-Hungary
Confederation of the Rhine
Westphalia
Lotharingia

Those are the top ones I'm really hoping for.

Maybe a Roman Empire... Anyone?

 

[c01mhth10ch]

Illyria: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrian_Provinces

It was not a long lasting sovereign state, true, but it show the viewpoints and ambitions of the time period. It could be same thing as (Y)Jugoslavia or if you prefer it in english English Southslavia, but it could be named differently based on the culture/time period. This should not be about what should have happened in history anyway, but what could have happened if...

More ambitions for more states can only be good unless it's something really annoying like roman empire!

last one was a joke

 

[Chieron]

Love the Hispania idea Hugus put forth.

All the ones I'd love to see have already been raised.
Germany (Maybe the North German Confederate instead? or maybe when you conquer all Germanic culture you could form a Greater Germany like in March of the Eagles?)
Austria-Hungary
Confederation of the Rhine
Westphalia
Lotharingia

Those are the top ones I'm really hoping for.

Maybe a Roman Empire... Anyone?

Problem with Westphalia and the Confederation of the Rhine is that they were Napoleonic puppet states, not real nations. The CotR was a loose alliance (looser than even the HRE), Westphalia an artificial kingdom that collapsed soon after the wars. (Illyria is about the same). CotR would require to have the HRE dissolved, acting in a similar manner afterwards.
Meaningful unions in the German region would be the stem duchies, like Franconia and Saxony(which includes most of Westphalia), giving cores on the rest of the duchy territory (particularly those pesky republics and bishoprics)
Germany is already formable. Having an entity named "Greater Germany" would be strange.

Austria-Hungary would need to be formed late (considering that it arose from Hungarian nationalism/underrepresentation). Seeing it before 1700 would be weird.

Also remember that due to the fact that the original constituents could revolt away partially (like Germany from Greater Germany), it would be more helpful, if those are not tag changes, but merely name changes.
Being able to freely change the name of your country instead of tag-switching could be a good solution.

 

[Hugus]

Meaningful unions in the German region would be the stem duchies, like Franconia and Saxony(which includes most of Westphalia), giving cores on the rest of the duchy territory (particularly those pesky republics and bishoprics)

This is a cool idea How many were there? Saxony, Bavaria, Swabia and Franconia for sure. Upper and Lower Lorraine?

 

[Valens Bellator]

I didn't find this to be the case in EU3. In CK2, Ireland is a modestly-strong kingdom and the English don't invest much in conquering it. In EU3 Ireland is much weaker relative to England, and England has a much easier time making war on it. Playing as Ireland in EU has usually been an exercise in frustration for me.

I did not mean to suggest that it is easy, but rather that it's a crash course that prepares you for the rest of the game. Playing an Irish minor is certainly difficult and may require a restart or two, but it has a lot going for it. They're geographically isolated, your options are rather limited (so you won't feel overwhelmed initially) and there's 3 other OPMs that can be taken that don't usually draw any other countries into the war outside of Brittany.

Once you've united the others it just becomes a matter of waging an attrition war with the British, and following the acquisition if Meath Ireland is in a great position to focus on trade and colonization should you wish to try those out. That's all I meant, then, when I said that playing as an Irish minor seems like a decent crash course for this game.

 

[Porsenna]

Illyria: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrian_Provinces

It was not a long lasting sovereign state, true, but it show the viewpoints and ambitions of the time period. It could be same thing as (Y)Jugoslavia or if you prefer it in english English Southslavia, but it could be named differently based on the culture/time period. This should not be about what should have happened in history anyway, but what could have happened if...

I think it would work better with the home grown (if still fantasy) coat of arms that were dreamed up for it in the 17th century:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyria#Legacy

Or with the coat of arms it would take when re-incorporated into Austria-Hungary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Illyria_(1816–1849)

 

[Dafool]

Illyria: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrian_Provinces

It was not a long lasting sovereign state, true, but it show the viewpoints and ambitions of the time period. It could be same thing as (Y)Jugoslavia or if you prefer it in english English Southslavia, but it could be named differently based on the culture/time period. This should not be about what should have happened in history anyway, but what could have happened if...

More ambitions for more states can only be good unless it's something really annoying like roman empire!

last one was a joke

I feel a need to bring this up in most threads, but the wiki's articles on Illyria are awful. After a fair amount of researching and digging, the real picture is this: The Habsburgs wanted to set up a South Slavic Kingdom in Croatia and Bosnia. The idea was that this kingdom could work as a means of securing and defending the Balkans against the Turks. However, it never really took off. The premiss really isn't that great for a formable nation, as it's more akin to Westphalia from a gameplay standpoint, but it's still not the worst basis you could come up with.

 

[Porsenna]

I feel a need to bring this up in most threads, but the wiki's articles on Illyria are awful. After a fair amount of researching and digging, the real picture is this: The Habsburgs wanted to set up a South Slavic Kingdom in Croatia and Bosnia. The idea was that this kingdom could work as a means of securing and defending the Balkans against the Turks. However, it never really took off. The premiss really isn't that great for a formable nation, as it's more akin to Westphalia from a gameplay standpoint, but it's still not the worst basis you could come up with.

I don't think you've been researching particularly thoroughly then, as the picture I've come up with is that the Austrians only got onto the concept of an Illyrian Kingdom to balance out the ambitions (within the Austrian Empire) of the Crown of Hungary, and that this piggy backed on Napoleonic territorial organization of the area into a client state of Imperial France. (And it's aftermath)

Both of these are tenuously connected with a desire in the area with the concept of 'early Illyrianism" dating from the outset in the 15th century, and gaining momentum in the 16th and 17th and finding its expression in such works as the "Fojnica Armorial".

Which of course means it's a perfectly wonderful idea.

 

[Red_warning]

A South Slav union would be nice, maybe some Afghan or Turkestani cores to make central Asia more interesting, an Arab cultural union and maybe a few sprinkled throughout Africa. Any others would be a little too unhistorical, I think (although, Scandinavia).

Scandinavia isn't that unhistorical, it was a real political aspiration during this game's time frame to unite all Scandinavians under one crown. It was even a reality for 120 years and at the start of the game. With this in mind, very late unifications like Germany, unifications or formations as a result of western imperialism like India and Afghanistan, or ideas of unification like pan-arabia, are much more unhistorical. The only unhistorical thing about Scandinavia is the name, if Denmark or Sweden had managed to achieve total domination there would just be "Denmark" or "Sweden", but I think it's the idea that is most important here.

Edit: To clarify, in 1444 "Scandinavia" is much more real than Italy, Germany or Yugoslavia. It was actually an existing entity.

 

[Riza]

Problem with Westphalia and the Confederation of the Rhine is that they were Napoleonic puppet states, not real nations. The CotR was a loose alliance (looser than even the HRE), Westphalia an artificial kingdom that collapsed soon after the wars. (Illyria is about the same). CotR would require to have the HRE dissolved, acting in a similar manner afterwards.
Meaningful unions in the German region would be the stem duchies, like Franconia and Saxony(which includes most of Westphalia), giving cores on the rest of the duchy territory (particularly those pesky republics and bishoprics)
Germany is already formable. Having an entity named "Greater Germany" would be strange.

Austria-Hungary would need to be formed late (considering that it arose from Hungarian nationalism/underrepresentation). Seeing it before 1700 would be weird.

Also remember that due to the fact that the original constituents could revolt away partially (like Germany from Greater Germany), it would be more helpful, if those are not tag changes, but merely name changes.
Being able to freely change the name of your country instead of tag-switching could be a good solution.

Yeah good points.
Name changing would be cool, could include puppets, so we could do these things, but I highly doubt they would do that, one can only wish though.

Maybe they could have some kind of Coalition Naming scheme, but maybe that's just getting a little bit ridiculous. I don't know how well a Greater Germany would work, but I thought that it was a cool idea to include the German unification ideas. Although seeing as how it was considerably late in EU4 time frame its probably best not to include it, and yeah, it could probably just be called Germany anyway.

 

[Raeheart_]

I feel a need to bring this up in most threads, but the wiki's articles on Illyria are awful. After a fair amount of researching and digging, the real picture is this: The Habsburgs wanted to set up a South Slavic Kingdom in Croatia and Bosnia. The idea was that this kingdom could work as a means of securing and defending the Balkans against the Turks. However, it never really took off. The premiss really isn't that great for a formable nation, as it's more akin to Westphalia from a gameplay standpoint, but it's still not the worst basis you could come up with.

The Habsburgs wanted to set themselves up everywhere. The fact that the Balkans was one of them is negligible in terms of history. I do like the idea of a country to form if you are good at being a Balkan country. Panslavia or something.

 

[WeissRaben]

Scandinavia isn't that unhistorical, it was a real political aspiration during this game's time frame to unite all Scandinavians under one crown. It was even a reality for 120 years and at the start of the game. With this in mind, very late unifications like Germany, unifications or formations as a result of western imperialism like India and Afghanistan, or ideas of unification like pan-arabia, are much more unhistorical. The only unhistorical thing about Scandinavia is the name, if Denmark or Sweden had managed to achieve total domination there would just be "Denmark" or "Sweden", but I think it's the idea that is most important here.

Edit: To clarify, in 1444 "Scandinavia" is much more real than Italy, Germany or Yugoslavia. It was actually an existing entity.

...nnno, not really. There was an union of crowns, and that union COULD have coalesced into an united Scandinavia; but in 1444, Italy and Germany were just as real - maybe you are thinking of the nation states, but in game you don't see those. You see the crowns still in the hands of the Holy Roman Emperor: which is why forming Italy changes you into a kingdom, even if you started as a republic.

 

[Red_warning]

...nnno, not really. There was an union of crowns, and that union COULD have coalesced into an united Scandinavia; but in 1444, Italy and Germany were just as real - maybe you are thinking of the nation states, but in game you don't see those. You see the crowns still in the hands of the Holy Roman Emperor: which is why forming Italy changes you into a kingdom, even if you started as a republic.

There is no real difference between having three or one crown on your head, what matters is that there is a central authority exercising power in those lands. And as a matter of fact there was a fairly unified political entity in Northern Europe. You are thinking too much in terms of titles and other abstract concept. Calling yourself king of Italy bears no real meaning if no kingdom of Italy actually exist, much like you don't actually become king of the moon just because you proclaim to be so. Realpolitik is the key here.

 

[Chieron]

This is a cool idea How many were there? Saxony, Bavaria, Swabia and Franconia for sure. Upper and Lower Lorraine?

Saxony (already formed and collapsed), Franconia, Swabia, Bavaria (already formed, lost territory), Upper Lorraine (would be the nation Lorraine), Lower Lorraine

Map, around 1000 AD
One should try not to get to close to the de-jure-duchy concept of CK2, however.