I love this idea, maybe 1650 as diveder, as 1650 is a major change 'gamewise'
Greek unification
- Thread starter unmerged(199227)
- 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.
- Status
I love this idea, maybe 1650 as diveder, as 1650 is a major change 'gamewise'
Well, all this talk about historical accuracy and no one can point out that Scandinavia was NEVER a nation!
I believe that, the nations that can unified were selected mostly because of their coolness rather than their historicity. Who doesn't want to play as Scandinavia or as Prussia or as the Mughals or as the Byzantine Empire?
Nations like Belgium and Romania and Greece were not created because not many people wouldn't find them interesting.
Nations like Belgium and Romania and Greece were not created because not many people wouldn't find them interesting.
My Wallachia > Romania game has been my greatest one so far! Love the Balkan countries.
Anyway, I can't see why no one would want to play as Greece, Belgium, on the other hand, I don't think has ever really had many fans
At least Eddie Izzard is always giving them shit.
Anyway, I can't see why no one would want to play as Greece, Belgium, on the other hand, I don't think has ever really had many fans
At least Eddie Izzard is always giving them shit.
Actually, the union thing was mainly intended to rid certain countries of cultural penalties within their culture group. In some cases, this was deemed rather important, such as the UK and France. Ideally, however, each culture group should have a union tag, whether or not such a country ever existed in history.
In other words, decisions to form Greece, Romania or Belgium (none of which are culture group union tags) are really more for flavour (which is not a bad thing either).
In other words, decisions to form Greece, Romania or Belgium (none of which are culture group union tags) are really more for flavour (which is not a bad thing either).
Interesting, makes perfect sense. I could see Greece being the union country for the Greek culture group (which includes Georgian) though, even if it is a bit of stretch.
It was never a nation but theoretically speaking it's quite feasible that it could have formed under different circumstances. Norway, Denmark and Sweden are all very similar language wise (in the same sense that Bavaria and Prussia speak German but have their own dialects) and all three countries were united under the Kalmar Union, which is represented at game start through personal unions led by Denmark. The game uses the flag of Kalmar Union for the country of Scandinavia.
All three countries also have a lot of cultural similarities. Don't get me wrong, all three also have a unique national identity, but relatively speaking they are quite similar to each other.
I don't want to play as Scandinavia, the blue blob of the north rulez far more. and Belgium isn't a nation, it's a mistake.
What now is Belgium is in the game covered by Hainaut, Brabant, Liege and Burgundy.
I am not thinking so, comrade. Greeks and Georgians are only together under the byzantines. Greece would just be greek, but would have cores most culturally greek provinces. It would probably had Ireland-like forming requirements, so rather than needing cores on Athens, naxos, morea and achaea it would just need to own these to form greece, and thus get cores.
What now is Belgium is in the game covered by Hainaut, Brabant, Liege and Burgundy.
and Flanders.
Culture groups with unions: British (GB), French (France), Iberian (Spain), German (Germany/HRE), Latin (Italy), Iranian (Persia), East Slavic (Russia), Scandinavian (Scandinavia), Byzantine (BYZ), Altaic (Mongol Khanate).
Culture groups without unions: Gaelic, Basque (unnecessary), Finno-Ugric, South Slavic, West Slavic, Baltic, Turko-Semitic, anything in the New World, anything in India, China, or Indochina.
>>While I think of it, why is it that Qing is formed by Ming after Manchu disappears? Isn't Qing also called the Manchu dynasty?
Culture groups without unions: Gaelic, Basque (unnecessary), Finno-Ugric, South Slavic, West Slavic, Baltic, Turko-Semitic, anything in the New World, anything in India, China, or Indochina.
>>While I think of it, why is it that Qing is formed by Ming after Manchu disappears? Isn't Qing also called the Manchu dynasty?
I don't think the HRE is counted as a union for all Germanic cultures.
edit: I misread your post, anomanderus answered your question=)
I think it exists because historically the ming were conquered by the manchu/qing. But ingame the manchu will never be able to achieve such a feat.
Yeah, that probably makes more sense to treat it like Ireland. Like I said it is a bit of a stretch, I only mentioned because of the idea that every culture group should ideally have a union tag. So I think, if you needed to come up a nation to fit this criteria, Greece would work as a union country.
True. The unfortunate aspect of this is that it is actually possible for it to occur, it's just really unlikely. In one game I saw the entirety of China change hands from the Ming to Qin (or maybe it was the Wu). The Ming do collapse entirely from time to time, and all it would take is for the Manchu to declare war at that time to take territory. Unfortunately it is such a rare event that most games you'd never seen the Qing Dynasty.
- Status