How does Paradox decides which countries are added to the game?

[pphair]

As long as The States of Jersey (Or the channel islands as an entity) do not exist, it will continue to make absolutely no sense. It is literally more important historically in this time than it is at any other point in history and even now massive sums of the worlds wealth is here. During the time period, it was made into one of the most fortified places on earth and was a key bone of contention during the 100 years war.

And the funnest part? The end trade node now is "The Channel", which ironically had Jersey as a key point of control.

So I guess the cold truth is that things are added because someone feels like it and not through some sort of worth determining process.

Your tone and profile pic makes your points come across as nationalistic ramblings. You have some legitimate ideas, but I, for one, can't take them seriously because of your approach.

Try to be more constructive and less dismissive.
"So I guess the cold truth is that things are added because someone feels like it and not through some sort of worth determining process."
Less of this kind of expression. It sounds too self important and passive aggressive.

On topic, I'd guess its mostly gameplay and historical significance ,the devs not wanting cultures to be empty of tags (like with Estonia), some fan input (Florence) and then divine intervention (Jan Mayen).

 

[Zelius]

1) You mean like any of the other islands which are all massively oversized? Like The Maldives? Who were less important than the Channel Islands in every possible measurable way in this time period? Lets not even get into some of the tiny islands in the new world.

2) Jersey was highly developed in the period. With significant dealings between England and France throughout the period. Here is some of the basics:

"Fortifications against the French can be seen all over the Island. Mont Orgueil Castle was constructed on the orders of King John himself to guard the Island's east coast. Elizabeth Castle, named after the Tudor English Queen, was built in the 16th century to defend the growing town of St Helier. And in the 1770s, the coastline was literally littered with a series of 'Martello' towers, designed to protect the Island from the threat of French invasions. These defences were penetrated by the French on several occasions. In 1461 French troops seized Mont Orgueil Castle itself and ruled the Island from it, with great severity, for seven years*. In 1781 a French expedition landed at La Rocque one January night and marched right into St Helier without a shot being fired against them. It was only the bravery of an English officer, Major Pierson, that prevented further French occupation."

*This is a key hundred years war event.

3) You are joking right? The channel islands were more important to European nobility than the entire of the USA for the majority of the period, being a holiday home and point of presitege in the endless "penis measuring" contest that was English-French relations.

Anyone with a background in history could easily justifiy the channel islands as being more important than a sigificant number of Tags in EUIV's timeline, at least as far as European politics were concerned. They aren't there because they would be technically difficult to add. They are the periods only republic to survive the whole timeline.

1) IMO the Maldives are there because it's a different place; i.e. for flavour. If you wanted to include every set of islands lying off the coast. You can't have the Caribbean without a swathe of islands, and the islands in the middle of the sea (Falklands, etc) are at least somewhere different, break up the monotony and not an extra province tacked on.

2) How developed, exactly? I accept that they might have been reasonably well-fortified as you say. I don't know much about them and wikipedia just gives me [citation needed] on everything... And would they have become developed if e.g. England had won the HYW so it wasn't an outpost that needed defending?

Is it really such a key event? The battle of Agincourt was a key event, the crowning of an English king in Paris was a key event... was it as important as the (later) taking of Calais to the French/English?

3) Maybe the nobility regarded the US region with disdan, maybe not. Doesn't mean it didn't provide buckets of wealth and luxury goods....

Source on the republic thing? Google fails me. By the way, are we including towns/cities with some republican tradition (i.e. some 'voting' for office) as republics?

 

[Edmon]

Your tone and profile pic makes your points come across as nationalistic ramblings. You have some legitimate ideas, but I, for one, can't take them seriously because of your approach.

Try to be more constructive and less dismissive.
"So I guess the cold truth is that things are added because someone feels like it and not through some sort of worth determining process."
Less of this kind of expression. It sounds too self important and passive aggressive.

On topic, I'd guess its mostly gameplay and historical significance ,the devs not wanting cultures to be empty of tags (like with Estonia), some fan input (Florence) and then divine intervention (Jan Mayen).

Thats great and everything, but Jersey isn't part of the UK. My country simply does not exist in EUIV and it's flag does not exist on this forum.

I had written on this subject far more politely before with sources and justification, but it disappeared quickly with relatively little comment.

In much the same way as most suggestions, if you write something and get most people to agree, it just ends up disappearing off the bottom of the forum. Unless people refuse to let it drop, like the Najd missionary strength thing. I made a fort redesign suggestion in which almost everyone agrees that the proposed changes would be a nice start, but soon that will drop off of the board and disappear. There is no conflict to keep it alive here.

Jersey is just an example anyway. Countries are in because whatever. This is not a history simulator, it's a wargame.

 

[volseraph]

In 1461 French troops seized Mont Orgueil Castle itself and ruled the Island from it, with great severity, for seven years*.

*This is a key hundred years war event.

Wars of the Roses, actually. (This was about a decade after the HYW ended.) It was reportedly handed as part of one of Margaret of Anjou's plots with the French (England and France weren't at war at the time). This was not a key event in the war.

I mean seriously, there is an american state called "NEW JERSEY". Guess what that is all about?

The Governor of Jersey was particularly loyal to Charles II. (Much like New York, which is named for the Duke of York, later James II.)

They don't just name parts of america, or use it's system of 2 elected officials and a (chief minister here, but president in america) after it because it's of no importance.

The system that ran Jersey remotely for the English worked, so they re-used it in America. It's that important.

I'm not sure what you mean here? I don't recall any mention of the Channel Islands in the Federalist Papers or anything, though it's been a long while.

IIRC, the Channel Islands were so economically tied to France that they used French currency until some time after the livre was abolished during the Revolution. The colonies, by contrast, were administered to be mercantilist economic satellites of Britain.

 

[grommile]

Thats great and everything, but Jersey isn't part of the UK. My country simply does not exist in EUIV and it's flag does not exist on this forum.

I would totally consider voting for a party who wanted to unilaterally detach you from the British crown.

 

[Standstill]

Adding a decision to form Europe as a nation WHEN

EDIT: Actually, please also add a formable United Empire of Earth

 

[Niebulheim]

Still waiting for that "Iceland" tag... It's been nearly 3 years, but I still have hope!

 

[Dakka]

Adding a decision to form Europe as a nation WHEN

EDIT: Actually, please also add a formable United Empire of Earth

I think Holy Imperial Terra would be much more suiting I think.

 

[Xara]

I think Holy Imperial Terra would be much more suiting I think.

Only if we can convert it to a Stellaris game afterwards.

 

[SignedName]

Still waiting for that "Iceland" tag... It's been nearly 3 years, but I still have hope!

Wouldn't that require an Icelandic culture to prevent the cores from disappearing?

 

[Dakka]

Only if we can convert it to a Stellaris game afterwards.

Ooh, maybe the Imperium of Man can be a formable Empire

 

[eon47]

In much the same way as most suggestions, if you write something and get most people to agree, it just ends up disappearing off the bottom of the forum. Unless people refuse to let it drop, like the Najd missionary strength thing. I made a fort redesign suggestion in which almost everyone agrees that the proposed changes would be a nice start, but soon that will drop off of the board and disappear. There is no conflict to keep it alive here.

I think the devs are smart enough to recognize the difference between a thread with a popular suggestion and a thread that only had a high number of responses because a poster is baiting for angry responses. Besides, if you look at when the developers have incorporated forum feedback, suggestions written in a disagreeable manner are basically never incorporated. Many, many people (myself occasionally among them, actually) complained for a very long time about hordes being underpowered, but rather than doing anything, the devs actively began to mock the complaints, and I suspect that they delayed working on the hordes specifically because most of the threads on the topic were filled with sensationalist, needlessly antagonistic comments that disinclined them from addressing the issue. Meanwhile, when the devs have acknowledged making a change because of player feedback, it's usually been the result of players stating things how they are and not trying to generate fake hype.

If the goal of your tone is to simply get high post counts for some reason, yeah, being antagonistic works. If it's to affect change in the game or in other user's minds, however, it's not a very effective tactic.

 

[Demetrios]

I think the devs are smart enough to recognize the difference between a thread with a popular suggestion and a thread that only had a high number of responses because a poster is baiting for angry responses. Besides, if you look at when the developers have incorporated forum feedback, suggestions written in a disagreeable manner are basically never incorporated. Many, many people (myself occasionally among them, actually) complained for a very long time about hordes being underpowered, but rather than doing anything, the devs actively began to mock the complaints, and I suspect that they delayed working on the hordes specifically because most of the threads on the topic were filled with sensationalist, needlessly antagonistic comments that disinclined them from addressing the issue. Meanwhile, when the devs have acknowledged making a change because of player feedback, it's usually been the result of players stating things how they are and not trying to generate fake hype.

If the goal of your tone is to simply get high post counts for some reason, yeah, being antagonistic works. If it's to affect change in the game or in other user's minds, however, it's not a very effective tactic.

Eon47 is right here. The best thing to do if you want something added (especially a province or a new nation tag) is to gather up as much germane research you can find, organize and present it in a concise, not-overly-emotional, and logical manner, and post it in the Suggestions subforum. It's not always going to work, as everything simply can't be added to the game, but doing it in that way will at least make it likely it will be given a good look-over. Going on a wall-of-text rant is simply going to cause eyes to glaze over.

 

[noon261]

Wouldn't that require an Icelandic culture to prevent the cores from disappearing?

Yes, but it should happen as an event for Denmark in the 1600's adding cores and changing the culture. The way I would personally handle it would be by making Iceland a colonial region with distant overseas penalties. The country is too small to become a colonial nation, there was never any real attempts at development done there and nobody ever cared (until 1942). Personally as a local, 6 development for the entire country is way overstating things (2 provinces with 1/1/1). It was useless to the king in every way that mattered, no manpower and the only income worth the name was by selling trading rights to the hillbillies.

 

[Wizzington]

As a fun little anecdote, let me tell you how the Art of War map expansion came about.

As we were wrapping up Res Publica, Johan stepped out from his office, walked over to the EU4 team (which I wasn't a part of at the time but was sitting with) and said, "I want 1000 new provinces outside Europe in 1.8".

I said "That's crazy talk."

He said "Do it anyway."

And then we did (with a lot of help from our betas and map modders).

 

[FrancescoT]

I said "That's crazy talk."

He said "Do it anyway."

I was almost expecting a "This is PARADOX!" 300 style instead of "Do it anyway"..

 

[Krebsig]

As a fun little anecdote, let me tell you how the Art of War map expansion came about.

As we were wrapping up Res Publica, Johan stepped out from his office, walked over to the EU4 team (which I wasn't a part of at the time but was sitting with) and said, "I want 1000 new provinces outside Europe in 1.8".

I said "That's crazy talk."

He said "Do it anyway."

And then we did (with a lot of help from our betas and map modders).

Are there anectodes about your crazy talk as well?

 

[Shatterfury]

Adding a decision to form Europe as a nation WHEN

EDIT: Actually, please also add a formable United Empire of Earth

Considering that India is a formable country, why not Europe ?

I`m not kidding, the Indians are even more diverse than Europeans in customs, religion and languages.

Sure, the British released an entire sub-continent as a country, but if the British wouldn`t have conquered India we might see the emergence of 5, 6 Indian states rather than India we see today with Pakistan and Bangladesh on the side.

 

[Lamahorse]

Can we please have several Irish minors and provinces added to the game? It took England hundreds of years to dominate Ireland, not just the one chain war!

 

[Wizzington]

Can we please have several Irish minors and provinces added to the game? It took England hundreds of years to dominate Ireland, not just the one chain war!

Ireland is certainly one of the areas that could use map work in the future, along with Africa, Russia and Scandinavia.