More formable countries?

[JosunUrashima]

Is it a possibility that we might see the inclusion of more formable countries in the future? be they ones that are a bit further into the future of the game's timeframe (like Austria-Hungary) or just interesting concepts for some? (say a nation formable if you unite all of the Indochina region) or perhaps alternates of ones that existed (example- the Aztec being able to form a more Aztec flavored Mexico?)

 

[Entrone]

I proposed a formable Austria-Hungary once, and got mixed feedback. Some people would like the opportunity, some people find it unhistorical. They are right about that, Austria often pretty early obtains the control of Hungary, and seeing Austria-Hungary formed in 1526 would be really weird. On the other hand, just like in the case of Italy or Germany, which are even more outside of the timeframe, with more specific conditions, it would be good to see Austria-Hungary as a formable.
Except this country, I don't miss any more formables, this Emperor patch will give us plenty of new opportunities to form countries, like Bavaria, Pomerania.

 

[moscal]

Main question - why?

Formable countries often haven't any interesant elements. Eg. Scandinavia lost individual events, decisions etc. Better way is non-reforming and stay as Sweden, Norwey or Dannemark.

Always should be question - do new formable country can have any events, decisions etc. to show this country as interesant for play?

 

[Mr.Grizzly]

I'm always open to more formables when they make sense and have flavour, as @moscal mentioned, often times you lose the unique things associated with your country before the formable, since you're an entirely new tag and usually these formables have nothing of use to them. Scandinavia is mentioned frequently, other examples would be Algiers, Westphalia, Germany, Italy and Egypt.

One of the issues though with formables is if they make sense or not, one of the big ones proposed, Austria-Hungary, makes no sense. Austria didn't from the just the Austrian Empire to the Austro-Hungarian Empire because they were nice, it was due to pressure from the old Kingdom of Hungary to have some sort of autonomy and run things their own way while still being in the empire, yes I know there was revolts and what not, but since I don't know the specific since frankly Austria-Hungary was a failed state so I don't research them fully. This would be like Great Britain forming England-Scotland, it's a downgrade. If Austria-Hungary was going to be added to the game, which I'm not entirely against, it shouldn't be a "Yeah you upgraded!", it should be more of "You succumb to the demands, you lose prestige and stuff". Angevin Empire was never really a country, it was England, but they controlled French lands, something England tried to do before game start and has the opportunity of doing AND has their claim to France represented on their coat of arms at start of the game. Not only that but the Angevin Empire is a name we gave to it to describe the period of English rule in France, it was not an official name of country, and in French the name given is "Empire Plantagenêt", so the Plantagenet Empire, meaning it doesn't really work without a Plantagenet monarch, similar to the Ottomans. So once England gets the House of Tudor, or anyone not Plantagenet, Lancaster, York or even a somehow resurrected Angevin, it doesn't really work. \

Then we have tags that are divisive and probably won't be added and understandably so, rather it be because the time period they were around for or other issues such as name. Some examples would be tags, such as Czechia, Slovakia, Czechoslovakia, Slovenia, Yugoslavia, Zapadoslavia, Iberia, Lusitania, Portugalicia, Belgium, Celtica (Or whatever you want to call the Celtic Union country), Turkey, Belarus, Ukraine or Maghreb. (I'm giving European or nearby examples since that's what I'm most familiar with) These are all tags that have some justification, but also are held back. The ones I'm not totally opposed to are Czechia, Slovakia, Czechoslovakia, Zapadoslavia, Slovenia, Yugoslavia, Portugalicia, Turkey, Maghreb. For me the pros outweigh the cons for these formables, but the others not so much.

Formable tags that I would be in favour and seem to be generally accepted as possible tags would be Wallonia, United Kingdom (of Great Britain & Ireland), North German Confederation, South German Confederation, Denmark-Norway, Sweden-Norway, Lombardy, Piedmont, Poland-Lithuania-Ruthenia Commonwealth and Occitania to name a few, of course these are just some that I've seen and think could work, feel free to share your thoughts.

 

[JosunUrashima]

Main question - why?

Formable countries often haven't any interesant elements. Eg. Scandinavia lost individual events, decisions etc. Better way is non-reforming and stay as Sweden, Norwey or Dannemark.

Always should be question - do new formable country can have any events, decisions etc. to show this country as interesant for play?

I mean, even knowing this that wouldn't stop me from forming Scandinavia if I united the whole of the region, and I'm sure that sometimes often applies to others.

Also I do like the mention of formables that have specific conditions. An Austria-Hungary that can get formed because an Austria that rules over Hungary is facing trouble with the revolts, and thus say reforms into it but has some temporary modifiers and potentially long term higher autonomy in Hungary would be cool.

 

[Donlad]

New formables are indeed a slippery slope. I have proposed some in the past as well and also got very mixed feedback. I think a good baseline for new tags is every culture deserves it's own formable or "reformable" nation. Like how English cultured nations could form England. That would be ideal but is not always easy to implement.

Also above as @Mr.Grizzly mentioned, there's also the issue of dynastic tags like the Angevin or Jagiellonian 'empires'. I'm not really keen on making these formable nations, but a possible solution for the Angevins could be a Divergences of Darkness reference.

 

[JosunUrashima]

New formables are indeed a slippery slope. I have proposed some in the past as well and also got very mixed feedback. I think a good baseline for new tags is every culture deserves it's own formable or "reformable" nation. Like how English cultured nations could form England. That would be ideal but is not always easy to implement.

Also above as @Mr.Grizzly mentioned, there's also the issue of dynastic tags like the Angevin or Jagiellonian 'empires'. I'm not really keen on making these formable nations, but a possible solution for the Angevins could be a Divergences of Darkness reference.

Dynastic tags would I think certainly be very interesting to have but should probably either be things that start out existing and are easy to lose, or are very hard to create/reform.

 

[MagnusDux]

Illyria/Yugoslavia would be a cool formable.

 

[JJEmperor74]

They've added vermont, texas and louisiana as formables in N. America so why not add in the other 13 original american colonies as formable tags?

Also the N. America map needs a makeover

 

[Donlad]

They've added vermont, texas and louisiana as formables in N. America so why not add in the other 13 original american colonies as formable tags?

Also the N. America map needs a makeover

I agree that the North American province map needs a touch up. But I think having all the 13 Colonies as formable nations would be too much, even though you could say that it is somewhat justifiable during the Articles of Confederation. There would be just too many issues.

However I am much more partial to the idea of a New England formable and a Southern formable (either Carolina or Virginia). There are plenty of examples of flags to chose from and they are culturally justifiable. In addition to them being formable nations, if you form the United States both New England and Virginia/Carolina should gain cores on their respective territories. This would represent secessionist and regionalist thought in both the North and the South and give both tags more use than just being a formable.

This is an edit but I just thought about the Burr Conspiracy and you could use the already in game Louisiana tag to represent that. So if the US owns the Louisiana Territory, another event should fire should fire that gives Louisiana cores in the region.

 

[JJEmperor74]

Yes, I do think perhaps that many formables** in that region would be too many BUT there's no reason why there can't be an option to release the individual 13 colonies joined by an HRE-style interface styled after the articles government. The other option could be forming the ordinary USA tag with the original 13 colonies each having cores created for them in the appropriate provinces of the USA tag, to add to the secessionist element of the USA gameplay. That would be a good idea since any one of them could then be released and played as. So I advocate for the individual states as releasable tags** rather than formables.

 

[Mr.Grizzly]

Thirteen Colonies doesn't work as well, if a colony on the East Coast of America is going to declare independence then they should be forming America, Thirteen Colonies would be the name for a colonial nation in America for Great Britain. Although even that depends, because what if France and/or Spain decide to colonize parts of the East Coast too, so maybe it'd only be the Seven Colonies? If we're going to add regional tags that can be formed that represent not all of America, as a stop gap until someone forms America, which should ALWAYS be the desired formable in that area, then Carolina would work best, mostly due to the fact that if the North and South merged they would be the biggest state in that area, I would also like to see Florida, and I don't mean modern day Florida, but the old territories of East and West Florida, since it was the Americans who partitioned West Florida, it's possible that a united Florida could exist. These a regional tags I can get behind much easier in America. I would've preferred seeing Massachusetts as the New England region tag, Vermont is just a silly choice, them being in the game works for me, but not as a New England wanna be, Massachusetts had territory all the way up to Maine and even at one point included parts of the modern day provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in Canada. Virginia is another state that could work in the south, but I'd rather see Carolina.

 

[Lightwell]

I'd just like it to be a bit easier to form Segu, and maybe give it some unique NIs. Maybe improve Hausan NIs.

 

[JJEmperor74]

I think the reason for vermont inclusion is that they declared themselves as an independent state before the thirteen colonies were, and for a time existed independent of the 13 original united states. Vermont was not as you'd expect one of the original 13.

 

[Mr.Grizzly]

I think the reason for vermont inclusion is that they declared themselves as an independent state before the thirteen colonies were, and for a time existed independent of the 13 original united states. Vermont was not as you'd expect one of the original 13.

And it'd be fine if they did that, I myself have said I'd like to see them in the game in the past, problem is they are taking Vermont, giving it ridiculously strong ideas, making it represent the entire area of New England instead of just Vermont and giving them a fake flag and acknowledging it's fake and saying it's ok because Vermont is going to represent all of New England.

 

[JJEmperor74]

Yes that does seem a little lazy. What's wrong with just using vermonts first historical flag?

 

[Mr.Grizzly]

Yes that does seem a little lazy. What's wrong with just using vermonts first historical flag?

They didn't really provide an argument, which is why some people, such as myself, are quite angry with how Vermont is being portrayed in the game

 

[EasternTiger]

They didn't really provide an argument, which is why some people, such as myself, are quite angry with how Vermont is being portrayed in the game

They listened and changed Vermont's flag to the historical Green Mountain boys flag. Vermont's other problem can be fixed by updating American ideas so that they are not subpar compared to Vermont's idea. The more concerning issue is the idea of a Cascadia tag. As a person living in "Cascadia", I think a Cascadia tag is inappropriate. Cascadia isn't even a real country or even a real independence movement. The best way to give tags for the Pacific Northwest is to have a Russian and American-centric Alaska tag and a Canadian based Columbia tag.

 

[JosunUrashima]

There's a part of me that is thinking as I look at the new Mission Tree for a Unified Germany in EUIV's next expansion that the point of hisoricalness kind of falls by the wayside.

As does me learning there are now more tags in North America that I did not know about!

 

[MadDoctorScientist]

I proposed a formable Austria-Hungary once, and got mixed feedback. Some people would like the opportunity, some people find it unhistorical. They are right about that, Austria often pretty early obtains the control of Hungary, and seeing Austria-Hungary formed in 1526 would be really weird. On the other hand, just like in the case of Italy or Germany, which are even more outside of the timeframe, with more specific conditions, it would be good to see Austria-Hungary as a formable.
Except this country, I don't miss any more formables, this Emperor patch will give us plenty of new opportunities to form countries, like Bavaria, Pomerania.

Never played the original Europa Universalis, I see.