More formable countries

[neondt]

I want a China tag as well. We say England/France and not Tudors or Bourbons because that wouldn't make any sense for us. I find it almost bigoted that we're so comfortable with Ming/Qing and not China.

Those aren't analogous. If we were to call Tudor England "Tudors", Qing would be "Aisin Gioro". The names of Chinese dynasties refer to both the ruling house and the country itself.

 

[Wizzington]

Austria-Hungary is the silliest formable that people keep asking for.

 

[Wizzington]

Well me propose a sillier one, the VOC (United East India Company) forming out of the Netherlands

Makes about as much sense.

 

[Wizzington]

I'm all for new formables as long as they don't suck.

 

[Wizzington]

Formable tags for what is really personal unions like Austria-Hungary or Denmark-Norway is kind of silly. Rather than being a formable, an better approach would be to just display the union name (e.g. Austria-Hungary) on the map in place the individual countries names.

I've considered this but it'd need some custom stuff like 'Kalmar Union' as 'Denmark-Sweden-Norway' is just a teeny bit unwieldy.

 

[neondt]

Recently posted a suggestion here for decisions to form Dai Viet and Lan Xang. They're not new formables, but they are the primary nations of cultures that have other tags.

 

[Wizzington]

Not exactly formable but add Iceland you cheeky Swedes. It's more historical than Estonia and even Finland.

Ice... land?

Did you mean 'Western Norway'?

 

[Wizzington]

Out of interest, despite the fact it wasn't independant during the EUIV timeframe and was heavily influenced by Norweigan culture, what are your objections to adding it as a tag? If Norway hadn't been able to exert control over it couldn't it have become independant, even if it was a 'Norwegian' Iceland?

We're probably going to add it at some point, I was just trolling.

 

[Wizzington]

From the Forum Rules:

Always nice when the staff follows their own forum rules

I'm sorry that I upset your feelings by making a joke about the existance of an Iceland tag in a computer game. I'm sure it's a deadly serious topic to you.

 

[Wizzington]

That really is not the point.
The point is that the forum rules don't permit trolling and that it is quite ironic that a staff member admitts that he trolled the community. No matter if anybody's feelings are hurt or not. If you don't understand that then why don't you remove that rule from the forum rules?

Do you always interpret everything you read in a 100% literal fastion? Because that has to make life on the internet quite difficult for you.

 

[Wizzington]

No.
It's quite silly of you to trying to avoid answering a question by asking a new one instead.
So back to the original question: Why is there a forum rule that you don't obey yourself? You obviously seem to enjoy trolling. If the staff can't obey its own forum rules then why should the community?

Keep that torch burning, brave freedom fighter. One day you will make the evil game developer rue the wicked words he spoke about the Iceland tag in EU4. One day there will be a reckoning.

 

[Wizzington]

Golden Horde as a formable: Ehh, I'd prefer something like 'Tatarstan' or 'Tataria' even if it's not historical, I don't like tags that have the government form in the name and would change the name of GH if there was anything reasonable to replace it with.
Yuan: I could see this being added.
Two Sicilies: Not significant enough. Sardinia-Piedmont at least has a use in upgrading Savoy from Duchy to Kingdom, but both Naples and Sicily are Kingdoms already.
Lotharingia: Very anachronistic. Probably not.
Latin Empire: Would be a cool alternative to Jerusalem, only thing I don't like is 'Empire' in the name.
Rajputjana: Sure, why not?
Turkey: Ehh, I think some sort of non-dynastic naming for dynastic countries that turn republics would be better.

 

[Wizzington]

I'm not sure I can imagine anything less plausible or more anachronistic as a formable than Carthage in the EU4 era.

 

[Wizzington]

I can: Aztecs conquering and forming Britain!

Are you telling me that British culture is *not* founded on sacrificing people to appease invisible forces?

Someone should tell the current government.

 

[Wizzington]

You can become King of Burgundy by upgrading your government rank though, so I don't really see the need for a special Lotharingia decision there.Charles would've accepted pretty much any title as long as it let him style himself a King.

 

[Wizzington]

While having Yuan as the name of a revived Mongol China would not really be correct, there's really no other name you could use that anyone would recognize as 'Mongol China'.

 

[neondt]

Problem with Siam as a formable is that it only makes sense for nations in the Thai culture group (possibly excluding the Shan). I don't think there's a good name for a union of mainland south-east asia unless you want to use "Indochina", which is ... very colonial indeed.

 

[Wizzington]

About the anatolyan beyliks, instead of Turkey, why not have a formable called Rum from the Sultanate of Rum? This would be an interesting and realistic goal to pursue (even the Ottomans in the beginning tried to pose as heirs of the Seljuks). This would be similar to the Andalusian formable.

I like this idea.

 

[neondt]

A formable Burma is a modern foible. Historically, Taungu conquered the area and was, de-facto, Burma, but it still didn't call itself anything else.
In the area, the only reasonable formable would be Pagan, for Shan states, Pegu, and Taungu, and even that is dubious. Taungu historically claimed to be the successor of Pagan, but it didn't call itself Pagan.

Pagan is the name of the capital city of the empire, like Ayutthaya and Taungu. In this region realms are named after their capitals. It's to do with the mandala system. Unless somebody re-built Pagan for some reason, which they wouldn't, forming Pagan wouldn't make sense.