More formable countries

[Greyhound_Gen.]

Ice... land?

Did you mean 'Western Norway'?

Out of interest, despite the fact it wasn't independant during the EUIV timeframe and was heavily influenced by Norweigan culture during the time period, 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?

 

[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.

 

[Greyhound_Gen.]

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

Ah - well that's totally reasonable.

Thanks for the reply!

 

[Duarte]

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

While you're at it could you also voice your opinion on what has been suggested thus far?

 

[Noel84]

Let's rename Hungary the Lands of the Crown of St Stephen, Novgorod as the Lands of St Sophia, Byzantium as the Ecumene, Burgundy the Grand Duchy of the West, and the Ottomans after they become caliphs as Dar-al-Islam.

So their neighbors didn't call them China? is this a real argument? The tributary system was there all the time and survived every dynastic change unscathed, tell me China as a concept is a western illusion that their neighbours were too stupid to understand. I mean poor silly neighbours, time and again they had to send tributary missions to China de novo. If only they were privy to the the wisdom that all of them dynasties were special snowflakes with no administrative continuity whatsoever.

No, that's what you're saying. No one on earth called burgundy the Grand Duchy of the west, so why should that be their tag? No one called Qing or Ming china, so why are the two scenarios ANY DIFFERENT?

 

[migalhone]

I agree with more cultural unions: Tatar, Maghrebi, South Slavic (although Romanian maybe shouldn't be south slavic?)

 

[klandri]

[Iceland] was heavily influenced by Norweigan culture during the time period

Not true actually. Iceland was not influenced nearly as much by Norway as it was by Denmark and wasn't influenced nearly as much as Norway was by Denmark. There's a reason the Icelandic (written) language has changed little since the 13th century while (most) Norwegians write what's essentially slightly modified Danish.

 

[Kansai-kun]

South Slavic (although Romanian maybe shouldn't be south slavic?)

Removing Romanian from the South Slavic group and putting them in their own group would probably cripple them (still not a fan of the Magyar group).
In regards to formable culture unions: Instead of shoe-horning countries like Yugoslavia/Illyria in (which are mostly outside the game's timeframe), how about just giving South Slavic countries the decision to become a cultural union without forming a new country?

 

[Metz]

The Stuarts coming to power over England was a long shot. If the Plantagenet cadet houses hadn't essentially exterminated themselves in the War of the Roses, and then the Tudors failed to make it into a fourth generation (Henry > Henry > Edward/Mary/Elizabeth), then there wouldn't have been an inheritance like that. It shouldn't be an event, since it wasn't in any way likely previous to Henry VIII's children all failing to breed.

Well then the player or AI must not have the War of the Roses disaster event fire. If the War of the Roses fires then it can lead to the future conditions of the Stuarts taking over.

The event can give you the choice to choose just like he Iberian wedding. Either take up the personal union with Scotland and places James I as dual king of both and lose a lot of prestige and stability or find a new English family to rule and gain stability and a lot of prestige.

 

[Greyhound_Gen.]

Not true actually. Iceland was not influenced nearly as much by Norway as it was by Denmark and wasn't influenced nearly as much as Norway was by Denmark. There's a reason the Icelandic (written) language has changed little since the 13th century while (most) Norwegians write what's essentially slightly modified Danish.

Fair enough - Judging by your choice of profile pic I'd assume you have a better understanding of Icelandic history than I do . Anyway - good to learn something new!

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Well then the player or AI must not have the War of the Roses disaster event fire. If the War of the Roses fires then it can lead to the future conditions of the Stuarts taking over.

The event can give you the choice to choose just like he Iberian wedding. Either take up the personal union with Scotland and places James I as dual king of both and lose a lot of prestige and stability or find a new English family to rule and gain stability and a lot of prestige.

Even so - had even one of Henry VIII's children successfully bred an heir, then the Stuarts would have been out of luck. Even more so if it had been Mary (and Philip of Spain).
I guess I just don't like deterministic events like this one that then proceed to force history in a given (and unlikely) direction. There's at least justification for the concept of marrying two branches of the Trastamara dynasty together giving a sensible chance of the thrones merging, but I can't see it as sensible for forcing an England-Scotland union. You can (at least in theory) already get a PU via a Royal Marriage, although it doesn't entirely match the situation, since a Scotland led PU wouldn't be stable in game.

In addition you'd have to have a very particular set up so that Scotland would have to still have the Stuarts in power; you'd have to somehow make England the head of the PU, but taking the actual monarch Scotland has at the time, since otherwise you're either choosing to put yourself as junior in a PU, or the PU will break relatively simply with Scotland as a smaller weaker PU leader; you'd have to set the conditions to be something based on no heir and over a certain age (so no new heir is practically going to show up). I just don't think it's worth the effort since the chances of the event being replicated are minimal.

 

[Xinkc]

I agree with more cultural unions: Tatar, Maghrebi, South Slavic (although Romanian maybe shouldn't be south slavic?)

What about the Western Slavs? They lack a cultural union.

 

[Sawik2003]

What about the Western Slavs? They lack a cultural union.

Perhaps through decision if you control and have cored Prague, Ratibor, Cracow and Warsaw?

 

[grandadmiralbob]

Perhaps through decision if you control and have cored Prague, Ratibor, Cracow and Warsaw?

Great Moravia?

 

[delpiero1234]

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

From the Forum Rules:

1. {No Trolling} You will not make posts that are inflammatory with the perceived intent to rile people up (i.e. "trolling" and "flaming" are prohibited).

Always nice when the staff follows their own forum rules

 

[cahtush]

Yuan, formable by nations with Oirat, Kyrgyz, Mongol, Kachar and Kalkha cultures. Thought there might be a better name for it.
Golden Horde, tatar cultural union. You could change the current Golden Horde to the Great Horde aswell.

 

[vintis88]

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

More formable colonial nations? Merging the Alaskan and Californian colonial regions?

 

[Nikolaj-11]

Since so many wants Austria-Hungary, regardless of how fitting it is, how about making it a disaster or event?

Can only happen if Austria has a PU over Hungary, if Austria and Hungary both have Habsburg rulers or if Austria directly owns the majority of the Hungarian cores.
This would unlock a unique governement, double-monarchy with the Austria-Hungary tag nation or something like that, which would function similar to Dutch Republic with a slider on the government interface.

Instead of ruler regency length and the republic bonuses it purely effects stats in terms of nation and ruler management so for example, if it was divided between "centralization" or "Habsburg control" and "decentralization" or something similar you would get different bonuses and such, similar to Orangists and Statists.

When leaning towards Habsburg control you get Monthly autonomy decrease plus something extra like yearly legitimacy, chance of a new heir or diplomatic reputation, but at the cost of unrest or maybe hungarian/noble rebel events.
When leaning towards decentralizing the powers of the nation(s) you would get a decrease in unrest plus accepted culture % (to reflect accepting Hungarian) but at the cost of monthly autonomy increase and maybe defensiveness or manpower/tax.

Thoughts?

 

[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.

 

[klandri]

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.

We do not joke about such things.