That area is being reworked quite a bit in AoW I think; Manchu is no longer the only tribe of that region, there are upwards of 7 tribes in that space now..
- 3
More formable nations in AOW
- Thread starter Atilla 'The Hun'
- 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.
That area is being reworked quite a bit in AoW I think; Manchu is no longer the only tribe of that region, there are upwards of 7 tribes in that space now..
Nice ideas
Austro - Hungary accepted cultures and Belgium being bridge between Wallonian and Flemish culture seem to be so natural ideas. I mean, the first happened few decades after 1821 but Belgium appeared on the map in 1830...Definitely worth.
Isn't it already possible to restore? If not, it is certainly epic idea.
This would be kinda problematic on conceptual level, I mean 'China' has been term describing the entire civilisation while particular political entities are usually named by ruling dynasty. 'China' as country appeared in 20th century. Also - in 1444 Ming unites literally
all ethnic Han provinces so it would be kinda pointless... I think Ming, Qing, Shun, Zhou and Xi mostly cover Chinese civilisation.
This is actually cool idea
My own suggestions:
- Indonesia! - united islands of Borneo, Sumatra, Java, Celebes + Peninsular Malaysia
- Taungu Empire (modern Burma + Thailand + Laos)
Vietnam (Dai Viet + Champa + Prey Nokor province of Khmer)
Durrani Empire - essentially Afghanistan+ Pakistan + Nishapur, with capital in Afghanistan
Great Mandala - modern: Burma, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam
Khmer Empire - Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Champa -> capital in Angkor
Celestial Empire - China + Korea + Manchu + Japan, all Sinnic cultures
Iberia - Spain + Portugal
Maghreb - Morocco + Algier + Tunisia
As - Sudan - Segu, Sokoto, Kanem, Mali, Songhai, Hausa
Kurdistan - possible to do in AOW map with expanded Caucasus
Axum Empire - Ethiopia + Adal + as a bonus, possible colonisation of nearby provinces?
Somalia - Ajuraan + Adal
Missisipi - Native American Empire constisting of provinces of 9 tribes close to Missisipi River: Cree, Chocksaw, Cherokee, Osage, Caddo, Pawnee, Susquehannock, Miami. Capital in Cahokia.
Safavid Empire - Persia + Caucasus + Iraq + Merv + Western Afghanistan and Pakistan
Not really. There is no way to change your tag to the Roman Empire (ROM in the converter). The closest you can do is restore its pale shadow in the east, Byzantium.
You can, however, fully restore the Roman Empire in Crusader Kings II.
I am not sure. I think the region might just be broken up with no foramble nation there.
IHMO it is just bad idea that makes no sense, because the Roman Empire is already in the game with name that nobody ever called it during its existence (Byzantium should be renamed to the Roman Empire).
indeed,the Mongol Empire should be a formable nation,or at least a decision that gives some nice bonuses.
As playing as a horde,you won t really have a objective :|
As playing as a horde,you won t really have a objective :|
I have a suspicion that it will be possible to form many of the nations that are currently in vanilla and are not be in AOW. For example: Incas, Tibet - they are no longer at the start of the game, might very well be formable now.
As for me: The more the merrier. Even if they are not historical, I like to form stuff, gives you a sense of achievement and purpose.
As for me: The more the merrier. Even if they are not historical, I like to form stuff, gives you a sense of achievement and purpose.
Nope, nope, nope. Vietnam from Vietnamese "Viet" = the people's name + "nam" = south
Dai Viet = Great Viet.
Great Viet >>> South Viet.
Safavids dynasty exist. Formation of Persia enough, but needs more flavour (meybe evolution to gov. Empire + mechanism universalismus?).
Generally XYZ+Empire is BAD IDEA. There are government "Empire" and this is good.
Last edited:
It'd be a great decision if it disabled the HRE when you reach it! Foolish pretenders!
United Kingdom would be cool, too. It fits in the time frame and was a major power then.
Isn't Malaya already in the game? How would this be different, other than that it uses a European name rather than a local one... Which makes no freaking sense at all.
Hmm. That sounds interesting but I'd prefer Siam for a formable there, although I think it's fine how it is. Anyway, Taungu is a country already in the game. Renaming things 'XYZ Empire' upon reaching a certain size would be stupid. Nothing else in the game makes that change, why should Taungu?
This I can get behind, but I suspect it's only because I don't know the history of the region at all. I really would like a more dynamic Vietnam region though, and that seems like a good way of achieving it.
On the other hand, it would be really really easy to achieve. I think we need more provinces there.
Isn't Durrani already a country in the game? Why should it get a formable that does nothing more than append 'empire' to its name? If it isn't then yes I think it should be added.
Hmm. I guess at least it's better than the oft-suggested formable Southeast Asian state of 'Indochina'... The problem I often see with suggestions like this is why should there be a formable here? The cultures across this region are different cultures, they don't even group all that well (to my knowledge). It would be a bit like suggesting there should be a French/German/Italian formable uniting the three regions in one country. Stupid.
Khmer is already in the game...
Again wtf, why should this be a formable? A random goal, sure, but given that China is already the 'Celestial Empire' and this never happened in history ever and Japan is already quite flavoursome enough, I don't think anything justifies the wholesale 'screw you' to historicity this would represent.
No. Dear god for the millionth time, no.
SPAIN IS ALREADY THE NAME FOR THE UNITED PENINSULA. ITS A CORRUPTION OF THE LATIN 'HISPANIA' WHICH REFERRED TO THE WHOLE IBERIAN PENINSULA. THERE IS NO REASON WHATSOEVER WHY SPAIN WOULD RANDOMLY CHANGE IT'S NAME BECAUSE IT NOW RULES ALL OF SPAIN.
Another one I just don't see the purpose for.
Why would the dominant power in West Africa change its name to As-Sudan? Mali, Sokoto and Songhai all went through periods of dominating West Africa, and they didn't try to do that... Just leave it how it is.
An interesting idea, but it would require creating at least one tag with primary culture Kurdish. That's something you should be considering when you come up with all these ideas - what requirements other than control of territory are there for creating them? Georgia or Aq Qoyunlu or Nogai or whoever forming Kurdistan would be retarded.
Ethiopia is already in the game.
I don't really see the purpose of this. Replacing one tribal named state with another. Seems kinda pointless.
I guess formables for native Americans would be cool but I really don't like it. Idk why. I think native Americans just need a lot of work to really differentiate them from Europeans. CoP did a crummy job of it, and weird ahistoric formables won't help.
The Persia currently in game is literally Safavids. It should really be renamed to fit with the chosen naming system - Ottomans, Safavids, Mughals as opposed to Turkey, Persia, Uh... India? What were the Mughals otherwise known as? Anything? Anyway, that would be one hell of a pointless formable.
Personally I'm pretty happy with the formables current in game. I could get behind a formable Siam and a 'restore the Mongol Khanate' kind of thing, I could even support a 'Caliphate' formable despite it being pretty ahistorical. Otherwise... Meh. I would much rather they put the time into making sure the develops somewhat sensibly: ensuring Netherlands actually comes about, Prussia forms (or some other counterweight to France pops up) and so on.
They said Tibet in AoW is formable.
I would really like Carthage to be formable, i like that country alot. Not everything should be historically accurate in this game imo..
Жжошь москаль.
Maybe Chukcha Horde?
To insert a bit of northen people in Russia region (replace wasteland to the north of Russia with few provinces).
Indonesia is a concept that only came about due to the Dutch East Indies. The various kingdoms in the region never had the intention of forming a united nation. Even when Indonesia came about, some states were opposed to the idea of a country dominated by the Javanese.
I'm for a formable Belgium, but more in it's pre-napolean form (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Belgium) then the 19th century state. To be honest giving a new formable state based on burgundian heritage (an alternative to the form netherlands decision in short) would be more interesting imo.
The big problem is that the region changed enormously during the time frame, between the forced exodus of the protestant and reformed population to the netherlands during the eighty years war to the progressive francisation of wallonia and brussels under spanish and austrian rule.
As a side-note i'll remind that the name "belgium" is older then "netherlands" since it originates from the roman provinces belgica prima and belgica secunda, even if it wasn't tied to a national identity until the enlightenment, it still was used as a geographical term to designate the whole region.
Actually what bugs me is that the form netherlands decision for burgundy gives dutch as primary culture when it would be totally inimaginible that french dukes reigning on a majorly french population (if you assimilate walloonian to french culture) would shift to the dutch culture.
So a formable belgium would have to have to be a cultural union of all the cultures in the low countries region and have ideas focused on being stepped upon by every other european country in turn, I look forward to it !
The big problem is that the region changed enormously during the time frame, between the forced exodus of the protestant and reformed population to the netherlands during the eighty years war to the progressive francisation of wallonia and brussels under spanish and austrian rule.
As a side-note i'll remind that the name "belgium" is older then "netherlands" since it originates from the roman provinces belgica prima and belgica secunda, even if it wasn't tied to a national identity until the enlightenment, it still was used as a geographical term to designate the whole region.
Actually what bugs me is that the form netherlands decision for burgundy gives dutch as primary culture when it would be totally inimaginible that french dukes reigning on a majorly french population (if you assimilate walloonian to french culture) would shift to the dutch culture.
So a formable belgium would have to have to be a cultural union of all the cultures in the low countries region and have ideas focused on being stepped upon by every other european country in turn, I look forward to it !
You're just arguing historical semantics and completely missing the point, it makes as much "historical" sense as any other formable nation in the game, in that it existed. There can always be restrictions to make it a "more historical" decision. The point is however, it was formed during this period.
I think the Chinese minors (and the manchu if they form Qing) should be able to change to the celestial empire government form (factions and ideas included), representing a new dynasty taking over from Ming, if no nation with the celestial empire government exist, you own at least a number of provinces (15 maybe?) and at least 3/5 important Chinese provinces.
You would also lose the government form (this also applies to Ming) if you had less than 7 or some other low number of provinces and less then 2 of the 5 important provinces.
When you lose it you also lose the ideas, and instead return to Chinese ideas, that are focused on their warlord-like nature and ambition to take the throne.
It would be a lot like the Ming one but weaker and with a few modifications, maybe -25% core construction cost, -25% war exhaustion for traditions, then +10% siege ability, +2,5% discipline, -5% agressive expansion impact and -15% unjustified demands, +7,5% provincial trade power, +7,5% national trade income modifier, +7,5% production efficiency, +30% national manpower modifier and +10% manpower recovery speed for ideas and finally +7,5% national tax modifier.
You would also lose the government form (this also applies to Ming) if you had less than 7 or some other low number of provinces and less then 2 of the 5 important provinces.
When you lose it you also lose the ideas, and instead return to Chinese ideas, that are focused on their warlord-like nature and ambition to take the throne.
It would be a lot like the Ming one but weaker and with a few modifications, maybe -25% core construction cost, -25% war exhaustion for traditions, then +10% siege ability, +2,5% discipline, -5% agressive expansion impact and -15% unjustified demands, +7,5% provincial trade power, +7,5% national trade income modifier, +7,5% production efficiency, +30% national manpower modifier and +10% manpower recovery speed for ideas and finally +7,5% national tax modifier.