More formable nations in AOW

[FitzChiv]

Hell no it isn't. I can have it done by 1460, probably 1450 with a little good luck.
Of course there were differences between the Kingdom of Naples of 1444 and the Two Sicilies of 1816. They were almost 400 years apart. We don't have a tag change for early and late game Portugal, though. Why should Naples be so special?

Essentially the problem is that:
- It would be ahistorical, and;
- It would be ludicrously easy, therefore;
- We'd have the Great Britain problem of seeing Two Sicilies popping up in 1500 in every game.

-More "historical" than Germany, Italy or Scandinavia.
-Just like every other formable nation.
-Meaningless. Though I often see Aragon hold on to Naples, whether they end up in a union with Castile or not.

 

[Closet Skeleton]

Turkish State or Turkey for the beyliks.

Once upon a time, the Ottomans were just a Beylik. If one of the Beyliks conquered the Ottomans it would just be the Candar or whatever Empire, not Turkey any more than the Ottoman victory lead to them using Sultan of Rum as the primary name.

 

[Te. Kenzo]

I'm not a fan of too much out of time formable nations, however want I want is more colonial nations, like New Zeeland, Australia and California.

 

[Duke of Britain]

-More "historical" than Germany, Italy or Scandinavia.
-Just like every other formable nation.
-Meaningless. Though I often see Aragon hold on to Naples, whether they end up in a union with Castile or not.

1. Wrong. The Kingdom of Germany and the Kingdom of Italy both had existed before the start of the game. As for Scandinavia, well, we have the historical Kalmar Union at game start, that's already a step towards an united Scandinavia.
2. For real?

So, basically, you're arguing for adding a new tag (More tags lag the game, btw) that will add NOTHING to the game, for a country that already exists at the 1444 start, and that has no reason to exist in pretty much the entire game timeframe, just for the sake of it?

I love flavour, I love pointless events, decisions and some formables I can look foward to, but Two Sicilies makes as much sense as Austria-Hungary, therefore: None at all. And not to mention that anything close to "Two Sicilies" would work way better as a decision giving the Kingdom of Naples some prestige and legitimacy if he owns both Naples and Sicily, possibly also changing his tag to that of Sicily.

If you want a formable that makes no sense added in the game, then do it yourself. The game is extremely moddable, so I am sure that you can play as Two Sicilies, Brownieloveloveland, Francestan or whatever you feel like if you spend a couple mins adding a new tag and decision to the game. Paradox has absolutely no historical or gameplay reason to add that, unlike for many other countries not only in Europe but the world, so if they are to add a decision for Two Sicilies, then one would at least expect them to add those other countries first.

 

[Chlodio]

How so? It does not makes sense in a historical way and is completely pointless for the gameplay. Of course it existed, and it already exists at start as the Kingdom of Naples. Why add a new tag for a country that already exists? Should we also have the Archduchy of Austria become the Habsburg Monarchy for the sake of it? I am sure that is a name change that would make more sense than changing Sicily/Naples to Two Sicilies.

If it was a simple name and perhaps flag change, I could see the point, but adding a new tag for the sake of adding it seems pointless, especially when there is little reason to do so. It is not a Duchy becoming a Kingdom, it is an already existing Kingdom changing its name for little reason other than maybe the new constitution that the King was forced to accept.

Tags like Lotharingia or the Kingdom of Arles (Burgundy) could make a lot more sense in that they were States that had existed, but could still be recreated for various reasons. Heck, Lotharingia would probably make a lot of sense for Burgundy, given that the Duke historically desired to become a King. Although Burgundy itself could become a Kingdom through a decision should Paradox at least create some difference between those titles, making a tag change unecessary, as cool as Lotharingia is. (I still don't understand the decision behind Burgundy being able to form Netherlands, but the K of Lotharingia not being in the game as a formable country)

Two Sicilies is reunification of two nations who had been been separated since Sicilian Vespers, Naples always called itself Sicily... It existed during EU4's timeline, it had own flag and coat of arms and it has far more right to be in the game than Sardinia-Piedmont that never actually called itself that (it was always Kingdom of Sardinia) and flag seems to be made up (I didn't find any source).

Edit: I found the flag... It is called "Flag of the Savoyard Kingdom of Sardinia", point remains.

 

[Te. Kenzo]

Edit: I found the flag... It is called "Flag of the Savoyard Kingdom of Sardinia", point remains.

Sardinia-Piedmont is called in this way, so is not confused with the tag of Sardinia. For the Anglophone Sardinia-Piedmont is a common way to talk about the Savoy state as Kingdom with the Sardianian title.

Is the same thing like Byzantium instead of Roman Empire or and Kingdom of Naples, instead of Kingdom of citerior sicily.

 

[Golladan]

Francestan.

Tell me more.

 

[PiriReis]

Once upon a time, the Ottomans were just a Beylik. If one of the Beyliks conquered the Ottomans it would just be the Candar or whatever Empire, not Turkey any more than the Ottoman victory lead to them using Sultan of Rum as the primary name.

Oh you mean: "Rūm was considered to be “Turkey” by its contemporaries."

More so: Firman of Karamanoğlu Mehmet Bey stated: "from this day forward, in the council, in the dervish lodge, in the court, in the assembly, in the square, no language but Turkish should be spoken. Thus Mehmed Bey declared Turkish language as the official language of the state. Not hard to imagine that they might have changed into Turkey further on the road, we are playing a game with a lot of "what if"

 

[panda_Express12]

Tell me more.

sounds like a jab at France's rapidly rising Muslim population

 

[Krajzen]

Regarding brutal critic of my suggestions I agreed with big part of it but!


Vietnam (Dai Viet + Champa + Prey Nokor province of Khmer)

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.

Christ, you could say the same thing about forming Ireland, Hannover, Westphalia, arguably also Scandinavia (you basically need to beat one enemy country to form it)

I more care about Dai Viet vs Vietnam naming problem but while 'Great Viet' sounds better than 'South Vietnam' - hey, wasn't the first name also abandoned historically for the sake of 'Vietnam'?




Durrani Empire - essentially Afghanistan+ Pakistan + Nishapur, with capital in Afghanistan

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.

No, Durrani isn't in game. At least it isn't on the wiki and I have never seen it



Great Mandala - modern: Burma, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam

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.

1) They have close history and strong cultural bonds.
2) They have their own characteristic features such as mandala government system.
3) They all are regarded as part of 'Greater India' (this is cultural term)
4) Few times in a history the majority of Indochina has been united for longed periods of time, especially notable being Taungu Empire and Khmer Empire.
5) One word my friend, just one word.

HINDUSTAN!!!




Maghreb - Morocco + Algier + Tunisia

Another one I just don't see the purpose for.

What is the purpose of Westphalia, Kurland, Hannover, Bukhara and Romania? There is no purpose - there is just flavor. Maghreb is separate unique region with Berber roots which was united for a long period of time by Almoravids and Moors, so this concept is not entirely ahistorical.




Kurdistan - possible to do in AOW map with expanded Caucasus

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.

This area is going to have like 2x more provinces in AOW - and Kurds are not very small ethnicity. Hey, in modern times there are 30 000 000 Kurds in this region...



Axum Empire - Ethiopia + Adal + Eritrea

Ethiopia is already in the game.

Ethiopia is not the same thing as Axum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Aksum

If this game already has such stuff as Mamluk Empire becoming Egyptian Empire in 16th century, 'Hindustan', 'Malaya', restoring Byzantine Empire and uniting Holy Roman Empire I don't understand why restoring glory to the name of Axum and uniting Ethiopia + Eritrea + Adal would be so bad idea



Somalia - Ajuraan + Adal

I don't really see the purpose of this. Replacing one tribal named state with another. Seems kinda pointless.

1) Open EU4 wiki
2) Check page 'Bukhara'
3) ...
4) See? Nobody cares


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.

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.

1) There is absolutely no other option for any NA formable, unless you like 'Native Confederation' country
2) Cahokia being biggest pre - Colombian city in NA and the center of Mound Builders giant culture and a source of legends isnn't exactly more ahistorical than Hindustan



AND! I have forgotten about one particular possible formable. Of course it didn't exist in EU timeline in any way, but it is not much different from Romania, Greece, Malaya and Hindustan as it appeared historically later:

YUGOSLAVIA

Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro. Come on - Balkans already have limited gameplay and limited flavour, it would be so cool to have some goal here! Also, Yugoslavia would have it's own NIs so it would finally make sense to play as Croatia, Bosnia or Montenegro with their generic bad ideas being turned into Yugoslavian ones.


Also I would have nothing against

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=115349&d=1411131983

MYANMAR - Pegu + Taungu + Arakan + Ava + Hsenwi + Mon Yang cultural union


and as alternate option to Malaysia (if first exists, it makes creating second impossible)

NUSANTARA - basically Indonesia but possible to unite only by Majapahit, with capital in Java, separate events and NIs and based not on Malayan Sunni religion but on Javanese Hindu religion.

Nusantara is Indonesian term for archipelago, basically I'm talking about restored Majapahit Empire but Nusantara soudns so much better Also this formable country would be kinda similar in its concept to Hindustan.


Also:


Australia

Philippines

Boer State

<if AOW is going to split Madagascar on few historical kingdoms> united Madagascar (just like uniting Ireland)

Arabia

The Caliphate the country formed when a player achieve 'unite Islam' decision

 

[MarkS00N]

I could be wrong about this, but didn't Gajah Mada (of Majapahit) intend to unite the entire archipelago? Either way, if a formable nation was added (or 'Malaya' was given a new name) wouldn't 'Nusantara' be a more appropriate (non-western) name for it?

Not 'unite' in the sense of Majapahit would impose direct rule to them but 'unite' in the sense of they pay tribute to Majapahit, a vassal of Majapahit...
There are exceptions (Srivijaya and Bali) but again, they are exceptions...
So instead of annex the nations in the region, what Gajah Mada wish is to Vassalize them...

Nusantara also not the name for the nation or any nation, it is a term to refer for the vassals state of Majapahit, thus calling a unified region 'Nusantara' will be similar to conquer the whole Europe and named the nation formed as 'The Vassal of Europe'...

 

[Krajzen]

While I am also the great fan of historical realism I still think some people really worry too much about that in a freakin computer game.

Neither Nusantara nor Bukhara, Egypt, Germany, Greece, Hindustan, Holy Roman Empire, Italy, Jerusalem, Malaya or Romania are 100% historically correct as these countries either didn't exist in EU4 period or don't make sense on
yet another levels and it didn't stop Paradox from enabling them. Why? Because fun.


I am from Poland, I know the history of Commonwealth quite well and if I really wanted to cry over it I could find coutless problems of video game's depiciton of this sociopolitical entity - let's just begin from the fact that full name of this entity in English was 'Polish - Lithuanian Commonwealth' and even that wasn't perfect translation of 'Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów'. But I have a magical ability of don't caring when it's unnecessary

I have been modding Civilization 5 for quite long time and really, it is impossible to create historical or even semi-historical video game without b**** slapping historical plausibility and realism at least a little bit


I am pretty sure that grand majority of players after seeing Indonesia/Nusantara (well I prefer indigenous names always when possible) would either scroll back to playing their favourite Ulm or simply launch the game and try to form Indonesia without really caring what the hell is freaking etymology of this stuff.


Grand strategy games should be as realistic as possible unless it collides with gameplay (fun). They are not goddamn historical lectures.

 

[Sol717]

No, Durrani isn't in game. At least it isn't on the wiki and I have never seen it

It exists as the "Afghanistan" tag.

Now for some ideas:

W. Europe

• Leon
• Poitou
• Brabant
• Flanders
• Tyrol

E. Europe

• Kiev
• Zachlumia
• Halych
• Chernigov
• Vladimir
• Beloozero
• Karelia
• Murom
• Sarai

M. East + North Africa + Persia

• Kurdistan
• Aghvank
• Zabulistan
• Samarkand
• Algiers
• Tafilatet

This is just a small amount of the possible tags that could add more dynamism in EU4.

 

[Anastasius.H]

Adding more formable nations for human players is always a good idea. If you are that opposed to being ahistoric, just leave the decision alone don't click it. There are players who enjoy doing funny things in their games. Personally, I would love to see Austria-Hungary (or even SPQR) hanging around Europe in 1600.

 

[Hoplite2002]

I would also like to see the Philippines as a formable. Even start out as a colonial nation (like it was back then).

 

[Demetrios]

Neither Nusantara nor Bukhara, Egypt, Germany, Greece, Hindustan, Holy Roman Empire, Italy, Jerusalem, Malaya or Romania are 100% historically correct as these countries either didn't exist in EU4 period or don't make sense on
yet another levels and it didn't stop Paradox from enabling them. Why? Because fun.

Germany and Italy in a way did exist during the game period, as constituent kingdoms of the HRE. Granted, not as anything resembling playable nations in game terms, but the titles were there to be used if someone were to form them into centralized states (which Napoleon actually did in the case of Italy).

Bukhara, on the other hand, most certainly did exist during the game's time period as the main Uzbek state - from around 1500 onward, to be exact.

 

[wergy]

YUGOSLAVIA

Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro. Come on - Balkans already have limited gameplay and limited flavour, it would be so cool to have some goal here! Also, Yugoslavia would have it's own NIs so it would finally make sense to play as Croatia, Bosnia or Montenegro with their generic bad ideas being turned into Yugoslavian ones.

This would be just silly and totally non-historical. The idea of Yugoslavia didn't show up until WWI. Sure, every southern slavic nation tried to unify their kins, but under their own rule (Serbia, Bosnia, etc.) not as a pan-slavic union. And as you could see, because of national differences such a country couldn't be kept peacefully together.
Yugoslavia would make as much sense as Czechoslovakia, BRD/DDR, Soviet Union, Latvia, Finland, Sudan, Namibia, Zambia, Kenya, Uganda etc....

 

[Me_]

Adding more formable nations for human players is always a good idea. If you are that opposed to being ahistoric, just leave the decision alone don't click it. There are players who enjoy doing funny things in their games. Personally, I would love to see Austria-Hungary (or even SPQR) hanging around Europe in 1600.

I'll never understand why people want Austria-Hungary - a failure of a nation that could only be justified as a decision to "Collapse into Austria-Hungary" giving -200 prestige. Is it the name that captivates people's minds?

On the other hand if they did add it, I wouldn't complainat all. Let them add as many as they can, I stll remember the campaign we had to get through to get Sardinia-Piedmont in EU3 and it was quite joyous when the devs finally listened.

 

[MarkS00N]

Neither Nusantara nor Bukhara, Egypt, Germany, Greece, Hindustan, Holy Roman Empire, Italy, Jerusalem, Malaya or Romania are 100% historically correct as these countries either didn't exist in EU4 period or don't make sense on
yet another levels and it didn't stop Paradox from enabling them. Why? Because fun.

I am pretty sure that grand majority of players after seeing Indonesia/Nusantara (well I prefer indigenous names always when possible) would either scroll back to playing their favourite Ulm or simply launch the game and try to form Indonesia without really caring what the hell is freaking etymology of this stuff.

If it isn't about etymology, so why should it changes from Malaya to Indonesia then?
Or add Indonesia tag when Malaya tag already exist?

Though I guess, after think about it more, it could be changed to Nusantara...
Nusantara is more historically accurate than Malaya (at least it is used by people in future to call regions that cover Malaya)...

 

[Anastasius.H]

I'll never understand why people want Austria-Hungary - a failure of a nation that could only be justified as a decision to "Collapse into Austria-Hungary" giving -200 prestige. Is it the name that captivates people's minds?

On the other hand if they did add it, I wouldn't complainat all. Let them add as many as they can, I stll remember the campaign we had to get through to get Sardinia-Piedmont in EU3 and it was quite joyous when the devs finally listened.

It is the ridiculousness amuses me. Imagine an early collapse of Austria (into Austria-Hungary), an early nationalist state in China. The fun is to alter the history, isn't it?
I'm pretty sure EU4 is not a history simulator. Perhaps there should be a "historical mode" for those who really want a history simulator, which gives them historical rulers, leaders, events etc.

For the Chinese part, a HRE-like mechanism could be quite interesting. Successful claim of the mandate of heaven gives Chinese cultural union or something like that.