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.
I think that he/she means: a decision that gives a modifier with very good bonuses, but does not actually change the tag.
Almost 10+ k views on this topic.
I love it how much the community cares about a title called 'More formable nations in AOW'
I love it how much the community cares about a title called 'More formable nations in AOW'
Last edited:
If there's one way to make EU4 players happy, it's to give them more nations to form. Even if they will never bother with most of them.Almost 10+ k views on this topic.
I love it who much the community cares about a title called 'More formable nations in AOW'
You can already restore the Roman Empire in EUIV anyway. It's called 'Byzantium'...
If there's one way to make EU4 players happy, it's to give them more nations to form. Even if they will never bother with most of them.
Exactly...
You can already restore the Roman Empire in EUIV anyway. It's called 'Byzantium'...
I know that. But you know what I try to suggest right
Austria-Hungary, ha! that's a quite funny thing for EU. Maybe I've got it all completly wrong, but if not, we shouldn't even need Austria-Hungary in EU because we should already have the archduchy of Austria (and Styria, and Corinthia, and Carniola, and Tyrol, etc. etc. ) and the kingdom of Hungary. Obviously we don't have these political unities s the development team doesn't really care for historical structures, but they should be there.
"Austria" was not a centralized state in EUs time frame. The house of Austria (the Habsburgs) ruled over several titles/territories in personal union. Amongst other titles, the Habsburg rulers held the titles "king of Hungary" and "Archduke of Austria". Since the main focus lay in Austria, however, the name of the archduchy, the name of the dynasty and all the titles held by the dynasty melted together and was used to denote the whole complex of habsburg-ruled territories/titles. So, to make it short: "Hungary" was not formally part of "Austria" in EUs timeframe. It just happened to be ruled by the ruler who also ruled over the archduchy of Austria (which was smaller than todays' Austria, since Corinthia, Styria, Tyrol etc. were all individiual duchies/counties). Hungary had seperate political institutions and the Habsburgs had to go Pressburg/Bratislava to be crowned kings of Hungary (this only changed 1804?). The same is true for Bohemia, for example, or, since this is not just an Austrian issue, for Spain as another example of a "composite" monarchy.
I can't stress enough that the title-system of CK II would have fit to this period much better than the idea of one nation-state "annexing" territory of another nation-state. There were no nation states in EUs timeframe. There were rulers acquiring titles, not states annexing territory!
"Austria" was not a centralized state in EUs time frame. The house of Austria (the Habsburgs) ruled over several titles/territories in personal union. Amongst other titles, the Habsburg rulers held the titles "king of Hungary" and "Archduke of Austria". Since the main focus lay in Austria, however, the name of the archduchy, the name of the dynasty and all the titles held by the dynasty melted together and was used to denote the whole complex of habsburg-ruled territories/titles. So, to make it short: "Hungary" was not formally part of "Austria" in EUs timeframe. It just happened to be ruled by the ruler who also ruled over the archduchy of Austria (which was smaller than todays' Austria, since Corinthia, Styria, Tyrol etc. were all individiual duchies/counties). Hungary had seperate political institutions and the Habsburgs had to go Pressburg/Bratislava to be crowned kings of Hungary (this only changed 1804?). The same is true for Bohemia, for example, or, since this is not just an Austrian issue, for Spain as another example of a "composite" monarchy.
I can't stress enough that the title-system of CK II would have fit to this period much better than the idea of one nation-state "annexing" territory of another nation-state. There were no nation states in EUs timeframe. There were rulers acquiring titles, not states annexing territory!
Last edited:
Actually the only states that should be able to reform Roman Empire should be Byzantium or any Greek state that hasn't been under Muslim rule.
Also I would add a formable nation Ukraine from Rutheniana, Russian and Bielarussian provinces.
Okay gentlemen, deep and dramatic discussions in this thread have created huge mess so again I decided to list all plausible debated ideas for formable nations.
Sooo I have written below the most plausible/least criticized (or controversial) suggestions from this entire thread which arguably fit into the Ten Rules of Formable Nations.
1) Belgium
2) Austria - Hungary - controversial as hell
3) Restored Mongol Empire - hey, we can already restore Byzantine Empire right?
4) Arabia
5) The Caliphate - the result of Unify Islam decision?
6) Restored Hungarian Kingdom - possible only for Transylvania (it tried to restore Hungary for long time after it has been annihilated). Hungarian NIs.
7) Anglo - French Union - as the result of clear victory in Hundred Years War?
8) Restored Majapahit Empire - alternatively 'Indonesia' or 'Nusantara', overlapping with Malaya in the same way Italy overlap with Sardinia-Piedmont. Unique National Ideas (Majapahit in 1444 doesn't have them)
9) Kingdom of the Two Sicilies - controversial as hell
10)Yuan - the result of Mongolian hordes conquering China
11) United Kingdom - England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland as opposed to Great Britain (England, Wales, Scotland)
12) Vietnam - Dai Viet + Champa + Prey Nokor province of Khmer -> it is what happened historically in this period.
13) Durrani Empire - Empire formable by Afghanistan: essentially Afghanistan+ Pakistan + Nishapur. Unique NIs.
14) Great Mandala - modern: Burma, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam -> of course this one is ahistorical but similarly to Hindustan (?) and Malaya. Unique National Ideas.
15) Restored Khmer Empire - Khmer + Champa + Laos + Thailand. Unique NIs.
16) Maghreb - Morocco + Algier + Tunisia; based on historical empires of Almoravids/Moors and common Berber culture. Berber National Ideas.
17) Kurdistan - possible to do in AOW map with expanded Caucasus, would require Curdish cultural tag, probably possible to form only by rebellion. Unique National Ideas.
18) Axum Empire - Ethiopia + Adal + Eritrea. Possible to form by Ethiopia and has its ideas.
19) Somalia - Ajuraan + Adal. Unique National Ideas.
20) Missisipi - Native American Empire constisting of provinces of 9 tribes close to Missisipi River: Cree, Chocksaw, Cherokee, Osage, Caddo, Pawnee, Susquehannock, Miami. Capital in the legendary city of Cahokia.
21) Turkey - possible to form by Beyliks if Ottoman Empire falls (???) or if Ottoman Empire loses Constantinople (???)
22) Siam - Late game formable for Thai countries, insta-change to Absolute Monarchy and bonus towards Western tech. National Ideas of Ayyuthaia
23) Myanmar - cultural union of six AOW Burmese states. Has to be called Myanmar - Burma is purely European term
24) Srivijaya - Must have the Srivijaya dynasty in power (only Malacca still has this in 1444), requires Sumatra, Peninsular Malaysia and Western Java. Overlapping with Malaya and Majapahit Empire. Buddhist conversion.
25) Punjab - formable by countries with Panjabi culture.
26) Yugoslavia - Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro. Not less plausible than Hindustan. If formed by Serbia carries uses Serbian NIs, in other case has unique National Ideas.
27) Australia - colonial state
28) Philippines - colonial state, unique National Ideas
29) Boers - colonial state, unique National Ideas
30) California - colonial state
31) Kingdom of Leon - if Castille goes wrong
32) Al - Andalus - if Castille goes EXTREMELY wrong
33) Samarkanda - ahistorical but not impossible to form in this historical period. Unique National Ideas (super trade).
OK. Now you can debate on these
lemme see:
- Belgium could be a client state.
- Caliphate could be rather a government type.
- Yes to 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 32.
I think that Byzantium is the perfect example which can reform the Roman Empire..
Greek states which can reform the Roman Empire sounds weird I think..
This forum really, REALLY needs an ability to make Polls... Every other forum I am registered on - many are much smaller than this - have this option :l
Why should the Roman Empire be able to reform the Roman Empire?
Um, I have to disagree here. 'Unify Islam' is definitely about the religion.
Yeah I've read somewhere that the Byzantines didn't see themselves as Byzantines but as Romans. With Byzantines being a modern term to differentiate between the two. Though a name change to Roman Empire could perhaps be a decision if all provinces are owned for flair.
Yeah, the funny tweak with Byzantium is that 'Byzantium' is term created by historians while 'Byzantine' people were calling themselves Romans, lol. Sometimes I think we here at Paradox forums care more about logic of particular period than people from this period - what I mean, in EU4 era:
1) The city of Rome is held by Christian theocracy which regards itself as successor of Roman Empire and the capital of Christianity. It is Italian (?) and Christian.
2) There is Holy Roman Empire which not isn't holy because it fights with capital of Christianity (first Rome!) all the time, not Roman but German, and not Empire but complete insanity
3) There is 'Roman Empire' of Byzantium, regarding itself straight successor of Roman Empire and TRUE capital of Christianity. It is Greek and Orthodox.
4) There is 'Third Rome' in Russia, thinking its straight successor of Roman Empire (Byzantium) and with Moscow as third TRUE capital of Christianity. It is Russian and Orthodox.
5) ...if I remember properly, Ottoman Sultans also frequently thought about themselves as successors of Rome (Byzanitum) (or succesors of Byzantium -> Rome)
6) Napoleon...
and we cannot forget about Latin Empire' found by infamous 4th crusade on the ruins of Rome (Byzantium)
+ later Mussolini's empire was kinda inspired by Rome, not to mention Third Reich and its fantasies.I would be interested in more formable nations for culture unions or regions even if they never existed historically. Similar to Ck2 if you unite a region/
culture and you then have the ability to form a new nation
1. Something like Carpathia or a Danube Federation to represent Austria Hungary.
2. Alpine Federation
3. Celtic Union
4. Lombardy
5. Some kind of Balkan union
6.Turkestan
culture and you then have the ability to form a new nation
1. Something like Carpathia or a Danube Federation to represent Austria Hungary.
2. Alpine Federation
3. Celtic Union
4. Lombardy
5. Some kind of Balkan union
6.Turkestan
Well, I'm still holding out for formable Lippe - they'd have to redo the Westphalia region for that, though.