More formable nations in AOW

[Atilla 'The Hun']

Lippe?

You have a rare taste

 

[Krajzen]

What the hell is Lippe


North Sea Empire - England + Denmark + Norway (yes it existed historically however in 11th century :f)

Ghana - one of the greatest historical empire of West Africa, along Mali/Songhai/Sokoto (12th century)

Historical background for Yugoslavia from EU4 period -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrian_movement


European Empire (lol, of course completely ahistorical but it would make a goal and sense for all massive-conquest-games played by countries such as Alsace, when 'Alsace' being the entire Europe looks stupid )

I have absolutely no idea for any more formable countries.

 

[Atilla 'The Hun']

What the hell is Lippe

Principality of Lippe

North Sea Empire - England + Denmark + Norway (yes it existed historically however in 11th century :f)

I like this one!

 

[Me_]

Well, I'm still holding out for formable Lippe - they'd have to redo the Westphalia region for that, though.

Why should it be formable? According to Wikipedia it existed as a county since the middleages.

 

[Phalanx300]

A Frisian Kingdom or Magna Frisia would be interesting. Along with adding a Frisian culture.

 

[grommile]

What the hell is Lippe

A small German principality in modern Nordrhein-Westfalen, situated between the Weser River and the Teutoburger Forest.

 

[Atilla 'The Hun']

A Frisian Kingdom or Magna Frisia would be interesting. Along with adding a Frisian culture.

I agree with both the formable & culture!

I never though about them actually.. hehe

 

[checro]

Austia-Hungary..

No. Still no. Sorry, the only way it would make sense is, as someone said earlier, in the form of a decision called 'collapse into Austria-Hungary' requiring lots of rebels, taking away 200 prestige, damaging power projection etc. I could potentially stand behind an event chain like the Rev. France one which culminates with Austria collapsing into Austria-Hungary, but not a decision. No way.

Decison - No.
But I really like the idea of another Burgundian inheritance, but more rare and not so devastating.
The Hungarians were trying a long time before they made it, so historicaly it is not so impossible..

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!

You don't have it completly wrong, but yeeeeah it is wrong.. As a Croat I can tell you that Croatia had the same deal first with the Hungarians and then with Austria... But in EU terms, I'd say Hungary got a PU with Croatia.. Integrated. Austria got a PU with Hungary.. Integrated.. Then there were rebels for a while, they chrushed them. Then it colapsed to again a Austria-Hungary PU, with other parts gaining some autonomy...

It would be fun to see in the late years like 1/15 times.. Not a decision, though..

Historical background for Yugoslavia from EU4 period -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrian_movement

And then we, the Croats saw that we are to small to try to break out by our selves and thought it might be a good idea to connect with the Serbs... But you see, that is the first (1830-50) time that even a idea about it came in.. And it was a political one. It is not like Hungarians wanting more autonomy for centuries, or the Croats also. Before that there was not even a sense of a cultural union, because of the Austrian influance, there was propably more connection between Croats and Slovaks then with the Serbians...


I'm all for alternate history, but if it was samething in at least someones plans, and Yugoslavia and Ilyria came even as an idea later then the EU period..

 

[Kansai-kun]

Why should it be formable? According to Wikipedia it existed as a county since the middleages.

Then they should implement it. Just reduce the size of Westphalia to fit Lippe in there.

 

[Aethelred]

Austia-Hungary..

You don't have it completly wrong, but yeeeeah it is wrong.. As a Croat I can tell you that Croatia had the same deal first with the Hungarians and then with Austria... But in EU terms, I'd say Hungary got a PU with Croatia.. Integrated. Austria got a PU with Hungary.. Integrated.. Then there were rebels for a while, they chrushed them. Then it colapsed to again a Austria-Hungary PU, with other parts gaining some autonomy...

It would be fun to see in the late years like 1/15 times.. Not a decision, though..

Afaik the kingdom of Croatia-Slawonia was in a personal union with the crown of Hungary (which was held by the Habsburgs ) during EUs timeframe. It's true that the "Hungarians" wanted Croatia to be governed by the Palatin and thus bind it more closely to Hungary constitutionally, but the Croatian nobles resisted. Croatia remained a seperate political unit (with its own diet, the Sabor, and administration). It sent some representatives to the Hungarian diet, yes, but Hungarian laws did not automatically take effect in Croatia, if I'm informed correctly? If this was but a formal independence I can't tell but I would rather not see this as an annexation by Hungary (just as Hungary was not annexed by Austria). One also has to see that Croatia was pretty small in terms of territory. The majority of former Croatia was either under ottoman rule or part of the habsburg military border (which was directly governed by the crown/war council, not by the "kingdom" of Croatia/sabor and banus=viceroy).

Again, the title-system of CK II (instead of the strange PU-mechanism in EU) would have saved us from lots of trouble.

EDIT:
I thought it could be interesting to quote the titles of Maria Theresia (from an intitulatio):

Wir Maria Theresia von Gottes Gnaden Römische Kayserin, in Germanien, Hungarn, Böheim, Dalmatien, Croatien, Sclavonien Königin; Erz-Herzogin zu Oesterreich, Herzogin zu Burgund, zu Braband, zu Mailand, zu Steyer, zu Kärnthen, zu Crain, zu Mantua, zu Parma und Piacenza, zu Limburg, zu Luxenburg, zu Geldern, zu Württemberg, Ober- und Niederschlesien, Fürstin zu Schwaben, von Siebenbürgen, Markgräfin des Heiligen Römischen Reichs, zu Burgau, zu Mähren, Ober- und Niederlaußnitz, gefürstete Gräfin zu Habsburg, zu Flandern, zu Tyrol, zu Pfyrt, zu Kyburg (... this list still goes on and on, but I leave out the minor titles)

I don't feel it's necessary to translate. In any case I think this list of titles (mid 18th century!) makes clear that the title-system would have made more sense than the "nation-state-annexations" that we see in the game now. Maria Theresia is not simply noted as "monarch of Austria", she is Empress of the Holy Roman Empire, queen of Hungary, queen of Bohemia, queen of Dalmatia, Slavonia and Croatia; Arch-duchess of Austria, Duchess of Burgundy, etc. etc. So to make my point clear once more: It was not about nation states annexing other states. It was about aristocrats acquiring titles. However, significant cultural borders could be interesting - e.g. the Ottoman Empire was not just another high aristocrat/monarch greedy for titles for titles. It was a different cultural/political world? Did it actually overturn the political structure of its conquered territory?

 

[Homusubi]

Non-French nations in the French region! Wallonia, Occitania, etc. Even Basque Country.

 

[checro]

Afaik the kingdom of Croatia-Slawonia was in a personal union with the crown of Hungary (which was held by the Habsburgs ) during EUs timeframe. It's true that the "Hungarians" wanted Croatia to be governed by the Palatin and thus bind it more closely to Hungary constitutionally, but the Croatian nobles resisted. Croatia remained a seperate political unit (with its own diet, the Sabor, and administration). It sent some representatives to the Hungarian diet, yes, but Hungarian laws did not automatically take effect in Croatia, if I'm informed correctly? If this was but a formal independence I can't tell but I would rather not see this as an annexation by Hungary (just as Hungary was not annexed by Austria). One also has to see that Croatia was pretty small in terms of territory. The majority of former Croatia was either under ottoman rule or part of the habsburg military border (which was directly governed by the crown/war council, not by the "kingdom" of Croatia/sabor and banus=viceroy).

Again, the title-system of CK II (instead of the strange PU-mechanism in EU) would have saved us from lots of trouble.

You are right in most things

But I see it more like a anexation with cores that won't die in terms of EU , since Sabor and all the nobility just managed to "save" the name and "political unit", but I don't think they had any real power..

So maybe I am wrong in how I view the EU terms, but then most of the integrations or anexations or culture convert just are impossible.. If you view it all as a "majority" and "power" then it makes (more or less) sence to me

 

[Atilla 'The Hun']

Non-French nations in the French region! Wallonia, Occitania, etc. Even Basque Country.

lol?

 

[Thure]

For the people who said Belgium would be ahistorical pre-1820... You are wrong. The Idea of Belgium is older.

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

North Sea Empire - England + Denmark + Norway (yes it existed historically however in 11th century :f)

No it didn't exist historical... It's just a modern Term to discribe the personal union of the Kingdoms of Canute... Nothing more.

 

[withche.07]

Just thinking about Turkey as new nation:

Primary culture: Turkish (Turko-Semitic group)
Accepted cultures: This might be tricky because Turkish republic would possibly accept(to be historically accurate) Altaic cultures, more than Turko-Semitic cultures. Wiki even states that: "Note that culture groups are not just based on linguistic criteria - for example, Turkish is in the same group as the Semitic peoples due to cultural similarities and gameplay purposes, rather than Altaic."
So newly formed Turkish republic does not require this thing actually?
So Turko-Semitic cultures may be orange colored, Altaic ones may be greenish? And Armenian culture from Byzantium group may be orange for newly formed Turkey. If Kurdish culture is going to be added, it should be acceptable also in orange.
Capital province: Ankara (to be historically accurate)
Government: Republic but which one?
Revolutionary fits well. But it says "The Revolutionary republic is available to any country that has its capital in Europe and if unique event rebels control the capital." So I feel Turkey might be exception to this?
State religion: Sunni in Muslim group.
Tech group: Should be higher than Ottoman, lower than Eastern. Paradox may adjust this. Actually if it sits as Ottoman its not bad so.

Ideas and traditions:
National manpower modifier +%25 (because of Kuva-yi Milliye)
May be also bonus to military discipline.
National revolt risk +1 or even +2 (Ottoman and caliphate/sultan fans would arise in every place)
May be Tech cost bonus because of republican tradition and also westernized education or something may be added, i am not so sure.
Diplomatic bonuses may be added, because relations with western world would be better than Ottos.
There is "Anatolian Beyliks" idea group. Some ideas may be borrowed from there.
Religious Toleration may be added as little bonus et cetera.

 

[Dodanodo]

Why hasn't anyone mentioned Lotharingia yet? there is even a region in the game called that. And it is a hell of allot more realistic for Burgundy to form Lotharingia then forming the Netherlands.

 

[Thure]

Why hasn't anyone mentioned Lotharingia yet? there is even a region in the game called that. And it is a hell of allot more realistic for Burgundy to form Lotharingia then forming the Netherlands.

Burgundy -> Netherlands is not realistic. It's just there to give the possibility to play as netherlands from the first start date.

 

[VolitionNewlove]

Burgundy -> Netherlands is not realistic. It's just there to give the possibility to play as netherlands from the first start date.

Makes you wonder why they didn't give an option to form the USA as Britain, though. =P

 

[SacredDatura]

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?

I don't necessarily agree with your harsh verdict of A-H, but you're right, a strong Austria should never voluntarily tag-switch into A-H.

I know. I said '1948' (independence of Malaysia) because I was merciful - 'Malaya' from EU4 never existed historically so my point is proved even more

You are incorrect on so many points. At time of independence (1957, not 1948), my country was called the Federation of Malaya. Malaysia is the union of Malaya, Singapore and North Borneo (similar to Czechoslovakia or Tanzania).

 

[neondt]

Just thinking about Turkey as new nation:
Accepted cultures: This might be tricky because Turkish republic would possibly accept(to be historically accurate) Altaic cultures, more than Turko-Semitic cultures. Wiki even states that: "Note that culture groups are not just based on linguistic criteria - for example, Turkish is in the same group as the Semitic peoples due to cultural similarities and gameplay purposes, rather than Altaic."
So newly formed Turkish republic does not require this thing actually?
So Turko-Semitic cultures may be orange colored, Altaic ones may be greenish? And Armenian culture from Byzantium group may be orange for newly formed Turkey. If Kurdish culture is going to be added, it should be acceptable also in orange.

That isn't how accepted cultures work. A culture is automatically accepted, regardless of your tag, if the percentage of (cored) base tax of a culture passes your country's Accepted Culture Threshold. It is possible for a decision or event to use the command "add_accepted_culture", but the only time this will actually last longer than a month if the culture isn't already accepted is if the basetax of that culture's provinces in your nation is smaller than the threshold for gaining an accepted culture but greater than the threshold for losing one.

Furthermore, it is not possible to change the culture group of a culture in the game. You could work around that by creating a new culture with the same localisation in a different group, and instantly converting all provinces of the old culture to the new one however. I highly doubt this is something that Paradox would ever do though, it's all just a bit pointless.