More Formable Nations?

[illapa]

Anyone else very disapointed when you united all of Switzerland then found that there is no form-able Swiss Nation? Maybe make it so that Swiss Mercenaries are owned by the leader of Switzerland like the Mamlukes or Varangian Guard? The Swiss Confederation emerged in 1291 so it is well within the time period. What other Nations would you like to see? Others on my list would probably be Poland-Lithuania-Ukrainian Empire (Jagiellon?) Perhaps a Celtic Nation of Wales, Ireland, Scotland and Brittany? Surely every nation in EU3 should be form-able since that supposedly where this game ends and the new one starts.

 

[LYNCHY]

Hmm, i never even thought about the lack of Switzerland before, who owns the territory in 1291 then?

 

[perpetualmuse]

Hmm, i never even thought about the lack of Switzerland before, who owns the territory in 1291 then?

In the game, it's de jure part of Burgundy and the Empire of Francia.

 

[krauser13]

Kingdom of Prussia too.
In game have only duchy of Prussia.

 

[khedas]

Anyone else very disapointed when you united all of Switzerland then found that there is no form-able Swiss Nation? Maybe make it so that Swiss Mercenaries are owned by the leader of Switzerland like the Mamlukes or Varangian Guard? The Swiss Confederation emerged in 1291 so it is well within the time period. What other Nations would you like to see? Others on my list would probably be Poland-Lithuania-Ukrainian Empire (Jagiellon?) Perhaps a Celtic Nation of Wales, Ireland, Scotland and Brittany? Surely every nation in EU3 should be form-able since that supposedly where this game ends and the new one starts.

Switzerland is very hard to recreate with CK2's engine, and one of the great holes in the game. The nation arose as a popular revolt by the cantons against the Habsburgs, so a noble (like the player) as its head is unthinkable. It is also impossible for the game to recreate the events that led to its appearence, so it can't be put in.

Poland-Lithuania can be thought of in the game, just be King of both lands. And the combination of it and any other Kingdoms would never be thought of as an Empire.

A Celtic Nation is simply if you become King of one of those lands and get the others. There, that's your celtic nation. By 1066 Scotland was already formed, so it's a De Jure Kingdom. If Ireland and Wales had formed, they would have other names, but just bear with those that exist. Mod them to another thing if you don't like the names.

 

[VILIAMUS AVGVSTVS]

The way I think of it in game terms, Switzerland could have arose through popular revolt that created their early oligarchic republic(not possible I know) and then revolted from the Emperor in a faction system, maybe the titular head of the Swiss Confederation could come about in a future Republic DLC if they do it, but to have anything like it in the game currently would be no where close to the actual confederation, so leave it de jure part of Burgundy and all that.

 

[Wallain]

You could make them titular titles.

 

[Arko]

Hmm, i never even thought about the lack of Switzerland before, who owns the territory in 1291 then?

it is represented as a titular duchy level republic ingame since 1291.

In the game, it's de jure part of Burgundy and the Empire of Francia.

quite heretic this French Burgundy IMHO

 

[Sleight of Hand]

Mesoamerica would be a nice kingdom in 1.08.

 

[Wallain]

Mesoamerica would be a nice kingdom in 1.08.

And the USA.

 

[ve3609]

and the confederate states of America

 

[qbln]

and my axe.

 

[LYNCHY]

And the USA.

Maybe the Kingdom of America would have some common sense......

 

[Wallain]

Maybe the Kingdom of America would have some common sense......

No. Not if it is formed the usual way.

Spoiler

k_usa = {
	allow = {
		FROM = { culture = american }
	}

	culture = american

	color={ 0 0 0 }
	color2={ 0 0 0 }
}

de_jure_laws = {

# COMMON SENSE
	common_sense_0 = {
		show_as_title = yes
		group = common_sense
		default = yes		
		feudal_opinion = 10
		
		allow = {
			has_law = common_sense_1
		}
		revoke_allowed = {
			always = no
		}
		ai_will_do = {
			factor = 0
		}
		ai_will_revoke = {
			factor = 0
		}
		effect = {
			hidden_tooltip = {
				revoke_law = common_sense_0
				revoke_law = common_sense_1
			}
			
			has_common_sense = no
		}
	}
	common_sense_1 = {
		show_as_title = yes
		group = common_sense

		
		feudal_opinion = -5
		temple_all_opinion = -30
		
		allow = {
			has_law = common_sense_0
			NOT = {
				holder_scope = { culture = american }
			}
		}
		revoke_allowed = {
			always = no
		}
		ai_will_do = {
			factor = 0
		}
		ai_will_revoke = {
			factor = 0
		}
		effect = {
			hidden_tooltip = {
				revoke_law = common_sense_0
				revoke_law = common_sense_1
			}
			
			has_common_sense = yes
		}
	}
}

 

[illapa]

Well that didn't take long at all to get off topic...

 

[Yenzen]

I wouldn't mind a few more titular titles to spice things up, it's a shame that stuff like the kingdom of Naples was made impossible to form. There's a few good candidates, for example:

- Switzerland
- Kingdom of Naples
- Terra Mariana

About holding multiple kingdoms: It might be interesting if one was able to form unions after holding both titles for long enough. Say instead of fantasy "Empire of Scandinavia" then holding 3 or more kingdoms Nordic for over 100 years allows you to form "The Nordic Union/commonwealth" - or maybe even allowing you to name the entity yourself. You would be emperor-level but not emperor by title, and thus allowed to have king vassals.

You could make the same rule with duchies; if you hold more than 3 duchies for over 100 years and you're independent/vassal of an emperor you may be recognized as "grand duke of [invent entity name]" thus allowing you to have duke vassals (staying true to the game mechanics) without inventing kingdoms (which some would argue would break immersion somewhat)

 

[Arko]

I wouldn't mind a few more titular titles to spice things up, it's a shame that stuff like the kingdom of Naples was made impossible to form. There's a few good candidates, for example:

- Switzerland
- Kingdom of Naples
- Terra Mariana

do you mean a kingdom of switzerland ?

 

[Luhood]

While I usually let sleeping dogs lie, this is one bad bone I still haven't been able to digest ever since its introduction...

I wouldn't mind a few more titular titles to spice things up, it's a shame that stuff like the kingdom of Naples was made impossible to form. There's a few good candidates, for example:

- Switzerland
- Kingdom of Naples
- Terra Mariana

About holding multiple kingdoms: It might be interesting if one was able to form unions after holding both titles for long enough. Say instead of fantasy "Empire of Scandinavia" then holding 3 or more kingdoms Nordic for over 100 years allows you to form "The Nordic Union/commonwealth" - or maybe even allowing you to name the entity yourself. You would be emperor-level but not emperor by title, and thus allowed to have king vassals.

You could make the same rule with duchies; if you hold more than 3 duchies for over 100 years and you're independent/vassal of an emperor you may be recognized as "grand duke of [invent entity name]" thus allowing you to have duke vassals (staying true to the game mechanics) without inventing kingdoms (which some would argue would break immersion somewhat)

While the two of them are interesting ideas, I still am against this for the very same reason I was and still am against the added empires, a reason you stated actually:

"...thus allowed to have king vassals."

Just... no. The only western state to have really ever done this is the HRE, hence its special status and fourth tier. I can't see any reason for this other than Gamey ones, people who don't want to bother with handling the matters of holding several crowns, and those... well, I simply can't acknowledge them as legitimate (while I do know it is a game and made for enjoyment this in my opinion makes the game less fun and breaks my groove even more than the ahistorical-and-ridiculous-by-choice Aztecs). I know this is just going off topic and ripping up an old wound, but I just can't sit idly without commenting on it.

So no, I wouldn't want King-of-King titles, since the only one to have ever done so is the HRE. Why? Possibly because any legitimate King worthy of his crown and name would want to keep the Prestige and Grace granted to him by controlling several kingdoms rather than dealing them to vassals, no matter how Modest he is. Besides which the Bohemia thing wasn't a Kingdom being given to a vassal but a vassal being promoted to a King, which while not much on paper is a whole lot in actuality. And Great Britain, Spain and Poland-Lithuania were all three Kingdoms following the unification rather than Empires. They were Kings and Queens, not Emperors and Empresses.

[/RageMode]

Now, on to the topic at hand: No, I wouldn't want to see a Tier 3 Switzerland formable, for the reasons that have already been stated by others more knowledgeable than me.

 

[Yenzen]

Well, I can see your point about the tier-4 title, however what are your views on:

- The formation of a third tier "grand duke" title if you have enough duchies (say, 4). This might have a few disadvantages compared to Kingships such as not being able to go above medium CA (no primogeniture) and giving half the yearly prestige.
- The unification of kingdoms before just that - after two kingships have been connected for long enough, they're considered naturally connected in a union (removing the "Desires kingdom of X from dukes) - this is mostly to avoid never creating the secondary title or destroying almost always being the best tactic.

 

[Veniacles]

By a Nation you mean Kingdom or Empire ? or even a Duchy ?