On Yugoslavia

[Blindbohemian]

I have vigorously argued against the idea of Yugoslavia in the past, but come around to the idea of Illyria as a formable.

Illyria was a Roman and Byzantine province, and remained a diocese under the name Illyria into the 700s. Illyria was certainly a term that was widely known and used in the EUIV period—it is the setting of Shakespeare's Twelfth Night. "Illyria" only fell out of usage in the 1500s because there was no kingdom that could be called Illyria: the whole Balkans had been conquered by the Ottomans. Toward the end of the 1600s, though, the Austrians set up an office to protect Serbs in Hungarian territory called something like the Ministry for Illyrians. In 1809 Napoleon created a client "Kingdom of Illyria" (notably Italy in EUIV is modelled on the Napoleonic client kingdom of Italy) and in 1816 Austria reabsorbed those territories as a Kingdom of Illyria within the composite monarchy.

In short... people were using the word Illyria an awful lot with reference to the Balkans within the period, and only stopped doing so when Illyria was conquered by the Ottomans, roughly at the same time they probably weren't talking much about countries called Bulgaria or Greece. In an alternate history where the Ottomans not only didn't conquer the Balkans but in fact got beaten back by a Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Ragusan, Herzegovinan, Albanian(?) or Montenegrin prince who went on to subdue and amalgamate the other surrounding peoples, I am very confident that an "Illyrian Kingdom" most certainly would have been on the cards.

It should require those country's capitals (perhaps not Albania?) and admin tech 10; nationalism would be a liability more than a cohesive factor for such a country, I think.

Edit: Yugoslavia though is a terrible idea.

 

[santali]

So on the flip side dismissing the idea because it may not be the most historically accurate tag is not enough of a reason.

Because you say so? It's enough of a reason for me.

A south slavic formable would be good for the game - it fits with the game design of notable culture groups having a formable tag that they can all form.

It doesn't fit EU4 being a game based in history.

The name of the tag doesn't matter to me, and I have seen many others saying similar things. Illyria is one of the more popular ones.

I too have seen many people not bothering to provide any historical basis for their wonderful "suggestions". The only common thing is a weird obsession with a dead failed state.

Not clicking a button you don't want to click really doesn't impact the player.

If clicking the button provides in-game benefits, you either click it to get those benefits, or lose out on them. Here is your gameplay impact.

Most people don't want Czechoslovakia or USSR

I'd wager that most people don't want Yugoslavia either. Your point?

 

[gronak]

Because you say so? It's enough of a reason for me.

Do you not see how you're being hypocritical here? I could just as easily say because you say so?

It doesn't fit EU4 being a game based in history.

Plenty of tags are in the game

If clicking the button provides in-game benefits, you either click it to get those benefits, or lose out on them. Here is your gameplay impact.

It doesn't need to give any in-game benefits - I'm indifferent to that. Could just as easily be like forming 'the kingdom of god'. But besides, if the player whose primary concern is historical accurateness, playing in that region now vs after the tag wouldn't make a difference since they wouldn't click it. Unless of course they are treating the game like a game and not a history simulator. And if the game is to be a history simulator, why are Scandinavia, Rome, Mongolian Empire, Yuan, etc tags? You must be against them if you are against a southern baltic tag, right? They never existed within the timeframe of eu4. Or do you like to cherry pick what ones you think are acceptable?

I'd wager that most people don't want Yugoslavia either. Your point?

You think most people are against a southern balkan formable tag? I would hope that you are able to distinguish the differences in support for a southern Balkan formable vs USSR... In case you can't, there is a huge difference in support for such tags. Grouping them together is just a feeble attempt to discredit the idea.

I too have seen many people not bothering to provide any historical basis for their wonderful "suggestions". The only common thing is a weird obsession with a dead failed state.

Are you aware that the French created the Illyrian provinces within EU4's timeframe under Napoleon? This led on to then be called the Kingdom of Illyria.

 

[st360]

The problem with Yugoslavia, is it does not really have a parallel culture so who would even form it?

It real life Yugoslavia was dominated culturally by Serbians, but it was a very specific set of events that happened after WW1 that let Yugoslavia form.

I dont think "Yugoslavia" specifically should be in the game. But to be fair, you can have a decision that keeps your primary culture and gives you a new tag. Any south Slavic culture can take it. Problem solved.

 

[Shrek1453]

I have vigorously argued against the idea of Yugoslavia in the past, but come around to the idea of Illyria as a formable.

Illyria was a Roman and Byzantine province, and remained a diocese under the name Illyria into the 700s. Illyria was certainly a term that was widely known and used in the EUIV period—it is the setting of Shakespeare's Twelfth Night. "Illyria" only fell out of usage in the 1500s because there was no kingdom that could be called Illyria: the whole Balkans had been conquered by the Ottomans. Toward the end of the 1600s, though, the Austrians set up an office to protect Serbs in Hungarian territory called something like the Ministry for Illyrians. In 1809 Napoleon created a client "Kingdom of Illyria" (notably Italy in EUIV is modelled on the Napoleonic client kingdom of Italy) and in 1816 Austria reabsorbed those territories as a Kingdom of Illyria within the composite monarchy.

In short... people were using the word Illyria an awful lot with reference to the Balkans within the period, and only stopped doing so when Illyria was conquered by the Ottomans, roughly at the same time they probably weren't talking much about countries called Bulgaria or Greece. In an alternate history where the Ottomans not only didn't conquer the Balkans but in fact got beaten back by a Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Ragusan, Herzegovinan, Albanian(?) or Montenegrin prince who went on to subdue and amalgamate the other surrounding peoples, I am very confident that an "Illyrian Kingdom" most certainly would have been on the cards.

It should require those country's capitals (perhaps not Albania?) and admin tech 10; nationalism would be a liability more than a cohesive factor for such a country, I think.

Edit: Yugoslavia though is a terrible idea.

Illyria is a geographic term and not a political one. Politically it only appeared in the 19th century during the Croatian national revival (just outside the EU4 scope actually, 1813.-1874.) and was basically the same idea as Yugoslavia but with Croats having hegemony (while the Serbs had it in Yugoslavia - the first one at least).

Having Illyria be a formable is like having a formable "Maghreb", "Iberia" or "Anatolia" tags. I'm definitely NOT against it as I think that more formables, the better, regardless of "historical accuracy" and you're right that in the context of EU4's time period Illyrian would be a much more logical name than Yugoslavia (unfortunately it would be just as historically accurate... as in it wouldn't).

 

[love sweden]

If Serbia Bosnia or Croatia managed to conquer one another they wouldnt name their country something else. Austria didnt rename itself either until the Hungarian Revolt. Great Britain most likely got renamed to its current name since a Scottish king didnt want to be called King of England.

 

[Vohen]

Illyria is a geographic term and not a political one.

Interesting choice of words, sounds oddly familiar.

PS: I know fully well it's not the same thing, just found the wording amusing.
Then again, as far as geographical terms go, the same could be said for Scandinavia or even Russia, for example.
The takeaway would be that it is indeed a geographical term, but only until someone finds themselves in the position to claim it as a title, and has any interest in doing so.

 

[yellowbiz]

Yes it did.

But hey, I'm all for Yugoslavia being in the game. I don't care that the timeframe is wrong, we already have wildly anachronistic tags anyway, and more formables is always fun.

Not saying they didn't, but the article you linked says the revolts started in 1821, which is the end date of EU4, so technically it's out of the game's time frame.

I think these kind of things are best left for mods honestly, after all it's the one thing that makes this game so replayable

 

[Shrek1453]

Interesting choice of words, sounds oddly familiar.

PS: I know fully well it's not the same thing, just found the wording amusing.
Then again, as far as geographical terms go, the same could be said for Scandinavia or even Russia, for example.
The takeaway would be that it is indeed a geographical term, but only until someone finds themselves in the position to claim it as a title, and has any interest in doing so.

I absolutely agree. Scandinavia is an abomination that should not exist. Every "it's not historical" argument against new formables like Yugoslavia should stop at Scandinavia. If Scandinavia can exist, then so can Yugoslavia, Zapadoslavia, Atlantis and Wakanda.

 

[Frossa]

I absolutely agree. Scandinavia is an abomination that should not exist. Every "it's not historical" argument against new formables like Yugoslavia should stop at Scandinavia. If Scandinavia can exist, then so can Yugoslavia, Zapadoslavia, Atlantis and Wakanda.

Don't be ridiculous and willfully ignorant. Scandinavism was a political movement that even got the support of Swedish king Charles XV, although this was in the 1860s, so just outside of the EU4 timeframe. You could not have ruled out the creation of a Scandinavian state in the 19th century, because it was prevented largely only due to power dynamics between Prussia and Russia who did not want to see a new rival coalesce. The reason Scandinavia is in the game is to acknowledge these 19th-century nationalistic tendencies in some form, in the same way that there are ex-colonial tags in the Americas that technically did not exist until after 1821. The game's iteration of Italy follows along the same line.

 

[Battlex]

If Serbia Bosnia or Croatia managed to conquer one another they wouldnt name their country something else. Austria didnt rename itself either until the Hungarian Revolt. Great Britain most likely got renamed to its current name since a Scottish king didnt want to be called King of England.

Agreed that Serbia wouldn't make a new title, considering how the Serbian empire was just that. But GB is far more than James I not wanting to be called King of England

 

[Vohen]

I absolutely agree. Scandinavia is an abomination that should not exist. Every "it's not historical" argument against new formables like Yugoslavia should stop at Scandinavia. If Scandinavia can exist, then so can Yugoslavia, Zapadoslavia, Atlantis and Wakanda.

I don't really care one way or another, but leaving anachronistic pan-nationalism and pure fantasy aside (as well as obvious hyperboles), at least Illyria and Scandinavia make sense, as much as Russia or Great Britain.
As a geographical term, a king holding the crowns of Denmark, Norway and Sweden could very well style his nation as "The United Kingdom of Scandinavia", or one holding the Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian crowns could be styled as the ruler of "The United Kingdom of Illyria", just like a monarch who held the Scottish, English and Welsh crowns created The United Kingdom of Great Britain.
I suppose rather than Russia, Great Britain is the historical precedent here, as the union of crowns into a kingdom named after their geographical location, and without any precedent to that title themselves.

 

[santali]

the same could be said for Scandinavia or even Russia, for example.

Russia is geographical term like Scandinavia? You have no clue what you're talking about.

 

[gigau]

Discussion is slipping, best close it before things get real bad.