Please no extra tag switching limitation

[aono]

If you however think Hanover and Sweden both are in the same situation as Italy, then add their tags to the End-game tags.

...so in the end it would be simpler to just disable creating nations.
Take Prussia.
Prussia isn't end-game tag, and it shouldn't be. To be Prussia you need to be Pomeranian, Saxon or Prussian, have Prussia (Königsberg, Warmia and Danzig), be Protestant or Reformed. To create Mughals by Prussia you'll need to shift your culture like Italy need. Do you believe Prussia should be able to create Mughals, and Italy shouldn't? Is Italy more magical title then Prussia?

UPD:
To create Hanover you'll need to be Westfallen; should they be added into End-game tags?
What about Netherlands, required to be Dutch?
Or about Greece, need to be Greek?
Or Ireland, required to be Irish, who need to change primary culture to create Great Britain, by the way?

 

[MeshPL]

I honestly think that it is not the tag-switching that is the problem. It is simply the fact that culture-switching is trivial. Should Ottomans loose all their Turkish lands, but conquer georgia in the mean time and have only Georgian lands from now on, and even change religion from Sunni to Orthodox, it would be unreasonable to say that they cannot form Georgia.

However, how can they abondon their Turkish, Sunni roots if they still have tons of Turkish, Sunni lands (maybe as territories, not states), as they do in most games? Makes no sense.

What I would propose, if I wanted this problem solved, is to make abusive culture switching harder, like territories providing at least 10% of what states do towards calculating culture development.

 

[szmik]

it's just a game, and girls just want to have fun

Anyway artificially limiting player options is bad for a product, especially in single player game where no one cares what cheese anyone is using... and trying out new cheese is fun too, for certain players. Why do you want others to play the game YOUR way?

 

[Piotrzeci]

...so in the end it would be simpler to just disable creating nations.
Take Prussia.
Prussia isn't end-game tag, and it shouldn't be. To be Prussia you need to be Pomeranian, Saxon or Prussian, have Prussia (Königsberg, Warmia and Danzig), be Protestant or Reformed. To create Mughals by Prussia you'll need to shift your culture like Italy need. Do you believe Prussia should be able to create Mughals, and Italy shouldn't? Is Italy more magical title then Prussia?

UPD:
To create Hanover you'll need to be Westfallen; should they be added into End-game tags?
What about Netherlands, required to be Dutch?
Or about Greece, need to be Greek?
Or Ireland, required to be Irish, who need to change primary culture to create Great Britain, by the way?

The problem is with casual culture-shifting. None of this countries should be able to become Mughals or even meet it's criteria, but they just blocked a handful of them. If you ask me; limiting culture shifting once again to the point where you simply can't do it without losing your original land, would be a better choice than end game tags. Still I think they make sense and are a decent solution.

 

[aono]

The problem is with casual culture-shifting.

...and end-game tags doesn't solve it. You still can create any nation with Prussia (so Mughal nation with prussian ideas still would be here!), Hanover, England (not Great Britain), Ireland or Manchu.
So I don't think they're making good solution for the problem, but making arbitrary placeholder solution like "some countries should be more set in stone that anothers". Italy magically is more hardly set then Prussia (so, by the way, France can restore Roman Empire, and Italy can't).

 

[Piotrzeci]

...and end-game tags doesn't solve it. You still can create any nation with Prussia (so Mughal nation with prussian ideas still would be here!), Hanover, England (not Great Britain), Ireland or Manchu.
So I don't think they're making good solution for the problem, but making arbitrary placeholder solution like "some countries should be more set in stone that anothers". Italy magically is more hardly set then Prussia (so, by the way, France can restore Roman Empire, and Italy can't).

Maybe it isn't a good solution, but it isn't bad either. If they find another way in the future a list of end-game tags won't hurt it.
Also Italy can form Roman Empire as End-game tags can have tags still available for them. Why Prussia isn't one with ability to form Roman Empire/HRE/Germany I don't know.

 

[schondetta]

My basic opinion is that since the AI won't use silly tag switches, who cares if the player does? Like if I'm going for a historical ottomans game I'm not gonna faceroll tag switches to min/max a WC but if thats what I'm trying to do then let me do that. The only problem that multi tag switches has is that in MP you can cause severe balance issues. BUT HERES THE EASY FIX FOR THAT JUST MAKE A SETTING FOR IT IN MP!!! Let us SP do our shenanigans when we want

This. I don't see the point of them wasting time and money on limiting player liberty as theres nothing particular game breaking about this.

 

[yerm]

Forming Prussia is really the only one that I see used competitively. Reforming Poland potentially but I don't notice it done. The rest are basically either for style points (KJ's Byzanturks) or really just single player stretch plays. A shia tsardom prussia happening in MP or from AI choices is a silly fear.

So what I basically see here is mostly a call to nerf player choice in single player? No thanks.

 

[aono]

Also Italy can form Roman Empire as End-game tags can have tags still available for them. Why Prussia isn't one with ability to form Roman Empire/HRE/Germany I don't know.

That means that even with end-game tags you'll have "special cases" and "snowflakes". "Of course, it's end-tag... until you're not creating X." If my suspicions are right, Roman Empire, HRE and Papal States just haven't blocker by "end-game tags", by the way ("Holy Roman Empire, Rome and Papal States are so special they trump this list"). So yeah, even if Rome would't be able to create Mughals because Rome is special!, Mughals would be able to create Rome because Rome is special-special!.
So no, it's not historically based. It's narratively based. It's arbitrary take on "hey, this country is, you know, special".
That's what I mean - idea that Italy is more, you know, important that Ireland or Sweden, and Roman Empire is more important then Italy, isn't "historical". It's narrative, and locking narrative in a game about alternative history is not very good idea. At least not so blunt as "Italy is more important then Ireland, and Rome is more important then Italy, because I said so".
Especially when it's linked with cultural system, which is, I believe, lame duck in the whole game (in the whole family of games, if to be more precise).

This. I don't see the point of them wasting time and money on limiting player liberty as theres nothing particular game breaking about this.

Truth to be said, time and money in question is, like, a hour. Maybe two. It's 40 lines in scripted triggers list, and changing creation decisions condition you'll need to check around anyway.

A shia tsardom prussia happening in MP or from AI choices is a silly fear.

...and a thing that this particular list would never prevent. Prussia isn't final tag.

 

[Piotrzeci]

That means that even with end-game tags you'll have "special cases" and "snowflakes". "Of course, it's end-tag... until you're not creating X." If my suspicions are right, Roman Empire, HRE and Papal States just haven't blocker by "end-game tags", by the way ("Holy Roman Empire, Rome and Papal States are so special they trump this list"). So yeah, even if Rome would't be able to create Mughals because Rome is special!, Mughals would be able to create Rome because Rome is special-special!.
So no, it's not historically based. It's narratively based. It's arbitrary take on "hey, this country is, you know, special".
That's what I mean - idea that Italy is more, you know, important that Ireland or Sweden, and Roman Empire is more important then Italy, isn't "historical". It's narrative, and locking narrative in a game about alternative history is not very good idea. At least not so blunt as "Italy is more important then Ireland, and Rome is more important then Italy, because I said so".
Especially when it's linked with cultural system, which is, I believe, lame duck in the whole game (in the whole family of games, if to be more precise).

Well I must say you did convince me. I still think there is some historical sense to it, but on the other hand it doesn't fix the problem. I am an enemy of any stupid tag-switching, but the cause is in a stupid culture shifting mechanic, that on one hand is trivial to do if you want (just unstate everything except capital and desired cultures lands) and on other doesn't work when it should (50% of development in one culture is a lot and a country without and land in it's main culture can still be unable to shift, because there is dominant one either).

 

[aono]

I do hope, though, that developers moving right way. They removing government as strict strings, moving to the modular system (hell, I have the most hype I ever had about Paradox DLC feature). Maybe they would do something with cultures as well, and (*gasp!*) even make development cost in ducats, not in MP.