Please Paradox give some love to Ukraine

[Fanatic Xenofile]

It has been a super hot topic for about a month, and will be for at least a year. There are lot of recent Reddit posts about forming Ruthenia, as well as YouTube videos. Plus, there is a very rich history around the region. Basically, most of modern-day Ukrainian identity is based on the events in EU4 timeline. There were lot of prominent Ukrainian rulers and cossack hosts waltzing between PLC, Russia and Ottomans, seeking and providing support to each of these factions. You can even take some ideas from Expanded mod family, which introduces Hetmanate formable nation. There was a discussion about this on your forums as well: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/the-hetmanate.1144660/

 

[Masyanya028]

Agree. There are big amount of movements around Netherlands independence (reworking and other stuff like AI-Dutch nation joining Netherlands) but there are no actual Cossack revolt as it should be (filled with some additional mechanics) because it turned all things around, weakening Poland and leading to further dominance of Russia. (And we see it - Poland dominates Muscovy most of the times)
All of this needs at least immersion pack - at best a full DLC like Indian one, but we all ready have Russian, free Polish update but all the changes in comprising with nowadays DLC and mission trees are huge lackluster.

 

[ElSocialismoNoFunciona]

Persia and the Ottomans do not have a complete quest tree.

Just look at the Ming dynasty, the richest and most populous country in the world has a shitty tree with a little unique quests, it doesn't even have alternate history quests like Byzantium does.

It is sad what is happening to Ukraine today, but there are states that were much more important that need to be reviewed before satisfying a small niche

 

[Korsjan Rīkis]

I think Lithuania shouldn't have a direct rule over its Southern territories and they should instead be represented as vassals like Kyiv and such.

 

[Kapi96]

Seems like you're asking in the wrong place. Ukraine stuff just doesn't fit into EU4s timeline and would be incredibly niche as well as anachronistic. If you want Ukraine stuff it would be better to ask for it in HOI4, or possibly Victoria, rather than EU.

 

[Fanatic Xenofile]

> there are states that were much more important that need to be reviewed before satisfying a small niche

Territory of Eastern Europe of area similar to France, making its own politics and influencing PLC, Russia, and Ottomans, seems to be a reason valid enough.

 

[Opanashc]

Seems like you're asking in the wrong place. Ukraine stuff just doesn't fit into EU4s timeline and would be incredibly niche as well as anachronistic. If you want Ukraine stuff it would be better to ask for it in HOI4, or possibly Victoria, rather than EU.

Bogdan Khmelniskiy uprising was in 1640s, Mazepa was in late 1600s, Getmanate was eliminated by Russian Empire only in mid 1700s.

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

An expansion of the Cossack raid mechanics would be inferesting. There was a suggestion a while back that basically copied the raiding mechanic from Barbary corsairs for the steppes.


But in general I think SA, Middle America and Persia should really take precedent over the Ukrainian region.
There are much more tags with different potential playstyles to be fleshed out there.

 

[reivaj89]

An expansion of the Cossack raid mechanics would be inferesting. There was a suggestion a while back that basically copied the raiding mechanic from Barbary corsairs for the steppes.


But in general I think SA, Middle America and Persia should really take precedent over the Ukrainian region.
There are much more tags with different potential playstyles to be fleshed out there.

To me SA should be a priority. It's almost a crime that the longest mountain range in the world does not have any impassable wasteland province in EU4. I know PDX are reluctant to add new provinces but I hope they make an exception for this because it's a simple change that would add some depth to a very lacklustre region in EU4.

 

[JKiller96]

This shouldn't turn into whataboutism ("what about Persia?"). If Paradox wants to do Ukraine content, they will. Some people want it, so I'm fine with that even though I will never play there, unless Paradox makes them especially interesting.

I want middle east content probably more than anything, but I would respect the choice to do Ukraine content.

 

[EarlKonrad]

It has been a super hot topic for about a month, and will be for at least a year. There are lot of recent Reddit posts about forming Ruthenia, as well as YouTube videos.

Cool. So you are trying to say that either the moment is right for introducing stuff into the game on the bases of: A) influencers are doing it and; B) it is politically relevant.

Because that makes for a better overall game, yes?

Real world politics aside, it is a shame how Eastern Europe never got the attention it deserved, as didn't many parts of the world. EE isn't unique in having a rich history (let's be honest here, every single human community has a rich history and saying that X or Y has one says more about your personal knowledge and interests than anything else) and don't get much, if any, attention on EU 4.

 

[ElSocialismoNoFunciona]

hay

 

[necro84]

I think Lithuania shouldn't have a direct rule over its Southern territories and they should instead be represented as vassals like Kyiv and such.

It can cause problems with other mechanics in the game
1) You can have mini vassal swarm as Poland when you take the PU - subjects without using relation slots as main nation. Lithuania + all possible subjects have 50 FL, you can add Danzig, Moldavia, Mazowia and Poland, you have over 100 FL almost at the start + many potential generals.
2) You can abuse age ability to transfer vassal
3) If Lithuania alone will be small enough you will be able to conquer it in single war and take all vassals.

 

[makaramus]

if we did buff states depending on regions or made them have flavor depending on them then Yemen, Afghanistan, North China(to be honest its not that bad at that region but still ) and syria will be content king of paradox.
Stop virtue signaling. I too worried like hell about that , including for myself(From turkey, my heart is with ukraine) but this is not helping them and also not giving any message other than reducing value of game.

now: Paradox can go and relase a mini expansion related to ukraine and donate profits to humanatarian efforts there: I will support it and give thumbs up as it actually helps but they can't prepare an entire dlc that quick.

 

[Fanatic Xenofile]

Stop virtue signaling.

That's literally my home country. Entire region is full of historic events in 16-18 centuries, which are not represented entirely. It was not "an integral part" of Russa or PLC, as many people think, and played important role in spiritual and academic life of the Russian Empire as well. Did you know that the first university in Russian Empire appeared in Kyiv, and only after almost a century in Saint Petersburg? It's good that at least Kyiv-Pechersk lavra appeared as a monument. But it also would be more correct (and fun) to represent it in-game as a march, which might swap the overlord between PLC, Russia and maybe Ottomans. Plus, the government system is also unique: Hetmanate was a highly militarized society (hello Prussia), where the ruler was chosen by people. For example, in Zaporozhian Sich, Hetman could be swaped every year. That would be definitely a very unique and interesting EU4 mechanic, so please don't say that the value of the game would be reduced.

 

[makaramus]

That's literally my home country. Entire region is full of historic events in 16-18 centuries, which are not represented entirely. It was not "an integral part" of Russa or PLC, as many people think, and played important role in spiritual and academic life of the Russian Empire as well. Did you know that the first university in Russian Empire appeared in Kyiv, and only after almost a century in Saint Petersburg? It's good that at least Kyiv-Pechersk lavra appeared as a monument. But it also would be more correct (and fun) to represent it in-game as a march, which might swap the overlord between PLC, Russia and maybe Ottomans. Plus, the government system is also unique: Hetmanate was a highly militarized society (hello Prussia), where the ruler was chosen by people. For example, in Zaporozhian Sich, Hetman could be swaped every year. That would be definitely a very unique and interesting EU4 mechanic, so please don't say that the value of the game would be reduced.

Then know that you got my support I even donated some money, but no pls don't ask for game to change for it.
Yes I know many of most developed things happened in kiev until mongolians burned city to ground as it was most important place in Russia but sadly its not so important in EU4
But I suggest you to try your chance at CK3

 

[heliostellar]

Persia and the Ottomans do not have a complete quest tree.

Just look at the Ming dynasty, the richest and most populous country in the world has a shitty tree with a little unique quests, it doesn't even have alternate history quests like Byzantium does.

It is sad what is happening to Ukraine today, but there are states that were much more important that need to be reviewed before satisfying a small niche

Ottomans have a perfectly fine tree as it is. If you finish that tree, you are basically set up for a WC.

 

[MagentaPhoenix]

The arguments in this thread fall a little flat.

Are people so quick to forget that an entire DLC was spent giving flavor, provinces and tags to Polynesia and Australia? How about obscure regions of Africa in the most recent DLC that had absolutely zero relevance in the game's time period? What about nonsense like giving Navarra an extensive mission tree, a state that is the epitome of historical irrelevance? What about the same for countries like Croatia and Bosnia, whose relevance in ALL of human history is strictly locally-centered to the Balkans and no further? You could say the same even for Hungary.

Questions like "What about the Ottomans" are great, but they seem to be selectively asked. What about the Ottomans when the Philippines were getting missions and ideas? What about the Ottomans when East Africa is getting far more attention? What about the Ottomans when random Indian nations like Mewar are getting infinitely more love? Ah, but then it's just very welcome, super SUPER relevant flavor, right?

Be honest. A country's historical relevance evidently has a very, very tiny amount of bearing on whether or not it gets PDX's attention. Nothing ranging from "Ukraine wasn't overly relevant in 1444-1821" to "The area wasn't really independent historically" to "This bigger tag doesn't have flavor, choose this first" are really good arguments, because they've been routinely ignored for the last few years of the game's dev cycle. Many irrelevant nations have more flavor than the Ottomans, it's been that way for awhile, and yet when somebody suggests PDX adds a little bit of effort to an area that admittedly was decently relevant, to honor what is likely to become one of the most consequential wars in all of our lifetimes, all of sudden we get our microscopes out and go hunting for every little detail to see if Ukraine/Ruthenia compares to the Ottomans in relevance.

Tl;dr if something like Navarra or an Aboriginal tribe in Australia gets flavor, there is absolutely ZERO good faith excuse for why Ruthenia can't. None. Not one.

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

The arguments in this thread fall a little flat.

Are people so quick to forget that an entire DLC was spent giving flavor, provinces and tags to Polynesia and Australia? How about obscure regions of Africa in the most recent DLC that had absolutely zero relevance in the game's time period? What about nonsense like giving Navarra an extensive mission tree, a state that is the epitome of historical irrelevance? What about the same for countries like Croatia and Bosnia, whose relevance in ALL of human history is strictly locally-centered to the Balkans and no further? You could say the same even for Hungary.

Questions like "What about the Ottomans" are great, but they seem to be selectively asked. What about the Ottomans when the Philippines were getting missions and ideas? What about the Ottomans when East Africa is getting far more attention? What about the Ottomans when random Indian nations like Mewar are getting infinitely more love? Ah, but then it's just very welcome, super SUPER relevant flavor, right?

Be honest. A country's historical relevance evidently has a very, very tiny amount of bearing on whether or not it gets PDX's attention. Nothing ranging from "Ukraine wasn't overly relevant in 1444-1821" to "The area wasn't really independent historically" to "This bigger tag doesn't have flavor, choose this first" are really good arguments, because they've been routinely ignored for the last few years of the game's dev cycle. Many irrelevant nations have more flavor than the Ottomans, it's been that way for awhile, and yet when somebody suggests PDX adds a little bit of effort to an area that admittedly was decently relevant, to honor what is likely to become one of the most consequential wars in all of our lifetimes, all of sudden we get our microscopes out and go hunting for every little detail to see if Ukraine/Ruthenia compares to the Ottomans in relevance.

Tl;dr if something like Navarra or an Aboriginal tribe in Australia gets flavor, there is absolutely ZERO good faith excuse for why Ruthenia can't. None. Not one.

Leviathan also reworked the entire north American tribes.

 

[Nostalgium]

While I definitely want more flavour for northeastern Europe beyond "does it become Russian or Polish clay?", I also don't want Paradox to drop a DLC focused on Ruthenia right now unless every single euro they make from sales goes to Ukrainian relief, or the Ruthenian content and all associated mechanics are part of the free patch accompanying a DLC containing paid content for, IDK, revamped Middle Eastern or Scandinavian mission trees. It'd leave a real sour taste in my mouth of they sold a Ruthenia-focused DLC for profit because it's currently in the public's attention because of a war, and I sincerely don't think they'll do that.