Should Paradox add new formable that have some ahistorical basis? Such as France/Spain becoming one country, Byzantium becoming Roman Empire/Republic, a British/French union etc.
Should Ahistorical nations be added as formable?
- Thread starter Suzaku
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
France spain no, France-england yesm There's already a roman empire in eu4, it just needs the converter or a mod.
What we really need is more alternate formations, scotland into GB shouldnt just be the same as england into GB, portugal forming spain shouldnt be the same as Aragon and castille, ect
What we really need is more alternate formations, scotland into GB shouldnt just be the same as england into GB, portugal forming spain shouldnt be the same as Aragon and castille, ect
Formable states have to have a base in history or at least be cultural unions, a France/Spain has no base in history(Well....) so it shouldn't be formable, But this does pose an interesting idea, what is personal unions where dynamic? Like if Castile PUs Aragon you get Spain, but if get Castile PUing France you get a new country with a quartered flag and a hyphenated name with ideas of the dominate culture. Like if Germany PUs Denmark you get Germany-Denmark with German ideas.
Why not? It almost happened in real life when France got PU over Spain except Austria, English and Netherlands got involved to prevent the union, in fact there is a scenario already in the game where Spain and France are in war for the personal union against those very country.
Scotland GB has scotish NIs, same applies to most formable countries, with few exceptions like Prussia.
I thought this was going to be about things like Yugoslavia and the Great Sioux Nation
but its still the same formable, complete with same flag and color, having different NI's doesnt change that my country of scotland led britain shjouldnt be glorifying the english part so much, ect ect
Byzantium and RE are different things in eu4
i expected that bastard child formable called austia-hungary
There should be some unhistorical event for weird stuff going.
Just watching ddrJake colonising America with Mogadishu and I was like : How would react the European nation if there were competiting with a African nation to colonise Brasilia?
Just watching ddrJake colonising America with Mogadishu and I was like : How would react the European nation if there were competiting with a African nation to colonise Brasilia?
I wouldn't mind seeing a few more formable cultural unions, maybe an Ireland-Brittany. But not Franco-Iberia or England France, though the latter could have happened, one of the cultures would have been dominant.
No, he was referring to the Restored Roman Empire imported from CKII.
... There's no need to 'restore' it, it still exists at game start...
Sure, it lost territory, but that's not a different nation, it's the exact same nation. That's just the reconquest of areas it lost.
Austria-Hungary, Celtica, Agevin Empire, Al-Anadalus, Indochina, The Ur-Khanate(altaic/tartar cultural union), Yugoslavia, Europa Universalis (marks Iberian, French, Byzantine, Germanic, british, east slavic, baltic, south slavic, Magyr, west slavic, finno-urgic, celtic and scandenavian cultures accepted), Two scilies, Belgium, Malta.
I want a formable Germania.
A union for all germanic peoples. Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Prussia, England, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland and all other.
A huge gray blob with the "G E R M A N I A" letters shown all over Europe. Can you imagine my dream?
A union for all germanic peoples. Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Prussia, England, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland and all other.
A huge gray blob with the "G E R M A N I A" letters shown all over Europe. Can you imagine my dream?
i dont think you understand
why do people insist on arguing that A-H should be formable, or that belgium should exist outside the context that created it ;-;
He is trying to say that Byzantium are the Romans left in the game. In the time period they didn't call themselves Byzantine empire but the Roman Empire.
He is missing the entire point of the new TAG that PI has created especially for united Roman Empire in CKII, which means, that in EUIV the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire are actually two different TAGs.
Well, yes I understand that the Eastern Empire is the legitimate inheriter\successor of the Roman Empire after the fall of Rome. But PI distinguishes between them as two separate political entities more like a predecessor and successor, rather than exactly the same political entity continues. Just as many historians do.
I personally see the Byzantine Empire as the Eastern Roman Empire, the successor of the Roman Empire, but not of the Western Roman Empire which been fallen forever and ever since the dark ages.
Actually the Western Roman Empire lineage was passed to HRE and legitimized by the Eastern part of the Empire in a couple of occasions.