It's foolish to undervalue Portugal, but most European countries still alive today played big roles one way or another that would change everything should they be missing.
The big 8 - and the lesser 8
- Thread starter Niptium
- 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.
I agree with this. Even something as minor as Serbia pretty much changed Europe (and thus the world) to be the way it is today.
Butterfly effects and all that.
However, EU series isn't going to be there to reflect every single butterfly out there.
I bet Paradox workers are laughing hard reading this thread. While for them the whole putting country A into tier 1/2/3/4 task is probably a matter of a second (as in: Captain Gars: "Johan, what tier should we put Moldavia?", Johan: "Dunno, just throw it somewhere with the rest"), since it doesn't really affect gameplay (as they said a few times), people in this thread are going out of their skin to prove why their country was basically a best thing that ever happened to the world. We all found out here that Portugal invented trade, sailing, discoveries, heck they even invented Americas and Asia, Prussia was powerful state starting 15th Century (but some people were calling it Brandenburg or Teutonic Order just to throw its opponents off the track), Poland could into space in XVth Century already, Burgundy was Netherlands in disguise, Ming should be in Europe and any country should have an option to declare a war on Sweden switched off, since they were/are way too cool to fight against. 
You know that some people come from one of the country in the "top" 8 and are quite happy they can play their countries with nice events and flavour. There will always be someone from a small country which moved by its nationalist propaganda thinks he come from the best country on earth, but more often than not, those people come from countries which major contribution were to be invaded by larger one... Furthermore, if you start to put to much details in minor country you are unlikely to even see them as minor they may more often than not be invaded and disappear from the game.
However, I hope to see a east European country in addition to Russia/Moscow in the list of "loved" country, this place of Europe always seemed to be bland in EU3.
You know that vast majority of players picks up a country for 1000 different reasons? It's very simplistic to say they just play the country they're from. Unless you actually treat EU as a training tool, so once you make it to the leader of your Great Nation of X, you can lead it to greatness (in which case I`d be really careful to throw accusations about nationalism), I`m sure you don't play just your country either.
But hey, what do I know - my country just always managed to get invaded and it's small and, even worse, Eastern European, so by default my voice won't matter a thing compared to you who came from powerful, non-nationalist nation of X.
My post is about how generic events would be better than historical one. For all I care Poland where I come from could have no DHE's whatsoever if devs were to work more on generic stuff. Not sure what your point is? (besides thinly veiled remarks aimed at EE posters)
You know, once we see what DHE's look like, the modders will provide plenty for the low-tier countries.
The dev said there will be both type of events. However, they will focus on giving some nations driving events to be sure they behave somewhat historically to give player a better experience. For example you could avoid the BBB simply with some well chosen events keeping France busy with its internal politics or encourage Spain and Portugal to colonize where they should etc. Why would you want to waste resources on a country who is simply supposed to disappear or play a minor role?
For Sathariel, I said that eastern Europe should be improved (and not the Byzantium which is just suppose to die). The dev have limited resource and do with this resource to provide an experience which somehow looks like the world as we now it.
Well whatever happens I am probably never going to play Poland in Eu4 Vanilla because of how poorly it will be represented. Just like I never played Poland in EU3 vanilla. It is just no fun to play at all.
I will have to wait to mod it myself. (And the result is Poland being among the funnest European nations to play in MPM, from my biased opinion)
Because of that I don't really care if Poland is crap in Eu4. Just make a proper elective monarchy government system dammit.
Why play Poland? Why play any country if you can experience everything with only one. You advocate an over prioritization of generic events for countries which would only serve to shorten the re-playability of the game no matter how it's spun. Once you've played one country to the games end, you will have seen it all. Picking that next country to play as becomes less exciting because you have seen all there is too see. I respect your opinion that there should be a wealth of things that can happen to all countries, but I myself value the cultivation of unique experiences with each country. And I have no illusions about the fact that not every country will get as many events. I am fine with that.
Not everything. It's not like all generic events would be available to all countries. For example, there might be generic events for Noble Republics, generic events for tolerant countries, generic events for countries with specific National Idea, generic events for countries with specific culture or religion, generic events for countries bordering nomadic hordes, etc.
Combination of selected generic events that fits characteristics of given country would make it truly unique. If you played Russia as despotic, religious, expansionist country you would get one selection of events, and if you play it as trade focused, tolerant, innovative country you would get another set of events. With focus on DHE's only you would get many events only in first case. Moreover, generic events could cover whole lot more of tags, eliminating problem of minors without DHE's.
OK imo Portugal should without a doubt be tier one, and I would also say Poland should be tier 1 over these ridicuulous people saying prussia who was a power in the game for like the last century (althoug hPoland on the other hand was a Great power for like five centures). To base it on who is the strongest by 1800 or whatever the end date as some people seem to be doing is completly idiotic and stupid.
Portugal spearheaded Europe and if portugal didn't it could of taken 50-100 more years for discovery to happen and Europe would have a harder time clearly. 50-100 years of continued mediterrainian dominance, and muslic monopoly in the india ocean and all could DRASTICALLY change history is SO many ways. 50-100 years of progress and economic explosiion missing from europe's history could yet again change Europe. Without Portugal it is very likely that the islamic world would of only expanded their power gap and using their wonderful allies of Venice could of spearheaded new conquest in europe that would be far stronger then that of the ottomans.
Portugal spearheaded Europe and if portugal didn't it could of taken 50-100 more years for discovery to happen and Europe would have a harder time clearly. 50-100 years of continued mediterrainian dominance, and muslic monopoly in the india ocean and all could DRASTICALLY change history is SO many ways. 50-100 years of progress and economic explosiion missing from europe's history could yet again change Europe. Without Portugal it is very likely that the islamic world would of only expanded their power gap and using their wonderful allies of Venice could of spearheaded new conquest in europe that would be far stronger then that of the ottomans.
To kinda poke fun at the first post - I personally love how it says the best or strongest out of the 17th and 18th centuries..And yet no mention of Hussari is given.
Hmmmmm...
Hmmmmm...
If we look at the other major nations of Europa (suspected or known), we're almost universally looking at nations that are far more important in the eighteenth centuries than in the fifteenth. RISING nations, the ones that embodies the rise of the European (and Levant) world. Poland's curve is about the exact reverse of that. Start very strong, but end up in total collapse. The same with Ming (except Ming actually collapses altogether). Start strong, but decline (quickly).
That's what lead me to dismiss Poland. Not their "average importance" or how important they were at any specific point in time, but how their importance went over the course of the EU era. Very little upward growth, followed by a lot of downward growth. Their impact on Europe for the era largely made up of being conquered (okay, and the two sieges of Vienna). A power that was often very reactive.
Prussia/Brandenburg is iffy, i'll give it that much. But Poland is not a likely replacement IMO.
Portugal, on the other hand, I'm convinced is one of the big eight.
That's what lead me to dismiss Poland. Not their "average importance" or how important they were at any specific point in time, but how their importance went over the course of the EU era. Very little upward growth, followed by a lot of downward growth. Their impact on Europe for the era largely made up of being conquered (okay, and the two sieges of Vienna). A power that was often very reactive.
Prussia/Brandenburg is iffy, i'll give it that much. But Poland is not a likely replacement IMO.
Portugal, on the other hand, I'm convinced is one of the big eight.
Special attention isn't just POSITIVE attention though. Nudging declining nations to into declining is also useful.
True. however, I feel that this sort of attention should be more of a tier 2 than tier 1 thing.
I see it as a novel. You have the main characters, which in most non artsy novels are those who start (relatively) low and rise (through hardships); and you have secondary characters, who can be more varied.
I don't see Poland as a "main character" for a storyline covering 1500-1800. Poland is more...the tired hero whose fight is already done and who just keep on trying, even though it really isn't their story anymore. Obi-Wan Kenobi, or Dumbledore. A very important role, but a support role.
Compared to that, France-England-Spain-Russia-Austria, probably Portugal, are the Main Characters. The rising stars whose story this is. (The Ottomans, needless to say, fill the narrative role of Main Villain). What other Rising Stars fit the story? It's essentially a two-men contests between the Dutch and Prussians. And while I originally leaned Prussians, I'm thinking more and more it could well be the Dutch.
It's not a perfect comparison, but from the perspective of designing a game I think it has lots of validity.
I see it as a novel. You have the main characters, which in most non artsy novels are those who start (relatively) low and rise (through hardships); and you have secondary characters, who can be more varied.
I don't see Poland as a "main character" for a storyline covering 1500-1800. Poland is more...the tired hero whose fight is already done and who just keep on trying, even though it really isn't their story anymore. Obi-Wan Kenobi, or Dumbledore. A very important role, but a support role.
Compared to that, France-England-Spain-Russia-Austria, probably Portugal, are the Main Characters. The rising stars whose story this is. (The Ottomans, needless to say, fill the narrative role of Main Villain). What other Rising Stars fit the story? It's essentially a two-men contests between the Dutch and Prussians. And while I originally leaned Prussians, I'm thinking more and more it could well be the Dutch.
It's not a perfect comparison, but from the perspective of designing a game I think it has lots of validity.
Poland did actually heavily influenced western european politics. Sure it was not involved in a couple major western European wars but influence goes far more than just fighting wars. Definitely far more than "two sieges of Vienna". If "Main Character" means colonial empire wealth and 19th century dominance then sure, Poland isn't a main character. However, I don't think EU is about that era. On the other hand, Prussia, who is only important for the last 10 years of the EU timeline and whose existence is almost completely coincidental should get more attention? I don't understand that point.
Anyway, isn't this supposed to be a sandbox game? Poland declining could be something that does not happen. Maybe Poland reforms into an absolute monarchy in the 1600's for example?
Anyway, isn't this supposed to be a sandbox game? Poland declining could be something that does not happen. Maybe Poland reforms into an absolute monarchy in the 1600's for example?
Of course that's possible.
But given that DHE stand for Dynamic HISTORICAL events, don't expect them to be based on maybes and what-ifs, and don't expect the priority of nations in getting (or not getting) them to be based on maybes and what-ifs either.
Poland will get DHE for sure, but those DHE will based on Polish history, not Polish what-ifs, and fire (at random) when the game situation resemble history sufficiently.
But given that DHE stand for Dynamic HISTORICAL events, don't expect them to be based on maybes and what-ifs, and don't expect the priority of nations in getting (or not getting) them to be based on maybes and what-ifs either.
Poland will get DHE for sure, but those DHE will based on Polish history, not Polish what-ifs, and fire (at random) when the game situation resemble history sufficiently.