The EUIV Nit-Picking about Historical inaccuracies that do and don't effect gameplay.

[persianfan247]

Ok, I am starting this thread with the idea of pointing out historical inaccuracies that don't require that anything is added to the game only corrected and then aftter that historical inaccuracies that require things to be added to the game. When commenting in this thread use the following format. Because I imagine that things that only require corrections are more likely to be changed.

Corrections:

• Mashhad not Isfahan should be the capital of Persia under the Afsharid dynasty.
• Shiraz not Isfahan shoudl be the capital of Persia under the Zand dynasty.

Additions:

• Shia Islam being the religion under Nader Shah is not exactly accurate. Nader Shah tried to get the Ottoman Sultan to accept a new sect within Sunni Islam based upon Ja'fari shia Islam. So it is kind of complicated because he didn't manage to get the Ottoman Sultan to accept it. Either the current situation will have to do where it is Shia Islam, or Persian state religion is changed to Sunni Islam while the provinces remain shia, or a new religion called Ja'fari Islam is added. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nader_Shah#Religious_policy

Ideally this thread will be for people to point out historical inaccuracies within the game and is not really for debating though if you feel you really must, do so. Maybe, just maybe the devs will see this thread and impliment some of the corrections. Please! Please! Please!!!!

 

[Incompetent]

Persian provinces shouldn't be mostly Shia in 1444, either. (It's weird that there are no NIs or events to represent the religious fervour of the Safavids.)

 

[Adrian Gaming]

The game is not a historical simulator, guys. Not like Vic2 is. It isn't going to be perfect

 

[Yozul]

The game is not a historical simulator, guys. Not like Vic2 is. It isn't going to be perfect

Just because it won't ever be perfect doesn't mean we can't strive to make it better.

 

[Vaximillian]

The game is not a historical simulator, guys. Not like Vic2 is. It isn't going to be perfect

Victoria isn't a historical simulator either. I literally can't see your point because there's none.

 

[Kansai-kun]

Victoria isn't a historical simulator either. I literally can't see your point because there's none.

V2 does certainly have more events/decisions directing the game into a more historical direction.

 

[Haldan]

Colonization goes way too quick.

 

[MarkS00N]

Things that could happen but I think shouldn't:
Kutai's territory is too big and there should've been two Kutai:
Kutai Kartanegara the Islamic one
Kutai Martadipura the Hinduistic one
Later they fight, and only one Kutai remains...
But if that happen in game, Brunei will eat them alive...

Bali and Madura was divided in to multiple 'kingdom', like Ireland did, but if they did that in game, you won't be able to click any of the provinces even when zoom in...

Siak shouldn't be independent and be part of Malaca, but Malaca would be too strong and any other Sumatran Kingdom won't be able to beat it...

Things that could happen in game:
Tulangbawang should've been under control of Sunda...
Palembang should exist as vassal of Majapahit (a bit too early several decades, but I think it is acceptable due to Siak's situation)...
Aceh should've existed as Pasai vassal...

 

[Chamboozer]

Persian provinces shouldn't be mostly Shia in 1444, either.

Although it is a commonly held opinion by historians that Iran was mostly Sunni when the Safavids took over, that belief isn't universal and I happen to disagree with it. Forced conversions are notoriously ineffective in reality and the notion that Shah Ismail somehow personally oversaw the conversion of Iran seems to me to be rather far-fetched, or that he converted to Shi'ism in order to, as is often claimed..."differentiate his state from the Ottomans," whatever that's supposed to mean. It's much easier to consider that most of Iran had already slipped away from Sunni orthodoxy during the long period following the Mongol Conquest, and Ismail took to Shi'ism as a way of acquiescing to the faith of the conquered population of his new empire.

 

[RockmanYoshi]

The game is not a historical simulator, guys. Not like Vic2 is. It isn't going to be perfect

I don't really get this argument. One thing that attracted me (and so many others) to EU4 was the ability to play in a (mostly) realistic environment and the vast options of nations to play. Turning an irrelevant backwater into one of the greatest empires ever feels great, and I am for any changes that improve the experience and depth, major and minor.

 

[n00bypl4y3r]

The province of Wahpeton in North America is way far south of where it should be. I live near it in real life, and it is certainly not down by Iowa, it is in Eastern North Dakota. It should be in the province of Yanktonai, which has the Red River running through it in game. The Red River runs next to Wahpeton in real life, dividing it from the town across the river in Minnesota, Breckenridge.

I can't find any reason why it would be where it is in game. The town is named after the Dakota tribe Wakhpetonwan, who had previously lived by Lake Mille Lacs in central Minnesota before being displaced by the Ojibwa.

 

[Adrian Gaming]

Victoria isn't a historical simulator either. I literally can't see your point because there's none.

For how in depth and complex Victoria II is compared to EUIV in terms of real world mechanics and historicity, I would say it is. If Vic 2 isn't a historical simulator in a game, then I've never seen one.

 

[Adrian Gaming]

I don't really get this argument. One thing that attracted me (and so many others) to EU4 was the ability to play in a (mostly) realistic environment and the vast options of nations to play. Turning an irrelevant backwater into one of the greatest empires ever feels great, and I am for any changes that improve the experience and depth, major and minor.

I can agree with this statement as well, but we must not forget where EU's roots are: first it was a board game, and then there lie three previous games in the series before the fourth. Paradox has shifted and changed the map and the game and has always tried to achieve a good level of historical authenticity but they've had a long time to come to what it is now, and it still isn't perfect. We can respect that and still have a great game. But by all means, let us continue to improve the game historically. Huzzah!

 

[Ptep]

The province of Wahpeton in North America is way far south of where it should be. I live near it in real life, and it is certainly not down by Iowa, it is in Eastern North Dakota. It should be in the province of Yanktonai, which has the Red River running through it in game. The Red River runs next to Wahpeton in real life, dividing it from the town across the river in Minnesota, Breckenridge.

I can't find any reason why it would be where it is in game. The town is named after the Dakota tribe Wakhpetonwan, who had previously lived by Lake Mille Lacs in central Minnesota before being displaced by the Ojibwa.

Similarly, the province Manahoac was fine where it used to be, before the 1.8 province additions. Now, however, it does not encompass the area where the Manahoac lived during this period at all. Somehow it got moved into modern-day West Virginia rather than central-northern Virginia.

 

[ponasozis]

Always wondered why is there no events for thirteen years war in prussia
its start just 10 years after game start

 

[PhroX]

As far as I know, the Timurids have the wrong capital at the 1444 start. While most of the dynasty ruled from Samarkand, the starting ruler, Shahrukh Mirza, ruled from Herat

 

[RockmanYoshi]

I believe Oman starts with the wrong ruler, capital, and heir, probably dating back from eu2 times.

On the subject of Oman, some imamate related stuff would be nice.

 

[Evie HJ]

Similarly, the province Manahoac was fine where it used to be, before the 1.8 province additions. Now, however, it does not encompass the area where the Manahoac lived during this period at all. Somehow it got moved into modern-day West Virginia rather than central-northern Virginia.

The problem there is that we know very very little about tribes of west virginia (and most of what we know seem to indicate that this particular province was mostly occasionally visited by groups that lived in other areas, like the Erie, the Susquehannocks, the Shawnee, the Cherokee and so forth). Of the tribes we do know, the Manahoac are among the closest, and there are a lot more known tribes in west and central VA than in eastern WV. It's pretty much the closest name that could be found.

The province of Wahpeton in North America is way far south of where it should be. I live near it in real life, and it is certainly not down by Iowa, it is in Eastern North Dakota. It should be in the province of Yanktonai, which has the Red River running through it in game. The Red River runs next to Wahpeton in real life, dividing it from the town across the river in Minnesota, Breckenridge.

The province of Wahpeton has absolutely nothing to do with the town of the same name - they're both named after the same thing, not after each other. It has to do with the historical tribe whose name was sometime written Wahpeton. And while they migrated a lot, around the time of first European contact, they did in fact live around the Minnesota/Iowa border, where the province is located (see this map : http://www.emersonkent.com/images/indian_tribes.jpg )

They did have ties with Lake Mille Lacs like you said, but the Mdewakanton(wan) are literally named for the lake (their name means "People of the spirit lake", which is their name for Mille Lacs), so THEY got that province, and the Wahpeton got pushed a little further west along their historical migration path. These two provinces, together with Sisseton and Wahpekute, represent the historical territory of the Eastern Dakota or Isanti.

 

[panionios]

Colonization goes way too quick.

This.

 

[persianfan247]

As far as I know, the Timurids have the wrong capital at the 1444 start. While most of the dynasty ruled from Samarkand, the starting ruler, Shahrukh Mirza, ruled from Herat

Which reminds me the Timurids shouldn't be nomads, they had nomads fighting for them but they themselves were not nomads. They were part of the Urbanised Turko-mongol elite. Though the whole idea of the Timurids changing to the Mughals is silly, because the Mughals Emperors did not distinguish themselves from the Timurids and in fact would be insulted if they new they were called Mughals, since they regarded Mongols as barbarians and saw Persians and Turks as civilised. I guess it still serves a gameplay purpose in regards to having different ideas and events.


Edit: Oh and the other weird thing is the main culture for the Timurids is Uzbek, which is weird because the Uzeks invaded and kicked out the Timurids and did not already exist there. Though I guess the timurids only exist at the start so why would they add a whole new cutlure for the Timurids.

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Timurid_dynasty#Culture

But potential new cutlures could be Tartar, Turko-Mongol, Chaghatay all part of Altaic.

Or alternatively they could use the Khorasan culture.


The Timurids changing to the Mughals is kind of like how in CK2 you can restore Rome as Byzantium, ridiculous because Byzantium didn't stop being the Roman Empire and the idea that it would change back to classical symbolims is also ridiculous.