The Romanian "Commonwealth" National Decision

[Negru Voda]

I was just wondering if the Romanian principalities have an event to unite?

I recall that in EU3 you could form Romania if you held certain provinces. Pretty straightforward. And pretty impossible. [And pretty historical I suppose as it was only up in the Vicky period that things finally fell into place]

But after seeing Quill18's overview of Poland and Lithuania's national decisions revolving around the formation of the Commonwealth, I thought this could be replicated for Wallachia and Moldova. In particular the ability to enter into a personal union.

It would offer a little bit greater chance to unite the two principalities, which could make the regional game a little less predictable and more interesting for anyone playing Poland, Hungary, Ottomans or any balkan.

I assume this is not included in vanilla. It could certainly be considered as an addition in a patch or DLC.

Anybody else thinks this is an good idea?

 

[unmerged(584823)]

I was just wondering if the Romanian principalities have an event to unite?

I recall that in EU3 you could form Romania if you held certain provinces. Pretty straightforward. And pretty impossible. [And pretty historical I suppose as it was only up in the Vicky period that things finally fell into place]

But after seeing Quill18's overview of Poland and Lithuania's national decisions revolving around the formation of the Commonwealth, I thought this could be replicated for Wallachia and Moldova. In particular the ability to enter into a personal union.

Not me, I

It would offer a little bit greater chance to unite the two principalities, which could make the regional game a little less predictable and more interesting for anyone playing Poland, Hungary, Ottomans or any balkan.

I assume this is not included in vanilla. It could certainly be considered as an addition in a patch or DLC.

Anybody else thinks this is an good idea?

Not me, forming Romania the traditionnal way, which means: holding the provinces needed and having a core on it, seems great enough to me. The PU and Commonwealth decisions for Poland are completely historical, and so, can be summed up in decisions and event. The fact Romania didn't form in the timeline (and almost no one was thinking about forming Romania back to this time) means, to me, that there is no need to add this decisions, even with a mod.

 

[coldsteel]

I don't think there should be a Commonwealth decision like Poland's since this didn't actually happen. You can still get a personal union with Moldova/Wallachia through royal marriage.

However it would be nice to have a form Romania decision even though it happened just a little bit outside of the EU timeline -- it's a case of historical plausibility rather than authenticity. And it probably will never happen with just the AI controlling since it's such a hard thing to pull off. In fact, when I tried to do it as Wallachia in EU3 I failed horribly, probably one of the hardest challenges in the game and makes surviving as Byzantium seem like a cakewalk.

 

[ABookshelf]

yeah I agree that PLC was a "special" formation and that those mechanics shouldn't be applied to every national formation. The pathway to forming Romania should be the hardest pathway possible for forming nations if its in.

 

[unmerged(584823)]

yeah I agree that PLC was a "special" formation and that those mechanics shouldn't be applied to every national formation. The pathway to forming Romania should be the hardest pathway possible for forming nations if its in.

The fact is that Romania formed itself a very interesting way (who kinda looks like the way the Commonwealth formed itself: PU, and then, formation of Romania), but, because it happened out of the timeframe for reasons which can't be described in the game. It wouldn't make sense to add it.

 

[adijarca]

If that was the case Scandinavia, Germany, Italy, Greece, Hindustan, Burgundy being able to reform France, and most of releasable minors should not be in the game either.

Not me, forming Romania the traditionnal way, which means: holding the provinces needed and having a core on it, seems great enough to me. The PU and Commonwealth decisions for Poland are completely historical, and so, can be summed up in decisions and event. The fact Romania didn't form in the timeline (and almost no one was thinking about forming Romania back to this time) means, to me, that there is no need to add this decisions, even with a mod.

Actually a lot of rulers had the ambition to unite Moldavia and Wallachia, especially in the 15th and 16th centuries. The only reason it did not happen was because of Hungary's and later the Ottomans' and Poland's frequent interferences. All three parties saw a united Romanian state as a major threat to their interests in the region (especially Hungary which had significant Romanian majority in the eastern third of the kingdom)

And yes Romania did form, sort of, in 1600 under Michael the Brave. while it was extremely short lived it played a huge role in the permanent union that came 2 and half centuries later. So in a way it is historically accurate and it is also very plausible.



Personally I disagree that it should be any harder than it was in EU 3. The state Wallachia and Moldavia are in already makes the union very hard.

 

[unmerged(584823)]

And yes Romania did form, sort of, in 1600 under Michael the Brave. while it was extremely short lived it played a huge role in the permanent union that came 2 and half centuries later. So in a way it is historically accurate and it is also very plausible.

That's what we would call a PU, the kingdom of Romania didn't exist. That's what I mean.

 

[Te. Kenzo]

For sure a generic "form romania" decision is in the game, or at least probably, becouse it was added in the last versions of Europa Universalis III.

 

[Negru Voda]

The fact is that Romania formed itself a very interesting way (who kinda looks like the way the Commonwealth formed itself: PU, and then, formation of Romania), but, because it happened out of the timeframe for reasons which can't be described in the game. It wouldn't make sense to add it.

this was the only reason I mentioned it.

But I'm pretty fine with the idea to just let it as it was in EU3.

 

[Alley]

If that was the case Scandinavia, Germany, Italy, Greece, Hindustan, Burgundy being able to reform France, and most of releasable minors should not be in the game either.

Let's run through those you seem to disagree with:
- Scandinavia 1 king ruled denmark, sweden, norway, so yes in the game and in the timeperiod
- Germany, not possible in the game (Prussia, or german federation is not Germany, and prussia was in the timeperiod), if you check you'll see that all the comments about the formation talk about prussia so always double check your facts.
- Italy, I don't know enough about this to give a clear answer sorry, don't know if it's called italy either in-game, please show quote
- Greece. Formed in many different way before and after, belongs in the game.
- Hindustan, quite a few big nations around that area, not sure it's called hindustan in-game either?, please show quote
- Burgundy, seriously, what's complicated about this state? it was there, period.

So of the 6 examples 3 belong, 1 isn't there, despite you thinking it is, and 2 I need more information for an informed answer. And 0 of the 6 actually support your claim. I mean at the very least you could have found 1.

 

[unmerged(584823)]

Germany and Italy are formable.
And about Burgundy, the duke of Burgundy was in PU with 3/4 of the territories who are part of the Burgundy TAG in-game, that's not a real problem, but, still, a bit strange.

 

[Stratagyfan101]

Personal unions are pretty awkward in Europa Universalis. The reason is that for cases like Burgundy, personal unions are represented by absolute annexation. The Spain tag in game is ahistorical. At least in EUIII once Charles Von Habsburg takes over Spain, he should rule both Castile and Aragon, but the game decides to unite both tags into Spain.

Scandinavia never existed in the timeframe any more than Romania did. Italy existed as a Napoleonic state, but also has historical plausibility, given the Carolingian Kingdom of Italy. Greece is unnecessary in my mind given that there are already several tags in Greece that could function as Greece.

Hindustan was added by popular demand. It really was an overpowered decision for the Human to just play easy mode in India.

As for Burgundy forming France, France is a historical title and Burgundy is, I believe, de jure France. What Burgundy forming France represents is the Burgundian usurpation of the French throne.

Germany and the HRE are there as cool alt-history scenarios. The HRE is very special.

For Romania, I think it should be handled like Scandinavia and other unions, annex and core the needed regions. It's basically, what, four provinces between Wallachia and Moldova?

 

[unmerged(584823)]

Personal unions are pretty awkward in Europa Universalis. The reason is that for cases like Burgundy, personal unions are represented by absolute annexation. The Spain tag in game is ahistorical. At least in EUIII once Charles Von Habsburg takes over Spain, he should rule both Castile and Aragon, but the game decides to unite both tags into Spain.

Scandinavia never existed in the timeframe any more than Romania did. Italy existed as a Napoleonic state, but also has historical plausibility, given the Carolingian Kingdom of Italy. Greece is unnecessary in my mind given that there are already several tags in Greece that could function as Greece.

Hindustan was added by popular demand. It really was an overpowered decision for the Human to just play easy mode in India.

As for Burgundy forming France, France is a historical title and Burgundy is, I believe, de jure France. What Burgundy forming France represents is the Burgundian usurpation of the French throne.

Germany and the HRE are there as cool alt-history scenarios. The HRE is very special.

For Romania, I think it should be handled like Scandinavia and other unions, annex and core the needed regions. It's basically, what, four provinces between Wallachia and Moldova?

Don't forget Transylvania ! But this decision already is in game.

And I think the tag Spain is here to make the game more convenient. Even if the "kingdom of Spain" didn't exist, it was obvious to everyone one that the kings of Castille and Aragon were kings of Spain.

 

[coldsteel]

Don't forget Transylvania ! But this decision already is in game.

Is that so? It was in EU3, but not sure about EU4. I hope so, it's not like was unbalanced/ahistorical as I've never seen it happen by the AI, but if as the player I want to do it, I should be able to probably using core mechanics. I think it's about as plausible as forming Italy/Scandinavia/Germany.

 

[Stratagyfan101]

I understand the Spain tag. My point was to show the awkwardness of the PU mechanic and how it differs between different Personal Unions.

As for the Romania. I think owning Moldova and Wallachia, as an independent Romania country is enough. No cores on Transylvania but you should have a mission to conquer them after forming. Is it a bit easier to from Romania, sure, but The odds still seem really small, and considering that when Romania did historically form, it was just those two regions that were in it.

I should also point out, I'm more than okay with no Romania tag, as I think being Wallachia/Moldova/Transylvania is enough.

 

[Umega]

Wow. So I saw the OP's post saying "in EU3 you could form Romania", now as far I knew, the tag and the decision never existed. Until others didn't mention that the Tag didn't exist, I got curious. I looked in the game files and loaded up the game itself and looked at Moldavia, I was shocked. Romania actually exists in EU3. I have been playing EU3 for 1 and 1/2 years, I never noticed that! :O

 

[unmerged(767278)]

the thing that bothers me the most is,the Transilvania region,wich is in game 100% chatolic hungarian,wich is so far from the historical truth.But I guess,the hungarians in the EU IV game staff made a chauvinistic difference...

anyway,there should be an chain event that would lead to a PU under the right conditions.The Romanian principalities,played a big role especially against the ottomans,so I believe they shoulden t be treated like a garbage "ulm ish" country

 

[unmerged(584823)]

the thing that bothers me the most is,the Transilvania region,wich is in game 100% chatolic hungarian,wich is so far from the historical truth.But I guess,the hungarians in the EU IV game staff made a chauvinistic difference...

anyway,there should be an chain event that would lead to a PU under the right conditions.The Romanian principalities,played a big role especially against the ottomans,so I believe they shoulden t be treated like a garbage "ulm ish" country

Romanian are also considered as South Slavic... Never understood why, but... Oh, and I agree with you (but not on the chauvinism part).

 

[Nilmerf]

Anybody else going to play as Vlad the Impaler at some point? Obvious starting point to anyone looking to form a Romanian-esque country.

 

[Negru Voda]

The thing that kinda annoyed me most about the EU3 Romania formation was that it required the player holding Transylvania. That annoyed me because historically Romania formed even without Transylvania.
It was kinda like how in VickyII there's the North German Federation that you can form on your way to the German Empire proper.
Anyway, I think it would be cool to be able to form Romania without Transylvania, and later getting either missions or getting instant cores over the Transylvanian provinces.
basially I agree with Stratagyfan101. I just felt like talking about this topic after seeing the neat union decisions the poles and lithuanians got.

In conclusion: More love in the balkans makes this balkan fellow always happy