Romania had great rulers! Mihai Viteazul, Vlad Țepeș or Ștefan cel Mare !
The Romanian "Commonwealth" National Decision
- Thread starter Negru Voda
- 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.
Romania had great rulers! Mihai Viteazul, Vlad Țepeș or Ștefan cel Mare !
Game-play reasons. Expanding as Wallachia and Moldavia is hard enough without the income and rebellion penalties that come from owning a province of a different culture group.
Klamar Union (PU) =/= Scandinavia (unified country). Unified Scandinavia never existed.
German federation is Germany.
You can go quote hunting for yourself. If there are EU 3 style unions Italy will definitely be in.
Unified Greece or any statal entity known as Greece did not exist in any shape or form during the game's time-frame. In fact a unified Greece did not exist since the death of Alexander the Great. Does not belong in the game.
Closest thing to a Hindustan was the Maurya empire in 200 AD. If a historical union does not belong (romania), neither does a fictional one.
Read the bit about Burgundy again. I mentioned Burgundy's ability to form France in EU 3 (a.k.a France gets conquered and Burgundy gets a national decision to reform France)
Last edited:
Hardly. Wasn't the easiest union, but given the Ottomans propensity for collapse in 1399 starts it was absolutely doable (in fact, I did it in one of my early games). Ottomans get steam-rolled as usual, get the Golden Horde to accept your tribute until they start to collapse... then Westernize/suck up to Bohemia or Austria, whomever almost certainly crushes Hungary.
Provinces have one culture and one religion. Exactly what those factors signify is a little unclear.
Transylvania had a Hungarian majority until the late 17th/early 18th century. Also catholic majority (a large minority of the Romanian population was also western Christian thanks to the chouvinism of the Hungarian leadership).
Romania should be able to form by the unification of Moldavia and Wallachia, although she should get a Romanian culture shift decision if the newly formed Romania is able to take and core Transylvania.
BTW Vlad Tepes was more occupied with trying to fight back the Ottomans and internal politics than forming a new state beyond the Carpathians. Also he hated Wallachians as much as Hungarians and Saxons. He was a noble after all.
Romania should be able to form by the unification of Moldavia and Wallachia, although she should get a Romanian culture shift decision if the newly formed Romania is able to take and core Transylvania.
BTW Vlad Tepes was more occupied with trying to fight back the Ottomans and internal politics than forming a new state beyond the Carpathians. Also he hated Wallachians as much as Hungarians and Saxons. He was a noble after all.
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
Yeah, personnally, I'd like to see Romania formable if the player has provinces and cores on Moldavia and Wallachia, and that, the formation of Romania would add cores on Transylvania.
edit: Oh, and, what sources do you have about that: "Transylvania had a Hungarian majority until the late 17th/early 18th century. Also catholic majority (a large minority of the Romanian population was also western Christian thanks to the chouvinism of the Hungarian leadership)."
Last edited:
- 1
can you please provide a non hungarian link that states that?Because it s a blatant hungarian chauvinist lie
- 1
1.It is very strange that you need to conquer Moldavia ( if you are Wallachia ) and vice-versa to form Romania.They never was in fight,they just united.So they need a system like HRE or Commonwealth.
2.Why romanian countries are south-slavic ?
3.Why transylvania provinces is hungarian and not romanian?Altough they has hungarian king and was annexed by Hungary,people was in majority romanian
4.Serbia should be a historical friend
2.Why romanian countries are south-slavic ?
3.Why transylvania provinces is hungarian and not romanian?Altough they has hungarian king and was annexed by Hungary,people was in majority romanian
4.Serbia should be a historical friend
- 1
Aside from thread necromancy... Well
No you don't. You can play your marriage game and try to form a PU over the other parts. Or you can blob a bit so you can request the other part to become your vassal.
Compromises. Why Basque is "Iberian"? Why Theodoro's Gothic is Byzantine?2.Why romanian countries are south-slavic ?
Of whom?
1.But where is the historically accuracy?It is not so hard for Paradox to make Unificate decision... And how you can ask Moldavia to become your vassal if you are ottoman's vassal?
I played with Wallachia and suddenly Moldavia turned to hostile because it desires Muntenia.This should not gonna happen.
P.S:If you break Wallachia and Moldavia free,they will be each other's rival.
4.of Romania and Wallachia,sorry I wasn't explicit
In fact, Romania did form within the EU4 time frame, in 1600:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_the_Brave
But it didn't last too long. About a year. And it wasn't a peaceful union. Michael the Brave conquered the three provinces by war.
It could be interesting to give Romanian culture to Transylvania when forming Romania and remove Silistria from the required provinces, because Michael the Brave didn't get it in the union.
But, from a gameplay point of view, removing Silistria would make it too easy and it would be less challenging. And Hungarian becomes accepted anyway and it can remain accepted longer if Transylvania remains Hungarian. So, for game play reasons, I prefer to keep it as it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_the_Brave
But it didn't last too long. About a year. And it wasn't a peaceful union. Michael the Brave conquered the three provinces by war.
It could be interesting to give Romanian culture to Transylvania when forming Romania and remove Silistria from the required provinces, because Michael the Brave didn't get it in the union.
But, from a gameplay point of view, removing Silistria would make it too easy and it would be less challenging. And Hungarian becomes accepted anyway and it can remain accepted longer if Transylvania remains Hungarian. So, for game play reasons, I prefer to keep it as it is.
Am I alone in thinking that the whole Polish-Lithuanian PU being destined to form every time is kinda lame? In very few rare cases do I see stuff like Poland getting a king before they can click that decision button or negative prestige causing the PU to break before they get to admin tech 10.
I'm not sure I've ever seen the Commonwealth. Even when I'm playing a Western European state or a very southeastward-looking Moscow/Russia (and thus not doing anything to hurt Poland).
It just formed in my colonial Sweden game, without any hitches or delays at all - the only way I "interfered" was by declaring war on Muscovy and using them and the Austrians to smack the Muscovites around. Having said that, this is the first time I've seen it in a 1.8 game - maybe having more formable nations like Kiev and Galicia-Volhynia to punch out of Lithuania and Poland makes them weaker and thus less likely to survive/form the Commonwealth?
- and why than hungarians are completely alien to everyone around them now? Because Hungary is so OP and needed nerf?
If Pdx made hungarians their own culture group they should also make romanians their own culture group and while we here it would be good to split up romanian culture in 2 or 3 different ones for historical reasons.:laugh:
I don't even understand why Dobrogea was removed and Silistrea was put in the place of it.And is Romania unified in year 1600!? (In-game)
Agree,in every game they are to form PU...And if you play with Poland,it is to easy to conquer other lands and become a real power.At some point,this game needs to be more harder than it is.
You do understand making Romanian its own cultural group means much much harder gameplay for Romania?
Why? Just because they weren't hostile in history? So they shouldn't be hostile even if Moldavia gets a Militarist ruler?
Well Portugal has in the beginning of the game a "Historical Friend" modifier towards Castile and yet that doesn't stop them in the later stages of the game from going ape when they randomly decide they want your provinces.