Only the daimyo gov't type can be vassals and declare war on other vassals afaik.
What nations that existed in 1444 are still missing in the current version of EU4?
- Thread starter toroltao
- 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.
Only the daimyo gov't type can be vassals and declare war on other vassals afaik.
Small correction: Only the Shogunate government type allows their vassals to declare war on other vassals of the same overlord.
The Habsburgs dominions should be divided in 3 in 1444:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_Austria
But since the game is not really good at joining lines of the same family it would just mean a free HRE pass for France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_Austria
But since the game is not really good at joining lines of the same family it would just mean a free HRE pass for France
Wrong way round. The Imamate's power base was in the inland tribal areas, Muscat would be a republic vassal of an Imamate of Oman if it was split into two tags.
The problem with the HRE though, how are you going to squeeze even more countries in it? Europe should be upscaled slightly. 
The problem is even more complex than "how many existed then". The truth is, we don't know with any certainty that ANY of the traditional Mossi kingdoms existed at that point (traditional dates and scholarly accounts are all over the place on when exactly the first Mossi states were founded).
Compounding the problem, we have a group traditionally identified as "Mossi" that apparently raided the delta o the niger in the previous century, while scholarly accounts put the ancestors of the traditional Mossi kingdoms all the way over on the other end of Burkina at the same time. Compounding it still more, there are accounts of the Mossi being major threats to Songhai early in Songhai's rise to power (circa the 15th century) - something a divided Mossi simply wouldn't be.
Excellent european suggestions!
Others could be to add in some african East coast area improvements, some saharan shakeup and some more breaking of the wastelands.
Add another couple of russian minors, take another look at the indian east coast.
Maybe look at adding an island nation in oceania.
Well, yes.
Thing is, though, that while (this being EU) the game models the Mossi and the Songhai as early modern European states, they were of course nothing of the kind. (I think that using the CK2 engine to represent Songhai as a feudal state and the Mossi as a bunch of tribal provinces would be a much better representation of the situation than anything one can easily do in EU. If you read the history of Songhai it really does read like a CKII game.) If you model Songhai and Mossi using the rules for EU states, then Mossi has to be a blob of about the same size as Songhai if it's to be a threat of any sort to them. But the histories of the area constantly refer to "raiding" (again something that there's rules for in CK2 but not, except to a limited extent for Steppe Hordes, in EU4), and also Songhai having numerous civil wars, as one half-brother or another tried to take over the kingdom, but EU4 treats Songhai as if civil wars were as rare there as they were in Europe at that time.
A start would be to borrow the rules for tribal wars, looting provinces, and tribal succession that are currently used by steppe nomads and apply them to most of the states in west Africa: Songhai, the Mossi, the Tuareg, the Seifawa (KBO), others, but not the Hausa states or Benin. (Ashanti on the other hand gives the impression of having behaved much more like a European state, fighting wars of conquest and integrating the captured areas into its own territory. Whereas the Songhai or the Seifawa or the Mossi would go on a raid, loot, take slaves, go home, and then come back to raid again a few more years later.)
A problem with representing Mossi as a unitary state at the start of the game is that in EU states with homogenous religion and culture rarely split up.
I don't see any particular problem with the conflicting reports of "Mossi" raids in widely dispersed places. It's like "Viking" raids in widely dispersed places, except that instead of travelling across the sea in ships they would have been travelling across the savanna on horses. We usually think of all land as being claimed by one government or another, so that military forces can't just ride across the landscape however they like without stirring up armed opposition, but in that place and time there were huge areas which were claimed by no government, so a force of cavalrymen could just ride across enormous distances and ride around any force that might be strong enough to give them serious opposition.
Last edited:
A nice addition for a different game in West Africa is the Nri, of the Igbo land, east of the Niger delta. What makes this country unique? It was a Theocracy focused in trade rather than military and was a fervent opponent of slavery. They could start with (or have a nice unique decision) slavery abolished. So they could have malus relations with any country with slave provinces and any time they conquer a salve province it changes the trade good to something else.
It existed from 948 to 1911.
It existed from 948 to 1911.
The personal union between Leon and Castile was much stronger than that quote from Wikipedia might indicate. After the final union in 1230, nothing really shook that unity, not two civil/succesion wars nor an invasion by John of Gaunt as a pretender. Separating Leon out from Castile would be giving the region a lot more autonomy than it had in real life. Valencia is an even worse example; as a Christian state, it never had an independent existence outside of the Crown of Aragon. If you want a Spanish PU, use the Kingdom of Majorca, which at least had been independent in the relatively recent past and still had pretenders to that throne a few decades before the game's start.
- 1
Thirding the Hormuz and African suggestions.
For Oman, don't split it into an imamate and a sultanate, I think a faction system would be much better. But move their capital from Muscat to Nizwa (IRL Bahla but it's the same area)
The Jewish nation of Semien should be there, in Ethiopia.
The Ikko-ikki should have it's own tag as well., that spawns via event kinda like Sulu as an early revolter state.
The Nri kingdom in Nigeria (which was unique since the rulers did not exercise any military power over their subjects)
Andorra which would be an interesting OPM
And of course the 3 L's
Lunda
Luba
Lucca
For Oman, don't split it into an imamate and a sultanate, I think a faction system would be much better. But move their capital from Muscat to Nizwa (IRL Bahla but it's the same area)
The Jewish nation of Semien should be there, in Ethiopia.
The Ikko-ikki should have it's own tag as well., that spawns via event kinda like Sulu as an early revolter state.
The Nri kingdom in Nigeria (which was unique since the rulers did not exercise any military power over their subjects)
Andorra which would be an interesting OPM
And of course the 3 L's
Lunda
Luba
Lucca
Those events suck, you can never afford the great level 3 advisor by the time they show up, they were great in EU3 when advisors costed the same and the higher their level actually meant you got better benefits for them.
^this. Ethiopia gets an event really early that gives them a level 3 statesman they cannot afford.
Maybe they could alter it so event spawned level 3 advisors cost less, because it makes sense that they scale in cost it just makes events like these useless most of the time
These are some of the most important missing states:
Skewbald Horde was decentralised - should be Tribal Federation
Pelym see above
Sultanate of the Maldives - existed in EU3
Kingdom of Shilluk was a regional power.
Skewbald Horde was decentralised - should be Tribal Federation
Pelym see above
Sultanate of the Maldives - existed in EU3
Kingdom of Shilluk was a regional power.