What nations that existed in 1444 are still missing in the current version of EU4?

[Incompetent]

It does date to when there was only one tag. As far as I know the ZAN tag is a legacy from the time when tag was called Zanj in EU2 rather than being derived from Zanzibar.

Ah, that makes sense. I'm glad the name 'Zanj' disappeared from the map, since as far as I can tell, it was an Arabic name for the region and its people that had somewhat negative connotations, and the ruling class of Kilwa never considered themselves to belong to this grouping (rather, it was what they called the more 'primitive' mainland tribes that they traded with and raided). Some kind of formable Swahili nation (Uswahili?) would be cool, though.

 

[Metz]

Italy should be cut up into small valuable provinces. Italy had a lot of powerful heavily urbanized city states.

 

[RockmanYoshi]

The island of Pemba was a small city state that gained its independence right before the Omani takeover of East Africa.

 

[Evie HJ]

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.

The "problem" is not so much my remark as that of the scholars I read on the topic (IIRC, that one is discussed in...UNESCO general history of Africa, I want to say? Not sure).

And for the rest...well, yes. Mechanisms as they are are ill-fitting to many aspects of Africa. But unless new mechanisms are implemented, well, having the Mossi able to threaten Songhai kind of strike me as the most important element. Despite the issues THAT brings, which I agree you are right about.

 

[neondt]

These:

(Though this is an abstraction. There are other nations that could be included, some that could be replaced, etc)

Palembang is the most glaring and uncontroversial omission from 1444.

 

[Osman Pasha]

Merina and Maldives. Some indonesian states. Missing a lot of African states

 

[trybald]

Duchy of Plock - basically Mazovia's western twin brother. It lingered into 1495.

Silesia and Pomerania are anarchronistically united, while in fact it was a myriad of duchies. Pomeriania should be divided into Stettin, Wolgast and Slupsk, while Silesia into Cieszyn, Opole, Wroclaw, Legnica and Glogow.

 

[Olaus Petrus]

Duchy of Plock - basically Mazovia's western twin brother. It lingered into 1495.

Silesia and Pomerania are anarchronistically united, while in fact it was a myriad of duchies. Pomeriania should be divided into Stettin, Wolgast and Slupsk, while Silesia into Cieszyn, Opole, Wroclaw, Legnica and Glogow.

The thing is that Duchy of Pomerania didn't disappear, despite having several dukes. While the duchy was divided between then members of the ruling dynasty and they were dukes of their part of the duchy, it was still a single (de jure) political unit which just had several rulers at certain times.

 

[MagisterMundi]

-snip-

Sultanate of the Maldives - existed in EU3

-snip-

I second this one in particular. It already existed in EU3, was a pretty well-established nation by the time the game starts, and is strategically interesting for countries trying to get to the Pacific to colonize. I was very disappointed when I found out it had been removed for some reason.

 

[emperorwiki]

Maybe optional Zulu tribal kingdom

Zulu should not exist until 1800 or even 1815. Despite my nationalist desires South Africa is fine as it is maybe some provinces should be taken away

 

[Ozzmaster]

i think it would be too crazy to put every single state of the HRE in the game.
just look at the tiny litte Anhalt. it was divided into the Bishopric of Halberstadt, Anhalt-Bernburg, Anhalt-Dessau and Anhalt-Köthen in 1444. i would love to see that in the game (together with a formable Duchy of Anhalt) but i am pretty sure that will never happen ^^

 

[Pavía]

Iberia:
Kingdom of Valencia (junior partner under Aragon)
Kingdom of Leon (junior partner under Castile) because: The union between León and Castile was never accepted by Leonese people. The Kingdom of León and the Kingdom of Castile kept different Parliaments, different flags, different coin and different laws until the Modern Era, when Spain, like other European states, centralized governmental power.

This statements about León are not true. Althought León was a de iure Kingdom different from Castilla, the complete intitulatio of the kings was King of Castilla, León, Toledo, Gallizia, Sevilla, Córdova, Murçia, Jahén, Algeziras, Gibraltar. We can't just put a tag and a vassal for a merely simbolic mention.

Moreover, they did have a common Parliament (Cortes were a common institution since 1230), the kings used the castle and the lion together as icons; and althought the laws topic is quite complicated, in general terms we can say that the regional fueros were based upon Fuero Juzgo, and the general law for the entire Kingdom was the Partidas, created by king Alfonso X in the thirteenth century, and enacted by king Alfonso XI in 1348. In the 15th century, almost all the legal dispositions were created by (common) Cortes statements and Pragmáticas Reales.

 

[Andrzej2]

I agree that only becouse Leon had different laws doesn't mean he should be vassal. Before modernity almost every region had great autonomy. It would be nice to have ability to release Leon though.

 

[Sharples88]

I agree that only becouse Leon had different laws doesn't mean he should be vassal. Before modernity almost every region had great autonomy. It would be nice to have ability to release Leon though.

I 1+ the idea. Would love to be able to release Leon.

 

[User4035]

The problem with this suggestion is that France already starts the game over its diplo relation limit, I believe (five vassals and a guarantee, when its relation limit is 5). Going any higher and you wind up with a France that actually can't generate enough diplo points to annex its vassals in a reasonable amount of time while also actually playing the game.

Unless that's your aim, in which case I think your aim sucks.

Technically speaking France could just start with a modifier that allows it + to Dip Rel until it no longer has any of X vassals (X being the vassals it starts with), or until a certain date to avoid France sitting on one vassal or some such stupidness.

Frances vassals could have their own vassals.....

But then you'd have to start doing the same with Burgundy. And put Burgundy as a Vassal of France.


A neat suggestion is that you guys rework some of the governments. Feudal Monarchies have a minimum Autonomy for example. Duchies do not or get less.
the hordes have min Autonomy.

And it doesn't have to be increments of 25. It can be 10 or 15 or 30 or whatever.

....This might actually curb the super powered nations in 1444. They would have less income, less manpower, etc....

Although you'd just have to rework that + - autonomy thing in general. Just feels clunky with that 25 minimum to increase or decrease. And when you take an overseas province you can't increase or decrease at all - which is kinda important when you grab and small island province. You take some small island you could care less about any taxes or whatever the people are doing - all you want is a base for ship supply lines. So 100% Autonomy would be totally acceptable.

Italy:
Iberia:
Kingdom of Valencia (junior partner under Aragon)
Kingdom of Leon (junior partner under Castile) because: The union between León and Castile was never accepted by Leonese people. The Kingdom of León and the Kingdom of Castile kept different Parliaments, different flags, different coin and different laws until the Modern Era, when Spain, like other European states, centralized governmental power.

If the game were more like CKII then this would be possible since you have the Kingdom Laws to make it more united.
The Personal Union mechanic in EU4 just isn't designed to function like a proper PU.

paradox could always throw in the croes for these nations though. Every province in France is releasable so why not in Spain?



In regards to HRE nations:
You guys need to realize that most of the 'nations' were not nations. They were just Barons, Counts, Monastic lands, Cities, etc... who's feudal overlord was the Emperor. And since the Empire was dis-unififed they technically were independent.
Would be pretty ridiculous to have a section of the map with 0.001 base tax, and 0.001 manpower because its literally 50 people.

EU4 groups areas into a cohesive province for game mechanic purposes. It factors in economy, population, geography, etc...
Iceland is a great example. Population wise its almost nothing. But strategic and geographic factors gives it 2 provinces.

 

[oblio-]

I honestly doubt that many relevant states can be added to Europe. After all, it's been combed over and over and over again by developers and fans for the past 4 EU games.
Plus, there is such a thing as "too much". The HRE is a good example.

Having more releasable states, on the other hand, is generally a good thing.

Iceland is a great example. Population wise its almost nothing. But strategic and geographic factors gives it 2 provinces.

While I agree with the rest of your post, Iceland having 2 provinces is just awkward. The only reason I could see is to have 2 nations that use Iceland as a colonial range extension or naval base. I haven't yet seen a game where Iceland was split for this purpose, alas.

The situation is awkward because there are "strategic" and "geographic" regions with populations and economies 10-50x that of Iceland that are lumped up as single province.

 

[Ixor779]

Not sure if they have been mentioned yet but since they were overlooked when siberia was expanded.....

 

[Freudia]

Pomeriania should be divided into Stettin, Wolgast and Slupsk, while Silesia into Cieszyn, Opole, Wroclaw, Legnica and Glogow.

Dividing Silesia into that many different nations results in Bohemia being 5/4 on its relations limit on game start with five vassals. This probably means that it won't be able to annex any of them within very reasonable amount of time, and it doesn't get any diplo relation slots as a bonus inside its ideas. This can result in an overall weaker Bohemia, I think, because by itself Bohemia is not that strong. Bohemia is not France, basically.

I'm okay with adding in all sorts of cores for those minors while leaving a united Silesia (but you'd need to add in some fairly small provinces, I'd imagine, to pull it off?) in tact.

 

[Ilightmaster]

Vendee in France has a major history during this timeline

 

[Claymore1]

I think Russia could use a couple more tags - not sure who though