Aquilea is an existing tag. It does not have any cores any more, but in theory can become a revolter state.
Same, although the fact that its culture is Mongol makess it almost impossible to ever see them.
Last edited:
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.
Which is a pity, as the Jalayrids only ceased to be a state just 12 years before game's start. What could be done there is simply give them some cores on the provinces of southern Iraq, perhaps with a bit of nationalism since they were so recently conquered. Enough that you may see them pop up from time to time, either as a revolter or as a nation granted independence as part of a peace deal, but not too often...
I don't think, that we need much more small unimportant Russian principalities, but there were still a ot of them in 1444. They were mostly vassals or even de facto parts of other, already presented states.
I think, Rostov Principality was the most notable of them. Other example are Upper Oka Principalities, or all subdivisions of Yaroslavl (though there are not enough provinces to reflect all of these crazy "three villages and a forest between them" sovereign states).
I think, Rostov Principality was the most notable of them. Other example are Upper Oka Principalities, or all subdivisions of Yaroslavl (though there are not enough provinces to reflect all of these crazy "three villages and a forest between them" sovereign states).
I agree, Castille being impossible to reduce feels strange. Same with Mamluks though I have no idea what tags could appear here, they control only Egypt and Levant (where Syria and Lebanon exist already).
Historically during this era there were rebellions against the Spanish crown in Galicia, Catalonia and Granada. All of these already have their own tags. While I understand that some players want more tags added to the game, from historical point of view there is no justification for adding more tags to Spain. And same applies to Egypt. There were no Egyptian splinter states during this era.
Not a "nation" but the lack of Tengriism at the start date is glaringly ahistorical, especially since it's already in the converter and would be so easy to fix.
Tengriism is missing because there are no DHEs to illustrate the conversion of Oirat and Mongol tribes to Buddhism. Instead, when those countries were shamanist in EU3, 9 times out of ten they converted to Islam.
I think creating a greater Pomor culture from Vologda to the White Sea to Perm, to represent the Novogardian colony with a revolter state based around Archangelsk would give some decent flavour to Russia.
I'd like to see the rump state of Epirus in Aetolia (that would mean a new province) as an Ottoman vassal. But giving more coastal provinces to the Ottomans without fixing the naval force limit AI would be a pain.
Also the Archishopric of Basel, the Archbishopric of Trent, County of Gorizia, would be good addittions. Generally the higher density (of poor provinces) in the Alps the better, countries shouldnt be able to cross that shit.
I don't see why Monferrat and Saluzzo should be vassals of Savoy. I don't think that was that the case? And probably only Monferrat should be included as a new province. Southern Piedmont had three regions: the March of Saluzzo, the March of Monferrat, and a Savoyard corridor - through Cuneo - sandwiched between the former two leading to the County of Nice. Cuneo was a strategic city for Savoy but otherwise quite insignificant until the regional consolidation of the 1700s - though Saluzzo was no better at game start. Although Northern Italy was rich and populous and ubranised and yadda yadda, Piemont was way behind in urbanisation and population density. On the other hand Monferrat was ruled by Palaeofuckinglogus. Just imagine all the new BYZ inherit-into-HRE cheesy openers we could get!
This could be simply solved via events, decisions or even buddhist centers of reformation.
By the way, which hordes should be tengriist in 1444 besides Oirat and Mongols?
Side note: I still think spread of Sikhism should be make into center of reformation in Punjab to make this religion harder to convert. Come on, there are 27 000 000 Sikhs today and in eu4 they are few provinces dying in few decades.
Nope, Siberia is Tengriist, not Shamanist. That's ahistorical Siberia believes same things with Africa or Americas. Tengriism must be added. PI has no-historical knowledge.
Oirat, Mongols, Buryatia, Yeren, Haixi, and Jianzhou should all be Tengriiest if going the historic route at the game's start.
It can, but I see this very ahistorical (I can't remember any attempt of Pomors to create their own state, or any Pomor revolts against anybody. The only issue, that produced several revoltish incidents, was faith-, not culture-related: there were a lot of Old Believers there.)
Not 1444, but Herzegovina, Sikkim
Also the siberians have awful unit models for the last tech levels
Also the siberians have awful unit models for the last tech levels
I think you are not an Asian.
1.Mongolian=Tengriiest+Shamanist+Tibetan Buddhism.
2.Manchu=Shamanist.
It is my understanding that Baluchistan is not a real country. It is more like the old Swahili tag that represented a bunch of independent countries. If so, it should definitely be broken up. It's in way too strong of a starting position for a fictional country. It's a big Muslim tech nation surrounded by Indian tech nations and a horde. If it survives an early Timmy assault it usually stays around until the end of the game.
Because he is wrong...................
btw, Shamanism is an old religion in north Asia. Sharing some pictures.
These picture come from my next 103 Mongolia Uighur Tibet Songs-Music, 108 Manchu Korea Yamato Songs-Music mods loadingscreen.
View attachment 124417Mongolia
View attachment 124418Manchu
View attachment 124419Manchu
View attachment 124420Manchu
I think you like Asia history(from most thread you post before I can see.)
Tell you something Oirat belong Mongolia Chinese also call them (using Chinese Pinyin): Wei Te La Meng gu(Meng gu=Mongolia) or Wa La
Mongolia, Chinese call Meng gu or Da Da or Da Dan(Da Da or Da Dan = English Tatars)
Yuan dynasty change their name from Yuan to Da Da or Da Dan in 1402.
Buryatia, Chinese also call them Bu Li Ya Te Meng gu
Manchu, Chinese Pinyin = Man zhou
Yeren Manchu, translation by Chinese Pinyin... Ye(野wild) Ren(人people) Yeren Manchu= wild people Manchu = barbarian Manchu
Haixi Manchu,......Hai(海sea) Xi(西west) Haixi = west of sea(they live in west of sea), west of sea Manchu
Last edited:
North America is Totemist and Mesoamericans and South Americans will get their own religions in El Dorado, so that part your comment is inaccurate. Division of the Pagan religions to Animism and Shamanism is just a simplification. It doesn't mean that Paradox thinks that all "Pagan" religions are the same, they just haven't bothered to give separate mechanics to different ethnic religions. However recently they have started to make the ethnic religions more detailed in CK2 and EUIV. So, your wish that Paradox should add Tengrism as a religion to the game isn't far fetched. However I disagree with your statement that they don't have the historical knowledge. Tengrism is already a religion in CK2 and it exists in converted games. And if I understand correctly Tengrism is the religion of Mongols and some of the Turkic people, while many Siberian people were Shamanists, but not Tengrists. And Tengri religion has shamanistic features, so depicting them as Shamanists isn't incorrect.
Last edited: