Like a pre-1.8 Ezo and just end up with it being colonized by Spain?
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.
Like a pre-1.8 Ezo and just end up with it being colonized by Spain?
And how would one eat a halberd? What type of seasonings, sides, drink (presumably alcoholic) and IQ would someone need to make it go down?
That said, Lotharingia or some type of Burgundian Kingdom (or buff) would be a good idea. I might as well add that to my list.
How would you split it up then? The area was controlled by various minor tribes we mostly know very little about. The reasons for the current setup are more or less what I stated at the end of this post a little while ago.
I'm not saying we would split it up if we had better information, but if you do have information feel free to share
The situation is quite different from the old Swahili tag. While that setup was never ideal it did correspond to the nominal borders of a real state, the Sultanate of Kilwa. The fact that Kilwa didn't really have a very firm grip on most of it is why the setup was changed a couple of patches ago to what we have now (with the most important Kilwan vassals starting out independent since that's a more fitting way to show the de facto situation).
I feel like the diplo slots work well for large countries, but smaller countries and especially tribal areas should get a sort of federation styled making. This would allow you to make many little tribes without just being food for timurids.
How would you split it up then? The area was controlled by various minor tribes we mostly know very little about. The reasons for the current setup are more or less what I stated at the end of this post a little while ago.
I'm not saying we would split it up if we had better information, but if you do have information feel free to share
The situation is quite different from the old Swahili tag. While that setup was never ideal it did correspond to the nominal borders of a real state, the Sultanate of Kilwa. The fact that Kilwa didn't really have a very firm grip on most of it is why the setup was changed a couple of patches ago to what we have now (with the most important Kilwan vassals starting out independent since that's a more fitting way to show the de facto situation).
I have no idea. When I tried to look it up, the history went from the Umayyads in the 8th century, then *cough* *ahem*, British rule in the 1800s. So maybe it should just be empty. I don't play hordes much, but I believe they get a colonist at some point, so if the Timurids survive, they will fill it in eventually.
EDIT: The other idea is to just give it to the Timurids. If it has such low BT anyway, it won't throw off the balance too much.
Last edited:
Unfortunately, EU4 mechanics do not currently allow players to create new provinces by draining the sea. Maybe in a future version it will be a late-game great project, like canals are now.
A Mahri tag along the South Arabian coast, as well as Socotra, would be a nice buffer between Oman and Yemen, as well as a Bahraini and Qatari states. A core for Sharjah so that it can sometimes appear would also be good.
A bit late but +1.
It always saddens me when I scroll over Oceania when selecting a country to play as and just see it so barren. It think it breaks my heart even more though when I see other people mention/suggest changes to the region and nine times out of ten it just goes ignored. I agree that Oceania is one of the most boring, if not the most boring, region in the world as of the game's current state. I understand it's supposed to be an area meant for colonization but I don't think a few Polynesian states scattered among the islands would impede on that too much, nor would a few Australian Aborigine tribes (or at least even one) or a Maori tribe(s) be frowned upon. Sue me if I'm wrong, but it's something I'd very much like to see.
Yes, a lot more Pacific islands (anywhere that had ocean-going vessels, overseas trade and some kind of centralised government) should have tags, even if it's OPMs for the most part. In New Zealand, even a generic 'Maori' tag would be better than nothing. Their isolation could be reflected in an 'Oceanic' tech group, but they should probably have explorers somewhere in their NIs.
I don't really understand what makes Polynesia 'an area for colonisation'. European presence in this area as of 1821 was pretty minor - from the 18th century onwards, there were a few visits bringing Christianity and diseases and some abortive attempts at colonisation, but overall this was one of the last parts of the world to come under European domination. Even from an in-game perspective, colonising Oceania is an afterthought for anyone who would want to colonise - the only reason you'd care if some other power took it is that it makes them harder to get 100% against in a war.
I don't really understand what makes Polynesia 'an area for colonisation'. European presence in this area as of 1821 was pretty minor - from the 18th century onwards, there were a few visits bringing Christianity and diseases and some abortive attempts at colonisation, but overall this was one of the last parts of the world to come under European domination. Even from an in-game perspective, colonising Oceania is an afterthought for anyone who would want to colonise - the only reason you'd care if some other power took it is that it makes them harder to get 100% against in a war.
Well, if SIBERIAN NATIVES can get countries - I repeat, siberian natives, few dozen thousands of hunter gatherers from the forest - why not? Oceania was obviously super minor part of world history (I wouldn't be surprised if population here didn't exceed 1 million in 1800, there were like 300 000 of natives on Australia back then...) but hey, it had few maritime kingdoms. Hawaii, Tonga, Saudeleur (?), transoceanic voyages and stone faces. Definitely not more primitive than Siberian natives 
Hell, compared with Siberian natives Maori and Aborigines could totally be in game as tribal countries. Especially Maori who weren't doing bad against colonists.
And they were badass.
And here we return to the paradox of reindeer hunters having 4 countries while Madagascar and its numerous maritime feudal kingdoms are reduced to 3 prov wild island nobody cares about.
Hell, compared with Siberian natives Maori and Aborigines could totally be in game as tribal countries. Especially Maori who weren't doing bad against colonists.
And they were badass.
And here we return to the paradox of reindeer hunters having 4 countries while Madagascar and its numerous maritime feudal kingdoms are reduced to 3 prov wild island nobody cares about.
And what would that do? Burgundy is already a kingdom in the game (instead of duchy like it was historically) and they already have their unique set of ideas. Playing as the Burgundian kingdom without forming France or Netherlands is already a perfectly viable alternative.
Well, if SIBERIAN NATIVES can get countries - I repeat, siberian natives, few dozen thousands of hunter gatherers from the forest - why not? Oceania was obviously super minor part of world history (I wouldn't be surprised if population here didn't exceed 1 million in 1800, there were like 300 000 of natives on Australia back then...) but hey, it had few maritime kingdoms. Hawaii, Tonga, Saudeleur (?), transoceanic voyages and stone faces. Definitely not more primitive than Siberian natives
Hell, compared with Siberian natives Maori and Aborigines could totally be in game as tribal countries. Especially Maori who weren't doing bad against colonists.
And they were badass.
And here we return to the paradox of reindeer hunters having 4 countries while Madagascar and its numerous maritime feudal kingdoms are reduced to 3 prov wild island nobody cares about.
Yes, that's rather odd. Maybe people don't know (or care) about the Oceanian nations and their rich history, but then again I assume that not that many people know about the Siberian tribes either. I'm not an expert in Oceanian history, but I did read few academic articles about Tonga, because I was curious. Those articles gave an impression that Polynesia had complex trade and political networks during the late middle ages and early modern era. They knew astronomy and sailed on a wide area. They built impressive stone temples and monuments. Besides that they also had fortified settlements. To me that sounds like a civilization and not as a no man's land with few natives.
Last edited:
Well, there's this: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?747468-Mod-Conquest-of-Australia
Admittedly all it really does is add some Aboriginal and Maori natives. But if anyone wants to suggest anything specific for the Pacific Islands, I'd be happy to consider adding this kind of stuff to the mod. It's not an area of history I know anything about myself but I'm sure it's fascinating.
I think overall many parts of Europe, like N-Italy or the Netherlands or Germany are lacking in provinces that simulate those wealthy independant minded cities that were fought over so intensely during the era.
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.
This!
Indonesia is more then what it is currently..
But as you know the dev team isn't really focussing on what 'we' want.
It just came to my mind that Burgundy maybe needs some kind of special government that allows it to be a vassal to the emperor and the French king at the same time while acting very independent, a bit like the Daimyos who can fight each other although they are vassals. Maybe with a faction-like system where the "factions" are more like policies, ways how the Duke acts, either as a vassal to the emperor, to the king or acting rather autonomous. Depending on which way is active, there would be certain bonuses and maluses, but rather diplomatically, for example while following the 'imperial way', Burgundy would get a relation bonus with the emperor, a malus with France and would count as a member of the empire, while following the 'autonomy way' could give military, prestige or legitimacy bonuses and a relation malus with both France and the emperor.
On one hand I think that this would be a very cool system to represent Burgundy's unique position as a very powerful vassal of both emperor and France, on the other hand it's probably to much and complex for one country alone, let alone one that gets split between France and Austria after 5 years in 9 games out of 10...
How about making it a HRE member state and vassal of France which has liberty desire over 100?
... I'm pretty sure AI countries with LD 100 declare war on their overlords instantly.
Dev. diary claims that vassals with LD 100 will wait till they think that they can actually win.
Which in Burgundy's case would probably come down to "will any of the other appanages join in?", since Burgundy's LFL exceeds France's on day 1.
Yap to be in vanilla.
Yap?
Yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap........
but seriously, a few pacific Oceanian tech nations should exists.
Dunno how to model the tech group, they weren't European advanced but did a lot of things considering with what they had.
So how about Chinese tech with their own unit type. I don't picture the Samoans using, let alone having much cavalry.
Overall, I'm for new tags. Gives people something new to look forward to play at the next patch.
Yap?
Yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap........
but seriously, a few pacific Oceanian tech nations should exists.
Dunno how to model the tech group, they weren't European advanced but did a lot of things considering with what they had.
So how about Chinese tech with their own unit type. I don't picture the Samoans using, let alone having much cavalry.
Overall, I'm for new tags. Gives people something new to look forward to play at the next patch.