A very narrowminded Sunni state is a good enough reprisentation of Wahabbism, IMO. It would be better to include Ibadism and Hussitism.
what would you like to see in divine wind?
- Thread starter Pioniere
- 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.
Hi, I was also thiking that Wahabbism could be simulated with just an event and sunni rebels that want narrowminded and not so totelrant Sunni Islam.
i wish that paradox can make historical regiment names, on a list wich the game chooses from.
No more 1st Toledo Infantry regiment, 2nd Toledo Infantry regiment and so on.
(Something Paradox managed to do in older games.)
And i wish Paradox put up a sign in their office Saying;
- If we managed to do somthing in a former game, then the new game shall at least have the same.
thank you for great games !!!
No more 1st Toledo Infantry regiment, 2nd Toledo Infantry regiment and so on.
(Something Paradox managed to do in older games.)
And i wish Paradox put up a sign in their office Saying;
- If we managed to do somthing in a former game, then the new game shall at least have the same.
thank you for great games !!!
Re-vamp the interface
With today's EU, there are some really annoying problems with the interface and general game-play that really could be improved upon. I'm an avid player of the series since I bought the first EU back in the days. I really like the games but I always end up irritated and bored by the mindboggingly obtuse interface with corresponding repetitive micro managing of units. Here are my suggestions:
* Don't let messages continue to freakin' pop up right in the middle of the screen. There's a good chance you accidentally click the message because you were just about to click on a unit on the map. Also, if the message was redundant, it interrupts yet again. Move messages to the side and let the player decide when to attend to them!
* Pirates! For heaven's sake, do NOT let the best strategy depend on tedious micro-managing like in HTTT. Opting the game requires the player to willfully withdraw their fleet so that pirates appear, only to attack them again and again and again. This way naval tradition is kept high, lending also to better great merchants.
* Speaking of managing pirates, all rebels don't necessarily have to pop up as actual units. Much time is spent moving around armies to kill off insurgencies. If this is an evil must because there's no other way to represent rebellion, then so be it. But you have to admit the whole "oh no usurpers in a far away land yet again" problem often tends to be straining the resources of the actual player more than the in-game country she controls?
* Please get rid of the hidden buttons! Clicking various shields, symbols and what not. Better just collect the info buttons so they can be found. E.g. I played long games of EU without ever finding the "war statistics". Also, a more intuitive interface makes the pertinent info accessible when needed, not five clicks away on another map.
* Transparent game mechanics and in-game explanations. E.g. when going into a personal union there should be links to info explaing all the factors. As it stands now any serious player need to trow the forums for hours just to be able to somewhat correctly optimize how to inherit a country. (Look at how transparent, helpful and easily navigated help is presented in Civilization III.)
* Managing armies by clicking "merge" and all that is time consuming business. Why not display armies in a practical way? More info instead of a tin soldier figure on the map, bigger info boxes when clicking on them, drag-and-drop sorting of generals and units. As it stands, sorting 50 shallow water vessels from 40 ocean going ships is driving me nuts, squinting at my screen trying to find the right boats to move only to accidentally clicking a pixel too low and having to re-start it all.
* Automatic boarding and disembarking, just ordering the fleet to pick a unit up and drop it off by clicking the corresponding land areas. Too much time is spent managing braindead moving around of troops instead of contemplating actual decisions.
* Refrain from adding mechanics the player can't control or even influence. Heirs popping up and most likely constantly dying before their fathers don't add a strategic factor unless the player can affect the outcome in a meaningful way. If there were choices like the number of mistresses kept, time spent away on campaigns, cousins and siblings, tutors and grooming, security cost options to keep the best heir alive etc, then heirs would be a meaningful addition.
* Have a look at how the peace deals work. A great game like this should not have to rely on player "rules" to actually function in multi-player. If a country is conquered then it should be a goner no matter what some stoic ruler might think. There should be some way to force submission when a country is too damn stubborn (or a player is suiciding á la bad loser).
* There HAS to be a better way to represent trading than to sit and individually send merchants all over the place. The whole system demands way too much repetitive attention, calculating the ever-changing odds over and over and trying not to forget sending new ones before 5 are stored. Go ahead and let the excellent board game "Puerto Rico" inspire you!
* Give reminders to more than policy slider changes. Let the player chose what should be nagged about. If in a colonizing spree, certainly a reminder about having a full stock of colonists would be of great help. Same goes to lots of other stuff, like national decisions or using your administrators (which could be more or less automated if given a detailed enough control panel).
* A small gripe; but it would be nice to individually control some of the sounds. As it stands, I always play without sounds because otherwise any sieges will quickly give me a headache with their annoying cannons firing.
* Do something meaningful of the city info panel or make it smaller. Instead of an ugly picture of some scattered buildings taking up the space, list the buildings clearly.
/End of whine. Hope somebody found it even remotely useful.
With today's EU, there are some really annoying problems with the interface and general game-play that really could be improved upon. I'm an avid player of the series since I bought the first EU back in the days. I really like the games but I always end up irritated and bored by the mindboggingly obtuse interface with corresponding repetitive micro managing of units. Here are my suggestions:
* Don't let messages continue to freakin' pop up right in the middle of the screen. There's a good chance you accidentally click the message because you were just about to click on a unit on the map. Also, if the message was redundant, it interrupts yet again. Move messages to the side and let the player decide when to attend to them!
* Pirates! For heaven's sake, do NOT let the best strategy depend on tedious micro-managing like in HTTT. Opting the game requires the player to willfully withdraw their fleet so that pirates appear, only to attack them again and again and again. This way naval tradition is kept high, lending also to better great merchants.
* Speaking of managing pirates, all rebels don't necessarily have to pop up as actual units. Much time is spent moving around armies to kill off insurgencies. If this is an evil must because there's no other way to represent rebellion, then so be it. But you have to admit the whole "oh no usurpers in a far away land yet again" problem often tends to be straining the resources of the actual player more than the in-game country she controls?
* Please get rid of the hidden buttons! Clicking various shields, symbols and what not. Better just collect the info buttons so they can be found. E.g. I played long games of EU without ever finding the "war statistics". Also, a more intuitive interface makes the pertinent info accessible when needed, not five clicks away on another map.
* Transparent game mechanics and in-game explanations. E.g. when going into a personal union there should be links to info explaing all the factors. As it stands now any serious player need to trow the forums for hours just to be able to somewhat correctly optimize how to inherit a country. (Look at how transparent, helpful and easily navigated help is presented in Civilization III.)
* Managing armies by clicking "merge" and all that is time consuming business. Why not display armies in a practical way? More info instead of a tin soldier figure on the map, bigger info boxes when clicking on them, drag-and-drop sorting of generals and units. As it stands, sorting 50 shallow water vessels from 40 ocean going ships is driving me nuts, squinting at my screen trying to find the right boats to move only to accidentally clicking a pixel too low and having to re-start it all.
* Automatic boarding and disembarking, just ordering the fleet to pick a unit up and drop it off by clicking the corresponding land areas. Too much time is spent managing braindead moving around of troops instead of contemplating actual decisions.
* Refrain from adding mechanics the player can't control or even influence. Heirs popping up and most likely constantly dying before their fathers don't add a strategic factor unless the player can affect the outcome in a meaningful way. If there were choices like the number of mistresses kept, time spent away on campaigns, cousins and siblings, tutors and grooming, security cost options to keep the best heir alive etc, then heirs would be a meaningful addition.
* Have a look at how the peace deals work. A great game like this should not have to rely on player "rules" to actually function in multi-player. If a country is conquered then it should be a goner no matter what some stoic ruler might think. There should be some way to force submission when a country is too damn stubborn (or a player is suiciding á la bad loser).
* There HAS to be a better way to represent trading than to sit and individually send merchants all over the place. The whole system demands way too much repetitive attention, calculating the ever-changing odds over and over and trying not to forget sending new ones before 5 are stored. Go ahead and let the excellent board game "Puerto Rico" inspire you!
* Give reminders to more than policy slider changes. Let the player chose what should be nagged about. If in a colonizing spree, certainly a reminder about having a full stock of colonists would be of great help. Same goes to lots of other stuff, like national decisions or using your administrators (which could be more or less automated if given a detailed enough control panel).
* A small gripe; but it would be nice to individually control some of the sounds. As it stands, I always play without sounds because otherwise any sieges will quickly give me a headache with their annoying cannons firing.
* Do something meaningful of the city info panel or make it smaller. Instead of an ugly picture of some scattered buildings taking up the space, list the buildings clearly.
/End of whine. Hope somebody found it even remotely useful.
Last edited:
You do realize that the point of the pirate system in HTTT is that you leave ships docked in port that automatically patrol a given area preventing pirates from ever spawning right? This can be accomplished with just 1 big ship quite effectively for every few provinces. Simply build a big ship and forget about pirates there the rest of the game. Hardly tedious micromanaging.
I agree, and there is an easy solution to this that you can do yourself thankfully. Simply find the sound file in the game directory that is the "cannon shot" and replace it with a blank wav file. You won't get any errors as the game is still playing the sound, it's just that there is no sound in the sound file itself
I disagree, this isn't the 20th century nor is it Risk. The game already makes it WAY too easy to expand your territory via conquest. In real life countries expanded more frequently through marriage than by sword, especially for the first 200 years of game time.
Also, with the latest beta patch you can annex countries that you can vassalize by war score. Meaning it's easier than ever to simply wipe countries off the map in one fell swoop.
They're already redesigning trading in DW.
It would be nice if there was a small delay after an event popup in which you cannot click it away. This would prevent the player from accidentally picking an option in an event.
It would be nice if there was a small delay after an event popup in which you cannot click it away. This would prevent the player from accidentally picking an option in an event.
Yeah, the city panel has been the same since v1.0 and needs an overhaul. Would be interesting if for say temples one could invest some ducats and build a massive cathedral. Then click on the temple and see a rank of most prestigious temple in the world (or Universities, Fine Arts Acadamies etc). Maybe even modest benefits. Then if the provinces is captured the conquering army has the option raze it (like burning colonies) and the facility would return to a regular building.
I believe you're missing the point? Leaving a patrolling navy prevents pirates from appearing. But pirates are much needed to keep the navy tradition up. As a player I have to ask myself weather to optimize my game-play or simply give that up because of boredom.
Thanks! I actually did that with EU2, come to think of it.I agree, and there is an easy solution to this that you can do yourself thankfully. Simply find the sound file in the game directory that is the "cannon shot" and replace it with a blank wav file. You won't get any errors as the game is still playing the sound, it's just that there is no sound in the sound file itself
Point is, expansion should not be prevented by stubborn leaders. The real world problems with conquering lands are not their top rulers but the populace with all the layers of administration in between, right? I agree the game should make it less immediately profitable to expand by taking into account the enormous corruption problems associated and other economical downsides.
There's of course a reason France stayed as is instead of gobbling up all of central Europe before year 1700. I'm thinking IRL administration just didn't work very well. If the king of France told the peasants to become soldiers and invade England that didn't necessarily mean it would happen. Apparently most folks couldn't even afford a mobile phone back then or whatever it was that kept folks minding their own business instead of a far away ruler. (In the long run however some empires got their shit together even though they started small and invaded from there on. Not to mention putting an absolute break on expansion limits gameplay.)
Glad to hear there's a annex rule coming up.
I'll echo others re. tech. I just finished my first-ever game (played lots, just not to 1821) as Russia. I was far and away the largest nation on the planet, spanning from the Baltic to Guam, and from the Arctic Circle to the Middle East.
Bavaria and France, who spent the entire game at 0 to +1 stability and whose armies put together were about equal to mine, had a 10-12 level lead in tech ... land, naval, govt., the works. For giggles, I went after Bavaria in a saved game in about 1805 and got slaughtered, losing entire 20K armies in one day. I had the best leaders, high morale, etc. and a 2-1 advantage in manpower and I couldn't take on a midsized nation? It's unrealistic that ANY nation could lead in land, naval, trade and production -- certainly not without dominating the globe en route, and both of these had been through some ups and downs.
Bavaria and France, who spent the entire game at 0 to +1 stability and whose armies put together were about equal to mine, had a 10-12 level lead in tech ... land, naval, govt., the works. For giggles, I went after Bavaria in a saved game in about 1805 and got slaughtered, losing entire 20K armies in one day. I had the best leaders, high morale, etc. and a 2-1 advantage in manpower and I couldn't take on a midsized nation? It's unrealistic that ANY nation could lead in land, naval, trade and production -- certainly not without dominating the globe en route, and both of these had been through some ups and downs.
I agree that land tech differences in combat potential are FAR too great, especially the "Military Tactics" modifier. It should increase gradually, not suddently. At land tech 17, going to war with someone at tech 18 can be devastating.
I've been thinking lately that the ability Vicky2 has to have a different flag for each country, depending on its form of government, would be a really huge addition in EU3 (especially for modders, but not only, it's really the sort of thing everyone would looove. And you've already designed it!)
I don't think there is anything wrong with the way the tech is, if anything it's too easy to beat out the AI in tech research. If you're behind by 10 to 12 levels in land tech versus the AI in 1821 your play style is to blame (such as taking too many poor provinces versus rich ones, having too much inflation, never westernizing, etc.).
I see what you're saying, but I don't know naval tradition is really intended to be kept high from defeating pirates.
I agree, administration is the biggest problem with extension of territory (aside from putting down revolts, though the two sort of go hand in hand). This is especially true in this time period when countries like England were still mired in feudalism at game start for most of the 15th century, and the king had to contend with rebellious nobles and unwanted papal control of church lands.
The problem is the game doesn't model this at all. You can unite Great Britain with the proper missions in 15 years or so, and by 1500 or earlier you'll have a country that's completely cored with revolt risk or other semblance of administration issues.
So without the proper game mechanics to represent this, I think the difficulty in conquest should stay at relatively the same level that it is now.
Dharmic Religion vs Sinic Religion
1) Somebody needs to tell Paradox that Hinduism is not even at all closely related to Shintoism and Confucianism. Having a big general "Eastern Religion" Group and dumping them all in that is weird and silly and entirely unhistorical in every sense, because you get people who convert China and Korea and Japan to Hindu religion to escape the penalty tax. Hindu-Confucian Marriages are messed up.
Instead, create a new Dharmic Religious Group for Hinduism and Buddhism and Group Confucianism and Shintoism into the "Sinic Religion" Group.
Chinese Religious Practices
2) A Taoist Religion is needed. Or at least replace the Taoist sign of Confucianism with something else. To the Chinese people, while Confucianism have some quasi-religious guidelines, it is still more of a moral and values philosophy than an actual religion. The Imperial Court promotes the use of Confucianism in their government, but that is more equal to a country who criminalises rape because it is ethnically wrong rather than one a country who does it because they think it is religiously wrong. Taoism, which is a mix of a philosophy and Chinese mythology, is a more accurate picture of the religion actually practised by the wider Chinese people in China throughout most of the centuries. Chinese mythology, ancestor worship, the Jade Emperor's Court, Taoist Gods are the religious beliefs of the Chinese. Confucianism is the moral guidelines they live their lives by. Belief =/= Guidelines. Taoism should be the religion of the Chinese people.
Tolerance and the Chinese-Japanese Cultures
3) Paradox needs to understand that for most of the history of Chinese and Japanese Culture, these societies have been pretty tolerant of Buddhism and to some extent, Islam. While there have been issues of Buddhist Persecution in Chinese History (known as the Four Great Buddhist Persecutions), Buddhism has been embraced by the Chinese Society as part of its Cultural heritage. Despite the fact that Buddhism is a foreign religion (it came from India), most of the time, the Chinese Government did not persecute them. Ask any Chinese Person, even today what religion they practise, they say that they follow Buddha, Taoist Gods, the Jade Emperor Mythology. The thing is, Chinese Religion has always been a mix of all of these beliefs, accumulating over the centuries. To have a Buddhist Penalty imposed on a Chinese Nation is silly. I think that a special tolerance concession should be made for Japanese and Chinese Cultures towards the Religions of "Buddhism, Taoism/Confucianism and Shintoism. This reflects their society best.
Chinese Nations and the nature of Dynasty Change
4) There are only like what? 2 nations aside from Ming that can form Chinese countries? Historically, when a unified Chinese dynasty breaks up, there is always a transitional period between one unified China and another where local warlords would rise up and fight for the power of the entire China. This is best represented by Warring Periods, the Three Kingdoms, The Southern and Northern Dynasties and Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period. In the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period, in just 53 years, North China had 5 violently short dynasties and 10-12 kingdoms (note, Kingdoms not Empire being a King vs being an Emperor is big in Chinese culture)rose up and fought in a civil war in the south. Having just two other Sinic Nations do not show this. There needs to be like at least a total of some 7 Chinese Nations that can form in the event of a total collapse of the Ming Dynasty during the Game, fighting with each other to obtain the Mandate of Heaven and be crowned Emperor.
China and its Tributary System
5) Chinese - Korean Relationship and Tributary Systems. Korea always gets effed up by Manchuria or Japan during the game because China never protects them. I know there is a mission for China to secure Korea, but that is not enough. Korea has a special relationship with the Chinese Court. They like being a "vassal" to China. They had been their voluntary "vassal" since 32AD to 1895AD. Japan had to forced Korea out of China's hold. They like how they are protected by China (i.e Hideoshi's Invasion of Korea) and yet at the same time, preserving a lot of independence in their own affairs. However, their vassal relationship is not the same as the one imposed by the EU III Game System. To be a 'vassal', a tributary state of China, you just had to do two things. 1) Recognise that the Emperor is the overlord master (Note again, Emperor and King difference). 2) Pay yearly tribute. That's it. In return, China protects the nation from foreign aggression. This is voluntary vassalhood. Forced vassalhood via conquest is similar to that of the EU III model. I propose a new "Imperial Tributary System" specifically for China.
I) Nations can freely request to be a tributary state of China - in which China can accept or reject
II) Tributary Nations would then pay a percentage of their income annually and provide manpower for China.
III) When a state of tribute has been imposed, China has a one-sided alliance with its tributary.
IIIA) e.g China will have to protect it's tributary state in the event of aggression, but the tributary state will not have to protect China in the event of aggression.
IV) However, tributary states get a CB against aggressor states on China to be used at their own will.
V) Failing to protect a tributary state from Foreign aggression will result in destabilisation, loss of large prestige and Mandate of heaven for China. (Because tributary States are seen as a part of China)
- does not join the war
- loses the war and provinces are taken away
- loses the war and tributary status is revoked by forced
VI) China and its tributes cannot declare war on each other. Tributaries declaring war on other tributaries will result in lost of tribute status (with no penalties to China) and will have to face Chinese wrath.
VII) In the case of a Chinese Culture Nation+Manchus+Mongols+Japan losing the mandate of Heaven, all tributary agreements are canceled. Once a new Chinese Culture Nation+Manchus+Mongols+Japan has gained the Mandate of Heaven, tributaries can reenact tributary relations.
VIII) In the event of a tributary nation voluntarily revoking its status. China gets a CB against that nation.
IX) China can also cancel a tributary status.
According to the all mighty wikipedia, Nations that in 1399, gave constant and regular tribute to China as a show of being part of their influence (rather than nations doing it for economic opportunities e.g Qing China recognise Britain as a tributary state cause they gave them some presents)
- Korea
- Annam
- Ryuku
- Champa
- Siam (debatable)
-
1) Somebody needs to tell Paradox that Hinduism is not even at all closely related to Shintoism and Confucianism. Having a big general "Eastern Religion" Group and dumping them all in that is weird and silly and entirely unhistorical in every sense, because you get people who convert China and Korea and Japan to Hindu religion to escape the penalty tax. Hindu-Confucian Marriages are messed up.
Instead, create a new Dharmic Religious Group for Hinduism and Buddhism and Group Confucianism and Shintoism into the "Sinic Religion" Group.
Chinese Religious Practices
2) A Taoist Religion is needed. Or at least replace the Taoist sign of Confucianism with something else. To the Chinese people, while Confucianism have some quasi-religious guidelines, it is still more of a moral and values philosophy than an actual religion. The Imperial Court promotes the use of Confucianism in their government, but that is more equal to a country who criminalises rape because it is ethnically wrong rather than one a country who does it because they think it is religiously wrong. Taoism, which is a mix of a philosophy and Chinese mythology, is a more accurate picture of the religion actually practised by the wider Chinese people in China throughout most of the centuries. Chinese mythology, ancestor worship, the Jade Emperor's Court, Taoist Gods are the religious beliefs of the Chinese. Confucianism is the moral guidelines they live their lives by. Belief =/= Guidelines. Taoism should be the religion of the Chinese people.
Tolerance and the Chinese-Japanese Cultures
3) Paradox needs to understand that for most of the history of Chinese and Japanese Culture, these societies have been pretty tolerant of Buddhism and to some extent, Islam. While there have been issues of Buddhist Persecution in Chinese History (known as the Four Great Buddhist Persecutions), Buddhism has been embraced by the Chinese Society as part of its Cultural heritage. Despite the fact that Buddhism is a foreign religion (it came from India), most of the time, the Chinese Government did not persecute them. Ask any Chinese Person, even today what religion they practise, they say that they follow Buddha, Taoist Gods, the Jade Emperor Mythology. The thing is, Chinese Religion has always been a mix of all of these beliefs, accumulating over the centuries. To have a Buddhist Penalty imposed on a Chinese Nation is silly. I think that a special tolerance concession should be made for Japanese and Chinese Cultures towards the Religions of "Buddhism, Taoism/Confucianism and Shintoism. This reflects their society best.
Chinese Nations and the nature of Dynasty Change
4) There are only like what? 2 nations aside from Ming that can form Chinese countries? Historically, when a unified Chinese dynasty breaks up, there is always a transitional period between one unified China and another where local warlords would rise up and fight for the power of the entire China. This is best represented by Warring Periods, the Three Kingdoms, The Southern and Northern Dynasties and Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period. In the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period, in just 53 years, North China had 5 violently short dynasties and 10-12 kingdoms (note, Kingdoms not Empire being a King vs being an Emperor is big in Chinese culture)rose up and fought in a civil war in the south. Having just two other Sinic Nations do not show this. There needs to be like at least a total of some 7 Chinese Nations that can form in the event of a total collapse of the Ming Dynasty during the Game, fighting with each other to obtain the Mandate of Heaven and be crowned Emperor.
China and its Tributary System
5) Chinese - Korean Relationship and Tributary Systems. Korea always gets effed up by Manchuria or Japan during the game because China never protects them. I know there is a mission for China to secure Korea, but that is not enough. Korea has a special relationship with the Chinese Court. They like being a "vassal" to China. They had been their voluntary "vassal" since 32AD to 1895AD. Japan had to forced Korea out of China's hold. They like how they are protected by China (i.e Hideoshi's Invasion of Korea) and yet at the same time, preserving a lot of independence in their own affairs. However, their vassal relationship is not the same as the one imposed by the EU III Game System. To be a 'vassal', a tributary state of China, you just had to do two things. 1) Recognise that the Emperor is the overlord master (Note again, Emperor and King difference). 2) Pay yearly tribute. That's it. In return, China protects the nation from foreign aggression. This is voluntary vassalhood. Forced vassalhood via conquest is similar to that of the EU III model. I propose a new "Imperial Tributary System" specifically for China.
I) Nations can freely request to be a tributary state of China - in which China can accept or reject
II) Tributary Nations would then pay a percentage of their income annually and provide manpower for China.
III) When a state of tribute has been imposed, China has a one-sided alliance with its tributary.
IIIA) e.g China will have to protect it's tributary state in the event of aggression, but the tributary state will not have to protect China in the event of aggression.
IV) However, tributary states get a CB against aggressor states on China to be used at their own will.
V) Failing to protect a tributary state from Foreign aggression will result in destabilisation, loss of large prestige and Mandate of heaven for China. (Because tributary States are seen as a part of China)
- does not join the war
- loses the war and provinces are taken away
- loses the war and tributary status is revoked by forced
VI) China and its tributes cannot declare war on each other. Tributaries declaring war on other tributaries will result in lost of tribute status (with no penalties to China) and will have to face Chinese wrath.
VII) In the case of a Chinese Culture Nation+Manchus+Mongols+Japan losing the mandate of Heaven, all tributary agreements are canceled. Once a new Chinese Culture Nation+Manchus+Mongols+Japan has gained the Mandate of Heaven, tributaries can reenact tributary relations.
VIII) In the event of a tributary nation voluntarily revoking its status. China gets a CB against that nation.
IX) China can also cancel a tributary status.
According to the all mighty wikipedia, Nations that in 1399, gave constant and regular tribute to China as a show of being part of their influence (rather than nations doing it for economic opportunities e.g Qing China recognise Britain as a tributary state cause they gave them some presents)
- Korea
- Annam
- Ryuku
- Champa
- Siam (debatable)
-
Last edited:
I would like to see The Kalmar Union from the beginning and a unification event for France, like the one for Germany and Scandinavia (re-establish The Kalmar Union).
France was not a unified country in 1399 - it was as divided as Germany - with strong Dukes, Princes and English Kings fighting for the Crown of France.
The Kalmar Union would end in 1436 when Erik VII was stripped of most of his powers by the nobility of Sweden, Denmark and to some extent Norway who forced him to give up most of his powers. From that day on The Kalmar Union was in effect only a loose confederation/alliance controlled by Denmark.
I've recreated The Kalmar Union from start in my version of the HttT expansion of EUIII and turned the form Scandinavia event into a re-establish The Kalmar Union event.
In the History-folder (provinces), I've made the Union fall apart in 1436 and being replaced with Denmark, Norway and Sweden in personal union under Erik VII of The Kalmar Union who controls only Gotland. In 1440 Christoffer III is made new King of Denmark, in 1441 Sweden elects Christoffer III as their King (personal union with Denmark) and in 1442 Norway elects Christoffer III and is inherited by Denmark.
Maybe it would be an idea to make Denmark-Norway a new union-TAG if you control Akershus, Bergenhus, Trøndelag, Skåne, Jylland and Sjælland.
France was not a unified country in 1399 - it was as divided as Germany - with strong Dukes, Princes and English Kings fighting for the Crown of France.
The Kalmar Union would end in 1436 when Erik VII was stripped of most of his powers by the nobility of Sweden, Denmark and to some extent Norway who forced him to give up most of his powers. From that day on The Kalmar Union was in effect only a loose confederation/alliance controlled by Denmark.
I've recreated The Kalmar Union from start in my version of the HttT expansion of EUIII and turned the form Scandinavia event into a re-establish The Kalmar Union event.
In the History-folder (provinces), I've made the Union fall apart in 1436 and being replaced with Denmark, Norway and Sweden in personal union under Erik VII of The Kalmar Union who controls only Gotland. In 1440 Christoffer III is made new King of Denmark, in 1441 Sweden elects Christoffer III as their King (personal union with Denmark) and in 1442 Norway elects Christoffer III and is inherited by Denmark.
Maybe it would be an idea to make Denmark-Norway a new union-TAG if you control Akershus, Bergenhus, Trøndelag, Skåne, Jylland and Sjælland.
I would agree with this. The need for a fleet to patrol the sealanes is already abstracted by the fact that you need a fleet for full benefit from your overseas colonies. As far as I am concerned, pirates serve no purpose and aren't fun. Hunting pirates is too much like cleaning your room and too little like combat.
Agreed, this would also reduce the learning curve of the game and make it easier to "recruit" more players to Paradox games.
Yes, this would be desirable. However, I sometimes pick up two units and drop them off at different places so the old step-by-step way should still be available.
I agree in principle, but I feel there are things you can do about some of the heir problems -such efforts to increase legitimacy.
As far as I am concerned: trading is not broke, don't fix it.
Useful. I suggested a version where you could send reminders to yourself in the future.
Agreed.
Dag Stålhandske
It isn't a unified country in the game anyway. However there was a King of France, so the in-game France represents territories under his control/pledging allegiance to him.