With which countries is it impossible to follow history?

[Gnomi]

And EU4 Spain/Ottoman are unlikely to stagnate like their historical counterpart did. EU4 Spain/Ottoman won't become the sick men of Europe by the end of the game. EU4 Spain/Ottoman with its historical territory are most likely to snowball even further, if anything.

The problem is that "wide" empires, and conquests in general, are too good in EU4 (or, in any grand strategy games). The empires in the real world typically depended on their heartlands (say, Castile in case of Spain), and few "crown jewel" colonies/territories -- with everything else being buffer areas (or unreliable puppets/autonomous territories) at the best, or economic drain at the worst. With the benefit of conquests as it stands now, many historical empires are simply game breaking. Province autonomy is a good start, but is nowhere enough, if anything.

Of course, I don't think they will want to fix this problem, though -- people play grand strategy games to conquer, and will complain if their conquests don't yield benefits. Just see how many people are complaining about the province autonomy system...

 

[PiriReis]

I'd love to see that annexing the Mamluks in one go event would fire more often... I mean, it was done historically so if Austria/France gets Burgundy in %100 of games where Burgundy is unlucky, the Ottomans could have the event THAT FIRES MORE OFTEN for that special CB too. Because, you know sometimes Persia and Venice just don't exist and they ruin things.

Good idea.

 

[Incompetent]

PUs are too much of a lottery to reliably imitate real life.

The Manchu conquest of China is also hard to pull off at a historical speed, given EU4's overextension/AE/truce mechanics. You can finish by the time the Manchu did, but you'd have to start much earlier.

 

[eternalkanus]

Does this splitting thing still work under 1.8?

I've done it in the past but playing 1.8 as Ethiopia I couldn't get it to work even after splitting the Mamluks in half so maybe they changed?

I think they got rid of that and replaced it with the 75% autonomy floor for overseas provinces, so they'll still be cheaper, but not as ridiculously cheap as they were pre-1.8.

 

[SacredDatura]

Maybe I am wrong, but isn't the reason for factions due to the Mings policy of "fuck the outside world, we are perfect" sorta thing? As far As I know, the Manchu dynasty wasn't like that

Well, they kind of were...

 

[wingzero890]

Well, they kind of were...

That letter is hilariously insulting, if you read the whole thing, and does provide justification for the Qing getting inward perfection (Assuming they were given the majority of Ming on nation formation)

"You, O King, from afar have yearned after the blessings of our civilization, and in your eagerness to come into touch with our converting influence have sent an Embassy across the sea bearing a memorial"

"Nevertheless, I do not forget the lonely remoteness of your island, cut off from the world by intervening wastes of sea..."

"Do not say that you were not warned in due time! Tremblingly obey and show no negligence!"

 

[Tijean]

For the original post, I already see spain becoming a lesser partner of a Union under Austria. That was a bit crazy.
The ottoman is not impossible at all. I a bit hard, but it can be done. In my Ottoman i got a very different expansion but in general it can be similar.

 

[Basileus777]

And EU4 Spain/Ottoman are unlikely to stagnate like their historical counterpart did. EU4 Spain/Ottoman won't become the sick men of Europe by the end of the game. EU4 Spain/Ottoman with its historical territory are most likely to snowball even further, if anything.

The problem is that "wide" empires, and conquests in general, are too good in EU4 (or, in any grand strategy games). The empires in the real world typically depended on their heartlands (say, Castile in case of Spain), and few "crown jewel" colonies/territories -- with everything else being buffer areas (or unreliable puppets/autonomous territories) at the best, or economic drain at the worst. With the benefit of conquests as it stands now, many historical empires are simply game breaking. Province autonomy is a good start, but is nowhere enough, if anything.

Of course, I don't think they will want to fix this problem, though -- people play grand strategy games to conquer, and will complain if their conquests don't yield benefits. Just see how many people are complaining about the province autonomy system...

In past EU games core provinces represented that heartland territory. Now with the current design that requires everything to be cored, that is lost. Break the current implementation of cores into two separate mechanics and maybe you can create an effect like this.

 

[Alliegorical]

Pretty sure the main reason for factions was "otherwise Ming will conquer all the way to Europe."

You have it backwards. Factions are the reason Ming historically didn't conquer all the way to Europe.

 

[Less]

On the matter of invading Ming, turns out you can annex quite a lot even without ADM efficiency:

Ming went bankrupt, which gives more autonomy and the revolts themselves give more still. Virtually every Ming province is at 100% autonomy (horrifying IMO, and I'll get nothing from it for years which is probably fairly realistic). Shun, Chagatai and Miao are my vassals so I plan to vassal feed everyone rather than full annex for obvious reasons. I'm not even using Diplomatic ideas to get this. Theoretically I could have simply vassalized Ming, but that would give me -200 aggressive expansion, so good luck integrating them, and a bankrupt Ming with 100% autonomy would be a complete hell to police while also being completely useless.

Here's me after parceling out land to vassals:

We all have about 200% overextension, should be fun with rebels.

 

[WeissRaben]

The curious thing about maps is that they often represent claims as well, not only owned territory. For example, the map of the Spanish Empire shows the whole Meso- and South America as Spanish...only that it was not. Peru was subjugated definitively in 1572, Mexico in 1590 and the Yucatan in 1697; so, while New Spain and Peru were, by then, undeniably on the road to be Spanish dependencies, they weren't. Yet.

 

[Freudia]

In past EU games core provinces represented that heartland territory. Now with the current design that requires everything to be cored, that is lost. Break the current implementation of cores into two separate mechanics and maybe you can create an effect like this.

Rework overextension (or entirely gut it) and I'd be okay with splitting it. Cores representing your "heart" of your empire is fine, but the game is not built to have anything not cored, as you said.

 

[Krajzen]

And EU4 Spain/Ottoman are unlikely to stagnate like their historical counterpart did. EU4 Spain/Ottoman won't become the sick men of Europe by the end of the game. EU4 Spain/Ottoman with its historical territory are most likely to snowball even further, if anything.

The problem is that "wide" empires, and conquests in general, are too good in EU4 (or, in any grand strategy games). The empires in the real world typically depended on their heartlands (say, Castile in case of Spain), and few "crown jewel" colonies/territories -- with everything else being buffer areas (or unreliable puppets/autonomous territories) at the best, or economic drain at the worst. With the benefit of conquests as it stands now, many historical empires are simply game breaking. Province autonomy is a good start, but is nowhere enough, if anything.

Of course, I don't think they will want to fix this problem, though -- people play grand strategy games to conquer, and will complain if their conquests don't yield benefits. Just see how many people are complaining about the province autonomy system...

+1

Amazing post. I would love it to be integrated into EU.

Personally I would have nothing against restrictions to super huge conquests, as I have never liked them in any 'big' strategy games. I mean, it could be at least an option in menu - click X to f*** your attempts at imperialism, or something like that.


I always prefer simulation-of-the-world-games over easy, casual empire builders.


Let's think about historical empires here...


France spent EU4 timeline uniting (conquering) all minor feudal duchies of French 'cultural group'. All it's attempts at conquering Spain/Netherlands/Germany/Italy ultimately failed.

England actually managed to integrate other cultures - Scotland, Wales - well, I guess due to the nature of personal union with Scotland and the entire concept of Great Britain.

Prussia united Germany and subjugated Western Poland by force, while it was never accepting Polish culture uprising on these lands were limited when compared with Russian part of Poland due to Prussia/Germany being hella good at economic development and at least much better governed than Russia.

Russia didn't accept Tartar/Central Asian cultures and usually wasn't granting people here full citizenships, but it also didn't persecute them very much (and often didn't demand military support) while leaving most of social structures and autonomy intact.

Each of these countries was trying to solve imperial problems in another way. Interesting.