Yugoslavia achievement

[yerm]

- did you lived in that part of the world for 400 years to make propositions so preposterous like this?

His post was in the present tense. Don't be a lunatic.


The game lacks a cultural union for south slavs, so it is something useful to add. From a gameplay perspective it would just be a grand union of all these small cultures in the area. The region is tricky enough for the small native countries and it's not a rich area, so throwing the bone in a form of a cultural union is very worthwhile, and no, should not need to take >10 admin tech. Arguing that this area should have to wait longer than others because it took longer in our world is absurd, since our history never saw any possibility there - the region was far too dominated by Ottomans, Austria and Russia.

Of course, the difficulty creeps in when you also look at a lot of the nationalist sentiment of the region, made worse when many of the people with a raging nationalist agenda about their Balkan state actually pride themselves on it, rather than seeing nationalism as the infantile disease that it is. With this in mind, naming it something ahistorical like Illyria IS fine, as it avoids the whole matter, and catering to any one side would be awful. Personally I'm probably too much of a troll; I'd be naming it Kosovo, but then I don't rightly care what it's named.

 

[WeissRaben]

His post was in the present tense. Don't be a lunatic.


The game lacks a cultural union for south slavs, so it is something useful to add. From a gameplay perspective it would just be a grand union of all these small cultures in the area. The region is tricky enough for the small native countries and it's not a rich area, so throwing the bone in a form of a cultural union is very worthwhile, and no, should not need to take >10 admin tech. Arguing that this area should have to wait longer than others because it took longer in our world is absurd, since our history never saw any possibility there - the region was far too dominated by Ottomans, Austria and Russia.

Of course, the difficulty creeps in when you also look at a lot of the nationalist sentiment of the region, made worse when many of the people with a raging nationalist agenda about their Balkan state actually pride themselves on it, rather than seeing nationalism as the infantile disease that it is. With this in mind, naming it something ahistorical like Illyria IS fine, as it avoids the whole matter, and catering to any one side would be awful. Personally I'm probably too much of a troll; I'd be naming it Kosovo, but then I don't rightly care what it's named.

It's not because history. It's because there simply is nothing at all to base a country on, before the concept of nationalism comes up. There are no precise geographical borders, there are no previously existing nations, and the age of cannibalizing Rome is long gone (the Third Rome being a last hurrah).

 

[Kansai-kun]

It's not because history. It's because there simply is nothing at all to base a country on, before the concept of nationalism comes up. There are no precise geographical borders, there are no previously existing nations, and the age of cannibalizing Rome is long gone (the Third Rome being a last hurrah).

How about an alternate solution? The 'Kingdom of God' decision the Papal State gets adds, if I remember correctly, an accepted culture mechanic similar to Ruthenia and the HRE - Paradox could implement a similar decision for South Slavic countries, representing one kingdom consolidating its rule over the Balkans.

 

[oblio-]

I think this topic should be moved to the Suggestions forum.

I'd also have a sort of poll, going something like this:

If Paradox would add a formable nation for the South Slavic cultures, why would you form it and how would you want to name it:
a) I'm from the region and I like the idea of a South Slavic super state - preferably one with a name showing the superiority of my culture: Greater Bulgaria, Greater Serbia, etc.
b) I'm from outside the region, I like to play states in the region and I'd like to aim for something when playing here: Balkania, Yugoslavia (?)
c) I like to form nations, preferably those that evoke a glorious past (Illyria -> Rome, something else -> please mention the source)

Because otherwise we're all thinking about different things.

 

[WeissRaben]

How about an alternate solution? The 'Kingdom of God' decision the Papal State gets adds, if I remember correctly, an accepted culture mechanic similar to Ruthenia and the HRE - Paradox could implement a similar decision for South Slavic countries, representing one kingdom consolidating its rule over the Balkans.

That could well work.

 

[olm]

To be honest, I think they should get rid of the "south slavic" culture group, and make each of the individual cultures within it their own group. Might not be ethnolinguistically correct, but it reflects how the people in that part of the world treat each other far closer than EUIVs way in which they get less penalties for "same culture group"...

Ethnolinguistically current "South Slavic" group isn't exactly correct anyway because 2 of its 5 cultures aren't Slavs I would just rename it into "Balkan" though.

 

[unmerged(652342)]

Im opposed to the kind of logical fallacies youre applying there. Italy is beyond comparison with Yugoslavia, because Italy as a country had existed before before EU4 time (at least in a way, sort of) AND it existed as a client state set up by Napoleon.

- so its ok to count napoleonic client state Italy as "unified" Italy but it is not ok to compare it to GP created Yugoslavia?

History aside, Italy is one of European powers, Yugoslavia is insignificant in every regard. Italy being in game does not mean that Yugoslavia have to be in game, any more than not adding Yugoslavia would imply that Italy would need to be removed, thats ridiculous. Italy is simply Italy.

- and Scanidinavia is Scandinavia.:laugh:

As for Romanian unification, well i dont see how thats comparable to Yugoslavia. As far as i know Romanian people have always been one people (though with different names throughout last centuries). Divisions within Romanian people are mostly etnonymic (sp?) and dialectic

- so were east slavs but...

while on the other hand Serbs are Serbs and Croats are Croats, and have been two different tribes even before they settled this area.

- and original Germany is a collection of different tribes too, so...

The Romanian United Principalities (or The United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia) - 24 January 1859.
14 March 1881 was just a formal renaming of the country, it didn't actually mean anything to Romanians.
1 December (1918) - Great Union Day - our national day and a public holiday.
24 January (1859) - Union Day - public holiday.
14 March - go to work you Romanian scrubs!

Call it whatever you want, but modern Romania was formed from the union of Wallachia and Moldavia in 1859 - not that far from the end of the game.

- but of course, nationalist always aim for most "early" date possible. We should probably start counting medieval states of Germany and Italy as unifications too.

His post was in the present tense. Don't be a lunatic.

- he basically claimed that those people could not tolerate each other since beginning of times, and you calling me lunatic?:rofl:

 

[oblio-]

- but of course, nationalist always aim for most "early" date possible. We should probably start counting medieval states of Germany and Italy as unifications too.

Dude, there were 2 separate Romanian states (Wallachia, Moldavia). After the date I mentioned they became 1: the Romanian United Principalities (= Romania; to-may-to, to-mah-to).

 

[ahyangyi]

I think this topic should be moved to the Suggestions forum.

I'd also have a sort of poll, going something like this:

If Paradox would add a formable nation for the South Slavic cultures, why would you form it and how would you want to name it:
a) I'm from the region and I like the idea of a South Slavic super state - preferably one with a name showing the superiority of my culture: Greater Bulgaria, Greater Serbia, etc.
b) I'm from outside the region, I like to play states in the region and I'd like to aim for something when playing here: Balkania, Yugoslavia (?)
c) I like to form nations, preferably those that evoke a glorious past (Illyria -> Rome, something else -> please mention the source)

Because otherwise we're all thinking about different things.

Well, this looks like a very poor sort of polling, in which you combine multiple points into one option.

Just ask yourself: how should someone from that region but thinks forming Balkania/Yugoslavia acceptable, or someone outside that region but actually prefers Greater X naming, vote at all?

 

[oblio-]

Well, this looks like a very poor sort of polling, in which you combine multiple points into one option.

Just ask yourself: how should someone from that region but thinks forming Balkania/Yugoslavia acceptable, or someone outside that region but actually prefers Greater X naming, vote at all?

My point was that as is, we're already combining many things there. Add extra poll options as you see fit

 

[DanubianCossak]

- so its ok to count napoleonic client state Italy as "unified" Italy but it is not ok to compare it to GP created Yugoslavia?

Yes, because the concept of Italy was not invented by Napoleon. It had existed before in this or that form. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Italy_(Holy_Roman_Empire) or even this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_the_Lombards if you keep in mind that northern Italian culture is called "Lombard" and that basically whole northern half of the country could constitute "Lombardia".

- and Scanidinavia is Scandinavia.:laugh:

I didnt think i had to mention it, because its kind of obvious isnt it? All you have to do is load EU4 as Denmark, Norway or Sweden in 1444. and it will be immediately apparent. Kalmar union that doesnt fall apart like it did historically = Scandinavia. The same way as Poland+Lithuania = Commonwealth.

- so were east slavs but...

Yes and you got a natural union of the East Slavic people, and its called Russia. Youre just proving my point.

- and original Germany is a collection of different tribes too, so...

Poles and Russians are two different tribes of what is technically same people. And yet Poles and Russians have two completely different historical kingdoms and two completely different historical states and two completely different histories all together.

Serbs and Croats are today (and mostly like have been throughout history) linguistically quite similar, id say a lot more than some east Slavs. But that doesnt mean that the differences that do exist constitute the same natural union of our two people. Because thats simply not true, otherwise there would have been one in history and we would not be have this conversation.

 

[yerm]

- he basically claimed that those people could not tolerate each other since beginning of times, and you calling me lunatic?:rofl:

Oh, so his use of the present tense actually meant since the beginning of times. Got it.

 

[DanubianCossak]

In fact here is one idea for completely phantasy like unification of south slavs:

Podanubia / Podanubye / Padanubya or something like that.

Essentially land bellow/south of Danube (Dunav) river ("po nashki" it would be called Podunavlje).

Danube river is the main waterway that defines our region more than anything else. Most rivers that are used to place borders flow into Danube river.

 

[EU3NOOB]

That's no Yugoslavia... that's a space station!

 

[Kansai-kun]

In fact here is one idea for completely phantasy like unification of south slavs:

Podanubia / Podanubye / Padanubya or something like that.

Essentially land bellow/south of Danube (Dunav) river ("po nashki" it would be called Podunavlje).

Well, that sounds good, in my opinion - but I'm not from the Balkans, so that's just my (unbiased) opinion.

 

[Clownie]

Something pro-Yugoslavians seem to be missing or intentionally ignoring in this thread is that Yugoslavia was never a concept prior to its creation post-WW1. The southern slavs — Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Montenegrin — have never been on friendly terms. The Serbs wanted to unite the Balkans around WW1, but they didn't want to form Yugoslavia — they wanted to dominate the other slavs of the region and form Great Serbia. They had no concept of a peaceful union between the local peoples.

Now, Italy? It was a de jure kingdom during the entire timeframe, and had existed as a concept since the Roman Republic and possibly before. Germany? Also a de jure kingdom, and had existed as a concept in the minds of foreigners since the Roman Republic as well; by locals since the birth of the HRE. Egypt had existed before, and it'd hardly be the first time a polity would try to remind people of former glory to take their attention off other things. Arabia, while dubious, can be viewed as a restoration of the Caliphate — although I'd prefer it just be called the Caliphate. Scandinavia is also quite dubious, but is hardly unlikely to have happened — the norsemen had always been on relatively good terms, and never genocidal (unlike south slavs); had the Kalmar Union lived, Scandinavia isn't that unlikely. Upon integrating Norway, Denmark didn't stay Denmark — it became Denmark-Norway. Do you really think it would've chosen to be Denmark-Norway-Sweden if Sweden hadn't declared independence? Naaaah.

The southern slavs have a long history of hateful internal conflict, too. How does it make sense to give them a cultural union? Had any of the polities there succeeded in uniting the Balkans, they would've all fiercely tried to eliminate all traces of their neighbouring cultures anyway (which you can do just fine in the game, since the Balkans have trash BT and you can just blithely culture-convert all of it).

 

[DanubianCossak]

Southern Slavs dont have a long history of hateful internal conflicts, thats just last ~100 years. If you take a look at our relations around EU4 game start, they depended on couple of things: first the Croatian union under Hungary changed the whole political map of the region. Prior to that, Croats were quite involved in everyone's business, iirc there was at least one example where Croatian rulers helped Serbian throne pretenders to grab throne from their cousins (and Hungarians participated in same games as well), for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_Stefan_Dragutin . Relations between South Slavs were overall pretty well, with conflicts mostly being between Feudal Lords - for example Bosnian Ban allying with one Serbian lord to jointly attack another Serbian lord and split his lands (this was the dude that was jumped: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Altomanović) . Or the fact that just prior to Turkish conflict Serbia was technically inherited by a Bosnian King...

 

[Clownie]

My apologies for presuming. The rest of the arguments stand, though, unless you can also convince me that the idea of south Slavic union was even around at the time.

 

[tt33]

However this game is about alternative history, and even more of it - that player should be able to do whatever he wants. why not form Yugoslavia after destroying the Ottomans in 16th century? This game is focused on western europe too much. i mean, if this kind of state concept was on western europe it would be already in the game.

 

[oblio-]

My apologies for presuming. The rest of the arguments stand, though, unless you can also convince me that the idea of south Slavic union was even around at the time.

It wasn't, but some people still want it. Knowing Paradox, it's entirely possible that they'll add some sort of funny-trollish cultural union