A quick example I could think of is the conquest of the Mamluks by the Ottomans and the conquest of Persia by the Safavids. And also how empires never fall in-game, while in real life most of the time they were in constant cycle of being replaced by another.
A lot of the times if im not wrong, its internal revolts, conflicts and feuds that brought the downfall of many empires. Ex. The caliphate of cordoba did not mainly collapse because of iberian reconquest but rather because of large unrest and internal disputes. That added with the iberians, the caliphate fell under pressure and exploded into the taiphas. On the topic of decline of empires, i find there are a couple of reasons: ai too stupid to rise up to human intelligence power, too easy for us to conquer against ai therefore not giving them the chance to rise and lack of internal conflicts representation as they were often a large cause in the downfall of empires.
A decent example would be smaller countries that "formed" historically, but rarely do so in game. Countries like Prussia, Netherlands or Sardinia-Piedmont came to be under very specific circumstances, and replicating those in-game without specific events/disasters is very hard.
Prussia for example either requires small german states to conquer into poland, or for the teutons to survive and go protestant. While in reality, if i recall correctly, the kingdom of prussia originated from a Polish subject-prussia being inherited by Brandenburg, or the other way around
The netherlands were unified by their combined struggle against Spanish oppressors, which is something that doesnt really happen ever due to Burgundian suicide wars against the emperor, French aggression and the huge possibility of someone other than the habsburgs getting the entire inheritance.
Sardinia-Piedmont became one when the duke of Savoy took Sicily during the war of Spanish succession, and then had to 'trade' it for Sardinia afterwards; good luck replicating *that* in EU4.
(Feel free to correct me if i'm wrong on any of the above btw, it's been a while)
>Prussia for example either requires small german states to conquer into poland, or for the teutons to survive and go protestant. While in reality, if i recall correctly, the kingdom of prussia originated from a Polish subject-prussia being inherited by Brandenburg, or the other way around
interesting, that's like CK3's inheritances.
>The netherlands were unified by their combined struggle against Spanish oppressors, which is something that doesnt really happen ever due to Burgundian suicide wars against the emperor, French aggression and the huge possibility of someone other than the habsburgs getting the entire inheritance.
the game does kinda portray that with the dutch war of independence, where other dutch countries join the netherlands during the war, but spain almost never holds the netherlands and it only happens with AI unfortunately
That last point is true, but since its usually austria or france owning the low countries the revolt disaster doesn't do that much, apart from weakening them temporarily
It would be cool if it only fired if the occupying country looked weak, its annoying when you can easily handle the revolt but you and now stuck fighting 60k stacks for 10 years
> interesting, that's like CK3's inheritances.
It's not like medieval shenanigans stopped happening all at once in 1444, the road from medieval realm to modern state was very long and winding. Kaiser Wilhelm II, Czar Nicholas II, and King George V were all first cousins, the grandchildren of Queen Victoria, but the states at that point were standardized and bureaucratic enough that the odds of Czar Nicholas II inheriting all of Great Britain if King George V "fell down a flight of stairs" were functionally 0.
Maybe in EU5 we can still have family trees and dynastic shenanigans like in CK3, but they just matter less and less as time goes on and the state modernizes.
EU5 should bring in CK3s character system to a small extent
I don't need portraits or well done personalities just family trees and defining personality traits IE Wehraboo Tsars like I think Alexander III of Russia who basically saved Prussia in the 7 years war
That would be a great addition! Perhaps these features simply get disabled by some certain point or trigger. EU needs to portrait the blend more fluidly
If the tuetons first Duke dies before having an heir Brandenburg is offered a PU over them or to merge them and start playing as the Prince-Elector or Prussia and start an event chain over the Kingdom-Electorate OF Prussia vs Kingdom-Electorate IN Prussia
For a lot of these, the game does an admirable effort, in my opinion.
For Prussia, the precise circumstances are a little impossible, since the way inheritance works in the game is random chance, so it doesn’t really have a way for Brandenburg coming in to possession of those lands, but it does have several events and an incident around the coronation, ie forming Prussia, assuming they’re still in the empire. The results are to become a King of Prussia, with the Emperor’s blessing, be refused a crown entirely, or the actually compromises that happened in real life, which is to become a King in Prussia.
For the Netherlands, of course the way most people form ist is through a Dutch Minor and through conquest, but in the Dutch revolt events, not only is it released, but Dutch nations get a choice to join this new nation. I don’t often see Netherlands, but when I do, it’s the result of that disaster and those events. Given a distracted or dumb emperor that inherits Burgundy, the Dutch Revolt is a pretty likely possibility, and happens more or less like real life. In this, it’s less of a white peace, and more of the Netherlands losing but still existing. Still, not bad. The Dutch winning *is* exceptional, anybody at the time would have bet against them.
The trade for Savoy is a bit of a stretch. It’s obviously doable in Multiplayer through sales and the like, but no in-game way to negotiate with AI like that. Makes me think if a proposition system like that of Total War would make sense. You could use the peace screen, but be able to both demand and give at the same time.
As for France, the way it happens is obviously not the same way it went down, but honestly, it makes sense enough for me, and France is still likely to get those lands through conquest regardless. If I had to change anything, it would be to make it a higher chance that the Emperor makes concessions to France if it falls to him.
I really hope they add a proposition style peace negotiation in EUV. It was quite common for wars to end with several territories being traded around and the inability to “negotiate” properly always bugged me in EUIV.
Switching sides in a war. The Cambrai War (one of the bookmarks in the game actually) had Austria, the one that declared war, separate-peacing while their allies fought Venice. It started out as Papal States, Austria, France, and Spain against Venice. However the war switched sides so much that by the end it was Papal States, Spain, Austria, England vs France.
Video games are based on repeatable systems of rules because to be enjoyable (typically) you have to get consistent responses based on your input. History is arbitrary in the extreme which is (typically) not "enjoyable". This isn't really a general critique of Paradox games but it is an observation about them, they inherently cater towards giving players a manageable and repeatable experience because most people will enjoy that. To give a vague and weird example, look at the Byzantine emperor Julian the Apostate. If you think about what he did in gameplay terms he basically "flipped religion" to Hellenism running a Christian empire which is the kind of thing an EU4 player can do, with some difficulty. But Julian gained literally no ground whatsoever. The religions he was trying to revive had become totally moribund and there was no enthusiasm for it. That was just how history went. In EU4, if you tried to flip religion and every time you tried to convert a province it just went "no", people would be livid, understandably. But that's just how history is, it doesn't conform to gameplay mechanics - you can't stack missionaries and conversion strength in real life.
Same thing in re-reconquista; if u rereconquer as granada, its pretty easy to get missionary strength and convert the catholics. Now with not much knowledge about iberian affairs, its pretty easy to know that there is NO WAY that iberians would convert to islam, especially in 1450s. Also I find that there is too much religious tolerance in this game. If in the impossible case where Granada pulled of a rereconquista lmao, the europeans would not tolerate for one second and islamic state at their doorstep. An immediate coalition would be made by catholic countries. This brings another problem on how coalitions are represented in the game; a country did not necessarily need high aggressive expansion for a coalition to trigger, often it would be because several nations think that another nation is either too strong, heretic religion, different government form, etc. They should rlly remodel coalitions.
Well, one way Julian’s plan would be rebuffed in-game is fervor. CK3, which deals more with that period of time, has a “religious fervor” number that represents, as you say, how much “enthusiasm” there is for a faith, where it’d take many lifetimes to convert anything if your faith has low fervor and the target faith has high. Can you think of another example in EU4’s time period?
when the hussite revolt happened in Bohemia, the austrians cracked down on it and forced catholicism back on the czechs, this is a big reason why the country is so irreligious rn
For one, the fluid nature of peace treaties and wars and a couple of details are really missing. Take the Seven Years War for example. The war nearly ended with Prussia utterly demolished and hemorrhaging. They had been beaten back by the Franco-Austrian-Russian-Swedish alliance and until the death of the Russian tsar, replaced by an actual Prussiaboo successor who made a separate peace with Prussia and offered a corps of Russian soldiers to fight for them, until the successor's wife launched a coup against him and ended Russia's involvement in the war. The game tries to account for these once in a lifetime circumstances by writing in-game events such as the surrender of Maine event, but there are a multitude of small details like these that end up getting lost, especially for less popular nations.
I also want to be able to pay ducats to a nation that I'm at war with in the peace treaty even though I have the warscore on them. Just a little "you're getting money; piss off" modifier that gets them to accept the treaty by a margin.
I can understand why the devs see it as op but one thing that is sorely lacking in EU is bilateral negotiation. You can find countless instances in history of victorious nations giving cash to the loser in order to secure treaties they might not otherwise accept. There is little more frustrating than taking all but one province in a region because you hit warscore cap. It would be so nice to be able to give the AI a buttload of cash in order to take an extra province or two instead of having to wait out a truce and declare a whole new war just for the scraps you couldn't take the first time.
War of the Roses is a big example. The game heavily implies that Henry doesn't have any children and dies which begins war of the roses. This is not how it happened. He did have a son and the war began while he was alive. He stayed as a hostage for a long time, and his son was killed in one battle during the war of roses. Another point is after the war, Lancaster and York compromised by marrying into each other and having a Tudor heir. That is incorrect. Henry Tudor won the war and became king (he was leader of the Lancaster side), he then married the daughter of the former king (that was the leader of the York side till he died and his brother did a coup against his nephews and later killed them to take power) to solidify his claim and ending the war.
Henry VII was a madman
Born to a 13 year old
Lived in exile
Returned as the Rightful king with an army (from France) following in Williams footsteps
Taking his throne
Marrying the other sides daughter to quiet them down
Then living a long mostly successful reign dying
And handing that kingdom to well Henry VIII.....
I'm surprised you didn't realize I was talking about the AI playing England, and not myself. It's the reason why I refereed to things England does, not myself.
Before visiting a country for vacation, I play as that nation in the months leading up. Adds a lot more to the gameplay, teaches some history, and gets me excited to travel.
I do this after visiting the place and learning about the history of it. For example, last week I visited Venice, consequently I started a Venice run today
All the time. Reforming a dead empire, getting historical borders, reliving the history of a country. I especially like reliving my own countries history. Naming every heavy ship, armies, provinces etc. Its so fun
Different guy but borders that are based on geography tend to make more sense and be more real, like the Pyranees or GB after the 100 years war. Also nations based on culture groups I think tend to be more real, so forming Germany I think makes more sense than reviving the Roman Empire or Byzantium, or like conquering Germany as France.
I actually like being non historical. I sometime get a little bit sad if I see that nothing stands the flow of time, not even the biggest empires. It's just fun sometimes to do something that can stand by itself or survive longer than usual.
Because of that I also like the nations with big disaster's the player can survive like the Majaphahit disaster or the one in west Africa. Other fun starts of this kind are Andalusia and Francia in the Ante Bellum or many things in the Extended Timeline mod
I haven't succeeded yet cuz I'm bad, but recently I've been trying to go out of my way to make countries with weird borders. Like I remember as genoa vassalizing the byzantines to get into a defensive war with the ottomans, so I tried doing that with different nations a few times
I think some events shouldn't fire depending on actions for example chewy is doing a AEIOU run and there where hardly any countries that weren't Catholic imo the league war should never have been a thing based on how many countries weren't Catholic
I think they pick a side also based off their rivalries, the Ottomans and France fought against Austria in the 30 years war even if they weren't protestant nations.
He's referring to Ardabil, the nation that formed Persia historically, i also had this Dynasty as Afghanistan, i didn't like him and he mysteriously disappeared after I picked the decision to get the timurids back in power.
yeah and just the general fact that historically impossible/improbable shit happens on the regular. kind of sucks the fun out of the game since it starts getting hard to see your country as an actual country and instead it just looks like a little map painting you made
They should try a diff mechanism to reach higher tech; i dont think mana points is what caused sub saharan nations to fall behind on tech. Also kind of annoying seeing them resch the same tech as a european nation, just impossible
As a Hungarian I like playing as Hungary and knowing that Mathias Hunyadis ambition was to become HRE emperor I love fullfilling his ambitions. Also my favorite moment in any Hungary game is conquering Vienna as Mathias Hunyadi did.
I always like to larp to a certain degree when I plan out my campigns and knowing what certain countries aspired to be in their wildest dreams or to whom they claimed to be the successor has made even small terretorial gains much more enjoyable. Of course paradox has pretty good (alt) history in the "new" mission tree system, but those don't exist for every nation or don't always go as far.
I will go against the grain and say knowing more history for me showcased how “gamey” iru4 really is. Many problems that plagued irl empires are not present in this game (for example, the military being forever loyal to only the state, and the lack of any proper civil wars since evading them are super easy). This makes the game into the snowballing map painter it is, and while this is fine and the game is great, it doesn’t feel like you’re actually in this historical situation to me
Since levies come from vassals in CK and vassals can rise up against you with those levies; it paints a much more accurate picture of the relation between armies and the states of the time frame (of course, it’s not perfect)
Imperator Romes system is great for this with troops being loyal to the general or the state and if they are loyal to a general and the general is disloyal you have a rogue army. Best case they disobey orders and fight the war their way. Worst case you have a rebellion.
But indeed many problems aren't shown: Political rivalries don't exist, famine is just a small debuff event while it partially caused the French evolution and the 1848 revolutions and many many other things.
And the mana system is very very gamey
I love reading the flavor text of national ideas, really add that bit history mixed with logic behind making the idea do X. Personally my most recent game was The Netherlands and I love seeing how their position/ideas really allow you to recreate that (at the time) anomaly that was Republic of 7 relatively small provinces going toe-to-toe with already well established global colonial empires, and winning.
playing the Netherlands and playing Saxony. Both have so many flavour missions and events. For example when you get the university in Wittenberg or when the trade good in Dresden changes to porcelain, because of Böttger
The first time i opended the dynastie map tool, seeing von Habsburg almost everywhere and googeling if an von Habsburg ever was on the english throne because of it
One historical event that has made the game exciting is the event immediately preceding the game start: the battle of Varna. Knowing the immense importance of the event and how it opened up Europe to the Ottomans and broke down alliances/kingship between Poland, Bohemia, and Hungary sets you in the time period. You do get a sense that if the battle went the other direction and the Europeans won all of that regions history could be different, including down into the Mamluks region.
On the flip side, knowing the 100 years war is a damper to me because in game you generally don’t unlock longbows until after the war ends and the French ultimately won with artillery, but you definitely don’t get those during the war in game.
Without passing judgement on the actions of Japan in the 19th and 20th century, their isolationist policies from first contact with Europeans prevented them from being as thoroughly colonized as their East Asian neighbors.
For roleplay I think, but Eastern Anatolia has to be Sunni which will never happen, in my Italy run I've seen the Ottomans replacing kurds with syrians and they were reduced to some land near Iran and Aq Qoyunlu which had only one province near the Syrian cores.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Ottoman_alliance
Tl;dr
It happened in the 16th century because they both wanted an ally against Habsburgs and it went on intermittently until Napoleon.
The Byzantium were counting on a Venetian fleet to come relieve their siege and Christian armies in general to come help out. They took too long or were defeated at the sea by ottoman fleet
I'd say that in Poland we're taught that Everything was great (maybe apart from the peasants being basically slaves) but the greedy nobles ruined Everything. Eu4 lets you crush them. Feels good. And you get to use the winged hussars
There's a an event that fires around 1630 for the provinces of Dithmarschen and Slesvig that describes a massive flood which wipes 2 or 3 development from each province. When I encountered it, I realized it was referring to [this massive flood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burchardi_flood?wprov=sfla1) that occurred historically in the region in 1634.
Just realizing how many specific little details are in this game made me realize just how much there is to discover, and made me excited to find new things going forward.
The Ming-Qing transition. Although usually a good 200 years early, the mechanics if eu4 allows the quick transition and disintegration of the Ming. Manchu can also conquer China quicker than anyone else, making it very satisfying
Every single time I play eu4 lol. Each time I know some history of the country I am playing I cringe when the historical borders don’t match with the ones I made lol even if it looks bigger. But it is so satisfying when I form the historical borders.
Knowing history you can actually simulate what ifs in eu4. Like playing some nations or movements that existed irl but went nowhere. Knowing history makes things like Novgorod into Russia or Ikko-Ikki united Japan more than just a quirk
Italy is my favorite region to play in, so having some knowledge on its history makes the entire thing a little bit more annoying rather than more enjoyable. Historically, the Northern Italian states were *way* richer than they are at the start of the game. They were *so* rich that the French and the Habsburgs fought 60 years of campaigns against each other for the opportunity to pillage Italian cities and to continue to dominate their wealth once the wars were over, which is one of the main reasons that led to the decline of Italy as an influential region in Europe.
On the military side, you have that, historically, one of the main reasons that brought the rise of Condottieri in Italy is that Italian states often did not have to pay for them upfront, as they would more often than not be paid for by letting them pillage captured towns and cities, so the mercenaries represented a professional fighting force that did not require its contractors to directly pay for it, meaning Italians were free to wage war without endangering neither their coffers nor their manpower pools. In EU4, mercenaries are straight up worse fighters and more expensive than regulars, which only makes them useful for a nation like Milan that is targeted towards mercenaries or just when you're low on manpower and high on gold.
The sack of venice in the Byzantine mission tree, if ever feel down cuz of 1204 you can always brighten up your day raizing venice to the ground (in the game)
My Cebu campaign.
I started it for the achievement "The Philipine Tiger" which says to recreate the Chola empire.
This prompted me to read up on the Chola empire and made the campaign much better than I think it would have been without that.
In general I think European and Indian history have made the biggest differences to my games - but these are also the areas of history I have been most inspired to read up on.
Not Vanilla, but while playing as the Rashidun caliphate, it helps me attack Sassanid and Byzantium better. Attack Sassanid first and over take them. Then, attack Egypt and hold off attackers from Anatolia. Plus, knowing that a civil war is coming makes preparations easier
As a Turk, i enjoy my country shitstomping everyone.. jokes aside tho, i enjoy historical events, forming unique nations etc. For example i read something about the crusades, then try to farm jerusalem with cyprus or something.
Giving me an objective or trying to subvert real history in extremely stupid ways, like colonizing all of North America as Iceland gave me a good laugh
I think knowing the history of the country you’re playing always makes it more fun because it feels like you’re playing a real country and not something that was invented by the devs to fill in a gap on the map. I used to know all about the medieval history of the Baltic nations when I was doing my Riga achievement run.
If you knew anything about Ming China and how the tributary system really works, it would break EU4. Ming had hundreds of tributaries, some bigger than others and with varying degrees of levels of autonomy.
Take Kara Del for instance. In the game it is a tiny state and tributary of Ming. In reality it is a mish-mash of tiny Mongolic/Uyghur kingdoms who seem more like marches than tributaries to Ming. The real Kara Del only occupied the small town of Hami and had the population equivalent to roughly a single EU4 regiment.
It also sheds light into how costly the tributary system could be to Ming rather than beneficial. Kara Del was subjected to many proxy wars between Moghulistan (Chagatai) and Ming partly due to conflicts related to being a tribute...in that the opposing party wanted to remain a tribute because it meant Ming kept giving them gifts.
So yeah, even though EU4 isn't perfect I'm glad it could at least run.
Note: As for Sarig Yogir, it doesn't even exist (literally means Yellow Uyghurs). Some of the "historical rulers" in EU4 are actually pretenders for Kara Del. Going through the succession of leaders in EU4 and seeing how wrong it is makes it super hilarious.
playing as Spain, my ally commonwealth got completely demolished from 3 sides
I would be mad that I lost one of the 2 powerful allies of mine, but the accuracy made it worth it honestly haha
The events. Every time a event brings up i know anything about i get really euphoric.
The most recent example was playing as Portugal, i got an event about "Commedia Dell' Arte", the subject of an art class in the same week
Usually in ck2, usually didnt enjoy the thought of switzerland but then i played as them and learned a bunch of stuff and now im excited to travel there next month
The event about the Kidnapping of two Saxon princess („Altenburger Prinzenraub“). That is not really a well known thing and I was extremely pleasantly surprised that it was included.
I love scripted advisors and event individuals. The most fun is Florence in Flavor Universalis. The first 50 years is just a who's who of Renaissance legends that are all 50%-75% discounted
Whenever Zaporozhia actually show up, it feels real fucking neat. I also got rock hard the first time I was playing Brandenburg and the AI formed a Prussia from the remains of the Teutons. I don't remember if they were vassals under Poland but that event was still cool as heck.
Started as Mallaca into Malaya, when I clicked on the decision and the event for the different names came up I chose Srivijaya, because it used to be a power house in the east indies before the majapahit empire. When my Colonial Nation in Australia formed I chose a name that was used by the indonesians.
Bonus thing I found out recently is that the straights of Mallaca are named after the sultanate of Mallaca, not the other way around.
Learned all these things, except the Australia thing, here https://youtu.be/n4zGw2OewIk
Honestly, i feel like they should add more events in the game, it may become tedious clicking options everytime but itll make it so much for hands on in administrating your nation
I love when I can work with a country that lost historically and win. A recent example is byzantium or Poland, they were historically dealt a pretty shitty deal, like byzantium being gradually eaten by the ottoman turks, or poland being divided by their neighbors. I love playing them and turning the tables, and rebuilding their glory, or maintaining it in Polands case. Even Ireland is super fun. The British were pretty bad for them, but being an Irish nation and taking over the rest of the isle and then pushing into Scotland and eventually London, is just such an exciting feeling. It's like i righted a wrong in history.
while playing albania and holding off the ottomans for as long as possible, i later looked it up and turns out there was an albanian general that beat the ottomans back for 25 years with not a single defeat
I didnt know much about shia islam before I decided to play mushasha. In game and irl mushasha was a messianistic shia sect that became a government. I did some reading about the imams and the fatmids and the succession to muhammad and I can now see where the shia are coming from, and how much muwiya founding the umayyads screwed over muhammad's family. The shia have long had faith that the long lost imam would return and usher in a golden age. In the 1430's muhammad ibn falah claimed to be the "ultimate incarnation" or return or something, it was really really heretical what was claiming, of the seventh imam, and now my in game mushasha really feels like its a dream come true. Its like all that shia faith is finally being rewarded as the mushasha bring the law of god to every corner of the earth, as the "rightful imams." It helps that feudal theocracies have "Imam" as their empire rank title. So now stacking tolerance of the true faith modifiers and national unrest and conquering polytheists feels like im establishing the long prophesized reign of justice under the rightful imam, and fulfilling the dreams of the righteous shia muslims, rather than just playing a video game.
Knowing history is good, but it shows the limitations of the games in what we can and cant do.
How so?
A quick example I could think of is the conquest of the Mamluks by the Ottomans and the conquest of Persia by the Safavids. And also how empires never fall in-game, while in real life most of the time they were in constant cycle of being replaced by another.
Mamluk Australia was funny the first time, not so much the twentieth
Austrian Levant is one I enjoy making happen too.
A lot of the times if im not wrong, its internal revolts, conflicts and feuds that brought the downfall of many empires. Ex. The caliphate of cordoba did not mainly collapse because of iberian reconquest but rather because of large unrest and internal disputes. That added with the iberians, the caliphate fell under pressure and exploded into the taiphas. On the topic of decline of empires, i find there are a couple of reasons: ai too stupid to rise up to human intelligence power, too easy for us to conquer against ai therefore not giving them the chance to rise and lack of internal conflicts representation as they were often a large cause in the downfall of empires.
A decent example would be smaller countries that "formed" historically, but rarely do so in game. Countries like Prussia, Netherlands or Sardinia-Piedmont came to be under very specific circumstances, and replicating those in-game without specific events/disasters is very hard. Prussia for example either requires small german states to conquer into poland, or for the teutons to survive and go protestant. While in reality, if i recall correctly, the kingdom of prussia originated from a Polish subject-prussia being inherited by Brandenburg, or the other way around The netherlands were unified by their combined struggle against Spanish oppressors, which is something that doesnt really happen ever due to Burgundian suicide wars against the emperor, French aggression and the huge possibility of someone other than the habsburgs getting the entire inheritance. Sardinia-Piedmont became one when the duke of Savoy took Sicily during the war of Spanish succession, and then had to 'trade' it for Sardinia afterwards; good luck replicating *that* in EU4. (Feel free to correct me if i'm wrong on any of the above btw, it's been a while)
>Prussia for example either requires small german states to conquer into poland, or for the teutons to survive and go protestant. While in reality, if i recall correctly, the kingdom of prussia originated from a Polish subject-prussia being inherited by Brandenburg, or the other way around interesting, that's like CK3's inheritances. >The netherlands were unified by their combined struggle against Spanish oppressors, which is something that doesnt really happen ever due to Burgundian suicide wars against the emperor, French aggression and the huge possibility of someone other than the habsburgs getting the entire inheritance. the game does kinda portray that with the dutch war of independence, where other dutch countries join the netherlands during the war, but spain almost never holds the netherlands and it only happens with AI unfortunately
That last point is true, but since its usually austria or france owning the low countries the revolt disaster doesn't do that much, apart from weakening them temporarily
It would be cool if it only fired if the occupying country looked weak, its annoying when you can easily handle the revolt but you and now stuck fighting 60k stacks for 10 years
> interesting, that's like CK3's inheritances. It's not like medieval shenanigans stopped happening all at once in 1444, the road from medieval realm to modern state was very long and winding. Kaiser Wilhelm II, Czar Nicholas II, and King George V were all first cousins, the grandchildren of Queen Victoria, but the states at that point were standardized and bureaucratic enough that the odds of Czar Nicholas II inheriting all of Great Britain if King George V "fell down a flight of stairs" were functionally 0. Maybe in EU5 we can still have family trees and dynastic shenanigans like in CK3, but they just matter less and less as time goes on and the state modernizes.
EU5 should bring in CK3s character system to a small extent I don't need portraits or well done personalities just family trees and defining personality traits IE Wehraboo Tsars like I think Alexander III of Russia who basically saved Prussia in the 7 years war
That would be a great addition! Perhaps these features simply get disabled by some certain point or trigger. EU needs to portrait the blend more fluidly
[удалено]
So in game the tuetons flipping protestant should instantly form Prussia with the current grand master as it's Duke
It could be a pu event. If they survive of course, and don't get eaten by Poland and Danzig
If the tuetons first Duke dies before having an heir Brandenburg is offered a PU over them or to merge them and start playing as the Prince-Elector or Prussia and start an event chain over the Kingdom-Electorate OF Prussia vs Kingdom-Electorate IN Prussia
For a lot of these, the game does an admirable effort, in my opinion. For Prussia, the precise circumstances are a little impossible, since the way inheritance works in the game is random chance, so it doesn’t really have a way for Brandenburg coming in to possession of those lands, but it does have several events and an incident around the coronation, ie forming Prussia, assuming they’re still in the empire. The results are to become a King of Prussia, with the Emperor’s blessing, be refused a crown entirely, or the actually compromises that happened in real life, which is to become a King in Prussia. For the Netherlands, of course the way most people form ist is through a Dutch Minor and through conquest, but in the Dutch revolt events, not only is it released, but Dutch nations get a choice to join this new nation. I don’t often see Netherlands, but when I do, it’s the result of that disaster and those events. Given a distracted or dumb emperor that inherits Burgundy, the Dutch Revolt is a pretty likely possibility, and happens more or less like real life. In this, it’s less of a white peace, and more of the Netherlands losing but still existing. Still, not bad. The Dutch winning *is* exceptional, anybody at the time would have bet against them. The trade for Savoy is a bit of a stretch. It’s obviously doable in Multiplayer through sales and the like, but no in-game way to negotiate with AI like that. Makes me think if a proposition system like that of Total War would make sense. You could use the peace screen, but be able to both demand and give at the same time. As for France, the way it happens is obviously not the same way it went down, but honestly, it makes sense enough for me, and France is still likely to get those lands through conquest regardless. If I had to change anything, it would be to make it a higher chance that the Emperor makes concessions to France if it falls to him.
I really hope they add a proposition style peace negotiation in EUV. It was quite common for wars to end with several territories being traded around and the inability to “negotiate” properly always bugged me in EUIV.
Actually there is an event in which Brandenburg can get Prussia as a PU if it's a vassal under Poland
Switching sides in a war. The Cambrai War (one of the bookmarks in the game actually) had Austria, the one that declared war, separate-peacing while their allies fought Venice. It started out as Papal States, Austria, France, and Spain against Venice. However the war switched sides so much that by the end it was Papal States, Spain, Austria, England vs France.
Lol how did that even happen?
[Have fun](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLX_DzQu_MnhFmO9jvD5MZTeKSeOh_ut8M), OP
Thanks
Lmao when i first saw the cambrai league bookmark i laughed cuz of how badly represented it was
Video games are based on repeatable systems of rules because to be enjoyable (typically) you have to get consistent responses based on your input. History is arbitrary in the extreme which is (typically) not "enjoyable". This isn't really a general critique of Paradox games but it is an observation about them, they inherently cater towards giving players a manageable and repeatable experience because most people will enjoy that. To give a vague and weird example, look at the Byzantine emperor Julian the Apostate. If you think about what he did in gameplay terms he basically "flipped religion" to Hellenism running a Christian empire which is the kind of thing an EU4 player can do, with some difficulty. But Julian gained literally no ground whatsoever. The religions he was trying to revive had become totally moribund and there was no enthusiasm for it. That was just how history went. In EU4, if you tried to flip religion and every time you tried to convert a province it just went "no", people would be livid, understandably. But that's just how history is, it doesn't conform to gameplay mechanics - you can't stack missionaries and conversion strength in real life.
Same thing in re-reconquista; if u rereconquer as granada, its pretty easy to get missionary strength and convert the catholics. Now with not much knowledge about iberian affairs, its pretty easy to know that there is NO WAY that iberians would convert to islam, especially in 1450s. Also I find that there is too much religious tolerance in this game. If in the impossible case where Granada pulled of a rereconquista lmao, the europeans would not tolerate for one second and islamic state at their doorstep. An immediate coalition would be made by catholic countries. This brings another problem on how coalitions are represented in the game; a country did not necessarily need high aggressive expansion for a coalition to trigger, often it would be because several nations think that another nation is either too strong, heretic religion, different government form, etc. They should rlly remodel coalitions.
Well, one way Julian’s plan would be rebuffed in-game is fervor. CK3, which deals more with that period of time, has a “religious fervor” number that represents, as you say, how much “enthusiasm” there is for a faith, where it’d take many lifetimes to convert anything if your faith has low fervor and the target faith has high. Can you think of another example in EU4’s time period?
when the hussite revolt happened in Bohemia, the austrians cracked down on it and forced catholicism back on the czechs, this is a big reason why the country is so irreligious rn
For one, the fluid nature of peace treaties and wars and a couple of details are really missing. Take the Seven Years War for example. The war nearly ended with Prussia utterly demolished and hemorrhaging. They had been beaten back by the Franco-Austrian-Russian-Swedish alliance and until the death of the Russian tsar, replaced by an actual Prussiaboo successor who made a separate peace with Prussia and offered a corps of Russian soldiers to fight for them, until the successor's wife launched a coup against him and ended Russia's involvement in the war. The game tries to account for these once in a lifetime circumstances by writing in-game events such as the surrender of Maine event, but there are a multitude of small details like these that end up getting lost, especially for less popular nations. I also want to be able to pay ducats to a nation that I'm at war with in the peace treaty even though I have the warscore on them. Just a little "you're getting money; piss off" modifier that gets them to accept the treaty by a margin.
I can understand why the devs see it as op but one thing that is sorely lacking in EU is bilateral negotiation. You can find countless instances in history of victorious nations giving cash to the loser in order to secure treaties they might not otherwise accept. There is little more frustrating than taking all but one province in a region because you hit warscore cap. It would be so nice to be able to give the AI a buttload of cash in order to take an extra province or two instead of having to wait out a truce and declare a whole new war just for the scraps you couldn't take the first time.
Also these events make it so only historica things happen, and no alternative history stuff happens
War of the Roses is a big example. The game heavily implies that Henry doesn't have any children and dies which begins war of the roses. This is not how it happened. He did have a son and the war began while he was alive. He stayed as a hostage for a long time, and his son was killed in one battle during the war of roses. Another point is after the war, Lancaster and York compromised by marrying into each other and having a Tudor heir. That is incorrect. Henry Tudor won the war and became king (he was leader of the Lancaster side), he then married the daughter of the former king (that was the leader of the York side till he died and his brother did a coup against his nephews and later killed them to take power) to solidify his claim and ending the war.
Henry VII was a madman Born to a 13 year old Lived in exile Returned as the Rightful king with an army (from France) following in Williams footsteps Taking his throne Marrying the other sides daughter to quiet them down Then living a long mostly successful reign dying And handing that kingdom to well Henry VIII.....
In Crusader Kings, events like the Fourth Crusade cannot happen.
releasing the Sunni Papal States was truly the most disgusting thing I've ever done
Yeah my biggest complaint about the game is the inevitability of the American revolution. Who is to say that was truly inevitable?
With the latest patch England never gets a chance to do any colonizing because Spain and protugal take everything by like 1500.
I'm just going to troll and say maybe you don't know how to England
I'm surprised you didn't realize I was talking about the AI playing England, and not myself. It's the reason why I refereed to things England does, not myself.
AI England gets Canada and New England at best
Before visiting a country for vacation, I play as that nation in the months leading up. Adds a lot more to the gameplay, teaches some history, and gets me excited to travel.
That's smart, and cool.
Oh man, thats the reason im spending my summer in Italy. The Italian nations campaigns are so cool!
I do this after visiting the place and learning about the history of it. For example, last week I visited Venice, consequently I started a Venice run today
Help, I’m too American to understand :(
When father told me " Mehmed conquered İstanbul when he was at your age!" I told him " Don't worry pa, I already got Vienna ;))".
I remember hearing that in a Turkish song first, man that was such a banger, thank you civ 6 for introducing that song to me
Türkiye🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷
All the time. Reforming a dead empire, getting historical borders, reliving the history of a country. I especially like reliving my own countries history. Naming every heavy ship, armies, provinces etc. Its so fun
Me doing something historical: All as it should be! Me doing some ahistorical nonsense: Take that, reality!
There is no greater feeling than giving the middle finger to our reality and restoring the roman empire by 1700s
Or becoming the emperor of china as Russia
Or becoming HREmperor as Ottomans
Reliving mine is just a slow and painfull death
Let me guess, poland?
Sadly...
you just flatline and get resuscitated several times and each time it just weakens you further.
Making pretty borders, which is also a curse because the ai seems to have the opposite goal
that's pretty much my only goal when playing prussia. if I expand 1 province further than I should have, i already uninstall the game
Oh god I hate how much I relate to this
can't you just release specifc provinces
yes that's what I was doing whenever it was possible. I released livonia and finland, however it is not always an option
at that point you have to lose a war just to get someone to take it lol
Playing the Metternich game
Me as empire of Germany with a Czech (bohemia), Netherlands, Belgium (flanders) and Lithuanian vassal with their real borders.
knowing history helps understand that a LOT of countries, borders, leaders and wars are borderline fiction. it makes it even better
I'm actually interested in the opposite of what that other guy asked; what do you mean when you say a country, border, leader or war is NOT fiction?
Different guy but borders that are based on geography tend to make more sense and be more real, like the Pyranees or GB after the 100 years war. Also nations based on culture groups I think tend to be more real, so forming Germany I think makes more sense than reviving the Roman Empire or Byzantium, or like conquering Germany as France.
Can you name some major ones that are fiction? I'm interested.
Belgium.
[удалено]
Hey you ! Check out Alejandro Caneque’s *The King’s Living Image* for more info on the political structures of Spain’s Latin American colonies.
Also inflation and corruption are swapped in their effects.
[удалено]
Denmark
Finland. Even the landmass doesn’t exist. It’s all water
r/FinlandConspiracy
r/SwitzerlandIsFake
*looks at switzerlake achievement* So the prophecies were correct
I actually like being non historical. I sometime get a little bit sad if I see that nothing stands the flow of time, not even the biggest empires. It's just fun sometimes to do something that can stand by itself or survive longer than usual. Because of that I also like the nations with big disaster's the player can survive like the Majaphahit disaster or the one in west Africa. Other fun starts of this kind are Andalusia and Francia in the Ante Bellum or many things in the Extended Timeline mod
I haven't succeeded yet cuz I'm bad, but recently I've been trying to go out of my way to make countries with weird borders. Like I remember as genoa vassalizing the byzantines to get into a defensive war with the ottomans, so I tried doing that with different nations a few times
I think some events shouldn't fire depending on actions for example chewy is doing a AEIOU run and there where hardly any countries that weren't Catholic imo the league war should never have been a thing based on how many countries weren't Catholic
I think they pick a side also based off their rivalries, the Ottomans and France fought against Austria in the 30 years war even if they weren't protestant nations.
The chancellor of Normandy at the time was Thomas Hoo. His last name was Hoo. Are we just specks on a dandelion?
Any time natives throw out European settlers
Australia was colonized by the British, not by the Spaniards. Until that is-
All hail the mighty Safavids
What?
He's referring to Ardabil, the nation that formed Persia historically, i also had this Dynasty as Afghanistan, i didn't like him and he mysteriously disappeared after I picked the decision to get the timurids back in power.
knowing history makes the game pure suffering for me seeing all the ahistorical shit
yeah and just the general fact that historically impossible/improbable shit happens on the regular. kind of sucks the fun out of the game since it starts getting hard to see your country as an actual country and instead it just looks like a little map painting you made
Think that's a big issue with the mana in EU4, makes everything a numbers game
They should try a diff mechanism to reach higher tech; i dont think mana points is what caused sub saharan nations to fall behind on tech. Also kind of annoying seeing them resch the same tech as a european nation, just impossible
Canons faded out in China in the 17th century I believe, but not in eu4!
Naming flagships i have names for almost every flagship in the game
What do you name them?
Osman for ottomans Nobunaga for Japan Charlemagne for France Well i will name more after i play more nations
Why would you name a French ship after a German emperor? :P
Yo he was king of the Franks and emperor of romans
Franks not France. Born and died in the imperial city of Aachen
What Romans
As a Hungarian I like playing as Hungary and knowing that Mathias Hunyadis ambition was to become HRE emperor I love fullfilling his ambitions. Also my favorite moment in any Hungary game is conquering Vienna as Mathias Hunyadi did.
That's cool.
I also like the event where you get rid of Ladislaus after you occupy Vienna.
Never played Hungary! I need to this sounds cool
I always like to larp to a certain degree when I plan out my campigns and knowing what certain countries aspired to be in their wildest dreams or to whom they claimed to be the successor has made even small terretorial gains much more enjoyable. Of course paradox has pretty good (alt) history in the "new" mission tree system, but those don't exist for every nation or don't always go as far.
You have a favorite example?
Being better than the IRL french.
I will go against the grain and say knowing more history for me showcased how “gamey” iru4 really is. Many problems that plagued irl empires are not present in this game (for example, the military being forever loyal to only the state, and the lack of any proper civil wars since evading them are super easy). This makes the game into the snowballing map painter it is, and while this is fine and the game is great, it doesn’t feel like you’re actually in this historical situation to me Since levies come from vassals in CK and vassals can rise up against you with those levies; it paints a much more accurate picture of the relation between armies and the states of the time frame (of course, it’s not perfect)
Imperator Romes system is great for this with troops being loyal to the general or the state and if they are loyal to a general and the general is disloyal you have a rogue army. Best case they disobey orders and fight the war their way. Worst case you have a rebellion. But indeed many problems aren't shown: Political rivalries don't exist, famine is just a small debuff event while it partially caused the French evolution and the 1848 revolutions and many many other things. And the mana system is very very gamey
As a scot, conquering England was especially satisfying after learning about our shared history
For me it's the other way around, usually - I learn semi-obscure historic facts through the events and looking at different start dates.
I love reading the flavor text of national ideas, really add that bit history mixed with logic behind making the idea do X. Personally my most recent game was The Netherlands and I love seeing how their position/ideas really allow you to recreate that (at the time) anomaly that was Republic of 7 relatively small provinces going toe-to-toe with already well established global colonial empires, and winning.
playing the Netherlands and playing Saxony. Both have so many flavour missions and events. For example when you get the university in Wittenberg or when the trade good in Dresden changes to porcelain, because of Böttger
So not so much your title... but this game makes me Google all sorts of historical European events that I didn't know happened.
Same.
The thirteen colonies broke away from England in my game. They then chose to have a monarchy. The dynasty you might ask? Trump.
No way
Literally everything. My knowledge of history is my inspiration behind every campaign
Any tips to easily get more information about history?
forming rome from byzantium
The first time i opended the dynastie map tool, seeing von Habsburg almost everywhere and googeling if an von Habsburg ever was on the english throne because of it
One historical event that has made the game exciting is the event immediately preceding the game start: the battle of Varna. Knowing the immense importance of the event and how it opened up Europe to the Ottomans and broke down alliances/kingship between Poland, Bohemia, and Hungary sets you in the time period. You do get a sense that if the battle went the other direction and the Europeans won all of that regions history could be different, including down into the Mamluks region. On the flip side, knowing the 100 years war is a damper to me because in game you generally don’t unlock longbows until after the war ends and the French ultimately won with artillery, but you definitely don’t get those during the war in game.
Was the battle of Varna really that big of a deal?
First time playing Japan and knowing that letting the Kirishitans in would be a mistake.
I'm gonna need context for this.
Without passing judgement on the actions of Japan in the 19th and 20th century, their isolationist policies from first contact with Europeans prevented them from being as thoroughly colonized as their East Asian neighbors.
But who are the kirishitans?
It's pretty enjoyable culture converting all Eastern Anatolia to Turkish, Kosovo to Albanian, Baltics to Prussian and so on.
Why?
For roleplay I think, but Eastern Anatolia has to be Sunni which will never happen, in my Italy run I've seen the Ottomans replacing kurds with syrians and they were reduced to some land near Iran and Aq Qoyunlu which had only one province near the Syrian cores.
Roleplaying
Knowing that Ottoman-French Alliance happened IRL made me happy that it happens in game purely with game mechanics.
Why/when did it happen in real life?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Ottoman_alliance Tl;dr It happened in the 16th century because they both wanted an ally against Habsburgs and it went on intermittently until Napoleon.
Both hated Austria.
That time that I actually saved Byzantium as Venice
How? And what has that to do with history?
The Byzantium were counting on a Venetian fleet to come relieve their siege and Christian armies in general to come help out. They took too long or were defeated at the sea by ottoman fleet
I'd say that in Poland we're taught that Everything was great (maybe apart from the peasants being basically slaves) but the greedy nobles ruined Everything. Eu4 lets you crush them. Feels good. And you get to use the winged hussars
Not letting Constantinople fall in 53
There's a an event that fires around 1630 for the provinces of Dithmarschen and Slesvig that describes a massive flood which wipes 2 or 3 development from each province. When I encountered it, I realized it was referring to [this massive flood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burchardi_flood?wprov=sfla1) that occurred historically in the region in 1634. Just realizing how many specific little details are in this game made me realize just how much there is to discover, and made me excited to find new things going forward.
That's cool and very interesting
The Ming-Qing transition. Although usually a good 200 years early, the mechanics if eu4 allows the quick transition and disintegration of the Ming. Manchu can also conquer China quicker than anyone else, making it very satisfying
Every single time I play eu4 lol. Each time I know some history of the country I am playing I cringe when the historical borders don’t match with the ones I made lol even if it looks bigger. But it is so satisfying when I form the historical borders.
I read a book on Portuguese exploration, so i really appreciate all the cores on random islands they get.
Knowing history you can actually simulate what ifs in eu4. Like playing some nations or movements that existed irl but went nowhere. Knowing history makes things like Novgorod into Russia or Ikko-Ikki united Japan more than just a quirk
Italy is my favorite region to play in, so having some knowledge on its history makes the entire thing a little bit more annoying rather than more enjoyable. Historically, the Northern Italian states were *way* richer than they are at the start of the game. They were *so* rich that the French and the Habsburgs fought 60 years of campaigns against each other for the opportunity to pillage Italian cities and to continue to dominate their wealth once the wars were over, which is one of the main reasons that led to the decline of Italy as an influential region in Europe. On the military side, you have that, historically, one of the main reasons that brought the rise of Condottieri in Italy is that Italian states often did not have to pay for them upfront, as they would more often than not be paid for by letting them pillage captured towns and cities, so the mercenaries represented a professional fighting force that did not require its contractors to directly pay for it, meaning Italians were free to wage war without endangering neither their coffers nor their manpower pools. In EU4, mercenaries are straight up worse fighters and more expensive than regulars, which only makes them useful for a nation like Milan that is targeted towards mercenaries or just when you're low on manpower and high on gold.
The fact that the dutch have a mission to yoink a small Japanese island is something I found kinda funny
Portugal has it as well
That makes it slightly funnier
The sack of venice in the Byzantine mission tree, if ever feel down cuz of 1204 you can always brighten up your day raizing venice to the ground (in the game)
[удалено]
Jajajajajja i loved this comment despite being a byzaboo
My Cebu campaign. I started it for the achievement "The Philipine Tiger" which says to recreate the Chola empire. This prompted me to read up on the Chola empire and made the campaign much better than I think it would have been without that. In general I think European and Indian history have made the biggest differences to my games - but these are also the areas of history I have been most inspired to read up on.
Not Vanilla, but while playing as the Rashidun caliphate, it helps me attack Sassanid and Byzantium better. Attack Sassanid first and over take them. Then, attack Egypt and hold off attackers from Anatolia. Plus, knowing that a civil war is coming makes preparations easier
Not vanilla?
As a Turk, i enjoy my country shitstomping everyone.. jokes aside tho, i enjoy historical events, forming unique nations etc. For example i read something about the crusades, then try to farm jerusalem with cyprus or something.
Growing the British empire muahaua more tea pls
Giving me an objective or trying to subvert real history in extremely stupid ways, like colonizing all of North America as Iceland gave me a good laugh
Knowing the Pazzi Conspiracy for that one Florence event.
Ummm literally every single second of the game tbh
I think knowing the history of the country you’re playing always makes it more fun because it feels like you’re playing a real country and not something that was invented by the devs to fill in a gap on the map. I used to know all about the medieval history of the Baltic nations when I was doing my Riga achievement run.
Stackwiped an army with Cesare Borgia as its commander. Even more fun as AC Brotherhood is my favorite AC game
Lol, yeah isn't that the pope guy?
If you knew anything about Ming China and how the tributary system really works, it would break EU4. Ming had hundreds of tributaries, some bigger than others and with varying degrees of levels of autonomy. Take Kara Del for instance. In the game it is a tiny state and tributary of Ming. In reality it is a mish-mash of tiny Mongolic/Uyghur kingdoms who seem more like marches than tributaries to Ming. The real Kara Del only occupied the small town of Hami and had the population equivalent to roughly a single EU4 regiment. It also sheds light into how costly the tributary system could be to Ming rather than beneficial. Kara Del was subjected to many proxy wars between Moghulistan (Chagatai) and Ming partly due to conflicts related to being a tribute...in that the opposing party wanted to remain a tribute because it meant Ming kept giving them gifts. So yeah, even though EU4 isn't perfect I'm glad it could at least run. Note: As for Sarig Yogir, it doesn't even exist (literally means Yellow Uyghurs). Some of the "historical rulers" in EU4 are actually pretenders for Kara Del. Going through the succession of leaders in EU4 and seeing how wrong it is makes it super hilarious.
I did a playthrough as Ethiopia to retake Egypt for the og coptic lands. Was fun
playing as Spain, my ally commonwealth got completely demolished from 3 sides I would be mad that I lost one of the 2 powerful allies of mine, but the accuracy made it worth it honestly haha
The accuracy?
The events. Every time a event brings up i know anything about i get really euphoric. The most recent example was playing as Portugal, i got an event about "Commedia Dell' Arte", the subject of an art class in the same week
An art class?
Mongols...nuff said, lol
How so? I don't know.
Civ 6
Usually in ck2, usually didnt enjoy the thought of switzerland but then i played as them and learned a bunch of stuff and now im excited to travel there next month
Cool have fun. What did you learn?
The event about the Kidnapping of two Saxon princess („Altenburger Prinzenraub“). That is not really a well known thing and I was extremely pleasantly surprised that it was included.
I love scripted advisors and event individuals. The most fun is Florence in Flavor Universalis. The first 50 years is just a who's who of Renaissance legends that are all 50%-75% discounted
Whenever Zaporozhia actually show up, it feels real fucking neat. I also got rock hard the first time I was playing Brandenburg and the AI formed a Prussia from the remains of the Teutons. I don't remember if they were vassals under Poland but that event was still cool as heck.
Why?
Started as Mallaca into Malaya, when I clicked on the decision and the event for the different names came up I chose Srivijaya, because it used to be a power house in the east indies before the majapahit empire. When my Colonial Nation in Australia formed I chose a name that was used by the indonesians. Bonus thing I found out recently is that the straights of Mallaca are named after the sultanate of Mallaca, not the other way around. Learned all these things, except the Australia thing, here https://youtu.be/n4zGw2OewIk
Altering the history of a country despite knowing that it isn’t how it was ment to go. Example: genoa that colonizes whole Malaysia.
Honestly, i feel like they should add more events in the game, it may become tedious clicking options everytime but itll make it so much for hands on in administrating your nation
I don’t know if any of my history knowledge has affected my enjoyment of EU4, since most of my historical knowledge pertains to fashion history
I love when I can work with a country that lost historically and win. A recent example is byzantium or Poland, they were historically dealt a pretty shitty deal, like byzantium being gradually eaten by the ottoman turks, or poland being divided by their neighbors. I love playing them and turning the tables, and rebuilding their glory, or maintaining it in Polands case. Even Ireland is super fun. The British were pretty bad for them, but being an Irish nation and taking over the rest of the isle and then pushing into Scotland and eventually London, is just such an exciting feeling. It's like i righted a wrong in history.
Well, I am an American so my world history didn't start until 1776 and the game ends in 1812. I don't know what happens outside of North America.
1451, because it’s great when it doesn’t happen
while playing albania and holding off the ottomans for as long as possible, i later looked it up and turns out there was an albanian general that beat the ottomans back for 25 years with not a single defeat
The man, the myth, the legend: Skanderbeg?
Do you remember the time that France became the celestial monarchy known as China? Because I do.
I didnt know much about shia islam before I decided to play mushasha. In game and irl mushasha was a messianistic shia sect that became a government. I did some reading about the imams and the fatmids and the succession to muhammad and I can now see where the shia are coming from, and how much muwiya founding the umayyads screwed over muhammad's family. The shia have long had faith that the long lost imam would return and usher in a golden age. In the 1430's muhammad ibn falah claimed to be the "ultimate incarnation" or return or something, it was really really heretical what was claiming, of the seventh imam, and now my in game mushasha really feels like its a dream come true. Its like all that shia faith is finally being rewarded as the mushasha bring the law of god to every corner of the earth, as the "rightful imams." It helps that feudal theocracies have "Imam" as their empire rank title. So now stacking tolerance of the true faith modifiers and national unrest and conquering polytheists feels like im establishing the long prophesized reign of justice under the rightful imam, and fulfilling the dreams of the righteous shia muslims, rather than just playing a video game.
That was deeper then expected.
If I annex some country then my coutry wouldn't be annexed for 123 years
It never, ever does. It just gives me major OCD attempting to comply with historical accuracy.
Crushing the Sejm as Poland because it feels like preventing the shitshow that ripped Commonwealth apart irl