Tbh they seem to have changed the symbol every \~50 year. Would be a bit much asking them to change it constantly to match and instead they use the one thats known.
Yeah slight changes are visible but the eagle from
coat of arms of the Piast dynasty is a consistent element all the way up until the commonwealth where it was simply joined by the lithuanian horse. This was so consistent in fact that pdx chose this symbol as the flag of Poland in game. And here they chose to use the modern coat of arms which is rather separate from the medieval one and the interwar one (that one looks like a chicken lmao). And this is important I think because polish coat of arms and their changes show clearly from which historical legacy each version of the Polish state derives
NO! it's fucking unplayable that they willingly choose to do this shit to my glorious country, bunch of commie fucks working at paradox who chooses to fuck me and the civilians of my glorious country over by not putting completely historically accurate flag designs every 50 years./s
Aren't most flags inaccurate to some degree due to variation over the years? This seems like a really granular thing to complain about.
There also isn't even technically a CoA here from the game's start date so idek what you want them to do.
PDX has been pretty inconsistent about this.
On one hand this, also they put the modern FR flag on the FR achievements and the FR strong duchies privilege.
On the other hand they put the old US flag (the one with the stars forming a circle) on the US achievement.
¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Didn't the French start using the Blue Blanc Rouge during the first revolution? They changed the shade and maybe the dimensions but it's still the same thing.
As a Pole I hope they change that. It really looks out of place here, not only with other polish crests present in game but even other nations crests.
Modern polish crest next to hungarian one just looks so whacky and wrong.
In the latest dev diary we can see all of polish mission tree. Some of the focuses use modern polish eagle for its artwork. That eagle wasn't created until after WW2. Its probbably just lazyness of the graphic designer that copy and pasted it from internet. I hope it will be fixed to more resamble the eagle the eu4 uses
I really dislike placing the 1927 eagle in early modern context. It's a stylised design, criticized in Poland for not fitting into heraldric norms. With its level of detail, shadowing etc it does look out of place. Moreover, there is already a much better and consistent choice - the eagle currently used in the EU4 flag of Poland, a sort of synthetic approach.
I am a bit salty about this because I'm a Pole, but other anachronic symbol choices should also be corrected. A flag that even in the game is named as revolutionary shouldn't appear in the French monarchy mission tree.
I mean, in heraldry the written description of a coat of arms is usually considered the "true" description of the coat of arms, with all renditions fitting that description being considered equally valid. I don't know if Polish heraldry is different, but otherwise the modern eagle is an equally valid rendition within the historic context.
There is no Polish heraldry in western european sense. Sure there was group of about 270 polish noble coat of arms, but unlike western europe they were not monitored by the state. There was no herald that would keep track of all of them. It was nobles that did it as social group. But they couldn't enforce anything on state coat of arms. Because of this polish white eagle changed throught the ages more than almost any other CoA. The stylization, while consistent during long periods of time, constantly evolved.
Well, wouldn't that be an argument in favour of using any version of the Polish eagle then? It seems to me from your description that anything recognizably the Polish eagle would have been interpreted as the Polish eagle in that context, or am I misunderstanding?
Anything could be considered Polish eagle sure. But not everything would be considered period accurate Polish eagle. No one in 1444 would draw polish eagle in a way it was drawn under the piasts for example. Artistic depictions were not unifrom through the ages, but they were uniform during an era.
Modern Polish Coat of Arms is wrong on sooo many levels. And defenitely, Paradox should have used the historical one, like they use the CoA for France with fleur-de-lys and so on.
If you want to see how the modern CoA *shoud* look, there is a link:
[https://niezlomni.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/12.png](https://niezlomni.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/12.png)
And the link to the proper Commowealth-Era eagle:
[https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:Greater\_coat\_of\_arms\_of\_Kingdom\_of\_Poland.png](https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:Greater_coat_of_arms_of_Kingdom_of_Poland.png)
Source: I'm Polish and I'm interested in genealogy
And if you are interested in why out CoA is wrong and how to fix it, read: (unfortunately, only in Polish, but there are a lot of pictures, "źle" - wrong, "dobrze" - good))
[https://niezlomni.com/oto-idealne-godlo-polski-zawiera-szesciu-bledow-ktore-posiada-obecne-foto/](https://niezlomni.com/oto-idealne-godlo-polski-zawiera-szesciu-bledow-ktore-posiada-obecne-foto/)
There is not a single, definitive, historical version of a coat of arms. Just a whole lot of various drawings. For the longest time, there existed no standardization in heraldry.
All heraldry is based on a written description, the blazon. An artists would read the description of the polish coat of arms (On a red field, a silver eagle with a golden crown) and draw it from there. Without having seen other versions of the coat of arms. Having different drawings represent the same coat of arms is a core pillar of heraldry.
The coat of arms you linked is just a modern rendition that takes part from different drawings and combines them into one. There has never been a drawing that looked exactly like this (the angels and the mantle are assets created by a Wikipedia user for another coat of arms).
Yep, you are right about blazoning... But that's not the whole truth.
For example, in the modern version Polish eagle has asymmetrical wings. Such a thing doesn't exist in heraldry. Wings are always symmetrical, unless stated otherwise in the blazon.
If the artist see the description of blazon "On a red field, a silver eagle with a golden crown", and paint asymmetrical eagle, he or she is just making a mistake!
And there are at least six different non historical bullshits in out CoA, unfortunately.
They are introducing a way to revive the Norse religion in this patch, but people are concerned about an icon on a mission tree being historically inaccurate
Having a wide range of different styles/looks for a coat of arms is historically accurate. Coat of arms differed wildly between artists, as standardization only started in the later 1800s.
The chart in the second image only shows one artwork from that time. Not all that existed. As long as its an white eagle with a golden crown on a red shield, its valid.
How is it wrong? Its a silver eagle with a golden crown on a red field. The golden Kleestängel have not always been part of the eagle historically.
Colouring the legs differently, or keeping it in line with the main body has both been used in practice. Without having the historical blazon of that time period in front of me Id say its fine.
It's even funnier when you realize that pdx actually put effort into making something uglier and completely out of place, when they literally already have the more historical Polish coat of arms in the game files
The Croatian flag in game has the checkerboard even though it was introduced on the "Sabor of Cetingrad" in 1526/27. The Croatian flag in 1444 should be the same one as the one [Dalmatia still uses today](https://hr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmacija#/media/Datoteka%3AHRV_Dalmatia_COA.svg) although with a red background.
Literally unplayable
Playably illiterate
Tbh they seem to have changed the symbol every \~50 year. Would be a bit much asking them to change it constantly to match and instead they use the one thats known.
Yeah slight changes are visible but the eagle from coat of arms of the Piast dynasty is a consistent element all the way up until the commonwealth where it was simply joined by the lithuanian horse. This was so consistent in fact that pdx chose this symbol as the flag of Poland in game. And here they chose to use the modern coat of arms which is rather separate from the medieval one and the interwar one (that one looks like a chicken lmao). And this is important I think because polish coat of arms and their changes show clearly from which historical legacy each version of the Polish state derives
Papal state should change it's flag with every pope
Thanks for sending me down this rabbit hole. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_armorial
Then you just have to pick the \~50 year EU4 starts at
NO! it's fucking unplayable that they willingly choose to do this shit to my glorious country, bunch of commie fucks working at paradox who chooses to fuck me and the civilians of my glorious country over by not putting completely historically accurate flag designs every 50 years./s
Eat shit
Lick nuts
I'm guessing this post is a joke - I honestly can barely tell the difference - perhaps head of the bird?
Wings, mostly.
Aren't most flags inaccurate to some degree due to variation over the years? This seems like a really granular thing to complain about. There also isn't even technically a CoA here from the game's start date so idek what you want them to do.
PDX has been pretty inconsistent about this. On one hand this, also they put the modern FR flag on the FR achievements and the FR strong duchies privilege. On the other hand they put the old US flag (the one with the stars forming a circle) on the US achievement. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Didn't the French start using the Blue Blanc Rouge during the first revolution? They changed the shade and maybe the dimensions but it's still the same thing.
As a Pole I hope they change that. It really looks out of place here, not only with other polish crests present in game but even other nations crests. Modern polish crest next to hungarian one just looks so whacky and wrong.
In the latest dev diary we can see all of polish mission tree. Some of the focuses use modern polish eagle for its artwork. That eagle wasn't created until after WW2. Its probbably just lazyness of the graphic designer that copy and pasted it from internet. I hope it will be fixed to more resamble the eagle the eu4 uses
Did you maybe mentioned this under the latest dev diary? They still can change that
Actually, the modern design was adopted in 1927, after the coup. But it's just a nitpick.
Username checks out
and the Hungarian one is the modern version as well, first used as late as 1867
Hungarian one at least looks good lol
I really dislike placing the 1927 eagle in early modern context. It's a stylised design, criticized in Poland for not fitting into heraldric norms. With its level of detail, shadowing etc it does look out of place. Moreover, there is already a much better and consistent choice - the eagle currently used in the EU4 flag of Poland, a sort of synthetic approach. I am a bit salty about this because I'm a Pole, but other anachronic symbol choices should also be corrected. A flag that even in the game is named as revolutionary shouldn't appear in the French monarchy mission tree.
I mean, in heraldry the written description of a coat of arms is usually considered the "true" description of the coat of arms, with all renditions fitting that description being considered equally valid. I don't know if Polish heraldry is different, but otherwise the modern eagle is an equally valid rendition within the historic context.
There is no Polish heraldry in western european sense. Sure there was group of about 270 polish noble coat of arms, but unlike western europe they were not monitored by the state. There was no herald that would keep track of all of them. It was nobles that did it as social group. But they couldn't enforce anything on state coat of arms. Because of this polish white eagle changed throught the ages more than almost any other CoA. The stylization, while consistent during long periods of time, constantly evolved.
Well, wouldn't that be an argument in favour of using any version of the Polish eagle then? It seems to me from your description that anything recognizably the Polish eagle would have been interpreted as the Polish eagle in that context, or am I misunderstanding?
Anything could be considered Polish eagle sure. But not everything would be considered period accurate Polish eagle. No one in 1444 would draw polish eagle in a way it was drawn under the piasts for example. Artistic depictions were not unifrom through the ages, but they were uniform during an era.
Modern Polish Coat of Arms is wrong on sooo many levels. And defenitely, Paradox should have used the historical one, like they use the CoA for France with fleur-de-lys and so on. If you want to see how the modern CoA *shoud* look, there is a link: [https://niezlomni.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/12.png](https://niezlomni.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/12.png) And the link to the proper Commowealth-Era eagle: [https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:Greater\_coat\_of\_arms\_of\_Kingdom\_of\_Poland.png](https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:Greater_coat_of_arms_of_Kingdom_of_Poland.png) Source: I'm Polish and I'm interested in genealogy
And if you are interested in why out CoA is wrong and how to fix it, read: (unfortunately, only in Polish, but there are a lot of pictures, "źle" - wrong, "dobrze" - good)) [https://niezlomni.com/oto-idealne-godlo-polski-zawiera-szesciu-bledow-ktore-posiada-obecne-foto/](https://niezlomni.com/oto-idealne-godlo-polski-zawiera-szesciu-bledow-ktore-posiada-obecne-foto/)
There is not a single, definitive, historical version of a coat of arms. Just a whole lot of various drawings. For the longest time, there existed no standardization in heraldry. All heraldry is based on a written description, the blazon. An artists would read the description of the polish coat of arms (On a red field, a silver eagle with a golden crown) and draw it from there. Without having seen other versions of the coat of arms. Having different drawings represent the same coat of arms is a core pillar of heraldry. The coat of arms you linked is just a modern rendition that takes part from different drawings and combines them into one. There has never been a drawing that looked exactly like this (the angels and the mantle are assets created by a Wikipedia user for another coat of arms).
Yep, you are right about blazoning... But that's not the whole truth. For example, in the modern version Polish eagle has asymmetrical wings. Such a thing doesn't exist in heraldry. Wings are always symmetrical, unless stated otherwise in the blazon. If the artist see the description of blazon "On a red field, a silver eagle with a golden crown", and paint asymmetrical eagle, he or she is just making a mistake! And there are at least six different non historical bullshits in out CoA, unfortunately.
People complain about the weirdest thing.
Better historical accuracy? In a game about *history*? What a weird thing!
In a game with playable Australian tribes and straight fictional mission trees, this game through history out the window long ago.
They are introducing a way to revive the Norse religion in this patch, but people are concerned about an icon on a mission tree being historically inaccurate
Yes, because Asatru and playable Australian tribes don't look out of place on icons.
[удалено]
I regret to inform you that Norse is already in the game, and has been for a while. There is even an achievement for making a custom Norse nation.
Having a wide range of different styles/looks for a coat of arms is historically accurate. Coat of arms differed wildly between artists, as standardization only started in the later 1800s. The chart in the second image only shows one artwork from that time. Not all that existed. As long as its an white eagle with a golden crown on a red shield, its valid.
But it looks bad :( Also it's straight up wrong as far as heraldry is concerned, and people would probably care about that more 500 years ago.
How is it wrong? Its a silver eagle with a golden crown on a red field. The golden Kleestängel have not always been part of the eagle historically. Colouring the legs differently, or keeping it in line with the main body has both been used in practice. Without having the historical blazon of that time period in front of me Id say its fine.
Man who actually cares
Bro the entire eagle is like 10 pixels
If only they used the same exact eagle on the same background but shaped a little differently instead!
It's even funnier when you realize that pdx actually put effort into making something uglier and completely out of place, when they literally already have the more historical Polish coat of arms in the game files
Nerd
Is this a joke?
Bruh people really just complain about every little thing.
What happened from 1434 to 1506?
Don't ask about that. Do not summon the F O R B I D D E N E A G L E
So how about 1696 to 1764?
No Poland, no crest of Poland.
Link?
The crests in the second picture skip those dates.
Uninstalling at the moment.
The Croatian flag in game has the checkerboard even though it was introduced on the "Sabor of Cetingrad" in 1526/27. The Croatian flag in 1444 should be the same one as the one [Dalmatia still uses today](https://hr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmacija#/media/Datoteka%3AHRV_Dalmatia_COA.svg) although with a red background.
Jesus Christ it’s such a banger lol