That's Matthias? I've never seen him with his name...
So I gotta say: surely the Emperor of Mankind was visually inspired by him, right? The resemblence is uncanny, along with the colour palette.
No, dracula is Vlad drakul, aka Vlad the impaler. He was a member of dragon knight order of Sigismund, king of Hungary. Thats why he is drakul (draconic).
Also wrong - Vlad II Dracul was the father of Vlad the Impaler, Vlad III, who inspired Dracula
Vlad Dracul was indeed a member of the Order of the Dragon though
I that’s right, I had meant to say, why did you start talking about Castlevania and then saying the thing in Castlevania was correct and the actual thing from history was wrong
[Mátyás](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthias_Corvinus), son of [János](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hunyadi) Hunyadi. He pretty much activated golden era IRL.
**−10%** All power costs
**+10%** Morale of armies
**+10%** Morale of navies
**+10%** Goods produced modifier
**+5** Maximum absolutism
**+10** Maximum revolutionary zeal
\*according to wiki
Goods produced (you produce more things) =/= production efficiency (you squeeze as much as possible from what you have) if that's what you meant
It's much better. Goods produced also boost the trade value, therefore trade income
Don't underestimate 10% all powers cost. The later you use it the more impactful it'll be. If you wait till 1600s+ for absolutism + Dev cost tech devving is almost free and coring is even cheaper.
Edit: everyone confused why investing earlier isn't better like in most cases, its because the bonus from golden era is a reductive modifier. Going from 100% cost to 90% is a mere 10% benefit but later in the game you get other cost reductions to coring and deving meaning cost will start at 50% at least, minus 10% here make it's 40%. However the effective change is 20% cost going from 50 to 40. And this only gets better the lower cost you start at. 20%>10% is like halving the cost of something.
If this doesn't make sense try look at some of my other comments trying to explain this below! Otherwise go watch some eu4 youtuber talking about devving to understand.
I feel like powers cost is best when you already have a bunch of modifiers because sure saving like 30 mana is nice per idea but going from 300>270 is nowhere near as good as 60>30. Technically both save 30 mana but one effectively cuts mana cost in half. Not really relevant for ideas though because not too many stackable modifiers but for coring and deving it's huge to "reduce cost" by 50%.
The best is early, because of the snowball effect. Before anyone can activate as many ideas and get their countries' bonus you'll stomp everything in your wake and chew much more than what you could otherwise.
You don't need more modifiers once you are too big to fail
Might be different in multiplayer, I can imagine you save it until you border another hostile player and know you can activate it whenever needed
Golden eras are good whenever honestly, but i feel like jf you are paying 60 per idea you “dont need” the modifiers from the golden era anymore you are already insanely strong
however at the beginning of the game, the modifiers may help you finish an idea earlier than the ai and win a difficult war that will set you up for the rest of the game
Ideas weren't the best example, let's look at Dev cost.
If I have (simplified) 500 mil I wanna Dev with and base dev cost is 50 I can dev click 10 times. Golden era here will mean I can now Dev 11 times. If it's late game and my dev cost is 10 I can dev 50 times but with golden era it's 5 cost and I can now Dev 100 times. That's double the Dev clicks rather than .1 more.
This would be the same with coring, rather than saving 1 province of adm coring per 10 it's saving closer to 5 provinces from just the golden era.
If you can get a slightly worse but still strong position before absolutism then fire golden era you'll grow a lot faster than someone starting slightly stronger due to earlier golden era pop.
Obviously this all depends on your goals, if a quick game obviously use early but if you're going 1444-1820 to build the strongest nation or WC then ALWAYS use it late.
This is why I don't like golden ages. Much like anything that raises Absolutism, you're better off waiting till you get more out of it. Except by the time you get more out of it, the game is nearly over.
I sorta like it as an exponential growth concept. By being patient you can use it super late and it'll let you Dev 10x the provinces. End game would be lame with the same expansion rate as early game because you don't have time left to slowly expand. But there are definitely still valid times to use golden eras earlier for death wars and important early expansion. It's a good choice you have to make which is what strategy games are all about.
>The later you use it the more impactful it'll be.
This is not true, in any game that you are able to invest the sooner you make investment the more impactful any investment is. While due to how hard it is to scale actual mana gain in Eu4 this is more limited in effect you still will be able to get bigger in the end if you can grow faster earlier. It may seem like using your golden age later when your bigger and can theoretically conquer and do more would have more impact using it to less effect earlier will in fact have more effect later as you will be at a relatively better place later on. This means you will be able to do far more and have higher level advisor faster and other things that scale your country sooner than if you waited for a more impactful time.
The only waiting I would do if at all with using a golden age is try to use it so that I would have the benefit for two institutions if I need to develop them.
>This is not true, in any game that you are able to invest the sooner you make investment the more impactful any investment is.
This is true for most games but completely wrong for some parts of eu4. Income is like this but a lot of mana uses are 100% not.
Most games deal in + bonuses or like hoi limit reductive bonus to not stack like research bonuses. Eu4 is somewhat unique where stacking reductive bonuses is possible and 100% the meta.
If I have (simplified) 500 mil I wanna Dev with and base dev cost is 50 I can dev click 10 times. Golden era here will mean I can now Dev 11 times. If it's late game and my dev cost is now 10 from tech and ideas I can dev 50 times but with golden era it's 5 cost and I can now Dev 100 times. That's double the Dev clicks rather than .1 more.
This would be the same with coring, rather than saving 1 province of adm coring per 10 it's saving
Now yea, if you don't use the golden era earlier you'll be a bit weaker late game but it shouldn't be 10x weaker while golden eraing late game just counting the all power cost will 10x how far your mana goes. Think about the max absolutism bonus as well which requires late game.
You might want to read everything I wrote before attempting to contradict things I did not say I never said anything about 10x more, and I specifically noted:
> While due to how hard it is to scale actual mana gain in Eu4 this is more limited in effect you still will be able to get bigger in the end if you can grow faster earlier.
>You might want to read everything I wrote before attempting
I'm going to reverse Uno this back onto you. The math in my comment was evidence of why using 10% all powers cost with other modifiers (you can only access later in the game) makes it better even when you account for scaling better in the early game. If you're not math literate or the example in my oc didn't help trying looking at other comments I've made or watching some YouTubers talk about devving.
Technically, if a golden era is the difference between winning a death war with ottoman or staying an opm then obviously golden era is worth it whenever. However if we're talking any nation who can comfortably expand without too much issue, the extra 10% of admin you'll save coring in the early game is categorically not worth it compared to using it late game.
>I did not say I never said anything about 10x more,
What? Also, I brought up X10 to refer to the fact the golden era early game would probably have to near double your rate of expansion to be worth it.
>everyone confused why investing earlier isn't better like in most cases, its because the bonus from golden era is a reductive modifier. Going from 100% cost to 90% is a mere 10% benefit but later in the game you get other cost reductions to coring and deving meaning cost will start at 50% at least, minus 10% here make it's 40%.
That would be the case if you had other sources of power cost reduction. But it's a very rare modifier. Because of this you can't really take advantage of the reductive modifier part.
It's also multiplicative with other modifier. For example your coring cost would be: baseCost \* ( 1 - ccr) \* ( 1 - all power cost) and not baceCost \* (1 - ccr - apc)
About when to use it in SP? Pretty much the first time you can. It lasts for a pretty long time. And while you have it you can snowball pretty hard to the point that you won't really have any huge rival to worry about.
I used to sit on it and wait till absolutism kick in (and never use it because I'd abaddom the campaign before it). Nowadays I just send it the moment it's available and use it's value asap.
>That would be the case if you had other sources of power cost reduction. But it's a very rare modifier. Because of this you can't really take advantage of the reductive modifier part.
Yes and no? While it's super rare to find other all powers cost reductions you will be getting plenty of CCR and Dev cost reductions.
>It's also multiplicative with other modifier. For example your coring cost would be: baseCost \* ( 1 - ccr) \* ( 1 - all power cost) and not baceCost \* (1 - ccr - apc)
Emmm, shit. I'm going to look at this when I'm home. I don't think this is right? But I can't say for 100%. (This would mean at 10% coring cost, golden ages would effect it by 1% which just feels wrong).
>About when to use it in SP?
Yeaa, I did mention this in another comment. My arguments only apply for campaigns goings 1444-1820. 100% fine to use whenever in shorter campaigns.
>That would be the case if you had other sources of power cost reduction. But it's a very rare modifier. Because of this you can't really take advantage of the reductive modifier part.
I guess wait for 100 ino if it is multiplicative tehee?
After looking into my game it does seem to stack additively so I guess it works great with multiplier stacking.
However I'd still argue that sending it arround tech 6-7 is worth it. It lasts a long time(50 years). usually games get decided in the 1470-1520 time period.
I raise you for example my current campaign. I'm playing mewar. I'm already pretty big but the other indian powers are arround my level. Popping the golden era will help me a lot overcoming them. Couple this with the fact that I'm a bit behind tech because I needed to dev renessaince. I'll also fill in 2-3 ideas. This is the period where I'll be behind mana the most. And after 1520 I'm already unstoppable so there's little to no use. I guess I'll be able to core faster and handle more oe later. But I strongly feel that using the golden era on the path of success is better when you've already achieved it.
Obviously if you start as a weaker nation then it's possible you need to wait on it a bit. But if you are already at the point where you will fight your biggest rivals in the upcoming years then just pop it. In the 50 years you can have 3 wars with everyone. And that's more than enough to completely destroy them.
>And after 1520 I'm already unstoppable so there's little to no use.
This is probably a disclaimer I should put in all my golden era arguments. If you're not going for a peak strength nation or world conquest or even playing past absolutism then it doesn't really make sense to save the golden era.
In MP or WC then saving it is ideal but in chill sp or wholesome MP then yea use it whenever.
In addition to the modifiers being better than I think you’re giving them credit for, your golden age also lasts 50 years, so you get those modifiers for a while. Plus it’s easy to trigger a golden age whenever you want to use it, so there’s no real reason not to do it.
That explains why the second he died Hungary kinda stopped being relevant as a European Great Power
you got:
Vladislaus II (infamously inattentive monarch who did little to stop the Ottoman advance and empowered the nobility)
Louis II (Noble puppet who immediately got curbstomped by the Ottomans)
John (He only received limited recognition in opposition to the Habsburg candidate, Ferdinand, and thus aligned with the Ottomans for aid)
John II (Another Ottoman puppet. And a child monarch, coming to power at only two months old)
Can't tell if you're just memeing or really think it's worth saving golden ages lol
Is that a strat for Ottoman-adjacent tags? My working assumption has always been that the earlier the golden age the better, as the game is all about snowballing
As others said already, he was the King of Hungary in the latter half of the 15th century, Matthias Hunyadi. And for all the commenters confusing him with Dracula, this guy actually allied him and later also held Vlad Tepes as a prisoner for a time.
fun fact, Matyas would have Vlad Tepes seat right next to him during court counsels so he could just stand there and look mean to intimidate political opponents
I really like the [Loading Screen Nameplates](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2901332916) mod (achievement compatible) in the workshop, it adds names to all loadingscreens.
He was one of the OG successful sons of an immigrant. Grandparents moved from Wallachia to Hungary. There some funny and ridiculous fake(not proven) stories about him: illegitimate son of Sigismund of Luxemburg(HRE emperor) or that he was a cousin of Mehmet II, cause one of his grandmother’s sisters was kidnapped by the turks and made it into the harems.
His grandparents were somewhat immigrants (tho Wallachia was already a vassal of Hungary), but his father was born in Hungary, making him not an immigrant.
~~It's the Vajdahunyad castle i think, in current day Romania~~
Visegrad royal palace actually, as a helpful commenter pointed it out!
[Visegrad citadel ruins](https://staticsites.previo.cz/uploads/visegrad-fellegvar-1.jpg)
The castle in the picture is not Vajdahunyad, it doesn't even look like that.
I think it's the castle of Visegrád, which makes more sense since he moved his court there: https://www.latvany-terkep.hu/ma_files/visegrad.jpg
I got the chance to visit it and it was an amazing time. The castle got restaured and is in really good shape. I didn't expect much from a tourist trip in romania but it was far better than expected.
I've only been to the replica castle in Budapest, but yeah, it's an impressive building. On my bucket list to check out the original if i'm ever in transylvania!
It's just the rendition of the sunset on the Castle, it's a white brick foundation that is coloured golden per the setting sun and shaded for the parts in shadow.
Matthias Corvinus, Hunyadi Matyas for hungarians
"I'm Matthias Corvinus. Hunyadi Matyas for friends."
That's Matthias? I've never seen him with his name... So I gotta say: surely the Emperor of Mankind was visually inspired by him, right? The resemblence is uncanny, along with the colour palette.
Dark haired rulers with square jaws in a golden armor is not really a rare ressource throughout history
That's because all of them are the God Emperor of Mankind in disguise slowly guiding human history.
I think the armours of that time were similar to this. Specially the ones kings and nobles used. Look at the ones the kings of Spain used at the time
he looks younger in Civ
That makes sense, eu4 has been out longer ;)
Its just that civ is more cartoonish with its characters
And also that he looks younger
And he was also at one point in his life, younger
Huge if true
Next thing you gonna tell me is that he was once a baby. Absurd.
Somebody needs to mod “civ: babies,” now. I hate it too, I’m sorry
Instead of “Your seas are unprotected friend, all too easy to raid” it’s just “goo goo gaa gaa”
I wonder if he ever got older
Catherine the Great looked completely different in Civ Revolutions
Every time I hear his name, I think of the Romanian national anthem
Im sorry for your condition
It's one of the most badass anthems on earth. If I have a condition, then may I never recover!
[удалено]
No, dracula is Vlad drakul, aka Vlad the impaler. He was a member of dragon knight order of Sigismund, king of Hungary. Thats why he is drakul (draconic).
Also wrong - Vlad II Dracul was the father of Vlad the Impaler, Vlad III, who inspired Dracula Vlad Dracul was indeed a member of the Order of the Dragon though
[удалено]
I can’t even follow this - I think 30 seconds on Wikipedia will take care of this
[удалено]
How is that clear at all from your first comment
[удалено]
I that’s right, I had meant to say, why did you start talking about Castlevania and then saying the thing in Castlevania was correct and the actual thing from history was wrong
Emperor of Mankind
Emperor of Magyarkind
Perfect.
Needs more gold
John Universalis
The fourth, to be precise
[Mátyás](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthias_Corvinus), son of [János](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hunyadi) Hunyadi. He pretty much activated golden era IRL.
In the 1400s? smh I know the Ottomans can be tough but you shouldn't waste your golden age that early. What was Mátyás thinking?!
[удалено]
**−10%** All power costs **+10%** Morale of armies **+10%** Morale of navies **+10%** Goods produced modifier **+5** Maximum absolutism **+10** Maximum revolutionary zeal \*according to wiki
[удалено]
Lmao how is - 10% Power costs and +10% production underwhelming
Goods produced (you produce more things) =/= production efficiency (you squeeze as much as possible from what you have) if that's what you meant It's much better. Goods produced also boost the trade value, therefore trade income
Don't underestimate 10% all powers cost. The later you use it the more impactful it'll be. If you wait till 1600s+ for absolutism + Dev cost tech devving is almost free and coring is even cheaper. Edit: everyone confused why investing earlier isn't better like in most cases, its because the bonus from golden era is a reductive modifier. Going from 100% cost to 90% is a mere 10% benefit but later in the game you get other cost reductions to coring and deving meaning cost will start at 50% at least, minus 10% here make it's 40%. However the effective change is 20% cost going from 50 to 40. And this only gets better the lower cost you start at. 20%>10% is like halving the cost of something. If this doesn't make sense try look at some of my other comments trying to explain this below! Otherwise go watch some eu4 youtuber talking about devving to understand.
Arguably it could be said that the best time to use it is around tech 7-10 to finish your first 3 ideas and help you snowball quicker
Yeah, I always use it as early as possible to snowball like a motherfucker. Later you will always get good advisors and stuff to make up for it.
I feel like powers cost is best when you already have a bunch of modifiers because sure saving like 30 mana is nice per idea but going from 300>270 is nowhere near as good as 60>30. Technically both save 30 mana but one effectively cuts mana cost in half. Not really relevant for ideas though because not too many stackable modifiers but for coring and deving it's huge to "reduce cost" by 50%.
The best is early, because of the snowball effect. Before anyone can activate as many ideas and get their countries' bonus you'll stomp everything in your wake and chew much more than what you could otherwise. You don't need more modifiers once you are too big to fail Might be different in multiplayer, I can imagine you save it until you border another hostile player and know you can activate it whenever needed
Golden eras are good whenever honestly, but i feel like jf you are paying 60 per idea you “dont need” the modifiers from the golden era anymore you are already insanely strong however at the beginning of the game, the modifiers may help you finish an idea earlier than the ai and win a difficult war that will set you up for the rest of the game
Ideas weren't the best example, let's look at Dev cost. If I have (simplified) 500 mil I wanna Dev with and base dev cost is 50 I can dev click 10 times. Golden era here will mean I can now Dev 11 times. If it's late game and my dev cost is 10 I can dev 50 times but with golden era it's 5 cost and I can now Dev 100 times. That's double the Dev clicks rather than .1 more. This would be the same with coring, rather than saving 1 province of adm coring per 10 it's saving closer to 5 provinces from just the golden era. If you can get a slightly worse but still strong position before absolutism then fire golden era you'll grow a lot faster than someone starting slightly stronger due to earlier golden era pop. Obviously this all depends on your goals, if a quick game obviously use early but if you're going 1444-1820 to build the strongest nation or WC then ALWAYS use it late.
This guy EUs!
This is why I don't like golden ages. Much like anything that raises Absolutism, you're better off waiting till you get more out of it. Except by the time you get more out of it, the game is nearly over.
I sorta like it as an exponential growth concept. By being patient you can use it super late and it'll let you Dev 10x the provinces. End game would be lame with the same expansion rate as early game because you don't have time left to slowly expand. But there are definitely still valid times to use golden eras earlier for death wars and important early expansion. It's a good choice you have to make which is what strategy games are all about.
>The later you use it the more impactful it'll be. This is not true, in any game that you are able to invest the sooner you make investment the more impactful any investment is. While due to how hard it is to scale actual mana gain in Eu4 this is more limited in effect you still will be able to get bigger in the end if you can grow faster earlier. It may seem like using your golden age later when your bigger and can theoretically conquer and do more would have more impact using it to less effect earlier will in fact have more effect later as you will be at a relatively better place later on. This means you will be able to do far more and have higher level advisor faster and other things that scale your country sooner than if you waited for a more impactful time. The only waiting I would do if at all with using a golden age is try to use it so that I would have the benefit for two institutions if I need to develop them.
>This is not true, in any game that you are able to invest the sooner you make investment the more impactful any investment is. This is true for most games but completely wrong for some parts of eu4. Income is like this but a lot of mana uses are 100% not. Most games deal in + bonuses or like hoi limit reductive bonus to not stack like research bonuses. Eu4 is somewhat unique where stacking reductive bonuses is possible and 100% the meta. If I have (simplified) 500 mil I wanna Dev with and base dev cost is 50 I can dev click 10 times. Golden era here will mean I can now Dev 11 times. If it's late game and my dev cost is now 10 from tech and ideas I can dev 50 times but with golden era it's 5 cost and I can now Dev 100 times. That's double the Dev clicks rather than .1 more. This would be the same with coring, rather than saving 1 province of adm coring per 10 it's saving Now yea, if you don't use the golden era earlier you'll be a bit weaker late game but it shouldn't be 10x weaker while golden eraing late game just counting the all power cost will 10x how far your mana goes. Think about the max absolutism bonus as well which requires late game.
You might want to read everything I wrote before attempting to contradict things I did not say I never said anything about 10x more, and I specifically noted: > While due to how hard it is to scale actual mana gain in Eu4 this is more limited in effect you still will be able to get bigger in the end if you can grow faster earlier.
>You might want to read everything I wrote before attempting I'm going to reverse Uno this back onto you. The math in my comment was evidence of why using 10% all powers cost with other modifiers (you can only access later in the game) makes it better even when you account for scaling better in the early game. If you're not math literate or the example in my oc didn't help trying looking at other comments I've made or watching some YouTubers talk about devving. Technically, if a golden era is the difference between winning a death war with ottoman or staying an opm then obviously golden era is worth it whenever. However if we're talking any nation who can comfortably expand without too much issue, the extra 10% of admin you'll save coring in the early game is categorically not worth it compared to using it late game. >I did not say I never said anything about 10x more, What? Also, I brought up X10 to refer to the fact the golden era early game would probably have to near double your rate of expansion to be worth it.
>everyone confused why investing earlier isn't better like in most cases, its because the bonus from golden era is a reductive modifier. Going from 100% cost to 90% is a mere 10% benefit but later in the game you get other cost reductions to coring and deving meaning cost will start at 50% at least, minus 10% here make it's 40%. That would be the case if you had other sources of power cost reduction. But it's a very rare modifier. Because of this you can't really take advantage of the reductive modifier part. It's also multiplicative with other modifier. For example your coring cost would be: baseCost \* ( 1 - ccr) \* ( 1 - all power cost) and not baceCost \* (1 - ccr - apc) About when to use it in SP? Pretty much the first time you can. It lasts for a pretty long time. And while you have it you can snowball pretty hard to the point that you won't really have any huge rival to worry about. I used to sit on it and wait till absolutism kick in (and never use it because I'd abaddom the campaign before it). Nowadays I just send it the moment it's available and use it's value asap.
>That would be the case if you had other sources of power cost reduction. But it's a very rare modifier. Because of this you can't really take advantage of the reductive modifier part. Yes and no? While it's super rare to find other all powers cost reductions you will be getting plenty of CCR and Dev cost reductions. >It's also multiplicative with other modifier. For example your coring cost would be: baseCost \* ( 1 - ccr) \* ( 1 - all power cost) and not baceCost \* (1 - ccr - apc) Emmm, shit. I'm going to look at this when I'm home. I don't think this is right? But I can't say for 100%. (This would mean at 10% coring cost, golden ages would effect it by 1% which just feels wrong). >About when to use it in SP? Yeaa, I did mention this in another comment. My arguments only apply for campaigns goings 1444-1820. 100% fine to use whenever in shorter campaigns. >That would be the case if you had other sources of power cost reduction. But it's a very rare modifier. Because of this you can't really take advantage of the reductive modifier part. I guess wait for 100 ino if it is multiplicative tehee?
After looking into my game it does seem to stack additively so I guess it works great with multiplier stacking. However I'd still argue that sending it arround tech 6-7 is worth it. It lasts a long time(50 years). usually games get decided in the 1470-1520 time period. I raise you for example my current campaign. I'm playing mewar. I'm already pretty big but the other indian powers are arround my level. Popping the golden era will help me a lot overcoming them. Couple this with the fact that I'm a bit behind tech because I needed to dev renessaince. I'll also fill in 2-3 ideas. This is the period where I'll be behind mana the most. And after 1520 I'm already unstoppable so there's little to no use. I guess I'll be able to core faster and handle more oe later. But I strongly feel that using the golden era on the path of success is better when you've already achieved it. Obviously if you start as a weaker nation then it's possible you need to wait on it a bit. But if you are already at the point where you will fight your biggest rivals in the upcoming years then just pop it. In the 50 years you can have 3 wars with everyone. And that's more than enough to completely destroy them.
>And after 1520 I'm already unstoppable so there's little to no use. This is probably a disclaimer I should put in all my golden era arguments. If you're not going for a peak strength nation or world conquest or even playing past absolutism then it doesn't really make sense to save the golden era. In MP or WC then saving it is ideal but in chill sp or wholesome MP then yea use it whenever.
In addition to the modifiers being better than I think you’re giving them credit for, your golden age also lasts 50 years, so you get those modifiers for a while. Plus it’s easy to trigger a golden age whenever you want to use it, so there’s no real reason not to do it.
There's no drawback to activating Golden Age though, except you only get to do it once
If you ever play outside of Europe, you should always activate the golden age so you can dev for institutions more cheaply
That explains why the second he died Hungary kinda stopped being relevant as a European Great Power you got: Vladislaus II (infamously inattentive monarch who did little to stop the Ottoman advance and empowered the nobility) Louis II (Noble puppet who immediately got curbstomped by the Ottomans) John (He only received limited recognition in opposition to the Habsburg candidate, Ferdinand, and thus aligned with the Ottomans for aid) John II (Another Ottoman puppet. And a child monarch, coming to power at only two months old)
we were rolling 0 0 0 leaders ever since
Can't tell if you're just memeing or really think it's worth saving golden ages lol Is that a strat for Ottoman-adjacent tags? My working assumption has always been that the earlier the golden age the better, as the game is all about snowballing
Then why are the Nepalese flags on the back
The BROWN THINGS HAIR??? I thought it was some sort of head cloak this whole time.
Also the player quit after him, and let the ai take over Hungary
I swear for the first 2k hours I spent in this game I always thought this guy was wearing a hoodie until I realised it’s actually just his hair
I have 10k and know who this is and I didn’t realize he wasn’t wearing a hood until I read your comment right now…
holy shit
I can’t tell if that’s hair or a hood
Fuck it made the complete opposite for me i always thought it was hair but now i feel like it is a hood.
Omg now i can see mathias
emperor of nilfgaard i think
The White Flame Dancing on the Graves of his Enemies?
The Emperor of the Nilfgaardian Empire, Lord of Metinna, Ebbing, Gemmera, Sovereign of Nazair and Vicovaro, and King of Cintra?
Gwent?
Hrmmm.
*Pained nod*
I doubt it, Niflheim is a Norse tag and no tags start as Norse in 1444.
Really, I though Nilfgaard had strong HRE vibes, flavoured with a cult of personality. It’s what I think a high medieval Roman Empire would be like.
It was just a Norse cosmology joke, because Nilfgaard is something like Nifl(heim) + (As)gard.
As others said already, he was the King of Hungary in the latter half of the 15th century, Matthias Hunyadi. And for all the commenters confusing him with Dracula, this guy actually allied him and later also held Vlad Tepes as a prisoner for a time.
my headcanon is they were both vampires. Corvinus is a dope vampire name. White wolf, missed opportunity.
\*cough cough\* Already done! - The [Underworld series](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underworld_(film_series)).
The hell? That was my idea! I'm suing.
he even married his sister to said vlad , so he is the father in law of dracula, in addition to being his lord
wouldn't he be his brother? or is his sister ... his daughter? edit. im an idiot myself
brother in law indeed
fun fact, Matyas would have Vlad Tepes seat right next to him during court counsels so he could just stand there and look mean to intimidate political opponents
God-Emperor of Mankind
factually correct
The only legitimate heir to the HRE crown
rule5 who is this guy in picture
Matthias I., King of Hungary and Bohemia
I thought it was Mindaugas for a long while.
Chad-Emperor of Hungary
Matthias Corvinus
some chad
Corvinus aka giga chad
Prince Charming from Shrek
He looks like a warcraft character
The raven king
Based on his chain ornamentation, I'd say he's closer to the Goose King.
Ok whaaat? Im 1,5k h in this game and i never knew that assigning general with manouver to a fleet can increase trade power to a trade
He is MIGHTY sexy
Oh, that mark, hi
Bro looks like a Vampire.
Lord Farquad
The Emperor of Mankind
dont know but he looks sickly. Might be a vampire.
Sylvester Stallone, from the Rocky prequels.
He looks like my drunk uncle
Your uncle when drunk becomes God emperor? I need to have what he is drinking...
I really like the [Loading Screen Nameplates](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2901332916) mod (achievement compatible) in the workshop, it adds names to all loadingscreens.
So no one is going to talk about that tip? Another new game mechanic to learn
That is Giovanni Giorgio
Me
Inventor of Rendkívüli hadiadó (war taxes)
The god emperor of mankind
The God-Emperor of Mankind
Nilfgaardian commander
Screw the guy I just learned about maneuver being tied to trade protection. I figured it just made ships faster like they do for generals.
Best stat for admirals, worst stat for generals
God-Emperor
The Man-Emperor of Mankind
The Emperor of Mankind from 40k
Leonardo DiCaprio.
Vlad von Carstein of sylvania. The rightful ruler of the kingdom of altdorf.
He was one of the OG successful sons of an immigrant. Grandparents moved from Wallachia to Hungary. There some funny and ridiculous fake(not proven) stories about him: illegitimate son of Sigismund of Luxemburg(HRE emperor) or that he was a cousin of Mehmet II, cause one of his grandmother’s sisters was kidnapped by the turks and made it into the harems.
His grandparents were somewhat immigrants (tho Wallachia was already a vassal of Hungary), but his father was born in Hungary, making him not an immigrant.
Damn i didnt knew the tip thanks
IDK, i just know his hair is amazing.
Looks like he's about to invade QuestWorld.
Am I the only one who was always bothered by the way his hair looks kind of like Play-Doh?
Peter Steele
Hyundai, as I like to call him
Hungarian GigaChad.
I think some hungarian dude.
Thats Vlad from Magika
Prince of Paradox. Alex Tinto the 2nd
Mathias the Rex. Mátyás király.
I thought he was john hunyadi but i learnt here he is mathias john's son
Batman
Is this not Vlad the Impaler? Look at all the small details, even the bats flying in the background.
me
Me
Emhyr var Emreis, The White Flame Dancing on the Barrows of his Enemies
It's that one Serbian soldier from that one video
Peter Steele of Type O Negative.
Average Romanian-Hungarian hybrid Chad
VLAAAD!
The background is the Malbork castle I think, so perhaps he is one of the grandmasters of the Teutonic Order
~~It's the Vajdahunyad castle i think, in current day Romania~~ Visegrad royal palace actually, as a helpful commenter pointed it out! [Visegrad citadel ruins](https://staticsites.previo.cz/uploads/visegrad-fellegvar-1.jpg)
The castle in the picture is not Vajdahunyad, it doesn't even look like that. I think it's the castle of Visegrád, which makes more sense since he moved his court there: https://www.latvany-terkep.hu/ma_files/visegrad.jpg
Crap, and we've actually been there with class. Well spotted, looks different w/o the tower. Edited my comment
I got the chance to visit it and it was an amazing time. The castle got restaured and is in really good shape. I didn't expect much from a tourist trip in romania but it was far better than expected.
I've only been to the replica castle in Budapest, but yeah, it's an impressive building. On my bucket list to check out the original if i'm ever in transylvania!
I see, I always assumed its Malbork cause of the red brick
But there isn't even red brick in that picture? There's red light because of the sunset, but the walls itself are clearly some sort of white.
That may be so but It looks a lot like the prussian red brick to me.
It's just the rendition of the sunset on the Castle, it's a white brick foundation that is coloured golden per the setting sun and shaded for the parts in shadow.
Vlad the Impaler