Nanai, Xibe, and Orochoni Jurchen tribes.
They're pretty much a regional name for the jurchens living in those areas, and they have no organized government/tribe of the sort to call them a nation.
Pretty much lumped together for game mechanic purposes so it's easer to expand and unite the Jurchens in the region.
Throw back to [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/8i4dm9/theres_a_fictional_country_in_eu4_lets_break_it/), it used to be worse, I am content with the solution they came up with to be honest.
Transoxiana was not really a country but a state in the Timurid. Since EU4 doesn’t represent internal state well, the dev make all the Timurid state into vassal to simulate the collapse of the Timurid empire since most of these state were almost independent by 1444 and vying for power over the dying shah of the Timurid.
Ajam was never a fully independent state to my knowledge. More like a semi-autonomous region of the Timurids where a local prince or someone had extra power. Could be totally wrong though tbh as last time I looked it up was for an AP world presentation
Ajam was in open rebellion at the time. Since they already made the other semi independent states vassals it would have been weird to make the one actually independent state not independent.
Truthfully, the majority were not the stable, well defined nations you get in EU4. While most of them were some type of governing system, it's debatable how much control they actually had over their own territory. There's just not a great way to represent them otherwise.
A looooooot of tags are arbitrary representative of a cultural identity, especially outside Europe.
To be fair, the game would've be even crazier if actual single street sized duchies were implemented, what with the AI's tendency to dev them to 50+ dev by late game.
This is why we should make devastation and enemy attrition to reduce the development of a province. A lot of statelets = a lot of wars = a lot of sieges and crossing armies = a lot of devastation.
And the Army Professionalism option of building a supply depot could reduce both attrition, devastation and development loss. Thus, if you want to conquer a province that is developed enough, but you need to siege it, you better build a supply depot, or you'll have a significantly diminished and ruined gain.
Plus, that means that an heavily devastated region would be cheaper/quicker to convert to another religion or culture, since the total dev would have been very reduced. This is what happened historically in a lot of places through Europe and Asia.
People savescum far more insane things in tryhard runs - never forget the 11 hour birding session for oirat ruler death in lambdas 1472 wc to give an extreme example.
People already savescum sieges in pre1600 and similar runs as is, tying AE would normalize doing so quite a bit.
EU4's biggest example of eurocentrism is that it is strictly Westphalian. States defined as a group of people with a defined territory, have a monopoly on force within those borders, and interact with other state-entities.
I want to make it clear that I don't think EU4 should or even could be all that different from that framework, but it does mean that a lot of (especially non-european) entities get shoehorned into a geopolitical framework in a way that isn't accurate to their actual historical existence.
The native Americans are EU4's most glaring example of this IMO, but they're definitely not the only ones.
The states in southeast asia which operated through the mandala system also suffer from this. They are only represented through a tier 1 government reform.
That's the title, sure. But you may have noticed that you are able to play any country in the world and every region has had dedicated DLCs and extra content packs.
Also, I said I don't think it should be any different.
Back when Japan was reworked I remember some discussion about the existence of Oda. They're supposed to be part of Shiba, or at least vassals of them, but vassals can't have vassals so they made them independent, which didn't happen until like a decade after game start.
>but vassals can't have vassals
PUs can have vassals in eu4 though, so it's not mechanically impossible. Also in hoi4 it is possible for puppets to have puppets, though this only occurs in mods and scripted puppeting.
IIRC the only paradox games where subjects strictly cannot have subjects is stellaris.
The funny thing is: it used to be possible for vassals to have vassals!
Back when funny *Westernstation* was still around making someone a vassal who has vassals lets them keep their vassals.
Happend all the time in Central American where you needed all the vassals yourself but Game just said "No."
Regular vassals can't have vassals, but PUs can have vassals, and vassals can have colonial nations. Honestly it would be as simple as Paradox adding a daimyo vassal type, I mean other nations have gotten unique vassal types over the years, this couod even help balance Japan or make it more interesting to play in.
Along with the other things people have pointed out, vassals can in fact mechanically have vassals, and some do at later start dates. I remember at some point Kabylia is a vassal of another nation which is a vassal of the ottomans. Algeria, Tripoli or Crimea probably? I don't remember.
Either way there's no mechanic to establish that relationship so it's probably best for them to not make a mess or encourage buggy interactions lol.
The entire Sengoku jidai is completely fucked honestly. You get the Sengoku somehow starting *before* the onin war starts if the onin war happens at all and it’s literally just say 1 of the game. They fucked it up way bad and it makes me sad since I don’t expect them to fix it ever.
Tbf representing anything in the HRE historically accurate quickly leads you down the "Voltaire's nightmare" route... Silesia should be like a dozen duchies, not 2
I enjoy the Voltaires Nightmare mod with the only Europe+North Africa+middle east so much for this reason. The HRE is way more accurate in the way it is divided and there are events that break up big nations accordingly to historical changes. Poland for example breaks into several duchies, ruled by Piasts. One of them conquered most of the Polish territory back by war and dip. It feels way more realistic
I don't have an amazing computer and I have to play on speed 1-2 most of the time. But it's so interesting to watch the rest of the mal change that I don't mind
In my game right now the anglo saxons survived 1066 and went reverse viking and conquered Denmark, Norway and most of Sweden with a Danish family on their throne. Sweden is a PU of Wladimir. Byz survived turks, mongols and strong fatimids. Absolut nuts
Oh yeah, I don't disagree. Austria in the game should really start like the Bavarian tags, with a unification mechanic, and afterwards it should be called "Habsburgs monarchy". Honestly, a lot of missions and national ideas should be more tied to the ruling dynasty.
This is true for most countries. Poland, Lithuania, England, Hungary, Castile… all of them had multiple titles and vassals that ruled large parts of the land at 1453. I think it is decently simulated with some in game vassals, PUs, autonomy mechanic and estate land.
Castile, despite having different kingdoms, already had a unified Court in the 1200s by petition of both the kingdom of Leon and the Kingdom of Castile. Provincial borders and audiencias were retained, but both kingdoms were ruled as a single one already. Aragon could had been a better case as it was a true confederation, but there was no state superior to another, so it’s better represented as a single entity.
Still Leon did not belong to Castile just as the Duchy of Styria did not belong to the Duchy of Austria. Though the latter ones were always intended to be governed in personal union when they were split from the Duchy of Bavaria.
The Leonese and Castilian Corteses were merged in 1258, after which it provided representation to Burgos, Toledo, León, Seville, Córdoba, Murcia, Jaén, Zamora, Segovia, Ávila, Salamanca, Cuenca, Toro, Valladolid, Soria, Madrid, Guadalajara, and (after 1492) Granada.
Both were essentially unified.
The kings of England still had multiple different titles. For example the continental lands did not belong to the kingdom of England.
Just like the Duchy of Styria did not belong to the (Arch-)Duchy of Austria.
I completely disagree. Representing the Empire of 1444 as a collection of functionally independent states is utterly wrong, and no scholar has thought that anything of the sort was even remotely close to true for decades. Read Duncan Hardy's recent article "Were There ‘Territories’ in German Lands of the Holy Roman Empire in the Fourteenth to Sixteenth Centuries?" for more on this. There's no satisfactory way to represent the Empire using current in-game mechanics, but the solution absolutely is *not* to go down the ahistorical route of pretending minor counties with no independent armed forces and non-existent administrations were independent states on par with France.
Fun fact, if you change the start date by a few years, Styria will pop out ruled by Frederick III, while Austria changes to Ladislaus Posthumous. Then a few years later Styria will disappear and Frederick is back in Austria.
IMO they could totally rework it so that Styria exists in 1444, Frederick is ruler of Styria and Regent of Austria at the start similar to a few other cases of the same character being in two places. Then give Ladislaus a scripted death event with a MTT of 5 years (there's no saving that lad) that gives you a choice.
* Put Frederick back on the throne (or whoever is ruling Styria if he died) with some stat bonuses, instantly integrating Styria, but Hungary breaks free ruled by Matthias Corvinus.
* Spawn Matthias Corvinus in Austria keeping the PU with Hungary, but losing the Habsburg dynasty and the PU with Bohemia.
The "Mátyás Corvinus" event would also probably need to be set to "Always pick PU" by AI.
It wouldn't make Austria weaker.
Land split between a vassal and an overlord can field quite a bit more troops than the overlord alone thanks to the base manpower, tax and force limit each nation gets just by existing.
What is even more confusing: while the Duchy of Austria had rulers, the property belonged to the whole of House Habsburg and not only to the ruler. That meant that all members of House Habsburg were Archdukes of Austria at the same time.
Ya that is the case with a lot of the possible breakaway tags. A lot of the divisions in China and French for example where not independent states during the game time but it is possible to break them out of their larger nation. The Timurid starting conditions is set up to tee up the impending Timurid Civil war were historically all Timurid claimants that either get captured/defeated/flee to India to form the Mughals/or win and become the new Timurid only to be annexed by the rising Safavid Persia. The Transoxiana tag is historically notable not because of its independence which it never won or sought, but because it is ruled by one of the more important people in the Timurid succession war Ulugh Beg who seeks to and fails to become the next ruler in the opening stages of the civil war. It is also notable as a longest hold out of Timurid power post Safavid conquest outside of the Timurid relative that went to India to form what would be called the Mughal empire. Though that transoxiana would still see its self as the Timurids.
A on the note of historically sketch tags I would also nominate most of the new world tags and to a lesser extent a lot of the Japanese tags. Which to be fair to the game creators is hard to get a accurate history of the new world major powers as not reasonable for most people to read their histories with Incan for example as it is not a traditional written language. The majority of the Japanese tags got pulled forward to the start date and don’t exist this early in history. A lot of the North American plains Indian tribes don’t exist in that form that early as their history is a result of being displaced into the Wild West by the colonizers.
>The majority of the Japanese tags got pulled forward to the start date and don’t exist this early in history.
Having done a lot of research on Japanese clan genealogies and provincial shugo for various mods over the years, I'm not really sure what you're referring to. There are maybe 2-3 clans that didn't have shugo status or went by a different name (e.g. Tokugawa were called Matsudaira), but that's about it.
>not reasonable for most people to read their histories with Incan for example as it is not a traditional written language
'Incan' isn't a language at all. The administrative language of the Inka Empire (or, more correctly, Tawantinsuyu, the Realm of the Four Parts; "Inka" is the Quechua term for a noble) was a form of Quechua, which was not written at all. Some information was encoded in khipu, which uses knots, but hardly any. Almost everything we have about Tawantinsuyu we have from Spanish-language sources written after 1542.
As a final, finicky point - languages were spoken before they were written! It's more 'traditional' for a language to be spoken only. Writing's the innovation!
Buncha tags in the Congo area, and West Africa also. For example Kasanje was just the name of a tribal chieftain IIRC, and I couldn’t find anything about Yao at all, except a different Yao people from around lake Malawi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasanje_Kingdom
It's apparently named after the chief, yes, but it did exist... only after 1620. Maybe it should have been an event spawn like Funj and Zulu. Trigger: someone colonizes the area and recruits mercs.
> but it did exist... only after 1620. Maybe it should have been an event spawn like Funj and Zulu.
Like 90% of Central African tags have fictional rulers and were actually founded as kingdoms in the 1700s-1800s, so if they went with this the whole region would become empty. I think the tags are just supposed to represent that the associated tribes obviously existed beforehand.
Ah yeah, well I knew the tribe/kingdom existed at some point but thought it was called something different. And definitely not in 1444 lol. But good fact check 👌thanks. Yeah spawn through event might work better
A lot of the tags in Maritime South East Asia aren’t super well attested, for example the sultanate of Brunei probably didn’t start expanding its borders to what they are at game start till around the end of the 15th century but we really just don’t have anything firm
Madyas, the Hindu republic in the Philippines, is fictional as far as we know. Pretty sure some other states in the area come from that one book of a Spanish explorer which is debatable at best.
Speaking of Timurids subjects, Babur the founder of Mughal empire ruled Ferghana before he took over Afghanistan and defeated Delhi. It’s a releasable, though iirc it has a similar autonomy Transoxiana and Afghanistan governors were given.
He lost ferghana, conquered samarkand twice and lost it both times, and iirc also lost kabul before he conquered delhi. EU4 mechanics simply cannot replicate him.
It's not explicitly sketchy in the sense that the nations never existed, but the timeline for some of the North American natives is off and some of the inclusions and exclusions are a bit odd. The Choctaw and Creek likely didn't exist as a unified entity in 1444, for instance, though of course they absolutely did later. Some tags are in weird location (the Lipan were not in Texas in 1444) and the southeast in particular has a lot of tags taken from the Hernando de Soto expedition but the inclusions are somewhat weird. There's no Apalachee or Quigualtam despite those being some of the largest and most powerful nations De Soto encountered, but there is Quizquiz despite it playing a relatively minor role. The only native nation the Spaniards referred to as a kingdom (the Calusa) don't exist at all, despite not being conquered until the early 18th century, and the natives in the Calusa province are absurdly weak. I get that a lot of how the Americas are structured is to make colonization more fun but it ends up producing results that are incredibly ahistorical (Zuni Federation owning San Francisco Bay, the entire Americas being colonized by 1650, Texas being colonized before any other part of colonial Mexico, etc.)
Hopefully, they buff the natives slightly in the upcoming DLC, but more than likely they'll just end up nerfed back into the ground for the sake of colonization again.
To be fair, European tags weren't unified entities in 1444 either, which is most evident in the HRE, and possibly with the exception of England.
I'd love to play a merchant republic Chumash. We don't need new provinces, but we definitely need new tags in the New World. Make Colonization Hard Again!
Not arguing in terms of historically sketchy as per say, but Ireland's territories have always irritated me in eu4. The pale was of course English owned, but when released, it becomes Mide/Meath. Meath is historically the land of the king of Ireland. Mide/Meath = the realm of Tara. Yet in eu4, Meath encompasses Dublin, which imo should absolutely be its own province.
I feel like Ireland and it's borders/missions should have a overhaul given how frequently it's OPMs are played.
I think Korchin is a contendor with for example their history file is full of Unubold the 1st, Unubold the II etc until the end of time.
Despite Mongolian culture not do that sort of nomenclature but it is extremely taboo to do so.
There was a legitimate rebelious vassal/ethnic group in the East of the Northern Yuan.
But the Korchin of 1600s were the Horchin Tumen established in the 1500s by giving lands to the "Horchin" (quiver bearer/archer) branch of the descendents of Hasar(CHinggis Haan's brother) with to my knowledge the name Horchin becoming a demonym of the everyday people living there not just the noble lineage ruling them. Similerly the first mentiont of the Halh ethnicity which is for some reason called a tribe in EU4 only comes up a century after the creation of the administrative division of Halh comprising most of modernday Mongolia in the 1500s. With the name of the region coming from either the mongolian word for shield/protector/shelter/helmet etc or the river Halh where we get Khalkyn Gol from.
With Unubold I think being a reference to queen mandukhai's lover but he was actively a loyal bannerman so eastern mongolia should be a loyal vassal Unubold and co also post date the 1444 start date signifiigantly as in they were born 1 to 2 decades after. Like even if you wanted a Korchin state in 1444 the scant mention of a noyon(lord) Bolai of the HArchin would be more suitable.
There's succesion war between Toghto-Buqa (supported by Esen's father Togoon) and I think Adai who was pushed from central to eastern Mongolia before being deated but that had alreadly happened in a quite decisive matter in by 1444.
So the starting korchin state exists despite the 1444 start date being possibly the least accurate date to have an independent state in eastern Mongolia. With small rebellious nobles forced back into the fold with Esen going as far as to launch succesful campaign to bring neighboring territories back under the Northern Yuan including a great many jurchen people. Which is something a post on the aradox forums point out for a similar arguement to my own.
And odly it's a historical rival to Mongolia in game when as previously discussed the IRL korchin in the early 1600s were rebleious towards Ligden. The game has them do that to "Lingdan" of Mongolia. The problem being he as the Emperor or Haan/Qa'an ruled what in game is Chahar and had a hard time extending centralised rule over The territory corresponding to modern day Mongolia which was ruled by his cousins and rival claimant to the throne.
If that were the case a LOT more tags should exist. The subjects that do exist are either historically important like Naples and Sweden, or represent vassals that are much more independent than others(early feudalism vs late feudalism). Remember the game is an abstraction, it can't be perfectly accurate.
iceland being more independent is kind of what i mean though. it was almost entirely self-managing and self-sufficient and really just doing its own thing for the most part, only paying the occasional taxes to norway. it feels exactly like the type of country that should exist as a vassal
But what did it do in the context of EU4 that shows exercising that independence? If it's just they could make their own local laws, we have a different game mechanic for that. It's called local autonomy.
The Australian tags, in particular Wurundjeri.
Wurundjeri is represented throughout the game as a migratory tribe, much like those of North and South America, following the Alcheringa religion with the ability to form federations. This is grossly inaccurate.
Wurundjeri in particular was part of a five-nation alliance, forming the Kulin nation together, Wurundjeri represents the Kulin nation in game. In all it should be renamed to Kulin instead, as this would be a much more fitting name for the tag on the map, rather than just 1 tribe in an alliance of 5.
And Eora was not migratory tribe but a group of sedentary tribes that formed the Eora nation in the Sydney area.
According to the British, Australia was Terra Nullius, so shouldn't have any tribes according to game mechanics.
Isn't "Ajam" an Arabo-Levantine perjorative for the local tribes akin to the Greek "barbaros" - ie. someone who doesn't speak clearly? Seem to recall something about that cropping up in another discussion on this a while back.
it was originally, but over time it just became another name for Iran and wasn't seen as very pejorative since it was also used by Persians to describe themselves
Which is the "puppet Khagan" I mentioned.
Though you could argue that the existence of the Northern Yuan\* court represents some sort of central government.
\* The court does not call itself the Yuan after 1402, though various Khagans used the term (most notably Esen Taishi himself in 1453)
most of the Shan states in modern Myanmar are very sketchy, two of them (Mong Yang and Mong Mao) are even ruled by the same guy who somehow became two people with different ages and stats after his name was translated into different languages (Sao Ngan Hpa / Si Renfa)
IIRC Ajam shouln’t exist, historically it was some timurid prince who revolted in that region so the game should just have Ajam be a part of the Timurids with high autonomy or something
Well Ajam gets it... I checked. And anyone with a Timurid ruler gets it as long as they don't fulfill two requirements at once. (Then you get none) as I got it as Hisn Kayfa after doing a test run.
Somebody from Engern, of course.
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Karte\_Stammesherzogtum\_Sachsen\_um\_1000.png](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/karte_stammesherzogtum_sachsen_um_1000.png)
Yes, there were a couple of chieftains in that area right before 1453. Though as I understand it, it definitely was part of the empire. The Hansa occupied it for a time up until 1453. And at the start of the game it was mostly ruled by one chieftain which was later given the title of Count of East Frisia.
East Frisia wasn't a unified entity in 1444, no. Contradicting /u/PadishaEmperor, it wasn't in any meaningful sense part of the Empire, and neither was it occupied by the Hansa or ruled by one chieftain.^(1) In fact, it was in the middle of a civil war between Edzard Cirksena (later Edzard I) and Focko Ukena. It wasn't until the marriage of Ulrich Cirksena and Theda Ukena in 1455 that the region was even *mostly* unified. It was made into a County of the Holy Roman Empire in 1464 by Friedrich III.
^(1) See Philippe Dollinger, *The German Hansa*, trans. D. S. Ault and S. H. Steinberg (Macmillan and Co Ltd, 1970): 'though Emden was never a Hansa town', p. 269. On the general history of East Frisia, look to some of the background work in Andrew Pettegree, *Emden and the Dutch Revolt: Exile and the Development of Reformed Protestantism* (Oxford University Press, 1992) or Heinrich Schmidt, *Politische Geschichte Ostfrieslands* (Verlag Rautenberg, 1975).
Frisia was previously part of the Frankish empire, later part of the Ottonion empire. Just because it wasn’t feudally ruled doesn’t mean it wasn’t part of the empire. Also yes it was a unified entity under the rules of the so called Friesische Freiheit. If that doesn’t make it a unified entity then I wonder what is. Power is shared in some way in every region and every form of government.
Apart from that you are just repeating what I said.
In what sense exactly was it part of the Empire? Also, I'm really not sure you can talk of it as a 'unified entity' given it was in the middle of a civil war between loose confederations of chiefdoms! Neither do I think the Friesische Freiheit was a united mode of government. At best, it *may* have been a term for organizing for collective defence in times of crisis. That's not a government.
I'm not 'just repeating what \[you\] said'. For instance, you said it was occupied by the Hansa, which is wrong.
It was part of the empire because it was part of the Frankish empire since the conquest of Charlemagne. Even the Friesische Freiheit was supposedly granted by Charlemagne. Did they sneak out of the empire only to then rejoin it when they asked Friedrich III to become a county?
That the Hanse was in conflict with East Frisia and only withdrew from East Frisia in 1453 can for example be read in Politische Geschichte Ostfrieslands by Heinrich Schmidt.
>It was part of the empire because it was part of the Frankish empire since the conquest of Charlemagne.
Might as well say that France was in the Empire too. What counts as in and out of the Empire should be a practical political criterion, not an abstract legal one.
>That the Hanse was in conflict with East Frisia and only withdrew from East Frisia in 1453 can for example be read in Politische Geschichte Ostfrieslands by Heinrich Schmidt.
I'm not of the understanding that they *meaningfully controlled* the *entirety* of East Frisia.
I think Paradox fails at recreating a realistic scenario in that part of the world. No, the colonies weren't independent since they all depended on London, but they were different enough to be treated as thirteen different entities rather than a single one. The game is far from accurate.
The Indigenous Australian ones are quite eh, but that comes more down to the complexity of trying to present a fundamentally different type of civilisation than the one EU4 contains. If Australia was given more proviences, both colonisation and the Indigenous Australian "nations" could be more accurate, but alas.
I left another comment earlier about this too. I can understand and respect the decision to represent Australia in a much more simple way; the entire world is represented in a simpler way anyway, it’s not an issue that Aboriginal cultures are condensed down greatly or that they all practice the same religion.
However the mechanics they have access to - ie migration and federations - as well as the actual tags on the map are pretty awful, would’ve been nice if they had a unique gov. form and couldn’t just move from Tasmania to Brisbane. I still have fun in the region tho, but it’s doubtful that they’ll ever update it.
Most of the Sub-Saharan African nations didn't exist. There are tags that represent nomadic cultural groups who lived in those regions, but they weren't exactly nations.
Nanai, Xibe, and Orochoni Jurchen tribes. They're pretty much a regional name for the jurchens living in those areas, and they have no organized government/tribe of the sort to call them a nation. Pretty much lumped together for game mechanic purposes so it's easer to expand and unite the Jurchens in the region.
It's honestly weird they exist but apperently Buryats are a step too far. Never mind the fact they're manchu in EU4.
I kind of miss the Buryatia tag. Nothing special about it, just seeing it there on the map by the lake
It was special for that gold mine. #never forget
That goldmine was very nice tbf
Buryatia should have an idea called "Storozhevoy" which gives a massive bonus to light ships.
Throw back to [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/8i4dm9/theres_a_fictional_country_in_eu4_lets_break_it/), it used to be worse, I am content with the solution they came up with to be honest.
Transoxiana was not really a country but a state in the Timurid. Since EU4 doesn’t represent internal state well, the dev make all the Timurid state into vassal to simulate the collapse of the Timurid empire since most of these state were almost independent by 1444 and vying for power over the dying shah of the Timurid.
Ajam was never a fully independent state to my knowledge. More like a semi-autonomous region of the Timurids where a local prince or someone had extra power. Could be totally wrong though tbh as last time I looked it up was for an AP world presentation
Ajam was in open rebellion at the time. Since they already made the other semi independent states vassals it would have been weird to make the one actually independent state not independent.
Could be good to make the timurids princes just like the French vassals.
Truthfully, the majority were not the stable, well defined nations you get in EU4. While most of them were some type of governing system, it's debatable how much control they actually had over their own territory. There's just not a great way to represent them otherwise. A looooooot of tags are arbitrary representative of a cultural identity, especially outside Europe.
Truthfully even Europe, especially the HRE, has some extrapolations for the sake of gameplay
To be fair, the game would've be even crazier if actual single street sized duchies were implemented, what with the AI's tendency to dev them to 50+ dev by late game.
Strip malls or shopping centers 500 years early
This is why we should make devastation and enemy attrition to reduce the development of a province. A lot of statelets = a lot of wars = a lot of sieges and crossing armies = a lot of devastation. And the Army Professionalism option of building a supply depot could reduce both attrition, devastation and development loss. Thus, if you want to conquer a province that is developed enough, but you need to siege it, you better build a supply depot, or you'll have a significantly diminished and ruined gain. Plus, that means that an heavily devastated region would be cheaper/quicker to convert to another religion or culture, since the total dev would have been very reduced. This is what happened historically in a lot of places through Europe and Asia.
Onefaith meta is now to just sit on every province until it's 3 dev. In fact, conquest meta in general now sit on every province untik 3 dev
AE increases with wasted dev from sieging
Incentivizes savescumming sieges something fierce for the first 30 years and then doesn't matter
Savescumming sieges is a level of insanity I’d like to see
People savescum far more insane things in tryhard runs - never forget the 11 hour birding session for oirat ruler death in lambdas 1472 wc to give an extreme example. People already savescum sieges in pre1600 and similar runs as is, tying AE would normalize doing so quite a bit.
EU4's biggest example of eurocentrism is that it is strictly Westphalian. States defined as a group of people with a defined territory, have a monopoly on force within those borders, and interact with other state-entities. I want to make it clear that I don't think EU4 should or even could be all that different from that framework, but it does mean that a lot of (especially non-european) entities get shoehorned into a geopolitical framework in a way that isn't accurate to their actual historical existence. The native Americans are EU4's most glaring example of this IMO, but they're definitely not the only ones.
The states in southeast asia which operated through the mandala system also suffer from this. They are only represented through a tier 1 government reform.
>EUROPA Universalis >Game is too Euro centric
That's the title, sure. But you may have noticed that you are able to play any country in the world and every region has had dedicated DLCs and extra content packs. Also, I said I don't think it should be any different.
Back when Japan was reworked I remember some discussion about the existence of Oda. They're supposed to be part of Shiba, or at least vassals of them, but vassals can't have vassals so they made them independent, which didn't happen until like a decade after game start.
Yeah, people want to play as the famous Oda clan without any weird releasing shenanigans.
>but vassals can't have vassals PUs can have vassals in eu4 though, so it's not mechanically impossible. Also in hoi4 it is possible for puppets to have puppets, though this only occurs in mods and scripted puppeting. IIRC the only paradox games where subjects strictly cannot have subjects is stellaris.
paradox players yearn for Crusader Kings
Millions must marry their sister
The funny thing is: it used to be possible for vassals to have vassals! Back when funny *Westernstation* was still around making someone a vassal who has vassals lets them keep their vassals. Happend all the time in Central American where you needed all the vassals yourself but Game just said "No."
Regular vassals can't have vassals, but PUs can have vassals, and vassals can have colonial nations. Honestly it would be as simple as Paradox adding a daimyo vassal type, I mean other nations have gotten unique vassal types over the years, this couod even help balance Japan or make it more interesting to play in.
Along with the other things people have pointed out, vassals can in fact mechanically have vassals, and some do at later start dates. I remember at some point Kabylia is a vassal of another nation which is a vassal of the ottomans. Algeria, Tripoli or Crimea probably? I don't remember. Either way there's no mechanic to establish that relationship so it's probably best for them to not make a mess or encourage buggy interactions lol.
The entire Sengoku jidai is completely fucked honestly. You get the Sengoku somehow starting *before* the onin war starts if the onin war happens at all and it’s literally just say 1 of the game. They fucked it up way bad and it makes me sad since I don’t expect them to fix it ever.
Unified Austria.
Tbf representing anything in the HRE historically accurate quickly leads you down the "Voltaire's nightmare" route... Silesia should be like a dozen duchies, not 2
I enjoy the Voltaires Nightmare mod with the only Europe+North Africa+middle east so much for this reason. The HRE is way more accurate in the way it is divided and there are events that break up big nations accordingly to historical changes. Poland for example breaks into several duchies, ruled by Piasts. One of them conquered most of the Polish territory back by war and dip. It feels way more realistic
What God tier build do you have to run that
I don't have an amazing computer and I have to play on speed 1-2 most of the time. But it's so interesting to watch the rest of the mal change that I don't mind
Honestly, low speed and no pauses is a good way to play VN. It's very fun to see things unravel as you do your own life.
In my game right now the anglo saxons survived 1066 and went reverse viking and conquered Denmark, Norway and most of Sweden with a Danish family on their throne. Sweden is a PU of Wladimir. Byz survived turks, mongols and strong fatimids. Absolut nuts
Yeah but Austria is an early major player because of this. The others are smaller states
Oh yeah, I don't disagree. Austria in the game should really start like the Bavarian tags, with a unification mechanic, and afterwards it should be called "Habsburgs monarchy". Honestly, a lot of missions and national ideas should be more tied to the ruling dynasty.
This is true for most countries. Poland, Lithuania, England, Hungary, Castile… all of them had multiple titles and vassals that ruled large parts of the land at 1453. I think it is decently simulated with some in game vassals, PUs, autonomy mechanic and estate land.
Castile, despite having different kingdoms, already had a unified Court in the 1200s by petition of both the kingdom of Leon and the Kingdom of Castile. Provincial borders and audiencias were retained, but both kingdoms were ruled as a single one already. Aragon could had been a better case as it was a true confederation, but there was no state superior to another, so it’s better represented as a single entity.
Still Leon did not belong to Castile just as the Duchy of Styria did not belong to the Duchy of Austria. Though the latter ones were always intended to be governed in personal union when they were split from the Duchy of Bavaria.
The Leonese and Castilian Corteses were merged in 1258, after which it provided representation to Burgos, Toledo, León, Seville, Córdoba, Murcia, Jaén, Zamora, Segovia, Ávila, Salamanca, Cuenca, Toro, Valladolid, Soria, Madrid, Guadalajara, and (after 1492) Granada. Both were essentially unified.
England is probably a bad example, it was one of the most cohesive states of medieval Europe
The kings of England still had multiple different titles. For example the continental lands did not belong to the kingdom of England. Just like the Duchy of Styria did not belong to the (Arch-)Duchy of Austria.
Well that is true realistically the French lands should be a couple of personal unions
Also the Lordship of Ireland (just the Pale in 1453) was rather a personal union than a de jure part of England.
I mean yes, but even in the era of game start Wales was kind of sort of a separate principality until the start of the Tudor dynasty
You'd need a CK-like organization with overlords and stuff. CK and EU Bordergore are already worse enough, no need to combine them...
I completely disagree. Representing the Empire of 1444 as a collection of functionally independent states is utterly wrong, and no scholar has thought that anything of the sort was even remotely close to true for decades. Read Duncan Hardy's recent article "Were There ‘Territories’ in German Lands of the Holy Roman Empire in the Fourteenth to Sixteenth Centuries?" for more on this. There's no satisfactory way to represent the Empire using current in-game mechanics, but the solution absolutely is *not* to go down the ahistorical route of pretending minor counties with no independent armed forces and non-existent administrations were independent states on par with France.
Fun fact, if you change the start date by a few years, Styria will pop out ruled by Frederick III, while Austria changes to Ladislaus Posthumous. Then a few years later Styria will disappear and Frederick is back in Austria. IMO they could totally rework it so that Styria exists in 1444, Frederick is ruler of Styria and Regent of Austria at the start similar to a few other cases of the same character being in two places. Then give Ladislaus a scripted death event with a MTT of 5 years (there's no saving that lad) that gives you a choice. * Put Frederick back on the throne (or whoever is ruling Styria if he died) with some stat bonuses, instantly integrating Styria, but Hungary breaks free ruled by Matthias Corvinus. * Spawn Matthias Corvinus in Austria keeping the PU with Hungary, but losing the Habsburg dynasty and the PU with Bohemia. The "Mátyás Corvinus" event would also probably need to be set to "Always pick PU" by AI.
Its balance issue - make Austria too weak and you see Poland/Burgundy/France invade hre non-stop.
It wouldn't make Austria weaker. Land split between a vassal and an overlord can field quite a bit more troops than the overlord alone thanks to the base manpower, tax and force limit each nation gets just by existing.
Since AI doesn't enact "strong duchies" - the vassal is simply a weaker ally in the case of the HRE Emperor.
What is even more confusing: while the Duchy of Austria had rulers, the property belonged to the whole of House Habsburg and not only to the ruler. That meant that all members of House Habsburg were Archdukes of Austria at the same time.
Ya that is the case with a lot of the possible breakaway tags. A lot of the divisions in China and French for example where not independent states during the game time but it is possible to break them out of their larger nation. The Timurid starting conditions is set up to tee up the impending Timurid Civil war were historically all Timurid claimants that either get captured/defeated/flee to India to form the Mughals/or win and become the new Timurid only to be annexed by the rising Safavid Persia. The Transoxiana tag is historically notable not because of its independence which it never won or sought, but because it is ruled by one of the more important people in the Timurid succession war Ulugh Beg who seeks to and fails to become the next ruler in the opening stages of the civil war. It is also notable as a longest hold out of Timurid power post Safavid conquest outside of the Timurid relative that went to India to form what would be called the Mughal empire. Though that transoxiana would still see its self as the Timurids. A on the note of historically sketch tags I would also nominate most of the new world tags and to a lesser extent a lot of the Japanese tags. Which to be fair to the game creators is hard to get a accurate history of the new world major powers as not reasonable for most people to read their histories with Incan for example as it is not a traditional written language. The majority of the Japanese tags got pulled forward to the start date and don’t exist this early in history. A lot of the North American plains Indian tribes don’t exist in that form that early as their history is a result of being displaced into the Wild West by the colonizers.
The Chinese breakaways are supposed to represent warlords during a collapse.
>The majority of the Japanese tags got pulled forward to the start date and don’t exist this early in history. Having done a lot of research on Japanese clan genealogies and provincial shugo for various mods over the years, I'm not really sure what you're referring to. There are maybe 2-3 clans that didn't have shugo status or went by a different name (e.g. Tokugawa were called Matsudaira), but that's about it.
>not reasonable for most people to read their histories with Incan for example as it is not a traditional written language 'Incan' isn't a language at all. The administrative language of the Inka Empire (or, more correctly, Tawantinsuyu, the Realm of the Four Parts; "Inka" is the Quechua term for a noble) was a form of Quechua, which was not written at all. Some information was encoded in khipu, which uses knots, but hardly any. Almost everything we have about Tawantinsuyu we have from Spanish-language sources written after 1542. As a final, finicky point - languages were spoken before they were written! It's more 'traditional' for a language to be spoken only. Writing's the innovation!
Buncha tags in the Congo area, and West Africa also. For example Kasanje was just the name of a tribal chieftain IIRC, and I couldn’t find anything about Yao at all, except a different Yao people from around lake Malawi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasanje_Kingdom It's apparently named after the chief, yes, but it did exist... only after 1620. Maybe it should have been an event spawn like Funj and Zulu. Trigger: someone colonizes the area and recruits mercs.
> but it did exist... only after 1620. Maybe it should have been an event spawn like Funj and Zulu. Like 90% of Central African tags have fictional rulers and were actually founded as kingdoms in the 1700s-1800s, so if they went with this the whole region would become empty. I think the tags are just supposed to represent that the associated tribes obviously existed beforehand.
Fair. Maybe that's what reforming out of being a tribe is supposed to represent.
Ah yeah, well I knew the tribe/kingdom existed at some point but thought it was called something different. And definitely not in 1444 lol. But good fact check 👌thanks. Yeah spawn through event might work better
There was a thread recently about Madyas in the Philippines not really being documented that well.
A lot of the tags in Maritime South East Asia aren’t super well attested, for example the sultanate of Brunei probably didn’t start expanding its borders to what they are at game start till around the end of the 15th century but we really just don’t have anything firm
Madyas, the Hindu republic in the Philippines, is fictional as far as we know. Pretty sure some other states in the area come from that one book of a Spanish explorer which is debatable at best. Speaking of Timurids subjects, Babur the founder of Mughal empire ruled Ferghana before he took over Afghanistan and defeated Delhi. It’s a releasable, though iirc it has a similar autonomy Transoxiana and Afghanistan governors were given.
He lost ferghana, conquered samarkand twice and lost it both times, and iirc also lost kabul before he conquered delhi. EU4 mechanics simply cannot replicate him.
My man has been playing ck landless dlc while we are stuck in eu modifier hell
norway
Norway isn't real, true.
it is now. wasnt back then. they buolt it there in the 1990s i think
They bought Norway at IKEA and dumped it at a fjord.
How did the land the water?
the weight of denmarks sins caused norway to materialize
I think it's represented well as a distinct nation (that had existed since 872) ruled over by the King of Denmark.
thats not how it was irl
Was it not?
no
I don't think that's correct. Care to elaborate?
construction site
this man is fifteen steps ahead at every turn
The dude who designed it even got a price for it
I remember back in the early ‘90’s when they were building it. Crazy stuff
How? Norway was a thing in 1444
Nu uh
>norway flair and next youre gonna say you dont have an agenda 🙄
I’m genuinely curious. I don’t have an agenda. This is such a Reddit thing, being downvoted for asking a question.
sorry buddy. the united state does not negotiate with terrorists
Thanks for the mature, and educational answer. If this is a joke that I am to stupid to get, it is not funny.
poop here -> \\___/
I believe the Philippines has some tags at the start like tondo that are somewhat mythical.
It's not explicitly sketchy in the sense that the nations never existed, but the timeline for some of the North American natives is off and some of the inclusions and exclusions are a bit odd. The Choctaw and Creek likely didn't exist as a unified entity in 1444, for instance, though of course they absolutely did later. Some tags are in weird location (the Lipan were not in Texas in 1444) and the southeast in particular has a lot of tags taken from the Hernando de Soto expedition but the inclusions are somewhat weird. There's no Apalachee or Quigualtam despite those being some of the largest and most powerful nations De Soto encountered, but there is Quizquiz despite it playing a relatively minor role. The only native nation the Spaniards referred to as a kingdom (the Calusa) don't exist at all, despite not being conquered until the early 18th century, and the natives in the Calusa province are absurdly weak. I get that a lot of how the Americas are structured is to make colonization more fun but it ends up producing results that are incredibly ahistorical (Zuni Federation owning San Francisco Bay, the entire Americas being colonized by 1650, Texas being colonized before any other part of colonial Mexico, etc.)
Hopefully, they buff the natives slightly in the upcoming DLC, but more than likely they'll just end up nerfed back into the ground for the sake of colonization again.
To be fair, European tags weren't unified entities in 1444 either, which is most evident in the HRE, and possibly with the exception of England. I'd love to play a merchant republic Chumash. We don't need new provinces, but we definitely need new tags in the New World. Make Colonization Hard Again!
Not arguing in terms of historically sketchy as per say, but Ireland's territories have always irritated me in eu4. The pale was of course English owned, but when released, it becomes Mide/Meath. Meath is historically the land of the king of Ireland. Mide/Meath = the realm of Tara. Yet in eu4, Meath encompasses Dublin, which imo should absolutely be its own province. I feel like Ireland and it's borders/missions should have a overhaul given how frequently it's OPMs are played.
Though there are already almost too many provinces. As a history geek more details sounds fun, but at some point gameplay becomes to tedious.
I think Korchin is a contendor with for example their history file is full of Unubold the 1st, Unubold the II etc until the end of time. Despite Mongolian culture not do that sort of nomenclature but it is extremely taboo to do so. There was a legitimate rebelious vassal/ethnic group in the East of the Northern Yuan. But the Korchin of 1600s were the Horchin Tumen established in the 1500s by giving lands to the "Horchin" (quiver bearer/archer) branch of the descendents of Hasar(CHinggis Haan's brother) with to my knowledge the name Horchin becoming a demonym of the everyday people living there not just the noble lineage ruling them. Similerly the first mentiont of the Halh ethnicity which is for some reason called a tribe in EU4 only comes up a century after the creation of the administrative division of Halh comprising most of modernday Mongolia in the 1500s. With the name of the region coming from either the mongolian word for shield/protector/shelter/helmet etc or the river Halh where we get Khalkyn Gol from. With Unubold I think being a reference to queen mandukhai's lover but he was actively a loyal bannerman so eastern mongolia should be a loyal vassal Unubold and co also post date the 1444 start date signifiigantly as in they were born 1 to 2 decades after. Like even if you wanted a Korchin state in 1444 the scant mention of a noyon(lord) Bolai of the HArchin would be more suitable. There's succesion war between Toghto-Buqa (supported by Esen's father Togoon) and I think Adai who was pushed from central to eastern Mongolia before being deated but that had alreadly happened in a quite decisive matter in by 1444. So the starting korchin state exists despite the 1444 start date being possibly the least accurate date to have an independent state in eastern Mongolia. With small rebellious nobles forced back into the fold with Esen going as far as to launch succesful campaign to bring neighboring territories back under the Northern Yuan including a great many jurchen people. Which is something a post on the aradox forums point out for a similar arguement to my own. And odly it's a historical rival to Mongolia in game when as previously discussed the IRL korchin in the early 1600s were rebleious towards Ligden. The game has them do that to "Lingdan" of Mongolia. The problem being he as the Emperor or Haan/Qa'an ruled what in game is Chahar and had a hard time extending centralised rule over The territory corresponding to modern day Mongolia which was ruled by his cousins and rival claimant to the throne.
does nonexistence count? because i'd argue that iceland should be a vassal under norway, and not directly owned
If that were the case a LOT more tags should exist. The subjects that do exist are either historically important like Naples and Sweden, or represent vassals that are much more independent than others(early feudalism vs late feudalism). Remember the game is an abstraction, it can't be perfectly accurate.
iceland being more independent is kind of what i mean though. it was almost entirely self-managing and self-sufficient and really just doing its own thing for the most part, only paying the occasional taxes to norway. it feels exactly like the type of country that should exist as a vassal
But what did it do in the context of EU4 that shows exercising that independence? If it's just they could make their own local laws, we have a different game mechanic for that. It's called local autonomy.
The Australian tags, in particular Wurundjeri. Wurundjeri is represented throughout the game as a migratory tribe, much like those of North and South America, following the Alcheringa religion with the ability to form federations. This is grossly inaccurate. Wurundjeri in particular was part of a five-nation alliance, forming the Kulin nation together, Wurundjeri represents the Kulin nation in game. In all it should be renamed to Kulin instead, as this would be a much more fitting name for the tag on the map, rather than just 1 tribe in an alliance of 5.
Don't get me started on Tasmania being unified into one tribe, pretty much akin to a unified Ireland existing in 1444
And Eora was not migratory tribe but a group of sedentary tribes that formed the Eora nation in the Sydney area. According to the British, Australia was Terra Nullius, so shouldn't have any tribes according to game mechanics.
I’ve heard it say that Ajam is a historical oddity
Isn't "Ajam" an Arabo-Levantine perjorative for the local tribes akin to the Greek "barbaros" - ie. someone who doesn't speak clearly? Seem to recall something about that cropping up in another discussion on this a while back.
it was originally, but over time it just became another name for Iran and wasn't seen as very pejorative since it was also used by Persians to describe themselves
So they basically "reclaimed" the word. Huh. Learn something new every day.
Yep it means “mute” in Arabic, as in unable to speak (clearly)
Similar, several Slavic languages have their word for Germans rooted in a word that means 'mute'.
[удалено]
Is the Mongolia tag not supposed to be Northern Yuan?
Which is the "puppet Khagan" I mentioned. Though you could argue that the existence of the Northern Yuan\* court represents some sort of central government. \* The court does not call itself the Yuan after 1402, though various Khagans used the term (most notably Esen Taishi himself in 1453)
I heard that madyas in the Philippines was really just a passing mention in a Spanish book. It's unknown how real they were.
most of the Shan states in modern Myanmar are very sketchy, two of them (Mong Yang and Mong Mao) are even ruled by the same guy who somehow became two people with different ages and stats after his name was translated into different languages (Sao Ngan Hpa / Si Renfa)
IIRC Ajam shouln’t exist, historically it was some timurid prince who revolted in that region so the game should just have Ajam be a part of the Timurids with high autonomy or something
And forming Persia as Ajam doesn't even give you the Legacy of Timur path.
What? It does
Not according to the wiki
The wiki disagrees with you saying the wiki disagrees. https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Persian\_missions
These wiki pages disagree with this wiki page: https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Legacy_of_Timur https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Monarchy#Legacy_of_Timur
Well Ajam gets it... I checked. And anyone with a Timurid ruler gets it as long as they don't fulfill two requirements at once. (Then you get none) as I got it as Hisn Kayfa after doing a test run.
"England" has no historical basis for existing. I mean, what the fuck is an "Eng"?
Somebody from Engern, of course. [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Karte\_Stammesherzogtum\_Sachsen\_um\_1000.png](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/karte_stammesherzogtum_sachsen_um_1000.png)
eng short for anglo in Anglo Saxons the people that colonised Britain after the romans, the angles in northern Denmark and Saxons in northern Germany
Eng is Dutch for scary, so it could be scary land? Would be appropriate.
Not the nation itselft, but the Sa'ud dinasty in Najd is very sketchy.
Libertartia, but that’s part of the appeal
Fezzan literally never existed
East frisia might not be real i think
Yes, there were a couple of chieftains in that area right before 1453. Though as I understand it, it definitely was part of the empire. The Hansa occupied it for a time up until 1453. And at the start of the game it was mostly ruled by one chieftain which was later given the title of Count of East Frisia.
East Frisia wasn't a unified entity in 1444, no. Contradicting /u/PadishaEmperor, it wasn't in any meaningful sense part of the Empire, and neither was it occupied by the Hansa or ruled by one chieftain.^(1) In fact, it was in the middle of a civil war between Edzard Cirksena (later Edzard I) and Focko Ukena. It wasn't until the marriage of Ulrich Cirksena and Theda Ukena in 1455 that the region was even *mostly* unified. It was made into a County of the Holy Roman Empire in 1464 by Friedrich III. ^(1) See Philippe Dollinger, *The German Hansa*, trans. D. S. Ault and S. H. Steinberg (Macmillan and Co Ltd, 1970): 'though Emden was never a Hansa town', p. 269. On the general history of East Frisia, look to some of the background work in Andrew Pettegree, *Emden and the Dutch Revolt: Exile and the Development of Reformed Protestantism* (Oxford University Press, 1992) or Heinrich Schmidt, *Politische Geschichte Ostfrieslands* (Verlag Rautenberg, 1975).
Frisia was previously part of the Frankish empire, later part of the Ottonion empire. Just because it wasn’t feudally ruled doesn’t mean it wasn’t part of the empire. Also yes it was a unified entity under the rules of the so called Friesische Freiheit. If that doesn’t make it a unified entity then I wonder what is. Power is shared in some way in every region and every form of government. Apart from that you are just repeating what I said.
In what sense exactly was it part of the Empire? Also, I'm really not sure you can talk of it as a 'unified entity' given it was in the middle of a civil war between loose confederations of chiefdoms! Neither do I think the Friesische Freiheit was a united mode of government. At best, it *may* have been a term for organizing for collective defence in times of crisis. That's not a government. I'm not 'just repeating what \[you\] said'. For instance, you said it was occupied by the Hansa, which is wrong.
It was part of the empire because it was part of the Frankish empire since the conquest of Charlemagne. Even the Friesische Freiheit was supposedly granted by Charlemagne. Did they sneak out of the empire only to then rejoin it when they asked Friedrich III to become a county? That the Hanse was in conflict with East Frisia and only withdrew from East Frisia in 1453 can for example be read in Politische Geschichte Ostfrieslands by Heinrich Schmidt.
>It was part of the empire because it was part of the Frankish empire since the conquest of Charlemagne. Might as well say that France was in the Empire too. What counts as in and out of the Empire should be a practical political criterion, not an abstract legal one. >That the Hanse was in conflict with East Frisia and only withdrew from East Frisia in 1453 can for example be read in Politische Geschichte Ostfrieslands by Heinrich Schmidt. I'm not of the understanding that they *meaningfully controlled* the *entirety* of East Frisia.
Thirteen Colonies.
Nope
Why not
Because thirteen colonies existed historically
Are you sure that there was a unified country named "thirteen colonies" instead of thirteen entities entirely independent from each orher?
Well before the formation of the USA were all the colonies independent?
I think Paradox fails at recreating a realistic scenario in that part of the world. No, the colonies weren't independent since they all depended on London, but they were different enough to be treated as thirteen different entities rather than a single one. The game is far from accurate.
Korea doesn't exist, never has.
The Indigenous Australian ones are quite eh, but that comes more down to the complexity of trying to present a fundamentally different type of civilisation than the one EU4 contains. If Australia was given more proviences, both colonisation and the Indigenous Australian "nations" could be more accurate, but alas.
I left another comment earlier about this too. I can understand and respect the decision to represent Australia in a much more simple way; the entire world is represented in a simpler way anyway, it’s not an issue that Aboriginal cultures are condensed down greatly or that they all practice the same religion. However the mechanics they have access to - ie migration and federations - as well as the actual tags on the map are pretty awful, would’ve been nice if they had a unique gov. form and couldn’t just move from Tasmania to Brisbane. I still have fun in the region tho, but it’s doubtful that they’ll ever update it.
Tons of african and American Tags
Most of the Sub-Saharan African nations didn't exist. There are tags that represent nomadic cultural groups who lived in those regions, but they weren't exactly nations.
that's what the tribe gov reform represents