Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
The century long "There can only be one Emperor (in Europe)" rule directly stems from the Roman Successor claims.
There was never a try to reallly restore the ancient Roman Empire but it was there as an idea and source of prestige.
Therefore it makes sense that the option to restore it is included in an (already) alternate history game.
As far as I know there is no nation in EU4 (at least in 1444) which claims to be the successor of the Macedonian Empire.
All formable nation in the game are either:
- Historic in-timeline nations (Great Britain, Spain, Russia, ...)
- Culture/Region unifying nations for which movements existed in EU4 timeline. Some of those really formed after 1821 (Germany, Hindustan, Italy, Scandinavia). To some degree independent colonial nations also fit here.
- in 1444 no longer existing nations of which existing nations saw themselves as a successor (Roman Empire, Yuan, Andalusia)
- reformable nations which exist in 1444 but can be reformed when they disappear (Poland, Timurids, France)
The Macedonian Empire fits neither category in my opinion.
Why should it have to fit any criteria? I say this because EUIV does have a feature where the player can create custom nations. A player should be able to form any nation they wish to form. That is at the very least in name. Selecting provinces to release as a customizable nation is absolutely doable within the current mechanics of the game. Assigning cultures, ideas, mission trees may be a different matter but could also be made customizable. It's even possible to make religion customizable.
Therefore, I say to the OP's question that yes Macedonia should be able to be a formable nation either directly or indirectly as a customizable nation and even within the middle of a current game.
wait.... when did nation of Scandinavia form exactly?
and when did hindustan form as well? must have missed it from my history class!
Pan-Scandinavism was an idea that was thrown around in the 1800s so its not completly out of scope, there were many people championing it.
I think hindustan and bharat are suppossed to be two forms of india assuming the muslim minority or the hindu majority took power, they could have just called it Modi India and No Pigs India but I dont think people would have liked that. So we have bharat or hindustan.
But after saying all that I think these arguments for why countries are or arnt in the game is kinda meh. I dont think there is any reason you couldnt include macedonia, it just isnt in the game. I mean the list of countries you could form if we just want to throw every historical power in there would be massive. Babylon? Kush? The Ancient Finnish Empire?
And yet, it has never existed.
Scandinavia is terrible argument when trying to explain which countries exist in EU4 and why other countries should not. It is basically Fantasy nation, completely made up.
The simple answer to why some nations are included and others are not, is - players asked for them and developers included them eventually. If you really-really want to get something changed in EU4, post your proposition in EU4 Suggestions subforum:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?forums/euiv-suggestions.874/
The developers will read all the posts there and if you manage to back up your idea with some interesting historical links and have already figured out some of the national ideas and events, and more players agree with you, there is good chance it will be added eventually.
Yet, surely you understand the problems with Macedonia? I mean the name itself is even now huge problem and there are multiple nations claiming they are real Macedonia. If it would be added to the game, in whatever form, someone will be very angry.
Did you even read the end of my post?
"But after saying all that I think these arguments for why countries are or arnt in the game is kinda meh. I dont think there is any reason you couldnt include macedonia, it just isnt in the game. I mean the list of countries you could form if we just want to throw every historical power in there would be massive. Babylon? Kush? The Ancient Finnish Empire?"
Im also sure the devs have been reading up on macedonia as their other project right now is imperator rome that has macedonia as a major player in it.
Scandanavia meets that standard (pan-Scandanavianism was a serious if unrealistic movement in the early 1800s), as would the idea of a unified Hindu or Muslim India.
There was no serious "reform the ancient Macedonian Empire" nationalist movement any time between 1480 - 1820, as nobody but the Macedonians themselves saw themselves as Macedonians any longer. Same for Babylon. .
As I said: "[...] Some [!!!] of those really formed after 1821"
There was a pan-Scandinavian movement during EU4's time, sometimes stronger, sometimes weaker. However, the idea existed. The same for a unified India (may it be Muslim or Hindu).
In the brackets I deliberately added two nations which really formed and two nations for which there was an idea and that never formed but may be possible in EU4's alternate history.
No serious political movement existed in 1450-1820 that claimed, say people who lived in Turkey, Iraq or Egypt were "Greek" in Athens or anywhere else, even if those territories were part of the Ancient Greek/Macedonian Empires.