What's the point of Tech requirements for nation forming?

[ChaffyExpert]

I'm sure there is one, but it seems pointless to me.

[RCMidas]

Partially to represent the administrative burdens of forming an advanced state, partially to ensure the nations cannot be formed too early.

[ChaffyExpert]

Originally posted by RCMidas:

Partially to represent the administrative burdens of forming an advanced state, partially to ensure the nations cannot be formed too early.

I mean if a country has OP ideas or missions that kinda makes sense, but why would there be additional administrative burdens when you already have governing cost, also, wouldn't controlling all of France, and controlling all of Italy, have roughly the same administrative burdens? It's not like prior to 1444, Italy was never united under one state before.

Like, i imagine if some nation somehow unified all of Germany in like 1550-1600 or so, (so before the 20 admin tech needed) said nation's kind would certainly proclaim themselves the King of all Germans, and be noted by historians as being the formation of Germany.

[bri]

Game balance as well since many formable nations have notably better ideas than the states that form them.

[RCMidas]

Correct, but I suspect it's more symbolic of fully centralising everything using the new political techniques. The vast empires of previous ages didn't really govern everything in the way the later ones did. The Mongols held vast territories that were almost wholly autonomous, for instance, with tribute exacted from villages at a local level and then passed up the chain of command on a yearly basis. The Romans had a similarly decentralised form of rule that essentially established individual client states in the form of their outer prefectures - and those regularly collapsed and needed to be reestablished due to rebellion, corruption, or simple mismanagement.

Conversely, the decision to form Tuscany, for example, is more than merely uniting the Tuscan region of Italy under one banner. It's eliminating any possible competition to lay full claim to the very concept of being Tuscan, forcing the nobility and other elites to submit utterly, compensating or destroying those who would not bend the knee, centralising the burghers and reorganising the clerical hierarchy according to the loyal and wealthy, and so on and so forth. Forming a country in this way also eliminates all separatism, as it redefines the legal boundaries of citizenship, ownership, taxes and tallies and trade routes, and so on and so forth.

Here's an interesting modern example. In certain areas of Apulia and Calabria, you can find towns of an Italian minority known as the Griko. They are Italians. They have been Italians of one sort or another for centuries. Yet every so often you might encounter the comment "Una faccia, una razza"; and just over the Ionian sea, its Hellenic equivalent "Mia fatsa, mia ratsa". Simply put: "One face, one race". The Griko are Italians. They are also Greeks. Their presence in Neapolitan, Sicilian, Savoyard and Modern Italian Southern Italy is as accepted as it would be in Athens or Crete or Thrace. They have been accepted as part of Italy for so long that their culture has been assimilated, their cores have expired, and their legal existence has been redefined by the formation of new political entities several times over.

This acceptance, legal redefinition, and gradual wholesale assimilation of a highly localised minority is roughly what the administrative requirement of a technology level is on the formation of a new country.

Or it's just a game mechanic.

[ChaffyExpert]

Originally posted by RCMidas:

Correct, but I suspect it's more symbolic of fully centralising everything using the new political techniques. The vast empires of previous ages didn't really govern everything in the way the later ones did. The Mongols held vast territories that were almost wholly autonomous, for instance, with tribute exacted from villages at a local level and then passed up the chain of command on a yearly basis. The Romans had a similarly decentralised form of rule that essentially established individual client states in the form of their outer prefectures - and those regularly collapsed and needed to be reestablished due to rebellion, corruption, or simple mismanagement.

Conversely, the decision to form Tuscany, for example, is more than merely uniting the Tuscan region of Italy under one banner. It's eliminating any possible competition to lay full claim to the very concept of being Tuscan, forcing the nobility and other elites to submit utterly, compensating or destroying those who would not bend the knee, centralising the burghers and reorganising the clerical hierarchy according to the loyal and wealthy, and so on and so forth. Forming a country in this way also eliminates all separatism, as it redefines the legal boundaries of citizenship, ownership, taxes and tallies and trade routes, and so on and so forth.

Here's an interesting modern example. In certain areas of Apulia and Calabria, you can find towns of an Italian minority known as the Griko. They are Italians. They have been Italians of one sort or another for centuries. Yet every so often you might encounter the comment "Una faccia, una razza"; and just over the Ionian sea, its Hellenic equivalent "Mia fatsa, mia ratsa". Simply put: "One face, one race". The Griko are Italians. They are also Greeks. Their presence in Neapolitan, Sicilian, Savoyard and Modern Italian Southern Italy is as accepted as it would be in Athens or Crete or Thrace. They have been accepted as part of Italy for so long that their culture has been assimilated, their cores have expired, and their legal existence has been redefined by the formation of new political entities several times over.

This acceptance, legal redefinition, and gradual wholesale assimilation of a highly localised minority is roughly what the administrative requirement of a technology level is on the formation of a new country.

Or it's just a game mechanic.

That all makes a lot of sense to be sure, no disputing that would make sense, but all of that is already in the game as various other mechanics.

So it kinda seems a bit redundant, also, you could, technically, form Italy whilst still having, for example, Venetian separatists and provinces not cored that is part of the Italian culture group, plus. Also, If France were to splinter in eu4 (which is actually pretty common) i may be wrong about this, but if i remember correctly there's no tech cost for uniting France and declaring yourself the ruler of all Franks, despite that concept is the same as uniting Italy or Germany.

Overall it seems to be an arbitrary requirement for game balance, which makes sense, although, for most formable nations, the hard work is the conquest, like if you own all of Britannia, then having to wait for the tech level isn't stopping anything it's just a delay. And, while it may matter if it's a stiff MP competition, id think for SP, forming a certain nation doesn't really matter much in terms of power (with some exceptions due to OP mission and idea sets) it's more cosmetic, because most formables aren't crazy OP in missions and ideas, not to the point of being a game changer. Not every formable nation is Prussia.

I mean, if you are at the point of forming Germany for example, you are already to the point of wiping the floor with most countries and probably GPs, regardless of idea sets or missions, in fact it's a downgrade if you're Prussia.

Actually, now that i think about it, many of the stronger formable nations are in Germany lol.

[k!po]

-> be me, middle east virgin
-> choose Mamluks
-> 'hey maybe i can return to Egypt and the ancient ways'
-> start a game as mamluks
-> reads conditions to form Egypt
-> Admin lvl 20
-> immediatly quits game
-> play as France for the 300th time

I sometimes wish forming Nations wouldnt be tied to some comepletly random 'balance'...

[[ λ³ ] nob]

Originally posted by k!po:

-> be me, middle east virgin
-> choose Mamluks
-> 'hey maybe i can return to Egypt and the ancient ways'
-> start a game as mamluks
-> reads conditions to form Egypt
-> Admin lvl 20
-> immediatly quits game
-> play as France for the 300th time

I sometimes wish forming Nations wouldnt be tied to some comepletly random 'balance'...

Mamluks are hella dope tho

[Tanuvein]

I think its pure balance. Some formable nations, like Prussia, have such strong ideas that if you get them from simply conquering a few territories its a bit over powered. I imagine this is a big part of it.

Also, the devs seem to cater to achievement hunters, so having something achievable too quickly reduces the replayability for those people. I usually get bored before the achievements and just start a new game, personally.

[ChaffyExpert]

Originally posted by k!po:

-> be me, middle east virgin
-> choose Mamluks
-> 'hey maybe i can return to Egypt and the ancient ways'
-> start a game as mamluks
-> reads conditions to form Egypt
-> Admin lvl 20
-> immediatly quits game
-> play as France for the 300th time

I sometimes wish forming Nations wouldnt be tied to some comepletly random 'balance'...

Isn't there an option to change nation forming requirements?

[ChaffyExpert]

Originally posted by Tanuvein:

I think its pure balance. Some formable nations, like Prussia, have such strong ideas that if you get them from simply conquering a few territories its a bit over powered. I imagine this is a big part of it.

Also, the devs seem to cater to achievement hunters, so having something achievable too quickly reduces the replayability for those people. I usually get bored before the achievements and just start a new game, personally.

It's a dilemma alright, although, i think that getting the provinces for forming a nation is the hardest part, so except maybe for Multi-player, it really doesn't affect balance all that much, all it does is delay forming Prussia. Like, to form Prussia, the hardest part to me is always grabbing Teuton provinces before Poland/Commonwealth does. Once you do that, it's a waiting game.

I want to clarify, i understand perfectly well potential reasons Paradox has for the tech requirement, it just seems arbitrary and pointless to me.

Like, end-game tags has a really good reason, which is to prevent gaming the system by tag switching. This doesn't seem to have a solid gameplay related reason, other than delaying the player from snowballing.

[Drukaris]

its stupid and there is no proper reason at all
maybe once upton a time there was one, abut as the game is now it doesnt make any sense

[k!po]

Originally posted by Drukaris:

its stupid and there is no proper reason at all
maybe once upton a time there was one, abut as the game is now it doesnt make any sense

I feel the same way, the so called gamplay in Paradox Games can be kind of stale from time to time, for example waiting for AE to go down literally doing nothing only Eco stuff.

Why make the player wait even longer to form his Nation of choice and once again i like the Egypt example, you would expect to form kinda ancient egypt not modern day and so on, i really dont like the feature, i dont mind adm 10 because thats a point for me that i always reach before the plathrough gets boring and i snowball...

And in the early and mid game a new formable Nation can breath some fresh air in the playthrough if the nation has own ideas and so on...

[RCMidas]

Originally posted by Going to be Banned by mods Soon:

Like, end-game tags has a really good reason, which is to prevent gaming the system by tag switching.

Let's be fair, if preventing multiple tag switches in the end-game was a balancing issue, the sheer number of preliminary switches you could make in an early WC is itself fairly ludicrous. With some creative timing and start positions, you could even pick up some especially broken bonuses - start as Florence, become Jerusalem, go Sunni, unite the Hausa, switch to one of four very specific Altaic cultures before forming Sokoto, perhaps even amuse yourself by forming Tibet in order to become a horde, and then messing around with returning to Italy or Germany to do something there.

Whatever Paradox's reasons were for various decisions A DECADE AGO when the game was in development...well, there has been so much stuff added in and tweaked, not always consistently relative to actual power level or quality, that trying to understand said decisions are exercises in futility.

Personally, I go by the metric of "If I can't think up a reasonable argument inside of ten seconds, I chalk it up to weird game design and move on with my life."

[ChaffyExpert]

Originally posted by RCMidas:

Originally posted by Going to be Banned by mods Soon:

Like, end-game tags has a really good reason, which is to prevent gaming the system by tag switching.

Let's be fair, if preventing multiple tag switches in the end-game was a balancing issue, the sheer number of preliminary switches you could make in an early WC is itself fairly ludicrous. With some creative timing and start positions, you could even pick up some especially broken bonuses - start as Florence, become Jerusalem, go Sunni, unite the Hausa, switch to one of four very specific Altaic cultures before forming Sokoto, perhaps even amuse yourself by forming Tibet in order to become a horde, and then messing around with returning to Italy or Germany to do something there.

Whatever Paradox's reasons were for various decisions A DECADE AGO when the game was in development...well, there has been so much stuff added in and tweaked, not always consistently relative to actual power level or quality, that trying to understand said decisions are exercises in futility.

Personally, I go by the metric of "If I can't think up a reasonable argument inside of ten seconds, I chalk it up to weird game design and move on with my life."

Ya, could ignore it, but theorizing about it is more fun.

[Felicity]

The idea of a nation before tech level 20 is laughable at best, historically. (edit: nevermind, it's laughable before tech level 30, even). You are essentially forming a nation out of nationalism. Nationalism is, again, laughable before Napoleon in any administrative sense.

What you are seeing through most of the early/mid game are not NATIONS. This is a weird distinction and if you go by google definitions you may have a hard time getting what I mean without actually caring about the timeframe.

That you can do something quickly does not mean that nationalism exists yet.

This would be the real, actual reason that it's totally reasonable (Egypt was NOT a nation, it was a dynasty, to call it a nation you are being anachronistic. What you are forming is a 'conceptualized' Egypt. It would be nonsensical for the Mamluks to suddenly say oh, yes, we are Egyptian now, that very un-Islamic pagan dynasty empire. That makes much sense.

HOWEVER

Nationalism can grow as a sense of historical pride or of immediate need (see: national socialism), revanchism, etc. Nationalism rarely just appears. What are established from already large kingdoms are not NATIONS, but EMPIRES.

This is the long dialectical explanation for this reason but I am almost certain it is to avoid too many anachronism and for game balance purposes (multiple tag changes also cause weird bugs, I believe, that are hard to solve).

HOWEVER

it's also a video game so idk you can probably just change five lines and remove all the requirements.

addtly:

"Like, i imagine if some nation somehow unified all of Germany in like 1550-1600 or so, (so before the 20 admin tech needed) said nation's kind would certainly proclaim themselves the King of all Germans, and be noted by historians as being the formation of Germany."

Negative, they would not. In fact, there was exactly what you are describing: the Holy Roman Emperor. Ask yourself: what is a GERMAN? If you went back to 1550, and asked a random individual within the current boundaries of Germany, what would they say?

"I'm from x town"
"Get out of my way"
"I'm Bavaraian"
"I'm from Saxony"
"I'm from Wurrtemburg"
"I come from the ultimate empire of Ulm"

These were not GERMANS, in our modern sense. They could not even decide what German was. Were Austrians German? Czechs? What about the Baltic Germans? Were the junkers even German, they had a lot of slav, after all. The idea of a GERMANY was Bismarck's doing in the late 19th century, during Victoria II, not this game. Crown from the gutter, as they called it; and the ONLY REASON Germany ever unified as such was literally Bismarck almost pushing for it.

Nationalism is highly recent and not inherent by any means.

history lesson over