We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is this feature generic enough to allow modding/adding in expansions name options for other countries?
Either way, it's still a welcome change even though I couldn't care less about the name for it. Giving the player more option to customise their experience is the way to go.
presumably Countrys have dynamic names based on conditions, and one of BYZ's name conditions is this game rule. Unless they've massively shaken up how modding works, it would be significantly more work for them to hardcode this than to do it via scripting.
I'm not a fan of too many game rules. They either result in me just using the default because I can't be bothered to check them all, or me just quitting the game because I can't be bothered with a game which asks me so many questions just to start a game. I'm not sure how many game rules that will be too many, but this seems like one of those I would prefer not existing.
Will the "Byzantium" option be Byzantium or Byzantine Empire?
Also, is there a Roman Empire option? Or just Eastern Roman Empire?
Because if you do something, do it right. What's the point in naming it "Eastern Roman Empire" when:
1. it wasn't used in that time, so naming it like that is as anachronistic as "Byzantine Empire" (replacing wrong name with a wrong name)
2. it makes no sense since there is no "Western Roman Empire" in the game
3. it also uses an additional word which is simply unnecessary and wastes space
LITERALLY no-one calls the 14th century French state "West Frankia", while the vast majority of modern people call the 14th century Greek state Byzantium, and a smaller minority call it the Eastern Roman Empire, so that's a terrible analogy.
I'd prefer something like "Empire of the Romans" or simply "Roman Empire", because "eastern" doesn't make much sense. In order to have "eastern" Roman Empire we need a "western" one which, at this time, was long gone.
Tomato Tomato, it's like the difference between saying Fifth French Republic vs France, or USA vs America; different forms of the same name. Point is that people recognize that Byzantium/the Byzantines mean the medieval Greek empire, and that Romeaboos need to calm down on their pedantic & incorrect analogies.
LITERALLY no-one calls the 14th century French state "West Frankia", while the vast majority of modern people call the 14th century Greek state Byzantium, and a smaller minority call it the Eastern Roman Empire, so that's a terrible analogy.
We all know the Byzantines didn't call themselves Byzantines. We just, quite frankly, don't care. Every modern person recognizes what Byzantium means. Modern people call it Byzantium, and because the game is made by & for a modern audience, so does it. Modern people do not call medieval France West Frankia, and so the game has no reason to. I understand and disagree with your opinion on Byzantium's name; your analogy is just straight up incorrect.
If Byzance is not good enough, the devs could always name it the Greek Empire. After all that's how true Romans speaking latin and belonging to the true roman Church of the Roman people called the weirdos cosplaying (badly) Constantine the Great along the Sea of Marmara while speaking a funny language and losing all the wars they participated to.
Edit :
I already triggered the Byzantine zealots LOL
More seriously it should be called Byzance or ... nothing else. Roman Empire is confusing since that's the HRE too. Eastern Roman Empire is complitely nonsensical as in Late Antiquity, the Roman Empire was one and indivisible even when multiple Emperors existed. Of course we say Western half or Eastern half as an abuse of language but that's strictly an abuse of language to not say "the Roman Empire part directly ruled by x empire from X city (Be it Eboracum, Augusta Treverorum, Cologne, Milan, Sirmium, Salona, Constantinople, Nicomedia or Antioch). That is why we dont even bother to come with more precise names when they were more than two emperors like during the Tetrarchy or on Constantine the Great succession.
Mind too between the 3rd to 5th century, the emperors' court were mobile. Following them wherever they went as they constantly waged war or visited various provinces. This in stark contrast to the emperors from the High Middle Age after Heraclius who were sedentary and barely if ever left Constantinople for centuries.
Also if devs start to become overly zealous over how political thinkers & princes propagandists of modern era theorized their world, its going to be awfully complicated to novice and annoying for everybody. Cant wait to see French kings described as "princes who are emperors in their kingdoms" as they were truly theorized. Or how Hasburgs were not "kings of Spain" (where Spain includes all their domains outside Spain too) but prince of each and every single one of their titles.
Sneak peak for Felipe II wikipedia article which is accurate enough :
King of Castile as Philip II: 16 January 1556 – 13 September 1598
King of Castile, of León, of Granada, of Toledo, of Galicia, of Seville, of Cordoba, of Murcia, of Jaen, of the Algarves, of Algeciras, of Gibraltar, of the Canary Islands, of the Indias, the Islands and Mainland of the Ocean Sea;[note 4] Lord of Molina
King of Portugal as Philip I: 12 September 1580 – 13 September 1598
King of Portugal and the Algarves of either side of the sea in Africa, Lord of Guinea and of Conquest, Navigation, and Commerce of Ethiopia, Arabia, Persia, and India, etc.
BTW those were not just fancy titles. In EU terms, all of them or at least the big classifications, existed as personal unions.
If devs want to do it right, I can only encourage them to buy a few manual of history. It does not matter which one in particular. I am sure Sweden university professors would happily share the bibliography they give to their students anyway. Suffice to say, any 30$ 200/300 pages manual could do the trick. They could even buy 2 or 3 different ones to have slightly different perspectives.
LITERALLY no-one calls the 14th century French state "West Frankia", while the vast majority of modern people call the 14th century Greek state Byzantium, and a smaller minority call it the Eastern Roman Empire, so that's a terrible analogy.
So we should continue using and promoting bad name because a lot of people use bad name? Maybe we can... I don't know... let them learn the proper one instead? Then we wouldn't need historians telling people "ok, so the 'Byzantine Empire' wasn't really called 'Byzantine'" so often.
I'll still play it even if it were called "Helleno-Lacedaemonian Empire of Istanbul", but it'd be nice if it had the best name possible.
Or maybe it's like that so that the player would be able, with one click, change it to "[Proper] Roman Empire" after conquering specific provinces.
Maybe country naming convention - as well as colors - should not be part of the checksum. So modders/the community can change the behaviour any way they like, such as changing the shown country names depending on the cultore of the observing tag. An HRE player would then see "Empire of the Greeks" as the country name for BYZ, while a BYZ player would see "Roman Empire", reflecting the different views. With an option to use modern/anachronistic naming, such as "Byzantium".
We all know the Byzantines didn't call themselves Byzantines. We just, quite frankly, don't care. Every modern person recognizes what Byzantium means. Modern people call it Byzantium, and because the game is made by & for a modern audience, so does it. Modern people do not call medieval France West Frankia, and so the game has no reason to. I understand and disagree with your opinion on Byzantium's name; your analogy is just straight up incorrect.
it was not me that made the analogy, and yes not even medieval french people called France to be west francia, you seem to be here complaining a lot about something you don't care about because it's an option and not something mandatory.
And as we can see, as expected, the ranting continues. This changed nothing. I for one feel that despite how noble Johan's intentions were, there is never any pleasing these people. I suspect the comment section will soon be locked, as do all other comment sections on the topic. Way to go guys.
And as we can see, as expected, the ranting continues. This changed nothing. I for one feel that despite how noble Johan's intentions were, there is never any pleasing these people. I suspect the comment section will soon be locked, as do all other comment sections on the topic. Way to go guys.
I just see byzaboos here saying alternative names for eastern roman empire and people hating that this is a option, the byzaboos are literally delighted by this option
