I'm going to throw the word "Polity" into the ring. Multilateral Polity? Grouped Polity? Associated Polity? Something like that.
- 6
- 2
-
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.
"Polypolar diplo-political institutional fora"
More seriously I vote for association, bloc, confederation, or institution in that order. And more importantly I much prefer "regional" to "international" as a modifier. Even if it's transcontinental somehow, what even is a region? "Regional institution/organization" doesn't sound too bad to my ears.
More seriously I vote for association, bloc, confederation, or institution in that order. And more importantly I much prefer "regional" to "international" as a modifier. Even if it's transcontinental somehow, what even is a region? "Regional institution/organization" doesn't sound too bad to my ears.
- 2
- 2
- 1
- 1
- 1
I like diplomatic organisation too. Or something like Diplomatic pact. Just something that can be really quick and snappy and to the point, like how people say diplo points you can have a diplo org.
- 2
Not sure Catholicism is a polity. Actually not sure the Guelphs and Ghibellines are either. Even the Tatar Yoke feels tenuous.
- 10
The lack of consensus here is really vindicating the devs' choice. Nonetheless, I will give me own suggestion: we name them nothing. Why do IOs even need a name, we don't have a collective term for the HRE, Empire of China and Japanese Daimyo mechanics in EU4, nor these historical systems in real life. We could remove the words "international organisation" from all interfaces (as in Oglesby's suggestion from some pages ago), but I instead propose that we replace them with a unique descriptive substitle for each IO e.g. "Guelphs" will be subtitled "Pro-papal faction within the HRE" and "Tatar yoke" will be subtitled "[Current yoke leader] hegemony in Russia". The words "international organisation" are safety banished to the jargon of devs and modders.
- 20
- Dec 14, 1999
- 21.953
- 255.265
Remember this is for things like..
Catholic Church
Holy Roman Empire
All Hindu States sharing the same branch.
Unions
and many more of the currently 32 different types we have..
AND a country can be in many of those at the same time
Catholic Church
Holy Roman Empire
All Hindu States sharing the same branch.
Unions
and many more of the currently 32 different types we have..
AND a country can be in many of those at the same time
- 18
- 8
- 1
- 1
And so I ask: Do these groupings share enough common mechanics that a name needs to be displayed in the game at all? Or can it simply be relegated to the backend, like other mechanical handles?
- 9
- 4
- 2
I prefer International Association.
I understand that the term international is a touch anachronistic, but it's for the greater good of the game.
Note: I guess this is not a popular opinion! Vabbè, that's okay.
I understand that the term international is a touch anachronistic, but it's for the greater good of the game.
Note: I guess this is not a popular opinion! Vabbè, that's okay.
Last edited:
- 4
Multilateral grouping? I don't care if it sounds too 21st centruy cos that's where we are.
I like multilateral.
I like multilateral.
- 3
- 1
- 1
Maybe you could use "supranational institution"? It's main definition of it is an institution made from many countries. I know it sounds a bit boring and specific, but it's the word normally used for the EU
- 2
- 1
The only thing about 'national' is that it doesn't really suit Churches
Could something like Global Group work then?
"The HRE is one of the Global Groups in Europe while all of the members at the start date are also part of the Catholic Church Global Group"
Or maybe use something like universal association (no hint at Europa Universalis totally unrelated
)"A universal association formed as a Coalition against expansionist Naples. Naples also being part of another universal association of the knights of Malta"
Would this be important to have a name at all if the sub groups are more important and relevant to the player? I guess if you want to see a map mode of these IOs
- 1
- 1
- 1
If players have the opportunity to create IOs, since I bet quite a few must be created from 1350 to 1800, how should it be named in the tool tip? Create [hidden backend name], what are the rules of such IO - political union, common religious area, etc
- 4
CS – Complex Structures
CPS - Complex Political Structures
CPS - Complex Political Structures
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
Do we really need two words here, can't it just "organizations"?
Seems like like a generic enough definition for pretty much everything.
- 9
- 4
It was said in the TT on IOs (or some other early TT) that as they are very script-heavy, they will not be creatable in-game.
If this is changed in the future, I have no problem calling the button to access the mechanical function "Create International Organization". But if I create the Neo-Achaemenid Empire IO for Persia and her Satrapies, I'd still prefer for that to simply not include the handle, as it would have nothing in common with my separate Zoroastrian Community IO.
- 2
- 1
- 1
But then the names "Organisation" and "Institutions" are crossed out, because Hindu branches are just results of local politicking and thinkers, specially trying to regain their space in the cities where they were losing power. They're just places where say cows are sacred or some archaic cows are sacrifice according to local elites. Then some local villages won't even be of the Brahmanic Hinduism types etc though that's smaller than the size of current provinces.
They're not an institution as there isn't a central system from they radiate, and not an Organisation from which different actors get together and decide wisely.
I was thinking association but I'm not sure because it feels too institutional
"Bloc", "System", "Sphere", etc - and "Supranational", "Interstates/Interstatal" feel better
I still like the IO abstraction very much, it's fire and along with the four types of societies one it's been the best Tinto Talk, it's an abstraction that approximates very well a lot of different situations and bridges the gap with so many obliquely different interpretations of order across the globe
Last edited:
- 4
- 1
I'm still on board with association, or association of states or countries.
It's vague enough, doesn't sound too modern, and rolls easy of the tongue.
It's vague enough, doesn't sound too modern, and rolls easy of the tongue.
- 4
- 2