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.
What do we think about clean borders in EU IV? Thus far, every paradox game has failed to produce neat looking borders that conform to nationalist/religion lines. Not just occasionally, but constantly. They happen very occasionally by accident in EU3, usually before collapsing spectacularly.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "clean borders", but let me just see if I understand what you implied request is -
you want Paradox to accurately make accurate, static province borders for both linguistic and religious divisions which, I assume, should take into account the gradual shifts and drifts that occurred during a timespan that lasts 300-400 years?
There is a small but dedicated faction of people who want neat borders in the game, by which I think they mean no salients or isolated enclaves. I've never understood this, seems a bit OCD to me, but I suspect that's what the OP is on about.
It doesn't seem OCD to me. People want to feel like the map they're looking at could be a real alt-history map, and seeing a country ignore an OPM it has surrounded and has a core on, or seeing Poland split into 3 by a line of someone else's territory running through it breaks the immersion.
It doesn't seem OCD to me. People want to feel like the map they're looking at could be a real alt-history map, and seeing a country ignore an OPM it has surrounded and has a core on, or seeing Poland split into 3 by a line of someone else's territory running through it breaks the immersion.
Well a country being separated by another happens. I mean current day Russia has that I believe, but I think that a country should try and be connected.
Well a country being separated by another happens. I mean current day Russia has that I believe, but I think that a country should try and be connected.
Yep, but there are usually specific reasons for that happening (in this timeframe, typically inheritance). In EUIII it was too easy to split a country in half.
We have all seen maps of AI going conquering around the world while a part of its "sphere" is still in the hands of OPM's or others. Certain big nations should have goals/priorities like for the Ottoman empire getting everything in Anatolia and Balkans before moving further into Arabia, Africa or into Central Europe. Same goes for Castille first it should get everything Iberia and parts of Southern Italy and North Africa. The same goes for England --> British Isles.
Perhaps the AI should prioritise provinces that border many of it's own provinces. The more of it's own provinces it borders, the more it's prioritised.
Yeah sorry I was dosed on cough medicine when I wrote the OP.
I meant countries looking like countries rather than the map of Europe looking like the cover art on a '70s concept album.
This is what Europe looked like at AD1700:
Have you ever seen anything like this? I think it's a result of the weakness of nationalism in the game. Once a province is cored, its nationality doesn't really matter.
I don't think the problem is just nationalism, but rather that the will of the locals isn't represented almost at all. In another thread I suggested CK style laws for different regions - the player should have to come to agreement with their subjects about the terms of rulership. Good planning can create a functional multiethnic empire, such as with the Ottoman Balkans, and failure can lead to organized revolts, such as in the Netherlands.
It shouldn't be too complicated though - it should mostly be about local rights (preventing cultural shifts), religious rights (preventing conversion), taxation/manpower rights, etc.
The AI should definetly triy to get certain specific regions according to their strategic location. Castille should always try to get Aragon, Aragon/Spain should always at least try to get Italy, France would prioritize a border at the Rhine that includes the Low Countries, etc.
Well this also may be impossible since (from what I know) the AI goes by the missions it gets and sometimes those missions can either be suicide or just counter productive. There is also the player aspect of it. Like in my German game I split England into 5 different nation (not count the remaining England). So that would make it weaker to do the thing it needs to do. Though, they could probably do something about the snake thing. Like have the AI try and get a more round border, but that creates problems for nations like Milan since they should be trying to create Italy. I guess you could have each AI have a main mission like create Spain or Germany but his would take the randomness from the game as you would usually end up with the same countries end game.
It doesn't seem OCD to me. People want to feel like the map they're looking at could be a real alt-history map, and seeing a country ignore an OPM it has surrounded and has a core on, or seeing Poland split into 3 by a line of someone else's territory running through it breaks the immersion.
But those situations exist in the world right now - countries within other countries, countries split up into two parts (if not three), countries having enclaves inside other countries. I think people have an unrealistic idea of how messy real-life borders really are.
But those situations exist in the world right now - countries within other countries, countries split up into two parts (if not three), countries having enclaves inside other countries. I think people have an unrealistic idea of how messy real-life borders really are.
Yes, but they are a minority compared to relatively clean borders. People of over 2,3 metres exist but that doesn't mean they are the norm. That being said screwed-up borders were considerably more common in the timeframe of EU and I believe they should stay but just like in real life there should be some sort of sense in it - e.g. HRE was full of fractured states as a result of the inheritance laws and royal marriage policies. Portugal, Great Britain and others had many disconected overseas territories to provide sea bases. In the game it's usually the result of strange rules (e.g. the rules of provinces defecting to and from hodes, war score cost of provinces, the rules of province transfer - can only demand occupied and cored provinces and other arbitrary rules and of course the random core-giving missions and events).
I think this map is the best argument you can make. The only major non contiguous borders are within the HRE.
The reason is fairly obvious: you needed contiguous borders in order to maintain control over a realm. For strong sea powers a sea link would work, but they needed to remain strong naval powers.
As I see it, what the map shows isn't a problem with the AI. Just like the AI, rulers extend as far as they can in any given direction. The big difference between EU and reality is that EU makes it too easy to hold onto far-flung territories. All you need to do is get a "white peace" and everything goes back to status quo ante bellum.
But it seems to me that status quo ante bellum was actually a very special occurance. IMHO "white peace" should be a true "status quo"- you keep what you hold and I keep what I hold. That way England's Caucasian territories would be much harder to keep a grasp on.
