Petition: Sengoku Jidai and in-depth HRE.

[Morboth]

Pretty much that: I'd love to have a proper depiction of the Sengoku Jidai and the HRE, not like DW's poor iterations.

Summing up, I'd have them changed as follows:

SJ:

-More Daimyos/clans to choose from.
-A complex political representation, better than DW's but not a Sengoku/CK II one, something in-between.

HRE:

-Make it EXTREMELY hard to expand within the borders of the HRE without inheritance/claim throne.
-While being able to abolish the electoral college is good, I think it's way too overpowered, perhaps a different way to represent an Absolute Monarchy could be implemented, like having them all 'in your sphere' - sorry to borrow from Vicky here, but puppets/vassals just didn't do it -.
-Make it real hard to fight the Reformation within the Empire.
-The three benches would be great, but I think that asking for those is way too much.

Anyway, just my two cents, hope someone reads this and considers some of them.

 

[fenwayb]

Pretty much that: I'd love to have a proper depiction of the Sengoku Jidai and the HRE, not like DW's poor iterations.

Summing up, I'd have them changed as follows:

SJ:

-More Daimyos/clans to choose from.
-A complex political representation, better than DW's but not a Sengoku/CK II one, something in-between.

HRE:

-Make it EXTREMELY hard to expand within the borders of the HRE without inheritance/claim throne.
-While being able to abolish the electoral college is good, I think it's way too overpowered, perhaps a different way to represent an Absolute Monarchy could be implemented, like having them all 'in your sphere' - sorry to borrow from Vicky here, but puppets/vassals just didn't do it -.
-Make it real hard to fight the Reformation within the Empire.
-The three benches would be great, but I think that asking for those is way too much.

Anyway, just my two cents, hope someone reads this and considers some of them.

I can agree with wanting a better Japan, but I also understand that balance has to exist at some point; They can't put *every* clan in, at the very least.

As to the HRE, if they make it as hard to expand in the HRE as it was historically, then they need to make sure there's something else to do. If it's little more than "sit around and do nothing" then it's not worth the "historical accuracy".

 

[Me_]

DW's Japan was designed purely with gameplay in mind (most importantly Multiplayer). I'd expect the same of EU4. Abandon all hope now and you won't be dissapointed later as most of the community was with DW's Japan.

-The three benches would be great, but I think that asking for those is way too much.

No Magna Mundi features in EU4.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

No Magna Mundi features in EU4.

That's a shame really. Sure, MM probably was overcomplicated at some places, but still - so much good ideas that won't make it to EU4.

 

[1alexey]

HRE:

-Make it EXTREMELY hard to expand within the borders of the HRE without inheritance/claim throne.
-While being able to abolish the electoral college is good, I think it's way too overpowered, perhaps a different way to represent an Absolute Monarchy could be implemented, like having them all 'in your sphere' - sorry to borrow from Vicky here, but puppets/vassals just didn't do it -.
-Make it real hard to fight the Reformation within the Empire.
-The three benches would be great, but I think that asking for those is way too much.

Anyway, just my two cents, hope someone reads this and considers some of them.

-Was it really all that Hard? Like Astria expanding into North Italy, Brandenburg expanding into Silesia, ex. The HRE is already almost not worthy expanding into, if you`re lucky to be on it`s border and have the ability expand outside of it.
-Let`s look at France, England, Spain, that went from less centralised that HRE to way more centralised. HRE is only slightly larger than France.
If France could, HRE also could. It is just historically Habsburgs didn`t try hard to unite the Empire.
-Why? It was not hard to fight because of the HRE itself, but because of how powerfull(about equal) were the two camps.

 

[Me_]

-Was it really all that Hard? Like Astria expanding into North Italy, Brandenburg expanding into Silesia, ex. The HRE is already almost not worthy expanding into, if you`re lucky to be on it`s border and have the ability expand outside of it.

Yes. Both examples were pretty difficult to pull off. Especially the Silesian one was very close to ending in a disaster.

-Let`s look at France, England, Spain, that went from less centralised that HRE to way more centralised. HRE is only slightly larger than France.
If France could, HRE also could. It is just historically Habsburgs didn`t try hard to unite the Empire.

HRE was considerably more diverse - Burgundians, Italians, Silesians, Dutch and all varieties of Germans. France was like 3 ethnic groups and Spain was about 4. HRE had like 10 or more.

-Why? It was not hard to fight because of the HRE itself, but because of how powerfull(about equal) were the two camps.

If only the game could represent that (a Protestant alliance never happens in EU3) that's all that's needed.

 

[1alexey]

HRE was considerably more diverse - Burgundians, Italians, Silesians, Dutch and all varieties of Germans. France was like 3 ethnic groups and Spain was about 4. HRE had like 10 or more.

That depends on how you calculate the etnic groups.

Also, you do not need to satisfy all of them, you only need just enought to get support into power. For HRE specifically, Germans would be perfectly enought.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

"Ethnic groups" was literally the last thing the HRE was about

Lack of central institutions, bad luck with powerful ruling dynasties dieing out, foreign entanglements and most importantly its sheer size kept the HRE from doing like the other "states" were doing, and centralizing.

Ethnicity did not matter at all. The only ones who were hung up about "where are you from" in a sort of proto-nationalist way were the Bohemians and the Italians, and even that was just on top of the conflicts they had among each other. Particularly in Italy, where "Germans" = "Imperial power encroaching on our liberties".

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

So, large compared to France or Russia? Both of which went to centralised absolute monarchies in the time frame, with Russia being built from the ground up.

 

[Jia Xu]

I'd rather not see 20 tags in Japan, to be quite honest.

 

[Evie HJ]

That said, going for something like the playable factions of Shogun: TW might be an improvement over the current completely ahistorical four tags.

 

[Sakura]

It'd be an improvement but still ahistoric in its own way since at least half of those clans were either non-existent or way down the food chain in 1444.

I'm not sure how the sengoku jidai could be best represented in EU4. The game's scale doesn't really suit it too well.

 

[Evie HJ]

Then possibly, divide Japan in a few historical regions. Use dynasties (and dynastic revolters) to represent the actual clans, with whichever clan was most powerful in the region at a given point in time being made the leading dynasty.

Trying to throw ideas here that can be made to fit within the EU system.

 

[icedt729]

Then possibly, divide Japan in a few historical regions. Use dynasties (and dynastic revolters) to represent the actual clans, with whichever clan was most powerful in the region at a given point in time being made the leading dynasty.

Trying to throw ideas here that can be made to fit within the EU system.

This would be a little inelegant, but I think it might be the best solution. If you used the dynasty as the country's name like for muslims in CK2, it wouldn't even look that bad- 6 tags should cover the biggest players from about 1580 on (Shimazu, Mori, Chosokabe, Oda->Toyotomi, Date, Hojo->Tokugawa, right?). Japan could be united until the Onin War, then consolidated into Tokugawa and Toyotomi camps from the Imjin War to Sekigahara, then mostly united under Tokugawa, with the tozama daimyo as vassals. Sound good?

 

[pieGEEK]

This would be a little inelegant, but I think it might be the best solution. If you used the dynasty as the country's name like for muslims in CK2, it wouldn't even look that bad- 6 tags should cover the biggest players from about 1580 on (Shimazu, Mori, Chosokabe, Oda->Toyotomi, Date, Hojo->Tokugawa, right?). Japan could be united until the Onin War, then consolidated into Tokugawa and Toyotomi camps from the Imjin War to Sekigahara, then mostly united under Tokugawa, with the tozama daimyo as vassals. Sound good?

That actually makes sense, a united decentralized Japan, that explodes into civil war every so often between several vassal daimyos released when it happens and then you can wars between them all. This way keeps Japan from expanding everywhere, and the unstable feudal system together.

 

[Arcvalons]

The PoD for a centralized HRE is far before the game's start, since the Emperor's office became elective rather than hereditary.

 

[Fantaisie]

This would be a little inelegant, but I think it might be the best solution. If you used the dynasty as the country's name like for muslims in CK2, it wouldn't even look that bad- 6 tags should cover the biggest players from about 1580 on (Shimazu, Mori, Chosokabe, Oda->Toyotomi, Date, Hojo->Tokugawa, right?). Japan could be united until the Onin War, then consolidated into Tokugawa and Toyotomi camps from the Imjin War to Sekigahara, then mostly united under Tokugawa, with the tozama daimyo as vassals. Sound good?

I like this idea, would make Japan much better.