The language of the game is international English, not the IR academic dialect of English. International organisation is readily understandable to what it is and now of the alternatives are as good imo.
- 10
- 4
- 4
-
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.
I was under the impression that International Organization is the name of a bit of internal program structure in the PC code base, like the name of a C++ class or something. I don't think it's a term that the player ever sees, and I don't think they should (how would it ever help the player to understand the HRE, Catholic Church, and the Tatar Yoke as all the same "thing"?).
I think that IOs are a generic and useful bit of structure for game designers/programmers/modders to use for abstracting the idea of having a group of entities observe some common set of rules. If this is the case, the only real measure of what IOs "should" be called is clarity among the developers that are working on the game. In that sense, it doesn't really matter if IO is an anachronistic term. All that matters is that the people who need to work with this abstraction know what it means. Also, since we don't have access to the code, we don't even know exactly how deep and general this abstraction is. We don't know how it works. In our ignorance it's very hard to make a decent suggestion.
But I'll make one anyway:
BigOlBagOTags
I think that IOs are a generic and useful bit of structure for game designers/programmers/modders to use for abstracting the idea of having a group of entities observe some common set of rules. If this is the case, the only real measure of what IOs "should" be called is clarity among the developers that are working on the game. In that sense, it doesn't really matter if IO is an anachronistic term. All that matters is that the people who need to work with this abstraction know what it means. Also, since we don't have access to the code, we don't even know exactly how deep and general this abstraction is. We don't know how it works. In our ignorance it's very hard to make a decent suggestion.
But I'll make one anyway:
BigOlBagOTags
- 8
- 2
- 1
I was thinking about “situation”, until it was revealed as the name for a new mechanic.
- 3
- 1
I don't think it needs to be changed. You could think long and hard about what could be a fitting name for what it's trying to represent and nothing will ever fit without being either too specific or too broad.
I do think the name should be 'hidden' as much as possible outside of tooltips. I don't want to open the High Kingdom of Ireland window and see "International Organization in Ireland Region" as its subtitle, it would be immersion breaking IMO.
I do think the name should be 'hidden' as much as possible outside of tooltips. I don't want to open the High Kingdom of Ireland window and see "International Organization in Ireland Region" as its subtitle, it would be immersion breaking IMO.
- 3
- 2
But theyre very different to eu4 institutions,
We'll rarely see them, but its what the wiki page will be titled
Perhaps we rely on Voldemort or Prince:
Either "the mechanic not to be named"
Or "the mechanic formerly known as international organization"
- 12
Latter works well, FYROM was one of my favourite country names before they became north macedonia
- 6
This though is not EU4. could be similar but at this point we have seen so many differences that I believe even the EU4 institutions may have a different mechanic or could be called differently.
To be very frank, this game encompasses a period of History so vast that what else can you call something that is a collective political entity? "international" can't be used. Medieval monarchies are nowhere near to being considered nations, though we have in the 13th and 14th centuries the first "signals" of the transition from feudal monarchies to early modern forms of statehood. "organizations" it's not ahistorical per se, but I believe misses the focus of the entity we're trying to define.
I'll reinforce my position here on why I believe "common institutions" could be more appropriate as a name for these organizations:
I've found this definition of "Institution" on Britannica:
"Institution, in political science, a set of formal rules (including constitutions), informal norms, or shared understandings that constrain and prescribe political actors’ interactions with one another. Institutions are generated and enforced by both state and nonstate actors, such as professional and accreditation bodies. Within institutional frameworks, political actors may have more or less freedom to pursue and develop their individual preferences and tastes."
This definition is just perfect for the entity we are discussing here. we are talking about common frameworks in which political actors move. This can encompass religious organizations, political systems, economic ventures, common norms, etc.
"common" as a term I believe is simple and effective to define what we are talking about without entering ahistorical considerations on what is a State. We already have "common law" as an appropriate term to define "customary norms that are respected by a moltitude of individuals that share the same political or social organization" - the english common law system started like this: they were "laws that were (or were made) common to all subjects of the crown of England".
I for my degree am studying medieval political systems, and it is clearly hard to define a political entity in the Middle Ages: what functions or powers define a State? executive power - who makes the laws? Is the HRE a state? Are the kingdoms that make the HRE states? For Bohemia we can say yes with confidence, but what about the kingdom of Germany or the Kingdom of Italy? these titles still existed in 1337 and will continue to exist for a long time. To this add feudal law that mixes private institutions like propriety with public functions like administering justice. And to this add roman and canon law that """""in theory""""" were the law of the land for all of Europe! So is Christianity a State? Is the Roman Empire still a State? As Disney's Merlin would say "one big medieval mess!"
So there's that, in 1337 wether you'll play with the Kingdom of England or with the Bishopric of Mainz you're not playing with countries but semidefined political entities. So yeah, better "common institutions" than "international organizations".
If we can't overcome the past affiliations of the term "institution", "organization" is a synonym. so it could also be "common organizations".
- 1
I still like Grand Association. But honestly I don't care that much. IO is easy enough to type.
- 3
SInce this topic appeared again in the last first Tinto Flavour, when Pavia literally said that they do not like the name International Organisations, I will bring this thread back to life and try to give it one more chance:
What if we will call it a Bloc?
There would be 3+ subcategories for immersion, organic UI naming and maybe different basic mechanics:
(Also can be a Power Bloc, but I don't know if copypaste from Vicky3 is welcome)
What if we will call it a Bloc?
There would be 3+ subcategories for immersion, organic UI naming and maybe different basic mechanics:
- Diplomatic bloc (HRE, Guelphs vs Ghibellines, Tatar Yoke, ...)
- Political bloc (Japanese Shogunate and Northern/Southern Courts, ...)
- Religious bloc (Catholic Church, Religious Leagues, ...)
- Maybe also Economic bloc, but I don't know if there are any (e.g. Trade Leagues, ...).
(Also can be a Power Bloc, but I don't know if copypaste from Vicky3 is welcome)
Last edited:
- 10
- 1
I like it, but they may have the word in mind for something else down the line. If so, they could use Bloc for this, and rename the 'something else.'
- 4
- 1
Wouldn't it be better to make a map mode with "multilateral treaties" placing any coalitions, leagues, pacts and other type of stuff between more than bilateral[two] parties? If the member is a part of more than one of such treaty, then then its territory could be made with crossed lines and on hover you would see all the pacts in a tooltip? This would simplify need for separate map modes for each type of pacts/treaties/leagues?
- 1
Considering that many of these IO serve to defend of some interests held by some old people of some old institution of sorts, plus the religious defenders of the faith titles, you could say it's a Defense of the Ancient (Powers) of some sorts... You could say that IO is part of this Defense of the Ancients sorts...
- 4
- 1
Wouldn't a state be said semidefined political entities, or governance entities with agency of their own? I know you just talked about State, but couldn't State be broadly defined enough to replace Nation in the game?
Interstatal Organisations, Interstatal Entities, etc
As I was also under this assumption, I'd vote very strongly in favour of simply removing the technical term of it from the UI. I don't need to know that the Tatar Yoke and Papacy are the same thing from a technical perspective any more than I need in-game confirmation that the flag of France is in the GFX folder.
The important information to communicate is that it's the HRE, the Yoke, the Celestial Empire or whatever else. Telling the player that they're all IO's might even lead to the (hopefully wrong) assumption that there should be great similarities in how these entities function. Useless information at best, misleading information at worst. Unless there are in fact mechanical similarities strong enough to warrant pointing out they're all IO's, which would be concerning.
Last edited:
- 9
- 2
- 2
- 2
I think however that would remove the possibility of the player or AI of creating any International Organisations, which even if not implemented right now as a mechanic it might be in the future