Every playable unit in the game, landed tag, ABC or EC, is called country in-game. An IO is not an organisation per se, but a way to group countries sharing a similar feature. Let's call it Country Groupings.
- 3
- 1
-
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.
"A large number of the polities in Europe are part of the Holy Roman Empire and all of its members are part of the Catholic Church
"A Coalition formed against expansionist Naples. Naples also (are part of | belong to | are members of) the Knights of Malta." (It was hard to parse as your second statement is just a clause and I couldn't tell if you were attempting to link the two.)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"
I am also not certain what these two examples are trying to be? Some flavor text in game? Some lines in a wiki or AAR? Or just attempts to use the suggested words I guess?
As plenty of these IOs overlap I do not see the benefit of having a singular map mode for them. If they are related I could see them being shared (see Guelphs and Ghibellines, or different Autocephalous Patriarchate within one religion) but I would not want the HRE, catholic church, the Tatar yoke, the shogunate, the Coalition against <X>, etc. all displayed in one map
If the players can create an IO it would be already defined IOs and not new ones. So there would be a "Create Coalition" button, "Create (reinstate?) an Autocephalous Patriarchate" button, and a "Create <Name of specific things already defined in the game> button".
- 2
But I think the idea is that it's going to be more nuanced than that. There isn't a patriarchate rule, it's more like patriarchate has X in parameter A, Y in B, etc... I think it might go to be very fine grained
Mapmode, this has been explained multiple times
Like in base EU4 there's an Imperial mapmode to show the HRE, and many mods jury rig this system to add in other multi-state entities that also work like this
Also in gameplay terms "entity that contains many tags under a unique set of rules" is generally something that probably should exist. The only argument I can really see here is for splitting up IOs into more coherent groups but I don't think we have so many that this is necessary yet
- 2
- 1
Well, we will have 32 TYPES of IOs:
So I’m not sure if they should be unified by a single term too
- 5
- 1
I was only using examples of IO from the TT 12 on IO
"Autocephalous Patriarchates
Meaning self-headed, an Autocephalous Patriarchate is a metropolitan bishop in the Eastern Christian confessions which acts independently and does not depend on or answer to any other hierarchically superior church authority. The different patriarchates then have their own synods of bishops to decide upon anything affecting their own religious jurisdiction."
I could see all of these sharing a map mode. I could also see them having different choices selected for a handful of 'rules'.
"There are many of these, for Orthodox, Miaphysite, and other Eastern Christian confessions."
I could see it going either way between splitting them between their overall grouping or sharing one map mode
I'll throw my hat in the ring with "Power Entanglement":
The Tartar Yoke creates a Power Entanglement between the Russian principalities and the Golden Horde, where the Horde asserts dominance while the principalities retain limited autonomy.
The Holy Roman Empire creates a Power Entanglement between the domains of central Europe and an elected emperor, where the emperor holds theoretical supremacy, but local rulers maintain significant de facto control.
The Catholic Church creates a Power Entanglement between the Papacy of Rome and the western Christians, where the Pope wields spiritual influence, receives tithe, and influences political and temporal affairs.
The Iberian Union creates a Power Entanglement between the Crowns of Portugal and Spain, where the unified monarchy strains against local autonomy.
The Guelphs create a Power Entanglement amongst the Italian states aligning with the Pope in the factional conflict against the Ghibellines who support the Holy Roman Emperor.
The Ashikaga Shogunate creates a Power Entanglement between the shogun and the daimyo, where the shogun holds nominal control, while the daimyo exercise local power.
I think "creates" is a more fitting verb here than "is", but "is" wouldn't be terrible. I don't think it would look out of place in a subtitle. It is less modern sounding than International Organization. It has basically no inference about the number, degree, or type of the relationship. I'd be more concerned that it is too generic and other mechanics might also qualify.
Edit:
As a thought experiment consider using "is modeled as", instead of using "creates" or "is", as the key verb in my examples. If we do that, we are no longer looking for a unified term to describe an eclectic set of factions, organizations, tributary systems, religious hierarchies, and political treaties. Instead, we now only need to find a term to describe the effects those things have on the tags they relate to. By the very fact that they can all be modeled with the same mechanic means that there is enough similarity between the effects these things have on the involved tags to group together.
I don't think we will ever find a satisfactory term for all the items that the mechanic models, but we don't need that. We need a term for the effect on tags that the mechanic exists to emulate. All of these things resulted in an more complex relationship between the entities being modeled as tags and sometimes entities that are not modeled as tags (for example the patriarchates). I think "Power Entanglement" does a decent job, but there may be other satisfactory terms with this different mindset.
If PC was set in modern times, would the Red Cross/Crescent be modeled as an International Organization? Probably not, because it does not create the effects that the current IO system tries to model. This is despite the fact that the Red Cross/Crescent is an actual International Organization and that IO would be an inaccurate term for the Ashikaga Shogunate.
The Tartar Yoke creates a Power Entanglement between the Russian principalities and the Golden Horde, where the Horde asserts dominance while the principalities retain limited autonomy.
The Holy Roman Empire creates a Power Entanglement between the domains of central Europe and an elected emperor, where the emperor holds theoretical supremacy, but local rulers maintain significant de facto control.
The Catholic Church creates a Power Entanglement between the Papacy of Rome and the western Christians, where the Pope wields spiritual influence, receives tithe, and influences political and temporal affairs.
The Iberian Union creates a Power Entanglement between the Crowns of Portugal and Spain, where the unified monarchy strains against local autonomy.
The Guelphs create a Power Entanglement amongst the Italian states aligning with the Pope in the factional conflict against the Ghibellines who support the Holy Roman Emperor.
The Ashikaga Shogunate creates a Power Entanglement between the shogun and the daimyo, where the shogun holds nominal control, while the daimyo exercise local power.
I think "creates" is a more fitting verb here than "is", but "is" wouldn't be terrible. I don't think it would look out of place in a subtitle. It is less modern sounding than International Organization. It has basically no inference about the number, degree, or type of the relationship. I'd be more concerned that it is too generic and other mechanics might also qualify.
Edit:
As a thought experiment consider using "is modeled as", instead of using "creates" or "is", as the key verb in my examples. If we do that, we are no longer looking for a unified term to describe an eclectic set of factions, organizations, tributary systems, religious hierarchies, and political treaties. Instead, we now only need to find a term to describe the effects those things have on the tags they relate to. By the very fact that they can all be modeled with the same mechanic means that there is enough similarity between the effects these things have on the involved tags to group together.
I don't think we will ever find a satisfactory term for all the items that the mechanic models, but we don't need that. We need a term for the effect on tags that the mechanic exists to emulate. All of these things resulted in an more complex relationship between the entities being modeled as tags and sometimes entities that are not modeled as tags (for example the patriarchates). I think "Power Entanglement" does a decent job, but there may be other satisfactory terms with this different mindset.
If PC was set in modern times, would the Red Cross/Crescent be modeled as an International Organization? Probably not, because it does not create the effects that the current IO system tries to model. This is despite the fact that the Red Cross/Crescent is an actual International Organization and that IO would be an inaccurate term for the Ashikaga Shogunate.
Last edited:
- 7
- 1
- 1
- 1
The idea of the thread is to give suggestions to another name for IO. Personally, I don't mind the name IO but the devs aren't too fond of it or possibly looking suggestions.
The two sentences are to show how it works in general saying and applying it to the forms of IO that exist in the game and see if it reads alright or sounds applicable to all the groups involved.
IOs are displayable on the map as we see examples of what the Tartar yoke looked like for example so maybe there will be a UI dev diary or AAR or even footage of the game released showing this.
- 1
Both imply that members voluntarily came together to form whatever they are a part of. Doesn't really work for the Tatar Yoke, or for the Catholic and/or Buddhist Church/Sects either, since they are inherently part of those by virtue of practicing their religion. Or some PUs for that matter, which happen because of previous dynastic links and succession laws playing their part in the outcome.
- 3
- 1
I believe this would be the best option.
We are attempting to settle on a single term to encompass a range of very different historical phenomena. As a result, the term needs to be broad—organisation, association, group, etc. However, these terms inevitably feel somewhat vague when applied to something as specific and well-known as The Church or the Holy Roman Empire.
This brings me to my main point: the crucial issue here lies in the underlying mechanics rather than the choice of wording, though this debate itself is symptomatic. Does it make sense to categorise all these historical cross-border connections under one umbrella? What are the implications of such a sweeping generalisation?
I’m not familiar with coding, and I trust the direction of the PC when it comes to these decisions, so I'm sure there is a why for all this.
- 3
- 2
I would call the Papacy a transnational organization, not an international organization.
- 1
And throughout this thread and since the IO TT my opinion is that a generic name for things that are only obliquely connected in so much as in the code they are are held in the same container is not needed.
My attempt was to show that the words added to the sentence were superfluous and not needed. One does not need to know that a Coalition and the Ashikaga Shogunate are held in the same code container.
- 5
Yes good frame challenge. We shouldn't want them to be called the same thing because that would imply they are more similar than they are.
- 2
- 1
I still like grand association. But I could live with io.
- 2
- 1
I don't even necessarily disagree with you either. I don't really have a strong opinion on it really. There are some options I think sound awful, but perhaps there is some UI element that's not been made available to us and they want it to have a title. Just a guess. And as I said maybe having a name for good coding practice is maybe not needed for the end user. But maybe it's even for internal use and want some community feedback what's a good sounding name.
- 3
- 1
"anything else" doesn't sound like a good alternative for "international organization"
- 1
- 1
