Ugh

ugh...

Attached: Screenshot (309).png (1920x1080, 3.28M)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/results?search_query=europe year by year
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Brainlet here:
Are all those countries made up by the game or they actualy did exist in the past?

all of those existed on those exact same borders

it's mostly tribe/tribal confederation and city states, kingdoms, empire etc.

Some are made up me thinks.
But most are real

Primarily tribes, and some nations/cities actually represent cultures.

Like Etruria = Etruscans
Thrace = Thracians

Among others. I've heard of several others too, like Helvia, but I don't know much else. Most tribes from back then have very very little information.

Paradox games are autistically accurate when it comes to this, they never made up anything, at least not in the MENA region.

I hate this shit. The point of map games is border autism and the point of rome is cool looking soldiers. The borders are tribal spam/empire blobs and you can't see the doodz. Why play it?

What always impresses me is that in EU4 you can literally choose any particular DAY between 1444 and 1821 and it'll have accurate nations and borders FOR THAT PARTICULAR DAY. I mean fuck, imagine how much work went into inputting all that data.

never underestimate the power of autism

there are hundred of youtube videos showing that youtube.com/results?search_query=europe year by year

they probably used them

Still a fuckton of work. Also remember that they also used historically correct rulers for each nation.

Additionally borders in New World are wrong generally, at least for North American tribes.

For instance the Powhatan controlled all of this, and only from post 1600 something
But in EU4 they exist from start date, and are significantly smaller

But, to be completely fair, you either need to be extremely autistic, or from Virginia, to know this.

Attached: powhatan-confederacy_16.jpg (972x815, 99K)

they’re not “countries” by today’s definition, you can’t accurately pinpoint hard borders for those sorts of loose barbarian tribes when borders weren’t really a thing back then, also there’s little documentation on the irrelevant bumfuck tribes so they’re most likely just guesswork but it’s as historically accurate as can realistically be

Also the tribes were migratory and there's very little historically accurate information on them out there.

finally formed Galatia
What does Rome suck so much btw? Half of time it disappears from the map in the first 100 years

Attached: 07052019.png (1920x1080, 3.3M)

The Powhatan Confederation was a confederation of formerly migratory tribes.
And the migratory aspect of these tribes wasn't as pronounced as the game makes it out to be.

Additionally, Cherokee, Iroquois, and Powhatan Confederacy(s), along with other "civilized" tribes, have significant amounts of information about them.

For the Powhatan, specifically, the only thing that's not really known is how exactly Chief Powhatan managed to unify the confederacy, as in whether or not it was by force or diplomacy.
But the overall confederation had fairly set borders, as each tribe was more-or-less required to stay in a specific location of the Powhatan (tribe) would attack them.

Don't test me on this subject, Powhatan is my my autistic obsession.

are you allied with cappadocia or will you pin them beneath the galatian bvll’s heel?

>mana the game
Worst PDX game so far.

Attached: actual_aids.jpg (640x612, 202K)

And they'll keep getting worse until we burn Sweden to the ground

I'll stop that game here, without a powerful Rome there is no challenge. I migrated with the Gauls from Bohemia and stomped everyone in Western Anatolia with no allies while playing on difficult

As far as Gaul is concerned it seems legit, I could play the very insignificant tribe from my very insignificant town

Tribes are too OP in this game, either kick their ass early, or GG playing against 0 maintenance, no attrition hoards of 100K stacks. Which fight on the same level as Romans and other civilized peoples. Game sucks in its current state

seems accurate tribes paid very little to their soldiers and most did so simply from duty.

Yeah i don't mind the tribes having tons of troops (three literally have 800K+), i mind that they fight on the same level as civilized nations. I literally have to march 300k troop stacks as Rome to fight these hoards, all the while taking immense attrition. I made the mistake of taking out Carthage, and the east first. I have to march little stacks that can be wiped by zero attrition stacks of doom.

They're not countries but yes. Remember human divisions derive from huntergatherer bands, so you had an ethnicity and usual lands/routes for every 80-150 people. Later divisions all derive from this. Present-day 'nation-states' are increasingly meaningless legal entities that impose themselves and are at odds with the actual population.

Nah. They did it for their own benefit, choosing someone to follow and gaining loot/prestige/favours. This is actually where the system of vassalage that is core to European feudalism comes from, just apply it to every man as every man was a warrior and land owner. And make the liege as bound to the vassal as the vassal is to him, basically if you don't make good decisions and bring your followers prestige/loot, they are within rights to leave you. Most of the time they fought against eachother in

The point of being civilized is having a much larger population and ability to prolong wars.. I'm strickly speaking regarding Imperator Rome, if i have 16000 Pops and a Gaelic country has 2000 pops, they shouldn't be able to field a 800K army that can be obliterated and return full force as if nothing happened.

Civilized nations literally swept the floor with tribal peoples in this period, their unorganized tactics didn't fair well till Rome came out as the sole power and had to overextend itself.

This. The pop system also makes very little sense. This game is all wasted potential, it had the potential to be great. Especially considering the entire game was based on a post on PDX forums (the pops of victoria, the character dynamics of CK2, the politics and diplomacy of EU) but ended up being a mana-ridden heavily downgrated version of that post.

Mana is the worst thing to ever happen to Paradox, beause it's an "easy" solution that works against creative thinking and actually clever solutions. Have something you want players to do in your game but no idea how to implement it? DON'T WORRY, JUST DO IT WITH MANA.

I get the idea, I get it. They want to create a factor in the game that is more dependent on having a good ruler than letting large empires snowball. But there's better ways to do it than just mana. Want some backwards nobody tribe to become a military superpower just because their leader has awesome stats? How about
>Military skill increases your manpower and force limit by X amount
>Military skill gives your troops X morale bonus or penalty (reflecting the ruler's ability to keep a good logistical system going, ensuring that his troops are always well fed and equiped... or not)
>Making the military leader's skill more decisive in calculating the result of a battle (so that a max skill military leader can potentially defeat a 1 skill military leader despite being outnumbered 3:1)

Especially the latter could be interesting IF reassigning military leaders is difficult (which it should be, considering legions were assigned to generals through the senate in the first place). Then assigning a high skill military leader to your most powerful legions becomes a cost-benefit thing. Yes, you get an awesome leader with an awesome army who can kick everyone's ass BUT he will also build up loyalty among his troops easier and you can't just reassign him to a different army (maybe it has a 5 year cooldown or something?). That means you always have to fear your best army turning against you, then you're fucked. You could of course instead choose to assign a mediocre leader to your legions (meaning he's less likely to build up loyalty with the troops), but do you really want to risk your best army getting its shit pushed in because you appointed a barely literate retard to lead them?

But of course Paradox will never do this because they prefer fucking mana and the undying affection of uncritical paradrones. Ironically Paradox needs a competitor to do to them what they did to Sim City with Cities: Skylines. A competitor that does everything better and really puts some fire under their Swedish cuck asses.

>Be Rome
>Can't declare war without gaining 5 tyranny because of the fucking populists
>The only thing I can do to fix it also gives me 5 tyranny
fuggg

They should have made a trade and pop system like that of victoria 2. This and many bonuses you get with tech and laws don't make sense, and all the governments in the game work like the roman one but with different names. Also I've noticed half the countries are ruled by women for some reason.

I agree 100%, all challenges in this game can be literally solved with a few pushes of mana. Disloyal General? Remove him or pay in mana. Disloyal province? Pay in mana.

Everything is soo barebones and i hate how they lumped all cultures into large groups, encouraging blobbing and it's crazy how you can assimilate everyone soo easily, and you're forced to aswell.

I would of loved a real population system, would make wars more interesting, instead of "Got 1500k manpower, YOLO rush!"

Most of the tribes are made up, everyone that replied to you is a paradox shill.

Also this, they should have given more importance to money and unlock certain decisions like administrative or military reforms based on the skill of the leader instead of on the accumulated mana points

Am I the only one who doesn't like how far a defeated army travels in shattered retreat?

True. I would have also liked having individual battle matter alot more. It feels like HOI4 with total wars. I really hate occupying EVERY province of a tribal while they have zero attrition and no maintenance doom stacks even while having zero manpower.

Should be every troop is lost, or they can retreat only a single tile, i hate winning a battle but being stuck behind a fort zone and they recover like nothing happened.

It's an unfinished game, simple as that

Yeah, now I was used to ck2 where they fall back to the next county and you can just slaughter them and this is pretty stupid, just like in EU4 if I remember correctly
Yeah ck2 is also far more realistic in that regard, you just have to defeat their army and occupy the county you're claiming. Complete occupation makes sense if you want to annex them though.

I don't think any patch, DLC, or mod will ever fix the mess that is manas, which is the core element of the game.

I was thinking maybe they retreat to the nearest capital. Having them go as far as they do right now is beneficial for the losing side (a side I'm on very often) since they have time to recover, but it takes so long to retreat and take them back to battle.

I agree with what's being said in the thread. I only played CKII and a bit of Stellaris so I can't speak as much as other people can, but for example I didn't like how easy is to fabricate a claim in Imperator compared to CKII.

> I was used to ck2 where they fall back to the next county
That happens with shattered retreat off, because they still travel back a couple of counties but I think in CKII it's not as bad as Imperator. In Imperator they seem to go to the other side of the damn realm while in CKII they usually only go back a couple of counties. I'm not sure what controls this.

The Etruscan league was an actual political entity

I liked ck2's model of war, battles were important to win, and you didn't have to occupy the whole place, which is much more realistic, Rome didn't go full occupying countries IRL to be conquered.

why would you make them up?
we have plenty of sources on them

UGH... MAGNA ETRURIA... WHAT COULDVE BEEN

factually untrue

I do like that you can take what you occupy in Imperator desu.

>They should have made a trade and pop system like that of victoria 2
I think that just having 4 pops is good enough, but I do agree that like in Victoria they should have needs and things they consume (Slaves just need grain, but the further up you go the more varied their needs get, with citizens also needing things like olive oil and wine). This would also create a trade system that actually matters.

>This and many bonuses you get with tech and laws don't make sense
Yeah, my biggest gripe is especially with how the benefits pops give you work. Slaves and tribesmen are the only ones paying taxes? Freedmen are the only ones joining the army? Only citizens work in commerce? If I could reform it:
>Remove commerce. You instead have production, which influences how much of its assigned resource a region produces
>Slaves have the highest production, citizens the lowest
>Conversely slaves have the lowest tax (zero) while citizens the highest
>This can be tweeked with laws
>What pops provide manpower is also tweeked by laws (something like Athens would have "citizens serve" as a law providing manpower from citizens, while Rome would have something like "service guarantees citizenship" which provides a large amount of manpower from freedmen, a small amount of manpower from citizens and slowly promotes freedmen into citizens).

This would actually make it feel like you're a ruler organically changing the country over the course of years through laws and policies, rather than an Olympian deity changing affairs according to his power with the snap of his fingers. If you're going for that Olympian Deity gameplay, at the very least go all out and allow us to use Cyclopses and Centaurs like in Age of Mythology or something.

seething

>play map paint simulator
>extend all the way into India
>fantasise about a total removal of Slava and Anglophones

I can directly relate half of those tribes to either a modern word still used today or a place/kingdom that existed in the middle ages.
t. history autist