That has been really annoying for me; they seem to define having a border much more stringently than in any other game before. Your vassals, which in the period would be considered a constituent part of the realm? Not a border apparently. So when I was warring against Byzantines, since you need a border for the Cleanse Heresy CB, I kept a single location on their border so I could justify further wars. Stupid. Also Overseas is defined weirdly, so getting Bailiffs to buff up my control in distant provinces is not kosher despite there being almost no distance between my capital and the lands I hold.
Got to say EU5 is soo good it might make me spend money. Not on the game silly, but on a couple of RAM sticks cause for some reason this spreadsheet simulator eats RAM like Null eats cheese.
Sure, but that still missing the point - by the time you have the money to keep enough of your vassals in check, you've won whether or not you use it on retinues.
Pre-retinue CK2 was an insane experience as every succession actually was a question and you really did need to earn vassal loyalty. Thematically it was also just annoying as standing armies are more of an early-modern thing.
You still need to earn vassal loyalty; retinue armies are not something you just start with, and if you grow large enough they aren't going to keep a league of three or four vassal kings in check. Having every succession be a question with constant civil wars is less thematic and more annoying than someone having an abstracted standing army.
I don't think anyone has mentioned it yet, but the ui is bad and I don't like it.
HRE is bugged but will only ruin your game if you're not the Emperor. Allow me to explain.
Core decay rate is bugged (nearly instant in some cases), so when the Emperor demands unlawful territory (which doesn't cost IA in EU5, only $) it goes to him since the location has no other cores. The AI will always accept because it currently is bugged with +200 reasons to accept.
You can't see how each country will vote on each reform but it doesn't matter since they will always vote yes.
1st Manpower Reform (50IA) = unlimited manpower. It only taxes the free cities 1% but somehow ends up being over 500 per month.
GvG situation ends with a large portion of northern Italy as my vassals. The situation allows unlimited "Force into Faction" CB generation which has no AE penalty for subjugation.
I wish I got the Triple B (BBB) in my game, but they're consistently losing the 100yrs war. They declare for the wargoal of "Occupy Engerland" and can't cross the straits. Aquitane & Aragon get full occupied but England gets ticking warscore and takes a cheeky province each time. I'm currently gearing up for an Imperial Ban war while they're distracted.
I have also experienced the retardation of the PU/dynasty system. Been son-cucked twice, once by my bitch wife (marriage union with fish HRE minor) and my current son (ruler of Dauphine). Hoping to die soon so I can control the education level of the grandkids. I anticipate disappointment with my Naples/Provence multi-PU attempt.
Ambrosian Republic event fired (Emperor gets claim throne CB on milan) but they instantly become a republic and the CB disappears. The tooltip also said the CB only lasted 4 years so I would have to truce break them (allied currently).
Overall a janky mess but still fun. Had to laugh when I ordered a road built in a province that already had a road. The road jews took the money and nothing happened. Might ragequit when the hussite wars begin though, I've heard it is buggy.
Picked up CK3 after it had been gathering dust on my Steam account. I only bought it for the GoT mod at first, but after finding some good tutorials, I'm completely enthralled in my vanilla save.
What are good expansion packs to get if you are mostly into feudal gameplay ? Is it worth it to pick up the Persia DLC for example if you mostly stick to Western Europe, or is it a needless CPU strain ?
Two niggles I have with the league system is the constant re-voting on policy (they should have it be years long to stop the AI spamming it like faggots) and the wording of "Duty to defend" sounding stronger than "Assured defence" but the latter obligates the AI to participate whereas the "Duty" one just gives the victim of an attack an "insult"-tier CB on the nations who didn't answer the call.
Otherwise, I'm having a decent time with it.
You can sort by "Unique content" on the nation select but it still doesn't give a great indication of what to expect. I played a game as Milan where near the start you get an event to centralise into a monarchy and become the Duchy of Milan. You get an event informing you of this eventually happening from the outset, so it's fine, but then later on down the road I got two events: (1) One event which constructed a canal between Milano and Pavia, giving you a paved road before paved roads are buildable. (2) The more noteworthy event is an event where you can "Recognise your Lombard claims" giving you a special court job for 20 years which acts like "Integrate province"+ where it also gives prosperity and control alongside coring it. I have no idea what triggered either of these events. They were a pleasant surprise but I also have no idea what I'm barely missing out on. If I build 5 glass makers somewhere will it spawn a gold mine RGO or something? One of my RGOs changed to Iron via an event too and I have no idea what triggered it.
Similarly in Venice: (1) Crete gets an event where some dude attempts a revolt,
(2) Venice got an event where the Doge is trying to centralise power. Historical option kills him, ahistorial ones let him live. Nothing else occurs after I let him live.
(3) At some point, Venice fellates itself and you get the option to change your colour, keeping it as is, make it gold for "Golden Republic" or deep purple for "Empire". It appears cosmetic only.
(4) The Ottomans conquered some land in Morea. I got an event where the historical option is a claim on Morea against the Ottomans. The Byzantines were still intact and had Constantinople so how the Ottomans got that little chunk is a mystery.
In Austria: (1) An event where you can send some papers off to the emperor to give you the Arch Duchy title Austria is known for. The historical option sends the papers as-is where the ahistorical one appears to be a payment to make certain you'll get the title and a special government reform.
(2) An event where you marry one of your children to Luxembourgs (in charge of Bohemia) with an allusion to getting a claim on a union with Bohemia.
Austria is especially irksome because I have these dots of land within my borders owned by bishoprics and I have no idea if I'm missing out on content by conquering them myself or if it's possible to get them for free later. Lots of events are just timelocked I imagine.
Outside of these, you do get events ala EU4 giving you random courtiers. What sucks is I'm pretty sure these might factor into the "Unique Content" ordering, meaning the order in the menu might be less "story"/"gameplay" and more "random events giving your courtiers", which sucks. For example: in Milan I got Sforza in an event where the historical option is to take him in. I did so, knowing he fenangled his family onto the throne of Milan. He died of old age, when I was semi-expecting to get an event to just fuck it and put him on the throne or something, similar to EU4 offering you an event to just make your Duchy into a military dictatorship.
I also still have no real idea how trade works, but given I played a century doing it myself before letting the AI do it for me and suddenly my wealth exploded, I'm guessing the "recommended trades" tab doesn't offer stuff you can find better for yourself. I don't want to automate the process because doing it yourself can be more satisfying and fun but I guess it's one area I can justify having it be automated, even if I don't want it to.
China is also aids, and I'm having trouble deciding whether the difficulty is good or bad. It's definitely harder than Ming in EU4. There's a lot of shit you're bombarded with from the outset that differs greatly from playing in Europe if you play in Asia for the first time. There's a lot of stuff and I'm not sure how to handle much of it. I look like I'm circling back to event stuff but the complaint here is UI-based. How much of anything works is heavily based on nested tooltips and UI navigation to find the right highlightable tooltip to find the correctly nested tooltip to tell you what the shit is going on.
The HRE is also fucked because there's a bug (or I hope it is) with unlawful territory. The AI will pretty much always give it back and whatsmore, if the nation said land was taken from no longer exists, it just defaults to the Emperor, who now has this little piece of land in the middle of Germany which nobody can really conquer because they're the Emperor. The AI will also create subjects out of this land (which I do like seeing the AI actually take advantage of) but sooner or later the Emperor will get too big to fail and has a vassal swarm army. This is why you'll see expansion in France, East Europe, but the HRE remain largely stagnant but dotted with Emperor lands/puppets because they're just getting fed free land conquered on their behalf effectively.
One (autistic) thing I realised and took advantage of is a combination of "unlawful territory" + unlimited free cities + "manpower from the free cities" imperial law.
(1) Seize unlawful territory
(2) Sell all of it to neighbours so you're left with 1 urban province (city or town)
(3) Create custom subject out of said town/city, then release it
(4) "Bestow free city" on subject - nobody will ever touch it now.
(5) Pass the "manpower from free cities" law as the emperor.
(6) You now make 1k+ manpower in the 1300s which you can keep growing whilst also making the internal borders of the HRE look slightly less bothersome
Requires becoming the Emperor though, but it effectively means you don't need to build armouries which saves a ton on maintaining a large army.
TLDR:
(1) Why certain things happen appear to happen just for the sake of it. Triggering conditions on specific events would be nice.
(2) Some mechanics are explained very badly. Play in China for 5-15 minutes to see.
(3) I hope to god the "Unlawful territory" thing is a bug. Also give me a "release nation" button so the process of fixing the HRE is less of a chore.
(4) UI is labyrinthine at points. A lot of stuff is hidden away in menus that require more than 3 clicks to find. Most of these are relating to trade but some aren't. For example: there's no discernible benefit to "supporting heir" for bishoprics and holy orders. (I presume, like in EU4 and supporting your heir in Poland, you'll eventually just get them as a subject or something, or you can have your succession law ensure that the head of the bishopric becomes your heir thus giving you the land in a union - again, no clue because it's not explained)
Despite my negatives I still like it. It's better than Vicky 3 in terms of raw game but it could do with a bump in coherency. I like how "slower" it feels. Not because time moves slower but because it feels like there's more to do during peacetime. You can develop your economy in better trajectories, actually try to game marriages, and so on. I also like combat more than in EU4. Mercs suck dick due to no replenishment but I think they're supposed to bolster early game armies since you're relying on levies and the one or two actually professional units you can raise pre-armouries. Watching 10k+ sized armies lose to a professional army of 1k is great, and I actually found it easier to understand the army system in EU5 than I did in 4 lmao.
I also realised at some point, playing Milan, that "Join Swiss Confederacy" was suddenly a diplo option which wasn't there prior after giving some land to a Canton so I guess I need to see what that's about. Whilst the gameplay by itself is enough to engage me, I also like working toward certain things, which is why I both like/dislike the mission tree system from EU4. It sort of worsened the game regarding complexity and gave the AI predictable paths to follow but you knew if there was something to achieve with that nation. Hyper tall Riga or early Prussia Teutons in EU4 were busted but fun.
Nations to play:
(1) Any Swiss Canton
(2) Dithmarschen
(3) Any Irish minor
(4) England
(5) Japan (Daimyo or Emperor)
(6) Byzantines
(7) Ottomans
( Any nation into forming Persia (see if there's any Zoroastrian-larp)
(9) Any of the "banks" (if such a thing is possible)
(10) Knights of Rhodes or Teutonic Order
(11) Brandenburg/Prussia (IRL Teutonic Order did this)
(12) Lithuania (Romuva-LARP - interesting to see what you can do if you avoid conversion)
(13) Bohemia (Hussite-LARP)
(14) Hansa (To see what you can do as a single province minor with easy money gain)
(15) Jurchen tribe (One spawns out playing as China and you get the option to switch - be interesting to see if you can bring the Qing several centuries early. Similarly the Ming is also a breakaway state you can play as)
(16) Wallachia (Romania is one always one of my favourite formables in a Paradox game, but I like the shade of blue they use)
(17) Andorra (Tiny, still-existent state between France and Spain - interested to see if there's any content whatsoever for it)
Overall, of the 3 major sequel releases (at their relative time of release):
Europa Universalis 5 > CK3 > Victoria 3
EU5 needs to make itself more coherent. Flavour and mechanics coming later is acceptable given it's just released. As is, it's rather solid. I can easily see them implementing a parliament system ala Victoria 2/3 if they wanted to give more content to republics down the line. Mash together the HRE system with some kind of quasi-subject system and you could portray a pre-civil war United States easy. Parliament/Legislature being at odds with the monarch was basically the impetus of 2 civil wars - French revolution & English Civil War - so the EU5 equivalent of CK2's Conclave could easily be a thing, for better or worse given such a DLC would probably make the game far more annoying for some people. Otherwise, I'm begging for a way to know the trigger conditions of certain events. You don't need to make it a button to click, or a mission tree, but some kind of journal or tab would be nice. Maybe recycle the mission tab that you already include for tutorials only as a place to put hints or something.
Meanwhile Victoria 3 needs it so EU5 is a better Victoria 3 than itself. Victoria 3 has gotten better from launch but it's really held back by a combination of flavour, province density, the war system, and the economy being simpler than EU5s. EU5 has alternate production methods and multiple means of creating the same good, as well as a massive diversity of said goods to create. You also actually need goods to construct things, which is absent for the most part in Vicky 3 sans construction sectors, which kind of nebulously sucks in cloth + wood + tools + money + time = building. And even when you're not building, these places still take up cash because private business also makes use of government-owned construction sectors instead of financing and building it themselves which, haha, EU5 actually does by having the estates fund and build their own buildings (even if they aren't all to your benefit). Victoria 2 wasn't just it's economy but you had lots of options regarding it, which are lacking in 3. 3 also has far less detail than 2 regarding provinces which kneecaps versality. They're better off just doing what eventually happened with EU4 and just go all in on releasing nation flavour packs and work on 4 ASAP - they could even just take EU5's map and go from there, unless someone is already working on a Victorian age mod as we speak, which'll essentially be Vicky 4 inside of EU5, which'd be funny. I imagine they're held back by adhering to strict Marxist/Material Dialectic* which simplifies the economy and how it works massively to facilitate the politics of the period, which is to no discernible benefit given said politics is shit.
*Reminder: Marx's manifesto in 1848 and prior writings gave a rigid view of history and how things worked. He idolised France and concluded Communism was inevitable and argued it would start there before spreading to Germany in 1850. Then 1851 Napolean III had the popular support to not only earn the people's backing in couping the government (the one he was elected to as president) but also to crown himself emperor. Marx's conclusions and historical trajectories were based on heavily subjective and circumstantial. To him, the economy was universally identical to Germany (Farms/all agricultural land was owned by nobility, who charged the farmers with rent to farm their own land, with only bare acknowledgements of Russia's serfdom - private landowning farmers were barely a consideration despite it being more common outside of Germany) with a social situation like that of London where he resided. Marx's view of how the economy worked and how it interacted with the government is largely conjecture, and is what happens when you attempt to include parts of the world/society in your discussion that you have no actual experience or involvement with. In his manifesto he pretty much asserts the inherent evil of the bourgeoisie which is why this group is also prone to "evil" in Victoria 3, supporting some forms of slavery, secret police, one party states, forming the fascist party, and so on. His views on the economy and social classes are universal assertions which are easy to translate to game logic, but massively gimp any actual political complexity you might want to portray because that's not how human beings work.
TLDR: Victoria 3's political system is inexorably fucked by being too reliant on materialist dialectic i.e. Marxism, which also fucks over its economy because it argues the 2 are linked, which was already proven wrong in 1851 by Napoleon the 3rd's ascension being entirely based on popular urban and rural support (his own political party tried to fuck him over too) which translated to in-game would be as if the Trade Unions + Rural Folk were installing a monarchy in opposition to Petite Bourgeoisie + Intelligentsia who just took away their voting rights.
CK3 needs to make it so the fun doesn't drop off a cliff if you ever you're forced into engage with base systems that have remained untouched since release. Landless into any European noble outside of Greece is a downgrade. Africa is Africa, India is India. Muslims are marginally better thanks to the Clan system which puts them a point above European Christians mechanics-wise but otherwise it's identical. Greece, Persia (Clan + Situation), China, Japan, Spain (Situation), or bust. The Madala system is a nothing burger, ditto for Indonesia and co. Some of the content they included in All Under Heaven for Indonesia was just straight up fiction with regards to religion, given we know even less about the practices of these peoples than Africa because the Muslims cared more about religion the Chinese. Ryukyu, a tiny irrelevant island tributary/subject of China/Japan has more going for it in terms of content (to be added) than an entire region of the world. Same can be said about the Canary islands but at least Ryukyu is next to more interesting places**.
Crusader Kings 3 also has an issue with characters despite trying to focus more on them. Characters in CK2 were far more malleable, which might be unrealistic (maybe?) but at least they could change given the right circumstances.. A coward at 16 is a coward for life according to CK3, nobody can go from being a Saint to a Sinner, and despite these traits not being changeable whatsoever, many decisions considered anathema still remain clickable. Why can a coward in CK3 still participate in melees, lead armies as a knight? Wouldn't these run counter to said trait and, in fact, prove they're the opposite?
In CK2, a brave person pressing the cowardly decision had a chance to make you lose that trait, but in CK3, you only gain stress. The game needs to actually allow some degree of development that continues outside of childhood. CK2 had monastic orders which passively ended up making your character a saint (giving you all the positive virtues, getting rid of all the negatives) after a while, but the change from CK2 to 3 reminds me of Creative Assembly getting rid of general-less armies to fix a single issue. People were being too gamey with optimising god-tier characters via orders, but CK3 allowed and enables a far more OP means of creating giga-chads via eugenics and the fact you can filter for this when seeking spouses means they didn't really fix the issue of people gaming the system.
Also CK3 characters have less distinction to me than CK2 characters. I put it down to the 3D portraits/3D models kind of blending everything together. Courtiers also have more prominence in events than family/local rulers in events so at a certain point you'll basically never encounter your own family members or important people again. Yes, I learned this random courtier is a sodomite, and this child of two lowborn parents is in fact a bastard of another lowborn father - this is pertinent information for me to know and definitely increases my investment in court, thank you. The China DLC fixing this my making essentially everybody in the state a courtier regardless of rank kind of funny.
**I wonder how many Paradox devs are aware of the situation they're in trying to give flavour and mechanics to certain part of the world that simply has nothing going for it. The steppe DLC was basically just giving shit to the Mongols given there's nothing much regarding anyone else. The only other major steppe entity I can think of, the Magyar, are already landed in CK3's earliest start date so the only major steppe group to develop are the Mongols. All of their practices/culture are pretty much superimposed over the rest because Genghis conquered some Muslims who already had a writing system for him to use (the Uyghurs, that group most people are aware of as being pressed on by the Chinese, are to thank for the Mongolian writing script) meaning Genghis Khan also won a cultural victory over every single steppe tribe that ever existed outside of the Magyar (Hungarians), the Machu/Jurchen (Qing/Jin, most recognisable attribute is a haircut), the Cossacks, and the post-hyperwar Finns.
Another thing emblematic of the issue Paradox faces is the fact Zunists are even a thing. Some random Muslim wrote an aside on these people he subjugated by simply plucking the rubies out of the idol of their God and remain standing, and that alone gave Paradox more to work with content-wise than sub-Saharan Africa and India.
If the Muslims or Chinese never wrote down anything about India, it may as well not exist. What I do predict is them adding some sort of DLC to expand on East Africa. That little portion of Africa they added with All Under Heaven was apart of Africa the Chinese actually made contact with, which might've been the sole reason for their inclusion and allude to the next major expansion which'll probably be trade-related given that's why the Chinese were to start with (Admiral Zheng He).
TLDR: There's hardly any "flavour" (i.e. history to partake in) for sub-Saharan Africa pre-Islam, Pre-Muslim conquest India, Pre-Mongol Empire steppe, Indonesia/Philippines/Australia/Papua New Guinea, because it wasn't recorded until way after the start date, so including these areas or trying to make them a focal point of DLC is hurting the rest of the game since it's trying to squeeze blood from stone when resources are better spent elsewhere. All Under Heaven might actually have had the time to be far more engaging if they didn't waste resources on Indonesia and South East Asia..The inclusion of Swahili and the Spice Islands in All Under Heaven is probably to facilitate the eventual trade DLC, given the only possible reason to add the Swahili coast at all is because a Chinese Admiral/Diplomat sailed there in the mid 1300s to see if there was anything worthwhile.
Also the trait system is shit in a game with a strong focus on character development, and there's no way to actually develop or change your personality after 16. The game also floods your events with so many people of no consequence that you eventually just shut it all out. The mechanics in areas not touched by DLC are typically shit and anything touched pre-landless DLC are significantly worse off in terms of flavour/mechanics than the areas touched after said DLC, with Europe sans Greece being the worst hit (it's difficult playing somewhere you know the experience is going to be objectively worse than playing elsewhere.
TLDR: CK3 has a problem with wasting resources with areas being left half-developed to also develop another area which could've been saved for later DLC, with Europe having nothing going for it outside of Greece since a Frenchman plays identically to a German and outside of religious events and feudalising so do Scandinavians play similarly to the people they raid. Victoria 3 is crippled by rigid adherence to material dialectic as it simplifies the economy (leaving EU5 with a more complex system) and simplifies the politics (all bourgeoisie support police states, all industrialists support slavery, all agriculturalists support banning industry), and EU5's problem is with a hugely unintuitive UI (tooltips are the best out of any Paradox game but nested tooltips to find out how something works is not good) and giving players events which can progress nations towards specific unique content but the player having no way to know of such content in-game or how they triggered said event in the first place.
EU5 at launch might also be legitimately better than current state Victoria 3 and Crusader Kings 3, although All Under Heaven might just give CK3 too much content and mechanics, however shallow they may be (Siam/Burma/Vietnam), for it to be seated firmly in the negative.
It's worth noting I didn't pay for any of the DLCs, and pirated EU5 so no sunk cost, but it's a testament to its quality that I know I'll for sure be buying it. Once the price has dropped steeply during a sale. And CreamAPI will still be used for DLC, no exceptions.
You can sort by "Unique content" on the nation select but it still doesn't give a great indication of what to expect. I played a game as Milan where near the start you get an event to centralise into a monarchy and become the Duchy of Milan. You get an event informing you of this eventually happening from the outset, so it's fine, but then later on down the road I got two events: (1) One event which constructed a canal between Milano and Pavia, giving you a paved road before paved roads are buildable. (2) The more noteworthy event is an event where you can "Recognise your Lombard claims" giving you a special court job for 20 years which acts like "Integrate province"+ where it also gives prosperity and control alongside coring it. I have no idea what triggered either of these events. They were a pleasant surprise but I also have no idea what I'm barely missing out on. If I build 5 glass makers somewhere will it spawn a gold mine RGO or something? One of my RGOs changed to Iron via an event too and I have no idea what triggered it.
A lot of those are Dynamic Historical Events (or DHE's), basically their way of getting in the highly unique events and content from missions without making it a win button or railroady by only firing if certain historical circumstances are fulfilled. For example, in my first attempt at a Naples game, the king just straight up died 4 months in, before I could even get the DHE to change the succession law via the DHE that fires a year in, so the kingdom got inherited by the king of Hungary.
A lot of those are Dynamic Historical Events (or DHE's), basically their way of getting in the highly unique events and content from missions without making it a win button or railroady by only firing if certain historical circumstances are fulfilled. For example, in my first attempt at a Naples game, the king just straight up died 4 months in, before I could even get the DHE to change the succession law via the DHE that fires a year in, so the kingdom got inherited by the king of Hungary.
Aye. You can probably tell which of these are if the game also lets you know the "historical" decision the nations did.
Fun fact: Portugal gets a scripted civil war within 10 years if your heir survives long enough, and once you survive that, you immediately fall into a PU with Castile as a junior partner. The best Portugal run is when that shit is derailed.
What are good expansion packs to get if you are mostly into feudal gameplay ? Is it worth it to pick up the Persia DLC for example if you mostly stick to Western Europe, or is it a needless CPU strain ?
All that content is in the game, you just can't play it without the dlc. If you play Muslim rulers you'll just use the base game systems. The tax system that DLC uses is used in some western nations, so maybe you'd want it for that? But if you don't ever plan on playing in the mid east, its not special or necessary.
As for expansions you may want? Tours and tournaments is kinda necessary bc travel is one of the few truly good ideas they gave the game. And I kinda like roads to power for landless, but it can be a slog without some mods that spice it up, and it doesn't really do anything to help feudal gameplay. Also, try the Princes of Darkness mod. Its the only reason I keep playing CK3 at this point.
I was on the fence about buying EU5, but it sounds like it needs some time to stabilize a bit. Is now a good time to go back and play EU4? I've had the complete edition sitting on my harddrive for ages but I've never given it a go after I bounced off of Vicky 2 so hard.
EU4 is a fun and now complete game, but EU5 is a completely different beast mechanics wise. It really does feel like a culmination of Paradox's journey since at least CK2. I managed to slide into it fairly easily, but that's because I've been playing many of their games. It takes elements from the military system from CK2, the soul of conquest and exploration from EU4, the pops system from Vicky 2 and Imperator, the economic systems from Vicky 3, the personal dynastic approach of CK3, and there's even some pre-planning and preparation from HOI4.
I would say the tutorial for EU5 is fairly good but you would probably be better off watching some 2 hour videos on Youtube the same way everyone learns how to play PDX games. It's definitely not as bad as HOI4 though.
I think the thing that made me realize how much Johan, PBUH, gave a shit is that the Orthodox have a specific mechanic of Patriarchies. Meanwhile in the CK series the Orthodox didn't have anything since the game series began not even things like minor married clergy.
One thought I recently had about the crapiness of the HOI4 United States focus tree: If you put Germany on a timer with the MEFO bill/EoC mechanic, why not put America on a Great Depression timer? The New Deal was ineffectual and the economy shat itself hard around mid 1937. The underlying malaise was only resolved when the US went to war and war production and the armed forces absorbed millions of idle men.
Any nation into forming Persia (see if there's any Zoroastrian-larp)
