Why? It didn’t have the whole world in it. No Latin America. No Indian wars. No War of 1812. I find Napoleon Total War boring enough for its limited scope and in that one I can at least actually play the battles.
it's okay for the most part, but better with the invictus mod.
Lol
Vanilla is arcade trash suitable for teenagers and young children who like staring at pretty colours and watching numbahs go up.
Well, no, by 1337 direct continuity had been cut off by about a half century of Latin imperial rule and Greek warlord states with competing claims, all of which were about as legitimate as each other given how farcical imperial succession and accession had become by the time of the Fourth Crusade.
The Rhomaioi did not define Roman as an ethnos (gens), rather they defined it as a lack of belonging to one, to the point that in fragmentary correspondence Basil I denied that Louis II could be a Roman Emperor on the basis of being a person of ethnos (gentes). Louis II (or more likely the Papal Librarian Anastasius Bibliothecarius) devoted a portion of his response to correcting the grammar of Basil I's poor Latin.
My argument is the opposite, I don’t argue there’s an unchanging cultural continuity and don’t consider it essential to a continuity in a state’s identity; I don’t think most or even any Byzaboos argue that. Western Rome didn’t stop becoming Rome because it became Christian. England didn’t stop being England because it was conquered by Normans who culturally transformed it.
Two issues I take with this. The first is that this doesn’t discredit the earlier Eastern Rome (before the Latin Empire and all) from being Rome. The second is, does a (sufficiently brief) period of breakdown destroy the identity of a state completely? Most people accept Western Rome, or any civil war state, as having continuity through civil wars. Most people accept societies like Egypt or China as being the same Egypt or China as they fractured, sometimes even over decades. Again, would you consider the PRC to not be China because it is an illegitimate usurper to the ROC that is an illegitimate usurper to the Qing?
But not a soul ever called themselves a Byzantine, not even the rest of Europe called it Byzantium. What you’re talking about would be like labeling the US as “Antebellum” or Britain as “Victorian Britain.” Its silliness.
Kinda wish we got a March Of The Eagles 2. The Napoleonic Era deserves a second attempt by paradox.
What could you even mean? Surely it wouldn't be confusing to have the Roman Empire (Catholic), Roman Empire (Orthodox) and Roman Empire (Muslim) all at the same time. I am sure that all the Byzaboos would surely jump to allow the Ottomans to use the name Roman Empire as an optional vanity tag given their Ecumenical Patriarch recognized them as such.
It's actually fairly easy to maintain *if* you just keep the bookmarks and cut out everything between them.
How is Burgundy not annexed yet and the Aragon-Castile border unchanged?
It's a Ship of Theseus debate extended to a civilizational scale. It did not speak the language of the Romans and actively belittled it, was not of their predominant ethnicity, snubbed the city proper so much during its possession of it that Rome's magnates turned to the Franks, was at theological loggerheads with it throughout most of its history, and even the memory of times when it was the only Roman Empire had begun to fade in its final centuries in favor of lionizing pre-Roman Hellenic civilization. It did have indisputable territorial and institutional descent, which is enough for most Byz/Romaboos. Of course, the Romans themselves were also a bunch of Hellenophiles during the height of their power; had the East fallen instead of the West and the Western Empire wound up basing itself out of Soissons and speaking Gallo-Roman I wouldn't really consider them Roman either.
Well that's because I don't think that was in question. Even if Eastern Rome had ceased to be Roman in the actual sense of civilization for centuries by 1204 it was still an indisputable continuation of it as a state(let). But the continuity of its statehood wasn't what was in question in the medieval ages; it was whether the Pope had the right to transfer the spiritual authority the Emperor held over greater Christendom that being Emperor entailed to another person, and then who was the legitimate supreme head of the Christian commonwealth. The secular institutions that Constantinople could derive its legitimacy from, mutated as they were, were cut off in 1204 though with no clear line of succession or contingencies, which was my point: direct, undisputed continuity had been cut off.
I think a better analogy would be that I wouldn't consider the Western Liao dynasty to have been China despite having cultural and institutional continuity with China and still claiming its Emperorship by virtue of the actual Chinese homelands having clearly assented to a new ruling dynasty, which were also outsiders.
the burgundian succession was very, very strange and I think it resolved with Burgundy simply joining the HRE, blocking France. Aragon and Castille both had strong alliances and didn't declare war on each other.
I was low effort trolling, but I do seriously believe the Ottomans have a stronger case for being Rome than the Christian successor states (Francia, HRE) in the West or the Russians do. It lacks the continuity of state but it did more or less absorb the same territory. Could say Rome migrated east over time.
GFM is okay but it runs like shit unless you're using Project Alice because they decided to add 6 million African nations for some godforsaken reason, and there's a lot of railroading which I know some people hate. There's still fun stuff you can do though, like the Bourbon Empire
Honestly you can do a pretty good simulation of the Napoleonic wars in EU/Vic2.
Those are the most popular Single player mods but mp is different. I'd say forks of DoD are most popular for mp.
Hopefully it will get optimised to run much faster since it is the earliest into development that they've shown off in their games and CK3 ran really for me on its engine.
Yeah that worries me a lot. A lot of the guys they gave early copies to said that Paradox was going to optimise it more but given the sheer depth of the simulation, there's a hard limit to how far that will go. Hopefully there'll be potato mods and suchlike, should they be necessary.
Yeah, the game certainly does run faster. It's just a shame that they had to absolutely gut everything that made Stellaris appeal to me to achieve it. No big deal though, I just reverted back to the last patch and it's still just as fun to me.