Paradox Studio Thread

[foreman 89]

Whats the pitch for it?

It's Vicky 2 vanilla+ including a lot of the good changes from PDM without messing with the economy. HPMP is an even better version of it.

 

[WarrenZHarding]

Havent seen one person post March of the Eagles? Fake map painters.... cant post screens but my times....

CK2 435.3
CK3 237.9
EU4 257.4
STELLARIS 847.2
HOI4 58.3
VIC2 88.4
I:R 106.3
MOTE 1.7
SENGOKU 31.2 (I wish this had a sequel)

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

Havent seen one person post March of the Eagles? Fake map painters.... cant post screens but my times....

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.

 

[Professor Donger]

What's everyone's consensus on Imperator Rome? I'm seeing YouTubers glaze it now which is wild to me

 

[Nuclear Operative]

What's everyone's consensus on Imperator Rome? I'm seeing YouTubers glaze it now which is wild to me

it's okay for the most part, but better with the invictus mod.

 

[Mound Dweller]

March of the Eagles?

Lol
Lmao even

What's everyone's consensus on Imperator Rome?

Vanilla is arcade trash suitable for teenagers and young children who like staring at pretty colours and watching numbahs go up.
Invictus makes it into an actual strategy game, but it's still very much an ersatz Victoria/EU mashup, it's also the only decent Diadochi simulator ever for some reason so for that alone a solid 6/10.

 

[Computer God Autism]

Listen, you Pope lovers can bitch about it all you want, but Eastern Rome is the correct name of the country. There is a direct continuity of government there and no “Byzantine” ever called themselves a Byzantine. It’s a bullshit word made up by Western historians.

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.

We humbly honor the Rhōmaioi, the native ethnos,

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.

Part of the problem I think a lot of people have with discussing this is the idea that the obvious political continuity translates into direct and unchanging cultural continuity from the time of Justinian to the time of the Palaiologos. As Constantinople's borders shrunk the Empire did become increasingly ethnocentric and increasingly Greek in its character and perception of history, to the point that the Nicaeans would use Hellenes and Graikoi to describe themselves and their realm, and Choniates' Historia is full of allusions to classical Greek history and tellingly few to actual Roman history.

As for the name, personally, I think Eastern Roman Empire, Greek Empire, Empire of Constantinople and plain old Byzantine Empire are all fine terms and any would work. Really, anything other than just plain Roman Empire. Historiographic terms exist for a reason; if we start naming tags by what they referred to themselves as that would result in multiple Roman Empires coexisting at best and even more autistic spergouts about which terms to have for which tags since a state can refer to itself in multiple terms in official documentation at the same time without any real incongruity to the people that were living in it at the time. Besides, getting to call yourself the Roman Empire indisputably should be an accomplishment.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

Part of the problem I think a lot of people have with discussing this is the idea that the obvious political continuity translates into direct and unchanging cultural continuity from the time of Justinian to the time of the Palaiologos. As Constantinople's borders shrunk the Empire did become increasingly ethnocentric and increasingly Greek in its character and perception of history, to the point that the Nicaeans would use Hellenes and Graikoi to describe themselves and their realm, and Choniates' Historia is full of allusions to classical Greek history and tellingly few to actual Roman history.

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.

Eastern Rome is a Greek and Orthodox state. It is also still Rome. Internal cultural shift is different from outside conquest, and even outside conquest can at times still count as continuity if the conquerors don’t totally change the character of the country; the Qing was conquered by Manchu, it was still recognizably a Chinese state, and that made it China.

For what it’s worth, I can accept Greek Empire as its name. I can’t accept Byzantium.

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

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?

Historiographic terms exist for a reason; if we start naming tags by what they referred to themselves as that would result in multiple Roman Empires coexisting at best and even more autistic spergouts about which terms to have for which tags since a state can refer to itself in multiple terms in official documentation at the same time without any real incongruity to the people that were living in it at the time. Besides, getting to call yourself the Roman Empire indisputably should be an accomplishment.

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.

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

Lol
Lmao even

Kinda wish we got a March Of The Eagles 2. The Napoleonic Era deserves a second attempt by paradox.

 

[LovisXVI]

if we start naming tags by what they referred to themselves as that would result in multiple Roman Empires coexisting at best and even more autistic spergouts about which terms to have for which tags since a state can refer to itself in multiple terms in official documentation at the same time without any real incongruity to the people that were living in it at the time.

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.

 

[Computer God Autism]

As someone who has done history modding for pdx games, it's such a pain in the ass to do it year by year, that I don't blame them at all for removing it. Not worth at all.

It's actually fairly easy to maintain *if* you just keep the bookmarks and cut out everything between them.

View attachment 7340807View attachment 7340813
Allies: France, Bohemia, Denmark
Vassals: Hainat (purple france), Luneberg, Munich (being annexed).

How is Burgundy not annexed yet and the Aragon-Castile border unchanged?

Pooost playtimes so we know who the REAL map painters are, mine are a bit low because of launcher fuckery:
EU4View attachment 7341311View attachment 7341313CK2

>not a CK2 Kang
Mid tier tbh.

Not doing this for every Paradox game I own have a digital loiscence too but since no one else did:

Eastern Rome is a Greek and Orthodox state. It is also still Rome.

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.

For what it's worth I'm one of those weirdos who thinks Venice has the most legitimate claim to upholding Roman civilization.

The first is that this doesn’t discredit the earlier Eastern Rome (before the Latin Empire and all) from being Rome.

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.

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?

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.

That said I would not consider the PRC to be China because the cultural revolution destroyed so much of Chinese civilization that it raises fundamental questions about what actually constitutes it at this point beyond basic ethnicity and language.

 

[Null]

How is Burgundy not annexed yet and the Aragon-Castile border unchanged?

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'm basically frozen in my game now. the entire HRE is coalitioned against me but the emperor, Bohemia, is my ally.

I think I hate where the game is at now because if you let things go on too long the small countries start building up dev until they're each 40 dev provinces. then you can't annex them. but I felt like I was making fucking crazy fast gains.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

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.

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.

I’m not myself a Byzaboo, to clarify. I hate the Roman Empire.

 

[Blackstar]

@Ughubughughughughughghlug for Vic 2 the biggest overhaul mods of the base game are TGC and GFM.
DoD is the most popular alt-hist mod but it's pretty barebones and there's a rework of it that add's a shit ton of flavor

 

[Ace888Ace]

@Ughubughughughughughghlug for Vic 2 the biggest overhaul mods of the base game are TGC and GFM.
DoD is the most popular alt-hist mod but it's pretty barebones and there's a rework of it that add's a shit ton of flavor

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

The DoD rework is probably my favourite mod. It's also railroaded, but it eventually leaves you to your own devices and it runs much better. I like doing Belgium runs from time to time.

 

[Blackstar]

Trade in the dev builds of EU5 was OP and now has been nerfed, instead it will split between the player and estates based on their power, so your income will be trade * crown power

 

[Napoleon III]

One thing I haven't seen a lot of people talk about in regards to EU5 is the likelihood that it will run like shit and need a really good CPU to run.

Kinda wish we got a March Of The Eagles 2. The Napoleonic Era deserves a second attempt by paradox.

Honestly you can do a pretty good simulation of the Napoleonic wars in EU/Vic2.

@Ughubughughughughughghlug for Vic 2 the biggest overhaul mods of the base game are TGC and GFM.
DoD is the most popular alt-hist mod but it's pretty barebones and there's a rework of it that add's a shit ton of flavor

Those are the most popular Single player mods but mp is different. I'd say forks of DoD are most popular for mp.

 

[Blackstar]

One thing I haven't seen a lot of people talk about in regards to EU5 is the likelihood that it will run like shit and need a really good CPU to run.

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.

 

[Ace888Ace]

One thing I haven't seen a lot of people talk about in regards to EU5 is the likelihood that it will run like shit and need a really good CPU to run.

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.

 

[Slur Generator]

So whats the general opinion on EU5 ? I'm fairly optimistic but i thought imperator rome looked great until i got my hands on it.

Stellaris expansion looks like another shitshow. I honestly don't know how people can play it. Its just a never ending series of frustrations whenever i try.