EUIV States:

recently started playing as Aq qoyunlu in EUIV and have had my autism triggered. What is known about them other than their name translates to "White Sheep"?

also, any interesting minor EUIV states that often get overlooked?

And kara koyunlu means black sheep welcome to turkish names.

Isn't that location where those spoopy White Huns settled down in? Perhaps it has something to do with that.

>Aq qoyunlu
>White Sheep
It doesn't looks like sheep for me.

>Isn't that location where those spoopy White Huns settled down in? Perhaps it has something to do with that.
The white huns settled around from what today is afghanistan

EU4 is very unrealistic and ahistorical. The premise of a game starting in the 15th century and ending at Napoleons death should without any core mechanics changing should tell you that.

They arrived some time around the Timurid invasions AFAIK

its minimalistic yo'

Qara Koyunlu= massive faggots

Make sure to wipe them out while they are busy dealing with a multitude of rebellions

>a paradox game is ahistoric

They are terrible as being historical for a company that produces historical strategy game.

Is this an accurate depiction of Africa in 1444? I can hardly find any information on these countries

They wuz kangz n shied.

No most of those country ass and pretty much all of their leaders are just fiction with the exception of maybe like 4 or 5.

>Paradox will never spend money or effort on historical accuracy
>expect 20 new graphical dlc this year
Jaydimsah

They tried to hard to make an historically uninteresting region interesting. A lot of those states in Congo are based on very vague information. The horn I think is pretty accurate, west Africa sort of.

>warfare in a Paradox game will never be satisfying

>tfw no paradox CA team up to make the best strategy game ever

I'd even buy the 8 billion dlcs they put up to make the game playable.

Nigger please, you dont even know their history.
QQ conquered Persia before it was cool, and the story of their King sounds fucking badass

west and east africa are pretty close to accurate. congo region and lake states are based loosely on the information of what sort of tribes lived there in the general time period

honestly it'd be hard to make a truly "accurate" depiction of exactly what africa was like in 1444, considering not much written information survived from 15th century africa

Just quickly. how casualised is the new HoI? A battleship thread got me thirsty to play again, but I'm at uni and neither have the time or the will to relearn it, so if the new one is normie-pandeting that would actually be a good thing for me.

It's about the same level as an EU game. A lot of the mechanics have been simplified from the previous game.

With the exception of Shogun 2 there hasn't been a total war game with good combat since Medieval 2.

Mostly because the Warscape engine is a steaming pile of shit that should've been abandoned after Empire.

In EUIII I played as Aquileia the bishopric theocracy next to Venice.

Finally got a good game where I recaptured the Levant and Anatolia, converting it to Catholicism and conquered Europe because I couldn't trust my fellow Catholics to survive against the Central European protestants without my rule.

Managed to take France, half of Iberia and Italy. Late game I formed Italy for the cores and turned into a Cromwell style Republican Dictatorship with the express goal of containing and slowly eradicating protestant nations.

How real is Crimean Gothic Nation?

Real, in that Crimean Goths lived there. Fake, in that they never really had a state.

>Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
>okay, lets try a game
>start with Ethiopia
>slowly conquer Somalia and Eritrea
>annex my vassal Kafa
>win a war with Egypt, liberating and vassalizing my former ally that they conquered
>finish conquest of the Horn of Africa, colonize a few empty provinces around me
>win a war with Mali, don't take land, just trade power and tribute
>join Ottomans to shit on Egypt, split it between us
>join Ottomans to shit on Arabs, split them between us
>join Persia to shit on Ottomans, split them between us
>suddenly Europeans form a coalitions against me, even though I have zero European land
>my trade navy gets blockaded
>legions of Europeans start swarming me
>its a holy crusade against the largest christian state in the world
>Russia is being destroyed from inside by rebels, but they still send troops to harass me
>quit out of frustration, since I am playing whack-a-mole and doing damage control, and its not fun

>be african
>get memed on by millennial euro faggots

pretty typical to be honest

The general problem with EU IV is that the whole game is geared towards a playstyle based on expansion, without actually making it fun.

EU4, like Civilization for example, is fun initially, and gets dull when you are done with the growing stage, and get into the consolidation stage.

Is usually fun in a video game:
>1. The age of outburst (or pioneers).
>2. The age of conquests.
Is sometimes fun in a video game, though usually dull:
>3. The age of commerce.
>4. The age of affluence.
>5. The age of intellect.
Is always terrible in a video game:
>6. The age of decadence.
>7. The age of decline and collapse.

>paradox games will never again have pops

>Paradox will never remake their engine

They are Bethesda tier in their insistence on using the same engine for 20 years.

Paradox doesn't need to change their engine though, it is completely fine as it is. They are just lazy and greedy.

Quote from a Paradox official when another developer asked them to use their engine, from memory:

>This will not happen, the engine has too many quirks and we don't care to provide support; just use Unity, its better.

> The age of decline and collapse.
Well, its actually fun to lost some lands and try to reclaim them like 200 years later. Sadly, majority of the players can't handle the tension.

More like most games are balanced in such a way that either you can't lose, because the AI is too bad, or if you up the difficulty you can't afford to lose, because the cheating AI would eat you alive the moment you slip once.

Actually, Crusader Kings balanced around that idea really well. You can lose horribly but rarely to the point of no return. Europe is certainly harsher with that, but you probably can survive one or two lost wars if you not playing some shit one province state which is basically deity difficulty of that game.

This.

Assuming everything works perfectly, losing a bit and then reclaiming it later can be great fun but most of the time the moment you lose a tiny bit it sets off an unstoppable downward slide which costs you the game.

I only had one serious, long campaign, and my united Iberia got divided into warring kingdoms as I got succession wars and lord uprising at the same time. Ragequit like a motherfucker.

I should give it another go some day, but all that DLC which I have to pirate and manually install is making me lazy.

That's because they go on for way too long, far past the date when the mechanics make sense for the time period.

That's why HOI3 and Vicky 2 are much better GSG's, as they are confined to time periods where the game mechanics at least make some sense.

Vicky 2 is actually *complete insanity* in the end as countries fall into crazy economic depression, while The Great War XVIII ends all wars once and for all.

Literally go to /gsg/, open the mega archive, download a rar and the activator, dump it in your game folder, do the activator and there you have it
Takes like an actual minute