Italy eu4

Purpose:
I have been a Total War fan for as long as I remember, and I was enamored and still am enamored by the franchise. The reason why I am writing this is because I feel like all of the old legacy titles are being treated unfairly as of late and I do not understand why older titles do not receive any support.
Introduction:
I know CA has accomplished so much over the past decade and has evolved greatly as a franchise. Warhammer especially expanded the limits and scope of what Total War can do, and for that I am grateful! It is without a doubt that the Total War community has grown beyond measure. The reason for this growth lies in the fact that for the past seven years, the fantasy/mythology genre has been the focus of Total War. This in itself is not a bad thing, in fact, it was very fascinating and exciting to see how the franchise developed and grew with this new genre! The problem is that many of the older titles seemed to not receive as much love or support, and thus the historical community felt somewhat neglected during this time.
Lack of Support for Older Titles:
An observation that I feel all Total War fans can agree on is that support for a Total War title seems to end once a new Total War title emerges. I know there have been exceptions, but generally, this observation holds true. In some sort of sense, each title, whether it be fantasy or history, seems to be incomplete either content-wise (missing core historical/fantasy lore content) or mechanics-wise (core problems/glitches persisting to exist). Legacy titles (Empire, Napoleon, Shogun 2, Rome 2, etc..) in particular have been severely affected by this lack of continued support. In fact, more recent titles, most notably Three Kingdoms, are also heavily affected by this lack of support (This is especially sad for TW3K as the Three Kingdoms period is not even featured in the game).
Removal of Chat System from Legacy Titles:
The final nail in the coffin seems to be the removal of the chat systems for legacy titles (Empire, Napoleon, and now Shogun 2). I now fear that Attila and Rome 2 will suffer the same fate! Fans of these titles already knew that their beloved games will not receive any new content or support, but they never imagined that core features/content will be removed! This is just very sad. Part of the reason why these titles retained their popularity all these years has been due to the multiplayer system. Removing the chat system threatens the player base of these titles. I do not understand why older titles are treated in this manner. It’s not as if there are few players actively playing these games. In fact, Steam Statistics show the contrary, with Titles such as Napoleon, Shogun 2, Attila, and especially Rome 2 and 3 Kingdoms still retaining a high weekly player base. In the update message that coincided with the removal of the chat in Shogun 2, it is stated that: “It is necessary for us to remove those services from Shogun 2 and our other legacy titles. We are, however, continuing to investigate ways to implement and support chat in our future projects…”. This message implies that the chat feature is permanently removed from old titles and that the developers will focus on implementing chat systems in future titles rather than trying to find ways to re-implement them in their already developed titles.
Why End Support for Older Games?
What I do not understand is why Older Total War titles are treated in this way. Why end support for games that are still loved and played by the community? I wish to reiterate that I am grateful for all that CA does and accomplishes, but as a fan, I want to express this view that many TW players currently have.
It’s not uncommon to see developers go back to their older titles and add new content. If done properly, new content to older games can gain tremendous popular support from the player community while also achieving financial gain. Paradox, for example, has continuously been releasing DLC for old titles such as EU4 and HOI4. The amazing thing is that even if they developed new titles, such as CK3, they continued providing new DLC and support for their other titles. We only see support for a title ending when a sequel emerges. For example, support for CK2 ended once CK3 took its place. Why not implement this same policy in Total War?
Total War has every ability to continuously support all of their games, and rely on numerous DLC. The Warhammer Trilogy has shown us how successful such a system is. With numerous DLC and expansions, the Total War Warhammer community has stayed vibrant and ever-growing for the past seven years! Older titles equally have such potential, and we saw this with Rome 2 in 2018. When Rise of the Republic, Empire Divided, and Desert Kingdoms DLCs came out, they were incredibly popular, well received, and saw tremendous support from the Rome 2 community.
I know that CA has many groups working on different projects at the same time. Why not create a group whose purpose is going back to older titles, adding new content in the form of DLC, and fixing known issues? I feel the wider community as a whole would rejoice to know that their favorite games will receive continued love and support. New Games will be created, while older games continue to be expanded. In this way, the wider audience of Total War will consistently grow and retain its vibrant nature.
What Hypothetical Support in Older Games Could Look Like (Skip straight to the conclusion if you don’t feel like reading this. I sort of talk about personal DLC Ideas here).
Below I have some basic DLC ideas for older Total War Titles which could coincide with major updates to them. These are by no means original ideas, it’s more of a hypothetical vision of how support for older games could look like. I won’t go into too much detail about each one as it would dissuade from the purpose of this essay.

Expanded Nations DLC (Napoleon): This DLC would add new factions, new units to present factions, and new battlefield maps. The primary purpose of this DLC would be to diversify custom and multiplayer battles. The factions that would be introduced here, do not require a relative campaign to go with them. The Napoleonic Era had many theaters of war, thus there are many nations that could be included here. The ones I had in mind are (Sardinia-Piedmont, Swiss Confederation, Saxony, Bavaria, Duchy of Warsaw, Greek and Serbian Revolutionaries, Eyalet of Egypt, Barbary States, Qajar Persia, Maratha Empire, and Kingdom of Nepal). This DLC could coincide with the re-implementation of the chat system in Empire and Napoleon Total War.
War of 1812 DLC (Napoleon): If there is one theater of war that deserves a campaign, it is that of the War of 1812. This DLC would come as a surprise to many in the historical community; especially those historical TW players who lost hope of seeing the US as a playable faction again. A map that resembles the American map of Empire Total War is the best option for this DLC, with the exception that regions such as Mexico and Eastern America should receive more provinces. USA, Mexican Revolutionaries, Haiti, Tecumseh’s Confederacy, Red Sticks, Great Britain, and Spanish Royalists should be the playable factions in the campaign. The Seminoles, Comanche, Gran Colombia, United Provinces of Rio de l Plata, and Empire of Brazil, could be added as factions in custom/multiplayer battle. This DLC could coincide with a potential graphical update to Napoleon Total War.
Imjin War DLC (Shogun 2): The Imjin War, or the Japanese Invasion of Korea, was one of the most pivotal moments of the Sengoku Jidai, and it is still not featured in Shogun 2. Such a campaign would mean creating a map centered around the Korean Peninsula and Northern China, and would also entail introducing new cultures such as Korea, China, and Jurchen Tribes. As a project, it might be somewhat difficult, as it would mean creating a whole new map and creating culture unique cities, forts, unit rosters, and languages. Despite these difficulties, I can see many players flocking to buy this DLC! First, it would feature other Asian factions which have never been featured before in Total War, namely Korea and Jurchens, and second, is a period of history featuring prominent figures such as Yi Sun-sin and Toyotomi Hideyoshi. The Playable factions here would be, the Japanese Shogunate, Ming Empire, Great Joseon State, and Jianzhou Jurchens. This DLC could coincide with the reimplementation of the chat system in Shogun 2 Total War as well as a graphical update.
Break the Chains DLC (Rome 2): The theme that emanates from this DLC pack, is that of rebellion. This DLC pack could add 6 factions all of whom have either rebelled or given Rome a hard time at some point. Of the 6 factions, two could have a Grand Campaign starting position (Etruscan league, Cimbri), two could have an Emperor Augustus Campaign starting position (Hasmonean Kingdom, Cherusci), and two will only be accessible via custom battle (Sertorian Rebels, Servile Rebels). This DLC could also coincide with new unique city maps for Jerusalem, Syracuse, and Sarmizegetusa (all cities that have rebelled against Rome). An idea that I have is potentially adding unique Archimedes contraptions to Syracuse, where they can be placed on walls similar to how artillery is when defending. A few Historical Battles could be added here too (such as the Silarius River, Carrhae, and Watling Street). To be honest there are tons of directions one can go with this. As this DLC relates to rebellion, it could come with some sort of rework of the public orderebellion system in Rome 2.
Civil Wars Immersion Pack (Rome 2): This is not meant to be really an expansive DLC, it’s more of an aesthetic one. Here players could have the ability to recolor their army during custom or multiplayer battles. There are many times when more than two people use the same faction during a multiplayer battle, such as Rome. The idea is that each player can choose to recolor their army in order to reduce the monotony such a circumstance may cause. In other words, the addition of a color palette. Such a feature would definitely diversify the R2 multiplayer community. I think a color pallet fits well with the theme of this DLC pack, due to the many civil wars Rome has had over the centuries, filled with colorful banners and shields. This DLC could also include several Historical Battles relating to Roman civil wars (such as Pharsalus, Zela, Thapsus, and Actium). This DLC could potentially add cool siege maps for multiplayer such as Dyrrachium, or Gregovia. Shogun 2 has a color palette, so I do not think it is a bad idea to see it used in Rome 2. This DLC could coincide with a graphical update to Rome 2.
Alexander and the Diadochi DLC (Rome 2):
In ancient antiquity, three generals are the most famous; Julius Caesar, Hannibal, and Alexander the Great. Currently, the game almost continuously spans from the Peloponnesian War until the Crisis of the Third Century. The only historical gap that exists in this timeline is that of the Campaigns of Alexander and the Diadochi. In other words, an Alexander campaign is greatly needed. There are thousands of TW historical fans who still long for an Alexander campaign, including myself. I envision this DLC having two campaigns that use the same map, but different periods. One campaign will be focused on the campaigns of Alexander, while the other will be focused on the Wars of the Diadochi. The map itself can span from the Balkans and Southern Italy, all the way to the entirety of Northern India. The first campaign would have one playable faction (Alexander), while the second campaign would feature six factions/leaders (Cassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy I, Antigonus I, Seleucus I, Chandragupta Maurya).
There are many mechanics and avenues you can go with this DLC. I feel that both campaigns should focus on achieving cultural victories and having the spread of Greek culture be of great importance. The inclusion of new Indian cities, factions, and religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism) should also be introduced. Hellenistic events and religious fusion mechanics should be depicted as well.
I have a lot of additional ideas here, like narrative-driven events/dilemmas for the Alexander Campaign, as well as a Hegemon mechanic, similar to that of Shogun 2, for the Diadochi Campaign. One additional idea that I have, specifically for the Diadochi campaign, is having unlockable end-game crisis mechanics, where during the late game, depending on where on the map the player has expanded, they would have to face one or multiple sudden crises. Some end-game crises for the Diadochi campaign I could think of include: the Celtic Invasion of the Balkans, the Egyptian Revolt, the Secession of the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom, and the Roman Invasion of Magna Graecia.
Some complementary things that could be included in the DLC are the inclusion of a few historical battles (Such as, Gaugamela, Hydaspes, and Ipsus). Rhodes, Media, and Persis could be added as free FLC factions to the grand campaign. The Wrath of Sparta campaign could receive an update as well, potentially adding new mechanics to that campaign and also adding some missing units, like the Sacred Band of Thebes. This DLC could coincide with a rework of the subject mechanic, potentially adding new interactions with Satraps, Client States, and Tributaries, while also including an annexation mechanic.
Rise of Islam FLC (Attila): In the timeline of Total War Attila, there exists a historical gap in the 7th and early 8th centuries. This period was defined by the expansion of Islam, and the establishment of new regional powers. I envision this campaign to work similarly to how Imperator Augustus FLC worked for Rome 2, where all R2 players received a free grand-scale campaign set in a different era. In this case, the campaign can be free for those who own the Age of Charlemagne and the Last Roman DLCs and can include a similar map to the main grand campaign, just set in the 7th century. The Muslim Invasions marked a pivotal point in world history. Some Important factions include Rashidun Caliphate (which becomes Umayyad), Sassanid Empire, Eastern Roman Empire, Frankish Kingdom, Visigothic Kingdom, Bulgars, Avar Khaganate, and Göktürk Empire. There are many more minor factions, but I will not list them here. This DLC could coincide with a Graphical Update for Attila.
Medieval 2 Remaster (Medieval 2): Essentially a Remaster of the entire M2 game. This endeavor is one of the most requested by the entire TW community.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, I feel saddened that many older titles have lost support and have had core features removed from them. I do not understand, why CA chooses to not support their older titles, especially as there is a large loyal community that still plays and enjoys them.
Adding DLC and support to all older titles, fantasy and historical alike, will be met with much positivity and all players will feel that their games receive a sense of care and closure that they desperately need. I have faith that this endeavor has much promise, and can easily build up a wonderful and vibrant community.
As a fan, I can’t wait to see what the future of Total War holds! I am eager to play the upcoming Total War Pharaoh, and I am looking forward to all the new forthcoming titles. Yet, despite my excitement, I had to share my concern and ideas on the fate of the Older TW Titles. I hope I did not bore you guys, and if you made it this far thank you for reading all that I had to say!

I was playing a MP game yesterday and one of my friends was able to change the Kalmar Union map colour from yellow to red using a 'Restore our Color' decision. I found the decision on the wiki (https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/List_of_decision_lists#Restore_our_Color) but when trying it in singleplayer (Sardinia-Piedmont to Italy) I'm not able to do it - it just doesn't show up in the months after I've formed Italy. I don't understand the "has_overriden_color_flag is set" requirement. Has anyone used this before or know why it's not working for me?

Something similar to EU4 disaster system, but expanded. Journal entries were a positive step towards this direction but they don't do nearly enough.
We need a system that forces each nation to behave differently, something that triggers disasters everytime you don't fulfill certain requierements (like not being able to form germany/italy, not having overseas colonies, not being able to liberalize/industrialize, not being able to raise stardard of living) or after a rather bad situation, (like losing territory, massive unemployment, losing your indian colony, being forced to open your market.), with each major nation having their own unique set of disasters they want to avoid, and agenda they need to follow.
The 'situations' should not simply add maluses that impedes you to do certain things, but greatly affect the opinions, clout and even ideologies of the interest groups. (Which would create a massive power shift in the country)
This would be a great way to add flavour to the game, since this would not be simply railroaded content, but tasks you have to follow and complete dynamically based on the situation of the game and the historical context of the nation you are playing.

Since this Question gets asked frequently I decided to once again update the tier list and work in the suggestions of the last iteration. This version includes all DLC up to Domination (1.35). For more detailed information on the features included in each DLC, please refer to the EU4 wiki articles which are linked.
MISC/FAQ:

• There is a subscription service available on Steam. It includes all DLC. I highly recommend using the subscription service if you are missing most of the DLC or are new to the game and want to decide whether you like it or not
• In a multiplayer game, all players will use the hosts DLC even if they have/don't have the DLC the host has - this usually means the person with the most or best DLC should host
• Content packs only add art/unit models
• Editions of the base game do not contain full expansion DLC, but bundles do
• If you're looking to get into the game, the EU4: Starter Pack is a great bundle - it includes three DLC listed in the top two tiers. Note that EU4: Empire Bundle is different and includes all expansions except the latest ones - Origins, Lions of the North and Domination
• Adding or removing DLC during the course of a game can have adverse effects on existing saves, and will disqualify a save from achievements
• Most DLC over a year old can frequently be found on sale for 50%+ off, the base game can frequently be found on sale for 75% off, and most DLC within the past year won't go more than 25%-33% off in any sale.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major features are listed under each DLC, especially vital/useful features are italicised. Within each tier DLC are ordered alphabetically. All DLC information is from the wiki, and the tier listings are my own.
TIERS:

• Tier 1: Must have. They either provides core game mechanics or immense quality of life improvements
• Tier 2: Highly Recommended. The game is playable without them, but you would have a much improved experience with them.
• Tier 3: Good/Decent. Worth getting, but by no means necessary for a solid gameplay experience.
• Tier 4: Nice to Have, but not necessary. Adds something to the game, but it is only ever worth buying on sale.
• Situational: Some DLC are very situational and could be Tier 1 in certain circumstances or Tier 4 in others.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIER 1:

• Art of War
  • Transfer occupation of a province to a war ally (1.28 added this to the base game - if you are playing on an older patch, this will still be a feature)
  • Army macrobuilder
  • Client state subject type and interactions
  • Subject military focus (siege/combat/defense/etc), and ally/subject war-time province objectives
  • Mothball/upgrade/sell navy, auto transport armies with navy
  • March subject type and interactions
  • Better peace deal interface
  • Religious league war
  • Revolution
• Domination (Tier 2-3 if not playing one of the mentioned nations)
  • Why Tier 1? According to the metrics about 60% of all started campaigns (only counting countries that exist in 1444) are as one of the countries, which get a major rework with this DLC. Therefore this DLC has a direct impact on most games.
  • Adds mission trees and flavour to all major countries: Ottomans, France, Great Britain, Russia, Japan, Qing and Spain as well as Portugal, Korea and Brandenburg/Prussia

​
TIER 2:

• Common Sense
  • Province development (If you are playing on pre-1.28 patches, from 1.28 this is in the base game)
  • Subject interactions
  • Changes to Protestant, Buddhist religions, theocracies, parliament
  • National focus (also in Res Publica)
• Dharma (Tier 1 playing in India)
  • Government reforms (1.30 added the mechanic to the base game - if you are playing on an older patch this is still a feature; the individual reforms are still DLC content)
  • Free policies
  • Trade companies and trade company investments (trade companies but not investments are also in Wealth of Nations)
  • Automatic rebel suppression
  • Massive upgrades to most Indian nations including missions, estates, government types
  • Upgradeable centres of trade
  • Charter companies
• Emperor) (Tier 1 if playing in Western Europe/HRE)
  • Changes to Catholicism and new Hussite Faith
  • HRE Rework
  • Lots of mission trees (including France, Austria, Prussia, Germany and Italy)
  • Revolution Rework
  • Hegemonies
• Lions of the North (Tier 1 if playing a country around the Baltic Sea)
  • Focuses on the Countries around the Baltic Sea:Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Poland, Riga, The Orders (Livonian and Teutonic)
  • Adds mission trees to all said countries
  • Unique government reforms and estate privileges
• Mandate of Heaven
  • Historical ages with objectives, bonuses, and golden eras
  • Diplomatic macro-builder
  • Unique East Asian government types including Ming/Emperor of China, Japan
  • Changes to Confucian, Shinto religions
  • Tributary subject type and interactions
  • Manchu banners
  • State prosperity
• Rights of Man
  • Ruler personalities
  • Consorts and consort-regents
  • Changes to Fetishist, Coptic religions
  • Changes to Prussian, Ottoman, Revolutionary government types
  • Great power mechanic

​
TIER 3:

• Cossacks (Tier 1 if playing a horde)
  • Estates (1.26 added this to the base game - if you are playing on an older patch, this will still be a feature)
  • Diplomatic feedback (attitude, provinces of interest, favours)
  • Grant province subject interaction (vassal feeding)
  • Cossack unit type, government type
  • Major changes to Hordes including government type, razing, Tengri religion changes
  • Dhimmi and Cossack unique estates (even after 1.26)
  • Threaten war
• Cradle of Civilization
  • Promote advisors (vital mechanic if doing WC)
  • Unique governments, missions, for various Islamic nations including Mamluks, Persia
  • Trade policies
  • Islamic Schools
  • Army Professionalism
  • Convert subject provinces
  • Unique Turkish Janissary unit type
• Leviathan (Disclaimer: The DLC is fine! The initial 1.31 patch problematic, but got fixed)
  • Monuments
  • Mission trees for South East Asian and North American countries
  • Favours rework (Curry Favours)
  • Colonial nation rework
  • Estate Regencies
  • Changes to Totemism religion
• Rule Britannia¹
  • Knowledge Sharing (arguably a vital mechanic if you play multiplayer)
  • Unique missions for Britain/England/Ireland/Scotland
  • Coal trade good and furnace manufactory
  • Innovativeness
  • Naval Doctrines
  • Anglican religion
• Wealth of Nations
  • Trade companies (also in Dharma)
  • Espionage
  • Privateers
  • Separate trade and country capitals
  • Changes to Hindu, Reformed religions

​
TIER 4:

• Mare Nostrum
  • Naval automatic missions
  • Berber Pirates/Raiding Coasts (many people dislike this feature and some intentionally do not use Mare Nostrum to avoid it)
  • Condottieri (arguably a vital mechanic if you play multiplayer)
  • Rework of espionage and spy actions
  • Trade leagues for merchant republic government type
  • Timeline replay
• Res Publica
  • Unique government type for Netherlands
  • Changes to merchant republic, elective monarchy government types
  • National Focus (also in Common Sense)
• Golden Century¹
  • Minority expulsion
  • Iberian state orders
  • Unique missions for Iberian, Maghreb nations (decent, but main Iberian nations have missions even without the DLC)
  • Pirate Republic government type
  • Flagships
  • Naval Barrage

SITUATIONAL:

• Conquest of Paradise (Tier 1 if playing a native American or subject nation, Tier 4 otherwise)
  • Random new world
  • Changes to native American governments and mechanics
  • Release and play as colonial nation
  • Support independence (also in El Dorado)
• El Dorado (Tier 1 if playing a native American or subject nation, Tier 2 if colonizer, Tier 4 otherwise)
  • Custom nation designer
  • Rework of native American religions and mechanics
  • Reworked exploration/colonization mechanics
  • Support independence (also in Conquest of Paradise)
• Origins (Tier 2 if playing in Africa, Tier 4 otherwise)
  • Changes to Jewish religion
  • Unique mission trees and government reforms
• Third Rome¹ (Tier 1-2 if playing in Russia, Tier 2-3 for other Orthodox countries, Tier 4 otherwise)
  • Unique government types, military units, missions, ideas for Russia and various Russian minors
  • Changes to Orthodox religion
• Digital Extreme Edition Upgrade Pack (Tier 2 if playing Byzantium or USA in 1776, Tier 3 if playing Muslim Countries, Tier 4 otherwise)
  • Star and Crescent Pack: events, art, unit models for Muslim nations and the "Unify Islam" Decision
  • Purple Phoenix Pack: missions, events, art, unit models for Byzantium
  • American Dream: events, art, unit models for United States

​
¹Domination replaces/overwrites at least some of the mission trees provided in Rule Britannia, Golden Century and Third Rome. However the 1.35 Patch added a variety of things to said DLC in order to compensate for this.

So I had just played a 1.35 Ming run to 1600, and my conclusion is that it is boring.
​
The Paradox devs gave it more missions, a new estate, blah blah blah, but it failed to address the two things that made a Ming run so boring: waiting, and only one "meta" play.
​
See, with practically any other country, there is usually a dichotomy of choices. With England, you can go either Angevin or UK. With France, you can get a Pope march or own Italy. With Aragon, you can go a peasant republic or a monarchy. But Ming has very little of those dichotomy.
​
For a WC, the only viable Ming path is to expand into Tibet and south into India ASAP. In the meantime, cancel tributaries in SEA, DoW, and wait until mil tech 7 to take on the hordes. From there, push through Oirat and Uzbek to reach Muscovy. There are no other option, and basically, for much of the early game, it's all about waiting. There are no claims, half the missions is about deving the land (WAY TOO MUCH), so the early game is boring.
​
And EU4 is all about the early game thrill. Basically, a game is fun pre-1500, slowly becomes boring by 1600, and most players stop by 1650 because it's a chore. But for Ming, it's a chore the whole way through.
​
AI Ming isn't much better either. I just played a Jianzhou-Manchu-WC run, and Ming exploded all on its own. By 1465. I just accelerated the process by 5 years, tops. Ming somehow were fighting rebels from 1444, came down to 20k troops, and got DoW by Oirat. This... ...is now how it historically works.
​
See, Ming might be slow, but it has great momentum, especially after consolidating for 80 years, as described in the game start. Basically, the first emperor established a system where the bureaucracy can keep working without any outside interference. For decades. For instance, Wanli Emperor neglected almost all of his duties for 40 years, and Ming kept going. It took four simultaneous disasters to take it down: the ascending Qing, the famine, the lack of money, and Li Zicheng. And Ming successor states still hung around for decades. The same concept also applies to Qing and most other Chinese dynasties.
​
Therefore, in EU4, Ming should be a massive behemoth that cannot be taken down easily, but will be slowly worn down. Its offensive wars will be extremely difficult (i.e. military maluses), but it should be extremely efficient at taking down internal disasters and rebellions (speaking of that, there should be much more significant rebellions). It's much like the oriental version of the Byzantine Empire.
​
Now obviously this isn't perfect, and to completely fix Ming would require such significant structural changes that can only come in EU5. Speaking of EU5, I'm actually writing a list of ideas for EU5 that might be useful for the Paradox Devs
​
What do you guys think?

I played all of one "complete" playthrough and 3 or so shorter ones on 1.35 before I felt the draw to just play more Anbennar. There is just something about Anbennar that makes it feel like it has way more content and a more fun and interesting world in base EU4.
Like for example, I just formed the Black Demesne after winning the Escanni Consolidation wars, am using undead armies and magic, and have interesting mechanics and missions for my country. Whereas at the same time as France I have..... the same armies as the rest of the world, am maybe expanding into the HRE and Italy, no particularly interesting missions or mechanics. Anbennar just seems so much more interesting with all the different mechanics and races and army types and magic.
Ambennar just seems to be everything base EU4 is, but better in every way.
So who else here has just skipped into playing Anbennar after Domination released?

Give me your best EU4 movie pairings.
Country, Date- Movie Title
Here's my brief starting list:

• Korea, 1590s - Hansan: Rising Dragon
• Britain, 1800s - Master and Commander
• England, 1400s - The Hollow Crown
• United States, 1770s - The Patriot
• France, 1800s - Les Miserables
• Japan, 1600s - Silence
• Colonies or Native North America - The New World
• South America, 1700s - The Mission
• Papal States / Italy, 1500ish - The Borgias

Hello,
I recently started a CK2 game as the Isauros Dynasty in the 769 start date in CK2 and I had a few questions.
First, I understand that Hellenism is more powerful than Orthodoxy in CK2, but how does it compare in EU4 these days? My previous experience with EU4 has taught me that Orthodoxy is usually the strongest religion in the game, but those were a while ago and were standard EU4 games without an import.
Second, will an imported CK2 game with Sunset Invasion enabled have "High American" nations within the Americas?
Third, will an EU4 game started with an imported save be ironman compatible by default? If not, can (and should) the file be tweaked to allow it to be played in ironman?
Fourth, as the Byzantine empire, am I doing the right thing by only ever handing out feudal titles as viceroyalties? I think I am from the point of view that this makes my vassals and their expansion very easy to control.
Fifth, I'm thinking of creating a couple of merchant republics. I have already created a merchant republic from the duchy of Azov, but I've got plans to create at least a merchant republic vassal centred on Basra. Is this a good idea? Would it also be a good idea to create a merchant republic vassal for the Caspian sea if it is even possible and should that be in the north, where I can set everything up exactly how I want it, or in the south where I will have to make do with already developed holdings? Does it also make a difference if said merchant republics are located on silk road tiles? Are there any other locations I should consider for merchant republics? (already considering a couple for Bremen, Mann and Lubeck if/when I conquer them).
Sixth, How do I make the Abassids enter the Abyss? Usually they make a mingsplosion look small by fragmenting about 50-100 years into the game, but they're still huge in mine and they're now Hindu, but it's now the 1080s and they're still knocking about and my Vassals have been very reluctant to invade them.
Seventh, I have dropped down to medium crown authority. Will this be an issue when importing the game into EU4 from the point of view of will I be one big blob or will I have vassals to absorb?
Finally, is my progress sufficient to ensure an outcome that I want (Roman borders + extent of roman/suspected roman expeditions + Macedonian empire borders + then some)? I now only need Venice, Bologna (which my vassals are in the process of moping up) and Archa (Antioch) to form the Roman empire and now own most former ERE territory (still moping up Egypt to usurp/de jure decay the Kingdom and need to grab what's left of Syria, Georgia and Armenia) as well as Tunis, Wallachia, Carpathia, Crimea almost all of Italy, and 2/3 of the duchies needed to form Valencia. I plan on using the once-per-life time invasion CB to claim most of de jure Germany and then reclaim Austrasia and Frisia who broke away from me due to being not sufficiently connected to my blob (claimed via courtier claim). I have made a lot of progress in the last 12 in game years by basically ignoring the threat warnings and just being really careful with where I position my retinues and hired (VG and Scholae) troops prior to DOW.
Additional information:
My game is cursed as fuck; the border gore is wild, what remains of the kingdom of Italy is in almost constant war and they own no de jure territory and as a result, I can't usurp them and the title hasn't suffered de jure decay yet. The reconquista got laughed out of Spain and the successors to the Umayyads now have an empire that encompasses Spain (minus my recent conquests) and most of Francia. I managed to break the back of the Abassids after 150-200 years in game and in the mean time they have flipped Hindu, but the blob mostly persists (lost a good chunk of their expanded western holdings when I had their leader assassinated 30~ years in game back) and Arabia recently got Jihaded successfully. England flipped Muslim, invaded Norway, Scotland and Wales and have now formed Britannia. Border gore is generally as bad as you'd expect it in CK2, if not worse. Eastern Europe in particular is a mess.
I've probably missed something, but oh well; this is long enough as it is.
​
Update: Since this post I have acquired the last few provinces required to form the Roman Empire and I have decided to hold on to orthodoxy for now. I did get an event to burn all the church holdings in Rome, but decided not to. As it currently stands, when the Aztecs land, they'll likely be pushed straight back into the sea by either me or the two AI empires on the western side of the map.

R5:
Note - this is on 1.34.5.
So I spent a lot of time over the last month climbing the Three Mountains. I tried a few different runs (a few failed Pirate Ryukyu's) but ended up having success with Confucian Mughals as Emperor of China.
I don't want to admit how much time was invested in these runs but for the most part Ryukyu is a LOT of fun to play and before the tediousness of world conquest sets in I think the runs were some of my absolute favourite EU4 sessions. If you haven't tried Ryukyu I would highly recommend it -- even if you don't want to do a WC.
For my Confughals run I used the strategy outlined in this post (https://www.reddit.com/eu4/comments/z31tfa/i_finally_climbed_the_three_mountains_as_the/). Ryukyu into Lan Xang into Siam into Mughals. I did not however keep Siamese ideas and took Mughal ideas instead.
I started with the standard no-CB war into the Philippines (Pangasinan) right at the start. Then a few years consolidating the Philippines. You have to plan your expansion because you'll need to do two religious conversions: first to Sunni in order to form the Mughals and then to an Eastern religion in order to be eligible for the Mandate of Heaven. That means you can't take too much Sunni land or converting (in my case) to Theravada becomes a pain. So even though expansion into Indonesia is usually the easiest path at this point it is a future problem -- Indochina is the best route.
You do however need a Sunni province in order to do the first religious conversion. Sulu is close by and handily attacked me with Brunei so they made an excellent source of religious rebels. Make sure you move your capital to the Philippines, otherwise the rebels will teleport to Okinawa to siege down your capital and then just camp out there, leaving you as unable to accept their demands as Sunni will not be a majority of the country.
I was prepared to no-CB the losing party of a war in Indochina but by the time the opportunity came up I had unlocked the age ability to fabricate on adjacent claims which had allowed me to get a claim in Khmer. Khmer got ganked by an alliance of Ayutthaya and a really chonky Dia Viet (who had eaten all of Lan Xang's cores) so I was able to declare and get a few provinces for myself. I took Champasak and released Lan Xang as a vassal and then proceeded to reconquest their cores.
At this point I got two long term allies: Korea and Sambas. Korea makes a good defensive ally as they've got a force limit, few natural allies and few natural enemies. They can help deter enemies from declaring on you. Sambas was starting to consolidate and their navy was helpful in keeping the oceans safe for me.
After reconquering the cores needed to form Lan Xang (Vientiane, Luang Prabang and Champasak) I annexed my little vassal and decided to become them instead. Reconquering the rest of their cores and moving down their mission tree was a lot of fun. Influence is handy here as you get a lot of subjugation CB's and end up with a bunch of vassals who you ideally want to integrate after you form Siam and get their -20% diplo annex from their ideas (with another 25% from Influence and a further -20% from the Influence/Admin policy).
Then I started snaking through Tibet to get into position to form the Mughals. Bengal made a great ally at this point. You need to culture shift (I went Afghan) and own Delhi and either Doaba or Central Lahore. Save admin points for this as you'll need to unstate/restate things to get Afghan as your dominate stated culture. I didn't plan this properly and wasted too many admin points: it would have been better to state up my annexed vassals AFTER doing this. By 1590 I was ready to form the Mughals, owning almost all everything from Pegu to Canton, plus Afghanistan, the Philippines and a vassal Malacca that had expanded a bit in Malaya.
With that done then it was time to spawn Theravada rebels and religiously convert - which is super quick as Theravada should be the dominate religion. At this point you can stop caring about religious balance. The next goal was to go for the Mandate of Heaven. Ming had exploded in the 1540's which gave the AI's about 50 years to make a mess of China and it was split between a big Shun, a medium sized Yue and a rump Wu. I had been able to take Canton when Yue popped out in the 1540's so I just needed Beijing (Shun) and Nanjing (Wu) for solid mandate growth. Once I claimed Mandate I spent the next 50 years consolidating China and eating south into India. Free cores on China from the Unify China CB is really spectacular for growing your country.
Around 1680 I had a border with Muscovy (a big Commonwealth ate enough of it to prevent Russia from forming). I declared a force tributary war on Muscovy and snaked my way through it to the Commonwealth, Sweden and the Ottomans, ensuring that Muscovy was isolated from them to prevent anyone else from eating Muscovy. I then opportunistically declared on the Commonwealth when they were at war with the Ottomans -- it was probably the hardest war to date and required burning a lot of army professionalism for manpower but it enabled me to snake all the way to Bohemia and also block the Commonwealth and the Ottomans from each other.
Then it was back to eating the rest of India and releasing Deccan for the 5% admin efficiency. For China reforms force tributary was very helpful: Muscovy added a lot of mandate growth until they broke tributary after 10 years and I sadly had to eat them.
In the 1720's it was time to deal with the New World. Because I had to do a true one tag for the achievement (I formed another nation as Ryukyu) I needed to move my capital to prevent colonial nations from forming. The New World was split pretty evening between Spain and Portugal with the exception of a French Columbia. Since the colonizers are generally terrible at defending in far flung wars I declared a conquest on Portugal for one of their colonies in the Philippines (my ally Sambas really shined here with their big navy). I peaced out for Bermuda, a few provinces from North America and a few in South America. Owning Neva or a province in Italy (which I sniped in a war (against Muscovy? Commonwealth?) from Naples at some point) was important for the coring range.
Sometime around here I took the Economic Hegemon and at that point everything really started to snowball.
Conquering individual colonial nations was a breeze and maybe took 20 years total. It could have been done much faster but I only dedicated a few armies to the New World and fought the colonial nations concurrently, not simultaneously. While this was going on in the New World I had the bulk of my forces attacking the Ottomans in three wars (with two truce breaks) to neuter them permanently.
By the 1770's the only single power that was problematic was France, which had eaten most of the British Isles and much of western/southern Germany. Spain and Portugal were useless without their colonial nations and the other largest countries were only ~200-300% warscore. I left France alone for too long and needed to truce break them once at the end to finish on time (and Kilwa too of all countries because of a silly peace deal error I made).
Idea groups were Admin, Influence, Quality, Diplo, Humanist, Espionage, Offensive, Innovative. In hindsight I should have swapped out Influence once I was done with vassals.
Overall a very fun game. Ryukyu is a very fun start and it remained so right up until the tediousness of WC kicked in -- so much micro and so repetitive, especially once in the Blobbageddon stage of the game.
Some general thoughts on the game:
- The amount of land you can take in the later years is ridiculous. I could take 250% overextension easily in later wars and still have negative national unrest. (One just has to remember NOT to click the negative events while in overextension and just let them timeout -- that way you only get 1-2 Rebel sentiment/stab loss events). With 9 months for coring time (85% CCR, but capped at 80%) overextension was never a problem for long. Keep your enemies down to a manageable war score size and everything will be fine: truces (and admin) become the limiting factors: you core up 100% war score in less than a year and then have to either reset the truce or wait another 14 to fight another war and take another 100%.
- "Eat the Weak" is a great strategy to follow in general. Be sure to opportunistically attack towards where you want to expand. Why fight a big war when you can fight a whole bunch of smaller, easier ones? But another important strategy is to prevent other nations from eating each other too. If the Commonwealth, Russia and the Ottomans all can't expand into each other then it limits the ability of them to grow and become more problematic for you down the road. Border gore is your friend: it gives you more places to attack, more potential allies and prevents others from growing all at the same time. I didn't do enough border gore in my failed runs.
- Pacing can be hard and it is easy to get distracted or caught up in useless wars, especially in the mid-game. For development I was aiming for 2000 by around 1600 and 8000 for 1700. I didn't make either target: I had ~1500 in 1600 and ~5000 by 1700. By 1730 however I had doubled in size to nearly 10,000. Absolutism lets you eat everything.
- I don't think a one tag is any harder than a regular WC. Eating colonial nations is incredibly easy, especially before they declare independence and start allying each other. You can one-shot most of them unless they're really chonky (I needed 2 wars for Mexico). A one tag is actually probably easier: you get easy development in the New World and once that's done dealing with the colonizers is very easy.
- Monuments can be very handy. Mandate (Beijing), war score cost (Malta - which I got too late), autonomy (Imperial City of Hue - also late because I was slow in harmonizing Mahayana) and governing capacity (Bangkok) were all quite useful.
- It is amazing how much time it takes to play the last 50 years of a WC. The constant micro of fighting 2-3 simultaneous wars (and rebels from the unrest from the stupid revolution mechanic) makes 1 year near the end take as much real time as probably 20 years in the early/mid-game. I often found myself winning a war, going off to fight 3-4 other wars and checking the first truce timer and finding that there was still 13 years left on it, even though it felt like the war had finished over half an hour ago.
- Manpower was a limiting factor for a good part of the mid-game. Slacken recruitment was used a lot -- the changes to it in the new patch will probably have a big impact. Even when I had a big manpower pool large wars could quickly deplete it. Good micro would have helped with that.
​
Anyway, this was by no means a spectacular WC run. But it was my WC run and I'm rather pleased with it. I'll probably never do another (I did an Austria->HRE One Faith WC run a few years ago) as it gets awfully tedious to play the last 50 years but I'm glad I did the Three Mountains. Ryukyu is a lot of fun.

Edit: nerf not buff
So I have a total of around ~1000 hours played on Eu4 since 2017, so I'm no stranger to the game or playing as the Ottomans. Decided to get the DLC after taking a one-year break, so I decided to play the Ottomans in order to experience their new systems/missions and to warm up to the game again in general. I had a great start, and my rng was great on my first Ironman mode run. Mehmed II lived until 1502, and I had conquered all of North Africa, Hungary, Vienna, most of the Middle East, and Persia by the 1530s. I kept my decadence in check the entire game and made sure to limit the lands owned by my Jannisarries, and I even began making preparations to invade Italy.
However, as soon as the "Rise of the Ottomans" modifier dropped, there was literally nothing I could do to stop my decadence from rising, and by the 1540s, I gained the "Internal Struggle" disaster. From there, I quickly got the Pasha disaster event which gave -10 unrest to every province in my empire. In addition to this disaster, this is when endless rebellions began popping up caused by events that I'm assuming are a part of the Pasha disaster event. Every 6-12 months, separatist rebellions in the provinces occurred with no stop in sight. Either I had to pay up 25 adm and 20% autonomy, or a 20 stack would spawn randomly around my empire.
Then came the rng events. I basically lost 20 prestige and 30 legitimacy every 6-10 months, and soon after, the Harem disaster event popped. Now I had to deal with an endless stream of pretender rebels. Even though I had a 6-6-6 ruler It felt like my run was basically lost. I got the "Sick Man of Europe" event multiple times per year during the 1550s.......yes, THE 1550s. To make matters worse, the only way out of most of these disasters were locked behind multiple idea trees. The Pasha disaster needed two adm idea tree completions and government reform 7, while the Harem disaster needed a 1 dip idea tree completion, I believe. Even though I was able to defeat every rebellion with ease, there was no end in sight as these rebellion events continued spawning well into the 1600s. I ended my run soon after.
I know there have been a lot of discussions on how the Ottomans are OP on the subreddit lately, but I feel like no one is talking about their Ottoman campaigns past the 1550s. How are your Ottoman campaigns going? Any tips? I just feel like Paradox tied my hands during my run idk.

I'm getting back into Vanilla EU4 after sinking so much time into modded games, and I wanted to try and get some achievements. I was looking at France for a number of achievements in one run, but my biggest hurdle is probably the hardest achievement in the list I want to go for - Big Blue Blob. I know it's pretty famous as a difficult achievement, but I thought it would be easier with the new French Mission tree and events (especially those early cannons). My first real run was fairly blind, and I had about 70-odd core provinces by 1496, and a bunch of subjects that I couldn't integrate because my crownland was so low.
All but one of my other runs were absolutely trash, ending with me throwing the 100 Years War (either me being an idiot and getting my stacks caught split up by an English stack, or running out of manpower) or failing hard at something else soon after.
My one other "good" run had me expand a bit into Iberia (getting Leon, and Galicia released as vassals to feed) and almost all of Ireland, before I got hit with a Peasants War (which I really should've paid attention to the notification). I probably could recover that game, as it was only 1455 or so, but it certainly killed my motivation a bit when that happened. I owned 40 provinces, had 14 provinces under vassals, and 8 provinces to grab from vassal cores, so probably pretty doable - assuming Peasants War isn't that difficult to deal with?
So, I was wondering if there's any general advice for the Big Blue Blob achievement for the more recent patches. I've seen that most people go for the North (Ireland > Scotland > Scandinavia / England), but I've also seen a Southern route suggested (Iberian expansion, which I tried on my last run). I always find myself struggling with crownland (no matter what run I do, modded or not), so I've just not really been granting any privileges for my France runs. I'm almost always running a deficit, but loans are basically infinite money so I'm fine with that end.
My general play-by-play / plan for the early game:
- Reconquest Maine on Dec 11th. England really only ever has Irish Minors + Portugal. I send my full army + merc stack to siege down Portugal. They never seem to want to white peace until I've sieged their two mainland forts, so I usually end up taking a province or two from them just to add a few extra.
- From the war with England, I take all mainland cores + Calais + Pale + sometimes Mann. This war usually ends about 1450/1451.
- After that, my plans diverge. Usually it's conquering Ireland, but also in my last game I had a good opportunity to attack Castile (they had no allies and were fighting Granada).
​
Conquering Brittany/Provence seems to give me too much AE with the HRE Minors, but maybe I should simply slow down on that front (take Brittany, led AE die down while I conquer Ireland/Scotland, go back to Provence when AE is calmer).
I'm also not sure how much focus I should put on the mission tree. Conquering Italy seems like way too much AE, but maybe I'm overestimating how bad it would be. I only really click the missions that appear naturally (like the cannons) but don't focus on anything else.
Any advice would be appreciated.

This is a post dedicated to the campaigns I cannot complete due to lack of resources (dlc, no friends, high difficulty bc of lack of dlc)
Cyprus into France. Cyprus being a crusader state, starts the game with a foreign primary culture, that being Francien. I love dynamic starts that shoot you away from what is probably intended for the nation you play and Cyprus into France is a great start, it keeps you from doing the early game major world domination start and will lead you to a France with incredible history and more compact borders. The start is medium difficulty as you can befriend aragon to receive Malta, break relations with aragon, befriend the mamluks, Austria, and/or other aragonese Rivals to fight them and take rosello/catalonia and Sardinia, once Sardinia is acquired your path into the hre and then Italy if they remain in the empire should be secured so you can build up a power base to tackle France and French regional powers.
Dual crusaders. Another Cyprus game this time with your friend on the knights, pretty simple, restore Jerusalem (no formable for the knights) split the ottomans along trade nodes and as Jerusalem conquers the Muslims, the knights conquer the orthodox and everyone else! (Tengri, Buddhist, the sunni provinces you have to go through to get there).
Elysium in Vanilla. Pretty simple, no cb into Ireland as Byzantium (I've successfully pulled off the start, but, colonizing with no dlc is too tough when not playing a major) and make your way into the new world to be a new world nation, or conquer the rest of the British isles too!
The closer to home byzantine exodus. No CB Exodus into Tlemcen and take advantage of the power vacuum that can be exploited in North Africa. You have just enough coring range to reach. Pretty much settling north Africa with any nation that isn't meant to be there is fun.
Volga Germans. As an opm custom nation start in Siberia or any other uncolonized with a native culture or a far away culture (for interesting story, I love oddballs out so creating your own version of Hungarians, Romanians, or Malagasy), play tall play wide, this is more of just a starting point.
Tartary/Tataria. As a Tatar culture nation (preferably releasable) conquer all Tatar provinces and forming the golden horde or not, play tall, cossacks should help with this, possibly mix up the religion to nearby faiths like orthodox or tengri.
Feel free to steal these ideas because I won't be playing eu4 for a very long time or ever again.

I see some people call Lorent the France or Busilar the Spain of Anbennar. I don't personally see much connection from EU4 though. The ideas of these countries are very different, the geography is very different the relationship to their neighbors is very different. Lorent is like some cracked out hypothetical combination of France, northern Italy, and the entire coast of Spain at best. If France had as much potential in EU4 as Lorent has in Anbennar then Europe in EU4 would feel very different.
I'm curious if the community disagrees with this, what do people think? Is it fair to compare them all that much? I feel as though it's apples and oranges being treated like limes and lemons.

So I've spent quite a lot of time playing EU4, but I have very little idea how the Italian end-nodes (Genoa and Venice) work once you control both.
Let's say in my example I am Italy and I have 99% trade power i.e. control in Genoa and 97% in Venice, however I only have one merchant collecting in Genoa and others steering to Genoa, none in Venice, what happens to the income that passively flows into Venice?
I don't see it in my trade income menu, so does 97% of the Venetian node gold magically disappear or does it go to the second most powerful trade power that collects in that node?

What are your favourite stacking permanent modifiers in EU4? More specifically what missions and culture shift shenanigans can you pull off to get insane modifiers?
As an example: I like forming Rothenburg > Switzerland > Sardinia-Piedemont > Italy to stack defensive modifiers as it gives me:
+25% Fort defense Rothenburg National Ideas
+20% Garrison size Rothenburg National Ideas
+10% Defensiveness Swiss Mission
+25% Local defensiveness for 100 years Sardinia-Piedmont Mission
Of course I combine this with taking Defensive, Innovative, Espionage and Quantity ideas to increase Fort Defense and Garrison Size even more:
+20% Fort defense Defensive Ideas
+25% Garrison size Quantity Ideas
+10% Garrison size Quantity - Innovative policy
+10% Fort defense Innovative - Defensive policy
+10% Fort defense Espionage - Defensive policy
You could even add more Fort Defense by taking Influence Ideas and make use of the policies. I usually play tall and I like seeing my enemies die in the alps.