France was the de facto cultural hegemon in Europe for quiet some time during the era of play in this game. So historically it was absolutes a thing. America is the modern cultural hegemon.
France was also basically the military hegemon for quite a while as well, at least until the Spanish Succession set up the beginnings of the great power balance.
France was indeed the cultural hegemon. And losing a war in the colonies didn't make a difference to their cultural hegemony. It's only after the french revolution when they lost a war in their core homelands that they lost the hegemony.
Not to be a grammar nazi, but the word “quiet” means like “shush” or “shhhhh” or there is the absence of sound. On the other hand quite means “to the extent of something” or a description of time. I’m sure it was a typo
Yeah, 1M primary pop for a kingdom is going to remove a lot of enjoyment from the 'sandbox' experience if you have to wait until 1600 to become a kingdom.... Because we are going to be able to move pops now, another condition to form a kingdom could be: Your primary culture in must be dominant in every location of an area (or 2).
It also creates a massive imbalance between cultures. If you're a culture with only, say, 500k people you wouldn't ever be able to form a kingdom, even if you own a large chunk of land, never mind forming an empire. It also means that where you could form a kingdom in China by just owning one province, in Europe you'd need to own massive tracts of lands because there is just a far smaller population.
The primary pop requirement for empires is also a little odd, given that an empire is a "shanenshah", a king of kings. That is, an empire is where a primary culture reigns over another, or a variety of other, cultures.
I think the military hegemony bonuses aren't that unrealistic tbh. As long as you remain undefeated, it can be interpreted as having less desertions, more enthusiastic troops moving faster, and fearful enemy garrisons surrendering slightly sooner. It would get silly if it scales too high tho. Your military reputation becomes an asset to your military, like for the spartans... until you lose a war.
It would be kinda neat if hegemonies were bound by diplo range rather than being global. So you can declare a hegemony if you're bigger and badder than everyone you know. Maybe there could be some special CB, events or diplo interactions for when two established hegemonies find each other.
I'd argue Austria was a diplomatic hegemon during the time period of the game some italian states (florence,venice), the dutch and the swiss didnt do too bad for themselves either
This was my exact thought. Habsberg Austria was defacto diplo empire until WWI. It punched well above its weight. I also would argue that the UK is currently diplo hegemon (look at the commonwealth and all the soft power the king can exhert), I think that the US is the military/naval hegemon with China claiming the other. Maybe the EU is an economic hegemon... but I'm not so sure.
If Great Powers get power levels, then they should use that Power level to make a “regional power” system where between a certain power point system a nation gets the regional power status until they get big enough to be Great powers
I suppose you could have a dynastic hegemony by having your family on the thrones of several other kingdoms. Possibly give countries that share that dynasties an opinion modifer as well as trust?
I feel like being declared a hegemon would have some positive effects on the so-called hegemon. They could start with a tenth of the described bonuses which could over time grow as they keep their hegemony. That seems sensible to me.
Going in to other comments and threads, especially ones that spur (high quality) conversation or are indicative of community sentiment, is definitely welcomed. I can't be bothered to read most of the things on the forums, so if you want to do some "readers digest" sort of content creation, I am all ears.
Only Great Powers should get the opinion malus from being Hegemon. Smaller countries don't care about your hegemony specifically as you are not competition anyways.
I really like the idea of forming a kingdom maybe with the "main" culture of that nation being accepted and not primary but being named The King IN Hungary such as in this example
The problem about great powers is that there’s no way to balance gameplay and accuracy. When you’re playing in Europe, it’s pretty immersive and fun to watch your country rise up as a superpower. But when you’re playing outside it? It’s pretty annoying to see the chart dominated by countries that should be way less powerful than yourself. Then again, once you flip it to be more historical the game loses immersion and fun. Great powers should be regional, hegemonies too. I don’t know how that would work, but if there isn’t an answer to that I think it’d be better to just remove the thing altogether.
Diplomatic hegemon would work well for say the Hasburgs. Lots of royal marriges / lots of diplo being used up and getting a bonus to relations/diplo related costs, but unsure i'd actually want that
Hegemonies shouldn't be win more are there should be drawbacks(For great powers too). I opened a discussion about this on forum but got many disagreements from people. What made anbennar great for me was its amazing disasters. My dream eu5 would carry this even further and give proper decadence for great and wealthy nations(like Eclipse of Empires mod for eu4)
The Reactv type of Hegemonys is interesting ... but I do not quite understand why I should deem another Contry Hegemonic unless it's something like Depending on the Hegemony some kind of Reactv Coalition is formed: Military Hegemon ->(def?) pakt; cultural Hegemon -> Resistance to said culture(is that necessary?) ; Naval Hegemon ->Shared Naval Presence ;Ecconomic/Trade Hegemon -> Customs Union/collectiv Embargo.... I do not know if this would/should turn any coalition in some form of Military Hegemony, but I think if it's scaled it should be fine.
The being declared hegemon system seems like a cool idea as an upgrade. Only pitfall I can see is MP, but then there will be some AI nations? Too early on to really speculate about MP really.
being a kingdom/empire should just be a button you click. no requirements. but it should give various penalties if it isn't recognised by other countries around you.
I generally don’t like the system of needing to have an exact number of pops to become a kingdom but if they really want to have it like that than at least change it to 1 Million pops, out of which the majority needs to be your primary culture.
I think great powers could be done even better if they take a look at Victoria II and Victoria 3's great power system, not in the way it is calculated but that there are regional powers and minor powers etc that do get political significance even in past periods, just do to their dominance. Have some way for countries that are short of the great powers list still have a stepped up political pull from their still considerable strength, have a way that if you are not that powerful on a world scale but are significantly powerful in comparison to your neighbours, you get some form of greater political influence.
We know how the game has mechanics on the influence of some cultures on others, what if hegemony modeled that? Like how theres portuguese food in cultures all over the world, so a naval hegemon would have a lot of cultural influence. What if being an economic hegemon means that markets all over the world speak your language?
To me the yes/no part of hegemon is what is gamey. A percentage based one with sliders that you can influence while just playing the game is imo a better approach and realistically any large empire should some form of hybrid hegemon like how USA is strong in exporting their culture around the world and having a large military presence around the globe. The yes/no part is what makes it a win-more feature and the more its incooperated wih other mechanics the better it avoids being a standalone feature slapped on top of it (which is the biggest problem has eu4 imo). And anything related to it can change it, like your military hegemon takes a hit from losing wars but your economic stays unchanged for losing wars unless you pay money in peacedeal for example.
France was the de facto cultural hegemon in Europe for quiet some time during the era of play in this game. So historically it was absolutes a thing. America is the modern cultural hegemon.
France was also basically the military hegemon for quite a while as well, at least until the Spanish Succession set up the beginnings of the great power balance.
Maybe cultural hegemony could be achieved by your culture being dominant in royal courts while the pops are mainly of a different culture.
France was indeed the cultural hegemon. And losing a war in the colonies didn't make a difference to their cultural hegemony. It's only after the french revolution when they lost a war in their core homelands that they lost the hegemony.
Not to be a grammar nazi, but the word “quiet” means like “shush” or “shhhhh” or there is the absence of sound. On the other hand quite means “to the extent of something” or a description of time. I’m sure it was a typo
"Nothing saying that johan isn't empire rank" emperor johan confirmed.
1 mill pop to become kingdom is a bit strange when a lot of game start kingdoms don't have that, nor ever had up to that point.
Yeah, 1M primary pop for a kingdom is going to remove a lot of enjoyment from the 'sandbox' experience if you have to wait until 1600 to become a kingdom.... Because we are going to be able to move pops now, another condition to form a kingdom could be: Your primary culture in must be dominant in every location of an area (or 2).
It also creates a massive imbalance between cultures. If you're a culture with only, say, 500k people you wouldn't ever be able to form a kingdom, even if you own a large chunk of land, never mind forming an empire. It also means that where you could form a kingdom in China by just owning one province, in Europe you'd need to own massive tracts of lands because there is just a far smaller population.
The primary pop requirement for empires is also a little odd, given that an empire is a "shanenshah", a king of kings.
That is, an empire is where a primary culture reigns over another, or a variety of other, cultures.
I say add a tier between kingdom and empire, perhaps called "Great Kingdom" or "High Kingdom." Maybe a "Global Empire" tier above regular Empire
Just play in the Chinese or Indian region kekw never a shortage of frontline fodder there
I think the military hegemony bonuses aren't that unrealistic tbh.
As long as you remain undefeated, it can be interpreted as having less desertions, more enthusiastic troops moving faster, and fearful enemy garrisons surrendering slightly sooner.
It would get silly if it scales too high tho.
Your military reputation becomes an asset to your military, like for the spartans... until you lose a war.
It would be kinda neat if hegemonies were bound by diplo range rather than being global. So you can declare a hegemony if you're bigger and badder than everyone you know. Maybe there could be some special CB, events or diplo interactions for when two established hegemonies find each other.
That would be really cool
I'd argue Austria was a diplomatic hegemon during the time period of the game
some italian states (florence,venice), the dutch and the swiss didnt do too bad for themselves either
This was my exact thought. Habsberg Austria was defacto diplo empire until WWI. It punched well above its weight.
I also would argue that the UK is currently diplo hegemon (look at the commonwealth and all the soft power the king can exhert), I think that the US is the military/naval hegemon with China claiming the other. Maybe the EU is an economic hegemon... but I'm not so sure.
If Great Powers get power levels, then they should use that Power level to make a “regional power” system where between a certain power point system a nation gets the regional power status until they get big enough to be Great powers
I suppose you could have a dynastic hegemony by having your family on the thrones of several other kingdoms. Possibly give countries that share that dynasties an opinion modifer as well as trust?
Oh I like this a lot, a dynastic hegemony would be perfect for a Habsburg game
I feel like being declared a hegemon would have some positive effects on the so-called hegemon. They could start with a tenth of the described bonuses which could over time grow as they keep their hegemony. That seems sensible to me.
Going in to other comments and threads, especially ones that spur (high quality) conversation or are indicative of community sentiment, is definitely welcomed. I can't be bothered to read most of the things on the forums, so if you want to do some "readers digest" sort of content creation, I am all ears.
Agreed
Only Great Powers should get the opinion malus from being Hegemon. Smaller countries don't care about your hegemony specifically as you are not competition anyways.
I really like the idea of forming a kingdom maybe with the "main" culture of that nation being accepted and not primary but being named The King IN Hungary such as in this example
The problem about great powers is that there’s no way to balance gameplay and accuracy. When you’re playing in Europe, it’s pretty immersive and fun to watch your country rise up as a superpower. But when you’re playing outside it? It’s pretty annoying to see the chart dominated by countries that should be way less powerful than yourself. Then again, once you flip it to be more historical the game loses immersion and fun.
Great powers should be regional, hegemonies too. I don’t know how that would work, but if there isn’t an answer to that I think it’d be better to just remove the thing altogether.
Diplomatic hegemon would work well for say the Hasburgs. Lots of royal marriges / lots of diplo being used up and getting a bonus to relations/diplo related costs, but unsure i'd actually want that
Hegemonies shouldn't be win more are there should be drawbacks(For great powers too). I opened a discussion about this on forum but got many disagreements from people.
What made anbennar great for me was its amazing disasters. My dream eu5 would carry this even further and give proper decadence for great and wealthy nations(like Eclipse of Empires mod for eu4)
why wont they just add a higher tier for superpowers for when you have all hegemonies
Its not only the hegemon system that is divisie, but the country ranks system too
The Reactv type of Hegemonys is interesting ... but I do not quite understand why I should deem another Contry Hegemonic unless it's something like Depending on the Hegemony some kind of Reactv Coalition is formed: Military Hegemon ->(def?) pakt; cultural Hegemon -> Resistance to said culture(is that necessary?) ; Naval Hegemon ->Shared Naval Presence ;Ecconomic/Trade Hegemon -> Customs Union/collectiv Embargo....
I do not know if this would/should turn any coalition in some form of Military Hegemony, but I think if it's scaled it should be fine.
Tinto Yaps is goated
I really disliked the historical luck bonuses in eu4 that a few AI countries enjoyed.
Lucky Nations was a setting I never turned on in EU4, and it has been confirmed that it will not be in EU5.
@@Lord_Lambert Thank gosh. But it does sound similar to the announced hegemony.
The being declared hegemon system seems like a cool idea as an upgrade. Only pitfall I can see is MP, but then there will be some AI nations? Too early on to really speculate about MP really.
Friday was indeed All Saint's Day - or All Hallow's, if you prefer archaic English, hence why the night before is All Hallow's Eve, or Halloween.
being a kingdom/empire should just be a button you click. no requirements. but it should give various penalties if it isn't recognised by other countries around you.
Top class eu4 content ngl
I generally don’t like the system of needing to have an exact number of pops to become a kingdom but if they really want to have it like that than at least change it to 1 Million pops, out of which the majority needs to be your primary culture.
I think great powers could be done even better if they take a look at Victoria II and Victoria 3's great power system, not in the way it is calculated but that there are regional powers and minor powers etc that do get political significance even in past periods, just do to their dominance. Have some way for countries that are short of the great powers list still have a stepped up political pull from their still considerable strength, have a way that if you are not that powerful on a world scale but are significantly powerful in comparison to your neighbours, you get some form of greater political influence.
Nice video dude!
We know how the game has mechanics on the influence of some cultures on others, what if hegemony modeled that? Like how theres portuguese food in cultures all over the world, so a naval hegemon would have a lot of cultural influence. What if being an economic hegemon means that markets all over the world speak your language?
To me the yes/no part of hegemon is what is gamey. A percentage based one with sliders that you can influence while just playing the game is imo a better approach and realistically any large empire should some form of hybrid hegemon like how USA is strong in exporting their culture around the world and having a large military presence around the globe.
The yes/no part is what makes it a win-more feature and the more its incooperated wih other mechanics the better it avoids being a standalone feature slapped on top of it (which is the biggest problem has eu4 imo). And anything related to it can change it, like your military hegemon takes a hit from losing wars but your economic stays unchanged for losing wars unless you pay money in peacedeal for example.
Slavery Hegemon? It could give both a positive and negative effect. Well with that being said, all hegemons could have positives and negatives.
Maybe peasants allowed weapons changes the types of unites peasant revolts have. less peasants rabble and more trained militia