Talk:Countries

From Europa Universalis 4 Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

FA - This article is considered a Featured Article-class article on the wiki quality scale

Sorting[edit]

Any particular reason that the countries are sorted by tech and not location like the eu3 wiki? ~ Medibee (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2013 (CEST)

Location is ambiguous. Where are the Ottomans? Where is the Russian Empire? Where are the Mamlukes?
Tech group on the other hand groups similar countries. It makes a lot more sense to have the US is in the same group as England than as Cherokee. ~ Meneth (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2013 (CEST)
Location isn't that ambiguous. You can find their location by hovering over a province in region map mode. If someone was looking up the nation that they are playing as, i think most would try and find the location of their nation. ~ Medibee (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2013 (CEST)
Tech group corresponds extremely closely to actual location, the only real exception being a few New World nations. It also provides a very handy dividing line for the Asian nations and such. ~ Meneth (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2013 (CEST)
I still think it looks pretty stupid considering that there are only 2 nation in the ottoman tech group. And that's also pretty ambiguous. Where are the ottomans? Where is Dulkadir? Sorting the nations by location allows people to easily find smaller unknown nations. ~ Medibee (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2013 (CEST)
Agreed; I stopped by the discussion just to see if anyone had already considered this. I vote sorting by location; if needed we can add additional information without overkilling it. Keep the page simple. Sort by continental origin; include tech group and primary culture. ~ KangarwLesu (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2013 (CEST)
Then we'd end up with a huge European and a huge Asian category while Americas and Africa would be tiny (not smaller than currently, but the disparity would be larger). Not exactly an improvement. And there are 8 countries in the game files with the Ottoman tech group; 6 of them just haven't been put on the page yet. ~ Meneth (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2013 (CEST)
A good way to find a balance in this is not to sort it like that, but to use one of those nice fancy lists that allow you to click at the top to see how you want it sorted. Don't know how to make one of those myself, though, and don't really know if our wiki software can do that. I'll look into it, though. DeciusR (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2013 (CET)
Found it! Here is a good example: http://eu4wiki.com/Mods <--- Would there be an issue with using a list like this, which would also allow us to merge a few pages (such as the listing of the country, with country tags)? DeciusR (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2013 (CET)
Essentially, the current layout is considered the best at getting people where they want to go, and to notice interesting countries. The country list is not as good at getting where you want unless you know *exactly* where you want to go. ~ Meneth (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2013 (CET)
Ah. That makes sense, then. Thanks for clearing it up. DeciusR (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2013 (CET)

Now that technology groups are things of the past, it might be a good idea to revisit this discussion of sorting by location. It could be done by the in-game continent and region of a nation's capitol. Thoughts? Daniel060 (talk) 11:37, 23 October 2016 (MDT)

You can already find that in the regional nations pages. There is a navcolumn at the top of this page. ~ SolSys (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2016 (CEST)

Distinguishing countries with unique NIS[edit]

Should there be a tag to tell apart Countries with "Unique" Ideas and such? A lot of it is obvious, like France and England, but obscure nations also get some, like Dai Viet or Aragon.

I'm thinking along the lines of something like (u). Thoughts? Pinpinolo (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2013 (CEST)

Eh, not sure that'd make that much sense. ~ Meneth (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2013 (CEST)

Missing countries[edit]

I've made a list of every country missing from the list, based on country tags. I haven't had the time to assign them to tech groups and mark those that don't exist in 1444; hopefully someone else feels like doing that for some of them; just remove anything that's added from the list. Additionally, there may be numerous nations only available to play via import from CKII that are missing from the wiki, if you know of any please update either the list bellow or the country list directly.

CK2 converted countries[edit]

It occured to me that nations associated with CK2 conversions may not belong to any particular tech group, since they depend highly on how well-developed the nation was in CK2 itself. It is highly possible that entire swathes of nations may end up in Eastern tech because someone happen to import a very early CK2 game.

Perhaps it would be best to move them to a separate category altogether?

Templars[edit]

I've re-added the Knights Templars, but haven't filled out their page since I have little information as to their EU4 mechanics and will leave that up to others. I am aware however that they were deleted because someone put in an inappropriate word on their page. Rather than deleting the entire page, perhaps it would be better to just undo the edit and/or block the person from editing again?

-- Anonymous

Anyone can recreate the page. Until then it remains deleted. If you feel like filling it out with basic info, feel free to recreate it. ~ Meneth (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2014 (CET)

Will do, I'll put in what information I can verify.

-- Anonymous

I've added in basic information; Government, Religion, Tech Group, Ideas and have added in a short sentence about how they appear in game so the page won't be blank.

-- Anonymous

Good start. Thanks! ~ Meneth (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2014 (CET)

Native Americans[edit]

Despite Conquest of Paradise being out for quite some time now there hasn't been any major editions to the Native Americans. I've added in many new tribes that I could remember off the top of my head, but I'm sure I missed quite a few. Likewise we also need to edit the new world tech group since the non-North American natives have been split up into different tech groups (Mesoamerican, South American). We'll also need people to start filling out the new pages with information pertaining to these nations.

-- Anonymous

Possible Bugs[edit]

I've noticed for some time when I add new information to a country or add one in, after I correctly identify all of the cats, it will tell me that someone has been editing the page while I have, even though the page history will clearly show that I'm the only one who has been editing the page. I think this may be a bug and it would be wise to sort it out.

-- Anonymous

Jalayrids[edit]

I've deleted Jalayrids from the country list since they never appear in game (save for mods) and have no cores. I think it would be safe to say that Paradox replaced them with Iraq.

-- Anonymous

The country table[edit]

Please don't make changes to the country table. It is generated from the gamefiles by my Parser, so any changes to it are wiped out each patch as I update it. ~ Meneth (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2014 (CEST)

Damnit, I only noticed this after I edited the table extensively. Probably you could consider adding culture groups to your parsing script? — Vaximillian (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2015 (CEST)
I guess you missed the comment right above it?
Sure, I'll try doing it. Shouldn't be too hard to parse out. ~ Meneth (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2015 (CEST)
Done. ~ Meneth (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2015 (CEST)
Also caught some errors updating it using the (now updated) parser: http://www.eu4wiki.com/index.php?title=Countries&diff=49721&oldid=49703 ~ Meneth (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2015 (CEST)
Indeed, I somehow managed to miss the comment right there in the code :o And yes, I referred to Culture and that was kind of outdated, hence Tartar instead of Tatar and Evenki instead of Evenks. Huge thanks for updating the parser! — Vaximillian (talk) 05:59, 27 June 2015 (CEST)

Interactive map similar to In-Game Maps[edit]

For a map staring game like EU4 I am constantly surprised at the lack of maps in this wiki. Maybe this is a good thing, because that means it can be done right.

I suggest an ambitious interactive maps and map modes like those available in-game.

First, there should be a master map, that allows a user to use the map and all of its map views just like in-game. This is the big one and will be foundation for everything. Every other map or view will be based on this and will link to it.

So if a user was on the culture wiki, it would have this map displaying the culture view. On the trade wiki page, it would show the trade nodes map. On the HRE wiki page, it would show the HRE map. On the Colonial Nations, it would show the Colonial view.

This would be supremely useful on almost all pages. This will be much more useful than current lists of provinces. Or static images that the wiki currently has.

Roman Empire country tag[edit]

Which is the tag of Roman Empire (not Holy Roman Empire)? --79.30.44.32 22:24, 26 June 2015 (CEST)

Doesn't exist as a tag in vanilla EU4.
Assuming you're talking about the country you can import from CKII, that's probably defined in the EU4 Converter somewhere. ~ Meneth (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2015 (CEST)

Scandinavian region[edit]

Why scandinavian region page doesn't exist ? Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Gotland and Scandinavia are not present in any region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.98.34.59 (Talk) 11:26, 9 September 2015 (CEST)

The region pages are mainly for countries that don't have their own pages. Every country in Scandinavia has a page of their own, so no region page was ever made. ~ Meneth (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2015 (CEST)
Is it a reasonable approach? I think there is not anything wrong with adding strategies for countries, that are not notable. Perhaps countries should be included in the region even while having own pages. Puchacz (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2015 (CEST)
So, what about iberian peninsula ? All countries have their own pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.98.34.59 (Talk) 12:02, 9 September 2015‎ (CEST)

Iberian peninsula[edit]

Sorry for the new topic, but I dont know if my comment appears and has been read or if I failed at posting this. If the region pages are for countries that don't have their own pages, what about Iberian peninsula for which all countries have their own page ? Iberian peninsula will be deleted ? Notable states is states who avec their own ideas. Patches replaces ideas step by step so in the future I think it will be the same for British isles and so on.

Region pages will disappear ?

If not, why having Iberian peninsula region and nothing on Scandinavian region ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.98.34.59 (Talk) 15:49, 9 September 2015 (CEST)

Expecting a response in under 3 hours on a work day is a bit much. Also I'm more inclined to respond when people sign their edits (using ~~~~). Two moderators have signed your edits for you on this page alone. The ideal final wiki is something with detailed FA class strategies for all countries, given that this is the real world the admin team had to make a decision. The regions pages are an incomplete set and if they were removed I doubt I would miss them. If the full set was made I wouldn't complain either. We focus on nations which exist at the start since most games are played from the earliest start date (see Johan's recent post).
Essentially my response is the following. The regions pages exist because we didn't know how much of the wiki was going to be filled with content. We've done really well so far and that's rather nice. If a user were to make a region page and link everything in correctly then we'll happy accept the work. If the regions pages were to fall into disuse because every country has a dedicated page then that works too. Dauth (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2015 (CEST)

Tags[edit]

Why is this page needed?[edit]

Why is this page needed? Just put the tags next to the countries names on the countries page. Like the EU3 and vicky2 wiki.~ Medibee (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2013 (CEST)

It would be tiresome to quicksearch the tags. --Mhelvetti (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2013 (CEST)
A sortable list does have its advantages, though personally I don't see all that much benefit to having a separate page for tags. So unless arguments in favor are presented, feel free to merge. ~ Meneth (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2013 (CEST)

Minor countries[edit]

Destroy Page[edit]

Wouldn't it be better to have a Scandinavia page and an Iberia Page? And then adding Denmark, Sweden, Scandinavia and Norway to the first, and Portugal, Spain, Castille and Aragon to the second?

All those nations are important enough to deserve proper independent pages. Also, neither Kurland or Finland are in Scandinavia. ~ Meneth (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2014 (CET)
I mean that besides Iberia and North Europe, all countries in the countrylist seems to be part of a region. Would it be logical to make region pages for the last to parts as well? most nation are indead big enough for its own pages, but most pages already have links to the more important nations in that region. Aldwoni (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2014 (CET)
Doing so for 6 countries seems a bit silly. In addition, that'd leave us with an uneven number of region pages, which wouldn't look as good in the region template. ~ Meneth (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2014 (CET)
You could at Livonian Order and Riga and Teutonic Order to Nort Europe, as they are not added as well. And you could merge the Ireland and England Region to British Isles or something.
Those are all in the Germanic Region. ~ Meneth (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2014 (CET)
Idea: taking inspiration from Britain#Countries_within_England
Result: even number of 'minor nations' pages, and we get rid of a slightly weird article.
--• General Baker Flag of Great Britain (Talk) • 01:35, 5 February 2014 (CET)
Kurland and Finland aren't Scandinavian minors. And that'd still give us an odd number of minor country pages, as this page would be replaced by two pages. ~ Meneth (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2014 (CET)

As Kurland and Finland have own page I create Iberian Peninsula page. Stigni (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2015 (CET)

Deleted this page, thanks. ~ Meneth (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2015 (CET)

Merging regions[edit]

Globally the classification of regions is made by technology. However some pages contain very few countries and we can see 6 pages which include the Western technology countries. I think it would be nice to merge as follows :

Iberian Peninsula + Italian Peninsula -> Southern Europe

British Isles + Northern Europe -> Northern Europe

French region + Germanic Region -> Western Europe

Far East + Japanese Daimyos -> Far East


What do you think ? UserID (talk) 21:04, 08 October 2015 (CEST)

I think that region pages are very big right now, so there is no need to merge them, only split South and North Americas. Puchacz (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2015 (CEST)
Region pages that I quote are not large at all compared to others. The aim is to have consequent regions pages. These pages contains 10 to 20 countries and Japanese daimyos is just an ugly country link. Moreover, the creation of a Southern Europe page can solve the Knights problem which is sorted in the wrong region (and cannot be sorted in any current region page).
I think it should be good to separate the new world, but what about the Australia? It is neither North nor South America part. It was ok when all colonial nations were grouped but when it will be separated it will be difficult to position Australia somewhere.
The only solution I have is to separate the Malayan states and Pacific islands to create a kind of Oceanian region. It should reduce a big region page and contain Australia but it is geographically incorrect. UserID (talk) 11:40, 09 October 2015 (CEST)
I'm glad to see people discussing this, its been a topic of discussion for a while. I'm inclined to wait until the regions in 1.14 come out and see if they can be used. Please keep suggestions coming in because these lists do need work. Dauth (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2015 (CEST)
I believe that Australia can have its country page (which it has not right now), no need to add it to any region, since it is a continent by itself. Some countries will always not fit the regions they are in in some way. I think it is better to not mess with geography in the name of some in-game parameters. So The Knights should definitely stay in Easter Europe. I'm not sure if removing Baltic countries from that list was a good idea as well. Puchacz (talk) 11:52, 9 October 2015 (CEST)
I think Dauth's point is especially good. Once there are actual in-game regions, we might want to use those. ~ Meneth (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2015 (CEST)
We can consider that for now everything is sorted by tech group. Considering the current sorting, Blatic States or The Knights should be in a western tech region.
Now if you want The Kights and Baltic states should stay in Eastern Europe Region, you need to recreate all the sorting by region instead of technologies. Now it is really the mess.
First, it should be decided to classify either by technology or by region. Now we have Granada in the same region than Baluchistan. These two countries have no relation instead of tech group. In the same way Korchin and Buryatia are in separate region pages just because of their different tech group. If you want sort by region all pages should be reworked and Muslim region & Hordes should not exist. UserID (talk) 12:29, 09 October 2015 (CEST)
Then if you want to be consequent, most of Europe should be in one Western tech region, along with all colonial nations. And current New world should be split into 5 separate regions (4 if not counting colonial nations). Puchacz (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2015 (CEST)
I think you don't understand what the initial aim is for. Merging some little regions pages is a simple manner to avoid a sorting with low content pages and big pages. The aim is to have an average size for all the pages and a coherent sorting (not a mix of tech/regions sorting). Merging as suggested is just a simple manner to do this. Another manner more understandable for the user is to rework entirely the pages and sort by regions instead of tech. Separate region pages can just create more mess if no reorganization have been made before. However it is clear that if a new sorting is chosen it is preferable to wait until the 1.14 comes out as said by Dauth and Meneth. UserID (talk) 13:42, 09 October 2015 (CEST)
I understand the idea, but think that geographic manner is better, as in the very article this discussion is for we already have a list of countries sorted by a technology group. I agree that final decision should be postponed to 1.14 patch, since developers are planning to change in-game regions, I don't think that their changes would be very important for the outlet of our regions, since we don't use the in-game regions in many of them anyway. But maybe new approach would be in some way more fitting for wiki, so lets wait. Puchacz (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2015 (CEST)

Rework of this page[edit]

This page have currently 2 lists of countries and redirects on other lists by regions. I think it is too much lists, and since 1.18, the sorting by technology is obsolete. I propose to delete the current techncology list and replace it by a countries by region section which include only the RegionalN navbox. The only one information which is not in the region pages is the country tag, so I think the third section can be a simple list sorted by name or tag with minimum information to avoid to overload the page. I also suggest to delete the Superregions menu and change it by a clickable map which redirects on the selected region. The Regions menu, which redirects to the provinces by continent, can be moved on a new page which introduce the provinces lists separately on the same manner as Countries page. I made a stub of the clickable map on my user page. What do you think about? --UserID (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2017 (CEST)

I'm in favor of removing the split by tech lists as it already appears in the table itself - would require moving the notes as well. The table itself, however, is auto-generated from the game files and contains information differing from the super-regions pages - those mainly contain information of status in 1444. The nav-columns have their uses- they are easier to maintain and don't take much space. The imagemap is nice and I think it could be useful in an expanded "portal" page linking to all the different articles. It would be great if you could create some other ones for continents/regions/super-regions too [provided you have the time]. Sorry I can't add more [long day]; but, overall, those are some good suggestions. ~ SolSys (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2017 (CEST)
As there are no proposal for the improvement of this page since a month and it has been reverted without discussion, I give up. ~ UserID (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2017 (CEST)
I've put your edit back with instructions for people to discuss the changes. Dauth (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2017 (CEST)

[Unindented] As I already mentioned previously -- this page contains the default values of the in-game nations. As such the information present in the table [generated by script] differs to a degree then the information in the regional pages. While I'm in favor of removing the tech split and general page improvement I'd rather preserve the table -- generate an updated version though. ~ SolSys (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2017 (CEST)

As I answered you in my User talk, I switch the regional pages to default values, with a note for the differences when it applies. It avoid to have same informations on two different pages, which is not really user friendly. For the moment I only changed the North Africa page, I will update the other step by step when I have time. But if you have a better solution to merge all this informations, feel free to explain it. UserID (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2017 (CEST)
I'd reverted most of said edits due to over-information -- there is no reason to detail where the capital would be if it released by every potential nation holding its cores. Same goes for religion, many nations change it during the course of the game. I prefer to avoid a merge since I see them as serving different purposes. The big table contains nations not even covered in the regional pages [due to being wild-cards] -- originally, I did not even plan on incorporating releasable nations due to the same reason. It provides access to all nations in one table to compare [as opposed to many smaller tables] and I'd dare say less maintenance heavy. As a side-note, the hoverbox template does not work on mobile. ~ SolSys (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2017 (CEST)

Map Colors[edit]

Someone needs to add a color table below the map so it is easy to tell nations apart. Some nations are easy to recognize like the Ottomans, England, or France but it is harder for beginners to recognize less played nations

where can i get the full size map?[edit]

Used to be able to click the map and go to the full size map but now all i get is the pages of the super regions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.41.150 (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2018‎ (CEST)

Changed. Click on the ocean to enlarge. – Lillebror (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2018 (CEST)