Expanded Dynamic Civ Names (EDCNs)

Perhaps, although you could argue they were responsible for their own decline by failing to advance and sticking to largely inefficient methods of government and organisation. Stagnation = decline.

Not really. Even at it's worst, the Byzantine Empire was far safer, more stable and better governed than the illiterate Ottoman tribes who conquered them.
Byzantine Empire never had anything like a traditional system where a new ruler murdered all his (possibly close to 100) brothers from what was essentially a glorified brothel. Byzantine Empire didn't build it's shock-troops from enslaved children who later became a corrupt caste of soldiers who refused to fight and murdered any Monarch who tried to modernize the state in the slightest way.

Byzantines 'stagnated' because they were subject to constant raids, piracy, economic blockade, huge mass migrations (goths, huns, slavs, albanians, bulgars, arabs, seljuks, ottomans) and invasions and backstabbings (which is really what destroyed them in the end) from north, south west and east for 1000 years. It's amazing they survived so long and still managed to deeply stamp their identity over most over eastern europe and the largest country in the world. pretty impressive if you ask me.
 
Not really. Even at it's worst, the Byzantine Empire was far safer, more stable and better governed than the illiterate Ottoman tribes who conquered them.
Byzantine Empire never had anything like a traditional system where a new ruler murdered all his (possibly close to 100) brothers from what was essentially a glorified brothel. Byzantine Empire didn't build it's shock-troops from enslaved children who later became a corrupt caste of soldiers who refused to fight and murdered any Monarch who tried to modernize the state in the slightest way.

Byzantines 'stagnated' because they were subject to constant raids, piracy, economic blockade, huge mass migrations (goths, huns, slavs, albanians, bulgars, arabs, seljuks, ottomans) and invasions and backstabbings (which is really what destroyed them in the end) from north, south west and east for 1000 years. It's amazing they survived so long and still managed to deeply stamp their identity over most over eastern europe and the largest country in the world. pretty impressive if you ask me.

No, you're quite right. The Byzantines just regularly sent major armies into battle under the command of generals who hated each other, gave the reserves to command of generals who hated the emperor, and invited a crusading army to conquer their own capital thanks to internal politics. Not to mention disbanding most of their own armies and relying on mercenaries because they couldn't trust their own armies not to fight civil wars every few decades.

They did well to survive so long, but as you say that was largely down to the internal divisions and tensions of pretty much every enemy they had. Considering that "Byzantine Empire was far safer, more stable and better governed than the illiterate Ottoman tribes who conquered them", you have to wonder how they allowed themselves to be conquered so meekly in the first place.
 
Not really. Even at it's worst, the Byzantine Empire was far safer, more stable and better governed than the illiterate Ottoman tribes who conquered them.
Byzantine Empire never had anything like a traditional system where a new ruler murdered all his (possibly close to 100) brothers from what was essentially a glorified brothel. Byzantine Empire didn't build it's shock-troops from enslaved children who later became a corrupt caste of soldiers who refused to fight and murdered any Monarch who tried to modernize the state in the slightest way.
There isn't any cultural chauvinism going on in this post at all.
 
Little typo in line 1518: it should be København instead of Kobenhavn.
Or Køpmannӕhafn (Køpmannæhafn) to be exact :p
 
This is because my free time currently goes into kicking Muscovy's ass as Novgorod.

If you stop playing RFCE++, you have more free time. ;)
 
^ What do you think a Fascist name for Brazil would be? I have no idea.

Also, everyone if you have more screenshots from after 1800 CE please feel free to share them. It's impossible for me to test the DCNs for that time period by autoruns.

OK. I've come up with a list of Fascist names (for Latin American countries, mostly). Will update them all once I complete this list.

Argentina - Tacuara Nationalist Movement

Brazil - Integralist Brazil

Inca/Peru - Revolutionary Union of Peru

Colombia - Falangist Colombia

Mexico - National Synarchist Union of Mexico

Persia/Iran - National-Socialist Workers' Iran

Byzantium/Greece - Patriotic Alliance of Greece


Actually there is a Brazilian Fascist name in the current SVN version: United States of Brazil that's probably better.
 
United States of Brazil should appear by age and not by civic..This name was used by both dictatorships and democratic governments

The Brazilian Facist party was the Integralists..so..i think Integralist Brazil are better for facist Brazil

The Vargas government was fascist but far less radical than the Integralists or the European fascists
 
^ OK. I will make it so.

Brazil now has 2 democratic names: Republic of the United States of Brazil and Federative Republic of Brazil. The transition is decided by the discovery of Mass Media.
 
Fascist names update is online.

Everyone, please test this version in the Industrial/Modern/Future eras (possibly with 1700 CE starts). I cannot easily test the names myself past 1800 CE.
 
United States of Brazil should appear by age and not by civic..This name was used by both dictatorships and democratic governments

The Brazilian Facist party was the Integralists..so..i think Integralist Brazil are better for facist Brazil

The Vargas government was fascist but far less radical than the Integralists or the European fascists

Isn't ''Estado Novo'' better than Integralist Brazil ?
 
^I'm more interested in how you would define the Roman => Byzantine name change.

I assume this was directed at me. In this case, I side with you, if only because I think in this case gameplay should trump flavor.


While it is true that Byzantines considered themselves they considered themselves to be Roman, the culture was significantly different, in ways that makes it pretty hard to say "Byzantines were Romans." Yes, they technically were, but I would call them Byzantines and end it at that, not to mention the aformentioned confusion in having two Roman Empires.

The suggestion might work if you made it conditionally so that the West must be dead, but otherwise Byzantine is perfectly fine.

:mad::mad::mad::mad: :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad: Hue


RFCE++...OmG i need a social live.. please don't talk this things

I didn't mean to trash talk your country, by the way. Sorry for that.
 
I assume this was directed at me. In this case, I side with you, if only because I think in this case gameplay should trump flavor.


While it is true that Byzantines considered themselves they considered themselves to be Roman, the culture was significantly different, in ways that makes it pretty hard to say "Byzantines were Romans." Yes, they technically were, but I would call them Byzantines and end it at that, not to mention the aformentioned confusion in having two Roman Empires.

The suggestion might work if you made it conditionally so that the West must be dead, but otherwise Byzantine is perfectly fine.
Yes. If Rome is alive Byzantium will always be East Roman Empire

If Rome is dead Byzantium is Byzantine Empire if it adopts Orthodoxy and Roman Empire otherwise.
 
Top Bottom