Can I play as Bulgaria in EU2?

[Sir Og]

Can I play as Bulgaria in EU2? In 1492 Bulgaria was under Ottoman rule so it is not possible start with it.
What mods do I need to be able to do that.

[lord of the mark]

im quite sure Bulgaria is not independent in 1419, either. Not sure if thers a flag to make it independent. I did just see an AAR on the Paradox site of someone playing as Bulgaria from 1419, but he had converted his game from CK. Maybe you could get his game.

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=203068

[Sir Og]

Thanks LOTM. Will check it out.

[Nikolai]

While I highly reccommend getting CK, there is possible to play Bulgaria in EU2. IIRC, their land is controlled by the Ottomans at the start of the GC, but they are marked as a revolter. Then you can just load up a game as OE, release Bulgaria, save and reload as Bulgaria. But you'll get a much better empire and lots of fun in the bargain if you decide to buy CK of course.

[Sir Og]

What is CK and OE

[Nikolai]

CK = Crusader Kings
OE = Ottoman Empire

Sorry, it's normal abberations among us Paradox players...

[Sir Og]

I cannot call myself a Paradox player yet I have figuered out by myself however that GC=Grand Campaign.

Can you tell me something more about CK. Is it a mod or expansion pack?

[Seeker]

Or you can download the Mongol Empire scenario for EU2 and play the strong, Byzantine-fighting Bulgars of the Middle Ages.

[Sir Og]

Where can I download that scenario.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sir Og
I cannot call myself a Paradox player yet I have figuered out by myself however that GC=Grand Campaign.

Can you tell me something more about CK. Is it a mod or expansion pack?

Crusaders Kings is a seperate game, though based on the EU engine. I'll let Nikolai go into more detail, as Ive never played CK.

OE, by the way, is used as an abbreviation for Ottoman Empire in many historical discussions (in English) on the web, not just those related to Paradox games.

[Nikolai]

Oh, letting me go into details, that can be interesting...

Well, firstly, I guess you already have played EU2 a bit, and know that you there can play any country in the world 1419-1819 and control technology, trade, military, religion etc. Well, to a certain degree, Ck is about the same thing. But where you in EU2 play a country, you play a dynasty in CK. The game goes from 1066-1453, and you can play as either a count, a duke or a king. In other words, this game is about feudalism. Through marriage, diplomacy and warfare your goal is to bring your dynasty, your blood line, to the greatness it deserves.

You can start as the count of nowhere and by marrying your king and/or his son(s) and daughter(s) to other rulers, you can 1)bring your dynasty on(if you fail to have a male of your dynasty's name ready to take over when your ruler dies, it's game over) and 2)inherit land that expands your influence/power. You can f.ex. start as the count of Foix, and through marriage to the duke of [some duchy of southern France]'s daughter, and a few assasinations of the same duke's sons, the eventual son of your ruler and this daugher will be your heir and the heir of the duchy. And voila! You're the ruler of the southern half of France!

The game is titulated Crusader Kings, and you can of course crusade against the muslims and the pagans of North Africa, Europe and the Middle East. That's right, this game does not give you the entire world, but you won't care too much for that in the middle of a game of CK I promise. The game is not as historical determinsitic as EU2, everything is pretty historical at the start of the campaign, but as soon as you start playing, things will go different because of your actions, the AI's actions and so on. There are very few historical events, only the big ones like the Black Death.

Well, that was some points, but the game is much more than this, and there are several other differencies, but now I'm a bit tired. I am here to answer if there are other questions, other than that, I'll like to point you to a post made over at Paradox's forums, that tells how this game can entertain and involve you:

I'm playing as the Pest Borkalans. It's about 1250, and the Il-Khanate and Golden Horde have both appeared and are establishing footholds in Persia and Russia.

I am king of Hungary and Croatia, hold half of Lithuania, all of modern day Ukraine (having extinguished the Cumans), and straddle south-eastern Europe. So if it comes to war I can mobilize, but for now I'm content to take a passive role.

When the Golden Horde first showed up, the Khan asked for a marriage to one of my courtiers, a Hungarian pagan whose father was Prussian... Or Alan, one of them. Either way, I signed off on it. But after a few years of watching one Russian kingdom fall after another, I started to reconsider. This doubt grew more certain as I looked at the Khan's sheet--four children in four years. I had provided him with quite a wife. And she was his spy master, to boot.

I had her killed, which provided further assassins greater access to the Khan himself. Of course, he proved formidable, and after spending thousands of crowns I decided to change tack. The Khan had three infant sons, the first and the third of whom showed promise in their attributes. After several attempts on my elder son (then just a boy) and infant daughter, I sent a further assassin to kill his final, and by comparison more feeble, son. After this he killed my younger son.

At this point I could have declared total war against the Mongols, but I didn't. I don't know if it was the current king I was playing (a much nicer sort than most in the dynasty so far, particularly the schizophrenic a century back), or the feeling that maybe it was fair (or more than fair) for me to lose a son when I took all three of his, not to mention his wife. Either way, I wasn't playing according to strict strategy. I found myself sympathizing with not only a character in a strategy computer game, but a character who could, in time, very well wreck the kingdom I'd built in a little under two-hundred years.

I've learned to expect surprises in Crusader Kings. I figured that I might as well buy it, since I owned so many Paradox games and found myself in need of some new strategy. And that was after I found out that you could only play as a Christian state, so I expected an underwhelming game. Technically impressive, perhaps, but not as engrossing as it could have been. And I bought it and played it and it stays on my laptop so I can play it when I've got some extra time. Because it's a good strategy game? Sure. But also because I actually care about what's going to happen next.

This isn't an RPG, or an adventure game with a great story. This isn't the Sims. But somehow this game, at least for me, offers the same kind of interaction and involvement. And as a strategy game, it destroys Medieval: Total War, despite that game's tactical play and faction options. But what's more--I'm not looking forward to exporting my game to EU2 like I was. That game has been on a pedestal for some time but now it shares its place, if it does not yield it. How will I get used to playing the state and not the dynasty? For a global game, EU2 is going to feel pretty small.

I still look forward to patches. CK is not a perfect game and it never will be. I think future versions (and I demand future versions) should feature Muslim, if not pagan, play, and an ideal game would allow the player to control republics and religious orders. Diplomacy needs more detail (but then, it always does). I really would like to see the whole of Machiavellian politics presented in a game. So I don't think Crusader Kings is the ultimate, but it's a big step in the right direction.

So the Khan is in his fifties, widowed, and left with an infant daughter. I don't have the heart to take any more from him. Maybe that will change (he's still trying to take my courtiers, but it'll take a lot to arouse my anger; I've granted my remaining son a duchy, which should keep him safer). But for now I'm just amazed at this game. It's impersonal, an abstraction, a representation, as all games need to be, but for me, it provides just the right details for the player to connect to it on not simply a logical level, but a human one as well.

[Sir Og]

Great post Nikolai. Thanks for the help.

[Dinner]

Bulgaria does exist in EU2 but it has a problem in that it must either revolt or be released by either the Ottomans or the Byzantines. It can be released as a one provience minor though it has shields on two provences.

[Sir Og]

I started a game as OE and release Bulgaria but after I loaded the savegame I could not choose Bulgaria from the list of Countries.
I did some editing on the scenario files and I created Bulgaria "manualy"

I started the game but now I have some game related questions. I am going to post them in a new thread though.

[Dinner]

Bulgaria has a problem. If the Byzantines survive then they'll go after you like a pitbull on a steak and if they don't survive then the Ottomans will do the same thing, and if neither of those two get very big then the Austrians will certainly get big and stop in for tea.