• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

CK3 Dev Diary #65 - One Culture Is Not Enough

Hello everyone!

Last week we had a rundown of what a culture looks like in the upcoming overhaul. This time around, let’s have a closer look at how you go about creating your own culture! There are two different ways of doing so, forming a hybrid culture and diverging your culture. Both are slightly different in their approach and in what they allow you to do with your new culture.

Now, while the cultural overhaul is a free feature that will accompany the Royal Court expansion, the ability to create a hybrid or divergent culture will require you to own the DLC.

Before we start, culture creation is quite dependent on the new cultural overhaul, so if you have yet to read last week's DD, I suggest you give it a read for context. Also, keep in mind that everything shown in screenshots is still a work in progress!

Form a Hybrid Culture
Forming a hybrid culture is a way for you to meld the aspects of your current culture with that of another, in any way you so choose.

There are a few restrictions you’ll have to keep in mind before you are able to form a hybrid. First, the culture you want to form a hybrid with has to be present within your realm. No weird hybridization with cultures on the other side of the world please. Secondly, you’ll need a certain amount of cultural acceptance. You cannot go in and conquer an area to only create a new culture immediately, but the required amount can vary depending on your current traditions. And finally, you cannot hybridize with a culture of the same heritage as you. The reasoning here is that the two cultures have to be different enough to warrant them being combined into a single culture, rather than just assimilating one in favour of the other.

Once you are able to form a hybrid culture, you’ll need to come up with a good name for it. We pick a default name that is a combination of the two cultures you are attempting to hybridize, such as “Andaluso-French”, or “Greco-Persian”. For added immersion and flavour, however, we have a set of names that can appear depending on which cultures you hybridize, or where you are creating your new culture. For example, hybridizing a culture of a Frankish heritage with one of a central germanic heritage in the area in and surrounding Lotharingia, you can have a culture named Rhinelander. You are, of course, free to name your new culture whatever you want as well!

Starting with the pillars. You can freely pick between the two cultures' pillars, mixing ethos, heritage, language, and martial custom as you’d like. For example, you could pick the heritage from culture A, but language from culture B. One caveat is that you have to pick at least one pillar from each culture. It isn’t much of a hybrid otherwise, is it?

01_hybrid_pillars.jpg

[Image of pillar selection when forming a hybrid culture]

The same principle applies to traditions. You can pick and choose which traditions you want to keep, from either culture, as long as you don’t go above the slot limit. You can even choose to only pick a few traditions, leaving slots empty and give room for future traditions that you may want to adopt later. Some traditions are unique to certain cultures, regions, or heritages however, so this is the only chance you might have to acquire traditions that normally would be out of your reach.

02_hybrid_traditions.jpg

[Image of tradition selection when forming a hybrid culture]

Aesthetics work in the same way. You are free to pick and choose all of the subcomponents from either culture. For some of the categories, you are even able to choose a “hybrid” option, using the preset from both cultures! The hybrid option exists for names, fashion, and CoAs. Are you hybridizing a culture from East Africa with an Indian culture? Perhaps you’d like to go for the Indian unit, hybrid naming, Indian architecture, African fashion, and finally hybrid CoAs. Actual combination is entirely up to you!

03_hybrid_aesthetics_1.jpg

[Image of Military Equipment, Naming Practices, and Architecture when forming a hybrid culture]

04_hybrid_aesthetics_2.jpg

[Image of Fashion and Coats of Arms when forming a hybrid culture]

The new hybrid culture will automatically acquire any innovation that either parent culture has discovered already, giving you the possibility to gain access to innovations that your previous culture has yet to discover.

Before we move on, there’s a prestige cost to forming a hybrid culture. Normally, creation isn’t very expensive, and relies more on having enough cultural acceptance for it to be valid. A high acceptance will reduce the cost though, making it fairly cheap if you have managed to greatly increase acceptance.

The initial size of a hybrid culture on the map also depends on the acceptance you’ve built up between the two cultures. If you decide to hybridize at the lowest required acceptance level, the hybrid will start out rather small. Rulers of hybrid cultures have a much easier time using the ‘Promote Culture’ council task in counties belonging to either of its parent cultures for a set amount of years after it has been formed.

Diverge Your Culture
A divergent culture is essentially a culture that deviates from their original culture, allowing you the opportunity to shape it as you see fit.

Similar to forming a hybrid, you get to choose a name for your new culture. The default name here on the other hand, depends on your primary title. Diverging a culture as the king of Anatolia can give you an Anatolian culture, or Austrian if you are the duke of Austria. This makes sure that divergent cultures always have a sensible name to them. At least most of the time. I did see a Wormsian culture in a recent observer game, from the county of Worms. As with hybridization, you are free to name it however you want if you don’t want to use the default name.

As for the pillars, options are slightly different. You can pick and choose any ethos. Language won’t have any additional options for you most of the time. Martial custom can be changed as long as you fulfill the conditions for them, which would include things such as having a corresponding succession law. Aesthetics will also rarely have additional options, except in some historical cases. Diverging from Norse in Sweden, for example, will give you access to Swedish Aesthetics.

You have to change at least one pillar in order to diverge your culture. Most of the time you won’t have a lot of valid alternatives for the additional pillars, so your only option will be to change your ethos.

05_diverge_pillars.jpg

[Image of pillars when diverging from an existing culture]

Traditions can be replaced with something new, as long as you are able to afford the tradition cost. Unlike hybridization, you will have plenty of options, and can replace a tradition with any other tradition that your culture fulfills the requirements of.

06_diverge_traditions.jpg

[Image of traditions when creating a divergent culture]

Diverging also costs prestige. Here the cost scales on how much of your own culture you control. Attempting to diverge Greek as Byzantium will be fairly expensive. Meanwhile, attempting to diverge a small part of your culture, such as a small Andalusian emir on the Iberian peninsula will be significantly cheaper.

Dynamic Culture Emergence
The above options describe how you as a player will be able to create new cultures, that doesn't mean that cultures won’t also appear dynamically. Over the course of a campaign, cultures may diverge depending on their situation.

For dynamic Divergent cultures we decided that we wanted them to feel immersive and logical whenever they showed up. There are many factors that go into this, such as the culture size, if the culture is ‘united’ under strong rulers, etc. Divergent cultures will appear either in border regions where a culture meets another (or several others), or in island regions. Divergences also do not appear in the capital lands of the Culture Head, in order to safeguard what is most likely the ‘heartland’ of the culture.
For example, one of the cultures that usually Diverge a few times (1066) is the Bedouin culture. It’s large, spread out, and some of its lands are under rulers that are not Bedouin themselves. On the other hand we have Greek; a large culture, but with practically all counties of its culture united under one ruler - they tend to not diverge unless territories go independent.

Hybridization, on the other hand, is something powerful rulers strive towards! If a ruler finds themselves ruling a large swathe of land of a foreign culture while at the same time having no motivation to assimilate, they’ll try and increase Cultural Acceptance until they’re eligible for Hybridization. They tend to want to hybridize with large cultures in their realm, the prime example being the Oghuz Seljuks wanting to Hybridize with Persian above all other cultures they have in their realm. Some AI rulers do not pursue hybridization though, such as large Elective realms (HRE) where cultures take turns being the top ruler, or realms such as the Papacy.

By default, the AI will not create hybrids-of-hybrids (unless historical hybrids, such as Maghrebi or English), as the naming schemes can quickly go out of hand. Though if you’d like the AI to do this, there’s a game rule you can enable...

There’s also a small chance that hybrids appear in realms of not so powerful rulers, this allows interesting hybrids such as Hiberno-Norse to appear even from tiny realms. This happens through an event that can also occur for the player. These events will most often happen for Cultures that have certain traditions that allow them to more easily create Hybrids with other cultures.

Naturally there’s a host of Game Rules that allow you to customize your experience. Do you want no Divergent or Hybrid cultures to appear at all? Set their frequencies to none. Do you want the AI to create hybrids of hybrids of hybrids of hybrids? Set the Hybrid Culture Restrictions to Very Relaxed!

07_game_rules.jpg

[Image of the new culture Game Rules]

To round things off, let’s take a look at a few examples of what the AI did during an observer game. First up, from the 867 start, and 200 years in. You’ll see quite a few new cultures here:
  • Ango-Norse, Hybrid Culture, emerged in 918.
  • Cumbro-Norse, Hybrid Culture, formed in 948.
  • Norse-Gael, Hybrid Culture, emerged in 1029.
  • You can also see that English has largely replaced Anglo-Saxon as the dominant culture in England.
08_cultures_in_britain.jpg

[Image of AI created cultures on the British islands]

Started in 867, and 100 years into the game:
  • Kufan, Bedouin Divergence, emerged in 933.
  • Badarayani, Mashriqi Divergence, emerged in 956.
  • Kurdo-Mashriqi, Hybrid Culture, emerged in 911.
  • Nihawandi, Persian Divergence, emerged in 907.
  • Shirvani, Persian Divergence, emerged in 946.
09_cultures_in_persia.jpg

[Image of AI created cultures in and around Persia]

In another game, started in 1066, a Swedish noblewoman was made queen in the newly established Kingdom of Jerusalem, following a successful crusade. After a few generations, the local cultures merged into what would become Mashriqi-Swedish! Ushering the kingdom into a new era of prosperity.

10_mashriqi_swedish_jerusalem.jpg

[Image of the Kingdom of Jerusalem becoming Mashriqi-Swedish]

11_mashriqi_swedish_culture.jpg

[Image of the culture window of Mashriqi-Swedish]

As mentioned earlier, we have a number of historical names for cultures that can appear in specific circumstances. If you have any cultural names that would make sense for a divergent or hybrid culture, let me know! Who knows? Perhaps your suggestion ends up in the game!

That's it for this time!
 
I hope this isn't the case, as French and Spanish are modern concepts and shouldn't be heritages.
From the last Dev Diary :

Heritage
A culture's heritage can be compared to the culture groups that you may be used to in the existing system. Heritages will roughly match said culture groups. You’ll see an Iberian Heritage for cultures like Basque and Castilian, or Turkic Heritage for Turkic cultures, such as Oghuz and Cuman. In terms of gameplay, the most outstanding effect of a shared heritage is the impact it has on Cultural Acceptance.

From this Dev Diary :

Once you are able to form a hybrid culture, you’ll need to come up with a good name for it. We pick a default name that is a combination of the two cultures you are attempting to hybridize, such as “Andaluso-French”, or “Greco-Persian”. For added immersion and flavour, however, we have a set of names that can appear depending on which cultures you hybridize, or where you are creating your new culture. For example, hybridizing a culture of a Frankish heritage with one of a central germanic heritage in the area in and surrounding Lotharingia, you can have a culture named Rhinelander. You are, of course, free to name your new culture whatever you want as well!

French/Norman/Occitan are going to be of Frankish Heritage and the Basque/Castilian/etc. cultures of Iberian Heritage. Therefore, there's no 'French' or 'Spanish' heritage. However, they might all speak Latin or some variant (It's confirmed that Vlach will speak Latin).
 
  • 5
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Sauce: previous DD... Right under "Heritage" section

From the last Dev Diary :

Heritage
A culture's heritage can be compared to the culture groups that you may be used to in the existing system. Heritages will roughly match said culture groups. You’ll see an Iberian Heritage for cultures like Basque and Castilian, or Turkic Heritage for Turkic cultures, such as Oghuz and Cuman. In terms of gameplay, the most outstanding effect of a shared heritage is the impact it has on Cultural Acceptance.

From this Dev Diary :

Once you are able to form a hybrid culture, you’ll need to come up with a good name for it. We pick a default name that is a combination of the two cultures you are attempting to hybridize, such as “Andaluso-French”, or “Greco-Persian”. For added immersion and flavour, however, we have a set of names that can appear depending on which cultures you hybridize, or where you are creating your new culture. For example, hybridizing a culture of a Frankish heritage with one of a central germanic heritage in the area in and surrounding Lotharingia, you can have a culture named Rhinelander. You are, of course, free to name your new culture whatever you want as well!

It's quite safe to assume that French/Norman/Occitan are going to be of Frankish Heritage and the Iberian cultures from the Iberian Heritage. But, I reckon that all these cultures + Vlach / Italian etc. will speak Latin.
Oh no, I can't believe they've done that...

Such a missed opportunity to reflect actual historical heritages... And instead we got memed by geographical groupings.

Oh well, it is what it is.
 
  • 25
  • 4Like
Reactions:
Oh no, I can't believe they've done that...

Such a missed opportunity to reflect actual historical heritages... And instead we got memed by geographical groupings.

Oh well, it is what it is.
The way Heritages are supposed to work is basically just the replacement for Culture Groups, they should've called it something else though so it would be clear that it's not their ethnographic heritage.
 
  • 5
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Why's it bad history? The distinction between Gaelic and Scottish seems to be a perfectly worthwhile thing to simulate.
I've made a thread about this before. The historical inaccuracy doesn't originate as a problem from the Royal Court DLC, but from incorrect history that whoever was working on Scotland for CK3 based their work on. My first post ITT is not about the history but about royal court and the picture in this dev diary seeming to show changes in Royal Court that might make the problem need different fixes than the launch version would have.

In English, there are two terms for cultures in Scotland which cause confusion: "Scottish" and "Scots". The confusion is deliberate, because for political reasons for several hundred years and into the present (heightened recently by the 2014 referendum), Anglophones have attempted to present it that there is only one culture which belongs to Scotland (or to whom Scotland belongs), which speaks (nowadays, spoke) a variety of English called in both kinds of English, "Scots". (Scots being an archaic adjective short for "Scots English" or "Scots Language", similar to the grammar of the phrase "English language" or "Scottish/Scots Gaelic").

"Scotland" is an exonym which comes from the ethnonym "Scot". The people who were called Scots spoke Gaelic, and established in the 6th century the kingdom which they called Alba and Latin-derived exonyms called "Scotia".
Formerly Ireland was sometimes called Scotia, which shows that the people called Scots were an ethnic group, and the ethnic group spoke Gaelic. But because in what is now called Scotland, the people had their own identity separate from those in Ireland, the people there began to be called Scots when the Irish were not called Scots anymore.
So by medieval times, "Scot" was both a name referring to people of the ethno-linguistic group and from the territory (ruled by that ethnic group).

After the 1100s when an Anglophone king was installed, and colonies of English settlers brought into Scotland, the culture of the south, cities, and most of the powerful/southern nobility was Anglicised over the centuries, to the point that by the start of EU4 the majority of the cultural and political power was Anglophone, with the native Gaelic culture of Scotland being increasingly marginalised.
Wars with England led Anglophones in Scotland to identify with the place rather than their linguistic/ethnic culture, and the needs of a centralising state (particularly in EU4 tier protestant times) encouraged the Anglophones to present their culture both as significantly different from England's and the only truly "Scottish" culture.
Hence the naming of their dialect of English "Scots" and the conscious refusal to attach the descriptor of "Scottish" to the language originally spoken by Scots.

Scottish (ie: Gaelic) culture and political power was broken in the late 17th and mid-18th century by the Jacobite wars, where the majority of Anglophone "Scots" speakers (increasingly speaking standard English) supported transferring government to England to form the UK, and prevent Scotland from having its own government under the dynasty (of Anglo-Norman origin) which had ruled it since 1371. The demographics of the Scottish-speaking areas was broken by the ethnic cleansing of the highland clearances of the 19th century. Parts of Canada with Scottish immigration continue(d) into modern times to have Gaelic speaking communities, such as Nova Scotia.

It's confusing by design as a political manipulation of language, but it's also confusing because it's Gaelic and Latin placenames and ethnonyms getting translated into English, and then a non-standard archaic dialectical form of English adjective being inserted into the mix. For concepts which have changed their meanings in English over the centuries, and which are politically charged in doing so.

TLDR: "Scottish" is the standard adjective, "Scots" is an antiquated dialectical adjective, as is "Scotch". Just like "English" as a noun clearly refers to "English language", so too could all of the adjectives for something from Scotland or relating to "Scots", the plural of "Scot" (person from Scotland or of the historical ethno-linguistic group).
If Paradox wanted neutrality in the language they are using, they could call Gaelic of Scotland "Scottish", and English of later medieval Scotland "Scots". Or alternatively, "Scottish Gaelic" and "Scots English". (Not that a change in language fully solves the historical inaccuracy in the current historical representation, since in this timeframe Scots English was not spoken, and not for a longer time still did it gain traction as a distinct sub-culture of English).
 
  • 6
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
This seems amazing!
As mentioned earlier, we have a number of historical names for cultures that can appear in specific circumstances. If you have any cultural names that would make sense for a divergent or hybrid culture, let me know! Who knows? Perhaps your suggestion ends up in the game!
I think the Silesian culture would make sesne, either as a hybrid culture of the Polish culture and one of the Germanic cultures or maybe of the Polish culture and the Czech culture, or as a divergent culture, possibly formed via a decision/event which can occur after Silesia has been in the HRE/Kingdom of Bohemia for some number of years.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
A couple of things tangentially related - first, if a dynasty founder is of certain cultures, the dynasty is flagged to always use dynastic realm naming - will this be detached from the dynasty with this culture overhaul, and depend on the culture of each individual ruler?
And secondly, currently certain cultures have odd behavior with government types, namely all Iranian cultures defaulting to clan government regardless of their faith, unless they would be tribal by their realm. Will this behavior be fixed with the greater culture overhaul?
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I've made a thread about this before. The historical inaccuracy doesn't originate as a problem from the Royal Court DLC, but from incorrect history that whoever was working on Scotland for CK3 based their work on. My first post ITT is not about the history but about royal court and the picture in this dev diary seeming to show changes in Royal Court that might make the problem need different fixes than the launch version would have.

In English, there are two terms for cultures in Scotland which cause confusion: "Scottish" and "Scots". The confusion is deliberate, because for political reasons for several hundred years and into the present (heightened recently by the 2014 referendum), Anglophones have attempted to present it that there is only one culture which belongs to Scotland (or to whom Scotland belongs), which speaks (nowadays, spoke) a variety of English called in both kinds of English, "Scots". (Scots being an archaic adjective short for "Scots English" or "Scots Language", similar to the grammar of the phrase "English language" or "Scottish/Scots Gaelic").

"Scotland" is an exonym which comes from the ethnonym "Scot". The people who were called Scots spoke Gaelic, and established in the 6th century the kingdom which they called Alba and Latin-derived exonyms called "Scotia".
Formerly Ireland was sometimes called Scotia, which shows that the people called Scots were an ethnic group, and the ethnic group spoke Gaelic. But because in what is now called Scotland, the people had their own identity separate from those in Ireland, the people there began to be called Scots when the Irish were not called Scots anymore.
So by medieval times, "Scot" was both a name referring to people of the ethno-linguistic group and from the territory (ruled by that ethnic group).

After the 1100s when an Anglophone king was installed, and colonies of English settlers brought into Scotland, the culture of the south, cities, and most of the powerful/southern nobility was Anglicised over the centuries, to the point that by the start of EU4 the majority of the cultural and political power was Anglophone, with the native Gaelic culture of Scotland being increasingly marginalised.
Wars with England led Anglophones in Scotland to identify with the place rather than their linguistic/ethnic culture, and the needs of a centralising state (particularly in EU4 tier protestant times) encouraged the Anglophones to present their culture both as significantly different from England's and the only truly "Scottish" culture.
Hence the naming of their dialect of English "Scots" and the conscious refusal to attach the descriptor of "Scottish" to the language originally spoken by Scots.

Scottish (ie: Gaelic) culture and political power was broken in the late 17th and mid-18th century by the Jacobite wars, where the majority of Anglophone "Scots" speakers (increasingly speaking standard English) supported transferring government to England to form the UK, and prevent Scotland from having its own government under the dynasty (of Anglo-Norman origin) which had ruled it since 1371. The demographics of the Scottish-speaking areas was broken by the ethnic cleansing of the highland clearances of the 19th century. Parts of Canada with Scottish immigration continue(d) into modern times to have Gaelic speaking communities, such as Nova Scotia.

It's confusing by design as a political manipulation of language, but it's also confusing because it's Gaelic and Latin placenames and ethnonyms getting translated into English, and then a non-standard archaic dialectical form of English adjective being inserted into the mix. For concepts which have changed their meanings in English over the centuries, and which are politically charged in doing so.

TLDR: "Scottish" is the standard adjective, "Scots" is an antiquated dialectical adjective, as is "Scotch". Just like "English" as a noun clearly refers to "English language", so too could all of the adjectives for something from Scotland or relating to "Scots", the plural of "Scot" (person from Scotland or of the historical ethno-linguistic group).
If Paradox wanted neutrality in the language they are using, they could call Gaelic of Scotland "Scottish", and English of later medieval Scotland "Scots". Or alternatively, "Scottish Gaelic" and "Scots English". (Not that a change in language fully solves the historical inaccuracy in the current historical representation, since in this timeframe Scots English was not spoken, and not for a longer time still did it gain traction as a distinct sub-culture of English).
I frankly don't see any justification for these claims; it sounds much more like a political diatribe more than anything else. However this thread is for Royal Court though, but I will happily continue this discussion elsewhere.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Should geographical bonuses from one culture be annulled if the hybrid culture does not have that set of geographical features in the vicinity? One example would be the forest fighter trait for the Mashriqi-Swedish culture in the Levant. The terrain is predominantly not nordic forest-like so that trait would go to waste technically speaking.

The devs already said it is a bug:
Ah yes. The infamous deep forests of the Levant.
Joking aside, it's one of the things we'll have to fix, clearly! We do have triggers, but they don't always seem to work at the moment...
 
How many Uralic languages are going to be there? Would be weird to have something like a single Uralic language as its different branches diverged thousands of years before the startdates. Balto-Finnic cultures like Finnish and Estonian are ok in a single language, but Sámi should probably be separate, for example, or Ugric cultures shouldn't have the same language as Volga-Finns, since these groups have already diverged like 2500-1500 years before the startdates. Maybe even Hungarian could be a different language from the other Ugrics aswell.

Speaking of which, what Heritage have you been planning for Mogyer and Hungarian? Not proposing anything, but I'm curious about the stance you took.

A third thing is, the name Scythian for the Afghans' language is not really correct. While the linguistic group's languages indeed form a dialect continuum from Kurdish to the Pashto, including the extinct Scythians, the latter is a subgroup of the Eastern-Iranian languages, not the common names for them. Using Scythian as the term of the language group is like using "Spanish" for the language of all Romance cultures. I propose using Eastern Iranian or just simply Iranian for the language of the Persians, Afghans, Alans et cetera, instead of Scythian.
Actually, I propose:
- Finnic/Finno-Sámi language for the cultures in the current Balto-Finnic group (Sámi being in the group is actually debated, but for now I would be going with the theory that they are closely related, though as I said that classification is not universally accepted)
- Ugric: Ostyak (which should be renamed to Khanty as soon as possible)
- Permic: for the Permians and Bjarmians (we don't know who those actually were but they are assumed to be Permians)
- Volga-Finnic: the accordingly named current CG's cultures
- Hungarian: for the two Magyar cultures (though they should have different nameslists etc.)
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
In another game, started in 1066, a Swedish noblewoman was made queen in the newly established Kingdom of Jerusalem, following a successful crusade. After a few generations, the local cultures merged into what would become Mashriqi-Swedish! Ushering the kingdom into a new era of prosperity.

View attachment 733740
[Image of the Kingdom of Jerusalem becoming Mashriqi-Swedish]

View attachment 733741
[Image of the culture window of Mashriqi-Swedish]

As mentioned earlier, we have a number of historical names for cultures that can appear in specific circumstances. If you have any cultural names that would make sense for a divergent or hybrid culture, let me know! Who knows? Perhaps your suggestion ends up in the game!

That's it for this time!

This is probably the solution we'll go with to be fair, but we'll see.

To throw my 2 cents in. I'd really really prefer that Outermer remain the default name for any frankish hybrid culture in the region.

Personally I'd even like to see 'outermer' localised into several other relevant languages as the title for Hybrid 'christian' cultures that reach the holy land area.

English could be something like "Othersea" "Outersea" "Farsea" or some term relating to "the outer/distant seas". It's just so much more interesting than Anglo-Mashriqi. Alternatively some kind of 'Jerusalemite'/'Salemite' would also be preferable.

I predict if you don't come up with an interesting term for the region most games will inevitably have a 'crusader_culture-mashriqi' hybrid in the holy land... which just isn't pretty considering all the other great hybrid culturenames we have.

I can even accept just 'Crusader X_original_culture' if you're in Jerusalem.
 
Last edited:
  • 6Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Some suggestions for cultural diversities/hybrides
Polish diversed in Prussia - Masurian
West Slavic culture diversed in Silesia - Silesian
Mix of Pomeranian and Polish or just a diversed West Slavic culture in Pomerelia - Kashubian
Diversed culture from russian propperly to region - Ukrainian/Belarusian/Rusyn
DIversed culture in Moravia - of course Moravian
Diversed Slavic culture in today eastern Germany -Sorbian/Lusatian
Diversed from Polish or hybrid culture in Asia - Sarmatian (lol)
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
The way Heritages are supposed to work is basically just the replacement for Culture Groups, they should've called it something else though so it would be clear that it's not their ethnographic heritage
My argument still stands.
I believe Catalans should belong in the same culture group as Occitans sooner than they would with Basques or Galicians.
I fail to see how that's such a controversial opinion, unless there is some specific gameplay necessity i am somehow missing.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
When you create a hybrid culture that uses hybrid naming practices, will the new culture still use the patrynomics/“von xyz” dynasty name format/cultural names for titles (e.g. Sultan for King) of the parent cultures? And if both parent cultures have different sets of those, what determines which set gets used?
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I do hope the Norman and English events/decisions are slowed down a little with this patch. When doing a Norse>Norman>English run in CKIII its frustrating that your able to just flip to Norman almost instantly, sure you can delay but when its presented you kinda feel like you should do it as soon as possible. The same goes for English. The Norman aristocracy was speaking Norman French and alien to the peasents for a long long long time. Arguablly in SOME respects till near the end of this period. However heavy Anglo-Norman hybridization was very common fairly quickly all over England and Normandy amongst the upper and lower classes, the peasentry ofcourse were stubbornly slow to change. But anglo-norman barons and gentry were actively encouraged by the De Normandies and Plantaganets as a policy to keep them loyal and engaged on both sides of the channel.
 
  • 8
  • 1Like
Reactions:
After the 1100s when an Anglophone king was installed, and colonies of English settlers brought into Scotland, the culture of the south, cities, and most of the powerful/southern nobility was Anglicised over the centuries, to the point that by the start of EU4 the majority of the cultural and political power was Anglophone, with the native Gaelic culture of Scotland being increasingly marginalised.

This part is innacurate. The south of Scotland was always of mixed Saxon and Gaelic heritage. Edinburgh is literally a Saxon name. There has been so much culture bleed that it's ridiculous to suggest that Anglophones only came over with Malcolm Canmore's adoption of a more Anglicised culture. Angle Kings had been marrying Gaels for centuries, to the extent that it caused a literal schism in Northumbria when Oswiu and his ilk tried to promote the form of Christianity popular on Iona (where he and his brother were raised in exile).

Canmore brought over Normans, sure. But that's because they were good at building castles and got s*** done. A lot of the nobility were already Anglicised, particularly in the south. That's probably why there were brutal civil wars between Moray and the Dunkelds.

Anyway, I digress. I will reiterate again: make an Anglo-Norman culture you cowards!!!!
 
  • 5
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I frankly don't see any justification for these claims; it sounds much more like a political diatribe more than anything else. However this thread is for Royal Court though, but I will happily continue this discussion elsewhere.
It's relevant because it's an aspect of history which this history-based game claims to represent to a certain degree of accuracy.
I have already pointed out as a caveat that it is a topic of modern political relevance, both in a general sense from the continuing fallout and cultural divides in Scotland, Britain, and Ireland, and in a specifically modern sense due to the Scottish independence movement.
Let's read your signature for an example. That's a lot of buzzwords which are politically charged in a Scottish context which would make me look hostile, uncharitable, and foolish if I were to call you them, but I am not calling you any of those things.

I'm not even complaining about politics or biased slants on whether some part of history was for the better or not, but about historical accuracy. An anglo-biased perspective might say the anglicisation of scotland was a good thing, or a thing they like, whereas a gaelic-biased perspective might say the loss of scotland's culture was a bad thing or a thing they regret.
If, however, someone was to present a counterfactual representation of Scottish history as many Anglo-Caledonian-British-Protestant-conservative-bigots ;) might be inclined to do so, and say that the English dialect which existed in Scotland is not only native to Scotland (preexisting Middle English entirely), but the only language which deserves the descriptor of belonging to Scotland, I as an appreciator of history would not like that, before any questions of Scottish politics came into it, and would expect those who have no interest in the politics to reject that presentation of history as well.

So if you'd like to defend the current representation of Scotland in CK3, or elaborate on your own analysis, please feel free. I have no intention of starting or engaging with a modern political argument with anyone of any persuasion. Because the subject matter is politically charged (hundreds of years later?), I want to be precise about how I react to all of this, because I would not like a historically inaccurate representation to go uncorrected just because challenging it would appear like a modern politics flamewar.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
I'm super excited about all of this and I'm already onto making a spreadsheet for all the culture hybrids and divergences.
Here's some fun hybrids that come to mind
Vendish or Vendlandic - North Germanic-West Slavic
Skotsk or Skotlandic - North Germanic-Gaelic or North Germanic-Scots
Englesk or Englandic - North Germanic-West Germanic
Iresk or Irlandic - North Germanic-Irish
Jorsalan or Jorsalalandic - North Germanic-Mashriqi (or North Germanic diverging in the Kingdom of Jerusalem? Basically Norse Outremer)

Magiar - Magyar-South Slavic
Wegier - Magyar-West Slavic
Venger - Magyar-East Slavic

Ubermeere - Central Germanic-Mashriqi (Basically German Outremer)
Low Saxon - Saxon-Polabian (This culture is already in EU4, so this would be a way to form it in CK3)

Gallo - French-Breton (Gallo is a dialect of French spoken in eastern Brittany)

And here are some fun divergent cultures off the top of my head:
Cossak - Russian culture in the Empire of Khazaria or just the Steppes in general. This could also work as a hybrid between Turkic and East Slavic?
Silesian - Polish culture in Dutchies of Lower Silesia or Upper Silesia
Icelandic - Norse Culture in the Dutchy of Iceland
Azeri - Persian diverting in the dutchies of Azerbaijan or Shirvan
Azerbaijani - Orghuz diverting in the dutchies of Azerbaijan or Shirvan or possibly hybridizing with an Iranian culture in the dutchies of Azerbaijan or Shirvan
Norn - North Germanic diverting in the Northern Isles.

EDIT: Azeri and Azerbaijani are different to make sure that two cultures called the same thing wouldn't emerge.
Also, I have the spreadsheet mentioned linked on my profile to the left. (The thing with the google docs link) For some reason, it won't let me just paste a link in here.
 
Last edited:
  • 6Like
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions: