• 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.

EU4 - Development Diary - 25th of June 2019

Hello again! We have another fragmented dev diary today as each of us will talk about content that we’ve designed and implemented. Our focus this time will be on mission trees in the Balkans region.

To begin, I’ll hand you over to @Caligula Caesar for a look at the Austrian mission tree.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Austria DD Missions.png


Austria already had quite a few missions, largely focusing on them acquiring their historical territories and solidifying their position as Emperor. However, we felt that there was plenty of room for new missions going in various directions. Some explore “what if” expansion opportunities, but we tried not to go overboard there and explicitly avoided giving PU CBs on the likes of France and Spain, as this would make Austria’s potential too OP. Instead, many new missions focus on internal affairs, governance of subject peoples, being a good Emperor and generally achieving diplomatic predominance. The result was a mission tree as extensive as any in the game at the moment.

One of the first missions in the old mission tree was to form a personal union with Hungary. As we know, the history of Austria’s rule of Hungary was an uneasy one, littered with attempted revolts and difficult compromises. We therefore added a few missions to reflect this. The mission “The Hungarian Question” requires you to not just own Hungary but also have no unrest, separatism or autonomy (taking into account estates). If you do this, you will gain Hungarian and Slovakian as accepted cultures, or if you have accepted them already, you gain +3 development in Pest and Bratislava. “Multicultural Empire”, the next mission, has similar conditions, but requires you to achieve them in a multitude of non-German provinces. Your reward is to gain the option of adopting a new base government reform called Imperial Austrian Monarchy.

upload_2019-6-24_16-4-45.png

Saying "no" will give you lesser bonuses but let you keep your current reforms.

upload_2019-6-24_16-5-43.png


Further down on the Balkan conquests branch, new missions were added to push further south into Serbia and Bulgaria, and ultimately drive the Ottomans from the Balkans, if you are up to the task. As currently, this branch splits to include the mission “Italian Ambition” (focusing on Venice), but now that mission is only the start of Austria’s ambitions in Italy, and Austria now has missions to take over Milan and Naples too.

The old mission to Secure Electors is now the start of a larger HRE-themed tree, which has you complete tasks such as ensuring that no HRE provinces are owned by non-HRE members, that there are no countries strong enough to challenge you in it (i.e. own 10 provinces and are not your subject), and that it is Holy (i.e. religious turmoil has been weathered), Roman (Rome and its owner are in the Empire) and truly an Empire (pass most of the reforms and have every member state have a positive opinion of you). The last three missions grant you, respectively, +1 Papal Authority (with some fallbacks if you are not Catholic), +0.1 Imperial Authority and +0.5 yearly Absolutism; however, you will lose these bonuses should you no longer be Emperor.

A pair of branches for limited expansion into Germany and the West have been added. One focuses on making the Austrian territories contiguous (i.e. there must be a land connection between Breisgau and Tirol), taking revenge for the exploits of a certain William Tell in Switzerland, and weakening France – the last not requiring outright conquest, but merely a higher monthly income and an army double the size of France’s, giving you an enviable +10% land morale and +25% improve relations for the next 20 years. The second branch starts with the old classic first targets of Salzburg and Augsburg (plus Trent now) before allowing you the opportunity to fulfill Austria’s long-time ambition of integrating Bavaria into their state. After that, you must choose how to deal with Brandenburg: Either crush them or make them very firm allies. Either way, you will be rewarded with a highly skilled Prussian army advisor at 25% the cost.

We also added a new colonial branch, starting from the Netherlands if you can acquire them. It provides some targets and bonuses for those who wish the Habsburgs to colonise the world, and also provides a much-needed nod to centuries of confusion between two countries with horribly similar names (I feel sorry for our translators…). There is also a new economic/administrative branch, which starts with ensuring the estates are fully behind you and then requires you to develop your Austrian provinces in various ways, concluding with making Vienna the fitting stage for the Viennese Waltz by giving it at least 50 development and 6 buildings, and demonstrating your care for culture by employing three level 3 advisors.

Finally, the new diplomatic branch starts with the fairly achievable task of being a Great Power, having a Great Power ally and a Great Power rival. However, it quickly becomes more challenging: “Spread the Habsburgs” requires you to have either 5 nations ruled by your dynasty or have your dynasty present on 5 continents. You then need to shift the balance of power in your favour by having at least 500 European province (out of 800-odd) be ruled by you, your allies/subjects, or members of the HRE (with you as Emperor); achieving this will give your ruler and future rulers for the next 30 years +2 dip skill. After crushing the Revolution, you then must assert your supremacy over Europe – all Great Powers in Europe must either be allied to you or have been defeated by you in the last 100 years. If you can manage all this, you will be in a truly dominant position and will be duly rewarded with +5% administrative efficiency.

------

Aside from missions, there is another change to Austria that we can present at this stage. At present, Austria's heir is Ladislaus Postumus. Hungary usually soon acquires the same Ladislaus Postumus as an heir, but should both come to inherit their countries, they will continue to be treated as separate rulers and the countries will not form a union; even worse, the two Ladislauses have different stats! All this will now change. Firstly, they now have the same stats. Secondly, if either of them dies before both become king, the other will also die, so that one doesn't end up wondering why hunting accidents don't cross borders. Thirdly, if Ladislaus survives to become Archduke and King, Austria will become the senior PU partner of Hungary.

upload_2019-6-24_16-24-28.png

As a further change, Hungary and Croatia have merged as the PU is formed. Given the historical particularities of the Croatian situation, we felt it more appropriate that they should be treated as part of Hungary if Hungary falls under a PU.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey again folks, I'm @Ofaloaf and it's time to talk about Serbian missions.

dd_serbia_missions.png


The Serbian Despotate in the middle of the 15th century was in a precarious state. The despotate was the descendant of the 14th century Serbian Empire, a realm which dramatically rose and fell over two generations, and which at its height had included much of Albania, Montenegro, and northern Greece. This empire disintegrated into bickering principalities in the later 14th century, all of which either ended up conquered by the advancing Ottomans or consolidated under the rule of a northern Serbian principality which is now often referred to as Moravian Serbia. The Serbian Despotate seen in 1444 is the result of Moravian Serbia's efforts to consolidate and rebuild the old empire, although it should be said that historically this did not end well for them and the Despotate was fully conquered by the Ottoman Empire in 1459.

So! Serbia has a recent legacy which serves as an excellent framework for many of its early missions. Serbian expansion focuses initially on the domains of the former Serbian Empire, encouraging the country to reincorporate the wayward provinces of Albania, Macedonia and northern Greece back into the realm. If that's pulled off (and taking on the Ottomans is no small matter!), then Serbian expansion generally tracks in two directions: East, towards Constantinople, and north, towards Austria. Along the way, Serbia will have to find ways to deal with the myriad cultures of the Balkans (including Bosnians, a new addition reflective of pre-Ottoman Medieval Bosnian culture) and use their faith to solidify their rule in their new domains.

If Serbia is willing to play a diplomatic game, there are some opportunities for peaceful gains. Hungary and Serbia had a very close relationship in the fifteenth century; Despot Stefan, father of the Serbian ruler in charge at the start of the Grand Campaign, agreed to become a nominal vassal of Hungary during his reign, and in return received the city of Belgrade, now modern-day Serbia's capital. Belgrade was returned to Hungary upon Stefan's death, but if Serbia is willing to rebuild relations with Hungary (without becoming a real vassal), the Hungarian crown just might be willing to repeat the deal it made with Stefan and cede Belgrade once more. If Serbia is not interested in diplomacy, of course, Belgrade can be regained by guile and force of arms too.

Serbia's missions are focused on survival and reclaiming territories which it had only recently lost. If it can weather the initial storm and make some tentative gains, Serbia has plenty of opportunities to expand and reclaim its place as a true empire once more.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And now back to me, @neondt.

We have on the map several tiny Catholic nations in Greece that I’ll collectively refer to as the Crusader States. These are The Knights, Cyprus, Epirus, Athens, and Naxos. The Crusader States have some of the most challenging starting positions in the game, being at the mercy of the Ottomans as well as the wealthy Italians republics of Venice and Genoa. I decided to add a little flavor to these countries by way of a mission tree:

dd_jerusalem.png

As fantastical as some of these missions are, we remain committed to some degree of plausibility. There are no explicitly supernatural events in EU4, except for Hunting Accident which will always kill your 6/6/6 heirs.
Crusader missions are also available if you form Jerusalem


The first thing any aspiring crusader needs is a Crusader Fleet, for the journey to the Holy Land would surely be a disastrous undertaking on foot. 25% Galley Combat Ability might just give you the edge you need assault the shores of Syria. With your righteous army on terra firma, you should consider whether to head straight for Jerusalem or whether it would be wiser to first establish a base of operations at Antioch. A successful crusade for Antioch will give you the chance to restore the Hospitaller Order to their former glory, granting the city to the Knights and making them your vassals. If you are already playing as the Knights, you’ll permanently gain 10% Land Morale and 10% total Manpower. Of course you could simply keep the city for yourself and receive some Prestige, Army Tradition, and Papal Influence. Jerusalem however is the ultimate goal for any true crusader. This would be a good time to reveal that we have a new government reform for players that form Jerusalem:

dd_crusade.png

Tooltip is still WIP as is currently doesn't show that it grants religious CBs.

The Crusader State government reform (and legacy government) is exclusive to a Catholic Jerusalem and enables the Crusade and Cleansing of Heresy CBs, as well as giving a bonus to manpower recovery speed. It is available to both monarchies and theocracies. You can also create Custom Nations with the government type, though it comes at a point cost of 50 to offset how powerful these CBs can be given your choice of starting positions.

Extending the crusade to encompass all of the Kingdom of Heaven will aid you in your mission to Convert the Holy Land. You’ll also be tasked with a new target for your crusade: Egypt, the Land of Moses, with the goal of establishing a Catholic Archbishopric at Alexandria. In Egypt you’ll hear of rumors of a certain long-lost relic thought to reside in far Abyssinia...

dd_ark.png

What revelations await those who would dare to open the Ark?

The quest for the Holy Land is not the only goal for the Crusader States. Greece must also be liberated from the heathen, and you must convince the Pope to sponsor a new crusade against the Turks. With a Foothold in Greece, you must restore the Latin Empire of Constantinople. The so-called Latin Empire was a product of the 4th Crusade, in which crusading armies decided to sack Constantinople and depose the Byzantines rather than reclaiming the Holy Land as they were tasked to do. We decided against adding a new formable nation for this purpose, but nonetheless you are charged with taking up its mantle.

There is one more grave danger facing Christendom: the menace of the Barbary Pirates operating from the coast of North Africa. Greece is not the most convenient base of operations for a crusade against the pirates, so you must negotiate with the rulers of Malta for ownership of the island. Malta must be equipped to deal with the pirate onslaught; construct a suitable defense and marvel as your enemies break upon its shores with a 50% local defensiveness modifier. With Malta armed and ready, it’s time to take the fight to the pirates. A Base in Africa must be established along the Tunisian or Libyan coast, and from there you’ll launch a grand Crusade Against Piracy, dominating the North African coast and making the seas safe for Christian travelers. Your own nation will be rewarded with a permanent boost to Naval Morale and Light Ship Trade Power. The seas offer opportunity for more than just pirates. This is the age of discovery, and there will surely be a need for Knights of the New World! Colonize any province in North or South America, and prepare to embark on a perilous journey to discover the legendary Fountain of Youth with the aid of a highly skilled Scottish conquistador. What wonders you’ll find on your quest I cannot say, but if the Fountain truly does exist it must be kept out of the wrong hands by any means necessary.

And that’s a wrap for today. We’re now entering the period of summer holidays at Paradox, but that won’t mean the end of dev diaries. I’ll still be around for the summer (compensating with a long winter vacation), and during that time we’ll be writing smaller dev diaries with a focus on a single country - like a mission tree plus some relevant content for that nation. Our first candidate will most likely be Naples. After the summer however we plan to start revealing some of the major reworks and features coming up in the European update, so stay tuned for more.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 3Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
To be honest guys, I am reading about your Bosnian debate and I think there should be some constructive final to it.

Culture is something very strange, I mean Bosnian culture is a thing now which might be shaped by Islam. Religion is strong force that shapes cultures.
I find its weird that some of you guys say being Muslim Serb is just being like regular Serb. Its not that easy.
Even region may create difference in lot of things: Portuguese/Brazilian.
Even having seperate borders and politics have changed Korean culture and language.

So I mean, Bosnian culture isnt nonsense in my opinion. And it could be added into game.
But I personally dont exactly know when this Bosnian culture started to seperate itself from Serbian. This must be up to debate. If it happened between 1444-1821, it can of course be added into game for immersion.

I personally would love to see mission for Ottomans or event to easily convert historically Muslim majority regions of Bosnia. I think even this could be enough to create immersion. I hope devs will consider this at least. Of course it needs to be researched which regions became Muslim majority over time.

That's what I suggest to our Bosnian friends to research, I am sure you guys have lot of resources about your Islamic history.
 
Im still upset that there's no Latin empire and little byzantine love

With a Foothold in Greece, you must restore the Latin Empire of Constantinople. The so-called Latin Empire was a product of the 4th Crusade, in which crusading armies decided to sack Constantinople and depose the Byzantines rather than reclaiming the Holy Land as they were tasked to do. We decided against adding a new formable nation for this purpose, but nonetheless you are charged with taking up its mantle.

It makes no sense, to conquer the byzantines as a crusader state unless you are gunning for a restoration of the Latin Empire. especially since the last crusade was literally trying to save them form the ottomans. id argue it be even more fun to be able to form it, even if most players choose to opt out and form jerusalem.

from a dev point of view not sure why the Latin Empire is not a formable, especially since its only been 70 years the last pretender to the thrones since its extinction. Rum, on the other hand has been giving quite the treatment and they are basically both within the same timespan and just as unlikely. id say it could be just as challanging as anything.

Furthermore the mission trees feel small and insignificant to me, like I'm doing a converter save from ck2. The Knights, out of everyone i feel should flesh out their mission tree more.
say form the empire of the outremer. or reforming the knights templar as a special military unit.


Byzantium, needs love. not an entire dlc's worth of love mind you, but just small tweaks. the mission tree is a bit dated, and it would be cool if you could do more things as byzantium then just conquer this and that.

lastly i had hoped their would be a unique government for the byzantines. especially since they are one of the most popular nations to play in this game.
 
@staycool.

Lots of your post is crap honestly - what constitues a culture at all? Whats the difference betweem croats and serbs? Only thing i agree with is that it should probably appear sometimes after sunni comes to region because culture is heavily connected with religion. Not sure why they wouldn't go with that implementation.. maybe its more complicated.

That is good question, what is culture. I do not know about Bosnia, however I have read, that even in 19th century Serbian and Croatian were basically the same language.
 
That is good question, what is culture. I do not know about Bosnia, however I have read, that even in 19th century Serbian and Croatian were basically the same language.
Croats and Serbs were seperate nations when they came to the Balkans and merged with the locals. Croats were always more western oriented due to proximity of Italy and later their acceptance of Catholic faith, while Serbs were always more oriented towards Byzantium and Eastern Rome and thus accepted Orthodoxy. So difference between our cultures is greatly result of different influences of foreign powers that we got, but also noticable differneces in language, customs and so on.
Concerning the language, both modern standard Croatian and Serbian were taken from same dialect which was considered the purest of our language and which produced most great literary works- dialect of Dubrovnik and eastern Herzegovina. While Dubrovnik was inhabited by Croats, Eastern Herzegovina was inhabited by Serbs. And since then, Croatian and Serbian were actually getting closer due to local dialects making changes to fit the standard norm( in which Croatian lost more, because of more variety in speaking among Croats)
 
To be honest guys, I am reading about your Bosnian debate and I think there should be some constructive final to it.

Culture is something very strange, I mean Bosnian culture is a thing now which might be shaped by Islam. Religion is strong force that shapes cultures.
I find its weird that some of you guys say being Muslim Serb is just being like regular Serb. Its not that easy.
Even region may create difference in lot of things: Portuguese/Brazilian.
Even having seperate borders and politics have changed Korean culture and language.

So I mean, Bosnian culture isnt nonsense in my opinion. And it could be added into game.
But I personally dont exactly know when this Bosnian culture started to seperate itself from Serbian. This must be up to debate. If it happened between 1444-1821, it can of course be added into game for immersion.

I personally would love to see mission for Ottomans or event to easily convert historically Muslim majority regions of Bosnia. I think even this could be enough to create immersion. I hope devs will consider this at least. Of course it needs to be researched which regions became Muslim majority over time.

That's what I suggest to our Bosnian friends to research, I am sure you guys have lot of resources about your Islamic history.
Separation of Bosnian culture was not fully present until its recognition in Yugoslavia as Muslim nation. Some considered themselves Bosnian, some considered themselves Turkish(even though they lacked Turkish heritage),some considered themselves to be Croats and other to be Serbs up until the Yugoslav wars. The clear separation did not happen in the timeline of EU4.
 
I tend to avoid commenting these threads, but i like my country, however conflicted it is, and really don't like lots of these inaccurate comments i see around. If you don't like including Bosnian culture then good argument is that its relatively small culture in Bosnia, nowadays not even in all provinces represented in EU4 and it would make sense to add some bigger cultures that are maybe missing.

Small history lesson incoming:

Bosnian culture did not start to exist in 1990s, but much earlier during EU4 era as Paradox team researched - and thats correct. Obviously native religion and geography started its thing as Bosnia was own country/kingdom for awhile, then things changed heavily with new Otto's religion and rest came over few few recent centuries and strong otto's influence. Actually Bosnian culture must have become majority in Bosnia __at some point during Otto's rule__, as it is majority today. Thats common sense, so Bosnian lovely neighbors didn't like that hence we got ugly history of Balkan as it is. Current pop ratio is roughly like 50(muslims)/35(orthodox)/15(catholics) after wars where lots of muslim population fled to western europe. Population is around 3.5 million and decreasing, country actually had more people in 1990 than at the moment.

Namewise its heavily manipulated nationalism and tough compromises all the way and better not to open that can of worms. Most moderate folk in Bosnia like to call themselves Bosnians as they live in Bosnia and Herzegowina and don't want religion to determine their name. Simple as that.. recent event didn't help to keep moderate people in country, lots of smart people left. Neighbors don't like Bosnian name since it represents Bosnia as country that they tried to divide many times - actually its still ongoing process politically. I'll just leave it at that.

tldr. nice to see Bosnian culture even if its small one and when reading history on internet its good to check multiple sources

You say moderate people like to call themselves Bosnians- No, unionist Bosniaks like to call themselves Bosnian in their attempt to merge Serbs and Croats into one Bosnian nation dominated by Bosniaks. Bosnia is only region like Dalmatia or Vojvodina, being from Bosnia does not determine your nationality.
 
I'm sure I'm gonna get a lot of heated responses for saying this: but I feel that there are senses of white supremacist-like felling when you guys debated against Bosnian culture. One of the reason used by Yugoslavia government back then to justify Srebenica genocide was because Serbian think they were part of Serbian nation. But I hope that was not the case.

To contribute something to the actual discussion, even before the advent of Islam in Bosnia, they were already hated by their neighbor due to their heretic religion. I think it's a valid reason to add Bosnia culture. They were not accepted as part of Croatian and Serbian society due to their religion back then, it should be reflected as that in the starting game.

Srebrenica was terrible manifestation of hate but i dont think that this is the place to discuss it. And how do you know who hated whom back then? And even if they did, religious hate on its own isnt enough to create nations( or cultures), there were heretics among many nationalities.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure I'm gonna get a lot of heated responses for saying this: but I feel that there are senses of white supremacist-like felling when you guys debated against Bosnian culture. One of the reason used by Yugoslavia government back then to justify Srebenica genocide was because Serbian think they were part of Serbian nation. But I hope that was not the case.

This is a borderline trollish post btw. People are having a rather civil discussion about ongoing and controversial topics.

To contribute something to the actual discussion, even before the advent of Islam in Bosnia, they were already hated by their neighbor due to their heretic religion. I think it's a valid reason to add Bosnia culture. They were not accepted as part of Croatian and Serbian society due to their religion back then, it should be reflected as that in the starting game.

This is inaccurate. Serbia and Bosnia enjoyed centuries of peace back then, and fought as allies countless times. Nemanjić and Kotromanić dynasties shared a big branch of relatives.
 
@staycool.

Lots of your post is crap honestly - what constitues a culture at all? Whats the difference betweem croats and serbs? Only thing i agree with is that it should probably appear sometimes after sunni comes to region because culture is heavily connected with religion. Not sure why they wouldn't go with that implementation.. maybe its more complicated.

People that *lived* - ie. existed - in Bosnia started to differ at some point - especially with new religion. Thats a fact. Give them a name you want, should probably have Bosnia in name. Paradox wanted to represented that and here we are. You can't invent a culture overnight. Now you can make the argument its a small culture thats ok. Everything you wrote there is nonsense after. Jeez american native tribes are culture and some were very small.

Those AH numbers are crap.. and political parties are political. AH was huge catholic power and muslim had little space in it - its surprising they had a party at all... is not real representation of population as far as i understand it. Victors right the history.. Looking at those numbers its impossible that muslim population is majority in country. I guess they procreated like zerg then and others left so we have situation we have today.

Thats enough from me on topic.. we can agree to disagree.

You are missing my point. I am not arguing against a seperate Bosnian culture in general, i am arguing against a Bosnian culture in 1444. I told you, i wouldn't mind if there was a timed event or some other mechanism that would convert a province in Bosnia to muslim religion and a different culture if it belongs to Ottomans (or any acceptable equivalent) , with for example a -x revolt risk modifier to make it appealing.

Furthermore, those AH numbers and party names are correct. In fact, you can easily check everything i wrote. And you forget that it was exactly AH that promoted Muslim culture in Bosnia in order to bring them closer to the crown as a counter to Serbian and Croatian sentiment that wanted independence. Muslims did have higher bithrates, they also sided with Nazis in WW2 and as a result their civilian population wasnt a target, coupled with the fact that Serbs and, if i am not mistaken, especially Croats migrated from Bosnia to their respective countries that were much richer after WW2 thereby changing the ethnic makeup of Bosnia. That is why in 1971 Muslims emerge as a majority for the first time.

If you want to call the things i wrote crap, then do so by writhing something factual that can be verified, and not dramatic generalisations that have everything to do with current state of affairs and not the historical period we are discussing.
 
Croats and Serbs were seperate nations when they came to the Balkans and merged with the locals. Croats were always more western oriented due to proximity of Italy and later their acceptance of Catholic faith, while Serbs were always more oriented towards Byzantium and Eastern Rome and thus accepted Orthodoxy. So difference between our cultures is greatly result of different influences of foreign powers that we got, but also noticable differneces in language, customs and so on.
Concerning the language, both modern standard Croatian and Serbian were taken from same dialect which was considered the purest of our language and which produced most great literary works- dialect of Dubrovnik and eastern Herzegovina. While Dubrovnik was inhabited by Croats, Eastern Herzegovina was inhabited by Serbs. And since then, Croatian and Serbian were actually getting closer due to local dialects making changes to fit the standard norm( in which Croatian lost more, because of more variety in speaking among Croats)

OK, so there were number of dialects, and Croats had more of them. But I guess that with whatever/however Croatia resurged one dialect would be chosen as literary language and others would start moving into bins of history anyway.
But if they were able to agree (in middle of 19th century, 500 years after game start) on common dialect for Serbs and Croats (and I guess Bosniak and Montenegrans) it means that "main" dialects, spoken by majority/elites/... were very close. I guess that in every country are/were dialects which are hard to understand for people from outside of given area, but e.g. Spanish/Italian/Romanian while linguistically close, are not interchangable.
So my position that in 15th century there was basically common laguage with local dialects remain unchanged.
I agree that history/religion/externall influence are what differentiate culture and I am ok with serbian and croatian, but religion already is in game as separate item, and the the question is was Bosnia really 3rd way between eastern Serbia and western Croatia IN 1444? I do not see data regarding EU4 stardate here, majority arguments I see are applicable for Viki.
 
OK, so there were number of dialects, and Croats had more of them. But I guess that with whatever/however Croatia resurged one dialect would be chosen as literary language and others would start moving into bins of history anyway.
But if they were able to agree (in middle of 19th century, 500 years after game start) on common dialect for Serbs and Croats (and I guess Bosniak and Montenegrans) it means that "main" dialects, spoken by majority/elites/... were very close. I guess that in every country are/were dialects which are hard to understand for people from outside of given area, but e.g. Spanish/Italian/Romanian while linguistically close, are not interchangable.
So my position that in 15th century there was basically common laguage with local dialects remain unchanged.
I agree that history/religion/externall influence are what differentiate culture and I am ok with serbian and croatian, but religion already is in game as separate item, and the the question is was Bosnia really 3rd way between eastern Serbia and western Croatia IN 1444? I do not see data regarding EU4 stardate here, majority arguments I see are applicable for Viki.

That main dialect was also chosen because it was meant to consolidate as many South Slavs as possible, but even now if I ride minutes from the place where I live, I can get to the villages whose dialect I honestly dont understand( in the same country). And Croatian nobility at the time spoke completely different dialect than the one which they chose as literary( because in meanwhile power in Croatia switched from south to north), so the things could have easily gone completely other way.
The rest I agree.
 
Last edited:
You are missing my point. I am not arguing against a seperate Bosnian culture in general, i am arguing against a Bosnian culture in 1444. I told you, i wouldn't mind if there was a timed event or some other mechanism that would convert a province in Bosnia to muslim religion and a different culture if it belongs to Ottomans (or any acceptable equivalent) , with for example a -x revolt risk modifier to make it appealing.

Furthermore, those AH numbers and party names are correct. In fact, you can easily check everything i wrote. And you forget that it was exactly AH that promoted Muslim culture in Bosnia in order to bring them closer to the crown as a counter to Serbian and Croatian sentiment that wanted independence. Muslims did have higher bithrates, they also sided with Nazis in WW2 and as a result their civilian population wasnt a target, coupled with the fact that Serbs and, if i am not mistaken, especially Croats migrated from Bosnia to their respective countries that were much richer after WW2 thereby changing the ethnic makeup of Bosnia. That is why in 1971 Muslims emerge as a majority for the first time.

If you want to call the things i wrote crap, then do so by writhing something factual that can be verified, and not dramatic generalisations that have everything to do with current state of affairs and not the historical period we are discussing.
Croats migrated from B&H to Croatia mainly because economy in Croat dominant areas there was completely neglected by Yugoslav government because B&H Croats heavily supported the Nazis(which also had its reasons), for example last WW2 battle in Europe was fought between Bosnian Croats and Yugoslav partisans, but that is a whole different story.
 
IMG_20180325_135547.jpg
 
Croats and Serbs were seperate nations when they came to the Balkans and merged with the locals. Croats were always more western oriented due to proximity of Italy and later their acceptance of Catholic faith, while Serbs were always more oriented towards Byzantium and Eastern Rome and thus accepted Orthodoxy. So difference between our cultures is greatly result of different influences of foreign powers that we got, but also noticable differneces in language, customs and so on.
Concerning the language, both modern standard Croatian and Serbian were taken from same dialect which was considered the purest of our language and which produced most great literary works- dialect of Dubrovnik and eastern Herzegovina. While Dubrovnik was inhabited by Croats, Eastern Herzegovina was inhabited by Serbs. And since then, Croatian and Serbian were actually getting closer due to local dialects making changes to fit the standard norm( in which Croatian lost more, because of more variety in speaking among Croats)

Dubrovnik wasn't always a Croatian city though, was it, that's the rub.
 
Dubrovnik was a Serbian city. When i play the game i always swap Dubrovnik into Serbian culture.
[URL]http://milijanabaletic.com/Data/Sites/1/skins/Milijana/pdf/Dubrovnik.pdf
https://www.srbijadanas.com/sites/default/files/520/dubrovnik.jpg[/URL]
(notice that there is no mention of "Croatian")https://www.srbijadanas.com/sites/default/files/520/dubrovnik.jpg
On top of that "Serbo-Croatian" Was never -Croatian, it was Serbian, except Croats embraced it. Serbo-Croatian, was made by Stefan Karadzic.
On top of this Dalmatia was at most times Serbian populated area. Croats inhibited this area today cause of nazi massacres that happened thanks to Ustasha.
Majority of population in Dalmatia was Serb, except today after Ustashe massacres and Yugoslav wars that led to exodus of Serbs.
People think catholic serb = croat, thus logically Dubrovnik = Croatian.
Obviously Dubrovnik was influenced by Italians, but it never lost its slavic identity.
Croats take Serbian language for their after 1861 before that they talk "kajkavski i čakavski" dialect in other word most of Croats do not know to talk Croatian today!
 
Well, this thread seems to have devolved a bit, in a very Balkan-y fashion. A lot of comments seem to conflate culture with nationality, and then use that in the completely wrong context of 15th century Europe. No, Dubrovnik was neither especially Croatian nor especially Serbian. It was distinctly and proudly it's own entity, and the city's nobility would likely have been gravely insulted by the insinuation that they belonged to either of the aforementioned two groups. As the notion of nationality came into being in the 19th century, it did, however, slowly slid into being predominantly Croatian populated. Language-wise, yes, both Serbian and Croatian linguists leaned heavily on Dubrovnik's rich literary tradition to standardize their respective languages, which is a significant reason for them being practically identical even today. In game, seeing as how Dubrovnik's population was predominantly Catholic and culturally western oriented, I think it fits under the "Croatian culture" tag better than it would under "Serbian culture". And although an ideal solution would be making it a specific "Ragusan culture" or creating a "Dalmatian culture" tag for it and the Dalmatian coastal cities, I think those just couldn't be implemented in EUIV due to the game's nature and mechanics. Meaning you'd have to fragment the province of Dalmatia to such an extent, into so many small pieces, that the detail required would be very unprecedented.

On the topic of Bosnia, which started all of this, the notion that Bosnia didn't have it's own somewhat distinct culture prior to the spread of Islam is a bit of a stretch. It had it's own specific (slightly heretical) version of catholicism along with all the religious and traditional peculiarities that entailed, it's own version of cyrillic, and distinct burial traditions. Since nationality isn't a thing in 15th century Europe, and we really don't have too many sources from that area of the Balkans, practically the only cultural factor we have to fall back on in these instances is religion. And whatever camp you might be on with regards to what exactly the "Bosnian Church" was, it seems it was influential enough that a large part of the nobility adhered to it's teachings, and that it was prominent enough for the Holy See to take note of it and require most (if not all) Bosnian rulers to denounce it and/or reconvert to "proper" Catholicism. Even if we aren't able to discern what exactly the cultural practices of medieval Bosnia were (much like we can't do it with it's neighbours in the region), they were evidently different and distinct from both the medieval Serbian and the medieval Croatian culture - in as much as any of those two existed as coherent "things" either.

And that's not even mentioning Bosnia having, for at least a while, it's own political and governmental institutions, which breed cultural distinctiveness all on their own, just by existing and operating.
 
Last edited:
There are numerous accounts from 16-18th century where famous citizens of Dubrovnik called themselves and other Slavic-speaking citizens of the city- Croat. It is actually written so I dont know how it can be proven wrong, although of course that their national identity didn't exist in zhe sense of 19th century one.
The main reason why Serbs started saying that Dubrovnik is a Serb city is that in 19th century their intellectuals realized that they have literary gap from the arrival of Turks to the 19th century, while Dubrovnik was very active in the sense of culture during that time.