• 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.

Tinto Talks #36 - 6th of November

Welcome to this week's Tinto Talks. Please stop trying to guess the name of the game, it's going to land us in trouble when you figure it out.

I'm @SaintDaveUK, and this week I'm going to delve into Cultures and some related mechanics like Language.





Culture​

Culture is a tricky topic because it is so abstract as a concept, but also it’s an area of our games that people have quite strong opinions about, especially when they have real-world connections to that culture.

As such we would appreciate it if the discussion on this thread is limited to the mechanics of the culture system as presented here, and direct your specific feedback for the culture setup to the relevant regional Tinto Maps where it will be much more helpful.

So, what is Culture? Culture is the culmination of vernacular, music, food, identity, ethnicity, art and various other hard-to-define ideas. It is something possessed by countries, pops, and characters. It contains two main dimensions: Culture Group and Language.


culture_maratha.png

A fairly typical example of a Culture, consisting of a Language and a Culture Group.


Culture Opinion​

For the most part, cultures all consider each other to be neutral, but they can also have natural preference or aversion to specific cultures.

This is represented with cultural opinions, which in ascending order are: enemy, negative, neutral, positive, kindred. This mainly gives modifiers in various places, for example, country opinions of each other, or how expensive they are while Accepted.

Most of these will exist from 1337, but there is a Diplomatic Action to change an opinion over time.


culture_list_aragon.png

A list of cultures present inside Aragon, with two-way opinions relative to the primary culture Catalan. Please note that these opinions are WIP, and might not be final.

Culture Capacity​

Cultural Capacity represents the maximum number of cultures a country can tolerate or accept. For most countries it starts quite low, but there is an Advance every age to increase the maximum, as well as various other sources like Government Reforms and Policies.

accepted_cultures_of_aragon.png


Each culture costs a different Cultural Capacity, depending on relative size, opinions, culture groups, and languages.


cultural_cost_andalusi.png
cultural_cost.png





Non-Accepted Cultures​

By default, every culture in the world is Non-Accepted to you. It is the default state, and at best means you ignore them. Non-Accepted pops are pretty miserable in your country but also don’t provide you with any benefits.

Tolerated Cultures​

If you have the cultural capacity, you can elevate a culture to a Tolerated Culture. This will make the pops a little more content. Tolerated pops will grow as normal, and they will also be a bit happier.

Accepted Cultures​

You can elevate a culture further into being Accepted, at which point they gain special rights.

Even though an Accepted Culture costs 3x more capacity than Tolerated, it’s usually much more desirable as they will give you more levies and sailors. Accepted Cultures also count towards whether you can core a province, and whether a colonial charter will flip to your ownership. Countries whose primary culture is one of your accepted cultures will see you more favourably.

However, Accepted pops cannot be slaves, and you cannot Accept a culture with "Enemy" culture opinion.

Primary Culture​

At the very top of the pyramid is Primary Culture, of which every country has exactly one. This is the principal culture of the apparatus of state, and it is favoured in many calculations. It is not necessarily the largest culture, you can find several countries where a small elite of nobles or clergy rule over the peasant masses belonging to different cultures.

Primary Culture is an important gate to a lot of gameplay content, such as Advances, Unit Types, Government Reforms and so on. It’s impossible to list it all here, but just know that the primary culture you have can affect many parts of the game.

You can swap your primary culture with an accepted culture if it fulfils the requirements, such as if it becomes the dominant culture in your country or if it is the culture of your ruler. There is also a game rule for it to be of the same Culture Group.






Language​

Attached to cultures is the Language system, which is spread across 3 tiers: Dialect, Language, Language Family. Of the three, Language is the most important and where most of the gameplay takes place.

Language Families​

The largest subdivision, many Languages belong to a Language Family, for example Arabic belonging to Semitic. The Indo-European family is split into its sub-groups like Germanic and Romance, because otherwise it is simply too large. Languages like Basque are isolated, and so do not exist in a Language Family. This mostly offers a small opinion bonus and also slightly minimises cost for things like culture acceptance and market attraction.

language_groups.png

Note that this is WIP and examples like Iranic and Indic language groups haven’t been set up.


Languages​

Every culture has a single Language which represents the most common vernacular amongst its people. Languages are often larger groups that are comparable to an EU4 culture group in size, if anyone here has played that game. For example, Iceland to Sweden all use variants of the Scandinavian language, while everyone from Vienna to Hamburg will use variants of the German language.

Languages have Language Power, which is impacted by many sources such as which countries use it as a court language, common language, and liturgical language. It is expressed as a percentage of the most powerful language in the world, and impacts the intensity of bonuses you get from it.

tooltip_language.png

Un ejemplo.


languages.png

The dominant language in each location is shown.



Dialects​

To add diversity within a Language, we have a system of Dialects (though we aren’t especially set on that nomenclature). They represent vernaculars that in Project Caesar’s time period broadly formed a dialectical continuum, and are an effective way to differentiate them without weakening them by splitting them into full Languages.

Dialects are purely for flavour and have no gameplay effect; two dialects are considered identical for most purposes such as opinion bonuses, and they share stats like Language Power. For example, both Leonese and Castilian are considered the same Spanish language and so share the same Language Power, but may have different character names, location names and potentially other light flavour too.
dialects.png

A map showing the dominant dialects in each location. The current setup is WIP, for example we haven't split up South Slavic or Italian.


germanic_language_group.png

Here is a sketch showing the structure of the Germanic language group and its languages and dialects.




Countries have several different ways of interacting with Languages.

Common Language​

The Common Language of a country is simply the language that is used by the primary culture. It can’t be chosen or changed without affecting the Primary Culture.


Liturgical Language​

Every country has a Liturgical Language, which represents the language that the Clergy use in their rituals and scriptures, and by extension what scholars use in their academic works. Some religions allow a country to choose whichever liturgical language they like, (for example, Eastern Orthodox countries variously use languages like Greek or Church Slavonic) whereas Catholic and Islamic countries are forced to use Latin and Arabic respectively.

In general, you will want to adopt a liturgical language with high language power, as it affects your research speed.


liturgical_language.png




Market Language​

Markets also have a Market Language representing the Lingua Franca used between the merchants, which is based on the dominant language of the burghers in the Market Capital. The higher the market power, the higher its contribution to the Language Power.

Locations will have a higher attraction towards markets that share their dominant language, and a slightly smaller bonus if they only share a language family.

market_language.png




Court Language​

Every country also has a Court Language, which represents the primary vernacular used in formal proceedings in the government, for example it might be the language spoken in parliament or written in legal documents.

Unlike the others, Court Languages can be changed almost at will. The possible languages are drawn from your Primary and Accepted Cultures, your ruler, or your Overlord country. The exact court language you have affects the satisfaction of the various estates: Nobles want you to have a more powerful language, meanwhile peasants just want it to be the Common Language. Burghers are happy if you use the same as the capital’s Market Language. The Clergy of course want everything to be in the Liturgical Language.

Most countries start with the same Court Language as their Common Language, but significant examples of where it is different in 1337 would include Norman French in England and Church Latin in Catholic theocracies.

court_language.png




Culture Group​

A Culture Group is a set of Cultures that have some sort of shared identity towards each other. Culture Groups are usually independent of language and current diplomacy, but rather represent a more geographic or genealogical connection that is difficult to represent without abstraction.

A good example would be the British culture group. The diverse cultures of Great Britain have 3 different languages, across several different countries, and yet they are still united by their shared history and cultural influence that transcends the borders.

cultrure_group_british.png

An important culture group.


In gameplay terms, Culture Groups give small opinion bonuses and make culture acceptance a lot cheaper, but also various pieces of content are gated behind Culture Group instead of Culture. For example, your primary culture needs to be in the British culture group to form the Great Britain tag. The game rules can be set to also prevent you from changing your Primary Culture to one in a different Group.

One change we have made from EU4 is that cultures can belong to multiple different Culture Groups, or if they are isolated enough, none at all.

culture_norse_gael.png

Norse-Gael is the most extreme example of multiple Culture Groups, but the median will be closer to 1 or 2.




That’s all for now, but our talks on culture don’t stop here. Next week the artist currently known as Johan will make a song and dance about some deeper aspects of Culture that are brand new for Project Caesar, such as Works of Art and Culture War.
 
  • 349Love
  • 166Like
  • 6
  • 2
  • 2
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
@SaintDaveUK can you make Baltic into a language group and divide it into 2 west and a east baltic languages, otherwise add Baltic to the Slavic group and rename it to Balto-slavic since it's weird to have it as a isolated language
I second this; the Eastern and Western Baltic languages were massively different, and some even go as far as to hypothesize that the difference between them to be as massive as the difference between them and Slavic.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Were Meglenoromanian and Istroromanian distinct from Aromanian back then? I think a single Vlach language with Aromanian and Romanian dialects would match the granularity of other languages far closer.
Yes they were different but the real question is how much? we do not have enough evidence to tell whether at that point it was a different language or different dialect.

The only evidence we have is that they already lived in separate areas. But when it comes to culture, as the devs said, culture is more than different language, and they did have different cultures.

If anything, I think the issue could be Meglenoromanian and Istroromanian are too small to matter, but even so, I think it would be a beautiful nod to these people who are small in numbers, an “hey, you exist!”, even if it’s only a small dot on the map and has no gameplay value.
 
Hello everyone, first of all a big thank you to the developers and other people who help for this secret project.

I have a problem with the Occitan area



- Your limits of the Occitan language are the modern limits, and not the one it should be at the beginning of the game.
1731588263672.png

here are the limits up to 1500



- Francoprovençal (Arpitan) should be created

- The Charentes area (Angoumois and Saintonge) should be totally Occitan until 1500 then it should very very slowly move back to the modern limit

1731587397038.png



1. Current limits of the Occitan language.
2. Old limits of the Occitan language.
3. Current limits of the Francoprovençal (Arpitan) language.
4. Old limits of the Francoprovençal (Arpitan) language
5. Southern limits of the Oil languages in the 8th c. (Von Wartburg line).
6. Southern limits of the Oil languages in the 13th c.
7. Limits of the Breton language since the 19th c.
8. Losses of the Breton language face to the Oil language since the the 9th c.
9. Current limits of Germanic languages.
10. Losses of the Oil languages face to the Germanic languages.
11. Losses of the Germanic languages face to the Oil languages.


3- Gascon should be created as a dialect of Occitan (I don't know if possible)


1731587987872.png


Thank you for your interest
 

Attachments

  • 1731587258923.png
    1731587258923.png
    434,4 KB · Views: 0
  • 7
Reactions:
Yuan dynasty is around the time when Sinitic languages such as Mandarin, Hakka and Cantonese start to diverge from Medieval Chinese, and languages such as various Min languages and Wu has diverged before that. would there be any mechanic to reflect that?
 
View attachment 1215257

The Russians are way too north for 1337. Bar a few monasteries they didn't really settle or assimilate territories north of the Neva and Svir (Syväri) rivers before the 18th century. They never formed a majority on the Karelian Isthmus, save for the city of St. Petersburg itself, until the 19th-20th centuries. The eastern part of the Karelian Isthmus that's Russian in the in-game screenshot was in real-life predominantly Finnish until the 1940s.

This, Eero Kuussaari's vision of the language group situation in 13th-14th centuries[1], is much more historically accurate.

View attachment 1215260

Here is also a map from Wikipedia depicting the situation in the 9th century.[2] By 1337 the situation had not yet changed massively. Indeed there are Russian records of Finnic peoples native to the rural regions around Moscow speaking in their own native tongues as late as the 18th or 19th centuries.

View attachment 1215268

The Veps are also misplaced. They should dominate the area south of the Svir, and as late as the 20th century they were still positioned more westwards than where they are in-game. Veps-speaking areas c. the early 20th century[3]:

View attachment 1215270

Here's also a couple of ethnic (linguistic) maps of Ingria from 1849 and 1933 by Peter von Köppen and Juuso Mustonen respectively, just to show that as late as the 19th and 20th centuries the area was still not predominantly inhabited by Russians, bar St. Petersburg itself, of course. In case the reader is wondering, von Köppen splits the Lutheran Ingrian Finns into the Äyrämöiset (in yellow), Lutheran Karelian Finns largely hailing from the historical Äyräpää County on the western Karelian Isthmus, and into the Savakot (in green), Lutheran Savonian Finns, largely hailing from the historical Province of Savonia.

In 1337 the area between the Neva and roughly the City of Novgorod, in other words roughly the historical definition of Ingria (not the 19th century-20th century one, which is a little different), was inhabited by Karelian Finns and Votes, the former which later in history became known as the Izhorans, when referring specifically to the Orthodox Karelians of Ingria. Though they themselves, if memory serves, continued to regard and call themselves Karelians.

View attachment 1215377

View attachment 1215378

[1]Eero Kuussaari (1935): Suomen suvun tiet

[2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Muromian-map.png

[3]I do not recall the exact source for this map, but I've saved it from a site specialising on Finnic groups. Wikipedia has a similar map without the place names here.
Super interesting. What do you think the Finnic/Uralic culture around Onega and Arkhangelsk should be? Also I agree with Inzano that you should post this on the Russia thread too.
 
I'm currently entertaining "Vernacular" but I still think Dialect is better despite its political baggage. Most of the others are far too academic in nature for a game.
Super cool Dev Diary!
I wanted to weigh in here because I much prefer variety to dialect and vernacular - I think it's both more accurate across the game's time frame because it's slightly more vague and, if anything, less academic (and less confusing for a modern audience unfamiliar with 1337) than dialect.

Vernacular feels unwieldy, even if it makes sense gameplay wise when that's really the different between the current dialects - but maybe a tooltip explaining language varieties could read:
In Project Caesar a variety uses different proper names to other varieties of the same language.
Across the game's time frame a variety might be considered a dialect or a language in its own right.
Varieties of a language are typically linked to the rest in a chain of mutual intelligability through their neighbouring varieties.
 
I think you should unite kipchak, turkic, turkish and azeri under one group named TURKIC. As they literally understood each other.

Also i think you are missing on lots of german provinces (in Silesia and Sudetenland) the drang nach osten already started, and many of these territories had german majority by the 14th century

Also in Transylvania the romanians still overpresented the region of Beszterce should be changed to german, as it was populated by germans and not romanians
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1013.png
    IMG_1013.png
    31,7 KB · Views: 0
  • IMG_1014.jpeg
    IMG_1014.jpeg
    310,4 KB · Views: 0
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
I think you should unite kipchak, turkic, turkish and azeri under one group named TURKIC. As they literally understood each other.

Also i think you are missing on lots of german provinces (in Silesia and Sudetenland) the drang nach osten already started, and many of these territories had german majority by the 14th century

Also in Transylvania the romanians still overpresented the region of Beszterce should be changed to german, as it was populated by germans and not romanians
I have to say no, as Kipchak language is hard for the Oghuz people to understand and vise versa.
 
Donno if any one said it before, but shouldn't the liturgical language for muslims be classical arabic, which was used to write and interpret the Koran? By the time of 14th century It should already differed a lot from the vernacular arabic spoken in much of middle east and north africa. The same goes for the classical Chinese.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Hi, i just have a small concern, when we look at the language map mode, i see that the most prominent one is called berber in North Africa. As an Amazigh myself, i feel it would be more appropriate to call this language Tamazight (is this is the actual name of the language spoken by the Amazigh people).
Apart from this, keep up the great work, can't wait for the release.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
East Frisian is on its way out in the first century of the time period, so unless there's content for switching East Frisians to Low German, it probably shouldn't be represented at all.
Not at all. East Frisian is still alive and kicking even today in the Saterland also known as Seeltersk. Also on Wangerooge East Frisian was still spoken until the early 20th century, there are even recordings of it. Considering that (last) names differ quite a bit between west, east and north frisia, I'd definitely argue for a dialect split.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Regarding Eastern Romance.

The Language Family > Language > Dialect goes like this:

Langauge Family:
Romance

Language:
1. Romanian
2. Aromanian
3. Meglenoromanian
4. Istroromanian

Aromanian, Meglenoromanian and Istroromanian are too small to have dialects.

Romanian Dialects:
1. Wallachian (South)
2. Moldavian (East)
3. Transylvanian (West)
Not really how languages and dialects really work, plus there are no fundamental differences between the Romanian dialects in Romania that would warrant different location name localization and name lists, which is the only function dialects currently have.
Were Meglenoromanian and Istroromanian distinct from Aromanian back then? I think a single Vlach language with Aromanian and Romanian dialects would match the granularity of other languages far closer.
Istro-Romanians don't actually seem to have existed in 1337; they seem to have migrated to Istria after the Bubonic Plague, from what I've heard.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Not really how languages and dialects really work, plus there are no fundamental differences between the Romanian dialects in Romania that would warrant different location name localization and name lists, which is the only function dialects currently have.

Istro-Romanians don't actually seem to have existed in 1337; they seem to have migrated to Istria after the Bubonic Plague, from what I've heard.
"In the 14th century, Vlach shepherds are attested near the cities of Split, Trogir, Šibenik and Zadar, as well as in the islands of Rab, Pag[19] and Krk.[21] But the first clear and definitive attestation of the Istro-Romanian presence in Istria dates back from 1321, when a country of Vlachs was mentioned in the region where they now live.[24] In a document of 1329 referring to Buzet in Istria, the name of one Vlach appears; Pasculus Chichio, a name derived from the exonym "Ćići" used by Croats for Istro-Romanians.[22] It is known that during this century the Istro-Romanians used caravans to sell their dairy products and transport other goods. In the Ragusan trade, caseus vlachescus or vlachiscus (brença, cheese, as it appears in a document from 1357) was of such importance that it was also used as a payment method, and its price was set by the authorities. They also traded with salt on the Adriatic coast."
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I assume that this is a WIP and that it will be further developed.

But I will still propose dividing the language of the South Slavs.
My suggestion is to divide it into Slovenian and Slavonic language.

Why did I use Slavonic for the Serbo-Croatian language, because the Serbo-Croatian term appeared at the beginning of the 19th century. Old Slavonic began to fragment into several variants in the 11th century. Slovenian separated from the Old Slavonic language as early as the 11th century, as evidenced by the Freising Monuments and in the 14th and 15th centuries with the Rateče and Stična manuscripts, that the Slovenian language already had its own dialects. The Serbo-Croatian language, however, had only dialects until the 20th century, with the breakup of Yugoslavia, languages began to be standardized. Therefore, I think that this is not politically defined and that it has a historical name from Old Slavonic language and we do not exalt or humiliate any culture or nationality from the Western South Slavs.

Slavonic language should be divided into three dialects Kajkavian, Chakavian and Shtokavian. Map of dialects in 16th century.

Kajkavian dialect sould be part of Slavonian culture.
Chakavian sould be part of Croatian culture (and Otocan if the culture were to crumble even more).
Shtokavian sould be part of Bosnian and Serbian culture (potencial Rasian and Neretian, if go after this ideas: 1. post and 2. post).

View attachment 1212584
Chakavian separated from Old Slavonic already in the 11th century, and the evidence for this is: the Baška Tablet (1100 AD carved into stone with Glagolitic script in Chakavian), the Povaljska Listina (1250 AD a transcript of a document from 1184 AD written with Cyrillic (in Croatian called bosančica) in Chakavian), the Vinodol Code (written with Glagolitic script in Chakavian 1288 AD). I will mention again that Kajkavian developed from Chakavian, and later also West
Shtokavian, which almost replaced Chakavian. East Shtokavian developed from another language base (Serbian). So it is not correct to compare and equate these two Shtokavian dialects at that time period. These two dialects only began to converge at the end of the 19th century, both through deliberate and mutual efforts of Serbs and Croats.
 
Not really how languages and dialects really work, plus there are no fundamental differences between the Romanian dialects in Romania that would warrant different location name localization and name lists, which is the only function dialects currently have.
The devs must have liked the idea of Romanians being Transylvanian, Wallachian and Moldavian. I argued that at that time they were not different enough from each other. But they want to do this split, at least they should do it right.
Istro-Romanians don't actually seem to have existed in 1337; they seem to have migrated to Istria after the Bubonic Plague, from what I've heard.
As far as I know, the first mention of a Romance-speaking population in Istria during the Middle Ages dates back to 940 when the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII reported in his De Administrando Imperio that there were Romance peoples in the peninsula which called themselves Romans although they did not come from Rome.

According to the theory of the Romanian philologist and linguist Ovid Densusianu, the Istro-Romanians originate from the southwest of Transylvania and Banat around year 1000.

Another Romanian linguist and philologist Sextil Pușcariu, claims a south Danubian origin for the Istro-Romanians, specifically in current Serbia, but with contact with the Romanians at the west of Romania. He places their separation from the other Eastern Romance peoples in the 13th century.

Another theory is that they actually split from Aromanians rather than Romanians, who in turn split from Romanians, much earlier.

The first clear and definitive attestation of the Istro-Romanian presence in Istria dates back from 1321, when a country of Vlachs was mentioned in the region where they now live. In a document of 1329 referring to Buzet in Istria, the name of one Vlach appears; Pasculus Chichio, a name derived from the exonym "Ćići" used by Croats for Istro-Romanians.

So by 1337, they should already be in Istria.
 
The devs must have liked the idea of Romanians being Transylvanian, Wallachian and Moldavian. I argued that at that time they were not different enough from each other. But they want to do this split, at least they should do it right.
Yeah but splitting it into three dialects is not the right way to go about it. Because there are not enough dialectical differences to make them dialects.

As far as I know, the first mention of a Romance-speaking population in Istria during the Middle Ages dates back to 940 when the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII reported in his De Administrando Imperio that there were Romance peoples in the peninsula which called themselves Romans although they did not come from Rome.

According to the theory of the Romanian philologist and linguist Ovid Densusianu, the Istro-Romanians originate from the southwest of Transylvania and Banat around year 1000.

Another Romanian linguist and philologist Sextil Pușcariu, claims a south Danubian origin for the Istro-Romanians, specifically in current Serbia, but with contact with the Romanians at the west of Romania. He places their separation from the other Eastern Romance peoples in the 13th century.

Another theory is that they actually split from Aromanians rather than Romanians, who in turn split from Romanians, much earlier.

The first clear and definitive attestation of the Istro-Romanian presence in Istria dates back from 1321, when a country of Vlachs was mentioned in the region where they now live. In a document of 1329 referring to Buzet in Istria, the name of one Vlach appears; Pasculus Chichio, a name derived from the exonym "Ćići" used by Croats for Istro-Romanians.

So by 1337, they should already be in Istria.
I stand corrected, interesting.