Dear lord.
The people that'll jokingly ask if the ivory in Siberia is from mammoths will be right! I support this just for that!
(man, that's just cool - I didn't know about that)
- 4
- 2
- 1
-
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.
The people that'll jokingly ask if the ivory in Siberia is from mammoths will be right! I support this just for that!
(man, that's just cool - I didn't know about that)
I was keen to see if the population map had changed at all. Are you planning to do a new population map (and maybe cultures/religions) when you fix the bug in your population editor and can do a run through of minorities?
Also I still find the natural harbour map and how it treats wastelands confusing. If wasteland harbours are meaningless could we paint them white like the harbours of inland provinces? It would be easier to provide feedback that way.
Also I still find the natural harbour map and how it treats wastelands confusing. If wasteland harbours are meaningless could we paint them white like the harbours of inland provinces? It would be easier to provide feedback that way.
- 1
Hello devs, a few feedback-questions :
- Why separating ruthenian and russian language? For balance? Beforethe influence of Polish and Lithuanian, East Slavic was more of a linguistic continuum.
- Why calling the dialect Russian and the culture Muscovite? Calling the dialect russian is a Moscow-centric take (which is not necessarily bad) but the why not going full on with this and calling the culture Russian? Unless you have taken notes from the merging culture feature thread, it feels weird to have muscovite countries not being Muscovy at a time it wasn't yet an historical center of russian culture as well as ending up having the "muscovite" culture in Vladivostok area later on.
- Perhaps Baltic should be a language group instead of a language? Its "dialects are very different.
- Why keeping the Sami a huge polity (because SOPs are still polities at the end) while they hadn't any political unity?
- Why separating ruthenian and russian language? For balance? Beforethe influence of Polish and Lithuanian, East Slavic was more of a linguistic continuum.
- Why calling the dialect Russian and the culture Muscovite? Calling the dialect russian is a Moscow-centric take (which is not necessarily bad) but the why not going full on with this and calling the culture Russian? Unless you have taken notes from the merging culture feature thread, it feels weird to have muscovite countries not being Muscovy at a time it wasn't yet an historical center of russian culture as well as ending up having the "muscovite" culture in Vladivostok area later on.
- Perhaps Baltic should be a language group instead of a language? Its "dialects are very different.
- Why keeping the Sami a huge polity (because SOPs are still polities at the end) while they hadn't any political unity?
- 6
- 3
- 1
Nitpicking time in east karelia!
Salla location border looks weird, and Alakurtti is missing a t-letter from the name.
Repola location looks weird and Pieninkä is missing an ä-letter. Also not sure why that tiny wasteland is there as I mentioned in another post in this thread.
Kieretti having pearls is actually fine now that I checked (I said in another post I wasn’t sure why pearls were there). However, Kantalahti should have salt instead. Its monastery founded in 1553 provided Russia with (rough conversion) 160 000 kg of salt annually.
In my other post I mentioned the Bjarmian culture being in completely wrong place.
However, I should give more detailed feedback than that, based on finnish/russian wikipedia articles, the cultures of these locations should be the following:
Maloshuyka -> Karelian/Pomor (First historical mention: 1638. Maybe unowned by Novogord at game start?)
Unezhma -> Karelian/Pomor (First historical mention: 1555. Maybe unowned by Novogord at game start?)
Sumsky Posad -> Karelian/Pomor (Founded by Novgorod settlers in 1436. Maybe unowned by Novogord at game start?)
Soroka -> Sami (First historical mention: 1419. Should be unowned by Novogord at game start)
Kemi -> Sami (First historical mention: 1450)
Kriitinä -> Sami (Founded by Karelian/Pomor settlers in 1622. Sami burial site in area from 1100-1400.)
Kieretti -> Sami (Founded by Karelian/Pomor settlers in 1400-1500)
Kouta -> Sami (Founded by Karelian/Pomor settlers in early 1500s)
Salla location border looks weird, and Alakurtti is missing a t-letter from the name.
Repola location looks weird and Pieninkä is missing an ä-letter. Also not sure why that tiny wasteland is there as I mentioned in another post in this thread.
Kieretti having pearls is actually fine now that I checked (I said in another post I wasn’t sure why pearls were there). However, Kantalahti should have salt instead. Its monastery founded in 1553 provided Russia with (rough conversion) 160 000 kg of salt annually.
In my other post I mentioned the Bjarmian culture being in completely wrong place.
However, I should give more detailed feedback than that, based on finnish/russian wikipedia articles, the cultures of these locations should be the following:
Maloshuyka -> Karelian/Pomor (First historical mention: 1638. Maybe unowned by Novogord at game start?)
Unezhma -> Karelian/Pomor (First historical mention: 1555. Maybe unowned by Novogord at game start?)
Sumsky Posad -> Karelian/Pomor (Founded by Novgorod settlers in 1436. Maybe unowned by Novogord at game start?)
Soroka -> Sami (First historical mention: 1419. Should be unowned by Novogord at game start)
Kemi -> Sami (First historical mention: 1450)
Kriitinä -> Sami (Founded by Karelian/Pomor settlers in 1622. Sami burial site in area from 1100-1400.)
Kieretti -> Sami (Founded by Karelian/Pomor settlers in 1400-1500)
Kouta -> Sami (Founded by Karelian/Pomor settlers in early 1500s)
Last edited:
- 8
- 1
Fingers crossed you managed to implement the Karaites despite your pop editor issue...
- 1
- 1
The shape of Repola looks to be based on feedback actually! The shape matches Fulmen's outline of the original northern border of the Korela province, before it was adjusted to not encompass Repola during the negotions of the Treaty of Stolbova. I do agree that the location is pretty long and I think the eastern part should be made into its own location: Porajärvi.
Sketch I made of Repola and Porajärvi on the Scandinavia thread based on Fulmen's information.
Apart from splitting it in two, the current shape of the Repola location is mostly good. I think it should reach a bit more to the east to reach Irstajoki like in Fulmen's sketch. It would also make for a slightly better looking border. (Only map nerds can get this meticulous about obscure historical border adjustments regarding two tiny villages in Karelia)
- 3
- 2
- 1
Hello. Thank you for your work; the region looks much better after the feedback. I have two suggestions:
1) The area of the Upper Oka principalities should belong to the Russian language area, not Ruthenian. So, I would suggest either changing the culture of the region to Muscovite or creating a separate Russian culture there (like Upper Okan or Verkhovian).
2) Novgorod-Seversky and Starodub-Seversky could be renamed to Novhorod-Siverskyi and Starodub-Siverskyi to be consistent with location names in the area. By the way, I have a general question/suggestion regarding examples like these: could tags named after capital cities have their country names changed if they change their primary culture (similarly to how it works with dynamic location names)?
1) The area of the Upper Oka principalities should belong to the Russian language area, not Ruthenian. So, I would suggest either changing the culture of the region to Muscovite or creating a separate Russian culture there (like Upper Okan or Verkhovian).
2) Novgorod-Seversky and Starodub-Seversky could be renamed to Novhorod-Siverskyi and Starodub-Siverskyi to be consistent with location names in the area. By the way, I have a general question/suggestion regarding examples like these: could tags named after capital cities have their country names changed if they change their primary culture (similarly to how it works with dynamic location names)?
- 3
- 3
- 1
I see the strange snake of Tengrii in the north that I pointed out during Tinto Maps #8 is still there. What's up with it?
Sounds like you rely a lot on an in-house editor for adjusting population data rather than directly editing location files. Makes sense given the utterly massive number of locations. My question is, will a version of such a tool be released to the playerbase after release? Or will modders be stuck editing massive regions by hand, location by location?
- 2
- 1
Looks like for Kositskoye and Dubrovno someone mixed up the letters going from Cyrillic to Latin characters. This can be noticed since the letter 'j' should not be used but rather the letter 'y' in the Romanization of Russian.
For Kositskoye, Косицкое has ц [ts] mixed up with ч [ch] and е [e]/[ye] mixed up with ë [yo].
For Dubrovno, the older Доубровне has e [e]/[ye] mixed up with ë [yo].
However, the name used during this period would be Дубровна, that is Dubrovna, which is not to be confused with Dubrowna [Дуброўна] in Belarus.
On the other hand, Koporje was changed to Kopor'ye, so these seem to be slight oversights.
- 6
- 1
SUGGESTED EAST SLAVIC CULTURE/LANGUAGE SPLIT:
Russian linguists generally agree that Old East Slavic already had several dialect groups by the 11th-12th centuries; I found three main theories for the exact split. By the late 1300s, political developments had mostly cemented their status. They weren't a perfect match for the languages and dialects of today - not even mentioning the spread south and east - as there were additional demographic shifts after 1400 (especially around Velikiy Novgorod, Smolensk, and Belgorod). However, they provide a very good and decently convenient basis for the cultures, dialects, and languages in Project Caesar.
The three theories, as posited by the respective linguists, are:
1. Khaburgayev - southwestern (Halych-Volhynian), southern (Central-Eastern Ukrainian), central (modern Belarusian and Southern Russian), northwestern (Novgorod-Pskov), and northeastern (Vladimir-Suzdal)
2. Ivanov - southwestern (Halych-Volhynian and Central-Eastern Ukrainian), western (Smolensk-Polotsk), southeastern (Ryazan-Kursk-Chernihiv), northwestern (Novgorod-Pskov), and northeastern (Vladimir-Suzdal)
3. Zaliznyak - northwestern (Novgorod-Pskov) vs southern-central-eastern (everything else); according to him, there were regional variances within the second group as early as 11th century, but this was the primary split until the Novgorod-Pskov and Vladimir-Suzdal dialects started merging together around 1200; this would set Novgorod-Pskov dialects solidly apart from the rest but would not preclude the rest from being split into different cultures in Project Caesar.
I found a map of the first theory and edited it to include the second:
This map also includes written standards; the Western - Old Russian differentiation is a consequence of Lithuanian conquests so it shouldn't affect cultures/languages by itself. However, the Novgorod written standard is actually relevant because it predates Lithuania (Zaliznyak mentions Novgorod dialect being very different as early as 1125, and almost certainly before that), so it can be used to differentiate cultures.
This makes for a total of six language zones; these can be merged and shifted as necessary to meet Tinto's standards of having certain linguistic zones. For simplicity, southern and southwestern can be combined into a single Ukrainian dialect. Individual cultures can be rearranged too; two possible changes stand out. First, Chernihiv Severian can be grouped with the rest of Ukrainian. Second, Turov-Pinsk Polesian can be optionally grouped with Belarusian; I don't think this is necessary, because 1) Belarusian and Ukrainian would be part of the same language anyway, while Severian and the Ryazan-Kursk group would not, 2) Ukrainian-Belarusian and Belarusian-Russian had large transitional zones, as is typical of a language that's rapidly falling apart, but the Ukrainian-Russian transitional zone was much smaller, so it makes far more sense to move Severian than Polesian, and 3) some Belarusian linguists consider the speech of Turov and Pinsk up to the early 1900s to not be part of Belarusian.
On a six-zone map, this gives us the following languages and dialects:
(Apologies for the seam and the empty corner... I had to merge multiple maps together).
Ukrainian and Belarusian dialects would be part of Ruthenian, while Novgorodian, Muscovite, and Southeast Russian (probably needs another name) dialects would be part of Russian.
I think there are three good ways to break these into cultures: a minimalist version (just the six blocks, but Tinto has already broken three of these up), a middle version (close to Tinto's current breakdown with the addition of only a couple cultures that I think are necessary) and a maximalist version (with several additional cultures on top).
Middle version:
Maximalist version:
The borders between cultures generally follow the political and (our best guess for) linguistic boundaries of 1337; in a few cases, modern linguistic boundaries have been used as secondary guidelines.
The corresponding political division under Kyivan Rus, the linguistic basis, and the tags for these cultures would be:
HALYCHIAN:
Principality of Halych
Syan-Dniester-Pokuttia-Bukovina dialect subgroup of Ukrainian
Tags: Halych (primary)
Optional: RUSYN:
Ruthenians within Hungary
Rusyn
Tags: none
(this one has no primary tag but it's heavily divergent today to the point of being considered its own language and in popular demand on the Carpathia-Balkans thread)
VOLHYNIAN:
Principality of Volhynia
Volhynian-Podillian and Western Polissian dialects of Ukrainian
Tags: Volhynia (primary)
DNIPRO UKRAINIAN:
Principalities of Kyiv and Pereyaslav
Middle Dnieprian and Slobozhan dialects of Ukrainian
Tags: Kyiv (primary), Pereyaslav (releasable), Kaniv (releasable), Zaporizhia (releasable)
SEVERIAN:
Principality of Chernihiv (not including the parts that broke off around the Oka)
Eastern Polissian dialect of Ukrainian
Tags: Chernihiv (primary), Starodub-Siverskyi, Novhorod-Siverskyi, Trubchevsk, Rylsk
POLESIAN:
Principality of Turov-Pinsk (incl. Slutsk)
Central Polissian dialect of Ukrainian and parts of Southwestern Belarusian that were not part of Polotsk
Tags: Turov (primary), Pinsk, Slutsk, Dubrovytsia (releasable)
POLOTSKIAN:
Principality of Polotsk (incl. the parts that broke off)
Central and Northeastern Belarusian dialects
Tags: Polotsk (primary), Vitebsk, Drutsk, Minsk (releasable)
Optional: BLACK RUTHENIAN:
Parts of Principality of Polotsk that do not speak a Central or Northeastern Dialect; geographical region of Black Ruthenia
Southwestern Belarusian with some Yotvingian influence
Tags: Novohrudok (primary)
This one makes for a good addition because it crosses linguistic and regional lines and because Polotskian looks funny otherwise. It's currently part of Polesian, which is a bit of an odd fit.
SMOLENSKIAN:
Principality of Smolensk
Western subgroup of South Russian dialects (Bryansk, Smolensk, and Upper Dnieper)
Tags: Smolensk (primary), Vyazma, Bryansk, Fomin(?)
OKAN (or Verkhovian):
Upper Oka Principalities (formerly part of Chernihiv)
Central subgroup of South Russian dialects (Kursk-Orel, Yelets, parts of Kaluga and Tula dialects, transitional zone around Karachev (southwest of w-u and yakanye isoglosses))
Tags: Odoyev (primary, releasable), Karachev, Novosil, Kozelsk, Tarusa, Mosalsk (releasable)
RYAZANIAN:
Principality of Ryazan
Eastern subgroup of South Russian dialects (Ryazan, parts of Kaluga and Tula dialects (northeast of w-u and yakanye isoglosses))
Tags: Ryazan (primary), Pronsk
MUSCOVITE:
Grand Duchy of Moscow, Principality of Vladimir-Suzdal, Principality of Murom
East-Central, Kostroma, and (possibly) Torzhok groups
Tags: Muscovy (primary), Murom, Vladimir, Suzdal, Dmitrov, Rostov, Uglich, Mologa, Beloozero, Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Starodub, Nizhny Novgorod, Gorodets, Galich-Mersky, Yuriev-Polsky
Optional: TVERIAN
Principality of Tver (originated in 1246)
Torzhok group and Tver subgroup
Tags: Tver (primary), Zubtsov, Klin, Kashin, Rzhev
The point of this one is that the area around Tver has some of the most transitional dialects today that might not necessarily fit with Muscovite, and also Muscovite is already the largest culture and could reasonably be split. Additionally, it could include parts of Novgorod that don't fit into the northwestern dialect group.
NOVGORODIAN:
Duchy/Republic of Novgorod
Northwestern dialect group using Old Novgorodian written standard and not subject to 14th-century Pskov-area phenomena such as yakanye; parts of Northern Russian dialect (which included Novgorod before some forced relocations by Muscovy)
Tags: Novgorod (primary), Oreshek
PSKOVIAN:
Duchy/Republic of Pskov
Northwestern dialect group not using Old Novgorod written standard and subject to yakanye and other southern/transitional phenomena; modern Pskov and Gdov groups
Tags: Pskov (primary), Toropets
Yes, I think this one should be included - the area roughly south of Pskov - Vyshniy Volochyok line was developing many new features at this time that weren't present north of the line near Novgorod and was already diverging rapidly (akanye dates to the 14th century, for example). It also makes sense to represent a political division between Pskov and Novgorod.
POMOR:
Novgorod's colonies off the coast (off-map)
No direct linguistic basis; area of secondary language formation (that is, an area that's liguistically mixed due to being recently moved into)
Tags: none
Russian linguists generally agree that Old East Slavic already had several dialect groups by the 11th-12th centuries; I found three main theories for the exact split. By the late 1300s, political developments had mostly cemented their status. They weren't a perfect match for the languages and dialects of today - not even mentioning the spread south and east - as there were additional demographic shifts after 1400 (especially around Velikiy Novgorod, Smolensk, and Belgorod). However, they provide a very good and decently convenient basis for the cultures, dialects, and languages in Project Caesar.
The three theories, as posited by the respective linguists, are:
1. Khaburgayev - southwestern (Halych-Volhynian), southern (Central-Eastern Ukrainian), central (modern Belarusian and Southern Russian), northwestern (Novgorod-Pskov), and northeastern (Vladimir-Suzdal)
2. Ivanov - southwestern (Halych-Volhynian and Central-Eastern Ukrainian), western (Smolensk-Polotsk), southeastern (Ryazan-Kursk-Chernihiv), northwestern (Novgorod-Pskov), and northeastern (Vladimir-Suzdal)
3. Zaliznyak - northwestern (Novgorod-Pskov) vs southern-central-eastern (everything else); according to him, there were regional variances within the second group as early as 11th century, but this was the primary split until the Novgorod-Pskov and Vladimir-Suzdal dialects started merging together around 1200; this would set Novgorod-Pskov dialects solidly apart from the rest but would not preclude the rest from being split into different cultures in Project Caesar.
I found a map of the first theory and edited it to include the second:
This map also includes written standards; the Western - Old Russian differentiation is a consequence of Lithuanian conquests so it shouldn't affect cultures/languages by itself. However, the Novgorod written standard is actually relevant because it predates Lithuania (Zaliznyak mentions Novgorod dialect being very different as early as 1125, and almost certainly before that), so it can be used to differentiate cultures.
This makes for a total of six language zones; these can be merged and shifted as necessary to meet Tinto's standards of having certain linguistic zones. For simplicity, southern and southwestern can be combined into a single Ukrainian dialect. Individual cultures can be rearranged too; two possible changes stand out. First, Chernihiv Severian can be grouped with the rest of Ukrainian. Second, Turov-Pinsk Polesian can be optionally grouped with Belarusian; I don't think this is necessary, because 1) Belarusian and Ukrainian would be part of the same language anyway, while Severian and the Ryazan-Kursk group would not, 2) Ukrainian-Belarusian and Belarusian-Russian had large transitional zones, as is typical of a language that's rapidly falling apart, but the Ukrainian-Russian transitional zone was much smaller, so it makes far more sense to move Severian than Polesian, and 3) some Belarusian linguists consider the speech of Turov and Pinsk up to the early 1900s to not be part of Belarusian.
On a six-zone map, this gives us the following languages and dialects:
(Apologies for the seam and the empty corner... I had to merge multiple maps together).
Ukrainian and Belarusian dialects would be part of Ruthenian, while Novgorodian, Muscovite, and Southeast Russian (probably needs another name) dialects would be part of Russian.
I think there are three good ways to break these into cultures: a minimalist version (just the six blocks, but Tinto has already broken three of these up), a middle version (close to Tinto's current breakdown with the addition of only a couple cultures that I think are necessary) and a maximalist version (with several additional cultures on top).
Middle version:
Maximalist version:
The borders between cultures generally follow the political and (our best guess for) linguistic boundaries of 1337; in a few cases, modern linguistic boundaries have been used as secondary guidelines.
The corresponding political division under Kyivan Rus, the linguistic basis, and the tags for these cultures would be:
HALYCHIAN:
Principality of Halych
Syan-Dniester-Pokuttia-Bukovina dialect subgroup of Ukrainian
Tags: Halych (primary)
Optional: RUSYN:
Ruthenians within Hungary
Rusyn
Tags: none
(this one has no primary tag but it's heavily divergent today to the point of being considered its own language and in popular demand on the Carpathia-Balkans thread)
VOLHYNIAN:
Principality of Volhynia
Volhynian-Podillian and Western Polissian dialects of Ukrainian
Tags: Volhynia (primary)
DNIPRO UKRAINIAN:
Principalities of Kyiv and Pereyaslav
Middle Dnieprian and Slobozhan dialects of Ukrainian
Tags: Kyiv (primary), Pereyaslav (releasable), Kaniv (releasable), Zaporizhia (releasable)
SEVERIAN:
Principality of Chernihiv (not including the parts that broke off around the Oka)
Eastern Polissian dialect of Ukrainian
Tags: Chernihiv (primary), Starodub-Siverskyi, Novhorod-Siverskyi, Trubchevsk, Rylsk
POLESIAN:
Principality of Turov-Pinsk (incl. Slutsk)
Central Polissian dialect of Ukrainian and parts of Southwestern Belarusian that were not part of Polotsk
Tags: Turov (primary), Pinsk, Slutsk, Dubrovytsia (releasable)
POLOTSKIAN:
Principality of Polotsk (incl. the parts that broke off)
Central and Northeastern Belarusian dialects
Tags: Polotsk (primary), Vitebsk, Drutsk, Minsk (releasable)
Optional: BLACK RUTHENIAN:
Parts of Principality of Polotsk that do not speak a Central or Northeastern Dialect; geographical region of Black Ruthenia
Southwestern Belarusian with some Yotvingian influence
Tags: Novohrudok (primary)
This one makes for a good addition because it crosses linguistic and regional lines and because Polotskian looks funny otherwise. It's currently part of Polesian, which is a bit of an odd fit.
SMOLENSKIAN:
Principality of Smolensk
Western subgroup of South Russian dialects (Bryansk, Smolensk, and Upper Dnieper)
Tags: Smolensk (primary), Vyazma, Bryansk, Fomin(?)
OKAN (or Verkhovian):
Upper Oka Principalities (formerly part of Chernihiv)
Central subgroup of South Russian dialects (Kursk-Orel, Yelets, parts of Kaluga and Tula dialects, transitional zone around Karachev (southwest of w-u and yakanye isoglosses))
Tags: Odoyev (primary, releasable), Karachev, Novosil, Kozelsk, Tarusa, Mosalsk (releasable)
RYAZANIAN:
Principality of Ryazan
Eastern subgroup of South Russian dialects (Ryazan, parts of Kaluga and Tula dialects (northeast of w-u and yakanye isoglosses))
Tags: Ryazan (primary), Pronsk
MUSCOVITE:
Grand Duchy of Moscow, Principality of Vladimir-Suzdal, Principality of Murom
East-Central, Kostroma, and (possibly) Torzhok groups
Tags: Muscovy (primary), Murom, Vladimir, Suzdal, Dmitrov, Rostov, Uglich, Mologa, Beloozero, Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Starodub, Nizhny Novgorod, Gorodets, Galich-Mersky, Yuriev-Polsky
Optional: TVERIAN
Principality of Tver (originated in 1246)
Torzhok group and Tver subgroup
Tags: Tver (primary), Zubtsov, Klin, Kashin, Rzhev
The point of this one is that the area around Tver has some of the most transitional dialects today that might not necessarily fit with Muscovite, and also Muscovite is already the largest culture and could reasonably be split. Additionally, it could include parts of Novgorod that don't fit into the northwestern dialect group.
NOVGORODIAN:
Duchy/Republic of Novgorod
Northwestern dialect group using Old Novgorodian written standard and not subject to 14th-century Pskov-area phenomena such as yakanye; parts of Northern Russian dialect (which included Novgorod before some forced relocations by Muscovy)
Tags: Novgorod (primary), Oreshek
PSKOVIAN:
Duchy/Republic of Pskov
Northwestern dialect group not using Old Novgorod written standard and subject to yakanye and other southern/transitional phenomena; modern Pskov and Gdov groups
Tags: Pskov (primary), Toropets
Yes, I think this one should be included - the area roughly south of Pskov - Vyshniy Volochyok line was developing many new features at this time that weren't present north of the line near Novgorod and was already diverging rapidly (akanye dates to the 14th century, for example). It also makes sense to represent a political division between Pskov and Novgorod.
POMOR:
Novgorod's colonies off the coast (off-map)
No direct linguistic basis; area of secondary language formation (that is, an area that's liguistically mixed due to being recently moved into)
Tags: none
Attachments
Last edited:
- 12
- 3
I don't clearly understand why the "Tatar Yoke" IG, which is obviously meant to represent the system where Moscow collected tribute from other princes on behalf of the Golden Horde, includes so many princes.
I can't find a great source for this right now, but here is a short wikipedia excerpt that claims that Ryazan delivered their tribute directly to the Khan.
In general, I think that studying the history of Moscow in this period should eventually make it clear that Moscow was specifically in a rivalry with other princes in the Vladimir-Suzdal land, chiefly Tver, and interacted less with outside princes such as Smolensk and Kiev. Therefore I argue that the Tatar Yoke IG should be reduced in size to only the Vladimir land.
It really doesn't make much sense for an IG whose flavour title is "Grand Prince of Vladimir" to include all of this land that was never part of Vladimir.
I can't find a great source for this right now, but here is a short wikipedia excerpt that claims that Ryazan delivered their tribute directly to the Khan.
In general, I think that studying the history of Moscow in this period should eventually make it clear that Moscow was specifically in a rivalry with other princes in the Vladimir-Suzdal land, chiefly Tver, and interacted less with outside princes such as Smolensk and Kiev. Therefore I argue that the Tatar Yoke IG should be reduced in size to only the Vladimir land.
It really doesn't make much sense for an IG whose flavour title is "Grand Prince of Vladimir" to include all of this land that was never part of Vladimir.
Last edited:
- 10
- 1
- 1
- 1
Has the effect of rivers on proximity been added into the game yet? It still really does not look like it.
- 8
Hello @Pavía,
Great job!
I wanted to share some thoughts regarding the naming. The term "Muscovite" is basically a slur for the modern Russians. Russians themself never use this name and foreigners mostly use it with negative connotations.
To ensure naming is both accurate and respectful, I suggest the following changes:
1) Rename "Muscovy" to "Moskva" or "Moscow."
2) Change "Muscovite culture" to "Moskovian" or "Russian culture."
I appreciate your efforts and thank you!
Great job!
I wanted to share some thoughts regarding the naming. The term "Muscovite" is basically a slur for the modern Russians. Russians themself never use this name and foreigners mostly use it with negative connotations.
To ensure naming is both accurate and respectful, I suggest the following changes:
1) Rename "Muscovy" to "Moskva" or "Moscow."
2) Change "Muscovite culture" to "Moskovian" or "Russian culture."
I appreciate your efforts and thank you!
- 10
- 6
It looks strange to me that there is a part of the Kazan market totally surrounded by Moskva market. I think there should be no island like that. I also prefer when the country borders are visible. It's easier to understand in which market a location is.
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
Those are way after game start, after the colonization of East Karelia had really kicked off. I would make them all Saami instead.
- 1
What was wrong with a single Russian language divided into Novgorodian, Muscovite, Belarusian, and Kyivan? I don't really understand a) why these were divided into two whole separate languages when they are more mutually intelligible than e.g. some of the German speaking areas which have been divided merely into dialects and b) the names - the term "Ukrainian" as used in this period of history didn't apply to the vast majority of the area containing the Ukrainian dialect here, and "Russian" is used solely to describe the Muscovite area despite the fact players playing an alt-Novgorod or alt-Kyiv are just as likely to want to construct an alternative history where one of those two laid claim to the mantle of the Rus'. Novgorodian is sensibly named after its main cultural centre which would have been the focal point for linguistic formation and divergence; Muscovite and Kyivan should have the same. I *kind of* understand the use of Belarusian because there's no obvious cultural centre in the same way, but for the most part these choices seem very anachronistic.
EDIT: Not opposed to Moskovian instead of Muscovite either due to modern sensibilities.
EDIT: Not opposed to Moskovian instead of Muscovite either due to modern sensibilities.
Last edited:
- 11
- 3
- 2
- 1
Slight correction: unlike the rest of East Slavic dialects, Novgorodian was already very different even as early as 200 years prior to the start of the game, and in 1337 its changes were more convergent than divergent.
- 2
.png){kind=avatar}
Can you share a source for that? I can not find anything to prove it
All I found is from Russian Wikipedia
It is implying that process of colonisation is already started in XI century so before the game start
- 1
I'm not saying otherwise, I'm just saying - Novgorodian is named after Novgorod, the largest and most significant cultural area which would influence that dialect. Russian is named after... the whole Rus people, despite only covering a small part of that area. Ukrainian is named after an area which in this period of history referred to lands around Pereyaslavl and not much of the area which contains the dialect labelled Ukrainian, and Belarusian is named after a term which right at the start of the game period was first used to refer to Rostov-Suzdal, which is not in the area which contains the dialect labelled Belarusian. It's a mess.
EDIT: I mean even Moskovian has problems. At this point in history, it is still entirely possible for Tver to become the dominant power in the old lands of Vladimir-Suzdal, in which case people in that history would probably call their dialect Tverian and not Moskovian.
It may be better to divorce the dialects from cultural names and entirely and just use "North Russian", "East Russian", "West Russian", and "South Russian" (or with "Rus'" instead of "Russian" if necessary). I think this is less problematic than compass-point culture names (which I abhor) because all the people in all of this region would probably have said they spoke Russian and wouldn't necessarily have had strict terms for the dialectical differences which can sometimes only ever be appreciated from a historical perspective.
Last edited:
- 5
- 2