Tinto Flavour #10 - 14th of March 2025 - Scotland

[lordvagrant]

So start as Scotland, integrate the Isles, culture swap to Norse-Gael, and then reclaim all territory of your culture groups. Ireland, Britain, Scandinavia, Iceland, Greenland. Brittany?

 

[dbh__]

Paradox, please add my home island of Kimitoön as a province. It is in the archipelago of Finland it is swedish speaking and quite big for an island so it would make a good province. Every paradox game has neglected Kimitoön by not having it as an island! Best regards, a finland swede

 

[livebythecreed77]

Scotland's name changes to Alba if their Court Language or Primary Culture's language is Gaelic.

This is amazing

 

[Ulpia Batavorum]

Some idea's for more unique units for Scotland

Age of Tradition

Gallowglass
View attachment 1266439
From Norse Gael Culture

Heavily armored trained infantry. They were largely recruited from the West Coast of Scotland such as Argyll and the Western Isles. The Gallowglass were renowned for their mastery of weapons, particularly the two-handed sparth axe and the claymore. They were also armed with throwing weapons. They organised themselves into groups known as a corrughadh, which consisted of about 100 men and had a reputation for being an elite fighting force and for holding there ground.


Age of Discovery

Border Reivers

View attachment 1266157
From Scots/Northumbrian (or alternatively English) Culture.

Highly mobile, light cavalry units skilled in swift raids, ambushes and skirmishes. They raided the Scottish-English border with no regard to their victims nationality.



Age of Reformation

A Scots Brigade unit recruitable by any major european states Scotland is friendly with.

During the late 1500's and 1600s, one of Scotland's biggest exports would be men. Scots engaged in foreign service with consent from their monarch and under warrants issued by the Privy Council but in armies commanded by their European allies. The Scots Brigade in the Dutch Republic lasted from 1586–1782. While thousands of Scots served in Swedish & Danish service before, during and after the 30 years war. Up to 50,000 Scots served in Europe during that war under warrants from there king. France of course had the most famous Scottish unit the Gardes Écossaises though I would argue it should be a unique unit for France earlier than the age of reformation. Numerous Scots also served in the armies of Russia and Poland-Lithuania

It could be interesting if during the Age of Reformation Scotland allies or major states could request Scottish participation allowing them to recruit a Scots Brigade special unit from Scottish manpower. It could also transfer them some scottish generals to represent the number of famous Scots who served in European armies during the period such as John Hepburn under France, Alexander Leslie under Sweden, or Donald Mackay under Denmark-Norway.

This unit could have a flavour name depending on the country.

Dutch Republic - Scots Brigade
Denmark - Scottish Brigade
Sweden - The Green Brigade

View attachment 1266463

The Scots brigade shouldn't be a separate unit. They should be represented within the mercenaries mechanic of PC due to the centralisation of land ownership in the nobility.

 

[Oglesby]

Why isn't this localised? Surely you don't use American spelling for French players (using French words), so why are British players different?

The same reason there is only one Portuguese, French, Spanish, etc.

The added benefit of adding two of one language is less than adding two different languages so when adding more languages they will go with ones not included first (up to a point)

 

[Oglesby]

It does not say what the ‘requirements’ are, or that there are game rules that remove them, only that there are game rules that add more restrictions. “If it becomes dominant” implies that you can’t swap unless a culture is most of your country however, like in EU4. But in EU4 you can convert provinces of your primary culture to different cultures. So far, it’s been implied that you can only encourage ‘assimilation’ of unaccepted cultures, not conversion away from your primary.

Sure it doesn't give you the complete list of requirements, it does give examples of the requirements. So it appears first you must accept the culture, then it either needs to be dominant *OR* the culture of your ruler. That means if you can get a Cornish leader as England and you accept Cornish you could make England Cornish.

The game rule to restrict to the same Culture Group implies that there isn't a limit on that in the normal method.


Based on this it appears that you could alter the culture of David II so you could make Scotland French if you wanted to.

 

[GDQuirm]

*OR* the culture of your ruler

In the case of Scotland, if that event turns your ruler French, then you can become French Scotland via a scripted event.

I'm not sure how you would get a Cornish ruler as England. You didn't get heirs of random accepted cultures in EU4, so I'm not sure what mechanism you could use to get one in EU5. Even if you died without an heir as a monarchy, the random noble you got as a new ruler would be of your primary culture, unless you got a ruler from a royal marriage.

Right now the avenues for converting to another culture that I can see, without a scripted historical event, are:
- Get an heir of a foreign culture by royal marrying them and dying without an heir, assuming this works like it did in EU4
- Become a republic somehow, then elect a ruler of a non-primary culture
- Have a minority culture large enough to be 'dominant'
- The EU4 event that fires if you have a high-level advisor of a foreign culture and your heir is young, assuming this event is still in EU5

The first three options are not reasonably possible for Cornish. The fourth is a pretty rare event, and would require rolling Cornish cabinet members. I'm not really seeing any way to deliberately spread or promote minority cultures, unless you have unaccepted cultures adjacent to accepted minority cultures that will assimilate them (IE, play England, conquer Scotland, assimilate the Gaels into being Scots. Or play Scotland, conquer England, assimilate the Welsh into being English. etc etc)

The one route I can see, which is... extremely gamey and weird, would be to release an independent Cornish monarchy, so that you can now royal marry them, then disinherit your heirs and kill off your monarchs until you get a Cornish ruler. This seems... possible? But it seems kinda questionable to me that the route to getting a Cornish ruler is to boot all the Cornish out of your country.

 

[Oglesby]

In the case of Scotland, if that event turns your ruler French, then you can become French Scotland via a scripted event.

I'm not sure how you would get a Cornish ruler as England. You didn't get heirs of random accepted cultures in EU4, so I'm not sure what mechanism you could use to get one in EU5. Even if you died without an heir as a monarchy, the random noble you got as a new ruler would be of your primary culture, unless you got a ruler from a royal marriage.

Right now the avenues for converting to another culture that I can see, without a scripted historical event, are:
- Get an heir of a foreign culture by royal marrying them and dying without an heir, assuming this works like it did in EU4
- Become a republic somehow, then elect a ruler of a non-primary culture
- Have a minority culture large enough to be 'dominant'
- The EU4 event that fires if you have a high-level advisor of a foreign culture and your heir is young, assuming this event is still in EU5

The first three options are not reasonably possible for Cornish. The fourth is a pretty rare event, and would require rolling Cornish cabinet members. I'm not really seeing any way to deliberately spread or promote minority cultures, unless you have unaccepted cultures adjacent to accepted minority cultures that will assimilate them (IE, play England, conquer Scotland, assimilate the Gaels into being Scots. Or play Scotland, conquer England, assimilate the Welsh into being English. etc etc)

The one route I can see, which is... extremely gamey and weird, would be to release an independent Cornish monarchy, so that you can now royal marry them, then disinherit your heirs and kill off your monarchs until you get a Cornish ruler. This seems... possible? But it seems kinda questionable to me that the route to getting a Cornish ruler is to boot all the Cornish out of your country.

I guess I am lost are you saying that it should be easy to change England to primary Cornish?

(I am guessing that convert minors culture exists as they mention that Edward is old.)

Balliol is in his 40s which is past the age where one might normally 'culture switch', but also he is so far removed from the Gaelic world that if he wins the civil war, Scotland doesn't even get Highland culture as accepted.

 

[GDQuirm]

I guess I am lost are you saying that it should be easy to change England to primary Cornish?

I’m not saying you have to be able to adopt or spread small cultures, but it was kind of fun to do in EU4. They seem more like speedbumps in EU5 that exist to be assimilated.

This is really the only point I was making. I'd like some way to make use of small cultures, because at the moment they have no real reason to exist on the map beyond flavour. Even adopting a kingdom rank requires an entire 1 million pops of your primary culture, meaning that playing as any small culture, the 'correct' strategy is to just jump ship to a bigger culture as soon as you can. It would be nice to have the option of doing something else, even if it's suboptimal. What we've seen in EUV makes it seem like it's beyond 'suboptimal' and into the realm of 'making use of a small culture is actively damaging your run'.

 

[Ulpia Batavorum]

In the case of Scotland, if that event turns your ruler French, then you can become French Scotland via a scripted event.

I'm not sure how you would get a Cornish ruler as England. You didn't get heirs of random accepted cultures in EU4, so I'm not sure what mechanism you could use to get one in EU5. Even if you died without an heir as a monarchy, the random noble you got as a new ruler would be of your primary culture, unless you got a ruler from a royal marriage.

Right now the avenues for converting to another culture that I can see, without a scripted historical event, are:
- Get an heir of a foreign culture by royal marrying them and dying without an heir, assuming this works like it did in EU4
- Become a republic somehow, then elect a ruler of a non-primary culture
- Have a minority culture large enough to be 'dominant'
- The EU4 event that fires if you have a high-level advisor of a foreign culture and your heir is young, assuming this event is still in EU5

The first three options are not reasonably possible for Cornish. The fourth is a pretty rare event, and would require rolling Cornish cabinet members. I'm not really seeing any way to deliberately spread or promote minority cultures, unless you have unaccepted cultures adjacent to accepted minority cultures that will assimilate them (IE, play England, conquer Scotland, assimilate the Gaels into being Scots. Or play Scotland, conquer England, assimilate the Welsh into being English. etc etc)

The one route I can see, which is... extremely gamey and weird, would be to release an independent Cornish monarchy, so that you can now royal marry them, then disinherit your heirs and kill off your monarchs until you get a Cornish ruler. This seems... possible? But it seems kinda questionable to me that the route to getting a Cornish ruler is to boot all the Cornish out of your country.

I guess you shouldn't start as England if your goal is to play a Cornish England, but start from a different position and take your time.

 

[Oglesby]

This is really the only point I was making. I'd like some way to make use of small cultures, because at the moment they have no real reason to exist on the map beyond flavour. Even adopting a kingdom rank requires an entire 1 million pops of your primary culture, meaning that playing as any small culture, the 'correct' strategy is to just jump ship to a bigger culture as soon as you can. It would be nice to have the option of doing something else, even if it's suboptimal. What we've seen in EUV makes it seem like it's beyond 'suboptimal' and into the realm of 'making use of a small culture is actively damaging your run'.

I would say the (still bad) 'correct' play would be to wait until you have the required number of secondary culture, change to secondary, jump rank, switch back to main by virtue of leader. (Personally I think tying titles to 'ranks' and having ranks tied to mechanics is bad. I also feel that tying titles to number of primary pops is bad also.)

As of yet we it falls between 'suboptimal' to 'irreparable damage'; I am fine with them starting closer to the latter than the former to begin with.

 

[Malle8370v]

This might be a little off topic, but should cavalry and infantry have the same on map movement, from the Hungary flavor we se that Hussars also have 2.5 movement speed. Should it not be different?

 

[uncle sia]

Man i do hope that "3D art is WIP" includes the 16th century attire in 14th century as well

 

[johnofconstantine]

Please write harbour, not harbor, centralisation, not centralization and so on. Use the British versions, as that is true English

That is a version of english not true english, unless your definition of english is only that of Received Pronunciation, which would still be false

 

[johnofconstantine]

Why isn't this localised? Surely you don't use American spelling for French players (using French words), so why are British players different?

If both can perfectly understand what is meant in both dialects, then why change it at all?

 

[Hardin4188]

I am looking forward to this game. I can't wait to rule as an absolutist and put Parliament in their place! I will finish what you started King Charles!

 

[Fawr]

If both can perfectly understand what is meant in both dialects, then why change it at all?

Why have a province that changes name from Roma to Rome when conquered by a different power. If both can perfectly understand what is meant in both dialects? Why run a spell checker over the text at all as long as it can be understood by everyone?

Misspelt words slow a reader down and take their attention away from the text/message. It also teaches people incorrect spelling (my spelling isn't the greatest and seeing misspelt words certainly doesn't help).

 

[Ekyman]

Why have a province that changes name from Roma to Rome when conquered by a different power. If both can perfectly understand what is meant in both dialects? Why

Increasing immersion and dynamism by having the names of things in the game world reflect who owns them. Which is irrelevant in terms of deciding which modern spelling standard to use for the game interface. You may as well ask why the game doesn't switch to Italian localization when we're playing an Italian-culture country.

Why run a spell checker over the text at all as long as it can be understood by everyone?

Misspelt words slow a reader down and take their attention away from the text/message. It also teaches people incorrect spelling (my spelling isn't the greatest and seeing misspelt words certainly doesn't help).

It's not misspelled it's written in a different standard.

I don't understand why you'd care if some Swedes and Spaniards use British or American spelling and I don't understand why it comes up now when no Paradox game has offered a choice in the past and they have typically been in American English already. You'll survive seeing a few less u's just like I would survive seeing a few extra ones.

 

[Kvesir]

Icons for centralization and decentralization are still switched.

View attachment 1265769

View attachment 1265770

They might not be switched, it depends on your interpretation of them.

To me it seems like the current centralization icon implies power coming from the center outward - i.e. the central government exerting power over the provinces of the country - while the decentralization icon implies the opposite. So it makes sense to me.

I assume you interpreted it differently.

 

[Kvesir]

Why have a province that changes name from Roma to Rome when conquered by a different power. If both can perfectly understand what is meant in both dialects? Why run a spell checker over the text at all as long as it can be understood by everyone?

Misspelt words slow a reader down and take their attention away from the text/message. It also teaches people incorrect spelling (my spelling isn't the greatest and seeing misspelt words certainly doesn't help).

It's not a misspell to use "de" instead of "the" for French names or "Roma" instead of "Rome", it's the same as having the Dutch name New York "New Amsterdam". It's culture based dynamic localization.

I don't think anyone had an issue with dynamic localization in EU4. It used to be mostly just for province names, to reflect how different cultures would call them, and now it extends to other parts of the game but the reasoning is the same. It is a piece of flavor that enriches the game by showing us how different cultures would name things.

Either way, in EU4 you could turn it off in the settings and I'm sure in this game you'll be able to turn it off too.