Tinto Maps #4 Poland, Ruthenia, Baltic Feedback

[Rayski]

i hope the devs would replace Inowrocław with Gniewkowo and made it a polish vassal

The current setup is correct and doesn't need to change.
Could explain why you would like to see Duchy of Inowrocław, which existed at the start of the game, was a dominion of Poland and got incorporated in 1364 replaced with Duchy of Gniewkowo, which existed at the start of the game, was a vassal of Poland and got incorporated in 1363?

You can't have them both, as both of them lay within the borders of the location of Inowrocław.

 

[nnjnjd131]

Why is Halych and Volhynia belongs to the russian culture group? Is it bag? (got this screenshot from Zlewikk vid)

 

[NickMelk]

So this would be the setup – Liubachiv goes to San (Przemysl/Peremyshl) province (with Busk optionally returned to Belz):
View attachment 1251461

Because the administrative division of Halych-Volhynia was more homogeneous and less bordergore:

View attachment 1251470

View attachment 1251467

Also looking at this map, I want to suggest to devs to add two principalities that also existed at that time as subjects of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: the Principality of Dubrovytsia and the Principality of Stepan. They were part of the Principality of Volhynia only up to the end of the XIIIth century. On the previous version of the map they were part of Lithuania, but not as separate entitities. The the Principality of Dubrovytsia was subjugated to Lithunia in 1321

This map shows the lands and boundaries of even more pricnipalities that were Lithuanian vassals in this region (XVth century) in yellowish color. You can see pricipalities like Pinsk, Kletsk, Dubrovytsia, Stepan, Slutsk, Kobryn, Chortoryisk, Kovel, Gorodok, Hlusk and Chetvertnia in the area of the Pripyat Marhes.

 

[Dan29067]

View attachment 1293196
Why is Halych and Volhynia belongs to the russian culture group? Is it bag? (got this screenshot from Zlewikk vid)

I also hope this issue can be addressed. Currently, this setup seems even less accurate than how the East Slavic culture group is handled in EU4. Not only does it equate Russian culture with the broader East Slavic group (of which Russian is just a part), but it also risks significantly complicating—or even making impossible—the process of cultural unification for cultures associated with the Ruthenian language.

@SaintDaveUK, my apologies for the direct mention, but considering these points, would it be possible to assign a distinct Ruthenian culture group for Ruthenian cultures, rather than grouping them under the Russian one? In this way, the East Slavic group could be placed above both, assuming the existing Slavic group is not already sufficient. Otherwise, how would tags with these cultures be able to unify their cultural group from a gameplay perspective?

 

[Pavía]

I also hope this issue can be addressed. Currently, this setup seems even less accurate than how the East Slavic culture group is handled in EU4. Not only does it equate Russian culture with the broader East Slavic group (of which Russian is just a part), but it also risks significantly complicating—or even making impossible—the process of cultural unification for cultures associated with the Ruthenian language.

@SaintDaveUK, my apologies for the direct mention, but considering these points, would it be possible to assign a distinct Ruthenian culture group for Ruthenian cultures, rather than grouping them under the Russian one? In this way, the East Slavic group could be placed above both, assuming the existing Slavic group is not already sufficient. Otherwise, how would tags with these cultures be able to unify their cultural group from a gameplay perspective?

Hi there! Dave has brought this to my attention, and it also may be relevant to poke @Dennis [UA] , after: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ut-east-slavic-culture-labels-in-eu5.1743555/

What is shown there are the Culture Groups, which are a dynamic label that we use to group different cultures, and add flavour to them. As the main mechanics related to culture, such as Cultural Acceptance/Tolerance, Cultural Assimilation, and Culture Wars are tied directly to Cultures and Languages, they are not so relevant compared to EU4 Culture Groups.

Here you have the tooltip with all the information about a culture, and also the Russian culture group.

This is the status of the cultures of the region in 1337:

And this is the status of the languages - 1. Language Families 2. Languages 3. Dialects:

Therefore, the Russian culture group is not so relevant as you might think, gameplay-wise. However, something that could be done to reduce the redundancy of having a "Russian" language, dialect, and culture group, which may be confusing, is to rename the culture group to "Rus' ", which also fits its descriptions.

 

[Kotyk-durkotyk]

Hi there! Dave has brought this to my attention, and it also may be relevant to poke @Dennis [UA] , after: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ut-east-slavic-culture-labels-in-eu5.1743555/

What is shown there are the Culture Groups, which are a dynamic label that we use to group different cultures, and add flavour to them. As the main mechanics related to culture, such as Cultural Acceptance/Tolerance, Cultural Assimilation, and Culture Wars are tied directly to Cultures and Languages, they are not so relevant compared to EU4 Culture Groups.
View attachment 1294248
View attachment 1294251
Here you have the tooltip with all the information about a culture, and also the Russian culture group.

This is the status of the cultures of the region in 1337:
View attachment 1294253

And this is the status of the languages - 1. Language Families 2. Languages 3. Dialects:
View attachment 1294255
View attachment 1294256
View attachment 1294258

Therefore, the Russian culture group is not so relevant as you might think, gameplay-wise. However, something that could be done to reduce the redundancy of having a "Russian" language, dialect, and culture group, which may be confusing, is to rename the culture group to "Rus' ", which also fits its descriptions.

Thanks for quick reaction, appreciate that!

The only complaint was that this culture group should be called East Slavic (or Rus culture group, like you suggested) to avoid unnecessary outrage and misunderstanding:

The same as you have with the South Slavic culture Group.

Languages, dialects setup are absolutely OK.

And another problem is that having only one culture group prevents creation the unified Ukrainian, Belarusian, Russian cultures at the same time. That actually happened historically within the game time frame.

 

[Dennis [UA]]

Russian" language, dialect, and culture group, which may be confusing, is to rename the culture group to "Rus'

Hi Pavia,

Thank you for the clear and thoughtful explanation of the game mechanics—it's always great to get insight into the reasoning behind design choices.

I think your suggestion to rename the culture group from "Russian" to "Rus' " is a very good one. It would definitely help reduce confusion, especially for players familiar with the historical distinctions between East Slavic identities. Using "Rus' " as the label feels both accurate and neutral, and it better reflects the early cultural and linguistic landscape without implying a direct connection to the modern Russian identity.

Thanks again for engaging with the community and for being open to ideas that bring more historical clarity to the game!

 

[Kotyk-durkotyk]

Hi there! Dave has brought this to my attention, and it also may be relevant to poke @Dennis [UA] , after: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ut-east-slavic-culture-labels-in-eu5.1743555/

What is shown there are the Culture Groups, which are a dynamic label that we use to group different cultures, and add flavour to them. As the main mechanics related to culture, such as Cultural Acceptance/Tolerance, Cultural Assimilation, and Culture Wars are tied directly to Cultures and Languages, they are not so relevant compared to EU4 Culture Groups.
View attachment 1294248
View attachment 1294251
Here you have the tooltip with all the information about a culture, and also the Russian culture group.

This is the status of the cultures of the region in 1337:
View attachment 1294253

And this is the status of the languages - 1. Language Families 2. Languages 3. Dialects:
View attachment 1294255
View attachment 1294256
View attachment 1294258

Therefore, the Russian culture group is not so relevant as you might think, gameplay-wise. However, something that could be done to reduce the redundancy of having a "Russian" language, dialect, and culture group, which may be confusing, is to rename the culture group to "Rus' ", which also fits its descriptions.

So the best historical setup would be something like this (like Severian can also belong to the Belarusian or Russian CGs):

If you will not go with such granularity, ale least rename this whole culture group to East Slavic or Rus culture group, please.

And thanks a lot one more time for your attention!

 

[SPb enjoyer]

And another problem is that having only one culture group prevents creation the unified Ukrainian, Belarusian, Russian cultures at the same time. That actually happened historically within the game time frame.

If I remember correctly, unification is tied to language, so Russian culture is possible, but only Ruthenian culture for both Ukraine and Belarus

 

[Kotyk-durkotyk]

If I remember correctly, unification is tied to language, so Russian culture is possible, but only Ruthenian culture for both Ukraine and Belarus

Yes, and also this action is possible only once as I understand. You need to own almost all pops of your culture group, but only half will be unified because of the language. And the other two historical cultures will not be possible.

With only one culture group for all East Slavs that means that there can be only one possible unification, other parts will remain non-unified, if I understand correctly.

 

[ibvfteh]

So the best historical setup would be something like this (like Severian can also belong to the Belarusian or Russian CGs):
View attachment 1294326

If you will not go with such granularity, ale least rename this whole culture group to East Slavic or Rus culture group, please.

And thanks a lot one more time for your attention!

Still I’m against of splitting Ruthenian to Ukranian and Belarussian. You loose so much historic and cultural closeness by splitting. The closeness that will be relevant the entire time those lands were under Lithuania. And the proposed CGs will become relevant only in the late game. However the start date must depict the current situation.

What can be a solution is a Cossack culture group: Ruthenian, Severian and Ryazanian. I believe that will have equal amount of fun, while also not be anachronistic

 

[NickMelk]

So the best historical setup would be something like this (like Severian can also belong to the Belarusian or Russian CGs):
View attachment 1294326

If you will not go with such granularity, ale least rename this whole culture group to East Slavic or Rus culture group, please.

And thanks a lot one more time for your attention!

Personally I think that East Slavic would fit better than Rus' since it has more broader use. You can only relate Rus' with the start of the game, while East Slavic works from start and till the end. Also since the language of Rus' was Old East Slavic

 

[Kotyk-durkotyk]

Still I’m against of splitting. You loose so much historic and cultural closeness by splitting. The closeness that will be relevant the entire time those lands were under Lithuania.

I think that cultural closeness will be still portrayed by being in the same East Slavic/Rus culture group. This may affect relations and some common mechanics.
And I am not against Ruthenian culture group too at all, I would be OK with this division too. In any case it will be better to have it than not.
Updated the image.

 

[ibvfteh]

I think that cultural closeness will be still portrayed by being in the same East Slavic/Rus culture group. This may affect relations and some common mechanics.
And I am not against Ruthenian culture group too at all, I would be OK with this division too. In any case it will be better to have it than not.
Updated the image.

My point is that Belarussian and Ukranian have much more in common than with Russian. So equating the relations between all three is quite a modern view.

For the majority of the timeframe both cultures have experienced the same history unique to both of them. Belarussians were even part of Hetmanate (while Halych didn’t).

I just don’t see there any basis for splitting relevant for 1337.

However Russian did have a lot of differences, culture and language not influenced by Poland. Its own problems and solutions. Even the Tatar yoke was enforced there differently (all that grand duchy talk)

 

[ibvfteh]

My point is that Belarussian and Ukranian have much more in common than with Russian. So equating the relations between all three is quite a modern view.

For the majority of the timeframe both cultures have experienced the same history unique to both of them. Belarussians were even part of Hetmanate (while Halych didn’t).

I just don’t see there any basis relevant for 1337.

However Russian did have a lot of differences, culture and language not influenced by Poland. Its own problems and solutions. Even the Tatar yoke was enforced there differently (all that grand duchy talk)

Let’s think about it this way. Probably there will be no flavour to a specific culture. Only culture group or nation. While the proposal with separate Ukranian and Belorussian cultures will have a lot of shared flavour, my proposal can lessen this burden. All flavour about the region will be Ruthenian and shared, but the Cossack flavour can be for a different culture group, giving small nation like Ryazan also a shot at also becoming a Cossack nation (a large amount of Cossacks on Don river were Ryazanian). Then every nation will have just some permutation of those culture groups. Kyivian - Ruthenian and Cossack. Halych - just Ruthenian. Muscovy- just Russian. Ryazan - Russian and Cossack. Severian - everything but incredibly hard start.

 

[Dan29067]

Hi there! Dave has brought this to my attention, and it also may be relevant to poke @Dennis [UA] , after: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ut-east-slavic-culture-labels-in-eu5.1743555/

What is shown there are the Culture Groups, which are a dynamic label that we use to group different cultures, and add flavour to them. As the main mechanics related to culture, such as Cultural Acceptance/Tolerance, Cultural Assimilation, and Culture Wars are tied directly to Cultures and Languages, they are not so relevant compared to EU4 Culture Groups.
View attachment 1294248
View attachment 1294251
Here you have the tooltip with all the information about a culture, and also the Russian culture group.

This is the status of the cultures of the region in 1337:
View attachment 1294253

And this is the status of the languages - 1. Language Families 2. Languages 3. Dialects:
View attachment 1294255
View attachment 1294256
View attachment 1294258

Therefore, the Russian culture group is not so relevant as you might think, gameplay-wise. However, something that could be done to reduce the redundancy of having a "Russian" language, dialect, and culture group, which may be confusing, is to rename the culture group to "Rus' ", which also fits its descriptions.

Thank you for your response and for all the information provided. I appreciate your attention and commitment to engaging with the community. Referring to this culture group as Rus’ or East Slavic would indeed be more appropriate. The latter term may be preferable, as it remains relevant throughout the entire timeline of the game, including its later stages. There is one aspect I would still like to clarify—namely, the Culture Unification mechanic, or more specifically, the cabinet action mentioned in the relevant Tinto Talks.

Unify Culture Group
If you are an Empire, and the Dominant Country of your primary culture, the Unify Culture Group cabinet action can be used on a culture group belonging to your primary culture that has no other countries with that culture group. Upon completion, your primary culture will change to a brand new culture. Pops in your country of the same culture group and language will also change to this culture. This can only be done once.

As I understand it, other countries belonging to the same culture group must not exist in order for unification to be possible. However, I’m unsure whether this restriction also applies to Russia. It appears that Russia can unify its culture group when formed via decision, regardless of whether other tags from the same group are still present on the map.

Is this still the case? For example, would Russia need to conquer Halych (assuming it wasn’t annexed by Poland) in order to unify the cultural group? If not (which would be completely ok), then it might be reasonable for Ruthenian cultures to also be able to unify their area without needing to conquer, say, Novgorod—or being blocked by a Russia that automatically unifies the group upon formation.

One possible solution could be to separate Russian and Ruthenian into distinct cultural groups (with or without also having East Slavic group). But if there’s a better way to implement this, that would also be perfectly fine.

Lastly, one final note: regardless of how the cultural groups are set up, it would be helpful if the new culture created through unification were named Russian or Ruthenian depending on language they have (as cultures with other language will not change to this new culture)

 

[Kotyk-durkotyk]

Let’s think about it this way. Probably there will be no flavour to a specific culture. Only culture group or nation. While the proposal with separate Ukranian and Belorussian cultures will have a lot of shared flavour, my proposal can lessen this burden. All flavour about the region will be Ruthenian and shared, but the Cossack flavour can be for a different culture group, giving small nation like Ryazan also a shot at also becoming a Cossack nation (a large amount of Cossacks on Don river were Ryazanian). Then every nation will have just some permutation of those culture groups. Kyivian - Ruthenian and Cossack. Halych - just Ruthenian. Muscovy- just Russian. Ryazan - Russian and Cossack. Severian - everything but incredibly hard start.

I was really surprised by the Cossack culture. This way it could work too in theory, it is really hard to judge now without knowing any single detail

 

[Kotyk-durkotyk]

Since we could see some updates and improvements in different videos, I would like to point out a few errors that I noted.

1. WRONG SPELLING
It is far better now, but a few corrections are needed.

Wrong spelling​

Map​

Why is Reschov spelled in German? It is Riashiv for Ukrainian naming or Riashev in Old Ukrainian. Jaroslaw is still spelled in Polish, it should be spelled Yaroslav in 1337. Lyubatsev should be Liubatsev to have consistent Ukrainian transliteration (see Liuboml nearby). If you stick with old namings here, then Sianik should be Sianok. Ugrovesk should be Uhrovesk. 'г' was already spelled like 'h', while 'g' was written as 'кг' (see Hrabovets nearby).

2. TOO FEW TOWNS
Even though Ruthenia was obviously not the most developed part of Europe, there should be at least a couple of towns in Halych and Volhynia.
That 'black hole' seems way too unbalanced. You can compare Ruthenia with Ireland, Scotland, Wallachia, for example, that have up to 5-10 towns with the same (or worse) overall development.

Population of Ukrainian towns in the XIV century:

• Lviv must be a town/city because it was by far the biggest town of the whole Ruthenia in the XIV – XVII centuries for almost 400 years and especially in 1337.
• Also there should be a town in Volhynia – Lutsk, Ostroh or Belz are options, but probably it should be the capital.

Urbanisation map​	Development map​

Side note, but it is more about other nearby regions – I would not make Kursk a town because it was burnt to ashes by the Mongols twice during 50 years before 1337.
Maybe make Bryansk instead.
Also I maybe would make Chernihiv a town for historical reasons, similarly to Kyiv.

3. GENERIC DEVELOPMENT
Obviously in the Duchy of Kyiv, Severian, Volhynian and Belarusian lands the development simply follows the terrain & vegetation maps.
I would not expect a lot of changes, but I think just a few reasonable corrections are needed, mainly about the main known cities and capitals.

• As I once wrote, Ovruch and Putyvl were the main regional centres of the Principality of Kyiv and should have a bit higher development.
• From the table of population in the previous section it is obvious which towns were the most populated and, hence, a bit better developed. Apart from Kyiv and Lviv, those were Belz, Kamianets, Lutsk, Kremenets, Ostroh, Volodymyr. Those should have slightly higher development too.
• Such locations as Turov, Pinsk, Chernihiv, Novhorod-Siversky, Slutsk should have slightly higher development as capitals.

Development map​	Terrain map​	Vegetation map​

Here earlier I wrote sources for Putyvl and Ovruch:

• It was probably adjusted just by the climate/vegetation, probably development and population should be higher around the duchies' capital locations (Chernihiv, Novhorod-Siversky, they have the lowest development in their duchies for some reason).
• Also Putyvl and Ovruch vere quite important centres of the Kyivan land in the first half of the XIV century according to 'Ukraine under the Tatars and Lithuania' (Rusyna O.V.,1998), (pages 32, 33 and 35) and should have higher development and population compared to others:

And thank you again, it was really pleasant to see a lot of my suggestions implemented after the feedback post!

 

[Dunadan60]

Considering that, for example, Highland culture belongs to 3 cultural groups at the same time (Celtic, Scottish, and British), it is quite possible to include Ruthenian cultures not only in the Slavic and East Slavic, but also in the Ruthenian cultural group. Thus, it will be possible to unify Ruthenian culture on the basis of the Ruthenian language without the need to annex lands of Russian culture.

 

[Monty is staring at me]

So I just saw the British map feedback, and a lot of impassable terrain was added to the British Isles and even Ireland.

In that case, shouldn't the Carpathians and the Sudeten Mountains have way more impassable terrain? These mountain ranges led to some of Europe's most stable borders over the last thousand years. It would be nice to see way more choke points between Poland and Hungary, and Czechia and all of her neighbors.