In the system you propose Frisian and Bavarian would be a part of the same German language group and won't get any penalties. But in real life Frisian and Bavarian dialects are mutually unintelligible (as are many dialects of Scandinavian languages, Italian, and even English before Shakespeare), so people speaking such dialects were unable to hold conversation. If we apply language penalties when people are unable to communicate, surely we should apply them for distant dialects as well? But it won't happen in your system.
-
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.
In the system you propose Frisian and Bavarian would be a part of the same German language group and won't get any penalties. But in real life Frisian and Bavarian dialects are mutually unintelligible (as are many dialects of Scandinavian languages, Italian, and even English before Shakespeare), so people speaking such dialects were unable to hold conversation. If we apply language penalties when people are unable to communicate, surely we should apply them for distant dialects as well? But it won't happen in your system.
No, I don't. Nowhere in my suggestion do I even bring up Frisian or Bavarian; I propose a basic system as a way to resolve silly disputes over monolithic cultural groups and make no declarations about the particulars beyond a few examples relating to France. Put Frisian in whatever culture or language group you think works best, but at least you can put it in two now.
Again: nowhere in my post do I say anything to contradict this. I would appreciate it if you would stop putting words in my mouth based on a misunderstanding of what I'm proposing.
OK, I'll try to explain my point more clearly. The thing is, languages in early modern era, before mass education, urbanisation and mass media, existed as a continuum of dialects, with neighbouring dialects more or less understandable, if funny-sounding, and more remote dialects less understandable, to the point of complete unintelligibility after a certain distance because of differences in vocabulary, grammar and sentence structure, not to mention the pronunciation. Modern idea of a national language spoken and understood everywhere is from the second half of Victoria timeframe, when nationalism required the nation states to promote a single language for a united nation, cracking down on the dialects.
So, why can't we just split Frisian and Bavarian to two different language groups (North German and South German) as you propose? It won't work because in real life neighboring dialects are mutually understandable, but in your system as soon as you cross border between "South German" and "North German" you start getting the penalty. Your proposed system for language can't deal with the issue of dialect continuum which was huge during that era, so it feels out of place. It would have been OK had EU4 been set in the twentieth century or later, but for EU4 it's anachronistic.
You seem obsessed with proving a fault in something that I never proposed. If you're so pedantic as to continue this, then simply have another minor penalty for not being of the exact same dialect as well as culture (which, again, I already proposed) - or just keep the german language group as one and break up the culture groups in two if that works better.
I think you misunderstand all of my points and simply take personal offence in them. Let's stop here, this discussion is not going to end well.
Your point is that you want a system that reflects that, in most preindustrial dialects, mutual intelligibility decreased the further one got away from the locus of any particular dialect, and because my proposed system doesn't have a specific mechanic to acknowledge the granularity of it, it would not work for an EU setting. My counter was that a simple minor penalty for being in the same language group but not being of the exact same dialect - much like how culture groups currently work - would suffice to account for that reality, that I had already recommended that in the initial suggestion to account for something like that, making that particular objection moot. My other counter to that was that the granularity that a separated culture/language grouping would allow for would help to account for fringe groups such as Frisian, or at least alleviate the troubles of placing them in any group. Unless if that is a misunderstanding of your points, then I believe I answered your objection.
Culture groups could be dropped and instead cultures would be more or less close to one another with maluses being set for each case. For instance Breton could be very close to French (low malus), a bit close to Irish (middle malus), less close to scottish (high malus) and unrelated to Mongol (max malus), while Irish would have middle malus both for Breton and Scottish and high malus for French (same with French towards Irish).
Cultural, linguistical, historical and geographical parameters are then taken into account.
Centuries of rule of a culture over another could also diminish the malus for the rest of a campaign.
Cultural, linguistical, historical and geographical parameters are then taken into account.
Centuries of rule of a culture over another could also diminish the malus for the rest of a campaign.
- 1
What would this accomplish other than allowing mutability of cultures in game? Would you more accurately be able to portray border cultures? Maybe, but is this the best way to handle it? I could see a system of cultural affinity where a culture become ingrained or mixed with another (or multiple groups) , allowing it to shift groups. Some may vehemently reject this idea, but i would say the English colonization (and Norman conquests) brought Scottish, Irish, and Welsh cultures more accurately in the English culture group in the later periods. Is it partially from language? Absolutely, but it's not monolithic. Language is merely one subset of culture, and to separate it out would make "culture" an even more nebulous task than it already is.
Building on this is the fact that language is *not* static. Look back even 400 years ago and English was fundamentally different (great vowel shift, etc).
Building on this is the fact that language is *not* static. Look back even 400 years ago and English was fundamentally different (great vowel shift, etc).
It reminds me of stellaris.
If blorg can use human names, a species that I have already absorbed into my empire should also use my set of names( Of course it only happens when some special policies are on)
If blorg can use human names, a species that I have already absorbed into my empire should also use my set of names( Of course it only happens when some special policies are on)
For culture specifically, why should acceptance be locked to culture groups? There are only a couple hundred cultures in game, and only a couple dozen where acceptance across groups is a big issue. I think each culture should be hard coded to yellow accept (not green accept) the cultures that are not in its group but historically had links to it. This would be shown on the culture map mode.
So for a really tough culture like Breton, I think it’s fair to say it should stay in the French group, but also yellow accept Celtic cultures. Yes, this would make Brittany more powerful, but it’s not as if it’s a broken country right now or anything. Iraqi cultures (Kurdish, Iraqi, Mashriqi and maybe Syrian and Turkish) would all yellow accept each other as well as whatever else was in their group.
This way, you get to keep the benefits of the current culture system, which mostly works OK, and remove the arbitrary lines where a culture in one province doesn’t accept the culture in a neighboring province, even though those groups of people would have mixed and interacted.
So for a really tough culture like Breton, I think it’s fair to say it should stay in the French group, but also yellow accept Celtic cultures. Yes, this would make Brittany more powerful, but it’s not as if it’s a broken country right now or anything. Iraqi cultures (Kurdish, Iraqi, Mashriqi and maybe Syrian and Turkish) would all yellow accept each other as well as whatever else was in their group.
This way, you get to keep the benefits of the current culture system, which mostly works OK, and remove the arbitrary lines where a culture in one province doesn’t accept the culture in a neighboring province, even though those groups of people would have mixed and interacted.
- 1
No, don't let them phrame the discourse.
Pan-celticism was not a thing
Pan-slavism was not a thing
Pan-turkism was not a thing
Linguistic science was not a thing.
Honestly there are stronger historical arguments for a pan-germanic family then there are for many of these big families people keep asking for and no one mentions the close relationship and historical contacts between swedish and german
Rework based on culture relatedness (as in shared culture and history and language recent enough to be relevant) and civilization compability (religion is a far more important factor, how was societies organized, nomads are obviously very diffferent from sedentary ppl, east asians have little relationship to europeans.
Make culture more flexible, cultures can change and adapt, even in a short time frame
Pan-celticism was not a thing
Pan-slavism was not a thing
Pan-turkism was not a thing
Linguistic science was not a thing.
Honestly there are stronger historical arguments for a pan-germanic family then there are for many of these big families people keep asking for and no one mentions the close relationship and historical contacts between swedish and german
Rework based on culture relatedness (as in shared culture and history and language recent enough to be relevant) and civilization compability (religion is a far more important factor, how was societies organized, nomads are obviously very diffferent from sedentary ppl, east asians have little relationship to europeans.
Make culture more flexible, cultures can change and adapt, even in a short time frame
- 1