Culture in Aberration

[Incompetent]

There seems to be something of an agreement on culture, so I'll put some guidelines here. There are two cardinal rules:

Would the locals accept the country's rule?

Make sure it's balanced: the bigger a culture zone, and the richer its provinces, the stronger your justification has to be as to why a county should get that culture.

On to specifics:

A country should have/gain a culture if:

1. It's the culture of the dominant ethnic group in the administration of the country: this will usually be the primary culture. An exception to this is if the country operates in a very different way to where its rulers originally came from, so that their rule would not be accepted 'back home'. Eg Granada gets Moorish culture, but the TO does not get German in 1419, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem doesn't get French, Italian etc.

2. The country is an obvious successor to an earlier power of the culture, and its style of administration, customs etc are similar enough that the people of the culture would feel it was their own kind of government. Eg Burgundy and Brittany may get French if we feel their governments are essentially French in character, as they are French successor states. Granada gets Arabic thanks to its strong North African heritage.

3. The country is the natural authority over a large part of the relevant culture zone and the people accept this. Note that 'natural authority' doesn't mean it actually controls such a large area, just that it's in a position of leadership. Eg Hungary gets Slovak, and Finland gets Russian if it takes over Russia during the Crusade. Byzantium has a leadership position among the Orthodox Slavs, so it gets Slavonic.

4. The people of the culture, or at least enough of them to administer the region easily, are enthusiastic supporters of the country. Eg Scotland gets Norwegian at some point even if it loses most of Norway. Scotland and Brittany may or may not get Anglosaxon depending on how keen you think the English are on the Gaelic powers.

5. The country has made great efforts to bring the relevant region under control, and this has been successful. This is a weaker reason, and you must justify it by making it somewhat difficult to obtain cultures this way, and only when control of a reasonable part of the culture zone has been established. Eg the TO may get Russian, but only if they completely crush the Russians and don't give them any hope of independence.


A country should pretty much NEVER lose its primary culture, unless the old regime has completely disintegrated, and even then I would be very reluctant to make converted pagans, colonies etc turn 'wrong culture'. Subject to that, a country should lose a culture if:

1. The people of that culture revolt en masse against the country.

2. The people of the culture only had tenuous loyalty in the first place, and now the government is making little or no effort to keep them on board. This will often happen automatically if a country overextends itself, eg if Byzantium tries to assimilate both Turks and Italians. National cultures obtained by reason 5. above should also be easier to lose than other national cultures.

3. The country loses its position of leadership over the culture, and its claims to rule there are now seen as anachronistic. Eg the TO loses Polish if it gets crushed in the Civil War.

4. The country betrays or fails to help its enthusiastic supporters and this permanently alienates them. Eg Scotland gives up Norway without a fight, or Genoa goes to war with Byzantium.

5. The country and the culture drift apart in their views to such an extent that the country's rule is no longer acceptable. Eg Hungary alienates the (Catholic) Slavs if it goes Reformed.


A province changes culture if:

1. The ethnic makeup of the province has changed significantly, and the culture change reflects this. This could be due to immigration, emigration, ethnic cleansing etc. Eg Hungary get 'Istria is Slavonised', and Byzantium may be able to support ethnic cleansing in Armenia.

2. The locals have been assimilated to the new culture, to the point where they identify more with people of that new culture than they do with people who used to have the same culture as them. This 'assimilation' phenomenon will be especially strong with certain countries, such as Jerusalem and Burgundy, which have an inclusive and loosely-defined primary culture.

3. The locals have become fiercely loyal to a particular country, and will not be happy with rule by any other country, but in doing so their loyalties are completely different from other provinces of the same culture. Eg Novgorod may turn 'Hanseatic', but we could never justify giving the Hansa Russian culture.

 

[MattyG]

Incompetant,

Good summary, well done.

Next step will be to summarize our discussions to date and to see how others feel about the extent and purpose of country cultures.

I presume that you are writing this and I won't jump the gun and do it as well.

It will be very important that we take a hard look at what country cultures are truly meant to represent in the game (by that I mean Brittany having Gaelic, French and English, not the cultures themselves). Then compare that to how the cultures are handed out and see if the path that has been taken remains true to the deployment of cultures in the game structure.

Of the ones I see above the most troubling are obviously Brittany having three major European cultures, Byzantium being able to get Italian (interesting roleplaying, but a real stretch), Scotland getting Norweigian and the Caliphate getting so many, however you try and argue it.

No doubt this will be a lively discussion for anyone who gets involved.

 

[unmerged(33565)]

Figured I would comment on all of these. First off let me say that I think there are 4 really desierable cultures in the game, because of the tax base and/or the number of provances they have. They are, in order of preferance:

German; French; Italian; Dutch

Secondary cultures all have a lot of provances, but no tax base or several decent, but not great, provances. They are, in no order:

Anglosaxon; Scandinavian, Arabic (only because all of it is Islamic) baltic, Russian, Slavonic, Greek, Gaelic, Ruthenian, Persian, Turkish

The rest I would consider minor cultures that only have 1 or 2 provances or such a small tax base, it does not even really matter. (You tried Finnland with only Ugric culture, talk about no taxes.)

Please note that this is mainly for Cathlic countries, for islamic, the order changes a bit. (Arabic becomes BIG)

The Teutonic Order thread got a little sidetracked with dicussions about culture, but it's something we need to look at over the whole mod. I'll start by summarising the current cultural position of the majors:

Bavaria: German and Dutch.

I have been tring for a while for people to look at this. I think Bavaria needs to earn Dutch, not just handed it in the beginning, but thats just me.

Burgundy: French. Later it gets a choice between gaining German or Dutch culture, with no strings attached.

My other big problem country. You missed the fact that if milan goes with Burgundy then they get Italian too. Does an already strong power need to get French, German, and Italian. I really don't think so... Something needs to be done for this

Brittany: Gaelic, French and Anglosaxon. Loses Anglosaxon if it is kicked out of Great Britain.

They need to earn Anglo, but I will talk about this more in Scotland

Byzantium: Greek and Slavonic. Can gain Syrian if it gets the relevant provinces. Can gain Turkish, Caucasian and Italian, but under complicated circumstances involving dynastic choices, and it's quite difficult to get more than one of these last three. Gaining Italian is especially hard. If the Turkish route is chosen, can Hellenise Anatolia instead of getting the culture.

I like the Byzantium event route and wish more were writen like it. I was going to something like that in India with Cylon but ended up getting side tracked with other things. Personally I would leave it be.

Eire: Gaelic. Gains Iberian if it launches a successful crusade against Granada.

NP with this, Iberian is very hard to gain and it has better areas to spend its money at that time.

Finland: Ugric. Gains Russian if either TO or Finland is dominant in Russia. Can convert Finland province to Ugric.

No real problems with this, since it is dirt poor to begin with

Genoa: Italian. Can gain Greek if it teams up with Byzantium under a certain dynasty. Can convert Balaeres to Italian.

No real problems. Greek is only gained with help

Granada: Berber and Arabic. Gets Iberian later. Can gain Basque and French, but at great cost (and difficulty in the case of French), including the loss of Arabic. Can convert Basque provinces to Iberian.

I wonder about arabic, but I guess it can be justified. No real problem, god knows French is REALLY hard unless you read the event file.

Hanseatic League: German. Gains Dutch later if it goes Reformed.

I don't really have a problem with this just cause of where its terratory is and how little actually right culture provances it starts with.

Hungary: Magyar, Slovak and Slavonic. Loses Slavonic if it goes Reformed, but this gives a possibility of gaining Polish.

These are all secondary and or minor cultures, and they all make sence. I guess it would be cool to see cival war events with all of them fighting, and you gaining and losing cultures, but hey, we can't have it all.

Mamelukes and successors: Arabic. Can gain Berber or Nubian depedning on choices in the civil war, but not both.

No comment, not really a major player in my book.

Savoy: French. Gains Basque if Navarra is conquered by Granada. Converts Piemonte to French.

NP with this

Scotland: Gaelic and Anglosaxon. Gains Scandinavian if it inherits Norway.

Should have to earn Anglo. To me Anglo should go to either Scotland or Brittiany, who ever wins most of the provances in England.

Sicily: Italian. Later gains either Greek or Arabic, no strings attached. Can convert Balaeres to Italian.

No real problem, I mean Arabic is nice, but have to convert everything, and greek is only a so so culture

Swabia: German. Gains Italian if it inherits Milan.

Ummm, only have seen it servive once, can we count that

Kalmar: Scandinavian. Can gain Ugric if it chooses a Finnish king and takes over Finland.

No real problem, have to earn Ugric and does not deserve anything else

Caliphate: Arabic and Kurdish. Gains Turkish by offering to help the Turks against BYZ. Can gain Syrian by taking the relevant provinces. Can gain Persian by assimilating them, but at the cost of dropping a tech group and either losing CENT or converting to Shiism.

The 2nd most complecated one, will post later about them and the most conplecated...

Teutonic Order: Baltic and Polish. Gains Russian if it launches a successful crusade there. Can gain German by a free event choice, but cannot have both German and Russian. Can convert Estland and Ingermanland to Baltic.

post to come in next several days

Ukraine: Ruthenian. Gains Altai in 1580. Gains Russian if it obtains Ryazan province before 1620.


Any Sunni country: Gains Ethiopian by owning all provinces of that culture and converting them to Sunni. Gains Swahili in a similar way.

any real problem with either of these. Ukraine is not bad, and the only way to know about the last section is to read in the files, not like anyone bothers with those provances most of the time.

Most of my comments were on gameplay issues, if you want to ask about why historicly they should have them, I am not the one to ask.

 

[Incompetent]

I mostly agree with you Billdo, but I'd make a few changes.

Firstly I wouldn't put Dutch in the top flight: its provinces are pretty nice, but there aren't that many of them. Some of the secondary cultures you list also have some pretty good tax values, eg Gaelic or Scandinivian (Denmark!) I would say the gulf is between the huge cultures of French, German, Italian and Arabic, and everything else.

One thing I would like to do is divide up French and German, like this:

French splits into french and occitan. Burgundy and Brittany start with french, savoy and the minors start with occitan. No country should be able to have both cultures at once, unless we want someone to make a real France (Granada's 'France' should probably only get occitan, as they don't have any real authority in the North). Burgundy might also get its own culture later, which allows it to assimilate the Rhineland (but not any other part of the HRE!)

German splits into north german and south german (there are probably better names for these, but I'm not sure what would be appropriate). Bavaria starts with both, but loses north german in the Reformation and finds it difficult to get back. Bohemia gets south german. All other German countries get their home culture, and no-one except Bavaria can have both north and south german. If the TO get any variety of German, it will be north german.


As far as the other countries are concerned:

For the Genoese, getting Greek culture by helping BYZ is illogical. As BYZ ought to be aiming to take all Greek-cultured provinces, this would strain relations between the two, as suddenly Genoa would be eyeing up provinces in BYZ's heartland.

I don't think Sicily should get Arabic under any circumstances. The cultural divide is too great, the Arab world is too vast, and even if Sicily does have to convert all the provinces, do we really want to see large parts of North Africa or (shudder) Arabia turn Catholic? We could give them some conversions by event, but Arabic culture is just too much.

In a way, Scotland doesn't deserve any of its cultures. It shouldn't really be able to take over Eire easily, for example. I think we need a new 'scottish' culture. Scotland getting the culture of Norway is fine, as the country essentially becomes Scotland-Norway, in the sense of Austria-Hungary. But there's a big problem with Scotland also getting the culture of Denmark and Sweden. A new norwegian culture is the only solution I can think of that doesn't look terribly ugly.

The Swahili and Ethiopian culture things are just silly. I could just about see Egypt getting Ethiopian, but even that's pushing it.


We should also mention the Kingdom of Jerusalem, not a major but a fun challenge for players, and culturally interesting. ATM they get Greek and Arabic, and can gain Syrian.

Syrian is fine, but Greek is rather tenuous and Arabic is downright wrong. Jerusalem would NOT command the loyalty of any Arabs it conquered by any stretch of the imagination, and it would NOT have an easy time converting them. Likewise we don't want it seizing Athens and finding it easy to convert. What we could do instead is turn Syrian into a kind of Levantine culture. If Jerusalem converts the Muslims, it can turn a certain portion of the region to Levantine culture, but not before then. If on the other hand the Crusader states get smashed, the whole region (including Syria) can get Arabised again.

 

[MattyG]

Incompetant (and Bildo)

A lot of great analysis here. I have some points to challenge and quibble over.

I wasn't aware that it is possible to add additional culture types. If that is the case then it is definitely the right way to go. I especially like the creation of a Levantine culture. (Yes, the KoJ getting Greek is nuts. Way more likely that they could get French, given that's what most of the rulers were). Ditto on Scotland getting a new Norweigian culture. I find that Scotland getting this Scandanavian mass culture because of an inheritance about as likely as England getting French culture in vanilla. Ownership does not confer cultural closeness or acceptance by the newly vassalised people. Not even close.

However, I think that creating south and north German cultures would be a game convenience that is hard to justify. German cultural and linguistic differences could not be so easily divided. I don't think we should create something very artificial simply because it 'works' from a game balance perspective.

German ought to stay German. Let's not tinker with that. Instead we ought to be very very cicumspect in the manner in which that highly desireable culture is handed out. Really, the question only arises in relation to a couple of countries. Obviously all the German minors get it, plus the German powers like Bavaria and Hansa.

That leaves us with Burgundy and Teutonic order. I don't think either should be allowed to have German culture without giving up its others. The choice for Burgundy would be based on its early choices. If it expans successfully west and gains large parts of France, then it has made its decision and the event offering it German never even triggers. If, instead it choses (or is forced) to expand eastward and owns certain provinces, then it can chose a new dominant culture for itself, dropping French and gaining German. This would need to be a significant and well-constructed event cycle, much like that of Turkish for Byzantium.

As for the Teutonic Order, as much as I know you are enjoying composing the event cycle (and doing it really well) I still find Teutonic Order (or anyone) having three cultures very very tenuous. Just because the Teutonic Order conquers Russia in a crusade, doesn't mean they should get Russian. In the same way that the KoJ should not get Arabic, nor Sicily Arabic, nor Poland get German culture if they conquer them etc etc etc. Again, conquest does not equate with assimilation. And I can see the Teutonic Order gaining German culture because they are largely German in heritage. But it would have to come very early on. Time creates a great divide. By the 1600s/1700s are those Teuton lords with their German names really still so German? Or are they now more Baltic or Polish, having themselves been changed by the cultures they rule. It's too powerful game-wise that the Teutonic Order, having successfully established itself and conquer a bag load of provinces, could then turn west, gain German and conquer a whole lot more without having wrong-culture problems there. If the Teutonic Order gets Russian it should be after a couple of hundred years of successful rule (late 1600s, early 1700s as a start date). And if they decide to re-Germanise culturally, they should lose Russian (if they have it) and Polish as well.

In the case of Byzantium, having a well written (meaning complex) event file is not enough. If you think Genoa getting Greek is tenuous, then Byzantium getting Italian is more so. Don't anyone start talking about Roman Empire roots etc. By the time the Italian culture option comes up, the Byzantines are light years from their Roman heritage, as are the modern Italians. Turkish I can see, and its well done. Syrian is a stretch and so is Caucasian, which requires very little effort (expect deciphering which lineage to chose so the event fires) and there's no way in which either culture is lost, even if you lose the provinces in question for 200 years. Byzantium ought not to get Italian or Syrian (now Levantine?) culture, and there should be bigger strings attached to Caucasian.

In the same way that Burdundy and other have to make a choice in which people/nobles/cultural values to prefer, the same needs to be imposed on Brittany. In part because it is too easy for it in the early game to maintain what it has and grow quickly with Richemont at the head of an army. Whatever province-owning conditions you might want to attach, it will be able to meet them (especially with a player at the helm). It would be better if it also has to make the big choice, forced on it by its own nobles. The more of France it conquers, it now has to work with an appease all those French nobles. Are they just going to accept that the English nobles are treated equally. No, there are too many cultural gulfs here. I cannot imagine how these Breton lords could have pulled off such an incredible diplomatic and policy balancing act. At some point in the early mid 1400ss Brittany has to chose between Anglosaxon and French, but not both. Is it a nation of the continent, or a nation of the English Channel?

Matty

 

[Incompetent]

Germany's cultural divide is something that's been debated in other mods, so I thought it was worth suggesting. Maybe you're right, it is better to have a single German culture. However, there's also the issue of Dutch culture, as Abe doesn't have much Dutch nationalism: would you say in 1419 somewhere like Oldenburg was closer culturally to Zurich or even Munich than it was to Amsterdam?

The Occitan thing was something that occurred to me when pondering why it is that France has a reasonably unified culture in the 21st century. From what I've read, it really didn't in the middle ages, and France was seen as a foreign power by many in the South. But over time, the North was gradually able to assert its political dominance over the South and turn that into a cultural dominance. Well in Aberration there is no state occupying the whole hexagon, and there shouldn't be one either. Without this pressure from Paris, the two halves of the country would start to drift apart again. Also, in the broadest sense the Occitan region of France is quite large, and would give us a convenient dividing line. Here's what Google has for maps of 'Occitanie'.

So what do people think of Occitan culture?

As for Burgundy, I really don't want to see a Burgundy that has German as its primary culture - they're never going to go all the way to being German, but they might end up straddling the Rhine, both physically and culturally. Is it unreasonable, if Burgundy goes east, for a unique Burgundian culture to emerge, which has elements of Rhenish, Flemish and eastern French culture? I gather the AGCEEP people have something called 'Lotharingian' if Burgundy positions itself as the extinct middle kingdom.

If we're worried about lack of cultures, AFAIK Aberration has not merged the irrelevant native-only cultures. Which exactly those will be will depend on what happens in the Americas, but there are bound to be some, such as inuit, that don't warrant any settled provinces. This gives us a fair amount of breathing room.

 

[MattyG]

Incompetant,

I am dead set 100% in favour of breaking down the French into more cultural groups, than I am the Germans. It has deep historical truth to it, and since this is Aberrated anyway, the arguments in favour of Occitan having strengthened itself as a culture are compelling.

As a side note, it makes me wonder why one of the great European what ifs has not been considered in Aberrated. What if the Albigensian crusade had not occured, or was unsuccessful? We need to have an alternate Aberrated game start which begins with a country called Oc (or maybe just expanded Languedoc) which begin as Protestants. Wow, intriguing ....

And I agree about Lotharingian. And instead of Burgundy getting French culture, if they take over certain provinces those provinces can instead be Lotharingianised.

The thing about Germany is that while the areas were closer linguistically than, say, Occitan and French, what divided them were all the independent pricnipalities. These are fine and dandy at the start of Eu2, but the game allows for their rapid devouring and the creation of a German state 400 years too soon. If only we could get rid of the ahistorical and cursed Diploannexation (grrrr, we hates it , worse than hobbitses ).

 

[Incompetent]

Ok, it looks like we're getting somewhere. So we have something concrete, here's a first draft of how I see the cultural divide in France. I'll change it as people make comments:

Green = Basque
Brown = 'Gaelic'/Breton
Red = Occitan
Blue = French
Purple = initially French, but can turn Burgundian later
Burgundy = initially German or Dutch, but can turn Burgundian later (some of these are very speculative)
Orange = none of the above

What I was thinking is that in 1419, Burgundy would still be French. But later in the game if they have expanded eastward somwhat, they get a choice between remaining true to their French roots, or trying to forge a new identity. If they choose the latter, their cores shift eastward a bit, they lose french and gain 'burgundian', and they get to convert a number of provinces to Burgundian by owning them.

 

[unmerged(33565)]

So basically what we are talking about is breaking French into two or three cultures, French that would be the main culture for burgundy at the start, Occitan for Savory and Burgundian, which would take sections of the French, German and Dutch lands. Would there be any country that has French as its primary culture? If there isn't, then maybe you can have some events where the remaining French lands rebel, like "We are losing our homeland/identity" type deal and create problems for any of the controlling states.

To be honest, i have been all for making burgundy's event file a little more interesting, since it is rather lame. The biggest event it gets is the Dutch or German one, and who in their right mind is going to turn down free German culture. Other then that it really has nothing.

On a side note, I know the history of Gaelic culture, but is Brittan, Ireland, Scotland and Wales all of the same culture, I really don't think so. In vanilla it really didn't matter since there was no great Gaelic culture power, but with 3 now....

Oh, one other side note, this was designed to be a multiplayer mod, so sometimes the tossing out of cultures and such was to create some conflict between players. That’s why you get alot of these events where you pick one path or other.

 

[Incompetent]

So basically what we are talking about is breaking French into two or three cultures, French that would be the main culture for burgundy at the start, Occitan for Savory and Burgundian, which would take sections of the French, German and Dutch lands. Would there be any country that has French as its primary culture? If there isn't, then maybe you can have some events where the remaining French lands rebel, like "We are losing our homeland/identity" type deal and create problems for any of the controlling states.

To be honest, i have been all for making burgundy's event file a little more interesting, since it is rather lame. The biggest event it gets is the Dutch or German one, and who in their right mind is going to turn down free German culture. Other then that it really has nothing.

We certainly could, in the style of Scotland's events for the emergence of English nationalism. In fact, I can envisage a scenario in which no state has French culture: Brittany focuses on Great Britain and Burgundy turns east.

I really need to get on with non-EU2 stuff right now, but go ahead, all ideas are welcome.

On a side note, I know the history of Gaelic culture, but is Brittan, Ireland, Scotland and Wales all of the same culture, I really don't think so. In vanilla it really didn't matter since there was no great Gaelic culture power, but with 3 now....

Oh, one other side note, this was designed to be a multiplayer mod, so sometimes the tossing out of cultures and such was to create some conflict between players. That’s why you get alot of these events where you pick one path or other.

The cultures of Wales, Cornwall and Brittany would be somewhat related. But yes, we don't want the whole Gaelic sphere ruled happily by one country.

As for the MP aspect, I get the impression that in MP there are often rules for editing in cultures. Even so, we could have an 'easy cultures' switch for players who want to have access to a lot of cultures.

 

[MattyG]

I think the idea of a culture 'switch' for chosing the kind of game you want toplay is a great idea, and I hope Jahan brings it into EU3. But it would represent a LOT of work and I think we could spend our personal EU2 time in other areas, like helping to get the basic version of this game completed.

Aberration is certainly designed - it seems - with MP in mind, but its also a lovingly crafted 'what if' mod the for connaisseur of speculative history. I'd rather see the game head towards an intriguing and accuate break-down of the French cultures than see possibilities shutdown in favour of good MP game play. I also don't quite see why this would lead to less interesting game play. In the MP I'm playing at the moment the big problem is that someone dominates the French states because three names get shields everywhere and the provinces are rich. And because those provinces are so wealthy, they are always going to be desireable, even if they were Arabic and Sunni!

Agreed-with-a-cherry-on-top regarding Burgundy; its a pretty flat file, although there are a number of events that are locating in other country's files, which are reactive/triggered events. Still, for someone in the centre of the action, there should be a touch more detail. I'm going to start a new thread with a concept for it now.

 

[unmerged(16159)]

Incompetant (and Bildo)


However, I think that creating south and north German cultures would be a game convenience that is hard to justify. German cultural and linguistic differences could not be so easily divided. I don't think we should create something very artificial simply because it 'works' from a game balance perspective.

German ought to stay German. Let's not tinker with that. Instead we ought to be very very cicumspect in the manner in which that highly desireable culture is handed out. Really, the question only arises in relation to a couple of countries. Obviously all the German minors get it, plus the German powers like Bavaria and Hansa.

Matty

I disagree. German culture can be easily divided, particularly along a North South divide. Southern german culture is fastidious and conservative. Northern german culture is braodminded and liberal. It's a split that wanders along religious lines, with southern germany being mainly catholic and northenr germany mostly reformed.

In game terms, all german states could have "southern german" culture, until then choose Reformed religion in an event, at which point their culture also becomes "northern german". Some provinces (particularly in the Rhineland) would have both cultures, regardless of religion.

 

[yourworstnightm]

French should be split up in french and occitan, no way french culture could have assimilated teh south with no uníted France. I don't know if burgundy need an own culture, french is just fine since all their starting provinces are french. Maybe there could be an option when they choose either occitan culture (they usually conquer Auvergne and Bourbonnais) or dutch (if they go for the lowlands). Bavaria should loose dutch culture if they stay catholic, when Burgundy could gain it if they are protestants (and not have occitan culture, they could get occitan if they stay catholic and dutch if they convert to protestantism).
Brittany could get events when they get the choice to switch their french culture to occitan. If the sothwest coast goes protestan (like in vanilla) this could be a question about religous tolrance as well. Like supporting the new hugenott movements or not.

 

[MattyG]

I disagree. German culture can be easily divided, particularly along a North South divide. Southern german culture is fastidious and conservative. Northern german culture is braodminded and liberal. It's a split that wanders along religious lines, with southern germany being mainly catholic and northenr germany mostly reformed.

In game terms, all german states could have "southern german" culture, until then choose Reformed religion in an event, at which point their culture also becomes "northern german". Some provinces (particularly in the Rhineland) would have both cultures, regardless of religion.

Thanks for the comments, Mikl

1. I think you are extrapolating backwards from the present, and real world, rather than Aberrated. There may currently be this divide, but you describe this as having emerged from the differences in religion, which aren't even present at the 1419 start date.

2. From your description the differences don't sound of a signigicance to merit separate culture status, considering the level that culture is dealt with in EU2 grand-strategy approach.

Maybe in the 1700s we could have a flavour event for Hansa if they control any of the southern provinces, something like "Those Southerners are Too Fastidious" that gives a modifier of -5 to Infra. Whaddya think?

Matty

 

[MattyG]

French should be split up in french and occitan, no way french culture could have assimilated teh south with no uníted France. I don't know if burgundy need an own culture, french is just fine since all their starting provinces are french. Maybe there could be an option when they choose either occitan culture (they usually conquer Auvergne and Bourbonnais) or dutch (if they go for the lowlands). Bavaria should loose dutch culture if they stay catholic, when Burgundy could gain it if they are protestants (and not have occitan culture, they could get occitan if they stay catholic and dutch if they convert to protestantism).
Brittany could get events when they get the choice to switch their french culture to occitan. If the sothwest coast goes protestan (like in vanilla) this could be a question about religous tolrance as well. Like supporting the new hugenott movements or not.

One of the challenges we are trying overcome is that of handing out cultures to countries just because they often conquer places. If that were the criteria, then Peter Ebbessen's countries in the games he plays should gain all cultures because he regularly conquers the entire world. While that may be the extreme, the convention that conquering a people means they wan to be ruled by you is specious.

Your suggestions are quite good, tying very small cultural changes to religion. I especially like the Bavarian option. What I really want to see rolled back is Burgundy having panFrench culture and gaining Dutch and German in some ludicrous 500-years too early version of a modern European Union.

 

[unmerged(16159)]

Thanks for the comments, Mikl

1. I think you are extrapolating backwards from the present, and real world, rather than Aberrated. There may currently be this divide, but you describe this as having emerged from the differences in religion, which aren't even present at the 1419 start date.

2. From your description the differences don't sound of a signigicance to merit separate culture status, considering the level that culture is dealt with in EU2 grand-strategy approach.

Maybe in the 1700s we could have a flavour event for Hansa if they control any of the southern provinces, something like "Those Southerners are Too Fastidious" that gives a modifier of -5 to Infra. Whaddya think?

Matty

I would say there is as much validity in separating german culture into north and south, as there is in dividing french culture up into 4-5 seperate bits. If you want to break up the german culture because it's soooooooo powerful, (for the same reasons you are suggesting to break up french culture), then I am suggesting that there is a cause and a timing that would be appropriate. If you wanted to. Which you don't.

The cultural differences between north and south germany in 1500 began in 1560 when Luther began his reforming teachings. From that point a common language and a common fuedal lord wasn't enough to define a people, since religion came to overwhelmingly be used to define who they were and who they hated.

"Culture" is a game construct to restrict production and increase revolt for nations who try to dominate half of Europe. As a construct therefore you can make it what you want, and is being suggested with the french culture. Dividing german culture into "anal-retentives" and "innovatives" from 1560-ish onwards is - I would argue - justified.

Someone justify for me that "baltic" culture is very different from "german" culture, which is very different from "scandinavian" culture. There are only 5 nations which share "dutch" culture, and that still fits into EU2's Grand Strategy approach.

I like the mod on Hansa if they get into the alps... But it should be -2 Innovative, +2 Aristocracy! And Bavaria get the opposite if they take Mecklenberg!

 

[yourworstnightm]

I was thinking about giving Savoie an own culture instead of Burgundy (to prevent it to being eaten early on). What abou provencal culture. Savoie could start with only provencal culture and get occitan in the division of the Gaul event.

 

[MattyG]

I would say there is as much validity in separating german culture into north and south, as there is in dividing french culture up into 4-5 seperate bits. If you want to break up the german culture because it's soooooooo powerful, (for the same reasons you are suggesting to break up french culture), then I am suggesting that there is a cause and a timing that would be appropriate. If you wanted to. Which you don't.

The cultural differences between north and south germany in 1500 began in 1560 when Luther began his reforming teachings. From that point a common language and a common fuedal lord wasn't enough to define a people, since religion came to overwhelmingly be used to define who they were and who they hated.

"Culture" is a game construct to restrict production and increase revolt for nations who try to dominate half of Europe. As a construct therefore you can make it what you want, and is being suggested with the french culture. Dividing german culture into "anal-retentives" and "innovatives" from 1560-ish onwards is - I would argue - justified.

Someone justify for me that "baltic" culture is very different from "german" culture, which is very different from "scandinavian" culture. There are only 5 nations which share "dutch" culture, and that still fits into EU2's Grand Strategy approach.

I like the mod on Hansa if they get into the alps... But it should be -2 Innovative, +2 Aristocracy! And Bavaria get the opposite if they take Mecklenberg!

Well, the so-called 'break-up' of France is instead going back and recognising that there was no France in 1419. Well, there was a France, but it was a smallish country based around Il de France, Champagne etc. The south spoke a different language. I think this is one good starting point for 'culture' as EU2 uses it.

The problem we face is that in EU2 is that either a culture is the same as the national culture(s) or different, and one standard, uniform detriment is layered on to the wrong culture provinces and the Stab cost for the country. So, Finland owning a province with Mesoamerican apparently have the same governance problems as Anglosaxons governing Gaelic. While there are undoubtedly cultural differences between north and south German groups, between the Swabish and Hessians, between the people of upper Gunstadt and lower Grunstadt, these cannot be fit within the EU culture straightjacket.

This is why I have suggested earlier and in other fora that we need to use other mechanisms. The manpower reduction, -30% to tax and RR increases are simply too strong for the differences between the regions of Germany, when this is the standard for Chinese governing Arabs etc.

Accordingly, I urge again that we consider instead having event-generated effects. When the Hansa control certain southern states, it would trigger an event giving them a permanent RR of +1 in those provinces (an effect that would only apply to them when they owned them).

The cultural difference you describe that are tied to the reformation are alreadu taken into acount in that those provinces change their religion, which creates a similar situation in regards to RR and therefore taxation reduction. To layer that on top of cultural difference would certainly create a state of constant revolt where northern German culture nations owned southern german catholic provinces, and vice versa.

Oh, and for everyone else, Mikl and I are brothers, which is why we are giving one another a hard time. :rofl:

 

[MattyG]

I would say there is as much validity in separating german culture into north and south, as there is in dividing french culture up into 4-5 seperate bits. If you want to break up the german culture because it's soooooooo powerful, (for the same reasons you are suggesting to break up french culture), then I am suggesting that there is a cause and a timing that would be appropriate. If you wanted to. Which you don't.

The cultural differences between north and south germany in 1500 began in 1560 when Luther began his reforming teachings. From that point a common language and a common fuedal lord wasn't enough to define a people, since religion came to overwhelmingly be used to define who they were and who they hated.

"Culture" is a game construct to restrict production and increase revolt for nations who try to dominate half of Europe. As a construct therefore you can make it what you want, and is being suggested with the french culture. Dividing german culture into "anal-retentives" and "innovatives" from 1560-ish onwards is - I would argue - justified.

Someone justify for me that "baltic" culture is very different from "german" culture, which is very different from "scandinavian" culture. There are only 5 nations which share "dutch" culture, and that still fits into EU2's Grand Strategy approach.

I like the mod on Hansa if they get into the alps... But it should be -2 Innovative, +2 Aristocracy! And Bavaria get the opposite if they take Mecklenberg!

Well, the so-called 'break-up' of France is instead going back and recognising that there was no France in 1419. Well, there was a France, but it was a smallish country based around Il de France, Champagne etc. The south spoke a different language. I think this is one good starting point for 'culture' as EU2 uses it.

The problem we face is that in EU2 is that either a culture is the same as the national culture(s) or different, and one standard, uniform detriment is layered on to the wrong culture provinces and the Stab cost for the country. So, Finland owning a province with Mesoamerican apparently have the same governance problems as Anglosaxons governing Gaelic. While there are undoubtedly cultural differences between north and south German groups, between the Swabish and Hessians, between the people of upper Gunstadt and lower Grunstadt, these cannot be fit within the EU culture straightjacket.

This is why I have suggested earlier and in other fora that we need to use other mechanisms. The manpower reduction, -30% to tax and RR increases are simply too strong for the differences between the regions of Germany, when this is the standard for Chinese governing Arabs etc.

Accordingly, I urge again that we consider instead having event-generated effects. When the Hansa control certain southern states, it would trigger an event giving them a permanent RR of +1 in those provinces (an effect that would only apply to them when they owned them).

The cultural difference you describe that are tied to the reformation are alreadu taken into acount in that those provinces change their religion, which creates a similar situation in regards to RR and therefore taxation reduction. To layer that on top of cultural difference would certainly create a state of constant revolt where northern German culture nations owned southern german catholic provinces, and vice versa.

Oh, and for everyone else, Mikl and I are brothers, which is why we are giving one another a hard time. :rofl:

 

[MattyG]

I was thinking about giving Savoie an own culture instead of Burgundy (to prevent it to being eaten early on). What abou provencal culture. Savoie could start with only provencal culture and get occitan in the division of the Gaul event.

I think that this is an interesting concept. Clearly, Occitan was no the only major language group, Provencal was another. Certianly there are some provinces that could be made Provencal as a culture. Whether Savoy was Provencal speaking (as the politically dominant group) would need to be researched.

The other element in this culture debate is that the south of France DID become French dominated. If we are going to try and convince the Archduke to add additional cultures to the European map, we need to also suggested mechanisms by which these cultures can be assimilated, but it had a historical precedent. Although Provencal still exists, by the 1800s French really was the dominant culture throughought most of France.