EEP and culture(s)

[Havard]

Since a discussion has emerged wether changing cultures fall within the scope of the EEP and if the project should start to alter these things too I thought a poll would be nice

Personally I vote no...

First - I feel the level of detailism some branches of the EEP are planning are way over the top, this includes also too many events. (was it 31 events for the WotR? )

The culture system as it is now is working quite fine, and if the planned partition of Spain and the British isles should be carried through for the rest of Europe we get a patchwork of cultures that I feel would worsen gameplay instead.

 

[unmerged(1302)]

I want to explain my position...........

I voted for yes, but with restrictions. I think the proposed change is too drastic to my own liking, because simply, Siberian corridor should end up with at least 20 or so, not to mention Caucasus where every single village was of different culture

So, minor tweakings - yes, major stuff no. However, I didn't want to vote NO, because I'm open to some changes.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

I prefer to keep the EEP as simple as possible. I think the idea of culture changes is worthwhile and should be pursued, but I believe it ought to be pursued outside the EEP. If this means the EEP is hamstrung I guess I'll change my mind.

 

[jerkwaterbox]

Make it an option like the fantasy events.

if that is possible.

i voted yes but i am just trying to appease the nay sayers.

 

[driftwood]

Seems to me that changing the cultures would be a good fit with the proposed EGC, but that seems to have died.

We're already changing monarch and leader files, plus the basic scenario files. So I feel we've already expanded beyond the constraints of our name (EVENT Exchange Project).

Maybe a version of whatever file has the culture info could be included as an optional change ... although I guess alot of events would depend on the current cultural makeup...

I vote yes, because I would like to see some of these changes, unless they're shifted to another, complementary project.

driftwood

 

[Havard]

Originally posted by driftwood
Seems to me that changing the cultures would be a good fit with the proposed EGC, but that seems to have died.

We're already changing monarch and leader files, plus the basic scenario files. So I feel we've already expanded beyond the constraints of our name (EVENT Exchange Project).

I feel there's a difference between changing the scenario-specific files (leaders/monarchs can be specified for each scenario) and altering the basic game files.

But anyway, that's just my view...

 

[unmerged(6145)]

Voted yes. Can't very well vote against my own little project now could I? Though it could be included in a second zip like the poet 1458 byzantines are.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Optional will be tough to implement as there would need to be a whole different set of event files. I much prefer either of the two extremes it's all in or it's all out.

 

[driftwood]

I think it would definitely be a mess to make the culture-stuff optional. The event files would be a real pain.

OTOH, does it really matter if Europe turns into a crazy patchwork of cultures? From the perspective of a given state, all that matters is whether or not the province culture is yours. If Modena conquers Spain, it doesn't really matter if there is 1 culture of 5, right?

Stupid Modena, conquering Europe ...

driftwood

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Good idea for a poll . . .

I voted yes, as I think that readjusting some of the cultures will heighten the realism & historical accuracy of EU2, which I think is the basic goal of the EEP. It is natural for the EEP to move just beyond events, if the ultimate goal is realism & historical accuracy. From my perspective working on British Isles events, my abilities to make realistic events for England's expanding control over & relations with "the celtic fringe" is greatly hindered by the fact that the gaelic culture does not differentiate between Irish, Welsh, Lowland Scots & Highland Scots, which it should. Creating more cultures in Europe might make a greater patchwork of cultures, but as long as the changes are made realistically, & the state cultures are adjusted accordingly, there is no reason why it couldn't work. I think each "new" culture should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis; a "new" culture shouldn't be added simply because there is an open slot, but because adding it would both (a) heighten historical accuracy, & (b) broaden the ranges of option, in terms of both game strategy & event creation.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

I voted yes...i think its inevitable when you need to make some events that are as historically or ahistorically accuracte as possible, you need to broaden your horizons, but Crook said, rather than throw open the door to pandora's box, we should just use it where we can't work within the preset confines...so like Johnny Canuck said, he's having troouble with the present EU2 culture system, well i think splitiing scottland from ireland and maybe adding a whelsh is okay, but when you start dividing it into northern scotts and southern scotts, that's a bit to far since the southern scotts could be refered to iff you needed them tobe as both having english and scottish cultures in those provinces...

Europe isn't the only place though that *could* use this cultural infusion, india espially could also, but that's another post...

 

[Duuk]

I voted yes, but it would be a conditional yes. I agree the British Isles should be a little more specific (welsh/irish/scots), and personally I think you could have some real fun in India (I swear their nation is made up of 1.2 billion cultures...), but beyond that, I wouldn't want to see it get TOO specific. Otherwise we're just adding words and state cultures. After all, if Bourbon was a French culture, then all the French states would need Bourbon as a state culture, and that would defeat the whole purpose of having it.

Duuk

 

[unmerged(6303)]

I voted no, for the reasons Havard gave and because too much change would make the EEP a replacement for, rather than a modular way of adding too, the game that Paradox designed.

 

[Galleblære]

But come on you guys, think about it!

Some of you want "higland and lowland scotts". Nothing wrong with that, but when you open that door, people will demand more and more culture. IE, it would look strange to have the isles with countless different cultures with very little difference, and have Scandinavia with "scandinavian" culture. IMO, Norwegian, Swedish and Danish culture is much more different than your basic higland/lowland scotts.

The end? You get a patchwork of different cultures all over the world, and unhistorical results. To promote "historic expansion" for Sweden, you would then have to give them Norwegian, Danish and Ugric culture. You end up with nations with 10 or more cultures just to support history.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Originally posted by Galleblære
But come on you guys, think about it!

Some of you want "higland and lowland scotts". Nothing wrong with that, but when you open that door, people will demand more and more culture. IE, it would look strange to have the isles with countless different cultures with very little difference, and have Scandinavia with "scandinavian" culture. IMO, Norwegian, Swedish and Danish culture is much more different than your basic higland/lowland scotts.

I don't know about culturally, but linguistically Danish is much closer to Swedish than Lowland Scots is to Highland Scots. In fact Danish is closer to Lowland Scots than Highland Scots is.

 

[driftwood]

Originally posted by Galleblære
But come on you guys, think about it!

Some of you want "higland and lowland scotts". Nothing wrong with that, but when you open that door, people will demand more and more culture. IE, it would look strange to have the isles with countless different cultures with very little difference, and have Scandinavia with "scandinavian" culture. IMO, Norwegian, Swedish and Danish culture is much more different than your basic higland/lowland scotts.

The end? You get a patchwork of different cultures all over the world, and unhistorical results. To promote "historic expansion" for Sweden, you would then have to give them Norwegian, Danish and Ugric culture. You end up with nations with 10 or more cultures just to support history.

True, that is the danger. But, as others have said, it will just have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

People working on the British Isles events feel the extra cultures will make the events and general gameplay experience much richer. If people working on Scandinavian events (I assume there are some of them) don't feel the extra cultures would contribute anything fun, then they don't have to create them.

Also, to whoever it was who felt that this would lead the EEP to supplant Paradox's game, I see all these changes as simply developing EU2 beyond what Paradox had time to do.

driftwood

 

[Marquoz]

I voted yes here for one simple reason: Aleppo. As far as I can tell, this province is the only one in the entire game with Syrian culture--even SYRIA doesn't get Syrian culture. This strikes me as completely ridiculous, so I think a *limited* approach to cultural change makes a lot of sense.

(In case anyone cares, I am currently writing a series of hypothetical events for Byzantium and the Mameluks, which is why I noticed Aleppo/Syria and their wacky cultures in the first place)

 

[David Comnenus]

The Aleppo situation is partially why I voted yes. However, here is my two cents. I think that those of us who want the world to contain 500-1000 cultures shouldn't input here. If they want it badly enough, they can edit it on their own. However, there are several "culture lumpings"(notably Slavonic) that could stand to be messed around with(re:Bulgarian, Serbian, and Bosnian) as certian cultures in these groups wouldn't be caught dead in each other's nations(see also:Yugoslavia). Yes, someone will carry it too far, but some tinkering will need to be done. This will also help the AoN considerably.

 

[PMLF]

I think Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian should remain all in the same slavonian culture because the only important difference between them is the religion.

Bulgarian culture, on the other hand, should be separated. But it would cause a problem for teh Ottoman Empire as they already have 4 cultures (Turkish, Arab, Slavonic and Greek).

 

[Galleblære]

Well, I really hope you know what you are getting into. You have to rewrite a LOT of events, prolly add quite a few events, and the fact that you have to "patch" each patch Paradox releases just to add those cultures and reworked events!