Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Pub Poll: Cultures (+)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
unmerged(8632)

unmerged(8632)

Producer Crusader Kings
Apr 9, 2002
330
0
www.snowball-interactive.com
Even though the beta is still a few weeks away, I thought we could start to test some things through the forum -- essentially the terminology and interface, items that demand the highest level of intuitiveness and ease of understanding.

Rules: no empty posts like "I like this/I hate this", no imcomplete posts like ">14. Sword & Shield -- I dunno..." (please comment all you have to say in a single message), let's keep the focus on (a) first impressions (b) arguments for/against the cause (c) discussion of the aforementioned.

To start with, let's talk about cultures. Each province in CK has a culture that can be changed as the conqueror assimilates it, the larger the province the longer the change. Culture affects many things, including even taxes. Cultures are different visually (different Town Icons). Cultures have names.

Question:

Do we stick to more accurate ans systematic definitions like "South-European, North-European, Central-European" or do we go for the flavour tags like "Mediterranean, Scandinavian and Germanic"?

Agrument 1: this is a game, so we want the flavour. It's cool to play for Byzantine, and uncool and hard to remember for Central-European.

Argument 2: we're not whee-kids, we play this game because we appreciate history and we would rather make a classification that has a system (i.e. European cultures names by geographic location in relation to Europe) which makes more sense than a bizarre referral to particular names.

Your voice...?
 
I like the flavour-tags more than the others. Mainly because those names gives me more the idea about who those people are. The other names only say where they live.
Names like Mediterranean, Scandinavian and Germanic give me a better idea. I even associate them with things like colors, lifestyles, food and other things.

An example: sausage, fish and tomatoes. I am sure you will associate the same food with the same names as I do.
 
Fully agree with "flavor" naming... ;)

I think that it's important to also follow this in the events. In cases there an event happen due to invasions, royal marriges etc the culture should change a follow the historical change....
 
While it would be nice to have rather "large" cultures, it would also mean less usefulness for the culture conversion thingy...

So I say, go with flavour names.


However, I also have a thought to share:
What if cultures were also slightly divided between countries, such as "Danish" Scandinavian and "Swedish" Scandinavian? The culture in the provinces would be "Scandinavian", but there would also be a value attached to the province measuring how well adapted the province is to the Danish/Swedish flairs of the Scandinavian culture. For instance, Skåne has been owned by Denmark for a long time. Then it changes hands to Sweden. Since both countries have Scandinavian culture, it will get along reasonably well with both countries. However, the Scandinavians in Skåne would most likely be rather attached to what they feel is "Danish" culture, and will resist the idea of becoming "Swedish" Scandinavians (i.e. the province still considers itself culturally aligned with Denmark). It will obviously take some effort from Sweden to make the Skånings accept being incorporated into the "Swedish" culture. The net result would be that while Skåne wouldn't give Sweden the full culture penalty that non-Scandinavians would feel, there would still be a lesser cultural penalty.
 
Originally posted by Jos Theelen
I like the flavour-tags more than the others. Mainly because those names gives me more the idea about who those people are. The other names only say where they live.
Names like Mediterranean, Scandinavian and Germanic give me a better idea. I even associate them with things like colors, lifestyles, food and other things.

An example: sausage, fish and tomatoes. I am sure you will associate the same food with the same names as I do.
Click to expand...

Mmm... food...

Would these be the correct answers?
Sausage - Baloogrillen
Fish - Bäcksjön
Tomatoes - La piccola Italia


If they're not, my secondary guesses would be...
Sausage - German (-wurst...)
Fish - Norway (lots of fishies) or Britain (fish'n'chips)
Tomatoes - France or Spain
 
I'm all for more historical (and flavor) tags---though I'd love to see more specific ones such as Anglo-Saxon, Danish, Norman, Greek, Catalan, Oguz, Celtic etc.

Otherwise, the whole assimilation process wouldn't really make much sense. I can very well imagine a "Catalan" enclave in say, part of Bretagne, but not a "Mediterrenean" culture in the same province.

PS: Really like the fact that cultures can change overtime! Hope you develop this concept further!
 
Sincerely, I prefer Onslaught's idea best.

We have to consider that nationalism in the Middle Ages simply doesn't exist. It will come much later with the Reform and the French Revolution. Yet, we must not fall in the false idea that the people simply didn't care about who ruled them. There were community appartenance to a Liege through sheer domination, language, recognition of authorityand tradition.

I can cite you from "the Damned Kings" a small quote. It is from Gaucher de Chatillon, connetable under five Kings, that hears that Edward III claims the French throne as grandson - by Isabelle - of Philippe IV :

"Jamais France sera à l'Anglois [...]. [La] France ne sera pas à l'Anglois parce que les barons ne le supporteraient pas. Qui doit commander à la France doit avoir du sang de France."

(Never France shall be to the English. France shall not be to the English because the vassals wouldn't cope with it. Who shall command to France must have blood from France.)

So I agree with a more "Regional" flavour linked with "Protonational" values like Onslaught suggested. However, don't make it a nationalism as in EU2, because it would be an anchronism.

I must go to school, so I can't continue further.

Drakken
 
I'd like the flavour cultures, but differentiating Scandinavian cultures would be unhistorical. Culture as a distinct trait in these areas isn't really feasible until the 16th or 17th century.


Specifying the cultures is probably a good thing. Is it possible to define some "cultural closeness" too?
:)
 
Originally posted by Onslaught
If they're not, my secondary guesses would be...
Sausage - German (-wurst...)
Fish - Norway (lots of fishies) or Britain (fish'n'chips)
Tomatoes - France or Spain
Click to expand...

Brilliant. Although I thought later that tomatoes didn't exist in CK-time, so I should have used olives.

I like your story about "lesser cultural penalty", but I assume it is too difficult to implement. Otherwise they should also have used it in EU2.
 
I too would go for the flavour cultures. Especially since they can change over time and the provinces are smaller than in EUII. Expect endless debate on the board though on whether Pommerania should be West Slavic or German in 1066 etc, etc, ad nauseam.:rolleyes:

Maybe you should make some compromise cultures like Scandinavian/ Saami or German/ Polish just to defuse some debates from start?

I would like to say, in agreement with Drakken, that "culture" shouldn´t be overvalued. Religious denomination should be much more important for Crusader Kings than culture.

Cheers,
Vandelay
 
I sorta like Onslaughts idea too.

Like, a parent culture (i.e.-Scandinavian) and a sub culture (i.e.- Danish). Also, when you conquered it as say, the English (Anglo-Saxon) you'd never get rid of the Scandinavian part, but later they could change from Danish to Anglo-Scandinavian. They'd still always be Scandinavian, but this would show that they are English Scandinavian, as opposed to Danish or Swedish...


But I don't know...I've not been feeling well so my brain isn't quite working correctly(does it ever?).
 
Originally posted by Jos Theelen


Brilliant. Although I thought later that tomatoes didn't exist in CK-time, so I should have used olives.

I like your story about "lesser cultural penalty", but I assume it is too difficult to implement. Otherwise they should also have used it in EU2.
Click to expand...


There were many things that "should" have been in EU2, but simply couldn't be put in due to limited amount of time. I don't think a culture system similar to the one I proposed would be too difficult to implement... it's rather a matter of whether it would be considered a good idea, if it mixes well with other game mechanics and (most importantly of all) if they have enough time to make use of it in CK (otherwise I hope they'll remember the idea for future titles).
 
Originally posted by Vandelay
I would like to say, in agreement with Drakken, that "culture" shouldn´t be overvalued. Religious denomination should be much more important for Crusader Kings than culture.
Click to expand...

Agreed; culture was much less important than religion during this time.

One might wonder if they'll implement the idea of having different religions having "shares" of the population, such as a province being 70% catholic, 20% pagan and 10% orthodox...
 
Originally posted by AncientPharaoh
I sorta like Onslaughts idea too.

Like, a parent culture (i.e.-Scandinavian) and a sub culture (i.e.- Danish). Also, when you conquered it as say, the English (Anglo-Saxon) you'd never get rid of the Scandinavian part, but later they could change from Danish to Anglo-Scandinavian. They'd still always be Scandinavian, but this would show that they are English Scandinavian, as opposed to Danish or Swedish...
Click to expand...

And then, in the conversion from CK to EU2, having such provinces could result in getting more starting cultures to reflect how well another culture is handled (if England had Anglified some Scandinavians in Denmark, England would get Scandinavian country culture)...
 
I am in favor of the flavor names for cultures.

Expanding Onslaught's idea and stretching it in a different direction - have absolute cultures and mixed cultures. That is a province could start out as an absolute culture and once taken by someone of a different culture have them both after a certain period of time and then the absolute culture of the conquerer after a longer period of time.

As an example - say Sicily starts out with Arabic culture (o.k. I know at the beginning the Normans are there too - but this is just an example). Then if the Normans conquer a province in Sicily it becomes Arabic/Norman culture after 20 years and then in another 20 years it is entirely Norman culture.

The disadvantage is of course that you would have to apply any bonus or negative amounts in proportion for any calculations that are made i.e. any tax bonus gained by having a province of your onw culture would have to be halved during the time when cultures were mixed. And as a further impediment - what would happen if a monarch of a third cultural group conquered the territory during the time when the culture was a mixture?

As far as religion being more important than culture - I disagree. Religious differences were a great cause of hatred and war etc. But among people of the same religion culture/nationalism/tribal affiliation was extremely important. Just use the 100 Years War as an example of one culture hating another. And I use nationalism not in a modern sense of nations but meaning "based on where you came from".
 
I have spotted four good ideas in the discussion above, which is very very pleasing. To let all forumites voice their ideas, we'll wait for tonight and then I will post (a) our list of cultures (b) rough explanation on how cultures change.

Yes, when you conquer there is a transition period. Yes, it depends on the size of the province you captured (if you swallow too much, shouldn't you run the risk of having *your* culture dissolved in the newly accepted heritage?). More details tonight!
 
Originally posted by Sonny
I am in favor of the flavor names for cultures.

The disadvantage is of course that you would have to apply any bonus or negative amounts in proportion for any calculations that are made i.e. any tax bonus gained by having a province of your onw culture would have to be halved during the time when cultures were mixed. And as a further impediment - what would happen if a monarch of a third cultural group conquered the territory during the time when the culture was a mixture?
Click to expand...

You might solve it by simply having the "attempted cultural change" (to use another name for the process) fail, i.e. the local population reacts to the unstable times by holding on tighter to that which they know, their older traditions - the "new" culture is not yet solidified in the province and would quickly go out the door if a new dominant culture comes along.

This is very based on the assumption that a change of culture would simply be like "converting" the existing population, rather than being an effect of population immigrating to the province.
 
Originally posted by Sonny
As far as religion being more important than culture - I disagree. Religious differences were a great cause of hatred and war etc. But among people of the same religion culture/nationalism/tribal affiliation was extremely important. Just use the 100 Years War as an example of one culture hating another. And I use nationalism not in a modern sense of nations but meaning "based on where you came from".
Click to expand...

I take it you support that between countries of the same religion, tension would be based on culture, while it would be based on religion when between countries of different faiths.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back