Tinto Maps #12 Germany Feedback

[Dan29067]

Period of Russification happened in 18th century. Why that should influence the starting position of 1337? There can be events/decisions to change the situation during the game. However start date should not be anachronic, at least as low as possible.

Same is true for German. German Empire unification happened in 1871. why should that be a factor in game? It is not even inside the timeframe.

Decline of the Hansa will be in 15th century. In 1337 it was in its middle age. Why should its future decline influence 1337 position?

Well, I was just pointing out these things as they were the results of processes happening before and during the EUV timeline (at least in the linguistic sphere). From this point of view, it would make more sense to keep the German language unified (to reflect the fact that it eventually developed into one standard German language) than to have an East Slavic "language" that never had a common standard in this timeframe and ended up dividing further, with Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Rusyn languages diverging from Ruthenian. While some events that contributed to this could potentially be prevented, others—like the Reformation—will always happen in the game.

Although I agree with you that the situation in 1337 was more comparable to Low German having much more influence, so your idea of having events to change the situation is interesting, I just don't think there would be any events representing language convergence or divergence in the game; the situation would most likely remain static.

 

[ibvfteh]

But Scandinavia and France don't speak English as their native language.

The European countries who influenced Creole languages don't speak these Creole languages now. All of Germany speaks Standard German, because Standard German isn't a new language, it's just a standardized form of the German language that has existed for a long time.

There is no "borrowing", they are German words that are used in the German language. Hafen and Haben are not different words, it's just that one variant went through the consonant shift, the other didn't. It's still the same German word.

Again, German is not unique here. For example:
In English word "busy" is spelt by the rules of Southern dialects but pronounced like it is from the Midlands
The Russian word that means "how" is spelt by Novgorodian spelling and not by the Moscow spelling. The opposite is true for the word "rain".

Or do you want specifically two versions of the word existing in a language? Billions of those examples in Slavic languages

The formation of Standard German wasn't that modern, it basically started with printing and took hundreds of years, most of which are included in the game's timeframe.
Also you argued that it shouldn't matter that people in the time period considered themselves to be speaking a shared German language. So what is it? Do we look at what happened in the time period or not?

We do whatever is done everywhere by the devs. If they say split because separate standards existed, we split. And Low German from the Hansa standard has already existed for a few years.

Your entire motivation seems to be that you don't like how they portray other languages, so you want German to be wrong too. Rather than an interest in historically accurate portrayal of the German language in the game.

I want it to be unified and not influenced by modern views. If we go with splitting, everything must be split. If we want to merge, everything should be merged. No in-between partial solutions

Do you speak German? Have you read historical German documents from the time period?

Yes, but not native. So I now can't participate in the discussion?

I guess we should create a separate thread tbh, topics became too intertwined, will do shortly

 

[Mef]

Again, German is not unique here. For example:
In English word "busy" is spelt by the rules of Southern dialects but pronounced like it is from the Midlands

And the game has English as a language, not Southern English and Midlands English as separate languages. So what is your point?

We do whatever is done everywhere by the devs. If they say split because separate standards existed, we split. And Low German from the Hansa standard has already existed for a few years.

Speaking of the Hansa, did you know that their official name was Deutsche Hanse (at the time usually spelled Dudesche Hense)? The institution that was responsible for the use of Low German as a lingua franca for trade called itself German. Not Low German or Saxon - German.
Your proposal would split them off from other German-speakers into their own language, which just isn't historically appropriate.

I want it to be unified and not influenced by modern views. If we go with splitting, everything must be split. If we want to merge, everything should be merged. No in-between partial solutions

That makes no sense. We're talking about different languages in different parts of the world here. There is absolutely no reason for why the end result for them would need to be the same.

Yes, but not native. So I now can't participate in the discussion?

I didn't say that, but I don't think you made any arguments based on the historical realities of the German language here. You keep pointing to other languages in the game, rather than addressing the arguments for why German should be a single language.

I don't know anything about Russian so I have no interest in comparing the two. But I know what people in the time period thought about German, and portraying it as a single language makes the most sense.

 

[Lord_Telchar]

I want it to be unified and not influenced by modern views. If we go with splitting, everything must be split. If we want to merge, everything should be merged. No in-between partial solutions

What a weird attitude, there's a mistake, so everything else should be wrong too? Trying to impose the same "rules" on all ingame languages is, I think, the wrong way to go about this. The gameplay mechanics of the various languages should be based on it's individual historic reality, and several people have given arguments which speaks against splitting german based on it's history.
Go to the relevant feedback thread and argue your case for a unified East Slavic language there, this here is the wrong thread for that.

 

[ibvfteh]

And the game has English as a language, not Southern English and Midlands English as separate languages. So what is your point?

I thought you asked for one language examples. What do you want that as an example? Word of Russian origin in Ukranian? Here

What a weird attitude, there's a mistake, so everything else should be wrong too? Trying to impose the same "rules" on all ingame languages is, I think, the wrong way to go about this. The gameplay mechanics of the various languages should be based on it's individual historic reality, and several people have given arguments which speaks against splitting german based on it's history.
Go to the relevant feedback thread and argue your case for a unified East Slavic language there, this here is the wrong thread for that.

I am not here to debate mistake it or not. I want unified standards. If devs started to split by their own internal reasons, they must do it everywhere. That is why I am here. In the feedback of German.

 

[Cuke]

Trying to impose the same "rules" on all ingame languages is, I think, the wrong way to go about this. The gameplay mechanics of the various languages should be based on it's individual historic reality, and several people have given arguments which speaks against splitting german based on it's history.

That's a typical ludology vs narratology debate, isn't it.

 

[Lord_Telchar]

That's a typical ludology vs narratology debate, isn't it.

In a way - but what is "fair" or "consistent" is not strictly obvious either. Say you hold a sports event where you judge the competitors fitness by how fast they can climb a tree - the competitors are a monkey, a fish and an elephant. Is this "fair" or "consistent"?

Whether the two cases in question here are comparable or not is up to certain parameters which will always be arbitrary, and depending on how they are chosen will yield different results. I'm arguing in favour of judging each case by it's own individual parameters, which I think will be better in representing history - others disagree.

 

[Pbhuh]

What a weird attitude, there's a mistake, so everything else should be wrong too? Trying to impose the same "rules" on all ingame languages is, I think, the wrong way to go about this. The gameplay mechanics of the various languages should be based on it's individual historic reality, and several people have given arguments which speaks against splitting german based on it's history.
Go to the relevant feedback thread and argue your case for a unified East Slavic language there, this here is the wrong thread for that.

Alright let's look at it from multiple angles. First the arguments for and against making low German a language .

Pro
Most scholars identify it as a seperate language today with even more of them seeing middle low German, which the game would be representing and old Saxon as a seperate language.
Low German and High German are not mutually intelligible
Low German has a ton of different dialects like High German and other languages
Low German was influential and left marks in the Scandinavian languages with many loanwords

Con
No standardized form
Mostly faded as spoken language and mother tongue apart from rural areas

Now given we have no indication of how it impacts Formation of countries or other game mechanics we can only draw from comparisons.

Spain can form in the game regardless of having multiple languages
Italy can form regardless of having two languages

Now lets look at how people identified themselves,
People saw themselves as German and called their speech German
However, the word is distinctly different between different regional forms of west Germanic

Having a language decline with the fall of the Hanseatic League and the printing press seems to be a pro in favor of adding it as its decline would be an interesting mechanic.

You only keep throwing examples of why it should stay unified in spite of all the evidence and examples shown.

 

[Lord_Telchar]

Most scholars identify it as a seperate language today with even more of them seeing middle low German, which the game would be representing and old Saxon as a seperate language.
Low German and High German are not mutually intelligible
Low German has a ton of different dialects like High German and other languages
Low German was influential and left marks in the Scandinavian languages with many loanwords

scholars disagree on which dialects of german constitute their own language, because there are no clear lines (for example there are some linguists that claim my own native dialect, high allemanic, is it's own language, or even multiple languages, even though most high allemanic speakers would say they simply speak a form of german).

What is well established that there existed (kinda still does, but many dialects are facing extinction) a continental west germanic dialect continuum, that is to say a spectrum of dialects all the way from low german in the north to high german in the south. There are ways to classify these dialects into boxes, some of which meet the criteria of their own language based on some definitions, but there are no clear lines.
For example a common difference between High- and Low german cited is the "High German consonant shift". But languages are not like evolving species with clear established differently evolving lineages - the reality is that the consonant shift sometimes only affected a few words, sometimes most, sometimes got reversed, or shifted to something else entirely. - and low and high (and middle) german continued to influence each other well past the arbitrary (but useful) cut-off point linguists make.
So if we speak about mutual intelligibility, it's not clear cut either - it's dependent on familiarity, closeness, and sometimes weird sound shifts that might make a particular word unrecognisable, even if the dialect is quite close to your own. I sometimes understand a middle or low german speaker better than a high allemanic one. From what I can gather from sources from the time, mutual intelligibility did not seem to be an issue between low, middle and high german speakers.

To cut a long winded response short: the arguments against splitting german are the dialect continuum that existed at the time, and the perception of most german speakers at the time that they all spoke german.

 

[gkbba]

Would

English include a lot of Norse and French vocabulary. And Creole languages is a thing. Languages always borrow words and the artificially constructed languages always have this „dialectal“ feature. I think you can agree that there are not a lot of Ports in High German language area for this word to be used commonly.

I believe every language has words borrowed from other languages or dialects of those languages. It is not a only German thing.

And again why quite modern actions such as Germanisation (in terms of unification of the Language) or Russification are discussed for 1337 situation?

He isnt talking about "borrowing" words from other languages though, which is used in the context of new words entering a language or replacing an old word in some context, it would be weird to say oh, High German borrowed "Hafer" from Low German, given how close the words are already but how words from both dialects were used. Your argument about ports is very curious, given how important ports on rivers have (or at least had) been important for development.

Again, I think this has a lot to do with cultural aspects - which as you correctly mentioned is already an aspect that is modeled, but cant be completely seperated when dividing groups in one or the other category and in such a way that it is more or less adequate for portraying in how the languages evolved as well. Also refer to the post in your thread etc
As for other examples again, they should be treated consistently where possible of course, but for west slavic e.g. I also gave an explanation etc

 

[gkbba]

Alright let's look at it from multiple angles. First the arguments for and against making low German a language .

Pro
Most scholars identify it as a seperate language today with even more of them seeing middle low German, which the game would be representing and old Saxon as a seperate language.
Low German and High German are not mutually intelligible
Low German has a ton of different dialects like High German and other languages
Low German was influential and left marks in the Scandinavian languages with many loanwords
[...]

There doesnt seem to be a consensus on this and if someone today argues for it then your second point is usually a requirement for claiming so, the third point applies to any dialect group that covers a sufficiently large geographical area, and the fourth becomes circular when compared to the alternative(and thus is suboptimal as an argument) as one can just say: "Scandinavian language has a lot of German (every Low German word is also a German word if one assumes its a dialect of the former) loanwords, which they took from the german dialect that is geographically the closest to them" without changing the argument a lot etc.

So I would rather argue for the cons

 

[Sharkseant]

Was only German thought as a single language?
No, z. B. East Slavic was thought as Rus language

Is dialect continuum a only German language thing?
No, every language has it.

Have people communicated freely in other languages?
Yes, East Slavic people did it also

Did only German had shared history?
No, East Slavic also had it.


So there is no reason for German to be united, as other examples of the same phenomenon were deliberately split by developers.

this is more of an Argument for not splitting these others too or for implementing a proper Culture unification/seperation mechanic ideally through the CUlutre war mechanic

 

[Signthe]

The County of Helfenstein, a one location minor between Ulm and Württemberg, was in severe debt at the time of the start date. They ended up selling their lands to Ulm and Württemberg shortly after. Please include that debt in the game.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Helfenstein#History

 

[Doldenberg]

I'm pretty concerned with the population numbers in the original map, which, going by the recent Tinto Flavour on Brandenburg, haven't really been adjusted. [The estimates I have found](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Brandenburg#Demografie-_und_Besiedlungsgeschichte) for Brandenburg are around 200k by 1320, and 308.750 by 1486. Even with the Black Death hitting after game start, 900k at game start is way too much. But if Brandenburg is already off by that much, what about everyone else?

And this seems to be a gameplay problem as well because going by early footage of the game, the german states can just raise way too large armies of levies.

EDIT: Guess this was already addressed.

------------

Another note, I'd really like to see Haus "von Reuß" represented in game. They are descendants of the Vögte of Weida, Plauen and Gera. Heinrich II., Reuß von Plauen originated the name. He was guardian to both Friedrich II. of Meißen, and Ludwig of Brandenburg. Sadly, his own territory is not viable to represent in the game, being part of the current locations of Plauen and Gera. And those two lines did not carry the von Reuß name at the time.
Eventually, those lines lost most of their territory during the Vogtländischer Krieg in 1354-57, to the Wettiner, and then died out, and so their inheritance fell to the von Reuß line. House Reuß continued to rule all the way until 1918, and still survives to this day. One of them also became master of the Teutonic Order.
So I think the name should definitely be included in a name list, and maybe if Meißen/Saxony conquers Plauen, the dynasty in Gera (which would represent the remaining territories that survived until 1918) could switch?

 

[Aldaron]

We said that we would correct them before release and they are already corrected. By the time the Brandenburg Tinto Flavour was released, the changes had not been merged into the main branch. The densities between the different parts of the regions have been also adressed.

Hopefully this banish any concerns regarding this topic.

 

[Signthe]

As one already said, the location von Heidenheim should absolutely be owned by Helfenstein. That's vital and reflects the relative power the von Helfensteins had in this area.

Also if you not already have (not all flags are shown), you should give the Helfensteins their nice and beautiful elephant flag!

According to https://www.leo-bw.de/web/guest/det...Heidenheim+an+der+Brenz+-+Altgemeinde~Teilort:

MT: In 1303, King Albrecht pawned the castle and its appurtenances to the von Rechbergs. Around 1335, Louis the Bavarian gave it to his sons, who had to return it to the Empire after 1349. Charles IV gave Heidenheim to the Counts of Helfenstein, first as a pledge and then as an imperial fief in 1351.

So it was owned by sons of the Emperor at the time.

 

[Inzano]

Regarding Austria, I wonder if it is the first rank of flavor, will it get IOs for Styria, Carinthia and Carniola?

This could also simulate the internal intertwining of the duchies. Feudals like von Cilli, von Ortenburg, Walsee, Duino etc. would be treated as landed tags, but ministerials like von Pettau, von Windisch-Grätz, von Liechtenstein etc. would be treated as building-based tags. These tags would not be shown on the list of princely members of the HRE, but would be represented by Carniola, Carinthia and Styria. Of course, princely members such as the Counts of Gorizia, the Patriarchate of Aquileia, etc. would also be present in these IOs. For example, as the Counts of Cilli historically became Princely Counts, they could have been elevated to the ranks of princes with a sufficiently good relationship with the Emperor. Of course, the ruler of the IO would be the country with the most locations within it, which would be Austria in our case. The ruler can also appoint a governor of one of the countries present (so that he has less work to do with administration). If some other country owns more locations, it would become the ruler of the IO. In the case that the IO no longer has a land-based tag, it becomes the tag of the IO, unless the successful country is already rank 1 of the formed country, in which case the IO is simply dissolved.

What do you think?

 

[Inzano]

Otherwise, I discovered a misinterpretation of the sources. The Lordship of Lož (Laas), on the map location number 31, was owned by Aquileia in 1337.

"Between 1306 and 1308, Lož was illegally occupied by Count Henrik of Gorizia, and was returned only in 1319. Then, in 1321, the patriarch granted it as a fief to the Carniolan provincial governor, Count Mainhard of Ortenburg, who left it to his son Herman III after his death. The latter returned it to the patriarch only in 1335. In 1341, the Aquileian governor in Lož was Dietrich Werdenstein, son of Isolde von Schneberg. In 1342, the patriarch granted the castle in Lož with all rights and the judiciary in a fief to Herman and George Werdenstein. The Werdenstein brothers sold Lož castle with the law firm and the provincial court to the Ortenburgians in the same year."

Source translated from: Janez Šumrada,, »Nekaj iz srednjeveške zgodovine Loža in okolice«, NL I, 1977. (Some medieval history of Lož and the surrounding area)

 

[Polesie Admiral]

shouldnt there be a free city of Donauwörth? also the location of Donauwörth

 

[Polesie Admiral]

Gera should be a monarchy ruled by the Reuss vogts of Gera