would there be an event in the late 1500s that will change Krasnystaw name into Zamość? as the latter gained importance after its establishment
-
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.
I'm not sure its necessary to make two separate culture groups, one for south-eastern and another for north-eastern ruthenians. As far as I know then there was a dialect continuum from Carpathian Mountains to Pomoriye.
- 2
- 1
- 1
Dialectal continuum doesn't mean same cultural group It just means that people in neighbouring locations speak more simillar languages and differences accumulate with distance (and mentioned continuum didn't stop in Carpathian mountains but continued further west). EU5 timeline is a time where Old East Slavic language stopped to exist and separated into Ruthenian and (Old) Russian languages that weren't that intelligible with each other and there was often need of translators for communication ( like during Pereyaslav Council in 1654 for example). I just think that with more granular approach to cultures in Project Ceasar approach to culture groups should be a bit more granular as well, otherwise why split Ruthenian culture into multiple ones in the first place.
- 2
- 1
I know that language similarity don't always indicate similar cultures, but still is important factor. And my point wasn't that language continuum = mutually inteligable languages in whole area. My point was that is unnecessary to divide east slavic culture group on two blocks because it would be difficult to draw a line between them and would have to be drawn arbitrary. And in my opinion these cultures weren't that different to make two culture groups.
Ps. I'm not against granular approach to cultures but culture groups is another thing.
Last edited:
- 3
Perfidiously ripping off the idea of samurai clans from "Tinto Maps #24 - 25th of October - Japan and Korea", I would like to propose a similar system for magnate families in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In my opinion, EU IV practically did not show how the royal power had practically no control over the nobility, and the nobility had its own army. It would be nice if at the end of the 16th century on the territories of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth noble families spawned, just as reform centers or institutions spawned.
Two maps showing the territory controlled by magnates in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth:
Źródło: Przegląd Geograficzny T. 81 z. 2 (2009), Państwo magnackie w strukturach polityczno-administracyjnych Rzeczpospolitej Szlacheckiej na przykładzie Ordynacji Zamojskiej
Source: Geographical Review Vol. 81 no. 2 (2009), The magnate state in the political and administrative structures of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth on the example of the Zamość Fee Tail
Źródło: Studia z Geografii Politycznej i Historycznej tom 1 (2012), s. 115
Source: Studies in Political and Historical Geography, volume 1 (2012), p. 115
Information on the number of noble troops:
Source: original Wikipedia article in Polish "Wojska prywatne"
Source: translated into English article from Polish Wikipedia "Private Troops"
Two maps showing the territory controlled by magnates in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth:
Źródło: Przegląd Geograficzny T. 81 z. 2 (2009), Państwo magnackie w strukturach polityczno-administracyjnych Rzeczpospolitej Szlacheckiej na przykładzie Ordynacji Zamojskiej
Source: Geographical Review Vol. 81 no. 2 (2009), The magnate state in the political and administrative structures of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth on the example of the Zamość Fee Tail
Źródło: Studia z Geografii Politycznej i Historycznej tom 1 (2012), s. 115
Source: Studies in Political and Historical Geography, volume 1 (2012), p. 115
Information on the number of noble troops:
- 6
- 4
- 1
- 1
I love your suggestion, just a single problem, most of the noble families here don't exist(Radziwiłł) or own buildings in Poland in 1337(Ostrogski), I mean they could pop up in like the age of reformation or something
I mean, wouldn't this be handled better by unique nobility estate buildings?
- 2
I am perfectly aware of this and I agree with your statement "I mean they could pop up in like the age of reformation or something" that's why I wrote "It would be nice if at the end of the 16th century on the territories of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth noble families spawned, just as reform centers or institutions spawned." I have no better idea how to implement it differently
- 1
Special buildings are cool, but I don't think they have the ability to interfere in the internal politics of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth like noble families could. I think these two systems could exist simultaneously
- 1
That's the entire point of estates though? To interfere in your internal politics?
Magnate families being independent tags is super far fetched. The reason why clans in Japan work this way is (at least I'm guessing that it is) because the clans will actually create independent land-based countries during the Sengoku Jidai.
- 2
- 1
It seems to me, although I may be wrong, that it was mentioned that a similar system works for banks. If banks could have separate tags, I don't see any problems for magnates in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to have them as well.
- 2
By itself, this suggestion is fine, but it opens up a gigantic can of worms for basically all countries with a feudal system in place. Modeling all the noble houses and their territories in all of Europe (and then some) will be a lot of work on an already goliath game.
Just take the British Isles for an example:
- 2
- 1
They can make some restrictions, for example noble families that have more than 5000 soldiers. This would significantly limit the number of tags. The number of families that have such a large army would not be so terribly large.By itself, this suggestion is fine, but it opens up a gigantic can of worms for basically all countries with a feudal system in place. Modeling all the noble houses and their territories in all of Europe (and then some) will be a lot of work on an already goliath game.
Just take the British Isles for an example:
- 3
That'd be a good filter, but as there was basically no middle ground in the PLC when it came to nobility, in such a system only the magnateria will be represented, leaving out the rest of the absolute majority of the vassals.
The introduction of one system would not have to automatically eliminate others. I do not see a problem why the estate system could not collectively represent the rest of the nobility. It is known that the magnates had the greatest influence in the country, and parties such as the family were gathered around the magnates, in this case the Czartoryski family, or the hetman party, which literally sometimes used the name magnate party
Source: Wikipedia article "Familia (political party)"
Source: Wikipedia article "Hetmans' Party"
- 2
The reason that banks are tags is because they will be the main/only source of loans (especially in the early game I'd imagine) that countries will have. Their function is not domestic but international. They will conduct diplomacy, fund different sides of wars, etc etc.
The nobility, even the PLC magnates, are basically an entirely domestic force. Their private armies, political power, and land ownership could all be modeled through the estate mechanic, including unique estate buildings, that would give the noble estate private armies (that you could rely on to constitute a large part of your nation's regular army, but that would turn on you if your noble estate ever rebelled against you).
It doesn't make a lot of sense, either for historical and gameplay reasons, for specific powerful noble families to exist as tags - because tags should be reserved for entities that will have a solid gameplay loop and will conduct diplomacy and wars (and not bloat the game even more without adding enough value).
- 1
Not during the Deluge when the magnates acted as basically independent forces switching allegiances back and forth
- 3
I gave banks as an example. It could just as well be the Hansa or the orders. Magnates can also conduct diplomacy:
1.
Source: Wikipedia article "Treaty of Radnot"
2. War of the Polish Succession
Source: Wikipedia article " War of the Polish Succession "
3.
Source: Wikipedia article “Civil war in Poland (1704–1706)”
There are a few more examples, but I don't feel like explaining and citing sources. You can probably find all of these examples on Wikipedia:
4. Targowica Confederation
5. Lubomirski's rebellion
6. Zebrzydowski rebellion
7. 1587 Polish–Lithuanian royal election
8. Lithuanian Civil War (1697–1702)
9. Bar Confederation
They have many possibilities for interesting mechanics:
1. They would have lands on which they could build,
2. They could also buy new lands.
3. They would have an army that they could use,
4. They could legally form coalitions against a new law or ruler like in Crusader Kings called "confederations",
5. Confederations could legally rebel with arms called "rokosz",
6. They could create political parties such as "familia", "hetman's party", or "patriot party",
7. After the ruler's death they could vote for a new ruler and even for nobles from their dynasty: "Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki", "Jan III Sobieski" or "Stanisław Leszczyński",
8. They could vote in the Sejm and pass new laws.
9. They could use the right of liberum veto and break up the Sejm.
In CK2, in the DLC The Republic, there was the option to play as wealthy noble families in the republic, who didn't own land. I think mechanically it has potential on a similar level.
Source: CK2 Wiki article "Merchant republic"
Attachments
- 2
Dude, you are seriously not engaging with me at this point.
Do you really, and I mean really think that these examples have merit?
The Radziwiłł case was basically the Swedes setting up a puppet state with a local powerful noble in place. That's your example of magnate families playing an important role in diplomacy? A puppet with nearly no agency that had basically no impact on how that conflict played out? What vital game function is this supporting?
Everything you mentioned otherwise are mechanics that should be within estate mechanics. Leszczyński was part of a succession war. Succession wars will happen, and we already have characters in the game.
CK2 is a completely different game, it's built around characters. We already have so much granularity here. I don't want as expansive of a character system. Imperator was already kind of a nightmare with all the governors and characters that I couldn't memorize the names of or keep track of. We already have more than 300 countries in the HRE alone. You now want to represent important noble families with tags? When we already LITERALLY have the estate mechanic for this explicit thing?
Literally everything you are talking about - parliament, rokosz, civil wars, noble armies, noble estate owning land and spreading their influence and power, different noble factions and characters, all of this can be modeled with estate mechanics and estate buildings, which we know will be in the game. They should not be independent tags. Foreign governments can already support rebels, maybe one day we'll get bigger mechanics where you can intervene in other countries' domestic politics.
There is absolutely no need to spend development time researching all of this and adding all these families as tags. Furthermore, I think it will be just bloat that will detract from the game. How about we ask for good estate mechanics instead? All of the stuff you are referencing would be cool in the game, but it shouldn't be implemented as tags.
- 3
- 2
After all these years, we finally have it; the Sęgoków dzidaj!
- 3