EU4 - Development Diary - 28th January 2016

[lightvsdarkness]

So I guess Russians are myth, did not existed really?

 

[MacDuffin]

I don't like that Welsh is under then British culture group they should stay with the Celtic group

For a very short time after 1444 Welsh really was a distinct culture, however after the Tudor victory, of which they supported, they quickly fell into English society. Its not that they didn't understand they where different, but more of changing names to suit the English language, as well as adopting English customs. I'm assuming that it was switched because balance, but its also logical since Wales was already influencing English politics and the time, and would have seemed the same to others.

However,

If the Breton's are included in French Culture, there's no reason Welsh shouldn't be in the British group. Besides, really the "Celtic" group shouldn't have existed. You could reasonably put Irish and Highland Scots in one group. And the Welsh and Breton in another group. Irish and Welsh, not so much.

This also makes a lot of sense, since Celtic is a modern term, with two distinct languages being formed. That being Goidelic in Irish/Gaelic/Manx and Brittonic in Welsh/Breton/Cornish, at least in Welsh poetry it seems they made some distinction in being separate cultures.
Focusing on the Goidelic side for EU4 makes more sense to me, they still have a large part to play in the Isles during this time frame even if Gaelic started being "removed" from the highlands in the end. They often always opposed cultural integration with the Irish always lashing out at Britain, and Gaels at first fighting, but then making them distinct via culture in the military.

Anyhow, I think my tldr would be that I really approve of Paradox's decision, I think there is argument that Wales should be separated, but it would mean very little for gameplay.

 

[DENVERSTONE]

what if culture acceptance was dynamic?
you conquer land of different culture and it's acceptance starts to tick up with the speed depending on what % of your total development that culture represents. same way if you loose land of certain culture it's acceptance in your country ticks down.
you just set minimal acceptance between all cultures and from there it will go naturally so no discussions will be needed about who should accept who, right?
for example if Muscovy/Russia never conquers any ruthenian/belorussian provinces their acceptance of those cultures will not change from the minimal set number but if they do it will go up.
so in case of similar cultures if you have say 30% minimal it can reach 100% and if not than 70%
and then just make the cultural acceptance work same way as autonomy modifier
seems like more realistic system to me

i don't think everyone is reading all the pages like i do and most of the posts are complains about a wrong culture placing so i'm quoting my old post to maybe get some comments on what seems to be a viable solution to all our butthurts

 

[GRFenrir]

So, even though you're revamping the culture map the Armenian genocide still happened 500 years earlier?

 

[nicccky]

gib Uganda

 

[Cephei80]

hello!
just a question !!!
my actual savegame of EU 1.15 can run in this future patch 1.16 ????
i have just loose my very long savegame because it was from an old verssion (commen sense) .and i start a new one in 1.15 and i really dont want loose it two in this future patch .
so someone can answer me PLZ !!!!

 

[AbsintheRed]

I know it's not big thing but since you get in with recreation of borders I have some complains. Hope you will consider it

Slavonia
Historical Croatian 'Kingdom of Slavonia' was consisted of today two parts, Slavonia and Srijem(Syrmia) and was situated between rivers of Sava, Drava and Danube.
So you should cut of part of Bacs.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Slavonia01.png



Bacs
It's land between two rivers of Danube and Tisa(Tisza), without Srijem(Syrmia).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...che_Landesaufnahme_Original_Map_1782-1785.jpg



Torontal and Temes
As you can see on picture below Temes(Temesvar) was historical province and it was huge. Western part of that province is called Banat and it's situaded east of river Tisa(Tisza). So it's better that in game province of Torontal should called Banat.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Eyalet_of_temesvar1699.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vojvodina#/media/File:Vojvodina_municipalities_map.png



Somogy
I think it's simply wrong name. It's should be called Baranya(Baranja), a historical province of Hungary.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...che_Landesaufnahme_Original_Map_1782-1785.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/BARANYA.png


Thats all from me. Looking forward for your answer
P.S. Slovaks are Western Slavs

Actually I find the southern province borders of the new Hungary map quite accurate.
All info you posted are from 1700, or later. After the Ottoman rule of the region, and under Habsburg administration.
Not really relevant to the status and population of the area in 1450.
At that time, the eastern part of Slavonia (Syrmia) was mainly populated by Hungarians, Banat was a term more commonly used for territories ruled by Hungary south of the main kingdom, in Serbia, Bosnia, and Oltania (western Wallachia) - ie: Banat of Ozora, Banat of So, Banat of Macso, Banat of Severin, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banat_of_Severin
(note that while the image is from the 13th century, those territories were under rule of the hungarian kings several times between the late 12th and the end of the 16th centuries)

Also Baranya wasn't a commonly used name for any part of the Somogy province in medival times. I would propose naming the province to Pécs though.
It was a very significant hungarian city, with a university established there as early as 1367! It was the 3rd university in Eastern-Europe, after Krakow (1364) and Prague (1348).

 

[stipe]

At that time, the eastern part of Slavonia (Syrmia) was mainly populated by Hungarians, Banat was a term more commonly used for territories ruled by Hungary south of the main kingdom, in Serbia, Bosnia, and Oltania (western Wallachia) - ie: Banat of Ozora, Banat of So, Banat of Macso, Banat of Severin, etc.

Also Baranya wasn't a commonly used name for any part of the Somogy province in medival times. I would propose naming the province to Pécs though.
It was a very significant hungarian city, with a university established there as early as 1367! It was the 3rd university in Eastern-Europe, after Krakow (1364) and Prague (1348).

Well this game starts in mid 15. century but it expands all the way to early 19. century. I suggested borders that would fit for many different outcomes of the game ( border on the river is so much better ). United kingdom of Hungary and Croatia existed until 1526, just a small part of game time.

And I'm not talking about population borders, but regions.

I agree with you about Banat but we can consider it about dynamic province name.

Pecs was and still is mayor city in the region of Baranya. Somogy is name for land near Balaton lake and it is not suitable for this large county. I think that province should be called Baranya with province capital Pecs, rather than whole province called Pecs, thats just silly

 

[stipe]

If you don't know history of specific country than don't write about it

 

[Ri0Rdian]

I see forums must have been too quiet so Paradox decided to mix in Culture a bit ( and create ''paradoxical'' situations ) to stir up some fire...succesfully.

Pour in some water while it is still time!

 

[zdlugasz]

We also made a complete overhaul of how cultures work to remove the ties to language, and tie them more together to similar cultures, to create more historically plausible countries and relations.

Joining other responders, by that logic Byelorussian should be together in one group with Lithuanian and Ruthenian should be divided, where its western part should be in the same group with Polish and eastern in "Russian" group. And of course Polish and Lithuanian should be in the same group and Czech should be in Germanic group, etc. ...

Unfortunatelly it is when you start to apply logic to Pdox decisions when things start to break.

 

[Mingmung]

People need to understand that all of those decisions regarding cultures are purely based on gameplay, not to reflect the REAL cultural/linguistic similarities between people (and even those are hard to define sometimes). Paradox DOESN'T suddenly think that Turks are Arabs. Nor do they think that Slovaks are culturally more similar to Hungarians instead of the Polish, they just included them in certain groups for the sake of gameplay.

GAMEPLAY, folks.

You know, I remember that Breton culture was wiped off the earth in my earlier EU4 games, as well as Basque. But nowadays these cultures live to see the 19th century because they're included in other culture groups. Isn't that great? I think it is. I'm still able to release Navarre and the like. I can give a dozen more examples like this. That's why they change the cultural set-up. For gameplay. Not to annoy all of your inner-nationalists or to deny scientific/historical facts.

So I hope that they stick with the decision. Not to spite some of you, but because it adds to the gameplay. And I'm sure that all of you guys are able to live with it just fine. I, for one, can't wait to carve a beautiful Transylvanian march out of Hungary in my Ottoman RP run!

 

[Galaahd]

What is annoying, though, is to see incredibly irrelevant "countries" like Sligo get unique national ideas (or the same could be said about Theodoro getting its own unique units) whereas other actually relevant countries in Europe are stuck with the awful generic "cultural group" national ideas (and generic models for units).

Paradox, set your priorities straight. It's annoying to see this kind of double standard, to see something being more polished just by virtue of having been added later. If you are going to add unique national ideas to Sligo you need to give every single country in Europe unique national ideas.

 

[Mingmung]

What is annoying, though, is to see incredibly irrelevant "countries" like Sligo get unique national ideas (or the same could be said about Theodoro getting its own unique units) whereas other actually relevant countries in Europe are stuck with the awful generic "cultural group" national ideas (and generic models for units).

Paradox, set your priorities straight. It's annoying to see this kind of double standard, to see something being more polished just by virtue of having been added later. If you are going to add unique national ideas to Sligo you need to give every single country in Europe unique national ideas.

I don't think they prioritize, they just like to boost the fun-factor of small and weird countries (because, to be frank, people actually like those!). I'm sure that more national ideas will come in time, they are already doing a fantastic job lately.

 

[Martin_Mortyry]

People need to understand that all of those decisions regarding cultures are purely based on gameplay, not to reflect the REAL cultural/linguistic similarities between people (and even those are hard to define sometimes). Paradox DOESN'T suddenly think that Turks are Arabs. Nor do they think that Slovaks are culturally more similar to Hungarians instead of the Polish, they just included them in certain groups for the sake of gameplay.

Then they should also do something with "West Slavic" cultural group as it makes no sense for Czechs to be in the same group as Poles historically. Not that I don't like Czechs, I love them and their beer, it's just that we were much closer with Lithuanians at that point in history. Hell, even our dispute over Silesia had become irrelevant as soon as the Commonwealth was created.

And they're actually aiming for historical cultural ties:

We also made a complete overhaul of how cultures work to remove the ties to language, and tie them more together to similar cultures, to create more historically plausible countries and relations.

If that's the case then I hope that featured screenshot doesn't show final version of this complete overhaul, as there is a lot more to change and add if we want the culture groups to make sense in historical context...

Joining other responders, by that logic Byelorussian should be together in one group with Lithuanian and Ruthenian should be divided, where its western part should be in the same group with Polish and eastern in "Russian" group.

... like suggestion from this post.

 

[telge2]

Yeah, paradox,decide!
Anyway there remains a question: Will be Transylvanian culture countries be able to form Romania?

I think they shouldn't, as they shouldn't be able to form Hungary. They have their own country, Transylvania.

 

[Martin_Mortyry]

I think they shouldn't, as they shouldn't be able to form Hungary. They have their own country, Transylvania.

Well, Silesia, highly germanised at that point in history is still able to form Poland, so I don't see a problem with Transylvania being able to form both Romania and Hungary. Slovakia/Nyitra/whatever shouldn't be able to do so though.

 

[War_lord]

The Principality of Transylvania actually maintained Hungarian traditional law for longer then the Hapsburg Kingdom of Hungary did. It would be better understood as a successor state to the medieval Kingdom of Hungary. It was ruled by Hungarian nobles who threw their lot in with the Ottomans over the Hapsburg's. They should be able to form the choice of either Hungary or Romania.

 

[X-Factor]

Then they should also do something with "West Slavic" cultural group as it makes no sense for Czechs to be in the same group as Poles historically. Not that I don't like Czechs, I love them and their beer, it's just that we were much closer with Lithuanians at that point in history. Hell, even our dispute over Silesia had become irrelevant as soon as the Commonwealth was created.

I actually agree with Martin.
If they are going away from language ties, which I don't think is a bright idea. Then West Slavic group at this point is not that relevant. And pdox will have hard time to create groups which satisfie people.
Either rework cultural goups based on distance or split groups to lingual and cultural groups as Martin mentioned in different thread. That is pretty good idea.

 

[Oldpara]

Well, Silesia, highly germanised at that point in history is still able to form Poland, so I don't see a problem with Transylvania being able to form both Romania and Hungary. Slovakia/Nyitra/whatever shouldn't be able to do so though.

Silesia was germanised in late XVIII and XIX. Upper Silesia (represented as Ratibor province in game) was never fully germanised.