CKIII Dev Diary #26 - Map Scope

[Slime99]

By the end of the 7th century, clearly defined tribal dialectical areas—Finns, Tavastians, Karelians(Korela), Northern Estonians, Southern Estonians, and Western Estonians including the islanders—had emerged, the population of each having formed its own understanding of identity.

You could extend this reasoning to the Swedish (geatish, gutnish, swedish), Latgalian (latgalian, selonian, samogitian, curonian) and Lithuanian (auksatian, samogitian). The Finns and Tavastians would be split up as well, and perhaps Udmurt, Zyriane and Permian, and Moksha and Erzya. I believe those decisions shouldn't be made, since those groups were more so tribes, already represented by the abstracted polities.

If it were my will, I would add Kvens. Once biarmians(Bjarmians) added, what are they worse?

Kvens were not homogeneous, they were Karelians, Tavastians, Satakuntans and other groups. It's not even certain there was such thing as a Kven at the time, it was tied to geography and lifestyle. This also begs the question, which culture would Kvens be, if Karelian was it's own culture from Vyborg to Aunus? Or the people in Savo, which saw settlement from Tavastia and Karelia.
Another thing I would add is that the modern Karelian culture and language has had more time to drift away from Finnish and western Karelian culture. They started settling the coast of Viena during the 14th century, at which point the Karelians got split between Novgorod and Sweden in 1323. Admittedly the western Karelians did get further "westernization" from Sweden and Savonian settlers, but the eastern Karelians absorbed many Saami and Veps people as well. It is not entirely truthful to say that the divergence between modern eastern Karelians and Finns is as big as between ancient Tavastians and ancient Karelians. During the middle ages they were a different group from the Tavastians though, and fought many times according to Russian records, but also were in close contact and shared cultural proximity and heritage.

edit:
In conclusion, the Karelian ethnogenesis hadn't fully taken place before late game, nor have the reasons of it occurred yet. It's reasonable to have them as a separate culture from the Finns in EU4. The Karelian culture could perhaps be a late game melting pot, as long as they are under the influence of an Orthodox realm, or otherwise are separated from the Finns.

 

[jmac111286]

View attachment 576526

"And comfortably far from the illiterate horsemen of the steppe..."

I don't like these little jabs you get in, Paradox!

 

[Mrtwos]

You could extend this reasoning to the Swedish (geatish, gutnish, swedish), Latgalian (latgalian, selonian, samogitian, curonian) and Lithuanian (auksatian, samogitian). The Finns and Tavastians would be split up as well, and perhaps Udmurt, Zyriane and Permian, and Moksha and Erzya. I believe those decisions shouldn't be made, since those groups were more so tribes, already represented by the abstracted polities.

Kvens were not homogeneous, they were Karelians, Tavastians, Satakuntans and other groups. It's not even certain there was such thing as a Kven at the time, it was tied to geography and lifestyle. This also begs the question, which culture would Kvens be, if Karelian was it's own culture from Vyborg to Aunus? Or the people in Savo, which saw settlement from Tavastia and Karelia.
Another thing I would add is that the modern Karelian culture and language has had more time to drift away from Finnish and western Karelian culture. They started settling the coast of Viena during the 14th century, at which point the Karelians got split between Novgorod and Sweden in 1323. Admittedly the western Karelians did get further "westernization" from Sweden and Savonian settlers, but the eastern Karelians absorbed many Saami and Veps people as well. It is not entirely truthful to say that the divergence between modern eastern Karelians and Finns is as big as between ancient Tavastians and ancient Karelians. During the middle ages they were a different group from the Tavastians though, and fought many times according to Russian records, but also were in close contact and shared cultural proximity and heritage.

edit:
In conclusion, the Karelian ethnogenesis hadn't fully taken place before late game, nor have the reasons of it occurred yet. It's reasonable to have them as a separate culture from the Finns in EU4. The Karelian culture could perhaps be a late game melting pot, as long as they are under the influence of an Orthodox realm, or otherwise are separated from the Finns.

You could extend this reasoning to the Swedish (geatish, gutnish, swedish), Latgalian (latgalian, selonian, samogitian, curonian) and Lithuanian (auksatian, samogitian). The Finns and Tavastians would be split up as well, and perhaps Udmurt, Zyriane and Permian, and Moksha and Erzya. I

Exactly. Otherwise, this is an extremely political, cultural and abstract unity of the tribes, based on the current borders. Now we have immediately in the 10th century and Latvians, Estonians, until recently, pomeranians and polabians are united.

The Karelian culture could perhaps be a late game melting pot, as long as they are under the influence of an Orthodox realm, or otherwise are separated from the Finns.

So you think that the formation of Karelian ethnogenesis depends on religion?
Karelians have an ancient isolation from the Finns, including due to geographical location.

During the middle ages they were a different group from the Tavastians though, and fought many times according to Russian records, but also were in close contact and shared cultural proximity and heritage.

So it can be said about many cultures represented in CK2.

Then why divide Russian culture, if it was one single alloy, which shared closeness and kinship to each other, if they were only tribal, dialectical groups. According to your logic. Although other peoples participated in the ethnogenesis of Russians (different tribes). The same happened with the Karelians.
Or a question. Why was Polish culture unified in such cases by the 8th century, before the formation of Poland itself and the formation of a single culture? The same can be said about the Curonian, Latgale and Estonians. They are united solely for gameplay reasons (Few Provinces). But they did not constitute a single alloy, they were close, but independent at that time.
The Karelians, in turn, were isolated from the Finns, like the Finns from the Veps. Yes, they were culturally close, but the Vepsians and all the Baltic-Finnish peoples are to some extent related to the Finns. We are not talking about the current situation, but the ancient cultural isolation of some peoples from others.
Otherwise, you can unite all the Baltic-Finnish peoples with the Finns. After all, Estonians interacted through the Gulf of Finland with the Finns. And in ck2, the Vepsians were also part of the Finns and it didn't bother anyone. Did you see the geographical location of the Vepsians and Finns? Given that between them were desert lands inhabited by nomadic Sami. Yes, obviously it was a cultural affinity with the Finns justifies a single culture.
That was sarcasm.

It is one thing when small cultures unite (One province), another thing when creating a kind of political unity, which did not exist. Not taking into account the different history, influence, ethnogenesis and geographical location.

The basis of Karelian ethnogenesis and isolation began in the Iron Age, continued in the 7-8 centuries and ended in the Middle Ages with the advent of the Veps, just at the beginning and the subsequent time, ck.
Russian influence was exclusively political and religious, the main culture was laid before this period. The Western Karelians were subsequently assimilated by the Tavastians, migrating from the Swedish expansion, laying the foundation for the ethnic group of the Savonians.

 

[Slime99]

So you think that the formation of Karelian ethnogenesis depends on religion?
Karelians have an ancient isolation from the Finns, including due to geographical location.

Well sort of, not entirely. The "modern" east Karelians are not the same and only descendants of ancient Karelians. The ancient Karelians formed when western Finnic dialect speakers migrated and merged with eastern Finnic dialect speakers of the area. They started pushing further away from ancient Karelia later on since the 13th century, absorbing Veps in Aunus and Saami in Viena. The Livvi dialect, the most numerously spoken dialect of Karelian, is a Karelianized Vepsian substrate. Christianization does also influence the culture of the people.

Or a question. Why was Polish culture unified in such cases by the 8th century, before the formation of Poland itself and the formation of a single culture? The same can be said about the Curonian, Latgale and Estonians. They are united solely for gameplay reasons (Few Provinces). But they did not constitute a single alloy, they were close, but independent at that time.

I've seen a suggestion to unite Polabian, Polish and Pomeranian or even all of the West Slavs at the earlier startdate so that those cultures would not be predetermined. Lithuanian and Latgalian could be united in a similar manner to "East Baltic" (as opposed to the West Baltic speaking Prussians) later splitting on through meltingpots. Latgale I believe is split in half? Estonia is kind of squished, the tribes could show Livonia, Saaremaa, North Estonia and South Estonia.

The Karelians, in turn, were isolated from the Finns, like the Finns from the Veps. Yes, they are close, but the Vepsians and all the Baltic-Finnish peoples are to some extent related to the Finns. We are not talking about the current situation, but the ancient cultural isolation of some peoples from others.
Otherwise, you can unite all the Baltic-Finnish peoples with the Finns. After all, Estonians interacted through the Gulf of Finland with the Finns. And in ck2, the Vepsians were also part of the Finns and it didn't bother anyone. Did you see the geographical location of the Vepsians and Finns? Given that between them were desert lands inhabited by nomadic Sami. Yes, obviously it was a cultural affinity with the Finns justifies a single culture.

The deal with the Veps is that they got heavy Slavic and Varangian influence, and acted differently politically. For example they adopted the slash and burn method from the Slavs, and became more agrarian and reducing their hunting lifestyle. The Veps would mostly just mind their business under the Rus, unlike the Karelians, who saw the Rus as trade partners and from time to time allies, and tried to retain independence from Novgorod. Veps were also quick to Christianize.

Savo also wasn't uninhabitated, it was getting densely populated by the Tavastians and Karelians during the Viking age, so that removes the physical gap between Karelians and "Finns". Ancient Finns, Tavastians and Karelians also shared a form of burning burial.

wiki:polttokenttäkalmisto [Arkeologisen kulttuuriperinnön opas]

akp.nba.fi

I still believe that tribes represent differently oriented areas of a larger culture good enough, it's not like tribes in CK3 are supposed to represent the smallest family polities. Maybe it would be better for the Finnish culture to be called Finnic, be my guest.

 

[KAMCITY13]

The Great Liao should be an Empire still in 1066 not a kingdom. Hopefully as the developer hinted China will be added they would have Liao as a Chinese Imperial government

 

[Mangi Qahan]

Some place names in the Far East have errors in 867, here are my suggestions for changes
1.Zhenfan
Zhenfan may from a Ming dynasty（1368） name 镇番, in 867 it is called as Baiting/白亭 or Mingwei/明威（The former is the name of the military zone, the latter is the name of the administrative zone）.After being controlled by Tangut/Xi Xia, it was renamed Xiliang/西凉
2.Ijinai
Ijinai/亦集乃 is a Tangut word meaning black water,but in 867, it seems to still be Tuyuhun culture, and it should be more appropriate to call Ningkou/宁寇 according to the Han
3.Wuluhai
Wuluhai may from 兀剌海 ,it also as a Tangut word meaning black moutain,but in 867, it seems to still be Shatuo culture,therefore, as with Ijinai, it is recommended to change the name of the Han to Fengzhou/丰州
4.Xining
The Song Dynasty changed its name to Xining/西宁 after acquiring the area in 1103, in 867 it may called as Kuozhou/廓州，after being controlled by the Tibetan, it was called Gyithang/青唐.
5.Xingqing
Xingqing/兴庆 is first appeared in 1020,also named by Tangut,in 867 it was called Huaiyuan/怀远 or Lingzhou/灵州（The difference between them is like Baiting and Mingwei）

 

[Ain-Soph Aur]

I think I should point out that in 867 and 1066, the concept of Mongolia did not exist. Therefore, the appearance of Mongolian culture and Buryatia culture (a subculture of Mongolia) in the game is very strange. Correspondingly, using the Mongolian "Soyombo" symbol as the banner of the Liao Empire is even more incredible: the culture of the Liao Empire is the Khitay culture, the ethnic group is the Khitay ethnic group, and the totem is the "green cow and white horse", which has nothing to do with Mongolia and Mongolian culture. Using "Soyombo" as the flag of the Liao Empire is as strange as using "Plantagenet" as the flag of Spain ...





The nomadic peoples north of the Great Wall have had many glory. Nationalities of different cultures have risen on this land, and they are declining because of their stronger southern neighbors. The evolution that is eligible to be called an empire is probably: Xiongnu（匈奴）➡Xianbei（鲜卑）➡ gokturks（突厥）➡Khitay（契丹）➡Jurchen（女真）➡molgol（蒙古），Some of them were expelled to the west by the Chinese (such as the Huns and Turks), some were turned into Chinese by the Chinese (such as Xianbei), and finally Mongolia finally conquered China and became a representative of the nomadic people. In any case, Mongolia did not exist in 867 and 1066. In the imperial jurisprudence of 867, it is more appropriate to use Turkic or Uyghurs（回纥）instead of Mongolia. The name that should be used in 1066 is Khitay.

 

[BrokenSky]

View attachment 576547

Regarding Special buidlings: will these be the Realm level buildings they were in CK2 or will it be possible for vassals to hold them? (Possibly dependent on vassal contract rulings?) In CK2 it often felt kinda bad that a strong HRE vassal couldn't have their own great palace or cathedrals unless they were the emperor, for example, even if they had the money to do it.

 

[fr-rein]

Can we get a better Kiev screenshot please?
Also, is Lavra going to be in game?

 

[pengoyo]

Regarding Special buidlings: will these be the Realm level buildings they were in CK2 or will it be possible for vassals to hold them? (Possibly dependent on vassal contract rulings?) In CK2 it often felt kinda bad that a strong HRE vassal couldn't have their own great palace or cathedrals unless they were the emperor, for example, even if they had the money to do it.

Given that most (maybe all) have a holding or county benift in addition to a realm benefit, it looks like they want both the vassal and top liege to both benefit from special buildings in the realm

 

[Undead Martyr]

I'm a little disappointed at the culture setup and the culture leader mechanic seems like just another way to reward blobbing. Maybe have it be a capstone for a learning lifestyle, and go by culture group instead of culture. Hopefully Carinthian culture gets added, in 867 espeically it should stretch much farther north into Austria.
Venetian/Dalmatian/Adriatic too, since they were very clearly distinct from the mainlanders (being much more "Roman"/Byzantine due to escaping lombard dominion and being a de facto Byzantine colony/protectorate).

 

[zz77]

I noticed that one of the regions in Siberia is named "Kuzbas". But it's modern abbreviation of Kuznetsk [coal] Basin. Please, change it to something else.

And other Russian names of modern cities in Siberia and Volga-Ural looks strange too - such as Tomsk, Omsk, Pavlodar, Kainsk, Shchuchinks, Palniki, Glazov, Votkinsk, Orenburg, Durovka, Petrovsk, Atkarsk, Kazanskaya. Same for modern names in Ukraine and Crimea - Odessa, Kherson, Dnipro, Perekop.

 

[es333]

It is also extremely odd that several Estonian counties have modern city names instead of the ancient county names. Narva should be Virumaa and Tartu should be Ugandi.

 

[LordofLight]

It is also extremely odd

I don't. Don't take this as an excuse but just my thoughts on why.

The area they have to cover on the map is insanely huge. And having to get fitting names for everything will mean that a lot of things will fall through the cracks. Most documentation of areas, maps, city names etc being in wildly different languages on top of that.

One can hope that people pointing things out is something they expect and want as it helps outsource area name research. Though I'd imagine they still have to confirm it.

 

[Zhetone]

yes it's expected there will be errors, you have a team of limited size trying to find names for thousands of places on a map and they can't be experts on every region - for a lot of them the research probably amounts to looking at a map and a cursory look at the geography. they can't know every name that is or isn't anachronistic, which is where we come in since we can crowdsource this research; on these forums alone you have people from all over the world who will know more specific details. hopefully they read threads like this and change stuff when they can

 

[LordofLight]

Taking a look at the map, the team responsible for this has a lot on their hands. It wouldn't surprise me if it would take longer to properly research everything on an equal level than to actually make the game.

Lots easier and faster to change/update it later.

This is one reason I'm not a big fan of including China. Imagine how much more stuff they'd have on their hands. Ouch.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Taking a look at the map, the team responsible for this has a lot on their hands. It wouldn't surprise me if it would take longer to properly research everything on an equal level than to actually make the game.

Lots easier and faster to change/update it later.

This is one reason I'm not a big fan of including China. Imagine how much more stuff they'd have on their hands. Ouch.

It won't be just China, which itself is already a huge issue to tackle in portrayal - it will also be Korea, Manchuria, Vietnam, much of Southeast Asia including all of the various Indonesian islands, and depending on if the map extends eastward enough, Japan and the Philippines as well. I think this is a big point people miss when they want China in - there's no way in hell the devs are just gonna plop China in and then leave all the other places empty or filled with silly one count placeholders as they did for places like bumfuck nowhere Siberia, as many of these places were developed societies with varying degrees of advanced administration and politics.

There's gonna be a shitload of research the devs would need to do for all these regions on the province, culture, religion, and historical titles/characters setup alone, even if they want to do the barebones, and that's on top of the other research needed to give justice to these regions' cultures, religions, and politics (even China alone, again, is a huge, huge, huge challenge as the really great discussion on the other thread about China implies).

 

[LordofLight]

Lets not forget how different their language is thus source material is going to be... quite difficult to get your hands on and translate. This is why I advocate for a Asia focused game so that they can actually give the region the time and love it not only deserves but requires.

 

[pengoyo]

It won't be just China, which itself is already a huge issue to tackle in portrayal - it will also be Korea, Manchuria, Vietnam, much of Southeast Asia including all of the various Indonesian islands, and depending on if the map extends eastward enough, Japan and the Philippines as well. I think this is a big point people miss when they want China in - there's no way in hell the devs are just gonna plop China in and then leave all the other places empty or filled with silly one count placeholders as they did for places like bumfuck nowhere Siberia, as many of these places were developed societies with varying degrees of advanced administration and politics.

There's gonna be a shitload of research the devs would need to do for all these regions on the province, culture, religion, and historical titles/characters setup alone, even if they want to do the barebones, and that's on top of the other research needed to give justice to these regions' cultures, religions, and politics (even China alone, again, is a huge, huge, huge challenge as the really great discussion on the other thread about China implies).

To be fair, the main reason I hope the map gets extend to include China is because I really want to play in Southeast Asia, especially Indonesia. It just has such a rich history that lends itself well to CK.

That said, I could see them doing something similar to how they expanded east in CK2. The map being extended, but the wasteland is filled in over multiple expansions rather than all in one go.

 

[cybrxkhan]

To be fair, the main reason I hope the map gets extend to include China is because I really want to play in Southeast Asia, especially Indonesia. It just has such a rich history that lends itself well to CK.

That said, I could see them doing something similar to how they expanded east in CK2. The map being extended, but the wasteland is filled in over multiple expansions rather than all in one go.

I'm Vietnamese (with some distant Chinese ancestry) and I would love to be able to play my ancestors, but I guess I personally don't feel like PI would do it justice (not because they don't want to, but because of the limitations of the game's design). Having wasteland would be a theoretically workable solution, but it would just be bizarre having, say, China all filled in but literally the rest of Asia as giant black voids of nothingness, due to the heavy interactions with these regions - Tibet as a wasteland in CK2 worked because other than the early medieval period, it sort of kept to itself, and it was less populated, whereas with much of Asia we're talking about developed, large-scale civilizations and societies that frequently interacted with China, whether through direct conflict, trade, or the tribute system and influence. I do think Southeast Asia and Japan would fit okay in Crusader Kings' framework though (not that great, if at all, but workable), but China and to a lesser extent Korea and Vietnam I think would be a real big problem, especially given China would be the focus of any potential expansion in East Asia.

I could see maybe filling in Southeast Asia and leaving the entirety of China blank at first, but again that's a little odd to me given China's commercial and political involvement in the region.

I digress.