Feature request : Dead Cultures and religions

[Arona]

CK2 world all cultures and religions what are in game are somewhat represented in game map. But in CK# there would be like dead cultures and religions what can be revived, by focusing learning. And after character finds religion, culture they like they can start to adept it and after that start to promoting it on his/her real, so totaly alien cultures and religions can take place in world.

And cultures should also have some secrets that character can linger in like military tactics or economy doctrines that can be used.

 

[Patriarch of Bub]

Reviving a religion is more plausible than reviving a culture.
If you have knowledge on the set of beliefs of a religion you can revive it, but reviving a culture would require knowledge of its way of life and a huge effort just to force yourself to practice it.

In ck2 Greeks and Italians can become Roman because those cultures are tied. It would be impossible to revive and adapt to a dead culture tho which your current one has no ties whatsoever.

 

[Nykyus]

Possible events:
To the King of Hungary: your hunters in the dense forest discovered Attila's cache.
For the Slavic leader: your treasure hunters stumbled upon Scythian gold.
For the Greek historian: your shepherds found ancient scrolls in one of the Pelasgian temples.
For the Varangian leader: the followers of the ancient God settled in the forest near Kiev, who carry out human sacrifices to Perun (the Slavic-Baltic god).

 

[Metz77]

I'd like to have dead cultures implemented in the game even if there's no way to access them in a regular playthrough — if there's going to be a ruler designer for CK3 (and I can't think of any reason why there wouldn't be, even if it's not there at launch) I'd like to have access to them to play a sort of "last of his race" sort of thing. I actually modded Ostrogoths into CK2 so I could do such a thing.

It would also be nice to have them if we end up with a randomized world feature like in Holy Fury.

 

[StormKoala]

I like this idea, but it seems like it would be better suited as a "down the road" sort of thing, rather than something to spend resources on in the base game.

 

[Will Steel]

Cultures of the game timeline should always have priority.

"Dead" cultures/religions should only come as extra additions later on, when devs have time to spare for them.

 

[Nyrael]

No. Roman Renaissance is already pushing it to facepalm levels.

 

[Metz77]

Cultures of the game timeline should always have priority.

"Dead" cultures/religions should only come as extra additions later on, when devs have time to spare for them.

I definitely agree with this.

 

[RedBaronFlyer]

No. Roman Renaissance is already pushing it to facepalm levels.

I could buy some Italians cosplaying as Romans in the earliest start dates but even then that's pushing it.

 

[omega20056]

There are a few nearly dead cultures that could be added. I'm not sure if they still existed, but there might have still been Gepids living on the Hungarian plain in the 700s or 800s. Gothic may also have still be spoken in parts of Spain and the Balkans in the same era. There is an account of a priest from the 840's who records the presence of Germanic speakers near Constantia and the Danube. The priest himself was Germanic, but doesn't reference the language as being the type of German he spoke. If Goths were still living there, they could have been in contact with the Crimean Goths, or even been them, since Constantia isn't too far from Crimea by boat. There is also a reference in an Islamic account to a language being spoken around Sirte in the late 700s which the Arabs weren't familiar with. It wasn't Latin, Greek, Berber, or Coptic, since the Arabs were familiar with all of those. The suggestion then, is, could it have been Punic? It might be far-fetched to think so, but Sirte was part of Carthage, and it's not too ridiculous to think a few holdouts could have survived into the early middle ages. There's also a suggestion that Lombard may have been spoken in parts of Venetia until 1000, but again, it's just speculation.

One thing that needs to be added this time is the early Romance languages. We need Hispano-Roman, Gallo-Roman (Unlike what CM tells you, Frankish was only spoken in eastern Gaul, near the Rhine), Italo-Roman, Daco-Roman, Illyro-Roman, Thraco-Roman, and Afro-Roman. Romano-British was probably gone by the 800s, but it could be added as a bonus in the character creator. Vandal could also be added to the character creator for anyone who wants to try an African conquest.

 

[mrinku]

I think it would be a mistake for them to dilute development on this at this stage.

Modding is still being supported, and frankly this sort of thing is probably best left to that right now.

In a couple of years, after they've caught up with patches and DLC? Sure.

@omega20056, your points are interesting, but CK3 will have a starting point of 867, so 8th century considerations are likely not a concern. The trace survival of languages doesn't really matter much among the upper crust that are the characters of Crusader Kings and whom will be speaking Latin, Arabic and politically dominant languages such as French between themselves (or just learning the language of whatever court they end up in). Culture <> Language, though I'll agree it's a major component.

 

[Zhetone]

I could buy some Italians cosplaying as Romans in the earliest start dates but even then that's pushing it.

the way I see it, the rulers are pushing noble customs from Roman times - if they've "re-formed" Rome, especially, it might make sense that they adapted Roman cultural customs, at least in the court, to have legitimacy or to promote ties with the past. I guess it depends how far you see "culture" extending in CK2, which was always a weird thing and hard to define. For example, are they just using Latin in the court, or are they speaking it all the time?

 

[Patriarch of Bub]

Regarding the use of Latin and Roman culture, Italy in 769 and 867 is interesting, though was really messily implemented in ck2.

In 769 the Italian peninsula is ruled by the Lombard kingdom, which as in the other cases of barbarian kingdoms built on old Roman lands in the west, is made up of a foreign hegemony ruling over latin speaking people.

Back when I first enquired about this (I joined the community after Charlemagne), I was explained that Lombard culture was used as a sort of proto-Italian/old Italian culture.

I always found this very messy, because Lombard and Italian culture coexist in the earlier start dates meaning that proto/italian and later medieval Italian are both present at the same time. This further hurt as the name list in the Italian culture are very representative of the 13th century on.

Unlike Visigothic in Spain which is in the Iberian culture group, representing the adoption by the foreign elite of the local customs, Lombard which has a similar setting was left in the Germanic group rather than the Latin group.

I realise that this isn't a problem with Italy alone, but I make my case where I can make it most convincingly.

England gets Anglo-Saxon + the celtic cultures, later Anglo-Saxon can develop into English via Norman.
Scandinavia gets Norse, later split in 3 different cultures.

Why Italy doesn't get a late Roman culture in pre-1066?
It's not the same Roman of antiquity. It's not the same Roman adapted through the Roman renaissance. It's the Italian Romanity of late antiquity, which hardly ever gets mentioned due to the Greeks claiming any and all Roman heritage.
It was no coincidence, but based on this heritage, that where feudal power became weak republicanism sprouted all over in Italy!

Calling it Roman could cause conflict with the adoption of the Roman renaissance.
Calling it "Late Roman" would be weird as no other culture would have a similar description, though I'd accept it, as it wouldn't be wrong.
Maybe just Latin would be better. Funnily I'm not even arguing for a dead culture :/

 

[IlikeTrains]

This is a terrible idea, which distracts the developers from the cultures and religions important for the period. Example: after Holy Fury CK2 seems to have more flavour for a revival Hellenic culture than for Eastern Christian religions.

 

[RedBaronFlyer]

Maybe just Latin would be better. Funnily I'm not even arguing for a dead culture :/

Latin would work nicely, in my opinion. It would be separate enough from the Roman culture to avoid confusion, doesn't have a weird name (compared to other cultures in the game) like "late Roman" or "Romano-Italian", and at least from my point of view, I view it as being a distinction that it's not quite Italian of the later centuries. Still, it isn't full-on Romanized Latin of prior centuries.

I believe mods like CK2+ or HIP do this if I recall correctly.

 

[Metz77]

Regarding the use of Latin and Roman culture, Italy in 769 and 867 is interesting, though was really messily implemented in ck2.

In 769 the Italian peninsula is ruled by the Lombard kingdom, which as in the other cases of barbarian kingdoms built on old Roman lands in the west, is made up of a foreign hegemony ruling over latin speaking people.

Back when I first enquired about this (I joined the community after Charlemagne), I was explained that Lombard culture was used as a sort of proto-Italian/old Italian culture.

I always found this very messy, because Lombard and Italian culture coexist in the earlier start dates meaning that proto/italian and later medieval Italian are both present at the same time. This further hurt as the name list in the Italian culture are very representative of the 13th century on.

Unlike Visigothic in Spain which is in the Iberian culture group, representing the adoption by the foreign elite of the local customs, Lombard which has a similar setting was left in the Germanic group rather than the Latin group.

I realise that this isn't a problem with Italy alone, but I make my case where I can make it most convincingly.

England gets Anglo-Saxon + the celtic cultures, later Anglo-Saxon can develop into English via Norman.
Scandinavia gets Norse, later split in 3 different cultures.

Why Italy doesn't get a late Roman culture in pre-1066?
It's not the same Roman of antiquity. It's not the same Roman adapted through the Roman renaissance. It's the Italian Romanity of late antiquity, which hardly ever gets mentioned due to the Greeks claiming any and all Roman heritage.
It was no coincidence, but based on this heritage, that where feudal power became weak republicanism sprouted all over in Italy!

Calling it Roman could cause conflict with the adoption of the Roman renaissance.
Calling it "Late Roman" would be weird as no other culture would have a similar description, though I'd accept it, as it wouldn't be wrong.
Maybe just Latin would be better. Funnily I'm not even arguing for a dead culture :/

Italic, maybe?

 

[Patriarch of Bub]

Latin would work nicely, in my opinion. It would be separate enough from the Roman culture to avoid confusion, doesn't have a weird name (compared to other cultures in the game) like "late Roman" or "Romano-Italian", and at least from my point of view, I view it as being a distinction that it's not quite Italian of the later centuries. Still, it isn't full-on Romanized Latin of prior centuries.

I believe mods like CK2+ or HIP do this if I recall correctly.

Oh could be, i have never tried either of those mods, but i think WTWSMS has a Latin culture too which whether i remember right or not it's where i got the suggestion name "Latin". Should probably have mentioned that, sorry.

Italic, maybe?

Italic isn't wrong. Heck it's not like "Italian" would be, though it's already used up.
To my understanding, Italic is used for the indigenous people of Italy prior to Roman unification.
I have imperator on my steam wishlist, so I hope to get it soon

 

[treb]

There are a few nearly dead cultures that could be added. I'm not sure if they still existed, but there might have still been Gepids living on the Hungarian plain in the 700s or 800s. Gothic may also have still be spoken in parts of Spain and the Balkans in the same era. There is an account of a priest from the 840's who records the presence of Germanic speakers near Constantia and the Danube. The priest himself was Germanic, but doesn't reference the language as being the type of German he spoke. If Goths were still living there, they could have been in contact with the Crimean Goths, or even been them, since Constantia isn't too far from Crimea by boat. There is also a reference in an Islamic account to a language being spoken around Sirte in the late 700s which the Arabs weren't familiar with. It wasn't Latin, Greek, Berber, or Coptic, since the Arabs were familiar with all of those. The suggestion then, is, could it have been Punic? It might be far-fetched to think so, but Sirte was part of Carthage, and it's not too ridiculous to think a few holdouts could have survived into the early middle ages. There's also a suggestion that Lombard may have been spoken in parts of Venetia until 1000, but again, it's just speculation.

One thing that needs to be added this time is the early Romance languages. We need Hispano-Roman, Gallo-Roman (Unlike what CM tells you, Frankish was only spoken in eastern Gaul, near the Rhine), Italo-Roman, Daco-Roman, Illyro-Roman, Thraco-Roman, and Afro-Roman. Romano-British was probably gone by the 800s, but it could be added as a bonus in the character creator. Vandal could also be added to the character creator for anyone who wants to try an African conquest.

to add to that you missed Pannoinian Latin which probably went extinct in the 9th or 10th century and British Latin held out last in St Albans where the Saxons called them Verulamacæstir and they were still apparently as thing in ck2s Charlemagne start date.
Off from latin's there was Britonia, a Brittany style refugee state in Galicia.

honestly there are tons of intresting little cultures in ck2s timeframe that the game cant really represent.

 

[Krajzen]

Maybe that's very controversial opinion but I think the ability to revive hellenic religion in late ck2 is way too much breaking believability and historicity of medieval period. And something so stupid shouldn't be developed due to comparable waste of resources when there are so many fields of the game that could be made more fun and more historical in the same time.

I mean, yeah islam is underdeveloped despite being either as important or more important in this time and space as christianity (I'd still argue Europe was laughably backwards until like 11th century when it started catching up). But yeah sure, let's instead devote more resources to complete fantasy of reviving pagan religion dead for centuries, or even worse abomination, literal fantasy satanist cult.

Although my tastes are shaped by the design and development of civilization VI which went just further and further in arcade mechanics utterly disconnected from any sort of historical immersion, and I am slightly paranoid of that slippery slope.

At the very least, please make actually important religions in a decent state on release (or during earlier patches), before we go full alterante history fantasy.

 

[Patriarch of Bub]

Maybe that's very controversial opinion but I think the ability to revive hellenic religion in late ck2 is way too much breaking believability and historicity of medieval period. And something so stupid shouldn't be developed due to comparable waste of resources when there are so many fields of the game that could be made more fun and more historical in the same time.

I mean, yeah islam is underdeveloped despite being either as important or more important in this time and space as christianity (I'd still argue Europe was laughably backwards until like 11th century when it started catching up). But yeah sure, let's instead devote more resources to complete fantasy of reviving pagan religion dead for centuries, or even worse abomination, literal fantasy satanist cult.

Although my tastes are shaped by the design and development of civilization VI which went just further and further in arcade mechanics utterly disconnected from any sort of historical immersion, and I am slightly paranoid of that slippery slope.

Why controversial? You have some good points.
Yes Hellenism is fan service, but you do get a game rule for that, and you could take all the Roman decisions as a Christian save for the warrior lodge.

No point in arguing whether Christianity or islam were more relevant, because they both were/are relevant.