Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

AGC-EEP Definition of "Culture"

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Or the knights simply don't get their capitals culture... either way isn't that bad. I really doubt that the AI would be capable of invading anything from Malta even if they got arab culture. And a player wouldn't need to have arab culture, since the knights start out on Rhodes. They simply get arab by event if their capital is on Malta.
 
No way should the Knights get arab culture. Why do they need the culture of their capital anyway? I don't really understand why they get Maltese - seems to me they should just get French and leave it at that.
 
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Should there be any one province cultures? Excluding Albania, I can't think of any good reason for one.
Click to expand...

The Caucasus harbours a shipload of quite distinct cultures, but that area is relatively impossible to represent accurately anyway.
 
Originally posted by Avernite
But that would mean the Knights get arabic culture, and I already see a catholic Alexandria on the horizon with that ;)
Click to expand...
Well, I have a Catholic Delta in my current game :D (Not my work, I'm afraid...)

Anyway: I can't see why Maltese shoudl be removed. If there are too few cultures around I'd rather see some non-used culture (like e.g. Aleutian) get butchered...

As to the knights they were mostly French or Italian and used French and Italian as official languages during the period. I'd let them keep both, but if only one of them should be kept I'd agree with Isaac on French.
 
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Should there be any one province cultures? Excluding Albania, I can't think of any good reason for one.
Click to expand...
Hmm not that i can think of...though i do have a 2 province culture for Rajputanian...well i think it'll be 2...it may be more though....
 
Originally posted by Sun_Zi_36
i oppose dividing the french or german cultures. unless someone can persuade me why the practical penalties are warranted.
Click to expand...

France is ahistorically powerfull, having the South of France be represented as a different culture would weaken France to a certain extent, At some point France would gain this "Occitanian/Southern-France" culture thus strengethening them as they should be later in the game.

Germany is much to easy to conquer and rule peacefully by other german nations. In order to simulate the unrest and divisiveness that existed in Germany at the time 3 german cultures would make it harder to conquer all of Germany, and reduce the power of any state that did control them.

Late,
Jester
 
Originally posted by Jester
France is ahistorically powerfull, having the South of France be represented as a different culture would weaken France to a certain extent, At some point France would gain this "Occitanian/Southern-France" culture thus strengethening them as they should be later in the game.
Click to expand...
I rather disagree, France was the dominate power of the period. It was the successes of the English prior too and after the start of the game that kept them from asserting themselves.
 
I still see no reason unless were gonna do give scottland highlands and lowlands there own seperate one to simulate the same results your talking about for trance and germany.
 
Originally posted by Jinnai
I still see no reason unless were gonna do give scottland highlands and lowlands there own seperate one to simulate the same results your talking about for trance and germany.
Click to expand...

Well that could be a possibility, but I dont really see the need for that, because Scotland does not really have the potential to go on an ahistorical annexation spree like France will do in nearly every game.
I would propose the splitting of the French culture to hinder France's early GC potential, and to perhaps keep Savoy independent a little longer. There is also a linguistic/cultural basis to splitting the French culture along the North/South lines.

The changes I am proposing are not based just upon cultural differences (I know that Lowland/Highland Scots were quite different and could probably be considered a different culture) they have a basis in the game play first of all.

Late,
Jester
 
Originally posted by Jester
Well that could be a possibility, but I dont really see the need for that, because Scotland does not really have the potential to go on an ahistorical annexation spree like France will do in nearly every game.
I would propose the splitting of the French culture to hinder France's early GC potential, and to perhaps keep Savoy independent a little longer. There is also a linguistic/cultural basis to splitting the French culture along the North/South lines.

The changes I am proposing are not based just upon cultural differences (I know that Lowland/Highland Scots were quite different and could probably be considered a different culture) they have a basis in the game play first of all.

Late,
Jester
Click to expand...
I think if you would make the shields more historical for the time period instead of starting them with shields all over modern-day france.
 
Originally posted by Jinnai
I think if you would make the shields more historical for the time period instead of starting them with shields all over modern-day france.
Click to expand...

I definitely agree with that.
But a splitting of French culture might also be need.

Late,
Jester
 
Originally posted by Jester
France is ahistorically powerfull, having the South of France be represented as a different culture would weaken France to a certain extent, At some point France would gain this "Occitanian/Southern-France" culture thus strengethening them as they should be later in the game.

Germany is much to easy to conquer and rule peacefully by other german nations. In order to simulate the unrest and divisiveness that existed in Germany at the time 3 german cultures would make it harder to conquer all of Germany, and reduce the power of any state that did control them.

Late,
Jester
Click to expand...
surely u wouldnt think that is enough to persuade me (if u r trying to)? there are unrest and divisiveness in many parts of the world where different cultures are NOT warranted. i also dont think reducing the power of any state that did controll all of Greater Germany is historically justified.
 
Originally posted by Jester
I definitely agree with that.
But a splitting of French culture might also be need.

Late,
Jester
Click to expand...
Maybe, but i say only after taking away their shileds first and testing that to see how it works. If it still seems unblanced to most people, then i'd support it.
 
Originally posted by Jinnai
Maybe, but i say only after taking away their shileds first and testing that to see how it works. If it still seems unblanced to most people, then i'd support it.
Click to expand...

What shields are you talking about? They already have lost their initial shields on Lorraine, Artois and Provence in EEP 1.4. I cannot see which other shields (except those on Brittany and maybe Roussillon) could sensibly be taken away.
 
Originally posted by Sun_Zi_36
surely u wouldnt think that is enough to persuade me (if u r trying to)? there are unrest and divisiveness in many parts of the world where different cultures are NOT warranted. i also dont think reducing the power of any state that did controll all of Greater Germany is historically justified.
Click to expand...

Why? No one during the EU2 time Frame was ever able to accomplish it, it should be much harder than it is now to do.
Some people are also working on some Fantasy events for the Unification of Germany, these events could give someone that was able to do this and hold onto it for a certian amount of time the other German cultures, eventually making a truly united Germany.

Originally posted by Twoflower
What shields are you talking about? They already have lost their initial shields on Lorraine, Artois and Provence in EEP 1.4. I cannot see which other shields (except those on Brittany and maybe Roussillon) could sensibly be taken away.
Click to expand...

I would definitely support France not starting with Brittany or Roussillon. But Maybe France should also not start with shields on any of their vassals, since they really did not annex those territories until they were inherited I beleive.

If France started with no shields on any of those territories, and then only acquired them thru the appropriate inheritance events, that could go a ways towards weakening France.

Perhaps a splitting of French culture would not be needed then.

I wouldn't have a problem with only splitting French culture up if the reduction of shields doesn't help.

Late,
Jester
 
Originally posted by Jester
Why? No one during the EU2 time Frame was ever able to accomplish it, it should be much harder than it is now to do.
Click to expand...
i fail to see why the link between cultural divisions and difficulty to conquer should be automatic. yes, it should be much harder to unify Germany, but is that enough to justify dividing its cultures? niether were Italy, Scandinavia, Iberia, the Slavonic area nor Indonesia ever united during the EU2 timeframe, so my question, why should Germany be treated specially? just bcoz an area is easy to conquer doesnt mean they should have the same culture (e.g. regions within the Austrian, Russian, Chinese, Ottoman, Indian, British Empires), and i think it is true to say that just bcoz an area is hard to conquer doesnt mean they should have different cultures. giving a new culture must be for some more compelling reasons.

another reason u raised was to reduce the power of any state that did unite all of Germany. that is clearly against what history had told us, where a state able to reunite Germany was so powerful that it greatly disturbed the existing balance of power and posed a huge threat in Europe. i dont even know why i need to say this, indeed the whole history of the last century was shaped by it. ...
 
Originally posted by Jester
I would definitely support France not starting with Brittany or Roussillon. But Maybe France should also not start with shields on any of their vassals, since they really did not annex those territories until they were inherited I beleive.

If France started with no shields on any of those territories, and then only acquired them thru the appropriate inheritance events, that could go a ways towards weakening France.

Perhaps a splitting of French culture would not be needed then.

I wouldn't have a problem with only splitting French culture up if the reduction of shields doesn't help.

Late,
Jester
Click to expand...
Yes that's what i meant. No shields on the vassals until they inherit them or maybe some alternative way, but none to start with except on France proper.
 
Originally posted by Jinnai
Yes that's what i meant. No shields on the vassals until they inherit them or maybe some alternative way, but none to start with except on France proper.
Click to expand...

There will be no more French vassals in the new HYW setup Sire Philippe created. However since it will generally give France a much harder time fighting back against the English, there might be hope that general balance will be much better without any further changes (not to likely though since it does not actually weaken united France).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back