As Slovak I think that Nitra (Slovakia) should be in Slavic culture group and not in the Carpathian one (in the same culture group as Hungarians)...

[Tom Corvus]

As Slovak I think that Nitra (Slovakia) should be in Slavic culture group and not in the Carpathian one (in the same culture group as Hungarians), because just simply calling Slovak person a(n upper) Hungarian is considered as one of the biggest insults in Slovakia and saying that in a tavern, you would be asking for beating (in the better case, of course). Slovaks were oppressed by Magyars (Hungarians) for 1000 years and at latter part of their oppression they tried to Magyarize us, but they failed more than less because of WW1 (in which Slovaks sought to fight side by side with Serbians and Russians. (True) Slovaks never considered themselves as Hungarians, just listen to the Slovak language that it is similar to Czech, Polish and other Slavic languages and definitely not to Hungarian (which is Ugro-Finnic btw (Uhorsko=Hungary (in Slovak language until end of WW1)).

 

[Vin55]

Cultures are pretty wrong 4/5 of slesia should already be in the german group and 1/3 of prussia should be slavic, the turks should be with the other turkic people lile azerbaijan and Luxenburg should be german speaking, some parts of the swiss french and so one^^. I agree that it would make more sense but then hungarian would be to weak as a culture. I would make it so that slovakian is in the hungarian but give bohemia and Poland a decision to make it into their group when owning it. The same with slesian, for the germans, much like the manchu ones.

 

[macky527]

Cultures are pretty wrong 4/5 of slesia should already be in the german group and 1/3 of prussia should be slavic, the turks should be with the other turkic people lile azerbaijan and Luxenburg should be german speaking, some parts of the swiss french and so one^^. I agree that it would make more sense but then hungarian would be to weak as a culture. I would make it so that slovakian is in the hungarian but give bohemia and Poland a decision to make it into their group when owning it. The same with slesian, for the germans, much like the manchu ones.

I would say that purely using language for culture groups with no other metric snt the best idea
ie. Turkish should be an isolate, as Azerbaijani fits better with Persian (Azerbaijani Ardabil formed Persia)

 

[macky527]

The easiest solution would be to move Slovak to the West Slavic group, but have Slovak as an accepted culture to cpmpensate Hungary

 

[Tom Corvus]

I agree that it would make more sense but then hungarian would be to weak as a culture. I would make it so that slovakian is in the hungarian but give bohemia and Poland a decision to make it into their group when owning it. The same with slesian, for the germans, much like the manchu ones.

How could Magyars (Hungarians) be weak, if they have their faithful friend: the Kaiser? Plus, Magyars literally just came here out of nowhere, pillaged and conquered us and there was no such culture as Hungarian one all around, trust me.

 

[Tom Corvus]

The easiest solution would be to move Slovak to the West Slavic group, but have Slovak as an accepted culture to cpmpensate Hungary

Slovak is already an accepted culture in Hungary.

 

[Mr.Grizzly]

Cultures are pretty wrong 4/5 of slesia should already be in the german group and 1/3 of prussia should be slavic, the turks should be with the other turkic people lile azerbaijan and Luxenburg should be german speaking, some parts of the swiss french and so one^^. I agree that it would make more sense but then hungarian would be to weak as a culture. I would make it so that slovakian is in the hungarian but give bohemia and Poland a decision to make it into their group when owning it. The same with slesian, for the germans, much like the manchu ones.

Hard to say on Silesia since we don't have much data, I could see 2 of the provinces being German but 4 is too many and would reduce Silesian to one province, German settlement really sped up under Austrian and Prussian rule, ideally there would be missions for both and Germany to start settling Western Slav territory

Yeah the Kashubs are missing from Wolgast and the Teutonic Order, part of forming Prussia should be converting the non-Germans of the land, ideally would be expanded to Livonia against the Baltic people

Agreed, Azeri and Turkish should be in an Oghuz group, could add Gagauz and Turkmen though that's debatable

Luxembourgish would be nice but the developers are trying to avoid one province cultures, should at least be Rhenish

Arpitan probably should be added and would work for Romance speakers in Switzerland and the French Alps

Hungary should have a difficult time reigning in all the different cultures, they were and still are the odd man out in that region, they came from the Urals after all, and as much as it might annoy Romanians I would still keep them with Hungarian in the Carpathian group for simplicity's sake. Due to the hassle of adding the culture group swap decision, at least according to developers, I think the best solution would be having Slovak moved to West Slavic and giving Hungary a permanent modifier at start which grants an extra culture acceptance slot and is removed if Hungary removes Slovaks as an accepted group, this would represent how Slovaks had been integrated into the kingdom after centuries of Hungarian rule while still granting Hungary the ability to accept more cultures as they expand in the region, such as accepting Transylvanian, Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, Romanian, etc. But if Hungary wanted to, for some reason, they could revoke the accepted status and the modifier would be removed.

I would say that purely using language for culture groups with no other metric snt the best idea
ie. Turkish should be an isolate, as Azerbaijani fits better with Persian (Azerbaijani Ardabil formed Persia)

The Safavid dynasty came from Ardabil but they were not Azeri, they were Kurds and themselves came under heavy Turkish influence. A Turkic (or whatever you want to call it) culture group would work, the Ottomans should have a hard time keeping all the different cultures of the empire as they grow bigger, by running out of acceptance slots, embracing humanism or converting the ethnic and religious minorities, at the least they need to be removed from Levantine and they cannot be put into Iranian for obvious reasons

 

[macky527]

The Safavid dynasty came from Ardabil but they were not Azeri, they were Kurds and themselves came under heavy Turkish influence. A Turkic (or whatever you want to call it) culture group would work, the Ottomans should have a hard time keeping all the different cultures of the empire as they grow bigger, by running out of acceptance slots, embracing humanism or converting the ethnic and religious minorities, at the least they need to be removed from Levantine and they cannot be put into Iranian for obvious reasons

The issue with a Turkic group isnt Azeri, even if Azeri fits better with Persian for gameplay. My issue are the people who try to have every Turkic language as one culture group. Groups like the Uyghurs, Sakha or Kyrgyz are just too different imo to be in the same group as Turkish, and would make poor balance (Ottomans should not be incentivized to blob into the Steppes and Siberia!), and by naming the group Turkic you are implying that all Turkic speakers should belong in that group

Also yes I agree Ottomans shouldnt be in the Levantine Group, thats why Turkish should be a culture isolate (like Korean)

 

[Kane_hun]

Hungary should have a difficult time reigning in all the different cultures, they were and still are the odd man out in that region, they came from the Urals after all, and as much as it might annoy Romanians I would still keep them with Hungarian in the Carpathian group for simplicity's sake. Due to the hassle of adding the culture group swap decision, at least according to developers, I think the best solution would be having Slovak moved to West Slavic and giving Hungary a permanent modifier at start which grants an extra culture acceptance slot and is removed if Hungary removes Slovaks as an accepted group, this would represent how Slovaks had been integrated into the kingdom after centuries of Hungarian rule while still granting Hungary the ability to accept more cultures as they expand in the region, such as accepting Transylvanian, Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, Romanian, etc. But if Hungary wanted to, for some reason, they could revoke the accepted status and the modifier would be removed.

As you pointed out as well, the centuries of Hungarian rule is significant. In my view, there is pointless to talk about an uralic origin, especially when Slovak people have lived in a country with Hungarians for far more at 1444 than with West Slavs. Of course their language is west slavic, but culture is not (only) language, and culture groups should not be thought as language groups. In the end I understand that it is not great that the game presents slovaks and other west slavs as weirdly alien, but I would raise the point that due to shared religion and centuries of living together, hungarians are not alien either. Perhaps some culture-reshuffling (sadly script-heavy on the developer side as they manually create each new culture if it moves a culture group) could be the best via missions for the countries in the region to represent closer connections if another major power emerges in the region, like Bohemia or Poland. (Do consider that the how the Sorbs (and to a lesser degree the Moravians) got assimilated/integrated into Czech, and realistically a very similar fate could have befallen to the Slovak people who were able to develop a distinct cultural identity because they weren't under a Slavic rule, but a foreign one . Of course this is a what-if scenario, but I wouldn't dismiss it as a factor entirely.)

In my view, West Slavic and Carpathian should be in one group called Central European or similar, because the people in these countries were in a close relationship throughout history with personal unions and resulting cultural connections. Some reshuffling in the Balkans might be needed in this case as South Slavic is again deceiving and "Balkanic" or something like that could be a better name with the inclusion of Romanian, for example.

 

[Tom Corvus]

In my view, West Slavic and Carpathian should be in one group called Central European or similar, because the people in these countries were in a close relationship throughout history with personal unions and resulting cultural connections.

I do not think so, my friend.

 

[Vin55]

Hard to say on Silesia since we don't have much data, I could see 2 of the provinces being German but 4 is too many and would reduce Silesian to one province, German settlement really sped up under Austrian and Prussian rule, ideally there would be missions for both and Germany to start settling Western Slav territory

Yeah the Kashubs are missing from Wolgast and the Teutonic Order, part of forming Prussia should be converting the non-Germans of the land, ideally would be expanded to Livonia against the Baltic people

Agreed, Azeri and Turkish should be in an Oghuz group, could add Gagauz and Turkmen though that's debatable

Luxembourgish would be nice but the developers are trying to avoid one province cultures, should at least be Rhenish

Arpitan probably should be added and would work for Romance speakers in Switzerland and the French Alps

Hungary should have a difficult time reigning in all the different cultures, they were and still are the odd man out in that region, they came from the Urals after all, and as much as it might annoy Romanians I would still keep them with Hungarian in the Carpathian group for simplicity's sake. Due to the hassle of adding the culture group swap decision, at least according to developers, I think the best solution would be having Slovak moved to West Slavic and giving Hungary a permanent modifier at start which grants an extra culture acceptance slot and is removed if Hungary removes Slovaks as an accepted group, this would represent how Slovaks had been integrated into the kingdom after centuries of Hungarian rule while still granting Hungary the ability to accept more cultures as they expand in the region, such as accepting Transylvanian, Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, Romanian, etc. But if Hungary wanted to, for some reason, they could revoke the accepted status and the modifier would be removed.



The Safavid dynasty came from Ardabil but they were not Azeri, they were Kurds and themselves came under heavy Turkish influence. A Turkic (or whatever you want to call it) culture group would work, the Ottomans should have a hard time keeping all the different cultures of the empire as they grow bigger, by running out of acceptance slots, embracing humanism or converting the ethnic and religious minorities, at the least they need to be removed from Levantine and they cannot be put into Iranian for obvious reasons

In Slesia I would say the nothern 3 should be german, after the mongolian invasion and some black death pandemics german settlers where brought in, and by then most cities where German. You could also argue for at least Eager to be in the german group. I agree Luxemburg should be in the Rheinish group, and I would split the swiss into 3 and give the swiss tag plus2 accepted cultures. The French should be in the burgundian group if arpitan is not added. and the italians should be lombard. (I mean if not a new one).
Completly agree with the Turks, Hungarian should just have a special government a little like the mughals if they feel a nerf to their culture would be to hard. Romanian should be in the italian group tbh and the Roman cultures should get the option to merge their culture groups if they control all european provinces of said cultures.

 

[Parmelion]

Slovaks were oppressed by Magyars (Hungarians) for 1000 years

This is just completely wrong on so many levels, a common misconception that many Slovaks think is true. While Hungarians did oppress Slovaks, the oppression only started in the 19th century. Before that, Slovaks and Hungarians had peacefully co-existed for about 1000 years; there were never any major rebellions, no ethnic tension, no secessionist attempts or anything similar, Slovaks simply perceived Hungary as their home nation. This perception only shifted during the Magyarization when Hungarians managed to alienate all minorities with whom they had lived side by side for centuries.

Slovaks should be moved to the West Slavic culture group, but due to completely different reasons than those presented here.

 

[almoravid]

As Slovak I think that Nitra (Slovakia) should be in Slavic culture group and not in the Carpathian one (in the same culture group as Hungarians), because just simply calling Slovak person a(n upper) Hungarian is considered as one of the biggest insults in Slovakia and saying that in a tavern, you would be asking for beating (in the better case, of course). Slovaks were oppressed by Magyars (Hungarians) for 1000 years and at latter part of their oppression they tried to Magyarize us, but they failed more than less because of WW1 (in which Slovaks sought to fight side by side with Serbians and Russians. (True) Slovaks never considered themselves as Hungarians, just listen to the Slovak language that it is similar to Czech, Polish and other Slavic languages and definitely not to Hungarian (which is Ugro-Finnic btw (Uhorsko=Hungary (in Slovak language until end of WW1)).

The group is not "Hungarian" but Carpathian, which are found in Slovakia, not in Hungary. So technically, Slovakia is not in Magyar group, Magyars are in the Slovak group. Cheer for Greater Slovakia!

 

[ValhallArchitect]

I support this, based on historical evidence, it has already been corrected in some mods such as Beyond Typus… which to avoid “unbalance”, retained Hungary as part of the “Romanian group” although not historical.

I’m personally more in favor of a separate Hungarian group but i can understand the balance issue

In the same way, I have long asked to switch Sami and Karelian from Swedish / Russian to the Baltic group

 

[Tom Corvus]

While Hungarians did oppress Slovaks, the oppression only started in the 19th century.

A why do you think there was Juraj Jánošík and his družina (i.e. band/gang) in between 17th and 18th century? It started (at least) little bit earlier than 19th century, my friend.

 

[Parmelion]

A why do you think there was Juraj Jánošík and his družina (i.e. band/gang) in between 17th and 18th century? It started (at least) little bit earlier than 19th century, my friend.

Jánošík is just a romanticised robber, what he did in reality had nothing to do with anti-Hungarian resistance. He was turned into a hero by poets and folk legends.

 

[Tom Corvus]

Jánošík is just a romanticised robber, what he did in reality had nothing to do with anti-Hungarian resistance. He was turned into a hero by poets and folk legends.

First of all, he was an outlaw and not just a regular robber and secondly it does not matter whether it was romanticized or not, what does matter it is that it was an expression of disapproval with Hungarian domination. (By the way, I am just curious, are you Slovak?)

 

[Parmelion]

First of all, he was an outlaw and not just a regular robber and secondly it does not matter whether it was romanticized or not, what does matter it is that it was an expression of disapproval with Hungarian domination. (By the way, I am just curious, are you Slovak?)

Nothing he did was a sign of anti-Hungarian domination. He mostly robbed regular (Slovak) people, clergy and merchants, not Hungarian nobility. Hell, he even joined the Kuruc forces of Francis Rákóczi and fought for Hungary against the Habsburgs.

It is quite clear that your image of Jánošík is the romanticized one, which is far from reality.

 

[Tom Corvus]

Nothing he did was a sign of anti-Hungarian domination. He mostly robbed regular (Slovak) people, clergy and merchants, not Hungarian nobility. Hell, he even joined the Kuruc forces of Francis Rákóczi and fought for Hungary against the Habsburgs.

It is quite clear that your imagine of Jánošík is the romanticized one, which is far from reality.

Either way, I think that it is safe to say that J. Jánošík was quite controversial figure in Slovak history.

 

[ValhallArchitect]

Especially since they now moved Slovak into the “pan Slavic” group if you unify all the Slavs with the new Russian tree

seems stupid that they would not make it part of west Slavic before unifying it in pan-slavic