I think Poles should get druzhina instead of hussars, since IIRC early-mid medieval Polish kings had them in their service. Hungarians should be changed from hussars to horse archers, and get the same steppe buildings as the Altaic cultures, since in this time period they were very famous for their horseback archery.
While I could agree on the concept, I disagree on the examples given.
Wikipe-tan says that they were created in 1383, which is only just within the scope of the game.
It also says that the Winged Lancers were formed well after the end date of CKII (Mid 16th century).
And I do believe that the welsh culture already gets longbows.
I don't know who came up with cultural 'hussars' for Poles, but that was dilettantism.
This is all the more evident when you look at the 'gusars' for Southern Slavs, who are the real thing, as far as the middle ages are concerned.
Initial hussars in Poland weren't winged yet, and they were light cavalry indeed, recruiting from Hungarians, South Slavs and the rest of them, for whom it was a culture-specific form of military unit. It eventually became the national thing in Poland, jealously considered native Polish and no longer recognized as foreign in any way. But while there was a history of hussars before the winged lancers, it didn't go back before 14th century.
And, Polish knights weren't armed worse than their neighbours or less numerous. Besides, cultural hussars actually have a cultural defence bonus (= better armour?), making their
attack capabilities weaker, not their armour. There wasn't really much of a light cavalry tradition in Poland anyway, as in specifically LC rather than destitute knights.
Back around 1000 AD the 'cultural retinue' of Polish rulers was HC and maybe HI. Basically mounted guys in iron and furs, sort of like mounted houscarls and not far William the Conqueror's knights. Maybe some shieldbearers to go with it — which was a cultural troop but not necessarily the ruler's retinue. Around 1066 it should probably still be more or less traditional like that, although progressing towards modern knights and other appropriate troops.
There are also worse problems with Poland in CK2, including fictitious vassals (entire hereditary duchies that didn't exist) and the fact that random dynasty names reflect Lithuanian and Ruthenian knyez families assimilated under the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Basically Rurikid and Gediminid cadets. I'm surprised that someone who actually knew those names didn't know their meanings and origins... Or didn't care? Because it really is, like, impossible not to know. More like someone just didn't care.
... Where it really isn't hard to come up with a sufficiently large list of authentic period-appropriate names for courtiers and random vassals. Five clicks on Wiki or something.
Plus, Slavs need viceroys, especially Poles. Poles didn't even have the hereditary version. As in okay, the Piast princes were called 'dux' apart from 'princeps', but they were essentially tribal rulers, superficially renamed high chiefs. There were some guys styled 'comes', but that was more like a baron in the game, basically another title for a castellan — whether a royal castellan (burgrave of sorts) or a private one (a castle-owning noble with no title otherwise).
There were no hereditary vassals other than (from time to time) Pomeranian princes, and some great lords rising to a level comparable to CK2 baron. But otherwise only appointed magistrates, not even necessarily for a lifetime. The rulers had an administration apparatus but didn't delegate in the same feudal sense as in the West. The closest thing to mediaeval Poland is when you play it centralized tribal and hold the entire country in your demesne (with some penalties).
