• 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.

Montem

Major
68 Badges
Oct 12, 2014
585
224
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Magicka
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Humble Paradox Bundle
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Cities: Skylines
  • War of the Roses
Hello lovely Paradoxians!

For those of you who have seen me post before, many of you know I'm a big supporter of an overhaul of the cultural system that currently exists in Crusader Kings II. One of my biggest issues is simply that there is no way to get an ending culture map of CK2 which looks anything like that of EU4, which isn't always a bad thing, but the ability to create similarities simply doesn't exist. Let me next say I am not suggesting a Railroading system. I'm simply suggesting re-grouping and re-working along with additional Culture mechanics that could be implemented into the game to create a more enjoyable experience that better reflects the time period.

Culture Groups - Penalties

Culture groups are a really fantastic idea which I feel have a very poor implementation in CK2. When a province with the same culture group is controlled by another group within the culture, 1% revolt risk is received. If it is controlled by another culture group, 2% revolt risk is received. This gives very little encouragement to prefer/not worry about provinces within one's culture group. To give an example, while a Pomeranian may be upset that a Polish leader rules their land, wouldn't they be more upset if a German ruled their land? Additionally, wouldn't they be less upset if they were ruled by a Polish count? Or a Pomeranian count? With a Bohemian duke under a German king?

Here is a table that reflects the culture of the various levels of ruler and the impact on revolt risk that occurs if they are of the Same Culture, Same Sub-Group (I'll explain that in a bit), Same Group, or Different Group.

3QTaeQy.png


Below are a few calculation to give some idea of the increased revolt risk:

All Greek Count/Duke/Emperors controlling a Serbian province:
12% - 5% Count + 4% Duke + 3% Emperor

All Greek Duke(Titleholder)/Emperor controlling a Serbian province:
8% - 5% Duke(Titleholder) + 3% Emperor

What about if the ERE were to put Serbian Dukes and Counts on a Serbian province:
0% - -2% Count + -1% Duke + 3% Emperor

And a Croatian Duke and Serbian Count:
2% - -2% Count + 1% Duke + 3% Emperor

What does this do for the gameplay though? Well first off, higher cultural revolt risks should increase the stack size that spawns as a revolt in the province. Additionally, it makes it much harder to go and conquer other culture groups without installing most of the rulers as the same culture as the provinces for a while. For example, as can be seen above when an Emperor puts in Dukes and Counts of the same culture as the province there is no revolt risk, while even having just a count there reduces the revolt risk significantly.

But we also don't want to be playing whack-a-peasant, as it get quite tedious and annoying. So after defeating a revolt all provinces with the same culture get "Upset ______ Peasants" modifier, decreasing the revolt risk by 10% but also lowering the tax income and levy size by double the % of the original revolt risk.

This also encourages to have same Group/Sub-Group cultures simply be left alone, as there are no negative modifiers so long as you keep the peasants happy.

After reading all of this, you might be thinking, this is an interesting idea, but what were you saying about Groups and Sub-Groups and all of that?

Culture Groups - Culture Groupings

Yes. The Groups themselves. Right now in game the groups are really weird. We have groups that cover huge, sprawling language families, such as Altaic, which also has small, specific cultures within it, while we also have groups like Central German, which usually ends up including... German. Here comes the idea of the Group/Sub-Group, which I think is self explanatory when viewed below:

Group: Germanic

The Germanic Group is the group for Germanic peoples/languages. Pretty straightforward. This group contains the North, Central, and West Germanic sub-groups.

Sub-Group: North Germanic

Probably the easiest group of the three to start with would be North Germanic in that it contains the same four cultures as currently, along with the same methods for conversion from Norse (be under the correct Kingdom).

  • Norse
  • Norwegian
  • Swedish
  • Danish

Sub-Group: Anglo-Saxon

Alright. Here we go.

  • Northumbrian
  • Mercian
  • Anglian
  • English
  • Scots

Anglo-Saxon has been split up into Northumbrian, which covers Northumbria, Lancaster, and York, Mercian, which is in Mercia, Hwicee, and the north half of Essex, and Anglian, which is in East Anglia, the south half of Essex, Kent, and Wessex. ANY Francian culture (no, not just Norman, otherwise English will never happen) will convert these into English. Any Anglo-Saxon language will convert a Scottish province to Scots.

Sub-Group: Continental Germanic

Alright. Here we go again.

  • Frankish
  • Burgundian
  • Frisian
  • Saxon
  • Swabian
  • Bavarian
  • Dutch
  • Franconian
  • Lorranian
  • Pomeranian
  • Prussian

Continental Germanic is a new group made from the fiery ashes of the Central and West Germanic groups in Vanilla. The first three languages on the list, Frankish, Frisian, and Burgundian, are three languages which are designed to disappear.

Frankish occupies parts of Frisia, Germany, Middle Francia, and France (see the 769 map for clarification), and represents where the actual Frankish peoples had settled and where their language was spoken. Important here is to understand the cultural diffusion: Anything WEST of the Rhine becomes Lorranian, anything in Frisia becomes Dutch, anything else will become Franconian.

Burgundian changes when either adjacent to another Romance province or controlled by Romance leaders. Gallo-Romance leaders and nearby provinces will cause Burgundian to become Bourguignon, while Occitano-Romance leads Burgundian to become Provencal.

Frisian when ruled by another Germanic ruler will become Dutch.

Swabian, Bavarian, and Saxon all start in their respective regions of Southern Germany/West Bavaria, East Bavaria, and Saxony, respectively.

Lorranian, Franconian, and Dutch all form out of Frankish (and Frisian for Dutch).

Pomeranian and Prussian form out of Germanic control of the respective Balto-Slavic provinces.

Regarding conversion, Lorranian becomes Rhinelander, Franconian becomes Hessian(maybe Hannoverian?), Swabian becomes Bavarian, and Bavarian becomes Austrian.

Group: Romance

The Romance group is for the 4 subdivisions of Romance languages; Gallo, Occitano, Italo, and Ibero.

Sub-Group: Iberian

Right now I'm grouping the Romance languages by actual groupings and not location. Basque is added to Iberian to avoid Isolate issues.

  • Iberian
  • Galician
  • Leonese
  • Castillian
  • Mozarabic
  • Portuguese
  • Basque (Reluctantly for continuity and the general avoidance of Isolates)

Iberian replaces Visigothic as Iberian Vulgar Latin. This language is set to split very quickly, with some based on Religion and some based on location. In the north, de jure Galicia and Portugal provinces will flip to Galician, and de jure Leon and Castille provinces will flip when ruled by a Christian. Iberian provinces ruled by a Muslim will first flip to Mozarabic and progressively Andalusian, which has been moved to Arabic. Mozarabic is also formed by an Ibero-Romance leader controlling an Andalusian province. As for Portuguese, that is formed by a Galician ruler controlling a Mozarabic province.

Sub-Group: Occitano-Romance

Occitano-Romance is the language most closely related to Latin, with the least Celtic, Arab, and German influence out of all the languages, hence why the initial language is Latin for this group.

  • Latin
  • Occitan
  • Catalan
  • Gascon
  • Provencal

Aragon and Aquitaine start as Latin, but quickly change. Latin quickly flips to Occitan and Catalan in Aquitaine and Aragon, respectively. Gascon is formed in Basque provinces controlled by Occitano-Romance rulers, while Provencal is formed in Burgundian or Borgugonian provinces controlled by Occitano-Romance rulers.


Sub-Group: Gallo-Romance

Gallo-Romance are the O'il langauges, most often associated with French.

  • O'il
  • Cosmopolatine
  • Bourguignon
  • Norman
  • Wallonian

O'il is the replacement for the Vulgar Latin speaking section of northwest Francia. When ruled by a continental Germanic, O'il becomes Cosmopolatine, while it becomes Norman when ruled by, or after a MTTH during a siege of (proportionate by the size of the raiders) a province by Northern Germanics. Provencal or Burgundian provinces controlled by a Gallo-Romance leader become Borgugornian, while Lorranian or Dutch provinces controlled by a Gallo-Romance leader become Wallonian.

Sub-Group: Italo-Dalmatian

Splitting up Italian and making Italy more fragmented! Yay!

  • Italo-Romance
  • Lombard
  • Venetian
  • Tuscan
  • Umbrian
  • Neapolitan
  • Sicilian
  • Dalmatian
  • Romanian

This is a duchy based cultural breakup. All of Italy starts as Italo-Romance, and Dalmatia as Dalmatian. By this time the Lombard rulers were already speaking Vulgar Latin. Carthinia, Venice, and Verona become Venetian, everything else in north Italy becomes Lombard. South Italy north of Latium becomes Tuscan, along with Sardinia, while the area around Latium becomes Umbrian. North Sicily becomes Neapolitan, and south Sicily becomes Dalmatian. South Slavic provences controlled by an Italo-Dalmatian ruler become Romanian.

Group: Celtic

Celtic with the iffy Pictish and small swaths of land. Enjoy. Sub-Groupings may not be necessary.

Sub-Group: Gaelic

Northern Celtic which originates from Ireland.

  • Irish
  • Scottish
  • Manx (Because why not?)

Ireland is Irish, Mann is Manx. Scottish works the same as now but Manx works too. Yay.

Sub-Group: Brittonic

Southern Celtic which originates from Britain.

  • Breton
  • Welsh
  • Cornish (Again, why not?)
  • Pictish (This is iffy because while it is more than the others considered Brittonic Celtic, it's also be called Gaelic Celtic, Germanic, and an Isolate. Yay.)

Scotland (Pictland) starts Pictish. Cornwall is Cornish. Wales is Welsh. Brittany is Breton.

Shocking and exciting changes for Celtic, I know.

Group: Byzantine

This one is more of a marriage of regional Cultures as opposed to language groupings.

Sub-Group: Greek

Greek is split up into Dialects. Probably one of the less historically accurate ones if anyone wants to help with that.

  • Ionian
  • Demotic
  • Pontic
  • Cappadocian
  • Koine
  • Doric

Greek has been split into a mess of dialects that I'm afraid to mess with more, if anyone with more knowledge of this has any suggestions please share them. Right now Koine is Dirrachion, Thessalonika, Epiru, Thrace, and Adrianopolis. Ionian is in Athens, Achiaia, the Agean Islands, and Crete. Demotic is in Nikea, the north half of the Agean Islands, Samos, Cibyrrhaeot, and Thraceisa. Trezbonid, Armeniacon, and Paphlagonia are Pontic. Charsilagon, Cyprus, Cillicia, and Anatolia are Cappadocian. Greek Sicily is Doric.

Again, help with this would be appreciated since technically everything should start Koine but then too much becomes Demotic for very little reason.

Sub-Group: Caucasian

I dare you to look at the modern language map of the Caucasus. I DARE YOU. Just the other three languages that tend to die under Byzantium.

  • Alan
  • Armenian
  • Georgian
  • Gothic
  • Dagestani
  • Circassian

There are the same. It's nice. Not the confusion of Greek.

Gothic was added per suggestion, would be in the Duchy of Cherson.

Dagestani was also added per suggestion on the west border of the Caspian Sea. Circassian is the Northwestern Caucases.

Sub-Group: Mediterranean

I had to put Coptic on here.

  • Coptic
  • Syrian
  • Palestinian

Unsure of what to call the last two, the three are Greek-influenced languages in their respective Kingdoms (Jerusalem, Syria, Egypt) that change when Arabs control them.

Group: Balto-Slavic

Get excited. East Slavic is the only interesting one.

Sub-Group: South Slavic

Added Macedonian which can also be removed, questioning to add Albanian but its insignificance is making me question this.

  • Vlach
  • Macedonian
  • Bulgarian
  • Serbian
  • Croatian

Pretty much the same, Macedonian is created when Bulgarians control Greek provinces.

Sub-Group: West Slavic

Can you feel me avoiding it? CAN YOU?

  • Sorbian
  • Old Pomeranian
  • Bohemian
  • Polish (Should this be split into Pole and Mazovian, while Polish is formed under the Kingdom of Poland?)
  • Silesian

Sorbian is in Meissen/Brandenburg/Mecklenburg. It and Old Pomeranian flip to Pomeranian when controlled by a Central German. Silesian is when Bohemian province is controlled by a Polish leader and vice-versa. Also starts out in the duchy of Silesia. The rest is the same.

Sub-Group: East Slavic

Can you feel me avoiding it? I'm leaving the tribal East Slavic cultures in for now since I have no clue how to deal with them other than making them all into a blob that splits into other Languages.

  • Ilmenian
  • Severian
  • Volhynian
  • Krivichs
  • Vyatlchs
  • Dregovichs
  • Radimichs
  • Drevylanianas
  • Polyanians
  • Ulichs
  • Tiverians
  • Ruthenian
  • Russian

Rather than with German influence, Russian forms under a unified Rus, and Ruthenian under a unified Ruthenia. If anyone wants to argue you're welcome to.

Additional tribal cultures added per the image below.

index.php


Sub-Group: Baltic

The last piece of the Balto-Slavic group. Or is it the first? I'm not sure.

  • Old Prussian
  • Lithuanian
  • Lettigallian

Same as before because of province density.

Group: Uralic

Basically Samoyed gets excluded without this. Replacement name for Finno-Urgic.

Sub-Group: Finnic

Finland!

  • Finnish
  • Estonian
  • Lappish

Sub-Group: Samoyedic

  • Samoyed

Sub-Group: Magyar

  • Hungarian

Sub-Group: Ugric

More-Not-Finland! (It's not really Urgic but there's no better name.)

  • Mordvin
  • Khanti
  • Komi

This group is missing a lot of cultures that would otherwise exist due to province density in the area.

Group: Altaic

Yeah. I've been writing this post for a long time. If you're still reading this I appreciate it, we're almost done.

Sub-Group: Mongolic

Hordes.

  • Mongol

Sub-Group: Oghur

It's a thing for real this time. None of that Uralic stuff.

  • Avar
  • Khazar
  • Bolghar

If it's never needed Hunnic can go here, or for the history files to make things interesting.

Sub-Group: Oghuz

This one should look familiar.

  • Azerbijani
  • Pecheneg
  • Turkish
  • Ottoman

Azerbijani and Ottoman are formed in Georgia/Alania/Armenia and Anatolia/Greece, respectively, when there are Turkish things there.

Sub-Group: Kipchack

I'm not making this up.

  • Karluk
  • Cuman
  • Kirghiz

Karluk doesn't belong here but better here than anywhere else.

The whole Altaic section should be looked at for the converter fyi, Orghuz is not all Turkic languages.

Group: Afro-Asiatic

This may be split in two in the future.

Sub-Group: Arabic

The Fertile Crescent.

  • Levantine
  • Mashriqi
  • Aramaic
  • Najidi (Renamed Bedouin, as this is a language, not a peoples)
  • Hijazi
  • Omani
  • Egyptian
  • African

This one is pretty straight forward, the last two are still for courtiers. Levantine is now more widespread and occurs when Bedouins control Palestinian/Syrian territory it becomes Levantine, Aramaic can become Mashriqi or Levantine depending on where it is. Coptic becomes Egyptian. Berber languages can become African.

Sub-Group: Hebrew

I have a bias towards these cultures :)

  • Ashkenazi
  • Sephardi
  • Karaite

More flavor for Courtiers.

Sub-Group: Cushitic

Ethiopia. A re-named East African.

  • Ethiopian
  • Nubian
  • Somali (Technically a Semitic language, please offer your thoughts below)

Sub-Group: Berber

Starting culture for North Africa

  • Tuareg (Tunisia/Algeria)
  • Atlas (Morocco)
  • Nafusi (Libya)
  • Mande (Should this be here to make the Mali more playable?)

Another of where if you know better please share.

Group: Indo-Iranian

This may be split in two in the future.

Sub-Group: Iranian

This is messy and a work in progress.

  • Balochi
  • Mazanderani (South Border of the Caspian Sea)
  • Pashto (Name of the Afghan language)
  • Farsi (Western Persian)
  • Avestan (North/Eastern Persian, Language of the Zoroastrian Scriptures)
  • Kurdish

Right now I only have the Iranian sub-group, but I think it's pretty well described, feel free to post more questions/comments about this one.

That's actually it for now. I'll probably make updates as I get more information and suggestions, but yeah.

For those of you wondering what happened to Persia and the two Indian groups, I may group Iranian and Indo-Aryan into Indo-Iranian. As for Dravidian and Mande they can have a conversation with me when they want to start being in one of the European language families. (I kid, I'm just unsure of how to deal with them, all suggestions are appreciated).

Below is are modified culture maps for 769, 867, 1066, 1220, and 1337. Descriptions for changes on each will come soon. Please remember that I haven't yet looked at Indo-Iranian groups.

qdVHY2r.png


A summary of the map:

France is now Gallo-Romance rather than Frankish.
Occitain & Barcelona are Latin rather than Visigothic
Iberia is Ibero-Romance rather than Subei or Visigothic
Burgundy is Old Burgundian
Italy is Italo-Romance rather than Lombard
Franconia has become Frankish
Alemmania and Tyrol and Baden are Swabian
The rest of Bavaria is Bavarian
Sicily, Greece, and Anatolia are split between the Greek Dialects
Crimea is Gothic
Mesopotamia/Syria is Arameic
Syria is Syrian
Jerusalem is Palestinian
Egypt is Coptic
The African states are their respective African languages
Arabia is split into Hedjazi, Nadjizi, and Omani
Persia is split into Coastal, West, and East
West Pommerania is Sorbian
Silesia is Silesan
England is split up into its respective Proto-English languages

Please share any questions/comments regarding culture. I know that some of this is probably wrong so PLEASE tell me so! Thank you :)

tDxLIza.png

Lo1zQM2.png

Zr5D26e.png

4ezJeFD.png
 
Last edited:
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
Upvote 0
Unsure of how to implement them though. Put them in the Caucasian cultural sub-group maybe?
I put them into the Byzantine culture group because they were very dependent on the Byzantine Empire, but they could also go into a new East Germanic culture group or the above mentioned Caucasian culture group (They would fit really well alongside the Alans).
 
I think there needs to be a Gallic Roman culture somewhere. The Gallo-Romance language was the main precursor to French.
 
It would probably make more sense for the Somalis to be in whatever group you put the southern Arabians. They may have been black, but they were culturally closer to Arabia than they were to any of the cultures in the Highlands. Even today they are not to similar and tend not to like one another, but they get along just fine with the Yemenis.

And if you're in the mood fro melting pot or just general cultural suggestions, there could also be a "Rus-friendly" version of the Steppe tribes inside the Russian group. A large amount of the Black Caps were culturally under Kiev, with appanages on the Ros and lands from the Dneister to the Dneiper.
 
I don't think that Polish should be a culture pre-1066. Even as late as 13th century, within the Kingdom of Poland itself, "Pole" was a term used for people from Greater Poland, while the rest of the locals identified themselvses with old tribes - Mazovians, Vistulans, etc.
 
Vlach is NOT a Latin culture, Vlach would be better off in the Byzantine or South Slavic group, despite its characters speaking a Latin language.
 
I put them into the Byzantine culture group because they were very dependent on the Byzantine Empire, but they could also go into a new East Germanic culture group or the above mentioned Caucasian culture group (They would fit really well alongside the Alans).

Added :)

At least Occitan, Provencal and Catalan should be at the same group. There should be a own group for this. They were closer to each other than to French or Castilian.

You are right. This is why I mentioned the idea of adding an Aragonian culture in Aragon for a general flip, but when near an Occitain province maybe it will flip to Catalan? I'm unsure of how to handle it, and right now the groups are regional as opposed to language groupings, as then Northern and Southern Italian would also be messy.

I think there needs to be a Gallic Roman culture somewhere. The Gallo-Romance language was the main precursor to French.

Right now Frankish is kind of Gallo-Roman, the issue is it would be a purely flavour change to have Gallo-Roman be the initial Frankish flip the Cosmopolatine.

It would probably make more sense for the Somalis to be in whatever group you put the southern Arabians. They may have been black, but they were culturally closer to Arabia than they were to any of the cultures in the Highlands. Even today they are not to similar and tend not to like one another, but they get along just fine with the Yemenis.

And if you're in the mood fro melting pot or just general cultural suggestions, there could also be a "Rus-friendly" version of the Steppe tribes inside the Russian group. A large amount of the Black Caps were culturally under Kiev, with appanages on the Ros and lands from the Dneister to the Dneiper.

Regarding the Somalis: I'm hesitant to move just because it would be so detached from another its group and the surrounding group.

As for Steppe Tribes, could you elaborate? I'm more than open to suggestions, provided they can make gameplay accurate, interesting, and not get in the way.

I don't think that Polish should be a culture pre-1066. Even as late as 13th century, within the Kingdom of Poland itself, "Pole" was a term used for people from Greater Poland, while the rest of the locals identified themselvses with old tribes - Mazovians, Vistulans, etc.

I'll look into it, Polish could be split into two with the system I was currently using but not too much more (try to have 2-3 duchies at least per culture with a few exceptions) plus Silesian already forms.

Actually, I take that back. Polish is the best representation for the language spoken during that time in that area, which is the proper representation of what Culture is, unless I'm missing something.

Vlach is NOT a Latin culture, Vlach would be better off in the Byzantine or South Slavic group, despite its characters speaking a Latin language.

It's not a Latin culture. Vlach is a South Slavic culture. Romanian is a Balkan Romance culture and requires a South Slav to be controlled by a Romance speaker.
 
Last edited:
As for Steppe Tribes, could you elaborate? I'm more than open to suggestions, provided they can make gameplay accurate, interesting, and not get in the way.

Towards the later 11th-12th Centuries, Kievan rulers began to use native Steppe tribes on their borderlands as pseudo-vassals in exchange for military service. Most of the tribesman converted religions, and some took Russian names. They also married into Rus families. The idea being that there could be a melting pot type of event for these tribes to represent intermingling with one another, in addition to the closer diplomatic ties that result from closer cultural ties.
 
Towards the later 11th-12th Centuries, Kievan rulers began to use native Steppe tribes on their borderlands as pseudo-vassals in exchange for military service. Most of the tribesman converted religions, and some took Russian names. They also married into Rus families. The idea being that there could be a melting pot type of event for these tribes to represent intermingling with one another, in addition to the closer diplomatic ties that result from closer cultural ties.

But my question is wouldn't that be the same as Culture Conversion already works? Vassals become the same culture, and eventually so does the land they rule as it flows down from the aristocracy?
 
Your post was too big to quote on my phone but I understand what you mean about Frankish. The devs did the same thing by making Visigoth represent the Iberio-Romans but both aren't strictly correct. I think it would be better to replace the Suebi and Visigoth cultures in Spain with Iberio-Roman but keep the rulers Visigoth. The same could be done with most of France. You'd have Frankish characters ruling over a Gallo-Roman majority kingdom. The Frankish culture would still exist in Belgium/Holland/Germany, but would be replaced by Gallo-Roman outside of those areas. Both cultures (Iberio-Roman and Gallo-Roman) would convert to French, Castilian and so on in place of the German cultures (Which would likely die out pretty quick, or in the case of Frankish, convert to a different German culture). The precursor to the Swabian culture could be the vanilla Suebi culture, which could exist in Swabia in 769 but have become Swabian by 867.
 
Your post was too big to quote on my phone but I understand what you mean about Frankish. The devs did the same thing by making Visigoth represent the Iberio-Romans but both aren't strictly correct. I think it would be better to replace the Suebi and Visigoth cultures in Spain with Iberio-Roman but keep the rulers Visigoth. The same could be done with most of France. You'd have Frankish characters ruling over a Gallo-Roman majority kingdom. The Frankish culture would still exist in Belgium/Holland/Germany, but would be replaced by Gallo-Roman outside of those areas. Both cultures (Iberio-Roman and Gallo-Roman) would convert to French, Castilian and so on in place of the German cultures (Which would likely die out pretty quick, or in the case of Frankish, convert to a different German culture). The precursor to the Swabian culture could be the vanilla Suebi culture, which could exist in Swabia in 769 but have become Swabian by 867.

Indeed, the post is very long. I'm going to think about adding a not about keeping the leaders of the remaining Spanish counties as Gothic (maybe Byzantine, maybe Visigothic), though truthfully, at this point only Asturias was ruled by Visigothic rulers. That being said, I did change Spanish culture to Ibero-Gothic, though Ibero-Roman might reflect the people better, and I'll look at making France Gallo-Roman later when I make the 769 Culture Map.
 
But my question is wouldn't that be the same as Culture Conversion already works? Vassals become the same culture, and eventually so does the land they rule as it flows down from the aristocracy?

They didn't become the same culture, though. They became closer, but not the same. What I'm describing is a way to work within the culture system to demonstrate those ties. At the end, they were still Turkic. Just... A little closer in spirit to their neighbors.

You don't have to put it on your list, though. Just spitballin' a suggestion.
 
They didn't become the same culture, though. They became closer, but not the same. What I'm describing is a way to work within the culture system to demonstrate those ties. At the end, they were still Turkic. Just... A little closer in spirit to their neighbors.

You don't have to put it on your list, though. Just spitballin' a suggestion.

Well wouldn't that be the same as what happens when a count of that culture rules over the land? That's the idea.

Also regarding Gallo-Romance/Ibero-Romance:

Occitano-Romance. Technically during the early period there would not be Occitain or Catalan, and the two languages are incredibly simmilar, especially during the game's time period. My question is if I should make Iberian, Francian, Aquitanian, and Italian Romance groups in order to better simulate this and the cultural similarities between the two continuous areas.

This would leave Aquitaine/Aragon/South Burgundy as Occitano-Romance, the remainder of Iberia as Ibero-Romance, France/Champagne/Burgundy-Duchy/North Burgudny as Gallo-Romance, and what should Italy be? While Old Lombard/Burgundian will be good for the rulers of Burgundy and Italy, Italy would now need its version of Vulgar Latin. Do I have the north half be Gallo-Romace and the south half be Italo-Romace to better represent the reality of Italy?

Thoughts?
 
IMHO the dividing continental Western Germanic into West and Central Germanic, always seems a bit arbitrary to me. IMHO I would keep the cultures, but merge them into one culture group. After all they are all part of the same dialect continuum. For instance Dutch in the south east and Franconian in the north west gradually transition into each other.

Not to mention, that culture is more than language; Franconian and Saxon (the Ottonians/Liudolfings were Saxon) both played an important role in the Holy Roman Empire.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Well wouldn't that be the same as what happens when a count of that culture rules over the land? That's the idea.

Also regarding Gallo-Romance/Ibero-Romance:

Occitano-Romance. Technically during the early period there would not be Occitain or Catalan, and the two languages are incredibly simmilar, especially during the game's time period. My question is if I should make Iberian, Francian, Aquitanian, and Italian Romance groups in order to better simulate this and the cultural similarities between the two continuous areas.

This would leave Aquitaine/Aragon/South Burgundy as Occitano-Romance, the remainder of Iberia as Ibero-Romance, France/Champagne/Burgundy-Duchy/North Burgudny as Gallo-Romance, and what should Italy be? While Old Lombard/Burgundian will be good for the rulers of Burgundy and Italy, Italy would now need its version of Vulgar Latin. Do I have the north half be Gallo-Romace and the south half be Italo-Romace to better represent the reality of Italy?

Thoughts?
I'd leave the north half Lombard and change the rest into Italo-Roman (Or just leave it Italian).
 
I think the southern half should be Lombardic. The Lombards ruled still in South Italy untill 1066.
I was looking at it from the point of view that Lombard power was the strongest in the north and a Latinised version of the Lombard language survived in the north of Italy. The Visigoths ruled in Hispania for over two hundred years, but they never managed to get the population to speak Gothic.