Cultural Setup

[Twoflower]

But Maltese and north Italian are quite different things.
So split Italy in half?

I'd be all for creating a separate culture for the territories that were (in theory) subject to the Pope, i.e. the Papal States, the Two Sicilies, Sardinia, Corsica and Malta. This would be an entirely beneficial and justifiable change:
1. It is justifiable linguistically(the linguistic argument is never a compelling one, and can almost always be made either way, but it helps to check if you're artificially splitting a completely homogenous area): Napolitan, Sicilian, Corsican and Sardinian differ quite a lot from standard Italian and North Italian dialects, Maltese is an own language, and the Papal States are at least peculiar by the usage of Latin
2. it is justifiable culturally (again, not compelling, but another check): the rule by Greeks, Arabs, Catalans, French and/or the church made these territories develop a clearly distinct culture
3. it fits the concept of "legitimacy": these territories were never part of the Kingdom of Italy, and thus not of the HRE either, which resulted in different legal and political traditions
4. it improves balance and encourages historical behaviour: Spain and Aragon are only given this culture and therefore no longer encouraged to conquer all of Italy
5. it allows for representing Genoa's weak hold on Corsica

I am very much a fan of a case-to-case cultural model instead of some universal "ideology" that might prevent us from adapting the setup that benefits the game most in a specific case.
Thus, the way I'd think the best way to conduct cultural discussions and reach good decisions is the following:
1. Generally, it is assumed that Paradox has put some consideration into what cultural setup would be the best compromise between balance and historical realism. Therefore, Paradox's cultural setup is considered the "default" setup, and the burden of proof is upon those who advocate a change in comparison to Paradox's setup (that should even be true for cultures that already are in the AGCEEP, like Catalan, since the sometimes hasty implementation of those cultures, especially back in the days of the EEP and AGC where decisions where not really democratic, isn't really a very good argument for these changes).
2. If someone advocates a cultural change, he should first prove that there is some factual base for it and it isn't entirely "artificial". This is done by applying certain criteria, checking whether there was some linguistic and cultural difference between the proposed culture and its neighbouring cultures, and whether there was a sufficiently different political "identity" or "legitimacy".
3. Since the above-mentioned arguments can in most cases be made either way, the decisive consideration are the implications for gameplay, game balance and AI behaviour of the different possible setups. In order for a change being implemented (or kept!) in comparison to the vanilla setup, it needs to be proven, or in very controversial cases recognized by a majority, that the new setup is better under these aspects than the old (or possible alternatives). When in doubt, the vanilla setup, or if there are several possible new setup, the setup that consumes less culture tags is preferred.

I did not think about Swedish as "modern" Swedish but about loyalty. Since it is clear that Sweden was not the strongest supporter of King of Danmark IMO they qualify for own culture.
(Hell, Swedes rebelled even against their own Vasa king just because he was catholic )

Well, Bavaria also wasn't the strongest supporter of the Archduke of Austria, which is why they rebelled when the Hapsburgs occupied and tried to annex it. Does that mean that Bavaria should have a different culture from Austria?

I think you're confusing culture with nationalism.

 

[zdlugasz]

Well, Bavaria also wasn't the strongest supporter of the Archduke of Austria, which is why they rebelled when the Hapsburgs occupied and tried to annex it. Does that mean that Bavaria should have a different culture from Austria?

I think you're confusing culture with nationalism.

IMO such Italian split is OK.

Why nationalism? We agree that there was no modern nationalism in XVth century, I see it as loyalty thing.
Regarding Habsburgs - give them Imperial culture and if they conquer correct german province let them change culture of this province to their own

I will admit that this Scandinavian and German business is all confusing (for me at least). For me loyalty is almost equivalent to some kind of nationalism (not modern).
What is culture for you (and how do you want to reprsent it in game):
- language
- loyalty
- way of thinking/life
- religion

E.g. religion is already represented in game and gives RR and tax reduction. And in many countries coexistence of religion was not a problem. All paid taxes, and in some cases people of "wrong" religion had to pay more taxes (Jews, christians in Ottoman Empire) - there was no saying: we are Christioans and do not like Sultan thus we pay only 70% of taxes.

Swedes had similar language to Danish, the same religion and I think that had similar style of life. The only difference was "nationalism", wish to play more important role, to have their own abitions.

 

[Twoflower]

Why nationalism? We agree that there was no modern nationalism in XVth century, I see it as loyalty thing.

I was referring to EU2's mechanism called nationalism

 

[tuesday4am]

Well, maybe I'm the only one, but I hate the small culture groups. Or rather, I hate the medium culture groups. (Maltese is rather charming.) If I have a culture group, I want to be able to expand a little bit, especially since the the major powers (which I rarely play) have a nice large territory all in their cultural group(s). It's bad enough Venice doesn't have Slavonic anymore; to think they might have one of four Italian cultural groups is unbearable. My vote is for default Paradox cultures. You don't have to micromanage every damn little thing.

And bring back Iberian!

 

[Norrefeldt]

Not having any standard, but a case by case basis, is the same as chaning back and forth betwen different setups. It's rather impossible to prove one reasonable setup is better/worse than the other, and that will allow for our modders to get their changes in, as soon as the supporters of the previous view are looking in some other direction. I find that rather unbearable, and prevent a good tested setup in the long run.

But sure, I'm not against putting up the case by case model as one of the options for the HC to vote upon. Then we have at least decided that.

3. Since the above-mentioned arguments can in most cases be made either way, the decisive consideration are the implications for gameplay, game balance and AI behaviour of the different possible setups. In order for a change being implemented (or kept!) in comparison to the vanilla setup, it needs to be proven, or in very controversial cases recognized by a majority, that the new setup is better under these aspects than the old (or possible alternatives). When in doubt, the vanilla setup, or if there are several possible new setup, the setup that consumes less culture tags is preferred.

Unfortunately, I think this only works in an ideal world. Here, it would work as I describe above: Italy for example would shift between having one, two and four cultures on a regular basis.

 

[zdlugasz]

I think that before we go and divide some parts of world into cultural patchworks HC should decide do we go for megacultures (Iberian), medium level of detail or super-accuracy (Maltese, Friesian). How many cultures are viable e.g. for Italy(1,2,4?), Balcans(1,3-4, 6?) etc.
Because otherwise a lot of talk may become useless.

 

[Herr Doctor]

I think that before we go and divide some parts of world into cultural patchworks HC should decide do we go for megacultures (Iberian), medium level of detail or super-accuracy (Maltese, Friesian). How many cultures are viable e.g. for Italy(1,2,4?), Balcans(1,3-4, 6?) etc.
Because otherwise a lot of talk may become useless.

Frisian and Maltese are not super-detail, but special cases. They are just supposed to be so small because there is nothing where you could merge them. Of course you can make Frisia Dutch and Malta Italian, but this would be just incorrect (both through the historical and gameplay reasons).

 

[Garbon]

I favor a more conservative approach (which is why I was unhappy with the initial Iberian split) and push only for splitting up cultures if there is actually a desired gameplay difference. I think what Twoflower said makes more sense than establishing an overall standard which might make some areas better but others worse. Sort of like how we don't require all regions to have one standard of modeling things.

I don't think it should be an accuracy question, but more a decision of whether or not there distinction is to be used for an in-game distinction. (On the basis of this, Dalmatian might be considered per the coastal versus non-coastal regions.)

 

[zdlugasz]

I favor a more conservative approach (which is why I was unhappy with the initial Iberian split) and push only for splitting up cultures if there is actually a desired gameplay difference. I think what Twoflower said makes more sense than establishing an overall standard which might make some areas better but others worse. Sort of like how we don't require all regions to have one standard of modeling things.

I don't think it should be an accuracy question, but more a decision of whether or not there distinction is to be used for an in-game distinction. (On the basis of this, Dalmatian might be considered per the coastal versus non-coastal regions.)

But should distinction be based on 1) geograpical (just along the coast), 2) dubious ethnical or 3) historically-political base?

re 3: Dalmantian culture is designed for Venice thus should be used only in provinces where Venetian rule was stable/ not contested ?

 

[Garbon]

I don't see how we can ever hope to have a standard that takes those 3 elements and arranges them in a hiearchical manner that would make sense for every case.

 

[zdlugasz]

I don't see how we can ever hope to have a standard that takes those 3 elements and arranges them in a hiearchical manner that would make sense for every case.

I do not want to arrange them I would prefer to rely solely on the 3rd option

 

[Garbon]

I do not want to arrange them I would prefer to rely solely on the 3rd option

I don't think you can always use the last one unless you are using it in a more complex way than the name describes. Morocco doesn't have a historical political base than should let it rule arabia, but it has Arabic culture.

 

[Twoflower]

Frisian and Maltese are not super-detail, but special cases. They are just supposed to be so small because there is nothing where you could merge them. Of course you can make Frisia Dutch and Malta Italian, but this would be just incorrect (both through the historical and gameplay reasons).

Exactly. In a purely ethno-linguistic culture system, there is no way to justify merging Frisian with Dutch or Maltese with Italian. These simply were quite distinct languages and people - the Maltese and their language being a mixture of all the people who have owned and inhabited the island, and the Frisians and their language being closer to the English than the Dutch or Germans.
Therefore the introduction of Maltese (by Paradox) and Frisian (by the AGCEEP) has nothing to do with super-detail, but is just consistent in a system where cultures are, or at least are understood to be, based mostly on language and ethnicity, and they are more justified within that system than a separate North Italian, Swedish or Croatian culture.

 

[Garbon]

While that is a nice defense...based on that, we'd need an individual culture for most provinces in West Africa.

 

[Norrefeldt]

So, how do you intend to judge on in-game effect over the other? There are pros and cons with everything, and no way to compare them. At least I cannot do that in any objective way, and I would stay out of cultural business alltogether. (That's of course not a problem, since many others take interest in the area.) I cannot see how we could not get the effect I described in 265, and that's sort of what we have today.

If we should settle for a system, I think it only has to apply to Europe, since that's where the main controversies are.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

...
3. it fits the concept of "legitimacy": these territories were never part of the Kingdom of Italy, and thus not of the HRE either, which resulted in different legal and political traditions

However the legal tradition of the Kingdom of naples was also formed by the Staufer rule, e.g. Friedrich II Stupor Mundi.
http://www.wcurrlin.de/links/kartendownload/karte_stauferreich_download.htm

5. it allows for representing Genoa's weak hold on Corsica

But the others would have a better hold on the separatists of Corsica?

Just a question about cultures and introducing new or splitting existing:
Is there a total limit on the number of cultures as there is on tags for countries? And if so, how much would the maximum be, so that suggestions that would lead to an impossible number of cultures in the game could be ended immediately?

 

[Third Angel]

I'd be all for creating a separate culture for the territories that were (in theory) subject to the Pope, i.e. the Papal States, the Two Sicilies, Sardinia, Corsica and Malta. This would be an entirely beneficial and justifiable change:
1. It is justifiable linguistically(the linguistic argument is never a compelling one, and can almost always be made either way, but it helps to check if you're artificially splitting a completely homogenous area): Napolitan, Sicilian, Corsican and Sardinian differ quite a lot from standard Italian and North Italian dialects, Maltese is an own language, and the Papal States are at least peculiar by the usage of Latin
2. it is justifiable culturally (again, not compelling, but another check): the rule by Greeks, Arabs, Catalans, French and/or the church made these territories develop a clearly distinct culture
3. it fits the concept of "legitimacy": these territories were never part of the Kingdom of Italy, and thus not of the HRE either, which resulted in different legal and political traditions
4. it improves balance and encourages historical behaviour: Spain and Aragon are only given this culture and therefore no longer encouraged to conquer all of Italy
5. it allows for representing Genoa's weak hold on Corsica

I'll speak only for Corsica which is a subject I deem myself somewhat knowledgeable upon. Don't know enough about the others.

1. Corsican is very close to Tuscan and other northern dialects such as Ligurian.
2. Corsica was ruled by the Byzantine something like 800 years before EU2 starts. It was never ruled by Arabs, very shortly and not directly by Catalans, and by the French between 1556-59 and after 1769.
3. Corsica not being part of KoI is a debatable topic.
4. I still don't understand why Spain should have italian at all.
5. I've been working on this. Genoa should have serious troubles in Corsica during the XVth-XVIth centuries in 1.43. I'll come later to the Forty Years War (1729-69).

 

[unmerged(29041)]

Great big ugly can of worms you opened here Norre.

I am going to throw my ball out of this court.

The AI cares zilch about cultures, it is not even aware of them. Cultures have a relatively small impact on the AI. Mainly the AI is slightly more stable when it sits on the right culture. The impact on the economy is very minor. The conclusion is that only big countries are affected by culture. If we mod for the AI we should only worry about them. But as long as they have them, the number is irrelevant except for two points: they are limited and if you have too many you cannot read them. In general all big countries are well covered.

Cultures therefore are a player thing. For the player it means room for expansion. Cores are far better for the player except for one thing: culture is what allows you to convert a province to your state religion. It is cheaper and more profitable to hold provinces of your state culture, but the main thing is religion in the game. If Spain keeps Dutch culture it will make most of the Dutch provinces Catholic and get the remaining one or two converted by event, and we don't want that to happen. We can forget about the smoke curtains of race, language, loyalty, nacionality, nationalism, etc, and concentrate on what it means in game terms.

Now let's analyze a few examples strictly in game terms:

1. Catalonian and Castilian. The infamous split.
-Where they hold together for most of the period? Yes (-1 point for different culture)
-Did they have the same religion? Yes (-1 point for different culture)
-Where they succesfully converted to the other religion? Does not apply
-Were they likely to consider the other as a rightful ruler (self-identity)? No (+1 point for different culture)
-Should their colonies be interchangeable? Does not apply
-Would most players accept them having the same culture? Yes (-1 point for different culture)

Total = -2 (out of 4), so they should have the same culture.

2. Portuguese and Castilian. Also quite infamous split.
-Where they hold together for most of the period? No (+1 point for different culture)
-Did they have the same religion? Yes (-1 point for different culture)
-Where they succesfully converted to the other religion? Does not apply
-Were they likely to consider the other as a rightful ruler (self-identity)? No (+1 point for different culture)
-Should their colonies be interchangeable? No (+1 point for different culture)
-Would most players accept them having the same culture? Yes (-1 point for different culture)

Total = +1 (out of 5), so they should not have the same culture.

3. Basque and Castilian.
-Where they hold together for most of the period? Yes (-1 point for different culture)
-Did they have the same religion? Yes (-1 point for different culture)
-Where they succesfully converted to the other religion? Does not apply
-Were they likely to consider the other as a rightful ruler (self-identity)? No (+1 point for different culture)
-Should their colonies be interchangeable? Does not apply
-Would most players accept them having the same culture? Yes (-1 point for different culture)

Total = -2 (out of 4), so they should have the same culture.
In game terms the Basque is purely cosmetic. It doesn't matter if it is in or out.

Now we can apply the same analysis to single cultures shared by different nations.

4. German.
-Where they hold together for most of the period? No (+1 point for different culture)
-Did they have the same religion? No (+1 point for different culture)
-Where they succesfully converted to the other religion? No (+1 point for different culture)
-Were they likely to consider the other as a rightful ruler (self-identity)? Yes (-1 point for different culture)
-Should their colonies be interchangeable? Does not apply
-Would most players accept them having the same culture? Yes (-1 point for different culture)

Total = +1 (out of 5), so they should not have the same culture.
Logic dictates that they should be split along religious lines into upper and lower German (or whatever name) and that countries should only have one of the cultures after reformation to difficult conversion of the other.

5. Italian.
-Where they hold together for most of the period? No (+1 point for different culture)
-Did they have the same religion? Yes (-1 point for different culture)
-Where they succesfully converted to the other religion? Does not apply
-Were they likely to consider the other as a rightful ruler (self-identity)? Yes (-1 point for different culture)
-Should their colonies be interchangeable? Does not apply
-Would most players accept them having the same culture? Yes (-1 point for different culture)

Question number four is a tricky one here because Italians fought all the time between themselves, but all italians considered between themselves as a lot closer than for example to their Spanish rulers. Clearly large portions of Italy changed government from for example Milan to Venice and did not considered it foreign rule. Even for those that think that the answer would be No, still the result is negative or zero arguing against a split of culture.

It can even be applied to small peripheric islands like Malta or Corfú:

5. Malta and Italian.
-Where they hold together for most of the period? No (+1 point for different culture)
-Did they have the same religion? Yes (-1 point for different culture)
-Where they succesfully converted to the other religion? Does not apply
-Were they likely to consider the other as a rightful ruler (self-identity)? Yes (-1 point for different culture)
-Should their colonies be interchangeable? Does not apply
-Would most players accept them having the same culture? Yes (-1 point for different culture)

Total = -2 (out of 4), so they could have the same culture and be fine.
Notice that the same test would give a +2 for Spain arguing against Malta having any Spanish culture.

5. Corfu and Italian (Venetian).
-Where they hold together for most of the period? Yes (-1 point for different culture)
-Did they have the same religion? No (+1 point for different culture)
-Where they succesfully converted to the other religion? No (+1 point for different culture)
-Were they likely to consider the other as a rightful ruler (self-identity)? No (+1 point for different culture)
-Should their colonies be interchangeable? Does not apply
-Would most players accept them having the same culture? Yes (-1 point for different culture)

Total = +1 (out of 5), so Corfú should not have Italian or Venetian culture.


All this analysis is just in game terms from a game engine perspective, taking into account how it should affect the player. We might however decide that we want to have Basque culture in the game, even if it adds absolutely nothing to the game, just because it adds color.

 

[tuesday4am]

Cultures therefore are a player thing. For the player it means room for expansion. Cores are far better for the player except for one thing: culture is what allows you to convert a province to your state religion.

A voice of reason. This was what I was trying to say too, that cultures benefit the players more than anything, and if it affects players most of all, fun or playability should be a concern as well.

Also, I don't think going with large cultural groups necessarily entails getting rid of Maltese or Basque. As Fodoron mentioned, they are simply cosmetic, or perhaps represent small pockets of cultural diferrence. Also, as Twoflower mentioned, the burden of proof is on the modder to change Paradox's cultures. I just cannot understand any argument that would split Italian up into two or more cultures (or Iberian for that matter). I'm more of a casual player than a hardcore modder, but there are probably casual gamers who never post on these boards but play AGCEEP. And admit it, small cultural groups are annoying as hell. (One of the reasons I can't stand MyMap.)

 

[Garbon]

We aren't in a culture tag crunch, which is why we don't need to remove Frisian or Maltese. However, in a sort of backhanded way, I could provide the same proof (especially for the new map) for nations in Africa and India that could possibly push us into a culture tag crisis, even if we took up all the native cultures that currently aren't held by states.