Cultural Setup

[Twoflower]

German culture helps me to arruole many armies...

Just like French culture helps France and Russian culture allows Russia to recruit big armies. A state unifying the HRE would have become at least the second strongest (after France), perhaps even, considering how even Prussia on its own managed to easily defeat French armies in the Seven Years War, the strongest military power on the European continent. What we should try for is not to tone down countries in an ahistorical situation where they should be superpowers, but make it harder or less likely for the country to achieve that ahistorical situation. Culture doesn't do that in EU2.

To mes Italy could be ok but Germany not

As I already said, I'm of the opinion that under the proposed new culture definition, it would be absolutely justified and perhaps even necessary to split Italian (into Italian in the Kingdom of Italy, Papal in the Papal States territories, Sardinia and Corsica, Sicilian in the Kingdoms of Naples and Sicily and Venetian in Venice's core holdings). Whether I'd consider that desirable, I'm not too sure

 

[Norrefeldt]

A fragmentation could have poor results but a division in 2 not

I believe a division into two sub-cultures would, since it creates an artifical border in the middle of the HRE. That's been discussed above in this thread, and even if people disagree, I still beleive in what I wrote.

 

[niceta]

Yes but
the border wasn't so artificial...
A inhabitant of Bremen is very different from a Bavarian...
This explain evan the religion difference.
Luther wouldn't have been Bavarian... Would hav burned away...

So: if this is your thoughts no problem.
this is just to speak

 

[Bordic]

As I already said, I'm of the opinion that under the proposed new culture definition, it would be absolutely justified and perhaps even necessary to split Italian (into Italian in the Kingdom of Italy, Papal in the Papal States territories, Sardinia and Corsica, Sicilian in the Kingdoms of Naples and Sicily and Venetian in Venice's core holdings). Whether I'd consider that desirable, I'm not too sure

As I have posted in other threads concerning new cultures in MYmap or Kasperus... IMO Sardinia could be catalan/araagonese, Corsica and Luguria Genoese (!?), the rest of imperial Italy italian, Naples and Sicily Sicilian or respectively Neapolitan/Sicilian, Malta sicilian, Venice and its cores venetian, Papal States territories italian/latin (latin only in Rome, italian for Marche and Romagna when in a new map Romagna will differ from Modena and Ferrara)
latin could better fit the Pope instead of italian..
But it is just to speak of, independently from the decision to split or not the Italian culture in agceep... they are just my considerations on the matter...

 

[Norrefeldt]

Yes but
the border wasn't so artificial...
A inhabitant of Bremen is very different from a Bavarian...
This explain evan the religion difference.
Luther wouldn't have been Bavarian... Would hav burned away...

So: if this is your thoughts no problem.
this is just to speak

Don't mix religion with culture. Is the cultural diffenerence between a Bavarian and someone from Bremen as big as that to a Russian or a Turk?

The new concept being discussed here isn't primarily based on the meaning of everyday culture. But it seems people cannot understand the purpose of this thread, and that's not very strange. It should probably have been named " The definition of "culture" ", as the current name can as well mean a discussion of how the cultures are distributed right now, and keep suggesting improvements/changes to that. Sute, you might want to change the name of the thread?

 

[niceta]

More than culture this is philosophy of culture
Stop

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Yes, that's a possibility. The important changes came late, with the introduction of nationalism late 18th century.

That imo is the best way to go, but only it allows for some variation depending on circumstances.

 

[almoravid]

Thats one of the points to get a more historical game, saxony would not be given the other german nation while prussia would be given other culture

You miss my point. What I meant was that the prussian-controlled regions on Rhine could just as well be governed by Saxons or Bavarians, yet we would make it ahistorically harder for them to control these areas - thus Bavaria would rather go for Tyrol then for Pfalz, because tyrol would be of same culture and would open the gateway into rich northern italy, which, while of different culture, is of same catholic religion on contrary to reformed, different-culture Pfalz. Thus we would rather promote ahistoric outcomes. I think every german province should be of greater benefit to another german power then to any other power. Honestly, I prefer to see the rise of german minors to medium-sized powers on cost of neighbouring minors rather then see germany divided between Poland and France.

Austrian expansion is the only troubling thing, but making one austrian culture doesn't make sense either, as they were as german as anybody, and silesian germans were as happy with austrian rule as later with prussian rule.

 

[unmerged(49930)]

Austrian expansion is the only troubling thing, but making one austrian culture doesn't make sense either, as they were as german as anybody, and silesian germans were as happy with austrian rule as later with prussian rule.

The problem is, it was not Austrian rule, and not Prussian rule... and I don't think they had a strong feeling of silesian. It was the Monarch from some Dynasty, not from some nation. They would be as happy with a Polish King, like Pomeranians were.

Here, we are trying to distort the definition of culture in order to fit historical possiblities in the game, but on the other side trying to keep some stability. This is not possible. The approach is problematic: Brittany is Britton, rulers were French. They were not "French and Celtic". Burgundy was not "French and Dutch". Burgundy did not have any advantage from any "Dutch" culture, more than lets say Denmark.

Trying to make solid standard definitions and respecting them, then trying to make things happen historicaly will not work together.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Trying to make solid standard definitions and respecting them, then trying to make things happen historicaly will not work together.

And yet some kind of solid standard is needed because we get in huge debates often when new cultures are actually needed because there is no standard.

 

[Toio]

then with the comments mentioned below

Originally Posted by Twoflower
My intention is not a radical change, but trying to find some kind of theoretical definition for culture in order to objectivize discussions on the subject, and perhaps as a consequence of that determining culture changes that might be needed for reasons of consistency or as actual gameplay improvements.

originally post by norrefeldt
I understood the purpose of this thread in the same way. Suggesting arbitrary culture changes without an idea of what it's suppose to mean makes it very hard to justify them, or even defend the current system.

WHy not remove, for GAME improvement:
Basque culture, give foix and navarre, french culture.
Henry of Navarre nearly became the king of france , so making it french would be ok.

Frisian culture make frisia dutch culture


With these 2 extra cultures, use them in the EU2 trouble spots of the balkans.
eg
include Dalmatian and serbian cultures.
The breakup of slavic lands would be:

Istria and dalmatian to have dalmatian culture

kosovo, serbia to be serbian culture

croatia and bosnia to remain slavic culture

krain to be german as well as odenburg

all other slavic cultures to remain as they are.

.......................

1419GC startup would be

Hungary to get dalmatian culture and get slavic culture by event as it does now.
Venice will receive dalmatian culture
OE would have slavic culture and get serbian culture by conquest from an event.

At around 1640, austrian would be given dalamtian culture ( by event )

starting positions as per 1419 would remain the same

.............................

Note: I do not see (for GAME reasons) why we keep frisian and basque, although I do know they are historically different from either spanish, french, dutch or german.

Also, to the croatians and bosnians: for game reasons you have not been split,

--------------------------------
ANOTHER POSSIBILITY

is remove frisia as stated.

Have Norse culture for denmark and all its 1419 starting areas.

Have swedish (scandinavian) culture for all of its starting areas.

starting positions would be:
Norse to receive scandinavian culture and loose it my the break vassalation event.

I see too many games were either a superstrong denmark or sweden because of only 1 culture dominate northern germany, poland, and even dutch provinces


These are all GAME issue ideas,

-please explain why we have basque and frisian cultures in the GAme now.?

Also - this setup is only to reflect the current AGCEEP map.

-----------------------

If no changes . for example as above are considered, then the status of what cultural effects for the improvement of the game needs is to be amended so it has more effect on non historical expanding nations. what is needed (a suggestion)

is the RR changed
from +1 for non-wars to +2
from +2 in wars to +3.

and maybe loss of 50% of tax instead of 30%

 

[Herr Doctor]

Basque culture, give foix and navarre, french culture.
Henry of Navarre nearly became the king of france , so making it french would be ok.

Frisian culture make frisia dutch culture

I think it is more sense to give Navarra Castilian culture instead. Bearn should be French then.

And Frisian culture just adds more flavor to the game. Should it be really removed?

 

[almoravid]

I can't see why we would need it. From in-game perspective, it's just a province with a culture nobody has, while Frisia itself is less able to grow because it has a state culture alien to just everybody. Now one may say, AGCEEP is a historical mod and Frisia isn't meant to grow, but I think that having some possibilities open to them would be nice.

The problem is, it was not Austrian rule, and not Prussian rule... and I don't think they had a strong feeling of silesian. It was the Monarch from some Dynasty, not from some nation. They would be as happy with a Polish King, like Pomeranians were.

Well, it's not middle ages anymore when it all didn't matter at all where the governor is from. Look at the hundred years war and tell me it didn't matter to the french if their king was english or french. It did matter to the people of Silesia if their local burgermeister spoke german. Poland was rather decentralised and allowed germans quite some self-rule, which also meant that the revenues often stayed in the cities' pockets, instead of moving into royal ones - which is well-shown by the cultural penalty. German governments on the other hand rather tended to impose their view of local order upon the population, which for example made hungarians quite upset. Later the polish were also quite unhappy by how they were partitioned.

 

[Twoflower]

Toio, in order for a discussion on the subject to take place that goes beyond "yeah, that culture would look cool" or "no, that's my favourite culture, please don't remove it", it would be useful if you presented a general standard on how culture should be assigned before throwing out suggestions for culture changes without any underlying concept. "For game improvement" does not substitute a concept, since anything anybody suggests here is supposed to be for "game improvement".

Regarding Frisia, I think before anything is changed about it, we ought to find out what to do with Dutch culture under the new concept. Generally, under the proposed legitimacy concept, we'd need to assume that the Dutch provinces would be French or German, depending on whether they were part of the Kingdom of France (Flandern) or of Germany (Holland, Zeeland, Brabant, Gelderland). We could then make Friesland the only Dutch province, and turn the other provinces Dutch at some point, probably by the Pragmatic Sanction of 1549.
I'm not sure I'd like that, so is there anything that differentiates the Netherlands from the rest of the HRE that would justify giving them a different culture under the proposed culture concept?

 

[Herr Doctor]

Toio, in order for a discussion on the subject to take place that goes beyond "yeah, that culture would look cool" or "no, that's my favourite culture, please don't remove it", it would be useful if you presented a general standard on how culture should be assigned before throwing out suggestions for culture changes without any underlying concept. "For game improvement" does not substitute a concept, since anything anybody suggests here is supposed to be for "game improvement".

Regarding Frisia, I think before anything is changed about it, we ought to find out what to do with Dutch culture under the new concept. Generally, under the proposed legitimacy concept, we'd need to assume that the Dutch provinces would be French or German, depending on whether they were part of the Kingdom of France (Flandern) or of Germany (Holland, Zeeland, Brabant, Gelderland). We could then make Friesland the only Dutch province, and turn the other provinces Dutch at some point, probably by the Pragmatic Sanction of 1549.
I'm not sure I'd like that, so is there anything that differentiates the Netherlands from the rest of the HRE that would justify giving them a different culture under the proposed culture concept?

I believe Low Countries is like the bunch of rebellious cities (Flanders) and self-governed provinces (States-Provincial), which used quite far freedoms even as part of Burgundy. I personally hardly could imagine it ruled by some neighbor German princes (well, may be only Geldern, but it was also troublesome through other reasons). The story with Frisia and the Saxon electors proved it much too.

 

[Toio]

Regarding Frisia, I think before anything is changed about it, we ought to find out what to do with Dutch culture under the new concept.

And to clarify what is the new "concept" or is this something discussed by the HC behind closed doors and then assume that the other modders/players know what you are leading to.

Generally, under the proposed legitimacy concept, we'd need to assume that the Dutch provinces would be French or German, depending on whether they were part of the Kingdom of France (Flandern) or of Germany (Holland, Zeeland, Brabant, Gelderland). We could then make Friesland the only Dutch province, and turn the other provinces Dutch at some point, probably by the Pragmatic Sanction of 1549.

And again for clarity , is the new legitimacy concept based on historical dynastic issues or is there something else included which makes a province/culture legimate to another.??

I'm not sure I'd like that, so is there anything that differentiates the Netherlands from the rest of the HRE that would justify giving them a different culture under the proposed culture concept?

By the time of the EU2 game , the HRE ceased to function as a proper identity as it did in the medieval ages. it could not agree to anything of note and that includes "unions for wars"/crusades etc etc.
As you know german history, you would know that any HRE leader needed the support and conception of the reich (the many german princes) to get anything done or to get any monies. Jealousy and mistrust prevented a german nation.
So the legitimate claims by the HRE counts for nil in the EU2, and the HRE should be used in other ways within the game.

So can you, in point form let all know the HC 's intentions on this and not assume that everyones knows what you are talking about. Is it the newmap, is it the current map etc etc

To finalise, my point in legitamacy is based on who owned what provinces over a certain period of time, and as stated SPA should never be the legitamate "owners" or share the portuguese culture.

As for dutch culture, the ones that ruled it at any time even with major incidents should share its culture.

 

[sabular]

I just read something about nationalism in the 13 hundreds that I thought I'd share with you. The book (Europe, a history by Norman Davies) said that by that time there were only three "nations" in Europe that could be called something like a nationstate: Portugal, Serbia and Bulgaria. All three had just separated themselves from bigger nations and the latter two had a national church.

 

[Captain Frakas]

I know my suggestion is a rather radical one, but isn't it what this whole discussion is about?

I like your suggestion...

 

[G-Klav]

Unfortunately it's not possible to stop the AI from using it's missionaries.

Forgive me if something like this has been suggested before, but if you give them maximum innovative, they won't be able to use those missionaries (after they've used them up, that is).

Edit: And I'd also like to say that I think that province cultures should be dynamic, instead of static like now. If France would'vebeen able to grab say Gerona from Spain it might had been French today. If England would've won the Hundred Years' War, the cultural map of France would probably have looked very different.

 

[Garbon]

And to clarify what is the new "concept" or is this something discussed by the HC behind closed doors and then assume that the other modders/players know what you are leading to.

I know you love a great conspiracy theory and so I regretfully feel obliged to inform you that there have been no HC only discussions of culture.