Cultural Setup

[Toio]

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.

LOL, good to hear.

Well then, do we get in point form the alternative suggestions made by HC and modders or do I need to decifer what is being said by each post.??

ON the newmap, there must be some ideas on what the HC thinks on the cultural setup.??

cheers

 

[Garbon]

LOL, good to hear.

Well then, do we get in point form the alternative suggestions made by HC and modders or do I need to decifer what is being said by each post.??

ON the newmap, there must be some ideas on what the HC thinks on the cultural setup.??

cheers

I personally can't say anything. I haven't really been paying close attention to this thread.

 

[Norrefeldt]

The idea I and Twoflower had can be found in posts 4 and 5 of this thread.

 

[Toio]

The idea I and Twoflower had can be found in posts 4 and 5 of this thread.

Read these posts and still does not entirely define any concrete rules, eg

if a nations taps into another for manpower it can have that culture (1) unless the governence of that province led it to have major revolts (2) and unless its a game issue which this nation to have this culture (3) :wacko:

So , for me the scandinavian culture would be accepted as point (1) and (2), but the issues are that this combination of denmark and sweden as scandinavian causes (3) interference in the lowlands.

Note: When I mean game issues , I do not refer to only 1 game but a high % of games.

Am I reading this correctly???

My points are,
- what constitutes a major revolt, is it 1 or many.?
- Does manpower reflect the ability to source a certain culture for mercenaries.?

 

[Sute]{h]

I don't think you read it correctly. But on the other hand I have a little trouble reading your post (been studying for my exam in statistics all day, so my head is very tired). Actually I might myself have misread Twoflower and Norrefeldt, but this is what I made of their posts.

Twoflower made an analysis on the game effects of the abstract currently labeled as culture. The conclusion of which pointed to the fact that legitimacy might be a better label than culture, because culture didn't matter much for a states ability to rule unhindred within the EU2 timeframe.

So based on this Norrefeldt made a suggestion about legimacy groupings based on the type of governance, that he labeled by the old cultural identification. This I think is what is causing the confusion, but on the other hand it showed that as system based on legitimacy rather than national culture might not change that much for the existing groupings. Now perhaps replace the wording in Norrefeldts post as follows. Scandinavian should be Electorial Monarchy, French should be Salic Monarchy and German should be Electorial Empire. The case being made is that these three types of rule is what secured legitimate rule with the provincial elites in the respective territories.

Of course what constituted legitimate rule within the EU2 timeframe is what this thread is all about. The only thing that is almost certain is that it wasn't culture which is the option that is currently used. So while your ideas of cultural splittings might have merits on its own it misses the point IMHO. The point being that thinking in terms of culture is by itself wrong. Rather how is Europe devided in terms of legitimacy? I for instance could see a one-province culture for Rome held only by the Papel States. Likewise in terms of legitimacy Venice might deserve a seperate culture from the majority of Italy due to their republican political tradition. Both of these suggestions are based not on the cultural differences between the people of Italy (though it was there as well), but rather on what constituted legitimate rule in a given area. It is hard to imagine anyone else than the Pope legitimately running Rome within this timeframe.

 

[Toio]

I don't think you read it correctly. But on the other hand I have a little trouble reading your post (been studying for my exam in statistics all day, so my head is very tired). Actually I might myself have misread Twoflower and Norrefeldt, but this is what I made of their posts.

Twoflower made an analysis on the game effects of the abstract currently labeled as culture. The conclusion of which pointed to the fact that legitimacy might be a better label than culture, because culture didn't matter much for a states ability to rule unhindred within the EU2 timeframe.

So based on this Norrefeldt made a suggestion about legimacy groupings based on the type of governance, that he labeled by the old cultural identification. This I think is what is causing the confusion, but on the other hand it showed that as system based on legitimacy rather than national culture might not change that much for the existing groupings. Now perhaps replace the wording in Norrefeldts post as follows. Scandinavian should be Electorial Monarchy, French should be Salic Monarchy and German should be Electorial Empire. The case being made is that these three types of rule is what secured legitimate rule with the provincial elites in the respective territories.

Of course what constituted legitimate rule within the EU2 timeframe is what this thread is all about. The only thing that is almost certain is that it wasn't culture which is the option that is currently used. So while your ideas of cultural splittings might have merits on its own it misses the point IMHO. The point being that thinking in terms of culture is by itself wrong. Rather how is Europe devided in terms of legitimacy? I for instance could see a one-province culture for Rome held only by the Papel States. Likewise in terms of legitimacy Venice might deserve a seperate culture from the majority of Italy due to their republican political tradition. Both of these suggestions are based not on the cultural differences between the people of Italy (though it was there as well), but rather on what constituted legitimate rule in a given area. It is hard to imagine anyone else than the Pope legitimately running Rome within this timeframe.

I see your point and I agree.

The worry I have is that the splits (down the road) will constitute of only monarchy dynastic bonds as being legitamate.

how do we cater for other types??


As I see it, the current splits of nations by governance are (not including culture):
Monarchist - is also reflected in dynastic events
Republics - Does not have many dynastic events
Religious - islamic splits as well as other religions
Tribal

@sute , I agree that none should be able to hold the papal states, but do we bracket these "odd" states on their own?

 

[unmerged(2456)]

As I see it, the current splits of nations by governance are (not including culture):
Monarchist - is also reflected in dynastic events
Republics - Does not have many dynastic events
Religious - islamic splits as well as other religions
Tribal

You also have a few nationalistic groups, but other than that you then start to get into grey areas that kind of need to still be divided for other reasons outside those listed.

 

[Norrefeldt]

Read these posts and still does not entirely define any concrete rules, eg

Well it's a start, and currently there are no rules at all, so I don't expect a finished system at once. The big picture ought to be clear, but still we have to think of details, its effects and if it can cause any problems.

if a nations taps into another for manpower it can have that culture (1) unless the governence of that province led it to have major revolts (2) and unless its a game issue which this nation to have this culture (3) :wacko:

So , for me the scandinavian culture would be accepted as point (1) and (2), but the issues are that this combination of denmark and sweden as scandinavian causes (3) interference in the lowlands.

My points are,
- what constitutes a major revolt, is it 1 or many.?
- Does manpower reflect the ability to source a certain culture for mercenaries.?

Mercenaries are complicated, and shouldn't give a culture automatically: Scandinavia got it's mercenaries from Germany, Scots were used all over Europe, as the Swiss and the Croatians were later on. Italy had loads of them. No, I don't think we can make anything from that...

Major revolts should be described mostly by events, as Twoflower said:

the few example of quasi-national revolts, like the Dutch Revolts, are already regulated by events. On the other hand, it seems reasonable that a province is less likely to revolt if its inhabitants feel that their ruler observes its constitution and traditions.

 

[Norrefeldt]

I know that my post and Twoflowers are not fitting perfectly together, and I will try to clarify a bit:
Nationalism generally didn't exist during the EU2 era as we think of it, and our view of culture is very influenced by this concept.

What ought to make a ruler able to rule a region is whether his method of ruling is legitimate and costumary in that region. If the legal structure and ruling traditions doesn't change with this new ruler, it won't matter to the ordinary people if the ruler doesn't speak their language, since most of them wont speak to him anyway. (Having a ruler ignorant of the local language was quite common.) As long as the taxes are collected in the same way as customary, and if military service is regulated according to the constitution of the province, or according to traditions followed in that province the new ruler wont encounter any problems.

Therefore, it makes no sense to separate peoples of Scandinavia, or of different part of France and Germany from each other.

RRISK_NATIONALISM;+%d Nationalism (Notice, revolt risk can not be lower than this value);;;;;;;;;;1437

This notion of nationalism should be changed IMO, since it points towards something that didn't exist. Don't have a good idea right now though...

 

[unmerged(2456)]

I know that my post and Twoflowers are not fitting perfectly together, and I will try to clarify a bit:
Nationalism generally didn't exist during the EU2 era as we think of it, and our view of culture is very influenced by this concept.

What ought to make a ruler able to rule a region is whether his method of ruling is legitimate and costumary in that region. If the legal structure and ruling traditions doesn't change with this new ruler, it won't matter to the ordinary people if the ruler doesn't speak their language, since most of them wont speak to him anyway. (Having a ruler ignorant of the local language was quite common.) As long as the taxes are collected in the same way as customary, and if military service is regulated according to the constitution of the province, or according to traditions followed in that province the new ruler wont encounter any problems.

Therefore, it makes no sense to separate peoples of Scandinavia, or of different part of France and Germany from each other.

This might work for Europe, but when you go outside its a bit different.

FE: Throughout china there were legal strucutres that were essentially the same throughout each government, the govermental/rulership/legitimacy traditions were mostly the same in all provinces. The only real differances were economic and what we generally refer in the term cultural.

However someone from a Han province wouldn't be able to automatically rule all han provinces just because he was a han with ease. He had to gain the support of the populace. He could still try to unite the country, but it would be seen as not having the mandate of heaven.

At the same time, being a han did not mean it was harder to get support from manchu as long as they had the mandate. They might be a bit less likely, but only to the extent that a home province tends to support its own more than others.

RRISK_NATIONALISM;+%d Nationalism (Notice, revolt risk can not be lower than this value);;;;;;;;;;1437

This notion of nationalism should be changed IMO, since it points towards something that didn't exist. Don't have a good idea right now though...

IMO its just representing the nobility's lack of support of the new regime. It goes down in time because of death, lack of resources, change of attiudes.

 

[sabular]

FE: Throughout china there were legal strucutres that were essentially the same throughout each government, the govermental/rulership/legitimacy traditions were mostly the same in all provinces. The only real differances were economic and what we generally refer in the term cultural.

However someone from a Han province wouldn't be able to automatically rule all han provinces just because he was a han with ease. He had to gain the support of the populace. He could still try to unite the country, but it would be seen as not having the mandate of heaven.

At the same time, being a han did not mean it was harder to get support from manchu as long as they had the mandate. They might be a bit less likely, but only to the extent that a home province tends to support its own more than others.

Isn't this exactly what the legitimacy interpretation of culture accomplishes? Instead of Han and manchu culture etc. there would be one chinese or 'mandate of heaven' culture. This way, someone of a Han province without the 'mandate of heaven' culture could not rule the formerly Han provinces easily, while the same person with the culture could rule a manchu province just as easily.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Isn't this exactly what the legitimacy interpretation of culture accomplishes? Instead of Han and manchu culture etc. there would be one chinese or 'mandate of heaven' culture. This way, someone of a Han province without the 'mandate of heaven' culture could not rule the formerly Han provinces easily, while the same person with the culture could rule a manchu province just as easily.

Except Manchu are clearly nothing like Han. Like saying Scandinavians are like Italians because they're in Europe.

 

[sabular]

Except Manchu are clearly nothing like Han. Like saying Scandinavians are like Italians because they're in Europe.

But under the legitimacy interpretation being like each other would not affect culture. Thus even though Manchu and Han are very different people, they would both only accept a leader who has the mandate of heaven (just as provinces in the HRE would accept a prince of the HRE as leader), whether he was Han or Manchu.

 

[unmerged(17856)]

Right. So, plenty of ideological outline. I'd like to understand what this would mean for, for example, the Imperial French culture idea, which had received a positive consensus back in the day. Twoflower was a main proponent of this idea -- I was initially against the idea. However, having re-read his arguments I had since (take for example, the positive implication for Spanish rule in French Comte) reversed my position. Twoflower, is your current viewpoint on culture consistent with your previous proposal?

I ask in the interest of the potential to get something done regarding the cultural makeup of this region.

 

[Twoflower]

Right. So, plenty of ideological outline. I'd like to understand what this would mean for, for example, the Imperial French culture idea, which had received a positive consensus back in the day. Twoflower was a main proponent of this idea -- I was initially against the idea. However, having re-read his arguments I had since (take for example, the positive implication for Spanish rule in French Comte) reversed my position. Twoflower, is your current viewpoint on culture consistent with your previous proposal?

I ask in the interest of the potential to get something done regarding the cultural makeup of this region.

The Imperial French/Burgundian/whatever you may wanna call it culture would be one of the rather obvious results of a redefinition of culture, and it would be one that I would be pleased to see, yes
The difficult question here is how far we have the culture extend, and that depends on the exact general model of culture that we employ. We have two possibilities:
a) a strict legitimacy model, i.e. a separate culture is only given to separate political and legal entities (EDIT: or perhaps better, as Norrefeldt put it, areas with a separate political and legal culture). Under this model, the culture would only be justifiable as "Burgundian" culture for the Kingdom of Burgundy, which covers the EU2 provinces of Provence, Dauphiné, Savoie and Franche Comté. Lorraine and Luxembourg would have to be German then.
b) a combined model taking into account both legitimacy and language/ethnicity/"nationality" and distributing culture on a less general and more case-to-case base, depending on which of these factors was more important (in the sense of resulting in the ingame effects of culture) in a given area and on which setup is most desirable for game balance and the game flow. Here, we could construe an "Imperial French" culture for the provinces that had a majority of French-speakers, but were part of the HRE and used to imperial law

I'm inclined to prefer the second model actually, simply because I think it would be unwise to implement "ugly" cultural setups just for the sake of sticking to a fixed principle. The advantage of the "Imperial French" solution is that it would allow to make Luxembourg a state culture province for Burgundy and Spain as well, which will strengthen Burgundy and make the province worth keeping and fighting for for Spain.
The drawback of a combined model is of course a loss of clearness and consistency.

 

[Toio]

How do we deal with the non european areas.

eg
The religious nations - A shite can never govern a sunni province unless by force.

this goes for tribal provinces as well, africa, the americas etc

 

[Toio]

The Imperial French/Burgundian/whatever you may wanna call it culture would be one of the rather obvious results of a redefinition of culture, and it would be one that I would be pleased to see, yes
The difficult question here is how far we have the culture extend, and that depends on the exact general model of culture that we employ. We have two possibilities:
a) a strict legitimacy model, i.e. a separate culture is only given to separate political and legal entities (EDIT: or perhaps better, as Norrefeldt put it, areas with a separate political and legal culture). Under this model, the culture would only be justifiable as "Burgundian" culture for the Kingdom of Burgundy, which covers the EU2 provinces of Provence, Dauphiné, Savoie and Franche Comté. Lorraine and Luxembourg would have to be German then.
b) a combined model taking into account both legitimacy and language/ethnicity/"nationality" and distributing culture on a less general and more case-to-case base, depending on which of these factors was more important (in the sense of resulting in the ingame effects of culture) in a given area and on which setup is most desirable for game balance and the game flow. Here, we could construe an "Imperial French" culture for the provinces that had a majority of French-speakers, but were part of the HRE and used to imperial law

I'm inclined to prefer the second model actually, simply because I think it would be unwise to implement "ugly" cultural setups just for the sake of sticking to a fixed principle. The advantage of the "Imperial French" solution is that it would allow to make Luxembourg a state culture province for Burgundy and Spain as well, which will strengthen Burgundy and make the province worth keeping and fighting for for Spain.
The drawback of a combined model is of course a loss of clearness and consistency.

Is not the first model better for modders to write events for?
If there was a burgundian culture , then a simple add culture for FRA will suffice.
As regards to "Lorraine and Luxembourg would have to be German", do we have to go to these extreme's??
Will this version also add more "cultures",?


As you say the second is less clear and in my opinion prone to errors.
Not to say that it will not work.


- Due to the fact that the HRE changed its borders many times in the course of history within EU2 times, is it safe to say the starting borders for the HRE will be used as the ONLY legitimate area??

 

[unmerged(2456)]

But under the legitimacy interpretation being like each other would not affect culture. Thus even though Manchu and Han are very different people, they would both only accept a leader who has the mandate of heaven (just as provinces in the HRE would accept a prince of the HRE as leader), whether he was Han or Manchu.

Again, not true. Manchu only did so after being culturally assimilated into China from their "barbarian" state, similar to the mongols who attacked centuries beforehand and every other invasion. Rather than destroying a nation, like they did in Europe and India, every invasion was abosrobed into China over time, but before they were clearly different and still retained their differances afterword.

Toio: The shiite/sunni thing is paritally dealt with with different religion and can be dealt with also by not have cores. At this point having same culture is realtively isnigifigant most of the time.

 

[unmerged(17856)]

b) a combined model taking into account both legitimacy and language/ethnicity/"nationality" and distributing culture on a less general and more case-to-case base, depending on which of these factors was more important (in the sense of resulting in the ingame effects of culture) in a given area and on which setup is most desirable for game balance and the game flow. Here, we could construe an "Imperial French" culture for the provinces that had a majority of French-speakers, but were part of the HRE and used to imperial law

I'm inclined to prefer the second model actually, simply because I think it would be unwise to implement "ugly" cultural setups just for the sake of sticking to a fixed principle. The advantage of the "Imperial French" solution is that it would allow to make Luxembourg a state culture province for Burgundy and Spain as well, which will strengthen Burgundy and make the province worth keeping and fighting for for Spain.
The drawback of a combined model is of course a loss of clearness and consistency.

Excellent. The latter drawback of course being a necessary sacrifice in order to accompany the increased emphasis the project places, relative to the Vanilla, on the ROTW . I hope that we can come to a consensus then very soon, so that we can move past the cultural debate and focus more on regional debates and potential implementation of the many cultural proposals.

Perhaps an amedment to the mission statement could be drafted at some point, once consensus has been reached, so that we can take a permanent stance on culture (such a stance, hopefully, being a balance between consistency and flexibility along the lines of the second proposal as outlined by Twoflower).

Thoughts?

 

[Norrefeldt]

How do we deal with the non european areas.

eg
The religious nations - A shite can never govern a sunni province unless by force.

this goes for tribal provinces as well, africa, the americas etc

That has to be taken care of by religion, since the religion change.