Culture issues with CK3

[Alenarae118]

867 Bosnians... yet France,Visigoths and Russia are still culture blobs, you never cease to amaze Paradox.

They are game designers not professional historians. and they have said that they wish they could keep polishing the cultures and make them better on the map, A Dev stated:

"French will just be Occitan and French at release. A little unfair, I know, but polishing the culture map is one of those tasks that we can keep going at on and on and on forever. Aaaaaaaand, to be honest, probably will. So, as with most other culture fractalising suggestions so far, never say never! "

So they plan on continuing to improve the cultures after the release and at this point in development they are probably more focusing on more important things, like balancing and bug fixing, then cultures.

So they are listening to our suggestions and discussions about culture and will probably after release put effort into researching some more with the sources we provide and deciding if something should be added as a culture or not.

 

[ValgardWillRuleEurope]

Issues:

• Cisalpine culture in Northern Italy should be split into Cisalpine and Venetian, it makes no sense to unite them (also see Puking Panda's, .Me's, Karlingid's and mine posts); Lombard shouldn't be in the German culture group.
• French, Occitan and Ango-Saxon culture blog opposed to more granular cultures elsewhere: could add Arpitan, Guascon culture in France (see also Darkath's thread); split Ango-Saxon split anglo-saxon (angles, saxons and jutes?, with Angosaxon as a melting pot?)
• Occitan culture better named Lemosin? (see Ezumiyr's post);
• Catalan and Occitan in the same culture group;
• Cornish not majoriti in Devon
• More pictish scotland?
• Better rename Visigothic to Ibero-Romance in Iberia? Splitting Iberia blob into Galician, Asturian/Leonese, Castillan, Aragonese, Catalan, Mozarabic, Basques? they are already splitted in 1066 culture map.
• Rus' culture named improperly (Russian); also see kikispoke111's thread);
• No Slovenian/Carinthian culture in Istria;
• No Dalmatian culture in Dalmatia; should be in Istria too;
• No Romanic African culture in Africa (maybe add Christian Berbers too?);
• Flanders should be Dutch (not French), also Flemish is an anachronism (should be only Dutch), north-eastern of modern Netherlands should be Saxon;
• Dutch and Franconian/Saxon should be in the same culture group;
• No Albanian cuture (see treb's and cybrxkhan's posts)
• No caucasian Albanian/Udi culture;
• No Assyrian culture;
• No Circassian culture in Causasus; also see mahidevran's post;
• No Caucasian Avars;
• Regarding Caucasus: could use the map in Slime99's post for reference for 1066 start date cultures in the area;
• The spread of Romanian culture is wrong (should not be in Serbia);
• Bulgarian culture (should be Bulgar and not Bulgarian);
• Bosniac culture too early?
• No Basques in Aquitanie;
• Arabia should be divided in "North" (Adnanites) and "South" Arabians (South Semetic/South Arabian/Soqotri/Qahtanite) (see also dark-mysterio's thread);
• Northern Curonian coast was inhabited by Livonians not Balts in both start dates.
• Latgalian should not be the culture of the whole of Latvia at either start date (could simply rename it "Latvian");
• There shouldn't be any Lombards culture at start date;
• No Rhaeto-Romance culture;
• No Chrimea Goths;
• A lot of issues with Vepsian, Sami, Finnish, Mari and Chuvash cultures (see Slime99's, Karlingid's, Aquamancer's posts);
• No Assyrian (they were not Kurds); also see Butterworth's post for Kurds issues;
• Taijik should be called Khorasani, see also elvain's post;
• There should be Aramean culture in the Levant, particularly in Syria, with a large christian population until the Crusades;
• Levantine culture as melting pot between Arabic culture and Aramean?
• There should be some Jewish or Samaritan area in the Levant;
• Distinsion between Swabian and Bavarian culture in 867 anachronistic (better united as Suebi/Alemannic); (see this and this Karlingid's posts);
• No Coptic culture;
• Alan culture;
• Coastline from South-Western Estonia to Western coasts of Curonia inhabited by Livonians. Latgals did not have access to the sea;
• Vlach culture issues in this SoKraTes1's thread and Рймлјан's post;
• Wrong Avar culture distribution in 867 start date, should be less present in the area (see SoKraTes1's post for map and more info)
• Too much Hungarian in 1066 (displace Rusyns in Zarpatia and Slovaks); also see Graf Radetzky's and Rhipeen's posts;
• Should add Szekely culture in Hungary (see Рймлја's post);
• in 867 e 1066 startdates southern Tarim Basin should be Khotanese/Saka (or Thocharian in 867 and Uyghur in 1066?), not Sogdian;
• Split Greek culture megablob?
• No Khitan culture in 1066 map;
• Ostyak outdated exonym, it's better Khanty;
• South Asia issues (see Yogh's and Slime 99's posts);
• There should be no Khitan in the map (it was only an outpost), better just Mongols;
• No Romani culture (see this Graf Radetzky's thread for suggestion and namelist);
• Issues with Georgia (see Reavici's post);
• Better to use "Tuva" or "Tuvan" rather than Uriankhai (see also mahidevran's post);
• Samogitia should be part of Lithuania, and there should be a Baltic culture county in the area inhabited by Eastern Galindians (see also Divirix's thread containing a lot of suggestions about Baltic area and much more);
• Add event to colonize saxon in Transilvania if there is a Kingdom of Hungry, see SoKraTes1's post; the same event could be done also in Silesia, Brandenburg, Pomerania and Mecklenburg ;
• There should be no Polabian culture in southern Pomerania, in XII century Pomerania expanted in Lutici loands taking Demmin and Wolast;
• Assiamese should be named Karumpi? (see AliasRy's post for more info);
• There should be more tribal counties in India, India's cultures should be more balkanized too.

Replies from the devs:

Wolkeg:

• "We currently don't have Coptic in, but that's not to say it's been axed forever"
• No Anglo-Saxon split for launch;
• "We don't have anything for splitting Cisalpine at the moment, I'm afraid, but that's not necessarily a hard stance."
• About minority cultures/religion: "Lovely concept, sadly nothing we'll have for release." and later "Nothing for release, more than that, I can't say!"
• "No Silesian melting pot culture at the moment, but never say never!"
• No Romani culture for lauch;
• "Dutch is in the Central Germanic culture group, I'm afraid. Not that it didn't have close links to the Scandinavian cultures, just not as close as to Franconian (and, to a much lesser extent, sorta-Saxon). Culture is also not always based on language, even if the judgement is a bit arbitrary and that's the usual baseline: see the Vlachs chumming it up with the South Slavs despite speaking Romance languages which would very determinedly not be mutually-intelligible with Bulgarians, Serbians, and so on. "
• "French will just be Occitan and French at release. A little unfair, I know, but polishing the culture map is one of those tasks that we can keep going at on and on and on forever. Aaaaaaaand, to be honest, probably will. So, as with most other culture fractalising suggestions so far, never say never! "
• "On Brabant & Flanders: I'll have a discussion with some people internally and see if we've got a specific reason for why they are the way they are. Won't promise you anything back, but if it's an oversight, we'll look into it!"
• Outremer is a melting pot;
• "Norse does not currently have any new melting pots"
• Sicilian is a melting pot that take 3,4 or 5 cultures to form;
• Russian will not change for release, but also "I suspect Russian culture may be an area we re-visit after launch, though I can't promise anything there. For the moment, Russian is just Russian."
• As for Frisian/Dutch: " I've heard convincing arguments for Frisians, Dutch, and Lower Franconians. YMMV, but personally I feel that Dutch is the best fit (and by that I mean wrong, but least-wrong in most-areas, which seems to be all we can hope for). At the same time, it's not my call and we're still under development, so that may yet change."

SaintDaveUK:

• About Scotland cultures: "We settled on Gaelic and Scots to model the Irish and English speaking dichotomy that existed, as they are commonly-understood terms in the context of modern Scotland and Scottish history. Other candidates like Alban and Inglis were floated, but felt a bit too uncommon and don't quite carry the same connotations. "

Also see pengoyo's tread about his interesting idea about a new, parallel way of grouping cultures.

The worst part is that there is no Icelander culture! Those poor little guys seem to get overlooked in every paradox game!

 

[AliasRY]

FYI, you got the culture names spelt wrong. Here's the corrected line:

Assamese should be named Kamrupi? (see AliasRy's post for more info);


And cheers for adding it to the OP.

 

[Vias]

Ok guys, I totally forgot about fixing OP post am back!

Thank you for the effort of keeping this thread up mate, let hope Paradox sees all the great sugestions people made and helps them improve the game!

Yeah, that was my hope ahah I'm confident the game will be wonderful but they need to fix cultures.

View attachment 585168
Munda speaking people probably should be added there as an example of tribal peoples. They're Austroasiatic so that itself increases the diversity. Their region was also very tribal.

Added to OP post

FYI, you got the culture names spelt wrong. Here's the corrected line:

Assamese should be named Kamrupi? (see AliasRy's post for more info);


And cheers for adding it to the OP.

Thanks, fixed

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

Please don't "polish" the culture map with dozens of redundant regional cultures. Especially in the earlier starts, cultures and dialects were still in the process of splitting. Why do we need 5 different sub-types of Occitan for an area with a recognized regional cultural standard, and mutually intelligible dialects from Gascony to Provence even down to Catalonia?

For some reason OP opines that Flemish shouldn't be split from Dutch at this date, but wants every other culture in Europe to be fragmented. I don't get it. If anything fragmentation makes the game worse, because you can't represent the relative unity of regional blocks within larger culture groups. E.G. Imagine Lengadocians having an identical "same group, different culture" penalty both to Normans and to Provencals right next door, or having to split the French culture group just to avoid that. Similar cases present themselves with virtually every other requested split.

What does need changing, though:
Split Ethiopian into Tigrayan and Amharic. Probably debatable for 867 but there are deep divergences between the languages. Amharic is heavily defined by contact with Cushitic speakers to the south. Like the Agew...
Who should probably exist in some of the southern parts of what is now Ethiopia. They're still around today, used to be much more numerous, and even produced the prominent Zagwe dynasty that ruled Ethiopia for much of CKII's period.
Omani's probably deserve their own culture separate from one that can be found all the way in the Egyptian desert.
Hijazi should be another culture separate from Bedouin. Lots of people live in towns there, and you're not a bedouin if you live in a town...
Merge Tajik and Persian. The "Tajik" lands were only recently Persianized, linguistically speaking, and there was a single elite cultural world across the entire Persian-speaking world. I'm imagining that other Iranian language groups will be lumped together with Persians, and it would be REALLY dumb for an educated Persian speaker from Hamedan to look at an educated Persian speaker from Samarkand as just another foreigner on par with Kurdish or Afghan tribesmen.
Please please please rename "Gaelic" to "Scots Gaelic". I know you know this but with Gaelic Ireland right there it's like having "Latin" and "French" next to each other on the map. "Scots" and "Scots Gaelic" is basically how people refer to the two native languages of Scotland today, if it isn't immediately clear from context that by Gaelic you mean the Scottish kind.
Copts and Assyrians should still be around in good numbers.
Chechens and/or Avars should get a few provinces in the Caucasus.
Should there not be some Basque in France?
Romance remnants should still be around in Africa in 867.

 

[dragonluke]

For some reason OP opines that Flemish shouldn't be split from Dutch at this date, but wants every other culture in Europe to be fragmented. I don't get it.

The post is a compilation of different suggestions from this thread,it's not their idea.

 

[Fierabras]

If anything fragmentation makes the game worse, because you can't represent the relative unity of regional blocks within larger culture groups. E.G. Imagine Lengadocians having an identical "same group, different culture" penalty both to Normans and to Provencals right next door, or having to split the French culture group just to avoid that. Similar cases present themselves with virtually every other requested split.

I absolutely agree, this strange fascination with having every little minor dialectal group represented as a full-blown culture is clearly detrimental to historical realism and gameplay. It's bad enough that it ignores the fact that languages and dialects are not necessarily cultures in themselves, but including modern classifications like Arpitan and further fragmenting larger cultures like French along linguistic lines would add absolutely nothing to the game, and only steer the game in a direction where it actually loses realism.

Having more cultures should not be an end in itself; sometimes, it may be even better to leave out historically well-attested cultures like Picard (which formed a separate 'nation' at the Sorbonne in the Middle Ages), when the cultural difference wasn't large enough to have an actual political effect that should be modelled in the game.

There are problems with the cultural set-up we have seen so far in CK3, but fragmentation is not the answer in all cases.

 

[Rogan de Auria]

About the Iberian peninsula

Visigothic (Ibero-Romance) culture:
-It’s better to rename “Visigothic” culture to “Ibero-Romance”. Visigothic is ok for the political entity: the Kingdom of the Visigoths, but, with the actual visigoths numbering around 1%-2% of the population, it’s super misleading to call “Visigothic” the culture of the other 98% Iberians 150 years after that political entity ceased to exist.

Mozarabs:
-They are not there. The biggest (in population) of the romance cultures is just not there.
-Mozarabs can’t just be represented by the Andalusians. Considering what was stated in the devlog, cultures are classified in families as: Culture -> Culture group -> Cultural root.
So: Mozarab culture -> Iberian group -> Romance root
While: Andalusian culture -> western-arabic? group -> arabic root.

Berbers:
-The cultural distinction based around nomads and settlers will become obsolete as fast as some proper nomadic mechanics comes in to place. Plus it makes no sense at all for the Berbers of the peninsula: all settled no matter their “culture”. I will rather prefer the Sanhaja, Zenata, Masmuda +others division.
-I hope Berbers are not part of an arabic super-culture this time around like they were in ck2 (north african maybe?).

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

About the Iberian peninsula

Visigothic (Ibero-Romance) culture:
-It’s better to rename “Visigothic” culture to “Ibero-Romance”. Visigothic is ok for the political entity: the Kingdom of the Visigoths, but, with the actual visigoths numbering around 1%-2% of the population, it’s super misleading to call “Visigothic” the culture of the other 98% Iberians 150 years after that political entity ceased to exist.

We've been over this already.

1- Your 1%-2% number is a fantasy, we've got no way of knowing that, visigothic archaeology is a messy field of study and genetics don't really help because we don't even know how Germanic those Visigoth were.

2- If you think the population refers to the landed nobility, then it's undeniably "Gothic". The nobility described as such in many documents from Visigothic times, and in some afterwards (as late as the XIIth Century in some cases, check the Pisan Chronicle). But if you think that the cultue tab refers to the commoners, then you've got to make up a word like "Ibero-Romance", which is, in my opinion, unwieldy and a bit immersion-breaking.

In other words, if you're playing as a lord in the area, what do you prefer, a pop up saying "A Gothic lord comes to your castle..." or "an Ibero-Romance lord comes to your castle..."?

PS: Of course, these Goths should be in the Iberian culture group, not in the Germanic one.

 

[Vias]

Please don't "polish" the culture map with dozens of redundant regional cultures. Especially in the earlier starts, cultures and dialects were still in the process of splitting. Why do we need 5 different sub-types of Occitan for an area with a recognized regional cultural standard, and mutually intelligible dialects from Gascony to Provence even down to Catalonia?

For some reason OP opines that Flemish shouldn't be split from Dutch at this date, but wants every other culture in Europe to be fragmented. I don't get it. If anything fragmentation makes the game worse, because you can't represent the relative unity of regional blocks within larger culture groups. E.G. Imagine Lengadocians having an identical "same group, different culture" penalty both to Normans and to Provencals right next door, or having to split the French culture group just to avoid that. Similar cases present themselves with virtually every other requested split.

What does need changing, though:
Split Ethiopian into Tigrayan and Amharic. Probably debatable for 867 but there are deep divergences between the languages. Amharic is heavily defined by contact with Cushitic speakers to the south. Like the Agew...
Who should probably exist in some of the southern parts of what is now Ethiopia. They're still around today, used to be much more numerous, and even produced the prominent Zagwe dynasty that ruled Ethiopia for much of CKII's period.
Omani's probably deserve their own culture separate from one that can be found all the way in the Egyptian desert.
Hijazi should be another culture separate from Bedouin. Lots of people live in towns there, and you're not a bedouin if you live in a town...
Merge Tajik and Persian. The "Tajik" lands were only recently Persianized, linguistically speaking, and there was a single elite cultural world across the entire Persian-speaking world. I'm imagining that other Iranian language groups will be lumped together with Persians, and it would be REALLY dumb for an educated Persian speaker from Hamedan to look at an educated Persian speaker from Samarkand as just another foreigner on par with Kurdish or Afghan tribesmen.
Please please please rename "Gaelic" to "Scots Gaelic". I know you know this but with Gaelic Ireland right there it's like having "Latin" and "French" next to each other on the map. "Scots" and "Scots Gaelic" is basically how people refer to the two native languages of Scotland today, if it isn't immediately clear from context that by Gaelic you mean the Scottish kind.
Copts and Assyrians should still be around in good numbers.
Chechens and/or Avars should get a few provinces in the Caucasus.
Should there not be some Basque in France?
Romance remnants should still be around in Africa in 867.

How someone already pointed out, these are not my suggestion except a few.
About Scots and Scots Gaelic they talked about this in culture dev diary.
Half of your points are already in OP post, but I added what wasn't there. Thanks
Also, good nickname

The post is a compilation of different suggestions from this thread,it's not their idea.

Yeah Like we say in Italy "ambasciator non porta pena" ahah

About the Iberian peninsula

Visigothic (Ibero-Romance) culture:
-It’s better to rename “Visigothic” culture to “Ibero-Romance”. Visigothic is ok for the political entity: the Kingdom of the Visigoths, but, with the actual visigoths numbering around 1%-2% of the population, it’s super misleading to call “Visigothic” the culture of the other 98% Iberians 150 years after that political entity ceased to exist.

Mozarabs:
-They are not there. The biggest (in population) of the romance cultures is just not there.
-Mozarabs can’t just be represented by the Andalusians. Considering what was stated in the devlog, cultures are classified in families as: Culture -> Culture group -> Cultural root.
So: Mozarab culture -> Iberian group -> Romance root
While: Andalusian culture -> western-arabic? group -> arabic root.

Berbers:
-The cultural distinction based around nomads and settlers will become obsolete as fast as some proper nomadic mechanics comes in to place. Plus it makes no sense at all for the Berbers of the peninsula: all settled no matter their “culture”. I will rather prefer the Sanhaja, Zenata, Masmuda +others division.
-I hope Berbers are not part of an arabic super-culture this time around like they were in ck2 (north african maybe?).

About Berbers have a look at elvain's post about devs choice.

We've been over this already.

1- Your 1%-2% number is a fantasy, we've got no way of knowing that, visigothic archaeology is a messy field of study and genetics don't really help because we don't even know how Germanic those Visigoth were.

2- If you think the population refers to the landed nobility, then it's undeniably "Gothic". The nobility described as such in many documents from Visigothic times, and in some afterwards (as late as the XIIth Century in some cases, check the Pisan Chronicle). But if you think that the cultue tab refers to the commoners, then you've got to make up a word like "Ibero-Romance", which is, in my opinion, unwieldy and a bit immersion-breaking.

In other words, if you're playing as a lord in the area, what do you prefer, a pop up saying "A Gothic lord comes to your castle..." or "an Ibero-Romance lord comes to your castle..."?

PS: Of course, these Goths should be in the Iberian culture group, not in the Germanic one.

I don't get why we are still about this. As I already stated, please refrain to turn this thread in a "Visigoth vs Ibero-Romance" thread. A lot of people see a problem with Visigoth name, you and Duarte don't agree with this. The important thing is to point out to devs that "there are issues with Visigoth" and I think we managed to convey this feeling, so let's stop here.

EDIT: Anyway, post op upgraded guys, thanks, as always, for your suggestions!

 

[elvain]

Please don't "polish" the culture map with dozens of redundant regional cultures.

Can't agree more with this

Split Ethiopian into Tigrayan and Amharic. Probably debatable for 867 but there are deep divergences between the languages. Amharic is heavily defined by contact with Cushitic speakers to the south. Like the Agew...
Who should probably exist in some of the southern parts of what is now Ethiopia. They're still around today, used to be much more numerous, and even produced the prominent Zagwe dynasty that ruled Ethiopia for much of CKII's period.

This does have a point, although

Omani's probably deserve their own culture separate from one that can be found all the way in the Egyptian desert.
Hijazi should be another culture separate from Bedouin. Lots of people live in towns there, and you're not a bedouin if you live in a town...

The point about Omani is that there wasn't actually one Omani culture, but 2 or 3. The Omanis of the mountains were different from the ones living in the coastal cities and between them were the Bedouin tribes, who interacted with both. Each of those cultures would have no more than 2 counties, or often rather 3-4 baronies, which IMHO isn't enough for a culture, as much as I like Oman and Omani people and would love to give them something more specific I don't think this would be a good way.
As for Hijazi - Yes, Hijaz had more of town-dwellers than other parts of Arabia, but sometimes people tend to confuse facts with their wishes. The tribes and clans of Mecca, Medina or Jidda were no city dwellers like inhabitants of Syria, Egypt or Palestine. There were one or two families within a one clan of a tribe... majority of the tribe living bedouin way of life and again, still closely interconnected each other. A "Urbanized Hijazi culture" would actually cover no more than in game 4 baronies with everything else being still Bedouin... and every single "Hijazi" family would need to have both Hijazi and Bedouin branch

Merge Tajik and Persian. The "Tajik" lands were only recently Persianized, linguistically speaking, and there was a single elite cultural world across the entire Persian-speaking world. I'm imagining that other Iranian language groups will be lumped together with Persians, and it would be REALLY dumb for an educated Persian speaker from Hamedan to look at an educated Persian speaker from Samarkand as just another foreigner on par with Kurdish or Afghan tribesmen.

The Tajik area was actually one of the
cores of Persian cultural world, Iranized as "recently" as the dawn of Iranians (Khorasan is understood as the core of Iranian ethnogenesis).
In terms of language, the elite of Khorasan probably spoke the same language as the elite from Isfahan, Hamadan or Shiraz, however, contemporary sources such as Nizam al-Mulk are clear about Khorasani identity being distinguished by both Khorasanis on the one hand and people from "Persia propper" like Isfahani, Shirazi or Hamadani.

Romance remnants should still be around in Africa in 867.

like in the case of Hijazi or Omani, those would account for no more than 4-5 baronies, and unlike them would hardly account for a majority in a single county.

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

I don't get why we are still about this. As I already stated, please refrain to turn this thread in a "Visigoth vs Ibero-Romance" thread. A lot of people see a problem with Visigoth name, you and Duarte don't agree with this. The important thing is to point out to devs that "there are issues with Visigoth" and I think we managed to convey this feeling, so let's stop here.

This is not how debate works.

You think "Visigoth" is a bad term to use ingame, Duarte and I, we think it's fine enough (even if I'd rather have "Goth"), and no one has presented hard evidence to convince me or to counter my own back on the Visigoth thread. Sources in hand, it's not clear, but I think Goth is a better option, a name that was historically used, than a made-up cathegory that destroys immersion.

So the fact that you think Visigoth is not right comes down to personal preference. People may have "issues" with it, but they don't seem based on anything solid. Are they still valid, then?

+++

To turn this into a different debate, does the culture map have to represent cultures as we understand them now, based on language evolution and anthropology, or as they understood them then?

What I mean is that, in game, you'd have Celts, Saxons and Normans living in Britain. Norman, in 1066, should be a Romance culture, linguistically, but it's got some obvious ties to the Norse, culturally speaking, and they, the Dukes of Normandy, understood it as such.

At the same time, the Saxons ruled over Celtic subjects without ever suffering much from it. Some big chunk of the Brythonic aristocracy accepted them, as shown by the obvious Celtic origin of some "Saxon" dynasties based on onomastics. Still, the game would have Saxons and Britons in different culture roots, making their coexistance more difficult than it really was.

Magyars are another example. Once settled, the Hungarians were not seen as some bizarre foreign people to fear or distrust more than their neighbours, and if they did, they did because they were pagans. Once Christianised, they weren't treated differently to others. So would it make sense to make the Hungarians a culture belonging to the far flung Ugric group?

 

[Rogan de Auria]

About Berbers have a look at elvain's post about devs choice.

I did read the thread. If you are pointing out that the devs have already took a decision on the subject then, then whats the point of this whole thread?

Jokes aside, just pointing out that “if” (or more probably “when”) some nomadic mechanics come into place we will just have a redundant “Nomadic Butr” and “Settled Baranis”. But with the other division, for example we will have some “Nomadic Sanhajas” and some “Settled Sanhajas”, etc. thus making the game richer IMO.

 

[Rogan de Auria]

And about the Visigothic culture issue, I will go even further and say: There is no such thing as a Visigothic (iberian) CULTURE.

 

[ArVass]

Shouldn't we just... make two Visigothic cultures? One for the Romanised elite of German origin, basically the descendants of the original Visigothic conquerors from the 6th century, and one for the actual Romance-speaking population of Romance origin, simply called Iberian. Or am I getting something wrong?

 

[Chlodio]

Something I hate more than historical inaccuracies is inconstancies, so Germans have one culture per stem duchy, fine, Visigoths despite (despite only being the ruling elite) get local culture, fine, but Burgundians are just French? To be fair it's kinda, unfair to wish so many on the launch, but perhaps you should just have few cultures per culture on launch and split them up evenly each patch.

 

[Michellistic101]

The only gripe I have is the West African culture spelt "Ibibo" when it's really spelt "Ibibio".

 

[Alenarae118]

The only gripe I have is the West African culture spelt "Ibibo" when it's really spelt "Ibibio".

That is probably just a simple spelling error on their part, that needs to be fixed.

 

[Pbhuh]

Please don't "polish" the culture map with dozens of redundant regional cultures. Especially in the earlier starts, cultures and dialects were still in the process of splitting. Why do we need 5 different sub-types of Occitan for an area with a recognized regional cultural standard, and mutually intelligible dialects from Gascony to Provence even down to Catalonia?

For some reason OP opines that Flemish shouldn't be split from Dutch at this date, but wants every other culture in Europe to be fragmented. I don't get it. If anything fragmentation makes the game worse, because you can't represent the relative unity of regional blocks within larger culture groups. E.G. Imagine Lengadocians having an identical "same group, different culture" penalty both to Normans and to Provencals right next door, or having to split the French culture group just to avoid that. Similar cases present themselves with virtually every other requested split.

Please please please rename "Gaelic" to "Scots Gaelic". I know you know this but with Gaelic Ireland right there it's like having "Latin" and "French" next to each other on the map. "Scots" and "Scots Gaelic" is basically how people refer to the two native languages of Scotland today, if it isn't immediately clear from context that by Gaelic you mean the Scottish kind.

Because Flemish isnt a split from Dutch. Flemish is the medieval ancestor of true Dutch. What people call Dutch today is merely Hollandic which is a melting pot of Dutch language with Frisian Influences.

The fact that they butchered the low countries in such a manner and other areas in Europe is worrying.

CK2 already had the horrid fact that Frisian was somehow Old Dutch and turned into Dutch in later startdates.

Scots as in English Scots has no place in Crusader Kings era. Scots doesnt appear as the language of the scottish kings until the 13th century.

Gaelic for Scots Gaelic is fine as Scotland was not referred to as Scotland but Alba.

But given all this, when you realize that modern scots derives from the Northumbrian dialect of anglosaxon. Then you must ask yourself,

Should Northumbrian be added if it turns into scottish later? Or should it all be Anglosaxon and English.

When splitting up cultures there is logic behind it and polishing the culture map is something they should always strive for, especially when the shown content seems so inaccurate.

Carantanian was added in Holy Fury for CK2 and should definitely make a return. Cisalpine should be removed and Lombard is a weird culture for thay area of Italy.

The list can keep going on, but as you see. Splitting cultures can lead to much better accuracy.

 

[Duarte]

the Frisian bit has already been addressed by the devs, by making it all Dutch from the outset, needless to say that this choice will not please all.
devs have stated that scots comes into being via anglo-saxons in Scotland, whether this means that they will flip to scots just because they are there or if it is functionality a melting-pot of anglo-saxon and gaelic is unknown.
another thing many are forgetting is that we will only have fixed startdates to play whit, we will no longer be able to select any year at our leisure, this means that it make sense from a gameplay perspective to have melting pots and culture earlier they might have been( or later depending on each case), simply because it won't be that easy to play as them anymore

P.S: cultures flipping for literally no reason what so ever was the bane of my existance in ck2, why does Visigothic flip to Portuguese without the existence of a kingdom of portugal? where would they even get the name from if not from there