Could you please remove Albanian and Romanian cultures from the South Slavic culture group.It is a huge mistake and one could get offended.
Upvote
0
Culture mistake
- Thread starter Shemshin
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I think most people know they aren't related, but if they don't belong to those groups they won't make it through the game.
Put them where?
Also, fracturing the culture groups even further in that area is bad for gameplay; we already have the garbage 'Magyar' group that only Hungary's in, for example, and that was strictly a nerf for arguably no gain.
Also, fracturing the culture groups even further in that area is bad for gameplay; we already have the garbage 'Magyar' group that only Hungary's in, for example, and that was strictly a nerf for arguably no gain.
Arguably they could fit better in the Byzantine culture group. Romanian because it's a descendant of Western Rome and the Danubian principalities tended to be ruled by Greeks. Albanian because they have a long history with the Greeks, like them being native to the Balkans.
Unfortunately, EU4 doesn't allow for cultures to move dynamically across groups, because for most of the EU4 time period the Albanians would have been better off in the Oghuz group. Under the Ottoman Empire the Muslim Albanians became a key part of the Ottoman strategy for ruling Europe. In game they always get culture-converted to Turkish as soon as nationalism wears off, which I suppose is somewhat similar, though it removed their core and cultural distinctions.
As for the Magyars, I've often thought that it would be sensible to add Szekler (primary of Transylvania) and Slovak to the Magyar group. Historically the Slovak were distinct from the Magyars but well-assimilated into Hungary, while the Szeklers are ethnically close to the Magyars but have always had a distinct identity.
And what is the problem of romanian culture be in an "East Latin" culture group and Albanian in the Albanian culture group. Its historicall correct, and also ensures that both cultures would survive.
Actually, it makes it less likely that either culture would survive. The AI likes to culture-shift provinces from non-accepted cultures outside its primary culture group as soon as it can. Since the Ottomans take over Albania in the first few years, Albanian is pretty much always exterminated as a culture before the turn of the 16th century already.
That is true, but I dont see the problem of add the correct cultural groups, the only problem that I can see is conquest of the balkans would be more difficulty. But I think that is necesarry, for example Bosnia has serbian culture and in almost of the games conquest all of Serbia and the Serbians not make rebellions because they have the same culture. I think that the cultures groups coul be like this:
South Slavic:
-Serbian
-Croatian
-Montenegrinian
-Bosnian
Albanian:
-Albanian
East Latin:
-Romanian
Or if you hate one culture = one culture group
-Vlach
-Moldavian
Latin: Could be rename to Italian
-Lombard
-Sicilian
-Umbrian
-Maltese
-Venetian #For venice
-Friulian #For a correct culture in Fruili and in Aquileia
-Ligurian #For Genoa
-Sardian #For Sardinia
-Corsican #For Corsica
-Napolitan #For Naples
-Toscanian #For Tuscany
-Emilian (emiliano-romagnolo) #For the provinces between the toscanian culture and the lombard culture.
-Piedmontese #For Savoy and Piedmont
Attesting that the cultures except the Wallachian and Moldavian are real languages.
Last edited:
Don't try to bring logic to a culture-setup conversation. It never works.
E.g. the only real way to make Albanian survive is to give it more provinces and basetax, because otherwise flipping it is always going to be extremaly cheap, but it's better to let people believe that changing which culture group it belongs to matters.
That is far more offensive than putting them in with the south slavs.
As for magyars, why not make a Finno-Ugric Culture group with Hungary, Finland, Estonia? I think it'd be fun gameplaywise to have such distant cultural relations, even if it is just a language one.
Well if you look it that way many people would offend and we would have new world war. I'm pretty sure Serbians were not all over the Bosnia, nor it was all Orthodox, but whatever. Slovenian people do not exist eghm 
etc etc...
Worth a try tho, maybe Paradox change these things a bit, but its impossible to make everyone happy.
etc etc...Worth a try tho, maybe Paradox change these things a bit, but its impossible to make everyone happy.
There is no way to 'make Albania survive' because it is tag resembling historical Albania. Look at Albania on the world map. It is poor Balkan country of 28 000 km and 3 000 000 people nowadays, back in eu4 times it for sure didn't even have one million inhabitants in its underdeveloped mountains. Hell, it is so small I am not sure splitting it on two provinces would make sense in this game. And it is bordering one of few major empires.
This is what makes Skandeberg's resistance in Albanian - Ottoman war so incredible. IRL this was possible thanks to his 1st class military genius (I am goddamn sure he would establish empire if born in medium-sized country), mountainous terrain of Albania and guerilla warfare. In eu4 there is nothing resembling guerilla and the game engine makes sure 1 province minor can't win in a war against 30 prov empire because if it could conquering anything could be frustrating as hell for the hyman player.
Despite that, AI Albania appears on the map fairly often due to Ottoman lack od stability and multiple foes which cause it to be released almost regularly if green blob has bad times. But on its own it is screwed unless human player reloads to perform some shenanigans and survive initial war.
Anyway, returning to the main topic, creating eu game without compromises and generalisations is simply impossible due to the fact it is game and not history book. Albania with own cultural group would be even more screwed.
Yes please, I always put the hungarian culture in the Finno-Ugric Group in EUIV and CK2. And its historicall.
In the start of the game Bosnia is all Serbian and Orthodox,but historically Bosnia was pretty much Croatian an Catholic until the Turks arrived.Well if you look it that way many people would offend and we would have new world war. I'm pretty sure Serbians were not all over the Bosnia, nor it was all Orthodox, but whatever. Slovenian people do not exist eghm
Worth a try tho, maybe Paradox change these things a bit, but its impossible to make everyone happy.
And Slovenians probably don't exist because they are too small of a country and they were heavily germanised throughout the history.And their first independent country was created in 1991.Well if you look it that way many people would offend and we would have new world war. I'm pretty sure Serbians were not all over the Bosnia, nor it was all Orthodox, but whatever. Slovenian people do not exist eghm
Worth a try tho, maybe Paradox change these things a bit, but its impossible to make everyone happy.
+1
This might work for early CKII.
But in EU4 time Frame the only connection they have is linguistic origin. The ethnic link gets very diluted after the mongols slaughter 60% of hungarians population. And then gets more diluted after the ottomans get kicked out and the hungarians bring in Slovaks to repopulate.
Culture group is a representation of cultural similiarities. Same dances, marriage practices, etc....
Its why English is not the same as Celtic.
....and I think why scottish is in with English instead of Celtic. But that is a whole other bag of worms because EU4 is the time period where Scottish and English mixed alot more.
Hmm, maybe the British Isles isn't a good example. Because Scottish should really be in the Celtic group. Damn the cultural union of Great Briton Mechanics.
If England is under a PU of Scotland like it should be then Scotland integrates England and gets English as accepted culture.
Last edited:
- 1
Erhm, actually first Slovenian city-states appeared in 9th century and have pretty long history. Plus they were quite developed for Yugoslavia. And they are non too small in a game with Montenegro, Corsica and Gotland as independent states.
Well that don't make a lick of sense for most cultures within the game. By that rule the German culture should be a lot more fragmented, and so should French. Some culture groups eerily similar to lingusitic distinctions. If this is about nationalism, than it doesn't fit EUIV at all, as nationalism hasn't appeared until the end of the game. Plus, that way all other groups should be split into their own self contained cultures (czech, polish, ruthenian, serb, croatian, etc).
So I'm totally OK with following some sort of guideline, but then at least please stick to that for all cultures. IMO, they didn't have 1 criteria, but were looking at it as a mix of a lot of things. And the silliness factor of Hungarian being it's own culture outweighs most of those, so please make a Finno-Ugric (and Hungarian to the Finns, etc) or an Eastern European (and Add Hungary to Poles and Czechs) or make a Balkan culture group (add Hungary to the South Slavs).
I thikn all have their benefits.
- Finno-Ugric would add a unique flavor and desire for Hungary to expand northwards and be a protector of the ususally-disappearing Finno-Ugric cultures.
- East European makes the most cultural sense, as there is a long histroy of kinship between Poles and Hungarians, plus these nations were all under the Habsbourg Empire.
- Balkan is the best gameplay-wise as Hungary would never lose Croatian as an accepted culture and would do better expanding southward.