they probably copy/paste culture map from EU3 into EU4. 100 years on balkans are like a 1000 years in Scandinavia if we talk about cultures, mirgration and similar things, and that is where devs made mistake. but since we can change culture very easy i dont see any problem in that.
Eastern European Issues
- Thread starter StelarCF
- 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.
they probably copy/paste culture map from EU3 into EU4. 100 years on balkans are like a 1000 years in Scandinavia if we talk about cultures, mirgration and similar things, and that is where devs made mistake. but since we can change culture very easy i dont see any problem in that.
You're contradicting yourself. First you say todays numbers don't apply to the middle ages. Then you take todays numbers to show what is wrong with the province count. France was the most populous country back then. Even a combined HRE would have had a hard time reaching that number. If the french population had grown the same as the english it'd have about 200m citizens today.
There are various statistics about the population in that period and this region did not have 10x less people. Of course, it's hard to accurately predict populations 500 years ago, but still.
And he's right about the wealth of countries - the difference is much higher now - after the industrial revolution - than it was back then.
So there is quite a large base tax disparity (and I'd also say manpower disparity) between the areas the game focuses highly on: France, Germany and Eastern / South Eastern Europe.
And he's right about the wealth of countries - the difference is much higher now - after the industrial revolution - than it was back then.
So there is quite a large base tax disparity (and I'd also say manpower disparity) between the areas the game focuses highly on: France, Germany and Eastern / South Eastern Europe.
By Latin, i meant that Latin in EU4 only contains the Italian cultures, and Romania was part of the roman empire.
Regardless, i like the idea better that romanian is three cultures under a romanian culture group.
Perhaps you haven't payed attention to the context. He is referring to the EU4 culture group, which only contains Italian and is basicly just an Italian culture group
As for never being part of the ERE..
It was part of the Roman Empire, around the same time as when Armenia was properly part of it. Later on... not really. For a short period in the middle ages, yes, but not long enough IMO to count. Georgia wasn't fully part of the ERE either. The problem is cultural.
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure. Croatia definitely doesn't cover at least the full extent of its modern borders, nor does it have issues with more than half of it being described as a totally different culture group; and maybe you don't care about immersion and would probably be as happy to play an Europa Universalis that catalogues the Americas as part of Europe and Italy having cores in Dalmatia, but for other people it is immersion breaking. Albanian and Basque are completely different beasts as well, not very similar (Albanian is Indo-European at least, while Basque is not)
Woah slow it down man! Don't give Paradox anymore ideas! What you just said could be in 1.8!
What are you talking about? Annexing vassals uses diplo points. There's no need to put more restrictions on this game.
There really is need of way more restrictions for any greater power, this game is incredibly easy
I really, really hate Hungary not being in West Slavic culture group. Hungary having their own special snowflake group is really bad for gameplay purposes, as it means you have to core your way through all of Hungary unless you luck out with a OPM like Krakow getting released, fabricating claims on Hungary, and then being vassalized and sold those claims. There're also no 'Hungarian minors', so breaking down Hungary is pretty much unfeasible without brute force conquer-land-core-land.
Anyways, you can probably argue that it's historically accurate that Hungarian culture is in its own special snowflake group, but I think that the only nation in that group being a large nation with no minor state cores is pretty bad for gameplay. Would prefer West Slavic Hungary over this mess.
Thats pretty much how i have it:
Except for no Moldavian culture, its Vlach for both MOL and WAL.
Then play as Auvernge in 1444 in ironman mode and do a WC. The game has too many restrictions, stop putting in even more. Eventually, the declare war button will be removed and everyone will have to watch their country do nothing.
You're mixing "modern day" stuff in again to justify your nationalistic rant. So you want to give Wallachia and Moldavia the base tax of France? Sure, go on. Modding in this game is simple enough. Just a hint: Moldavia's 2 provinces have 1 less BT than all the croatian cores combined. Moldavia is as powerful as a released and consolidated Croatia. So it's immersion breaking for you that Romanian is part of the South Slavic group? And that Romania is not as rich as France? What you strife for is not called immersion. You just want to see your home region being buffed for no reason.
Also: You shouldn't throw around accusions of not following the context, when you clearly don't do it yourself. I grouped Albanian and Basque together because they can't be grouped with any other culture. That's their only similarity (other than being catholic).
The incredibly ahistoric Magyar cultural blob is also my #1 eyesore in terms of easily fixable culture wonkiness.
The argument that province culture actually represents the local elites or that cultures should be restricted solely to major players is complete bunk when you take into account blink-and-you'll-miss-them cultures like Karelian, Albanian, Kyrgyz, and the entire assortment of TAGless Native peoples that are included in the game. Many players, myself included, would love to see the Slovenes, Slovaks, and Transylvanians included for once in a Paradox game outside of Vic 2.
The argument that province culture actually represents the local elites or that cultures should be restricted solely to major players is complete bunk when you take into account blink-and-you'll-miss-them cultures like Karelian, Albanian, Kyrgyz, and the entire assortment of TAGless Native peoples that are included in the game. Many players, myself included, would love to see the Slovenes, Slovaks, and Transylvanians included for once in a Paradox game outside of Vic 2.
I really do need to play EU3 some time. It's just sitting in Steam collecting dust.
Indeed! Dracula deserves more than one 2000 MTTH event. Though as it happens I'm working on a mod to rectify this
I agree that Hungary should be culturaly diverse and not such a homogenous blob. The problem is the game's system when it comes to cultures. There's only one culture for each province, which is kinda idiotic. As you mentioned, Victoria II does a way better job regarding this problem. Of course it has others instead. What I don't get, is why Transylvania has a Core in Varasd instead of actual Transylvania...
Szepes and Zemplen should be Slovakian. Maramaros being Ruthenian is okay. And while Romanians didn't have an actual majority in eastern Hungary, there's no way to depict 49% of a culture in a province.
You're now telling me I'm doing nationalistic rants. What? Seriously? What is nationalistic in my annoyance at the fact that the game grossly misrepresents my culture and its distribution? How would that be a nationalist rant? The only one ranting over here is you, over how somehow we're not allowed to complain about misrepresentations. That's why this is going to be my last reply to you in this thread, before this degenerates into a flame war.
First of all, I am comparing different things. Economy changes a lot as ages change, trade routes move, etc. However, since the last migrations stopped, the only way for a culture (in relation to another culture) to suddenly become substantially bigger would basically be genocide and recolonization, as well as a long period of peace to allow the population to grow. Not really something that happened in Romania...
Moldavia is definitely not as powerful as a released and consolidated Croatia. For one, Croatia has 7 provinces to Moldavia's 2, and 24 BT to Moldavia's 9. For comparison, the modern state of Moldova has a population of 3.5 million, and it is roughly half the size of original Moldavia (not exactly, about 33%, but let's assume it for the time being), yet Moldavia has 3.5 times less provinces in its entirety, and 2.6 times less base tax in its entirety. That's not even counting the manpower... It's ridiculous, not immersion breaking. Game breaking rather.
As for the comment as to what's immersion breaking to me? Yes, I find it immersion breaking that my country is so grossly misrepresented that it's weaker than Lorraine + Alsace + Baden. I find it immersion breaking when my country is represented as a different culture group. It's as if someone put English in the French culture group. They have ties? Yes, lots. They should be in the same culture group? **** NO.
As for "throwing around accusATions of not following the context"... Your grouping of Albanian and Basque made no sense in the first place. It's like making a group that consists of everything that is not a fruit. Absolutely no sense.
Oh and... let me quote
Yeah. I don't see what context applies here. In fact, I didn't understand the whole paragraph, so let me attempt that now
Let's break that down.
Ok. Fine I guess. Bosnians are Croatians initially, shouldn't be Serbian. I won't contradict you, since Yugoslavia is troubled enough and I don't want to ignite some flame war here.
Why? And if you don't care about inaccuracies, why do you even come on threads such as these? To annoy someone with nationalistic sensibilities until he resorts to flame war just so you can enjoy seeing him banned? I don't understand.
Why not? I mean, they're perfectly similar to the greeks. And you know, for gameplay purposes /s
I think there's a sentence missing somewhere here, because I don't know where the jump between talking about Albania being excusable for having its special culture group to the Greeks somehow not being entitled to that is.
Again, I think I'm missing something.
Again, if you don't care, why are you here inciting a flame war? Just asking.
OH! I understand. Somewhere in that senseless amalgamation of sentences, I think I got it. You mean Basque is IN THE SAME SITUATION as Albanian. Well.. maybe you should construct your sentences better. You usually put indications in your sentence that something depends on context (see: "in the same situation". You'd be implying you described Albania's situation somewhere else.).
Yes, it's a huge stretch. So is grouping a primarily romance-language speaking country with cultural heritage from the period when it was roman occupied and the period when there was large communication and trade with the Byzantine Empire in the South Slavic group. (Also, it's Indo-European, more because it stretches from India to Europe than anything else)
So is Romania.
TIL that if you don't care about something really hard, it stops existing.
Again, this is the last reply I am doing. Any more replies from you I will liberally report as inciting a flame war. I don't understand why you keep pressing on about this if you don't care. My only guess is that you're trying to troll.
Last edited:
I'd like to remind you that i have posted a simple and easy solution on page 1, while it is now too late to say ''don't start a flame war'' i think it's a shame that wasn't simply universally regarded as a simple and quick way to annihilate balkan ranting, because this isn't about making the game 100% precise, but stopping the flow of these threads with far too predictable outcomes.
So it's more of an appeal, add those simple three steps, put on the brakes for balkan threads and save this forum a ton of future trouble, for both the angered balkanites and the poor moderators skimming through these threads.
That's my last post for this topic.
So it's more of an appeal, add those simple three steps, put on the brakes for balkan threads and save this forum a ton of future trouble, for both the angered balkanites and the poor moderators skimming through these threads.
That's my last post for this topic.
Reading my posts again I have to say you're right. I was way too aggressive. Sorry for that. It was not my intention to flame someone or start a flame war. I don't care enough about the balkans to do such a thing.
It doesn't change my opinion, though. Romanians don't belong in the Byzantine Group. As you said, their language derives from latin, whereas the Byzantine Empire spoke greek. Their cultural ties were mostly religious. Vlach could be very well be regarded as south slavic. At least in my book. And unless they change the 1 Province 1 Culture policy, I can't see how they'd split east hungary between romanians and hungarians. The Transylvanian core thing is another thing, where I actually agree with you.
"I don't care... but I still have a strong opinion about it"
Edit: I'll note that I'm not 100% sure about putting Romanian culture in Byzantine culture group, but it is the alternative to doing a tricultural culture group.
Edit: I'll note that I'm not 100% sure about putting Romanian culture in Byzantine culture group, but it is the alternative to doing a tricultural culture group.