Imperator - Development Diary - 18th of February 2019

[Vityviktor]

(Screenshot showing where the Germanic cultures can be found currently)

Regarding the cultures in Iberia... Maybe Ilergetians should be in the Iberian group, and the Cantabrians in the Celtic one.

In Ilergetians' case, I think they were mistaken with the Iacetanii, who are believed to be actually related to the Aquitanians. But Ilergetians were definitively Iberian.

In the Cantabrians' case, it's more problematic, as it's not very clear if they were a Celtic people or in fact some kind of mix between Celts and and a pre-Celtic, pre-Indo European, or Aquitanian/Proto-Basque element. But, in any case, looks like the Celtic element prevails.

Also, there's the thing with the Turdetanii: they weren't properly Iberians, as they descended from the Tartessians instead. But in this case, I understand they would be put under the broader Iberian group, for the sake of simplicity and gameplay.

Take a look on these two maps. I think they could be helpful.

In any case, you're doing a good work!

 

[Mike6979]

Paland, you seem to have an agenda but you are incorrect on a number of your assertions. The Hurii are thought to have formed in north Russia/South Finland from hunter/gatherer groups.

Edited for my lack of ability to type, sorry Paland!

 

[Mike6979]

Personaly, I feel sorry for Paradox; as an archaeologist I can tell you that guess work is the best that can be done and Pdx is going to receive nothing but hate for not magically divining the correct setup.

Like the Lugii/Vandal thing. Are the Lugii a tribe in the Vandal confederation? Are the Vandal a tribe in the Lugii confed? Do they have nothing to do with each other? Most important are the Vandals mentioned in the 1st century the same Vandals that sacked Rome?
If you know the answer to any of these questions, you do not no anything about archaeology. There is no known answer and probably never will be, there is only so much you can gain from a burial mound.

 

[Will Steel]

Okay, this looks really nice, so I have a few questions:

- Can "civilized" nations turn into tribes if their civilization rating goes down too much?

- Is there a way to stop barbarians from freely accessing and pillaging my lands? I mean, entering someone's territory that freely should have repercussions. If I was Rome and I saw some Germanic army approaching Italy, I should be automatically be at war and fight them off. Pillaging should also result in a casus belli.

- Is there a way to prevent barbarians from settling my low-pop border cities and taking them away? Shouldn't there be a permanent casus belli against them if they do steal my lands?

- What happens to pops who fall victim to barbarians settling in their city? If Saxons settle down in the Colonia Agrippina of Roman Empire, will the citizens remain citizens or will they turn into tribesmen or even slaves? Will they die? Will they flee to a nearby Roman province in the interior?

- Can I recruit tribal units from tribal populations in my civilized nation? Historically, both India and China (and later Rome as Auxilia) made extensive use of tribes within their empire's borders to provide loads of levies to be used in wars, in exchange for imperial protection. They made great source of cheap expendable levies in India and China (who mention them in texts a lot) and Rome used them to provide army support that Rome itself was weak in, like heavy cavalry, horse archers and scouts and later even the loyal Imperial Guard.

- You have said that renegade mercenary leaders can settle down and build their own dynamic nation. Can a dissatisfied clan leave you, take a lot of pops along with them and move to a new location nearby to build a new tribe (dynamic tag), instead of always launching a civil war? Such feature would be awesome.

- Can we pick up pops during migration, especially through raiding?

- Can we resettle non-primary culture pops if we pick them up during migration?

- Will we have an EU4 style "Get off my lawn!" type casus belli to force tribes to migrate away from my civilized borders? One that can emulate the excellent RTW Barbarian Invasion-inspired feature suggestion someone made a few pages ago.

- Are there any penalties to frequent migration? I mean, EU4 had the "emptied lands" modifier or something like that, which made a province very poor for a decade or two after someone migrated away.

- Will we the players, when as tribals, be allowed to serve a large civilized empire if we settle to their borders (and gain protection and benefits in return)? Most empires were willing to turn them into conditional allies rather than outright annex them.

- As someone asked, if a migrant cohort is defeated, does the horde lose pops associated with it?

- Has the old EU-Rome feature of negotiating with spawned barbarians that occupy your territory, implemented into the game yet?

 

[AlleyTheToaster]

I so hope there's gonna be achievement to Settle and Unite Britain as Angles.

 

[themogician]

Looks pretty good.

 

[LAF1994]

Germania
View attachment 452176​

Why are the Gallic cultures this divided? Having a separate Belgae culture is justified AFAIK, but why do the Aedui, Arveni and Bitruges have separate cultures (for example)?
Similarly, why are there separate Saxon and Angle cultures when Ingvaeonic already exists? The Angles, Saxons and Jutes were Ingvaeonic (although did the Ingvaeonic/Istvaeonic/Irminonic split exist at this time?). Likewise for Suebic and Irminonic.

 

[Mike6979]

Will, I would pay money for a CB to be called 'Get off my lawn!'.

 

[TheDungen]

One thing that interests me is will the migration south of the Goths and Vandals leave colonization provinces in their wake or will they somehow leave slavoblatic tribes in their wake?

 

[Palando]

You have a great map of Germany. I put a like. Only I do not agree about the Heruls, most historians do not agree. Because after the defeat of the Lombards, the Heruls left for Thule Island.
I agree that the Balts lived in the Stone Age. But with the arrival of Goths, they began to develop rapidly.
Claudius Ptolemy mentions the Galindians, the Sudins, the Careotes, and the Sales. Their names are found in the Middle Ages. It was possible to add them to the game.

The problem is that it's solely based on a Danish historian of the 18th century making a mistake and even admitting it's wishful thinking. It is solely based on this one passage:
Herulos propriis sedibus expulerunt = drove from their homes the Heruli (Jordanes)


There's however no necessity that Jordanes wrote about an event in a distant past, as a Herulian migration to Scandinavia was mentioned for the early 6th century by Procopius. There's a passage in Jordanes's work that counteracts this interpretation, as he talks about the Herulians etymology and that they got their name when they lived along the Sea of Azov:

But though famous for his conquest of so many races, he gave himself no rest until he had slain some in battle and then reduced to his sway the remainder of the tribe of the Heruli, whose chief was Alaric. Now the aforesaid race, as the historian Ablabius tells us, dwelt near Lake Maeotis in swampy places which the Greeks call hele; hence they were named Heluri (Getica, 117).

The Heruls first, thus, entered Scandinavia in the 6th century AD, so they could hardly be there. You could also read this far longer text here: https://www.academia.edu/36635146/The_Heruls_in_Scandinavia

 

[Palando]

Poland, you seem to have an agenda but you are incorrect on a number of your assertions.

I suppose you mean me, although I have no affiliation with Poland at all. I've never been to Poland even. So please stop making such claims.

The Hurii are thought to have formed in north Russia/South Finland from hunter/gatherer groups.

The Harii are only mentioned by Tacitus in his Germania and no more concrete location than that they were Lugians was given there. So it's impossible to make any certain claims about them. I also doubt that Tacitus would've mentioned the Harii if they had been a tribe that lived thousands of kilometres away from the other Lugians.

Personaly, I feel sorry for Paradox; as an archaeologist I can tell you that guess work is the best that can be done and Pdx is going to receive nothing but hate for not magically divining the correct setup.

Like the Lugii/Vandal thing. Are the Lugii a tribe in the Vandal confederation? Are the Vandal a tribe in the Lugii confed? Do they have nothing to do with each other? Most important are the Vandals mentioned in the 1st century the same Vandals that sacked Rome?
If you know the answer to any of these questions, you do not no anything about archaeology. There is no known answer and probably never will be, there is only so much you can gain from a burial mound.

Because Vandal and Lugian is used somewhat interchangeably, they are often equated. The Lugian federation likely formed because of the strong Celtic influence that penetrated into Poland from the south to the north during the late 4th and the whole 3rd century BC. This resulted in the change of burial customs and ritual offerings which were far closer to their Celtic counterparts, so that it's quite likely the people there adopted the Celtic eschatological views.
Vandals could've then been the Germanic name for and/or of these people. The first mention of the Vandal name was by Plinius who spent many years among the western Germanians, while everyone (Tacitus, Strabon, Ptolemaios, ...) mentioned the Lugians instead.

Directly equating the people of that period with the Vandals who raided the Mediterranean is certainly stretching it too far, but there seemingly had to be a core which preserved some form of unity and the name. Vandal/Lugian shouldn't be used as an ethnic name but more as a tradition/customs/society idea that continously developed over the years.

One thing that interests me is will the migration south of the Goths and Vandals leave colonization provinces in their wake or will they somehow leave slavoblatic tribes in their wake?

Why should they? Before the Vandals left, people from the east migrated into their area. The Goths migrated into areas where there were some local populations or people from the east migrated there. All this happened during the migration period, so Vandals and/or Goths packing their things should certainly not lead to proto-Balto-Slavs popping out of the earth.

 

[TheDungen]

Why should they? Before the Vandals left, people from the east migrated into their area. The Goths migrated into areas where there were some local populations or people from the east migrated there. All this happened during the migration period, so Vandals and/or Goths packing their things should certainly not lead to proto-Balto-Slavs popping out of the earth.

So who according to you were living on the southern baltic coast before the Germanics migrated down from scandinavia?

 

[Palando]

So who according to you were living on the southern baltic coast before the Germanics migrated down from scandinavia?

Those migrations happened during the bronze age, so several centuries before.
Furthermore, Indo-Europeans originated from the south-east, and wandered across all of Europe. So you really have to point out who and from where proto-Germanics came, as they developed out of the Indo-Europeans. It's one of the unanswered questions, but the next decade should see a massive increase of genetical information, so that one can rule out or bolster some theories.

 

[classicist]

The less-than-ideal -ia based system of naming factions is breaking down even at the Paradox end, I see: why all these forced (and ahistorical, and Latinate) -ia-names when there is suddenly Aviones there? (Which would, by the way, be vastly preferable).

 

[Trin Tragula]

The less-than-ideal -ia based system of naming factions is breaking down even at the Paradox end, I see: why all these forced (and ahistorical, and Latinate) -ia-names when there is suddenly Aviones there? (Which would, by the way, be vastly preferable).

Thanks for spotting that Will fix.

Having -ia at the end to signify "the land of x" is a choice out of necessity really. Having some countries named according to one system and some according to another does not really work with interface, etc.

 

[Nortrix]

Will we see another dev on Scandinavia(not only Juteland)?

btw great to see more tribes added. Good to see the Dani My sympathies to Paradox, must be a mine field with "experts" claiming this and that for these vague documented times. Should be used more "i think" based on "most likely" due to sources and finds than stating "facts". Cheers

 

[Palando]

Thanks for spotting that Will fix.

Having -ia at the end to signify "the land of x" is a choice out of necessity really. Having some countries named according to one system and some according to another does not really work with interface, etc.

I beg you, could you please answer (at least some of the following):

• What is the reasoning behind having a gap between Germanics and Gauls? I wonder because those people there (modern Westfalia) were more developed compared to the northern tribes (technology, economic surpluses in form of food, ...).
• Will you remove the Aduaticians (offspring of the Cimbric migrations according to Caesar) and the Cugernians (they were the Sugambrians the Romans re-settled in 9 AD) before release?
• Will you reconsider the Burgundians? See here https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...of-february-2019.1153355/page-3#post-25175660
  
• Will you reconsider the Nemetians, Vangionians and Triboccians? They are described to be from east of the Rhine by Caesar and other writers. In fact, the Mediomatricians and Sequanians shared a border in earlier times. Then there are the Ubians, which also quite likely were part of La Tène culture. The Ubians' name can be derived from Germanic uberaz (superior) or Celtic ubos (sword blade).

EDIT: I'd also suggest reading this about Jutland (for anyone), as it gives nice hints how to split Jutland: https://www.academia.edu/10276827/J...hern_extent_of_the_so-called_Jastorf_Culture_

 

[TheDungen]

Those migrations happened during the bronze age, so several centuries before.
Furthermore, Indo-Europeans originated from the south-east, and wandered across all of Europe. So you really have to point out who and from where proto-Germanics came, as they developed out of the Indo-Europeans. It's one of the unanswered questions, but the next decade should see a massive increase of genetical information, so that one can rule out or bolster some theories.

Yes they did but the area they expanded into was baltoslavic. And it is probably not a coincidence that when the germanic tribes moved on they became baltoslavic again. It is very likely that the baltoslavic heirtage existed as an undercurrent in this region, that they should have a fairly big lot of baltoslavic pops in in game terms, in the between period too.

 

[Palando]

Yes they did but the area they expanded into was baltoslavic. And it is probably not a coincidence that when the germanic tribes moved on they became baltoslavic again. It is very likely that the baltoslavic heirtage existed as an undercurrent in this region, that they should have a fairly big lot of baltoslavic pops in in game terms, in the between period too.

How do you know so clearly which region was proto-Balto-Slavic, when modern researchers aren't really sure about that? There's no magical gene that determined whether or not someone was Germanic, Celtic, Italic, Balto-Slavic or whatever. The most convenient definition of these groups is based on their primary language (bi-linguals are a bit tough), so you had assimilation processes as well as expansion processes. E.g. an area that earlier was inhabited by Germanics, could've been Balto-Slavic a few generations after, without involving too much migration because trade and interaction with Balto-Slavs increased while it plummeted with Germanics.

What you do is basically speculating whether or not there were minority languages, although we do not even know the majority languages with absolute certainty. The Przeworsk culture (in older literature called Vandalian culture) existed for over 600 years, which makes people that suddenly remember their old language unlikely.

 

[Lord Hoosier]

Can we form Galatia?