Let's Make 1.22 The 'Slavic' Patch!
- Thread starter BOSSOVSKY
- 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.
1 if croatia united the balkans they would have called their country croatia (or as someone suggest illyria) of the serbs did they would call it sserbia (as there was a serbian empire prior to the games timeframe. Since there are no longer any cultural unions in the game yugoslavia is better repalced with a decision "proclaim South Slavic hegemony" which make whatever country you already are into empire tier.TenshiN
1) Yugoslavia (united Southern Slavic country) would make sense. Small states such as Serbia or Bosnia alone would not resist the expansion of the Ottomans, or the Habsburg Empire. United give you advice. I know that Yugoslavia was founded in 1919, and the idea a bit earlier, but this state would be a useful and interesting solution. In the game, it is possible to create italy and germany that were created almost half a century after the end of the game.
2) Slavonic Empire, sounds a bit like Pan-Slavinist, but that would be an interesting option. If this does not fit you then I will add:
* Iberian Empire
* The Baltic Empire
*Roman Empire
* Northern Empire (Scandinavia, Britain and Ireland)
It will only be power, and playing them, or against them would be interesting.
3) Sejm - just as I described an interesting system of power.
4) New cultures - may seem small and insignificant, but will be mixed in countries where they will be persecuted
5) Transfer of Slovak and Pomeranian culture is necessary to make this game consistent with history. And on the map it will not look strange.
Northern empire? Eh England has nothign in common with the nordic countries. They would be better grouped with Germany, as for England the empire it has ties to is the angevin which would be england + france. But really I don't see the need for any more formable empires.
the Sejm is alreayd in the game it's just not called sejm but elective monarchy.
Adding cultures which will be gone ten years into the game is pointless.
Pomemrianian is a german culture we've been over this, yes there was a slavic pommeranian tribe in pommerania centuries before the earliest start dates but all that left of them in 1444 are the kashubians. They are however not majority in any of the game's provinces.
Because China was the most powerful country on earth in most of this time period. Home to like a quarter of the worlds population.
Asia is the largest continent on earth, and the most populous one by far.
No not the same there had been a kingdom of germany before, and a kingdom of italy too. The emperor of the holy roman empire was officially king of the germans, and influential voices like Machiavelli spoke out in favour of Italian unification during this era.
Well in a way Scandinavia exists at the start of the game, as much as the holy roman empire does, it failed to centralize but so did the holy roman empire. Even it's flag is actually a flag designed by Eric of Pommerania (Ladislaus Gryf) when he was king of the union just prior to the start of the game.
Were they? Why donät you go to ukraine and ask them how much they like being under russian rule? The south slavs liked Russia because Russia was in fact not their overlord and helped them against their overlords. Had Russia become their overlord that would very quickly have changed.
No it's not, it's older than that, but yeah there is little love between the peoples of yugoslavia.
... except pommerianian isn't slavic yes there was a medieval west slavic tribe called pommeranians, but they have been gone for centuries in 1444, instead there is a german people called pommeranians and what little remains of the slavic tribes instead is called Kashubians. And they aren't majority in any province.
... Yeah don't go to Ukraine and say that. Jokes aside Russia is a great example of how things happened, very few countries changed their names when they became empires. Sweden was Sweden not the baltic empire, Russia remained Russia not the east slavic empire. Only when making claims to things did countries change their names.Eastern Slavs already have their empire, it is called Russia
Because Scandinavia exists if in a decentralized form at the start of the game.
You went into a thread of slavic pan nationalism and refer to hungary as slavic, bravo finest trolling I've seen in a long time.
The united kingdom was born because they hated each other, England after having invaded scotland a dozen times would not have accepted becoming part of Scotland nor Scotland accept becoming part of england so when the rulers of Scotland inheirited england they came up with a new name for the country to make it acceptable to both parties.
India is also the size of all of western Europe combined. And has almost twice of Europe's population.
No it's not, Pommeranian for the slavic tribe had long since fallen out of use, even the Gryf duke of pomerania was duke of Pommeranians and Kashubians very well illustrating that they were in fact not the same people, pommerianians were the germans living in his realm and the Kashubians were the slavs.Lehnaru
Kaszubi is a pomeranian, it's just another name
He does not want separate Balkan and Illyrian. He wants Illyria himself. Yugoslavia would have been, but under another name Illyria. Your ideas of Bavarian Eger and Saxon Glogou are bad. The Saxon Glogou would look odd on the map, and he is 100% Silesian.
Yes they did, the Kalmar Union, it's there at the start of the game. yeah it failed, but so did the holy roman empire.
And the partions of poland is outside the timeframe of this game.
Well thank god for small mercies.
Well the Kalmar union was Scandinavia for all intents and purposes, it just fell apart.
There were a lot of people who strive for a united italy during the renaissance, Machiavelli for an example. One should not that Sicily and Naples was not considered part of their idea of Italy though.
German empire was the every day term used to refer to the holy roman empire.
Well I could actually see that in Vic3. There were strong pan european voices in Europe during that timeframe.
I completly agree.
German is not a culture it is a culture group and it's one of the most fragmented ones.
Just out of intrest which provinces did you end up making these cultures. I can't imagine they were majority anywhere.
Did you even read the article you linked?
Germany is a replacement empire after the HRE failed. the HRE was refered to as the german empire of the empire of the germans so when the Prussians unified germany they simply abandoned the pretenses and just named the restored union Germany outright.
No they didn't, not even close, there are a dozen regional languages as diverse as the nordic languages from each other, Low saxon for an example is much closer to dutch than to high german.
No they really didn't not beyond what military might gave them, but since the HRE had basically been a germany there was a a concept to fall back on.
And no the people did not speak one language as I've mentioned before, sure the german languages were less diverse than say the west slavic from the south slavic but they were clearly separate languages. As someone who speaks but German and low saxon I can assure you that.
No there are plenty of slavic provinces in TO territory already. The Kashubians weren't majority in any of the game's provinces in 1444.
Well prior to modern times that is what was considered italy. The land south of rome was the kingdom of sicily or the kingdom of naples.
Also the Holy roman emperor did rule the kingdom of sicily at one point.
No the languagesof germnay were not mere dialects. It's just that Bismark could be very convincing in that people needed to learn high german. His hold on Bavaria was looser so he could not push as much there, but th languages up north were as different from high german (which was the german spoken in saxony and brandenburg) as bavarian was.
Also there's no unified flat german north, there's highland germany and low land germany and mountain germany.
I am aware of the differences, and I certainly did underplay them. Still, the difference from what I have come to believe was nowhere near as drastic as in the Balkans. That was my main point, the Balkans were and are much more linguistically and culturally divided.
You have to explain this to me if I have misunderstood you. I never argued there was a united northern region, just that the north and low Germany is filled with passable terrain and interconnected population centers to a larger degree than the Balkans.
Yes, I was just saying that the "unification" of Italy does not really compare to a pan-slavic nation, even if limited to south slavs or west slavs.
My bad, didn't think about the Hohenstaufen rule in Sicily. They never united their domains, though, and Sicily was not a subject of the HRE.
Last edited:
Sorbian - Niederlausitz, Oberlausitz (vanilla)
Kashubian - Tuchola, Kaszuby (mod, Kaszuby being roughly what Danzig and the upper half of Tuchola are in vanilla and my Tuchola being directly south of it - Danzig is a small province at the coast)
Slovene - Krain (vanilla), Celje, Maribor, Primorska (mod, all four together encompassing modern day Slovenia)
These changes are pretty old though and I've started to redraw the map from scratch. I haven't started on these areas yet, but I don't think I'll change much with regard to that.
Pomerelia had a slavic majority. I think I added Tuchola just so that it wasn't a one province culture (Danzig was German by that time), but the area wasn't Kashubian (I think it was Polish though). Germanization of Lusatia happened during the game's time frame, but it hadn't really started in 1444 yet. Slovenes by game start were pushed out largely from present day Austrian Carinthia and Styria, but were a majority elsewhere in the region, especially in rural areas (not so much in the major cities).
Prety sure the polish culture was landlocked, doesn't the word polish derive from an ancient term for people of the fields. Meanwhile Pommeranian means the people of the sea or on the sea.
Indeed the Hohenstaufens were kings of sicily and emperors of the HRE separatly.
Last edited:
What I meant was my province of Tuchola was inhabited by Poles, which is indeed landlocked. But the area that would eventually form the Danzig corridor after WW1 was inhabited by Kashubians, who were quite numerous even after germanization policies by Prussia following the first partition of Poland (however, there were some Polish settlements in the area as well).
It wouldn't hurt anyone, there are "ahistorical" options like Jerusalem and Roman empire that don't fit in the timeline and noone is complaining. Making those possible adds to immersiveness and not the opposite, because eu4 games are NEVER historical, the whole point IS to modify history starting out from a real historical environment. Of corse the options should be plausible and have some sort of common sense to look realistic.
What's the chance for Serbia, Ragusa or Bosnia AI to defeat Hungary and unite southern slavs before Austria or Ottomans? Almost equal to zero right, but if it did happen what's the chance that the country would be called either Yugoslavia or Kingdom of SHS (SHS-Serbs,Croats,Slovenes)? We can assume quite high as history showed us, because it never happened that those lands were united under 1 ethnicity name, like just "Serbia" or just "Croatia" .
So I will agree with new formable countries almost every time. Panslavic? Why not? if you ALREADY united the lands what's the chance you wouldn't name it like that if it was for real? Soviet Union was called "Soviet Union" and not "Russia" for the same reason. Uniting those lands is THE incoherent part compared with history. (but that's the whole point of eu4) reforming and renaming is only realistic! Keeping original names for countries after extensive expansion (blobbing for illiterate) is very often NOT realistic and hurts common sense.
But adding new formable nations before fixing the culture groups themselves would be a total waste of Paradox time and effort. I read somewhere you didn't want to base culture groups on language groups anymore, well here is the big problem - there is nothing else conclusive enough to base them on! So we get nonsenses like Slovaks and Checks in 2 different culture groups, or Albanians in South Slavic culture group... give me a break! (even if you ignore the language, there is just nothing in common) It can only be completely subjective if you don't base them on languages, so you just make groups that fit gameplay better? Whose gameplay? certainly not mine. I don't want culture groups to be comparable in size and/or potential or to fit any country's interest, I just want them to be realistic.
There is no Slovenian culture, why !? If you think it would weaken Austria, maybe it should because Slovenes were there in 1444 so it would be realistic, Austria actually had to spend effort to germanize the area in real history, but was unsucessful in the end. Austrian culture in Krain and Gorz in 1444 (or any other time) is against historical fact and an insult for slovenian players of EU4. Slovak culture can't be in the same group with Magyar just for gameplay reasons it kills realism, thus kills fun for me (and I'm sure most others likewise).
For people that want to play Hungary it gives them an unrealistic advantage, and that means no satisfaction from converting the provinces, for Bohemia or Poland players it's insulting. Even more so for those that want to create Slovakia and try it out. There was no need to ***k all that up with cultures. Also if Hungary and Austria strength is your worry, why don't you simply make them accepted instead of non existent / in the wrong culture group?
The worst argument I keep hearing is "Oh, they would get converted soon anyway so why bother?" That's the most idiotic thing I ever heard!!! You can as well erase at least a few dosen cultures by that logic, and why bother playing the game then? "Oh it ends in 1820 anyway so why bother?" hahaha. NO! , they wouldn't get converted in time, I would liberate them first
What's the chance for Serbia, Ragusa or Bosnia AI to defeat Hungary and unite southern slavs before Austria or Ottomans? Almost equal to zero right, but if it did happen what's the chance that the country would be called either Yugoslavia or Kingdom of SHS (SHS-Serbs,Croats,Slovenes)? We can assume quite high as history showed us, because it never happened that those lands were united under 1 ethnicity name, like just "Serbia" or just "Croatia" .
So I will agree with new formable countries almost every time. Panslavic? Why not? if you ALREADY united the lands what's the chance you wouldn't name it like that if it was for real? Soviet Union was called "Soviet Union" and not "Russia" for the same reason. Uniting those lands is THE incoherent part compared with history. (but that's the whole point of eu4) reforming and renaming is only realistic! Keeping original names for countries after extensive expansion (blobbing for illiterate) is very often NOT realistic and hurts common sense.
But adding new formable nations before fixing the culture groups themselves would be a total waste of Paradox time and effort. I read somewhere you didn't want to base culture groups on language groups anymore, well here is the big problem - there is nothing else conclusive enough to base them on! So we get nonsenses like Slovaks and Checks in 2 different culture groups, or Albanians in South Slavic culture group... give me a break! (even if you ignore the language, there is just nothing in common) It can only be completely subjective if you don't base them on languages, so you just make groups that fit gameplay better? Whose gameplay? certainly not mine. I don't want culture groups to be comparable in size and/or potential or to fit any country's interest, I just want them to be realistic.
There is no Slovenian culture, why !? If you think it would weaken Austria, maybe it should because Slovenes were there in 1444 so it would be realistic, Austria actually had to spend effort to germanize the area in real history, but was unsucessful in the end. Austrian culture in Krain and Gorz in 1444 (or any other time) is against historical fact and an insult for slovenian players of EU4. Slovak culture can't be in the same group with Magyar just for gameplay reasons it kills realism, thus kills fun for me (and I'm sure most others likewise).
For people that want to play Hungary it gives them an unrealistic advantage, and that means no satisfaction from converting the provinces, for Bohemia or Poland players it's insulting. Even more so for those that want to create Slovakia and try it out. There was no need to ***k all that up with cultures. Also if Hungary and Austria strength is your worry, why don't you simply make them accepted instead of non existent / in the wrong culture group?
The worst argument I keep hearing is "Oh, they would get converted soon anyway so why bother?" That's the most idiotic thing I ever heard!!! You can as well erase at least a few dosen cultures by that logic, and why bother playing the game then? "Oh it ends in 1820 anyway so why bother?" hahaha. NO! , they wouldn't get converted in time, I would liberate them first
Give me some of those "How to necro with courage" tutorials please.It wouldn't hurt anyone, there are "ahistorical" options like Jerusalem and Roman empire that don't fit in the timeline and noone is complaining. Making those possible adds to immersiveness and not the opposite, because eu4 games are NEVER historical, the whole point IS to modify history starting out from a real historical environment. Of corse the options should be plausible and have some sort of common sense to look realistic.
What's the chance for Serbia, Ragusa or Bosnia AI to defeat Hungary and unite southern slavs before Austria or Ottomans? Almost equal to zero right, but if it did happen what's the chance that the country would be called either Yugoslavia or Kingdom of SHS (SHS-Serbs,Croats,Slovenes)? We can assume quite high as history showed us, because it never happened that those lands were united under 1 ethnicity name, like just "Serbia" or just "Croatia" .
So I will agree with new formable countries almost every time. Panslavic? Why not? if you ALREADY united the lands what's the chance you wouldn't name it like that if it was for real? Soviet Union was called "Soviet Union" and not "Russia" for the same reason. Uniting those lands is THE incoherent part compared with history. (but that's the whole point of eu4) reforming and renaming is only realistic! Keeping original names for countries after extensive expansion (blobbing for illiterate) is very often NOT realistic and hurts common sense.
But adding new formable nations before fixing the culture groups themselves would be a total waste of Paradox time and effort. I read somewhere you didn't want to base culture groups on language groups anymore, well here is the big problem - there is nothing else conclusive enough to base them on! So we get nonsenses like Slovaks and Checks in 2 different culture groups, or Albanians in South Slavic culture group... give me a break! (even if you ignore the language, there is just nothing in common) It can only be completely subjective if you don't base them on languages, so you just make groups that fit gameplay better? Whose gameplay? certainly not mine. I don't want culture groups to be comparable in size and/or potential or to fit any country's interest, I just want them to be realistic.
There is no Slovenian culture, why !? If you think it would weaken Austria, maybe it should because Slovenes were there in 1444 so it would be realistic, Austria actually had to spend effort to germanize the area in real history, but was unsucessful in the end. Austrian culture in Krain and Gorz in 1444 (or any other time) is against historical fact and an insult for slovenian players of EU4. Slovak culture can't be in the same group with Magyar just for gameplay reasons it kills realism, thus kills fun for me (and I'm sure most others likewise).
For people that want to play Hungary it gives them an unrealistic advantage, and that means no satisfaction from converting the provinces, for Bohemia or Poland players it's insulting. Even more so for those that want to create Slovakia and try it out. There was no need to ***k all that up with cultures. Also if Hungary and Austria strength is your worry, why don't you simply make them accepted instead of non existent / in the wrong culture group?
The worst argument I keep hearing is "Oh, they would get converted soon anyway so why bother?" That's the most idiotic thing I ever heard!!! You can as well erase at least a few dosen cultures by that logic, and why bother playing the game then? "Oh it ends in 1820 anyway so why bother?" hahaha. NO! , they wouldn't get converted in time, I would liberate them first
- Slavic empire or something like that is a bad idea.
-Kashubian culture has mu full support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashubians
"German Ostsiedlung in Kashubia was initiated by the Pomeranian dukes[19] and focussed on the towns, whereas much of the countryside remained Kashubian."
In my opinion pomerania should be divided, stetin, kolberg, stolp and tuchola should be kashubian and other part of pomeranian culture should be intact. in this area cities were german but most of the villages were still kashubian and we all know that more people lived in the countryside rather than in cities. Of course pomerania would culture convert them over time as it was historicaly.
-Sorbs also have my full support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorbs
I would love to see a dlc more focusing on cultures and culture conversion. German and Russian colonization/culture conversion of other nations is rather not well represented in the game.
-Teutonic order should have some changes. As far as i know cultures in teutonic land were a bit messy at the start of game.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_uprisings#Further_uprisings_and_aftermath
"The Prussian lands were repopulated by colonists from Germany, who after the 16th century eventually outnumbered the natives. It is estimated that around 1400 Prussians numbered 100,000 and comprised about half of the total population in Prussia."
Old prussian culture should be introduced and teutonic order should culture convert it over time. Of course Provinces like Konigsberg, Riga and Danzig would remain prussian.
Some wold say it wold weaken them but if it is like it was historically then why not? Livonian order on the other hand has a prussian as primary culture and owns 0 prussian provinces.
-Slovakian as west slavic also makes sense. I remember someone saying something like "Hungary would culture convert it" but what about Croatian? Hungary owns it, accepts it and i have seen 0 games in which they have converted croatian culture (at the beginning of game Hungary has 2 slots for accepted cultures one for croatian and second could be used for slovak).
-Yugoslavia is bad idea.
-As a part of above mentioned dlc culture acceptance should be reworked. Its a bit dumb to for example ruthenian culture giving the same penalties for Poland as prussian.
It should also be cheaper or for example use 0,5 culture slot in exchange of regular full 1 slot for similar cultures to be accepted like french, iberian and italian or german, english and scandinavian.
-Kashubian culture has mu full support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashubians
"German Ostsiedlung in Kashubia was initiated by the Pomeranian dukes[19] and focussed on the towns, whereas much of the countryside remained Kashubian."
In my opinion pomerania should be divided, stetin, kolberg, stolp and tuchola should be kashubian and other part of pomeranian culture should be intact. in this area cities were german but most of the villages were still kashubian and we all know that more people lived in the countryside rather than in cities. Of course pomerania would culture convert them over time as it was historicaly.
-Sorbs also have my full support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorbs
I would love to see a dlc more focusing on cultures and culture conversion. German and Russian colonization/culture conversion of other nations is rather not well represented in the game.
-Teutonic order should have some changes. As far as i know cultures in teutonic land were a bit messy at the start of game.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_uprisings#Further_uprisings_and_aftermath
"The Prussian lands were repopulated by colonists from Germany, who after the 16th century eventually outnumbered the natives. It is estimated that around 1400 Prussians numbered 100,000 and comprised about half of the total population in Prussia."
Old prussian culture should be introduced and teutonic order should culture convert it over time. Of course Provinces like Konigsberg, Riga and Danzig would remain prussian.
Some wold say it wold weaken them but if it is like it was historically then why not? Livonian order on the other hand has a prussian as primary culture and owns 0 prussian provinces.
-Slovakian as west slavic also makes sense. I remember someone saying something like "Hungary would culture convert it" but what about Croatian? Hungary owns it, accepts it and i have seen 0 games in which they have converted croatian culture (at the beginning of game Hungary has 2 slots for accepted cultures one for croatian and second could be used for slovak).
-Yugoslavia is bad idea.
-As a part of above mentioned dlc culture acceptance should be reworked. Its a bit dumb to for example ruthenian culture giving the same penalties for Poland as prussian.
It should also be cheaper or for example use 0,5 culture slot in exchange of regular full 1 slot for similar cultures to be accepted like french, iberian and italian or german, english and scandinavian.