Originally posted by Oogaboga
I've noticed an "error" of sorts in the distribution of cultures. I Scotland, the two lowland areas (not Highlands nor the Grampians) should have the culture of anglo-saxon, not gaelic. The lowland Scots spoke an English language called Scots, not the Gaelic language that was predominant on the highlands.
This isn't a very important bug, but Scotland ought to have both gaelic and anglo-saxon as culture from the beginning.
Anyone got remarks on my findings?
One could argue that Corwall was still Gaelic (Cornish) in 1419 as well.
One could also argue that the Herbides and Orkneys should still be Norwegian since they were norwegian well into the 1500's
These are issues that stem from how EUII utilized Culture, with the benefits and detriments to the way culture is portrayed. Just because the Lalan speaking Central Lowlands where technically Angles and therefore "Anglo-Saxon" doesn't mean that they would willingly join an English Kingdom. By keeping them as Gaelic, this makes the English lose 30% of production (reasonable) and as non-shield lands also gives the 3 decade time period to remove insurrection. The army Muster is also impacted.
You could however argue that the chance of Lowland Scots cooperating with English is far greater than the chance Slavonic Serbs and Croats would get along and they are both "slavonic and at 100% utilisation when one acquires the other. This means that the issue in Scotland is much smaller than in other parts of Europe.
Then you have mixed culture regions such as Siebenburgen and Banat that had Hungarians, Saxons, Croatians, Serbs, Romanians and possibly others as well. These regions could be consdiered to belong or not belong to a number of cultures. The effect of it being multi cultural can be represented with its production rating, but since A culture had to be selected, it produces best for only one (not fair to the omited cultures). Is there any reason why Siebenburgen should produce better for Hungary than Wallachia? Banat for Hungary rather than Croatia, Wallachia or Serbia?
If EUII had multi cultural provinces and a Culture "slider bar" as they have a religion "slider bar" then each country could determine exactly how they want to treat and benefit from the cultures they rule over. Colonists could be used to seed provinces if it is filled with people of a culture not well tolerated to help improve production. This happened throughout Europe, especially after wars had wiped out some of the population.
IMHO, they game needs to review the way religion and culture work to make things act more dynamically. Clearly Wales in 1400 was predominantly P-Celtic speaking people. but by 1820 the numbers were far fewer.
Also, the fact that a culture is different to the ruler does not always mean that their is not reasonable cooperation, Look at Switzerland that has four (French, German, Italian and Rheto-Romansch)
Rather then setting event that suddely "fix" these issues, the game should gradually incorporate a Nations various people, depending on how the ruler acts. The more peaceful, decentralized and economically sound, the more the culture will accept the leadership. This would encourage more realistic strategies for nations. Austria would have to run decentralized because of all of it's ethnic groups. France could afford to run more centralized, but could suffer if they expaned beyond the French lands.
