More Culture-related ideas for 1.5

[Ketchup & friends]

EDIT: please check this threadmark for the updated proposal after 1.5 release.

In the latest Dev Diary @Trin Tragula announced some very good changes to cultures and culture groups, including many proposals from the community.
However, we think a few more changes should be implemented along with the already announced ones.

Below is a list of these things, including some proposals previously maded by us or other posters (with links to original proposals)

Spoiler: Cultures with no countries and pops

The Pretani culture group features a Pretani culture that doesn’t actually have any pops.

• Proposed solution: when creating Pretannia via decision, change culture to Pretani and assimilate 20 to 25% of pops to the new culture.

Frisian has no pops (and Frisia has Saxon culture).

• Proposed solution: Switch Frisia (and all pops and characters there) to Frisian culture.

A few cultures have pops in unowned settlements but have no countries. They exist just to be assimilated or integrated when these areas are settled by other countries.

• There are no countries with Manavian culture.
• Ingvaeonic, Irminonic and Istvaonic
• Garamantian pops exist in a few coastal settlemenst, but no Garamantic country exists in the game.

Proposed solutions:

• add a Manavian culture country on Manavia (Isle of Man) (most likely settled tribe).
• Create more tags for the Ingvaeonic, Irminonic and Istvaonic cultures. This would also fill the huge empty spaces in Central Europe a bit.
• Extend the map somewhat in Libya. Add some settlements and the city of Garama in the currently impassable parts of the Sahara and create a Garamantian kingdom there (monarchy, or perhaps a federated tribe)

Spoiler: Needed new cultures and culture group

(We’ve already proposed or backed up many of these changes before)

Hellenistic group:

• Megaran: In Megara, possibly also in Byzantion and Chalkedon (these cities were founded by Megaran settlers). Reason: currently Megara has Athenian culture, but the people there spoke a very different dialect (Doric in Megara, Attic in Athens) and were long-time rivals of Athens. Megara should therefore have an own culture. (originally proposed here)
• Doric: Make it the primary culture in Kos, Knidos, Halikaranssos and Rhodes and change a majority of Ionian and Aegean pops in these countries to Doric ( a few freemen and slave pops should remain Ionian and Aegean and Cretan to represent recent immigrants, merchants, mercenaries etc). Reason: The Greek territories and countries in Caria Litoralis have either Ionian or Agean culture. However, Doric Greeks, who maintained a distinct identity from their neighbours, lived in the area. As different culture has a modifier on diplomatic relationships and willingness to trade, the absence of a unique, common culture distorts the relationship the countries should have. (originally proposed here)

Caucasian group:

Proposed in @pengoyo 's thread on Caucasian and Anatolian Culture Groups.

• Heniochian

  Now there isn't any solid evidence, but the Heniochi in the northwest Caucus on the shores of the black sea are possibly the ancestors of the modern Abkhaz people, a Northwest Caucasian people (in game there is Heniochia, but its culture is Colchian). I think adding the Heniochian as a culture within the Caucasian culture group would be nice nod to this and would add one more culture to the Caucasian culture group (the Caucasian culture group wouldn't be the smallest culture group in IR, but it is below average). I'd recommend all the major families of Heniochia and all the Colchian pops in the province of Abasgoi (which contains Heniochia) be changed into Heniochian.

• Khaldian

  I would split Colchian up even more. Along the Rioni, Colchians proper, north of there the Suanians, the Henochians in the north-west along the coast, and the Khaldians (combining the Tzannoi, Khalybes, Tibarenians, and others) along the coast and in the mountains to the south, til about Polemonion.

A Scandinavian culture group

As many other large culture groups will be split in 1.5, We think a new Scandinavian culture group should be split off from the Germanic group.
There were some notable differences between the two groups in the time the game is set (see this map).

Gutoni, Herulian, Raumarcian, Rugian, and Suioni would be part of the new culture group. Possibly also Cimbrian and Teutonian, but these two may stay in the Germanic group.

Spoiler: Charcters with wrong culture

• Phthia Menid (Mother of Pyrrhus) should be Thessalian. Currently she is depicted as Epirote, but this is wrong. Reason: Her father was Menon IV of Pharsalus, a ruler of Pharsalus in Thessaly. King Aeacides of Epirus married her in order to cement an alliance between Epirus and Thessaly in the Lamian war.
• Olympias Aiakidai (deceased mother of Alexander the Great) should be Epirote. Currently she has Macedonian culture but she was a member of the Epirote Aiakidai family and moved to Macedon as only when she married Philipp II in a politically arranged marriage.

Spoiler: Messapians

It is currently in the Italic group, but should be moved to Illyrian. The Messapians migrated to Italy from Illyria and spoke an Illyrian language.

If Messapia or Apulia manage to survive and interact with Illyrian tribes (Diplomacy or Conquest), they should get the bonus for same culture group and have better relations with them than Rome or any other Italic nation.

Messapia and Apulia should keep Italian military traditions and Italian gods to represent them integrating themselves in Italy.

Spoiler: Name changes

I. The name of the Pre-Indo-European culture group is anachronistic. That’s how modern scholars call them, but a different name would have been used by contemporaries.

As culture group names are used in-game (in events, diplomacy etc.), it should be renamed

• perhaps Native European or Paleoeuropean?

II. Since multiple Greek countries besides Massalia have Massalian culture, it seems more appropriate to rename it Phocaean. The mission tree for them emphasizes their Phocaean ancestry.

Spoiler: Fix cultures in Spain and Sri Lanka

Multiple countries in these Areas have a wrong culture or religion. Other people have made good proposals how to fix these areas:

• About Iberia and its cultures (Suggestions) (@Vityviktor )
• Gymnaesia/Balearic rework (@Ebusitanus )
• Vijayas of Anuradhapura should be Lankan, not Tamil (@Lewa263 )

Dear devs, please implement their proposals.

We encourage everyone to post additional suggestsions in the comments!

We have a few more suggestions for the next patch (some of them overlapping with the ones posted here).

 

[Samitte]

Some good suggestions here, however with regarding to the PIE Culture group:

How about splitting it into the Nuraghic group for the peoples of Sardinia and Corsica? Because I highly doubt they had more in common with the Vascones, Aquitani and those other peoples, then those peoples with their neighbours.

I can't find a better name for the Iberian PIE Culture group in scholarship though. But then again I didn't look that hard either, nor can I read Spanish which a lot of the literature seems to be in.

PS: As a Frisian I fully support any efforts to allow for Frisian world domination. However I think it is better to leave them as Ingvaeonic and have the Frisia tag be of that culture instead.

EDIT2: Though there is some wierdness with having both the broad Ingvaeonic, Irminonic, Istvaonic and the smaller ones like Saxones, Cimbri, Teutones, etc. Those people were all Ingvaeonic iirc, which was one of the broader categorisations for Germanic peoples. I dunno how to solve it but figured I'd mention it.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

How about splitting it into the Nuraghic group for the peoples of Sardinia and Corsica? Because I highly doubt they had more in common with the Vascones, Aquitani and those other peoples, then those peoples with their neighbours.

This could work. If they split it, they should ask MattTheLegoman to incorporate his Nuragic Buildings mod for the Nuragic group.

I can't find a better name for the Iberian PIE Culture group in scholarship though. But then again I didn't look that hard either, nor can I read Spanish which a lot of the literature seems to be in.

@Vityviktor seems to know alot about Iberian cultures. Perhaps he can make a good suggestion?

PS: As a Frisian I fully support any efforts to allow for Frisian world domination. However I think it is better to leave them as Ingvaeonic and have the Frisia tag be of that culture instead.

But Frisia (the tribal country) is currently Saxon, not Ingvaeonic. Are you referring to the provnce of Frisia?

DIT2: Though there is some wierdness with having both the broad Ingvaeonic, Irminonic, Istvaonic and the smaller ones like Saxones, Cimbri, Teutones, etc. Those people were all Ingvaeonic iirc, which was one of the broader categorisations for Germanic peoples. I dunno how to solve it but figured I'd mention it.

It seems that the broad culture is representing all the minor tribes. The big ones are split off as separate cultures. (same as with Greek cultures)

 

[Samitte]

But Frisia (the tribal country) is currently Saxon, not Ingvaeonic.

Yes, sorry. Unless they add Frisian culture areas to the map, they should be Ingvaeonic not Saxon.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

Yes, sorry. Unless they add Frisian culture areas to the map, they should be Ingvaeonic not Saxon.

Then it would be better to change all Ingvaeonic pops in unowned settlements in the province of Frisia to Frisian as well.

If Frisia was changed to Ingvaeonic, the problem would remain that
- a Frisian culture is in the list
- but there are no pops or tags
- A country named Frisia existas but has a different culture.

All of this is quite confusing, and giving Frisia Frisian culture would solve the problem.

Adding uncolonised Frisian pops would encourage Frisia to expand westward, as they did historically.

 

[Arch-Heretek]

I'll just repeat my suggestion from the dev thread for the emergence of certain syncretic cultures, namely the Graeco-Bactrians, but also the Romano-Gauls and -Britons, among others. Perhaps these cultures may emerge under special circumstances, like a 50-50 division among the citizen or noble class, and possess same culture bonuses for the former cultures they emerged from. So the Macedonians, as they are now (but should not be, Alexander and his successors preferred to send non-Macedonian Greeks to Bactria. Sophytes is thought to have been Attic, while Euthydemus was Magnesian, or more broadly, Thessalian) and Bactrians will possess no cultural happiness malus to a Graeco-Bactrian kingdom. The step of counting as same culture group for the Greek and Bactrian groups may be too far.

The Etruscans are a sticky point. On the one hand, they may be broken off into some Tyrrhenian group, with sub groups of Rhaetians in the Alps and the Etruscans proper in the Po Valley, Etruria, and Campania, maybe broken up further; alternatively, they might even be added to the (anachronistics) pre-Indo-European group. On the other hand, the Etruscans were very quickly subsumed into the Roman culture.

 

[Samitte]

Then it would be better to change all Ingvaeonic pops in unowned settlements in the province of Frisia to Frisian as well.

If Frisia was changed to Ingvaeonic, the problem would remain that
- a Frisian culture is in the list
- but there are no pops or tags
- A country named Frisia existas but has a different culture.

All of this is quite confusing, and giving Frisia Frisian culture would solve the problem.

Adding uncolonised Frisian pops would encourage Frisia to expand westward, as they did historically.

Yeah you're right about making it more confusing that way.


How about this:

3832, 3833, 3834, 3847, 3848, 3852, 3854: to Frisian. This is the approximate Oude Rijn > Ems but north of the Ijssel range scholars think Frisii lived. To their west were the Chauci up to the Lower Elbe, and to their south the Chamavi (a group put under Istvaonic)

3828, 3829, 3836, 3837, 3838, 3840, 3841, 3842, 3890, 3962, 3972 3973, 3974: to Ingvaeonic. To represent groups like the Chauci. The Saxons were likely nowhere near their range in game, only leaving the peninsula until much later. Living up there with the Teutones, Cimbri, Jutes and Angles.

At some point I might make a proper proposal for this and do some research, because just while quickly researching this I can already see its really easy to get rid of Ingvaeonic and Istvaonic as vague groupings to be replaced with Langobards, Chauci, Chamavi, etc. Don't know if this can be done with the Irminonic group though.

Based on: W. Wolfgang's 'Römische »Klientel-Randstaaten« am Rhein ? Eine Bestandsaufnahme'.

 

[Palando]

Frisian has no pops (and Frisia has Saxon culture).

• Proposed solution: Switch Frisia (and all pops and characters there) to Frisian culture.

A few cultures have pops in unowned settlements but have no countries. They exist just to be assimilated or integrated when these areas are settled by other countries.

• There are no countries with Manavian culture.
• Ingvaeonic, Irminonic and Istvaonic

Proposed solutions:

• add a Manavian culture country on Manavia (Isle of Man) (most likely settled tribe).
• Create more tags for the Ingvaeonic, Irminonic and Istvaonic cultures. This would also fill the huge empty spaces in Central Europe a bit.

Frisian was an Ingvaeonic language. The Germanic culture setup should look somewhat like this, as Ingvaeonic=Saxonian includes Frisian as well as Herminonic=Suebian. There's no need for millions of Scandian cultures, as they still did not deviate from one another for several centuries past the start date, see below.

A Scandinavian culture group

As many other large culture groups will be split in 1.5, We think a new Scandinavian culture group should be split off from the Germanic group.
There were some notable differences between the two groups in the time the game is set (see this map).

Gutoni, Herulian, Raumarcian, Rugian, and Suioni would be part of the new culture group. Possibly also Cimbrian and Teutonian, but these two may stay in the Germanic group.

The funny thing is that the map is wrong, as Jastorf could be found only in north-eastern Germany and Jutland was an interface between Jastorf and the Nordic-Iron-Age. Both regions still spoke proto-Germanic, as the language split came in the late Roman period.

I'm not sure why we have to split culture groups like this to begin with. What's the difference between the Pannonians and Gauls? I can tell you that there's none as Pannonia was colonised by Gauls from around 400BC to 250BC and some of the people who migrated to Pannonia returned to central Gaul/Mediterranean Gaul, i.e. there's literally a split between the same people.

There are also thousands of mini-cultures which are basically all the same and yet more and more of those are added. Not every single tribe should have its own culture, but this is currently the situation in England, Belgium, Scandinavia, ...
Obviously those people were not completely identical, but if I take this archaeological map of Jastorf sub-groups, then the difference boils down to different ornaments/styles which is to be somewhat expected, as humans don't behave like hives

Then it would be better to change all Ingvaeonic pops in unowned settlements in the province of Frisia to Frisian as well.

If Frisia was changed to Ingvaeonic, the problem would remain that
- a Frisian culture is in the list
- but there are no pops or tags
- A country named Frisia existas but has a different culture.

All of this is quite confusing, and giving Frisia Frisian culture would solve the problem.

Adding uncolonised Frisian pops would encourage Frisia to expand westward, as they did historically.

That's no argument at all, as you can just remove Frisian from the files alltogether. And it's not really confusing because Frisian was an Ingvaeonic language/culture.

 

[Vityviktor]

I can't find a better name for the Iberian PIE Culture group in scholarship though. But then again I didn't look that hard either, nor can I read Spanish which a lot of the literature seems to be in.

The culture group could be named Aquitanian perfectly, (as i think it's a valid name for the pre-Indoeuropean and pre-Roman "proto-Basque" culture in both sides of the Pyrenees), and would include Aquitanian and Vasconian cultures, although Vasconian could be split by having a new Iacetanian (not to be confused with the Iberic Lacetanian) culture (see the map in the Spoiler below). This, of course, would also mean that Nuragian and Corsian cultures should have their own different culture group, as you said.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

At some point I might make a proper proposal for this and do some research, because just while quickly researching this I can already see its really easy to get rid of Ingvaeonic and Istvaonic as vague groupings to be replaced with Langobards, Chauci, Chamavi, etc. Don't know if this can be done with the Irminonic group though

As the culture update will be this summer, you should hurry if you want the devs to have time to implement it now.

Frisian was an Ingvaeonic language. The Germanic culture setup should look somewhat like this, as Ingvaeonic=Saxonian includes Frisian as well as Herminonic=Suebian. There's no need for millions of Scandian cultures, as they still did not deviate from one another for several centuries past the start date, see below.

Distinct Saxon and Suebian cultures are needed for the respective formable countires.
The Scandinavian cultures will be useful if the timeline is extended to include the Migration Period.

The funny thing is that the map is wrong, as Jastorf could be found only in north-eastern Germany and Jutland was an interface between Jastorf and the Nordic-Iron-Age. Both regions still spoke proto-Germanic, as the language split came in the late Roman period.

I'm not sure why we have to split culture groups like this to begin with. What's the difference between the Pannonians and Gauls? I can tell you that there's none as Pannonia was colonised by Gauls from around 400BC to 250BC and some of the people who migrated to Pannonia returned to central Gaul/Mediterranean Gaul, i.e. there's literally a split between the same people.

There are also thousands of mini-cultures which are basically all the same and yet more and more of those are added. Not every single tribe should have its own culture, but this is currently the situation in England, Belgium, Scandinavia, ...
Obviously those people were not completely identical, but if I take this archaeological map of Jastorf sub-groups, then the difference boils down to different ornaments/styles which is to be somewhat expected, as humans don't behave like hives

That's no argument at all, as you can just remove Frisian from the files alltogether. And it's not really confusing because Frisian was an Ingvaeonic language/culture.

These are good points, and some of us think the same.
But the devs made a Decision to give many tribes distinct cultures since 1.0 and the changes in 1.4 (Illyrian and Meroitic Culture groups) and the ones announced for 1.5 (many new culture groups) clearly go in the direction of splitting large groups. Egyptian is going to be split into 3 cultures as well.

It's therefore very unlikely that they will merge exisitng cultures

In case of Frisian and Saxon, it is actually very similar to Greek cultures. Thessalians and Boeotians spoke an Aeolic dialect, but they have separate cultures, Aegean was split off from Ionic etc. Language is not the only thing that matters.
All the Greek Colonies have regional cultures instead of same culture as the towns of origin of their settlers (e.g. Tarentum is Italiotian instead of Lacedaemonian).

The in-game Ingvaeonic culture seems to be for all those very small tribes that don't get an own culture like the bigger Saxons and Frisii)

@Vityviktor
Aquitanian and Nuragic are both names that don't sound anachronistic.

Dear devs, please split the Pre-Indoeuropean culture group into Aquitanian and Nuragic AND split a Iacetanian culture off from Vasconic.

 

[Palando]

As the culture update will be this summer, you should hurry if you want the devs to have time to implement it now.

I don't think it matters, as I made the experience that starting a discussion with the devs is impossible. I know that they might not have the time to reply to everything, but a general reply to what their vision with culture splitting and splicing would be great and save time for everyone.

Distinct Saxon and Suebian cultures are needed for the respective formable countires.

Saxon is the same like Ingvaeonic and Suebian is the same like Irminonic. The latter are the religious names for those cultures which are used interchangeably with the Germanic tribal names.

The Scandinavian cultures will be useful if the timeline is extended to include the Migration Period.

That would be an extension by 300-400 years, and that's why I fully understand amd support Imperator's game director, when he said that this time period should be dealt with in a separate game and not in Imperator.

These are good points, and some of us think the same.
But the devs made a Decision to give many tribes distinct cultures since 1.0 and the changes in 1.4 (Illyrian and Meroitic Culture groups) and the ones announced for 1.5 (many new culture groups) clearly go in the direction of splitting large groups. Egyptian is going to be split into 3 cultures as well.

It's therefore very unlikely that they will merge exisitng cultures

That's why they I wish they presented their decision and vision in a general statement. Then we know if it majes sense to discuss this topic or not.

In case of Frisian and Saxon, it is actually very similar to Greek cultures. Thessalians and Boeotians spoke an Aeolic dialect, but they have separate cultures, Aegean was split off from Ionic etc. Language is not the only thing that matters.
All the Greek Colonies have regional cultures instead of same culture as the towns of origin of their settlers (e.g. Tarentum is Italiotian instead of Lacedaemonian).

Only that Saxonian=Ingvaeonic are both umbrella terms to describe the language of all North-Sea-Germanics. Besides, the practices and building types assimilated over time, i.e. Chaucians were the same like the Frisians by 100 BC. Note that the reason was that the Chaucian land was less populated, so there was no need to build terps until the population grew enough.

The in-game Ingvaeonic culture seems to be for all those very small tribes that don't get an own culture like the bigger Saxons and

Like I said, Saxons and Ingvaeonic is two times the same. Only that Saxons is an anachronistic term, as the Saxons came into existence several centuries after the game ends. The Saxons developed out of the Imgvaeonics.

This is similar to Alamanni and Suebi and Irminonic being the same. Only that the name Alamanni came up much later.

 

[pengoyo]

I like the proposals and am glad to see you are compiling the various efforts.

Since my last proposal, I have looked more into Caucasian cultures specifically during this period. As my new proposal is rather large, I thought it was best to put it in its own thread rather then take up this one. But I'll link to it here and welcome any feedback or suggestions.

Edit (updated): TL;DR of that thread
New Caucasian Cultures
Khaldian
Dido/Durjuk
Cercetaeans/Heniochian

New Iranian Culture
Caspian

(Note the cultures seperated by slashes might be too small to be included seperately and so could be combined if needed)

 

[Ketchup & friends]

a general reply to what their vision with culture splitting and splicing would be great and save time for everyone.

That's why they I wish they presented their decision and vision in a general statement. Then we know if it majes sense to discuss this topic or not.

Completely Agree on that.
Our proposals here are based on what they announced in last week's dev diary.

Saxon is the same like Ingvaeonic and Suebian is the same like Irminonic. The latter are the religious names for those cultures which are used interchangeably with the Germanic tribal names.

Like I said, Saxons and Ingvaeonic is two times the same. Only that Saxons is an anachronistic term, as the Saxons came into existence several centuries after the game ends. The Saxons developed out of the Imgvaeonics.

This is similar to Alamanni and Suebi and Irminonic being the same. Only that the name Alamanni came up much later.

Yet the devs chose to separate these cultures at some pont befor releasing 1.0. And in general IR tends to divide cultures and culture gropups in more granular way than scholars do.

Only that Saxonian=Ingvaeonic are both umbrella terms to describe the language of all North-Sea-Germanics. Besides, the practices and building types assimilated over time, i.e. Chaucians were the same like the Frisians by 100 BC. Note that the reason was that the Chaucian land was less populated, so there was no need to build terps until the population grew enough.

It's actually weird that there is this broad strip of unowned land in Central Europe. There should be at least some tribal countries there.

 

[pengoyo]

@Vityviktor
Aquitanian and Nuragic are both names that don't sound anachronistic.

Dear devs, please split the Pre-Indoeuropean culture group into Aquitanian and Nuragic AND split a Iacetanian culture off from Vasconic.

I'll just add that I agree with splitting Pre-Indo-European culture group up, as the term Pre-Indo-European is one used by linguist to refer to languages that existed in a region before Indo-European arrived regardless of the relation of those languages to each other (for example, Pre-Indo-European can also be used to refer to the Caucasian and Dravidian languages despite being no where near the Basque and are definitely not related). In think the names for the new culture groups (Aquitanian and Nuragic) would work well.

 

[klopkr]

I wont be happy until the pre indo european culture group is dead.

Also +1 for adding a little garmatia and the isle of man.

I really think the Etruscan and their relatives should be in their own group but have a special relations with the italics. I'd like to see the italics have a softer view of greeks too.

 

[Efimer]

... I really think the Etruscan and their relatives should be in their own group but have a special relations with the italics. I'd like to see the italics have a softer view of greeks too.

Integrated cultures maybe?

 

[Ketchup & friends]

n think the names for the new culture groups (Aquitanian and Nuragic) would work well.

I wont be happy until the pre indo european culture group is dead.

At the same time @kimuyama made a proposal to change the name of the existing culture group to "Old European".

What do other people think about all of this?
Should it stay a single culture group or be dived in two?
And what should be the best name or names?

 

[pengoyo]

At the same time @kimuyama made a proposal to change the name of the existing culture group to "Old European".

What do other people think about all of this?
Should it stay a single culture group or be dived in two?
And what should be the best name or names?

As far as I know, there is more evidence for the Nuragic being related to the Etruscans (which are also a Pre-Indo-European people, but unrelated to the Basque); though I'll admit there isn't much, cause almost nothing is know about the Nuragic language. But there is definitely more evidence for Iberian and Aquitanian being related than Aqutanian and Nuragic. So the only ways an Old European culture group would make sense to me is if it was going to be very large and include the Aquitanians, Nuragic, Iberaians, and maybe the Tartessians. But such a large culture groups doesn't match with the granularity of the culture groups in I:R. So my problem isn't just with the name, but the cultures that have been grouped

If Nuragic isn't going to get it's own culture group, then I think it should be folded into the same culture group as the Etruscans. So either both being in the Italic group, or in a new culture group including Rhaetians and maybe the Ligurians (this new culture group could be called Tyrsenian).

 

[Palando]

At the same time @kimuyama made a proposal to change the name of the existing culture group to "Old European".

What do other people think about all of this?
Should it stay a single culture group or be dived in two?
And what should be the best name or names?

The distance between the Nuragics and Aquitano-Vasconians was quite high, meaning that their interactions were quite minimal. Therefore, a Nuragic and an Aquitano-Vasconic group make sense.

 

[klopkr]

At the same time @kimuyama made a proposal to change the name of the existing culture group to "Old European".

What do other people think about all of this?
Should it stay a single culture group or be dived in two?
And what should be the best name or names?

I think changing the name is a half step. I honestly don't care how they're called as a group because I think grouping them together is silly. It should be Nuragic and Aquitani/Basque or however you would put it.