Ah, never played around in England much, once I belive, but I was gunning for the Kingdom of Muaretania(sp?) as a Saxon dog.
-
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.
Finellach said:
Why are you not using the Ugric Balts! They even have great names, and is just forgotten. Because they shouldn't be Lettigallish (I don't like that name) in Estonia, they should be Ugric Baltic. You shouldn't take away cultures who have a function.
I don't think you can use None, but I'm maybe wrong, but I don't think so.
If you're going to use the Wenish culture to all those other cultures, why don't let it be Western Slavic, because they all are Western Slavic cultures, and it's more correct than having Wends in Slovakia.
But one thing you can do is to make the Estonians Finnish, and change the Ugric Baltic to just Ugric, and have it in Russia.
I think it's better to replace Abhgazian with Kurdish, because it's more important to have Kurds than Moors. The Moors still is important, but the Kurds are so unique, that they're more important than the Moors, who are similar to the Arabs.
Etheopia
As I gaze over the different dynasties and nations available.. I lament that the Etheopian Christians are not playable. I KNOW the map does not extend to the horn of Africa.. but I can only imagine!!!!
The Duke of Gondar!!!! King of Etheopia (or Emporer for that matter) and other fantastic titles and territories!!! and so NEAR the Lavent!!!
oh well.. maybe an expansion
is it possible to create other titles... such as King of Celtia, if one owns, say, 66% of the Celtic countries? (Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Man, Cornwall, Brittany)
As I gaze over the different dynasties and nations available.. I lament that the Etheopian Christians are not playable. I KNOW the map does not extend to the horn of Africa.. but I can only imagine!!!!
The Duke of Gondar!!!! King of Etheopia (or Emporer for that matter) and other fantastic titles and territories!!! and so NEAR the Lavent!!!
oh well.. maybe an expansion
is it possible to create other titles... such as King of Celtia, if one owns, say, 66% of the Celtic countries? (Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Man, Cornwall, Brittany)
King of Skåne said:
They don't have a function. They aren't anywhere on the map. I think that even more important thing that shouldn't be is the Ugric tribes in Russia called Finns...thats far worse than calling Baltic Ugrians Lettiggalish...or whatever they are representing...
Yes it can be used. I chechked all tags. It works fine...
Western Slavic is a stupid name....that is the very reason why I went on to divide Serbs, Croats and Bulgarians because South Slavic sounds just stupid. Wends is just another name for Western Slavs and it sounds far more cooler.
Yes but Estonians aren't Finnish...and it's not just Estonians but also Livonians as well...
You are mixing terms. Moor is a term for any Muslim coming from Muslim Spain wheter he was Berber, Arab or something third. Moor is not a culture. Furthermore I don't think that either one of Berber or Kurdish culture is more important than the other...they are equally important.
Drachenfire -
No, a province can only be part of one kingdom's territories, so you can't have a kingdom that would cover all of the Celtic countries, since Ireland, Scotland and Wales already are kingdoms.
No, a province can only be part of one kingdom's territories, so you can't have a kingdom that would cover all of the Celtic countries, since Ireland, Scotland and Wales already are kingdoms.
If I was forced to choose between Kurdish and Moorish I would choose Moorish merely beacause it covers a larger area and had a more major part to play in the Crusader Kings era, no they were not "arabs" in the proper sense as they spoke their own dialects and had their own distinct culture. What kind of flag would Abgkazian actually have, the muslim, turkish or christin/pagan type.
If you can add both do so however add both.
Other things
Dutch culture, if Flemish cannot be justified for whatever reasons, should be spread to the whole Belgium/Netherlands area.
Saxon culture should become English culture and most of the Existing "English" Nobility in 1066 should be turned into Normans.
Armenian Culture should be extended to most of eastern Turkey in the 1066 scenario
If you can add both do so however add both.
Other things
Dutch culture, if Flemish cannot be justified for whatever reasons, should be spread to the whole Belgium/Netherlands area.
Saxon culture should become English culture and most of the Existing "English" Nobility in 1066 should be turned into Normans.
Armenian Culture should be extended to most of eastern Turkey in the 1066 scenario
Agree, on finns in Russia...Finellach said:
Wends in Slovakia would be weird. In Pommerania is another thing...
Well, we don't ned thousands of cultures up there. You could rename lettigallish or something, but not use a valuable tag on them
We're talking culture here, not ethnicity. Berbers were seen in the way of culture, much different from the arabs. The way of living was totally different, and to see arabs in Spain is silly. Berbers were in contact with europeans, Kurds weren't.
Yeah in the crusades... Kurds didn't invade europe, and didn't influence European culture like berbers did in Spain.GoblinCookie said:
About cultures I think Scandinavia already have too many cultures; I mean there were not many differences between norwegians, danes and swedes. There wasn't yet three languages during this era, there were many dialects, but a dialect in west Sweden was more similar to a dialect in east Norway than a dialect in for example soth Sweden, there were ploitical borders, not really cultural. I think the scandinavian cultures should be merged.¨
Finnish culture should be renamed to uigric, so all ugric tribes including the estonians would have a proper culture, ugric tribes who lived a nomadic life could have lappish culture though.
Finnish culture should be renamed to uigric, so all ugric tribes including the estonians would have a proper culture, ugric tribes who lived a nomadic life could have lappish culture though.
yourworstnightm said:
Scandinavians were separate, more separate then Frankish and occidential
Icelanders had little in common with Swedes in Åland for example. I agree with you regarding finns though.
They were political borders not cultural . Yet many times in history the three of them were united as one political entity and then reemerged as independant states later. I don't think their really is such thing as a division between political and cultural divisions, every independant political entity (state) that has been around for any lenghth of time develops a cultural and national identity of it's own that binds the people of that state into a "nation" and Considers itself inherantly seperate from other groups. Political reality becomes cultural reality.
. Yet many times in history the three of them were united as one political entity and then reemerged as independant states later. I don't think their really is such thing as a division between political and cultural divisions, every independant political entity (state) that has been around for any lenghth of time develops a cultural and national identity of it's own that binds the people of that state into a "nation" and Considers itself inherantly seperate from other groups. Political reality becomes cultural reality.
GoblinCookie said:They were political borders not cultural
Yeah, but norway had been united for a couple of decades in 1066. Sweden and Norway differed in several ways, even if they were not in the kingdom of Norway or Sweden. Say, the Republic of Jämtland was always considered norwegian, although not a part of Norway (until later). Sweden, Norway and Denmark had same Kings sometimes, but that was only in names, and no one managed to keep it to their heirs before Margrete, in late 1300's. If so, do you think Norwegians, Swedes and Danes would suddenly call themselves scandinavians?
Not to mention norwegians were christianized before the swedes, and that separated them a bit more. People knew on what side they were, a person in Bergen knew very well he was not a swede.
Mormegil said:
Berbers who lived in Muslim Spain were ruled by Arabs....they all were called simply Moors by Europeans.
Is it really a good idea to merge Finns, Estonians and Ugric tribes in Russia to Ugric?
Okay it's easy, but isn't it a bit to easy?
I think there should be two kinds of Ugric people atleast, one around the Baltic Sea, and one scattered over Russia to the Ob (river), or the Ural mountains (and of course the Hungarians).
And something else, did all the Ugric peoples at this time (excluding Hungarians) have the same kind or similar names?
I don't think so...
And it's just stupid to merge the Scandinavian peoples. Here's some reasons:
They had cultural differences, even if the languages was similar to each other
They had (and have) clear name differences
It will get to easy to take over and control Scandinavia
Why get rid of historically correct cultures?
And then you will get two free culture tags with Norse, or Viking warriors
I can surely think of more, but you can see what I'm trying to say.
And I can agree to that it looks strange with Arab culture in Spain, so maybe you should have Moors in the game, but isn't there a better option. But then another problem shows up, the Abghazian culture has Turkish warrior.
But the "Ugric question" do need to get solved, I don't know how, but someway.
Okay it's easy, but isn't it a bit to easy?
I think there should be two kinds of Ugric people atleast, one around the Baltic Sea, and one scattered over Russia to the Ob (river), or the Ural mountains (and of course the Hungarians).
And something else, did all the Ugric peoples at this time (excluding Hungarians) have the same kind or similar names?
I don't think so...
And it's just stupid to merge the Scandinavian peoples. Here's some reasons:
They had cultural differences, even if the languages was similar to each other
They had (and have) clear name differences
It will get to easy to take over and control Scandinavia
Why get rid of historically correct cultures?
And then you will get two free culture tags with Norse, or Viking warriors
I can surely think of more, but you can see what I'm trying to say.
And I can agree to that it looks strange with Arab culture in Spain, so maybe you should have Moors in the game, but isn't there a better option. But then another problem shows up, the Abghazian culture has Turkish warrior.
But the "Ugric question" do need to get solved, I don't know how, but someway.
Exactly, they were ruled by arabs, they weren' arabs. The moors lived in Iberia from 900's to late 1500's (e.g all CK time period), they do deserve to have their own culture. Occitan is separate why shouldn't berbers? It's more fun to be a spaniard, conquering a berber province and have a moorish child rather than an arab. Arabs sounds so distinct in Spain.
As to Ugric, I think we can just call 'em the same, or, do as KoS says, split'en in two. We don't need thousands of finnish tribes in the game.
As to Ugric, I think we can just call 'em the same, or, do as KoS says, split'en in two. We don't need thousands of finnish tribes in the game.
I don't care about them looking Turkish, how likely are the moors and turks ever going to meet on the battlefield anyway (expecially if militery non-access is introduced )
)
Mormegil said:
As I said Arabs and Berbers(Muslim Spanish) were all Moors. There is no such thing as "Moorish culture". It is a term for Muslims coming from North Africa both Arabic and Berber.
King of Skåne said:
No one said anything about merging Finns with Ugric tribes in Russia. I explicitly said otherwise. I don't know if you are refering to someone else.
The exact same situation is with "South Slavic" culture yet they are merged.
Again....as I said Moor is a term for all Muslims living in Muslim Spain...wheter they were Arabs, Berbers or something else. The culture in Spain should be Berber not Moorish.
Magyar/Hungarian Icons
I know Hungarian is already a culture in the game, and I think the 1.04a patch did a tremendous job with the Hungarian update. My one remaining quibble is that the soldier icon for the Hungarian culture is still the "Western Slavic" one. As Magyars are not Slavs of any sort, it might be better to have a seperate icon as well. Also, Hungarians did have horse archers, at least in the earlier parts of the games time frame, so this might be able to be accomplished as well.
I know Hungarian is already a culture in the game, and I think the 1.04a patch did a tremendous job with the Hungarian update. My one remaining quibble is that the soldier icon for the Hungarian culture is still the "Western Slavic" one. As Magyars are not Slavs of any sort, it might be better to have a seperate icon as well. Also, Hungarians did have horse archers, at least in the earlier parts of the games time frame, so this might be able to be accomplished as well.
MotoJarhead said:
Yes you are right, but that would require transfering whole Hungarian tag to some other tag and that would really complicate things.