MyMAP ( 400 new provinces)

[unmerged(36449)]

snip

and we do not want the things go crazy and unhistorical (and unrealistic too) to please someone’s odd tastes…

But you don't quite get that that by definition all game outcomes are going to be ahistorical as long as you allow a "B" choice in events, as long as the AI can declare war on any nation that it did not historically declare war upon, or be a member of an alliance it was not historically a part of.

If you are seeking even a quasi-historic outcome in the 17th-19th centuries by starting in the early 15th, you are wasting time and effort, and actually taking a great deal of enjoyment out of the game by limiting a players impact upon the environment.

Nothing kills the joy of playing the game then getting the impression that no matter how hard you try you can't change anything in a real way. And by sledg-hammering deterministic paths, or overly deterministic ones into the game you have done just that.

The GC, is by definition the game type that the players that wish to see the most amount of historic variation are going to play. If people play it and are honestly expecting to have history play out as they have learned it they have made a serious mistake. History is a dynamic and living thing, it breaths, it moves, it evolves and changes. Because history is the story of people, and people live, breath, evolve and change.

The best and truly only way that you can guarantee that a player is going to see the Napoleonic wars in any game is to write a Napoleonic scenario and let them start at the appropriate year. Same goes for the 30 years war or any other epochal event. The conditions for those events to transpire are NOT fixed outcomes if you start in 1419! Does the 30 years war make much sense if you have a protestant Bavaria and Austria (which I have seen in a game or six)?

The most unrealistic thing is to expect to achieve a quasi-historic outcome in 1800 from a starting point in 1419.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

Firstly, sorry for butting in on this interesting discussion - with a non-related subject ... I have posted this "bug" elsewhere and the directions given to me were pointing to this forum. the bug concerns colonial city names and the fact that I do not get the historical ones when playing.

Instead of Colon, Santiago de Cuba, Rio de Janeiro, Fort Buckingham, Point-a-Pitre and so on - the spanish, potuguese, english and french colonial cities all go like this: New Estramadura, New Beiras, New Poitou ...

I have looked in the agceep folders and the mymap folders, each contain an excel file called "colonynames.csv", with the historically correct names (and a million more for other countries, that aren't used either).

I'm no expert, but could it be that they are not registered in an über-file, that picks up all information needed for the game? Or should I try to move the folders to another map? Playing 1.09, newest agceep-mymap. Both (re)installed last week.

All help's appreciated! Thank's ...

you might check the CSV file to see if the names you are looking for are tied to a particular province or series of provinces. Sometimes they just go in order of founding and you will if you look around your map perhaps find Santiago De Cuba in a very, very, very odd place.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

I agree with herrdoctor in regards to occitan.
its not a "true" culture its more only a difference in language. it would never had and never did revolt away from the french court except in isolated provincial instances for example , during the religoius wars, provence announced they they belonged to savoy and not france.
The best that can be done for this in game terms is to give savoy a core on provence.
Its similar to Savoy, they would be french culture always even though they changed their language (to gain heridary lands in italy). to Italian and ended up having a basterised italo-franco language.
Just because the royal house of ITALY presently is the house of Savoy, savoy will always be french cultured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occitania

Seems the French were the conquerers and used a bit of the old ethnic cleansing to Frenchify the area....and measures were taken up until the last century (20th), to stamp out the native language.

Doesn't sound to me like they had any more a legit a claim a claim to the area then any other....

 

[unmerged(36449)]

I'm not sure if anyone noticed this before, but the flag of the Netherlands is upside down :wacko:

It should be red-white-blue, not the other way around.

oops... maybe it is because they are almost always in a case of distress in the game?

 

[Toio]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occitania

Seems the French were the conquerers and used a bit of the old ethnic cleansing to Frenchify the area....and measures were taken up until the last century (20th), to stamp out the native language.

Doesn't sound to me like they had any more a legit a claim a claim to the area then any other....

Having just returned from france a month ago, I agree that there is a difference between french and occitan as there are dictonaries still being printed for the native french.
that being said, in our EU2 game what possible impact will this have by incorporating the occitan language?

The massacres you speak of was a religious affair used the roman catholic church to eliminate a different religion.

the best I can see IF we incorporate occitan is that the only nations that have it are:
Provence and Auvergne and only occitan
plus lands of Limousin, Guyenne, Gascony and Languedoc.

The french will gain it once Charles is crowned, so france has french and occitan.
Dauphine MUST have it as they ruled that area.

Spain to never get it as they get catalan instead.

what other is there?

Savoy cannot have it as they have their own language but have a french culture.

let me know , how you would like it set up?

 

[Toio]

I'm not sure if anyone noticed this before, but the flag of the Netherlands is upside down :wacko:

It should be red-white-blue, not the other way around.

You are 100% correct

the flag in the picture IRC is the new serbian flag announced after the split with montenegro this year, but I could be wrong

 

[Kelvin]

You are 100% correct
the flag in the picture IRC is the new serbian flag announced after the split with montenegro this year, but I could be wrong

I don't know about the new one, but it's the combination that has been used by Serbia for a long time.



So someone should reverse the Netherlands' flag for the next release of MyMAP.

 

[Herr Doctor]

I don't know about the new one, but it's the combination that has been used by Serbia for a long time.



So someone should reverse the Netherlands' flag for the next release of MyMAP.

Here you go. Just forgot to send it to yarovit to include in the last update.

 

[Herr Doctor]

Having just returned from france a month ago, I agree that there is a difference between french and occitan as there are dictonaries still being printed for the native french.
that being said, in our EU2 game what possible impact will this have by incorporating the occitan language?

The massacres you speak of was a religious affair used the roman catholic church to eliminate a different religion.

the best I can see IF we incorporate occitan is that the only nations that have it are:
Provence and Auvergne and only occitan
plus lands of Limousin, Guyenne, Gascony and Languedoc.

The french will gain it once Charles is crowned, so france has french and occitan.
Dauphine MUST have it as they ruled that area.

Spain to never get it as they get catalan instead.

what other is there?

Savoy cannot have it as they have their own language but have a french culture.

let me know , how you would like it set up?

I hardly could understand how the aristocratic courts of Auvergne-Bourbonnais or Provence (or Dauphine???) could have “Occitan” (local lower classes culture) in the contrast to the elites’ court French culture etc. There is probably the most senseless addition historical and balance-wise.

I could understand to rename the cities here in Occitan (and probably not provinces), and perhaps in Italy in local dialects too, but adding a separate culture well…

 

[unmerged(36449)]

Having just returned from france a month ago, I agree that there is a difference between french and occitan as there are dictonaries still being printed for the native french.
that being said, in our EU2 game what possible impact will this have by incorporating the occitan language?

The massacres you speak of was a religious affair used the roman catholic church to eliminate a different religion.

the best I can see IF we incorporate occitan is that the only nations that have it are:
Provence and Auvergne and only occitan
plus lands of Limousin, Guyenne, Gascony and Languedoc.

The french will gain it once Charles is crowned, so france has french and occitan.
Dauphine MUST have it as they ruled that area.

Spain to never get it as they get catalan instead.

what other is there?

Savoy cannot have it as they have their own language but have a french culture.

let me know , how you would like it set up?

Well since you asked...

Given that we start out in the late Middle ages in the game Occitan and Catalan would be the same. As it is today the distinction is largely an artificial one.

Spread the culture along the province lines indicated by the linguistic map for Occitan and Catalan and call it done.

I mean if we are going to artificially divide Germany into ethnic groupings that have no basis in reality then why the heck are we ignoring actual historic ones in other countries? I am kind of funny that way: I like a single standard to be applied equally to everyone, even if it is painful.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

I hardly could understand how the aristocratic courts of Auvergne-Bourbonnais or Provence (or Dauphine???) could have “Occitan” (local lower classes culture) in the contrast to the elites’ court French culture etc. There is probably the most senseless addition historical and balance-wise.

I could understand to rename the cities here in Occitan (and probably not provinces), and perhaps in Italy in local dialects too, but adding a separate culture well…

But then why do you allow the same in Germany?

The elites that you are relying upon for your definition of province culture in the above, are even closer in Germany to one another then they would be in France. Yet we have them split into three or four artificial groups based upon as near as I can tell the language spoken by the peons.

 

[Herr Doctor]

But then why do you allow the same in Germany?

The elites that you are relying upon for your definition of province culture in the above, are even closer in Germany to one another then they would be in France. Yet we have them split into three or four artificial groups based upon as near as I can tell the language spoken by the peons.

If you really familiar with the history of the German language culture in the period, you should know that the Middle and Upper German (as well as Lower) were used both on official level and as court and “literature” languages in the 15th-18th century. You have Dutch (and Flemish) as an example how Lower German dialect developed to a separate language (basing on the higher level development of the literature and grammar specifics of this dialect). But in Germania Propria the situation was different indeed, and in the 18th-19th centuries the various unification processes and the creation of the more sorted grammar leaded towards the creation of one literature German language. For example, Middle German was used as the language of bureaucracy in the Prussian kingdom in the 18th century, same with time in Austria etc. The smaller states were much influenced by these two big German cultural centers, especially during the era of the formation of the German nation (since the early 19th century). But in Germania the situation was different indeed, and in the 18th-19th centuries the various unification processes and the creation of the more sorted grammar leaded towards the creation of one literature German language. For example, Middle German was used as the language of bureaucracy in the Prussian kingdom in the 18th century, same with time in Austria etc. The smaller states were much influenced by these two big German cultural centers, especially during the era of the formation of the German nation (since the early 19th century).

If we will look upon the material (architecture, the way of life, household etc) or spiritual traditions (art, mentality, court traditions, later important religious aspect) of the South and North the differences are very clear (even so naturally not extremely critical like in Italian case with Venice and Napoli as example).

The issue is the legitimacy to rule here – none inside the Empire and in Europe would ever accept some German lord (or some power) to go crazy annexing its neighbors and usurping their lands. This is a kind of EUII absurdity. The cultures added a lot of important dynamism and balance to the game to represent this aspect. In addition you should consider that the aristocracy of Braunschweig would never accept Badenese margrave, who would illegally took their lands, to be their sovereign.

 

[Basileios II]

- Why are Cambrai and Liege now owned by Burgundy and not Cologne?
- The Duchy of Athens should have North Italian culture, as the Ajacciuoli were from Florence.
- Rename Belgrade to Beograd. All cities on the Balkan penisula have their names written in the native form.
- Some Japanese leaders should be reverted to their old stats. A 3/3/3 Oda Nobunaga is just silly.
- Amapa, Marajo and Maroni shold be part of the Portuguese ToT, not Spanish.

 

[Herr Doctor]

- Why are Cambrai and Liege now owned by Burgundy and not Cologne?

All the motioned bishoprics being de jure part of Cologne diocese, accepted the Burgundian suzerainty in the 15th century and Burgundian dukes were allowed to collect taxes here (and naturally to garrison their fortresses). As the French community guys said there is absolutely senseless to make them part of Cologne.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

If you really familiar with the history of the German language culture in the period, you should know that the Middle and Upper German (as well as Lower) were used both on official level and as court and “literature” languages in the 15th-18th century. You have Dutch (and Flemish) as an example how Lower German dialect developed to a separate language (basing on the higher level development of the literature and grammar specifics of this dialect). But in Germania Propria the situation was different indeed, and in the 18th-19th centuries the various unification processes and the creation of the more sorted grammar leaded towards the creation of one literature German language. For example, Middle German was used as the language of bureaucracy in the Prussian kingdom in the 18th century, same with time in Austria etc. The smaller states were much influenced by these two big German cultural centers, especially during the era of the formation of the German nation (since the early 19th century). But in Germania the situation was different indeed, and in the 18th-19th centuries the various unification processes and the creation of the more sorted grammar leaded towards the creation of one literature German language. For example, Middle German was used as the language of bureaucracy in the Prussian kingdom in the 18th century, same with time in Austria etc. The smaller states were much influenced by these two big German cultural centers, especially during the era of the formation of the German nation (since the early 19th century).

If we will look upon the material (architecture, the way of life, household etc) or spiritual traditions (art, mentality, court traditions, later important religious aspect) of the South and North the differences are very clear (even so naturally not extremely critical like in Italian case with Venice and Napoli as example).

The issue is the legitimacy to rule here – none inside the Empire and in Europe would ever accept some German lord (or some power) to go crazy annexing its neighbors and usurping their lands. This is a kind of EUII absurdity. The cultures added a lot of important dynamism and balance to the game to represent this aspect. In addition you should consider that the aristocracy of Braunschweig would never accept Badenese margrave, who would illegally took their lands, to be their sovereign.

that would be handled by nationalism and not culture by the game engine. It is also handled by the province getting reduced manpower etc from it not being a core province IE legitimate property of the dynasty.

The inclusion of the artificial cultural distinctions of Lower, Middle and Upper German is poppycock, since they all saw themselves AS Germans, just some of them spoke funny.

Cultural differentiation is a far to heavy handed way of layering additional penalties onto something that the games engine already handles effectively.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

All the motioned bishoprics being de jure part of Cologne diocese, accepted the Burgundian suzerainty in the 15th century and Burgundian dukes were allowed to collect taxes here (and naturally to garrison their fortresses). As the French community guys said there is absolutely senseless to make them part of Cologne.

could give Cologne cores on them though, but that might become problematic.

 

[Garbon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occitania

Seems the French were the conquerers and used a bit of the old ethnic cleansing to Frenchify the area....and measures were taken up until the last century (20th), to stamp out the native language.

Doesn't sound to me like they had any more a legit a claim a claim to the area then any other....

And that is an entry with a very clear bias.

In spite of that decline, the Occitan language is still alive and trying to gain fresh impetus...

 

[Toio]

Well since you asked...

Given that we start out in the late Middle ages in the game Occitan and Catalan would be the same. As it is today the distinction is largely an artificial one.

Spread the culture along the province lines indicated by the linguistic map for Occitan and Catalan and call it done.

I mean if we are going to artificially divide Germany into ethnic groupings that have no basis in reality then why the heck are we ignoring actual historic ones in other countries? I am kind of funny that way: I like a single standard to be applied equally to everyone, even if it is painful.

what setup do you want ??, that is what province get what culture, what neighbours get what cultures, who gets what cores etc etc. this is what I meant, by what setup you want

 

[Herr Doctor]

that would be handled by nationalism and not culture by the game engine. It is also handled by the province getting reduced manpower etc from it not being a core province IE legitimate property of the dynasty.

Indeed, division of German on ethnic-linguistic “cultures” is not the best idea, but the entire “culture” concept in EUII is absolutely pointless thing through many mentioned historical reasons. However, instead of removing it entirely, we made it to serve for the important balance issue, executing one of the sides of “legitimacy”: not the legal systems legitimacy as it was proposed in AGCEEP, but as the Crown legitimacy. It is not s simple claims or cores, but their “Propria” territories.

The inclusion of the artificial cultural distinctions of Lower, Middle and Upper German is poppycock, since they all saw themselves AS Germans, just some of them spoke funny.

First of all, they were Bavarians, Swabs, Hanoverians, Saxonians etc and only then “Germans”. But I do not think that the peasants or burghers during Early Modern era really thought themselves as part of any one big ethnic group except being the subjects of the certain Prince or citizens of a free city (maximum as the natives of the quite virtual “Empire”).

Cultural differentiation is a far to heavy handed way of layering additional penalties onto something that the games engine already handles effectively.

“Nationalism” does not represent this aspect perfectly enough unfortunately. “Culture” (aka legitimacy) system is much more effective in this case.

 

[Herr Doctor]

could give Cologne cores on them though, but that might become problematic.

I am not sure that the fact that these lands were part of Cologne diocese should be a reason to give it cores: in other case Cologne should have cores on all its diocese lands, including those non-ecclesiastical possessions of the Imperial princes.