Peculiar Cultures

[Toio]

No it isn't irrelevant, and it is no more a fantasy mod than vanilla or AGCEEP.

Culture has to be defined for the game in some way.

Language is only part of it, at least here. Then there are commonly held laws, race (or the perception of it) and traditional animosities to consider.

Occitan is still used today ... precisely my point, which is why the language spoken by the common people is no use to us as the yardstick by which we measure the culture of a province as defined in the parameters of EU2.

this is true, but your MOD and AGCEEP need to establish what levels of culture ( if you have many culture to spare ) exist. You cannot say that slavonic is justified to be used when you deal with craots and serbs who have by the way an different linguistic alphabet to each other, let alone a difference in religion.

as for languages, well dialects are languages , its only the government of the nation that seem to recognise or not , a language from a dialect. example, there was no Croatian , slovenian and moldovian language only as dialects, but since they gained nationality, their dialects are now languages. also, a further example, we know frisian is a language and culture but the dutch government say its a dialect. IMO there are not many dialects ( as per the greek terminology of dialect) that exist in the world today. So people who say , you cannot have this culture Because its a dialect are in error.

As for the game, I think that "wrong culture" needs to be more emphasized. eg
stab of + 1 , 2 and 3 ...........as per game now
stab of 0 and negatives .........double trouble........60% loss of manpower and taxes and double revolt risk
As you say we have the commands already in place to grant, remove or change province cultures.

I feel, certain strong nations ( depending on game trends) need to per culled in strength by using certain cultures, similar to what AGCEEP did with SPA.
France can be "culled" by introducing occitan till 1536, then these provinces change to french or FRA gain occitan culture

 

[unmerged(15247)]

in the year in question , dobroja was a thraco-bulgarian culture

Anyway, there seems to be confusion in the levels of culture that is mentioned here, ( by all)
to me Slavonic is on the same level as Germanic and Romance (italy , spain, france and portugal)

well if this would be one way to look at it, romanian shall be then romance. so again, no ties to the fact of mixing slavonian and romanian shall be "ok".

point is that, personally i am getting sick of people i even know in real life(nevermind the ones i do not, hehehehe) that imidiatelly think of russian when hear "romanian"(language, culture,even DAMM LOCATION!,etc)
or even worse, they start talking in russian to me:rofl:

 

[Toio]

well if this would be one way to look at it, romanian shall be then romance. so again, no ties to the fact of mixing slavonian and romanian shall be "ok".

point is that, personally i am getting sick of people i even know in real life(nevermind the ones i do not, hehehehe) that imidiatelly think of russian when hear romanian(language, culture,etc)
or even worse, they start talking in russian to me:rofl:

So, i presume you are romanian, if so , then is it justified for the moldavian government to say Moldavian language is not romanian or russian ?

 

[MattyG]

this is true, but your MOD and AGCEEP need to establish what levels of culture ( if you have many culture to spare ) exist. You cannot say that slavonic is justified to be used when you deal with craots and serbs who have by the way an different linguistic alphabet to each other, let alone a difference in religion.

I don't say that Slavonic exists.

It has been there since Aberration and no-one (except beregic for the 'romanian' provinces) has asked for it to be changed.

Thrilled to change it, absolutely thrilled.

as for languages, well dialects are languages , its only the government of the nation that seem to recognise or not , a language from a dialect. example, there was no Croatian , slovenian and moldovian language only as dialects, but since they gained nationality, their dialects are now languages. also, a further example, we know frisian is a language and culture but the dutch government say its a dialect. IMO there are not many dialects ( as per the greek terminology of dialect) that exist in the world today. So people who say , you cannot have this culture Because its a dialect are in error.

This is interesting, but not necessarily critical to the discussion as language is not the only element to define culture in Interregnum.

As for the game, I think that "wrong culture" needs to be more emphasized. eg
stab of + 1 , 2 and 3 ...........as per game now
stab of 0 and negatives .........double trouble........60% loss of manpower and taxes and double revolt risk

I cannot alter these effects. When (if) the Source Code Team complete there work, these effects will become moddable. In general, I would like to see these change over time: to be less important in 1419 than in 1820.

As you say we have the commands already in place to grant, remove or change province cultures.

I feel, certain strong nations ( depending on game trends) need to per culled in strength by using certain cultures, similar to what AGCEEP did with SPA.
France can be "culled" by introducing occitan till 1536, then these provinces change to french or FRA gain occitan culture

Interrgnum does this too, but of course France has to exist. Normally, you will find it does not form up and Occitan culture (and even occitania) are around in 1820.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

So, i presume you are romanian, if so , then is it justified for the moldavian government to say Moldavian language is not romanian or russian ?

i would certanlly not get into such debates on THIS forum.
however moldovian has evolved in a dialect(mostlly the accent), and the republic of moldova , in the recent past 60 years or so, has an even more radical liguistic deviation(imposed after the war by "i am not going to say his name"). there are romanian villages in siberia, just like there too are some germans ones as well ...but as i say, this is not the place to discuss this regardless of what point one would like to make( and i am really not getting yours to start with....meaning....)

and as assuming....you go too far in this presumption; as mattyg might want to confirm, canada itself has a diffrent and quiet original approach to multiculturalism when compared with any other such ..."approaches"; and there is no canadian witout exterior roots. in toronto alone you can find without looking hard, ANY minority/ethnicity/country/culture/etc. cultural backrounds in general are a MIX of "this" and "that". lots of minorities that had been persecuted in eastern europe are here. and that does not includes just assumption based on race/culture/skin color, but MAINLY based on religion/political VIEWS and so on...

now, shall i make reservations?

 

[MattyG]

now, shall i make reservations?

Yes, please. Table for four at 7.30, thanks.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

Yes, please. Table for four at 7.30, thanks.

for 8, picked up a few more while calling i think the place in edmonton would be the best choice, kind of half-way, hehehe.

i think we both forgat the 6 hours time diffrence we have in between(6 hours is it? ).seems a long and distant time... you sure that we both live in the same country?
btw, the distance from me to you is around the same as the distance from toronto to the eastern meridian in europe(poland/romania/etc)

 

[unmerged(1047)]

Rolling back to the person who was asking me... Lorraine might make two, if it was to start german (though I think it starts french in vanilla). Alsace was the one I was thinking of - late in the game, after the French absorbed it and got cores on it historically (1675 I think?) I think there should be a culture change to French.

Yes, the people might still have been a majority German, but the landowners, administrators, such... that switched very quickly to French. And judging by the culture change for Wales, I think it was meant to be the "aristocracy" and not the peasant class, anyway.

Regarding the comment, though, about Serbian and Croatian. Correct me if I am wrong - and speaking from California I well might be - but I once heard that they actually have the same spoken language (minus some dialect differences smaller than British vs. American English), and that it's just that Croatia uses Western European letters while Serbia uses Cyrillic? In that case - if true - I do not think that alone could be used to justify different cultures, since in the time period we're talking about the vast majority of the world had very low literacy rates. And as for religion - we already have a tool (religion!) to model that difference without a culture difference.

 

[Therion]

Yes, the people might still have been a majority German, but the landowners, administrators, such... that switched very quickly to French. And judging by the culture change for Wales, I think it was meant to be the "aristocracy" and not the peasant class, anyway.

In that case:

- The Baltic provinces including Estonia should be changed to German.
- Bohemia changed to German, and some south Slavic regions too (like Slovenia).
- Finland changed to Scandinavian.
- Malta changed to Italian.
- Ireland changed to Anglosaxon.
- etc.

In my opinion there is no one-way approach to this culture issue. One thing I don't like is the AGCEEP-style linguistic approach, which is by and large anachronistic. Parochialism prevailed. A typical German villager, for example, would still regard villages two miles away as being as foreign as any other village. To hell with linguistic affinity! On the other side of the spectrum, the aristocracy had no sense of nation or language. The only tangible territorial demarcations were the historical rights of kingdoms, which is why I personally prefer cultures based on the respective historical kingdoms they were part of. Obviously, this has its own problems since not all territories were part of kingdom (vide the Papal States, Venetia or the Baltic countries). So, again, no one-way approach is possible.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

In that case:

- The Baltic provinces including Estonia should be changed to German.
- Bohemia changed to German, and some south Slavic regions too (like Slovenia).
- Finland changed to Scandinavian.
- Malta changed to Italian.
- Ireland changed to Anglosaxon.
- etc.

In my opinion there is no one-way approach to this culture issue. One thing I don't like is the AGCEEP-style linguistic approach, which is by and large anachronistic. Parochialism prevailed. A typical German villager, for example, would still regard villages two miles away as being as foreign as any other village. To hell with linguistic affinity! On the other side of the spectrum, the aristocracy had no sense of nation or language. The only tangible territorial demarcations were the historical rights of kingdoms, which is why I personally prefer cultures based on the respective historical kingdoms they were part of. Obviously, this has its own problems since not all territories were part of kingdom (vide the Papal States, Venetia or the Baltic countries). So, again, no one-way approach is possible.

maybe....however having culture changing events for most or all of those "debated" provincial cultures might help to make everyone happy.

since this mod already has "gain cores" implemented on all europe and middle east, the moment a nation recives the core( via under 4bb, less then 9/9 atist/centra and +3 inno), culture change could come right after. of course not for the WHOLE word since that would couse "uniformity":rofl:...but rather JUST for this 10-20 provinces such as the ones mentioned in this thread.

 

[Therion]

As to the "Romanian question", I too find strange that Rumelian is Romanian (might that be because the two words have the same root?) and Budjak Slavonic. Wallachia, Budjak and Moldova were Romanian. Bulgaria and Rumelia Slavonic (Bulgarian). The only clash is Dobrudja, since the southern part of that region was Slavonic and the northern Romanian. It's actually not a question of debate - but to whom arbitrarily allocate the culture of the entire region. And for gameplay reasons, I'd make culture dependent on whoever owns it.

I know this is an alternative mod, but I still cannot imagine any plausible historical reasons for cultures to be in the current set up except ones that go way back to the times of the Slav invasions of the 6th century.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

might that be because the two words have the same root?

as about rumelia beeing romanian and bujak not , you right. wonder if the provincial id's were simplly....misplaced

 

[Toio]

everyone has different views on culture, but you need to define which rule the MOD will use.

Just remember there was no Greek, government, king or ruler from alexander the great , around 350BC to 1824 AD...........do we have a greek culture ? or do these greek lands get split between venetian and ottoman cultures?

Culture belongs to the middle and lower class , and not some ruler who inherited some distance lands from another state

hmm, Charles V of SPAin ...maybe all holland should be spanish

If you do not decide on the format to use for cultures you will always get problems from modders

 

[chefkoch]

as for languages, well dialects are languages , its only the government of the nation that seem to recognise or not , a language from a dialect. example, there was no Croatian , slovenian and moldovian language only as dialects, but since they gained nationality, their dialects are now languages. also, a further example, we know frisian is a language and culture but the dutch government say its a dialect. IMO there are not many dialects ( as per the greek terminology of dialect) that exist in the world today. So people who say , you cannot have this culture Because its a dialect are in error.

You have to differ in the politcal point of view and the linguistical point of view. A language is not an own language only because a country says its spoken language is an own language. Its just a political statement. If serbs and Croats wants to behave like kids and claim their languages are self-contained, please. It doesn't change the linguistical fact that both "languages" are only varieties of serbocroatian but the term became nowadays political incorrect in that countries. Serbs and Croats understand each other better then people from Schlesvig and Bavaria when speaking their dialects. It is the same thing with Luxembourgh. They say their dialect is a language but every serious linguist would say it is a dialect of german. I remember a politician from the green party in Austria who wanted to enforce that the german spoken in Austria which is generally the same as the bavarian dialect should be heigthen to an own language like in Luxembourgh to underline Austrias independence. That was only some years ago. Linguisticly absolute ridiculous.

What i wanted to say, we shouldn't orientate on that was political overcorrect or nationalist politicians say. Languages are the field of linguists. And cultures of whole areas shouldn't be defined on the base of the culture of a ruler, some rulers or an elite group at top of that region. You can do that with religions but not with cultures. Some examples? The Rus were germanic people from scandinavia who ruled over the Kievan Rus. Would you give the provinces in Eastern Europe scandinavian culture because there were three or five norseman responsible for an certain area and loyal to a norse king over them? Would you give Upper Italy a german culture because some thousand langobards ruled over some hundred thousands italians? The same with Iberia and the Goths. And only because some dukes and landowners in Alsace and Lorraine spoke french, both regions were for a long long time after french occupation still not french.

Thats why i personally prefer cultures based on the majorities of the local population. But if Interregnum follow the point that the rulers determine the culture of the people of an area, than i would suggest to do it consequently and implement the words of Therion (Baltic to german, Ireland to anglosaxon etc. etc.)

 

[Toio]

You have to differ in the politcal point of view and the linguistical point of view. A language is not an own language only because a country says its spoken language is an own language. Its just a political statement. If serbs and Croats wants to behave like kids and claim their languages are self-contained, please. It doesn't change the linguistical fact that both "languages" are only varieties of serbocroatian but the term became nowadays political incorrect in that countries. Serbs and Croats understand each other better then people from Schlesvig and Bavaria when speaking their dialects. It is the same thing with Luxembourgh. They say their dialect is a language but every serious linguist would say it is a dialect of german. I remember a politician from the green party in Austria who wanted to enforce that the german spoken in Austria which is generally the same as the bavarian dialect should be heigthen to an own language like in Luxembourgh to underline Austrias independence. That was only some years ago. Linguisticly absolute ridiculous.

What i wanted to say, we shouldn't orientate on that was political overcorrect or nationalist politicians say. Languages are the field of linguists. And cultures of whole areas shouldn't be defined on the base of the culture of a ruler, some rulers or an elite group at top of that region. You can do that with religions but not with cultures. Some examples? The Rus were germanic people from scandinavia who ruled over the Kievan Rus. Would you give the provinces in Eastern Europe scandinavian culture because there were three or five norseman responsible for an certain area and loyal to a norse king over them? Would you give Upper Italy a german culture because some thousand langobards ruled over some hundred thousands italians? The same with Iberia and the Goths. And only because some dukes and landowners in Alsace and Lorraine spoke french, both regions were for a long long time after french occupation still not french.

Thats why i personally prefer cultures based on the majorities of the local population. But if Interregnum follow the point that the rulers determine the culture of the people of an area, than i would suggest to do it consequently and implement the words of Therion (Baltic to german, Ireland to anglosaxon etc. etc.)

we fully agree with each other then

As UN law states for society, culture is immunable ( what culture you are born can never be changed) while your nationality and religion can be changed.

Its only a pity that there are limited cultures for the game , if we had more , the issues would be minimal

 

[unmerged(95243)]

everyone has different views on culture, but you need to define which rule the MOD will use.

Just remember there was no Greek, government, king or ruler from alexander the great , around 350BC to 1824 AD...........do we have a greek culture ? or do these greek lands get split between venetian and ottoman cultures?

Culture belongs to the middle and lower class , and not some ruler who inherited some distance lands from another state

hmm, Charles V of SPAin ...maybe all holland should be spanish

If you do not decide on the format to use for cultures you will always get problems from modders

Karel V was born in Gent, Flanders... all of Spain should be Dutch

I prefer big culture zones, and the possibility to change them myself. That would make the game really sweet i'd say: massive culture changing events. Now i always have to do it the hard way by changin religion to Pagan, cheat converting designated provs, reloading as other religion and converting the hard way.

 

[MattyG]

Thats why i personally prefer cultures based on the majorities of the local population. But if Interregnum follow the point that the rulers determine the culture of the people of an area, than i would suggest to do it consequently and implement the words of Therion (Baltic to german, Ireland to anglosaxon etc. etc.)

Well, Memel has been changed to german culture already (for 1.08) for this very reason. But it can go to Lithuanian or Baltic culture as well.
The mod definitely takes the view that - at this period in social and political development - the masses are far less important in politics than the ruling class. If the ruling class make the decisions, then their culture is the one you need to get onside with.

From the 1820s onwards this would all start to change in Europe, and later in other parts of the world.

Determining who the ruling class is can still be difficult. It needs to be significant. It can't just be the king or even the very top of the pile, the dukes and so forth. We need to look deeper than that, to the affiliations of those who make decisions and make things happen at a regional level, societies organizers, and this includes priests. In Eire, I would argue that these people were still predominantly Irish, not English up to 1820, and that's in the RW, not in Interregnum.

All this said, the rules bend.

Using the "majority of the population" is also used in Interregnum. Most provinces are based on this. It's really only the 'culturally-contested' provinces that use the ruling-class approach as a means of helping work out which culture it gets.

There are paralleles with the religion of a province: at what point does it officially convert? 50% +1? Hardly. The ruling class in Germany got to determine the religion of the province, no matter what the majority may have preferred. And the game recognizes this.

Finally, culture of a province is a negotiated element (and t has to work for the game as a playable entity, too.)

So, we look at it province-by-province and we come to an agreement, something that we can live with. This is always going to be really important in areas like the Balkans.

In some provinces the culture of the majority is the one we use, in others it's more about who is ruling AND administering the will of the rulers.

If anyone has a problem with individual provinces (or a bunch of them) then start a thread and offer a solution.

 

[unmerged(95243)]

Heck, just keep on making a nice mod. Don't let anyone persuade you to let their precious little cultures in.:rofl:

 

[MattyG]

Heck, just keep on making a nice mod. Don't let anyone persuade you to let their precious little cultures in.:rofl:

Noted, and thank you for the vote of support on the mod.

However, I do want to make the mod as good as possible, both from an alt-history perspective as well as a gaming one, and sometimes it is hard to get the balance right between these two elements, especially with the clumsy tools the game provides (like one culture and one religion per province!).

 

[unmerged(15247)]

Heck, just keep on making a nice mod. Don't let anyone persuade you to let their precious little cultures in.:rofl:

that would be like telling everyone "do not come into my house i have no time or care to think of your problem" stay out!:rofl: