Pub Poll: Culture Names (+)

[unmerged(5664)]

Re: culture

Originally posted by Lycortas2
I have made many comments on thwe idea of culture
many times on both the EU1 and EU2 boards.

If no one has bothered to read those that is not my problem.

Nor is it our problem. With all due respect, while your decision to purchase or not to purchase is CK is entirely yours, to expect all of us (and Snowball / CK) to automatically accept a few posts of yours made almost a year ago as some kind of gospel is a little much.

Some of us have a few idea on changing the culture system, but rather than just saying that "the utter amateur quality of this game production is horrifying us", providing some ideas or suggestions would be much more constructive.

 

[unmerged(521)]

Demetrios,

so i can expect you to chastise any people who made any defaming statements about myself?

BarristerBoy,

I least you have the maturity to make an adult post;
I agree, i was singularly less than tactfull, last week was very stressfull and when my gaming group got together and we saw this thread we were disgusted. This is something my friends and i have
discussed quite a bit and we disagree with strongly. We have had high hopes for CK but the
'there are 11 cultures and we are not changing it'
upset us. I then wrote my post in a very crass way; again i apologize.

However, my posts on the implementation of culture
have spanned 2 years and the most recent was probably a week or so ago. not last year.
To a large extent i just don't care anout the board much anymore as i have seen the same trivia endlessly debate while real issues go unaddressed.

I have made a number of points over the years which have sparked interesting debate, but i have noticed lately that my posts have not even been commented on in most threads. Contrary to Stephanos, i don't care about the noteriety, i care about the quality of the final product the customer gets.

As i do not see any real proof that CK is going to be much more than EU2(Imp) then i don't really see the point of purchasing it.

Again, i did not ask you to accept my thoughts as gospel, but that also does not mean that i have to accept yours as much either.

Mike

 

[unmerged(8523)]

lycortas-

contrary to what you might think, i don't care about the notoriety; a few posts back i even intimated that i was unable to lift my arguments out of a pretty base viewpoint.

if you would have read between the lines of my reply to you, you would have understood that in addition to it being my attempt at making a witty response to what i felt was an affront - it was more importantly a serious exhortation to get you to post what you feel are the main issues and how they should be handled if you'd care to. (you know, the classic male "put up or shut up" logic.) tuna's response to you was made in a similar vein - please do not forget the tone of your original post in that respect.

all kidding around aside, i'm not familiar enough with your posts to know what your standpoint is - i hope you could at least post a summation since those of us who intend to buy the game still want to be able to influence the game's design for the better.

stephanos

 

[Demetrios]

I'm wondering if we are getting our definitions mixed up. Perhaps one of the Snowball/Pardox people will tell us more on what "culture" will cover? Thus far all we know is that it will influence the art of the armies, cities, and so on. Does it have any deeper meaning in the game? Or is it nothing more than graphic sets for each culture? If it is just this, then it's not much different that EU or EU2, which had a similar number of graphic sets (West European, Orthodox, Islamic, Native, East Asian, etc.) It may be that we are getting worked up over nothing - the same term having different meanings in different games...

EDIT: Oh never mind - just went back and read Segei's original post in the other thread...

 

[Demetrios]

Hmmm... Then the question becomes - just how many cultures were there during the medieval period? The answer is, in reality, not very many. The deep down differences between the various Western European cultures were actually all that much. Although I would like to see a few more cultures here and there (like South Slav and Persian cultures), in reality, 11 isn't all that far off.

 

[unmerged(5664)]

This is basically true. If "culture" is defined widely enough (and the term can and does have 100s of different meanings) we could easily use the 11 or so culture limit.

Myself, I'd still like to combine all the slavs into 1 culture, put the Hungarians into a different culture, and perhaps even put persians in a separate culture (that would still only be 11) but I'm not mortally offended at how Paradox/Snowball has done it.

And Lycortas, for what it's worth, if you can either post links or re-post your thoughts in this thread I for one will seriously read them.

But you did say "As i do not see any real proof that CK is going to be much more than EU2(Imp) then i don't really see the point of purchasing it.". No one can give you this kinf of proof, since the game isn't out. I for one merely hope that CK will be a great game.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by Demetrios
Hmmm... Then the question becomes - just how many cultures were there during the medieval period? The answer is, in reality, not very many. The deep down differences between the various Western European cultures were actually all that much. Although I would like to see a few more cultures here and there (like South Slav and Persian cultures), in reality, 11 isn't all that far off.

Well, it depends how you define culture, of course

I myself find only one culture, Balkan, lacking.


And Lycortas, either shut up and go away, or say something about the topic. I'm really interested.

 

[Norgesvenn]

Originally posted by Demetrios
Hmmm... Then the question becomes - just how many cultures were there during the medieval period? The answer is, in reality, not very many. The deep down differences between the various Western European cultures were actually all that much. Although I would like to see a few more cultures here and there (like South Slav and Persian cultures), in reality, 11 isn't all that far off.

Culture would have to be tied to religion and everyday language. Language groups is perhaps salient in this respect?

Religion would be divided between Orthodox and Catholic.

The Church was rather imposing on people's lives, regulating every minor detail from cradle to grave, so in that respect it was a really Pan-European movement. (If you pardon the distinctly modern description)

Eleven cultures sounds like enough to me. It should cover the broad distinctions that can be made, as even I am aware that there are obvious cultural differences between a peasant in Scotland and a noble in Catalunya.

So, this brings me to the next issue: Are we talking about an aristocratic culture or the commoners' culture? The aristocracy was indeed more internationally oriented (I know nations and nationalism is foreign to the period, but for the lack of a better word...), while the peasants would be fairly local in their outlook.

 

[unmerged(2695)]

Originally posted by Murmurandus


Well, the climate and geography will play a role in this as it's hard to life in a tent in Murmansk or whatever...

The log-cabin technique for bulding houses in fact diffused from the Eurasian forest belt (Russia/Finland) to Scandinavia in the Middle Ages.

 

[unmerged(7529)]

Personally i dont think one needs to make so much out of what CK will be like. It won't be civilization4, it will probably be EU2 with some differences. Eu2 wasnt perfect either and possibly one will be able to modify CK extensively as well. No need to act as if CK will be the world's source for history, obviously it won't, its a game like any other, and you don't need to buy it if you hate it. On the other hand i don't see anything so valued in trying to help create it either. The people doing so will have their own reasons, yet i don't see it as that important, its just a little game.

'homo est lupus homini'

 

[unmerged(2695)]

The "culture" of the CK period in Catholoc Christendom evolved beyween the Loire and the Rhine in the the 8th through 10th Centuries AD. The historical label for this is either "Frankish" or "feudal". Frankish because that was the orginal autoappellation of the elite that emerged in the fusion of germanics and Romans on the soil of Northern Gaul and the name given to these people by outsiders long after the name itself had been replaced by terms such as French, Norman, Angevin, Provencal, Saxon or whatever. Feudal because that is the label assigned to the society in whih these people lived.

I prefer feudal despite the real misgivings about the concept. As a label it captures the essence of the period, and more importantly its difference form the ROTW. (Forget about marxist usage, Solmyr).

 

[Alexandre]

Originally posted by DarthMaur

Yes, as i just said, having Byzantine culture there is the worst solution, IMHO. Either merge it with West Slavs, or create southern Slavic group (though groups are finished, but stilll...)

Of course, we have problems with proto-Romanians there.... But hey, wouldn't they suit Byzantine culture, since they were leftowers from Empire?

Where Hungarians should belong is another matter... south or west slavic, that is...

Albanians should be Byzantine, i think. But i'm not so sure, actually.

At the begining of the game, Romanians weren't yet Orthodox, so, infact, wouldn't have been Byzantine culture. They were Christian -- it seems some sort of autonomous church, like the Celtic church, and were actively courted by both Constantinople and Rome. The Hungarians tried to use Catholicism to subjugate the Romanian principalities to the Hungarian throne, so the princes choose Orthodoxy. If there is some sort of option in choosing which hierarchy to accept, the Danubian principalities should be Latin/Romance if Catholic and Byzantine if Orthodox. If there won't be that flexibility, I'd default with Byzantine since it's certainly accurate by the end of the game.

Alexandre

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by Alexandre


At the begining of the game, Romanians weren't yet Orthodox, so, infact, wouldn't have been Byzantine culture. They were Christian -- it seems some sort of autonomous church, like the Celtic church, and were actively courted by both Constantinople and Rome. The Hungarians tried to use Catholicism to subjugate the Romanian principalities to the Hungarian throne, so the princes choose Orthodoxy. If there is some sort of option in choosing which hierarchy to accept, the Danubian principalities should be Latin/Romance if Catholic and Byzantine if Orthodox. If there won't be that flexibility, I'd default with Byzantine since it's certainly accurate by the end of the game.

Alexandre

Unless there is Balan culture, there are only two sensible choices. Either East Slavic, or Byzantine(Levantine)

 

[Alexandre]

Re: Re: Re: Pub Poll: Culture Names (+)

Originally posted by tuna


b. Vlachs spoke a form of Latin but would indeed be silly to include them as Latin cultured (if there's any province with a Vlach majority that is) Proto-Romanians might go to "Byzantine" culture as mentioned earlier, but I think Slavic might work better for them afterall.

In the 1000's, we're still very close to the Slavic invasions, and there was less time for a divergence between the various East Latin dialects, so spliting off the Vlachs, the Romanians (we're definitely well beyond proto-Romanian since the process of assimilating the Slavs was well under way) and the various Latin groups scattered along the Adriatic's eastern shores is not really necessary. Even today they are mutually understandable. Given the limitted options, I'd call the interior populations Byzantine, and the Adriatic populations Latin. It's not really accurate, but the best that we can do with the limited options, and far better than anything suggested for the Hungarians.

Alexandre

 

[Alexandre]

Originally posted by Nikolai II
Maybe I'm just stupid, but I would actually prefer Saracens, to keep in line with the total eurocentrism in the game and use a term that both thoose doing the crusading in those days, as well as students of the crusades (from the aggressors PoW) will recognize.

I agree that 'arabic' or 'islamic' is as all-compassive, but they both have modern-day connotations and less in-time flavor.

Of course, if it would be too insulting I guess it has to go,

I agree. I'd prefer to see Saracens.

Alexandre

 

[Alexandre]

Originally posted by DarthMaur

Unless there is Balan culture, there are only two sensible choices. Either East Slavic, or Byzantine(Levantine)

With the exception of the Delta, which hadn't yet been assimilated, Slavic doesn't make sense. There may have been a lot of Slavic words, but the language was Romance, church services weren't in Old Church Slavonic till after the CK time period, and the Latin side of the population was politically dominant. If the principality goes Orthodox, it should be Byzantine, if it goes Catholic, Latin, and if we can't have a choice, then Byzantine. But, certainly not East Slavic.

Alexander

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by Alexandre


With the exception of the Delta, which hadn't yet been assimilated, Slavic doesn't make sense. There may have been a lot of Slavic words, but the language was Romance, church services weren't in Old Church Slavonic till after the CK time period, and the Latin side of the population was politically dominant. If the principality goes Orthodox, it should be Byzantine, if it goes Catholic, Latin, and if we can't have a choice, then Byzantine. But, certainly not East Slavic.

Alexander

What language was used in the Church? Where Slavic migrations to Romania hapenned?

 

[unmerged(255)]

Originally posted by Alexandre
There may have been a lot of Slavic words, but the language was Romance, church services weren't in Old Church Slavonic till after the CK time period, and the Latin side of the population was politically dominant.

Are you absolutely sure about what you've stated regarding the language of church services? I thought the churches of present-day Romania were under the Metropolitan of Ohrid (Bulgarian) and used Slavonic rite well before the CK time period, from 9th century onwards.

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by Alexandre


With the exception of the Delta, which hadn't yet been assimilated, Slavic doesn't make sense. There may have been a lot of Slavic words, but the language was Romance, church services weren't in Old Church Slavonic till after the CK time period, and the Latin side of the population was politically dominant. If the principality goes Orthodox, it should be Byzantine, if it goes Catholic, Latin, and if we can't have a choice, then Byzantine. But, certainly not East Slavic.

Alexander

What time period are we talking about here? In 1066, neither of the Romanian principalities existed - Wallachia appeared around 1247 and Moldavia around 1352. Before that time, the area was ruled by the Patzinaks and Cumans, who should definitely get the "Nomad" culture. Whether the population under them were Latin or not is a long-running debate that definitely won't be solved here, or in the game! It will probably be beter if Modlavia and Wallachia start the game as "Nomad" as no one debates that the nomads were the rulers of the area during that time period.

Or Alexandre, are you talking about the Balkan Vlachs in your posts? I do agree that the coastal Vlachs in Dalmatia should have a Latin culture, but as for the interior ones - well the question is whether by this point they were still a significant factor culturally or had been eclipsed by the Byzantines and South Slavs. And, like most Balkan questions, I'm sure every side can find evidence to prove that they were the dominant culture at the time...

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by Demetrios


What time period are we talking about here? In 1066, neither of the Romanian principalities existed - Wallachia appeared around 1247 and Moldavia around 1352. Before that time, the area was ruled by the Patzinaks and Cumans, who should definitely get the "Nomad" culture. Whether the population under them were Latin or not is a long-running debate that definitely won't be solved here, or in the game! It will probably be beter if Modlavia and Wallachia start the game as "Nomad" as no one debates that the nomads were the rulers of the area during that time period.

Or Alexandre, are you talking about the Balkan Vlachs in your posts? I do agree that the coastal Vlachs in Dalmatia should have a Latin culture, but as for the interior ones - well the question is whether by this point they were still a significant factor culturally or had been eclipsed by the Byzantines and South Slavs. And, like most Balkan questions, I'm sure every side can find evidence to prove that they were the dominant culture at the time...

What about Transylvania?