• 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.

Mad King James

Buzzkill Extraordinaire
66 Badges
Jan 18, 2002
7.148
301
43
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • 500k Club
My own feelings are thus:

Russian and Ruthenian cultures IMHO should be both merged into 'Rus' culture, leaving Ruthenian for Ruthenia. Ukranian would emerge later.

The steppes should have a three way division. The Oghuz Turk areas would be 'Turkish', the Kipchak Turk areas would be 'Tatar' and the inclusion of 'Uighur' into Uighur cultured areas.

The remainder would be Mongol, in addition, Manchu would be folded into Mongol.

Thoughts?
 
Turkoman is a little nonsensical though... I mean if we put in Turkoman then the Ak Koyunlu and Qara Koyunlu should be Turkoman, not Turkish.

I mean... what is the difference, really, between Anatolian Oghuz Turk and Steppe Oghuz Turk? There are minor dialectic differences, but there are branches of the same tribe all over the place. For gameplay purposes though, Oghuz Turks should be culturally homogenous.
 
Originally posted by Mad King James
For gameplay purposes though, Oghuz Turks should be culturally homogenous.

I'd argue the opposite. I mean we don't want the Ottomans or any other Anatolian or Atabey nation in the Steppes, and we don't want Steppe nations in Anatolia. So for gameplay purpose I think they should be separated.
 
Turning the same argument around (;)) if somehow the Ottomans did invade Turkmenistan (which would take plowing straight through Persia) why wouldn't they have a pretty easy time of relating to people with the same customs, language, and religion? Turkmenistan is where Oghuz Turks come from. In fact, Turkmenistan had only been disconnected from Anatolia culturally for about 100 years, and this connection was reestablished twice (once by Tamerlane and again by the Qara Koyunlu) and Oghuz tribes were constantly moving back and forth, usually forth into Anatolia from Turkmenistan.
 
Perhaps distance and no shared history, perhaps?;) Its not like the Uzbeks (who had friendly relations with the steppe turks and thus are eventually deserving of the culture) ruled in the same way that the Ottomans did. I would think that the way of life in Anatolia was not the same as it was on the Steppes. Besides that, ruling in terms of game play isn't about culture but about whether we want a given nation to suffer or not suffer if it conquers a region. In this case, the Ottomans should suffer, as we don't want them doing that. :cool:
 
One important thing to keep in mind is that Russia is supposed to come knocking and conquer/colonize most of the northern Steppes. Should they get one or two steppe cultures or should the provinces change to Russian culture? Both systems have pros and cons, but no matter which solutions is deemed best it will have a large impact on Central Asias cultural setup.
 
Russia should eventually get Kipchak, as Cossacks were by and large Christianized Tatars or Tatarized Russians ;)

As to the Turkoman issue, I invoke history :p

Turks in general are peoples living or originating from Turkestan, the vast region between the eastern shore of the Caspian sea and the Altai Mountains, which from the sixth century onward is also called Turan. From the end of the eleventh century the term Turks meant only those Turks living in the region of Anatolia. From the early Middle Ages several Turkish peoples migrated as nomads or advanced as warriors, reaching the east European and the Mediterranean regions, and came into contact with the Byzantines.
The term Turkoman first appeared in Islamic texts during the tenth century and was used alternatively with Oghuz, the Turkic nomadic people that one century later and after a long migration invaded Asia Minor. More precisely, Turkoman came to mean the Muslim Oghuz in contrast to the pagan, shaminist or the Christian Oghuz, a minority group. The term had already passed into Greek in the first half of the twelfth century.

The Turks practiced a variety of religions, being Buddhists, Manicheas, Christians (mainly Nestorians), even Zoroastrians; but initially the most popular religion was shamanism, the religion of the steppe. With the Arab conquest of Transoxiana (705-15), Islam spread successfully among the Turks.

Most probably the earliest Turks known to history are the Huns. The first people whom the Byzantines called Tourkoi, however, were governed by a Khagan, who in 568 sent ambassadors to Constantinople, seeking alliance with Justin II against the Persians. In the following year a Byzantine ambassador, Zemarcos, reached the khagan's nomadic court; the account of his mission still survives.

The northern Black Sea regions attracted several Turkic peoples such as the Avars, the Bulgars, the Khazars, etc., while the lower Danube remained an area of confrontation between the Byzantines and Turks. In the twelfth century, this area was occupied by the Cumans.

Around 960, the first Turco-Islamic state appeared, that of the Karakhanids or Ilek-khanids. Established in the cities of Balasagun and Kashgar (eastern Turkestan), they soon conquered the region of Transoxiana.

Shortly after the Karakhanids, another Turco-Islamic dynasty appeared in Ghazna. The Ghaznavid sultan Mahmud (998-1030) was glorified for his long and victorious war against India. The end of his campaigns left the warriors of the faith, the ghazis, unemployed and seems to be one of the reasons for the great migration of the Oghuz Turks in the eleventh century.

The Oghuz people living around the year 1000 south of Lake Aral included twenty-two of 24 tribes; Byzantine sources mention some of these (e.g., the Avshar or the Cepni). The first Oghuz tribe that headed toward the west and reached the Danube regions was the Pechenegs. A second wave of Oghuz reached the territories of the Rus'; the Byzantines mention them by their real ethnic name, Ouzoi. For the Byzantine Empire, the most significant Oghuz migration was that guided by the family (later dynasty) of the Seljuks. The Seljukid Tughrul Beg, sultan of Baghdad from 1055, unable to control the Oghuz nomads, dispatched them as ghazid against the Christians. This policy led his successor Alp Arslan to open confrontation with the Byzantines and the victory at Mantzikert.

During the twelfth century the Turks of Asia Minor were divided and established several states, the most important of which, after the Seljuks, was that of the Danismendids. After the Seljuks defeated the army of Manuel I in 1176 near Myriokephalon, the Byzantines were obliged to regard the Turkish occupation of Asia Minor as permanent.

Turk in Byzantine Service. From the eleventh century onward, the Byzantines hired Turkish peoples (Pechenegs, Cumans, Seljuks) as mercenaries, and some groups of Turks settled on Byzantine territory. According to the chroniclers of the First Crusade, the Tourkopouli formed a substantial and effective contingent of the Byzantine army. Eustathios of Thessalonike praises Manuel I's tolerance toward foreigners and relates that significant "Persian" colonies were established within the empire. Several Turkish families (Axouch, Samouch, Prosuch) reached high ranks and supplied the empire with generals. After the twelfth century, however, the Turks appeared in the empire as allies rather than settlers, and finally as overlords and conquerors.

The Turkomans of Turkmenistan and Anatolia are the exact same people, the only reason they are seperated is because they used to rule Persia as well under the Nestorian Ik-Khan empire. The Ghazis that founded the states in Anatolia in the first place... ARE in fact Turkomans themselves. So you see, it's just silly to seperate them, people don't diverge that radically in 76 years...

So you see, Turkoman should stay, but Turkish should be absorbed into it.

An alternative of course is removing Turkish from the Ottoman Empire, as their administrative style differed from the Steppe mainly in its Byzantine adoptations.

Oh and regarding Tatar, a better name is actually 'Cuman', as the people were usually referred to in this period as 'Cumans' ie 'The Cumanian Steppe'

Tatar is a Mongol term for all steppe people west of the Uighurs.
 
Last edited:
Heh, call it whatever you fancy, I am most worried about it from the European perspective. So Russia should get the culture of the Golden Horde (whatever its name). How about the Sibir area? Culture change in the provs, or nothing at all?
 
Sibir would be Cuman as well

These following are the Cuman (Kipchak) nations:

Uzbeks, Khazaks, Nogai, Astrakhan, Golden Horde, Kazan, Crimea, Sibir, Bukhara, and Khiva.
 
Originally posted by Garbon
Perhaps distance and no shared history, perhaps?;) Its not like the Uzbeks (who had friendly relations with the steppe turks and thus are eventually deserving of the culture) ruled in the same way that the Ottomans did. I would think that the way of life in Anatolia was not the same as it was on the Steppes. Besides that, ruling in terms of game play isn't about culture but about whether we want a given nation to suffer or not suffer if it conquers a region. In this case, the Ottomans should suffer, as we don't want them doing that. :cool:

Great point.
Cultures are in the game to add flavor and history, BUT more importantly to better direction the historical actions of nations.

Late,
Jester
 
There are many other factors at play that could better represent the issues Ottomans would have, such as a lack of cores and the distance involved.
 
Originally posted by Mad King James
Uzbeks, Khazaks, Nogai, Astrakhan, Golden Horde, Kazan, Crimea, Sibir, Bukhara, and Khiva.

Well, the Nogai are out.

And I'm going to have to invoke a no vote for the Uzbeks, Bukhara, Khiva, and for a bit of time the Khazaks. The reason we have an Uzbek and a Khazak culture is for gameplay reasons. We don't want them expanding and so we want them to be penalized for taking other 'ahistorical' lands. On the flipside we don't want the Golden Horde taking them over either.

That being said, Uzbek and Khazak culture only arise upon the separation of those states from their masters (respectively, Golden Horde and Uzbeks). So I suppose until the states are completely free this Tartar/Cuman culture would be appropriate.
 
Culture in EU2 doesn't just represent language and "ethnicity" (a word I really don't like to use). In theory, I think culture also represents a "common identity" which is truly a hard thing to grasp, but IMO the reason why neither the German nor the French cultures should be divided despite linguistic and cultural differences and why Swiss and Dutch should remain separate although they were linguistically, ethnically and culturally very similar to their neighbours . If people from two areas are linguistically and culturally quite close, they should only have different EU2 cultures if they had a different identity due to their separate history or political structure.
In practice, it is of course imperative to consider gameplay arguments - when there is a solid historical, linguistic reason to separate two similar cultures and this improves gameplay, do it; if it does not improve gameplay, only do it with a truly compelling reason; if it worsens gameplay, better let it be.
 
Originally posted by Twoflower
In theory, I think culture also represents a "common identity" which is truly a hard thing to grasp, but IMO the reason why neither the German nor the French cultures should be divided despite linguistic and cultural differences and why Swiss and Dutch should remain separate although they were linguistically, ethnically and culturally very similar to their neighbours . If people from two areas are linguistically and culturally quite close, they should only have different EU2 cultures if they had a different identity due to their separate history or political structure.


So we are not dividing French and German culture? I must have missed something?
 
Originally posted by anti_strunt
So we are not dividing French and German culture? I must have missed something?
I was just expressing my personal opinion :D On neither issue a definite decision has been reached yet, I think both will be tested though.
 
I say; Split 'em up!! ;)

A less powerful France and a harder time unifying Germany can only be good.
 
Adding cultures to the game is a very different animal than adding nation tags. Nations are a very scarce resouce, and we need to make hard choices on which ones to keep. But with cultures, we have, what, over 15 that are totally irrelevant to the game right now? (By this I mean that no nation every gets that culture). If all of those were simply compressed to "native" culture, we have all the cultures we ever need.

Culture in EU2 doesn't just represent language and "ethnicity" (a word I really don't like to use). In theory, I think culture also represents a "common identity" which is truly a hard thing to grasp, but IMO the reason why neither the German nor the French cultures should be divided despite linguistic and cultural differences and why Swiss and Dutch should remain separate although they were linguistically, ethnically and culturally very similar to their neighbours .
As others have argued in other threads before, the national identities of these areas was not really the same in 1419 as it is now. A Bavarian and a Prussian did not see themselves as part of one national identity, regardless of any common linguistic ties. The same could be deaid of northern and southern Italy, and, from what I hear, French and Occitan.
If people from two areas are linguistically and culturally quite close, they should only have different EU2 cultures if they had a different identity due to their separate history or political structure.
I would agree that areas that shared language, ethnicity, "way of life", AND "national identity" should not be split up, regardless of any game balance concerns. But basically every cultural split people are discussing has a significant amount of historical backing. So in my mind, it's just a question of whether it works from a game balance perspective. And in many cases (particularly the extra German and Italian cultures) the new setup significantly improves gameplay.
In practice, it is of course imperative to consider gameplay arguments - when there is a solid historical, linguistic reason to separate two similar cultures and this improves gameplay, do it; if it does not improve gameplay, only do it with a truly compelling reason; if it worsens gameplay, better let it be.
Exactly. :) I think that in a lot of cases, adding cultures (and potentially, giving those cultures to some nations in the area) can really improve the gameplay. We have the flexibility, so we probably should use it.

-doktarr
 
Russian and Ruthenian cultures IMHO should be both merged into 'Rus' culture, leaving Ruthenian for Ruthenia. Ukranian would emerge later.

The steppes should have a three way division. The Oghuz Turk areas would be 'Turkish', the Kipchak Turk areas would be 'Tatar' and the inclusion of 'Uighur' into Uighur cultured areas.

The remainder would be Mongol, in addition, Manchu would be folded into Mongol.

Thoughts?
I'm a little confused on exactly what you want.

In the vanilla GC, these areas have Manchu, Mongol, Khazakh, Uzbekh, Altai, Gerogian, and Turkish.

In the EEP, there's Manchu, Mongol, Turkoman, Altai, Caucasian, and Turkish.

I'm not familiar with the AGC setup. Enlighten me if you like.

And you are now proposing (correct me if I'm wrong): Mongol, Uighur, Turkish, Caucasian? Or no Caucasian?

Youve explained explicity where Tartar/Cuman would be, but what about Turkish and Uighir?

What culture, if any, would Russia pick up? And what culture would the unoccupied Siberian areas be? It effects the ease of extablishing TPs and colonies.

For the record, I prefer the name Tartar to Cuman. They have roughly the same historical meaning, and the name Tartar is far more meaningful to most people. The term "Cuman" may have been in use more frequently during the period, but I don't think that's all that relevant.

-doktarr