World According to Kasperus (aka watk)

[Kasperus]

Jamtland is correctly spelled like this in Norwegian afaik. Though since it was Swedish for the longest part of the game it ought to be Swedish anyway, which seems to be the same

@James III
I'm sorry, but I'm not following you anymore... As I said I have a province for Mantua and also for Ferrara . And for Venice I already mentionned that I'd like to give it one more if possible, though I was rather thinking of an island province for the city a la my EU3 project.

 

[unmerged(174613)]

Verona, Mantua and Ferrara.

Also, should Venice actually be an island? Wasn't it just a strip of reclaimed land attached to the coast? I'm not sure whether an actual island province ala EU3 would be accurate...

 

[Kasperus]

Venice will have a strait obviously, but it always looked kind of weird that you could not enter the province itself while it looked nicely attached to the mainland.

 

[szmik]

I was rather thinking of an island province for the city a la my EU3 project.

I'd love you have it that way.

 

[Prinz Wilhelm]

Jamtland is correctly spelled like this in Norwegian afaik. Though since it was Swedish for the longest part of the game it ought to be Swedish anyway, which seems to be the same

Well no, It was Norwegian longer then Swedish. 1419 (game start) to about 1645, and then 1645 to 1820 (game end.)

Also, it's Jämtland in Swedish, not Jamtland.

 

[szmik]

Also, it's Jämtland in Swedish, not Jamtland.

yeah, hell of a difference :rofl:

 

[Kasperus]

It is Jämtland on the map, and in EU2 terms Norway becomes Danish eventually, so it is Swedish for the longest period.

 

[Prinz Wilhelm]

It is Jämtland on the map, and in EU2 terms Norway becomes Danish eventually, so it is Swedish for the longest period.

Well again, it was still Norwegian.

But yes, in case you use EU2 terms, I guess...

The Jamts have always had more of their own identity, I'd put them under the Norwegian name instead.

Just my two cents, if you wish it to remain Jämtland I won't argue with it.

 

[Evans]

From a foreign perspective keeping the umlaut makes it sound more Scandinavian too... We English have no idea what they are or do, but they do give things a decidely more Germanic/Scando feel

 

[Prinz Wilhelm]

From a foreign perspective keeping the umlaut makes it sound more Scandinavian too... We English have no idea what they are or do, but they do give things a decidely more Germanic/Scando feel

I don't see why the cool factor should decide names.

 

[Herr Doctor]

I don't see why the cool factor should decide names.

Well, just compare: Stockholm and Ståckhölm :rofl:

 

[unmerged(28727)]

Verona, Mantua and Ferrara.

Also, should Venice actually be an island? Wasn't it just a strip of reclaimed land attached to the coast? I'm not sure whether an actual island province ala EU3 would be accurate...

Yes Venice is an island since 1190 when it was colonized by Italians/Romans feeing from the Lombards and other Barbarians.

PARTs of Venice are on small strips of land jutting out to sea like Chiogga but the main actual city of Venice itself (not nearby towns) has always been on that small island.

 

[Juliebiro]

Just 2 little questions, if you dont mind... with those rivers spliting provinces in half, how do i know if i will be "crossing a river" or not? And, where did you get the name "Covilhã" (for a province in portugal) from? I mean, from so many important cities the area possessed, why did you have to specifically choose Covilhã in order to name the province?

Overall, i liked the screenshots (and your good work) but i disliked a bit the exageration of provinces in the area around lithuania-poland-silesia. It might be a bit... complicated for multiplayer purposes (and we love to use watk online ).

EDITED: decided to include an old map of the provinces Portugal possessed (on the continent) till the XIX century. Hope it helps, although i believe you must be already aware of it.

I was quite curious and I had a look at what Agung Pasha did for Portugal in MyMap, because I am remembering it was very pleasant to play Portugal. Then, it appears as follows:

8 provinces
Entre Douro E Minho
Tras Os Montes
Beira
Estremadura
Alto Alentejo
Baixo Alentejo
Ribatejo
Algarve

I think Alto Alentejo and Baixo Alentejo could be united; considering that ancient map, it means we would add Ribatejo (Setubal). Any comment ?

 

[Kasperus]

Time for another weekly update. Starting with new previews, this time without Europe (I think I showed pretty much everything there already):

West Africa, which is a bit of an evolution of watk3, with changes inspired msotly by watkabaoi. Representation of colonial borders of the 18th/19th century remains a priority here, and obviously a few more provinces were added. I did not go as far as cool-toxic with Sahara, but there is less PTI there as well.

Indonesia - this time the western part. As with most regions also here more provinces than on watk3. Especially Sumatra was overhauled. There is no PTI in Borneo here, though I have actually serious doubts if that's a good solution and I might add a stroke of PTI between the northern coast and the rest olf the island, most likely without affecting the number of provinces here.

Regarding progress, the work on the map and the province-file continues. South America is almost done, and I'm slowly finishing designing oceania as well. In the meanwhile I also finalized the new cultural setup for America's and started to redesign it for Europe. Alike in watk3 there will be more split-up cultures, much more than on watk3 even. I actually aim for a world in which initially there are as few as possible cultures with more than 15 provinces. For Europe I aim for less than 10 . (Otoh I don't want 1 or 2 provinces - cultures either. 3 provinces is a 'soft' minimum and 2 provinces is a 'hard' minimum, unless a culture is called 'maltese' ) For area's outside of Europe the general standard will be ethno-linguistic division, but for Europe it is slightly more complicated. In any case you can expect to see no more cultures like german, scandinavian, italian or iberian (at the beginning of the game anyway - alike in watk 3.11) and I'll possibly axe anglosaxon and french as well. Other cultures will be made smaller due to split-offs.

 

[Juliebiro]

Beautiful maps. About France and England to be culturally divided, it should be logical. As an example in France, people has been considering themselves completely differently for there were provinces with "langue d'oïl" and provinces with "langue d'oc". Language, traditions, folklore were completely different. Even justice was not the same, based upon written laws or based on the traditions (droit coutumier).

 

[Herr Doctor]

I hope you will also split Baltic and "Slavonian"...

 

[Kasperus]

In watk3 I divided French into French, Occitan & Arpitan. Atm I'm thinking about a setup with 4 cultures: Francien, Norman, Occitan & Arpitan, with French possibly emerging as a unified culture later in the game. I'd like to see a similar later unification for a number of other cultures (most notably German, Italian, British, Russian, possibly a number of other as well).

Slavonic was divided in watk3 into slavonic & macedonian (for bulgaria and such). Dividing macedonian further wouldn't make much sense imo. Dividing Slavonic is somewhat problematic as well as it would yield really small cultures (assuming that you would suggest dividing it into, say, croatian, slovenian, serbian & bosnian which seems the most logical to me).

Baltic I did not consider yet - it currently merges Prussian and Latvian region. Splitting those will start to make sense if I include that Kleinlitauen province after all I guess .

Regardig other EUropean cultures (as I assume no one is interested in my fantastic American setup ) I for now handled the following splitups:

Scandinavian -> Norse, Danish & Swedish (like in watk3)

German -> Markish, Low saxon, Upper Saxon, Franconian, Swabian, Bavarian, Austrian, Silesian & Teutonic (the last is the only addition compared to watk3)

Anglosaxon -> English & Scottish (alike in watk3)

Gaelic -> Irish, Gaelic (for Scotts Gaeilic) & Brythonic (for Bretagne, Cornwall & Wales)

Iberian -> Castillian, Catalan & Portuguese (alike in watk3). I also split Andalusian off of Berber for Iberia.

Swiss remains a nice, not-linguistic culture.

Dutch -> Dutch & Flemmish, though alike in watk3, Flemmish corresponds with all of the Southern Netherlands rather than just the DUtch-speaking one's. Not sure if it is sensible to add Wallonian.

Russian/Ruthenian: Initially I thought about simply reliving Ukrainian and call it a day here. However, based on 15th and 16th century situation one could also reassign those into 5 or 6 more local cultures that could eventually merge and/or divide into Russian/Ruthenian/Ukrainian in the 17th/18th centuries. I consider something in the line of Pskovo-Novgorodian, Moscovian, Volyhno-Galichan, Turovo-Kievan & Minsko-Smolensko-Ryazanian, the last probably split up further into west and east branch. This isn't however a very useful naming so I'm undecided on this yet .

Ugric -> Finnic for Finland & Estonia, Permic for Volgaic territories & Mansi or Yugra for Ob-region.

Other European cultures I haven't got to as of yet (I split up cultures as Arabic & Altai as well but that's already Asia/Africa)

 

[Emperor_krk]

Splitting Ruthenian into some strange different cultures doesn't really make sense in any way. I know that you'd like to achieve a setup with really few large cultures, but in Ruthenia it doesn't make any sense at all.

Why, you'll ask. Eastern Slavs were, ethnically, one group, that could be divided only into a northern, "Russian", and southern, "Ruthenian" subgroups, and that - mostly due to them being under different political-cultural influences in the late middle ages, of which I guess I don't have to explain much (Mongols in the north, Liths/Poles/Magyars in the south). There have never been any linguistic differences within those subgroups (well, until something like the 19th century there wasn't much difference between Ruthenian and Russian either...), and creating such small groups would be very artificial and quite damaging.

And, talking about Ukrainian culture before the 17th century is a gross anachronism... And even then something like "cossack" would be more appropriate, at least for the lands around the Dnieper river.

Some name could possibly be thought of for the region of today's Belarus, as, as far as I know, the language used there was a merge of Ruthenian, Lithuanian and Polish (people from today's Ukraine called it Lithuanian, but it was a Ruthenian dialect for sure).

 

[Faldrath78]

(as I assume no one is interested in my fantastic American setup )

I am, actually. And also on the American map... especially since South America was so badly mangled by the original EU2.

 

[unmerged(189386)]

Splitting Cultures

If you have to do it for game balance reasons find a way to do it even if its slightly awkward historically. Being true to history is a wonderful goal but ultimately the game has to be playable and fun and if one region gets a super economy because of good culture and dominates as a result that will upset the historical balance more than introducing cultures on a slightly different time-scale.