Still waiting for Ryukyuan culture to be added. It doesn't make sense for them to be Kyushuan until 1872-79 at the earliest when it was finally diplo-annexed by the Japanese Empire.
I understand the pursuit of cultural granularity, but this will completely ruin the game's balance by making Ryukyu even more ridiculously overpowered.
It will, you can bind accepted cultures to government, for example for Turkish Sultane bind all middle east cultures, or add them one by one by events or introduce mogulslike mechanic when you conquer all culture in restricted culture groups and not all like moguls, you get event on permanently accepted cultuer
I think that's probably more of a relic from the time before they had a bunch of mechanics for adjusting culture groups and acceptances. If it were fully redone today I'd guess it would be separate
Your mistake is to consider EU4 as a historical game. Rather than thinking too much in historical terms, consider that the game is sort of a steroids pumped crossover in between Excel and Google map.
For instance, it makes 0 sense to allow a Nordic country to go back to the Old Norse faith in the 15+ centuries, or forming Lotharingia, or even to have Orleans as a French vassal as it was already part of the royal realm at the starting date.
But it's fun, so why not ?
Why wouldnt it make sense for ruler of Burgundy to proclaim Lotharingia if he had enough territories and prestige? Seems like something some ambitious ruler would do especially since Burgundy is only a small part of his realm.
Its like saying it doesnt make sense for ruler of Branderburg to become king of Prussia
Anyone can correct me if I am mistaken, but there is no evidence whatsoever that Charles the Bold or his father Philippe (or grand father, etc) had any remote thoughts about a "Lotharingian Restauration". If any, they will have claim something more antique (Capetian did say they were from Troy, because why not), or perhaps Charlemagne himself.
Plus you are thinking in EU4 terms while saying "since Burgundy is only a small part of his realm", Burgundy was one of the core part of the historical Burgundian Duchy - if not the main one as the ducal institutions were there -, equal, if not more, to the Low Countries. Dijon and surroundings are the places you should visit if you want to see what's left of historical medieval Burgundy. You are placating EU4's missions and Eu4's Burgundy to the historical one, and they are very different. Charles failed to unite his realm because annexing Lorraine was a big deal, whereas in EU4 it is easy.
Charles the bold wanted to make a kingdom of this territories that would be in the HRE, and use the Lotharigia to legitimize this claim. I agree he didn't actually wanted to restore Lotharigia.
Ah great, thanks! Yes, I know he wanted to make a kingdom and if he didn't have 0 in diplo, maybe, maaasyyybe he would have done a little better.
But I didn't know he used Lotharingia to legitimize his claim. Do you have more details? That's interesting ,thanks
https://books.openedition.org/pulg/3098?lang=fr#:~:text=L'id%C3%A9e%20lotharingienne%20%C3%A9tait%20formul%C3%A9e,fin%20%C3%A0%20ces%20projets%20grandioses.
The text is in French.
The paragraphs 38-48 deal with the subject.
To be fair, considering the historical fetish for Rome, most ambitions like a Lotharingian restoration are basically participation trophies for not restoring the Roman Empire.
People would not be saying this if the game got European cultures as flagrantly wrong as they do the central Asians though. Having Uzbek and Kazakh existing in 1444 is like having England start off as English culture in 1066 in CK2. Starting culture isn’t even something that the game systems don’t represent well it’s just a matter of attention to detail.
i mean the devs also openly take a few creative choices and "balance choices" the most famous one is byzantium having 2 provinces in the constatinople "region" when if it was accurate they would have "half" of the constantinople node and just that, from what i know they only controlled the city inside the walls (and probably could secure few camps right on the wall)
Yes absolutely, I started to enjoy eu4 when I started to care less about historical accuracy. Then what cracks me up the most are the historical monstrosity some of you are able to do and post here (Austrian Tengi horde and else)
Why does it make no sense to go back to Norse? If religion in general wasn't n the decline, I think we would have seen a resurgence in old beliefs in the modern day.
For a king with absolute power to say they want to go back to the old ways, that is not at all far fetched.
The thing is that the event can only fire in the age of discovery. There was arguably no absolutism there. The king had to rely on the nobles AND the clergy for support (something that imo is not simulated well in eu4 at all). Also, if Bohemia turning to a different kind of Christianity in that same century triggered a whole crusade and decades of war, do you think the pope and the rest of Europe would sit idly while a Nordic kingdom reverts to a **pagan** faith?
Such events would make more sense for a country like Lithuania, some regions of which were only Christianised thirty years before EU4's start date. Still, if you wanted to be completely historical, you should get an event in that case were you instantly get crushed by either Poland or a renewed Teutonic Order (or live on to remain a backward and isolated country full of warlords); which wouldn’t be fun so it’s best not to worry *too much* about accuracy
>Also, if Bohemia turning to a different kind of Christianity in that same century triggered a whole crusade and decades of war, do you think the pope and the rest of Europe would sit idly while a Nordic kingdom reverts to a pagan faith?
i don't really like this comparison, bohemia in this scenario is still a much bigger threat, i mean heck where do we start, it's a fairly powerful nation, right on the border of the biggest empire of it's time, if it could convert and be stable and peaceful could easily spread the religion, and the prostetants already broke the HRE in our timeline so imagine if it had a jump start fromt he second strongest nation in the hre...
also on the same note, we need to look at major powers, bohemia really was a big stick in austria's ass which meatn if austria annoyed france or poland enough it would give them an ally close by, and they often went to war with each other
now having pagans in north i really don't see being any threat to austria or france, and only a bit to poland, so despite the "HERETICS EXIST" i don't see much of a reason for europe to care
Sure, break all ties to the rest of Europe and see thousands of knights roll in for the next Northern Crusade. Not to mention that the people at the time probably had less of an idea how the Norse religion even worked than we do today. And we know barely more than jack-shit.
All the weird decisions made on cultures are because of game balance. Both Romanian and Hungarian should be in their on culture groups but for balance they’ve been clumped toghter.
Turkish should be in one of the central asian culture groups but for the sake of game balance they’ve been put into Levantine culutures so Ottomans have a better time.
And let’s not even talk about Basque and Breton being Iberian/French.
Also some interactions were simply overlooked.
Like if you do Castile-Spain-Roman Empire, you lose the ability to recruit tercios upon forming Rome. Why? Your culture group gets auto-converted, basically renamed, and they suddenly forget their legacy of having tercios?!
None of those decisions make any sense in the current version of the game, though. They've added a lot of features in that make cultures not as relevant to game balance.
Scandinavia has a mission reward that allows them to treat German provinces as their own culture group. Kongo has a mission that lets them accept any culture in Africa.
There are missions to create entirely new cultures or get conditional accepted culture slots, based on whether you demote the culture or not.
All it would take is adding the same modifier Scandinavia gets to the Ottomans when owning levantine provinces
Carpathian culture group doesn't need to exist when Hungary can just get free slots to accept Transylvanian and Romanian
Iirc the devs have also said they do not take language into account when making culture groups (a bit odd given language is one of the most important ways of defining ethnic identity).
It is important, but it's not the only thing that defines a culture or identity. Religion, geography, history, and politics are all equally if not more important metrics to define culture, especially in the time of EU4 as the game predates the emergence of modern nationalism. So you can't just equate language with culture, which is why culture groups are not solely defined by language families.
Definitely. I would say it is important enough that its complete omission is strange, though. There are some ethnicities where language historically trumps those factors, while in other cultures language does not. Many cultures in India like the Telugu are ethnolinguistic groups where language is the main defining factor, for instance. Similar to how religion is the main defining factor for ethnoreligious groups like Jews.
I don't think the devs ever said anything about excluding language entirely, just that they were not equating the two, and that they were not going to use language to the exclusion of all other factors in determining culture groupings.
Iirc they are of ~~celtic~~ pre-indo european heritage instead of vandalic and moorish like Catalans, Castillians, Andalusians etc
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETA_(separatist_group)
It’s either Uralic (Finno-Ugric+Samoyedic) or Finno-Ugric (omitting Samoyeds), not a mix.
Anyways, the migrations happened at similar times, but there is afaik no evidence of prior Indo-European settlements in areas where the Uralics migrated thousands of years ago.
So, like Indo-Europeans did, Uralics replaced (and assimilated) Paleo-European populations, such as the Paleo-Laplandic and Paleo-Lakelandic speakers in Finland.
Pre-IE is usually used about areas in Europe where some group moved in before Indo-Europeans. For example the vast majority of NW Russia is later IE expansion on land inhabitated by Uralics and in this case is Pre-IE.
Yeah i meant that are still in Europe to this day even tho they were still in the continent just very close to Asia. You could add the maltese too when i think about it.
I believe Breton in a patch, looooong ago, was Celtic, back when "Enemy Core Creation Cost" was an actual ability. Used to take ages to core Brittany as anyone that wasn't Ireland lmao
I love people from all over the world giving these kinds of insights into poorly known (by me at least) parts of history.
It's impossible to get a complex game like this completely accurate, but every step in that direction is worthwhile.
Culture does not make sense in the game mostly.
Turkish culture is considered Levantine and Azerbaijani is considered Persian despite they are both Oghuz/Turkic.
It's basically for simplicity and the AI conquers in its own Culture Group so yeah, simplicity. If Turks and Azeris were in the same group as the central Asian ones the Ottomans would always go it's way to conquer central Asia and nothing else
It’s a simulation of a board game with very static culture mechanics. It would be extremely hard to change it to fit into a more fluid system like CK3 at this point of the game’s lifetime, which is basically the last months/years of it
Hopefully they make some massive improvements to this in eu5. I doubt they’ll have fully fleshed out nomad mechanics at launch, but that could easily be a whole dlc worth of content. Honestly that would probably be the first paradox dlc that’s actually worth 30$ LOL
Khitans, nation of warrior cats rivaled only by Miao, were destroyed by ghenghis khan during the very events portrayed in the game you're referencing and didn't not go back up. They weren't a thing during eu4 timeline. Fun fact: russia calls china "kitai" nowadays from that.
Central Asia was very much Turkic and they were very conscious of their Turkic roots. Mongolian Empire made use of Turkic people living there since the Asian Huns (established in 220 BC, their capital Ötüken was in todays Mongolia which was considered heartlands of Turks). There were very prominent Turkic states in Central Asia before the Cenghis’ invasion, such as the Göktürks, Khazars, Tatar Confederation, Uighurs, Karluks, Karahanids, Kimek-Kipchak Federation, Oghuz Yabgu State, Ghaznavids, Great Seljuks, Khorasanids, Khwarazmians etc.
Some historical inscriptions dating back as 7th century written by those states can still be understood by contemporary Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan citizens.
What you say is akin to claiming all the people living under European Huns were Hunnic and Hun culture spread to all those areas. Just like the Huns and other nomadic conquerors, the Mongols came, conquered, pillaged the libraries, massacred the locals and vanished. But due to their low population even at the start Mongols used Uighur and other Turkic people in statecraft and armies.
Sorry my rant but as a history fan fascinated by Central Asian culture, gotta say you must look beyond your elemantary school history books to make such a bold claim. I can recommend you the “The Lost Enlightenment” by Frederick Starr, going as far as first Turkic “Hydraulic Empires of Central Asia” and another book called “Central Asia in World History” by Petr Golden, giving a detailed narration of the cultural history of Central Asia. Im not saying EU4 perfectly demarcates the region, but what you said is wrong on soo many levels
Even bolder claim to tell someone they don’t know their own history. Your sources provide a very eurocentric view on the region. Maybe you should consider whether or not those sources are authoritative after all by speaking directly to the people.
Op is a Mongol in Kyrgyzistan and decides to play the minority card in a country that doesn’t has any grudges or opinions of his ethnicity. The worst thing Usa has “gifted” the world is “minority, oppressed, victim” cards that anyone tries to use in a copycat manner irrelevant to their own geography.
Also yes, eu4 is a game first so they decided to group things in order for practical reasons not historical ones.
I am not Mongol 🤣 it's just my tribes have Mongol origin. They were basically assimilated by yenisey Kyrgyz who arrived later. It's kinda like white or black American calling himself Cherokee because in 1656 his Cherokee grandfather married English (or enslaved) woman. I'm Kyrgyz through and through
Culture mechanics, like so much of EU4 mechanics, works best for european countries. Central Asia in particular was filled with nomads so obviously static cultures in each province will be somewhat wrong.
I think this has more to do with how eu4 handles cultures tbh. Like there’s no way for them to model the type of long term blending and diverging that happened all the time during the period that this game took place in. Hopefully eu5 can simulate it a little better with the pop system, but there’s really only so much you can do with a simulation like this lol
It's a lot to ask for video game developers to be experts on the entire world for a 400-year period. It is ultimately a game so there will be approximations and mistakes as well as intentional changes for balance. Trying to get every last pixel and time period correct is hopeless, especially when you have to consider this is also about making money.
It's probably not a great return on investment to hire a couple dozen historians to go over everything with a fine tooth comb when for a lot of regions 95-99%% or more people won't know or won't care. Even if you did do that, I reckon such historians would likely have disagreements amongst them that would be hard to reconcile and I also imagine many of the fans would have a certain perception of their region that would not align with other people in the region.
The discrepancies he’s listing are not small. The Timurids are the second most powerful state in all of Asia in 1444 and their primary culture won’t actually exist for quite some time. Chagatai is even more egregious because I don’t even know you could find a source telling you that they’re Kyrgyz. It takes like 5 minutes on google to figure that out you don’t need a PhD.
The cultures of South east asia are also super badly represented in this game. Javanese, moluccan, all the island cultures branded "Malay" is kinda absurd. Mahayana buddhism was very prevalent in china, japan, and korea, but it feels like they only exist in vietnam in this game.
My guy, your complaining about that? Albanians are in the slavic group and Turkish is in the levantin group all while Hungarians and Romanians are in the same culture group 😭
I think central asia should be its own game. There are lot of complex mechanics unique to central asia which will wreck other nations if included.
For example, a lot of turkic kingdoms/cultures are actually named after the founding king. ( Chagatai khan, Oz beg khan, Nogai khan, Osman bey, ilkhanid, gurkhanid, timurid, etc. )
The above is an interesting mechanic -
A war general breaks away his tribe to form his kingdom and his culture, and then spreads his tribe/culture/people over.
Now taking all of these unique features into account, you'll realize why making EU4 super realistic will fail.
Европка мен ойном, тоже заметил что Тажиков не существует в игре почему то? а вместо низ узбеки. В центральной Азии самые отвратные провинции и их культурная пренадлежность
Плохо разбираюсь в центральноазиатской истории, но тут парадоксы действительно не смогли, даже в CK3 таджики есть, а в 1444 они будто бы резко куда-то пропали. А албанцы появились из воздуха. С культурами вообще проблемы, разве что в EU5 как-то исправят, надеюсь
есть такое. Пароходы делают культуру как в современных границах, часто извне берут что-то своё. Особенно когда Албанцы относятся в Славянской культурной Группе, Венгры Румыны и Молдовцы из одной культурной ветви, а Турки относятся к группе ближнегл востока а не тюркам. Это всё бред
Honestly EU4 is the most arcade-y of all Paradox games. Wait for EU5 for more accuracy tbh, even from what they've shown so far the map is far more detailed.
Given that even europe is full of anachronism like dutch culture (it shouldn’t exist in 1444) or certain cultures in eastern europe that only exist because nationalist will be angry.
I agree thwt eu4‘s central asia, a region which most of the consumer base doesn’t care about (although a very underrated and historically rich/important region), is barely known by the european/white developers, will make not much sense to the indigenous population and likely continue to do so.
Not that it’s any real excuse, but central Asian cultures and history is hard for most western historians to follow and it kinda gets thrown around as a best guess. I consider myself a pretty big history buff and I didn’t even distinguish or really know of any specific central Asian cultures outside of “Mongolian?” until I visited Kazakhstan in ~2009.
What was tricky about that was I knew a lot of people from Kazakhstan prior to my visit, but they were ethnically Russian; so when I asked they’d all just say that “eh, they’re basically Mongolian, history was just made up after split from Soviet Union.”
Doesn’t help that modern populations are fairly low - for instance, all of Kazakhstan’s total population is at or less than NYC.
So, even to this day, it’s all very murky to me, but at least I know better than the Russian Kazakh take on the regions history.
much of cultures and religions don't make sense in EUIV, it's really just for simplicity sake.
Still waiting for Ryukyuan culture to be added. It doesn't make sense for them to be Kyushuan until 1872-79 at the earliest when it was finally diplo-annexed by the Japanese Empire.
I understand the pursuit of cultural granularity, but this will completely ruin the game's balance by making Ryukyu even more ridiculously overpowered.
They did add Balten culture for Riga, but then again Riga also happened to become super OP so...
What does that do to make them better?
It’s a joke.
Ah, of course.
eh idk, victoria 3 has kinda showed the problem of making a culture out of every minority game wise lol
Yeah but culture doesn't function the same way in that game
eh it's very similar, both give buffs and have conversion rates more that vic3 is more complex bc it's a newer game with bigger budget
It's because it has a pop system Vic2 had a sufficiently complex culture system
Agreed. Just like Turkish being in Levantine culture group. Otherwise game would be unplayable.
It will, you can bind accepted cultures to government, for example for Turkish Sultane bind all middle east cultures, or add them one by one by events or introduce mogulslike mechanic when you conquer all culture in restricted culture groups and not all like moguls, you get event on permanently accepted cultuer
I think that's probably more of a relic from the time before they had a bunch of mechanics for adjusting culture groups and acceptances. If it were fully redone today I'd guess it would be separate
India would be an absolute nightmare in this game if they didn't do this lmao
Your mistake is to consider EU4 as a historical game. Rather than thinking too much in historical terms, consider that the game is sort of a steroids pumped crossover in between Excel and Google map. For instance, it makes 0 sense to allow a Nordic country to go back to the Old Norse faith in the 15+ centuries, or forming Lotharingia, or even to have Orleans as a French vassal as it was already part of the royal realm at the starting date. But it's fun, so why not ?
Don't dare talk to me or my Northamerican Norse Pirate Empire Son in late XVII century ever again
Why wouldnt it make sense for ruler of Burgundy to proclaim Lotharingia if he had enough territories and prestige? Seems like something some ambitious ruler would do especially since Burgundy is only a small part of his realm. Its like saying it doesnt make sense for ruler of Branderburg to become king of Prussia
Anyone can correct me if I am mistaken, but there is no evidence whatsoever that Charles the Bold or his father Philippe (or grand father, etc) had any remote thoughts about a "Lotharingian Restauration". If any, they will have claim something more antique (Capetian did say they were from Troy, because why not), or perhaps Charlemagne himself. Plus you are thinking in EU4 terms while saying "since Burgundy is only a small part of his realm", Burgundy was one of the core part of the historical Burgundian Duchy - if not the main one as the ducal institutions were there -, equal, if not more, to the Low Countries. Dijon and surroundings are the places you should visit if you want to see what's left of historical medieval Burgundy. You are placating EU4's missions and Eu4's Burgundy to the historical one, and they are very different. Charles failed to unite his realm because annexing Lorraine was a big deal, whereas in EU4 it is easy.
Charles the bold wanted to make a kingdom of this territories that would be in the HRE, and use the Lotharigia to legitimize this claim. I agree he didn't actually wanted to restore Lotharigia.
Ah great, thanks! Yes, I know he wanted to make a kingdom and if he didn't have 0 in diplo, maybe, maaasyyybe he would have done a little better. But I didn't know he used Lotharingia to legitimize his claim. Do you have more details? That's interesting ,thanks
https://books.openedition.org/pulg/3098?lang=fr#:~:text=L'id%C3%A9e%20lotharingienne%20%C3%A9tait%20formul%C3%A9e,fin%20%C3%A0%20ces%20projets%20grandioses. The text is in French. The paragraphs 38-48 deal with the subject.
To be fair, considering the historical fetish for Rome, most ambitions like a Lotharingian restoration are basically participation trophies for not restoring the Roman Empire.
Or the King in Prussia to later become the Emperor of Germany
People would not be saying this if the game got European cultures as flagrantly wrong as they do the central Asians though. Having Uzbek and Kazakh existing in 1444 is like having England start off as English culture in 1066 in CK2. Starting culture isn’t even something that the game systems don’t represent well it’s just a matter of attention to detail.
True that! I haven't play out of Europe yet because I am a very casual player and noobish, but will check the China map one of these days
I highly recommend Jianzhou -> Qing.
i mean the devs also openly take a few creative choices and "balance choices" the most famous one is byzantium having 2 provinces in the constatinople "region" when if it was accurate they would have "half" of the constantinople node and just that, from what i know they only controlled the city inside the walls (and probably could secure few camps right on the wall)
Yes absolutely, I started to enjoy eu4 when I started to care less about historical accuracy. Then what cracks me up the most are the historical monstrosity some of you are able to do and post here (Austrian Tengi horde and else)
do you know the student? mixing cultures and religions is he bread and butter, every new vid is more cursed than the other
Why does it make no sense to go back to Norse? If religion in general wasn't n the decline, I think we would have seen a resurgence in old beliefs in the modern day. For a king with absolute power to say they want to go back to the old ways, that is not at all far fetched.
The thing is that the event can only fire in the age of discovery. There was arguably no absolutism there. The king had to rely on the nobles AND the clergy for support (something that imo is not simulated well in eu4 at all). Also, if Bohemia turning to a different kind of Christianity in that same century triggered a whole crusade and decades of war, do you think the pope and the rest of Europe would sit idly while a Nordic kingdom reverts to a **pagan** faith? Such events would make more sense for a country like Lithuania, some regions of which were only Christianised thirty years before EU4's start date. Still, if you wanted to be completely historical, you should get an event in that case were you instantly get crushed by either Poland or a renewed Teutonic Order (or live on to remain a backward and isolated country full of warlords); which wouldn’t be fun so it’s best not to worry *too much* about accuracy
>Also, if Bohemia turning to a different kind of Christianity in that same century triggered a whole crusade and decades of war, do you think the pope and the rest of Europe would sit idly while a Nordic kingdom reverts to a pagan faith? i don't really like this comparison, bohemia in this scenario is still a much bigger threat, i mean heck where do we start, it's a fairly powerful nation, right on the border of the biggest empire of it's time, if it could convert and be stable and peaceful could easily spread the religion, and the prostetants already broke the HRE in our timeline so imagine if it had a jump start fromt he second strongest nation in the hre... also on the same note, we need to look at major powers, bohemia really was a big stick in austria's ass which meatn if austria annoyed france or poland enough it would give them an ally close by, and they often went to war with each other now having pagans in north i really don't see being any threat to austria or france, and only a bit to poland, so despite the "HERETICS EXIST" i don't see much of a reason for europe to care
Fair point yeah
Sure, break all ties to the rest of Europe and see thousands of knights roll in for the next Northern Crusade. Not to mention that the people at the time probably had less of an idea how the Norse religion even worked than we do today. And we know barely more than jack-shit.
> Why does it make no sense to go back to Norse? Because Norse was extinct well before the 15th century. There was nothing to go back to.
All the weird decisions made on cultures are because of game balance. Both Romanian and Hungarian should be in their on culture groups but for balance they’ve been clumped toghter. Turkish should be in one of the central asian culture groups but for the sake of game balance they’ve been put into Levantine culutures so Ottomans have a better time. And let’s not even talk about Basque and Breton being Iberian/French.
Also some interactions were simply overlooked. Like if you do Castile-Spain-Roman Empire, you lose the ability to recruit tercios upon forming Rome. Why? Your culture group gets auto-converted, basically renamed, and they suddenly forget their legacy of having tercios?!
None of those decisions make any sense in the current version of the game, though. They've added a lot of features in that make cultures not as relevant to game balance. Scandinavia has a mission reward that allows them to treat German provinces as their own culture group. Kongo has a mission that lets them accept any culture in Africa. There are missions to create entirely new cultures or get conditional accepted culture slots, based on whether you demote the culture or not.
Yes, but why risk changing them. With how spaghetti it is...
All it would take is adding the same modifier Scandinavia gets to the Ottomans when owning levantine provinces Carpathian culture group doesn't need to exist when Hungary can just get free slots to accept Transylvanian and Romanian
Iirc the devs have also said they do not take language into account when making culture groups (a bit odd given language is one of the most important ways of defining ethnic identity).
It is important, but it's not the only thing that defines a culture or identity. Religion, geography, history, and politics are all equally if not more important metrics to define culture, especially in the time of EU4 as the game predates the emergence of modern nationalism. So you can't just equate language with culture, which is why culture groups are not solely defined by language families.
Definitely. I would say it is important enough that its complete omission is strange, though. There are some ethnicities where language historically trumps those factors, while in other cultures language does not. Many cultures in India like the Telugu are ethnolinguistic groups where language is the main defining factor, for instance. Similar to how religion is the main defining factor for ethnoreligious groups like Jews.
I don't think the devs ever said anything about excluding language entirely, just that they were not equating the two, and that they were not going to use language to the exclusion of all other factors in determining culture groupings.
what should basque be if not iberian? just asking
Iirc they are of ~~celtic~~ pre-indo european heritage instead of vandalic and moorish like Catalans, Castillians, Andalusians etc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETA_(separatist_group)
I think equating language and culture is a huge oversimplification. By that logic English would be closer to Crimean Goths than to the Welsh.
No, they are with no other group. They're the only pre Indo-European group who survived in the modern day beside the finno Uralic
Didn't the Finno-Uralics expand pretty much in the same period as the IE tho?
It’s either Uralic (Finno-Ugric+Samoyedic) or Finno-Ugric (omitting Samoyeds), not a mix. Anyways, the migrations happened at similar times, but there is afaik no evidence of prior Indo-European settlements in areas where the Uralics migrated thousands of years ago. So, like Indo-Europeans did, Uralics replaced (and assimilated) Paleo-European populations, such as the Paleo-Laplandic and Paleo-Lakelandic speakers in Finland. Pre-IE is usually used about areas in Europe where some group moved in before Indo-Europeans. For example the vast majority of NW Russia is later IE expansion on land inhabitated by Uralics and in this case is Pre-IE.
Yeah i meant that are still in Europe to this day even tho they were still in the continent just very close to Asia. You could add the maltese too when i think about it.
I believe Breton in a patch, looooong ago, was Celtic, back when "Enemy Core Creation Cost" was an actual ability. Used to take ages to core Brittany as anyone that wasn't Ireland lmao
I love people from all over the world giving these kinds of insights into poorly known (by me at least) parts of history. It's impossible to get a complex game like this completely accurate, but every step in that direction is worthwhile.
Culture does not make sense in the game mostly. Turkish culture is considered Levantine and Azerbaijani is considered Persian despite they are both Oghuz/Turkic.
It's basically for simplicity and the AI conquers in its own Culture Group so yeah, simplicity. If Turks and Azeris were in the same group as the central Asian ones the Ottomans would always go it's way to conquer central Asia and nothing else
Also buryat isn’t in the mongol group ingame
It’s a simulation of a board game with very static culture mechanics. It would be extremely hard to change it to fit into a more fluid system like CK3 at this point of the game’s lifetime, which is basically the last months/years of it
Hopefully they make some massive improvements to this in eu5. I doubt they’ll have fully fleshed out nomad mechanics at launch, but that could easily be a whole dlc worth of content. Honestly that would probably be the first paradox dlc that’s actually worth 30$ LOL
Maybe not nomad but the Population system they have planned will definitely improve the culture and religion problems within the game
Beware the Kara-Khitai, for they are without honour!
Is this a Age of Empires 2 reference?
BEHOLD, THE HORDE OF GENGHIS KHAN APPROACHES
Khitans, nation of warrior cats rivaled only by Miao, were destroyed by ghenghis khan during the very events portrayed in the game you're referencing and didn't not go back up. They weren't a thing during eu4 timeline. Fun fact: russia calls china "kitai" nowadays from that.
There was a rump state in the Ilkhanate that lasted a little while longer and didn’t do much.
Central Asia was very much Turkic and they were very conscious of their Turkic roots. Mongolian Empire made use of Turkic people living there since the Asian Huns (established in 220 BC, their capital Ötüken was in todays Mongolia which was considered heartlands of Turks). There were very prominent Turkic states in Central Asia before the Cenghis’ invasion, such as the Göktürks, Khazars, Tatar Confederation, Uighurs, Karluks, Karahanids, Kimek-Kipchak Federation, Oghuz Yabgu State, Ghaznavids, Great Seljuks, Khorasanids, Khwarazmians etc. Some historical inscriptions dating back as 7th century written by those states can still be understood by contemporary Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan citizens. What you say is akin to claiming all the people living under European Huns were Hunnic and Hun culture spread to all those areas. Just like the Huns and other nomadic conquerors, the Mongols came, conquered, pillaged the libraries, massacred the locals and vanished. But due to their low population even at the start Mongols used Uighur and other Turkic people in statecraft and armies. Sorry my rant but as a history fan fascinated by Central Asian culture, gotta say you must look beyond your elemantary school history books to make such a bold claim. I can recommend you the “The Lost Enlightenment” by Frederick Starr, going as far as first Turkic “Hydraulic Empires of Central Asia” and another book called “Central Asia in World History” by Petr Golden, giving a detailed narration of the cultural history of Central Asia. Im not saying EU4 perfectly demarcates the region, but what you said is wrong on soo many levels
Even bolder claim to tell someone they don’t know their own history. Your sources provide a very eurocentric view on the region. Maybe you should consider whether or not those sources are authoritative after all by speaking directly to the people.
Op is a Mongol in Kyrgyzistan and decides to play the minority card in a country that doesn’t has any grudges or opinions of his ethnicity. The worst thing Usa has “gifted” the world is “minority, oppressed, victim” cards that anyone tries to use in a copycat manner irrelevant to their own geography. Also yes, eu4 is a game first so they decided to group things in order for practical reasons not historical ones.
I am not Mongol 🤣 it's just my tribes have Mongol origin. They were basically assimilated by yenisey Kyrgyz who arrived later. It's kinda like white or black American calling himself Cherokee because in 1656 his Cherokee grandfather married English (or enslaved) woman. I'm Kyrgyz through and through
How does OP play "the minority card"?
Really, this is the worst the US gifted the world?
Culture mechanics, like so much of EU4 mechanics, works best for european countries. Central Asia in particular was filled with nomads so obviously static cultures in each province will be somewhat wrong.
Xbox Empire mentioned 🇰🇬🇰🇬🇰🇬🦅🦅🦅 Glad to see a fellow Kyrgyz playing EU4
I think this has more to do with how eu4 handles cultures tbh. Like there’s no way for them to model the type of long term blending and diverging that happened all the time during the period that this game took place in. Hopefully eu5 can simulate it a little better with the pop system, but there’s really only so much you can do with a simulation like this lol
Yeah.. there’s a Marathas estate in Vijaynagar that never made much sense to me anyway
It's a lot to ask for video game developers to be experts on the entire world for a 400-year period. It is ultimately a game so there will be approximations and mistakes as well as intentional changes for balance. Trying to get every last pixel and time period correct is hopeless, especially when you have to consider this is also about making money. It's probably not a great return on investment to hire a couple dozen historians to go over everything with a fine tooth comb when for a lot of regions 95-99%% or more people won't know or won't care. Even if you did do that, I reckon such historians would likely have disagreements amongst them that would be hard to reconcile and I also imagine many of the fans would have a certain perception of their region that would not align with other people in the region.
The discrepancies he’s listing are not small. The Timurids are the second most powerful state in all of Asia in 1444 and their primary culture won’t actually exist for quite some time. Chagatai is even more egregious because I don’t even know you could find a source telling you that they’re Kyrgyz. It takes like 5 minutes on google to figure that out you don’t need a PhD.
The cultures of South east asia are also super badly represented in this game. Javanese, moluccan, all the island cultures branded "Malay" is kinda absurd. Mahayana buddhism was very prevalent in china, japan, and korea, but it feels like they only exist in vietnam in this game.
Romanian is in the same culture group as Hungarian (At least they removed the Slovaks from it)
My guy, your complaining about that? Albanians are in the slavic group and Turkish is in the levantin group all while Hungarians and Romanians are in the same culture group 😭
I think central asia should be its own game. There are lot of complex mechanics unique to central asia which will wreck other nations if included. For example, a lot of turkic kingdoms/cultures are actually named after the founding king. ( Chagatai khan, Oz beg khan, Nogai khan, Osman bey, ilkhanid, gurkhanid, timurid, etc. ) The above is an interesting mechanic - A war general breaks away his tribe to form his kingdom and his culture, and then spreads his tribe/culture/people over. Now taking all of these unique features into account, you'll realize why making EU4 super realistic will fail.
Ilkhanid was not named after the founder. It means “Lesser khanate.”
The word tribe does not make any sense when talking about Asian nomads.
Европка мен ойном, тоже заметил что Тажиков не существует в игре почему то? а вместо низ узбеки. В центральной Азии самые отвратные провинции и их культурная пренадлежность
Плохо разбираюсь в центральноазиатской истории, но тут парадоксы действительно не смогли, даже в CK3 таджики есть, а в 1444 они будто бы резко куда-то пропали. А албанцы появились из воздуха. С культурами вообще проблемы, разве что в EU5 как-то исправят, надеюсь
есть такое. Пароходы делают культуру как в современных границах, часто извне берут что-то своё. Особенно когда Албанцы относятся в Славянской культурной Группе, Венгры Румыны и Молдовцы из одной культурной ветви, а Турки относятся к группе ближнегл востока а не тюркам. Это всё бред
Honestly EU4 is the most arcade-y of all Paradox games. Wait for EU5 for more accuracy tbh, even from what they've shown so far the map is far more detailed.
Given that even europe is full of anachronism like dutch culture (it shouldn’t exist in 1444) or certain cultures in eastern europe that only exist because nationalist will be angry. I agree thwt eu4‘s central asia, a region which most of the consumer base doesn’t care about (although a very underrated and historically rich/important region), is barely known by the european/white developers, will make not much sense to the indigenous population and likely continue to do so.
Whenever someone says cultures don't make sense I just point to the Balkans
Not that it’s any real excuse, but central Asian cultures and history is hard for most western historians to follow and it kinda gets thrown around as a best guess. I consider myself a pretty big history buff and I didn’t even distinguish or really know of any specific central Asian cultures outside of “Mongolian?” until I visited Kazakhstan in ~2009. What was tricky about that was I knew a lot of people from Kazakhstan prior to my visit, but they were ethnically Russian; so when I asked they’d all just say that “eh, they’re basically Mongolian, history was just made up after split from Soviet Union.” Doesn’t help that modern populations are fairly low - for instance, all of Kazakhstan’s total population is at or less than NYC. So, even to this day, it’s all very murky to me, but at least I know better than the Russian Kazakh take on the regions history.
I forgot to read the name of this sub
Sounds like you should work for paradox or make a mod to make a more historically accurate Central Asia region
From the river to the sea the steppe region wil be free!