Hungarian is NOT a West Slavic culture...

[SDavid]

I can't believe that Paradox always make this horrible fault, that they put the hungarian culture into the west slavic culture gruop. Hungarian is not a slavic culture, it belongs to the finno-ugric culture group.

[Supplican]

If Hungary was in the Finno-ugric culture group they could conquer Finland and Siberia with no revolts, but not their immediate neighbours ... Paradox have been dealing with issues like these since EU2 so many years ago. Give the game a good workout before nitpicking over ahistorical stuff tlie this.

[Demonl]

It is done for balancing reasons.

Besides language groups are not cultural groups. Hungarian language may be from the finno-urgric language family but the cultural and social customs and norms are completely different.

[Gwenysis]

If it bothers you, you can simply change it in the cultres.txt file. Then it will be as you wanted, you would have a harder time holding your neighbors territory and they will have a harder time holding yours, it might actually make for more interesting Hungarian campaigns.

[River]

in the same vein, Romanian isn't a South Slavic culture, but a Daco Roman culture (i.e. very much influenced by the Roman empire). The Romanian language as such is Latin. But indeed, for balancing purposes, they have changed this.

However, what I disagree here is that they say that Paradox made it hard on hungary. I would very much argue against that. Paradox seem to love Hungary is Crusader Kings II and Europa Universalis. Transilvania, Banat, and so on are in both games given 'Hungarian' culture group, which is historically completely wrong (regardless of Hungarian (1100) and Turkisch (1500) occupation, these areas retained their Romanian cultural idendity). The result is that in both games, Hungarian is an seriously overpowered entity, commanding areas which they didn't rule).

with culture, I feel Paradox hasn't done a good job, it shouldn't have been that hard to change it so that the provinces and the culture respond more to history.

[SDavid]

Well Transylvania and Banat are such sensitive situations, they were under control of Hungary till 1918, but after Germany lost the war, Antant gave Transylvania to Romania, which was a good idea partly, cause there live lots of hungarians too, but winner takes it all. In Banat, there are serbians if im right, and some hungarian too. So it was a much better idea to gave it to Serbia, cause hungarians are much less than in Transylvania. So yes, Banat dont even need to be hungarian, but serbian culture province. Transylvania is much harder to determine, and decide, which culture to gave it to.
You say Hungary is commanding areas they never ruled, i need to disagree, just open one history book with Hungary in 1400-1500, like this:
http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1400/index.html

[Yaldabaoth]

River の投稿を引用：

The result is that in both games, Hungarian is an seriously overpowered entity, commanding areas which they didn't rule).

In CK2 Hungary is just as good as any other place. However in EU4 Hungary (without Croatia) is already the most worthless place in Europe other than Norway and Finland (no offense meant guys). They are usually ripped to pieces by rebels because they can't even fund their own armies and don't have enough manpower for even two battles. And to top it off no one wants to conquer them even for nice borders because of their tradition. To say that they are overpowered is just ridiculous.

[Kagemin]

They've been doing pretty well in the vast majority of my games so far, more often that not expanding quite a lot. Probably the strongest Eastern country after Russia and maybe the Commonwealth if it is formed.

[Harper]

1) Culture is not necessarily language. Magyar is Finno-Ugric as a language, but the diet, clothing, and customs owe more to their neighbors than the Finns.

2) Making them West Slavic was a gameplay decision. Countries are more willing to form alliances with neighbors of the same culture group, and have an easier time assimilating people of those groups. It would be ahistorical to have Hungary want to conquer Finland, or try to ally with it. This just gives the AI a push to do what Hungary did historically - without making them part of the Byzantine or Germanic culture groups, which you might find even more abhorrent.

[armzngunz]

Sebok の投稿を引用：

It is a good reason why Paradox put hungarian into west-slavic group, that Hungary can expand thier territory against Poland or Bohemia easier, if hungarian is in the west-slavic group, but Poland and Bohemia can also conquer and hold hungarian territories easier because of the culture group change, and Poland or Bohemia never conquered too much hungarian territory in history.

And isn't as hard holding south-slavic provinces with a finno-ugric culture as holding south-slavic provinces with a west-slavic culture? I don't think there are any differency in the penalties.

Thats like putting Finnish in the scandinavian group to make it easier for Sweden, or put polish in the germanic group to make it easier for Austria etc... Sacrificing history to make it a tiny bit easier is stupid.

[armzngunz]

Why not make a separate Ugric group and a Finnic group too?

[Bruda]

Oh com'on, guys! Is it really so important?
This is just a game and i don't think you should use it as an encyclopedia -)) IMHO

BTW i don't understand why swedish shouldn't like Suomi (Finn)? But i can tell few things about Denmark -))))

[Mikey]

Thats ok Bjornel, we can say a thing or two about you as well ;)

[Bruda]

My bad, pal! -))
But actually this topic is about Hungary and western culture.