Well I'd consider for example the Danish, Swedish or Norweigan Viking Culture, or rather The Norse culture to be a very different culture from say the Vasa era, the Karl XI era or Kristian V era and onwards. It's not only the culture itself but also religions impact on the culture, as well as enligthenment (science), inventions, political movements and all kinds of factors coming into effect. So in that sense I can see Your point and like Your train of thought. It is indeed an interesting thought to play around with, in that it can feel like a totally new culture, or nation/civilization. However it is still the same people, but just like a person changes during life from what they've been through, their experiences, what they have learned etc, so much that they can totally change opinions on some topics, but at the same time some things do not change. Some habits and behaviour are easy to change, others habits and behaviour patterns are not so easy to break. 

To go into an even more micro or personal level (since any nation or culture is built of individuals after all, like a house is built out of bricks), in many way I am not the same person I was 10, 20 or 30 years ago. On the other hand some personality traits or how I react in certain situations are exactly the same, while some are totally different. Even my political opinions (without going into any details and get political) have changed alot since I was a teen or in my early 20's. I think that is very common for most people. People simply evolve in some areas over time. Sometimes for the better. Sometimes for the worse. Who's to judge which is what ??? Some traits, behaviour and opinions we bring with us for life, some we try to change but can not. Other things we change alot (knowingly or unknowingly, sometime change sneaks upon us step by step), so that some people would say "You're not the same anymore". Others would say "You're exactly the same" depending on what they focus on seeing in a person and in what situation etc.

Like with Soviet Russia, or even former Balkan, alot was supressed and forced change by a totalitarian rule, but not really changed within people and that surfaced again once the totalitarian rule ended with old conflicts between various groups of people coming to the surface once more.

So the answer is that some things can change alot, but also stay the same. If that warrants calling someone a totally new person, or a culture totally new is a very complex question to answer. One could probably write a Doctoral dissertation or thesis about the subject and still not come to a 100% conclusion. I think it's more of a personal opinion and how You chose to look at it. See it in a historical context and understanding why some things changed so much during a period, simply due to what had happened before in many cases. Big changes, or revolutions even, almost never just came out of a vacuum from nowhere. There are most often a reason and various things leading up to it, if You just look close enough. Seeing that it's precisely because the culture was the way it was, it also lead to evolving (sometimes armed revolution) and changing as a result. Not being totally "new" after, but acctually a result of itself and just a natural continuation/evolution, even if somewhat changed or changed alot.

Sometimes circumstancess left people with little choice but to change, famine, enviromental disasters etc, but they were still the same people, just adapting to changes outside their own control. Even in some cases their whole culture had to adapt. Become steadfast and agrarian or even the opposite nomadic and move around until later settle down etc. In fact some people/cultures still lack a home country.

Personaly I rather think Soviet Russia is more of a political and ideological change, or period (a willing or wanted change in some people and forced upon others, as it is in most changes within most cultures, some welcome and want the changes in a certain direction, others do not, some even actively fight against certain changes), rather than warranting it as a totally independent culture from Russia in general.

In fact an even bigger, or at least as big of a change occured or was forced upon the Russian people during "Peter The Great", or as some call him "Peter The Terrible". Due to him forcing Russia out of a medieval social and political systems into the "modern" or Renaissance era style of system/society/culture. Litterally dragging people kicking and screaming into it. Some saw that as a necessary change, others did not. Would that then warrant a 3rd stand alone culture for Russia ??? So that we would have Russia, Peter the Great/Terrible Russia and then to top it off a Soviet Russia ??? Naaa, personally I don't think so. We could then do that for most nations or cultures really. It would never end. Some would say pre WW II America was totally different from after and so on.

To take a more current example. Just because we are now going through a digital "revolution" or major change that is forced upon some, while others love it all (anything from social media to more digital control in the hands of a few etc). In some countries cash is almost non existant now and banks don't even handle cash anymore. Many shops as well refuse cash as payment in those countries. Changing the very infrastructure of society (as I said more control over people put in the hands of a very few) as well as changing peoples daily behaviour (not always for the better in my personal opinion) does that make us a totally new stand-alone culture from before, or just the same but with changes adopted by following a digital/technical evolution ???

Many Nations or Cultures have had leaders during who's rule alot has changed. Like with the Danish King Harald "Bluetooth" Gormsson, who had a very lenient or even welcoming way towards Christianity compared to earlier rulers, or even compared to his own father who detested Christianity. You could say that Harald "Bluetooth" Gormsson was instrumental in turning Denmark and the Danish people into Christians. Still they are the Danish people and not a totally new or unique culture, just different through changes. You have Napoleon as another example of a time of big changes for a nation/culture. As well as the French revolution. Still it's France and the French people.

So no, I personally don't think it warrants multiple stand-alone or "unique" Russian cultures. It's rather the way that You chose one cultural template and see it change and evolve over time into what it will be later. Occupy new territories, change ideoligy, politics, possibly religion and even evolve/change/adopt a totally "new" culture or ascend. Your choice. 

Basically You make it the way You want it. Maybe make it so that "What IF" Russia never even had a Soviet state regime ??? Or "What IF" any western culture we have today that is considered capitalistic turned into a socialist state etc ??? You create Your own history using some cultural templates that might turn out very different compared to acctual history depending on Your choices. To me that is one of the beauties with Humankind.

Good point. However I have read somewhere that contemporary era starts from early 20th century, so I guess we may safely state that people from Russian empire before the rise of Bolshiviks and people from cold war era Soviet union are different. Political structure, industry, infrastructure, mass media, nationalism, state propaganda, scientific advances and technological breakthroughs... literally everything changed since then.

I think something that's important: culture in humankind doesn't seem to mean culture in that sense. We have dynasties (Zhou, Maurya), linguistic groups (Celts), broad groups of people (Greeks), individual countries (France)... I think at this point, culture isn't meant in such a narrow definition. It's just this game's name for factions. So, maybe it's a bit of a cop-out answer, but I think it doesn't matter as long as it gets us an interesting faction ^^'

Limstella wrote:

When and where cultures stop being the same as before is a complicated and transitionary process that doesn't line up in actuality with the categorization being used in this or most any other game. They're inevitably a simplified abstraction. The Soviet period is itself also long and complicated enough that its difficult to pin down as a singular set of points on an ideology slider, but is nonetheless a catch all label for the cultural ideas and development expressed in a period of time covering much of the past century. Things like secularism, the idea of the New Soviet man, development of new modes of education, the types of art produced during the period and a shift towards a multinational-multiethnic plurality are all worth noting as distinct from the Tsarist period. I think its inclusion alongside ideological development options and civics gives the player more freedom as to what idea of the Soviet period they themselves want to recreate as well. 

I agree. Just because perhaps the "Soviet" era was more "in Your face" and very noticeable on the world arena. Often due to how some other cultures, politicians and nations disliked the Soviet system and put so much focus on it and propaganda against it. Like the McCarthy era in USA for example. Still being very ingrained in alot of Americans psyche, "better dead than red" etc. Simply due to the focus of those two opposing super powers in the second half of the 1900's, many seem to forget that almost as big of changes happened in alot of countries/societies at that time period too.

How simply electricity changed alot as it became more available in homes and everyday life (not only in cities but also on the countryside), automobiles more affordable for the common people, workers rights, unions. No not all unions became corrupt and controlled by the mafia like some did in USA. How many countries had been pretty stuck in being agrarian societies with maybe just 1 or 2 cities that felt somewhat modern (usually the capital and maybe some harbor cities), but the vast majority still lived like it had been for hundreds of years. You could say that about Scandinavia too for example. Other countries as well.

This was not unique to Soviet Russia. It's just that it came from an armed revolution there, as the changes were blocked by the elite/tsar and that lead to people finally having had enough, taking up arms to make some change come about.

In other countries there were also large miners and workers demonstrations, sometimes resulting in confrontations with armed police forces too, resulting in deaths, but not on the scale like in Russia perhaps. The changes was often driven politically just like in Russia too. I'm sure there would have been more revolutions in other countries too, had the politicians and leaders there not acted more towards the masses will to improve things for them. In some countries it came in stages, in some countries alot of changes in very short period. We moved from having so called "poor houses" where the poor and many elderly or even mentally handicapped were dumped (often under miserable conditions), to more government/state controlled welfare funded by taxes in some countries etc. Public healthcare. Womens right to vote. The list of changes during the first 90 years (until soviet union fell apart piece by piece) of the 1900's period is too extensive to list here. 

Most of those changes were not unique to Soviet. Alot of changes in many countries at that time were based on empathy or a view of humanity, civil rights, or social equality, wanting to make people more "equal", or rather at least giving people a chance to become more "equal". Systems and institutions meant to try to protect the little person against being abused by those with greater financial power and influence (attempting to break the long chain of barons and workers, or landlords and peasants, that often resembled nothing more than a life in slavery and poverty). Giving people equal opportunities and rights with publically funded systems and new laws etc. Alot of such changes were driven by more and more people leaving the countryside and moving into cities to work in factories (which had been going on for some time by then). Cities that as a result grew rapidly, but most lived and worked under very poor conditions. Secularism wasn't unique to Soviet either. Some changes were inspired by Soviet or socialistic ideas sure. Other changes were driven by wanting to oppose the Soviet system, or from the Soviet side to oppose the capitalist system. To show that "we can do better". The whole space race is one such example. Some other changes were solely driven by new discoveries and inventions paving way for a better standard of living etc. Again too long to list it all.

If we would go down the route of having more than one Russian culture simply due to alot of changes within a country, culture or system, social, political, legal, scientific, educational etc, then we could have that with many cultures. I see such countries or cultures as the same people/countries/cultures that have just "evolved". Sometimes so much that they feel very different for sure, but still a natural evolution if looking at what took place leading up to the changes.