Polonization - Spread of Polish culture on Lithuanian and Ruthenian lands

Castios · Dec 2, 2012

Hello,

So, I am playing Poland atm. and I am using settlement policy to spread polish culture. So I got an idea. What's suprising me, is that there is no bonus to spread polish culture through http://www.paradoxian.org/eu3wiki/Cultural_Assimilation event on Lithuanian and Ruthenian culture. There is bonus to assimilate culture on Saxon and Pommeranian if your primary culture is Prussian and there is also same bonus on turkey region if your culture is Turkish or Byzantine, same thing with Horde lands. In my opinion, we should have bonus to spread Polish culture on Lithuanian and Ruthenian lands as it's even historical accurate. I am talking about Polonization (I am not sure if urls allowed but it's not fanpage, just wikipedia). In short, through the ages of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth many of Lithuanians basically abandoned Lithuanian culture and supported Polish domination of the union. Consequences of this, it's crisis between Polish and Lithuanian relations in modern times. However, Polonization was mostly voluntary, because Lithuanian and Ruthenian nobles prefered to become Polish to increase their prestige and financial status. It progressed fastest during Lithuanian conversion to catholicism.

Polonization can be seen as an example of cultural assimilation. Such view is widely considered applicable to the times of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569–1795) when the Ruthenian and Lithuanian upper classes were drawn towards the more Westernized Polish culture, political and financial benefits of such transition, as well as, sometimes, by the administrative pressure exerted on their own cultural institutions, primarily the Orthodox Church. The conversion to the Roman Catholic faith (and to a lesser extent, Protestant) was often the single most important part of the process as for Ruthenians of that time being Polish culturally and Roman Catholic by religion was almost the same. This aspect of Polonization that led to the diminishing of the Orthodox Church was most resented by Belarusian and Ukrainian masses. In contrast the Lithuanians, who were mostly Catholic, were in danger of losing their cultural identity as a nation, but that did not become evident for the wide masses of Lithuanians until the Lithuanian national renaissance in the middle of the 19th century.

There is a lot more informations about it on the page I provided, at least enough arguments to introduce such modifier to speed up (a lot) spreading of Polish culture on those lands. Also, Polnization was going on Prussian and Pommeranian region as well. In Middle Ages, Pommerania was inhabited mostly by Slavic tribes.

If there will be no such thing as cultural assimilation in EU4, this should at least introduced in EU3 5.2 patch.

Closet Skeleton · Dec 2, 2012

Polonization of the nobility didn't change the population of the cities and countryside. Vilnius and maybe Lvov are the only areas that might have achieved a polish majority and you can get that after 400 years without a bonus to assimilation.

Lots of Germans came into Polish cities at the same time (usually invited for their skills) sometimes producing cities with no Polish majority and you don't want provinces randomly becoming German do you?

Castios · Dec 2, 2012

In the XVIII century Polonization of Lithuania was finished and real Lithuanian nobles were minority. In the 1697 Polish became official language in Lithuania, and that decision was made by Lithuanian nobles.

Polonization of the nobility didn't change the population of the cities and countryside.

Take a note that Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had one of the largest percentages of nobility in Europe, 10%-12%. Yet, Polonization of Lithuanian nobles resulted in polonisation of the rest of population.

So, If there is modifier to speed up assimilation of Saxon, Pommeranian or Tatars, I feel that there should be modifier to speed up assimilation of Ruthenians or Lithuanians by Poland. As Polonization was extremly effective and not forced violently, so that also should be some kind of passive modifier.

Lots of Germans came into Polish cities at the same time (usually invited for their skills) sometimes producing cities with no Polish majority and you don't want provinces randomly becoming German do you?

I am not talking about random spread of foreign culture in your lands. I am talking about spreading your primary culture in your lands. I agree that Germans were sometimes majority in western Polish lands, but there was no such thing as Germanization as long as Poland controlled those cities. Still, Germans that decided to settle in Poland became Polish after some time. Polonization of Germans was definately very small compared to Polonization of Lithuanians and Ruthenians. and still, amount of Germans on polish lands was keep decreasing because of - Polonization. Also what time you talking about? Because situation changed many times, unlike Polonization of Lithuania/Ruthenia that was going on even when Poland wasn't independent.

Arizael · Dec 2, 2012

The cultural assimilation is always problematic and touchy (*cough* Balkans *cough*) subject. The main problem is, that cultural assimilation happened around the globe, but didn't follow the same rules.

I remember my first game of EU III. It was IN and I played Bohemia. I gained couple of provinces and than I noticed that they are suddenly changing to Czech culture. After a couple of decades I virtualy doubled the culture - without any effort !- and eliminated the saxon culture in the process. I was like WTF as it totaly was an immersion killer for me.

Then I changed vanilla to Magna Mundi, which was much better as changing province in one culture required tons of effort and resources. It still wasn't perfect, since seening turkish culture in Bythinia as Byzantium after 100 years of your control felt weird too.

So I believe that only way paradox should adress this issue is based on history. Therefor easy culture assimilation in RussiansxTartars, but extremely unlikely culture changes in northen Italy.

So btw I agree with you, there should be polonization. As we have enough proofs that it did happened, even without government incentisives (settlement policy), good example is Lvov. It should still happen only in couple of provinces (2-4 I'd say) so we don't see liuthanian or ruthenian cultures dissapear.

arctus · Dec 2, 2012

if what, germanization should be in. because it happend historically

Eh up me duck · Dec 2, 2012

Arizael said:
The cultural assimilation is always problematic and touchy (*cough* Balkans *cough*) subject. The main problem is, that cultural assimilation happened around the globe, but didn't follow the same rules.

I remember my first game of EU III. It was IN and I played Bohemia. I gained couple of provinces and than I noticed that they are suddenly changing to Czech culture. After a couple of decades I virtualy doubled the culture - without any effort !- and eliminated the saxon culture in the process. I was like WTF as it totaly was an immersion killer for me.

That's...odd. IIRC Bohemia gets no bonus to culture flipping.

MTTT is 3000 months, or 250 years. The fact that you "doubled" the culture within "decades" is a one in millions, if not billions occurance.

Definitely no need to invoke the horrific crapstorm that is Magna Mundi.

Castios · Dec 2, 2012

Polinisation is definately historical fact. Whole commonwealth was based on it and a lot decisions were made because many Lithuanians weren't Lithuanians anymore, but Polish - and they still had "control" power in Lithuania. Poland was more advanced and western oriented nation, so lithuanian nobles were assimilated and they also drag the rest of population with them (well, in fact the rest of population had not much of the choice then).

I think cultural assimilation is quite balanced in eu3 (50 years meantime to change culture via decision). We just need some more passive culture changes, based on history, like bonus to assimilate tartar cultures/pommeranian etc.

arctus said:
if what, germanization should be in. because it happend historically

Go ahead and make topic.

If you think that some historical aspect is underrated.

Arizael · Dec 2, 2012

JoeIsGreat said:
That's...odd. IIRC Bohemia gets no bonus to culture flipping.

MTTT is 3000 months, or 250 years. The fact that you "doubled" the culture within "decades" is a one in millions, if not billions occurance.

This was at the times of In Nomine. I don't own EU3 anymore and never actualy played DW. I put this merely as an example of IMO wrong aproach the problem.

JoeIsGreat said:
Definitely no need to invoke the horrific crapstorm that is Magna Mundi.

For me personaly and I believe for every person who cared for some plausability MM was must. If I didn't care about independet Aragorn, but Castilian Africa&Turkey all the time you I might be able to understand your opinion.

LYNCHY · Dec 2, 2012

I think culture spread should be slowed down dramtically, the english have occupied parts of Ireland for nearly a thousand years yet there has been no cultural assmiliation, only the plantations

Sathariel · Dec 2, 2012

While it did happen, I dont think it was massive enough in game terms to justify any extra bonuses. If we were to have a look on the cultural map from the begining and the end of the gametime, only 2-3 provinces should possibly polonize? A simple random event would probably be more succesful. The current mechanisms of accepted cultures, is imho enough.

Castios · Dec 2, 2012

LYNCHY said:
I think culture spread should be slowed down dramtically, the english have occupied parts of Ireland for nearly a thousand years yet there has been no cultural assmiliation, only the plantations

I say there were just extremly resistant so they should get modifier to make assimilate them harder - instead of increasing time for assimilation everywhere. You see, the historical aspect. But yes, I agree with Sathariel, devs should focus first on most important historical events and then on those less important. I consider this culture thingy in Lithuania as very important because it directly affected Poland and Lithuania strength.

The current mechanisms of accepted cultures, is imho enough.

Nah. We talking about assimilation not accepting culture. ^^

Sathariel · Dec 2, 2012

Castios said:
Nah. We talking about assimilation not accepting culture. ^^

Sorry, I meant to say that I believe the few cultural conversions due to random events + Lithuanian culture as accepted (with the Polish as the main one), is enough to capture the cultural situation of the PLC in the scope of the game. If we had Vic2 type of pops, divided to classes, then having Lithuanian and Ruthenian nobles change culture to Polish one could be done, but as far as EUIV, with its 1 province = 1 culture, goes, I think we're fine as it is.

Rayski · Dec 2, 2012

Castios said:
You see, the historical aspect. But yes, I agree with Sathariel, devs should focus first on most important historical events and then on those less important. I consider this culture thingy in Lithuania as very important because it directly affected Poland and Lithuania strength.

It did not affect the strength of The Commonwealth, though. What you're talking about is absolutely irrelevant from the game's mechanic point of view, since both cultures - Polish and Lithuanian (Ruthenian, probably, as well) would be considered as accepted ones. Thus, it would only add some flavor that is, right now, pretty well covered by existing mechanism of cultural assimilation. Any special modifiers/bonuses would be unjustified and unnecessary.

Raczynski · Dec 2, 2012

I don't think it's needed. Culture already changes way to fast in Paradox games.
Fact is, Red Ruthenia/Eastern Galicia was still majority Ruthenian/Ukrainian by the end of 18th century despite being ruled by Poland for 400 years. At the same time, Silesia was about 50% if not more Polish despite not being ruled by Poland for about the same amount of time.

Castios · Dec 2, 2012

It did affect strenght of commonweath as commonweath could break much ealier. It stayed just before of that.

And it's very important from mechanic point of view. Cultural assimilation has plently of modifiers which are less important (like bonus to assimilate Tartars), so why woudn't we add modifier which is actually important? Culture is important thingy.

The fact that it may be accepted doens't really change anything and it's really offtopic there. It doesn't have to do with anything we talking about (cultural assimilation mtth).

Any special modifiers/bonuses would be unjustified and unnecessary.

-95% if Province:
- culture is Saxon or Pommeranian
- Owner state culture is Prussian
-95% if Province:
- culture is in a European culture group
- is NOT in Europe, North Africa or Middle East/Central Asia
- Owner is in Western, Eastern or Muslim tech group
- Owner state culture is in a European culture group
-90% if Province:
- is in Turkey region
- culture is either Turkish or Byzantine
- Owner state culture is either Turkish or Byzantine
-90% if Province:
- culture is Khazak, Kirgiz, Siberian or Tartar
- Owner state culture is East Slavic, West Slavic or Baltic
-50% if Province is in National Focus region
-20% if Province Owner has Church Attendance Duty
-20% if Province Owner has same culture group as Province
-20% if Province is Capital
-10% if Province Owner has Divine Supremacy
-10% if Province Owner has Serfdom/Free Subjects < -1
-10% if Province Owner has stability ≥ 1
-10% if Province Owner has stability = 3

Write it again.

There is a lot modifiers so I don't think it will harm the game if we add some other historical modifier. Anyway thats just my suggestion for EU4. I hope devs look at it and discuss about it at least 5 minutes.
In my opinion there is no reason to not-add such thing as some other cultures already have.

Raczynski said:
I don't think it's needed. Culture already changes way to fast in Paradox games.
Fact is, Red Ruthenia/Eastern Galicia was still majority Ruthenian/Ukrainian by the end of 18th century despite being ruled by Poland for 400 years. At the same time, Silesia was about 50% if not more Polish despite not being ruled by Poland for about the same amount of time.

I don't think thats an argument. Modern times are not in eu3 timeframe, so current status is not important, don't you think that after Ukraine, Lithuania etc. got indepence, they started to promote their own culture reversing the process of polonization which result in current status? For example Lviv had to be settled from zero after Poland lost control over it (Poles were majority with 66%). The fact that polonization took place is unquestionable. Aslo, I don't think 250 years meantime it's fast and it's not even about how fast it is, it's about missing pieces in EU3, any new historical events, unifications or modifiers are welcome in my opinion.

Solmyr · Dec 2, 2012

Castios said:
So, If there is modifier to speed up assimilation of Saxon, Pommeranian or Tatars, I feel that there should be modifier to speed up assimilation of Ruthenians or Lithuanians by Poland.

But then you'd get stupid stuff like Kiev becoming Polish.

Sotof · Dec 2, 2012

Solmyr said:
But then you'd get stupid stuff like Kiev becoming Polish.

What we need is to have culture_groups be separate too. To allow Germanized Danes or Englishified Irish. So in most cases you would change the culture_group rather than the actual culture.

Don_Quigleone · Dec 2, 2012

LYNCHY said:
I think culture spread should be slowed down dramtically, the english have occupied parts of Ireland for nearly a thousand years yet there has been no cultural assmiliation, only the plantations

I wouldn't be so sure. What language does everyone in Ireland speak?

In Ireland, Ulster was planted and became(mostly) Scottish, Dublin/Meath/The Pale for most of the period was in the English "culture group", but Irish, while the rest of the Ireland over the game switched from Irish (Celtic group) to Irish (English group).

As I see it, modern Irish culture shares a similar link to English culture as Lowland scots. Both have unique identities, but both were ultimately assimilated. By the end of the EU period Ireland had little seperatism, and the 1798 rebellion attracted little support. Other events spurred the growth of Nationalism.

Castios · Dec 2, 2012

Solmyr said:
But then you'd get stupid stuff like Kiev becoming Polish.

I prefer Polish Kiev which was historically justified than than Chinese europe. Assimilation chance is same for both atm.

Alerias · Dec 3, 2012

The Eu3 mechanisms for this are almost perfect, IMO. They were refined over expansions and clearly are a great compromise between fun gameplay and rigid interpretation of history. Its difficult to meaningfully spread your culture, but possible, as is how it should be. Marginal expansion over time to a couple provinces is easy.

Someone who's disturbed to see a Bohemian Saxony after 100 years of rule will probably never agree, but I think that's eminently reasonable. Anything less and your culture change is so rare as to be a marginal mechanic unworthy of the CPU cycles it wastes. The only way to improve this is to go with a Vicky-like POP system that differentiates the peasants from the aristocracy, and that's not on the menu.

Bottom line for me, culture change should happen, and the DW rates and modifiers were pretty darn good.

Polonization - Spread of Polish culture on Lithuanian and Ruthenian lands

Colonel

Field Marshal

Colonel

Captain

Colonel

Lt. General

Colonel

Captain

Bassline Junkie

Major

Colonel

Major

Private

Beautiful and Unique Snowflake

Colonel

Field Marshal

Windmill

Field Marshal

Colonel

Field Marshal