• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Dev Diary #47 - Conversion and Assimilation

16_9.jpg

Happy Thursday! Today our topic returns to Pop mechanics, with a discussion around some of the finer details on how Pops may change their religion and culture over time depending on your nation’s legal system. The mechanics themselves are quite straightforward, but as always in Victoria 3, the applications of them can have quite different outcomes in different situations.

Let’s begin by reviewing the mechanics around Discrimination, since this will be important later in the discussion. We’ve already talked about most of this in other dev diaries but some details here may be new.
dakotaculture.png

Discriminated Pops have barely any Political Strength and cannot vote. This means the only way they can impact your country’s politics is by agitating for change through Political Movements, or by starting a civil war for self-rule through a Cultural Secession. In addition to being hamstrung politically, they also get paid substantially less than their non-discriminated counterparts, have a harder time developing Qualifications for certain Professions, and their presence in your country is a potential source of radicalism and Turmoil.

Whether a Pop is discriminated against or accepted depends on who they are, the national identity of the country they live in, and the laws of that country. Both culture and religion are potential reasons for discrimination, and these are controlled by different laws. Your Citizenship laws determine which Pops are discriminated against on the basis of their culture, while your Church and State laws determine which forms of worship are considered acceptable in your country. To be considered non-discriminated by these laws, Pops must pass a more or less stringent selection criteria based on how much they differ from the primary culture(s) and state religion in the country.

For example, under the Racial Segregation Citizenship law, only Pops whose culture’s heritage trait matches that of their primary cultures heritage trait will be accepted. The heritage trait indicates which region of the world the culture originates from (e.g. European, African, Indigenous American), and under this law that is the only thing that matters - whether the Pops speak the same language, or are both transplants in the New World, is unimportant in determining their status. By contrast, under Cultural Exclusion, any similarity between a Pop’s culture and one of the primary ones qualifies them as equal under the law.

The total set of options are:

Ethnostate: only Pops of primary cultures are accepted
National Supremacy: Pops whose cultures share both heritage and another trait are accepted
Racial Segregation: Pops of the same heritage are accepted
Cultural Exclusion: Pops whose cultures share any similarities are accepted
Multiculturalism: no cultures are discriminated against

State Religion: only Pops who adhere to the state religion are accepted
Freedom of Conscience: Pops who adhere to a religion in the same family as the state religion are accepted (e.g. any branch of Christianity, any form of Buddhist)
Total Separation: no religions are discriminated against

citizenshiplawsus.png

The practical impact of these laws therefore depends on what the state religion and primary cultures of your country are, as well as who actually lives in your country. An Ethnostate operates no differently in practice than a Multicultural state if only Pops of primary cultures live there. Since Pops are unlikely to mass migrate to your country if they’d be oppressed there once they arrived, until you expand your borders and populace by force you may not see a practical difference (except for a curious lack of immigrants). But if you were to form a Customs Union with a poorer neighbor, resulting in a lot of economic migration within the market to your country, you might have to deal with substantial political strife until you take steps to loosen up your Citizenship laws. If the option exists for you, as an alternative you might consider attempting to unify your nations instead (which we’ll learn more about next week) in order to accept both cultures as “primary”.

Alright, now that we’ve cleared up how countries can adapt to the Pops, we will consider how Pops might adapt to their country.

culturesus.png

First let’s tackle Religious Conversion. Pops who are discriminated against on the basis of their religion will always be in the process of converting to an accepted religion. The religion they convert to is not necessarily the state religion, though - it could be any accepted religion that is dominant in the state where they live. An Indigenous American following an Animist religion in a United States with Freedom of Conscience instead of Total Separation is eventually going to convert to some form of Christianity to avoid religious persecution, but if they live in a Nebraska that has been settled by predominantly Catholic rather than Protestant Pops, they would convert to Catholicism even though Protestantism is the dominant religion in the nation as a whole.

Pops convert at a percentage-based rate, currently set to a base of 0.2% / month (as usual, numbers such as these are subject to balancing and change before release, and are always moddable). A percentage-based conversion rate naturally means a diminishing number of actual converts over time, so at this rate it would take almost 30 years for ½ of your discriminated population to convert. If you find this rate too ponderous for your strategic goals, you have two primary tools at your disposal to speed it up.

The Religious School System law + institution combination increases this rate by +20% per investment level, up to a potential maximum of +100% (i.e. twice the speed). It also increases the Education Access of Pops overall and increases the Clout of the Devout Interest Group.

The other method is the Promote National Values decree. Like all decrees, it is issued in a certain state and costs Authority for each state it is issued in, so in a larger country you will have to focus your efforts. Promote National Values doubles the rate of both conversion and assimilation.

berbersunniconversion.png

Using a combination of both methods, you could speed up religious conversion such that ½ of a minority population can be converted to an accepted religion within the span of a 10 years. Of course, your school system only extends to incorporated states, so if you’re trying to mass convert Pops in conquered land or colonies you will have to do so by decree - or embark on the often lengthy and painstaking process of incorporating a part of the world that’s culturally alien to your country.

This leads us to cultural assimilation. The conditions for assimilation are a little more complex than conversion, and in some ways operate by the reverse logic. In order to start assimilating, a Pop must already be culturally accepted. After all, if they can’t get citizenship, can’t vote, can’t participate in politics, can’t get paid a fair wage on the basis of who they are, there simply is no way for them to assimilate - by which we mean, integrate themselves into a primary culture such that they are both accepted as such by others and genuinely consider themselves part of that culture. Renouncing one’s religious beliefs and practices can be a very practical and concrete choice, but adopting and being adopted by a different culture is not a utilitarian decision.

In addition, Pops will never change culture if they live in a state they consider their Homeland. A Franco-Canadian in Ontario might over time adopt the ways and tongue of their Anglo-Canadian neighbors, but a Franco-Canadian who resides in Quebec?! Plutôt mourir!

(And of course, if a confederated Canada has been created with both Anglo- and Franco-Canadian as primary cultures, none of those types of Pops would be changing cultures in the first place.)

If a Pop should be assimilating, the culture they will be assimilating into will always be a primary culture. This is because, again, this is not a practical decision that’s just up to the Pop in question, but a two-way-street of assimilation into the dominant national identity. In the case of countries with multiple primary cultures, the one selected will be the Homeland of the state the Pop lives in, or in case none or several apply, the dominant one among Pops who already live there. A Czech Pop living in a unified Germany (North + South German) in the state of Silesia (North German and Polish Homelands) will assimilate into the North German culture; if they lived in Bavaria they would be assimilating into the South German culture; and if they lived in Bohemia they would not assimilate at all, since Bohemia is a not only a South German but also a Czech Homeland. If this Pop instead lived in Transylvania (with both Hungarian and Romanian primary cultures and Homelands), they would be assimilating into whichever of those cultures is more dominant in the part of Transylvania where they live.

The rate of assimilation is the same as for religion, 0.2% per month. As mentioned, the Promote National Values decree can be used to double this rate on a per-state basis. In addition, a Public School System will provide an increased assimilation rate of +12.5% per investment level, representing perhaps a less overt approach to indoctrination than their religious counterparts. With maximum effort, this means you can assimilate half of a minority population in about 18 years.

northgermanprotestantassimilation.png

I’ll end on a small design note. While our primary motivation while developing these mechanics was to provide a logical and believable simulation, a nice side effect of the asymmetry between conversion and assimilation is that there’s no way to benefit from both without an asymmetry in your laws as well. An inclusive, accepting, discrimination-free society won’t also become religiously homogeneous over time, nor will an oppressive, xenophobic country be able to assimilate their cultural minorities just by waiting them out while throwing resources at integrating them. Culture-wise, Pops need to be either accepted or harshly dealt with, now or in the future. Being accepting of all faiths today means there will be problems if you backtrack in the future. There is no one-size-fits-all strategy for dealing with heterogeneous populations.

There are of course a few good examples of countries that already start out with asymmetrical Citizenship and Church and State laws. The Ottoman Empire, home to a lot of cultural and religious minorities, has fairly lenient Citizenship Laws but zero separation of Church and State. As a result they will initially have a lot of both assimilation and conversion, and increasing the rate of those further might be one way for them to try to minimize Turmoil due to discrimination long-term. Meanwhile, the United States has total separation of Church and State (zero religious conversion, but no religious discrimination either) but Racial Segregation laws that cause considerable population segments to be discriminated against, particularly Indigenous- and African-American. Since none of these populations will ever be assimilating unless the Citizenship policy changes, this problem will not just go away on its own. Either the United States changes course legally, or they will have to continue dealing with trouble caused by the oppression of these minorities for the following century.

That’s all for this week! Like I hinted above, next week Martin will get into how Unifications work in Victoria 3, which I for one am very excited about!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 175Like
  • 50Love
  • 22
  • 20
  • 16
Reactions:
Thank you, it sounds like there are multiple great historical cases to support your point.


Would you say that the proselytizing nature of the religions is something unique to organized religions?

For example, in game terms, would Shinto conversions of pagans act similarly to Christian/Muslim/Buddhist conversions of pagans, or not since that would be pagan to pagan conversion?


Where would nonreligious/communist/atheism conversions fall with regards to conversion speed?
State Shinto was more like Judaism insofar as it was highly tied to a particular ethnicity and culture. Imperial Japan did try pushing it on Korea, but unsurprisingly it didn't stick. In general, strong attach to faith as an identity and focus on a moralistic afterlife tend to make a faith resistant to outside conversion efforts, while a message of universal salvation brings people into the faith. These factors are more important than the general idea of organization, however you define it.

I'd have two markers for religions under the hood. "Unreformed" would apply to the religions of pops that were animist in Victoria 2, making them more susceptible to conversion and unable to convert pops that aren't of the state's primary culture. "Ethnic" would apply to religions that are "reformed", but do not have a universal evangelical message; they would have reduced conversion rates out of the religion, but greatly reduced conversion rates to the state religion unless a pop is of your primary culture. This would apply to Judaism, State Shinto, and Zoroastrianism if its implemented. Religions without either modifier would be resistant to conversion, and have an easy time converting unreformed pops.

Strictly committed atheists who violently reject even a sentimental or cultural attachment to religious tradition are such a small minority that it wouldn't be inaccurate to keep it solely as a matter for characters instead of pops. Trotsky and Lenin should probably not be considered Jewish or Orthodox, but I don't think there's a need to divide Soviet factory workers in Moscow into separate atheist and Orthodox pops. For the masses, representing atheism as an ideological current among otherwise conventionally religious pops should be enough.
 
Last edited:
  • 7
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Russian cosmism would be a neat easter-egg religion for the soviets, if you manage to pull off some tricky decisions and etc post revolution, to drive russians into the future where they can be reborn immortal in the stars
 
How do discrimination laws work if you manage to gain more than one primary culture?

Is the trait-check based on the original primary culture only, or will the other primary culture's traits be counted as well?

Also, I hope Promote National Values will make sure that pops convert to the official religion rather than any accepted religion: it makes little sense for the Protestant, Freedom of Conscience UK givernment to actively advocate conversion to Catholicism, for example.
Russian gov couldn't convert Central Asians to orthodoxy so got some mullahs from the ottoman empire instead at one point
 
Did Russia want to? As I've read conversion was never on the table with autonomy and indirect control being the policy to bring stability to russian rule, with russianisation done through russian settlements not assimilation or conversion. I've never really seen anything about attempts to convert the steppes failing, as I've not read of it even being tried or desired?
 
This looks great, cant wait to play it.

But i think America should be treated differently, europeans should assimilate into white southerners or white northerners and africans should assimilate into african americans.
 
1. I think Multiculturism workes the wrong way around because the more inclusive you are the more people will should be keeping there own culture, because why should they learn a new tongue, if they get along with what they speak.
Why should the adopt the way of the primary culture if they dont get any thing out of it ore dont get forced to do it?

And it sound like there is no represenation of the vast russifcation in there Empire ore germanifcation in poland at all?
 
  • 6
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Since the devs are giving Canada some attention, I am wondering how far they will go into the politics. In the game's time period, many things happened inside Canada from a cultural point of view.

On one side, you have the French-Canadian Patriots' fight to gain autonomy and sovereingty through failed rebellions and subsequent British effort to assimilate the population. Some historians see that part of Canada's history as an precusor of the Springtime of Nations. Even Jules Verne wrote a fiction about it.

Could be a great narrative arc leaning on those mechanics or just as a sort of struggle. Kinda curious what they have in store for the region.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
1. I think Multiculturism workes the wrong way around because the more inclusive you are the more people will should be keeping there own culture, because why should they learn a new tongue, if they get along with what they speak.
Why should the adopt the way of the primary culture if they dont get any thing out of it ore dont get forced to do it?

And it sound like there is no represenation of the vast russifcation in there Empire ore germanifcation in poland at all?
No.. In countries where racial laws was not empowered so much like in central america (some exceptions) people melted into more or less one people like in Mexico. While segregated America and spanish Cuba had way less integration.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
Happy Thursday! Today our topic returns to Pop mechanics, with a discussion around some of the finer details on how Pops may change their religion and culture over time depending on your nation’s legal system. The mechanics themselves are quite straightforward, but as always in Victoria 3, the applications of them can have quite different outcomes in different situations.

Let’s begin by reviewing the mechanics around Discrimination, since this will be important later in the discussion. We’ve already talked about most of this in other dev diaries but some details here may be new.
Discriminated Pops have barely any Political Strength and cannot vote. This means the only way they can impact your country’s politics is by agitating for change through Political Movements, or by starting a civil war for self-rule through a Cultural Secession. In addition to being hamstrung politically, they also get paid substantially less than their non-discriminated counterparts, have a harder time developing Qualifications for certain Professions, and their presence in your country is a potential source of radicalism and Turmoil.

Whether a Pop is discriminated against or accepted depends on who they are, the national identity of the country they live in, and the laws of that country. Both culture and religion are potential reasons for discrimination, and these are controlled by different laws. Your Citizenship laws determine which Pops are discriminated against on the basis of their culture, while your Church and State laws determine which forms of worship are considered acceptable in your country. To be considered non-discriminated by these laws, Pops must pass a more or less stringent selection criteria based on how much they differ from the primary culture(s) and state religion in the country.

For example, under the Racial Segregation Citizenship law, only Pops whose culture’s heritage trait matches that of their primary cultures heritage trait will be accepted. The heritage trait indicates which region of the world the culture originates from (e.g. European, African, Indigenous American), and under this law that is the only thing that matters - whether the Pops speak the same language, or are both transplants in the New World, is unimportant in determining their status. By contrast, under Cultural Exclusion, any similarity between a Pop’s culture and one of the primary ones qualifies them as equal under the law.

The total set of options are:

Ethnostate: only Pops of primary cultures are accepted
National Supremacy: Pops whose cultures share both heritage and another trait are accepted
Racial Segregation: Pops of the same heritage are accepted
Cultural Exclusion: Pops whose cultures share any similarities are accepted
Multiculturalism: no cultures are discriminated against

State Religion: only Pops who adhere to the state religion are accepted
Freedom of Conscience: Pops who adhere to a religion in the same family as the state religion are accepted (e.g. any branch of Christianity, any form of Buddhist)
Total Separation: no religions are discriminated against

The practical impact of these laws therefore depends on what the state religion and primary cultures of your country are, as well as who actually lives in your country. An Ethnostate operates no differently in practice than a Multicultural state if only Pops of primary cultures live there. Since Pops are unlikely to mass migrate to your country if they’d be oppressed there once they arrived, until you expand your borders and populace by force you may not see a practical difference (except for a curious lack of immigrants). But if you were to form a Customs Union with a poorer neighbor, resulting in a lot of economic migration within the market to your country, you might have to deal with substantial political strife until you take steps to loosen up your Citizenship laws. If the option exists for you, as an alternative you might consider attempting to unify your nations instead (which we’ll learn more about next week) in order to accept both cultures as “primary”.

Alright, now that we’ve cleared up how countries can adapt to the Pops, we will consider how Pops might adapt to their country.

First let’s tackle Religious Conversion. Pops who are discriminated against on the basis of their religion will always be in the process of converting to an accepted religion. The religion they convert to is not necessarily the state religion, though - it could be any accepted religion that is dominant in the state where they live. An Indigenous American following an Animist religion in a United States with Freedom of Conscience instead of Total Separation is eventually going to convert to some form of Christianity to avoid religious persecution, but if they live in a Nebraska that has been settled by predominantly Catholic rather than Protestant Pops, they would convert to Catholicism even though Protestantism is the dominant religion in the nation as a whole.

Pops convert at a percentage-based rate, currently set to a base of 0.2% / month (as usual, numbers such as these are subject to balancing and change before release, and are always moddable). A percentage-based conversion rate naturally means a diminishing number of actual converts over time, so at this rate it would take almost 30 years for ½ of your discriminated population to convert. If you find this rate too ponderous for your strategic goals, you have two primary tools at your disposal to speed it up.

The Religious School System law + institution combination increases this rate by +20% per investment level, up to a potential maximum of +100% (i.e. twice the speed). It also increases the Education Access of Pops overall and increases the Clout of the Devout Interest Group.

The other method is the Promote National Values decree. Like all decrees, it is issued in a certain state and costs Authority for each state it is issued in, so in a larger country you will have to focus your efforts. Promote National Values doubles the rate of both conversion and assimilation.

Using a combination of both methods, you could speed up religious conversion such that ½ of a minority population can be converted to an accepted religion within the span of a 10 years. Of course, your school system only extends to incorporated states, so if you’re trying to mass convert Pops in conquered land or colonies you will have to do so by decree - or embark on the often lengthy and painstaking process of incorporating a part of the world that’s culturally alien to your country.

This leads us to cultural assimilation. The conditions for assimilation are a little more complex than conversion, and in some ways operate by the reverse logic. In order to start assimilating, a Pop must already be culturally accepted. After all, if they can’t get citizenship, can’t vote, can’t participate in politics, can’t get paid a fair wage on the basis of who they are, there simply is no way for them to assimilate - by which we mean, integrate themselves into a primary culture such that they are both accepted as such by others and genuinely consider themselves part of that culture. Renouncing one’s religious beliefs and practices can be a very practical and concrete choice, but adopting and being adopted by a different culture is not a utilitarian decision.

In addition, Pops will never change culture if they live in a state they consider their Homeland. A Franco-Canadian in Ontario might over time adopt the ways and tongue of their Anglo-Canadian neighbors, but a Franco-Canadian who resides in Quebec?! Plutôt mourir!

(And of course, if a confederated Canada has been created with both Anglo- and Franco-Canadian as primary cultures, none of those types of Pops would be changing cultures in the first place.)

If a Pop should be assimilating, the culture they will be assimilating into will always be a primary culture. This is because, again, this is not a practical decision that’s just up to the Pop in question, but a two-way-street of assimilation into the dominant national identity. In the case of countries with multiple primary cultures, the one selected will be the Homeland of the state the Pop lives in, or in case none or several apply, the dominant one among Pops who already live there. A Czech Pop living in a unified Germany (North + South German) in the state of Silesia (North German and Polish Homelands) will assimilate into the North German culture; if they lived in Bavaria they would be assimilating into the South German culture; and if they lived in Bohemia they would not assimilate at all, since Bohemia is a not only a South German but also a Czech Homeland. If this Pop instead lived in Transylvania (with both Hungarian and Romanian primary cultures and Homelands), they would be assimilating into whichever of those cultures is more dominant in the part of Transylvania where they live.

The rate of assimilation is the same as for religion, 0.2% per month. As mentioned, the Promote National Values decree can be used to double this rate on a per-state basis. In addition, a Public School System will provide an increased assimilation rate of +12.5% per investment level, representing perhaps a less overt approach to indoctrination than their religious counterparts. With maximum effort, this means you can assimilate half of a minority population in about 18 years.

I’ll end on a small design note. While our primary motivation while developing these mechanics was to provide a logical and believable simulation, a nice side effect of the asymmetry between conversion and assimilation is that there’s no way to benefit from both without an asymmetry in your laws as well. An inclusive, accepting, discrimination-free society won’t also become religiously homogeneous over time, nor will an oppressive, xenophobic country be able to assimilate their cultural minorities just by waiting them out while throwing resources at integrating them. Culture-wise, Pops need to be either accepted or harshly dealt with, now or in the future. Being accepting of all faiths today means there will be problems if you backtrack in the future. There is no one-size-fits-all strategy for dealing with heterogeneous populations.

There are of course a few good examples of countries that already start out with asymmetrical Citizenship and Church and State laws. The Ottoman Empire, home to a lot of cultural and religious minorities, has fairly lenient Citizenship Laws but zero separation of Church and State. As a result they will initially have a lot of both assimilation and conversion, and increasing the rate of those further might be one way for them to try to minimize Turmoil due to discrimination long-term. Meanwhile, the United States has total separation of Church and State (zero religious conversion, but no religious discrimination either) but Racial Segregation laws that cause considerable population segments to be discriminated against, particularly Indigenous- and African-American. Since none of these populations will ever be assimilating unless the Citizenship policy changes, this problem will not just go away on its own. Either the United States changes course legally, or they will have to continue dealing with trouble caused by the oppression of these minorities for the following century.

That’s all for this week! Like I hinted above, next week Martin will get into how Unifications work in Victoria 3, which I for one am very excited about
 
Maybe we can define a few "use cases:"

1. Cultural assimilation with no religious assimilation: we see this in countries like Germany in the 19th or the USA for groups that experience relatively little discrimination.
2. Cultural and religious assimilation: we see this in the USA and USSR, for example, where genocidal policies such as boarding schools and the systematic suppression of cultural and religious institutions leads to the full assimilation of certain minorities both religiously and culturally.
3. No assimilation: in situations like the Ashkenazi minority in the Russian empire, where individuals experienced a lot of legal and interpersonal oppression but Jewish institutions, such as most critically religious schools, were left alone (so long as they weren't causing trouble)
4. Religious but not cultural assimilation: in the colonies, where missionaries were used as a tool of the colonial state and native religious institutions were systematically suppressed.
5. Cultural assimilation where no religious differences exist: the USA and parts of Europe where this effect was achieved sometimes by acceptance and sometimes by the suppression of cultural institutions such as newspapers.
6. Religious assimilation where no cultural differences exist: again, this seems to be most related to the targeting of religious institutions. For example the conflicts between protestants and catholics (although there isn't too much of that in the game's time frame)
And so forth.

It seems to me that a distinction between discrimination against individuals on the basis of religion (which would cause effects such as are described in the DD) and the suppression of religious and or cultural institutions might be helpful to model the full range of these outcomes. I'm guessing that this could be achieved by the right mix of laws. For example, what if there were two Religious Schools laws, one in which each religious group is allowed to operate its own schools, and the other, in which everyone has to send their kids to the primary religion's schools (be they catholic or atheist or whatnot). Another example would be a law that suppresses non-primary languages, leading to cultural assimilation.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
As I see it, there are three axes of assimilation:

1. Religion.
2. Race or heritage
3. Language and culture.

There should be laws for all three. Oppressing people for their religion should produce unrest, but also conversions (more or less, depending on hardcoded modifiers for the religions involved). Dynamics here can get pretty complicated and hard to model, though. To take one example, Jews converted and assimilated more in tolerant parts of Europe than in Russia, but in the even more tolerant America they tended to assimilate without conversion being as prominent.

As discussed in another thread, there should be at least two levels of what we could politely call heritage discrimination: One to model cases like Latin America, where Europeans were clearly preferred but intermarriage and assimilation with other races was allowed or even encouraged; and another to model cases like the Anglo world, where people were obsessed with racial purity and any perceived non-European ancestry was a permanent block to assimilation.

Linguistic/cultural discrimination should lead to relatively rapid assimilation if there are no barriers in the other two categories, or cultural homelands are involved. If you have effective universal education, it could happen as fast as a couple of generations (there were practically Occitan-speaking regiments in WW1; I don't think that was a thing in WW2).
 
  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
We're looking into this, but we didn't want this to be the behavior of natural, passive assimilation - there are numerous examples of minorities who have retained their cultural identity in nations hostile to them for hundreds of years. Rather, as you say, this should be the result of forceful, active assimilation on part of the state. But we also do not want forceful, active assimilation to be the primary means of engaging with the assimilation mechanic, since this counteracts some of the core design principles I outlined in the DD. But stay tuned on this topic.

So this is a bit late but this DD doesn't sit well with me and it took some time to percolate my thoughts on the matter, TL/DR at the end.

There is simply no historical basis for discriminated populations not assimilating, at all, regardless of whether they are in their cultural homeland or not. I'd even argue that assimilation has since ancient times been an important way for people to deal with discrimination. And compared to the system in Vicky2 this seems like quite a "downgrade" in design so to say, despite the flaws that game has regarding this issue. Though some elements that would make for good design are there, with heritage and linguistic traits being in the game. The problem is they don't factor in with regards to actual assimilation, just whether a pop is discriminated or not. The binary Yes/No system of discrimination is another issue, though its clear the design tries to deal with it with the different laws.

Taking some examples throughout recent and more distant history, under discrimination (and especially Ethnostates), there are often quite a few factors that the assimilating groups share vs those that retain their identity. Groups that tend to assimilate live in geographically accessible areas to the state, are often urban, lived in mixed-population areas, can afford tot assimilate, and stand to gain from doing so. On the other hand, we often find minorities surviving in remote inaccessible areas poorly intergrated (if at all), usually rural, with more homogenous populations sometimes far removed from the cultural centres of the dominant population, are often poorer, or who would still face discrimination even if they assimilated culturally but not physically.

So lets take as an example of my issues, an Australian Protestant living in an English primary culture country that has Ethnostate, State Religion (protestant), and a bunch of well established (level 5) institutions - aka a well established state apparatus that our Australian Protestant would deal with in many aspects of daily life and would be discriminated in.

In game terms, our Australian Protestant labourer living in this English Ethnostate wont assimilate, regardless of whether he lives and works in London, Jamaica, or the recently conquered Transvaal. Yet in historical terms, he would assimilate to English in London due to being culturally and physically closely related to the English, which would only take a few years at best. In Jamaica (presumably not an English homeland) this would likely take much longer, especially with English being a minority in a foreign homeland as well. But he stands very little to gain by sticking to his roots in living in a place where being English is beneficial. Yet if he somehow ended up in recently conquered Transvaal, which like Jamaica would not be an English homeland and not have a large English population, he would hardly assimilate if at all - instead its much more likely him or his children would end up assimilating to the local Boers. Unless of course Transvaal is incorporated and the English state apparatus takes control, and in turn brings with it the Ethnostate policies and English populations. Here too he should assimilate, and much, much faster then his Boer neighbours, and the native peoples of African heritage would not assimilate at all.

And in all cases assimilation would speed up or slow down depending on their social class, wealth, and where (and if) the pop worked. Working as a Farmer would slow down assimilation vs working as a Bureaucrat, and even faster as an Aristocrat. As a farmer he'd be much further removed from the need to assimilate, living in a rural area with less population density and less everyday interation with the disrcimination of the state. As an Aristocrat he would be in much closer contact with that state, and likely risk losing his position, wealth, and SoL because of the discriminatory policies and thus would assimilate much faster - especially since he can afford to do so. He can buy English clothing, eat their food, style his house like that of an English gentleman, and buy his children the best schooling so they dont even need to assimilate - having grown up raised in part by the English Ethnostate.

Yet if he were Catholic, things would be more difficult, and he would also need to convert in addition to assimilating. And if he where Dutch instead it might take a whole generation to assimilate. Yet he'd likely face less discrimination then someone of African heritage would, who would never assimilate in such a system. Another factor would be if he were Radicalised or Loyal. In case of the former, he'd likely not assimilate even in London as an Aristocrat, though likely his children would.


This gameified example can be extended to historical examples both far and near. Other languages in France primarily survived on the margins or in areas with vast cultural differences where assimilation was slower - despite a long history of discrimination. State-discrimination in Pahlavi Iran has done extensive damage to the continued existence of other more closely related Iranian populations in the centre-north of the country, even in areas where Persians were minorities, due to those areas being less radicalised and better integrated (and often economically better off), while more radicalised people and those living in less integrated areas have kept much more of their identity, despite both categories living in their respective homelands. And in Central Asia, Middle East, and the Caucasus many peoples assimilated in the face of immense discrimination in a short time near the end of the game because they could and the alternative was sometimes literally death, though displacement was not uncommon either, despite them living in their homelands. In these last few cases we've seen the kind of countries described in the design note (an ethno-nationalist state), do the exect opposite as the design with regards to peoples that are of, in game terms, closer heritage.


The establishment of an Ethnostate should be an important way to deal with a very heterogenous population, but come with great risk of radicalising groups. We've seen this time and time again throughout history. Though you are correct that there are many, many examples of minorities surviving in hostile states, there are just as many of them assimilating in the face of state and social discrimination.


However, nuance in this case remained a very important factor, to speak in game terms. And this is why I think the current system is a downgrade from Victoria2. The system that seems present in Victoria 3 does not have much of it, and actually looks more like the bad systems of Imperator, Crusader Kings, and Europa Universalis, then the flawed system of Victoria 2 that despite its flaws was able to at least show much, much more of this nuance. And thats what I hope a redesign will do (which I am not counting on for release) - create a system where assimilation depends on a series of factors, not simply whether a pop is discriminated and living outside their homeland. After all, there is an unexhaustable supply of examples of that simply not holding, including in the 100 years that Vicky3 spans.

The difference should be that an Ethnostate would cause massive issues in terms of turmoil, radicalisation (but also loyalty in non-discriminated pops), lead to economic declines in minority areas, and be costly to maintain as it would need a strong state and military. Revolts, devastation, emigration, and potential destabilization would all be outcomes - if not outright war because of a full blown revolution or outside attack. Yet also assimilation (sometimes very rapidly) of certain parts of the population.


TL/DR; And also heres the bit from the design I mean:
nor will an oppressive, xenophobic country be able to assimilate their cultural minorities just by waiting them out while throwing resources at integrating them.

Except thats exactly what should happen, and historically has happened, as per the circumstances described above. Throwing resources at non-accepted populations is one way to force them to assimilate, and if not them their kids and grandkids. An Ethnostate with a good bureaucracy and high-level institutions is the ingame equivalent of the country described here, and historically the outcome has been assimilation, alongside of emigration, poverty, radicalisation, and more often then not death. Nor should homelands block assimilation, merely make it harder. And yes, I know there are exceptions - but we musn't forget survivorship bias as well.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
So... question.

Given how forced population displacement was a thing in the Victorian era, is that represented in the game, and how does it impact homelands and cultural assimilation?
 
Does this mean you can't convert pops in colonial states? I remember that colonies don't get institutions, which means they don't get religious schools so converting them will be very hard. Does the gave represent conversion in colonial states at all?
 
The whole passive vs active assimilation argument can be solved quite elegantly, I think: Passive assimilation happens very slowly and mostly means learning the language of the nation that pop resides in, i.e. the pop can retain its cultural values. In gameplay terms, all this does is add the language of the country to the already existing cultural traits of the pop. This process would probably be slowed by high standards of living (especially if I think about the Baltic German nobility) and sped up by lenient citizenship laws and schools. The slowing by high standards of living should also outweigh the school system after a certain point, representing the nobility tutoring their children themselves, for example. This is the more peaceful version and therefore causes less, if any, turmoil.

Forceful assimilation will cause far more turmoil, probably even uprisings, and would result in not only learning the language, but also adapting other traits besides that. Maybe this could be a two-step process, where first the pop adopts the cultural norms of the country that is assimilating it, and in a later step then loses all of its original cultural traits. This might be made faster with more exclusionary citizenship laws, representing the fanaticism with which the state desires to assimilate that pop - but it would also mean even more turmoil and for sure an uprising. Thinking about it, "active assimilation policies" might even be a separate law instead of relying on citizenship laws, since not every state is interested in assimilating pops that are discriminated against. No interest in assimilation, little turmoil, high interest, high turmoil. This might also be restricted to certain areas via edict (since e.g. the British were far more keen to assimilate the Irish than the Scottish, or the German Empire being more eager to assimilate the Polish than the Danish), similar to what is presented here.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions: