Control of population, Expulsion, Forced migration, War crimes?

[Gavyco723]

Hey everybody, I hope that this post isn't taken down, but then again, I really don't know all the forum rules. This thread is more of an open ended question, rather than my own opinion.

So to what extent do you think that Project Caesar should and/or will stick to historical realism in regards to some of the darker aspects of history (I'm looking at you culture conversion). Considering that slaves, attacking natives, and the sack of cities are in EU4, I don't think that its entirely out of the realm of possibility that we could have some of these features in Project Caesar/EU5, but I really just wanted to gauge the opinion of the community on this.

Should I, as France be able to force Protestants into nearby countries or the colonies? Should I be able to kick out (or worse) heathens in say Serbia? How would this be different than the scripted expulsion of the Andalusian Muslims in Iberia?

I think that this is important to bring up because aside from a realism perspective these sorts of actions would have a multitude of really interesting effects on the countries that undergo them. Forgive me cause I don't know the exact numbers, but imagine the refugee crisis that you would or could receive as Morocco receiving 100,000 Andalusian's. Or the Italian minors all receiving the Byzantine refugees.

Johan said that population is only something that we can indirectly impact, and while I haven't really made up my mind on whether or not thats a good thing, I do think that there may be some backlash to not letting the players decide what happens to the people within their borders.

Johan already stated that if you blockade an island that doesnt have sufficient food, theyll starve, and that the destruction and sack of cities will be in the game. So ill leave you with this note I guess, to what extent if at all, should the player be allowed to expel minorities of different cultures and religions. Could make for a interesting economic feature as well as roleplay purposes. I know the Byzaboos are obsessed with 'fixing' Anatolia.

I hope I didn't offend anybody, but its a valid question to ask in a game that plans to take itself very seriously. Plague, war, famine, etc.

 

[Danskjävel]

I don't necessarily have a strict opinion on the matter, but I agree that it's an interesting and important discussion.

We have to consider, though, if the well known cases of expelling ethnic or religious groups is indicative of general tendencies in late medieval or early modern states. Or if those rather are particular historical cases, where these things happened because of very specific circumstances, and are not something that should be translated into universal mechanics in Project Caesar.

The examples given seems to me to be very specific to rulers consolidating power, in a context "allowing" singleling out specific minorities that was standing relatively more out than other minorities. It seems to me that expelling minorities was not, until anthropology and nationalism kicked in more or less, a universal action taken in the period.

Giving certain groups more rights and thus better living conditions to reproduce seems more of the way to go to me. This could be taken rather far potentially, and thus changing the cultural landscape slowly. An example could be the beyliks and later the Ottomans giving more rights to Turkish settlers in Anatolia and enforcing Turkish as the local government language instead of the native Greek.

 

[Ru8bin]

Hey everybody, I hope that this post isn't taken down, but then again, I really don't know all the forum rules. This thread is more of an open ended question, rather than my own opinion.

So to what extent do you think that Project Caesar should and/or will stick to historical realism in regards to some of the darker aspects of history (I'm looking at you culture conversion). Considering that slaves, attacking natives, and the sack of cities are in EU4, I don't think that its entirely out of the realm of possibility that we could have some of these features in Project Caesar/EU5, but I really just wanted to gauge the opinion of the community on this.

Should I, as France be able to force Protestants into nearby countries or the colonies? Should I be able to kick out (or worse) heathens in say Serbia? How would this be different than the scripted expulsion of the Andalusian Muslims in Iberia?

I think that this is important to bring up because aside from a realism perspective these sorts of actions would have a multitude of really interesting effects on the countries that undergo them. Forgive me cause I don't know the exact numbers, but imagine the refugee crisis that you would or could receive as Morocco receiving 100,000 Andalusian's. Or the Italian minors all receiving the Byzantine refugees.

Johan said that population is only something that we can indirectly impact, and while I haven't really made up my mind on whether or not thats a good thing, I do think that there may be some backlash to not letting the players decide what happens to the people within their borders.

Johan already stated that if you blockade an island that doesnt have sufficient food, theyll starve, and that the destruction and sack of cities will be in the game. So ill leave you with this note I guess, to what extent if at all, should the player be allowed to expel minorities of different cultures and religions. Could make for a interesting economic feature as well as roleplay purposes. I know the Byzaboos are obsessed with 'fixing' Anatolia.

I hope I didn't offend anybody, but its a valid question to ask in a game that plans to take itself very seriously. Plague, war, famine, etc.

While i think it should be present in the game to some extent but i doubt paradox will ever allow these looking at their past titles .Hoi4,eu4 and Victoria 3 have shyed away from this perspective by giving some very arbitrary modifiers or scipts .You can look the example of Victoria 3 which is very much comparable since both has pop types and there is no forced expulsion or anything but just a decree violent suppression which increases mortality subtly of the radicals (mostly discriminated).I think eu5 will follow some hybrid approach of eu4 and vic3 where conversion of pops will lead to some mortality as well as conversion impacting migration .For sure there wont be anything directly pertaining to kicking out or genocide like sterallis .Slavery and genocide are some sore spots hard to acknowledge it existed for some or even talk about.

 

[Lindaegan]

I do actually think the player, as the state, should have some say and a certain degree of influence on these matters. The state was certainly able to force large-scale migrations of even its own "culture" pops around the start date (looking at you, Mohammed bin Tughluq - in fact he did it twice). So why not us, if the conditions are right?

I do think that there may be some backlash to not letting the players decide what happens to the people within their borders.

So here's the issue, for me. Regardless of what I just said, the player should obviously not have complete control over pop movements and deaths. Killing/forcing to migrate a million pops should have very, very large consequences. In fact it should be so stupid as to rarely ever be a logical decision.

But there's another thing - rulers were not completely sovereign, and even the state was beholden in some ways to its people, even in the most absolutist of reigns. The expulsion of the Moors, or the Alhambra Decree - these were only really possible because the estates, and even many common people, supported such a thing. Letting the player do it just because is the opposite of the point, since it trivializes what was a horrific experience for many peoples.

 

[Ispil]

Not to mention that if such a thing is allowed, the ramifications of such a thing should also be demonstrated. Banishing large swathes of your population due to culture/religion differences will, well... massively depopulate parts of your realm at the expense of the province. It's not exactly something that should be available lightly, nor should the consequences be taken lightly.

 

[alexkowal123]

Anything that generally historically happened should be included in the game, including genocides, and the player shouldn’t be protected from this. I think the player should have the option to do all of the ugly stuff, as well as somewhat counter the ugly stuff, with all the appropriate incentives. Ideally it would be somewhat educational with historical events, but the game shouldn’t make a big deal out of them

 

[Gavyco723]

Not to mention that if such a thing is allowed, the ramifications of such a thing should also be demonstrated. Banishing large swathes of your population due to culture/religion differences will, well... massively depopulate parts of your realm at the expense of the province. It's not exactly something that should be available lightly, nor should the consequences be taken lightly.

so with that said, do you still think the option should be there. Lets say as Bulgaria I want to rid myself of my Turkish-Sunni population, obviously my economy will take a huge hit and depopulation of a region might occur. However in the long run with enough food the region may become even more stable due to less discontented minorities. And perhaps the Ottomans or the other Beyliks could recieve these expelled people which could boost them. Like I said, I dont lean one way or another, I just want a discussion so the devs can decide. I am however, leaning slightly towards giving the players the ability

 

[Gavyco723]

Anything that generally historically happened should be included in the game, including genocides, and the player shouldn’t be protected from this. I think the player should have the option to do all of the ugly stuff, as well as somewhat counter the ugly stuff, with all the appropriate incentives. Ideally it would be somewhat educational with historical events, but the game shouldn’t make a big deal out of them

So do you think there should be player interaction involved? Should I, If I want, ignore the economic repercussions and either wipe out or expel the Muslim minorities in my country? Thats the question.

 

[alexkowal123]

So do you think there should be player interaction involved? Should I, If I want, ignore the economic repercussions and either wipe out or expel the Muslim minorities in my country? Thats the question.

The incentives as to why that happened irl should be in the game. I think the player should have the option to not do that at a slight cost

 

[Álvaro Núñez de Lara]

Yes its absolutely imperative. This already exists in EU4 already. Sending cultural minorities to the colonies, wiping out cultures, its just more abstract. But yes definitely needs to be in to portrat the conflicts of the period and their solutions, as not representing them will lead to ahistorical outcomes.

 

[Gavyco723]

With all of this said, how do you all think the assimilation of cultures should or could work, I mean, take the French region for example. By the end of the game (Johan said 500 years so we'll go with 1836) France had begun and almost completed a policy of Frenchification, unifying the regional dialects and almost destroying both the very unique Occitan and Breton language's. Do ya'll think they should implement a system where cultures in a culture group could be melded together? French in France, perhaps an ahistorical Scandinavian or Iberian. The Germans did the same thing, with only a couple regional tongues surviving the imperial reeducation of the people

 

[Danskjävel]

Yes its absolutely imperative. This already exists in EU4 already. Sending cultural minorities to the colonies, wiping out cultures, its just more abstract. But yes definitely needs to be in to portrat the conflicts of the period and their solutions, as not representing them will lead to ahistorical outcomes.

But did this happen generally? Seems to be a modern understanding of culture/ethnicities and so on a part from the few examples otherwise. While religious differences would've been more pronounced.

Doesn't seem to be the case to my knowledge, that there's basis for a general or universal banishment/expulsion mechanic. The Spanish and Portuguese fought the Moors for centuries, and thus the ethnic/religious differences was mad way more explicit than other cultural minorities would have been. And awareness of their own particularities for the same reasons. You don't see the Dutch rules banish the Flemish, French banish the Occitan (though they nationalised them later in the period) to my knowledge. There's perhaps an argument to be made with the Irish, but again you have a prehistory of them being Celtic and then more or less colonized by the English.

I don't think there's basis for a general banishment mechanic in feudal or absolute states, as said previously, but rather specific conditions leading to an event, or indirect influencing through other means like privileges.

Perhaps tribal countries could have some mechanic of moving their peoples into new lands, but that's a different matter, I think.

Proto-homogenization through schools and other institutions so on, in the latter part of the game should be a thing though.

 

[Teng_Ri]

sürgün/domestic forced relocation should be a thing

 

[Álvaro Núñez de Lara]

But did this happen generally? Seems to be a modern understanding of culture/ethnicities and so on a part from the few examples otherwise. While religious differences would've been more pronounced.

Doesn't seem to be the case to my knowledge, that there's basis for a general or universal banishment/expulsion mechanic. The Spanish and Portuguese fought the Moors for centuries, and thus the ethnic/religious differences was mad way more explicit than other cultural minorities would have been. And awareness of their own particularities for the same reasons. You don't see the Dutch rules banish the Flemish, French banish the Occitan (though they nationalised them later in the period) to my knowledge. There's perhaps an argument to be made with the Irish, but again you have a prehistory of them being Celtic and then more or less colonized by the English.

I don't think there's basis for a general banishment mechanic in feudal or absolute states, as said previously, but rather specific conditions leading to an event, or indirect influencing through other means like privileges.

Perhaps tribal countries could have some mechanic of moving their peoples into new lands, but that's a different matter, I think.

Proto-homogenization through schools and other institutions so on, in the latter part of the game should be a thing though.

Oh definitely. I dont think genocide or expulsion should be a general mechanic by which you push a button and x population just goes away. I think it should be only reserved for certain situations which were realistic, such as expulsion of religoous minorities to the colonies, the events which the OP quotes, or the case of the expulsion of jews and muslims from Spain in the 15th and 17th centuries.

 

[Karalis123]

One mechanic to represent persecutions could be an army action (only for standing armies) called something like “Persecute Rebels” which will reduce unrest in a given province/area but with gradual losses in the local rebellious population

 

[greywulfos]

Not sure what the skittle text is for, I won't lie.

I think I'm fine with the inclusions of mechanics like this, with a caveat: I don't actually think multiple cultures present in your borders should be a problem to be solved. If nobles are demanding the removal of minority groups so that they can expel them from their lands and take it themselves a la the conquistadors, sure. If the clergy are getting angry at French Cathars, sure. But I'm a little tired of this mechanic of having accepted/unaccepted cultures; it's strange and doesn't really fit, imo.

 

[Karalis123]

Not sure what the skittle text is for, I won't lie.

I think I'm fine with the inclusions of mechanics like this, with a caveat: I don't actually think multiple cultures present in your borders should be a problem to be solved. If nobles are demanding the removal of minority groups so that they can expel them from their lands and take it themselves a la the conquistadors, sure. If the clergy are getting angry at French Cathars, sure. But I'm a little tired of this mechanic of having accepted/unaccepted cultures; it's strange and doesn't really fit, imo.

I kinda agree that accepted/unaccepted cultures looks unrealistic. It think they should be all at the same level but you can grant each one individually some privileges (both positive or negative for them). The same goes for religions.

 

[alexkowal123]

I kinda agree that accepted/unaccepted cultures looks unrealistic. It think they should be all at the same level but you can grant each one individually some privileges (both positive or negative for them). The same goes for religions.

I like that, but it might be a bit of a chore for the player

 

[Lord Lambert]

Hey everybody, I hope that this post isn't taken down, but then again, I really don't know all the forum rules. This thread is more of an open ended question, rather than my own opinion.

So to what extent do you think that Project Caesar should and/or will stick to historical realism in regards to some of the darker aspects of history (I'm looking at you culture conversion). Considering that slaves, attacking natives, and the sack of cities are in EU4, I don't think that its entirely out of the realm of possibility that we could have some of these features in Project Caesar/EU5, but I really just wanted to gauge the opinion of the community on this.

I think PCs culture conversion will look very different, as unlike EU4, there will be no mana in PC, there are populations not development. Culture conversion I THINK will be something we dont get much control over. I imagine it will be something along the lines of the higher our prestige, the faster pops will convert to our dominant culture, and one will be able to gain prestige a bit quicker using the culture slider we were shown in TT7.

Should I, as France be able to force Protestants into nearby countries or the colonies? Should I be able to kick out (or worse) heathens in say Serbia? How would this be different than the scripted expulsion of the Andalusian Muslims in Iberia?

I wouldn't be wholly opposed to an expel minorities system when it comes to colonisation, and Im sure it would be markedly different than EU4, but it would be premature to talk about it before colonisation is talked about in a TT

Johan said that population is only something that we can indirectly impact, and while I haven't really made up my mind on whether or not thats a good thing, I do think that there may be some backlash to not letting the players decide what happens to the people within their borders.

This is where I disagree most strongly with you. There will not be a backlash to not letting the players interact with full agency on their populations. We had that with Imperators release and it is probably the single greatest reason that the game failed. 100% it is objectively a good thing that we can only indirectly nudge populations and not have godlike control over every aspect that goes into them. There is no counter argument I can accept.

 

[Karalis123]

I like that, but it might be a bit of a chore for the player

I don’t think so, after all it would be very similar to Imperator culture mechanic but improved and it would simulate the Divide et Impera strategy of giving rights to certain (useful) groups while persecuting others to make the first happy