Cultural Depth and Culture Conversion

[Tschobo]

I would like to talk a bit about the depth of culture. It was for me a rather blatant weak point of CK2 that there was not a deeper dive into the cultures. The only differences were some minor laws changed and some choices for specific cultures. In the end religion and societies had more impact than culture (which is also accurate for the time, but there are still issues if your liege is suddenly of a different culture). I would really love to see some depth in that direction. And not just peasant rebellions or some modifiers if you convert to a different culture.

I would also like to have more choices regarding culture conversion. For now you only have the choice to either assimilate them to your culture or convert to a different one. Which from time to time I found extremely funny (like a Finnish crusader duchess of Alexandria wearing a heavy fur hat, come on it has at least 30 degrees and the furs kill you; mam at least lock certain clothing to certain terrain). I would therefore propose different methods to keep it differentiated and do not have to attempt to assimilate other cultures borg-style.

• If you hold regions with a different culture, they tend to rebel from time to time and there I would propose an additional solution. Let these regions have a vassal of their own culture. You can either invite one from another country to govern these lands or via a different choice. The effects would be reduced peasant revolts and the new vassal line being extremely loyal, despite different culture, for a certain amount of time (and if you sway them for even longer). Also, they won’t convert as long as they have a ruler of this culture.
• More Melting-Pot options. I would keep the historical ones (like the Scottish and the Russian one), but it would be sweet to have custom melting-pots too (mostly for the player and not for the AI). It should also be possible with the new portraits as well as the portrait features isn’t locked on the painted ones. For example, if you as a Norse ruler invade the Kingdom of Maghreb (looking at Haesteinn of Nantes) and won’t convert to the local culture or try to assimilate them after a long period of time (at least a few generations or over 100 years) you should have the choice to create a melting-pot culture. Also, it could go to a more unique attempt of creating an Outremer culture that also takes your heritage in consideration (for example a French Outremer will look different than a Swedish or a Berber one).

Remarks of FondMemberofSociety:

• Culture conversion should happen fastest in your demense, slightly slower in your same-culture vassals' demense, and basically not happening in your other-culture vassals' demense; same goes for the forming of melting pots;
• Culture should be as as important a unstablizing factor as religion, this not as much, as religion was more important, but it should be still a factor for two completely different cultures clashing at each other (Cultural Depth)
  
• Culture depth - as a individual mechanic - would decide if the conqueror manages to spread own culture, or if conqueror forms a melting pot/converts to local culture; case in point like the Romans after taking Greece, and the Mongols after taking Persia (Ilkhanate rulers were Muslim from some point on)

 

[FondMemberofSociety]

A few more suggestions regarding title topic:

• Culture conversion should happen fastest in your demense, slightly slower in your same-culture vassals' demense, and basically not happening in your other-culture vassals' demense; same goes for the forming of melting pots;
• Culture should be as as important a unstablizing factor as religion;
• Culture depth - as a individual mechanic - would decide if the conqueror manages to spread own culture, or if conqueror forms a melting pot/converts to local culture; case in point like the Romans after taking Greece, and the Mongols after taking Persia (Ilkhanate rulers were Muslim from some point on)

 

[Tschobo]

Yes, these are great suggestions and I agree with them.

Also something I realized is, that it should be ruler-specific, that rulers with the Administrator or August perk should be able convert the culture faster, while a Diplomat or a Scholar can start the Melting-Pot-Culture events earlier (not immediately but there the events could fire a bit sooner).
Also there should be the choice to task the steward (or the chancellor) to convert the culture faster or to stabilize the realm relations (which slows down cultural conversion but reduces peasent revolts in your direct demense.

 

[FondMemberofSociety]

Yes, these are great suggestions and I agree with them.

Also something I realized is, that it should be ruler-specific, that rulers with the Administrator or August perk should be able convert the culture faster, while a Diplomat or a Scholar can start the Melting-Pot-Culture events earlier (not immediately but there the events could fire a bit sooner).
Also there should be the choice to task the steward (or the chancellor) to convert the culture faster or to stabilize the realm relations (which slows down cultural conversion but reduces peasent revolts in your direct demense.

Why thank you for agreeing with me, so please take these additional suggestions (and bear with my monstrous ranting regarding the bureaucracy as is in CKIII in general).
Crusader Kings portray one and only one aspect of bureaucracy in a understandable and fun way: there can only be so many bureaucrats that answer directly to you, and they most certainly want something in return.
Yes, I believe that I should have a councilor for trade. Yes, I believe that I should have a majordomo/councilor for administrative affairs ( looking at you Hacker ). Yes, I believe that instead of arbitrarily granting spouses and only spouses a council position, I should be able to pack the council a little more with the man/girl I actually want as my designated regent. And yes, I want ethnarchs on my council to counterbalance the old nobility, damn it!
Ethnarchs are, essentially, as their title suggests, rulers of a people - this title was in use since the age of Herod, and should in any case represent how the Romans, Sassanid and Abbasids manage to coexist with a large number of foreign subjects without assimilation of either way happening. Now, of course trying to erase and assimilate a foreign culture should stabilized the realm, but a ethnarch of a sizeable people plays nicely into the council game, to make players dis-incentivized in trying to "paint the map".
So here is a way this could work. From what I know of mods, council size is NOT fixed, so there should be a nice little button beside the Ethnarch's portrait that says "Promote to Councilor", and voila! You have a councilor that likes you better than most of your vassals because unlike powerful vassals, the safety and property of their people actually depends on the might of the central government!

 

[the glory of plain]

maybe culture can have a system similar to religion
but that is unlikely

 

[Ezumiyr]

More melting pots would be nice of course.

Culture should be as as important a unstablizing factor as religion;

This would be completely ahistorical. Nationalism wasn't a thing in the middle ages. Religion was a much more important part of identity.

I must confess that when I opened this thread, I was expecting something about cultural achievements, such as art and architecture, or little 12th century renaissance involving monastic orders (like Cîteaux and the Cistercians).

I really don't think it makes sense to tie cultural mechanics with wars and rebellions. It would maybe be relevant in a few parts of the world (turkish/persian tensions, or greek/slav ones), but otherwise it stinks of modern nationalist narratives. And from a gameplay perspective, it would just add another variant of populist rebellion... meh. The cultural aspect of the game is really lacking, but it isn't going to be enhanced or deepened by being only associated with wars, or even fantasy melting pots, as much as I like to have them.
I think "societies" are a great way to expand the cultural gameplay. They could offer activities and power balances varrying from area to area. Dealing with the Cistercians or sponsoring artists in a european court should feel different from dealing with the Sufi and sponsoring persian astronomers, for example.

 

[FondMemberofSociety]

More melting pots would be nice of course.

This would be completely ahistorical. Nationalism wasn't a thing in the middle ages. Religion was a much more important part of identity.

The cultural aspect of the game is really lacking, but it isn't going to be enhanced or deepened by being only associated with wars

Just because people got creative in managing cultural tensions does not mean culture was not as important as religion. And yes this is where other facets of the game should break in, instead of war. I already proposed the Ethnarch model, but if I may expand.

The ERE and the Sassanid Empires both moved their population around a lot. This was useful in keeping populations under control as they have no knowledge of their new surroundings, making them stick to their assigned lands and be better taxpayers in general. So instead of switching counties to your culture, you can move the population of a recently rebellious culture outside of their traditional homelands, flipping the county to their culture and get a tax boost. This is a useful option for small realms and bureaucratic empires in general.

 

[Tschobo]

More melting pots would be nice of course.

I really don't think it makes sense to tie cultural mechanics with wars and rebellions. It would maybe be relevant in a few parts of the world (turkish/persian tensions, or greek/slav ones), but otherwise it stinks of modern nationalist narratives. And from a gameplay perspective, it would just add another variant of populist rebellion... meh. The cultural aspect of the game is really lacking, but it isn't going to be enhanced or deepened by being only associated with wars, or even fantasy melting pots, as much as I like to have them.
I think "societies" are a great way to expand the cultural gameplay. They could offer activities and power balances varrying from area to area. Dealing with the Cistercians or sponsoring artists in a european court should feel different from dealing with the Sufi and sponsoring persian astronomers, for example.

Hm, this are really good points. I would still tie them in. Not as a numerical bigger factor as religion, but if you really try to convert the culture a peasant rebel or a claimant could pop up and try to free them. But there were often tensions in history. The Welsh in british history or the Italians for the HRE were always a discussed issue. (But also in this case there were splits like the guelphs and ghibellines)

With the nationalism I agree, this is ahistorical and I mentioned before, that religions and societies mattered more than culture, but in some regions there were still issues popping up. I still would love to see melting pots and an enrichment of the Peasant rebellion, but it would be really hard to implement. There were rebellions against foreign rulers, but they were mostly squashed pretty soon or were backed by former nobles of that culture.

The societies could be interesting though, especially if it is possible to implement local and regional societies. Yes, some of them were working on a larger scale, but some were pretty regional. And also they could give you some significant boons if you support them often.