A culture feature that needs to be added

[Simoleum]

You should be able to choose accepted cultures for a number of reasons:
- There are several examples of rules emancipating or banning Jews, and similar.
- There are examples of states where the majority culture (or a large culture) has been activily supressed by a minorty culture. (Hungarians in Austria, Irish people in Britain)
- There are many example of states that have accepted even the tiniest culture. In the Ottoman Empire, Albanias were generals, etc., for example.

The thing is that the amount of developement with that culture, unless you have certain ideas to lessen it, should determine how angry your population will be for you accepting them. The Ottomans should be tolerant, England for example not so much perhaps.

This could make Spain accept the Italian cultures they inherit, make a human player be able to accept Hungarians as Austria (but as previously said, at the expense of something other, like an increase in militancy based on the total development of Hungarian provinces), etc.

I also wish "accepted culture" was for a culture group. If Greek is accepted I don't see why Pontic isn't, for example. It's a reason they are in the same group.

 

[Simoleum]

I agree with all the nationalism talk.. I suggest Scandinavia formable first when Nationalism is researched. I have no problem, and like it more, if the name untill then just stays "Sweden", "Denmark", or similar. It seems better. As for now, instead of being an interesting alternate reality feature, that Scandinavia forms, its just annoying, as it happens most games, and relativly early too

As for religion, I actually agree that heathen/heretic provinces, at least heathen, should pose a bigger worry than now, albeit not much worse. As it is now, with lots of national unrest ideas in nations and similar, it's easy to calm down religious tension. But I just suggest they get a small bump, if they do it more then Lithuania will be ravaged (more than already) by heretics. This is for the less tolerous nations, of course.
And that religious rebels should be first priority untill the advent of nationalism, where they will care more for culture than religion.

 

[grommile]

And that religious rebels should be first priority untill the advent of nationalism, where they will care more for culture than religion.

Be consistent: do you want religious disunity to be more harmful, or do you want more religious rebels?

These things are mutually exclusive; religious rebels are a nuisance, separatist rebels are a threat.#

Alternatively: How do you want religious rebels changed?

 

[gdj]

One could reasonably argue that heathen (or possibly heretic) provinces must have some sort of minimum autonomy. I mean picture this: a tax collector entering heathen villages (or towns) in this timeframe would seriously risk his life, even with significant military escorts. Letting taxes being collected by collaborating local heathen nobles is a safer approach, but this mandates some sort of local autonomy.

Also, i simply dont understand the logic why religious conversions should trigger separatist rebels. If anything you should have problems witha zealots. The fact that the latter a more of a nuisance than a threat is a balancing issue by itself.

 

[Simoleum]

Be consistent: do you want religious disunity to be more harmful, or do you want more religious rebels?

These things are mutually exclusive; religious rebels are a nuisance, separatist rebels are a threat.#

Alternatively: How do you want religious rebels changed?

I want higher unrest

 

[grommile]

I want higher unrest

The existing unrest from negative tolerance and the Religious Unity mechanic are already enough, in combination, to ensure that all expansionist countries must stack either missionaries and missionary strength or heretic/heathen tolerance and unrest reduction.

Why do you want it to be even higher? What improvement to gameplay arises out of it being higher, or is this just some kind of exercise in single-issue realism?