A simple suggestion on changing Culture Conversion

[Grand Historian]

As it stands, I don't think many people are satisfied with the current Culture system. I've seen a lot of suggestions about how to change accepted cultures, which is much more efficient and cost effective than culture converting, especially given the value of Monarch Points now. Rather than purring out a suggestion on a great overhaul of the culture system or how accepted culture can be changed, I'm going to give a simple suggestion on how to revise culture conversions: change converting from spending diplo-points to convert, to requiring a colonist to convert.

What would be the benefits of this? Well, aside from not having England/Austria culture converting all their problems away, and sinking all their Dip points in on a menial problem, it would restrict cultural conversions to nations who actively focus on it, meaning those that choose Religious/Expansion/Exploration or have benefits for that in their NI's. Likewise, a Colonist could act in the same way as a Missionary in that it's a gradual process to convert the culture of a province, and that he increases revolt risk and encourages Separatists/Patriots/Nationalists to spring up. That's pretty much what happened in Ireland, and later Brittany under Rev. France.

Admittedly, this is a pretty basic idea, and I imagine it has some flaw I'm overlooking, but I would love to get the forum's opinions on it.

 

[ShadowCammy]

Historically there have been nations that convert their people that didn't colonize. This means a country, say Persia, wants to convert. They can't because they don't usually take ideas to get colonists.
I feel like it would just prevent nations from doing anything with culture, king of like they already hardly convert from what I see.

 

[Grand Historian]

Historically there have been nations that convert their people that didn't colonize. This means a country, say Persia, wants to convert. They can't because they don't usually take ideas to get colonists.
I feel like it would just prevent nations from doing anything with culture, king of like they already hardly convert from what I see.

And what, pray tell, did Persia culturally convert historically? Besides; Expansion ideas are useful for even non-colonizers, and most nations who historically spread their culture are either programmed to take Exploration or Expansion.

 

[gall]

And what, pray tell, did Persia culturally convert historically? Besides; Expansion ideas are useful for even non-colonizers, and most nations who historically spread their culture are either programmed to take Exploration or Expansion.

I depends how strictly you define "culture conversion". Court of Mughal Empire and few of Persian neighbours were heavily influenced by Persian culture. You could argue, that in fact in XV Persian culture wasn't that homogeneous and they in fact culture convert (slowly) their North-West provinces. However in game terms in doesn't matter. At least as long as Persia dodn't expand into Uzbekistan/Afghanistan/Baluchistan.

 

[ShadowCammy]

And what, pray tell, did Persia culturally convert historically? Besides; Expansion ideas are useful for even non-colonizers, and most nations who historically spread their culture are either programmed to take Exploration or Expansion.

Probably they had attempts at it. I wouldn't know since I don't care enough to look it up.
But how about Russia? Yes, they had colonists and expanded in real life, but do you really think they would waste their colonist on culture conversion at home rather than expanding out east? Probably not.
How about the Ottomans? Armenian genocide? You could consider that a culture conversion. The mostly Armenian lands became mostly Turk after the genocide. That seems like culture conversion to me.
By that logic, then the holocaust was a widespread culture conversion
Then so would the Dzungar genocide by the Dzungar Khanate.
Circassian genocide.
All of these left their areas sparse with the native peoples. Just like culture conversion. Ottomans didn't have colonists or colonize. Dzungars didn't colonize. Nazi Germany didn't either.
They don't call Europa Universalis "Genocide Simulator 2014" for nothing. Culture conversion, I guess, would be genocide of the native peoples. That or just teaching them the language and such, and in that case you STILL wouldn't need a colonist.
Perhaps a colonist should count as an actual missionary, but not replace missionaries.

 

[gall]

Both Ottomans (e.g. Bulgaria) and Russia (e.g. Hordes) did "culture convert" by means of colonisation/migration from their core territory to province of interest. Newcomers get tax reliefs or some other privileges (get relieved from otherwise obligatory in this region service in salt mine or maintaining forts etc). Plus some pressure to convert to right religion, speak right language (administration, support for Orthodox or Muslim communities through priests and imams).
Persian don't attempt to force culture conversion, their culture was so rich in this era (thanks to Safavid policy, which was continuation of policies previous countries in this area for "i don't know how long") they didn't have to . Joke aside, their territory was part of same politic body at each moment for most part of last 2500 years. It did influence culture homogeneity.

 

[Grand Historian]

Probably they had attempts at it. I wouldn't know since I don't care enough to look it up.
But how about Russia? Yes, they had colonists and expanded in real life, but do you really think they would waste their colonist on culture conversion at home rather than expanding out east? Probably not.
How about the Ottomans? Armenian genocide? You could consider that a culture conversion. The mostly Armenian lands became mostly Turk after the genocide. That seems like culture conversion to me.
By that logic, then the holocaust was a widespread culture conversion
Then so would the Dzungar genocide by the Dzungar Khanate.
Circassian genocide.
All of these left their areas sparse with the native peoples. Just like culture conversion. Ottomans didn't have colonists or colonize. Dzungars didn't colonize. Nazi Germany didn't either.
They don't call Europa Universalis "Genocide Simulator 2014" for nothing. Culture conversion, I guess, would be genocide of the native peoples. That or just teaching them the language and such, and in that case you STILL wouldn't need a colonist.
Perhaps a colonist should count as an actual missionary, but not replace missionaries.

Except almost every suggestion you gave happened outside the EU4 timeframe. And, that actually was exactly what I was suggesting; have Colonists act like Missionaries for converting culture.

Both Ottomans (e.g. Bulgaria) and Russia (e.g. Hordes) did "culture convert" by means of colonisation/migration from their core territory to province of interest. Newcomers get tax reliefs or some other privileges (get relieved from otherwise obligatory in this region service in salt mine or maintaining forts etc). Plus some pressure to convert to right religion, speak right language (administration, support for Orthodox or Muslim communities through priests and imams).
Persian don't attempt to force culture conversion, their culture was so rich in this era (thanks to Safavid policy, which was continuation of policies previous countries in this area for "i don't know how long") they didn't have to . Joke aside, their territory was part of same politic body at each moment for most part of last 2500 years. It did influence culture homogeneity.

Russian ideas already have a colonist and they're programmed to take Expansion, while Ottomans historically were more worried about religion; if a Greek converted, even if he still spoke Greek, he was considered a Turk.

 

[Fluffy_Fishy]

I don't like it, its too limited and if anything I'm half convinced that they should do away with culture conversion entirely like in M&T

 

[Grand Historian]

I don't like it, its too limited and if anything I'm half convinced that they should do away with culture conversion entirely like in M&T

The current problem with culture conversion is that it's already too available and can be done in some of the silliest ways.

 

[Fluffy_Fishy]

The current problem with culture conversion is that it's already too available and can be done in some of the silliest ways.

Are you sure? maybe make it more expensive but using colonists just breaks immersion. it would feel like you are colonising Gwynedd, still doing away with it entirely makes far more sense, I dont like it, I dont use it, neither do most online players.

 

[Grand Historian]

Are you sure? maybe make it more expensive but using colonists just breaks immersion. it would feel like you are colonising Gwynedd, still doing away with it entirely makes far more sense, I dont like it, I dont use it, neither do most online players.

Well, I don't particularly see how. Most 'Colorizations' of this period were really just settlers coming into a territory, so I think a Colonist could represent that well. I don't use it much either, primarily because it drains away valuable points for little benefit, so changing it into a method that doesn't (at the cost of increasing separatist revolt risk) would make it a slightly more appealing action. And online players don't make up the majority of EU4 users.

 

[Fluffy_Fishy]

While online players are a small minority, they do usually represent the most efficient playstyles. The trouble with what you are saying about culture conversion is that 90% of the time you arent settling a region you are just changing the local customs, its a weird mechanic and doesnt make sense, I think we agree on that. It makes more sense just to wait for a tick convert after 150 years or so as traditions fade and change together.

 

[Grand Historian]

While online players are a small minority, they do usually represent the most efficient playstyles. The trouble with what you are saying about culture conversion is that 90% of the time you arent settling a region you are just changing the local customs, its a weird mechanic and doesnt make sense, I think we agree on that. It makes more sense just to wait for a tick convert after 150 years or so as traditions fade and change together.

That would be an even worse mechanic since it doesn't do well to represent areas that, despite receiving strong pressure, never changed. And, no one actually knows what happens during a cultural conversion, other than you spend Dip points, wait a while, and the province becomes yours. All the instances of Cultural Conversion throughout this period are ones of people immigrating and settling land, so it's most likely what it's made to represent.

 

[Fluffy_Fishy]

That would be an even worse mechanic since it doesn't do well to represent areas that, despite receiving strong pressure, never changed. And, no one actually knows what happens during a cultural conversion, other than you spend Dip points, wait a while, and the province becomes yours. All the instances of Cultural Conversion throughout this period are ones of people immigrating and settling land, so it's most likely what it's made to represent.

Its already a mechanic or at least it used to be, what about a chance based system that works a bit like vassal integration?

Also Culture conversion isnt resettling, there are far more instances through history where there is culture gutting than resettling beyond a noble class. The examples like Gibralter are far fewer than the Anglecision of wales.

 

[Fluffy_Fishy]

Maybe a better idea would be to have two types of culture conversion? Resettle which causes huge unrest and the destruction of a culture but is expensive and gives a dip rep penalty, or integration where you integrate a culture to be more likely accepted by your own?

 

[ShadowCammy]

Another idea would be letting the developers think of how THEY want to take culture conversion, rather than arguing about it over a forum c:

 

[Grand Historian]

Another idea would be letting the developers think of how THEY want to take culture conversion, rather than arguing about it over a forum c:

Agreed, but they haven't made any comments on the matter.

 

[BrokenSky]

As it stands, I don't think many people are satisfied with the current Culture system. I've seen a lot of suggestions about how to change accepted cultures, which is much more efficient and cost effective than culture converting, especially given the value of Monarch Points now. Rather than purring out a suggestion on a great overhaul of the culture system or how accepted culture can be changed, I'm going to give a simple suggestion on how to revise culture conversions: change converting from spending diplo-points to convert, to requiring a colonist to convert.

What would be the benefits of this? Well, aside from not having England/Austria culture converting all their problems away, and sinking all their Dip points in on a menial problem, it would restrict cultural conversions to nations who actively focus on it, meaning those that choose Religious/Expansion/Exploration or have benefits for that in their NI's. Likewise, a Colonist could act in the same way as a Missionary in that it's a gradual process to convert the culture of a province, and that he increases revolt risk and encourages Separatists/Patriots/Nationalists to spring up. That's pretty much what happened in Ireland, and later Brittany under Rev. France.

Admittedly, this is a pretty basic idea, and I imagine it has some flaw I'm overlooking, but I would love to get the forum's opinions on it.

This would work well if there were other ways to get colonists, e.g. putting one into either diplomatic or religious ideas or something. Towards the end though, to make it less useful for just taking for more colonization.

 

[ShadowCammy]

Agreed, but they haven't made any comments on the matter.

They rarely do. Culture conversion is fine as is.

 

[Itchel]

I've never had any trouble with culture conversion, I have had trouble with cultures and how they work though...

I don't like this idea because:
Maybe it shouldn't be so easy to culture convert right... but a colonist? I know it sounds pretty realistic but is it realistic that england is changing the culture of paris with a colonist but austra cannot only because england decided to take exploration ideas?
Turkey cant change the culture of edirne or trebizond either because they dont take expansion or exploration