Buff Catholicism, Please

[Grand Historian]

I'd love to see evidence on this, because I've never seen anything indicating anything but literacy being abysmal in the West, save for the clergy. It was even one of the reasons the Western roman administration completely collapsed under the new germanic leaders, people couldn't document, whereas simply being a career officer REQUIRED literacy in the Roman army due to the sheer amount of paperwork.

First, while it is true that less people wrote in latin and greek after the fall of Rome, less people also spoke latin and greek after the fall of Rome, where as many Germanic languages such as Gothic soon became written languages. And to quote both historians Allison Futrell and Rodney Stark: "literacy was probably below 5 percent during the days of the empire as well." Literacy never plummeted; it was never that high to begin with, in the west, or anywhere else in the world. The amount of literature plummeted, that is true, if only because there was no longer a fabulously rich Roman elite to undertake it.

Also, I find it funny how you demand sources from me but can't even back up your assertion that being a career officer "required" literacy in the Roman Army, simply due to the mass of paperwork. You realize that people often dictated letters, right?

'Some'? I'd love to hear of functional aqueducts anywhere but in the East or Eastern controlled territory in the 6th century. I just pointed out Nova Carthago which became a shell of itself. Most cities in Gaul? You mean like Paris which lost over half of its population?

I said some infrastructure survived; primarily the old road systems, and in major cities in Italy, Gaul and Iberia. Don't demand to hear about there being functional aqueducts everywhere when I specifically said some. Population isn't infrastructure either. But, looking over my sources again, I will acknowledge I was wrong about my comment that urban population increased (rather, it had a steady increase after it's decrease, which I think I could have worded better).

This is all well and true, but the period following the collapse of the Western Roman structure is unequivocally a disaster for urban life in the following centuries. Other cities would rise, but the pillars of the Roman world were shells of themselves. To note that there was a climate change at the same time, which most likely had negative impacts on the situation. But the way you completely disregard the shattering of the urbanized roman world is baffling.

Yes, that you are correct. But the Roman world was a stagnant one, and with it's collapse came a rise in social mobility, innovation and trade, along with an end to excessive taxes and tribute. The pillars of the old Roman world were already shells during the time of the empire as well; they were only held up by the empire's subsidies, and once the empire was gone, the floor was removed and they collapsed. There was indeed climate change as well, the world cooled in the final days of the Empire, arguably a result of it's stagnant nature, and greatly affected harvests, but began to greatly warm after it's fall due to the increase in industry that occurred (again, partly due to a lack of Roman welfare, partly due to the final settlement of the Germanic tribes, industrious activity greatly increased). The fact that isotopic analysis of skeletons from the 'Dark' Ages showed that people then actually ate better than they did during the time of the empire (getting an noticeably larger amount of meat for one), was a testament to this (as historians Peter S. Wells and Jeffery L. Singman attest).

And I don't disregard the shattering of the urbanized roman world. I just recognize that it wasn't all sunshine and flowers.

 

[zsImmortal]

First, while it is true that less people wrote in latin and greek after the fall of Rome, less people also spoke latin and greek after the fall of Rome, where as many Germanic languages such as Gothic soon became written languages. And to quote both historians Allison Futrell and Rodney Stark: "literacy was probably below 5 percent during the days of the empire as well." Literacy never plummeted; it was never that high to begin with, in the west, or anywhere else in the world. The amount of literature plummeted, that is true, if only because there was no longer a fabulously rich Roman elite to undertake it.

Also, I find it funny how you demand sources from me but can't even back up your assertion that being a career officer "required" literacy in the Roman Army, simply due to the mass of paperwork. You realize that people often dictated letters, right?

Read about it on askhistorians a few days ago. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistori...w_literate_was_the_average_roman_citizen_did/

If you wanted to make a career in the military, literacy was required. Soldiers who wanted to become decurions or centurions would have to serve in several staff posts, many of them as clerks such as the librarii, whose duties required the reading and writing of documents. Life in the army was full of official and formal documents, and legions customarily erected inscriptions commemorating their building achievements or honouring their commanders and emperors.

Also, those documents and writings we have from military context show a largely correct Latin (though many of them were again pretty formulaic), so it would be reasonable to assume a higher than normal degree of literacy in the Army (in the higher echelons, illiteracy would be virtually nonexistent).

I said some infrastructure survived; primarily the old road systems, and in major cities in Italy, Gaul and Iberia. Don't demand to hear about there being functional aqueducts everywhere when I specifically said some. Population isn't infrastructure either. But, looking over my sources again, I will acknowledge I was wrong about my comment that urban population increased (rather, it had a steady increase after it's decrease, which I think I could have worded better).

You could've pointed to bridges, early roman churches or walls too. But these hardly make a difference when discussing urban structures, since a good chunk of them were already there and few of them are grand scale projects like an aqueduct system, a colosseum, etc.

Yes, that you are correct. But the Roman world was a stagnant one, and with it's collapse came a rise in social mobility, innovation and trade, along with an end to excessive taxes and tribute. The pillars of the old Roman world were already shells during the time of the empire as well; they were only held up by the empire's subsidies, and once the empire was gone, the floor was removed and they collapsed. There was indeed climate change as well, the world cooled in the final days of the Empire, arguably a result of it's stagnant nature, and greatly affected harvests, but began to greatly warm after it's fall due to the increase in industry that occurred (again, partly due to a lack of Roman welfare, partly due to the final settlement of the Germanic tribes, industrious activity greatly increased). The fact that isotopic analysis of skeletons from the 'Dark' Ages showed that people then actually ate better than they did during the time of the empire (getting an noticeably larger amount of meat for one), was a testament to this (as historians Peter S. Wells and Jeffery L. Singman attest).

And I don't disregard the shattering of the urbanized roman world. I just recognize that it wasn't all sunshine and flowers.

I disagree. The late roman world was far from perfect, namely due to the internal conflicts, specifically the crisis of the 3rd century. However, despite all its problems, it was still a much healthier society in terms of social progress than the small, subsistence-based agricultural communities that would rise from its ashes and develop into the feudal societies of the middle ages. Case in point? The East. Eastern Rome lived on for centuries, being well ahead of the Western societies until the high middle ages, and this is despite its many, many problems (succession, coups, crushing military defeats, religious dissent, etc.).

 

[JasperClay]

Grand, you're obviously an intelligent guy, and I agree with about 75% of what you're saying. So, I'm going to lay this out point by point, and stop taking potshots at your arguments, because I'm sure we can both have a research/history nerd cherry-picking contest all day. This is what I think about Buffing Catholicism, and nothing else.

1.) The Catholic Church was not less tolerant than any other major Christian sect, at minimum, and doesn't deserve its malus.

2.) The Catholic Church did not foster technological progress more or less than any religion, and doesn't deserve a tech bonus or tech malus.

3.) The Counter-Reformation both reinvigorated Catholic Intellectualism and stifled dissent. It should be a decision with multiple choices (not just Y/N) and each should have bonuses and maluses.

4.) The Sanction Commercial Monopoly Papal Action needs to be buffed or made less expensive, and (for thematic reasons) added over time.

5.) A good Catholic bonus would be increased tariffs, or something else relating to overseas/colonial/wide empires. (I'd also suggest -10-15% building cost. Church funding of construction, etc.)

6.) The pope should send random "Charitable" events to overseas Catholics, granting money and increased missionaries, and building temples/cathedrals in provinces.(Cathedrals should potentially be stronger for Catholics)

Now, I'm going to only rebut below the points that are in opposition to these precepts, which is all I'm advocating, to be clear.

Yes, I am. You do realize that Algebra, and the higher maths in general, existed long before Islam, right? The earliest examples can be traced to the ancient Babylonians, and the ancient Greeks were perhaps the greatest proponents of ancient Math (though the Indians could contest), with Aristostle even using it to prove the world was round. Again; Islam came up with a more efficient system, but it was only continuing to build on the steps of the people that it conquered, and was not a radical new innovation. To put in more simple terms; it would be the equivalent of a bow to a crossbow, not archery to gunpowder.

Okay, so things we agree that Catholicism didn't invent include: higher maths and gunpowder. I don't see how disavowing the paramount improvements made to mathematics by Islamic thinkers as not being "radical new innovations" is going to let you claim that anything invented by EUIV-era Catholics is a "radical new innovation" unique to their religion and no others, though. So, you're setting up a very high bar to meet, to prove Catholics made technical progress worthy of unique and exceptional acclaim.

The first true hospital was in Cairo? Really? I think you need to check on your facts: the first prominent hospital in the Islamic world was founded in Damascus, with the substantial help of it's Christian community, I might add. Of course, I take it you are deliberately ignoring the fact that the church had been building hospitals across the Eastern Roman Empire ever since Christianity's legalization some three centuries before the Islamic Invasion in every major city, and are doing so on the fact that, simply for the sole fact they were funded by the church instead of the state, they can't be considered a 'true' hospital. I do commend you for leaving out any allegations about astronomy, though, being as I could have easily pointed to Ptolemy.

However, the technological progress of the Islamic world would slowly grind to a halt, coincidentally coinciding with the steady decline of it's Christian Dhimmi population, while Europe would continued to progress technologically, only to be somewhat sparked again when the crusaders arrived on the scene, equipped with more advanced armor, weaponry and tactics than them.

Well, at the time, I didn't realize that making substantial improvements to that which came before didn't count as a "radical new innovation." I was referring to this. I'm really curious to hear about these radical innovations European Catholics made without borrowing anything from anyone who came before, though. And please don't insult my knowledge of the Basileia Rhomaion, or presume I'm not fact checking. I can source every claim I make, if it pleases you.

Burden?

Given the fact that you said: "I think there's an argument to be made that the Catholic Church caused some difficulty in the efficient governance of Renaissance realms, and certainly provided a conservative obstacle to new ways of doing things during the Enlightenment." I certainly think that is indeed what you are trying to prove here, especially by implying that Islam contributed far more to the sciences than Catholicism.

Regardless of how far ahead Catholic nations (such as France, considered constantly on the cutting edge of innovation, or the various Italian states, which were the birthplace of the Renaissance), were of Protestant and Reformed, the fact remains; giving Catholicism tech penalties makes no sense, and has no basis in history beyond clichés.

And I didn't say it improved military strategy. I said that it has furthered technological progress, but you somehow pulled military tactics out of thin air. New tactics arise from new technology, not the other way around.

1.) You are arguing that Catholicism should get a tech bonus; that's where I suggest you have a burden of proof. I don't want them to have a tech malus. I do think, on a totally different note, that the Church wasn't purely a force of beneficent progress, and also created inefficiencies, but I really don't care if you accept the latter portion of that.

2.) Military tactics are considered a form of technological progress within the game engine, separate from weaponry evolution. That's the thin air I pulled it from. As Catholicism produced no special edge in many facets of what the -game- considers as tech levels, I don't think it should get a special bonus.

The church refused to back what could not be proven, which only shows their dedication to science. The Copernican system could not be proven at the time Columbus discovered the new world because the instruments required to do so had not been invented yet, and the church would not back a theory that could possibly be false until proven absolutely true out of fear of spreading misinformation. They were perfectly fine with the Copernican Theory, as long as people acknowledged that, for the time at least, it was just that.

This, of course, is all moot considering Copernicus' theory had not even been yet published, and there was no proposed alternative to the current system in place.

The church sticking to a theory that also had no proof is not an example of scientific rigor. Definitionally, rejecting the null hypothesis (that neither theory is correct) requires evidence, in science. Conventional wisdom doesn't get null hypothesis treatment if you're being dedicated to the scientific method. Especially given that Copernicus et al had at least a modicum of reasoning on their side.

So the Spanish never found or created any efficient trade routes huh? I guess the Spanish Treasure Fleet was so inefficient, providing enough silver to Spain that it was worthless, that it was only natural for the British to raid it like clockwork. They never found the route they initially set out to find, that doesn't mean they still didn't find and establish routes.

Definitionally, no. Trade balances are measured between two sovereigns, not among one. But that's, again, not my point: I've already argued that Catholics should get a tariff (overseas trade) bonus!!!!

The Carolingian Renaissance, of which the three-field crop rotation and the subsequent boom in population (and thus trade) were a part of, begs to differ with your first statement.

It's actually a misconception that European city sizes dropped. The amount of cities in Western Europe did indeed drop in the aftermath of the fall of the Western Roman Empire, but not the population size of the major cities. If anything, they increased. Why? The reason is simple; many of the 'cities' in Western Europe during the nascent days of the Roman Empire weren't really cities; they were over-glorified military outposts. The Roman Empire had dissolved into a welfare state, and most of the cities were subsidized with free bread, olive oil, entertainment, etc. and used as a way to provide garrison for Roman armies and thus protection for far flung trade routes and the heart of the Empire. When the Empire collapsed, there was no one left to provide for the prop cities, so naturally people did what any normal person would do; leave to go pursue work somewhere else, be it in the fields or in one of the major, self-sustaining cities.

Is it that not one of Gloucester, Lincoln, London, Chester, Paris, Boulogne-sur-Mer, Soissons, Narbo, Masilla, Trier, Tarraco, Aquileia, Milan, Napoli, or Syracuse count as real late Imperial cities, or that they didn't have population declines? Because the picture outlined here (page 49, e.g.) outlines a situation in which the withdrawal of imperial administration caused a decline in urban living, and there's no "Londinium was exempt from this". Rome certainly wasn't exempt; it did take centuries to reach Imperial population levels, same for Italy as a whole.

I know a substantial about this, because I spend months researching urban areas in sub-Roman Britain and Gaul for the Winter King CKII mod. I also recommend Mike Duncan's 70+ hour "History of Rome" podcast, and Robert Pierson's 40+ hour "History of Byzantium" continuation, both of which detail the variety of reasons for urban decline in the late-Roman and post-Roman era, and the scholarly consensus doesn't really seem to be that the major cities got bigger, especially in Italy, Britain, and Eastern Gaul (i.e., Trier). At least, not for literally centuries after the migration period began, and certainly not up to the size of major cities in the Caliphate and China. (In addition, I'm going off of much of Duncan's Revolutions to keep my English, American, and French history straight. I highly recommend all three, for light listening.)

No; I'm saying that the Catholic Church caused scientific advancement because it actively pursued and patronized it. You know, all those universities that only popped up in Western Europe and were funded by the church, for starters...

And I never said there weren't Protestant scientists in Voltaire's day; you'd do well to look at my wording: I said Christian. Many would also argue that Franklin was a deist.

And did the Protestants close those universities when they came to power? Did they never found any others? Did the Muslims not found church-backed institutes of higher learning? Did the Jews abscond from education? Did Buddhists turn their nose up at higher-level discourse? Even if the Catholic Church was the sole funder of every university in Catholic Europe, that would mean nothing, unless other religions did not also fund university-type institutes (especially other religions within the same tech group.) Like, I'm pretty sure the Protestants founded a hilarious number of Universities in places that didn't have them: i.e., the colonies. Also, doesn't the tech group system represent the eventual gulf between European Xians and the RoTW well enough?

Likewise, a proliferation of European Xian scientists is not a reason Catholicism gets a bonus. It's a reason Europe gets a bonus.

I'm pretty sure that France was plagued by the Wars of Religion and that the Edict of Nantes was really just a political maneuver to by time by Richelieu than any genuine extension of tolerance on his part. Of course, it was still carried out.

To be honest, I can't really say what ideas are meant to represent definitively, because some of the technological levels seem to bleed into those categories as well.

Modifiers, historical accuracy, balancing canal be debated until the cows come home, but I think descisions are the best way of simulating it. Of course, it would act like the 'Support X' decisions in Hinduism/Confucian decisions in that you can only support one at a time.

It didn't exactly come across that way, especially considering that you've, perhaps unintentionally, dismissed many of the things the church has done beyond exploration and advisors, and my arguments in general.

I agree with all of this. With the exception that, to be honest, The Edict of Nantes was more to do with Henry IV being a former Protestant. I don't believe Richelieu was really high enough in the administration at the time. I'm sorry you feel I'm dismissing anything; I both agree that Catholicism's malus is inaccurate and that the Church was important in European dominance from the Renaissance on. I just disagree about the proposed bonus to represent that.

I apologize for that, it was rather immature. Frankly, I'm rather tired of constantly having to argue my points.

I absolutely understand.

 

[The-Doc]

While we're on the subject of Catholicism's -1 heretic tolerance does anyone else find Reformed's +2 heretic tolerance ridiculous? Calvin, Knox, Puritans and iconoclasm don't suggest tolerance. If anything that branch of Protestantism was the most vigorously intolerant.

 

[JasperClay]

While we're on the subject of Catholicism's -1 heretic tolerance does anyone else find Reformed's +2 heretic tolerance ridiculous? Calvin, Knox, Puritans and iconoclasm don't suggest tolerance. If anything that branch of Protestantism was the most vigorously intolerant.

Abso-truckin'-lutely.

And I also don't understand how fervor is actually on par with 1.13 papal influence bonuses, but I've never played Reformed.

 

[Chat]

Game play wise, I see no reason to buff Catholicism, other than another pass on some of those popemana bonuses (it's still typically just stab or mercantilism to take. Edit: Actually the +tax and +manpower ones are really nice too, and the others are situationally useful. I don't think it needs further tweaking). It's a solid religion to have. It's not the best choice in all cases, sure, but it shouldn't be either. I would make more of an argument for decreasing the amount of church power that Protestants get while having active aspects long before arguing for a buff to the Catholics.

History wise, I'm not really seeing a justification for the a tech cost decrease. Looking across the European nations, I can't really justify to myself that "It's because of Catholicism that x country was more innovative than y country" particularly since it's not like one country was always the most innovative, and the reasons were large and varied. Certainly, the Church did fund places of learning across Europe, but I'd argue that's better displayed by Western Technology being the cheapest. I like JasperClay's idea of giving more options for the counter-reformation. More options is always good, and I think it's a good spot that can benefit from a couple of different paths.

I must reject one particular notion however, that Galileo was punished because he couldn't prove the Copernicus Heliocentric model. It fitted the observations better and produced more accurate calculations than the geocentric or the Tychonic model. If the Church was truly just upholding the principles of scientific inquiry, then at worst they would have allowed it equal standing and discussion. Robert Bellarmine's order that Galileo could not even discuss or defend the heliocentric model, and the subsequent banning of all books and letters advocating a heliocentric model is completely antithetical to the claim that they were only against it primarily due to the equipment to rigorously prove the theory not existing. Claiming they only did it because they thought Galileo was a bit of a twat doesn't excuse it or trying him for the heretical claim that the Earth moved either.

 

[ikkiks]

First of all, busting out the "gamey" terminology is a non-argument. You wind up with junk conclusions like "it's gamey to take land off Spain after beating them in a war as Inca". How exactly? Or is playing the game gamey? But if playing the game is gamey, then you're left with nothing, hence non-argument.

Second, it's false. Buddhism with the DLC is abjectly terrible. So much so that you're actually punished for playing effectively, in that you have to eat -10% discipline or underexpand to a comical degree.

Let's say you're ROTW with religious. You conquer, on average, 3 provinces a year (very slow). You get PI from religious, PI from conversions, and as of 1600-1650 basically any position in the world can have coring range to multiple areas in Europe (with westernization ~1550). Once you take a chunk of land in Europe, you're talking 10+ PI/year in addition to conversion PI, easy to hit the benchmarks I said above wrt stab/diprep.

Which ROTW nations that can realistically go Catholic can't do this? Experimenting with Mutapa, I found I can actually westernize sooner (fleecing Castile for all of Brazil pre-1600). That leaves Japan, Ryukyu, Manipur, and the Malacca/Moluccas animists (Luwu, Makassar, Ternate, Tidore etc). But as I mentioned, I just did it with Japan. If you instead go the new world route with exploration...well you can still reach Europe there. I think it's okay if Catholic is less-good for a handful of animist --> Christian positions. Sub-Saharans and NA/SA tribes have plenty to convert and need maybe DIP 9 or so to easily reach Europe (Sub-Saharan doesn't even need that), which means the majority of nations that can reasonably/possibly go Catholic will benefit from the mechanics without jumping through too many hoops. Granted, you have to be at a level where you can beat the colonizers at war, but if you aren't games as those nations are going to suck anyway.

I agree with pretty much everything TMIT said here. I won't go into the historical side of the discussion about which bonus would suit catholicism better, as I don't have enough knowledge of catholics in the EU4 years.

I'll talk about the balance aspect, as I don't think everyone would want Catholics buffed just for the sake of historical accuracy. Catholicism is pretty much one of the best religions in the game and the best in some cases. Blobbing + missionary power? Catholics are beyond OP. Staying +3 stability like this is way too easy. If you get lucky and get curia controller, well, there are no better bonuses. You're pretty much playing now with a weakened player bonus. If you combo the -20% AE with ideas like Influence, you can blob like crazy. If you get lucky enough, you might even get the event that gives you an extra -20% AE.

There are ways for you to force that situation, like helping the protestants or simply conquering the catholics. Of course, that could be called gamey. But, if you give even half of these buffs to Catholicism mentioned in this topic, I can assure you that these "gamey" situations would be out of control. +4 mercantilism? I probably could get +100% mercantilism in 100 years with that.

 

[fleetothemoon]

Game-play wise, I don't see how Catholics is really that inferior to other religions. Sure, I would appreciate better mechanics than the Pope mana mechanics... but as far as power and balance is concerned, it's not any more shabbier than others Christian religions.

So... no, don't give Catholics tech bonuses. The Papal controller already gets tech bonuses. The ROTW is behind enough as it is. It's also a bit farfetched to say that Catholic nations would have an innate technological superiority over non-Catholic Christian nations.

However, I'm sure it would make some people here feel much better though.

 

[Falc]

You know, looking back all the way to EU3, I think the Papacy has been the one mechanic that has been changed most often and it's still not really working to everyone's content.

Time to just give up on it, perhaps?

 

[Grand Historian]

I absolutely understand.

So let's just leave it at that.

 

[Gaamel]

Giving catholicism a buff to tech research compared to reformed religions is a joke...In the 16th Century France, reading the bible (and reading at all) was almost considered a heretical behavior if you were not a cleric. Protestant countries like northern germany, sweden or britain promoted the reading of the bible (that was part of the credo : every man should be able to read individually) and thus reached high literacy rates much earlier than catholic countries.

 

[Nyrael]

He said it as if only catholics did that. I don't think any religion should affect technology since it wouldn't make any sense.

AFAIK, no other religion gets the tech malus. And just for the record, I personally don't think that Catholics need a tech bonus either. I just want the tech malus to be replaced by something else, most fittingly a tax malus (as you are financing the counter-reformation in your state and abroad). If need be, Jesuit effect on science could as well be represented by random events with small, temporary boosts (and maybe coutner-balanced by also giving some kind of malus).

While we're on the subject of Catholicism's -1 heretic tolerance does anyone else find Reformed's +2 heretic tolerance ridiculous? Calvin, Knox, Puritans and iconoclasm don't suggest tolerance. If anything that branch of Protestantism was the most vigorously intolerant.

A lot of us complained about this since WoN. A ridiculous bonus, especially since they were so tolerant that some Lutherans preferred allying with the Catholics.

Giving catholicism a buff to tech research compared to reformed religions is a joke...In the 16th Century France, reading the bible (and reading at all) was almost considered a heretical behavior if you were not a cleric. Protestant countries like northern germany, sweden or britain promoted the reading of the bible (that was part of the credo : every man should be able to read individually) and thus reached high literacy rates much earlier than catholic countries.

Only some Catholic realms had this law and I am pretty sure representation of this already exists as a decision in the game and Protestant support for reading the Bible should be amongst bonuses that Protestants can choose.

 

[Retherz]

AFAIK, no other religion gets the tech malus. And just for the record, I personally don't think that Catholics need a tech bonus either. I just want the tech malus to be replaced by something else, most fittingly a tax malus (as you are financing the counter-reformation in your state and abroad). If need be, Jesuit effect on science could as well be represented by random events with small, temporary boosts (and maybe coutner-balanced by also giving some kind of malus).



A lot of us complained about this since WoN. A ridiculous bonus, especially since they were so tolerant that some Lutherans preferred allying with the Catholics.



Only some Catholic realms had this law and I am pretty sure representation of this already exists as a decision in the game and Protestant support for reading the Bible should be amongst bonuses that Protestants can choose.

When did catholic give you a tech malus? The only real catholic ally of the protestants was France but they didn't do it for protestants, they did it against the habsburg

 

[BrokenSky]

Are you really going to make me do this? Perhaps you've heard of the Arabic word Al-jabr, meaning "the reunion of broken parts"? In the west, it's pronounced Algebra, a field of mathematics that unifies variable symbols with the "Arabic numerals" (originally Hindu, but came to the backwards Latin-numeral Europe through Islam) that are vastly more efficient than the Roman system of counting. Or maybe we should talk about medicine. The first true hospital was in Cairo, and Islamic medical texts formed a knowledge base for European advancements in surgery. I'll leave out astronomical contributions and various inventions, and just note that the preservation of classical texts, knowledge, and instruments by Islamic scholars helped provide resources for European neo-Classicists to "scavenge" from, themselves, during the Renaissance. To suggest that Catholicism somehow generated more technical progress than Islam (which is what that modifier implies) before the Renaissance is, at best, unfair, and at worst actually countermands the truth.

This is a fair point, however Islam has potential tech cost reduction due to piety mechanics. At minimum piety they receive -10% tech costs. Giving Catholicism -5% doesn't make them tech faster than Islam (though of course the overlap between Catholic and Western tech / Islam and Muslim tech probably will).With respect to Protestant vs. Catholic tech, Protestantism gets -5% idea cost reduction as an option.

Perhaps then giving catholic some active mechanics which reduce tech costs (like protestants or Islam's mechanics) based off of patronizing religious orders, maybe starting with at the counter-reformation is the best way forward?

'Some'? I'd love to hear of functional aqueducts anywhere but in the East or Eastern controlled territory in the 6th century.

Roads are infrastructure. Some of the roads in Britain made by the Romans are still used today (although they have obviously been resurfaced and experienced significant refurbishment many times).

Edit: Changed typo (thanks JapserClay for pointing it out)

 

[tableandchair]

Pretty much no country goes to negative piety from my experience.Anyway the counter-reformation is an extremely powerfull buff.Passing it triples your conversion speed if you only have a base 1 missionary.

 

[JasperClay]

This is a fair point, however Islam has potential tech cost reduction due to piety mechanics. At minimum piety they receive -10% tech costs. Giving Catholicism -5% doesn't make them tech faster than Islam (though of course the overlap between Catholic and Western tech / Islam and Muslim tech probably will).

Yeah, I mean, if you could become some kind of Western/Muslim/HRE state, that would be crazy abusable. But if you pull that off, more power to you.

With respect to Protestant vs. Catholic tech, Protestantism gets -5% tech cost reduction as an option.

That's not the case. They can get idea cost reduction, though. But that represents the fundamental religious differences like "Free Interpretation of Scripture" and an initially higher tolerance for heterodox thought which, as Gaamel mentioned, resulted in more people freely reading and arguing about religious ideas. Hence why I think certain counter-reformation choices should lower advisor cost more than they increase tech/idea cost. The church fought innovation with infrastructure, like any corporation today does, when confronted with a smaller, disruptive rival.

Perhaps then giving catholic some active mechanics which reduce tech costs (like protestants or Islam's mechanics) based off of patronizing religious orders, maybe starting with at the counter-reformation is the best way forward?

Depending on which order they patronize, I think this could be really cool. Like, if you wanted to make the Ursulines give -5% tech costs (educated wives/mothers), -5% advisor costs (a brilliant Mother Superior can be a great advisor), and +1 unrest (educated women are a little bit more unsatisfied with their lack of a political role). But some orders should "hold back progress" even while making your peasants more comfortable with farming and grain tariffs, and providing cheaper advisors to make up for it.

 

[Gaamel]

Only some Catholic realms had this law and I am pretty sure representation of this already exists as a decision in the game and Protestant support for reading the Bible should be amongst bonuses that Protestants can choose.

It was not a matter of law, it was a matter of religious paranoia during a whole Century of civil war...People who were known to read books were suspected of being protestants (which was a very bad thing if you happened to live in a Catholic-led town.) There is an event ingame about that thing (about burning printed bibles).

http://ieg-ego.eu/en/threads/backgrounds/literacy#DeterminantsandDynamicsofLiteracy

The Swedish literacy campaign was designed to consolidate the Lutheran Reformation in that country and many of the advances in reading and writing stemmed from the religious battles of the early modern period. It is commonly asserted that Protestantism is the religion of the Book and most early educational movements came out of evangelical needs. The Duchy of Württemberg had 89 schools in 1520 compared with over 400 by 1600 and across Germany in this period many rulers issued ordinances providing for or regulating elementary education.7 Indeed, Protestant countries tended to be more literate than Catholic ones and where the faiths co-existed, as in France, Ireland and the Low Countries, Calvinists were usually more educated than Catholics.

 

[Grand Historian]

Updated for 1.13/4/5.

 

[Reboundingdice]

Not sure if this fits here or if it's already been mentioned but here's an idea.

So what if Catholic rulers could pick a Patron saint? Sure there are many but it can be whittled down and they can each give bonuses until your ruler dies in which your new ruler chooses one.

 

[BrokenSky]

Surely the patronizing of orders would do the same thing and be better fluff for the effects, plus you could justify having significant buffs and maluses for different ones, as previously discussed, and possibly having some associated cost; either money or perhaps as an additional estate?

wrt slower tech, perhaps it makes sense for the papal state to tech slower (with the church being slower to endorse scientific ideas due to really strict level of required evidence), but certainly not every catholic country...

Also the next expansion might buff Catholics implicitly if clerical estates give bonuses to papal influence / church power / fervor, though reformed might be buffed more... Church power isn't all that useful except for versatility or for occasionally bribing a parliament seat for no cost. I almost always go for protestant, but I hardly ever switch out the bonuses. Perhaps I'm in the minority in this regard though... and reformed might be more buffed by fervor gain.

That is, Catholics gain most from increased speed of relevant power.