Buff Catholicism, Please

[PhroX]

It's easier for Republics to sit on 3 Stability, so all they need is positive prestige, 100% religious unity and to be at peace to balance 5 in vs 5 out.

I'm curious why its easier to republics to have good stability. Aren't you meant to sit at relatively low RT and take advantage of the regular -stab + RT events to reelect constantly, thus giving you bad stability and even worse costs to increase it? Or am I just using an outdated strategy and things have changed that I didn't notice?

 

[BrokenSky]

At a glance, if you remove the heretic intolerance, the reformation will spread faster and you will get more complaints about Europe being painted blue.

why? less intolerance means less revolts painting the countryside with 1 month sieges...

I'm curious why its easier to republics to have good stability. Aren't you meant to sit at relatively low RT and take advantage of the regular -stab + RT events to reelect constantly, thus giving you bad stability and even worse costs to increase it? Or am I just using an outdated strategy and things have changed that I didn't notice?

If you don't do that, you sit at high stab from not losing it on ruler death.

 

[Subbak]

why? less intolerance means less revolts painting the countryside with 1 month sieges...

The higher your intolerance, the slower the conversion from a CoR. In high-development provinces with Counter-Reformation and Cardinal in Administration it can sometimes entirely stop conversion and effectively negate a CoR for a while.

 

[BrokenSky]

The higher your intolerance, the slower the conversion from a CoR. In high-development provinces with Counter-Reformation and Cardinal in Administration it can sometimes entirely stop conversion and effectively negate a CoR for a while.

huh. Did not know that.
Well anyway the point of the intolerance is to balance the reformation stuff, so if you remove it, maybe it's worth handling by event or something to give it back to Catholics in Europe during the reformation?

 

[Grand Historian]

huh. Did not know that.
Well anyway the point of the intolerance is to balance the reformation stuff, so if you remove it, maybe it's worth handling by event or something to give it back to Catholics in Europe during the reformation?

Perhaps, but then Protestants should also have some blows to Heretic Tolerance too. Or, better yet, rework CoR spread to not make it so dependent Heretic Tolerance.

 

[markros50]

Even during the so called Enlightenment

But really it was... Lucifer in disguise?

 

[Grand Historian]

But really it was... Lucifer in disguise?

Forgive me for not getting the reference (assuming you're making one), but the Enlightenment is, as the historical record shows, a misnomer.

 

[markros50]

I just have three words for you guys
Index librorum prohibitorum

ohhh shut it with this beaten horse. first: books were burned in every religion (who could write). second: prohibited books were usually against pope interests/authority, sure, sometimes had negative impact on science, or , at least tried to stop progress, HOWEVER most of the authors of those books had church education in the first place. wouldn't those books even exist if not for church role in education, writing and keeping books? hardly anyone else could write and read other than priests and monks. peasants obviously not and nobles often also not.

 

[markros50]

Forgive me for not getting the reference (assuming you're making one), but the Enlightenment is, as the historical record shows, a misnomer.

Whose historical record?

 

[Grand Historian]

Whose historical record?

Any historian who's worth his salt. The term Enlightenment implies that the previous era, dominated by the church, was completely devoid of learning, education and were a dark time of forced ignorance by oppressive religion, while it was only through the valiant efforts of secular philosophers that mankind was able to break free of the stifling chains of organized religion and enter a glorious new age of knowledge and tolerance.

The events, both preceding, occurring during, and succeeding the Enlightment, all paint a picture to the contrary.

 

[BrokenSky]

Any historian who's worth his salt. The term Enlightenment implies that the previous era, dominated by the church, was completely devoid of learning, education and were a dark time of forced ignorance by oppressive religion, while it was only through the valiant efforts of secular philosophers that mankind was able to break free of the stifling chains of organized religion and enter a glorious new age of knowledge and tolerance.

The events, both preceding, occurring during, and succeeding the Enlightment, all paint a picture to the contrary.

Pretty sure the term enlightenment refers specifically to the founding of the the One True Faith by the first followers of Atheismo?

 

[yerm]

Pretty sure the term enlightenment refers specifically to the founding of the the One True Faith by the first followers of Atheismo?

Lies and slander. Dawkins founded the One True Faith, exemplified by the Allied Atheist Alliance, before Atheismo.

 

[BrokenSky]

Lies and slander. Dawkins founded the One True Faith, exemplified by the Allied Atheist Alliance, before Atheismo.

HERESY! *BLAM*

 

[Grand Historian]

Pretty sure the term enlightenment refers specifically to the founding of the the One True Faith by the first followers of Atheismo?

Lies and slander. Dawkins founded the One True Faith, exemplified by the Allied Atheist Alliance, before Atheismo.

Please, everyone knows that the Church of Johan is the One True Faith.

 

[DanubianCossak]

Please, everyone knows that the Church of Johan is the One True Faith.

So say we all, brother, so say we all.

 

[markros50]

Any historian who's worth his salt. The term Enlightenment implies that the previous era, dominated by the church, was completely devoid of learning, education and were a dark time of forced ignorance by oppressive religion, while it was only through the valiant efforts of secular philosophers that mankind was able to break free of the stifling chains of organized religion and enter a glorious new age of knowledge and tolerance.

The events, both preceding, occurring during, and succeeding the Enlightenment, all paint a picture to the contrary.

Hmmm so example of none.
More on the term Elightenment being given " " by You:
While the term Enlightenment might imply to some (first time i see someone questioning that though) that the people who represented it claimed the previous era was 'devoid of learning', it doesn't justify "Enlightenment" (ie bracketing the term). It still was a major improvement in breaking and ignoring previously applied bonds to science. People of XIXth century also thought they invented everything. Today we know they did not.
Both eras had major breakthroughs in all sciences nevertheless, even if they considered themselves 'oh so smart can't be smarter' folks, considered people before them stupid, and even if it wasn't true, You can't just, for that reason, throw the whole accomplishments of those times to trash. Because they said guys before them were stupid? Popularisation of science, bringing books out of the monasteries, secularisation of education, free of fear of reprisal from the weakened church authorities are all significant accomplishments, hell, even the fact that science talks became 'trendy' during XVIIIth century, all that allowed, and lead, to later, major breakthroughs in the XIXth century, finalised in, after WWI, the world as we know it today.

 

[BrokenSky]

Hmmm so example of none.
More on the term Elightenment being given " " by You:
While the term Enlightenment might imply to some (first time i see someone questioning that though) that the people who represented it claimed the previous era was 'devoid of learning', it doesn't justify "Enlightenment" (ie bracketing the term). It still was a major improvement in breaking and ignoring previously applied bonds to science. People of XIXth century also thought they invented everything. Today we know they did not.
Both eras had major breakthroughs in all sciences nevertheless, even if they considered themselves 'oh so smart can't be smarter' folks, considered people before them stupid, and even if it wasn't true, You can't just, for that reason, throw the whole accomplishments of those times to trash. Because they said guys before them were stupid? Popularisation of science, bringing books out of the monasteries, secularisation of education, free of fear of reprisal from the weakened church authorities are all significant accomplishments, hell, even the fact that science talks became 'trendy' during XVIIIth century, all that allowed, and lead, to later, major breakthroughs in the XIXth century, finalised in, after WWI, the world as we know it today.

I'm pretty sure saying that the name "enlightenment" isn't particularly deserved isn't throwing the achievements to the trash? It's just saying that they weren't special. Which, as you've shown by describing consistent progression over time, they weren't. Clearly picking them out for distinction on the basis of a merit that they share with the people before and after them is stupid; rather it would be better to call them by a name which is derived from an actual distinction?

That is; if they weren't better than the previous century or the following one at increasing the bounds of science and human knowledge; shouldn't they be remembered for the increase they made, not the increase in increases that they didn't?

 

[markros50]

I'm pretty sure saying that the name "enlightenment" isn't particularly deserved isn't throwing the achievements to the trash? It's just saying that they weren't special. Which, as you've shown by describing consistent progression over time, they weren't. Clearly picking them out for distinction on the basis of a merit that they share with the people before and after them is stupid; rather it would be better to call them by a name which is derived from an actual distinction?

That is; if they weren't better than the previous century or the following one at increasing the bounds of science and human knowledge; shouldn't they be remembered for the increase they made, not the increase in increases that they didn't?

OK, I admit, I don't fully understand what You mean, but lets agree not to overthrow the term, given by smarter (more knowledgable on the topic) people than us, basing on 'new insights' or 'opinions' of unnamed historians worth their salt .
Even if they "reinvented the wheel", at least they told the rest about the "wheel".

 

[Ixal]

Why do so many threads about game mechanics turn into historical debates?

PS: I still think that Catholicism is far to situational compared to Protestantism, but that likely is because Protestantism is too strong.

 

[BrokenSky]

OK, I admit, I don't fully understand what You mean, but lets agree not to overthrow the term, given by smarter (more knowledgable on the topic) people than us, basing on 'new insights' or 'opinions' of unnamed historians worth their salt .
Even if they "reinvented the wheel", at least they told the rest about the "wheel".

I think perhaps I also don;t fully understand what you meant?
Also Sure.