• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Will it be possible to hybridise two already hybridised cultures? In fact, is there any limit to the hybridization possibilities? I'm talking fusing 4 or 5 or more cultures
There are no such limitations other than a 50 year cooldown, according to a previous dev diary. :)

The AI won't be able to hybridize a culture more than once by default, but it can be enabled via a game rule.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Not sure I agree with that. In the game's time period, we have several foreign empress-consorts:

It becomes a bit problematic in the game, since all marriages result in alliances. While marriages could be used to shore up an alliance IRL, they didn't automatically mean a full and mutually binding military alliance. For example, if England had staged an invasion of a minor French coastal province during the marriages with Agnes of France, then the entire might of the Byzantine Empire would not necessarily have gone to war against England IRL. :)

I liked the CK2 system where marriages led to NAPs, which could then be "upgraded" into alliances. :)

EDIT: Come to think of it, it doesn't have to be one or the other. Perhaps marriages to the primary heir (or the first two in the inheritance, or first three - the exact mechanics can be figured out later) gives a full alliance, while when neither party is so favored it's an NAP only? :)
 
Last edited:
  • 13
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I hope there will be culture-religion interaction: like a culture with the "By the sword" tradition could lose this tradition, if majority of counties with this culture started to follow a pacifist religion.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
I'm not sure I understand this thinking. Why should a culture be what makes a start difficult? This makes it sound like some cultures are inferior to others and are less successful in a deterministic way.
Also it's not the culture that's difficult. It's the tradition. You can change the tradition for something that's more suited to your game situation. For example, let's say you're Norse and you migrated to the Middle East. Do you still want to keep your snow hardiness tradition? No. It may be a benefit in the north, but it's a negative or useless in the Middle East.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Also it's not the culture that's difficult. It's the tradition. You can change the tradition for something that's more suited to your game situation. For example, let's say you're Norse and you migrated to the Middle East. Do you still want to keep your snow hardiness tradition? No. It may be a benefit in the north, but it's a negative or useless in the Middle East.
Casually keeps snow hardiness, adds Staunch Traditionalist and becomes stubborn.
 
  • 5Haha
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Some of them sounds powerful and some complete pain in the ass. I like them overall since i expected those to be some minor things and here i see something that will impact the gamestyle pretty drastically.
Just... which cultures have the mystical ancestors, so that i can avoid playing those entirely?
 
I think there should be a limit to a number holy wars for kingdom tier title per lifetime since I could expand relatively rapidly in the early game and get 4,5,6 or even more Kings in the family and therefore a lot of renown.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I think there should be a limit to a number holy wars for kingdom tier title per lifetime since I could expand relatively rapidly in the early game and get 4,5,6 or even more Kings in the family and therefore a lot of renown.
It might not be quite as easy as it appears, particularly in early game - each of those holy wars will still have their piety cost, and the tradition comes with a penalty to piety gain. With each kingdom level holy war being 750 piety, or 600 with Armed Pilgrimages, coughing up enough for 5 or 6 of those in early game might be a struggle. In addition, each successful kingdom level holy war tanks fervor by 5 and boost the losing faith fervor by 10 - meaning you now have a lot of very difficult to convert land that really doesn't like you, and chances are you'll also have to deal with heresies popping up in counties of your own faith.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
I like what I see so far, these look varried, and most have drawbacks as well as benefits, so they're not all just straight bonuses.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Some traditions are straight up better than others. And not just mechanically either, I feel like some traditions are just more interesting than others. The stubborn and isolationist cultures only seem to restrict the player rather than giving them something to do. The crusader tradition enables you to go on conquering streaks, the ancestry one (which I think is the most interesting) makes landing family members more fun, the peasant tradition lets you RP as a more decentralized and communal culture etc.

The thing the "better" traditions have in common is that they all let you do things: they give the player some new mechanic to play with no matter how small that mechanic is. The "worse" traditions on the other hand both restrict you while not giving any new mechanic to play around with. Isolationist discourages you from mingling with other cultures and gives you only passive bonuses in return (control, opinion and wanderers staying); Traditionalist hampers your tech and ability to hybridize with other cultures and again only gives you passive bonuses. (control, advantage and stubborn for rp)

Looking at the traditions from a role-playing perspective, I would put the crusader, peasant and ancestry traditions at the top because they all give you different mechanics to play with; I would put the defender tradition in the middle, because all of its bonuses are passive and you need to essentially wait for the AI to do something to have fun (though I can see it being fun if you restrict yourself to a small kingdom surrounded by huge power, like 1066 Georgia); and I would put traditionalist and isolationist last because they both hamper your ability to do stuff while only giving you small passive bonuses.

I would still take these traditions if I were role-playing as a, say, specifically isolationist and stubborn culture but the only fun they'd add to my run would be that I would be able to say "look I made my culture stubborn and isolationist". I can look at my hordes of house members in my realm and see a direct result of my culture valuing their lineage or look at the peasant leaders in my land and feel that my kingdom is communal or check the different kingdoms I've conquered for my faith and see my culture as real crusaders. Most importantly, I can look at all these things and say "I did that". When my character becomes stubborn or when I'm more likely to marry someone of my own culture, I wouldn't really say "I did that". No, "the game did this" would be more appropriate in that scenario.

TL;DR: Some traditions are better than others not just because of meta bonuses but also because they give the player more agency and options while others hamper both.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Some traditions are straight up better than others. And not just mechanically either, I feel like some traditions are just more interesting than others. The stubborn and isolationist cultures only seem to restrict the player rather than giving them something to do. The crusader tradition enables you to go on conquering streaks, the ancestry one (which I think is the most interesting) makes landing family members more fun, the peasant tradition lets you RP as a more decentralized and communal culture etc.

The thing the "better" traditions have in common is that they all let you do things: they give the player some new mechanic to play with no matter how small that mechanic is. The "worse" traditions on the other hand both restrict you while not giving any new mechanic to play around with. Isolationist discourages you from mingling with other cultures and gives you only passive bonuses in return (control, opinion and wanderers staying); Traditionalist hampers your tech and ability to hybridize with other cultures and again only gives you passive bonuses. (control, advantage and stubborn for rp)

Looking at the traditions from a role-playing perspective, I would put the crusader, peasant and ancestry traditions at the top because they all give you different mechanics to play with; I would put the defender tradition in the middle, because all of its bonuses are passive and you need to essentially wait for the AI to do something to have fun (though I can see it being fun if you restrict yourself to a small kingdom surrounded by huge power, like 1066 Georgia); and I would put traditionalist and isolationist last because they both hamper your ability to do stuff while only giving you small passive bonuses.

I would still take these traditions if I were role-playing as a, say, specifically isolationist and stubborn culture but the only fun they'd add to my run would be that I would be able to say "look I made my culture stubborn and isolationist". I can look at my hordes of house members in my realm and see a direct result of my culture valuing their lineage or look at the peasant leaders in my land and feel that my kingdom is communal or check the different kingdoms I've conquered for my faith and see my culture as real crusaders. Most importantly, I can look at all these things and say "I did that". When my character becomes stubborn or when I'm more likely to marry someone of my own culture, I wouldn't really say "I did that". No, "the game did this" would be more appropriate in that scenario.

TL;DR: Some traditions are better than others not just because of meta bonuses but also because they give the player more agency and options while others hamper both.
I agree, I hope there's a balance in every set up between buff/malus traditions and mechanic traditions.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
As a Croatian myself, I find the Stalwart Defenders tradition ridiculous.

It has no historical value, most definitely not for the middle-ages, and is rather reminiscent of more modern notions and re-imaginings of Croatian identity.

At the same time, I have no better suggestions for possible replacements. And if all cultures will receive a unique tradition, I appreciate it must be quite a difficult task thinking of what to create.

Actually, scratch that, our nobility did elect foreign rulers repeatedly throughout history ever since our last king died and we handed the crown over to Hungary. So how about no negative opinion penalty for foreign rulers? Also we have the whole Catholic zealotry going on, so extra piety maybe?
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
It might not be quite as easy as it appears, particularly in early game - each of those holy wars will still have their piety cost, and the tradition comes with a penalty to piety gain. With each kingdom level holy war being 750 piety, or 600 with Armed Pilgrimages, coughing up enough for 5 or 6 of those in early game might be a struggle. In addition, each successful kingdom level holy war tanks fervor by 5 and boost the losing faith fervor by 10 - meaning you now have a lot of very difficult to convert land that really doesn't like you, and chances are you'll also have to deal with heresies popping up in counties of your own faith.
50% casus belli cost on a level 1 martial lifestyle perk. Wars cost piety, but the combat therein can also grant piety. A pilgrimage every 15 years can give +600 piety in one go. And it's possible to pick up common clusters of piety here or there that add up all together. Gonna be some pretty smooth kingdom-level conquests.

Fervor loss doesn't mean much either. It dips from holy wars, then bounces back up either whenever the heresy fires or when good priests get their headpats. Actually converting the heathen lands I mass-conquer, even without infinite kingdom holy wars, is a non-issue since at most you risk an easy peasant revolt, if they even hit enough military power to fire.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: