So when I was thinking about how to change up culture, I remembered an aspect preset in both CK2 and Vic 2 but strangely absent, or at least extremely implicit, in EU4, the issue of upper and lower classes.
In CK2, while each province could have its own culture and religion, this could conflict with the culture/religion of its direct overlord (the count, or demesne holder) indicating the difference between the ruling and ruled. In Vic 2 there were actually 3 separate classes split into population groups based on jobs, each single member of which could have different culture or religion.
So what I'm proposing is sort of compromise where each province would have two classes, an upper and lower class, which would have their own culture and religion, so there wouldn't be just one dominant culture/religion to the province.
Now some people would probably be thinking that "isn't this essentially represented in the primary culture/religion of our state?" Not so! Just because one country takes over province doesn't mean the nobility there are all instantly expelled. Similarly, just because the peasants of a province have a different culture/religion doesn't mean that the nobility do as well.
Now some historical examples:
First, the unification of Poland Lithuania was not some instantaneous act but a series of agreements between the nobility of both countries over a hundred years or so resulting in the Union of Lublin. This resulted in a great deal of the nobility of Lithuania, slowly taking on Polish culture. This happened slower or faster in certain regions but it would take some time, like many of the Ruthenian nobles slowly became more Polish and Catholic while many of the peasants they ruled remained Ruthenian and Orthodox.
Second, I remember several people in some earlier threads mentioning the absence of Slovak culture. While a nascent Slovak culture existed, it was largely ruled over by Hungarian nobility and thus in this manner heavily influenced, so Slovaks would play only a small role in history.
In terms of gameplay, we would then have two types of people in a province, nobles and peasants. These groups could have different unrest modifiers, events, and influences on development, as they would often want different things. From above, the nobility would have an easier time converting to the national culture and religion than the peasants, who would be far more obstinate.
In having different unrest values, it would determine the different type of rebel that would appear and the different responses to different actions between nobility and peasants. Say increasing LA would only decrease unrest of nobility greatly but that of peasants only weakly. Also, nobles would have a stronger tendency to break away from the ruling government while the peasants/burghers would favor stronger central authority, so separatism would affect nobility stronger than peasants.
A major difference between republics and monarchies, especially if a state choosing the corresponding Aristocratic or Plutocratic idea groups, would be the types of events that would occur involving interactions between the nobility and peasants. Monarchies would tend to favor the nobility over the peasants in disputes, in such events such as serfdom, while republics would tend to favor peasants over nobility, in such instances as ending serfdom. If the opposite were to occur, say a monarchy increasingly favoring peasants and burghers, such a government would lose legitimacy but gradually become more republican in nature, even adopting a parliament.
In terms of economy, this could be the time to introduce varying level of taxes instead of one straight block. Taxes for nobility would be similar to the CK2 values at none, low, medium, and high. Taxes for peasants/lower classes would be at low, medium, high, and harsh. It would take ADM mana to raise or lower taxes like tariffs and the levels differ at 10% intervals around a base tax level. Naturally, increasing nobility taxes would increase nobility unrest and increasing peasant taxes would increase peasant unrest. Over time, this could lead to slower development if taxes are too high, faster development if taxes are low. However, at the same time, lowering taxes would increase latent LA growth and increasing taxes would decrease it. Also, taxes on nobility would affect production modifiers, as they mostly controlled the means of production in that era. Taxes on peasants would affect manpower modifiers and development for obvious reasons. Both would naturally contribute to taxes as mentioned above.
For military affairs, higher support of the nobility would mean higher morale and stronger cavalry combat ability. Higher support of the peasants would give modifiers to discipline and infantry combat ability. This support would come in the form of events.
This would also add an interesting layer to colonization. When founding a colony, the colonizers culture and religion would form the upper class while the native culture and religion would form the lower class, unless there are no natives. It is strange to see entire native populations either suddenly wiped out or assimilated simply by the presence of a colony. Doing that would require the use of that strange little "kill natives" button that nobody ever seems to use. I hope the historical connection here if very clear.
Lastly, I understand this idea seems rather incomplete and I would appreciate discussion and criticism over the material presented. If it it took you long to read, imagine how long it took for me to write.
In CK2, while each province could have its own culture and religion, this could conflict with the culture/religion of its direct overlord (the count, or demesne holder) indicating the difference between the ruling and ruled. In Vic 2 there were actually 3 separate classes split into population groups based on jobs, each single member of which could have different culture or religion.
So what I'm proposing is sort of compromise where each province would have two classes, an upper and lower class, which would have their own culture and religion, so there wouldn't be just one dominant culture/religion to the province.
Now some people would probably be thinking that "isn't this essentially represented in the primary culture/religion of our state?" Not so! Just because one country takes over province doesn't mean the nobility there are all instantly expelled. Similarly, just because the peasants of a province have a different culture/religion doesn't mean that the nobility do as well.
Now some historical examples:
First, the unification of Poland Lithuania was not some instantaneous act but a series of agreements between the nobility of both countries over a hundred years or so resulting in the Union of Lublin. This resulted in a great deal of the nobility of Lithuania, slowly taking on Polish culture. This happened slower or faster in certain regions but it would take some time, like many of the Ruthenian nobles slowly became more Polish and Catholic while many of the peasants they ruled remained Ruthenian and Orthodox.
Second, I remember several people in some earlier threads mentioning the absence of Slovak culture. While a nascent Slovak culture existed, it was largely ruled over by Hungarian nobility and thus in this manner heavily influenced, so Slovaks would play only a small role in history.
In terms of gameplay, we would then have two types of people in a province, nobles and peasants. These groups could have different unrest modifiers, events, and influences on development, as they would often want different things. From above, the nobility would have an easier time converting to the national culture and religion than the peasants, who would be far more obstinate.
In having different unrest values, it would determine the different type of rebel that would appear and the different responses to different actions between nobility and peasants. Say increasing LA would only decrease unrest of nobility greatly but that of peasants only weakly. Also, nobles would have a stronger tendency to break away from the ruling government while the peasants/burghers would favor stronger central authority, so separatism would affect nobility stronger than peasants.
A major difference between republics and monarchies, especially if a state choosing the corresponding Aristocratic or Plutocratic idea groups, would be the types of events that would occur involving interactions between the nobility and peasants. Monarchies would tend to favor the nobility over the peasants in disputes, in such events such as serfdom, while republics would tend to favor peasants over nobility, in such instances as ending serfdom. If the opposite were to occur, say a monarchy increasingly favoring peasants and burghers, such a government would lose legitimacy but gradually become more republican in nature, even adopting a parliament.
In terms of economy, this could be the time to introduce varying level of taxes instead of one straight block. Taxes for nobility would be similar to the CK2 values at none, low, medium, and high. Taxes for peasants/lower classes would be at low, medium, high, and harsh. It would take ADM mana to raise or lower taxes like tariffs and the levels differ at 10% intervals around a base tax level. Naturally, increasing nobility taxes would increase nobility unrest and increasing peasant taxes would increase peasant unrest. Over time, this could lead to slower development if taxes are too high, faster development if taxes are low. However, at the same time, lowering taxes would increase latent LA growth and increasing taxes would decrease it. Also, taxes on nobility would affect production modifiers, as they mostly controlled the means of production in that era. Taxes on peasants would affect manpower modifiers and development for obvious reasons. Both would naturally contribute to taxes as mentioned above.
For military affairs, higher support of the nobility would mean higher morale and stronger cavalry combat ability. Higher support of the peasants would give modifiers to discipline and infantry combat ability. This support would come in the form of events.
This would also add an interesting layer to colonization. When founding a colony, the colonizers culture and religion would form the upper class while the native culture and religion would form the lower class, unless there are no natives. It is strange to see entire native populations either suddenly wiped out or assimilated simply by the presence of a colony. Doing that would require the use of that strange little "kill natives" button that nobody ever seems to use. I hope the historical connection here if very clear.
Lastly, I understand this idea seems rather incomplete and I would appreciate discussion and criticism over the material presented. If it it took you long to read, imagine how long it took for me to write.
- 2
Upvote
0
