.png){kind=avatar}
-
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.
I hope for both forced and voluntary changes, in both culture and religion. All four types of this happened abundantly in the game's timeframe. After all, if we are not shying away from showing genocides of Native American peoples or transatlantic slave trade, why shy away from expulsions of Jews, reconquists, or the Dzungar genocide? Why not make it a roleplay and mechanical option while also painting it in a bad light? This age saw extensive Russification of Siberia, Ostsiedlung reaching its zenith, Turkification of Balkans, mestizaje in Latin America and Philippines, Sinification of Taiwan, Vietnamese expanding south. If none of those happen, the end game map won't be satisfying to look at.
- 10
- 2
- 1
A thing i wish are can you, viceversa, can radicate your population in a "region", in eu4 exist the "resistance to cultural conversion" bonus, maybay if this too can be a meccanics
- 1
There're 6 colors in the first post so I'd like to call it Rainbow Six.
(x)
Avoiding certain controversial issues seems to be one of the bottom lines of PDX, and this is most obviously used in HOI4. (Actually, war crimes aren't too controversial, they just don't lend themselves to surfacing.)
(x)
I wonder if the question could be rephrased as "do mechanisms better simulate historical motivations". Also synthesising the comments from the first post, the quest for more historical-restoration could somehow be included in this.
Avoiding certain controversial issues seems to be one of the bottom lines of PDX, and this is most obviously used in HOI4. (Actually, war crimes aren't too controversial, they just don't lend themselves to surfacing.)
- 1
Genocide/war crimes simulator? I'm in.
Seriously though - with pops in game I bet there will be some controversial options regarding culture rights, persecution and rapid depopulation.
Seriously though - with pops in game I bet there will be some controversial options regarding culture rights, persecution and rapid depopulation.
Expulsions should definitely be in the game. They happened a lot in this time period.
I think they should be somewhat restricted in the sense that back then, there wasn't really any nationalism, so you wouldn't really see Prussia expelling Poles from their lands despite not being accepted. In fact, they invited a bunch of French protestants in, despite the cultures being distant in an EU4 sense.
Expelling heretics/heathens should absolutely be an option if you can bear the economic downsides. France had to cope with the loss of the skilled Hugenot artisans who then helped the Netherlands and Prussia recover from the 30 Years War. This should also be modelled in the game.
I think you should also be able to intentionally mismanage your economy to make a certain population group suffer, like England did with Ireland. Again, the loss of population should have a negative impact on your economy but a positive impact on stuff like unrest and pop satisfaction in the sense that you now have fewer heretics.
Outright killing of populations should be reserved for hordes. I want my Timur pyramids of skulls but it'd be very weird if France was able to do the same.
I think they should be somewhat restricted in the sense that back then, there wasn't really any nationalism, so you wouldn't really see Prussia expelling Poles from their lands despite not being accepted. In fact, they invited a bunch of French protestants in, despite the cultures being distant in an EU4 sense.
Expelling heretics/heathens should absolutely be an option if you can bear the economic downsides. France had to cope with the loss of the skilled Hugenot artisans who then helped the Netherlands and Prussia recover from the 30 Years War. This should also be modelled in the game.
I think you should also be able to intentionally mismanage your economy to make a certain population group suffer, like England did with Ireland. Again, the loss of population should have a negative impact on your economy but a positive impact on stuff like unrest and pop satisfaction in the sense that you now have fewer heretics.
Outright killing of populations should be reserved for hordes. I want my Timur pyramids of skulls but it'd be very weird if France was able to do the same.
- 4
- 1
As in history itself, there should definitely be an option to expel or suppress minorities if the powerful estates support it and some (very rare?) conditions are met. To begin with, the base consequences have to be very harsh for decades (depending on size of the aimed pops), and in the last instance, if there is not overwhelmed enough support in the country, it should start a series of events that, if mismanaged, end breaking the country in a huge rebellion and/or do not achieve the expulsion/suppression of the aimed pops.
In summary, it should be quite a rare viable option, with very harsh and lasting consequences and in almost every case not very smart in the short term (decades), not necessarily limited to economic terms and locations involved.
In summary, it should be quite a rare viable option, with very harsh and lasting consequences and in almost every case not very smart in the short term (decades), not necessarily limited to economic terms and locations involved.
I know players consistently want that, but it's never struck me as terribly historical. Minority cultures have maintained their unique identity (Irish, Scottish, Basque, Kurds) or even formed new ones (Ukrainian being a big one) while under the thumb of an imperial government. You could convert religions and become an Irish Anglican and have more rights than your Catholic neighbors, but you were still Irish when that mattered. At most, cultures with a closely shared identity (the various French or German cultures) might move towards a single pan-national identity, but it was pretty restricted in that Poles who spoke German were still seen as Poles, not German, when German nationalism was in full force.
- 2
- 1
Agreed. It's almost impossible to simulate because, you know, what makes some cultures more resistant to assimilation than others? What makes a new culture develop in an area? How is our understanding of our own cultures affected by externalities that surround us? It's quite difficult, and some would say impossible, to answer these questions.
Then again I assume culture conversion in some form will appear in the game. How exactly it will is anyone's guess.
- 2
- 1
...y'know, I actually thought of an idea for that just now. Gimmie a bit to write it up in a standalone thread.
It actually looks like the culture slider gives you prestige. I think Johan also said it would give some [redacted] value or something and you'd be able to invest into it from the "Age of Renaissance" onwards. So to me it looks more like culture patronage in the sense of sponsoring arts and theatres, not culture conversion.
Religious persecution/expulsion clearly happened a lot and should be available. The downside should be population loss and the upside should be more stability with homogeneity. Iberia was underpopulated due to the Reconquista and the various expulsions for most of the game period. I read an article a long time ago that tried to identify when Iberia started to have the same Malthusian population pressures as the rest of Europe. I don't remember the exact date, but I want to say around 1700.
Cultural? This was much less of a thing AFAIK. I would not include it. I'm not even sure I would have cultural tensions be a significant factor until the advent of nationalism.
Cultural? This was much less of a thing AFAIK. I would not include it. I'm not even sure I would have cultural tensions be a significant factor until the advent of nationalism.
- 5
- 1
- 1
There is also, notably, a flipside to this: inviting a religious minority not persecuted in your realm but persecuted in your neighbors, likely to colonize territory recently acquired that currently is lacking in population. You see this with the Russian Mennonites; a persecuted religious minority with a colony in Danzig (recently acquired by Prussia which discriminated against them), being invited by Catherine the Great to settle former territory of the Crimean Khanate following its conquest.
Actually on that note, have there really been representation of the various Anabaptist groups in any PDX game to date? I feel like they've been absent, which isn't too surprising (they weren't making up a religious majority much of anywhere at the time) but I feel like is a missed opportunity.
Actually on that note, have there really been representation of the various Anabaptist groups in any PDX game to date? I feel like they've been absent, which isn't too surprising (they weren't making up a religious majority much of anywhere at the time) but I feel like is a missed opportunity.
Last edited:
- 3
My personal opinion - video-games is video-games, whatever happens in them is not real. I am for full freedom of players and they ability to do anything they can logically in context of settiung video-game set in.
In context of Tinto censuring dark parts of history is not good idea in my opinion, not only it's don't work, as people who want to do evil things will always either made mods for it, or headcanon it in they heads as they play, more over it's gives up great opportunity to show how cruel was slavery, serfdom, religios wars etc. to people though game.
- 1
- 1
I am really surprised the dark parts of history are considered so sensitive to some users. Maybe I simply lack empathy, but after cold blooded killings of characters I have come to love in games like Baldur's Gate 3, a genocide in EU is a completely emotionless effort for me.
Unless we're going to be shown personal accounts and AI-generated pictures of all the victims.
Unless we're going to be shown personal accounts and AI-generated pictures of all the victims.
- 2
Who actually expresses concern over having "dark parts of history" in Project Caesar? Obviously slavery shouldn't be glorified, but I'm not seeing anyone advocating this - or the opposite, that it should be left out either. Same goes with religious persecutions.
I only see people opposing things there are no historical basis for, and I see arguments pointing out that genocides based on the modern concept of culture was historically not as prevalent as slavery and religious persecution. Until the 18th century of course.
I only see people opposing things there are no historical basis for, and I see arguments pointing out that genocides based on the modern concept of culture was historically not as prevalent as slavery and religious persecution. Until the 18th century of course.
- 2
Sacking cities is actually quite the norm in the period, especially in Europe. Part of why the Thirty Years War removed half of the HRE's population is that both the Catholic League and their opponents regularly sacked opposing cities and wiped out villages, particularly in the north where most of the heavy fighting took place.
The Sack of Magdeburg by Tilly's Imperial forces for example killed 4 out of 5 inhabitants (20k/25k).
- 4
- 2
That's true. I was thinking more about player controlled actions. I think sackings of cities like the way you described should be a bit more random, kinda like it is in EU4. Maybe the chance should be higher during prolonged wars.
As many have put in other words, I favor putting in, or keeping, discriminatory policies and forced relocations of persecuted minorities under such conditions as it happened historically (NOT just where and when it happened historically), particularly during periods of unrest or religious turmoil. I do not favor making it standard policy, or to make it easily available under normal circumstances. It should be a drastic response to a serious situation, if and when that occurs. It also needs to have some degree of backlash, possibly in the form of revolts and sharply reduced productivity, on top of the loss of most of a segment of the population and whatever unrest created the current bad situation, over a period of time as it takes effect.
Discriminatory laws that tend to create a small amount of emigration should be more common than drastic removals of population, but that migration should be subject to other factors, so it might not occur at all if the population is still reasonably content where they are. It takes a fair amount of discontent to make someone abandon everything they know and start over in strange surroundings, particularly if the place they're moving to has its own problems. It generally needs some kind of trigger to start such a migration on any significant scale, such as a charismatic figure pressing the idea of creating a new colony free of the current oppression, or a failed uprising leading to sufficiently increased oppression to tip the balance toward leaving. Absent such a trigger, the success of subtle pressure to leave should bear only limited results.
Under normal circumstances, integrating minorities should be the preferred option.
Discriminatory laws that tend to create a small amount of emigration should be more common than drastic removals of population, but that migration should be subject to other factors, so it might not occur at all if the population is still reasonably content where they are. It takes a fair amount of discontent to make someone abandon everything they know and start over in strange surroundings, particularly if the place they're moving to has its own problems. It generally needs some kind of trigger to start such a migration on any significant scale, such as a charismatic figure pressing the idea of creating a new colony free of the current oppression, or a failed uprising leading to sufficiently increased oppression to tip the balance toward leaving. Absent such a trigger, the success of subtle pressure to leave should bear only limited results.
Under normal circumstances, integrating minorities should be the preferred option.
- 1
- 1
But if we note, the turks...integrated...nobody at maximum they Converts some groups, but remain of their own culture...a total different job from the romans
- 1