Cultural conversion

[unmerged(2833)]

Child legitimacy? I guess it hasn't changed much since then, and since today about 30% of children are not of their supposed father...

Now, the real question is how many guys reading this are fathers and felt a slight chill...

 

[joriandrake]

Well, culture should be secondary issue. The legitimacy thing could do a lot more to fix future EUIII… Just try reading Pierre Chaunu or any other major historian working in demography area and you will get the point

I had already..it has some good things in it,but it has also flaws.

 

[joriandrake]

Child legitimacy? I guess it hasn't changed much since then, and since today about 30% of children are not of their supposed father...

Now, the real question is how many guys reading this are fathers and felt a slight chill...

LOL :rofl:

 

[Herr Doctor]

Child legitimacy? I guess it hasn't changed much since then, and since today about 30% of children are not of their supposed father...

Now, the real question is how many guys reading this are fathers and felt a slight chill...

:rofl:

Khem… Well I am speaking about Crown legitimacy.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Well legitimacy isn't the best way to go. We had similar discussions in AGCEEP and while it works for many areas, unless you have additional criteria it will fail for specific situations, like dutch, rajputs, sikhs, etc.

 

[unmerged(53879)]

I wholeheartedly agree to have there be culture conversion that is not limited to pagans, natives, etc. I am a full-blooded native american, and I think it is racist for only my people (collectively pagans) to be assimilated.

 

[Hyzhenhok]

The problem is what happened in Latin America is different than North America. The similarity is that both were crushed by technological superiority combined with crippling diseases, and ends there. The majority of South American natives adopted the invaders' religion and language. North American natives were gradually and pushed back and cooped up (though much of that is out of Eu3's time frame).

So you have some cases where it is logical for the natives to join the province's population and for the culture to convert, and other cases where it is not logical. How should the game differentiate and be able to tell when one should happen and the other should not?

 

[unmerged(53879)]

The game should assimilate natives only when the hostility level is low. And also, The Kogi Empire, which encompassed most of eastern Colombia and Guyana at the time of the Spanish "discovery", was neither defeated nor assimilated. Its people still survive and hold on to their age-old ways continuously.

 

[Hyzhenhok]

The game should assimilate natives only when the hostility level is low. And also, The Kogi Empire, which encompassed most of eastern Colombia and Guyana at the time of the Spanish "discovery", was neither defeated nor assimilated. Its people still survive and hold on to their age-old ways continuously.

Of course. Hostility seems like a decent way to go about it. Perhaps it could also partially be tied to a countries sliders. Spain made a much more concerted effort to convert the natives than France, England or Russia ever did.

As to the Kogi Empire, sounds like a case of "uncolonized territory" if I ever heard one.

 

[unmerged(53879)]

Absolutely. The Spanish claimed the land but never got around to colonizing it.

 

[Jordal]

There should definitely be cultural conversion of some sort. Though I would prefer a, maybe temporary and transitionary, hybrid culture. Thus, when France conquers England in 1700, 50 (or 100 or more) years later there is an Anglo-French culture. Also, there is a lot of confusion over nationality, culture and ethnicity. We could debate endless over precise definitions of these terms but I've always thought that ethnicity refered to one's genetic lineage, thus, the Irish people are ethnically Irish (or Celto-[Unknown Neolithic People] whatever) but some ethnic Irish are English (or American or wherever else the Irish are) culturally, in that they are part of that greater cultural body. Culture is hard to define, but I usually think that it's related more to language than anything else. (Although they're not equivalent as they would mean that English and American culture are the same) As for nationality, it seems that it is equivalent to a combination of culture and religion (and maybe language). Regardless, cultural conversions did indeed happen historically. As in the case of Ireland, much of non-langue d'oil France, and the Arabization of the Middle East and North Africa.

 

[joriandrake]

I wholeheartedly agree to have there be culture conversion that is not limited to pagans, natives, etc. I am a full-blooded native american, and I think it is racist for only my people (collectively pagans) to be assimilated.

Very true, I would also like to play as a native american, and colonise England or Spain

 

[Basileios I]

I wholeheartedly agree to have there be culture conversion that is not limited to pagans, natives, etc. I am a full-blooded native american, and I think it is racist for only my people (collectively pagans) to be assimilated.

But Pagan people were technologically vastly inferior to the colonial powers. If they converted they were often assimilated. For example Philippinos. They changed their whole culture after the Spanish conquest.

 

[joriandrake]

There should definitely be cultural conversion of some sort. Though I would prefer a, maybe temporary and transitionary, hybrid culture. Thus, when France conquers England in 1700, 50 (or 100 or more) years later there is an Anglo-French culture. Also, there is a lot of confusion over nationality, culture and ethnicity. We could debate endless over precise definitions of these terms but I've always thought that ethnicity refered to one's genetic lineage, thus, the Irish people are ethnically Irish (or Celto-[Unknown Neolithic People] whatever) but some ethnic Irish are English (or American or wherever else the Irish are) culturally, in that they are part of that greater cultural body. Culture is hard to define, but I usually think that it's related more to language than anything else. (Although they're not equivalent as they would mean that English and American culture are the same) As for nationality, it seems that it is equivalent to a combination of culture and religion (and maybe language). Regardless, cultural conversions did indeed happen historically. As in the case of Ireland, much of non-langue d'oil France, and the Arabization of the Middle East and North Africa.

Two steps conversion:
1. 'mixed one' like anglo-saxon
2. 'pure' like english, german, hungarian or whatever

 

[unmerged(7537)]

But Pagan people were technologically vastly inferior to the colonial powers. If they converted they were often assimilated. For example Philippinos. They changed their whole culture after the Spanish conquest.

Weren't most Filipinos Muslims before the Spanish conquests?

 

[unmerged(45766)]

Rather than monolithic cultures, pie-charts would be better, to allow for multiple cultures to share the same province. It would moreover be an excellent step before converting to Vicky. That way, majority culture could be changed, occasionnally (and if circumstances are right), but minority culture additions would be prevalent.

Weren't most Filipinos Muslims before the Spanish conquests?

I don't think islam reached that far. Indonesia, yes, but Philipines are way farther.

 

[Sute]{h]

Culture... Lets simply leave it out. Or at the very least it shouldn't influence your capacity to rule a given territory. German kings ruled Denmark without the slightest trouble. The Habsburgs have been seated at nearly every major continental throne, likewise with few problems. I fail to see how culture should in any way influence the game. Lets use the HoI2 system: Cores determine where you get full support nothing else. Much more flexible and historical.

 

[unmerged(25822)]

I was thinking to create an event about that in EU2 ( after removing all historical events) . Cultural convertion means that the minority ppl participate in government , like georgian/armenian emperors of byzantium . If Eu3 uses events no/low BB , no nationalist RR , same religion and accepting minority's nobility will give you new culture as a state one. Accepting one of the minority's family to run your country ( like a gaelic -britanic- king of france ) to give you a core on the province where this family is originated ; losing the bloodline + province for a period of time removes both core & culture .
Thats my idea, of course Eu3 could be totaly different /more realistic dealing with when each nation start developing national id.

 

[joriandrake]

Culture... Lets simply leave it out. Or at the very least it shouldn't influence your capacity to rule a given territory. German kings ruled Denmark without the slightest trouble. The Habsburgs have been seated at nearly every major continental throne, likewise with few problems. I fail to see how culture should in any way influence the game. Lets use the HoI2 system: Cores determine where you get full support nothing else. Much more flexible and historical.

I like to change cultures and faith of provinces,
but I like the other Idea of that 'pie'...but have a chance of FULLY changing culture...oh, this 'pie' could work with religion too i think

 

[unmerged(53879)]

But Pagan people were technologically vastly inferior to the colonial powers.

that is not true. Sure they didn't have gunpowder, but the Europeans didn't have it until the chinese, who had it when they were still *pagan* introduced it to them. the aztecs, the incas, the ceylonese, all very advanced pagan cultures.