Cultural Setup

[Toio]

A voice of reason. This was what I was trying to say too, that cultures benefit the players more than anything, and if it affects players most of all, fun or playability should be a concern as well.

Also, I don't think going with large cultural groups necessarily entails getting rid of Maltese or Basque. As Fodoron mentioned, they are simply cosmetic, or perhaps represent small pockets of cultural diferrence. Also, as Twoflower mentioned, the burden of proof is on the modder to change Paradox's cultures. I just cannot understand any argument that would split Italian up into two or more cultures (or Iberian for that matter). I'm more of a casual player than a hardcore modder, but there are probably casual gamers who never post on these boards but play AGCEEP. And admit it, small cultural groups are annoying as hell. (One of the reasons I can't stand MyMap.)

Well the cultural setups from paradox (vanilla) has venice getting slavonic culture.

We have removed it due to some very misinformed modder posts who say it leads to Venice gaining balkan areas. I think they where concerned that the human play will take these balkan areas while the truth is that the AI will not, due to the fact that having a culture does not lead to DOW's.

As of this day , nobody has righted this error or come up with an explanation or example

 

[tuesday4am]

Well the cultural setups from paradox (vanilla) has venice getting slavonic culture.

We have removed it due to some very misinformed modder posts who say it leads to Venice gaining balkan areas. I think they where concerned that the human play will take these balkan areas while the truth is that the AI will not, due to the fact that having a culture does not lead to DOW's.

As of this day , nobody has righted this error or come up with an explanation or example

What I don't understand is how you can have a core on provinces that aren't in your cultural group? How can you have a legitimate claim on a province (represented by the core) if it is not even in your cultural group? Wouldn't that make it an illegitimate claim (and hence no core)? I think Venice, Hungary and Austria should all get slavonic (and keep it slavonic).

 

[Herr Doctor]

What I don't understand is how you can have a core on provinces that aren't in your cultural group? How can you have a legitimate claim on a province (represented by the core) if it is not even in your cultural group? Wouldn't that make it an illegitimate claim (and hence no core)? I think Venice, Hungary and Austria should all get slavonic (and keep it slavonic).

Same way as the Dukes of Burgundy legitimately ruled the French, Germans, Flemings, Walloons and Dutch…

 

[Hallsten]

Regarding the Scandinavian cultures I think it would make sense to start out with one culture and separate them in the early-mid 1500s. The cultural makeup of the three nations, languages aside, was similar enough to be able to see as one diverse culture for quite a while into the game. The translation of the Bible into Danish and Swedish in the early-mid 1500s lead to profound changes in both the Danish and Swedish languages and along with this separation followed a gradual separation in culture. Norwegian is a tricky one, since Norwegian culture and language were oppressed until the late 1800s, but if Danish and Swedish are made separate there should definately be a Nowegian culture.

I don't know if a three-split is doable, but if it is we could definately make the cultural borders more fluid to add a little flavour...

 

[Herr Doctor]

Well, getting Swedish in Jylland, for example, for sure would be not a normal practice IMO.

 

[Hallsten]

Well, getting Swedish in Jylland, for example, for sure would be not a normal practice IMO.

True, but the fluidity should only apply to border provinces IMHO...

 

[Herr Doctor]

True, but the fluidity should only apply to border provinces IMHO...

Hmm, then I am all for such setup.

 

[unmerged(54293)]

4. German.
[...]
-Where they succesfully converted to the other religion? No (+1 point for different culture)

Well, they were in many cases.

 

[Twoflower]

Q

Fodoron, with all due respect, I'm afraid I couldn't disagree more with your criteria.

1. Catalonian and Castilian. The infamous split.
-Where they hold together for most of the period? Yes (-1 point for different culture)

Granted, although of course we know that in a perfect world where we could make sure that they act historically Spain would only be united in 1714.

-Did they have the same religion? Yes (-1 point for different culture)

How is that of any relevance when we have religion to represent religious differences and similarities? Really, I don't understand these suggestions of culture "double-representing" effects that are already covered by other features, like nationalism or religion.
-Were they likely to consider the other as a rightful ruler (self-identity)? No (+1 point for different culture)
-Should their colonies be interchangeable? Does not apply

-Would most players accept them having the same culture? Yes (-1 point for different culture)

And how do you prove that? Unless a representative vote has indeed taken place, "most players would accept this" is an argument like "Oh, but that culture looks so cute". In a discussion before such a vote (which, especially on the subject of cultures, would of course be decided by the taste of most players).
You can just as much ask if many players would miss the culture.

Total = -2 (out of 4), so they should have the same culture.

But only because of a highly subjective choice of criteria. I'm at 0, and by coming with other criteria to check for I could easily get +4 or so in favour of Catalan - and you could just as easily get -4.
What it really comes down to imho is on the one hand which possible setup seems more natural, i.e. makes more sense considering language, culture and ruling traditions - and in that respect, considering that Catalan is just as different from Castillian as French and Italian, considering the strong national identity of Catalonia and its multitude of separate traditions, and considering that Catalonia had evolved from the Hispanic March instead of from the kingdom of Asturias, and had several peculiar institutions and the concept of Pactisme, there is a very good, imo compelling case for a separate Catalan culture. On the other hand, it needs to be analysed how the split affects the game, and I fail to see what negative impact Catalan has in that respect.
A culture setup where Portuguese is separate and Catalan is not would be deterministic (because in 1419, and probably as well in 1520, Castile and Portugal definitely had more in common than Castile and Catalonia), inconsistent, anachronistic and ugly.

3. Basque and Castilian.
-Where they hold together for most of the period? Yes (-1 point for different culture)
-Did they have the same religion? Yes (-1 point for different culture)
-Where they succesfully converted to the other religion? Does not apply
-Were they likely to consider the other as a rightful ruler (self-identity)? No (+1 point for different culture)
-Should their colonies be interchangeable? Does not apply
-Would most players accept them having the same culture? Yes (-1 point for different culture)

Total = -2 (out of 4), so they should have the same culture.
In game terms the Basque is purely cosmetic. It doesn't matter if it is in or out.

Well, we have a rather large disagreement here. I'm of the opinion that culture, simply due to its name that inevitably evokes certain concepts, cannot be treated in a purely technical way. A culture setup needs to look "natural", somewhat historically accurate and quickly understandable to someone not familiar with the discussion on which it is based. I believe that the average AGCEEP player when looking on a culture setup where Navarra and Bearn are Iberian and French will immediately wonder what has happened to the Basques.

4. German.
-Where they hold together for most of the period? No (+1 point for different culture)

Of course they were in a way held together. All were part of the HRE and of the Kingdom of Germany for almost the whole period. This is just a matter of interpretation (as with Castile and Aragon) and therefore not a useful criterium.

-Did they have the same religion? No (+1 point for different culture)

-Were they likely to consider the other as a rightful ruler (self-identity)? Yes (-1 point for different culture)
-Should their colonies be interchangeable? Does not apply
-Would most players accept them having the same culture? Yes (-1 point for different culture)

Total = +1 (out of 5), so they should not have the same culture.
Logic dictates that they should be split along religious lines into upper and lower German (or whatever name) and that countries should only have one of the cultures after reformation to difficult conversion of the other.

Why do you want to mix two different game features? Religion is religion, and serves well to represent the religious differences.
Besides, Wirtemberg was Protestant and still Upper German, and parts of Westphalia were catholic and still Low German. Sorry, but this result just highlights the weakness of your criteria.

5. Italian.
-Where they hold together for most of the period? No (+1 point for different culture)
-Did they have the same religion? Yes (-1 point for different culture)
-Where they succesfully converted to the other religion? Does not apply
-Were they likely to consider the other as a rightful ruler (self-identity)? Yes
(-1 point for different culture)

Prove to me how, say, Veneto was particularly likely to accept the King of Naples as a rightful ruler. I will listen with the uttermost interest.

-Should their colonies be interchangeable? Does not apply
-Would most players accept them having the same culture? Yes (-1 point for different culture)

Question number four is a tricky one here because Italians fought all the time between themselves, but all italians considered between themselves as a lot closer than for example to their Spanish rulers. Clearly large portions of Italy changed government from for example Milan to Venice and did not considered it foreign rule. Even for those that think that the answer would be No, still the result is negative or zero arguing against a split of culture.

Yes, but only because you're using the cheesy "most players would accept it" argument to back up your opinion.

All this analysis is just in game terms from a game engine perspective, taking into account how it should affect the player. We might however decide that we want to have Basque culture in the game, even if it adds absolutely nothing to the game, just because it adds color.

Err, "most players would accept it because it is my preffered setup" is not arguing in game terms.
And color being added to the game certainly is not nothing.

Just for fun's sake, let me play devil's advocate with your criteria:
a) Dutch and Brabant
-Were they held together for most of the period? No (+1 point for different culture)
-Did they have the same religion? No (+1 point for different culture)
-Where they succesfully converted to the other religion? No, North Brabant and Limburg are still catholic even today (+1 point for different culture)
-Were they likely to consider the other as a rightful ruler (self-identity)? Yes(-1 point for different culture)
-Should their colonies be interchangeable? Does not apply
-Would most players accept them having the same culture? Yes (-1 point for different culture)
Total: +1 (out of 5), so they cannot have the same culture
b) Luxemburg and Brabant
-Were they held together for most of the period? Yes (-1 point for different culture)
-Did they have the same religion? Yes (-1 point for different culture)
-Where they succesfully converted to the other religion? Does not apply
-Were they likely to consider the other as a rightful ruler (self-identity)? Yes(-1 point for different culture)
-Should their colonies be interchangeable? Does not apply
-Would most players accept them having the same culture? Yes (-1 point for different culture)
Total: -4 (out of 4), even if you say that most players wouldn't accept it, it would be -2, thus Brabant and Luxembourg would have to have the same culture
c)Luxemburg-Brabantese and Lombardia
-Were they held together for most of the period? Yes (-1 point for different culture)
-Did they have the same religion? Yes (-1 point for different culture)
-Where they succesfully converted to the other religion? Does not apply
-Were they likely to consider the other as a rightful ruler (self-identity)? No(+1 point for different culture)
-Should their colonies be interchangeable? Does not apply
-Would most players accept them having the same culture? No (+1 point for different culture)
Total: 0 (out of 4). If the fishy argument of "acceptance" by the players is left out, you'd get a compelling argument for giving Luxembourg, Brabant and Lombardia the same culture
d) Denmark and Holstein
-Were they held together for most of the period? Yes (-1 point for different culture)
-Did they have the same religion? Yes (-1 point for different culture)
-Where they succesfully converted to the other religion? Does not apply
-Were they likely to consider the other as a rightful ruler (self-identity)? Yes(-1 point for different culture)
-Should their colonies be interchangeable? Does not apply
-Would most players accept them having the same culture? Yes (-1 point for different culture)
Total: 4 (out of 4); Denmark and Holstein need to have the same culture

 

[tuesday4am]

Same way as the Dukes of Burgundy legitimately ruled the French, Germans, Flemings, Walloons and Dutch…

Yeah, but I'm talking about the game, not IRL. In the game Burgundy has French and gets Dutch. The only one missing is German, and that only applies to Geldre, I believe, and AGCEEP changed that from Dutch anyway. Venice has cores on Slavonic provinces without having it as a culture.

 

[Twoflower]

Yeah, but I'm talking about the game, not IRL. In the game Burgundy has French and gets Dutch. The only one missing is German, and that only applies to Geldre, I believe, and AGCEEP changed that from Dutch anyway. Venice has cores on Slavonic provinces without having it as a culture.

Luxembourg and Alsace are German as well.
There is a plethora of other cases - France ruling Celts in Brittany and Catalans in Roussillon and having a claim on Lombardia and Naples, Spain ruling Berber territories in South Spain, England having a core on Wales, Denmark getting cores on Holstein and Oldenburg, Russia getting cores on Livonia... do I need to go on more?

 

[tuesday4am]

Luxembourg and Alsace are German as well.
There is a plethora of other cases - France ruling Celts in Brittany and Catalans in Roussillon and having a claim on Lombardia and Naples, Spain ruling Berber territories in South Spain, England having a core on Wales, Denmark getting cores on Holstein and Oldenburg, Russia getting cores on Livonia... do I need to go on more?

Well, I see your point, but these are all examples of getting cores later in the game, not starting with them (except Wales, I suppose). And I change that event so Denmark gets German culture, but I guess it doesn't really matter. I can give Slavonic culture to whomever I want or put a strait between Svealand and Finland if I feel like it. It's not like I play MP anyway.

 

[unmerged(17856)]

I favor a more conservative approach (which is why I was unhappy with the initial Iberian split) and push only for splitting up cultures if there is actually a desired gameplay difference. I think what Twoflower said makes more sense than establishing an overall standard which might make some areas better but others worse. Sort of like how we don't require all regions to have one standard of modeling things.

I'm definately on the "down with standards" group for this particular issue.

And I'm not too happy about this thread to be honest, because I'm much more in favour of decentralizing these kinds of decisions to the regional threads than I am of attempts to tackle the EU2 world in one thread. Leave the decisions for regional culture setups to the regional threads, IMHO.

Our system will flag down what it needs to; all regional threads must wake up and sniff the submission thread bed of roses at some point

 

[Toio]

I really think we need to see what Culture represents for the Game and not for languages, traditions or will this nation be accepted by this monarch etc etc.

Its Money and manpower are the 2 critical ones components.

For the benefit of the game , that is to improve the game in the Balkans , the Herr Doctor solution is the best for all nations, for the nations in the area and those involved with the area.

I will continue this discussion in the correct thread

 

[rybka]

I posted this in germa-austria thread, but i probably should do it here (there was almost no response there anyway)

hi
i have some probably controversial suggestion
This also could be posted in poland-lithuania forum
it is about cultures in kustrin, pommerania, silesia, opole, warmia and chelmno, sudeten
i dont know what cultures you plan to assign to them, but im quite sure it will start some "emotional" reactions in polish members of this forum

so first, we all know that in regions i mentioned german settlement was strong, but to my knowledge there are NO reliable data on how much percent were germans, polish, czech etc. all reliable maps show regions, where there was german settlement, which doesnt mean that they were majority there
second thing, as most of agceep users i dont like to see culture changes just after poland captures some provinces, i already try to write events to postopone it by around 3 generations, bit province_culture trigger does not work, so it is very difficult

also germans settled mostly in cities while peasants mostly remained local slavs, we also have to remember about penalties for not having given province culture, i will just give an example of some strange ahistorical things that can happen with not correct culture assignement with no later culture changes
at start in chelmno and warmia poles were not majority, some local balts and germans settled this regions, these provinces were owned by teutonic order obviously teutonic order will be given its culture (whatever they will be called). however these provinces rebelled against teutonic orderand ask polish king for help and protection. now lets assume poland captured those provinces, but most probably poland will not have their culture as national, but teutonic order still has, and poland gets penalties, but if teuotonic order recaptures any of this provinces doesnt. people who lived in this regions were as loyal as in any other provinces of poland
i also tried to look for some data, i found some article in polish historical newspaper by modern polish historian, who specializes in history of royal and ducal prussia and his conclusions are that one hundred years after 1466, when poland annexed warmia and chelmno, polish language was first spoken language by most inhabitans of torun (biggest city in chelmno province), of course richest merchants were still using german as first language.

to avoid future quarells i propose to make new culture, lets call it germano-slavic at start (it is just suggestion), it is some kind of buffer between poland or czech cultures and german, before someone starts to say it is not historical i will just say that in silesia actually some kind of new culture was created, they have their own language, which is similar to polish, but with a lot of german words, in different provinces it could represent mixtures of slavic and german cultures polish/german/czech in silesia polish/german/kashubian in pommerania baltic/german/polish in warmia etc

which provinces should be given this culture is up to debate. also i think at start this culture should be given only to opole (if we decide to give it tag),
pommern and teutonic order (if warmia and chelmno will be given this culture)

later some other countries could get this culture by events after meeting not so easy conditions
brandenburg - when owning kustrin and pommerania
bohemia - owning silesia and opople and of course romanists had to win
austria - after annexation of bohemia, but toghether with both silesian provinces
poland - owning one of (warmia/chelmno) and one of (pommerania/kustrin) and one of (sielsia/opole) - these conditions also assure that poland will not get these culture immediately, so one can say it can represent some time of "polonisation", it also assures that there are many germans in poland, so they are large group so they probably would have some influence on government

additionally there should be death dates for each country, for bohemia 1526, for austria maybe 1550, for poland 1648, for brandenburg 1670-80?

conditions of course can be different depending on which provinces will get this cultures (this is also problem of lusatia, which shouldnt start with just german culture)

 

[Norrefeldt]

I'm definately on the "down with standards" group for this particular issue.

And I'm not too happy about this thread to be honest, because I'm much more in favour of decentralizing these kinds of decisions to the regional threads than I am of attempts to tackle the EU2 world in one thread. Leave the decisions for regional culture setups to the regional threads, IMHO.

Saying "down with standards" is in fact the same as saying "up with a fluent setup" as there is no way to keep people from changing cultures back and forth, due to the fact that it's impossible to prove one setup better than the other, judging from a game and cultural perspective. You cannot weigh the arguements for and against if you have no scale. As a HC member you can at the most have your favorite standard, but it cannot be defended in any other way than "I believe it's the best one".

With decentralised decisionmaking I'll be voting in favour of every change of the culture setup. I also could go against every change and be equally fair, but that would be unforthcoming against people spending time and thoughts on how to change things, so I wont do that.

 

[Bordic]

5. Italian.
-Where they hold together for most of the period? No (+1 point for different culture)
-Did they have the same religion? Yes (-1 point for different culture)
-Where they succesfully converted to the other religion? Does not apply
-Were they likely to consider the other as a rightful ruler (self-identity)? Yes
(-1 point for different culture)

Prove to me how, say, Veneto was particularly likely to accept the King of Naples as a rightful ruler. I will listen with the uttermost interest.
Quote:
-Should their colonies be interchangeable? Does not apply
-Would most players accept them having the same culture? Yes (-1 point for different culture)

Question number four is a tricky one here because Italians fought all the time between themselves, but all italians considered between themselves as a lot closer than for example to their Spanish rulers. Clearly large portions of Italy changed government from for example Milan to Venice and did not considered it foreign rule. Even for those that think that the answer would be No, still the result is negative or zero arguing against a split of culture.

IMO Twoflower is right when he say that the Italians never considered the other Italians as rightful rulers. The Napolitan nobles preferred to be ruled by foreigners, Angevins in particular, instead of being ruled by the Pope who was their liege. Well Naples and Sicily preferred to be ruled by foreign powers by means of viceroys because the local nobles could have some degree of independence I suppose. In 1423-1447 anyone in Italy rejected Visconti's hegemony while in 1447-1509 anyone rejected Venetian hegemony. Marche and Romagna refused Papal rule until Cesare Borgia killed all opponents and Julius II reconquered Romagna and Bologna (the city lies in Emilia!)
Pisa hated Florentine rule and Charles VIII descent helped them to reject the Medici's delegates. Genoa submitted both to France and to Milan according to the leading party.
So a split in cultures is not a bad idea, even if I am not sure about Twoflower's proposal: Imperial Italy and Papal fiefs. I would prefer Imperial Italy and Papal legations (Romagna-Marche) with a same culture and Lazio+ Sardinia+Naples+Sicily with another culture.
About Corsica I don't know which one is preferable.

Aragon and then Spain, will they receive two Italian cultures in this case or none of them?

Just my 2 cents.

 

[unmerged(29041)]

Fodoron, with all due respect, I'm afraid I couldn't disagree more with your criteria.

Twoflower, we are not talking about the same thing. I am talking apples and you are talking oranges. That is one problem with language, is that it lacks enough precission. Culture means a different thing for every person so agreement is impossible. So let's change from Language to Mathematics (Logic).

EU2 has a variable that we can name C. It takes part in several equations that affect gameplay.
There are two forms of C. c is a province value and C is a state value.
When c not= C revolt risk is increased in province under certain conditions
When c not= C tax income might be reduced in province under certain conditions
When c not= C the province is much harder to convert by missionaries always (1)

Therefore C is mainly about religion, secondly about stability and thirdly about economy.

I think we can all agree on this.

Now we can simply test the effect that any value of C will have on gameplay. The set of question that I put was an example, not a rule, but points in the direction that things should go:

If provinces and state were together for most of the time, then it is advantageous that c=C
If religion was different and conversion did not take place, then it is advantageous that c not= C [this factor is even more important than others due to (1)]
If province X should be happy under ruler Y, then it is advantageous that c(X)=C(Y)
Colonial provinces are to be taken into account perhaps in only one case (Portugal and Spain)
Common sense has to be taken into account to avoid values of C that might work well yet would be absurd (like a merger of Italian and Spanish cultures).

That is why I put forward that set of questions, that I insist, is not a rule.

If Holstein and Denmark come out as c=C that only means that in game terms you can have Holstein with Danish culture, or Holstein with Holstenian culture and give it to Denmark, or Holstein with German culture and give it to Denmark. I don't think it requires a doctorate to see that the last one is the one more likely to create game problems.

It is trivial to see for every province, who are all the likely owners (all neighboring states, plus all great expansionists nearby) and deduct what combination of c and C will give the best result.

My analysis demonstrates that the split between Catalan and Castilian does not affect gameplay, and that Basque is irrelevant in game terms. Nothing more, nothing less.

We can quickly reduce all cultures to two groups: Those needed by the game engine and therefore not subject to discussion, and those not needed by the game engine and therefore subject to discussion. You can understand that I am not proposing that we eliminate all not needed cultures from the game, only that we reduce the size of the problem.

Starting from Vanilla we determine which cultures belong to the first group and which provinces belong to them. Size of the problem reduced maybe by 50% maybe more. Now we move down in the regional threads. Culture X present in vanilla but not really necessary has to answer to three questions related to the provinces and countries that should receive it:
-Does it improve performance? (Religion, Stability and Economy)
-Does it harm performance?
-Do most people want it?
The last question is the only one that relates to all the things that you talk about. Language, culture, ruling traditions, HRE, etc. I am not saying they are not important. It might be the deciding factor, but only after we are aware of the impact that that culture is going to have on the game engine. For example Basque answers No to the first two and it would probably be yes for the third. Tags allowing then, Basque should be included, but if we run out of tags, Basque tag could be reused with very sound game arguments. Just to show you that I have no favoritisms here, I'll tell you that I am Basque, and that I rather have it in the game, but if the tag is needed to improve game performance elsewhere, I can live with Vizcaya having Iberian culture.

Second group will be cultures introduced by AGCEEP. Same protocol.

Lastly, and tags allowing, the third group will be new proposals, Coptic, Palestinian, Holyromanianemperonian, you name it. For those, the improvement in performance for the game engine will have to be convincing according to the following criteria with each one being more important than the next:
-Provinces with the new culture will be harder to ahistorically be converted by likely owners.
-Provinces with the new culture will be more likely to historically become independent.
-States without that culture owning those provinces should see a reduced income.
Once we are convinced they are advantageous we can take a vote on their desirability, as not all advantageous cultural changes might be desirable.

Just my two cents. And regarding Spain being only a country after 1714, it is not of course that we know it, but this is not the place for that.

 

[unmerged(29041)]

IMO Twoflower is right when he say that the Italians never considered the other Italians as rightful rulers. The Napolitan nobles preferred to be ruled by foreigners, Angevins in particular, instead of being ruled by the Pope who was their liege. Well Naples and Sicily preferred to be ruled by foreign powers by means of viceroys because the local nobles could have some degree of independence I suppose. In 1423-1447 anyone in Italy rejected Visconti's hegemony while in 1447-1509 anyone rejected Venetian hegemony. Marche and Romagna refused Papal rule until Cesare Borgia killed all opponents and Julius II reconquered Romagna and Bologna (the city lies in Emilia!)
Pisa hated Florentine rule and Charles VIII descent helped them to reject the Medici's delegates. Genoa submitted both to France and to Milan according to the leading party.
So a split in cultures is not a bad idea, even if I am not sure about Twoflower's proposal: Imperial Italy and Papal fiefs. I would prefer Imperial Italy and Papal legations (Romagna-Marche) with a same culture and Lazio+ Sardinia+Naples+Sicily with another culture.
About Corsica I don't know which one is preferable.

Aragon and then Spain, will they receive two Italian cultures in this case or none of them?

Just my 2 cents.

You must then demonstrate the advantages that the introduction of ItalianB and ItalianC will have for the game engine. My prediction is that it will have little impact, so it will come down again as a question of preference.

Anyway this should be step 4.

Step 1: Essential cultures
Step 2: Other Vanilla cultures
Step 3: Other AGCEEP cultures
Step 4: New cultures

 

[zdlugasz]

it is not so black and white

If religion was different and conversion did not take place, then it is advantageous that c not= C [this factor is even more important than others due to (1)]

Then you penalize country, which ruled given province by e.g. 300 years with -60% tax, manpower penalty etc.
for example most of multicultural and multireligious countries like: Ottoman empire, Poland and Lithuania, Russia ...

In real life conversions did not happen easily, so by definition almost all areas becomes c = not C. Maybe only German princes were changing religion like gloves.

If province X should be happy under ruler Y, then it is advantageous that c(X)=C(Y)

According to which criteria you define "happiness". Were Tatars in Russia happy?, Greeks or Bulgars in OE?, Ruthenian peasants in Poland?