Culture conversion vs. accepted culture. Suggestion.

[YuriiH]

The culture gaming in EU4 may be treated as something like genocide: you kill natives to settle, you integrate a culture by 'converting' everyone to your ethnicity, you suppress/kill patriot and nationalist rebels, etc.
Frankly speaking, I do not like this somewhat genocidic model but can agree that there is a little of historical peaceful culture-conversion examples apart from culture groups or low-populated areas in this time frame.
To improve the mechanism of culture conversion or acception, I have thought on the following model:

1) Improve the Culture Group mechanism: when you conquer and core all provinces inside your culture group (calculated on basetax, ignoring those treated as overseas), you get them all as accepted till the end of the game.
This will be similar to cultural unions such as Scandinavia, France, Hindustan and Spain except you do not form any new country.

2) Improve Nonaccepted Culture mechanism: you treat all nonaccepted cultures as a Culture Group, not as individual cultures. So, e.g., if you have Norman+Cosmopolitan+Gascon provinces as England, and they provide more than 20% of income in total, they all become semi-accepted (reduce the values by 25%) similar to Scottish in any owned province.
People tended to treat foreigners as one name—French, Italians, Germans, Russians, Arabians—disregarding their ethnicity. None ever cared whether the foreigner is Occitan/ Umbrian/ Prussian/ Belorussian/ Mashriqi, only its Culture Group mattered back then.
In addition, when you conquer and core 85% of provinces of the initially Nonaccepted Culture Group, all those cultures become accepted similarly to the idea #1 till the end of the game; probably providing missions with CBs like 'Unite $PROVINCECULTURE$ people in $PROVINCENAME$ under one crown'.

 

[hashinshin]

The problem is that it simply doesn't happen. All of 30 years ago the Balkans were committing genocide. ISIS is as we speak going around slaughtering the Shia. In a game that's trying to model itself best after history you can't take an ahistorical route even if it would make it more pleasant for you.

 

[Clownie]

The problem is that it simply doesn't happen. All of 30 years ago the Balkans were committing genocide. ISIS is as we speak going around slaughtering the Shia.

There's a wee bit of a difference 'twixt killing people for speaking a different language and having a different complexion | killing people for disagreeing as to whether imamates should be hereditary or not.

edit: I personally would like more genocidal options, such as outright violently eradicating minorities, no sugarcoating, MIL instead of DIP, higher revolt risk etc. I don't think the current model even makes sense.

 

[Pilot00]

There's a wee bit of a difference 'twixt killing people for speaking a different language and having a different complexion | killing people for disagreeing as to whether imamates should be hereditary or not.

edit: I personally would like more genocidal options, such as outright violently eradicating minorities, no sugarcoating, MIL instead of DIP, higher revolt risk etc. I don't think the current model even makes sense.

As much as it sounds a taboo, I am with you at this. Its not that it didn't happen or happens still.

 

[Stategem161803]

I don't think culture conversion should even be possible. There should be some assimilation mechanic similar to Vicky II.

Irish, Hungarian, Finnish, Serbian, etc. culture should never disappear. Nor should any other culture other than (maybe) union cultures.

Religious ideas could provide increased assimilation rate.

That being said, this will never happen so it's a moot point.

 

[SignedName]

I dunno, maybe the culture conversion indicates something more like the plantation system in Ireland? Then again, that would mean it ought to take decades to culture-convert a province.

 

[Drewbdu]

If you want to actually model history, then I would do the following

1: There would be no negative modifiers for unaccepted cultures until the 1800's.
2: Religion would be the biggest difference between cultures until the 1800's.
3: A series of large-scale wars would happen in late game which would allow for the rise of Nationalism in the early 1800's.

 

[Pilot00]

To me the culture always meant the ethnicity of the province, while the core meant the presence of a countries population in it. More so since culture converting removes cores, meaning that you do something (force educate, ethnic cleanse w.e) to forcefully align them to your country.

 

[Stategem161803]

To me the culture always meant the ethnicity of the province, while the core meant the presence of a countries population in it. More so since culture converting removes cores, meaning that you do something (force educate, ethnic cleanse w.e) to forcefully align them to your country.

My point is that this is, generally speaking, impossible IRL. You can't "culture convert" the Irish. The only way to stop Ireland being Irish is to kill every last one of them. Good luck with that. This is true for most other cultures as well I imagine. I mean, I'm not a global culture expert, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that it's too easy to wipe out both cores and cultures.

From a gameplay standpoint, which is obviously more important than the historical one, removing culture conversion would make it harder to hold on to large empires. Something most people on this forum would be in favor of.

Both perspectives suggest the system should be changed.

 

[YuriiH]

There should be some assimilation mechanic similar to Vicky II.

That is what my post about! Paradox could provide culture assimilation with the mechanics above, and probably get rid of culture conversion at all.
And for those playing as England who wants Ile de France to provide the basetax/manpower in full, the non-accepted culture penalties could be countered by modifiers/special buildings that a player or AI should spend Monarch points on (not just diplo) leaving the culture as it is.
===
P.S. About Vicky II, its model is arguable because provided some wierd accepted nations like Ashkenazy in Fascist Germany

1: There would be no negative modifiers for unaccepted cultures until the 1800's.
2: Religion would be the biggest difference between cultures until the 1800's.
3: A series of large-scale wars would happen in late game which would allow for the rise of Nationalism in the early 1800's.

This is also true, and any suggestions should be based on current actual gameplay...

 

[Clownie]

My point is that this is, generally speaking, impossible IRL. You can't "culture convert" the Irish.

Hmm? An bhfuil nach bhfuil an Ghaeilge cheana thiontú go cultúrtha?

(apologies to any actual Irish-speakers for the google translate)

Point is, the Irish are no longer Irish. The Scottish are no longer Scottish. The Norwegians were made Danish from the ~500 centuries of Danish rule. Romanians are, to a great degree, Slavic; as are Hungarians, albeit a bit less so (I admit to having limited knowledge about that region, correct me if I'm wrong). The Breton and Cornish languages are nigh extinct; Manx IS extinct. They've been replaced by French and English respectively. Traditionally tartar lands? Russian nowadays. I could go on.

Besides, if we look at specific provinces and not entire nationalities, it's even more evident that cultural conversion does happen. Have a gander at the lands under the Norwegian crown in 1444; all of them except Iceland and the Faroes have since been culture-converted (Shetland and Orkney by a culture itself converted!).

 

[Pilot00]

My point is that this is, generally speaking, impossible IRL. You can't "culture convert" the Irish. The only way to stop Ireland being Irish is to kill every last one of them. Good luck with that. This is true for most other cultures as well I imagine. I mean, I'm not a global culture expert, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that it's too easy to wipe out both cores and cultures.

From a gameplay standpoint, which is obviously more important than the historical one, removing culture conversion would make it harder to hold on to large empires. Something most people on this forum would be in favor of.

Both perspectives suggest the system should be changed.

The biggest cultural 'conversions' in history have been in the Americas the British Isles Asia minor the Balkans two times (or three on top of my head its three am in here) partially in Iberia, as far as I know from a historic point of view (Ancient / Middle ages Europe and Middle east are my studies/profession). So yes it is doable, it relies on a million different amounts but it can happen. Also notice that the games conversions are the majority of the pop in a province not the sum total.

And I am sure I forget many more right now.

Hmm? An bhfuil nach bhfuil an Ghaeilge cheana thiontú go cultúrtha?

(apologies to any actual Irish-speakers for the google translate)

Point is, the Irish are no longer Irish. The Scottish are no longer Scottish. The Norwegians were made Danish from the ~500 centuries of Danish rule. Romanians are, to a great degree, Slavic; as are Hungarians, albeit a bit less so (I admit to having limited knowledge about that region, correct me if I'm wrong). The Breton and Cornish languages are nigh extinct; Manx IS extinct. They've been replaced by French and English respectively. Traditionally tartar lands? Russian nowadays. I could go on.

Besides, if we look at specific provinces and not entire nationalities, it's even more evident that cultural conversion does happen. Have a gander at the lands under the Norwegian crown in 1444; all of them except Iceland and the Faroes have since been culture-converted (Shetland and Orkney by a culture itself converted!).

Tataria is still alive still, albeit not as a nation and slowly is been assimilated, but that has to do with the world rather than Russian policies.

The others are some examples I forgot to mention you are correct dear poster.

 

[Maerd]

If you want to actually model history, then I would do the following

1: There would be no negative modifiers for unaccepted cultures until the 1800's.
2: Religion would be the biggest difference between cultures until the 1800's.
3: A series of large-scale wars would happen in late game which would allow for the rise of Nationalism in the early 1800's.

Yes indeed, the rise of nationalism was due to heavy taxation by empires to wage endless wars. I think it can be modeled by including Nationalist counter, which will increment if the war exhaustion is very high and you're abusing war taxes. Negative stability should also increase nationalist sentiments. Series of special events will help. Certain government types should also contribute to that. However, the nationalism somewhat impossible without certain ideas like humanism, for example, therefore non-European states are unlikely to get nationalism because AI should not choose humanist ideas just for historical reasons.

 

[Stategem161803]

Hmm? An bhfuil nach bhfuil an Ghaeilge cheana thiontú go cultúrtha?

(apologies to any actual Irish-speakers for the google translate)

Point is, the Irish are no longer Irish. The Scottish are no longer Scottish. The Norwegians were made Danish from the ~500 centuries of Danish rule. Romanians are, to a great degree, Slavic; as are Hungarians, albeit a bit less so (I admit to having limited knowledge about that region, correct me if I'm wrong). The Breton and Cornish languages are nigh extinct; Manx IS extinct. They've been replaced by French and English respectively. Traditionally tartar lands? Russian nowadays. I could go on.

Besides, if we look at specific provinces and not entire nationalities, it's even more evident that cultural conversion does happen. Have a gander at the lands under the Norwegian crown in 1444; all of them except Iceland and the Faroes have since been culture-converted (Shetland and Orkney by a culture itself converted!).

None of those were "culture conversions." They were assimilations that happend over a long period of time. "Culture conversion" has a much shorter timeframe. As in decades.

 

[Pilot00]

None of those were "culture conversions." They were assimilations that happend over a long period of time. "Culture conversion" has a much shorter timeframe. As in decades.

Semantics dear chap. Changing culture takes many generations either way. Unless we speak of eradication.

 

[Stategem161803]

Semantics dear chap. Changing culture takes many generations either way. Unless we speak of eradication.

I'm talking about how the game does it. There's no way you could do it in such a short time without massive dislocation or genocide.

 

[MaticT]

Hmm? An bhfuil nach bhfuil an Ghaeilge cheana thiontú go cultúrtha?

(apologies to any actual Irish-speakers for the google translate)

Point is, the Irish are no longer Irish. The Scottish are no longer Scottish. The Norwegians were made Danish from the ~500 centuries of Danish rule. Romanians are, to a great degree, Slavic; as are Hungarians, albeit a bit less so (I admit to having limited knowledge about that region, correct me if I'm wrong). The Breton and Cornish languages are nigh extinct; Manx IS extinct. They've been replaced by French and English respectively. Traditionally tartar lands? Russian nowadays. I could go on.

Last time I was in Poland, I had troubles communicating in English as only few people talked fluently. They convienced me, to speak my native language, Slovenian and to my amusement we actually started to understand each other better, surprisingly even further more when I switched to Serbian. Same stuff ussualy happens with Russians. To cut the long story short, as a Slav I basicaly understand large portions of Russian, Polish, Czech, Bulgarian... as long as they speak slowely and am giving my best to keep fluency in Serbian and Croatian. While I don't understand a word of Hungarian or Romanian if my life depended on it and i'm pretty much sure this goes "vice versa". Geneticaly wise, whole europe is mixed the way only few people dare to imagine, however language-wise Slavic, Hungarian and Romanian have almost nothing in common if that's what you've thought. Also various Slavic nations are culturaly and mentaly so different that I would have troubles applying a single identity to all of them and applying Hungarians and Romanians in there as well.

 

[Zenith Darksea]

As for the Irish and Scots and so on, you might be surprised at just how recent those assimilations were. True, all Scots and Irish (I think) speak English now, and the overwhelming majority speak it as a native language. However, this was essentially a result of widespread public education in received English - something that mainly took place in the late nineteenth century. In fact, you could even go back to the mid-20th century and find most people still speaking Scots at home. I think it's only really been my generation, and some of my parents, who have come to use received English as their go-to language of choice. And, as you may have noticed from the fact that 45% of Scots just voted for independence a couple of months ago, the sense of a distinct Scottish identity has not gone away.

Culture conversions did happen in history under some conditions, and not others. EU4 models this as an active policy choice that can be rapidly implemented, which obviously isn't realistic, but you can see why they did it. Cultural conversion was sometimes the result of active policies, but these usually involved forced resettlement/enslavement/genocide, and still took a long time. More often, however, cultural conversion was the result of circumstances, not deliberate policies.

I think one of the best examples of this is the fate of Greek-speakers during the Turkish conquests of the Middle Ages. Speros Vryonis' book The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor is a heavy-going but excellent read on this subject. Greek had been the dominant language in both Greece and Asia Minor under the Byzantines; interestingly, however, about 200 years of Seljuq Turkish rule was enough to convert most (not all) Anatolian Greek-speakers to aturkish speakers. However, 500 years of Ottoman Turkish rule in the Balkans never made nearly the same impact on the Greek-speaking population there. The reason, in Vryonis' argument, is that the resilience of a language resides in its use by a durable institution. In the case of the Greeks, this was the Orthodox Church.

The semi-nomadic Seljuq Turks had no need for the Orthodox Church - indeed, they positively opposed it, because of its ties to the Byzantine Empire - and so Greek linguistic institutions in Asia Minor largely withered and died off (though again I should stress, not completely). The Ottomans, however, were a much more organised imperial state that largely based itself on the Byzantine Empire that it replaced. It did have a use for the Church, as it was an easy and effective way to indirectly administer and tax Christian subjects. Ruling through the Orthodox Church was easier than destroying everything and starting again, as the semi-nomadic Seljuqs had. As a result, the Church preserved the Greek language into the era of 19th-century nationalism.

So yes, it's a complicated picture. What's the best gameplay design to reflect this? I'm not sure yet.

 

[Swami]

I never culture convert and hate it when the AI starts doing that.

The only way to convert a culture, especially in the short time that is needed in this game is killing everybody in that province. Converting culture should give massive penalties:

1. To stability in all provinces with that culture. Nobody is going to watch while a genocide is going on amongst your people.
2. If it's a culture that's devided over several countries the other countries have two options:
a. Attempt to stop the genocide (special CB is given)
b. Do nothing and have severe unrest problems themself in provinces with this culture, because the people are angry with their government standing by.
3. Provinces that are being converted lose basetax and production, because basically you'll have to populate them again with your own people, making it nothing more then a colony.
4. Relations penalties, especially with countries of the same culture and culture group.


You could also make accepting a culture harder, but instead of converting you can spend the diplomatic points to increase attempts to integrate a culture. Also there could be rivalling cultures, that just don't cooperate well and need more effort. It would also be nice if there's a new type of CB based on cultures, like 'uniting our people under one banner'. Giving you a CB to take lands that have the same culture as one of your accepted cultures. For the CB to appear you'll need to have a relative high acceptance of the culture and the country you declare war on hasn't. For example, you can never get a CB as Brandenburg on Saxony, because it's also their primary culture. But if Bohemia takes Saxony and has lots of unrest you could move in to free the saxon people. But that's sort of possible with the support rebels system that can give you a CB.

 

[gaius valerius]

The culture gaming in EU4 may be treated as something like genocide: you kill natives to settle, you integrate a culture by 'converting' everyone to your ethnicity, you suppress/kill patriot and nationalist rebels, etc.
Frankly speaking, I do not like this somewhat genocidic model but can agree that there is a little of historical peaceful culture-conversion examples apart from culture groups or low-populated areas in this time frame.
To improve the mechanism of culture conversion or acception, I have thought on the following model:

1) Improve the Culture Group mechanism: when you conquer and core all provinces inside your culture group (calculated on basetax, ignoring those treated as overseas), you get them all as accepted till the end of the game.
This will be similar to cultural unions such as Scandinavia, France, Hindustan and Spain except you do not form any new country.

2) Improve Nonaccepted Culture mechanism: you treat all nonaccepted cultures as a Culture Group, not as individual cultures. So, e.g., if you have Norman+Cosmopolitan+Gascon provinces as England, and they provide more than 20% of income in total, they all become semi-accepted (reduce the values by 25%) similar to Scottish in any owned province.
People tended to treat foreigners as one name—French, Italians, Germans, Russians, Arabians—disregarding their ethnicity. None ever cared whether the foreigner is Occitan/ Umbrian/ Prussian/ Belorussian/ Mashriqi, only its Culture Group mattered back then.
In addition, when you conquer and core 85% of provinces of the initially Nonaccepted Culture Group, all those cultures become accepted similarly to the idea #1 till the end of the game; probably providing missions with CBs like 'Unite $PROVINCECULTURE$ people in $PROVINCENAME$ under one crown'.

I partly agree that the mechanics aren't that well worked out, but genocidal? That is just plain wrong. Genocide implies the deliberate massacre of an ethnicity. EU IV merely implies you culturally convert them, NOT ethnically. It would imply the Austrians start to speak French and become Cosmopolitaine, not that you murder the Austrians and have French ppl settle. That is a prepostorous idea cause it would imply they even have the demographic potential to do so That said the whole system isn't that well worked out. I still like to see the divisions, I'm against grouping them together in se, I do wish for more 'policies' (in the broad sense, game events, modifiers, actual policies, etc) that might make the managing of minorities more interesting.

The whole idea that cultures could be 'converted' is itself somewhat retarded. In history it would be the exception, hardly the rule, plus it is only possible to pull of such feats for late 19th century nation-states. Early modern states lack all apparatus to do so.