I would be more in favour of a system like that with percentages, and not just minority and majority. If we use the Delaware example, I'm pretty confident there would be both English, Delaware and French culture represented there.
Cultures, shields and religion..
- Thread starter unmerged(53986)
- Start date
-
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.
Yes. I was thinking that too, where everything was coded in percentage values, not necessarily actual POP code. It would make some things more abstract, but stil bel an improvement over EU2's one-culture provinces, and not too threatening to Victoria-haters.Nikolai said:I would be more in favour of a system like that with percentages, and not just minority and majority. If we use the Delaware example, I'm pretty confident there would be both English, Delaware and French culture represented there.
Nikolai said:I would be more in favour of a system like that with percentages, and not just minority and majority. If we use the Delaware example, I'm pretty confident there would be both English, Delaware and French culture represented there.
A percentage system would be more realistic but would probably be harder to code.
I would like to see a game mechanic that would make a policy of religious tolerance actually a good thing.
A lot of historical powers from the time frame did prosper particularly because of a policy of religious tolerance, e.g. the Ottoman Empire, the Netherlands, or Prussia.
A lot of historical powers from the time frame did prosper particularly because of a policy of religious tolerance, e.g. the Ottoman Empire, the Netherlands, or Prussia.
There was an over reliance on culture in EU2, that was mainly due to unforeseen band aid fixing that had to come subsequent to release. We became trapped by culture in EU2 in a quest to improve gameplay.
Markusw7 said:
Actually I could see it being pretty simply.
Simply conquering a province and ruling it for a time (say 10 years) would introduce a small minority.
Various policies ("forced assimilation", centralized education systems, etc. etc. etc.) would slowly lead to your "state culture" increasing (factoring in distance to capital, population, probably if the cultures are "close" to yours on some kind of cultural spectrum)... Fully converting a province of say, Chinese to Anglosaxon would probably take hundreds of years, but converting Skåne from danish to swedish could be done in a few years...
Mowers said:
Hm? Care to elaborate? We should try to avoid repeating past mistakes, after all...
Sounds good.. like others said, I am not in favour of random events changing stuff, its too drastic, and it makes you feel like you have no control over it.
Some sort of hardcoded stuff, changing the percentage of minority/majority population depending on the cultures of the countries main culture, religious settings, slider settings etc. Then the player has direct influence on the development of his would-be empire, and a lot more furfilling.
Add to this cores, there should be a mechanism for this as well, I didnt like how EU2 only handed out cores to simulate history, when the EU games are all about alternate history.
Some sort of hardcoded stuff, changing the percentage of minority/majority population depending on the cultures of the countries main culture, religious settings, slider settings etc. Then the player has direct influence on the development of his would-be empire, and a lot more furfilling.
Add to this cores, there should be a mechanism for this as well, I didnt like how EU2 only handed out cores to simulate history, when the EU games are all about alternate history.
anti_strunt said:
Well, was culture really that important back then to warrant such a big penalty for having "wrong" culture? Natiosn were given cultures over lands they still didnt control to promote "historic" expansion. Oh no, dont go that way, you dont have the culture!
Maybe that could be done by introducing cultural policy settings? Like e.g. choosing whether you want be tolerant cultural or religious minorities within your borders, to oppress them, or whether to "make a good sweep for the glory of god".Galleblære said:
I was just about to bring this up myself. There will probably(hopefullyArilou said:
) be more religions, and I was wondering what guesses people had. Perhaps Shinto, a Buddhist or Hindu (or both) split of some sort, etc.?
Agreed. This quite irked me when I tried to model Southeast Asia in EU II. So many Christian religions, but only ONE Buddhism!Arilou said:
I hope they allow you to have a some thing simmilar to Colonising in EU2 but for culture conv4resion to to send your people to this or that province, instead of spread etc.
i.e. you get 6 Migrators and each lot if 100-1000 people reading to go and be sent were you want.
i.e. you get 6 Migrators and each lot if 100-1000 people reading to go and be sent were you want.
Arilou said:
I love this idea - culture was always one of the most intriguing parts of the game for me, but I hated how stiff and unflexible it was. Some sort of dynamic culture shift system, and a more in depth look at culture itself, would be near the top of my EU3 wishlist.
This could also add a new facet to colonialism. Instead of having colonial population growth bonuses more or less set in stone, I'd like to see a migration system that can work together with a culture shift system. For example, two adjacent provinces in Europe might have some degree of population exchange, perhaps dependent on relative prosperity of provinces, conditions and policies of their respective nations, etc. And the great prosperity of some colonies could influence some population to migrate from Europe, bringing their culture with them.
I know this sounds like Victoria's POP system, but I'd like to see it more 'continuous' (?) as opposed to the blatant discreteness of POPs.
magicpiper97 said:
Yup, some sort of dynamic process is definetly needed.. in this area EU1 was actually more realistic than EU2.. you put your tolerance for muslims to a minimum, and the population in that provinces is reduced through uprisings, until it went bellow 5000, and you sent in a colonist changing the religion to yours.
Of course in EU3 it should be possible to do the same in a more obvious and less bloody way. In any case, I think the importance of culture should be toned down in favour of religion, in EU2 there had equal importance IIRC. If some small village was left alone, and paid their taxes, they wouldn't make a big fuss over being lorded over by a french, german or english King. Of course, if the King suddenly was a muslim, it might change things..
Markusw7 said:
Not to mention endless debates in the forums that one cultures % is too high or too low.
A majority culture and perhaps a couple minority cultures in existence would be good without opening up potential cans of worms that are even less able to develop solid answers due to lack of statistical data for the timeperiod in much of the world.
Haha. Vicky Vicky Vicky!OHgamer said:
"No. There was 2% of X there. Why isn't it there!"
Here's my take
Culture and religion definitely need to be better portrayed in the game and I agree that it is unnecessary to add the assigned rgo element as victoria. I know for myself the greatest thing about victoria has always been the fact that people are actually portrayed in some way. I do believe that the culture/religion portrayal would have the most important when it comes to troops and colonists. There is nothing that confused me more than when I might have a representative population of 40,000 in a province in EU2, then would have 3000 soliders die in one battle alone, and my population was exactly the same. Just as much as colonists would appear only based on policy settings. Generally speaking, colonists tend to be the bottom of society (atleast in large numbers). Yet when England settles North America, every province is the national culture, religon etc. Rather than Irish, Scottish, catholic, reformed, etc. you end up with anglo-saxon protestant across the board. The most amusing example of the strange culture and religion from EU2, was actually from a converted game of CK (so its really not a comment on the game, as it was never originally meant for that purpose, but does show how the game doesn't really read itself). In CK I had built a large empire out of the Old cuman empire, Russia, Poland, Persia, the middle east, byzantium, north africa and spain. And though the variety of events I had Arab Orthodox as my majority culture. In EU2 I had settled north america to a large extent and saw the option of creating USA as a vassal. So in the amusingness of having a new great nation form from the seeds of this unhistorical beast I had created, I made the states. For some reason the colonies of arab orthodox were suddenly protestant, but still arab... and the USA of course still had the national culture Anglo-saxon. I know this has little to do with the validity of the game itself, its not going to guess stupid events like this could happen. But with a less abstracted populace you could have very interesting and self containing events occur. Russia might colonise western north america with pagan and muslim tribesmen from the eastern steppes, to allow more room for russians at home. And you might see some strange homgenous culture arise in north america from old native stocks and the new stock, that demand soveregnty. You might even be able to do it fairly simply by making the economic power of a province equal its ability to sustain a certain population, and your majority culture would of course get its first dibs (unless for whatever reason you change that), which would then have a pool of unsatisfied people that could be allievated by moving them, or which rebel or whatever. Religion too could cause people to migrate if they are not overly tolerated, regardless of economic success. Hell the more economically successful the better will be their success at colonising somewhere else. You could even have a neat colonial options screen.
"Sire! We have layed claim to Nova Scotia, do you wish to open this land up to settlement?"
"Certainly"
"Which Groups will be allowed?"
1. Cultures; All
2. Religion; Catholic 70% Protestant 30% (you know for maintaining order)
and depending on what is provided to settling people, you will start to see people showing up and settling it... if the rules you provide aren't getting enough you might put some of your treasury to subsidizing people's transfer to certain lands.
If not enough room is available for a certain group, they might get even more annoyed at home.
Yes. A big ol balancing act. I like that.
Culture and religion definitely need to be better portrayed in the game and I agree that it is unnecessary to add the assigned rgo element as victoria. I know for myself the greatest thing about victoria has always been the fact that people are actually portrayed in some way. I do believe that the culture/religion portrayal would have the most important when it comes to troops and colonists. There is nothing that confused me more than when I might have a representative population of 40,000 in a province in EU2, then would have 3000 soliders die in one battle alone, and my population was exactly the same. Just as much as colonists would appear only based on policy settings. Generally speaking, colonists tend to be the bottom of society (atleast in large numbers). Yet when England settles North America, every province is the national culture, religon etc. Rather than Irish, Scottish, catholic, reformed, etc. you end up with anglo-saxon protestant across the board. The most amusing example of the strange culture and religion from EU2, was actually from a converted game of CK (so its really not a comment on the game, as it was never originally meant for that purpose, but does show how the game doesn't really read itself). In CK I had built a large empire out of the Old cuman empire, Russia, Poland, Persia, the middle east, byzantium, north africa and spain. And though the variety of events I had Arab Orthodox as my majority culture. In EU2 I had settled north america to a large extent and saw the option of creating USA as a vassal. So in the amusingness of having a new great nation form from the seeds of this unhistorical beast I had created, I made the states. For some reason the colonies of arab orthodox were suddenly protestant, but still arab... and the USA of course still had the national culture Anglo-saxon. I know this has little to do with the validity of the game itself, its not going to guess stupid events like this could happen. But with a less abstracted populace you could have very interesting and self containing events occur. Russia might colonise western north america with pagan and muslim tribesmen from the eastern steppes, to allow more room for russians at home. And you might see some strange homgenous culture arise in north america from old native stocks and the new stock, that demand soveregnty. You might even be able to do it fairly simply by making the economic power of a province equal its ability to sustain a certain population, and your majority culture would of course get its first dibs (unless for whatever reason you change that), which would then have a pool of unsatisfied people that could be allievated by moving them, or which rebel or whatever. Religion too could cause people to migrate if they are not overly tolerated, regardless of economic success. Hell the more economically successful the better will be their success at colonising somewhere else. You could even have a neat colonial options screen.
"Sire! We have layed claim to Nova Scotia, do you wish to open this land up to settlement?"
"Certainly"
"Which Groups will be allowed?"
1. Cultures; All
2. Religion; Catholic 70% Protestant 30% (you know for maintaining order)
and depending on what is provided to settling people, you will start to see people showing up and settling it... if the rules you provide aren't getting enough you might put some of your treasury to subsidizing people's transfer to certain lands.
If not enough room is available for a certain group, they might get even more annoyed at home.
Yes. A big ol balancing act. I like that.