Great demo. Too bad culture is a joke

[Belissarius]

Absolutely.


While you are right on many things with regards to culture flipping in EU4, these are not the particular costs - apart from the last one - that truly makes mass culture conversion in non-overseas territory such a remarkably bad idea compared to the alternatives.

Since cores cost AMP and culture costs DMP, your ability to core provinces and flip culture are not directly connected. Likewise, religious conversion does not cost DMP, it costs missionary time. Now, an argument could be made that since culture conversion requires prior coring and religious conversion, these are added costs to culture conversion.

My bad I misread the cost in the demo. And I thought there was a MP cost to missionaries but I guess that was another mistake I'll chalk up to having played only 2 demo games. One of which I learned the hard way EU3 tactics do not work anymore. lol.

However, consider the following: You will always want to core every single non-overseas conquest without fail unless you are attempting a world conquest, because overextension sucks. At 100% or below you get annoying modifiers hurting you in many small ways (and big ways if you rely on trade), above 100% it gets nastier. There is absolutely nothing wrong with racking up high overextension during conquest, but I can assure you that players will want to get rid of it rather than live with it, unless they have effectively given up on controlling it. So one way or another, you are going to core your conquests if you think you will be able to hang on to them for a while.

Yes I concluded that which is why I mistakenly stated culture flipping impacted your ability expand as it reduced the pool of points to core with. Obviously that is wrong.

With respects to religious conversion, you will always want to keep every single missionary you have got active all the time so long as you have provinces to convert, because there is no benefit whatsoever to having a missionary-envoy inactive when he could be active, and there is a great benefit to be had from religious conversion.

Is there any reasoning why they decided to make missionaries cost free with regards to MPs?

So, having argued - for non-overseas territory mind you - that the preconditions for cultural conversion (coring and religious conversion) shouldn't rightly be considered part of the cost of cultural conversion, why is it that I nevertheless agree with you that a person should have his head examined if he goes on a spree of mass cultural conversion non-overseas?

To put it at its most simple, mass conversions of non-overseas territory may seem attractive because it is cheap in ducats (0d - things just don't get cheapter than that! ) and has an immediate reward in getting rid of the non-accepted culture penalties (which, as argued in my previous post are not actually that bad), but it significantly harms your economy in the long term and limits your opportunities.

What mass culture conversion costs you is the opportunity cost of not spending the DMP on unjustified demands in war (as you mentioned), direct reduction of war exhaustion (seldom a major drain on DMP but a nice option to have available when things go pear-shaped), naval buildings, trade buildings, and some extremely important idea groups. It may even cost you expansion opportunities if you take it to the degree that you culture convert conquests rather than taking Exploration or Expansion when your country is otherwise in a position to significantly benefit from doing so.

Regardless of whether your goal is guns or steel, you gain most bang for the buck in EU4 by building a rock-solid economy and using that to spam the buildings appropriate to your goal everywhere in your realm. Manpower, in particular, so important to a warmonger, is to be found as much in province improvements as it is found in territorial expansion, and the manpower gained from having an economy that can afford to spam the manpower province improvements everywhere dwarfs the gains of culture converting provinces. And I really ought to write a small guide on manpower if nobody else can be bothered.

Ironically I think EU3 vets will have the hardest time adjusting to the new manpower system. I love it myself and I have to relearn things but I find the systems in place create viable strategies that were inferior in EU3. Loans and mercs being the most obvious. Loans are not the "WTF are you doing noob?" move anymore. And mercs are a key way to preserve manpower, even for larger nations.

I like how combat is so much more unforgiving then it was before in terms of manpower. This makes the strategy of sometimes giving up a province or two in a war a sound strategy vs fighting a slugfest for 3 years to obtain a white peace. Better to take the hit and preserve your army then fight it out and drain yourself so you are vulnerable to attacks from nations lying in wait for a weakness. This appears to create far more depth to the game.

Of course, if one gets genius diplomatic monarchs time and time again it is possible that one will be able to get everything of the above including tech and have points to spare, in which case cultural conversion is in as a nice DMP dump. Likewise, if one plays a small country that stays small (only advised for singleplayer ), one can very well run into the surplus DMP situation and decide to culture convert rather than waste points. And finally, if one plays a country that is deliberately crippling its own tech progress in order to fall behind so as to westernize, there might be DMP to spare than cannot be spent otherwise.

But these are all special case and not generally applicable.

May I be so lucky as to have a 6 diplomatic monarch. I predict temporary insanity events in my future not 6 diplomatic monarchs.

For overseas it is simpler - if it is your core and your religion and you do not foresee it being lost in war shortly, culture convert it. With the 80% cost reduction and most overseas provinces having low taxvalues, there really is little reason not to.

I agree.

This said I don't think North Africa should be viewed as "overseas" to European nations. But that is a needed tweak not indicative of a system flaw.

 

[Belissarius]

Missionaries don't consume points. They consume money (and are tied up for months or years at a time).

Yes I have been made aware of my error and acknowledged it. cheers.

 

[grommile]

Is there any reasoning why they decided to make missionaries cost free with regards to MPs?

Deploying missionaries is free in points, but costs money (and takes time to be effective) and if you haven't taken religious ideas or decisions, you only have one missionary. Things that improve your Missionary Strength or give you more Missionaries have their own costs in points and/or opportunity (for example, as a Muslim country you can go for positive Piety to improve your missionary strength, but that means you can't at the same time go for negative Piety to improve your tech rate, manpower, and taxes).

 

[Red_warning]

I'm interested in mechanical balance over sentimental fluff - these are really two separate issues, and I'm only interested in one of them, sorries

This is a game that aims for historicity, so being able to turn Finland entirely Swedish in 10 years is just something that really bothers me.

 

[Belissarius]

Deploying missionaries is free in points, but costs money (and takes time to be effective) and if you haven't taken religious ideas or decisions, you only have one missionary. Things that improve your Missionary Strength or give you more Missionaries have their own costs in points and/or opportunity (for example, as a Muslim country you can go for positive Piety to improve your missionary strength, but that means you can't at the same time go for negative Piety to improve your tech rate, manpower, and taxes).

So the reason why missionaries are free MP wise is because they cost money and it costs MPs to improve their strength?

I'm not sure I follow that reasoning. Buildings cost money and MPs, it costs MPs to unlock the ability to actually have buildings become available as well. Yet it still cost you MP along with cash to build them.

Piety, that effects only 1 religious group doesn't see sufficient reason to eliminate the cost of missionaries[Again speaking in terms of MPs not ducats]. But I am sure it can be tweaked if required.

 

[Belissarius]

This is a game that aims for historicity, so being able to turn Finland entirely Swedish in 10 years is just something that really bothers me.

Then don't do it.

No one is forcing you to do so.

And this game only aims to be plausible. Its a game not a simulation. There are enough examples of culture changing to warrant the ability to change cultures in the game. Its a game the whole point of playing the game is to be ahistorical.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Is there any reasoning why they decided to make missionaries cost free with regards to MPs?

I don't know the reasoning, but my assumption is that it is because making a new game gave them the chance to overhaul the old design in favour of something conceptually stronger, where the up-front cost for all envoys is the same - TIME - using a severely limited resource that cannot be accumulated in storage (number of envoys). You can see how this works out well with diplomats, merchants, missionaries, and colonists - you are free to assign them wherever you want to, the cost is the opportunity cost of time in not having them deployed elsewhere for the duration.

OTOH, actions that do not require envoys always have up-front costs in ducats or monarch power (resources that accumulate and can be saved), and are limited in number by your stored resources.

Of course, the effect of deploying envoys can increase or decrease stored resources, missionaries are funded while they convert and you can change that funding on the fly, diplomats might be sent to make peace treaties (costing time) but the actual peace treaty has wildly different costs, merchants deployed increase income, etc.

Since I like clean design decisions with clear separation of cause, cost, and effect, I vastly prefer this system. Those envoys are not part of a huge faceless bureaucracy - they are the elite, few in number, individuals with important jobs to do.

When they said that EU4 was a major revamp of the series they were not lying. A lot of the game mechanisms that had accumulated along the way without working all that well together were jettisoned in favour of a new more consistent design using new abstractions to reflect the same underlying issues. Needless to say, this new design also has its own weaknesses and will be almost certainly be watered out in subsequent DLC/expansions as new mechanisms are bolted on, but, for now, we have a remarkably consistent design to play from.

 

[eranam]

Then don't do it.

No one is forcing you to do so.

And this game only aims to be plausible. Its a game not a simulation. There are enough examples of culture changing to warrant the ability to change cultures in the game. Its a game the whole point of playing the game is to be ahistorical.

Wow, so many fallacies here:
The "If you don't like it then don't it" is one for instance. If it's an integral part of the balance of the game, and is meant to be used, then I have to use whether I like it or not in order not to cripple myself. I both crappy in terms of gameplay, and ahistorical since that means choosing a crappy option

The point of playing the game isn't to be ahistorical. Or at least not the ahistoricity that is complained about here. It is about changing the world history, however doing so, using all the historical context. The ahistoricity complained about here is that I can convert all of Finland's culture in decades, not that as Sweden I can declare war on Denmark in 1661 even if no war had taken place at that exact moment.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Then don't do it.

No one is forcing you to do so.

And this game only aims to be plausible. Its a game not a simulation. There are enough examples of culture changing to warrant the ability to change cultures in the game. Its a game the whole point of playing the game is to be ahistorical.

I didn't realise the whole point of playing the EU series was 'to be ahistorical'. Of course all bets are off as soon as the clock starts running but if the game doesn't reflect the realities and limitations of the age then we're playing Renaissance Risk.

Of course I don't HAVE to use it. I can take my England and scrupulously leave Ireland largely Catholic and Irish till the end of the game. But the AI will still Islamise the Balkans in the 15th century if I don't make it my business to prevent it. It breaks immersion and promotes the same snowball effect that differing cultures and religions were put there to hinder in the first place.

 

[Waar]

however[/U] doing so, using all the historical context. The ahistoricity complained about here is that I can convert all of Finland's culture in decades, not that as Sweden I can declare war on Denmark in 1661 even if no war had taken place at that exact moment.

Sure, turning Finland swedish in a few decades might seem ahistorical, but if you consider that
a) it cost you a lot of diplomatic points
b) Sweden gains approximately no benefit from doing it
c) Sweden did just that to halland and skåne
It dosen't seem to ahistorical for Sweden to have the abillity to do so, (wheter they actually should use that abillity, and wheter the same could be said about turning north africa iberian, are separate concerns)

 

[Hootieleece]

Culture has been trivialized and converting to your Culture is to easy in BOTH CK2 and EUIV. It was easy in EU3 also just a RNG and some luck.....but there were enough complaints about it taking too long that they made it easy.

If they at least put in something akin to the New Administration penalties and put penalties for different Culture from CK2 in that made it harder to convert for the first 20-50 years even with a core. I think that would go along way to not making early expansion a No Brainer and make the Mon points decisions more Strategic and critical to success.

Changing a provinces Culture/religion should be a MAJOR undertaking.......

 

[Red_warning]

Sure, turning Finland swedish in a few decades might seem ahistorical, but if you consider that
a) it cost you a lot of diplomatic points
b) Sweden gains approximately no benefit from doing it
c) Sweden did just that to halland and skåne
It dosen't seem to ahistorical for Sweden to have the abillity to do so, (wheter they actually should use that abillity, and wheter the same could be said about turning north africa iberian, are separate concerns)

Converting Finnish provinces to Swedish culture will be dirt cheap due to their low tax base. On the other hand converting Skåneland will be expensive due to their relatively high tax value, and since Danish is in the same culture group as Swedish the player might decide to entirely ignore conversion.

So ironically you end up with a situation in the game that is entirely reversed version of reality, with Finnish culture gone in in Finland and Scanians staying Danish...

 

[Galleblære]

I don't know the reasoning, but my assumption is that it is because making a new game gave them the chance to overhaul the old design in favour of something conceptually stronger, where the up-front cost for all envoys is the same - TIME - using a severely limited resource that cannot be accumulated in storage (number of envoys). You can see how this works out well with diplomats, merchants, missionaries, and colonists - you are free to assign them wherever you want to, the cost is the opportunity cost of time in not having them deployed elsewhere for the duration.

OTOH, actions that do not require envoys always have up-front costs in ducats or monarch power (resources that accumulate and can be saved), and are limited in number by your stored resources.

Of course, the effect of deploying envoys can increase or decrease stored resources, missionaries are funded while they convert and you can change that funding on the fly, diplomats might be sent to make peace treaties (costing time) but the actual peace treaty has wildly different costs, merchants deployed increase income, etc.

Since I like clean design decisions with clear separation of cause, cost, and effect, I vastly prefer this system. Those envoys are not part of a huge faceless bureaucracy - they are the elite, few in number, individuals with important jobs to do.

When they said that EU4 was a major revamp of the series they were not lying. A lot of the game mechanisms that had accumulated along the way without working all that well together were jettisoned in favour of a new more consistent design using new abstractions to reflect the same underlying issues. Needless to say, this new design also has its own weaknesses and will be almost certainly be watered out in subsequent DLC/expansions as new mechanisms are bolted on, but, for now, we have a remarkably consistent design to play from.

I really like what they have tried here, yes. Managing your nation truly is a long term strategic choice now. No more just waiting spending money as soon as its available or spamming colonists, missionaries etc. So I think this will give the games more longevity and keep them interesting. I don't think I ever finished an EU2 game... about 200-300 years into the game I was usually so powerful that there was no point playing further. To address the OP... well its a choice. Do you waste decades of technological and idea advancement in order to create a culturally unified and cored state in Europe? (As Austria, I think it costs several hundred points just to change the culture of the Dutch/Belgian provinces) Maybe it will be worth it in the long run, as you will be able to stay in deadly wars for a longer time and sustain bigger losses without the entire country revolting... but on the other hand, with the tech advaces you could have focused on instead you might not have run into those deadly wars, but would be smacking around your enemies with your massive doomstacks.

However, as you say, I am sure there are weaknesses. I can imagine players saving up loads of points to rush certain techs/ideas that make actions cheaper (Core generation, stability cost and so on) and min maxing it that way.

 

[unmerged(416135)]

The Tatars were never genocided. When Moscow annexed the Crimean Khanate in the 1700's, they did an informal census and discovered that the majority of the population was Ruthenian (Slavic). Tatar culture (in the sense of Ghenis Khan) was arguably never a majority anywhere except in the port cities like Caffa.




As well it begs the question 'who is a Tatar' 'what is a Tatar'. The Asiatic stereotype of Tatars aside, many of the Tatars that were annexed by Moscow / Russia were technically descendents of Cumans and Volga Bulgurs and they were of Europid appearance. The Tatars who look Asian today, had probably intermixed with the Mongols (and other Asian people) and thus they were less likely to assimilate than say an archtypical Cuman (who were known for blonde hair and blue eyes, and they were probably all assimilated into the Hungarian / Ukrainian / Bulgarian / Russian identity).

I think other posters touched on this but it's easer to convert and assimilate people who look like you, as last resort you can always trick them into believing that they were always one of your people. . it's a whole different story with Asiatic, African or North African (Mediterranean) people.

 

[Waar]

Converting Finnish provinces to Swedish culture will be dirt cheap due to their low tax base. On the other hand converting Skåneland will be expensive due to their relatively high tax value, and since Danish is in the same culture group as Swedish the player might decide to entirely ignore conversion.

So ironically you end up with a situation in the game that is entirely reversed version of reality, with Finnish culture gone in in Finland and Scanians staying Danish...

Since finnish will probably be an accepted culture for Sweden that seems very unlikely, additionally the conversion of skåne, halland and that new province not only depends on whether this will weaken Denmark/reduce the risk of reconquest in addition to how difficult it is to get danish as an accepted culture.
Note that if you pursue a goal of unifying scandinavia then yes, finnish culture will problably be at risk.

 

[TheLionHeart]

Converting ones in the same group should be at the same level as it is now. But if the culture is a far-different culture like say Persian then it should take way longer.

 

[Fashbinder]

Let see, you spend 25 dip point per province... congratulation, you just wasted 1 technology toward culture conversion !

You'll find the "Ahead penalty" of +50 - +100% cost kicks in quite quickly. Its almost as if you HAVE to get and max every idea and convert every provence or you're just wasting points.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

The point of playing the game isn't to be ahistorical. Or at least not the ahistoricity that is complained about here. It is about changing the world history, however doing so, using all the historical context. The ahistoricity complained about here is that I can convert all of Finland's culture in decades, not that as Sweden I can declare war on Denmark in 1661 even if no war had taken place at that exact moment.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that historically it only took a single generation to convert* the Scanian provinces once the Swedish king decided to get tough about it, if you use the word "conversion" to match the EU4 game action.

Historically the policy of conversion continued until the 19th century, but to achieve the results that correspond to the gameplay effects of conversion in EU4, getting rid of revolt risk, income penalties, etc. took a single generation from 1680. The Scanians, who had been as Danish as any and rallied to the crown in the Scanian war of 1675-1679, were subjected to intense conversion efforts subsequently by church and state and by the time of the Great Nordic War a generation later, the surviving Scanians were loyal Swedes. Sure, they were still considered different from other Swedes, just like Swedes from different regions all had their separate cultural characteristics, but in regard to the gameplay effects represented by cultures in EU4, they were as Swedish as anybody.

It seems to me - and perhaps I am wrong - that many of those discussing cultural conversion in this thread are not thinking in terms of the actual gameplay effects and what different cultures represent in game, but rather in terms of the ability to distinguish between people by culture even when it has no significant effects that would be represented in game and when considering them distinct would result in negative modifiers being applied when they, in historical terms, should not be.

 

[roerd]

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that historically it only took a single generation to convert* the Scanian provinces once the Swedish king decided to get tough about it, if you use the word "conversion" to match the EU4 game action.

Historically the policy of conversion continued until the 19th century, but to achieve the results that correspond to the gameplay effects of conversion in EU4, getting rid of revolt risk, income penalties, etc. took a single generation from 1680. The Scanians, who had been as Danish as any and rallied to the crown in the Scanian war of 1675-1679, were subjected to intense conversion efforts subsequently by church and state and by the time of the Great Nordic War a generation later, the surviving Scanians were loyal Swedes. Sure, they were still considered different from other Swedes, just like Swedes from different regions all had their separate cultural characteristics, but in regard to the gameplay effects represented by cultures in EU4, they were as Swedish as anybody.

It seems to me - and perhaps I am wrong - that many of those discussing cultural conversion in this thread are not thinking in terms of the actual gameplay effects and what different cultures represent in game, but rather in terms of the ability to distinguish between people by culture even when it has no significant effects that would be represented in game and when considering them distinct would result in negative modifiers being applied when they, in historical terms, should not be.

Thank you very much, I was going to post something similar and luckily found your post at the end of the thread. People complaining about cultural conversion being far too easy should first think about what it would effectively mean within the EU time period, and only start complaining if their point is till valid after they've taken that into consideration. I'm getting the impression that a lot of people are judging culture in the game by the standards of 19th/20th century nationalism which don't apply to the EU era.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Thank you very much, I was going to post something similar and luckily found your post at the end of the thread. People complaining about cultural conversion being far too easy should first think about what it would effectively mean within the EU time period, and only start complaining if their point is till valid after they've taken that into consideration. I'm getting the impression that a lot of people are judging culture in the game by the standards of 19th/20th century nationalism which don't apply to the EU era.

The example of Skane alone won't cut it. Of hundreds of counterexamples one could name within Europe alone, England put herculean effort into 'assimilating' Ireland by every available means over much of the EU time period, and it was at best a partial success.