GREAT idea for culture effects!

[unmerged(53074)]

Here I am again, with another great idea for the dev's and future modders:

####

Instead of entirely reworking the cultures-system, you might go around the problematic idea of culture-change-after-a-long-period-of-time.

This could simply be done by SLOWLY, GRADUALLY REDUCING the negative effects that a different culture has on the province finances etc, counting in the relation with the former owner of the province. As soon as a new province with different culture is aquired, it gives a -40% income penalty, from which 10% will be removed each 25th year. A flexible penalty dependant on the relation with the former owner would begin at 30% (-200 relation), and then remove 1% each time relation is improved by 10, and vice versa.

An examply could be as follows:

#Spain has just conquered a province with french culture from France. The cultural difference gives -40% of province income, bad relations to former owner adds -30% to province income. +1 revolt risk for culture, +3 for nationalism, +1 for bad relation with former owner. The Spanish have a relation of -200 with France.

#After 25 years#
Relation with France (former owner) is now -180. Cultural diff now gives -30% income, bad relations -28% income. Nationalism +1 revoltrisk, +1 for culture, +1 for bad relation.

#After 50 years#
Relation with France is now -50. Cultural diff now gives -20% income, bad relations -10% income. Nationalsm +0 revoltrisk, culture +1, bad relation +1.

#After 75 years#
Relation with France is now +180. Cultural diff now gives -10% income, good relations -0% income. Culture +0 revoltrisk, good relation +0. The year '74 being the final year of relations penalty.

#After 100 years#
Relation with France is now -200. Cultural diff now gives -0% income, bad relations -0% income. Culture +0 revoltrisk, bad relation +0. The year '99 being the final year of cultural diff penalty.

####

Now, make me betatester.

 

[Tunch Khan]

How narrowminded of you. What if there are seven French states with two of them having extra state cultures and one having Spanish too and you have different relations with each of them. CTD.

####

No wonder you're not a betatester.

 

[unmerged(53074)]

Now watch it, or I'll circle you down the drain!

What if there are seven French states with two of them having extra state cultures and one having Spanish too and you have different relations with each of them. CTD.

Then it wouldn't matter a pennyworth of difference to me what the six of them did, since I could only have taken the province from one out of the seven!

How unthoughtful of you!

Read the post again, and see if your devolved brain attic can be furnished with such furniture as to understand matters just slightly more complex than your own breathing.

 

[FredricBastiat]

I would rather keep culture how it is. I do not think it is realistic or good for gameplay to make culture change to match goverment.

Culture usually did not change IRL. The Hungarians still aren't Austrians, they lauched many rebellions, eg the one in 1701, long after they had been ruled by Vienna. Neither are Irish Englishmen. Serbs are not Turks nor are Arabs, etc etc. If culture change happens at all, it should be very, very slow and only in areas largely surrounded by the culture it changes into, like Wales or maybe Alsace.

In the game it would just make it easier to rule multi-cultural empires. One of the things I like most about Eu2 is that it provides some challange ruling a multi-cultural emipire. This would move it closer to Civ style lets-take-over-the-world. Even if you got a thirty-year penalty income hit from the a prov you took it just wouldn'y be the same as the long term stab costs you get ruleing a multi-cultural empire now.

I might be more open to the idea of two province cultures in a few cases, like Lorraine (French, German) or Silesia (Polish, German) maybe Wales (Celtic, English). That wouldn't hurt the game so much as most of the world is still wrong culture, but could still simulate reality to show some areas were of mixed culture enough to accept rulers of either sort. It might also cut down on Balkans quarrels.


EDIT: And you will get nowhere insulting people. Your idea may be good, and it may not be, but calling people names will not make them like you or your ideas any more.

 

[riskbreaker86]

the only way i think this could be moddled is with a victoria style pie-chart system where a majority culture becomes subdued because of immigration or emmigration and soon becomes the minority to the owners culture.

 

[unmerged(26270)]

Cultural diff now gives -0% income, bad relations -0% income. Culture +0 revoltrisk, bad relation +0. The year '99 being the final year of cultural diff penalty.

Cultures don't really work that way. Its very hard to eradicate a national culture
This a bit outside of EU timeframe but it is a good demonstration.

In 1793 Prussia acquired Poznan region (Wielkopolska).
First Wielkopolska Uprising (1794)
Second Wielkopolska Uprising (1806)
Third Wielkopolska Uprising (1846)
Fourth Wielkopolska Uprising (1848)
Fifth Wielkopolska Uprising (1918–1919)(the succesfull one )

History doesn't side with your proposal
(I listed only those done, not those planned that were crushed by authorities)

 

[jmschaub]

Here I am again, with another great idea for the dev's and future modders:

####

Instead of entirely reworking the cultures-system, you might go around the problematic idea of culture-change-after-a-long-period-of-time.

This could simply be done by SLOWLY, GRADUALLY REDUCING the negative effects that a different culture has on the province finances etc, counting in the relation with the former owner of the province. As soon as a new province with different culture is aquired, it gives a -40% income penalty, from which 10% will be removed each 25th year. A flexible penalty dependant on the relation with the former owner would begin at 30% (-200 relation), and then remove 1% each time relation is improved by 10, and vice versa.

An examply could be as follows:

#Spain has just conquered a province with french culture from France. The cultural difference gives -40% of province income, bad relations to former owner adds -30% to province income. +1 revolt risk for culture, +3 for nationalism, +1 for bad relation with former owner. The Spanish have a relation of -200 with France.

#After 25 years#
Relation with France (former owner) is now -180. Cultural diff now gives -30% income, bad relations -28% income. Nationalism +1 revoltrisk, +1 for culture, +1 for bad relation.

#After 50 years#
Relation with France is now -50. Cultural diff now gives -20% income, bad relations -10% income. Nationalsm +0 revoltrisk, culture +1, bad relation +1.

#After 75 years#
Relation with France is now +180. Cultural diff now gives -10% income, good relations -0% income. Culture +0 revoltrisk, good relation +0. The year '74 being the final year of relations penalty.

#After 100 years#
Relation with France is now -200. Cultural diff now gives -0% income, bad relations -0% income. Culture +0 revoltrisk, bad relation +0. The year '99 being the final year of cultural diff penalty.

####

Now, make me betatester.

Your time limits are to long.... and this idea or any idea has nothing to do with beta testing. You have a lot to learn

 

[Tunch Khan]

Now watch it, or I'll circle you down the drain!



Then it wouldn't matter a pennyworth of difference to me what the six of them did, since I could only have taken the province from one out of the seven!

How unthoughtful of you!

Read the post again, and see if your devolved brain attic can be furnished with such furniture as to understand matters just slightly more complex than your own breathing.

If placing capital GREAT in front of an idea made it really great, than things would become really easy here wouldn't it? Let me place multiple tumbs down to your comment, and remind you, that even at the beginning of the game, some provinces don't actually belong to that states that own them. So your tiny little province might have recently changed hands three times within the past thirty years. Loyalties had very different meanings in the feudal Europe than your sophisticated higher self has been lead to believe.

 

[unmerged(53074)]

I would rather keep culture how it is. I do not think it is realistic or good for gameplay to make culture change to match goverment.

Well, it might not be - but look at it this way; can you tell me, that Holstein - after being annexed by e.g. Denmark 1419 - still gives penalties in income and revoltrisk 100, 200 or 300 years after? I think it not possible.

Province income was largely dependent on fishermen, peasants and craftsmen. Are you trying to tell me, that the grandsons and -daughters of those fishermen, peasants and craftsmen inhabiting Holstein in 1519, will still try to cheat with the taxes, still refuse to abide Danish law, still have trouble understanding the language of the Danish officials? I think not.

The establishment of law, routine and order in a newly aquired province will of course be cause to much trouble in the beginning, but gradually it will decline. There is no reason to think that the peasants will be more likely to revolt because they speak Danish with a slightly different accent, and no basis for a permanent penalty because of this - and thus, it should not be in the game.

Culture usually did not change IRL. The Hungarians still aren't Austrians, they lauched many rebellions, eg the one in 1701, long after they had been ruled by Vienna. Neither are Irish Englishmen. Serbs are not Turks nor are Arabs, etc etc. If culture change happens at all, it should be very, very slow and only in areas largely surrounded by the culture it changes into, like Wales or maybe Alsace.

What is this 1701 revolt you speak of? I hope not that you would endeavour to claim that the Hungarian revolts of 1703 was a result of cultural differences, rather than it was a result of the country being at first devastated by the ravaging Turks, then having their elective monarchy disbanded, then being taxed heavily to pay the costs of war with the Ottomans, then seeing the nobility being replaced with foreigners as a part of a crazy bishop's plan to Germanize all of Hungary, and at last witnessing the slaughter of the religious minorities and political opponents. To think that cultures have not changed during the course of history would be a grave error, since not so few examples would prove you wrong in your beliefs.

However, it is of no importance to my idea at all, since I make no claim that cultures will nescessarily change - only that people adapt to the new conditions under which they are situated, in their desire to prevail.

You might though be right in your point about the amount of time it must take before these rebellious tendencies finally die. That is a matter of playtesting, but somewhere between 100 and 150 years would be my judgement.

In the game it would just make it easier to rule multi-cultural empires. One of the things I like most about Eu2 is that it provides some challange ruling a multi-cultural emipire.

I think that, for the sake of realism, this challenge (that was ideed a great part of the game) has to be built into the game via other channels.

What these other elements might be, and how to make it challenging to run a multicultural empire, is a matter of time and balancing. Special events and options might be available when you gain a specific number of provinces or cultures, to trigger a kind of imperial government to fit the challenge. By the way, there is no point in speaking about a 'multicultural' empire - except, of course, that you can name me any empire which was not in it's essence multicultural.

However, I do not think that the cultural elements are insignificant enough to be left alone for the sake of impirical gameplay - that might, in my opinion, be fixed via other channels.

I might be more open to the idea of two province cultures in a few cases, like Lorraine (French, German) or Silesia (Polish, German) maybe Wales (Celtic, English). That wouldn't hurt the game so much as most of the world is still wrong culture, but could still simulate reality to show some areas were of mixed culture enough to accept rulers of either sort. It might also cut down on Balkans quarrels.

I also think that is a brilliant proposition - although it must remain very limited in number of provinces, to prevent destruction of gameplay.

And you will get nowhere insulting people.

It is not I who insult people, It is their replies that insult me.

 

[unmerged(26270)]

1419 - still gives penalties in income and revoltrisk 100, 200 or 300 years after? I think it not possible.

Well Silesia was lost by Poland in 1348.
Poles in Silesia revolted in 1919.
That makes it 571 years.
Cheers

 

[unmerged(53074)]

even at the beginning of the game, some provinces don't actually belong to that states that own them. So your tiny little province might have recently changed hands three times within the past thirty years.

It doesn't matter! It is of course obvious that the penalty should be reset to the original percentage each time it changes hands, and the penalty appears always in all times UNLESS you meet the one condition: that you posess as state culture the culture of the province. So simple.

By the way, this excellent feature also makes it impossible to switch a French cultured province to a German one in the nominated time, and then let it be conquered without penalty from any nation with german as state culture.

Loyalties had very different meanings in the feudal Europe than your sophisticated higher self has been lead to believe.

So much more the reason to implement the penalty - no doubt the peasants also got tired of being tossed around all the time. The natural reaction to that would be rebellion, or formation of an independent duchy or state, would it not?

Loyalties also had very different meanings in the 18th century. The swift dawn of nationalism made the core provinces strenghten their ties to the crown. Therefore, some special arrangement could be made in that direction around the year 1700, in the form of events and the like.

Come on, agree with me; this system is excellent and more realistic than the old one, and your constructive critique makes me think even more so. Do not think badly of my arrogant kind of expression, I apologize, but it makes me annoyed when people ask stupid questions, and being only 18 I still have a lot to learn.

If placing capital GREAT in front of an idea made it really great, than things would become really easy here wouldn't it?

If my idea wasn't as great as I said it was I wouldn't place a capital GREAT in front of it.

 

[unmerged(26270)]

So much more the reason to implement the penalty - no doubt the peasants also got tired of being tossed around all the time.

Except of course the times when their lords spoke different language, worshipped different religion and were from different ethnic group.

Come on, agree with me; this system is excellent and more realistic than the old one,

Your system is competely in conflict with historic examples of ethnic and national conflicts.

 

[unmerged(11796)]

Loyalties also had very different meanings in the 18th century. The swift dawn of nationalism...

Nationalism only really got going in the 19th century...

If my idea wasn't as great as I said it was I wouldn't place a capital GREAT in front of it.

There is a difference between an egoist and an egocentric, you are both...

 

[unmerged(26270)]

Nationalism only really got going in the 19th century...

Ethnic conflicts are different matter.

 

[FredricBastiat]

Well, it might not be - but look at it this way; can you tell me, that Holstein - after being annexed by e.g. Denmark 1419 - still gives penalties in income and revoltrisk 100, 200 or 300 years after? I think it not possible.

Province income was largely dependent on fishermen, peasants and craftsmen. Are you trying to tell me, that the grandsons and -daughters of those fishermen, peasants and craftsmen inhabiting Holstein in 1519, will still try to cheat with the taxes, still refuse to abide Danish law, still have trouble understanding the language of the Danish officials? I think not.

Not in Holstien, but in Poland, Ireland, Hungary, and arguably Bohemia, amoung others, such tensions remained for much longer than 30 years. As our good Pole molobo (or so I presume, from the flag and the ready recitation of Polish history ) Poles stayed Polish after many years of Russian etc rule. That Irish are not Englishmen few will dispute. I think Holstein is decent candidate for the two culture treatment, but I do not think all peoples acted as they did.

establishment of law, routine and order in a newly aquired province will of course be cause to much trouble in the beginning, but gradually it will decline. There is no reason to think that the peasants will be more likely to revolt because they speak Danish with a slightly different accent, and no basis for a permanent penalty because of this - and thus, it should not be in the game.

Thats what nationalism is.

What is this 1701 revolt you speak of? I hope not that you would endeavour to claim that the Hungarian revolts of 1703 was a result of cultural differences, rather than it was a result of the country being at first devastated by the ravaging Turks, then having their elective monarchy disbanded, then being taxed heavily to pay the costs of war with the Ottomans, then seeing the nobility being replaced with foreigners as a part of a crazy bishop's plan to Germanize all of Hungary, and at last witnessing the slaughter of the religious minorities and political opponents. To think that cultures have not changed during the course of history would be a grave error, since not so few examples would prove you wrong in your beliefs.

However, it is of no importance to my idea at all, since I make no claim that cultures will nescessarily change - only that people adapt to the new conditions under which they are situated, in their desire to prevail.

Oops, that was 1703. o My Hungarian history could use some polishing, it would seem. Anyway, culture is not a sole reason, it is a contributor. In EUII you can rule wrong-culture provs with 0 RR, but they tend to rebel more if something does go wrong. Also they increase stab costs, and I think that very important to gameplay.


In the long and short, ethnic relations are a touchy subject with no hard rules. A group can tamely submit or get equal representation in the ruling class, like the Finns under Swedish rule. Or ethnic fights can fester forever, like in Ireland. But when quarrels break out for whatever reason, violence tends to start sooner and last longer if the two parties come from differant cultures. That is why I like the +1 RR for differant culture. You can rule differant cultures peacefully enough when stab is high and everything is going well, but the underlaying tensions never really go away. Periods of 30+ years between major rebellions are not uncommon in Ireland or Poland, but they always come around again.

 

[unmerged(53074)]

Cheers

Well Silesia was lost by Poland in 1348.
Poles in Silesia revolted in 1919.
That makes it 571 years.

What a remarkably ignorant reply. The reasons will be outlined so that even the most imbecile of persons may understand it:

Cultures don't really work that way. Its very hard to eradicate a national culture. This a bit outside of EU timeframe but it is a good demonstration.

In 1793 Prussia acquired Poznan region (Wielkopolska).
First Wielkopolska Uprising (1794)
Second Wielkopolska Uprising (1806)
Third Wielkopolska Uprising (1846)
Fourth Wielkopolska Uprising (1848)
Fifth Wielkopolska Uprising (1918–1919)(the succesfull one )

History doesn't side with your proposal

That is, just exactly, NOT a good demonstration of whatever point you are trying to make. It might be turned into a FAQ in what to AVOID when emphasizing an opinion.

First of all, a little thing occured in the latter half of the 18th century, that would continue to grow until it's culmination in 1914: Nationalism.

Nationalism as we know it from the World Wars and various strifes of the 19th century did NOT, and I repeat, NOT exist in the 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th centuries. Some cultural bonds were definetely present, but they were not stronger than could easily be broken. The Wielkopolska-example actually talks against your own theory. There were in the EU timeframe no such thing as a 'national culture' (something slightly similar might though have been present in the largest of the nations in the 17th century) simply because no nations were large, centralized or economically developed enough to rally an entire nation under one banner.

The industrialization was the reason of the nationalism (and thereby the revolution) in France, since it actually enabled the French people to create a large, nationalist and centralzed state. England got the same opportunity, but instead succeeded in making the King the symbol of the nation instead of it's enemy, as were the case in France.

This nationalism had not been seen before, and in 1800 it would not matter if England conquered Normandy in it's entirety from France, since the French provinces and peoples would feel themselves bonded to the absolute of the nation, and thus belong to no other. With the levée en masse of 1793, the road was cleared for the grandscale warfare that Europe was to experience to so large an extent.

And remark, dear friend, that no territories have been seceded in any of the great wars since, that did not have a split population, a split culture or a split nationality. It would have been impossible for France to receive any other part of Germany than Alsace-Lorraine, because nationalism prevented otherwise.

History works FOR my idea, and you had better learn your lesson.

 

[unmerged(53074)]

Nationalim only really got going in the 19th century...

As you might find it described in my post above. However, the first national anthems were written in the 18th century, and if the French Revolution is not an act of nationalism I do not know what is.

There is a difference between an egoist and an egocentric, you are both...

There is a difference between being clever and intelligent - you are neither.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

A more friendlier tone would be much more appreciated, calling people all kinds of names is against forum rules and in fact against rules of any civilized society.

And btw the Dutch national anthem (Het Wilhelmus) was written in the 16th century

 

[Brasidas]

Regardless of your interpretations of history and the plausibility your extrapolations of historical trends into game mechanics, its not going to go anywhere with your direct personal insults towards forum members who had previously behaved in a calm and reasonable response in their posts.

It may have started with a pun on policy sliders and escalated from there, but the first comment upon it by others was in no way a slight. It blew up, and the thread ceased to be worthwhile.

 

[unmerged(53074)]

Arh, perhaps it is time to leave the moral officer in the drawer and get to the point, will you?

I am much excited to hear everyones opinion, and wait to see if more clever replies will pop up...