Or I could go religious, and just convert and have 3 less revolt risk.
humanism is bad, mmm k. Dont be bad.
humanism is bad, mmm k. Dont be bad.
- 3
- 2
Humanism Why?
- Thread starter Zardnaar
- 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.
Hauptman, try conquest of China with religious but without humanism. Good luck.
I was Japan, I was religious. It was going good and then I started conquest of China and that's my only game when I took full religious and full humanist and didn't regret it in the slightest.
I was Japan, I was religious. It was going good and then I started conquest of China and that's my only game when I took full religious and full humanist and didn't regret it in the slightest.
Or I could go religious, and just convert and have 3 less revolt risk.
humanism is bad, mmm k. Dont be bad.
Rather you will have 1 or 2 less unrest as you forgot the -2 unrest that humanist give you. If it is a true religion province you will have +1 unrest so religious is behind in stability even in true religious provinces. Religious also lack anything against humanist culture acceptence, conversion is just to costly.
Yea, Humanism is fully situational. Good pickers are obviously Ottomans as 1st idea, and Poland as 1st or 2nd idea. As they already have culture threshold bonuses, you will get more accepted culture sooner and longer, which means more money, less rebels, and more missionary strength if needed. It also increases your religion unity which is extremely handy at the beginning for both countries.
It used to be good with Russia too, but no longer sure about that with the Tartar culture split. It might be good for Timurids too, but sadly it doesn't help you to reform, so Administrative or Economic is better.
It used to be good with Russia too, but no longer sure about that with the Tartar culture split. It might be good for Timurids too, but sadly it doesn't help you to reform, so Administrative or Economic is better.
Humanism real strength is that it greatly reduce the time it take to stabilize conquered provinces.
I thing I haven't tested but if you have national ideas that reduce the years of nationalism (horde), pick humanism and offensive and get constitutional monarchy you can reduce nationalism to only 5 years, maybe some country could even have zero years of nationalism which would make conquest very easy.
What?
That was using the console to add adm points to buy and fill either religios or humanist. and a comparison of the two (over 2 posts, maybe you missed the first, since they got seperated on pages).
However, there is one flaw in my argument... i did not take into acount all the "-1 tolerance, +1 conversion" edicts I enacted in that game...
So I suppose, it's possible, to have a higher tolerance for wrong religion provinces... However, there is still the penalties to stab cost. as stated before stablty can be a huge drain on your mana pool. every stab hit is one less province you can core. But with religious, stab becomes so cheap, and often, free.
yeh the one game I took it, was mainly for the reduced nationalism (and BROT) because it happened to be right at the same time I got 'nationalism' CB and was about ready to annex europe.
The situation doesn't go down the way you've described it in your posts if you're doing a healthy dose of expansion with a nation that can't keep up with religious unity. Wrong culture/wrong religion/low unity is a big problem especially when you're trying to sit on high OE.
However, the real problem for Humanist is it's not the best solution to deal with any of the resulting problems of your nations. It is very good for enhancing the solution (see Krajzen's post above for a good example), but we all like to think long term. Religious gives me a CB on all my neighbors (especially if I'm Hindu or some small religion where there's limited neighbors) and it also helps me convert more for myself. If I combine that with diplo and/or influence I can then take religious vassals in annex/release situations and now I'm converting faster because they're doing the work for me and dealing with the unrest in the process (and my unity is higher because I don't have those extra wrong religion provinces).
I have had times where I've considered Humanist in a game where I had no plans to take religious, but I've never actually gone that route. In my game as a Nahuatl Irish Minor (50 points spent) I took both Humanist and Religious and still had troubles keeping unity over 80%. However, the fact that most cultures in Western Europe became accepted was a big help. Still, that was very situational.
Humanist do get -2 unrest to all its provinces (religious get -1 unrest in true religion provinces), humanist is not that much about tolerating religion, eventually you do better to convert what you can even as humanist.
Religious make it easier to go to war and have better peace deals thanks to its uber cb. Humanism is all about making the aftermath of a victorious war as little painful as possible.
Humanist allow you to be more aggresive before you get the extream rebel problems.
Religious make it easier to go to war and have better peace deals thanks to its uber cb. Humanism is all about making the aftermath of a victorious war as little painful as possible.
Humanist allow you to be more aggresive before you get the extream rebel problems.
Religious: -4 unrest due to tolerance
Humanist: -1 or -3 due to tolerance, -2 due to local traditions and -5 due to less nationalism if recently conquered
Tolerance is just one part of the equation.
I look back at my posts, and it's begining to look like I'm championing religious or something.
I just wanted to be honest here, I stopped taking that as well (because it doesnt have BROT anymore!~) And now convert more provinces via military means. Then let the AI's do the converting once I force them into reformed via war.
Innovative and economic are more useful to me within the HRE. And both of those kind of stink too. But reduced war exhaustion and autonomy reduction are pretty boss you know.
I just wanted to be honest here, I stopped taking that as well (because it doesnt have BROT anymore!~) And now convert more provinces via military means. Then let the AI's do the converting once I force them into reformed via war.
Innovative and economic are more useful to me within the HRE. And both of those kind of stink too. But reduced war exhaustion and autonomy reduction are pretty boss you know.
Because better, is always better.
that's 2 less revolt risk, even with humanism.
Then of course, there is the reduction to tax rate because "not same religion".
Why do you have only +1 heretic tolerance with Reformed, did you take some decisions to lower it? One of the benefits of Reformed is that you could get +3 Heretic tolerance with either Humanist or certain national ideas and not have to worry about heretic provinces at all since they don't cut off any religious unity at +3. Also you don't suffer ANY province penalties once your tolerance is positive, so there isn't really any point in converting heretic provinces at +3 tolerance unless your main religion's tolerance is at 4 or more. It really all depends on the circumstances on whether Humanist or Religious would be better.
- 1
What annoys me about Humanist is that it gives you -2 revolt risk, whereas religious gives you only +1 tolerance of the true faith. Not only as far as I can tell is TTF objectively worse compared to -RR which applies to all provinces, but the modifier is half as much.
Religious is already powerful enought with its uber cb, not to add in that the tolerance idea also give certain stuff to some religions.
Inability to keep up with religious unity is very situational. In Krajzen's post, he's Japan, which is a rare situation that a religion only has only 100+ base tax in the entire map (I haven't played in Africa so can't comment). So of course when he acquires land from 400+ basetax ming, or even in hindu nation, it is going to affect his religious unity. But the same problem wouldn't be faced by Hindus or Muslims or Christian nations because the overall basetax of these religion provinces is much higher and the nation will expand into these provinces for most part.
Japan is an exception, not the rule.
I've found that vassals have improved in converting religion and in my recent Nagaur game (Hindu), I have an empire stretching from India, Persia, Egypt, Turkey and the HRE. I have 84% religious unity without taking religious or humanist (although most of my HRE land is client states right now) and the only recent rebels that I got were from the 500% OE after annexing most of HRE in a single series of wars.
Humanist is an idea group that looks great on paper, but somehow there is always something more useful than it at given moment. If you're going for rapid conquest game, then you can just pick religious and convert everything yourself, it also gives you CB. And if you are not going for conquest, than you can choose anything you want anyways.
It's even better with Reformed due to not needing to convert heretics.
- 1
It's true that if you only play in the HRE it seems less appealing. You don't have any real number of difficult provinces to convert there, and the Germanic culture group is the largest in the game.
But there are other starts you can play in EU IV
..png){kind=avatar}
The true beauty of the combo is that you'll almost never have revolt problems, even at war, if you use the Stability Fervor. Conquer or diploannex a province? Lower autonomy immediately because you'll almost always have around -11 revolt risk.
For me if you are playing a nation with any + heathen/heretic tolerance and/or using a religion with + tolerance then you are better off going humanist as you will end up with +ve tolerance and therefore never drop below 100% unity meaning you don't need to convert anything. However, if you dont have any tolerance then you are probably better off going religious and mass conversion because if you had gone humanist instead you would still need to convert stuff and wouldn't be able to keep up due to lower missionary strength.