Just managed to turn Nigeria Catholic and Portugese in around 15 years. Culture imba?

[Velorian]

Yeah - in Finland. Deeply inhabited region, that one. And EVEN THEN, assimilation was mostly restricted to the coastal area nearest to Åland.

Really, both CK2 and EU4 have an absurdly high rate of assimilation, when in truth it happened very rarely and in very specific situations. The whole system should be scrapped and, if they still had provincial decisions, those would work better. Pity, they don't.

What about Skåne? Not lightly populated that one, though the process cost a fair bit of effort. Definitely intentional conversion. Still in EU4 it's too fast and cheap, but the process itself is not unrealistic.

 

[Alsadius]

What did Paradox base cultural conversion on exactly? Because it certainly wasn't history. After the medieval ages there really wasn't much culture assimilation going on.

When did the Scottish and Irish start speaking English? When did the Bretons and Provencals start speaking French? If I'm not mistaken, the bulk of the change in both cases was in the EU timeframe.

 

[Sun_Wu]

When did the Scottish and Irish start speaking English? When did the Bretons and Provencals start speaking French? If I'm not mistaken, the bulk of the change in both cases was in the EU timeframe.

After 1800 France really started trying to start converting culture, but in 1860 only like 52% of France was actually Francophone.

 

[kemor]

So, I was just rounding out my first play-through of the demo as Portugal when I came across how silly the culture system in the game is. Through my administratively skilled ruler, I managed to core and culturalize the Gold Coast of Africa in a short span of fifteen years. FIFTEEN YEARS was all it took for me to get rid of the African natives and make the area considered as part of Portugal's patrimony.

Does anyone else think this is as unbalanced as I do? I'll never have to worry about revolts in my colonies since:

a) they're not colonies anymore.
b) they're considered Portuguese and Catholic.

My technology wasn't even that impacted; I was the same color as all my fellow neighbors and most of Western Europe. Seems like it could really use some sort of balancing issues, not to mention that it is rather silly that Portugal could displace the Nigerian population in such a quick period...

Seems normal:
1) You didn't do shit to the Nigerian population. You made a fort, maybe a trade town, had a couple people over and started controlling tribes via trade. That's all it took. I'm not sure you understand the juggernauts European countries were back then compared to Africa. I mean..Nigeria in 1400s? Probably took this long because they were among one of the most "advanced" and "organized" but...come on...1400s...Europe...Africa..hello?
2) The Catholic faith just PURGED everything in it's path back then, that's how it worked. Animist/Shamanistic stuff just crumbles before monotheistic and ultra proselyte religions, period (includes Islam of course). Combine that with the cultural juggernauts the Western European nations were (something I think we can't even fathom by today's standards) and there you have it.
3) Things will go to hell via very specific events but no, you won't get "rebellions", there was no rebellion. Take one tribe leader in the area, give him weapons and gold, you own the country for years while he goes on a genocide of other tribes/ethnic groups for you, then feed them to you as slaves. Events might screw you over though, if they are in-game but hopefully it's very, very rare and Africa isn't that far if you need to send troops there to keep things quiet. The Americas though, that's another story because by the time you get there, it's already over.

Now try to do that in Europe (or another developed nation), you'll see how long it takes...


So there you have it, easy, and very historical...

 

[Cynical Dreamer]

After 1800 France really started trying to start converting culture, but in 1860 only like 52% of France was actually Francophone.

Hello,

Yeah... that's a good point. Maybe culture conversion should be replaced by "legitimity" conversion ? After a certain amount of time (a century or more), you're people will recognize your country as their own even with different culture. Having a same culture = huge "legitimity" boost, but acheivable without the culture being the same.

 

[Graspiloot]

Seems normal:
So there and that's why it's so "easy" and it's very historical

If it was so historical, then why aren't Africa and large parts of Asia today Portuguese, British, French, Dutch, etc culture? The only country I could think of that would have had "culture conversion" by EUIV standards is South Africa. Even Hong Kong, which was British 20 years ago cannot be called British culture.

 

[lowdias]

Very simple make it so costly you would not do it.

 

[murlocmancer]

For lords sake Portugal held onto Macau and Goa for so many centuries and they barely made a dent. Honestly cultural change is an ahistoric thing. I think the legitamacy thing makes sense. You can get that culture to accept your nation as the head person in the region.

 

[tapewormlondon]

Can't wait for the full game to come out.....at least the "omg xyz is overpowered, might have at least 70 yrs behind it, rather than a poxy 20"

 

[Garak]

It's way, way too easy to convert culture. Or rather, it's too cheap and too fast.

Full realism may not really be required but spending a single decade to convert a province is so little that it seems absurd (and therefore immersion-breaking) regardless of whether it represents ruling class or everyone. I'd say 25-50 years would be far more reasonable even if still quite a bit too fast for realism.

There is also the issue that very few nations even attempted to do this in real life. Sure this game is about changing history, but maybe there is a reason they didn't do it back then. Maybe it was, I don't know.. DIFFICULT and COSTLY? In my opinion, changing province culture should be sufficiently expensive that it'd almost never be worth it. It'd be an option but not something you'd do often. It should be rare, mostly done out of principle or to switch an especially strategically important province.

It is not too cheap, given what it gets you. Peter Ebbeson explained it quite well in another thread like this, showing how it's basically never worth converting culture outside of colonies. It's there as an option for people who like painting the map another way (i.e. for fun). There's essentially no reason to do it besides personal curiosity/satisfaction.

 

[Westysnipes]

When did the Scottish and Irish start speaking English? When did the Bretons and Provencals start speaking French? If I'm not mistaken, the bulk of the change in both cases was in the EU timeframe.

Are you actually suggesting that both Scots and Irish are Englishmen?

When most people spoke Latin and French as a 'universal' language they didn't suddenly abandon their culture. The culture conversion in this game makes no sense.

 

[Sun_Wu]

If it was so historical, then why aren't Africa and large parts of Asia today Portuguese, British, French, Dutch, etc culture? The only country I could think of that would have had "culture conversion" by EUIV standards is South Africa. Even Hong Kong, which was British 20 years ago cannot be called British culture.

China converted a massive area, European Russia massive, maybe bigger in this timeline.

 

[arcturus42]

I don't have the demo but can someone point me to the text file where this abomination lurks so I can remove assimilation capability altogether when the game is released?

The time (and cost) for culture conversion are in defines.lua in the common folder. For the time it says:

MONTHS_TO_CHANGE_CULTURE = 12, -- How many months it will take to change culture in a province, per basetax.

So it's very easy to mod this.

If you want to remove it altogether you could set the cost to be above the amount of monarch points you can store I'm guessing.

 

[Stratagyfan101]

It shouldn't be 100 years years etc per se.

I'd like a combination of the EUIII system and the EUIV system.

For religious conversion it should cost money to provide for the mission, it should cost Monarch Points, to simulate the investment into the region, and it should give an ANNUAL conversion chance with a base around 3-5 percent. Provinces with higher base taxes would require should be more costly in both points and ducats and have a negative modifier on the conversion chance.

The goal here being you either go Tolerant, increasing tolerance for heretics (max 0) and heathens (max -1) as well as decreasing national RR to appease the minority religion, or you go all in for conversions (maxing your Missionaries and conversion chance as well as decreasing costs).

For culture is should be the same basic principle but harder.

The coring system is okay in my opinion but the base cost should be higher and there should be a monetary cost.

The mean time for a province religion flip should be between 25-75. The mean time for a culture flip should be 50-75 years. The mean time for coring should be 5-20 years (20 being Constantinople level provinces).

I would of course be an advocate for triggered events or even event chains for these actions as well.

Also, does anybody else feel as though Revolt Risk should not just increase in the province being converted but in neighboring or regional provinces with that religion/culture?

My only real issue is the cheap cost, and short times. I'm not against the concept altogether, nor am I for ridiculous times. I just think if you want quick conversion you should have to invest in them with ideas.

 

[Albert I]

After 1800 France really started trying to start converting culture, but in 1860 only like 52% of France was actually Francophone.

But in the game, it's not enough, France is too homogeneous in EU.

There shouldn't be a reason to convert. There were only a handful of examples of intentional government conversion of culture, and those were in cases where a region was depopulated and settlers could be brought in to take up vacant land. Aside from that, mass cultural conversion wasn't something governments did in the Early Modern Period and it shouldn't be something we do in the game.

The settlers are used in the history. I think a good idea the use of settlers as a complement of the colonist. to change the population.

 

[MrLebanon]

I think the problem is with overseas coversion and how even North Africa is considered overseas. North Africa and mainland Asia(I dont know if this is) shouldn't be considered overseas.

This... it makes sense in the Americas from a "realism" standpoint... but not in Africa/Asia

 

[Pokka]

You guys are converting with the opportunity cost of the other place. Just like if a country focus on converting certain provinces. Indeed that can be achieved quickly. But your country might be falling behind in Tech or whatsoever. Let's take a look on the whole picture rather than a single incident.

 

[Incompetent]

When did the Scottish and Irish start speaking English? When did the Bretons and Provencals start speaking French? If I'm not mistaken, the bulk of the change in both cases was in the EU timeframe.

Scots (which is either a dialect of English or a language very closely related to English, depending on who you ask) was the dominant language of Scotland by the 16th century. From the 18th century onwards it started to converge towards 'standard' English, but there was no clearly-defined change from Scots to English in the spoken language as it's all part of one language continuum.

English gradually became more important in Ireland in the latter half of the EU timeframe, with a long period of bilingualism and a gradual spread from east to west. However Irish was still the majority language in Ireland until about 1800, after which the number of speakers fell dramatically.

 

[Alsadius]

After 1800 France really started trying to start converting culture, but in 1860 only like 52% of France was actually Francophone.

I thought the bulk of it was in the Revolutionary period. Was it actually as late as 1860 that it flipped to being a majority? I'd have figured on it being a couple generations earlier.

Are you actually suggesting that both Scots and Irish are Englishmen?

When most people spoke Latin and French as a 'universal' language they didn't suddenly abandon their culture. The culture conversion in this game makes no sense.

They're far closer than they were 1000 years ago. In EU terms, I'd say they have different cultures but they're now in the same culture group, whereas before they weren't.

Scots (which is either a dialect of English or a language very closely related to English, depending on who you ask) was the dominant language of Scotland by the 16th century. From the 18th century onwards it started to converge towards 'standard' English, but there was no clearly-defined change from Scots to English in the spoken language as it's all part of one language continuum.

English gradually became more important in Ireland in the latter half of the EU timeframe, with a long period of bilingualism and a gradual spread from east to west. However Irish was still the majority language in Ireland until about 1800, after which the number of speakers fell dramatically.

That's about what I thought. It's nowhere near as discrete as the EU4 system(hence my comment earlier that I really want a stripped-down POP system), but it's a real process.

 

[Sun_Wu]

Hello,

Yeah... that's a good point. Maybe culture conversion should be replaced by "legitimity" conversion ? After a certain amount of time (a century or more), you're people will recognize your country as their own even with different culture. Having a same culture = huge "legitimity" boost, but acheivable without the culture being the same.

I believe that's called accepted culture.

But in the game, it's not enough, France is too homogeneous in EU.



The settlers are used in the history. I think a good idea the use of settlers as a complement of the colonist. to change the population.

Fixed in MEIOU and Taxes

Scots (which is either a dialect of English or a language very closely related to English, depending on who you ask) was the dominant language of Scotland by the 16th century. From the 18th century onwards it started to converge towards 'standard' English, but there was no clearly-defined change from Scots to English in the spoken language as it's all part of one language continuum.

English gradually became more important in Ireland in the latter half of the EU timeframe, with a long period of bilingualism and a gradual spread from east to west. However Irish was still the majority language in Ireland until about 1800, after which the number of speakers fell dramatically.

Lowland Scots was its own thing in 1400, it still is, just closer

I thought the bulk of it was in the Revolutionary period. Was it actually as late as 1860 that it flipped to being a majority? I'd have figured on it being a couple generations earlier.



They're far closer than they were 1000 years ago. In EU terms, I'd say they have different cultures but they're now in the same culture group, whereas before they weren't.



That's about what I thought. It's nowhere near as discrete as the EU4 system(hence my comment earlier that I really want a stripped-down POP system), but it's a real process.

Nope, even in 1900 a more than a quarter of France spoke Occitan