Mathematics of Religious vs. Humanist

[yerm]

Most of the nations who are going to benefit from it are outside Europe, and therefore don't get cardinals. 5/conversion is completely fine in that case - they can't control the curia, but they can grab some stability or mercantilism or whatever. Otherwise Catholicism is awful for westernizing africans/americans/asians and CNs.

As it stands, catholic is THE worst Christian faith if you're outside Europe. It's pitiful compared to any of the others. The issue is that while the 5/conversion would mean a nice and reasonably balanced bump when these westernizers convert their home to the papacy, it would be brutally overpowered for someone still in Europe, with cardinals, who is plowing into foreign territory and converting in addition to their cardinals back home. Picture PLC, with all the cardinals they tend to accrue anyway in Warsaw, Danzig and Krakow, driving east and converting all those low-bt fields at 5/pop.

 

[Santoes]

As it stands, catholic is THE worst Christian faith if you're outside Europe. It's pitiful compared to any of the others. The issue is that while the 5/conversion would mean a nice and reasonably balanced bump when these westernizers convert their home to the papacy, it would be brutally overpowered for someone still in Europe, with cardinals, who is plowing into foreign territory and converting in addition to their cardinals back home. Picture PLC, with all the cardinals they tend to accrue anyway in Warsaw, Danzig and Krakow, driving east and converting all those low-bt fields at 5/pop.

Poland and Lithuania can get it's stability modifier down pretty low with religion. You're telling me 20 territories for a stability increase is going to be op when they can easily get a 75% or higher discount?

 

[yerm]

Poland and Lithuania can get it's stability modifier down pretty low with religion. You're telling me 20 territories for a stability increase is going to be op when they can easily get a 75% or higher discount?

Poland would buy legitimacy, I assume. Either one can buy mercantilism.

Or they can just blast away at chances on papal controller.

 

[makapse]

Actually,religious CB is vastly overpowered as you can even declare war on big same religious countries with it.I mean i am presently declaring 5 continous wars on timis with ottomans .The trick is to wait till the big countries vassalize a wrong religion country and declare war on that country forcing the big country into war and in the peace deal,make sure that the small country cannot be anexed in the peace time(if needed) by making sure no province of that country can be cored by the big country.

 

[Outrider]

I just want to say that, even though we've gotten nowhere near what I actually was asking for, this whole conversation is fantastic. Keep up the comparisons, everyone!

It seemed like you were asking for a target BT at which point it'd be more efficient to culture convert instead of accept cultures. That's (no offense) not a great question to ask, as one is MP free and the other costs MP. From an MP perspective, one is always cheaper, and thus more efficient, than the other.

The real question to ask is about opportunity cost. The real result of unaccepted culture provinces is:

+unrest, -conversion, -income, -manpower

Since you stated in your OP that you like to expand, your question shouldn't assume a fixed amount of provinces to either accept or not accept, but which one will relatively allow you to succeed at religious conversion/tolerance, have manageable unrest, and have greater manpower and income.

Both allow conversion/tolerance.
Both aid in unrest: religious has TTF and stab bonuses; humanism has -unrest and -nationalism.
Religious helps expand better: Deus Vult > BROT

At the end of the day though, I'd probably base my decision on starting position, gov type, and NIs:

Direct conquest boosting (primarily -coring), I'd go with humanism
Vassal boosting (Diprep, diploannex cost, passive autonomy reduction to help with 75% startpoint), I'd go with religious.

 

[DominusNovus]

It seemed like you were asking for a target BT at which point it'd be more efficient to culture convert instead of accept cultures. That's (no offense) not a great question to ask, as one is MP free and the other costs MP. From an MP perspective, one is always cheaper, and thus more efficient, than the other.

Not the question, actually, though culture was a part of it. Basically, I was just looking to crunch as many numbers as possible.

 

[Incompetent]

Actually,religious CB is vastly overpowered as you can even declare war on big same religious countries with it.I mean i am presently declaring 5 continous wars on timis with ottomans .The trick is to wait till the big countries vassalize a wrong religion country and declare war on that country forcing the big country into war and in the peace deal,make sure that the small country cannot be anexed in the peace time(if needed) by making sure no province of that country can be cored by the big country.

I think there needs to be a rethink of 'justified demands' when it comes to special CBs like Holy War, to stop this sort of nonsense.

 

[Freudia]

I think there needs to be a rethink of 'justified demands' when it comes to special CBs like Holy War, to stop this sort of nonsense.

It's working as intended, though. You're declaring war on a non-same faith target. Just because it's a vassal of a same-faith nation doesn't make that any different, honestly.

Of course the real issue here is needing diplo power to even take a province in a war unless you have very specific CBs. Real fun needing to throw down 800+ diplo power when taking land off a colonial nation.

 

[Incompetent]

It's working as intended, though. You're declaring war on a non-same faith target. Just because it's a vassal of a same-faith nation doesn't make that any different, honestly.

Of course the real issue here is needing diplo power to even take a province in a war unless you have very specific CBs. Real fun needing to throw down 800+ diplo power when taking land off a colonial nation.

It's not working as intended if you're 'justified' in demanding provinces from your true-faith enemy under the pretence of a 'cleansing of heresy'.

The diplo cost for unjustified demands is to penalise countries that start a war on some CB, then make the war about something else entirely. Other Paradox games are much more strict about this, e.g. in CK2 you can only enforce justified demands, and in Victoria 2 you can gradually add war goals as the war progresses, but only if your country is jingoistic enough.

Taking land off a CN ought to be covered by the colonialism CB. I do think there should be some sort of general diplo point discount for overseas land, though, given that it's so much less valuable to the owner.

 

[Freudia]

It's not working as intended if you're 'justified' in demanding provinces from your true-faith enemy under the pretence of a 'cleansing of heresy'.

For the sake of the game's mechanics, it's intended. Whether it should be that way, however, is up for debate (and I'd probably be okay with agreeing with your stance on that account, honestly; make it apply only to provinces of wrong-faith).

The diplo cost for unjustified demands is to penalise countries that start a war on some CB, then make the war about something else entirely. Other Paradox games are much more strict about this, e.g. in CK2 you can only enforce justified demands, and in Victoria 2 you can gradually add war goals as the war progresses, but only if your country is jingoistic enough.

Most CBs in this game do not matter, though, if you try to use them for their intended use. Trade conflict? Diplomatic insult? The intended use seems to be too strict, as well; why should I be penalized for punishing you for insulting me by taking land off you?

Taking land off a CN ought to be covered by the colonialism CB. I do think there should be some sort of general diplo point discount for overseas land, though, given that it's so much less valuable to the owner.

The problem with making it tied to the colonialism CB is that a majority of wars involving land trading between CNs are started through a Conquest CB by a CN. One CN's overlord enforces peace, and suddenly half of Europe is at war with each over over something stupid halfway around the world. Colonialism CB likely wouldn't ever come up in these kinds of wars.

 

[makapse]

I think there needs to be a option for a overlord to enforce its state religion on its vassal when at +190 rep for a loss of 200rep.But then i will simply have a wrong faith vassal who goes religious and use his CB to attack

 

[jackers]

Interesting thread. As others have said, I think it really depends on the country being played, their ideas and your goals. For me humanism is better for the majority of countries, because it smooths the short term transition from small/medium power to great power. However, some countries just mesh so much better with religious ideas.

Eg. In my Songhai game I have so many unaccepted cultures it might make sense to take humanism at first glance - but Songhai has a massive +2 TotTF in their national ideas, as well as plenty of pagan neighbours to eat up! The TotTF massively helps in keeping unrest low everywhere (because nothing can resist conversion by a pious, religious ideas, Sunni nation) and it also provides great religious +stab events as others have pointed out.

 

[ChildeR]

Most CBs in this game do not matter, though, if you try to use them for their intended use. Trade conflict? Diplomatic insult? The intended use seems to be too strict, as well; why should I be penalized for punishing you for insulting me by taking land off you?

I believe the "intended use" of all those CBs is to humiliate your rivals, now that it's one of the better ways to get PP.

 

[Freudia]

I believe the "intended use" of all those CBs is to humiliate your rivals, now that it's one of the better ways to get PP.

Humiliating is not really a punishment, though; the AI does not stop and think "Man, the last time I did this, I got my ass kicked. Maybe I shouldn't do it again."

 

[TheMeInTeam]

For the sake of the game's mechanics, it's intended. Whether it should be that way, however, is up for debate (and I'd probably be okay with agreeing with your stance on that account, honestly; make it apply only to provinces of wrong-faith).

Not provinces of wrong-faith, land from wrong-faith leadership. Preventing your brothers/sisters from being converted to heresy should very much be covered. That said, I don't see a problem with it in general. If a "believer" is actively defending a heretic, maybe they're not true believers after all.