Multiculturalism is way too OP with no drawbacks

[intelstyle]

There’s no reason to not go Multiculturalism every game. It’s overpowered. Need more pops? Just bring them in from somewhere else! Got unhappy/radical pops? Bring some more in to drown them out! They’re more likely to become loyalist as their standard of living increases, too.

This time period was not known for large scale migration of differing cultured people in states around the world. America had regional restrictions and even enacted laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act.

There should be a much heavier penalty on your primary pops for enacting Multiculturalism. The Victorian era was not nearly as culturally accepting as modern times. Multiculturalism‘s overpoweredness diminishes any sort of cultural tensions your country may have, in a dramatically ahistorical way.

 

[hajutze]

The downside is - it makes your game slower at the later years.

 

[BPZ1941]

There’s no reason to not go Multiculturalism every game. It’s overpowered. Need more pops? Just bring them in from somewhere else!

You don't really need more pops as any larger country anyway. If you play close to the 'optimum' your growth will be outstripping resource availability by the late mid-game, and migrants don't carry resource deposits with them. It's better to conquer if you need more pops.

Got unhappy/radical pops? Bring some more in to drown them out! They’re more likely to become loyalist as their standard of living increases, too.

Or you could use the Authority to just suppress inconvenient IGs out of existence, while getting the significant boosts to Loyalty and Radicals from restrictive laws.

There should be a much heavier penalty on your primary pops for enacting Multiculturalism. The Victorian era was not nearly as culturally accepting as modern times. Multiculturalism‘s overpoweredness diminishes any sort of cultural tensions your country may have, in a dramatically ahistorical way.

Ethnostate gives all non-discriminated pops +20% Loyalists and -20% Radicals from all SoL changes. That is pretty substantial. More realistically, National Supremacy is 15%. You can get another 10% from State Religion, and all your discriminated pops (of which you will have a lot) get substantially reduced wages.

 

[smellymummy]

the bonus for having discrimination just don't seem to be worth it compared to multicultural. play as a small country and you need the pops from Africa to migrate to your home states to hire in the factories

 

[Question]

You dont NEED multiculturalism to get migration targets btw. You can get them without it, the odds of a state being picked is just bigger if they wont be discriminated there. SOL is the main attractor.

 

[MfgLuckbot]

the bonus for having discrimination just don't seem to be worth it compared to multicultural. play as a small country and you need the pops from Africa to migrate to your home states to hire in the factories

As a big country with a large population surplus it's the opposite though. You get some minor turmoil, but the benefits for your primary pop is huge. It's subtle to notice, but the fact that your discriminated pops have no political power and are paid terribly leads to more loyalists among your pops that matter for internal politics (because for them consumption is cheaper and wages are higher than in a multiculturalism country, with discriminated pops buying less and being excluded from good jobs). The more discriminating your law is the more your IGs tend to agree with the government (if you do have minority cultures).

 

[Dman1791]

Realistically, the discrimination laws should only control legal discrimination (IE lack of citizenship, lack of free movement, etc). I feel like each tier of restriction should be the +/-5% loyalists/radicals for the accepted cultures, and the opposite (more radicals/less loyalists) for non-home cultures, as well as interacting with migration laws. To go along with that, I would have a system where the less restrictive laws gradually reduce the level of discrimination over time for cultures it accepts. I would just have this as some percentage, with things like migration and the difference between discriminated/non-discriminated wages being modified by this "acceptance percentage." The speed at which this ticks up could be tied to cultural traits, so the Swedish would accept the Danish very quickly, while the Japanese would take an extremely long time to accept the Equatorial Bantu. This would prevent multiculturalism from being a magic button to instantly poof racism out of existence, which would improve balance and make things a lot more realistic.

 

[Sbrubbles]

The issue here is the goal you're setting yourself as a player: you're thinking about maximizing your economy. Maximizing immigration is obviously the way to maximize the economy size, so how about maximizing per capita income of your core population instead?

 

[Vernichtere]

The issue here is the goal you're setting yourself as a player: you're thinking about maximizing your economy. Maximizing immigration is obviously the way to maximize the economy size, so how about maximizing per capita income of your core population instead?

The issue is here, that the mechanic around cultures is boring in the first place.

 

[Aquae Sulis]

The issue is here, that the mechanic around cultures is boring in the first place.

It is unfortunately very boring and pretty much reduced to which modifier you prefer.

Culture and national identity and what that should mean was at the confluence of so much of what happened, good and bad, during the period and yet the game doesn't and can't reflect that at all.

 

[Ratlord420]

You don't really need more pops as any larger country anyway. If you play close to the 'optimum' your growth will be outstripping resource availability by the late mid-game, and migrants don't carry resource deposits with them. It's better to conquer if you need more pops.

Or you could use the Authority to just suppress inconvenient IGs out of existence, while getting the significant boosts to Loyalty and Radicals from restrictive laws.

Ethnostate gives all non-discriminated pops +20% Loyalists and -20% Radicals from all SoL changes. That is pretty substantial. More realistically, National Supremacy is 15%. You can get another 10% from State Religion, and all your discriminated pops (of which you will have a lot) get substantially reduced wages.

Non sequitur.

 

[BPZ1941]

Non sequitur.

Name of thread: Multiculturalism is way too OP with no drawbacks

 

[Vernichtere]

It is unfortunately very boring and pretty much reduced to which modifier you prefer.

Culture and national identity and what that should mean was at the confluence of so much of what happened, good and bad, during the period and yet the game doesn't and can't reflect that at all.

EU IV has a good system. Imperator Rome has a good system. It doesn't have to be copied, but a little more interaction would be nice.

The system doesn't work that well if you look at the Tsarist Empire in-game, for example. The Baltic Germans belonged to the privileged groups. In the game they are discriminated against

 

[MJAnderson]

It does have some downsides --- you need to play the construction game to keep up growth, which forces you to expand for resources. I just played an Italy game with closed borders and whatever the one above ethnostate is. I had some population issues, so put off women's rights and had to crank up healthcare and worker protections but I ended up with the highest SoL in the world and was 3rd in GDP. I had almost all my pops as loyalist and those bonuses to factions help.

It's a different game, but not a bad one. I play with the AI mod and crank down the AI growth so that I don't need to fall into the construction meta.

 

[Vernichtere]

Yes, it has certain advantages. However, these advantages are of great importance. It's more about the fact that it doesn't match the feeling of the epoch, nor does it represent an interesting game mechanic. I would like to somehow interact with the different cultures of my country. And they should also interact with each other.

A historical example. Galicia as part of Austria: the Poles demand their rights, but so do the Ukrainians. With the current mechanics, it was done with a single law.

 

[birdboy2000]

I think it should be way later in the tech tree than it is now, and maybe even should be locked to council republics. (Did anyone do it pre-1936 except the Soviets? Then again council republic is good already so that might break game balance)

The other issue is that combining multiculturalism + no migration controls is very easy to get, when it should be harder, even in cases when it's relatively easy to end discrimination against existing minorities. Locking it to same cultural or heritage trait as the default and making truly open borders hard would loosely approximate historical results, but would be a bit of a kludge with all the Chinese and Japanese outmigration in the period. Handle that through an event? Make certain groups of migrants massively increase support for migration restrictions?

I don't know what the right answer is but it needs tweaking for sure, what we have now isn't balanced at all.

 

[GrounchoVilla]

I think there should be a "cosmopolitan" law which is a sort of middle ground between the more exclusionary laws and multiculturalism, and multiculturalism should come later through techs. I do think it should be strong, but there should be more roadblocks or steps in getting it

 

[Vernichtere]

A more complex and a simpler way of dealing with cultures:

1. More accepted cultures equals more administrative expenses: schools/translations. So I have to use more people in administration.

2. Dealing with cultures at the local level. Special rights for certain provinces, or administration in different languages. Privileges related to status.

 

[BPZ1941]

I think it should be way later in the tech tree than it is now, and maybe even should be locked to council republics. (Did anyone do it pre-1936 except the Soviets? Then again council republic is good already so that might break game balance)

Why? The hallmark of Soviet national policy was to encourage locals in administration, which isn't related to council republics.

That fits with Austria-Hungary, given that the 'nations' were like in the USSR given their own legislative assemblies and minorities could become national representatives - referring to for example to the Czechs, not the Hungarians.

But that comes with the caveat that 'not being discriminated' rarely leads to anyone being pacified of either the dominant or discriminated ethnic groups, at least in this time period.

 

[romothecus]

Ethnostate gives all non-discriminated pops +20% Loyalists and -20% Radicals from all SoL changes. That is pretty substantial. More realistically, National Supremacy is 15%. You can get another 10% from State Religion, and all your discriminated pops (of which you will have a lot) get substantially reduced wages.

Since 1.1.2, loyalists are essentially free if you have a legitimate government, though. With a multiculturalism and a 90+ legitimacy government, like 40% of my population is loyalist despite nonstop conquest (and +100% radicals from conquest from Pariah).

The +200 authority bonus is basically meaningless as well; an edict on like 2 states? If they wanted National Supremacy / Ethnostate to be worthwhile, it needs something way, way better. Not sure what it should be, maybe as much as +200% authority instead of a flat +200.