Is it just me, or does this happen to other people too? The Netherlands are half German by 1250, any successful crusade for Jerusalem causes the culture to flip within a few decades, and, in my game as Barcelona, I have effectively colonized half the Andalusian population of southern Spain. Someone will point out that the Norman conquest caused the Saxon population to become English and other famous culture changes. But that was a special circumstance, not the norm. How many times was there a major shift in cultural makeup/identity, and how much time did those take? Perhaps lengthening the MTTH (by a factor of 10, maybe?) with a province flag for invasion CBs that makes it faster.
Province culture flips too quickly
- Thread starter enf91
- 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.
Things can be redesigned.
As for the Norman culture turning to English, that has a special set of events associated with it at the moment, so should be banned from any discussion regarding the generic event.
Personally, I feel that outside colonization and melting pot events, cultures shouldn't flip outside their culture group (Italian should be moved to a new culture group which includes Sicilian via Norman melting pot events). Andalusian should actually be moved to Iberian since it's effectively the result of a melting pot between Iberian cultures and Arabic. Within culture groups, cultures should flip in a rather less patchwork fashion than they do know.
IMO that's not a perfect solution either way..
What if I, say as Wales, Conqueror southwestern england by 1080 (just a thought example), in almost 400 years, nothing would change?
I'm not saying it should stay as it is, but culture flipping happening only within culture groups will make the map look somewhat weird as well, and i doubt most people will like it.
This time period saw some really significant cultural change. The Castilization of Iberia. The Germanization of central and eastern europe. The eradication of Greeks in southern Italy. The Turkification of Anatolia. The near eradication of Occitanian as a culture and replacement with Frankish. The Anglification of Cornwall. The Frankification of Brittany. And so on.
What people object to are cultural maps that differ from what happened historically. But when the map differs from history, the cultural map should as well. 400 years during this era means significant cultural change. You may object to Northern Ireland turning Scottish, but if the King of Scotland had ruled over it for 200 years it most definitely would have turned Scottish.
Where the problem lies in the AI's tendency to replace local lords with it's own culture too aggressively. So Italy tends to turns German because all the local counts and dukes are replaced with Germans. The Mongol situation.
There needs to be some gameplay reason to leave local culture lords in these areas, or for the local lords to more frequently adopt local ways to stop culture shifting where it's too aggressive. Particularly for the Mongols, who mostly didn't replace any of the local lords and were content to collect taxes and levies. I'm not sure how to get this balance correct, but this could use a little work.
What people object to are cultural maps that differ from what happened historically. But when the map differs from history, the cultural map should as well. 400 years during this era means significant cultural change. You may object to Northern Ireland turning Scottish, but if the King of Scotland had ruled over it for 200 years it most definitely would have turned Scottish.
Where the problem lies in the AI's tendency to replace local lords with it's own culture too aggressively. So Italy tends to turns German because all the local counts and dukes are replaced with Germans. The Mongol situation.
There needs to be some gameplay reason to leave local culture lords in these areas, or for the local lords to more frequently adopt local ways to stop culture shifting where it's too aggressive. Particularly for the Mongols, who mostly didn't replace any of the local lords and were content to collect taxes and levies. I'm not sure how to get this balance correct, but this could use a little work.
Easiest way to encourage lords of the same culture as the provience would be to give an Italian lord a tax bonus if he rules an Italian cultured provence.
I'd rather have my suggestion than the current way, though I also feel that it isn't optimal - just better than the current haphazard manner. However, it can be done with only some relatively basic event changes.
Culture flipping should ideally require a reasonably significant investment on the Lieges part - enough that the tradeoffs of having foreign-culture vassals is worth the penalty to opinion and additional revolt risk. A same-culture tax bonus might help, as would the ability to recruit off-culture retinues if you control enough of another culture's land. I'm sure that other people can come up with some good ideas too.
Culture flipping should ideally require a reasonably significant investment on the Lieges part - enough that the tradeoffs of having foreign-culture vassals is worth the penalty to opinion and additional revolt risk. A same-culture tax bonus might help, as would the ability to recruit off-culture retinues if you control enough of another culture's land. I'm sure that other people can come up with some good ideas too.
maybe say raising the base tax by say 10%, but giving you a say, 25% tax decease if you rule in a country with another culture group (and prehaps to baseline if within culture group but different culture)
I don't think the problem is the speed at which culture spreads, I think the problem is the game mechanics around culture spreading and how different cultures effect relationships. As things stand the penalty for having a count of a different culture to the county is very small - occasional peasant rebellions that are easily dealt with. As a ruler the penalty for having a vassal of a different culture is quite significant (-20/-10). As such there is a strong incentive for rulers to homogenise their vassals to a common a culture, and a much weaker incentive to homogenise the culture of the provinces.
The way in which culture spreads is driven by the county rulers. The most common spread is if the count is a different culture and an adjacent province is the same culture. I think the whole liege chain needs to be the "change to culture" but I'm not 100% sure about that. So for example Dublin begins as Norwegian, with an Irish ruler, surrounded by Irish provinces. So long as the ruler, and their whole chain up to the independent ruler is Irish, Dublin will change to Irish. If the ruler of Dublin isn't Irish, even if their liege is, then it won't change. I think its possible for the culture to change when the count is a different culture to the liege, but I think the probability is reduced.
So, as a liege there is a strong incentive to make your vassals the same culture as you, which they in turn have for any vassals of their own. I generally put quite a lot of time into homogenising my vassals (by making sure their heirs have guardians of my culture with gregarious/diligent traits) to remove these penalties, which is turn encourages the spread of my culture throughout my realm.
This feels counter-intuitive for the period. So I think this emphasis should be changed around. Counts should want to be the same culture as their provinces, and rulers should have a lesser negative reaction for vassals of different cultures. Something like a levy and tax hit for different culture within the demesne would be a good thing, at the same time perhaps halving the foreigner penalties for vassals. e.g. 20% fewer levies, 20% less tax.
The way in which culture spreads is driven by the county rulers. The most common spread is if the count is a different culture and an adjacent province is the same culture. I think the whole liege chain needs to be the "change to culture" but I'm not 100% sure about that. So for example Dublin begins as Norwegian, with an Irish ruler, surrounded by Irish provinces. So long as the ruler, and their whole chain up to the independent ruler is Irish, Dublin will change to Irish. If the ruler of Dublin isn't Irish, even if their liege is, then it won't change. I think its possible for the culture to change when the count is a different culture to the liege, but I think the probability is reduced.
So, as a liege there is a strong incentive to make your vassals the same culture as you, which they in turn have for any vassals of their own. I generally put quite a lot of time into homogenising my vassals (by making sure their heirs have guardians of my culture with gregarious/diligent traits) to remove these penalties, which is turn encourages the spread of my culture throughout my realm.
This feels counter-intuitive for the period. So I think this emphasis should be changed around. Counts should want to be the same culture as their provinces, and rulers should have a lesser negative reaction for vassals of different cultures. Something like a levy and tax hit for different culture within the demesne would be a good thing, at the same time perhaps halving the foreigner penalties for vassals. e.g. 20% fewer levies, 20% less tax.
The problem with this is if you nerf the taxes and county too badly for a wrong-culture ruler, some player will try even harder to do this to keep vassals weak. I don't do this -- I want a strong realm with lots of levies to use against my enemies -- but I know most people play differently. The bite needs to hit not just the wrong-culture ruler but his liege -- the one who keeps him there. Not sure what this would be.
Well, part of the problem is that the liege only gets a percentage in tax of the demense income of his vassal. None of the taxes paid to the vassal get passed on to his liege. While historical, this means you don't really care about your vassal's tax revenue - only his income, which means that a Duke that holds four counties personally but lords over three duchies is probably a greater problem than a duke that holds eight counties in two duchies, when the opposite would seem to make more sense.
An income bonus for holding same-culture counties makes more sense now that I think about it. It incentivizes holding same-culture counties for the top liege and assigning matched-culture vassals to a county. Upping the revolt risk for off-culture lords would help too though Rebels would still be more of an annoyance than an actual threat - much like they are for Muslims and off-religion provinces where you do get a tax boost.
I still think the off-culture retinues would be a good idea. Perhaps a small (5-10%) tech growth boost as well to represent the exchange of ideas in trade?
An income bonus for holding same-culture counties makes more sense now that I think about it. It incentivizes holding same-culture counties for the top liege and assigning matched-culture vassals to a county. Upping the revolt risk for off-culture lords would help too though Rebels would still be more of an annoyance than an actual threat - much like they are for Muslims and off-religion provinces where you do get a tax boost.
I still think the off-culture retinues would be a good idea. Perhaps a small (5-10%) tech growth boost as well to represent the exchange of ideas in trade?
The events that flip culture with religion are probably pushing the line of unrealistic & should be toned down (in part because they can be triggered by heresies). Of course, part of that is because religious conversion is easy (catholic all the way through mali? go for it!). There are also other issues like the HRE consistently turning the dutch & italians german.
I'm hard pressed to think of even an example in history that takes it to the extremes that CK2 does. Pretty much any tax on people would be aimed at all people and while the nobility & clergy could claim exemptions for themselves, they could hardly go 'well that 1 province count, and that duke with 5 provinces but only 1 demense shall pay almost the same, because y'know the other counties under him are HIS vassals so don't pay tax to you'. (of course other taxes like trade taxes are going to ignore ducal ownership by virtue of being trade and something dukes don't do). Granted taxes in the middle ages were very ad hoc, but not quite to the point of having huge chunks of the realm be tax exempt because 'they are under a duke so you can't tax them sire'.
I'm hard pressed to think of even an example in history that takes it to the extremes that CK2 does. Pretty much any tax on people would be aimed at all people and while the nobility & clergy could claim exemptions for themselves, they could hardly go 'well that 1 province count, and that duke with 5 provinces but only 1 demense shall pay almost the same, because y'know the other counties under him are HIS vassals so don't pay tax to you'. (of course other taxes like trade taxes are going to ignore ducal ownership by virtue of being trade and something dukes don't do). Granted taxes in the middle ages were very ad hoc, but not quite to the point of having huge chunks of the realm be tax exempt because 'they are under a duke so you can't tax them sire'.
Last edited:
Culture spread is one of the (few) things where CK1 worked better. Not only did you have overseas culture spread, you also had a more gradual pattern of culture shift which (if you wanted to force it) required you to empower the local burghers over the nobles and the peasants. CK2 it had this "social" component, which CK2 lacks.
AFAIK the DVIP mod for CK1 made it's own culture tweaks so I am not too sure how the base game handled it... what I remember was:
I think CK2 could take a little from those mechanisms... I hate the "let's bring our boys over" event in particular. It's so cheesy, it makes cultures leap half way across the map and it's not even biased to happen to ducal or royal capitals (which would make sense as hubs for settlement)... Also the lack of culture spread via sea connection is very sad. In CK1 this was something that made culture spread very organic... along with the province wealth effect it made overseas cultures spread happen first into the rich trade hubs, and only then into the countryside.
Here's a map from this old CK1 thread about what affects culture conversion:
You can see that CK1 had a couple of overseas "superhighways" for culture change: Venice-Constantinople, Venice-Alexandria, Constantinople-Trapezunt... Lübeck-Stettin-Danzig-Riga... Bergenshus-Brugge-Essex-Dorset... Bergenshus-Hamburg-Bordeaux-Cadiz-Valencia... and so on.
AFAIK the DVIP mod for CK1 made it's own culture tweaks so I am not too sure how the base game handled it... what I remember was:
- culture moved only between adjacent provinces, across certain sea connections between "trade hub" cities (places like Constantinople, Venice, Brugge etc were hubs of culture change in the game)
- turning a province into a capital sped up culture-change
- building a palace in your capital would speed it up (in that province) even further
- mountain, hills, deserts, swamps were slow to change, flat lands quicker -> this caused native cultures to linger longer in backwards regions
- the richer a province was (in terms of city-style improvement) the more likely would it be to flip
- empowering the local burghers encouraged cultural change, empowering the peasants or nobles discouraged it
- there were no "let's bring our boys over" colonization events (CK2 has those, they're responsible for much of the ugly mess on culture maps because it lets cultures "leap")
- Random events would allow you to force cultural conversion along with religious conversion sometimes (at great costs in revolt risk and income)
I think CK2 could take a little from those mechanisms... I hate the "let's bring our boys over" event in particular. It's so cheesy, it makes cultures leap half way across the map and it's not even biased to happen to ducal or royal capitals (which would make sense as hubs for settlement)... Also the lack of culture spread via sea connection is very sad. In CK1 this was something that made culture spread very organic... along with the province wealth effect it made overseas cultures spread happen first into the rich trade hubs, and only then into the countryside.
Here's a map from this old CK1 thread about what affects culture conversion:
You can see that CK1 had a couple of overseas "superhighways" for culture change: Venice-Constantinople, Venice-Alexandria, Constantinople-Trapezunt... Lübeck-Stettin-Danzig-Riga... Bergenshus-Brugge-Essex-Dorset... Bergenshus-Hamburg-Bordeaux-Cadiz-Valencia... and so on.
The reason for the settler event is crusader kingdoms. That and islands. If that event wasn't there, you could never get Iberian cultures into Majorca or anything into Malta. And you couldn't shift the Brittanic cultures onto the Continent or the other way around. Much less shift the KoJ.
That said, I had forgotten about the different influences in CKI like terrain or wealth. Bringing those things back might be a good idea. So counties with a lot of wealthy cities behaved differently from a backwards two slot county in the mountains.
That said, I tend to like the culture change mechanics. It's slow, but fast enough that you can see the impact over a 400 year gain. You feel like you accomplished something when you spread Welsh culture over all Britain. And France.
And Iberia.
That said, I had forgotten about the different influences in CKI like terrain or wealth. Bringing those things back might be a good idea. So counties with a lot of wealthy cities behaved differently from a backwards two slot county in the mountains.
That said, I tend to like the culture change mechanics. It's slow, but fast enough that you can see the impact over a 400 year gain. You feel like you accomplished something when you spread Welsh culture over all Britain. And France.
And Iberia.
IMO you can get past most of the ugliness that is CK2 Culture Spread by removing the 'bring in some settlers' event, and making it so culture only spreads from province to province, or from port to port.
The only point where this breaks down is in Anatolia.
The Turkish invasion of Anatolia can (and IMO should) be handled by a modified melting pot event, where inland greeks are turned into turks and vice versa. Most of the 'Greeks' in inland Anatolia were not ethnically greek but descendants of prior civilizations, and those form the mainstay of the modern Turkish ethnicity as well. It's why Turks look so European, and not Mongol like the other Turkic peoples.
Maybe inland Anatolia should get the 'Anatolian Greek' culture in the Byzantine group and this should be replaced with 'Anatolian Turkish' in the Altaic group after the invasion (oh how I wish cultures worked differently, so that 'Anatolian' could be acceptable for both Greek and Turkish but Greeks and Turks not to eachother!).
The only point where this breaks down is in Anatolia.
The Turkish invasion of Anatolia can (and IMO should) be handled by a modified melting pot event, where inland greeks are turned into turks and vice versa. Most of the 'Greeks' in inland Anatolia were not ethnically greek but descendants of prior civilizations, and those form the mainstay of the modern Turkish ethnicity as well. It's why Turks look so European, and not Mongol like the other Turkic peoples.
Maybe inland Anatolia should get the 'Anatolian Greek' culture in the Byzantine group and this should be replaced with 'Anatolian Turkish' in the Altaic group after the invasion (oh how I wish cultures worked differently, so that 'Anatolian' could be acceptable for both Greek and Turkish but Greeks and Turks not to eachother!).
It is not just an AI problem, replacing local lords is just generally a good thing to do in the game. And the unlike real life it is rare in the game that rulers change their culture. So more rulers changing culture and less incentive to replace local rulers.
Loose idea for a mod: for every two historicaly adjacent culture groups, add intermediary cultures, and allow shift only along the lines of these cultures, eg. Italians->Germanized Italians->Germans with Italian roots, let's call them Tedeschi or something (->Germans proper? maybe simply forbid full assimilation?), or Levantine Arabic->Christianized Turkopols->Poullanes (Frankish group)/Melkhites (Greek group)/However-we-call-them (English group).
What do you think about that?
What do you think about that?
It seems that the lords do convert if nearly all their provinces are a different culture, but it is way too silly to be believable at times.
For example, a crusader battles thousands of Saracens to regain the holy land, then a few months later he decides that since many of his citizens wear turbans and pray to Allah, maybe he should. Then he proceeds to start wearing a turban, calling himself sultan, and speaking a foreign language no good christian would dare learn. This happens way too often if the Kingdom of Jerusalem is independent, maybe in the inevitable Catholic DLC pilgrimages to Jerusalem could temporarily change the culture to Catholic, showing how the majority of the citizens have come from many parts of Europe to live in the holy land, but if it is re-taken by an evil sultan many of the pilgrims will leave causing it to return to its levantine status.
For example, a crusader battles thousands of Saracens to regain the holy land, then a few months later he decides that since many of his citizens wear turbans and pray to Allah, maybe he should. Then he proceeds to start wearing a turban, calling himself sultan, and speaking a foreign language no good christian would dare learn. This happens way too often if the Kingdom of Jerusalem is independent, maybe in the inevitable Catholic DLC pilgrimages to Jerusalem could temporarily change the culture to Catholic, showing how the majority of the citizens have come from many parts of Europe to live in the holy land, but if it is re-taken by an evil sultan many of the pilgrims will leave causing it to return to its levantine status.
Wales should probably, exceptionally, get a reconquest event similar to the melting pot event, at least for some parts of England, also two or three of the four provinces of England on the welsh border should be welsh in culture at game start (sure are Hereford, Shrewsbury, debatable are Chester and Gloucester; I could see a stronger argument for Chester since it was part of one of the two very likely welsh mercian subkingdoms). Offa's dyke wasn't a cultural border, language only shifted in the early modern period outside of the cities settled by the english (a similar situation to medieval Devon with Exeter being originally a saxon colony on top of an old cornish city in a sea of bretons; the few charters for the diocese of Crediton refers to a native name even, and that's not long before the game begins)
Otherwise there should be a (edit - missed that word) few specifically melting pot style events if there's something that can be; assimilation of vlachs into greek or turkic cultures should be nearly non-existent, I could see a case made for germans getting a melting pot event for the wends and prussians. The slavic bulgarians shouldn't disappear by 1201 or at all like they usually do. And yes, mozarabic was an ibero-latin language, it should be iberian.
Rulers should ideally switch culture a lot more often to that of their primary.
Last edited: