Sikhism = Heresy?

[VolitionNewlove]

Agree with everything you say pte.

Sadly, I think this will be dlc material.
Note that I don't demand free stuff or anything.

Well, I had been presuming it would be a DLC, in any case. There does seem to be more than enough (that could be improved from the current system) for a religion DLC.

Miaphysitism certainly shouldn't be a heresy; if anything it's the 'original' form of Christianity from several theological points, AFAIK.

Didn't mean to infer that it should be a heresey, was simply stating that even if it wasn't in the game, at least it isn't represented as a heresey. Miaphysitism isn't a heresey currently, anyway, though. The heresies are currently:

OLD_BELIEVER MOLOKAN DUKHOBOR KHLYST SKOPTSY ICONOCLAST

 

[Hinforta]

Just for the people arguing it's not a heresy of this or that: EUIV won't use the CK2 religious system. I might be wrong here, but in EU3 and, I strongly believe EU4, there will be religious groups (christianity, islam, pagans, eastern) with religions: Protestant, Catholic, Reformed and Orthodox as Christian religions, and Sunni, Shiites, Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shamanism, etc. in other groups. In CK2 you had religions with heresies (Catholic with Cathars, etc.), this is not the case in EU4 - "heresies" are considered different religions in the same religious group. And for simplicity's sake, eastern religions are grouped. So if Sikhism were to be added, it would be a seperate eastern religion. Not more of a heresy than Hinduism is to Buddhism. It'd be cool with a Magna Mundi-like system representing religious minorities, but that'll have be for a mod. Sikhism's founder wasn't even born in 1444, which I believe is one reason it's not added (more weight on the 1444 bookmark), and another would be it's a small religion with regional significance in the late game at best. I'm all for more flavour but I understand why Sikhs, and other smaller religions, were omitted.

Honestly (yes I'm going there - sorry) I believe a more fleshed out religious system would be prime material for DLC. It's certainly way too late to change it at this point. It's a little simplistic as it is but it does work fairly well.

I know it's somewhat offtopic, but does the same goes with the cultures? I mean the Hungarians being the west slavic or the Romanians being the south slavs? Cause I could never understand, why are they presented this way other than out of simplifaction.

 

[Dafool]

I know it's somewhat offtopic, but does the same goes with the cultures? I mean the Hungarians being the west slavic or the Romanians being the south slavs? Cause I could never understand, why are they presented this way other than out of simplifaction.

There are only so many ways in which these things can be represented relative to each other right now. The relationship between Catholicism and Protestantism, both heresies to each other, is vastly different than the relationship between Hinduism and Buddhism, also both heresies to each other. Similarly, Hungarians have vastly more similarities to Czechs than Japanese have to Chinese, but vastly more differences than Normans have to "Cosmopolitan" French. There are a lot different relationships to consider when considering how to model similarities and differences.

This can cause problems when people are overly critical or dismissive of these factors. For example, Sikhism's absence from the religious system means some parts of Indian history are impossible to model. This is similar to EU3, which lacked Hussitism. Without that early turmoil, Bohemia often remained a first rate power and usually maintained the Imperial title. The lack of Hussitism, even if it was a relatively local in scope, had some big gameplay effects. Alternatively, those that argue for a separate Hungarian culture group or lumping them with the Finns often forget that this will make the Hungarians more isolated. Seeing Hungary repeatedly conquered by Poland or struggling to find allies would certainly feel odd. Lumping them in the Central European culture group labeled "West Slavic" might not be technically correct, but the spirit and outcome of that decision justify it.

 

[Sun_Wu]

Miaphysitism certainly shouldn't be a heresy; if anything it's the 'original' form of Christianity from several theological points, AFAIK.

It isn't the original form, but it is far more orthodox than Protestantism or Calvinism.

MEIOU & Taxes has Oriental Orthodoxy, Ibadi and IIRC also Sikhism, releasing in less than 12 hours.

 

[BritNavFan]

Alternatively, those that argue for a separate Hungarian culture group or lumping them with the Finns often forget that this will make the Hungarians more isolated. Seeing Hungary repeatedly conquered by Poland or struggling to find allies would certainly feel odd. Lumping them in the Central European culture group labeled "West Slavic" might not be technically correct, but the spirit and outcome of that decision justify it.

I'd disagree with that: the outcome of that decision is precisely wrong. I haven't played a significant amount of EU4, but in EU3 the fact that Hungarian was part of the West Slavic group meant that Bolandgary emerged every game (and I mean EVERY game), because precisely the same mechanics that caused a stable France to emerge from the French culture group, a stable UK to emerge from the British culture group, a stable Scandinavia to emerge from the Scandinavian culture group, a stable Russia to emerge from the east Slavic culture group, caused whichever of Bohemia, Hungary, Poland, or Mazovia conquered the others (and one of them always would) to form a stable nation. "Hungarian" as its own culture group was much more likely to stay independent without expanding to include Poland and Bohemia, or to reinstate itself if conquered.

 

[BritNavFan]

I know it's somewhat offtopic, but does the same goes with the cultures? I mean the Hungarians being the west slavic or the Romanians being the south slavs? Cause I could never understand, why are they presented this way other than out of simplifaction.

Making them the same culture group makes it easier to become a great power if you are playing as Hungary, Bohemia, or Poland. The AI also likes other AI's in the same culture group, so it's less likely to attack them and more likely to ally with them, so this is an attempt to represent that historically Hungary and Poland were on good terms with each other most of the time. IMO this doesn't work according to the theory most of the time.

 

[Dafool]

I'd disagree with that: the outcome of that decision is precisely wrong. I haven't played a significant amount of EU4, but in EU3 the fact that Hungarian was part of the West Slavic group meant that Bolandgary emerged every game (and I mean EVERY game), because precisely the same mechanics that caused a stable France to emerge from the French culture group, a stable UK to emerge from the British culture group, a stable Scandinavia to emerge from the Scandinavian culture group, a stable Russia to emerge from the east Slavic culture group, caused whichever of Bohemia, Hungary, Poland, or Mazovia conquered the others (and one of them always would) to form a stable nation. "Hungarian" as its own culture group was much more likely to stay independent without expanding to include Poland and Bohemia, or to reinstate itself if conquered.

I think that's an incorrect or at least poorly thought out conclusion. In EU3 being in the same culture group deterred wars and created more amicable relations. This is why the Ottomans rarely invaded the Middle East and Spain rarely formed. The entity you are referring to is likely the cliche "Blobhemia". However, that was a result of the HRE mechanics which often brought Bohemia into conflict with its larger eastern neighbors. I have tested an independent Hungarian culture group and it does not improve the situation. Instead, Poland and Bohemia tend to be more hostile than they previously were. I much prefer Hungary to be allied with Poland rather than conquered by them. The former has far more historical backing than the latter, in addition to the numerous gameplay benefits of not having an overly chaotic Central and Eastern Europe.

 

[BritNavFan]

I have tested an independent Hungarian culture group and it does not improve the situation. Instead, Poland and Bohemia tend to be more hostile than they previously were. I much prefer Hungary to be allied with Poland rather than conquered by them. The former has far more historical backing than the latter, in addition to the numerous gameplay benefits of not having an overly chaotic Central and Eastern Europe.

I've also tested an independent Hungarian culture group and it did improve the situation. (And I really don't think that Great Mazovia stretching across the former territories of Mazovia, Poland, and Hungary was due to HRE mechanics.) In practice, I found that keeping Hungary the same culture group as Poland did little to keep them allied. Rather, as I said, one would conquer the other. <shrug>

 

[Dafool]

I've also tested an independent Hungarian culture group and it did improve the situation. In practice, I found that keeping Hungary the same culture group as Poland did little to keep them allied. Rather, as I said, one would conquer the other. <shrug>

Well, that's a matter of observation. I did significant balancing to the culture groups for EU3, with both gameplay and historical authenticity in mind, and I always found Hungarian better suited to the Central Slavic group. To be honest, your assertion that being in the same culture group would encourage conquest, rather than deter it, seems quite odd. Basic testing in EU3 can show that same culture group nations are friendlier with each other, not more hostile. Much like the effect of religion, it's a built in predisposition of the AI and is quite predictable.

 

[BritNavFan]

WTo be honest, your assertion that being in the same culture group would encourage conquest, rather than deter it, seems quite odd. Basic testing in EU3 can show that same culture group nations are friendlier with each other, not more hostile. Much like the effect of religion, it's a built in predisposition of the AI and is quite predictable.

That's true. But in EU3, the AI really, really liked to ally with 2 countries, and that was a much stronger effect than the bonus to friendliness that came from being part of the same culture group.

By contrast, I found, in testing, that for Portugal and Castile, keeping them in the same culture group worked by making them consistently ally with one another, while moving Portugal to its own culture group resulted in Castile not allying with it and annexing it. Well, Portugal's only neighbour was Castile, so of course it always made an alliance if it could. Again in contrast, England and Scotland were in the same culture group, so I expected diplomacy between them to work the same way that Portugal and Castile, but it didn't: England always wanted to invade Scotland. I've no idea why the difference. Meanwhile, Hungary, Bohemia, and Poland are right in the middle of Europe with many neighbours that they could potentially ally with, and if any of them allied with someone who wasn't one of the other two, they wouldn't ally with both of the other two, because of the AI's two alliance "slots". And if they did conquer each others' provinces, or if they liberated each other's provinces from a third party, the provinces wouldn't be inclined to rebel, due to the same modifiers that made French subcultures unlikely to rebel against France. So there were a bunch of forces promoting the formation of a blob out of them.

So I know the effect you're referring to, but in my experience it didn't work as desired for Hungary in EU3. Maybe it does in EU4.

 

[Dafool]

So there were a bunch of forces promoting the formation of a blob out of them.

This was more or less what I was getting at. For example, Castille is usually reluctant to conquer Portugal. To name a few reasons: They have no missions to do so, no decisions require them to do so, Portugal is the same religion, Portugal is in the same culture group, there are larger threats in the area, and they have better CB's to use against other states. It's a lot of factors coming together. Compare that with England and Scotland. England has: Missions against Scotland, decisions that require them to own Scotland, no major threats on the Isles, and usually a CB vs Scotland. This easily overrides the bonus from being in the same culture group.

If you look to Central and Eastern Europe, where the West Slavic group lies, you'll see some factors that encourage the BOH-HUN-POL trio to attack each other, such as the HRE mechanics and larger neighbors like Russia and the Ottomans, and you'll also see some factors that encourage them to stay peaceful, such as being in the same culture group and having few missions and CB's against each other. The result is a mixed bag as far as outcomes go. If you want to promote the status quo, the only benefit to making Hungarian separate is that it makes them less likely to ally with each other, which could prevent wars and other entangling diplomacy. At the same time however, you are eliminating the mutual security that that diplomacy might offer. As you said though, EU3's diplomacy was quite limited, so I could see where you're grounding your logic.

 

[VolitionNewlove]

It isn't the original form, but it is far more orthodox than Protestantism or Calvinism.

MEIOU & Taxes has Oriental Orthodoxy, Ibadi and IIRC also Sikhism, releasing in less than 12 hours.

Mods just tend to make me sad in displaying exactly how easy it is to make these changes to vastly improve the game, and yet such a change isn't in the base game...

Looking forward to MEIOU & Taxes, hoping the graphics will be work out my resolution (the custom images in the EU3 version of MEIOU didn't really work out so well with my screen...)

 

[unmerged(804237)]

Well, I had been presuming it would be a DLC, in any case. There does seem to be more than enough (that could be improved from the current system) for a religion DLC.

As opposed to a Holy Roman Empire DLC? We haven't had our Heir to the Throne yet for EUIV.

 

[VolitionNewlove]

As opposed to a Holy Roman Empire DLC? We haven't had our Heir to the Throne yet for EUIV.

The updates from Heir to the Throne are in Europa Universalis 4. Paradox isn't EA, you know...