Tolerance - split it up by religion group, and make intolerance/conversion reduce development

[mudcrabmerchant]

Title sums it up nicely.

A lot of decisions affecting tolerance would make a lot more sense if tolerance were split up by religion group, not just by heretic/heathen. For example, the Hindu "persecute Muslims" decision will, now that the Eastern religion group has been split up, make you extremely intolerant of Buddhists, because distinctions can't be made. And historically,

For the interface, the tolerance of heretics would remain as is, but the tolerance for heathens could be replaced with the tolerance for the most common religion group in your country besides your own, with a button to open up another smaller interface showing all tolerances for all groups.

Given the limited number of religion groups - Christian, Muslim, Dharmic, Eastern, and Pagan being the only big ones - I don't think this would be unmanageable.

Now onto the second point.

Most people who go for optimized gameplay seem to concur that it's almost always better to convert infidels than it is to dump 2800 admin into humanist ideas.

The decision between tolerance/mass conversion would be a lot closer if there was a basic representation of migration caused by intolerance. The economies of Andalucia and Valencian regions were drastically affected by the expulsion of all Muslims by the Catholic monarchs, and countries like the Netherlands greatly benefited from the stream of Protestant refugees fleeing from French persecution.

This can be handled, as some mods already do, by having events to reduce local development in provinces that you convert, with other, more tolerant countries receiving the development that you lost. This alone would even the playing field - conversion ensures stability, and for most provinces you don't even need to waste an idea group on it, but it also means that you will be weakening your own country at the expense of your rivals.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Most people who go for optimized gameplay seem to concur that it's almost always better to convert infidels than it is to dump 2800 admin into humanist ideas.

That's due primarily to the utility of deus vult, not the inherent value in converting. If humanist had a deus vult equivalent it would be used by WC players more than religious. Stuff like Hindu would basically never have to convert while Abrahamic stuff can still convert w/o religious easily and will have fewer rebels and more unity in the meantime. But access to a top tier CB at the start of the religious tree skews the equation. Humanist is better than religious after imperialism, but that's a long time to wait.

Right now, positive tolerance effectively blocks penalties WRT province value. If it's not positive by enough there's still some issue with religious unity, but it's usually minor given humanist adds a flat 25% bonus.

I think adding intolerance of specific religious groups by other religious groups would create controversy of a kind that PI probably just doesn't want to deal with.

 

[BrokenSky]

Title sums it up nicely.

A lot of decisions affecting tolerance would make a lot more sense if tolerance were split up by religion group, not just by heretic/heathen. For example, the Hindu "persecute Muslims" decision will, now that the Eastern religion group has been split up, make you extremely intolerant of Buddhists, because distinctions can't be made. And historically,

For the interface, the tolerance of heretics would remain as is, but the tolerance for heathens could be replaced with the tolerance for the most common religion group in your country besides your own, with a button to open up another smaller interface showing all tolerances for all groups.

Given the limited number of religion groups - Christian, Muslim, Dharmic, Eastern, and Pagan being the only big ones - I don't think this would be unmanageable.

Now onto the second point.

Most people who go for optimized gameplay seem to concur that it's almost always better to convert infidels than it is to dump 2800 admin into humanist ideas.

The decision between tolerance/mass conversion would be a lot closer if there was a basic representation of migration caused by intolerance. The economies of Andalucia and Valencian regions were drastically affected by the expulsion of all Muslims by the Catholic monarchs, and countries like the Netherlands greatly benefited from the stream of Protestant refugees fleeing from French persecution.

This can be handled, as some mods already do, by having events to reduce local development in provinces that you convert, with other, more tolerant countries receiving the development that you lost. This alone would even the playing field - conversion ensures stability, and for most provinces you don't even need to waste an idea group on it, but it also means that you will be weakening your own country at the expense of your rivals.

When you finish Humanism you get 10% idea cost reduction, saving you 40 points per idea. If you take and max humanist before you take any other group, you save 1960 points. Admitidly at most 840 of these will be admin, and it does take up a slot meaning you can't take another admin idea until you're third idea group, but this, the opportunity cost, not the raw admin points, is the main cost. (For comparison 840 points - the difference between the saving and the cost - is 70/ruler admin skill years worth of points).

I often take humanism for the accepted culture bonuses, the reduced idea cost and the reduced revolt risk. The religious bonuses are a great plus when I'm expanding into heathen territory though.

Wrt your actual Idea doing something like this sounds cool, but I'd like to expand the migration mechanic to colonies too (i.e. converting religion or culture can sometimes lose you development but then that development goes to your colonies instead of your rivals. Or sometimes to your rivals colonies =P)

 

[Jomini]

Title sums it up nicely.

A lot of decisions affecting tolerance would make a lot more sense if tolerance were split up by religion group, not just by heretic/heathen. For example, the Hindu "persecute Muslims" decision will, now that the Eastern religion group has been split up, make you extremely intolerant of Buddhists, because distinctions can't be made. And historically,

For the interface, the tolerance of heretics would remain as is, but the tolerance for heathens could be replaced with the tolerance for the most common religion group in your country besides your own, with a button to open up another smaller interface showing all tolerances for all groups.

Given the limited number of religion groups - Christian, Muslim, Dharmic, Eastern, and Pagan being the only big ones - I don't think this would be unmanageable.

Now onto the second point.

Most people who go for optimized gameplay seem to concur that it's almost always better to convert infidels than it is to dump 2800 admin into humanist ideas.

The decision between tolerance/mass conversion would be a lot closer if there was a basic representation of migration caused by intolerance. The economies of Andalucia and Valencian regions were drastically affected by the expulsion of all Muslims by the Catholic monarchs, and countries like the Netherlands greatly benefited from the stream of Protestant refugees fleeing from French persecution.

This can be handled, as some mods already do, by having events to reduce local development in provinces that you convert, with other, more tolerant countries receiving the development that you lost. This alone would even the playing field - conversion ensures stability, and for most provinces you don't even need to waste an idea group on it, but it also means that you will be weakening your own country at the expense of your rivals.

The vast, vast majority of religious conversion of this era resulted in mass emigration. Ideally, converting a province should reduce its development (as nearly universally occurred) and result in emigres bulking up the development of your religious enemies.

Ideally, we'd have a short term/long term tension. Early conversion is a big short term hit to development, but long term is better. Maybe something like intolerance has some events that result in some disaster like Aurangzeb or the St. Bartholomew's day Massacre leading to rebellion, de-development, and trouble, but can be averted with enough tolerance.

 

[Jomini]

That's due primarily to the utility of deus vult, not the inherent value in converting. If humanist had a deus vult equivalent it would be used by WC players more than religious. Stuff like Hindu would basically never have to convert while Abrahamic stuff can still convert w/o religious easily and will have fewer rebels and more unity in the meantime. But access to a top tier CB at the start of the religious tree skews the equation. Humanist is better than religious after imperialism, but that's a long time to wait.

Right now, positive tolerance effectively blocks penalties WRT province value. If it's not positive by enough there's still some issue with religious unity, but it's usually minor given humanist adds a flat 25% bonus.

I think adding intolerance of specific religious groups by other religious groups would create controversy of a kind that PI probably just doesn't want to deal with.

While the CB is the most powerful thing, tolerance of the true faith is something that can be heavily maximized for world conquest as well. it is much easier to power-pair conversion strength (particularly against heretics for Christians and Muslims) and high true faith tolerance than getting everything maxed for three separate tolerance bins. Revolt risk becomes very important for a lot of maximalist play and sporting Religious + Humanist is good even without the CB.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

While the CB is the most powerful thing, tolerance of the true faith is something that can be heavily maximized for world conquest as well. it is much easier to power-pair conversion strength (particularly against heretics for Christians and Muslims) and high true faith tolerance than getting everything maxed for three separate tolerance bins. Revolt risk becomes very important for a lot of maximalist play and sporting Religious + Humanist is good even without the CB.

I'm not so sure, what you really need is heathen tolerance. Christianity can easily run +2 heretic tolerance (3 with high legitimacy) on protestant or 3 forever on reformed, and they convert pretty well too, so to the extent that heathen land will be problematic on 0-1 tolerance (doubtful) you can just convert it over time. The most powerful is nations w/ heathen tolerance though, there just isn't enough land in heretic for most faiths that is actually difficult to convert whereby you'd ever have unity problems if heathen land gives you 100% unity, so anybody with +2 or better in their NI is nasty for humanist.

But I've gone games like humanist on Byzantium too, just screwing around...or games with stuff like Bosnia which doesn't get extra power from NIs the same way. In both cases, if you're taking land hard to convert (Islamic), you probably have 3+ missionaries before this is an issue. If you're not, then conversions are easy and you're less likely to be heavily conquering heathens anyway. Hindu and Confucian both have in-built heathen tolerance with no meaningful consideration for heretics (Confucian tolerates them anyway, Sikh basically doesn't exist).

I guess for non-Sunni Islam it'd be harder since converting is a pain and it's hard to cover your unity, so maybe Shia super-wants religious I guess. Overall I think humanist is better though (IF we're not involving deus vult!) since you don't need as much rebel hunting, loads of heathen vassal annex land has no initial unrest, and if you raise auto basically anything you take has no unrest, ever, unless you go >100% OE.

 

[Jomini]

I'm not so sure, what you really need is heathen tolerance. Christianity can easily run +2 heretic tolerance (3 with high legitimacy) on protestant or 3 forever on reformed, and they convert pretty well too, so to the extent that heathen land will be problematic on 0-1 tolerance (doubtful) you can just convert it over time. The most powerful is nations w/ heathen tolerance though, there just isn't enough land in heretic for most faiths that is actually difficult to convert whereby you'd ever have unity problems if heathen land gives you 100% unity, so anybody with +2 or better in their NI is nasty for humanist.

But I've gone games like humanist on Byzantium too, just screwing around...or games with stuff like Bosnia which doesn't get extra power from NIs the same way. In both cases, if you're taking land hard to convert (Islamic), you probably have 3+ missionaries before this is an issue. If you're not, then conversions are easy and you're less likely to be heavily conquering heathens anyway. Hindu and Confucian both have in-built heathen tolerance with no meaningful consideration for heretics (Confucian tolerates them anyway, Sikh basically doesn't exist).

I guess for non-Sunni Islam it'd be harder since converting is a pain and it's hard to cover your unity, so maybe Shia super-wants religious I guess. Overall I think humanist is better though (IF we're not involving deus vult!) since you don't need as much rebel hunting, loads of heathen vassal annex land has no initial unrest, and if you raise auto basically anything you take has no unrest, ever, unless you go >100% OE.

I think you are misunderstanding me, with deus vult, religious is a good supplement to humanist for maximalist play.

Right now religious makes a strong case for being the 3rd most powerful idea, DV is a huge part of that. Without DV, it still would be in the top quarter (at least) for world conquest type runs. Humanist is, of course far better (most due to less nationalism) straight up, but having the trifecta of plutocratic, religious, humanist allows to run a lot quicker during the "blitz the world" stage. You can afford to cross the 100 OExt barrier in a significant way. Particularly if you have the common sets of WC ideas (admin, influence, aristo if you went republic via decision) you can really drop effective revolt risk with high TTF and high RR reduction via policies.

Religious without DV would be worthless for most anything else, but when you are taking out huge swathes of land and are carefully managing AE/OExt, revolt risk reduction is behind only point efficiency for the whole game and behind only AE management for some of the game.