When fighting tag-switching, Do it right.

[makaramus]

I don't think Germany/HRE should have their own ideas; because there are simply too many countries that can form them, too many backgrounds. Plus; in particular with HRE; it never actually existed ever.

And yes; Germany didn't exist in the game's timeframe. But it was possible and thought of. Same with Italy. And Malaya [Read: Indonesia]. And a united Arabia.

Notably; of these only Italy has it's own NI's; and Italy also has the fewest nations naturally able to form it. [Also it semi-existed before via Rome]

same for hindustan and bharat but they do get their own ideas
they would include their "if formed" ideas like italy did
if HRE formed it would be diplomatic and admirated empire. if germany formed it would be more militaristic and tolorated empire atleast as I see (since hre more religius)

I mean india has much diffrent nation as hre but now both of their formation got their own idea
just like hre and germany

 

[raikaria]

same for hindustan and bharat but they do get their own ideas
they would include their "if formed" ideas like italy did
if HRE formed it would be diplomatic and admirated empire. if germany formed it would be more militaristic and tolorated empire atleast as I see (since hre more religius)

I mean india has much diffrent nation as hre but now both of their formation got their own idea
just like hre and germany

Yeah I forgot those two get their own NI's now.

And I don't like that either.

 

[makaramus]

Yeah I forgot those two get their own NI's now.

And I don't like that either.

why not? I love actually and I belive all end game tags should have them
end game tags were supposed to make you reach "empire" rank. now its no longer required its either to get permant claims or achivement. giving them good national ideas equal to mughals is great thing .

 

[Ludi Burekdzija]

I feel like some people here need to differentiate if EU4 is historical simulator or a game.
For me its a game with all its freedoms.
For some people its a simulator that should have very limited freedoms and possibilities.
I don't like that opinion.

 

[Piotrzeci]

I feel like some people here need to differentiate if EU4 is historical simulator or a game.
For me its a game with all its freedoms.
For some people its a simulator that should have very limited freedoms and possibilities.
I don't like that opinion.

The game has historical setup. It is not a simulation, but a strategy game with historical possibility as the theme. It's not Civ where the Aztec border Rome and United States, or some other game where you play as a Kingdom of Sugarland in the land of Candyheaven.
Obviously not everything that happens in the game makes historical sense, but
Making game more historically accurate is a valid argument.
If the game was just a sandbox, it would have a Space Invasion by now, as it would be a fun lategame crisis.
It's you who is wrong. You assume there is no middle ground, that a game is either a fun sandbox, where you do what you want or a movie of exactly what happened in the history and player can't change the outcome. EU4 is neither of those.

 

[Ludi Burekdzija]

The game has historical setup. It is not a simulation, but a strategy game with historical possibility as the theme. It's not Civ where the Aztec border Rome and United States, or some other game where you play as a Kingdom of Sugarland in the land of Candyheaven.
Obviously not everything that happens in the game makes historical sense, but
Making game more historically accurate is a valid argument.
If the game was just a sandbox, it would have a Space Invasion by now, as it would be a fun lategame crisis.

CK2 has a Sunset Invasion while we are at it.
Historical setup is nice and okay, and it follows up with middle game nation formations or some breakaway countries, late game is completely wild.
For me its a mix of those and you are the one who is wrong. I enjoy being able to form historical nations, have historical start and possibly a tall historical end.
But I do not think that you should be limited with what you can do. Judging by some peoples posts you should play historically always.
One aspect that is not historical but is obviously intended by the developers is "Play as a released vassal", which I really do enjoy and many achievements are focused on that mechanic.
Also many achievements are not focused on history and require of you to stray from historical path which is also fun.

It's you who is wrong. You assume there is no middle ground, that a game is either a fun sandbox, where you do what you want or a movie of exactly what happened in the history and player can't change the outcome. EU4 is neither of those.

Nope, you are wrong, you did not judge me right. I already stated in this post that I like playing both ways. I like playing as tall Prussia, and conquering the whole world with them and then switching to Yuan or something.
My point about some people wanting a historical simulator is that some people here have very cranky comments about how game works now and how devs make it.
Like a guy few posts above me saying he does not like that Hindustan and Bharat have their own national ideas now. If I was in charge I would give EVERY nation its own national ideas (German ideas, looking at you).

I understand that people complain about some gamey multiplayer formations that give you the edge. But in Single Player, does it really kills your game experience if someone else can form it? Or are you annoyed simply by the fact that someone else can?

 

[Ludi Burekdzija]

The only historical culture switch I can think of is the ERE's switch from Latin to Greek. Can anyone else think of any others?

Again with historical nonsense. After Alexanders conquests many eastern lands claimed they had Greek culture even though Greek population there was a minority.
Egypt, Seleucia, even Baktria were officially Greek, but ethnicity was not Greek.
What about Mughals? What about England? What about Yuan? And so on and so on, many nations shifted their culture.
And you need to know what is a culture. Culture it not ethnicity, its tied to social aspects of a group of people.
Ethnic change takes a lot of time. But cultural change does not.
Culture shifting of a province in game takes about 10 years. For example, Mongols did not like that Kublai Khan's son was "too much Chinese" because he was educated that way. I would say it is not that ahistorical and unrealistic the way it works in game.

 

[jrgen3]

Again with historical nonsense. After Alexanders conquests many eastern lands claimed they had Greek culture even though Greek population there was a minority.
Egypt, Seleucia, even Baktria were officially Greek, but ethnicity was not Greek.

That is also 2 000 years before the start of the game, and it's a totally different situation. Those areas had been conquered by a Greek cultured country, and therefore already had some Greek influence. In the game, if you decide to culture change, it's usually because you have conquered some culture and decided that it's better for some reason than the one you already have.

What about Mughals? What about England? What about Yuan? And so on and so on, many nations shifted their culture.

What about them? I don't know much about Mughals or Yuan, but Mughals has a decision to change its primary culture, and Yuan was dead and buried by 1444.
When did England change it's culture? In 1066? Sure, but that was because it was conquered. Later there was some sort of "mutual" assimilation between the population and the ruling class, but you can just give them English culture and it won't really be a problem. If they were to win the 100 years' war, though, that could be early enough that they would remain "French", but how often do they win the war and keep France in a PU? Probably not often enough to do anything about it, but you could give them Normand at the start of the game, and upon losing the war, they change culture to English. It would take about 5 minutes to make that change.

And you need to know what is a culture. Culture it not ethnicity, its tied to social aspects of a group of people.
Ethnic change takes a lot of time. But cultural change does not.

I agree with this, but it would take a lot to change the culture as well. If France were to conquer China, it would never change its culture from French as they already have so much influence and French culture is very different from Chinese. For countries nearby China, like Korea, Manchuria etc. it would make more sense, as those countries already were so influenced by Chinese culture, but culture changes should be extremely rare. Most actual culture changes in the game's time frame have some sort of decision to do it. Another example of a "culture change" with a decision is Prussia, but that is not a real culture change. The culture of the rulers and government didn't change. What changed, was what it meant to be Prussian.

I would say it is not that ahistorical and unrealistic the way it works in game.

It kind of is, though. In particular, it is the part about it being the stated land only (which makes it very easy to exploit). But even that is not enough. If France were to conquer China in 1450 in the game, no other areas conquered (nevermind that it's impossible), they still wouldn't culture change to Chinese even if Chinese now was >50 percent of the stated land, as they still hold on to their homeland and consider French to be their culture. If they then lost France, maybe.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Obviously not everything that happens in the game makes historical sense, but
Making game more historically accurate is a valid argument.

If players could progress into Mughal ideas without tag switching in most cases they'd just take the ideas and not bother with drifting or state/destate micro.

Self-inconsistency is not valid and can't be. If that argument counts, it must count consistently to be valid. EU 4 has a terrible patch track record when it comes to internally consistent "historical" reasoning. The new world was gutted over that lack of logic. The old world need not follow suit.

What is the primary motivation for changing tags? Broadly speaking, it's to receive the benefits of "permanent claims and missions" or much more commonly better "national ideas". Remove that incentive, and you remove the tangible benefit that leads players to do form chains. From an optimization standpoint, any cost is too much when you're not receiving any benefit.

But no, Imerina conquering all of India and Anatolia being stuck with the same ideas as Imerina on Madagascar is perfectly fine in this "historical game"...as are fixed "national ideas" regardless of what the tag does for 300 years.. Forming two new tags to get better ideas though? Somehow that crosses the line?

No. That isn't valid and holding both positions in the previous paragraph *can't* be valid. National ideas are no more "historical" than tag switching. They're less. They suggest that two nations holding otherwise identical territory with very similar cultures *necessarily* have vastly disparate capabilities (IE do the exact same thing as Imerina but with identical culture alternative nation from Madagascar). They lack causal interaction with the game board and there is no greater possible deviation from history than to dump the relationship between cause and effect.

Fix that, and most tag switching vanishes. Only holdovers would be HRE nonsense and/or missions/claims...but missions/claims being TAG specific independent of context is similarly nonsense.

 

[Ludi Burekdzija]

I will say only this:
Gameplay >>>>> Total Historical Accuracy

 

[Piotrzeci]

If players could progress into Mughal ideas without tag switching in most cases they'd just take the ideas and not bother with drifting or state/destate micro.

Self-inconsistency is not valid and can't be. If that argument counts, it must count consistently to be valid. EU 4 has a terrible patch track record when it comes to internally consistent "historical" reasoning. The new world was gutted over that lack of logic. The old world need not follow suit.

What is the primary motivation for changing tags? Broadly speaking, it's to receive the benefits of "permanent claims and missions" or much more commonly better "national ideas". Remove that incentive, and you remove the tangible benefit that leads players to do form chains. From an optimization standpoint, any cost is too much when you're not receiving any benefit.

But no, Imerina conquering all of India and Anatolia being stuck with the same ideas as Imerina on Madagascar is perfectly fine in this "historical game"...as are fixed "national ideas" regardless of what the tag does for 300 years.. Forming two new tags to get better ideas though? Somehow that crosses the line?

No. That isn't valid and holding both positions in the previous paragraph *can't* be valid. National ideas are no more "historical" than tag switching. They're less. They suggest that two nations holding otherwise identical territory with very similar cultures *necessarily* have vastly disparate capabilities (IE do the exact same thing as Imerina but with identical culture alternative nation from Madagascar). They lack causal interaction with the game board and there is no greater possible deviation from history than to dump the relationship between cause and effect.

Fix that, and most tag switching vanishes. Only holdovers would be HRE nonsense and/or missions/claims...but missions/claims being TAG specific independent of context is similarly nonsense.

And how does it connect to my message? I said, that a change that makes game more historical is justified by the historical setup of the game. I didn't even go into any example or context. All I stated was that going for historical accuracy in a change justifies making it. Also I did say a fun historical game isn't impossible and going for more historically accurate game, doesn't necessary make it less fun.

I will say only this:
Gameplay >>>>> Total Historical Accuracy

Total you say? It's impossible to make a game that is totally historically accurate as it would be a movie. It's about balancing sandbox part of the game with historical setup and the simple question is "Why not both?".

The riches and intrigue of Indian politics are the focus of Europa Universalis IV: Dharma, the newest expansion to Paradox Development Studio’s classic historical grand strategy game.

 

[Ludi Burekdzija]

Total you say? It's impossible to make a game that is totally historically accurate as it would be a movie. It's about balancing sandbox part of the game with historical setup and the simple question is "Why not both?".

You are always talking nonsense. You are constantly saying "game with historical setup".
Historical setup is there, for the most part its not even historically accurate. Cultures are wrong, some countries are there that did not exists then (or were merely vassal states). But it is not a problem for me. It does not kill my immersion, but it seems that even slightest inaccuracy kills immersion for you folks.
According to your posts, this game is already perfect as I advocate, it has historical setup and after you click start anything can happen. Tlemcen AI can invade Iberia, and Byzantium can kill Ottomans.

Changes people are suggesting are tied to the gameplay, not historical setup, about culture shifting and everything.
Game is hard enough to understand for most of people as it is now. Complicating it even more for the sake of someones immersion is obviously not what the devs intend, as they demonstrated.

 

[Ludi Burekdzija]

Culture shifting can be discouraged very easily.
If you culture shift, all provinces with your previous main culture should suffer penalties to unrest, tax, production and missionary progress and so on for a moderate amount of time.
Cultural shifting is usually aggressive promotion of another culture in your country and it should have penalties with what was your previous main culture.
It is actually very historically accurate, because people did not like when their ruler is of a different culture.

It kind of is, though. In particular, it is the part about it being the stated land only (which makes it very easy to exploit). But even that is not enough. If France were to conquer China in 1450 in the game, no other areas conquered (nevermind that it's impossible), they still wouldn't culture change to Chinese even if Chinese now was >50 percent of the stated land, as they still hold on to their homeland and consider French to be their culture. If they then lost France, maybe.

And culture shifting is that, changing culture of your ruling dynasty (not exactly but near it) with effect that people of same culture and culture group like you more.
Culture shifting is meant exactly for that, so that you lose those penalties for unaccepted cultures. (Even when I start as Byzantium I switch to Turkish because most of my lands are Turkish and most lands I conquer are in same group so I don't need to accept them because I am an Empire already).
Its not making all of your Asian provinces "French" if your primary culture is French as your reply suggests.
You constantly confuse changing culture of a province with cultural shifting.

 

[jrgen3]

And culture shifting is that, changing culture of your ruling dynasty (not exactly but near it) with effect that people of same culture and culture group like you more.
Culture shifting is meant exactly for that, so that you lose those penalties for unaccepted cultures. (Even when I start as Byzantium I switch to Turkish because most of my lands are Turkish and most lands I conquer are in same group so I don't need to accept them because I am an Empire already).

But the Roman Empire wouldn't just abandon Greek for Turkish if they literally defeated the Ottomans and took all their stuff. Perhaps they would start accepting Turkish culture, but they wouldn't culture shift to Turkish. I mean, I can totally see the in-game benefit of doing it, but it would be madness to even suggest something like that to the court of the Emperor (even by the Emperor), when they are the Roman Empire, and they have just started to take back their rightful land.

Its not making all of your Asian provinces "French" if your primary culture is French as your reply suggests.
You constantly confuse changing culture of a province with cultural shifting.

I never said anything about culture converting (very different from culture shifting). I said that if France conquers China (China remains Chinese cultured), they still wouldn't just culture shift to Chinese, because, well, they literally conquered China. French culture would likely be the most influential culture in the world at that point, and they wouldn't just abandon that. If they then lost France, maybe the ruling class would consider something like that. It might have been a bad example. I could have used Poland and Russia, Austria and all the stuff they took over the years, or even something like Normandy conquering England. Which happened, and they didn't really "culture shift" until all hopes of conquering France were gone, and all their French holdings were taken. People are generally quite resistant to change, and the ruling class is not happy to just randomly abandon their culture and tradition just because they happened to conquer a huge amount of land. I just don't think it makes much sense to culture shift in most of those cases. They were the conquerors, not the conquered. They should be applying their culture to the provinces, not the other way around. There are examples where it kinda would make sense to change, like if one of the minor countries near China were to conquer all of it, as they would already be very influenced by Chinese culture (and they would perhaps consider China to be somewhat like the Roman Empire for Europe; "The best, coolest and most awesome country to ever exist"), and some states that are on the border between two powerful culture groups and influenced by both, like Savoy (French and Italian), but these exceptions are quite few. BYZ->Turkish, TUR->Georgian and FRA->Chinese does not really sound all that realistic to me.

 

[Vulkandrache]

But the Roman Empire wouldn't just abandon Greek for Turkish if they literally defeated the Ottomans and took all their stuff. Perhaps they would start accepting Turkish culture, but they wouldn't culture shift to Turkish.

What would they do then?
And what would the remnants of the turkish population do?

The reason youd do this ingame is numbers. Because otherwise youd get rebelarmies way bigger than what you had to fight to get the land in the first place.

There is no ingame equivalent to installing a military opression government in the newly conquered land.
You cant kill 10% of citizens in a town to keep the other 90% in line.
The people that would be living in the province need to keep tending the field IRL or they starve. Ingame they just magically multiply once theyve spawned as rebels.

There is so much abstraction going on just for holding the land itself that culture switching should be the least complained about mechanic.

I said that if France conquers China (China remains Chinese cultured), they still wouldn't just culture shift to Chinese, because, well, they literally conquered China. French culture would likely be the most influential culture in the world at that point, and they wouldn't just abandon that. If they then lost France, maybe the ruling class would consider something like that.

Then why doenst culture concersion get cheaper the longer you hold a province?
Why does chinese culture still have the same penalties after 200 years as it does in the freshly conquered land?.

 

[jrgen3]

What would they do then?
And what would the remnants of the turkish population do?

They would remain Greek? I mean, why wouldn't they? For them, there's no incentive to claim to be Turkish. To accept Turkish, yes, definitely, but not to claim that they are Turkish themselves. I don't know what the Turkish population would do. What do conquered people usually do?

The reason youd do this ingame is numbers. Because otherwise youd get rebelarmies way bigger than what you had to fight to get the land in the first place.

I know... And I said that there are in-game benefits, but even the idea of culture shifting would seem like madness to the Greeks in the Roman administration if they actually conquered the Ottoman Empire.

There is no ingame equivalent to installing a military opression government in the newly conquered land.
You cant kill 10% of citizens in a town to keep the other 90% in line.
The people that would be living in the province need to keep tending the field IRL or they starve. Ingame they just magically multiply once theyve spawned as rebels.

I thought Harsh Treatment was supposed to represent something like this. Of course, it uses MIL power, but it's only a problem the first 25 (?) years, isn't it? After that, the unrest should be fairly low.

 

[tip001]

So a lot of people posted in this thread already, a lot of individuals from across the world. They all posted in English so we can understand each-other. I bet you all watch a lot of movies or all the latest political crap coming from America. I even assume you know a lot of English swear words and use them daily in your local language.
This Americanization of our cultures is just from last 30 years.

So I think IRL culture-shifting is a thing that's rapid, if you all are open to it. Think about it.

I got you all

 

[Ludi Burekdzija]

They would remain Greek? I mean, why wouldn't they? For them, there's no incentive to claim to be Turkish. To accept Turkish, yes, definitely, but not to claim that they are Turkish themselves. I don't know what the Turkish population would do. What do conquered people usually do?

You obviously do not know how the cultural shifting works in real life. Cultural change is something that happens every day, and you can educate your entire new generation according some new culture if you want to. That can be considered a cultural shift. If the Byzantium conquered vast territory from Turks and their population was like only 10% of all population in their empire, it would be hard for them to rule. Only if they are proud they will still consider them Greek. And they were proud, and thus Byzantium fell.

When Manchus took power in China they became more and more Han Chinese over the years until "culture shifting" to Chinese. They were a minority and Chinese cultural influence had much impact on them. They adopted Confucianism, and Chinese customs and traditions and thus they became Chinese. They were still ethnically Manchu.
Same happened with Yuan (Even though it was before 1444, its still a realistic historical example), Mongols became more and more Chinese. You can't say it did not happened ever in history.
All these people here repeat only what they heard from textbooks, not from real history. What says in the book is also incorrect most of the times.

Why you would do it? Because you want to remain ruling and you need to appease the court.

 

[Ludi Burekdzija]

So a lot of people posted in this thread already, a lot of individuals from across the world. They all posted in English so we can understand each-other. I bet you all watch a lot of movies or all the latest political crap coming from America. I even assume you know a lot of English swear words and use them daily in your local language.
This Americanization of our cultures is just from last 30 years.

So I think IRL culture-shifting is a thing that's rapid, if you all are open to it. Think about it.

I got you all

Nice one, exactly, it is really really rapid.
In my country its not even 30 years, its just from last 10-15 years since Facebook and Internet developed. So it can be even faster.

 

[Vulkandrache]

I know... And I said that there are in-game benefits, but even the idea of culture shifting would seem like madness to the Greeks in the Roman administration if they actually conquered the Ottoman Empire.

I dont give a shit, you shouldnt give a shit and it should not matter in any way what the nations way back when would have done.

We are arguing about the game here. What kind of stuff can you do ingame to combat the fact that the new land is rebelious well past the point of what would have been reasonable back in the day.
The effect of unrest and rebelions is heavily exagerated but the tools to combat it the normal way are not.
So people just culture switch.

Harsh treatment is way too expensive. If it quelled all unrest for a rebeltype for 2 years in addition to reducing progress then you could claim that it represents something.

If accepted culture was for the entire group or if the current slots got increased tenfold or if accepting and switching cultures was free
wed have an interessting mechanic.

Add some interesting mechanics to combat unrest, add in some tradeoffs and spice it with some RP elements.
Want to throw money at the provinces to simulate famine relieve and rebuilding efforts to reduce unrest? You can to that.
Want to install a brutal military police that has a high chance of reducing dev but reduces unrest? You can do that.
Want to turn the province into empty, uncolonize land to get rid of unrest? You can to that.

Add mechanics that go beyond "spend mil points", "wait it out" or "kill loads of rebels" and you instantly eliminate alot of culture switching gameplay.