• 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.

Dev Diary #47 - Conversion and Assimilation

16_9.jpg

Happy Thursday! Today our topic returns to Pop mechanics, with a discussion around some of the finer details on how Pops may change their religion and culture over time depending on your nation’s legal system. The mechanics themselves are quite straightforward, but as always in Victoria 3, the applications of them can have quite different outcomes in different situations.

Let’s begin by reviewing the mechanics around Discrimination, since this will be important later in the discussion. We’ve already talked about most of this in other dev diaries but some details here may be new.
dakotaculture.png

Discriminated Pops have barely any Political Strength and cannot vote. This means the only way they can impact your country’s politics is by agitating for change through Political Movements, or by starting a civil war for self-rule through a Cultural Secession. In addition to being hamstrung politically, they also get paid substantially less than their non-discriminated counterparts, have a harder time developing Qualifications for certain Professions, and their presence in your country is a potential source of radicalism and Turmoil.

Whether a Pop is discriminated against or accepted depends on who they are, the national identity of the country they live in, and the laws of that country. Both culture and religion are potential reasons for discrimination, and these are controlled by different laws. Your Citizenship laws determine which Pops are discriminated against on the basis of their culture, while your Church and State laws determine which forms of worship are considered acceptable in your country. To be considered non-discriminated by these laws, Pops must pass a more or less stringent selection criteria based on how much they differ from the primary culture(s) and state religion in the country.

For example, under the Racial Segregation Citizenship law, only Pops whose culture’s heritage trait matches that of their primary cultures heritage trait will be accepted. The heritage trait indicates which region of the world the culture originates from (e.g. European, African, Indigenous American), and under this law that is the only thing that matters - whether the Pops speak the same language, or are both transplants in the New World, is unimportant in determining their status. By contrast, under Cultural Exclusion, any similarity between a Pop’s culture and one of the primary ones qualifies them as equal under the law.

The total set of options are:

Ethnostate: only Pops of primary cultures are accepted
National Supremacy: Pops whose cultures share both heritage and another trait are accepted
Racial Segregation: Pops of the same heritage are accepted
Cultural Exclusion: Pops whose cultures share any similarities are accepted
Multiculturalism: no cultures are discriminated against

State Religion: only Pops who adhere to the state religion are accepted
Freedom of Conscience: Pops who adhere to a religion in the same family as the state religion are accepted (e.g. any branch of Christianity, any form of Buddhist)
Total Separation: no religions are discriminated against

citizenshiplawsus.png

The practical impact of these laws therefore depends on what the state religion and primary cultures of your country are, as well as who actually lives in your country. An Ethnostate operates no differently in practice than a Multicultural state if only Pops of primary cultures live there. Since Pops are unlikely to mass migrate to your country if they’d be oppressed there once they arrived, until you expand your borders and populace by force you may not see a practical difference (except for a curious lack of immigrants). But if you were to form a Customs Union with a poorer neighbor, resulting in a lot of economic migration within the market to your country, you might have to deal with substantial political strife until you take steps to loosen up your Citizenship laws. If the option exists for you, as an alternative you might consider attempting to unify your nations instead (which we’ll learn more about next week) in order to accept both cultures as “primary”.

Alright, now that we’ve cleared up how countries can adapt to the Pops, we will consider how Pops might adapt to their country.

culturesus.png

First let’s tackle Religious Conversion. Pops who are discriminated against on the basis of their religion will always be in the process of converting to an accepted religion. The religion they convert to is not necessarily the state religion, though - it could be any accepted religion that is dominant in the state where they live. An Indigenous American following an Animist religion in a United States with Freedom of Conscience instead of Total Separation is eventually going to convert to some form of Christianity to avoid religious persecution, but if they live in a Nebraska that has been settled by predominantly Catholic rather than Protestant Pops, they would convert to Catholicism even though Protestantism is the dominant religion in the nation as a whole.

Pops convert at a percentage-based rate, currently set to a base of 0.2% / month (as usual, numbers such as these are subject to balancing and change before release, and are always moddable). A percentage-based conversion rate naturally means a diminishing number of actual converts over time, so at this rate it would take almost 30 years for ½ of your discriminated population to convert. If you find this rate too ponderous for your strategic goals, you have two primary tools at your disposal to speed it up.

The Religious School System law + institution combination increases this rate by +20% per investment level, up to a potential maximum of +100% (i.e. twice the speed). It also increases the Education Access of Pops overall and increases the Clout of the Devout Interest Group.

The other method is the Promote National Values decree. Like all decrees, it is issued in a certain state and costs Authority for each state it is issued in, so in a larger country you will have to focus your efforts. Promote National Values doubles the rate of both conversion and assimilation.

berbersunniconversion.png

Using a combination of both methods, you could speed up religious conversion such that ½ of a minority population can be converted to an accepted religion within the span of a 10 years. Of course, your school system only extends to incorporated states, so if you’re trying to mass convert Pops in conquered land or colonies you will have to do so by decree - or embark on the often lengthy and painstaking process of incorporating a part of the world that’s culturally alien to your country.

This leads us to cultural assimilation. The conditions for assimilation are a little more complex than conversion, and in some ways operate by the reverse logic. In order to start assimilating, a Pop must already be culturally accepted. After all, if they can’t get citizenship, can’t vote, can’t participate in politics, can’t get paid a fair wage on the basis of who they are, there simply is no way for them to assimilate - by which we mean, integrate themselves into a primary culture such that they are both accepted as such by others and genuinely consider themselves part of that culture. Renouncing one’s religious beliefs and practices can be a very practical and concrete choice, but adopting and being adopted by a different culture is not a utilitarian decision.

In addition, Pops will never change culture if they live in a state they consider their Homeland. A Franco-Canadian in Ontario might over time adopt the ways and tongue of their Anglo-Canadian neighbors, but a Franco-Canadian who resides in Quebec?! Plutôt mourir!

(And of course, if a confederated Canada has been created with both Anglo- and Franco-Canadian as primary cultures, none of those types of Pops would be changing cultures in the first place.)

If a Pop should be assimilating, the culture they will be assimilating into will always be a primary culture. This is because, again, this is not a practical decision that’s just up to the Pop in question, but a two-way-street of assimilation into the dominant national identity. In the case of countries with multiple primary cultures, the one selected will be the Homeland of the state the Pop lives in, or in case none or several apply, the dominant one among Pops who already live there. A Czech Pop living in a unified Germany (North + South German) in the state of Silesia (North German and Polish Homelands) will assimilate into the North German culture; if they lived in Bavaria they would be assimilating into the South German culture; and if they lived in Bohemia they would not assimilate at all, since Bohemia is a not only a South German but also a Czech Homeland. If this Pop instead lived in Transylvania (with both Hungarian and Romanian primary cultures and Homelands), they would be assimilating into whichever of those cultures is more dominant in the part of Transylvania where they live.

The rate of assimilation is the same as for religion, 0.2% per month. As mentioned, the Promote National Values decree can be used to double this rate on a per-state basis. In addition, a Public School System will provide an increased assimilation rate of +12.5% per investment level, representing perhaps a less overt approach to indoctrination than their religious counterparts. With maximum effort, this means you can assimilate half of a minority population in about 18 years.

northgermanprotestantassimilation.png

I’ll end on a small design note. While our primary motivation while developing these mechanics was to provide a logical and believable simulation, a nice side effect of the asymmetry between conversion and assimilation is that there’s no way to benefit from both without an asymmetry in your laws as well. An inclusive, accepting, discrimination-free society won’t also become religiously homogeneous over time, nor will an oppressive, xenophobic country be able to assimilate their cultural minorities just by waiting them out while throwing resources at integrating them. Culture-wise, Pops need to be either accepted or harshly dealt with, now or in the future. Being accepting of all faiths today means there will be problems if you backtrack in the future. There is no one-size-fits-all strategy for dealing with heterogeneous populations.

There are of course a few good examples of countries that already start out with asymmetrical Citizenship and Church and State laws. The Ottoman Empire, home to a lot of cultural and religious minorities, has fairly lenient Citizenship Laws but zero separation of Church and State. As a result they will initially have a lot of both assimilation and conversion, and increasing the rate of those further might be one way for them to try to minimize Turmoil due to discrimination long-term. Meanwhile, the United States has total separation of Church and State (zero religious conversion, but no religious discrimination either) but Racial Segregation laws that cause considerable population segments to be discriminated against, particularly Indigenous- and African-American. Since none of these populations will ever be assimilating unless the Citizenship policy changes, this problem will not just go away on its own. Either the United States changes course legally, or they will have to continue dealing with trouble caused by the oppression of these minorities for the following century.

That’s all for this week! Like I hinted above, next week Martin will get into how Unifications work in Victoria 3, which I for one am very excited about!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 175Like
  • 50Love
  • 22
  • 20
  • 16
Reactions:
Well, it kind of already works like that. Each month 0.2% of the remaining minority population converts, so as the minority numbers shrink, so does the amount of monthly converts.

30 years to convert half of the original discriminated population, another 30 to convert half of the remaining half (a quarter of the original population), and so on. You won't be able to wipe out a religion completely from a state, barring some heavy migration.
My dumb-self forgot how to read there, thanks for straightening out the words there.
 
I'm slightly concerned by the notion that pops who are subject to religious discrimination will always be in the process of converting. There are many examples of religious communities that survived oppression for centuries, most obviously Jews. I'm not aware of any case where a large Jewish population was successfully converted to another religion. Every example I can think of where there was a large decline in the Jewish population was the result of emigration (voluntary or forced) or genocide.

That said, the rates represented here are low enough that population growth could make up the difference, which makes sense.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
An Ethnostate operates no differently in practice than a Multicultural state if only Pops of primary cultures live there.
This doesn't seem accurate to political science or how ethnostates happen, and a different standard than the rest of the game. Shouldn't you just have no law or a very ineffective one until you reach some proportion, then one emerges? And shouldn't there be another option after multiculturalism and seperation of church and state?
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
What about the Metis in Canada? (which just means mixed-race in French, but there refers to a group of native Americans with French blood). Is that handled by the game or just represented to be present at game start? (i.e. no such ethnicity/culture can appear during the game)

Edit: to be clear they emerged in the mid-18th century. But could something similar take place during the game?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
In the case of greater cultural unions, I could see cases where several different similar cultures all unify under a larger shared culture even inside territory they consider their homeland. For example, France being made up of a multitude of minor french cultures early on but slowly consolidating into a larger cosmopolitian culture at the end thanks to assimilation and education efforts. Or Germany consolidating the minor German cultures into the major union cultures as people might come to see them more as Germans rather than Bavarians or Prussians thanks to the growth of nationalism and the process of unification.

With regards to homelands, one situation where the game should be able to add homelands is in cases where there are cultural diasporas and a region becomes set aside for that culture in some respect for them to flock to. Say they either form a break away state, they become a dominant culture in a region, or a region is set aside for them by a larger state. In which case that region could become their homeland and their culture is much more likely to consolidate into that region. It could be seen as either a protected region dictated by state laws or peace treaties, or that culture becoming fiercely protective of something they finally have to call their own.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
To all the people who say "This seems like a solid system but it needs fleshing out", I have no idea what in the world is solid about it.

If you're a POP, you can only change cultures if it wouldn't make a difference, if you don't live in some place your wider culture claims to be its "homeland", and if there's no state religion, you are never going to meet a proselytizer in your life. If you're a government, you can only conduct assimilation and erasure of a culture on a systemic level if you already view the people you're erasing as equals, and if you're running a tyranny, you can't try and assimilate troublesome minorities if they're in their "homeland", because apparently you just recognize they have the right to that land implicitly.

What the hell is solid about this?
 
  • 9
  • 8
Reactions:
National Supremacy gives twice as much authority as Racial Segregation. Numbers are of course not final and need balancing, but that alone is to me enough incentive to keep your cultural and religious acceptance laws as narrow as possible.
Ah ok, I didn't catch that. Yeah something like more authority, more loyalists etc. makes sense.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Not to nitpick, but wouldn’t “primary religion” be a better term to use than “state religion”?

After all, a country with “Total Seperation” doesn’t actually have a state religion. It feels silly to see the United States being listed as having a state religion, and it’ll be even sillier to see the Soviet Union have one (unless “atheism” is a possible pop religion). I think “primary religion” fits better as “the religion most commonly practiced in/associated with the state.
 
  • 16
  • 1
Reactions:
I like all the concepts in this dev diary, particularly the difference between religious and cultural conversion, and both conversions having a half-life.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Will some religious groups have added conversion resistance in certain situations? It doesn’t make sense for all of Russia’s Jewish pops to slowly convert to Orthodoxy, or for the Maronites, Armenians, Copts, etc. to all become mostly Sunni after half a century.

Non-accepted religions gradually assimilating works well enough to simulate things like immigration or African colonization. But with the aforementioned groups, where religion is closely tied to a groups’ identity, it doesn’t work so well.
 
  • 5Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm baffled by the name of the most tolerant religious law being "Church and State: Total separation". I know it's outside the time period, but to the best of my knowledge there are currently no laws in the UK (outside of succession law for the monarchy) which discriminate on the basis of religion, and yet the head of state is the head of the Church.
Obviously I'm not saying the UK is free of all religious discrimination, but it's not worse (probably better in some cases) that countries like France with official separation, and you said you only model legal discrimination with it and not actual interpersonal discrimination (which is only modeled through turmoil).

I think it would be better to have those laws named State religion, Limited freedom of conscience, and Full freedom of conscience.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
In general, it would be more useful to look at it from agent perspective (the person who changes the culture).

Ask the question: why would i change the culture. What factors could influnce my behaviour?

(This is of course not necessarily conscious.)

But if you look at this way you may realize that this is complex phenomen with multi-factor causes. And more importantly, two persons may change (assimilate) due to two completely opposite factors. That's why there is never going to be single answer and why the model outlined in the opening post will fail to account for many cases (while it will correctly account for other).

For example, i might change because i want to be accepted socially or consider my own heritage backward or unattractive in some way? (but do i have a group already or am i uprooted migrant from countryside?). Or i want to be more successful in professional life (but are there opportunities which doesn't cost me much effort to change my habits?). Or i might be fed up with persecution (but will it be honest? Will it backfire if there is a turmoil - or will not?).
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
When it came to semi-feudal and other such forms of societal and state organizations of the period, there was usually an agreement between the ruler and the various ethnic, cultural or religious minorities of their realm. It was not always the case, but it was often necessary on a pragmatic scale alone, if not part of the state identity and imperial ideology.

Will we get laws that allow us to specify the autonomy of various ethnic and religious groups within our country? If the system is too far to gain such changes, please consider this for future DLC at least.
 
Don't forget bullying and propaganda. Children are cruel, and the attitudes they get from their parents are probably a strong factor in other children assimilating. Between that and class lessons of a nationalist bent (particularly History), I'd say Public Schooling should even have a similar effect on Assimilation as Religious Schooling does on Conversion.
If we wanted to be accurate, we would start the game with no national cultures and get them as the public schooling forces unitary cultures in Europe.

Even in 1870 only about half of France spoke a language that could pass for a French. Compulsory schooling was absolutely crucial for creating an modern nation states (and frankly, it was practically explicitly it's aim).

You could even say that Europeans suffered colonialism under their own upper class in that timeperiod ;)
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
In general, it would be more useful to look at it from agent perspective (the person who changes the culture).

Ask the question: why would i change the culture. What factors could influnce my behaviour?

(This is of course not necessarily conscious.)

But if you look at this way you may realize that this is complex phenomen with multi-factor causes. And more importantly, two persons may change (assimilate) due to two completely opposite factors. That's why there is never going to be single answer and why the model outlined in the opening post will fail to account for many cases (while it will correctly account for other).

For example, i might change because i want to be accepted socially (but do i have a group already or am i uprooted migrant from countryside?). Or i want to be more successful in professional life (but are there opportunities which doesn't cost me much effort to change my habits?). Or i might be fed up with persecution (but will it be honest? Will it backfire if there is a turmoil - or will not?).

On this topic, I have a relatively radical proposal that may or may not work. First, the dev diary on Pops does confirm that each pop does have a lifespan, right?


To that extent, I’d say that the most accurate way to model cultural assimilation is to limit it to almost nothing. Very few people change the culture they belong to over their lives. A, say, Italian immigrant to the US will almost always see themselves as Italian.

Their children, on the other hand, are extremely likely to see themselves as American. This is exactly how assimilation occurs in reality.

The question then becomes: can the game handle this sort of modeling? I’d say probably, as a gut feeling. New pops are created constantly, representing people being born, right? So, lets assume whatever your assimilation rate is, that is the rate at which a newborn pop that would be Italian would instead be born American (using the above example, ofc). From there, perhaps a rate of, say, 10% of that rate for assimilating adult pops.

Conversely, religion would actually likely be the opposite: if there’s active missionaries, they’re likely to convert adults, rather than children. However, converting adults should also end up converting their dependent children (this might get trickier to model).
 
  • 2
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
But we also do not want forceful, active assimilation to be the primary means of engaging with the assimilation mechanic, since this counteracts some of the core design principles I outlined in the DD. But stay tuned on this topic.

Passive assimilation for economic reasons does not seem to represent the period very well. The Ottoman empire is a perfect example - when it wanted to be forceful in conversion it was quite successful hence the existense of muslim and turkish regions in the Balkans . At the same time Christians paid more taxes than muslims but it did not lead to the kind of assimilation described here. It's fine for pops to have agency in the economy but national identity is forged at the national level, not at the individual level - either forcefully or via an especially successful "cultural unification" narrative.

I don't hate the system as it will probably end up as a minor improvement over the same system in previous titles. But it does feel like a missed opportunity to give the player more tools to manage assimilation/conversion. The entire game is ultimately a balance between inevitable historical forces and the actions of god-like person expending resources and political mana to get things done. And the historical reasons for assimilation/conversion are so poorly documented and understood that it makes more sense to give more control to the player/AI. That can be achieved via high costs and modifiers encouraging certain historically accurate/plausible paths and making historically-inaccurate assimilation inefficient. Thus any ahistorical outcome can be attributed to the player/AI making an ahistorical decision.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
On this topic, I have a relatively radical proposal that may or may not work. First, the dev diary on Pops does confirm that each pop does have a lifespan, right?

Well yes and no.

PoPs are "Parts of Population" IIRC - they are a statistical group of similar people. Each individual person does not have a lifespan but the statistical PoP does have a percentage death rate that mimics the lifespan.

Similiarly an individual does not assimilate but rather 0.2% of the group move to a different group. Whether that is the children being more assimilated than their parents or the adult changing their life style isn't detailed (or relevant) - it is the effect of the statistical movement that is important.

If a PoPs birth rate is greater than the assimilation it might seem as though the group is not assimilating, even though 100s of people might be switching heritage.

Because everything is statistical you can never say for certain that the highly literate labourer "Dave" went and got a job as a machinist and became an assimilated Yankee - all you can say is the (British say) labourer PoP got a bit smaller and less literate but the (yankee) machinist PoP became larger. People will no doubt tell themselves stories about what happened but under the hood it's all statistics.
 
  • 3
  • 3
Reactions:
I'm baffled by the name of the most tolerant religious law being "Church and State: Total separation". I know it's outside the time period, but to the best of my knowledge there are currently no laws in the UK (outside of succession law for the monarchy) which discriminate on the basis of religion, and yet the head of state is the head of the Church.
Obviously I'm not saying the UK is free of all religious discrimination, but it's not worse (probably better in some cases) that countries like France with official separation, and you said you only model legal discrimination with it and not actual interpersonal discrimination (which is only modeled through turmoil).

I think it would be better to have those laws named State religion, Limited freedom of conscience, and Full freedom of conscience.
I think it is because France was anti-clerical and was actively fighting the influence of religion (Catholicism during the time period). Some laws and policies were very explicit in that objective. Anti-clericalism was an important part of 19th and early 20th French politics. I am not sure how you would model that in-game.
 
It could probably be useful to have an extra level of religion laws (or maybe even two).
For instance you take the example of the Ottoman Empire which starts with "zero separation" (State Religion?). If they become some kind of progressive Turkey they could reach Total Separation, but they could also stay stuck at various points in the middle. One obvious middle point would be to accept any form of Islam (in particular Shia branches, present in large numbers around Adana and Van), which seems to correspond to "Freedom of Conscience", but another obvious middle point would be to accept all the "religions of the Book" (including Armenians, Copts, Mizraim, ...). If the Ottoman Empire somehow expands into Subsaharan Africa, they could have a much harder time to accept Animism.

Also, it doesn't seem that the current set of laws and game rules allow to reproduce the situation in French Algeria: Jewish Berbers assimilating (but not converting) while Muslim Berbers do not. In that regard we could imagine that religion are not simply classified into families but also have some bilateral relations (for instance through the use of traits like for cultures and "Cultural Exclusion"): Jews could be made compatible with both Christians and Muslims while keeping Christians and Muslims less compatible under some law.

Ethnostate: only Pops of primary cultures are accepted
National Supremacy: Pops whose cultures share both heritage and another trait are accepted
Racial Segregation: Pops of the same heritage are accepted
Cultural Exclusion: Pops whose cultures share any similarities are accepted
Multiculturalism: no cultures are discriminated against

State Religion: only Pops who adhere to the state religion are accepted
Freedom of Conscience: Pops who adhere to a religion in the same family as the state religion are accepted (e.g. any branch of Christianity, any form of Buddhist)
Total Separation: no religions are discriminated against
 
Well yes and no.

PoPs are "Parts of Population" IIRC - they are a statistical group of similar people. Each individual person does not have a lifespan but the statistical PoP does have a percentage death rate that mimics the lifespan.

Similiarly an individual does not assimilate but rather 0.2% of the group move to a different group. Whether that is the children being more assimilated than their parents or the adult changing their life style isn't detailed (or relevant) - it is the effect of the statistical movement that is important.

If a PoPs birth rate is greater than the assimilation it might seem as though the group is not assimilating, even though 100s of people might be switching heritage.

Because everything is statistical you can never say for certain that the highly literate labourer "Dave" went and got a job as a machinist and became an assimilated Yankee - all you can say is the (British say) labourer PoP got a bit smaller and less literate but the (yankee) machinist PoP became larger. People will no doubt tell themselves stories about what happened but under the hood it's all statistics.

I agree in general, especially insofar as the Vicky2 model was. However, the DD on pops does indicate a more granular representation.
 
  • 1
Reactions: