• 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:
Can you take actions to remove a cultural homeland over time? For example, if you were Japan, and conquered Korea, could you somehow still assimilate Koreans culturally, as was attempted historically?
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Sorry, I was referring to religious assimilation, not cultural one. There is no homeland protection there, as far as I understand

I think that religious conversion happened during colonisation? That's why some part of West Africa is indeed Catholic

I mean, to be precise, non-muslim people converted mostly, in some other part, Islam had too much influence

It's a complicated subject because it wasn't the same everywhere, not a lot of Indian converted to Christianity (I mean, not a lot compared to the population of India)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
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.​

... you realise you're modelling the era of the Know-Nothings? Of Leo Frank? The Mormon movement west to find a place they could practice? Not to mention the enslaved peoples who practiced Islam or traditional religions, and had those beliefs actively destroyed.

Alright, fine, I grant that on paper religious discrimination might not have been a thing, but if your model of the 19th century USA is ignoring the way that religious minorities actively suffered bigotry, discrimination and outright violence it's a bad model.
 
  • 13
  • 5
Reactions:
... you realise you're modelling the era of the Know-Nothings? Of Leo Frank? The Mormon movement west to find a place they could practice? Not to mention the enslaved peoples who practiced Islam or traditional religions, and had those beliefs actively destroyed.

Alright, fine, I grant that on paper religious discrimination might not have been a thing, but if your model of the 19th century USA is ignoring the way that religious minorities actively suffered bigotry, discrimination and outright violence it's a bad model.

How many slaves in the US in 1936 were practiciing traditional African religions or Islam?
 
I honestly have no idea what religious practices the slaves had but, even if they were all Christian, we still would have the issue of native Americans being persecuted and not allowed to practice their religious activites, and also "heretics" like the Mormons.

Unless, of course, the idea is that, by making the US a "totally religious tolerant guys, I promise" nation, those pops won't convert their religion. But why would I want them not to convert if there will be no negatives to those pops? For the cool colors in the pie chart?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
In 1836? Actually quite a few. Some of whom wrote about it themselves, and others we know of from the reporting of escaped non-Muslim slaves.

How many is quite a few? Ballpark - 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
How many is quite a few? Ballpark - 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000?
I don't think we know exactly, but the estimate was ~20% of imported slaves through 1800, many of whom were still be alive and passing down traditions by 1836. So at least thousands, and it very much came up in the era's politics of slavery.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I dislike that assimilation is impossible in homeland, there were many Poles living in Poland that were successfully Germanized/Russified during the period.
These policies were resisted, caused turmoil etc so the effect was limited, but pretending they didn't work at all is wrong.
 
  • 6
  • 2
Reactions:
I think the approach has its benefits, but historically it is rather problematic. To give an example: Nizza/Nice was considered an italian city at the beginning of the 19th century, mostly inhabited by people speaking a ligurian dialect. It was considered an "italian homeland", just look at Garibaldi (Nice was his hometown) trying to conquer it back. Many italian irredentists never gave up on that city, and even after the annexation, there were riots in the city, calling for unification with the Kingdom of Italy.

However, only thirty years after the Treaty of Plombières, Nice had changed considerably. Around 1900, Nice was a french city (mostly), not only culturally, but also ethnically. Discrimination - against italian newspapers, for example - worked. There had been an exodus, many chose to migrate to Italy proper. But after all, Nice was transformed in a french city, way before Victoria's timeframe ends.
 
  • 6Like
  • 6
Reactions:
I think the approach has its benefits, but historically it is rather problematic. To give an example: Nizza/Nice was considered an italian city at the beginning of the 19th century, mostly inhabited by people speaking a ligurian dialect. It was considered an "italian homeland", just look at Garibaldi (Nice was his hometown) trying to conquer it back. Many italian irredentists never gave up on that city, and even after the annexation, there were riots in the city, calling for unification with the Kingdom of Italy.

However, only thirty years after the Treaty of Plombières, Nice had changed considerably. Around 1900, Nice was a french city (mostly), not only culturally, but also ethnically. Discrimination - against italian newspapers, for example - worked. There had been an exodus, many chose to migrate to Italy proper. But after all, Nice was transformed in a french city, way before Victoria's timeframe ends.
Exactly. Cultural change in specific regions mostly happened through population movements. Intermariages and linguistic pressure were lesser factors and took a lot more time. I think that cultural changes would be better simulated by ways of regulating population movements, and possibly intermariages and linguistic education, than through some arcane formula where italians suddenly dump their pastas in exchange for croissants because X amount of time passed.
 
  • 7
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
I think this is a really good DD but I do have one suggestion which relates to what others have been saying about the seemingly ahistorical possibility of a largely Christianised Ashkenazi population in Eastern Europe, a largely islamised Greek or Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire or a largely Christian North African Maghrebi population by the game’s end.
I think perhaps instead the mechanics should reflect how religious distinctiveness often reinforced the cultural distinctiveness of the ethnicities that tended to adhere to them, and that religion and culture tended to be interlinked rather than separate. This could be done by having that instead of only whether a culture is accepted deciding whether its pops will assimilate, a combined measure of the religious and cultural discrimination that pop faces would decide it’s openness to assimilation.
This solution would seem, in my view, to encourage more historical results- for example the Ashkenazim of Eastern Europe would indeed in cases convert to Christianity but now as these pops became religiously accepted it would now be possible for them to be culturally assimilated as well. This would would also open an alternative game-style for cultural assimilation (of believers) by a culturally and religiously intolerant state while still reflecting the added difficulty of such policies by making it still impossible to assimilate those who are both religiously and culturally discriminated. The latter fact would mean that the culturally Ashkenazi population itself would always be predisposed to the Jewish faith as only Christian Ashkenazi would encounter any cultural assimilation. This example could also be used in the Ottoman Empire, where instead of -as the current game mechanics suggest-there be an encouragement towards large numbers of Muslim Greeks and recently assimilated Orthodox Turks, discriminated orthodox Greeks would be highly resistant to cultural assimilation while Muslim Greeks (presumably in this game facing little religious or cultural discrimination in the empire) would be in a process of assimilation into Muslim Turks.
 
  • 5
  • 2Like
Reactions:
USA should not have total separation religious law. Definitely not in 1836.
Non-Christians were still legally discriminated in many states, and notion of tolerating wrong sort of Christians like Catholics was still very novel.
For example in New Hampshire and North Carolina, you had to be Christian to be elected to state legislature until 1870s. North Carolina had permitted Catholics to hold office barely year before game startdate.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I think the approach has its benefits, but historically it is rather problematic. To give an example: Nizza/Nice was considered an italian city at the beginning of the 19th century, mostly inhabited by people speaking a ligurian dialect. It was considered an "italian homeland", just look at Garibaldi (Nice was his hometown) trying to conquer it back. Many italian irredentists never gave up on that city, and even after the annexation, there were riots in the city, calling for unification with the Kingdom of Italy.

However, only thirty years after the Treaty of Plombières, Nice had changed considerably. Around 1900, Nice was a french city (mostly), not only culturally, but also ethnically. Discrimination - against italian newspapers, for example - worked. There had been an exodus, many chose to migrate to Italy proper. But after all, Nice was transformed in a french city, way before Victoria's timeframe ends.
Isn't this better shown as migration because of discrimination which already exists? As opposed to Italians in Nice becoming French?

Same with the Germanification of the Polish lands they held?
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Sadly, I do not understand how these citizenship laws work. What are cultural traits? How many are there? How different are they? Why do you not give examples?

The Heritage trait is where they come from, okay. So all european cultures share the same heritage, I assume, but what are the other traits?

Lets take this for example:
National Supremacy: Pops whose cultures share both heritage and another trait are accepted
This sentence implies, that there are more than one other type of trait, that could potentially be accepted. (other than heritage)
So what are those? Say I unify Germany with North and South German as primary culture, what traits do these cultures have?

Sure European heritage, but what other traits? Would french be accepted? Why yes/no? What traits do they have other than european heritage?


And take this
Cultural Exclusion: Pops whose cultures share any similarities are accepted
You do not explain what kind of similarities there are. No examples either. I do not understand this law. What does it do?

Is heritage enough? Would french be accepted in Germany with this law? What other similarities could there be other than just heritage? Surely one can't just become "North German" but not have the european heritage. So what does this law do?

The whole culture aspect of this diary is not clear, at all. Sorry to say this.
 
  • 6
  • 1Like
Reactions:
What will be hard-coded in V3 in this topic? I'm asking because when I deleted all parameters in V2 for migration and emigration (state & country level as well as pop level), the migration and emigration was still happily continuing.
 
  • 1
Reactions: