Changing Primary Culture?

[Arabkha]

Hello all.

Is there a way to change/demote my primary culture in favor of another recently integrated culture? Wiki doesn't talk about this, or maybe I am missing something.

 

[Rooki]

Not in general though there's a couple of decisions/events to do it, Dahae -> Parthian, Whatever -> Yuezhi, etc

I think there's some shenanigans to do with getting your capital occupied by barbarians as well but I don't remember the specifics.

Edit - from wiki:

If a barbarian horde occupies all of a country's territories, they will take over the country. The horde's leader will become the state's new ruler and found a new major family (displacing one of the old ones), the country will adopt the culture and religion of the horde, and the state's government form will be converted into a migratory tribe. This is the only way to convert from a republic or monarchy into a tribe, and the only general way for a country's culture to change.

 

[Ololorium]

Not in general though there's a couple of decisions/events to do it, Dahae -> Parthian, Whatever -> Yuezhi, etc

I think there's some shenanigans to do with getting your capital occupied by barbarians as well but I don't remember the specifics.

Edit - from wiki:

It's funny that we get a gameover when some unhappy characters in our own country start a civil war and win, but if invading barbarians completely destroy the old elites and government institutions, establishing dominance of a new culture and religion, it's fine and we just continue playing as if nothing much happened

 

[Bovrick]

It's funny that we get a gameover when some unhappy characters in our own country start a civil war and win, but if invading barbarians completely destroy the old elites and government institutions, establishing dominance of a new culture and religion, it's fine and we just continue playing as if nothing much happened

Yeah it really should be a game over too.

 

[MagisterMundi]

Yeah it really should be a game over too.

Personally, I think neither should be a game over. This isn't CK3 where you're playing a character - you're playing a nation. Having one faction win in a civil war leading to a game over has always struck me as an odd decision. This is an area where the game should lean more into its EU4 influences, I think.

 

[olivenkranz]

Personally, I think neither should be a game over. This isn't CK3 where you're playing a character - you're playing a nation. Having one faction win in a civil war leading to a game over has always struck me as an odd decision. This is an area where the game should lean more into its EU4 influences, I think.

It's funny that we get a gameover when some unhappy characters in our own country start a civil war and win, but if invading barbarians completely destroy the old elites and government institutions, establishing dominance of a new culture and religion, it's fine and we just continue playing as if nothing much happened

Suggestions Forum?

 

[Bovrick]

Personally, I think neither should be a game over. This isn't CK3 where you're playing a character - you're playing a nation. Having one faction win in a civil war leading to a game over has always struck me as an odd decision. This is an area where the game should lean more into its EU4 influences, I think.

You can just load up a game and play as the other side I guess, same as if you get completely conquered by a different tag. No difference for me, you lost. Doesn't stop you from using stuff outside the game to play as someone else.

 

[Ixtli613]

I agree that logically you should get to play as whoever wins the civil war, but in gameplay terms it would almost completely neuter the mechanic. Sure dealing with a civil war would still be annoying but if you literally can't lose there is less incentive to try and avoid it or fight it out properly if you can't.

 

[MagisterMundi]

I agree that logically you should get to play as whoever wins the civil war, but in gameplay terms it would almost completely neuter the mechanic. Sure dealing with a civil war would still be annoying but if you literally can't lose there is less incentive to try and avoid it or fight it out properly if you can't.

I dunno, civil wars still suck to lose in EU4, even if you do keep playing. The costs to stability, unrest, money, Monarch points, long-term economic and diplomatic maluses, the installation of an often terrible and low legitimacy ruler, etc. are significant. You often also lose territories to separatists or opportunistic neighbors who decide to press their claims while you're weak and unable to respond effectively. Still very much in your interest to win them if you can. I could definitely see a similar system being implemented in I:R. In fact, if they made it more like EU4 AND dialed up the difficulty, that might actually incentivize avoiding them more than the game currently does, because really, right now most civil wars are pretty easy to win.

You can just load up a game and play as the other side I guess, same as if you get completely conquered by a different tag. No difference for me, you lost. Doesn't stop you from using stuff outside the game to play as someone else.

That only works if you're not playing Iron Man. I prefer Iron Man, so not an option for me most of the time, and I imagine I'm far from alone in that. Also, regime change being forced by an internal faction within your own government really isn't the same as being conquered by an outside power. When Roman civil wars resolved with one side winning, that wasn't another nation conquering Rome, and Rome didn't stop being Rome after the civil war was over.

Also, again, you're not playing a character in I:R, or even a dynasty. You're playing a nation. If another faction takes power, that isn't the end of the game in any other circumstance. In fact, your entire original dynasty can die out over the course of the game with minimal impact, and in a republic minor characters come to power and leave power all the time without issue. You can also have your leading faction assassinated, or you can completely change the social fabric of your nation in some cases through events and mechanics that allow switching your religion, primary culture, capital, and even your country name and traditions. In all of those cases, the transformation of your nation is pretty complete, and still doesn't result in a game over. So why is a civil war the exception?

 

[JorgeP]

I agree that logically you should get to play as whoever wins the civil war, but in gameplay terms it would almost completely neuter the mechanic. Sure dealing with a civil war would still be annoying but if you literally can't lose there is less incentive to try and avoid it or fight it out properly if you can't.

A big loss of stability and/or a bad modifier for some months if you loss the civil war could give an incentive

 

[Bovrick]

I simply don't agree with making situations where it is beneficial to self-sabotage, especially during an Iron Man game. If you've played badly and have a Civil War coming that you can't avoid, there's every incentive to piss off every character you can into joining the other side of the Civil War, then actively sabotage your own side to lose as quickly as possible. Having some temporary bad modifiers wouldn't change that logic.

 

[EmperorOfSerbia]

This isn't CK3 where you're playing a character - you're playing a nation.

I don't see it that way. I believe you are playing as the state apparatus of the nation, the "deep state" if you will, not as the nation itself. If barbarians replace the leadership of a nation, then you are out of power and it should be a game over. This is just my opinion on the matter though, everyone is free to interpret the game any way they want.

 

[Ololorium]

I simply don't agree with making situations where it is beneficial to self-sabotage, especially during an Iron Man game. If you've played badly and have a Civil War coming that you can't avoid, there's every incentive to piss off every character you can into joining the other side of the Civil War, then actively sabotage your own side to lose as quickly as possible. Having some temporary bad modifiers wouldn't change that logic.

That would be hard to balance, for sure, but possible. For example, a human player can be given the end-of-civil-war bonuses to loyalty only if they won as the "original" government, as well as some boosts to stability and legitimacy (the traitors have been purged, the rightful ruler is triumphant!). If a player chooses to represent the rebels, there will be no such bonuses and maybe even some temporary debuffs to represent the rebel forces fracturing (so, we have overthrown the tyrant... now what?). This way, a player would want to play as the original government, and only choose the rebels for role-playing purposes. The AI would get the bonuses regardless of which side won, of course.

 

[Nostalgium]

That would be hard to balance, for sure, but possible. For example, a human player can be given the end-of-civil-war bonuses to loyalty only if they won as the "original" government, as well as some boosts to stability and legitimacy (the traitors have been purged, the rightful ruler is triumphant!). If a player chooses to represent the rebels, there will be no such bonuses and maybe even some temporary debuffs to represent the rebel forces fracturing (so, we have overthrown the tyrant... now what?). This way, a player would want to play as the original government, and only choose the rebels for role-playing purposes. The AI would get the bonuses regardless of which side won, of course.

Easier to just have a "continue" option that breaks ironman IMO. That way it's still a game-ending threat for achievement runs or ironman saves, but if that's not what you're after, you can continue as the opposition.

 

[blackbirdgriffi]

I agree that logically you should get to play as whoever wins the civil war, but in gameplay terms it would almost completely neuter the mechanic. Sure dealing with a civil war would still be annoying but if you literally can't lose there is less incentive to try and avoid it or fight it out properly if you can't.

Yeah but doesn't it completely negates the awsome narrative that could emerge from such a drastic change in your "state"?

I personnaly find that a game over in this case is just a lazy placeholder and that it just needs to implement the change.

The best for me at this moment would be two choices for the player :

Do I exhaust myself in fighting that civil war ?
Do I exhaust myself on managing the complete and uter annihilation of the status quo that loosing a civil war would entail ? and the consequences it would have.

For exemple managing the roman republic after the 1st century BC's crisis and the complete societal changes/upheaval and new political changes that the sulla's list has made, or the new legal system brought by Caesar and other consuls is something significantly more entertaining than a maintained status quo because you exploited your way (or simply defeated the A.I) at every turn.

At the end of the day it's less fun/immersive.

 

[Ololorium]

Easier to just have a "continue" option that breaks ironman IMO. That way it's still a game-ending threat for achievement runs or ironman saves, but if that's not what you're after, you can continue as the opposition.

I'm afraid, this won't solve the problem. People who don't care about Ironman/achievements can already do that by saving and loading as the rebel tag or just using the console to tagswitch, so for them the continue button would not provide any value. The ironman crowd woud simply not use it, because, well, they want to play in ironman mode, and if it's broken, the game they want to play is basically over.

 

[IsaacCAT]

There is value to have government overthrow mechanics, like in Vic2. Regime change would say Mr. Bush.

I think some housekeeping is in order to establish what is valid and what is not for changing the government. But if we cannot reach a clear line, an optional ‘continue’ button is not a bad idea.

 

[Nostalgium]

I'm afraid, this won't solve the problem. People who don't care about Ironman/achievements can already do that by saving and loading as the rebel tag or just using the console to tagswitch, so for them the continue button would not provide any value. The ironman crowd woud simply not use it, because, well, they want to play in ironman mode, and if it's broken, the game they want to play is basically over.

That's my point, though. You can already play as the rebels by switching tags, so the "rebels are game over" only holds true if you actually want to continue your game as "your" incarnation of the country. I.e., people for who, if the rebels win, the game is basically over anyway. I can't think of any other reason to continue playing as rebels who defeated you than wanting a "get out of jail free" card for catastrophic mismanagement. If you don't want rebels to win, you already do fight them to stop it. If you don't care, you just avoid battle and reset. Even with maluses, it would still apply the "Aftermath of the Great Civil War" buffers to prevent civil war spirals, and would serve as a soft-reset on your country for ironman players. Non-ironman players would still presumably just pick loyalists and reload as rebels in order to avoid the hypothetical "you picked the rebels" maluses - unless you also want to apply those maluses to an AI, which would undoubtedly lead to civil war spirals for them.

I would agree if civil wars were more common and could be incited by factors largely outside your control - say a rivalry between two heads of Great Houses deciding to duke it out with loyal veterans - but at the moment, Civil Wars exist only as a punishment for letting a significant portion of your state get pissed with your rule. They exist as a reaction to player errors, so I don't think there should be any incentive to not fight them with everything you have to hold on to your game.

Incidentally, I do think that a potentially reworked civil war like outlined above should be considered - a kind of mini-civil war that starts as a result of internal events between factions in your Empire, rather than as a reaction to player actions - where you get the choice of backing whichever faction and a civil war begins. In these types of civil wars, losing should let you continue, since the civil war is between factions in your empire, and not a reaction to player mismanagement.

These non-reactionary civil wars would also better represent the ones we know and love, like Sulla VS Marius and Caesar VS Pompey.

 

[Ololorium]

I can't think of any other reason to continue playing as rebels who defeated you than wanting a "get out of jail free" card for catastrophic mismanagement.

I would agree if civil wars were more common and could be incited by factors largely outside your control - say a rivalry between two heads of Great Houses deciding to duke it out with loyal veterans - but at the moment, Civil Wars exist only as a punishment for letting a significant portion of your state get pissed with your rule. They exist as a reaction to player errors

That makes sense. The only problem is, it's pretty hard to draw a clear line between civil wars being a punishment for poor management and being a narrative tool. For example, you always could have stopped the great families from becoming too powerful, or tried to ensure the heads of great families cooperate, and if you didn't, that's "your fault" the civil war broke out. But yeah, I see your point, rebellions in Imperator are designed to work as punishments and it's very hard to expand them into something more.

 

[scriptkiddy]

In all of those cases, the transformation of your nation is pretty complete, and still doesn't result in a game over. So why is a civil war the exception?

How else would you call the failure in managing one of the main game’s core mechanics: the loyalty?

Seems like a neat game over to me, even BTFO- or rather vae victis-like: