National Taboos and the Piety Bar

[master_kong]

I will suggest adding two things to the game: (Completely separate from each other)

1. Piety Bar for muslim nations: This should be separate from Mysticism-Legalism bar and should effect the bonus from mysticism or legalism. For example if you are low on piety your bonus should be lowered too.

Right now mysticism seems like low piety but it's not. It's a way of approach to the religion and shouldn't be shown with minus at bar either.

This piety bar can be change by events and declaring war on other nations like now. For example it doesn't make any sense moving towards legalism with declaring war on Ottomans as Qara Qoyunlu. This should be represented with piety bar. Game right now wants shias only war with fellow shias for staying mysticism. Isn't it ridiculous or am i missing something?

2. National Taboos: Most or almost every nations at the starting date of 1444 have some taboos. Paradox can add some historical flavor with adding these to the game as like opposing to national ideas.

For example at 1444 Ming dynasty and Chinese people have some taboo for the sea and the outer world; Ottomans have taboos for shias and they don't want them. This can be extend for every nation. And these taboos might be overcome with ideas or maybe government changes with rebellion.


These are only IDEAS of mine and not perfect of course. Even examples are limited with a few. But the main ideas are there and can be expand with discussion in comments or by Paradox themselves.

 

[master_kong]

May i ask, do developers read every post in this "Suggestions" thread? Even if there is no reply and too few views.

 

[moscal]

May i ask, do developers read every post in this "Suggestions" thread? Even if there is no reply and too few views.

Every - probably not. Few suggestions eg. devotion mechanism for theocracy was from this subforum, but I think, that many post are ignorated.

 

[Canute VII]

They should have made the following thread or better the relevsnt parts of it a sticky thread, so that these questions don't come up again and again. Anyway, I'm going to extend a helping hand to you because it's Christmas time, you know

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...n-communication-message-for-the-devs.1048524/

 

[master_kong]

They should have made the following thread or better the relevsnt parts of it a sticky thread, so that these questions don't come up again and again. Anyway, I'm going to extend a helping hand to you because it's Christmas time, you know

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...n-communication-message-for-the-devs.1048524/

Thank you It's enough for me to know that they read.

 

[Viktor Vaughn]

I don't know Islam well enough to be able to figure out what the relationship between mysticism/legalism is with DOW'ing other muslims. So I can't comment on that. But with piety, what would you suggest the piety bar do? ie what are the bonuses/malus for having high/low piety? and then further, does the mysticism/legalism slider only get changed through event? Just wanting some clarification.

Regarding national 'taboos', I actually like that idea. Although the Ottoman/Shia relationship might be more apt for an event (Ruler dies with an heir average/weak claim, all shia provinces gain +10 unrest or something). But it does sound like a good way to have the game start with some measure of historicity. I know certain AI countries are weighted towards different things, so Ming almost never invests in navy or exploration. Porto/Spain/GB always are the first to colonise, etc. But making those more concrete for the player could be a very interesting thing.

 

[master_kong]

I don't know Islam well enough to be able to figure out what the relationship between mysticism/legalism is with DOW'ing other muslims. So I can't comment on that. But with piety, what would you suggest the piety bar do? ie what are the bonuses/malus for having high/low piety? and then further, does the mysticism/legalism slider only get changed through event? Just wanting some clarification.

Regarding national 'taboos', I actually like that idea. Although the Ottoman/Shia relationship might be more apt for an event (Ruler dies with an heir average/weak claim, all shia provinces gain +10 unrest or something). But it does sound like a good way to have the game start with some measure of historicity. I know certain AI countries are weighted towards different things, so Ming almost never invests in navy or exploration. Porto/Spain/GB always are the first to colonise, etc. But making those more concrete for the player could be a very interesting thing.

Right now there is a piety bar in game for muslim countries and some bonuses are gaining from being mysticism/legalism. Historically most sunni nations were legalists and most shia nations were mystics. In the game if you are a shia nation and wanna stay mystic you must battle with fellow shia nations all the time. Or else you move towards legalism. This is weird and ahistoric i believe. And of course this is effecting your bonus from being legalistic/mystic. And i am suggesting adding a separate piety bar that effecting bonus you are getting from being mystic or legalist.

For national taboos topic; i gave Ottoman/Shia relationship as an example and without a research so it might be lack of something. But there is a thing like this in history.
The other example i gave was, at 1444 the Chinese and Japanese people were so far away from exploring the new world unlike Western European nations. So i shouldn't be able to just take the exploration ideas and establish colonies all over the world before Westerners as Ming or even Japan and MAYBE Morocco etc. (Roleplaying is a dumb thing to suggest if anybody thinks that)

And in history not all nations desired to conquer as many lands as possible, some of'em were just wishing to protect their lands. But in the game right now as if all countries wanna do a WC. We can give this kind of "protective" nations a modifier(taboo) that preventing them from conquering other lands. We can give them defensive bonuses too with national ideas of course(if it's historical). This way we don't see a blobbing Switzerland at the center of Europe i think.

Last but not least we should be able to overcome this "taboos" as a player for sure. In this case "Innovative Ideas" can be very useful. Or with a modifier from national ideas can remove that "taboo"(e.g. a taboo that preventing them using the sea) as in the process of time people had overcome this situation(historically). There are lots of options for overcoming the national taboo as you can see.

In conclusion, with national taboos the game can be more historically balance by all means. There was a discussion in forum for a while about fixing Ming and i think this feature could help quite a lot on this topic too.

 

[Canute VII]

Maybe also have religious taboos? Like:

• Islam: prohibition of interest +0.5% interest
• eastern (shinto, confucianism): cult of ancestors -20% colonial/coring range
• buddhism: nirwana +10% war exhaustion reduction cost
• hinduism: caste system +10% institution embracement cost or -10% inst. spread
• christendom: great commission -0.5 tolerance of heathens
• animism/fetishist: vodoo +2.5% idea cost
• ....

 

[Trin Tragula]

Yes we do indeed read, though we don’t always post as said in the post you were linked above. We really appreciate the feedback and ideas we get here even if we don’t always comment.

So first to make things clear I am a content designer, I deal in research, events, maps, the starting setup, etc. What you propose is mostly game system related things aimed for a game designer or game director such as @DDRJake which is why my post doesn’t address all that you wrote

I do have a question that might clarify your suggestion for us:
Currently how legalist or mystic your country is is measured by how far towards the poles you are. This also affects the strength of the bonuses. How is this different from the extra slider you propose?

I also have a comment on this but I will put it in spoilers as it’s a bit beside your point. Still it might clarify what we intend the system to be:

Historically most sunni nations were legalists and most shia nations were mystics.

Spoiler

This is not at all true to our implementation of the system and imo not to history either:
If you want to generalize most Muslim countries in 1444, Shi’a as well as Sunni, leaned towards mysticism, with Sufism being very influential in the Ottoman Empire as well as among the Timurids and the Muslim princes of India.
As the Safavid, Mughal and Ottoman empires grew they shifted towards legalism promoting a stronger and more stable state instead of empowering heterogemous mystic groups. The sharpest shift was for the Shi’a Safavids who started out as a Sufi order themselves but ended up legislating against mystics and importing Shi’a scholars to create a sturdier legal framework for their state once they had consolidated their territory.
For the Ottoman Empire the shift was more gradual and less dramatic. In India mystic Islam was perhaps the most influential, a lax interpretation of religious law was always advisable with Muslim minorities ruling Hindu majorities. Legitimacy through support from Sufi masters was very common there and to some extent worked on both Muslim and Hindu subjects (though obviously much less the latter). Sufis are also intimately associated with the conversion of areas in Bengal in this timeline to Islam.
Over time as Muslims became more entrenched and numerous even here there was a shift towards legalism, especially in the Mughal Empire which also needed to promote stability and a legalist legitimacy for its rulers rather than one founded on support from Sufis and other mystic groups (one could see the divine faith of Akbar as an extreme attempt at this though some might disagree).
This, along with a shift in public opinion among many Muslims in the 1650s (a trend present in the game through the “neo-Sufism and traditionalism event), is likely part of the reason we see Aurangzeb suddenly forbidding alcohol and smoking at court, reinstating the jizya and reserving offices for non-dhimmi. He even compiled a law collection that is used in parts of the world to this day.

Of course this (but hardly this alone) made it very evident to the many non Muslim stake holders in the empire that its use would become much more limited to them and together with its massive overextension this is part of the reason it started to crackle much more quickly soon after.

This is all horribly simplified, there were also legalist states in India in 1444 and for instance the Rassids weren’t mystics, etc. That’s why we have it as a slider to allow for diversity and variance.

 

[master_kong]

Yes we do indeed read, though we don’t always post as said in the post you were linked above. We really appreciate the feedback and ideas we get here even if we don’t always comment.

So first to make things clear I am a content designer, I deal in research, events, maps, the starting setup, etc. What you propose is mostly game system related things aimed for a game designer or game director such as @DDRJake which is why my post doesn’t address all that you wrote

I do have a question that might clarify your suggestion for us:
Currently how legalist or mystic your country is is measured by how far towards the poles you are. This also affects the strength of the bonuses. How is this different from the extra slider you propose?

I also have a comment on this but I will put it in spoilers as it’s a bit beside your point. Still it might clarify what we intend the system to be:

Spoiler

This is not at all true to our implementation of the system and imo not to history either:
If you want to generalize most Muslim countries in 1444, Shi’a as well as Sunni, leaned towards mysticism, with Sufism being very influential in the Ottoman Empire as well as among the Timurids and the Muslim princes of India.
As the Safavid, Mughal and Ottoman empires grew they shifted towards legalism promoting a stronger and more stable state instead of empowering heterogemous mystic groups. The sharpest shift was for the Shi’a Safavids who started out as a Sufi order themselves but ended up legislating against mystics and importing Shi’a scholars to create a sturdier legal framework for their state once they had consolidated their territory.
For the Ottoman Empire the shift was more gradual and less dramatic. In India mystic Islam was perhaps the most influential, a lax interpretation of religious law was always advisable with Muslim minorities ruling Hindu majorities. Legitimacy through support from Sufi masters was very common there and to some extent worked on both Muslim and Hindu subjects (though obviously much less the latter). Sufis are also intimately associated with the conversion of areas in Bengal in this timeline to Islam.
Over time as Muslims became more entrenched and numerous even here there was a shift towards legalism, especially in the Mughal Empire which also needed to promote stability and a legalist legitimacy for its rulers rather than one founded on support from Sufis and other mystic groups (one could see the divine faith of Akbar as an extreme attempt at this though some might disagree).
This, along with a shift in public opinion among many Muslims in the 1650s (a trend present in the game through the “neo-Sufism and traditionalism event), is likely part of the reason we see Aurangzeb suddenly forbidding alcohol and smoking at court, reinstating the jizya and reserving offices for non-dhimmi. He even compiled a law collection that is used in parts of the world to this day.

Of course this (but hardly this alone) made it very evident to the many non Muslim stake holders in the empire that its use would become much more limited to them and together with its massive overextension this is part of the reason it started to crackle much more quickly soon after.

This is all horribly simplified, there were also legalist states in India in 1444 and for instance the Rassids weren’t mystics, etc. That’s why we have it as a slider to allow for diversity and variance.

Thank you for the answer Yeah i was convinced that you guys read every post.
To clarify my suggestion i wanna ask some questions:

• Is it logical that declaring war on another country shifting you towards mysticism or legalism?
• For staying mystic, we must declare war on follower of the true faith countries all the time. Is it what sufies do in history as well?
• My suggestion is declaring war on other countries should effect only piety bar(separate from mysticism/legalism bar) and this bar effects bonus from being mystic or legal. E.g. you're 17 towards legalism and 50 on the piety bar, than %0.5(you know numbers and balance better) from piety bar bonus being added to all the bonuses from legalism.

 

[MrCat]

I think the taboo thing could be good - though I would suggest tht it not be fixed throughout the game but more of a focus thing:
If you pick the right ideas, have the right ruler personality or for example a large navy in the case of naval taboos, you can overcome the taboo and choose a new one (the selection is limited by ideas and personality and such of course).
Also, it might be interesting to have taboos that give some bonuses in exchange for a larger handicap - of course that kind of thing could become overpowered but for example giving your military a large hadicap in exchange for some additional diplomatic power could make an interesting game.

Of course combining it with religion could be interesting as well - e.g. the curia controller or cardinals (a vote) deciding taboos, the taboos being connected to church aspects and influencing how many church points you get, it being connected to the deity you choose, etc.
I think it could add a lot of depth if done right.

 

[Viktor Vaughn]

Thank you for the answer Yeah i was convinced that you guys read every post.
To clarify my suggestion i wanna ask some questions:

• Is it logical that declaring war on another country shifting you towards mysticism or legalism?
• For staying mystic, we must declare war on follower of the true faith countries all the time. Is it what sufies do in history as well?
• My suggestion is declaring war on other countries should effect only piety bar(separate from mysticism/legalism bar) and this bar effects bonus from being mystic or legal. E.g. you're 17 towards legalism and 50 on the piety bar, than %0.5(you know numbers and balance better) from piety bar bonus being added to all the bonuses from legalism.

Doesn't this create the same problem with a different flavour? Now you get terrible piety because you're expanding via conquering, so you're attacking other sunnis as a sunni. You then have no piety as a result, so you get 0% of your mysticism/legalism bonus.

If a piety slider were to be added alongside mysticism/legalism, its bonuses would have to be entirely separate and distinct from the mysticism/legalism bonuses. And it would have to be tied to the religion itself, so it could be some combo of tolerance of the true faith (higher with higher piety) and tolerance of heretics (higher with lower piety). I'm not sure there would be enough possible logical bonuses/penalties attached to this separate piety bar. Might be better to just remove the DOW effect on mysticism/legalism.

 

[master_kong]

Doesn't this create the same problem with a different flavour? Now you get terrible piety because you're expanding via conquering, so you're attacking other sunnis as a sunni. You then have no piety as a result, so you get 0% of your mysticism/legalism bonus.

If a piety slider were to be added alongside mysticism/legalism, its bonuses would have to be entirely separate and distinct from the mysticism/legalism bonuses. And it would have to be tied to the religion itself, so it could be some combo of tolerance of the true faith (higher with higher piety) and tolerance of heretics (higher with lower piety). I'm not sure there would be enough possible logical bonuses/penalties attached to this separate piety bar. Might be better to just remove the DOW effect on mysticism/legalism.

İf you are a mystic shia and DOW sunni, you lose some of your bonuses from being mystic. But if there is a separate piety bar, then you strengthen your religious bonuses. Other than that mostly it ended up the same results for bonuses as you pointed out. However DOW should effect piety someway otherwise we would be lacking of an important thing for religious mechanic.

I don't know much about christian or other religion mechanics so don't include it in suggestion but it would be nice if piety bar could be a thing for all religions like religious unity. For example it would effect papal influence or something for christians but i'm not sure and don't know much about it as i said. And of course piety level could be depend on DOW and maybe some events.

 

[Grand Historian]

I do like the idea of taboos, but I don't think having them tied to a tag would be particularly good - only to religion and government (after all , it would be taboo of a despotic monarchy for there to be significant local autonomy, not a taboo of the nation that is a despotic monarchy).

That said, I think that those that aren't intrinsic to something would service better as an event or decision.

 

[master_kong]

I do like the idea of taboos, but I don't think having them tied to a tag would be particularly good - only to religion and government (after all , it would be taboo of a despotic monarchy for there to be significant local autonomy, not a taboo of the nation that is a despotic monarchy).

That said, I think that those that aren't intrinsic to something would service better as an event or decision.

My main purpose for suggesting taboos was steer or restrict some nations according to history. Game right now treats every country as if they are all equal. It doesn't reflect society and almost ignores completely all those years that people experienced.

For Western European countries it had all been set for discovering new world. But for Far East countries this was exact opposite. And i suggest adding a prohibition of exploration ideas in other words a taboo for those countries.

Some countries in history like Switzerland, Medina or Hejaz didn't desire that much for conquer other lands. They were defending their peaceful or holy country mostly. And i suggest adding a prohibition of conquering other lands/taboo for those countries.

These two are the most basic examples for my idea and examples are expandable for sure. I don't know too much History nor English And i don't know if this is possible for game programming at all. But idea is there to be extend if it's possible. I hope i explain myself better.

And i repeat that these taboos must be able to overcome with ideas. If this country's people overcame that with some time this can be a national idea or we can use some technological idea maybe. Innovative ideas are fitting this role nicely with that name i think.

Also this "taboo" system would be so much healthier for AI and lead to more accurate observer games.

 

[Grand Historian]

My main purpose for suggesting taboos was steer or restrict some nations according to history. Game right now treats every country as if they are all equal. It doesn't reflect society and almost ignores completely all those years that people experienced.

For Western European countries it had all been set for discovering new world. But for Far East countries this was exact opposite. And i suggest adding a prohibition of exploration ideas in other words a taboo for those countries.

All of which can be achieved by tying it to government or religion instead of tag. Barring a tag from doing something because they are that tag rather than because of something in that tag is harmful to gameplay, to player's fun, and is antithetical to history itself: the Ming didn't ban all maritime endeavors (complete will burning the schematics for numerous boats) because they were the Ming, they banned it because Confucianism is reactionary and the Confucian Bureaucrats also saw the rise of the Eunuchs as threatening their monopoly on power.

A taboo against Exploration can be achieved as easily by assigning it to the Celestial Empire Gov Type as it would be as assigning it to the Ming as a tag: except that it would allow players to overcome that barrier if they wanted to. That way we could get the best of both worlds: taboos without punishing players for playing the game as a certain nation/tag.

 

[moscal]

The connection with TAG has one more problem - custom nations, client states, colonial nations, random nations etc.

A long time ago, in RNW with random nations in NW, I have seen "Native council" with naval NI (similar to english NI). This was too much "random". Connection taboos with TAGs can lead to this same "quirks".

 

[master_kong]

Was Ming/Chinese taboo for exploration or sea a myth after all?

 

[Canute VII]

Was Ming/Chinese taboo for exploration or sea a myth after all?

They certainly had no taboo for exploration. Zen Hes travel ultimately failed due to intrigues in the court ("reintroduce factions to MoH!"). It seems there were powerful interests that wanted to reallocate ressources from exploration to something else (implying a scarcety of ressources ). But there are no state-sponsored chinese settlements in Africa or else (during EU period). Those chinese populations that there are in SEA are refugees from political and economic repression. Therefor in my contribution to this thread I said:

• eastern (shinto, confucianism): cult of ancestors -20% colonial/coring range

 

[Grand Historian]

They certainly had no taboo for exploration.

Some factions in the Imperial Court certainly did. It would have been enough for the bureaucracy to simply wrest power back from the Eunuchs, but they also not only destroyed Zheng's fleet, they burned the shematics for his ships and then instituted a seaban.