Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Ways to make mp more bigoted?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
unmerged(7276)

unmerged(7276)

Field Marshal
Jan 12, 2002
4.989
0
Visit site
Does anyone else feel that religion should play more of a part in out EU games.. It was the cause of so many wars in the EU period but its hard to simulate this in games i find. One of the major problems is that same religion provs are just so much more appealing. Ive seen some limited effort made by players to get 30 year was style wars of religion going but they usually just have an expansionist agenda behind them. Does this bother anyone else of is it just me again :) ?

Perhaps a couple of solutions

-a rp pope player to stir up trouble
-CB against all non religious players until tolerance
-edited bonuses for religious victories
-banning same religion dows when that player is fighting a common religious enemy
 
cheech said:
-a rp pope player to stir up trouble
Click to expand...

put Devil on the role of Pope :D
 
name a religious war that didn't mask someone's expansionist aims.

i think the game works better if people consider religion to be more of a useful political pretext that can be picked up or discarded as necessary. i like to see those Catholic versus Catholc wars and Protty versus Protty wars.
 
Englands involvment in the dutch revolts has no specific territorial ambition to it.

the 30 years war was 80% religion id say
 
France and the Habsburgs were both Catholic and fought nearly every decade in some form. Denmark and Sweden were both Protestant and fought constantly.

Who would benefit from this rule?

1. Austria would be immune to backstab during war with the OE. This could be good or bad, depending on relative strengths.

2. Poland would be immune to backstab from Austria if fighting a Scandinavian, Brandenburg, or Russia.

3. Sweden would be immune to backstab from Denmark while fighting Russia.

4. England would be immune to backstab from Scandinavians while fighting France or Spain.

5. Portugese would be immune to Spanish backstab while fighting England or Dutch.


I dont know if I necessarily like all those consequences.
 
cheech said:
Englands involvment in the dutch revolts has no specific territorial ambition to it.

the 30 years war was 80% religion id say
Click to expand...

ok. English and Dutch alliance was based on close trade ties and Dutch territorial independence would certianly benefit the English economy.

30 Years War was the last chance of HRE to make something tangible out of the Empire. Religious dispute masks the real struggle for overall political authority and the sovereignty of the princes. Swedish and Danish intervention certainly was expansionist as was the involvement of Catholic France.
 
saskganesh said:
ok. English and Dutch alliance was based on close trade ties and Dutch territorial independence would certianly benefit the English economy.
.
Click to expand...

Not true, actually the english had close trade relations with the south, not the north. I think they mostly did it to weaken Spain , which was of course the hegemoon at the time being.
 
feanor73 said:
Using this period, France fought with protestant against Habsburg
Click to expand...

The french entered the war at the side of the Netherlands, Savoy and England ( :eek: ), although the realm was in trouble with the protestant insurrection.
They entered after the swedes had been defeated, to protect the protestant german minors against the empire and spain...
The main purpose was certainly to weaken the Habsbourgs at any cost (and maybe to put a hand at least diplomatic on the rhine area... :rolleyes: )
 
Seen said:
Not true, actually the english had close trade relations with the south, not the north. I think they mostly did it to weaken Spain , which was of course the hegemoon at the time being.
Click to expand...
While it is true that England had reason to want to weaken the Spanish, England did have quite a few mercantile ties to the area in question. It is simplistic to suggest that England's war policy was not driven by mercantile interests at the time.
 
While it would have been naive of people at the time to asume these wars were purely about religion it seems weve gone full circle now and think religion had little/no significance. It was certainly a big factor to the masses and there was no shortage of zelous inderviduals in the ruling aristocracy. The catholic church was still a very powerful instituation at the time. Not as powerful as in earlier periods i admit though. Perhaps its something we cant simulate though..
 
Last edited:
cheech said:
While would would have been naive of people at the time to asume these wars were purely about religion it seems weve gone full circle now and think religion had little/no significance. It was certainly a big factor to the masses and there was no shortage of zelous inderviduals in the ruling aristocracy. The catholic church was still a very powerful instituation at the time. Not as powerful as in earlier periods i admit though. Perhaps its something we cant simulate though..
Click to expand...

It might work better in a strong Roleplaying environment, where you can have both realists/cynics and idealists/religious operating as countervailing forces within a country.

I think the game as it stands now has a fairly good compromise. for international politics that is. for internal, religious fueled politics, like the French Wars of Religion and English Civil War, not so well. Maybe POPS are needed for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back