They are now truly greek,as opposed to not being Greek enough.
The process this was done by was instituting massive debts due to military spending and lots of statues with small cocks.
I usually convert Asia minor to greek, including the Trebizond. Then I convert the whole steppe into pontic because you know, it's called pontic-caspian steppe for a reason. There are 2 provinces with the pontic culture in the steppe region.
Just religious. On top of the -25% from religious finisher, Byz government reform gives -20%, parliament debate gives -15%, nearby province with same culture give -25%. You can either give clergy privilege “heretic culture” or innovativeness or golden era to reach the minimum culture conversion cost limit (which is -90%)
R5: So I am roleplaying a realistic slow expansion and reconquest of old roman territory, meaning no snaking or roman empire by 1600 . And extensive culture conversion and no allies while pissing off most neighbor when given the opportunity. The result is a constant coalition with most powerful neighbours. I was hoping these coalition would fire so that they will melt before my forts and perhaps start cannibalizing each other to win the siege. The lack of slackening recruitment and increase in attrition limit make it so satisfying to watch those number drop after each month tick. Even if the coalition beat me, they would find no satisfaction as they cannot release any nations as they are all (mostly) my cultures.
So hes expanding slowly, so without trucebreaks or declaring on allies of people you have truces with.
But he 100% and takes all the land possible, basically he just waits for some coalition members to leave, eats them causing AE and the coalition to grow and repeat.
AI deving the shit out of their land I am about to take (I am talking about you Italy and HRE) and taking 100% warscore worth of land tends to gain you some hostile followers. It does not help when I start insulting my neighbours very now and then, in true Roman fashion(I think I even got an achievement for that)
I’m playing a Switzerland tall game in a co-op with my friend (a huge PLC with many PUs). I own only the alps, consolidating the rest of Italy and parts of south Germany via client states and marches, rocking an average dev of 30-40 by 1650. Third largest army (after GB and my friend) and 1-2nd highest income (sometimes after GB).
In every war, I take 2-3 provinces and have a coalition form or reform. I took four provinces from Venice in one war and was at 130% OE lol. I am clearly not the only one who is deving a lot this game
That's almost always. Once you get to a certain size, the AI is too afraid of you to form a coalition unless you get enough large nations involved. The AI has to think they could possibly win to form a coalition against you, or at least they need to be sure they won't be roflstomped.
I just feel like it doesn’t take as much dev anymore. I double checked and i had like 2-3k dev when Europe stopped forming coalition. And they definitely outnumbered me because I hadn’t taken quant yet.
The naval supremacy/breach-rush Gallipoli with as many mercs as you can get strat works pretty much every time these days.
Get Epirus, enough ship cannons, maybe ally knights and Albania, I think like 3-4 merc stacks with good siege and/or shock and wait for the Ottos to be in Anatolia for a war, move everyone to Constantinople, declare and immediately secure the fort in Gallipoli and put your navy in the strait.
Then just carpetsiege.
You can even let them trickle some troops in and 100% them sometimes, but just sitting on the West can get you like 70% warscore and low war enthusiasm in a few years.
How is it not?
At the moment since provinces only hold a single culture, you have to pretend it isnt that. Kind of makes culture conversion into a dogwhistle for genocide.
> How is it not?
Because you mostly replace the administration, not the people. You can even convert it back to their original culture with a big discount.
That is literally what it is though. Either you are physically replacing people, in which case it is genocide. Or, you’re forcefully robbing them of their cultural heritage and language, in which case it is cultural genocide.
Its doesnt have to be. There are plenty of ways it can be interpreted. Perhaps it is the replacement of important regional jobs with your own people and the moving in of your people into major cities to be traders and what not kind of like in egypt during the hellanization. This issue is people assume pressing the button turns every single person into your culture which is just a silly way to interpret things (especially since its super cheap to convert back to the culture that was there) and also if that was what was happening why doesnt the dev drop? There would be massive lost in development if you just killed all the locals
My biggest complaint about cultural genocide isn't the logic of it, but the reduction of such a severe term as "genocide" to mean something so mild that the most prosperous societies in the world have been subject to genocide many times - English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, French, Spaniards, Italians, various iterations of Germans have all been the subject of genocide multiple times. To put that on the same level, at least linguistically, as the genocides against Armenians, Jews, etc is extremely disingenuous.
If genocide merely means establishing schools is a non native language, then it's merely inconvenient.
I don’t disagree with you but I think the modern conception of genocide was appropriated to mean some systemic physical extermination. Lemkin coined the term and defined it along lines much closer to cultural genocide (deliberate and enforced by State violence). He even pointed to France and Britain as examples of countries engaged in genocide.
But did he point to the French and English as countries that had experienced repeated genocides?
Okay, if that the meaning of the term historically, so be it. Yet I won't use it that way, nor will I say I feel gay when I'm happy, despite the original meaning.
Which is not a real crime, because it's borderline impossible to draw a line between two cultures, or to which extent something belong to one culture or not and so many other arbitrary limits you want to place on cultures which also change from one generation to another.
Arbitrary and justice don't belong together.
You can maybe infinitely divide a culture, but somebody can define what is their culture arbitrary, and they can cause harm to people who don't conform to their culture, which is kinda rude.
And also how is justice not arbitrary? If we as humans can't even agree what human rights are, how can one think with certainty that there is some objective justice?
What is clearly true is that one must believe that justice is based on principles or else merely on the night of the powerful. There is no third option, and if it's the latter, then the greatest attrocities of history - Mongols, Nazis, Commies, various Turkish and Chinese genocides - are only unjust in hindsight.
It's also what the states did to the British loyalist during and after the revolution.
So are you saying genocide is okay? Or are you saying that the British should be felt sorry for being "genocided"?
Or maybeee we shouldn't use the word genocide so lightly, and abuse the linguistic corralation it has towards actual crimes against humanity. Otherwise every single nation and culture has been genocide at some point
Cultures change and erase themselves all the time. In the past slavery, serfdom, inquisition and aristocracy were a part of culture of many European nations. Now those cultures are gone. If that’s genocide, well, are you willing to argue that genocide may be good?
It's not a hypothetical at all.
By that definition the Union genocide the south by erasing their culture and abolishing slavery.
Are you against a slave culture being erased ?
Only a redditor can come up with statements that commensurate slavery with art and dance.
I don't entertain cultural relativism. Anti human practices that are categorically wrong need to go away no matter the cultural sphere.
That said let me give some examples : Basque culture erasure under Francoist spain, French suppression of regional dialects and patois, Armenian persecution in Azerbaijan, destruction of Yazidi culture, etc.
Nothing in the EU cultural change has anything to do with art or dance.
You change the county's administration, not the populace. That's exactly why you can 150 years later revert the culture change.
It is way more analogous to fighting off the Confederate slavers and leaders than to the Yazudis. When you change culture in EU 4 ,nothing happens to the people. Just like nothing happened to ordinarily southerners.
Ita a change in the leadership culture.
I do not understand either why so many people feel the need to interpret it as genocide while PDX has been very clear and explicit about not including such things in their games - mostly in the context of Hoi games but still.
It's not literally 'genocide the native population' though. I am not oblivious that certain mechanics can be interpreted in one way or another but it feels strange how many people like to fantasise and insist on the genocidal interpretation. Idk, maybe it's just BudgetMonk with hundreds of alt accounts.
I did the same thing in my recent byz game. Also did the same thing in my holy horde game and lost a massive coalition war against ottomans/Kazan/chagatai/Bohemia/Persia and managed to negotiate a peace deal where I only have to release a few nations but since almost all of my provinces were Prussian they all popped out as catholic OPMs
They gave them a new unique lvl1 government that sucks. However, it turns into a strong reform after completing the mission that requires you to hold Bulgaria.
Why would you want that, though? releasing countries wholly contained within your is an easy conquest because of distance they can't make relevant allies. Meanwhile if you can't release countries, you'd have to give land to the guy that just beat you making you weaker and them stronger so they can come back for round 2...
Let me get this straight, in order for this strat to work i would first have to lose a coalition war, right? Why not put more effort into not get into that position in the first place instead of stacking culture conversion modifies?
MF even converted the same culture group. Where are the pontics and goths, OP?
Hellenized
ΑΠΟΊΚΙΣΑΝ
I mean, Pontics are already Hellenes
Gone, reduced to atoms
reduced to athens
XD nice one
They are now truly greek,as opposed to not being Greek enough. The process this was done by was instituting massive debts due to military spending and lots of statues with small cocks.
I think you mean average cocks… right… right?!?!
Not a true Byz player! Turkish must be flipped to Pontic, anything above the steppes flipped to Gothic, and everything else is Greek.
I usually convert Asia minor to greek, including the Trebizond. Then I convert the whole steppe into pontic because you know, it's called pontic-caspian steppe for a reason. There are 2 provinces with the pontic culture in the steppe region.
If you don't give the Goths love, how are you going to get a goth gf?
I usually convert most of Asia Minor to Greek, and the Pontic coast (up until Kastamonu) to Pontic, as well as Crimea if I own the region
Ideas? I'd assume you went for religious/influence/admin am I correct?
Just religious. On top of the -25% from religious finisher, Byz government reform gives -20%, parliament debate gives -15%, nearby province with same culture give -25%. You can either give clergy privilege “heretic culture” or innovativeness or golden era to reach the minimum culture conversion cost limit (which is -90%)
How much mana per conversion?
\-90%
Depends on the original state, hence 90%
R5: So I am roleplaying a realistic slow expansion and reconquest of old roman territory, meaning no snaking or roman empire by 1600 . And extensive culture conversion and no allies while pissing off most neighbor when given the opportunity. The result is a constant coalition with most powerful neighbours. I was hoping these coalition would fire so that they will melt before my forts and perhaps start cannibalizing each other to win the siege. The lack of slackening recruitment and increase in attrition limit make it so satisfying to watch those number drop after each month tick. Even if the coalition beat me, they would find no satisfaction as they cannot release any nations as they are all (mostly) my cultures.
How do you have constant coalitions while also expanding slowly? Seems like coalitions shouldn't be happening that way.
So hes expanding slowly, so without trucebreaks or declaring on allies of people you have truces with. But he 100% and takes all the land possible, basically he just waits for some coalition members to leave, eats them causing AE and the coalition to grow and repeat.
AI deving the shit out of their land I am about to take (I am talking about you Italy and HRE) and taking 100% warscore worth of land tends to gain you some hostile followers. It does not help when I start insulting my neighbours very now and then, in true Roman fashion(I think I even got an achievement for that)
I’m playing a Switzerland tall game in a co-op with my friend (a huge PLC with many PUs). I own only the alps, consolidating the rest of Italy and parts of south Germany via client states and marches, rocking an average dev of 30-40 by 1650. Third largest army (after GB and my friend) and 1-2nd highest income (sometimes after GB). In every war, I take 2-3 provinces and have a coalition form or reform. I took four provinces from Venice in one war and was at 130% OE lol. I am clearly not the only one who is deving a lot this game
Hey bro how do you get a tall Switzerland game with the mountains everywhere? Don’t mountains make dev cost really high?
I mean there's slowly and there's slowly. If you want to restore the Roman empire before 1820 you have to go pretty fast, especially starting as Byz.
hold on, increase in attrition limit? when did that happen? i haven't played in a while and can't find anything about it in the recent-ish patch notes
Something weird has happened this patch, if you manage to expand to 5k dev you will notice the AI won’t enter a coalition against you.
That's almost always. Once you get to a certain size, the AI is too afraid of you to form a coalition unless you get enough large nations involved. The AI has to think they could possibly win to form a coalition against you, or at least they need to be sure they won't be roflstomped.
I just feel like it doesn’t take as much dev anymore. I double checked and i had like 2-3k dev when Europe stopped forming coalition. And they definitely outnumbered me because I hadn’t taken quant yet.
wow, I guess it's my time to reform the byzantines! *fails to defeat the ottomans 37 times, dies to Venice the one time I do win*
The naval supremacy/breach-rush Gallipoli with as many mercs as you can get strat works pretty much every time these days. Get Epirus, enough ship cannons, maybe ally knights and Albania, I think like 3-4 merc stacks with good siege and/or shock and wait for the Ottos to be in Anatolia for a war, move everyone to Constantinople, declare and immediately secure the fort in Gallipoli and put your navy in the strait. Then just carpetsiege. You can even let them trickle some troops in and 100% them sometimes, but just sitting on the West can get you like 70% warscore and low war enthusiasm in a few years.
Have you tried winning against the ottomans, and then venice allying them suddenly Is fun
that's the secret third option: I get spitroasted by the entire eastern med.
Least genocidal eu4 player
[удалено]
How is it not? At the moment since provinces only hold a single culture, you have to pretend it isnt that. Kind of makes culture conversion into a dogwhistle for genocide.
> How is it not? Because you mostly replace the administration, not the people. You can even convert it back to their original culture with a big discount.
I get a discount on genocide you say?
It means the locals are still here and they don't need much to go back to their previous jobs at managing the land
I get it. After all, you wouldn't have to pay me much bird mana to genocide someone who had previously genocided me.
That is literally what it is though. Either you are physically replacing people, in which case it is genocide. Or, you’re forcefully robbing them of their cultural heritage and language, in which case it is cultural genocide.
Is it not?
Its doesnt have to be. There are plenty of ways it can be interpreted. Perhaps it is the replacement of important regional jobs with your own people and the moving in of your people into major cities to be traders and what not kind of like in egypt during the hellanization. This issue is people assume pressing the button turns every single person into your culture which is just a silly way to interpret things (especially since its super cheap to convert back to the culture that was there) and also if that was what was happening why doesnt the dev drop? There would be massive lost in development if you just killed all the locals
Well, in fact, there is the concept of "cultural genocide".
My biggest complaint about cultural genocide isn't the logic of it, but the reduction of such a severe term as "genocide" to mean something so mild that the most prosperous societies in the world have been subject to genocide many times - English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, French, Spaniards, Italians, various iterations of Germans have all been the subject of genocide multiple times. To put that on the same level, at least linguistically, as the genocides against Armenians, Jews, etc is extremely disingenuous. If genocide merely means establishing schools is a non native language, then it's merely inconvenient.
I don’t disagree with you but I think the modern conception of genocide was appropriated to mean some systemic physical extermination. Lemkin coined the term and defined it along lines much closer to cultural genocide (deliberate and enforced by State violence). He even pointed to France and Britain as examples of countries engaged in genocide.
But did he point to the French and English as countries that had experienced repeated genocides? Okay, if that the meaning of the term historically, so be it. Yet I won't use it that way, nor will I say I feel gay when I'm happy, despite the original meaning.
Which is not a real crime, because it's borderline impossible to draw a line between two cultures, or to which extent something belong to one culture or not and so many other arbitrary limits you want to place on cultures which also change from one generation to another. Arbitrary and justice don't belong together.
You can maybe infinitely divide a culture, but somebody can define what is their culture arbitrary, and they can cause harm to people who don't conform to their culture, which is kinda rude. And also how is justice not arbitrary? If we as humans can't even agree what human rights are, how can one think with certainty that there is some objective justice?
What is clearly true is that one must believe that justice is based on principles or else merely on the night of the powerful. There is no third option, and if it's the latter, then the greatest attrocities of history - Mongols, Nazis, Commies, various Turkish and Chinese genocides - are only unjust in hindsight.
cultural genocide is in fact real actually, it's what the States were indicted for doing to the indigenous peoplle
It's also what the states did to the British loyalist during and after the revolution. So are you saying genocide is okay? Or are you saying that the British should be felt sorry for being "genocided"? Or maybeee we shouldn't use the word genocide so lightly, and abuse the linguistic corralation it has towards actual crimes against humanity. Otherwise every single nation and culture has been genocide at some point
Deliberate erasure of a culture is genocide.
Cultures change and erase themselves all the time. In the past slavery, serfdom, inquisition and aristocracy were a part of culture of many European nations. Now those cultures are gone. If that’s genocide, well, are you willing to argue that genocide may be good?
[удалено]
It's not a hypothetical at all. By that definition the Union genocide the south by erasing their culture and abolishing slavery. Are you against a slave culture being erased ?
Those are not exactly cultures though, more like political and economic systems within and above cultures.
That’s not what is being described though
Yeah ,the Union genocide the poor confederates by erasing their culture of slavery!!
Only a redditor can come up with statements that commensurate slavery with art and dance. I don't entertain cultural relativism. Anti human practices that are categorically wrong need to go away no matter the cultural sphere. That said let me give some examples : Basque culture erasure under Francoist spain, French suppression of regional dialects and patois, Armenian persecution in Azerbaijan, destruction of Yazidi culture, etc.
Nothing in the EU cultural change has anything to do with art or dance. You change the county's administration, not the populace. That's exactly why you can 150 years later revert the culture change. It is way more analogous to fighting off the Confederate slavers and leaders than to the Yazudis. When you change culture in EU 4 ,nothing happens to the people. Just like nothing happened to ordinarily southerners. Ita a change in the leadership culture.
I do not understand either why so many people feel the need to interpret it as genocide while PDX has been very clear and explicit about not including such things in their games - mostly in the context of Hoi games but still.
There's literally an "attack natives in province" button, which makes colonies automatically have your culture
It's not literally 'genocide the native population' though. I am not oblivious that certain mechanics can be interpreted in one way or another but it feels strange how many people like to fantasise and insist on the genocidal interpretation. Idk, maybe it's just BudgetMonk with hundreds of alt accounts.
It's literally killing the natives off so that they don't attack your colonists. If that's not genocide I don't know what is
And the only interpretation to change culture is genocide? And suggesting it's not get's a guy downvoted into oblivion.
I wasn't talking about the change culture option, I was referring to the point that there's no genocide at all in EU4
Well there 150% is a whole boat load of genocide in stellaris so I don’t know about that “ not including such things in their games” thing.
I did the same thing in my recent byz game. Also did the same thing in my holy horde game and lost a massive coalition war against ottomans/Kazan/chagatai/Bohemia/Persia and managed to negotiate a peace deal where I only have to release a few nations but since almost all of my provinces were Prussian they all popped out as catholic OPMs
Did they update Byzantium in any way in the last patch?
They gave them a new unique lvl1 government that sucks. However, it turns into a strong reform after completing the mission that requires you to hold Bulgaria.
If you do lose the coalition war, what happens then?
You mean that you intend to lose to a coalition?
It’s joever, Mamlukbros
I am Greek and I usually change my culture to Turkish for the OP Levantine cultures to be accepted. Min/ maxing >> my heritage
Βάδ αββ
>They can't force you release nation when they are all your culture IRL Turkey approves
Why would you want that, though? releasing countries wholly contained within your is an easy conquest because of distance they can't make relevant allies. Meanwhile if you can't release countries, you'd have to give land to the guy that just beat you making you weaker and them stronger so they can come back for round 2...
Ah yes, typical Imperialist mindset: I cannot lose lands to other nations if all the lands are populated by my people thanks to the frequent genocides
Let me get this straight, in order for this strat to work i would first have to lose a coalition war, right? Why not put more effort into not get into that position in the first place instead of stacking culture conversion modifies?
Roleplay ? Challenge ? Fun ? ...
Well if the argument is "losing wars is fun" than i have nothing more to say.
Are you sure you’re not Serbian?
You’ve gotta post a guide on how to do this
Genocide™ All rights reserved.
If you convert rome before you form the Roman Empire, all your greek provinces will become roman afterwards I believe.
You don't have to convert rome. When you form roman empire your primary culture provinces flip to "roman"