Changing culture after conquest

Users who are viewing this thread

The point was that some cultural changes can happen quite fast. It's irrelevant if Napoleon was defeated or not. It doesn't always take 1000 years until something changes.


I never claimed that cultural changes always happen everywhere all the time.

It seems I misunderstood you, sorry about this!
 
It is a good idea and it needs to be present in the game, but it needs a lot of work in order not to break the game
Culture change must be a slow, costly and risky process because the people will not tolerate this change. And at the same time, we must have the decision in case we decide to change the culture or leave it Also, there must be a way to reduce the risk of change, such as ending missions in the city and eliminating looters, and also using forces such as city culture to be in garrison or marriage.
We must also obtain benefits from this transfer, for example the possibility of recruiting soldiers from the culture of the ruler, and if it is possible to change the design of the city if a certain percentage of the culture is reached.
 
Let me get out my soapbox, now is my time!

I too would like to see some form of cultural change in game. Wholesale changing of an entire town (or village)'s culture seems a bit too much in a few years in the pseudo-early middle age setting of Bannerlord, but a neat solution might be to represent ethnic enclaves in game.

Many cities in history have had ethnic enclaves -- the Venetian quarter in Constantinople, the Jewish ghetto in Rome, the European district in Shanghai. In some cases these quarters even had their own rules administered by a local police of the same ethnicity -- i.e. Venetian arms and laws would apply to Venetians even in Constantinople.

In-game, this could be represented by letting town owners choose to build a cultural district distinct from the settlement culture. E.g. I own Amprela which is Imperial culture, but I choose to build a Vlandian quarter. This could add 1-2 Vlandian notables to the settlement (enabling recruitment of Vlandian troops), and perhaps also add some Vlandian arms and armor to the settlement markets. As a downside, cultural districts should probably decrease settlement loyalty and/or security, to reflect xenophobia and ethnic tension (and for balance reasons, otherwise there's no reason not to build a district everywhere).

In the long term, I wish TW would enable town-specific policies. This would open up e.g. rules about how different culture notables are treated in the town vs. the same culture, tax policies in specific towns, and generally deepen town management to make it more interesting and give players options.
 
Let me get out my soapbox, now is my time!

I too would like to see some form of cultural change in game. Wholesale changing of an entire town (or village)'s culture seems a bit too much in a few years in the pseudo-early middle age setting of Bannerlord, but a neat solution might be to represent ethnic enclaves in game.

Many cities in history have had ethnic enclaves -- the Venetian quarter in Constantinople, the Jewish ghetto in Rome, the European district in Shanghai. In some cases these quarters even had their own rules administered by a local police of the same ethnicity -- i.e. Venetian arms and laws would apply to Venetians even in Constantinople.

In-game, this could be represented by letting town owners choose to build a cultural district distinct from the settlement culture. E.g. I own Amprela which is Imperial culture, but I choose to build a Vlandian quarter. This could add 1-2 Vlandian notables to the settlement (enabling recruitment of Vlandian troops), and perhaps also add some Vlandian arms and armor to the settlement markets. As a downside, cultural districts should probably decrease settlement loyalty and/or security, to reflect xenophobia and ethnic tension (and for balance reasons, otherwise there's no reason not to build a district everywhere).

In the long term, I wish TW would enable town-specific policies. This would open up e.g. rules about how different culture notables are treated in the town vs. the same culture, tax policies in specific towns, and generally deepen town management to make it more interesting and give players options.
I love this idea.
 
Cultural changes in castles and city enclaves could be a workable compromise. Castles would automatically convert to the culture of the conqueror. Enclaves would cost you something to set up, and they'd generate unrest and a temporary reduction in income and loyalty, but in the long run (over a generation or two) would allow limited recruitment of your own culture's troops and limited availability of your own culture's equipment in the markets, possibly increasing in 5 year steps. Villages would be a bigger question, where some cultural shifts could be represented over time, such as a building of your own culture appearing in place of (or in addition to) an original culture's structure, and a couple of peasants wearing your culture's clothing, representing some partial acceptance of your culture by several of the residents.

Historically, significant changes occurred over a single generation in countless instances, yet the change was rarely ever total, even after hundreds of years.

The key is to keep any changes to villages very small and gradual, and the changes in towns limited to certain "districts", not to flip cultures completely over the relatively short course of the game. You want to be able to see "progress", but not drastic change. Without "progress", the game becomes pointless after a while. Too rapid a change and you run out of challenges too quickly.
 
I am really liking the addition of changing castles to the new culture right away and building the ethnic enclaves in cities but I do think it should be faster than a whole generation. If the cultures are closer together I think it should only be 5-10 years as this game will not be lasting even maybe a generation without the player seriously making it his goal. I do like the idea of mixing the peasants and clothing in the city to represent the change of culture also. Seeing Asari peasants walking around in a Sturgia city you are converting wearing fur would be cool.

I agree historically it would take much longer but historically you are not starting and starting three wars in the same year with major campaigns taking multiple castles and towns.
 
Something ive picked up on today trying to manage fiefs in the latest patch is just how much player and governer culture affects loyalty and thus everyting else (poor loyalty was increasing my contruction time by about 300%)

The best current in game solution to this that i can see is not to choose your player culture based on what faction you want to join as you are unlikely to get a fief of that culture (imperal is the obvious exception to this). In order to have fiefs in your culture and to be able to use your family as governors then you need to make an educated guess at which cultures territory you will get when you join a kingdom.

Being able to change settlement culture over a reasonable amount of time would solve this and also potentially make the perma-rebelions eventually stop happening
 
Something ive picked up on today trying to manage fiefs in the latest patch is just how much player and governer culture affects loyalty and thus everyting else (poor loyalty was increasing my contruction time by about 300%)

The best current in game solution to this that i can see is not to choose your player culture based on what faction you want to join as you are unlikely to get a fief of that culture (imperal is the obvious exception to this). In order to have fiefs in your culture and to be able to use your family as governors then you need to make an educated guess at which cultures territory you will get when you join a kingdom.

Being able to change settlement culture over a reasonable amount of time would solve this and also potentially make the perma-rebelions eventually stop happening

Is there any reason you wantbitbto be specifically your family you use for governors instead of a companion?
 
Is there any reason you wantbitbto be specifically your family you use for governors instead of a companion?

I guess its down to play style so I'll list my personal preferences and why

Hired companions are the only companions that can run carvans so i literally use all of mine to do just that. None of them have decent Steward stats either
My Brother who has good stats, is irreplaceable if he dies in battle and he can't run a caravan so governor seems the best place for him
Other siblings have poor stats. I usually just use these to form parties in my army but I've not played enough with the child education system yet to know if they can become viable governors. if they can then the same points as those that apply to brother.
Spouses are completely expendable but can pretty much be the most powerful characters you can get into your clan. probably the best source of current governors as you can also choose their culture (some one suggested to me in another thread to marry my family to get more governors and I like this idea but haven't tried it yet)
I dont see any real value in carrying around companions in my party of any type. If I do I make them archers and hope they don't die. I leave my character as Scout, Quatermaster, Surgeon and Engineer and it's all passive XP and it means that I can stack Attribute points in the one for Steward.

I mean the idea of this is to be a sandbox so people will and should be able to play in different ways. If Settlement culture is going to remain fixed then some nice changes would be to limit the number of caravans but allow family members to run them and add steward to skillsets of those companions found in Taverns. The building that gives loyalty could also be buffed slightly (its 1.5 at lvl 3 atm), maybe its build time increased though.
 
Rather than changing the cultures of the cities to recruit different culture troops. why not make it so that you recruit troops from the culture of the notable you're recruiting from?

This would mean cities will remain their default culture but once conquering a location, after a while you'd be able replace the notables to ones of your own culture to recruit units which you want. Obviously would need working; for example replacing notables could reduce loyalty, prosperity and security for some time (even higher debuffs which last longer if the new notable is of a different culture than the city/village), which would slowly start to go back to normal as the notables because "settled" into their new roles and the citizens of the cities adjusted to their new notables.
 
I support this idea. Cultural shift, depending on territory occupation, would work very well as a justification for rebellions to start.
  • Culture could be represented as a % of population belonging to the different settlements (villages, towns and castles), where, when conquered, each one could experience cultural shift independent from other settlements but also experience mutual influence on each other in the same region (group of settlements) /area of influence, so that a conquering faction who captures a single settlement on a certain region has more resistance to the cultural shift overall.
  • Cultural change could be more difficult depending on the cultural difference of the conqueror and the conquered faction.
  • It should be more difficult as the enemy progresses to the center or the heart of the faction/culture.
  • Different cultures or factions could have different culture shift resistance.
  • Different cultures should have different pros and cons, the attacking faction would experience cons right after conquering a settlement, as time progresses (if everything is under control) he starts to get some pros of the other culture (e.g.:access to other troops), while the cons and the chance of rebellion decreases.
  • Both the attacker and the defender should have ways to accelerate or resist the cultural change, the attacker should use force (troops) to prevent a rebellion, while the defender could gather more recruits in the region and incite independent/rebel armies (with a leader) that might form with the single purpose of capturing one settlement/region, lords could use their influence and resources to convince these armies to rebel and even join their army.
  • The outcome of the rebellion could determine or influence the cultural shift.
    • If the rebels win (conquers the settlement/region) then the cultural shift stops and progressively returns to normal numbers (depending on the time the enemy occupied the place).
    • If the conquerors win then the build up or the likelihood of another rebellion decreases.
  • There could be a small chance that the leader of the rebellion, tough of the same culture, after reconquering a settlement or a region declares himself independent from the initial faction (previous to the attack).
    • The "main" culture faction could then try to negotiate terms (alliances, persuade to join back, bribe, grant independence or declare war)
    • This new faction could even have small cultural differences (pros/cons) from the main faction culture that allows them to surpass the other main culture or become extinct.
 
I support this idea. Cultural shift, depending on territory occupation, would work very well as a justification for rebellions to start.
  • Culture could be represented as a % of population belonging to the different settlements (villages, towns and castles), where, when conquered, each one could experience cultural shift independent from other settlements but also experience mutual influence on each other in the same region (group of settlements) /area of influence, so that a conquering faction who captures a single settlement on a certain region has more resistance to the cultural shift overall.
  • Cultural change could be more difficult depending on the cultural difference of the conqueror and the conquered faction.
  • It should be more difficult as the enemy progresses to the center or the heart of the faction/culture.
  • Different cultures or factions could have different culture shift resistance.
  • Different cultures should have different pros and cons, the attacking faction would experience cons right after conquering a settlement, as time progresses (if everything is under control) he starts to get some pros of the other culture (e.g.:access to other troops), while the cons and the chance of rebellion decreases.
  • Both the attacker and the defender should have ways to accelerate or resist the cultural change, the attacker should use force (troops) to prevent a rebellion, while the defender could gather more recruits in the region and incite independent/rebel armies (with a leader) that might form with the single purpose of capturing one settlement/region, lords could use their influence and resources to convince these armies to rebel and even join their army.
  • The outcome of the rebellion could determine or influence the cultural shift.
    • If the rebels win (conquers the settlement/region) then the cultural shift stops and progressively returns to normal numbers (depending on the time the enemy occupied the place).
    • If the conquerors win then the build up or the likelihood of another rebellion decreases.
  • There could be a small chance that the leader of the rebellion, tough of the same culture, after reconquering a settlement or a region declares himself independent from the initial faction (previous to the attack).
    • The "main" culture faction could then try to negotiate terms (alliances, persuade to join back, bribe, grant independence or declare war)
    • This new faction could even have small cultural differences (pros/cons) from the main faction culture that allows them to surpass the other main culture or become extinct.
Very good list. I really like that the culture change discussions are picking up more comments and good ideas.

Hopefully we can get some dev attention to let us know if this is something they have thought of or is even possible in the game. I really think this would really add to the base game and really help make each faction feel unique.
 
hmm, funny thing about this topic. back in 2016? (i think) there was a PC Gamer convention in london. the first one the magazine had held. I attended and actually asked Captain Lust about this and it was stated then that it was not a planned thing.


hey i actually found the question :smile:

that was such a fun weekend.

 
Last edited:
I think if the player owns the fief they should get a reduction in the culture loyalty penalty after a few years. Not completely but maybe just -1 (or +1?) after 5 years then another after 10 to show some effect of taking care of the town. Maybe there could be special project for the player to do this too, like a culture festival or museum.

I also think we should be able to import some notables with different troop cultures, or bandits troops.

Player needs more thing to do :razz:
 
Back
Top Bottom