Fief Culture - Idea

Users who are viewing this thread

Takazul

Recruit
I have an idea for an overhaul of the fief culture / loyalty system. As it stands, culture is permanent (from what I can tell). I understand that they probably do this so each city doesn't have to have a culture skin for each culture. I don't have a problem with that. But what about splitting the notable cultures from "town" culture. Each time a new notable rises it would take on the culture of the ruling lord. This would allow "mixed" recruitment towns. With that, you could change the loyalty penalty to make it proportionate to the notable mix. For example 6 notables, 2 same culture, 4 different would result in a 2/3 modifier on the loyalty penalty (so -2 instead of -3).
 

Antaeus

Sergeant at Arms
I'm always skeptical of modern ideas around culture being applied to medieval style scenarios.

The game's time span barely covers a generation. In order for noticeable cultural change in the population to be affected, you'd need to have some sort of set of mechanics that touch on governance of exclusion based on culture.

Laws preventing militias and soldiers from being trained as per their traditions, laws ensuring new town notables being the governing culture and that the local culture are excluded. These kinds of situations would likely be ineffectual at instigating cultural change without the application of force, and for them to be believable, we'd also need an expansion of the rebellion mechanic - as nobody wants to see their culture subsumed by a foreign one.

Certainly it is possible for enforced cultural change to stick. For example, Normans largely assumed all governance roles in England for example for several centuries.

But as often as not the outcome of these kinds of situation is a hybridisation - where the new elites were themselves absorbed by the populace they governed (such as the Normans in England) to form a new cultural dynamic, or the new elites were absorbed entirely (such as the Franks in France, Lombards in Italy or Goths in Spain). This is why up until the emergence of nationalism in Eurasia... conquest of populations didn't often result in conquest of culture in the way we see it described today. There were still Greeks in Anatolia, Still Christians in Egypt, still Latins in Andalusia, still Welsh in Wales... many centuries after their conquest and exclusion by outsiders.

That, and of course, in feudal societies, culture itself often took on a secondary role. The Scottish nobility owned lands and titles in England, the English nobility owned lands and titles in France. German, Dutch, Scandinavian, French, Spanish nobles and royals often owned lands in each other's 'technical' realms. A serf doesn't always know, let alone understand the language of the person who owns them.

More likely in a feudal system like Calradia, it is more effective as the owner of a fief, to utilise the local feudal bonds to call local militias, local petty nobles to govern through oaths of allegiance.

I think the suggested modifier would logically result in a reduction of loyalty, because the locals are being excluded from their own governance. I think the loyalty penalty should be tied to prosperity, not culture. People are usually happy when they're wealthy, no matter who owns them.
 
I'm always skeptical of modern ideas around culture being applied to medieval style scenarios.

The game's time span barely covers a generation. In order for noticeable cultural change in the population to be affected, you'd need to have some sort of set of mechanics that touch on governance of exclusion based on culture.

Laws preventing militias and soldiers from being trained as per their traditions, laws ensuring new town notables being the governing culture and that the local culture are excluded. These kinds of situations would likely be ineffectual at instigating cultural change without the application of force, and for them to be believable, we'd also need an expansion of the rebellion mechanic - as nobody wants to see their culture subsumed by a foreign one.

Certainly it is possible for enforced cultural change to stick. For example, Normans largely assumed all governance roles in England for example for several centuries.

But as often as not the outcome of these kinds of situation is a hybridisation - where the new elites were themselves absorbed by the populace they governed (such as the Normans in England) to form a new cultural dynamic, or the new elites were absorbed entirely (such as the Franks in France, Lombards in Italy or Goths in Spain). This is why up until the emergence of nationalism in Eurasia... conquest of populations didn't often result in conquest of culture in the way we see it described today. There were still Greeks in Anatolia, Still Christians in Egypt, still Latins in Andalusia, still Welsh in Wales... many centuries after their conquest and exclusion by outsiders.

That, and of course, in feudal societies, culture itself often took on a secondary role. The Scottish nobility owned lands and titles in England, the English nobility owned lands and titles in France. German, Dutch, Scandinavian, French, Spanish nobles and royals often owned lands in each other's 'technical' realms. A serf doesn't always know, let alone understand the language of the person who owns them.

More likely in a feudal system like Calradia, it is more effective as the owner of a fief, to utilise the local feudal bonds to call local militias, local petty nobles to govern through oaths of allegiance.

I think the suggested modifier would logically result in a reduction of loyalty, because the locals are being excluded from their own governance. I think the loyalty penalty should be tied to prosperity, not culture. People are usually happy when they're wealthy, no matter who owns them.
👏
 
I actually made a suggestion like this a while ago. Really wish TW would consider it. Thread here.

Basically the idea being that you can get rid of notables you don't want, and replace them with someone else from your own culture thereby providing a source of Sturgian troops in Aserai lands. Doing so however results in quests that will have to be taken where you have choose between the favour of natives and new arrivals.

I'm always skeptical of modern ideas around culture being applied to medieval style scenarios.

The game's time span barely covers a generation. In order for noticeable cultural change in the population to be affected, you'd need to have some sort of set of mechanics that touch on governance of exclusion based on culture.

Laws preventing militias and soldiers from being trained as per their traditions, laws ensuring new town notables being the governing culture and that the local culture are excluded. These kinds of situations would likely be ineffectual at instigating cultural change without the application of force, and for them to be believable, we'd also need an expansion of the rebellion mechanic - as nobody wants to see their culture subsumed by a foreign one.

Certainly it is possible for enforced cultural change to stick. For example, Normans largely assumed all governance roles in England for example for several centuries.

But as often as not the outcome of these kinds of situation is a hybridisation - where the new elites were themselves absorbed by the populace they governed (such as the Normans in England) to form a new cultural dynamic, or the new elites were absorbed entirely (such as the Franks in France, Lombards in Italy or Goths in Spain). This is why up until the emergence of nationalism in Eurasia... conquest of populations didn't often result in conquest of culture in the way we see it described today. There were still Greeks in Anatolia, Still Christians in Egypt, still Latins in Andalusia, still Welsh in Wales... many centuries after their conquest and exclusion by outsiders.

That, and of course, in feudal societies, culture itself often took on a secondary role. The Scottish nobility owned lands and titles in England, the English nobility owned lands and titles in France. German, Dutch, Scandinavian, French, Spanish nobles and royals often owned lands in each other's 'technical' realms. A serf doesn't always know, let alone understand the language of the person who owns them.

More likely in a feudal system like Calradia, it is more effective as the owner of a fief, to utilise the local feudal bonds to call local militias, local petty nobles to govern through oaths of allegiance.

I think the suggested modifier would logically result in a reduction of loyalty, because the locals are being excluded from their own governance. I think the loyalty penalty should be tied to prosperity, not culture. People are usually happy when they're wealthy, no matter who owns them.
All well and good, but the game as it is really isn't realistic to begin with. So I think a feature for appointing notables would be fine.
 

Antaeus

Sergeant at Arms
All well and good, but the game as it is really isn't realistic to begin with. So I think a feature for appointing notables would be fine.

My point still stands... it is illogical to appoint foreign notables and have that improve loyalty. It should do the opposite.
 
Basically the idea being that you can get rid of notables you don't want, and replace them with someone else from your own culture thereby providing a source of Sturgian troops in Aserai lands. Doing so however results in quests that will have to be taken where you have choose between the favour of natives and new arrivals.
Yeah I want that too!
 
My point still stands... it is illogical to appoint foreign notables and have that improve loyalty. It should do the opposite.
Oh, no problem. Force a foreign notable into a village, and the loyalty as well as reputation you have there drops.

Makes it a balancing act between whether you really believe its worth it or not.
 

Antaeus

Sergeant at Arms
Oh, no problem. Force a foreign notable into a village, and the loyalty as well as reputation you have there drops.

Makes it a balancing act between whether you really believe its worth it or not.

I don't think it's necessarily bad to have something like that impact negatively on loyalty... if you could also balance it by making the town rich.
 
I don't think it's necessarily bad to have something like that impact negatively on loyalty... if you could also balance it by making the town rich.
But its still a reasonable reaction, and long term I don't see the issue with it all evening out.

Short term though, it would still cause issues.
 
My point still stands... it is illogical to appoint foreign notables and have that improve loyalty. It should do the opposite.
I fully agree!

Besides, Yes, a system for introducing notebles of your culture is fine and adds to their loyalty and adds flavour.. but not the fief loyalty.. And... from where should they provide your culture recruits? Just because you have a sturgian trader in Aserai doesn't mean you have ethnical sturgians to muster.
 

Takazul

Recruit
I'm always skeptical of modern ideas around culture being applied to medieval style scenarios.

The game's time span barely covers a generation. In order for noticeable cultural change in the population to be affected, you'd need to have some sort of set of mechanics that touch on governance of exclusion based on culture.

Laws preventing militias and soldiers from being trained as per their traditions, laws ensuring new town notables being the governing culture and that the local culture are excluded. These kinds of situations would likely be ineffectual at instigating cultural change without the application of force, and for them to be believable, we'd also need an expansion of the rebellion mechanic - as nobody wants to see their culture subsumed by a foreign one.

Certainly it is possible for enforced cultural change to stick. For example, Normans largely assumed all governance roles in England for example for several centuries.

But as often as not the outcome of these kinds of situation is a hybridisation - where the new elites were themselves absorbed by the populace they governed (such as the Normans in England) to form a new cultural dynamic, or the new elites were absorbed entirely (such as the Franks in France, Lombards in Italy or Goths in Spain). This is why up until the emergence of nationalism in Eurasia... conquest of populations didn't often result in conquest of culture in the way we see it described today. There were still Greeks in Anatolia, Still Christians in Egypt, still Latins in Andalusia, still Welsh in Wales... many centuries after their conquest and exclusion by outsiders.

That, and of course, in feudal societies, culture itself often took on a secondary role. The Scottish nobility owned lands and titles in England, the English nobility owned lands and titles in France. German, Dutch, Scandinavian, French, Spanish nobles and royals often owned lands in each other's 'technical' realms. A serf doesn't always know, let alone understand the language of the person who owns them.

More likely in a feudal system like Calradia, it is more effective as the owner of a fief, to utilise the local feudal bonds to call local militias, local petty nobles to govern through oaths of allegiance.

I think the suggested modifier would logically result in a reduction of loyalty, because the locals are being excluded from their own governance. I think the loyalty penalty should be tied to prosperity, not culture. People are usually happy when they're wealthy, no matter who owns them.
Good write up! I guess I look at it this way. Troop types are basically just equipment. Yes there is some struggle with tradition. But even the romans would turn the conquered cultures into auxilaries, armed and trained in a Roman manner, while still maintaining some nod to their historical “strength.” Though this would be way too “complex.” So I see no reason why a battanian recruit (assume they are a real person) couldn’t just train with a crossbow. The only real way to implement this with the current infrastructure is to have notables of that culture.

As for loyalty, I actually like the idea of there being a penalty for having one of your notables. Would add a dynamic of happy people versus convenient recruiting. Maybe you could choose the culture of new notables? Negative loyalty drift for your culture; positive for the natural one?

Also, +1 for a better interaction between loyalty and prosperity. Keep em fat and happy.
 
I'm always skeptical of modern ideas around culture being applied to medieval style scenarios.

The game's time span barely covers a generation. In order for noticeable cultural change in the population to be affected, you'd need to have some sort of set of mechanics that touch on governance of exclusion based on culture.

Laws preventing militias and soldiers from being trained as per their traditions, laws ensuring new town notables being the governing culture and that the local culture are excluded. These kinds of situations would likely be ineffectual at instigating cultural change without the application of force, and for them to be believable, we'd also need an expansion of the rebellion mechanic - as nobody wants to see their culture subsumed by a foreign one.

Certainly it is possible for enforced cultural change to stick. For example, Normans largely assumed all governance roles in England for example for several centuries.

But as often as not the outcome of these kinds of situation is a hybridisation - where the new elites were themselves absorbed by the populace they governed (such as the Normans in England) to form a new cultural dynamic, or the new elites were absorbed entirely (such as the Franks in France, Lombards in Italy or Goths in Spain). This is why up until the emergence of nationalism in Eurasia... conquest of populations didn't often result in conquest of culture in the way we see it described today. There were still Greeks in Anatolia, Still Christians in Egypt, still Latins in Andalusia, still Welsh in Wales... many centuries after their conquest and exclusion by outsiders.

That, and of course, in feudal societies, culture itself often took on a secondary role. The Scottish nobility owned lands and titles in England, the English nobility owned lands and titles in France. German, Dutch, Scandinavian, French, Spanish nobles and royals often owned lands in each other's 'technical' realms. A serf doesn't always know, let alone understand the language of the person who owns them.

More likely in a feudal system like Calradia, it is more effective as the owner of a fief, to utilise the local feudal bonds to call local militias, local petty nobles to govern through oaths of allegiance.

I think the suggested modifier would logically result in a reduction of loyalty, because the locals are being excluded from their own governance. I think the loyalty penalty should be tied to prosperity, not culture. People are usually happy when they're wealthy, no matter who owns them.

This is a flaw of the original starting set up and the entire of town cultures in the first place. For example, the western parts of the Empire -- including the first two original capitals of Charasea and Paravenos -- were taken only about a century before the game starts. Yet they're definitively "Vlandian" in every respect, including (most absurdly) materially and visibly. There's no sign that they were former Imperial metropoleis at all.
 
It has bothered me since they removed cultural restrictions on troop recruitment that you see parties running around with a weird mix troops. So far I came up with two different behaviors, one for mercenaries (minor clans) and one for the empire factions in the form of auxiliary troops.

For mercenaries I added a campaign behavior to make them exchange faction troops for their own version, so for example the Company of the Golden Boar will exchange all their ranged for their own crossbowman and the cavalry and infantry are replaced by generic mercenaries. It is working fine so far but I intend to make full troop trees for all minor clans at some point so they look more unique.

For the empire factions I want to implement something similar so the troops that are from different cultures get exchanged for auxiliary versions with equipment that is a mix of their own culture and empire themed equipment and troop types that fit their background, like a line for Vlandia that branches out between cavalry and crossbowman or maybe pikeman. This also has the added benefit of being a more natural way of differentiating between the empire factions that could shift as territories are taken and lost.

And that brings me to the other factions and the problem of how the hell am I going to blend the other factions with each other? Should I go for full conversions? Leave it as is? Try mixing them in like the empire? Exchange them for localized versions of the generic mercenaries?
 

Julio-Claudian

Knight at Arms
It has bothered me since they removed cultural restrictions on troop recruitment that you see parties running around with a weird mix troops. So far I came up with two different behaviors, one for mercenaries (minor clans) and one for the empire factions in the form of auxiliary troops.

For mercenaries I added a campaign behavior to make them exchange faction troops for their own version, so for example the Company of the Golden Boar will exchange all their ranged for their own crossbowman and the cavalry and infantry are replaced by generic mercenaries. It is working fine so far but I intend to make full troop trees for all minor clans at some point so they look more unique.

For the empire factions I want to implement something similar so the troops that are from different cultures get exchanged for auxiliary versions with equipment that is a mix of their own culture and empire themed equipment and troop types that fit their background, like a line for Vlandia that branches out between cavalry and crossbowman or maybe pikeman. This also has the added benefit of being a more natural way of differentiating between the empire factions that could shift as territories are taken and lost.

And that brings me to the other factions and the problem of how the hell am I going to blend the other factions with each other? Should I go for full conversions? Leave it as is? Try mixing them in like the empire? Exchange them for localized versions of the generic mercenaries?
This is the way I wish it was. I hardly ever see mercenary or minor faction parties with more than a few of their unique troops since they are hired by all of the kingdoms and just recruit from everywhere, it makes their backstories feel pointless. I love the auxiliaries idea, for the other cultures maybe something like a generic version of each regional troop.
 
Top Bottom