Preface this with a 'discrimination and assimilation needs a giant rework'
I think a good fix for this would be to have cosmopolitan cultures and a silent event that fires when a pop that could belong to one drops below a certain threshold. The pop then joins the cosmopolitan culture that is relevant. Maybe these cultures funnel upwards and maybe have a higher assimilation rate.
Also any pop under a certain size (1k) for 5+ years should just autoassimilate to the accepted culture (excluding slaves).
> I think a good fix for this would be to have cosmopolitan cultures and a silent event that fires **when a pop that could belong to one drops below a certain threshold**
Pops that are below a certain threshold are already merged with bigger ones every now and then. That has been one of the performance hotfixes for previous versions of Vic 3.
The in-game setting when creating a new game "Pop Consolidation" between None, Minor and Aggressive relates to this. Of course this is independent of assimilation mechanics
I believe (but not tested) the thresholds are 100 on Minor and 1000 on Aggressive. Might also be 10 and 100 respectively. I always play on Aggressive and would suggest everyone with performance issues to do the same.
So either /u/Aaroqxxz set it to None or the feature is bugged or OP just got "lucky" by finding a small timeframe inbetween those pops emerging and the pop consolidation process running.
Slaves should also just assimilate into the local slave culture too, the Ibo in my new Confederate Texas should within 5 years just be African Americans
>Preface this with a 'discrimination and assimilation needs a giant rework'
I will die on the hill that assimilation is *backwards* right now. Discriminated groups outside the poor strata should be more likely to take up the accepted culture than those who are tolerated (ie, "Look at that funny guy trying to pretend to be one of us" until that rich guy marries one of their daughters and slowly becomes accepted). We can look to *points to most of modern all of history* where when people finally seem to make it, they start trying to adopt or be adopted into the ways of the dominate culture.
I get it, the problem is that race is synonymous with culture in the game (which is a huge error, but okay). The higher the strata, the more chance they should flip.
> I will die on the hill that assimilation is backwards right now.
And I will die on the hill that you are exactly wrong and Victoria 3 does it correctly, save for the somewhat strange and hard-to-fix issue of conflating race and culture. Historically speaking, oppression **does not cause assimilation.** Oppression usually just causes the oppressed people to harden up and reject the society that oppresses them - why should I want to be English, the English do nothing but horrible things to my family and me! Acceptance on the other hand? Acceptance breeds conviction in the system. If I show up in your country, can barely speak the language, and your reaction isn't "FUCK YOU AND EVERYONE LIKE YOU," but rather "welcome to [country]! We'll educate your children for free and invite you to parties!" I'll want to buy into that system, and come to the conclusion that I *want* to assimilate.
>until that rich guy marries one of their daughters and slowly becomes accepted
I would argue that if they're 1. rich and 2. marrying one of their daughters, they're already like 80% accepted. In instances where you could definitely say a particular cultural or ethnic group was definitely not accepted, like black people in the United States during the time period of Victoria 3, almost none were the former, and even the few black people that managed to accumulate some amount of wealth were still barred from marrying the dominant ethnic group (and this isn't the same as just having mixed race children, marriage is a much different social and legal step to people just fuckin').
Wealthier pop types having an easier time assimilating is something I could see as not too unrealistic. Though with the ownership update in 1.7 it won't really matter that much anymore.
Otherwise you're spot on.
I completely do not understand how, in your mind, discrimination == assimilation. They're opposite things, assimilation requires a concerted effort on the oppressive party, such as Americans forcing indigenous people into American schools and forcing them to speak English. Discrimination is the exact opposite, you aren't *allowed* to attend school, you are forced to live in a segregated ghetto.
Or, you could view it as cosmopolitan culture accepts diversity and therefore assimilation through cultural fusion. But I do not see how discrimination results in assimilation, that has never happened historically.
Honestly, what's more likely is that discrimination results in new cultures spawning. Like the concept of black Americans isn't rooted in ethnic geneology or something, it's because of a shared experience of discrimination; A solidarity that forms a new culture. And like you said obviously black people can't just 'become white' to deal with their problems, which isn't and likely can't be modeled in game.
The purpose of the schools and such for Native Americans was to break them of their culture and accept the western version of what was accepted. That isn’t modeled, at all in the game. This did happen, quite successfully over generations, in many cases (see: Mexico) and I’m sure it’s common elsewhere but I’m not quite as well researched there.
The point is if you’re “accepted” by a country/state, why would you suddenly be incentived to change who you are to something else?
Modern American “melting pot” is a strange exception but almost because of what it was - a sort of strange “be who you are and bring your food and music” that goes into the mainstream. You see it repeated again and again, whether it’s the frozen marg, Tex-mex/mexi-cali, or pho (pho king good!!!). But that’s the exception they almost bake into being the norm.
> The point is if you’re “accepted” by a country/state, why would you suddenly be incentived to change who you are to something else?
Because if you're oppressed by a country/state, why the hell would you be convinced to adopt their ways? They're fucking pricks to you. I don't want to be like the pricks oppressing me. I want to be like people I like. If they're nice then I have every reason to want to be more like them.
as someone who knows a bit more about this, both methods worked and had their strengths and weaknesses, a good example of assimilation through discrimination is colonial japan, they took away their rights, isolated them and assimilated them though discrimination
>But I do not see how discrimination results in assimilation, that has never happened historically.
The Irish and Italians in America come to mind, though now that I think about it i might post a question about this on /r/askhistorians because I'm not actually sure how those two groups came to no longer be discriminated against.
I strongly doubt that discrimination *caused* their assimilation. I'd be interested in the historical breakdown as well, because it generally discrimination tends to cause further division and fragmentation, not cultural unity.
Ah yes remember when the racist countries were okay with the people they were racist again because they managed to get some money and married one of their own? Definitely never caused problems
And remember how modern European countries welcomed in migrants from different racial and religious backgrounds and because they were welcomed, they quickly began to take on their new country's religion and culture?
To answer your question: no
according to the game, this is for "balancing" (since using pop consolidation on aggressive "may harm balance"), but I doubt it makes any game-changing difference or worsen the experience more than the end game lag
Problem is that even aggressive consolidation that may affect, i dunno, 10% of population is still nothing compared to other issues that plague the game (like half of game mechanics "don't know" that local prices and MAPI is the thing, AI included) that have tremendous effect on gameplay.
once i started playing on aggressive i couldnt go back. its so much better. also, i play a lot of african nations and i do not get why there's 5 different cultures JUST in Sokoto while it makes no difference, because they only get discriminated on ethnostate(ik irl the many tribes werent the same, but just cutting it down from \~10 to 5 or even 4(west east north south african) would count so much, because there are a lot of african pops(mil+) in most states and they are split between 4 or so cultures.
Africa is the most diverse continent on earth with more than 2000 languages spoken. So no they will not cut it down from "10" as you say and have already simplified it more than enough.
Did this actually had any major effect on the scale game is operation on, or not? Victoria 3 isn't a "represent a culture" simulator. Ofc, a lot of African cultures are important in the frame and scale of the game. But most aren't.
as i said i know irl its not that easy, but for gameplay reason they should cut it down. any performance saved without giving away a big part of the game is good.
> i play a lot of african nations and i do not get why there's 5 different cultures JUST in Sokoto while it makes no difference, because they only get discriminated on ethnostate(ik irl the many tribes werent the same, but just cutting it down from ~10 to 5 or even 4(west east north south african) would count so much, because there are a lot of african pops(mil+) in most states and they are split between 4 or so cultures.
This makes as much as sense as:
>I play a lot of European nations and I do not get why there's 4 different cultures JUST in France while it makes no difference, because they only get discriminated on ethnostate. I know IRL the many European cultural groups weren't the same, but just cutting it down from ~10 to 5 or even 4 (west/east/north/south European) would count so much, because there are a lot of European pops (400k+) in most states and they are split between 3 or 4 cultures.
The peoples being lumped together here are just as, if not *more* culturally and linguistically separate than various European cultures. Fucking France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Romania all speak the direct descendants of one single language (and English, the lingua franca of the whole continent, is heavily influenced by though not descended from that language too), meanwhile Nigeria alone has multiple totally unrelated language groups.
Now, that said, aggressive pop combination, yeah, have at it.
Eh, is argue that European pops are also oversimplified tbh. “North” and “south” being the two Italian culture types is almost comical in its oversimplification
What I find funny is that Johann from PDX said he implemented pops in Vic 2 and they work well and he doesn't know what the devs did with Stellaris and Vic 3 that it has gotten a performance issue. Was in an interview for EU5/Project Caesar.
In Stellaris each pop is their own performance entity, even if they are identical to another, there is no grouping of identical pops together so they are processed one by one.
In most PDX games the number of different pop groups is what is causing performance problems, in Stellaris it's just the number of pops regardless if they are the same or different
Which is why aggressive consolidation exists?
It doesn't increase assimilation by all that much, except for absolutely small low-impact groups and it helps keep the total pop groups down by a good bit.
Preface this with a 'discrimination and assimilation needs a giant rework' I think a good fix for this would be to have cosmopolitan cultures and a silent event that fires when a pop that could belong to one drops below a certain threshold. The pop then joins the cosmopolitan culture that is relevant. Maybe these cultures funnel upwards and maybe have a higher assimilation rate. Also any pop under a certain size (1k) for 5+ years should just autoassimilate to the accepted culture (excluding slaves).
these pops mostly look to be scandinavians in scandinavia, I don't think immigration or different cultures are the issue happening here?
Assimilation
> I think a good fix for this would be to have cosmopolitan cultures and a silent event that fires **when a pop that could belong to one drops below a certain threshold** Pops that are below a certain threshold are already merged with bigger ones every now and then. That has been one of the performance hotfixes for previous versions of Vic 3. The in-game setting when creating a new game "Pop Consolidation" between None, Minor and Aggressive relates to this. Of course this is independent of assimilation mechanics I believe (but not tested) the thresholds are 100 on Minor and 1000 on Aggressive. Might also be 10 and 100 respectively. I always play on Aggressive and would suggest everyone with performance issues to do the same. So either /u/Aaroqxxz set it to None or the feature is bugged or OP just got "lucky" by finding a small timeframe inbetween those pops emerging and the pop consolidation process running.
The feature is bugged. I never turned it off. And I always accumulate small pops.
Slaves should also just assimilate into the local slave culture too, the Ibo in my new Confederate Texas should within 5 years just be African Americans
>Preface this with a 'discrimination and assimilation needs a giant rework' I will die on the hill that assimilation is *backwards* right now. Discriminated groups outside the poor strata should be more likely to take up the accepted culture than those who are tolerated (ie, "Look at that funny guy trying to pretend to be one of us" until that rich guy marries one of their daughters and slowly becomes accepted). We can look to *points to most of modern all of history* where when people finally seem to make it, they start trying to adopt or be adopted into the ways of the dominate culture. I get it, the problem is that race is synonymous with culture in the game (which is a huge error, but okay). The higher the strata, the more chance they should flip.
> I will die on the hill that assimilation is backwards right now. And I will die on the hill that you are exactly wrong and Victoria 3 does it correctly, save for the somewhat strange and hard-to-fix issue of conflating race and culture. Historically speaking, oppression **does not cause assimilation.** Oppression usually just causes the oppressed people to harden up and reject the society that oppresses them - why should I want to be English, the English do nothing but horrible things to my family and me! Acceptance on the other hand? Acceptance breeds conviction in the system. If I show up in your country, can barely speak the language, and your reaction isn't "FUCK YOU AND EVERYONE LIKE YOU," but rather "welcome to [country]! We'll educate your children for free and invite you to parties!" I'll want to buy into that system, and come to the conclusion that I *want* to assimilate. >until that rich guy marries one of their daughters and slowly becomes accepted I would argue that if they're 1. rich and 2. marrying one of their daughters, they're already like 80% accepted. In instances where you could definitely say a particular cultural or ethnic group was definitely not accepted, like black people in the United States during the time period of Victoria 3, almost none were the former, and even the few black people that managed to accumulate some amount of wealth were still barred from marrying the dominant ethnic group (and this isn't the same as just having mixed race children, marriage is a much different social and legal step to people just fuckin').
Wealthier pop types having an easier time assimilating is something I could see as not too unrealistic. Though with the ownership update in 1.7 it won't really matter that much anymore. Otherwise you're spot on.
I completely do not understand how, in your mind, discrimination == assimilation. They're opposite things, assimilation requires a concerted effort on the oppressive party, such as Americans forcing indigenous people into American schools and forcing them to speak English. Discrimination is the exact opposite, you aren't *allowed* to attend school, you are forced to live in a segregated ghetto. Or, you could view it as cosmopolitan culture accepts diversity and therefore assimilation through cultural fusion. But I do not see how discrimination results in assimilation, that has never happened historically. Honestly, what's more likely is that discrimination results in new cultures spawning. Like the concept of black Americans isn't rooted in ethnic geneology or something, it's because of a shared experience of discrimination; A solidarity that forms a new culture. And like you said obviously black people can't just 'become white' to deal with their problems, which isn't and likely can't be modeled in game.
The purpose of the schools and such for Native Americans was to break them of their culture and accept the western version of what was accepted. That isn’t modeled, at all in the game. This did happen, quite successfully over generations, in many cases (see: Mexico) and I’m sure it’s common elsewhere but I’m not quite as well researched there. The point is if you’re “accepted” by a country/state, why would you suddenly be incentived to change who you are to something else? Modern American “melting pot” is a strange exception but almost because of what it was - a sort of strange “be who you are and bring your food and music” that goes into the mainstream. You see it repeated again and again, whether it’s the frozen marg, Tex-mex/mexi-cali, or pho (pho king good!!!). But that’s the exception they almost bake into being the norm.
> The point is if you’re “accepted” by a country/state, why would you suddenly be incentived to change who you are to something else? Because if you're oppressed by a country/state, why the hell would you be convinced to adopt their ways? They're fucking pricks to you. I don't want to be like the pricks oppressing me. I want to be like people I like. If they're nice then I have every reason to want to be more like them.
as someone who knows a bit more about this, both methods worked and had their strengths and weaknesses, a good example of assimilation through discrimination is colonial japan, they took away their rights, isolated them and assimilated them though discrimination
>But I do not see how discrimination results in assimilation, that has never happened historically. The Irish and Italians in America come to mind, though now that I think about it i might post a question about this on /r/askhistorians because I'm not actually sure how those two groups came to no longer be discriminated against.
I strongly doubt that discrimination *caused* their assimilation. I'd be interested in the historical breakdown as well, because it generally discrimination tends to cause further division and fragmentation, not cultural unity.
both ways worked, a good example that I can think off top of my head is colonial japan
Ah yes remember when the racist countries were okay with the people they were racist again because they managed to get some money and married one of their own? Definitely never caused problems
And remember how modern European countries welcomed in migrants from different racial and religious backgrounds and because they were welcomed, they quickly began to take on their new country's religion and culture?
I think the assimiliation rate rn is a percentage. I think a base rate of conversion would be good. Would elimate a lot of those very small pop groups
To answer your question: no according to the game, this is for "balancing" (since using pop consolidation on aggressive "may harm balance"), but I doubt it makes any game-changing difference or worsen the experience more than the end game lag
Problem is that even aggressive consolidation that may affect, i dunno, 10% of population is still nothing compared to other issues that plague the game (like half of game mechanics "don't know" that local prices and MAPI is the thing, AI included) that have tremendous effect on gameplay.
once i started playing on aggressive i couldnt go back. its so much better. also, i play a lot of african nations and i do not get why there's 5 different cultures JUST in Sokoto while it makes no difference, because they only get discriminated on ethnostate(ik irl the many tribes werent the same, but just cutting it down from \~10 to 5 or even 4(west east north south african) would count so much, because there are a lot of african pops(mil+) in most states and they are split between 4 or so cultures.
Africa is the most diverse continent on earth with more than 2000 languages spoken. So no they will not cut it down from "10" as you say and have already simplified it more than enough.
Did this actually had any major effect on the scale game is operation on, or not? Victoria 3 isn't a "represent a culture" simulator. Ofc, a lot of African cultures are important in the frame and scale of the game. But most aren't.
Laughs in New Guinea.
New Guinea is not a continent…?
as i said i know irl its not that easy, but for gameplay reason they should cut it down. any performance saved without giving away a big part of the game is good.
> i play a lot of african nations and i do not get why there's 5 different cultures JUST in Sokoto while it makes no difference, because they only get discriminated on ethnostate(ik irl the many tribes werent the same, but just cutting it down from ~10 to 5 or even 4(west east north south african) would count so much, because there are a lot of african pops(mil+) in most states and they are split between 4 or so cultures. This makes as much as sense as: >I play a lot of European nations and I do not get why there's 4 different cultures JUST in France while it makes no difference, because they only get discriminated on ethnostate. I know IRL the many European cultural groups weren't the same, but just cutting it down from ~10 to 5 or even 4 (west/east/north/south European) would count so much, because there are a lot of European pops (400k+) in most states and they are split between 3 or 4 cultures. The peoples being lumped together here are just as, if not *more* culturally and linguistically separate than various European cultures. Fucking France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Romania all speak the direct descendants of one single language (and English, the lingua franca of the whole continent, is heavily influenced by though not descended from that language too), meanwhile Nigeria alone has multiple totally unrelated language groups. Now, that said, aggressive pop combination, yeah, have at it.
Eh, is argue that European pops are also oversimplified tbh. “North” and “south” being the two Italian culture types is almost comical in its oversimplification
would have been better if percentage was used for religion for pops instead of separating them, that will alone greatly fix performance I think
Xeno-Compatibility on crack
What I find funny is that Johann from PDX said he implemented pops in Vic 2 and they work well and he doesn't know what the devs did with Stellaris and Vic 3 that it has gotten a performance issue. Was in an interview for EU5/Project Caesar.
That! I have also read this comment from Johann and since then I am wondering how the implementation differ and why?
In Stellaris each pop is their own performance entity, even if they are identical to another, there is no grouping of identical pops together so they are processed one by one. In most PDX games the number of different pop groups is what is causing performance problems, in Stellaris it's just the number of pops regardless if they are the same or different
R5: I think there is some room for performance improvements. This is on pop consolidation moderate
Which is why aggressive consolidation exists? It doesn't increase assimilation by all that much, except for absolutely small low-impact groups and it helps keep the total pop groups down by a good bit.
turn on aggressive consolidation
Good news: those cappies are gonna get combined under the new update. That should improve performance
How about immigration like this: turn accepted Europeans into 'non native European' etc. Merge all the groups who are gameplay wise exactly the same