Tinto Flavour #24 - 3rd of June 2025

[giorgosth128]

I think giving the horde a CB or conducting actual raids would be more beneficial. than just a malus.

 

[Blust]

not a single bow on the "horse archer" illustration :c

 

[Sizvahstar]

"If any member, including the Grand Prince, pays less than 50% of the capacity, it will get a development malus, portraying the small-scale raids conducted by the Horde to put the princes in line. If the budget is over 50%, the members will get a bonus on their diplomats, and the Grand Prince, on its Prestige."

I'd say it should be a CB to have not enough payment (for the grand prince or the overlord). Ideally for the grand prince if and only if the overlord allows it. And the peace condition could be to fix the payment to a different sum.

That sum would need to be locked in, as otherwise you could just lower it and ride out the truce timer.

 

[Sizvahstar]

2. Why does the tatar yoke IO only have debuffs? I feel like some benefits along the lines of increased stability or trade should be present.

They are basically just tributaries; PDX has yet to give tributaries any benefits other than some degree of protection, to my knowledge at any rate.

 

[Sizvahstar]

auto-conquer in war sounds too op in player's hands but I guess there is some balancing mechanism we didn't see yet

I think the civil wars that will occur every time your ruler dies means that if you have vast swaths of 0% Controlled land, you're in for a worse and worse beating.

 

[Sizvahstar]

Does it give any reason/CB for the GH or the GP of Vladimir to intervene? It feels like I would just always want to pay 50%, there's no, let's say, incentive to pay more.

You do seem to get Prestige:

 

[Sizvahstar]

I see that the Tatar Yoke is an international organization and I guess it was already discussed extensively in many other topics (sorry but I am not following all the topics like the others ), but have we not come to a better nomenclature for these "agreements" instead of "international organization"? It really hurts reading this applied to some situations that are more applicable to the late 1800.

If possible please do give suggestions that are comparable.

 

[Sizvahstar]

This is moreso an advancement of firearms than a settled state issue and, more importantly, it didn't change the historical calculus for nomadic empires until after the end of the game

They couldn't compete with the Qing (partially composed of nomads at the time) and Russia but that doesn't mean the Kazakhs could've just settled the steppe and remained a viable state even if they wanted to

It is strange that EU4 hordes don't have to do anything to avoid falling off though

Speaking of Qing... the Great Wall of China was still being built, largely due to nomads/mongols/hordes - will we see some special Fort-like building that represents this Great Wall?
Perhaps building it should use the Road construction tool?

(I'll start a new thread for this.)

 

[Sizvahstar]

Yes, with what we have learned, an Army-based country (I prefer military based polity) continues to exist while the army exists. We also know that if the ABC loses its army while it still has land it has a chance to splinter.

1. Army but no land: still exists but you want land fast since you cannot support your army
2. No Army, no land: you cease to exist
3. Land but no Army: You may be fine, you may splinter.

This explains why Tinto made Hordes flip occupied territory - it's a last ditch solution to keep your tag alive.

 

[kagami1999]

There was a certain reason why Crimean, Kazani and other Khanates appeared when the GH collapsed. They were based around the biggest clusters of settled population in Crimea and along the Black, Azov seas, the Volga and Ural rivers.

Please, make possible collapse of the GH at least more historical for the AI GH, not like that craziness we have seen in youtube videos.

View attachment 1311926 View attachment 1311927

You actually have created the respective cultures based on this future split.
View attachment 1311930

Thanks!

Ugh... Bulgaria is returning to its steppe roots... Nature is healing...

 

[Sizvahstar]

@Pavía Several unreported typos/grammatical errors in today's screenshots:

The comma here needs to go, my added comma I could live without.

"carelessness" as they still used actual horsepower.

This is a flavourful sentence, poetic almost - but the ending ruins it. I don't think the comma is enough, but it's something. I'd cut it or rewrite the sentence past "sword" if it was my call.

 

[Polesie Admiral]

You do seem to get Prestige:

View attachment 1312122

how about that the Grand Kniaz in the TY would get more market attraction and merchant capacity?

 

[43514:goldcat18]

It's a formable country:

View attachment 1311955​

if the mongol empire is called mongolia what is a smaller Mongolia centered state called?

 

[Sizvahstar]

• Can we have an icon on the right side in the title bar instead of using two lines to indicate 'Major Reform'?

• Don't need the Age line as we have the Age icon
• Isn't Horde Unity the same thing as Legitimacy?
  • Is this advance only valid for Monarchy and Hordes?

• This tooltip was already too big so you decided to make it bigger?
• I still don't like the Combat performance or Terrain impact boxes but would need more information to try to come up with a better solution

• Don't need the building type banner as it is already in the sub-title
• Can we unify on an icon that means trade? Will it be the barrel or the apple for fish? Unless those are indicating different things called 'trade' they should use the same imagery.

• I think the check list section would be better served if the vertical bar of subclauses originated from the clause headers checkbox.
• Need a better presentation method for the 'All Rebels in Country' clause

That is all for now. It has been hard to keep up. Please don't take my silence as approval.

• Like so?
  I agree, once the player gets used to the iconography, superfluous information becomes annoying.

• Like so?
• In EUIV having these separate "legitimacies" indicated that one of them applied depending on your Government type.
  • Good question.

I think "Required for" is a redundant line if we're aiming for a compact layout, but for people new to the game I think it provides clarity. Still, I'll get rid of it for this example:

• Better? (I even added the missing colon to "Maintenance")
• I shrank them, it's all I could think of.

Overall this frees up about 25% of the space it took up prior, but you'd have to crop the lovely art above. I didn't fiddle with the Unit Statistics box, you could make it smaller and align the top boxes with the bottom ones.

• Fixed.
• Like so?

• Basically like this:
• Is cutting "All" enough?

Quite the zinger to leave off with!

 

[Sizvahstar]

I think it's fine to put the Ruler in front of the flag when they're this far apart.

(Now he's in the foreground with the flag behind his shoulder.)

 

[perceval350]

Really disappointed with the choice of representing nobility in the golden horde and it doesn't give me a lot of hope for tribal nations to have a really unique experience. I would have preferred for the tribal estate to be the main estate in these nations, which would mean that any tribal nation who wants to centralise would have to first convert it's tribal pops or conquer non tribal pops
Here is a suggestion I made a while ago on this topic :

I think the main solution would be to make tribal pops ultra allergic to higher control, that way, if they live in the fringes of your empire, the situation will not be that bad, but as soon as you try to build up your control over their location, they would rise up en masse. Making lands with a lot of tribal people worth much less to a centralized state if you don't have the means to crush several massive rebellions.

Also, we know that PC will have migrations, and, in my opinion, tribal pops should be the ones most susceptible to migrate. This could give several options to the player on how to deal with tribal pops :
-try to assimilate them and slowly convert into peasants/nobles (in this system, having control on a location with tribal pops would cause unrest, migration and pop conversion) by doing an extremely gradual upgrading of control to not upset them (which would be extremely long and difficult to do as you don't really control how much control you're gaining, this method would almost always cause some conflicts)
-quickly improve control to provoke several conflicts in which you try to fight lengthy wars to devastate tribal location and push them out until there's not enough of them to be an actual problem and then why not settle your own people in (this method would be extremely costly as this would require long campaigns, it could also increase your AE with nations of the same culture/religion as your pops)

Also I think PC should portray the special relationship between certain states and their tribal pops. For example, in my opinion, the best way to portray the Golden Hord would be for it to have lots of tribal pops and a strong tribal estate that the state has to rely on heavily for its military.

That way, the Golden Horde would be a military powerhouse because it has access to lots of tribal levies who are especially cheep (as your economy doesn't rely on them and they are nearly self-sufficient) but your economy would rely a lot more on the big cities and the trade that flows through them.

At the start of the game Golden horde should then have abysmal control over the majority of its land (which would be in its advantage) and control over one or a few big commercial centers.

If the golden horde were to centralize (to try to keep up with nations who get richer through centralisation in the mid game), it would then need to increase its control and have to crush its unruly tribal pops. Which could represent the mid-late game challenge for such a state.

To give tribal pops the special status they deserve, maybe they should be the only estate who gets more powerful from lack of control, for exemple, it could be an estate whose influence only comes from it's pops and maybe from lack of control, who collects barely any money and constructs cheep buildings on its own, and its loyalty would mostly be based on the lack of control of the locations they are in.
Also, only certain types of governments could interact with the estates and, for exemple, grant it privileges. The only revenue the tribal estate would give to its overlord would be a tribute, which would be based on the amount of accepted culture tribal pops and also the loyalty/influence of the tribal estate.
The tribal estate could get its income from taking a very small percentage of the tributes (even though it has the risk of making this estate too rich and have too much of a stable income) and/or it could also get its income by taking a certain percentage from the plundering you do. This could then lead to some interesting gameplay, because a poor tribal estate would pressure the government (by becoming disloyal) as long as it doesn't get any money from plundering. This could even be the source of border conflicts.

When your government allows for interaction with the tribal estate, to limit the power of this estate, we could say that (depending on how cultures work in PC) only pops who are of an accepted culture will be part of your tribal estate, whereas other pops will behave just like tribal pops in any centralized state.

That way, playing a tribal nation would be a lot more about managing your relationship with ethnicities within your frontiers than managing control.
This would also be part of the advantages that Mongol hordes benefit from (they could start with a lot of accepted cultures and an ability to easily accept cultures, which would give them a far stronger tribal estate).

Also, I think that, under certain circunstances, some centralized states should be able to have a relationship with their tribal estate. But these should be really peculiar cases like how Yuan could still be able to interact with its tribal estate comprized of all the tribal pops that are accepted cultures (this could also be the case for Qing once you form it), or for exemple how the ottomans could interact with the Turkomans. This possibility for certain centralized nation would then be another way to add flavour.

I think these solutions would really do a lot for flavour in PC as, playing tribal nations wouldn't just be like playing a centralized nation but poorer and with better units but would actually offer unique gameplay.

 

[Sizvahstar]

I think the Hordes could have some unruly Tribes put together Allied raiding parties, out of their control but not enemies to them, which then seek out neighbours to raid.

I don't know if that's historically accurate, but I'm willing to bet this happened now and then IRL.

 

[Sizvahstar]

Really disappointed with the choice of representing nobility in the golden horde and it doesn't give me a lot of hope for tribal nations to have a really unique experience. I would have preferred for the tribal estate to be the main estate in these nations, which would mean that any tribal nation who wants to centralise would have to first convert it's tribal pops or conquer non tribal pops
Here is a suggestion I made a while ago on this topic :

To be honest, the one thing that disappointed me in this Tinto Flavor was seeing this:

The Tribes are extremely few(!?) and have 0% Estate Power. That's very strange to me. Then, to make it worse, they have absolutely no Privileges? What?
I assume you can give them privileges and build them up - but why aren't they incredibly strong from the very start?

Your suggestion for the GH made the Tribes sound interesting for the first time! If they don't overhaul the GH and their Tribes mechanic, I would very much like to see your idea turned into a mod.

 

[Oglesby]

• Like so?
  I agree, once the player gets used to the iconography, superfluous information becomes annoying.

View attachment 1312169View attachment 1312171

Yep, personally I don't think we need 'Modifiers' at the first line either but I guess there may be other sections.

• Like so?
• In EUIV having these separate "legitimacies" indicated that one of them applied depending on your Government type.
  • Good question.

View attachment 1312172

Yep.
No comment on the Horde Unity vs Unity?

I think "Required for" is a redundant line if we're aiming for a compact layout, but for people new to the game I think it provides clarity. Still, I'll get rid of it for this example:

• Better? (I even added the missing colon to "Maintenance")
• I shrank them, it's all I could think of.

Overall this frees up about 25% of the space it took up prior, but you'd have to crop the lovely art above. I didn't fiddle with the Unit Statistics box, you could make it smaller and align the top boxes with the bottom ones.
View attachment 1312174

It is smaller, so better. But still a way to go in my mind.

• Fixed.
• Like so?

View attachment 1312177

I would leave "Building Type |" in the subtitle and get rid of the banner in the second line. This will allow the third line to take up half the second line (like it used to be) without it being crowded.
(Personally I think I prefer the apple for fish icon, but at least you only have one icon)

• Basically like this:
• Is cutting "All" enough?

View attachment 1312180

Yes, I think that check boxes are clearer this way.
I think a 'All Rebels are not Pretender (6 of 7)' might be better.

Quite the zinger to leave off with!

Over on Vic3 I signed all my post off with something like "By the way, I still don't like flag occupation" once we heard that they believed silence on the subject after release meant people all of a sudden liked it. If Wiz taught me anything it is that I have to be vocal (or at least define my silences).

 

[Otto_Jager]

Dear developers!

I have a question about the Golden Horde's participation in the war for the inheritance of Galicia-Volhynia (the Kingdom of Rus' if historically accurate)Will there be mechanics for Khan Uzbek or Tini Beg to fight for the inheritance of the Kingdom of Rus'? In reality, Dmitry Dedko and Danilo Ostrozky enlisted the support of the Golden Horde to drive the Poles out of the borders of the Kingdom of Rus', and even invaded Poland. This is reported to us, for example, by Jan of Czarnków. Will the game allow the Horde to restore, if not a single state, then at least Volhynia with its own claimant or to transfer it to its tributary. For example, Fedor Ivanovich, the last Rurikovich on the throne of Kyiv, was from the Chernihiv branch of the Rurikids. His distant ancestor, Mikhail Chernihiv, fought with futere King Daniel for the Galician principality.

This is a letter from Dmytro Dedko dated 1341, in which he writes to the merchants of the city of Toruń asking them to return to Lviv.

Also, will the game have a mechanic of using the forces of Poland or Lithuania to put their pretender on the throne of the Golden Horde. For example, Tokhtamysh planned to defeat Temür Qutlugh and Edigey with the support of Vytautas?


P.S I have a huge request to the developers to fix the error with the division of the Kingdom of Rus into the Grand Duchy of Galicia and the Grand Duchy of Volhynia. Such state formations have never existed. As a suggestion, you can make the death of Yuri II similar to the event about the Burgundian inheritance from EU4. The state will be united until the death of Yuri II, and then you can divide it through events or play out a whole war for the inheritance.