• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Tinto Maps #28 - 29th of November 2024 - North America

Hello everybody, and welcome one more Friday to Tinto Maps, the place to be for map lovers! Today we will be looking at North America, which is very handy, as we can deliver some Thanksgiving turkey maps to our friends from the USA (and Canada)!

But before I get started, let me have a word on some (shameless) promotion. You may know that we in Paradox Tinto have also been in charge of Europa Universalis IV in the past few years. Well, I just want to let you know that there’s currently an ongoing sale on the game, with several discounts on diverse packages, of which outstands the hefty Ultimate Bundle, which includes all the DLCs developed and released by Tinto in the past 3 years (Leviathan, Origins, Lions of the North, Domination, King of Kings, and Winds of Change), and a whole bunch of the older ones. I’m saying this as you may want to support the ongoing development of Project Caesar this way! Here you may find more detailed information, and all the relevant links: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...toria-bundle-up-for-this-autumn-sale.1718042/

And now, let’s move from the Black Friday sales to proper Tinto Maps Friday!

Countries & Societies of Pops:
Countries.png

SoPs.png

SoPs2.png

SoPs3.png

SoPs4.png

SoPs5.png
For today’s Tinto Maps, we thought it would be a good idea to show both the land-owning countries and the SoPs. As I commented last week, we’re trying to follow consistent criteria to categorize countries and societies. This is our current proposal for North America, with Cahokia and some Pueblo people being the only regular countries in 1337, surrounded by numerous SoPs. I’m not bothering to share the Dynasty mapmode, as we don’t have any clue about them, and they’re auto-generated.

However, we have been reading and considering the feedback we received last week, in the Tinto Maps for Oceania, so we want to let you know that this is our current design proposal and that we want to hear from you what are your expectations regarding the countries that you would consider landed in 1337*, and also which countries you’d like to play with in this region, either as landed, or as a SoP.

As you may already know, our commitment is to make Project Caesar a great, fun game with your help, and we greatly appreciate the feedback we receive from you in that regard.

* This is already quite tricky, as most of our information only comes from post-1500s accounts when the native societies were already looking very different from two centuries ago. Eg.: The first reports made by Hernando de Soto about the Coosa Chiefom around 1540 points it out to be organized in a way that we’d consider it a Tribal land-owning tag, as confirmed by archaeology. However, that polity was not organized at that level of complexity in 1337, as there isn’t any contemporary data comparable to that of Cahokia. And some decades after the encounter with de Soto and some other European explorers, the mix of diseases had made the Chiefdom collapse, being more akin to what a SoP would be. This type of complex historical dynamism is what makes it so difficult to make the right call for the situation in 1337, and also for us to develop with our current game systems the proper mechanics that would be needed for SoPs to be fully playable (and not just barely half-baked).


Locations:
Locations.png

Locations2.png

Locations3.png

Locations4.png

Locations5.png

Locations6.png

Locations7.png

Locations8.png

Locations9.png

Locations10.png
Plenty of locations, at the end of the day, are a big sub-continent… You may notice that we’ve tried to use as many native names as possible, although sometimes, we’ve failed to achieve that. Any suggestions regarding equivalences of Native and Post-Colonial will be very much appreciated, as this is a huge task to do properly!

Provinces:
Provinces.png

Provinces2.png

Provinces3.png


Areas:
Areas.png

Areas2.png

Areas… And with them, an interesting question that we’d like you to answer: Which design and style do you prefer, that of the East Coast, more based on the Colonial and Post-Colonial borders? Or the one for the Midwest and the Pacific Coast, more based on geography, and less related to attached to modern states? Just let us know!

Terrain:
Climate.png

Topography.png

Topography2.png

Vegetation.png

Some comments:
  • Most climates are portrayed in NA, from Arctic to Arid.
  • The Rocky Mountains are rocky!
  • Regarding vegetation, we wanted to portray the forest cover in 1337, which is tricky, and that’s why some areas may look too homogeneous. Any suggestions are welcome!

Development:
Development.png

Not a very well-developed region in 1337…

Natural Harbors:
Harbors EC.png

Harbors WC.png

Harbors3.png


Cultures:
Cultures.png

Cultures1.png

Cultures2.png

Cultures3.png

Lots of cultural diversity in NA!

Languages:
Languages.png

And the languages of those cultures!

Religions:
Religions.png

Religions2.png

We have a mixed bag here: On the one hand, Eastern and Northern religions look more like the design we’re aiming to achieve, while on the other, to the south, you can find the splitter animist religions based on cultures that we now want to group into bigger religions, more akin to the northern areas.

Raw Materials:
Raw Materials.png

Raw Materials 2.png

Raw Materials3.png

Wild Game, Fish, and Fur are king in this region! But we are also portraying the ‘three sisters’ (maize, beans, squash), the agricultural base for many of the native American societies, using Maize, Legumes (beans), and Fruit (squash). Cotton is also present in the south, as it was also native to the region (although the modern variant comes from a crossing with the ‘Old World’ one), and there are also mineral resources present here and there.

Markets:
Markets.png

Two markets are present in 1337, one in Cahokia, and another in the Pueblo land.

Population:
Broken map! But as this is an interesting topic to discuss, these are the current numbers we’ve got in the region:
  • Continent:
    • 20.487M in America (continent)
  • Sub-continents:
    • 10.265M in North and Central America (we have a pending task to divide them into two different sub-continents)
    • 10.222M in South America
  • Regions (roughly 1.5M):
    • 162K in Canada
    • 1.135M in the East Coast
    • 142K in Louisiana
    • 154K in the West Coast
    • 43,260 in Alaska

And that’s all for today! There won't be a Tinto Maps next week, as it's a bank holiday in Spain (as I was kindly reminded in a feedback post, you're great, people!), so the next one will be Central America on December 13th. But, before that, we will post the Tinto Maps Feedback review for Russia on Monday, December 9th. Cheers!
 
  • 184Like
  • 49Love
  • 20
  • 7
  • 7
Reactions:
On the borders and with me having only anecdotal knowledge of coding... Something makes me wonder why after so many iterations of PDX map games, the province setting is still so rigid and hierarchical and dynamism only applies to the naming, not to shapes and areas forming them.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
St. John natural harbour on Newfoundland is lacking. Also, there should be a few harbours around Rhode Island-Conneticut, like the quite deep Mount Hope Bay (where fall river lies, having an entire battleship museum laying on it!)
 
Last edited:
  • 4Like
Reactions:
Some general thoughts.

1) To throw my hat into the natural vs colonial borders, I favor natural, as an American. I think all of the straight line borders look weird even in the present day, having them in pre-colombian America is just strange. Some state borders, like Maryland or the upper peninsula of Michigan are total nonsense, especially if the first half of the game won't have any colonizers.
2) Is it possible to get a map of the rivers of North America? They historically had a massive impact on the way that colonial projects expanded, due to them being about the only good way to transport goods long distance in the region at the time. The rivers also had great importance to where native american cultures developed.
3) The province density bothers me a bit. As a comparison between Ireland and Indiana (which are roughly comparable in size, Indiana is a bit bigger), Ireland has 86 locations, while Indiana only has 16. I know that this is partly for ease of colonizing, but it also puts North American nations and locations at an inherent disadvantage, since population capacity is partly based on a per-location basis (as far as I understand) and by limiting the number of raw materials available (since with more provinces you may get more variety).
4) Cahokia was definitely in (possibly terminal) decline by this point, but if you want full states to play as, there were a number of moundbuilder sites across the midwest that would have been on the rise at the time.
5) Can vegetation change over time? After the spallpox epidemic ripped through native populations, all of those nice eastern woods became overgrown forests. Similarly, colonial nations, or even more developed native nations, may have interest in converting locations to farmland to support further development and higher population. Especially since the US and Canada now support widw regions of highly productive farmland (which is more recent, but shows that locations are capable of intensive farming).

I'm excited to see what you can do with SOPs, I think they are a great addition to the game!
 
  • 13
  • 5Like
Reactions:
I'm mainly going to be focusing on the Nova Scotia region here. If there are any Nova Scotia or Mi'kmaw specialists, please feel free to step in. I'll take some of the easier ones for now.

First, will we know the dynamic names of locations at any point? I'm guessing the idea is to have Mi'kmaw names be the standard for this time period and have Anglicized/Francocized names for if the area is colonized by those respective colonial powers.

Is there any chance of getting a zoomed and higher-res map of the location map of Nova Scotia? Some of the names are a bit small to make out.

Here's a map that might be useful if you haven't already seen it. It's a map of Mi'kmaw place names. https://placenames.mapdev.ca/

For the Location map, you might want to change these Anglicized names to Mi'kmaw ones and make the Anglicized ones dynamic names:
"Pictou" -> "Piktuk"
"Canso" -> "Qamso'q"

For the location to the west of Shubenacadie, I think the name of should be "Kennetcook"

That's all I'm able to make out there for now.

For the Provinces map, I'd make these changes:

"Epexiwitk" -> "Epekwitk"
"Agg Piktuk" -> "Piktuk" (Epekwitk aq Piktuk was a Mi'kmaw district that encompassed both Prince Edward Island and Pictou, so including "Agg"/"Aq" feels a bit awkward)

For the Area map, if we're going to be using "New Brunswick" for the area that constitutes modern day New Brunswick, it feels a little odd to be using "Acadia" for the area that constitutes modern day Nova Scotia, considering that much of the French colony of Acadia spanned New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and parts of Maine. I'd lean more towards just using "Nova Scotia" as the name for that area. On that topic, what area does Prince Edward Island belong to?

Moving onto natural harbours, I'm happy that the Halifax and Yarmouth harbours are present and prominent. The Canso area should probably have a small natural harbour (it was an important harbour for fisherman and fur traders), and there should probably be natural harbours to represent the Port Royal/Annapolis Harbour and the Sydney Harbour. Also, in the blue circle I made, is the natural harbour here supposed to represent Yarmouth Harbour? If so, then the natural harbour should really be located in the location to the west of it, as that's where Yarmouth is. If not, is it supposed to represent Shag Harbour (still a harbour, but I think less important historically than Yarmouth Harbour is)

View attachment 1223633

Finally, for the raw materials, fish is definitely a dominant good in the area, but there are some other natural resources that might have been overlooked. Annapolis/Port Royal was an important agricultural center as early as 1609. Cape Breton is a famous mining region for coal and steel in the late 1700's. The Cobequid region has a large quantity of iron ore (though, historically, the area wasn't mined until the 1800's, so maybe outside the purview of this game.) Also, Nova Scotia has a massive amount of forests, so lumber has always been an important export. It's not all just fish! ;)

I think that's all I've got for now. I might be able to add more if I can get that zoomed and hi-res location map.

Thanks!
As a Nova Scotian, I agree with everything you've mentioned here.

Maybe if the name Acadia is preferred for the region, the naming could be "Upper/Lower Acadia" or "Acadia (for New Brunswick)/Acadian Peninsula (for Nova Scotia)"?

Also, Prince Edward Island appears to be its own area. I'm not sure how much sense that makes for such a small place, but I'm not upset about it.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Just some thoughts

1. In agreement for more natural geographic borders.

2. I completely understand the decision on SoP/Nations, But I think it would be nice to see by the time we colonize in the age of discovery either by event or mechanics several SoP become playable and more of a force. Especially the ones that should be politically relevant (Iroquois, Huron, etc). It would drive a lot more mechanics/events/flavour as you have interactions with say the Mohawk Confederation etc.
2b. Maybe even the addition of a CB where if a state is below a certain amount of locations or population you can force them into a SoP?

3. Can we change the colour of Maize, it doesnt fit the good at all, maybe a Pastel Orange?
 
  • 4Like
  • 4
Reactions:
  • 38Like
  • 2Love
  • 1
Reactions:
I do have a suggestion or two specifically for Mississippian culture SOPs and tags.
Firstly, I'm not an expert on all of the Mississippian culture sites, but I do recommend that the Devs consider adding a few more Mississippian cultural sites. Cahokia, although the largest of the Mississippian sites by a clear margin, was hardly unique and was part of a broader cultural tradition and it seems somewhat arbitrary that Cahokia is the only settled state out of the dozens of sites associated with the Mississippians, especially since Cahokia was in a period of decline and would be completely abandoned by 1350. If you want a point of reference on what potentially could count as tags vs SOPs, I would recommend the paper Mississippian Chiefdoms: How Complex?, by Charles R. Cobb , which points to “ Cahokia, Moundville, Etowah, Spiro,Lake George, Lake Jackson, Winterville, Kincaid, and Ange Mounds” (tags) as the capitals of major polities, with minor “simple chiefdoms” (SOPs) in between them. Also, if you have not already seen AllAboutSamantics's ""A Very Speculative Look at America" in 1337, on Reddit , I recommend you check it out. Although clearly not all the polities in the map will make the cut as tags, it provides an outline and a jumping off point on that front.

I've also seen some commentators push against tags primarily because they would not be "fun" or would impede European settlement. While I understand their concerns, I think the historical mode of how Mississippian chiefdoms were organized- as "fission-fusion" societies, as well as what historically happened upon European colonization- the Mississippian Shatter Zone- could both provide for interesting gameplay and clear out tags and allow European powers to more easily colonize the eastern seaboard- as in IRL.
Screenshot 2024-11-29 123813.png
Screenshot 2024-11-29 123913.png

(Figures from Blitz's Mississippian Chiefdoms and the Fission-Fusion Process)
Essentially, per John H. Blitz in the paper, Mississippian Chiefdoms and the Fission-Fusion Process, Mississipian chiefdoms underwent a cycle of fission-fusion between simple chiefdoms (SOPs) and complex chiefdoms (tags). In essence, every once in a while, a simple chiefdom would gain enough power- whether that be military, political, or religious power- to subjugate its neighbors and become a complex, paramount chiefdom. After a few generations of ascendency, the population of the complex chiefdom balloons past carrying capacity, and a chaotic collapse ensues with the large chiefdom reverting back to a simple chiefdom- where the cycle continues anew.
1732902012092.png

(A figure showing the fission-fusion cycle prior to the shatter zone)
This unstable equilibrium was rudely interrupted by the Columbian exchange and the advent of the Mississippian Shatter Zone. Essentially, the stress of epidemics caused the collapse of all but one (the Natchez) of the Mississipian complex chiefdoms, reverting permanently to simple chiefdoms. The effects of European diseases was compounded by constant slave-raiding by gun-wielding tribes such as the Haudenosaunee and Europeans, which resulted in the Eastern seaboard being so depopulated, that places such as northern Georgia- which once had hundreds of thousands of people living there, had a tenfold reduction in population- perhaps even low enough that they can’t be described as even a SOP anymore.

The way I can see this be implemented into the game is having the Mississipian world be one of constant, dynamic tags, all with shared “Mississippian” flavor, which on occasion arise out of SOPs, are unstable and constantly vie with other small tags for dominance. Playing as a Mississippian chiefdom should be a precarious balancing act, trying to both not exhaust your limited agricultural capacity, avoiding conquest by nearby tags, and reinforcing your legitimacy by building mounds, sacrifices, and religious ceremonies. If you fail, your tag splinters, with some areas reverting back to SOPs and an outlying settlement becoming the new capital of a new complex chiefdom, which you can switch to and try again.

Nevertheless, this all gets turned on its head come 1540 and the advent of the Shatter Zone. This can be modelled as a Situation- perhaps as part of a shared Situation with the whole New World, as the mechanics are similar throughout the two continents. Essentially, massive epidemics start rippling through the complex chiefdoms as they devolve back into SOPs- usually permanently- and the ones which don’t are in a scramble to adopt technology such as guns, and to replenish their collapsing population by either creating confederacies with neighboring tribes or for more warlike tags slave-raiding.

Obviously, this is a lot and I don’t really expect all of this- or even some of this- to be implemented come the release of EU5, but I hope that something can be learnt from this and we get a more historical North America come release.

P.S I'm sorry for the lack of links, but I can't post links without trigging the spam filter
 
Last edited:
  • 6Love
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Biggest thing that stands out to me is that there's no Diné/Navajo? I might be missing them, but they appear to have been merged with the Hopi, which doesn't seem correct

For the Southern California region, I have some rough suggestions:
1732896009398.png


  • Pismu
    • San Luis Obispo
    • Chumash; Fish
  • Mikiw (or Kalawašaq/Lumpo'o)
    • La Purísima Mission; Mission Santa Inez
    • Chumash; Fish
  • Syuxtun
    • Santa Barbara
    • Chumash; Fur (otters)
  • Humaliwo
    • Malibu; Mission San Buenaventura
    • Chumash; Fish
  • Tataviam location could go here, or in Tovaangar, or in Mojave
    • The Santa Clarita Valley
    • Tataviam culture: Fruit, Fiber crops?
    • For an actual village name, could go Tochonanga, Chaguayanga, or Mapipinga
    • There should be a gap in the wasteland between Hometwoli and Tataviam to represent the Tejon Pass
  • Limuw (probably too small)
    • The Northern Channel Islands
    • Chumash; Pearls (abalone)
  • Pasheeknga
    • The San Fernando Valley; Mission San Fernando Rey de España
    • Tongva; Lumber? (Noted to have many oaks); said to be marshy, forested
  • Yaanga
    • Los Angeles; San Gabriel Mission
    • Tongva; fiber crops? said to be marshy, forested
  • Puvunga
    • A sacred spring site for the Tongva, Acjachemen, and Chumash
    • Long Beach Area
    • Tongva; Fish
  • Kuukamonga
    • Santa Ana Basin Area
    • Tongva; Wild Game
  • Pimuu'nga (probably too small)
    • The Southern Channel Islands
    • Tongva; Pearls (Abalone)
  • Putuidem
    • Southern Orange County; Mission San Juan Capistrano
    • Acjachemen; Wild Game
  • Qée'ish
    • Northern San Diego County; Mission San Luis Rey de Francia
    • Payómkawichum; Wild Game
  • Kosa'aay
    • San Diego area
    • Kumeyaay; Fish? Wild Game?
  • Séc-he
    • The Coachella Valley area
    • Taxliswet; Fruit or Fiber Crops (both uses of the California Palm)
  • 'Iitekat
    • Tecate; Tijuana Area
    • Kumeyaay; Fish?
  • Jhlumúk or Pa-tai
    • Ensenada
    • Kumeyaay; Fish
  • Awkwaala (TYPO: should be Akwa'ala)
    • Misión San Vicente Ferrer
    • Paipai; Wild Game?

Also, I think Kuksu stretches too far south; the Tongva, Payomkawichum, and Acjachemem seemed to share a faith that included Chinigchinix/Quaoar; and the Chumash, Kumeyaay and Tongva all used Datura in their religious practices - I've seen the term "Datura Cult" before used in reference to this, but I'm not sure if that terminology has changed
 
Last edited:
  • 12Like
  • 5Love
  • 3
  • 3
Reactions:
I personally find the Areas being based on geography to be better. Dividing them by post-colonial structure doesn't make sense when playing as the natives, which probably didn't view the territory divided in those ways.
But we don't know how they divided territories in most cases, that's part of the problem. If we have information on certain borders, great, add them instead of artificial ones, but if not, the colonial ones are the only ones we know. The same principle was used for borders in the Old World.
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Also, some other observations. First, looking at the Rocky Mountains area, the occasional use of modern names in the locations like Moffat and Routt, which didn't even appear until the late 19th century far out of the game's timeframe, in the middle of the native names really stands out and annoys me as a Coloradan. It's particularly for places where there are native names still present in the area like the Yampa River in northwest Colorado that would be a suitable name for either the Moffat or Routt locations,, or when we know the name for places in the indigenous languages like Bear River, the name of which is Boa Ogoi in Shoshone.

Yampa: https://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/city-to-recognize-indigenous-peoples-of-yampa-valley/
Boa Ogoi: https://www.usu.edu/today/story/boa...-land-150-years-after-the-bear-river-massacre
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
so we have great lake navies...
all aztec and maya that exist in EU4 are now soc of pops?

do the ocean having different climates impact things like attrition there or just their type, coastal , deep ocean , etc?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
American here. I personally prefer the post colonial state borders(east coast). I like to recreate modern borders in my games and that would just impossible to do with the “west coast” layout. Trying to recreate the US/Canada borders in Eu4 is nauseating and doomed from the start. If yall go with the west coast layout then I’d ask to at least allow conquest on a location by location basis that could still allow for modern borders.
Huh, why would that be impossible? Again, Tinto Talks told us that colonization charters are based on provinces, not on areas. We are talking about areas here.

And yes, the creation of US-like borders should obviously be possible by colonizing/conquering locations or provinces. I don't think anyone is arguing against that.
 
  • 5Like
  • 4
Reactions:
Will this also be the case with other colonial areas? For instance, the "separate" colonies of Quebec, Louisiana, Illinois, etc., could be formed separately or be joined together in a New France common "colonial" federation, or the various Spanish provinces in the New World, such as California, New Navarre, New León, Guatemala, México, Yucatán, being able to be formed separately but joined together in a New Spain "colonial" federation/viceroyalty?
It's the idea, yes.
 
  • 34Like
  • 14Love
  • 1
Reactions:
In the high plains regions of Kansas, Nebraska, and western Texas, I see there is a shift from flatlands to plateau at a certain elevation. I’m not entirely sure I understand the gameplay impacts of this, but it is reasonable. However, it might be important to note specific changes like the edge of the Llano Estacado, where the flat high area becomes rough where the rivers started eroding, and carved deep canyons like Palo Duro.

Relatedly, I’m not sure I understand the impassable areas within the flatlands of western Kansas and Nebraska. That seems like an odd choice, given that this region isn’t quite desert, and definitely isn’t mountainous!
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I am a little concerned about the gameplay, if you decide to play as Cahokia for example, there is enough ways to interact with the SoPs around for the game be fun?
That's a big challenge for us at this moment, to be honest. That's why we're being extra cautious with everything SoP-related.
 
  • 38Like
  • 9
Reactions: