Sure. I've just noticed that we may have to add Nizhny Novgorod and Kostroma to it, as being ruled by Ivan 'Kalita':
- 33
- 6
- 2
- 1
-
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.
Showing developer posts only. Show all posts in this thread.
otherwise the text is bigger than normal playing distance. you would just see the massive letters "-cti-" or "-onti-" across the screen which isnt useful and doesnt look nice
- 30
- 14
- 8
- 6
- 2
1. It is possible for Finland to become an independent country.
2. Location names, initially we went for the current names, but we have yet to add more dynamic localization, including the indigenous toponymy, as usual.
3. We need them to be part of provinces for some calculations.
4. Adding more climates is non-trivial at this stage... We'll think about it.
5. Good question, looks like an overlook when creating the minorities... We'll double-check, thanks for the note!
- 42
- 4
- 4
- 1
@SaintDaveUK is already aware of the different possible combinations for the population map mode suggested throughout the different Tinto Maps (as mostly compiled in this thread: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ent-pop-map-sketches-from-tm-numbers.1679345/), and he is cooking something.
- 34
- 20
- 2
- 2
- 1
Could you provide a screenshot of the political map with rivers?
Could you add the principalities of Mari?
Малмыжское княжество — Википедия
ru.wikipedia.org
Can the Permian culture be divided into two?Список марийских княжеств — Википедия
Zyrians
Komi peoples - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Vychegda Perm - Wikipedia
Вымское княжество — Википедия
Вымские князья — Википедия
Regarding rivers, it's because of the zoom (I had to zoom out to be able to cover the whole region, and at that zoom level, there aren't rivers shown).
Regarding the culture suggestions, we'll take a look at them!
- 30
- 5
- 1
- 1
We usually take into account linguistics for cultural division. So, 'Novgorodian' portrays the 'Northern dialects' of Eastern Rus, 'Muscovite' the 'Central dialects', and 'Severian' the 'Southern dialects'. But take this as an open answer; I think that there might be reasons to unify the culture into 'Russian', and also to further subdivide it (as another person pointed out on the previous page); we'll review all the informed opinions on the matter after a while, and make a decision regarding that that feel appropriate both for historical and game-logical reasons. Thanks for the input, by the way."Time to start flame about Eastern Slavic cultures. 3 second before start of flame... 2... 1... go!"
Let's go!
I'm truly uncertain about the cultures... Don't they look far-fetched? The Rutenian culture is incredibly important. It allows us to simulate the real historical process, showing how the Ukrainian and Belarusian identities developed in western Rus. But what are the Novgorodian, Muscovite, and Severian supposed to symbolize? Moscow's expansion is only beginning, so why are the surrounding principalities, even hostile ones like Tver, also labeled as Muscovite? Honestly, this feels like a gamey choice, and I believe the Caesar project shines best when it leans on history, not when it tries to fit history into gameplay.
We have a wealth of historical data indicating that in the 14th century, the Eastern and Western Rus languages began to diverge into two distinct languages. From the Western language, Ukrainian and Belarusian would later emerge. However, there was no significant split in the Eastern Rus language. Yes, there were various dialects, but the differences were minor.
I understand that portraying the cultures of 14th century Rus is a complex issue. Due to the assimilation efforts by Moscow later on, many cultures did not survive to the present day. But wouldn't unified Rus culture be better choise? Similar to the case with Ruthenia? This would be a simplification, but a logical one, unlike the invented cultures of the Muscovite, Severian, and Novgorodian. It might disrupt the balance, as there would be a large, unified culture in this region from the start. But wouldn't that make the region more unique? And this uniqueness would be dictated by history, not gameplay reasons, which I see as a win. We already have a historical political division in the region. Is it worth putting an artificial cultural division on top of it?
As an alternative, I would make several cultures in the region, but mix them up in the locations. We will take the peoples who lived on this territory before the emergence of Kievan Rus, and show that during its short existence, the principality did not assimilate all these people (as in reality it was). There will be several cultures in the region, and while playing in this region, the player will have to assimilate them. But the player will face this task when playing for any principality, be it Moscow, Tver or Novgorod. And it won’t be that Novgorod will start with its unique Novgorodian culture, and Moscow with its Muscovite...
In any case, I am not a historian, just an enthusiast. But as someone with a great interest in this region, the cultures currently presented in the game seem contradictory and illogical to me... Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could provide a better alternative.
- 38
- 8
- 3
- 3
There are ways to increase a country's population density, but there also are some geographical caps to it.
- 31
- 3
- 2
- 1
I remember discussing this matter during the map development, and apparently Chernigov/Chernihiv was under the loose rule of the Golden Horde, but the sources do not paint a very clear situation in this period around the Dnieper Bend, to be honest.
- 25
- 8
- 2
- 1
Maybe the content designer who added it gathered not enough data; that's why we show it, so you can help us flesh it out.
- 31
- 2
- 1
3. Technical reasons, maybe @Johan has some time available to explain it (I'm not sure what can already be talked about, and what is still a 'secret matter').
4. It's not hardcoded, but adding more layers of climate, topography or vegetation is the non-trivial part, as we already have hundreds of different combinations, that affect several other parts of the game's development.
- 28
- 9
- 2
Anatolia, Russia, and the Balkans in a row: the trilogy of Tinto Maps: Electric Boogaloo.
Now seriously, people behaved very well last week, and as far as how this Tinto Maps is going, it's also quite peaceful. I hope this also to be the mood next week, as it makes our work way easier, so we can just focus on cooking the feedback, without flaming it.
- 45
- 27
- 10
- 5
Just checked, and currently, we have 13 different types of heir selections available for republics; some generic, some unique; so there will be different types of possibilities and combinations.
- 37
- 24
- 3
- 1
Ideally, you would like to have a big market where good market access is available, as it fuels more resources into it, and is easier to control; creating new markets costs resources, but allows for better trading integration where market access is very low. This is obviously WIP, and may not be the case by the game release, so take my words with a grain of salt.
- 34
- 4
- 3
- 1
It will be possible for republics such as Novgorod to elect their leaders from other countries, yes. Also for some elective monarchies, as happened historically.
- 31
- 20
- 1
We aren't planning for that; probably, there will be thousands of rivers in the game.
- 28
- 17
- 6
- 3
- 1
It's a convention, one of the two possible ways of naming the country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Moscow . BTW, although it's not displayed in the map, the full dynamic country name is 'Grand Principality of Muscovy'.
But we're open to feedback, if the community thinks that Moscow is more appropriate as the English form than Muscovy.
- 33
- 5