Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries
Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Previous dev diary Next dev diary
Show only dev responses

Tinto Maps Special Edition - 6th of January 2025 - The World

Hello, and welcome to a Special Edition of our Tinto Maps series! Today, as a Three Wise Men present (a quite important tradition here in Spain), we'll be taking a look at how the different map modes look like throughout the entire world. Without further ado, maps!

Countries:
Countries1.png

Countries2.png


Building-based Countries:
Building-based.png


SoPs:
SoPs.png


Dynasties:
Dynasties.png


Country Governments:
Governments.png


Court Languages:
Language Court.png


Locations:
Locations.png


Provinces:
Provinces.png


Areas:
Areas.png


Terrain:
Climate.png

Topography.png

Vegetation.png

Johan will talk this Wednesday about the effects of each terrain type.

Development:
Development.png


Harbors:
Harbors.png

European Harbors.png

We're also showing the map of European harbors, as that was not shown previously. Feel free to give your feedback!

Cultures:
Cultures.png


Languages:
Language Dominant.png


Religions:
Religions.png

The Animism split was completed, and the grouping into bigger families is almost finished (there's some pending work on Western and Eastern Africa, but that's it).

Raw Materials:
Raw Materials.png


Markets:
Markets.png


Population:
There is a total of 421M pops worldwide, distributed this way (and pending review, as we have identified some duplicates and errors that we have yet to fix, as in Germany, plus some additions in other places, as discussed in the different Tinto Maps threads):
  • 99.203M in Europe
  • 262.270M in Asia
  • 37.204M in Africa
  • 20.499M in America
  • 1.885M in Oceania
And that's it for today! Although there's pending work yet to be done in the new year, we think that the progress since we started the Tinto Maps series last spring is noticeable, something that we wouldn't have achieved without your feedback. We will keep gathering, processing, and implementing it in the Tinto Maps Feedback posts, continuing with the Maghreb review, which will be shown tomorrow.

And this Friday 10th we will start a new series, Tinto Flavour, in which I will show and talk about the content that we have been creating for Project Caesar. We hope that you will enjoy this new series and that you can keep helping us make this a fun and engaging game. Cheers!

PS: Today is a bank holiday in Spain, so I will reply to the comments tomorrow.
 

Attachments

  • Language Liturgical.png
    Language Liturgical.png
    3,8 MB · Views: 0
  • Raw Materials.png
    Raw Materials.png
    4,1 MB · Views: 0
  • Language Common.png
    Language Common.png
    3,9 MB · Views: 0
  • Language Common.png
    Language Common.png
    3,9 MB · Views: 0
  • 171Love
  • 77Like
  • 7
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Sort by date Sort by reaction score
Dan29067 said:
Please, may I ask where you got this periodization from? In the late 17th century, the Ruthenian language was already in decline in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the language of administration changed from Ruthenian to Polish in 1696. (The situation was different in the Cossack Hetmanate, but Ruthenian there would also begin to decline at the beginning of the next century and would be more influenced by Russian than before.) However, according to your argument, it had only just lost 'full mutual intelligibility' with Russian at this time? Regarding the language barrier between the two sides in the 17th century (there were far fewer contacts between them before), here is a quote from Timothy Snyder on the topic: (Snyder, Timothy D. (2003). The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569–1999, p.116).
View attachment 1243110

According to my knowledge, Lithuania only adopted a language that already existed there as the language of their chancery, and (as the post higher on this page also argues) this probably already happened before the start date (although we cannot be absolutely sure in this case). The languages grew distant from each other by the 14th century on their own and were not 'fractured' by Lithuania or Poland. There is a good book written by George Shevelov, A Historical Phonology of the Ukrainian Language, which discusses the evolution of the Ukrainian language (including during this time period).
Click to expand...
I will read timothy snyder, thank you for the recommendation. However george shevelov is a ukrainian nationalist who viewed russia and the russian people as big bad moscow, so it is harder to find him as a serious and credible source.
 
That figure of 20.5 Million in the Americas is way too low. I am not a scholar nor have I done in-depth research but a casual look at Wikipedia indicates it should be at least double that, possibly even triple or more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#European_colonization

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas

I don't want to dismiss what I'm sure is well researched but in case no one has pointed it out I am doing so. Doubling the population is a good start and conservative estimate according to scholars as far as I can tell. It's difficult to estimate population that far back with no written record basically of any substance but averaging expert estimates is the way to go in my opinion.
The fact of the matter is that 80 - ~90% of the indigenous population of the Americas died as a result of European contact and that should be modelled through extreme vulnerability to Old World diseases which will result in a really small post-contact population anyway. (how and if players should be able to interact and counteract the mass dying I don't know, probably only to a highly limited extent)

In case someone is concerned that these estimates are late 15th century and 1337 was very different: "The Indigenous population of the Americas in 1492 was not necessarily at a high point and may actually have already been in decline in some areas."

P.S. Yes it's all Wikipedia which is a great place to start research, my point is not to make an authoritative suggestion to the devs but to point out the problem with the wildly low population estimates for the Americas they used.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
KingBigMac said:
That figure of 20.5 Million in the Americas is way too low. I am not a scholar nor have I done in-depth research but a casual look at Wikipedia indicates it should be at least double that, possibly even triple or more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#European_colonization

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas

I don't want to dismiss what I'm sure is well researched but in case no one has pointed it out I am doing so. Doubling the population is a good start and conservative estimate according to scholars as far as I can tell. It's difficult to estimate population that far back with no written record basically of any substance but averaging expert estimates is the way to go in my opinion.
The fact of the matter is that 80 - ~90% of the indigenous population of the Americas died as a result of European contact and that should be modelled through extreme vulnerability to Old World diseases which will result in a really small post-contact population anyway. (how and if players should be able to interact and counteract the mass dying I don't know, probably only to a highly limited extent)

In case someone is concerned that these estimates are late 15th century and 1337 was very different: "The Indigenous population of the Americas in 1492 was not necessarily at a high point and may actually have already been in decline in some areas."

P.S. Yes it's all Wikipedia which is a great place to start research, my point is not to make an authoritative suggestion to the devs but to point out the problem with the wildly low population estimates for the Americas they used.
Click to expand...

Tinto Maps #29
Response #287​

Pavía said:
1. Yes, we've used a conservative low-end.
2. Yes, we'll review the total numbers.

That said, the issue here is very, very tricky. The demographic numbers for the Pre-Columbian Americas are the most disparate in the entire world for 1337, by far. The lack of reliable historical data, plus the very fast decrease of the American population in the 16th, has determined that we only have very wide estimate ranges for it. If you check the Wikipedia page on the matter, just some selection of demographers goes from 8M to 112M. But even if you check meta-studies, and articles analyzing them all in comparison (a meta-meta-study?), the estimations are from 40 to 60M c. 1500, which is still a great variation. And then even more recent articles using DNA History methods are pointing to the lower-end numbers. So, I just want to note that not only 'Classical Demography' studies offer very disparate numbers, but also modern ones, using very different approaches and techniques, such as 'Environmental History' or 'Genetic History'. And these are changing dramatically and very fast our understanding of History - I just want to note that Svante Pääbo won in 2022 the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for having demonstrated the interbreeding between Neanderthals and Sapiens, something that was not considered the mainstream trend before 2010.

More into the detail of our numbers, first, we need to take into account that we're talking about 1337, not 1492, so they need to be lower than any of the numbers in any of the works. Then, we deviated from our base sources (McEvedy and Rogers, 1978), which set 14M inhabitants for 1492, and made adjustments, based on certain growth from 1337 to 1492. That's what has determined us for a total number of around 20M by 1337. Given the sources available, we might potentially review them to be a bit higher than the current ones, to get them close to 40M by 1492; but the population growth algorithms in-game, although stable, aren't yet completely closed, so that's a moving block that we need to take into account. And then, the diseases from the Old World will come and hit, thus making the population of the continent slightly different on each game, depending on how much has it grown during the approx. 150 Pre-Columbian years, and then exactly when and how the diseases hit.

So not an easy task, at all.
Click to expand...
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
I assume "harbors" means "natural harbors", which I like. Glad to see Barcelona being portrayed as the lousy natural harbor it was, instead of doing the easy thing and going for "Aragon was a major naval power, therefore Barcelona harbor big". At most, Barcelona was a sandy beach, and even when piers were built, the Llobregat silt made the harbor too shallow in a decade, until major infrastructure prevented it in the late 1700's.

València and Cartagena, though... I think they should be looked at again.

Regardless, I like the idea. Can't wait to see what this whole Project Caesar thing is about. A Stellaris prequel?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I really dig that new color for Napels. It gets rid of the whole indistinguishable Naples pink on byzantine purple vassals in Greece. That being said I'm a bit afraid we are getting indistinguishable Napels green on Venetian green.

I know this is probably sacrilege but why not make Venice dark red like their flag?
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Pavía said:
Religions:
View attachment 1239003
The Animism split was completed, and the grouping into bigger families is almost finished (there's some pending work on Western and Eastern Africa, but that's it).
Click to expand...
Please check British Census documents of 1881 of Pakistani Punjab. Example Hindus were 43% during 1881 in undivided Punjab
You are showing more Muslims in land which is today Pakistan than even in British era. Please rectify this error. Also please check religion in Afghanistan during that era. You will find that it had far more non Islamic minorities. Example a place called Kafiristan was completely non Muslim till British era. You cannot show less Hindus in Indian subcontinent than even British era as this game is during Delhi sultanate era.
 
Makuria and Alodia as tribes? While the Daju lands and Wadai are monarchies? That might be a mistake. Makuria and Alodia were feudal monarchies, while the Daju and Wadai were tribal. Even the wiki pages say they where monarchical.
Screenshot 2025-03-02 203104.png
Screenshot 2025-03-02 202504.png
Screenshot 2025-03-02 202428.png
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
SPb enjoyer said:
Both Golden Horde’s and Yuan’s (+ Chagatai and some Persian states) common language is mongolian, because they have same primary culture - mongol
Click to expand...
Au contraire, you can look at the maps for yourself. Chagatai, the Golden Horde, and Yuan all have different court languages, as well as a diversity of common languages. Them all having Mongol as their primary culture does not prevent them from having different court languages.

Edit: oh you mean the "common language" file at the end. Well now i feel a bit silly. That's basically a representation of what the primary culture is for every tag i believe, I presume it isn't that important of a mapmode consisting how it is in a file at the end.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Please add more inland provinces to Australia like the Sahara, most of those locations could also be livable around lakes and oasises!

Players (like me) will want to play tall as an exiled or custom western nation in faraway Australia in 1337, I loved it when you showed how much of the Western USA you could settle!

1747074775257-png.1297035
 

Attachments

  • 1747074775257.png
    1747074775257.png
    442,9 KB · Views: 0
  • 6Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back