• 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 Talks #1 - February 28th 2024

Hello everyone and welcome to .. yeah, what is this really?

Is this a game called “Tinto Talks?” No.. not really.

First of all Tinto stands for “Paradox Tinto”, the studio which we founded in Sitges in 2020, with a few people moving down with me from PDS to Spain. We have now grown to be almost 30 people. Now, that is out of the way, what about the “Talks” part? Well…

j122b5kkSHre8fzThR98htcNObjdyIE_I7he5798iZFOOuPo_DwYgAodHjharr02DsYlnhUftqOgbEfAZoW_iY-pzeZJIPWn70nunrf_RxJCBOfzxMtk09O2bSLzbozxYV1pjagvDQcOdtwcRjfweW0


A long time ago, we started talking about a game as soon as we started working on it. Back in the long almost forgotten past we used to make games in about 8-9 months. I remember us announcing Vicky2 with just 2 mockup screenshots, and half a page of ideas.

This changed a bit over time, with first the rule of not announcing a game until it passed its alpha milestone, in case it would be canceled… as happened with Runemaster. And then when projects started going from an 18 month development cycle with games like EU4 to many years like our more recent games, the time from announcement to release became much closer to the release of the game.

Why does this matter?

Well, from a development perspective communicating with the players is extremely beneficial, as it provides us with feedback. But if it's so late in the development process that you can not adapt to the feedback, then a development diary is “just” a marketing tool. I think games like Imperator might have looked different if we had involved the community earlier and listened to the feedback.

If we look back at HoI4, this was from the first time we talked about Air Warfare, about 10 years ago, and it has not much in common with the release version..
u5Rmtyxo4wjnPOCck8qMkfdl0b3DNXg5mz-Hbf1J3ZnUctAnPqF8iGoRWjIQL_YlA_fXgwzZXAkH4urtPNzf3q1PxteO6p00HPyhNKLK4RBdp6CGq2bbsycQ-wSxMCf9poeXA8s7349vakEkGIFD9_A



However, talking about a game for a long long time is not great for building hype either, and to be able to make proper huge announcements is an important part as well.

So what is this then? Well, we call this sub-forum “Tinto Talks”. We will be talking about design aspects of the game we are working on. We will not tell you which game it is, nor be able to tell you when it will be announced, nor when it will be released.

We will be talking with you here, almost every week, because we need your input to be able to shape this game into a masterpiece.

Without you, and your input, that will not be possible.

So what about Project Caesar then?

Project Caesar? Yeah.. At PDS, which Tinto is a "child" of, we tend to use roman emperor/leader names for our games. Augustus was Stellaris, Titus was CK3, Sulla was Imperator, Nero was Runemaster, Caligula was V3 etc.. We even named our internal "empty project for clausewitz & jomini", that we base every new game on Marius.

In Q2 2020, I started writing code on a new game, prototyping new systems that I wanted to try out. Adapting the lessons learned from what had worked well, and what had not worked well. Plus, recruiting for a completely new studio in Paradox Tinto, training people on how to make these types of games, while also making some expansions for EU4.

Today though, even though we are a fair bit away from announcing our new game, we want to start talking weekly about the things we have worked on, to get your feedback on it, and adapt some of it to become even better.

However, we’ll start with the vision, which is not really something you do change at this stage.

Believable World

You should be able to play the game and feel like you are in a world that makes sense, and feels rich and realistic. While not making the gaming less accessible, features should be believable and plausible, and avoid abstraction unless necessary.

Setting Immersion

Our games thrive on player imagination and “what if” scenarios. We ensure both a high degree of faithfulness to the setting which will give a “special feel” to the game. We will strive to give this game the most in-depth feeling of flavor possible.

Replayability

There should be many ways to play different starts and reasons to replay them. Different mechanics in different parts of the world create a unique experience depending on what you choose to play. With a deep and complex game, there should be so many choices and paths that the player should feel they can always come back to get a new story with the same start.

Yeah, sounds ambitious right?

Which games do YOU think represent these pillars well?

75Gat6Ca0JARLF-eHpc0xp2z3YF0TVk52GfaumAeqLZ6P7oo6xgKIwUNNX9X39fYPtxhQEml5DbEwZNFnEb2S66M9BusrOI4iViiKiE8UzOx_TFSFyA4g2oWc2BC7bADhEKV1NPPQcwiFSchIt2z2mk


Cheers, and next week, we’ll talk about the most important things in the world.. Besides family, beer, friends, and the Great Lord of the Dark… MAPS!
 
  • 176Love
  • 136Like
  • 9
  • 2
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Just a reminder to other posters that the question in the post is: Which games do YOU think represent these pillars well?

My answer is: Imperator Rome.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
every week will have more details
Why do you respond to the posts which have ignored the content of the original post?
 
Other people already provide very good points. I just would like to share my views. As a grand strategy game, the art may not be the most priority thing. I don't mind using old textures and assets from old games like EU4/CK3/CK2/EU3. The content is the most important thing. If the art is too time and energy-consuming, like Royal Court in CK3, then just use the old one, or the AI generative contents. People in the modern day may not want to wait a full year for some flavors. A better option is to keep updates and add some small mechanics, events, and flavors every season. (like current CK3/Vic3)

Similarly, the events are the soul of the paradox games. It is also a good idea to use generative AI to add as many events as possible to the player. Chat GPT Flavor Pack does excellent job on this. It has a lot of content while supporting multiple languages.

The last thing is about the performance. I am not a CS person or game designer, but I have a strong intuition that the events triggered by the player and AI should be different. It is difficult for an AI to understand the interaction between so many mechanisms and events. One example, it is difficult for AI to complete the missions in the mission trees in EU4 at most of the time. So, why even detect those conditions and trigger those unnecessary event chains for AI? Perhaps AI just needs some critical events that determine the timeline, and use some old-school table game AI rules (one generalized event/strategy is triggered at one given time, most event/strategy should be the response to the player). I know it sounds like things happen in EU3/Vic2 era, but I think it works well and reduces end-game lagging. I understand the end-game lagging, but I still believe is can be optimized.
 
So I'm not that much into simulations or roleplaying so I left that to others. Let's talk about replayability.

There is this little game called "Brotato" I believe anyone who wants to do a strategy game should study. This is a very simple game, one programmer could probably make it in a week: a hero with 40 stats, enemies, simple terrain, that is all.

But this simple game has enormous replayability because every one of those 40 stats matters. What is more important, every stat provides the player with a different way to win the game: one can win with pure damage, or attack speed, or explosions, or burning, or range, or armor, or knockback. You can avoid being hurt or seek it. You can kill lots of enemies or none. You can win as a tank or glass cannon. And all those different possibilities are possible with two simple mechanics:
1. different starting hero
2. shop with strategic choice and severe opportunity cost

For a game like EU4 first point is done by: different starting position on the map, different government type, different religion, different culture and lately - mission trees.
Strategic choice is a little more complicated. For opportunity cost to be real, there have to be many different roads to "victory" and AI that adapts to the player's actions. Random events should affect AI actions, and AI actions should affect player choices.

My favorite example is PLC:
You start having Ottos to the south, HRE to the west, Muscovy to the east and Duch and Knights to the north. Any of those is an opportunity for expansion, but at the same time can pose a threat if left alone. There are several possibilities for personal unions, an event to change the government, and some gamey tactics like a snake from Lan Xang or seizing Norway and colonizing. All those choices allow for a lot of replayability (reduced severely by the latest mission trees and railroading AI) if AI properly reacts to the player's actions.

I would love to have MORE choices, and more paths to victory. Each resource available should be used in many different ways. for example army: there should be ways to build an army for expansion and crushing conquest, or for political pressure, or defense (those Hussars would destroy anybody entering their homeland, but the king needed their acceptance for the offensive war), you should be able to create an army that better protect your trading routes or allow you to rule with an iron hand over the population of your empire. Just like we form the government with several choices (gov reforms), we could stack modifiers to prepare the army for many different tasks.

It is really a pity that right now we have "armies" that upgrade almost automatically after tech upgrade. Instead, we should have HOI-like "regiments", that we could design based on our resources and possible enemy. Am I going to invade HRE? Let's copy this tercio thing, it manages to fight Germans pretty well. Maybe I'm expanding into steppes? Copy Hungarian hussars and add them firepower, they would be powerful because they are based on our petty nobility estate that is strong. Should I change my regiments to a more modern design? It is possible but that would make me vulnerable for a few years needed for proper training. Want a bigger army? Sure, but it would be of bad quality because my merchant estate is weak and my veteran armies do not have enough sergeants to train recruits...

Right now we have armies consisting of 20 or 40 identical units. Instead, we could have just 1 or 2 regiments but with different qualities based on chosen "army reforms", estate power, and available finances and training. Even mercs would have more sense then: having cavalry armies it would be easier to hire a Scottish regiment than spend years to invent and form your own infantry...
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I know the question proposed is more about external games that the team can look to learn lessons from, but I want to say that I hope that the lessons of Imperator are not forgotten. It's culture mechanics, social mobility, letting you move provincial capitals, disloyal men, there are a lot of great designs in imperator, some that worked well when put into the game and some that needed more baking-time.

For Setting Immersion I want to make especial note of games with consistent and immersive UI.
  • Things like Highfleet which has a UI that essentially makes it feel like you actually are operating the ship. (Skeumorphism, it's called. Thanks Sseth.)
  • Diegetic UI (I may not be using this term correctly) where the interface has the look (but not the function) of something that exists in the game world itself. The documents and other objects you have on your table in 'We. The Revolution', or the way everything in "The Life and Suffering of Sir Brante" is displayed to the player in a book come to mind. And enough maps on tables
Stuff like this can make or break the vibe and immersion of a game, which is going to subconsciously affect the way the player actually behaves in difficult to measure but very tangiable ways when playing the game. If my event pop-ups look like rolled out scrolls addressing the ruler of the country, I may be more likely to later NOT disinherit a 0/3/2 baby that was just born, because I've gotten immersed in the idea that I'm the 52 year old king who is that kid's father and I have 0 idea he's going to grow up to be an incompetent bufoon, or choose 50 mana over 1% free mercantilism if I'm playing the free-trade loving Dutch.


Unrelatedly I just want to praise the olive field art on display. Paradox Art Team is out here making me hungry for some bread at 3 am. I might buy whatever game this is just to look at the .dds files of the art.
 
For Setting Immersion I want to make especial note of games with consistent and immersive UI.

I really dislike "immersive UI". I want my UI to provide needed information in the best way possible, with as few distractions as possible. For example, CK3 offers me lists with moody and immersive graphics, but it does not provide filtering and sorting, and that makes me sometimes want to tear down my monitor.

Also, I have some reading disability and the marble-like UI from Imperator made me cry. Please, make text easy to read, don't use color for important information (almost 10% of the population has some color disability), and make UI useful first and only add "beauty" as a cherry on top.

I may be more likely to later NOT disinherit a 0/3/2 baby that was just born, because I've gotten immersed in the idea that I'm the 52 year old king who is that kid's father and I have 0 idea he's going to grow up to be an incompetent bufoon.

I believe there is a misconception here. You are not playing as a father who sires a son, there is a Crusader Sims game for that. In EU4 you play as a country - and you are provided this information precisely to allow you to react to it in some way (one of them being disinheritance that was added to the game as a choice, not a bug that should be avoided).

Unrelatedly I just want to praise the olive field art on display. Paradox Art Team is out here making me hungry for some bread at 3 am. I might buy whatever game this is just to look at the .dds files of the art.

Agree.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
the marble-like UI from Imperator made me cry
Have you tried Imperator since the 2.0 Marius update? The Marble UI got axed.

It has a whole paper aesthetic dealio going on now.
1709373942069.png
 
  • 6
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Have you tried Imperator since the 2.0 Marius update? The Marble UI got axed.

It has a whole paper aesthetic dealio going on now.
View attachment 1088073

Yes, it is much better! I still prefer white on black, but the new UI is miles ahead. I played with it when it came out and liked it.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I think for all 3 pillars to be hit the focus very much needs to be on systemic gameplay. The less railroading the better. The more interacting game mechanics the better. How this comes to the fore depends on the game, but every mechanic should aim to interact open endedly.

I suspect many will give examples of grand strategy games either of PDS or similar but I'd say lessons can be learnt from other genres. Believable Worlds, Setting Immersion, and Replayability are things found across many games. For Believable World I think of Fallen London, for Setting Immersion I think of Red Dead Redemption 2, for Replayability I think of Dwarf Fortress.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
"What if" scenarios are nice, however I do want to stress that I think there are better ways this has been done (EU4 missions / EU4 in general) and worse ways this has been done (specific focus paths in HOI4, like rebuilding Austria-Hungary).


If I want to try a "what if" scenario, there's a few things that I personally would like to see in it.

1) There's a reason it wasn't done! I really want to feel the challenge, or possibly even look at alt-history from a standpoint that I didn't previously consider. This is why a lot of HOI4 focuses don't work for me: they hand it to you on a silver platter, at worst you have a mess to clean up in the process.

2) It should feel organic. Sometimes I unintentionally set my nation on a different course simply as a response to pressures that were not what were historically faced, via the butterfly effect. This feels good. "I want a communist Japan for lulz" doesn't feel good. Not to me anyway.

That's not to say I don't like focuses. But certain alt-history paths are given far too easily for my taste. It feels more "democratic Germany lulz" and not "well that got interesting fast."

These are the two that come to mind, I am curious how many agree with me.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
As far as the game, I don't have any suspicions but I am really hoping for a new attempt at East vs West. I hope people don't mind me posting this separately as the subject matter is pretty different.

I could really see such a game pulling from Vic 3 mechanics, as well as AoW4 mechanics.

Although I am afraid hands-off warfare hasn't been very popular. I don't mind personally, but I think map management becomes a real issue when most of the strategy would be on such a large scale, meanwhile to actually have meaningful military micro in a cold-war context would require management many times smaller than the province level (the level most Paradox games run micro at), which sounds like a headache. Personally I would hope that the community could just get used to hands off, strategic warfare via tech, supply, personalities, and policies. Hopefully Vic3 can get to a point where it could become a way where players can enjoy hands-off strategic warfare where a large number of policies, tech, and personalities come together to form the war, rather than micro of specific units by the player. Otherwise so much of wars like Vietnam or Afghanistan were fought with such small, pinpoint skirmish areas and often with no clear frontline, it just doesn't work with an HOI4 style "so I just move this division here and it fights their division."
As for AoW4, people are absolutely loving the statecraft, war justification, etc. I could really see so many of the principles get carried over to a cold war game.

What I would personally hope for or expect in a cold war game:

1) MAD vs convincing nuclear deterrence. I would love it if the player has to find just the right balance of convincing your rival that you have both the means and the intention of making any aggression counterproductive, while at the same time not backing them into a corner where they feel they are out of options.
2) Meritocratic vs loyalty military advancement. We see this to a degree in Vic3, which I love, but it is definitely a diamond in the rough. Hopefully a system can be figured out to make this doable and fun. Loyalty prevents your government from being overthrown, but merit allows it to fight effectively.
3) Fun, playable minors. A lot of minors had unique and interesting situations, like Finland or Iraq. I could see minors still being very fun if implemented well. I have found in Vic 3 that the most powerful nations are not necessarily the easiest. In HOI4, this only extends to an extent (USA and USSR being braindead easy, though I haven't played either recently). In HOI4 I still find it to be the case that Raj is substantially easier than Japan, and France is surprisingly right around Japan difficulty for me (except that I have played more of Japan, so more like when I started playing Japan).
4) Some sort of reform system. Reforms played such a substantial role in both the survival of the US and the USSR. Reforms like voting rights can pacify one group, while angering another. Too many reforms too quickly can also create issues. I feel like once again a lot of lessons could be taken from Vic3 on how to do this in a way that is fun.
5) War justification needs to have a massive impact. We see this in AoW4, but I think games like Riot: Civil Unrest might have some systems to consider when it comes to winning hearts and minds vs actually taking ground (regarding the scoring ofc, not the actual combat).
6) Semi-permanent rivals. I know this goes against the usual Paradox design philosophy, but it just doesn't make sense for the US and the USSR to randomly stop competing with each other, or past certain points for the PRC to stop competing with both or Saudi Arabia and Iran to stop competing in the late cold war. Players do need to be assigned rivals, and removing them as rivals should be a big part of the challenge. However, players can always make new ones.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Hello everyone and welcome to .. yeah, what is this really?

Is this a game called “Tinto Talks?” No.. not really.

First of all Tinto stands for “Paradox Tinto”, the studio which we founded in Sitges in 2020, with a few people moving down with me from PDS to Spain. We have now grown to be almost 30 people. Now, that is out of the way, what about the “Talks” part? Well…

j122b5kkSHre8fzThR98htcNObjdyIE_I7he5798iZFOOuPo_DwYgAodHjharr02DsYlnhUftqOgbEfAZoW_iY-pzeZJIPWn70nunrf_RxJCBOfzxMtk09O2bSLzbozxYV1pjagvDQcOdtwcRjfweW0


A long time ago, we started talking about a game as soon as we started working on it. Back in the long almost forgotten past we used to make games in about 8-9 months. I remember us announcing Vicky2 with just 2 mockup screenshots, and half a page of ideas.

This changed a bit over time, with first the rule of not announcing a game until it passed its alpha milestone, in case it would be canceled… as happened with Runemaster. And then when projects started going from an 18 month development cycle with games like EU4 to many years like our more recent games, the time from announcement to release became much closer to the release of the game.

Why does this matter?

Well, from a development perspective communicating with the players is extremely beneficial, as it provides us with feedback. But if it's so late in the development process that you can not adapt to the feedback, then a development diary is “just” a marketing tool. I think games like Imperator might have looked different if we had involved the community earlier and listened to the feedback.

If we look back at HoI4, this was from the first time we talked about Air Warfare, about 10 years ago, and it has not much in common with the release version..
u5Rmtyxo4wjnPOCck8qMkfdl0b3DNXg5mz-Hbf1J3ZnUctAnPqF8iGoRWjIQL_YlA_fXgwzZXAkH4urtPNzf3q1PxteO6p00HPyhNKLK4RBdp6CGq2bbsycQ-wSxMCf9poeXA8s7349vakEkGIFD9_A



However, talking about a game for a long long time is not great for building hype either, and to be able to make proper huge announcements is an important part as well.

So what is this then? Well, we call this sub-forum “Tinto Talks”. We will be talking about design aspects of the game we are working on. We will not tell you which game it is, nor be able to tell you when it will be announced, nor when it will be released.

We will be talking with you here, almost every week, because we need your input to be able to shape this game into a masterpiece.

Without you, and your input, that will not be possible.

So what about Project Caesar then?

Project Caesar? Yeah.. At PDS, which Tinto is a "child" of, we tend to use roman emperor/leader names for our games. Augustus was Stellaris, Titus was CK3, Sulla was Imperator, Nero was Runemaster, Caligula was V3 etc.. We even named our internal "empty project for clausewitz & jomini", that we base every new game on Marius.

In Q2 2020, I started writing code on a new game, prototyping new systems that I wanted to try out. Adapting the lessons learned from what had worked well, and what had not worked well. Plus, recruiting for a completely new studio in Paradox Tinto, training people on how to make these types of games, while also making some expansions for EU4.

Today though, even though we are a fair bit away from announcing our new game, we want to start talking weekly about the things we have worked on, to get your feedback on it, and adapt some of it to become even better.

However, we’ll start with the vision, which is not really something you do change at this stage.

Believable World

You should be able to play the game and feel like you are in a world that makes sense, and feels rich and realistic. While not making the gaming less accessible, features should be believable and plausible, and avoid abstraction unless necessary.

Setting Immersion

Our games thrive on player imagination and “what if” scenarios. We ensure both a high degree of faithfulness to the setting which will give a “special feel” to the game. We will strive to give this game the most in-depth feeling of flavor possible.

Replayability

There should be many ways to play different starts and reasons to replay them. Different mechanics in different parts of the world create a unique experience depending on what you choose to play. With a deep and complex game, there should be so many choices and paths that the player should feel they can always come back to get a new story with the same start.

Yeah, sounds ambitious right?

Which games do YOU think represent these pillars well?

75Gat6Ca0JARLF-eHpc0xp2z3YF0TVk52GfaumAeqLZ6P7oo6xgKIwUNNX9X39fYPtxhQEml5DbEwZNFnEb2S66M9BusrOI4iViiKiE8UzOx_TFSFyA4g2oWc2BC7bADhEKV1NPPQcwiFSchIt2z2mk


Cheers, and next week, we’ll talk about the most important things in the world.. Besides family, beer, friends, and the Great Lord of the Dark… MAPS!

You've been seen, Johan Andersson. I get you. I feel you...

I pretty much know what the game's gonna be. It's down right obvious when you look at the facts! Down right insultingly easy to figure out, honestly!

Paradox Tinto is a fairly small Studio, not one you would give a new game to unless it replaced what was currently being worked on...

You've also been seen in threads elsewhere in this forum talking about features for a "hypothetical" EU5. You thought I wouldn't notice... but I did.

All that being said, the answer clear as day! Black and white!

We're finally getting...

THE VICTORIA DATING SIMULATOR WE'VE ALL BEEN DESIRING FOR SO MANY YEARS! I MUST HAVE MY MARTIN VAN BUREN X QUEEN VICTORIA SLASHFICS CONFIRMED, JOHAN! MAKE MY DREAMS COME TRUE!
 
Believable World

"Abstraction unless necessary" sounds really good, but I think there are many ways you can draw the line what is necessary and what isn't. In HOI4 it's kinda necessary to abstract economy into civilian factories because it's not a detailed economy simulator, and in Vic3 you abstract the military instead.

Would I enjoy a game that is detailed and realistic on all aspect? Maybe, but it would also be extremely overwhelming for new players.

Setting Immersion

My greatest pet peeve in pdx games (wich is a hard to solve one sadly): once you step off the expected historical lanes you'll end up with either unfitting, or generic events a lot. The branching what-ifs often feel a bit undeveloped, wich is understandable, it's hard to write custom content for every scenario the player ends up with. The only solution I can imagine working out is making events more dynamic to the world situation. I.E. around years X something happens, but how the world reacts to it can be vastly different depending on the state of the world instead of some hardcoded event that can trigger when the correct condition is met.

Replayability

This is my least concern. Just the core gameplay loop should differ based on your starting situation.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Believable World

"Abstraction unless necessary" sounds really good, but I think there are many ways you can draw the line what is necessary and what isn't. In HOI4 it's kinda necessary to abstract economy into civilian factories because it's not a detailed economy simulator, and in Vic3 you abstract the military instead.

Would I enjoy a game that is detailed and realistic on all aspect? Maybe, but it would also be extremely overwhelming for new players.
I know the forums are stalked by hardcore simulationists, but I agree with this. Tinkering around with all my engineering builds in HOI4 just isn't appealing to me personally and I find it incredibly tedious - "light tank fast heavy tank strong" is enough for me (god, maybe I should pick up Advance Wars again...). I think what people mean when they want a lack of abstraction, is that they want detail in the systems which interest them (which will vary from player to player), and everything else to be just-detailed-enough to not break the appeal of the overall fantasy.

There's a reason people don't play The Campaign for North Africa.
1709464742878.png

**Replayability**

This is my least concern. Just the core gameplay loop should differ based on your starting situation.
Also agreed - this is why I haven't commented on it. Most of my favourite (non-PDX) games I have only played once. I get that replayability is kind of key to the core economic model of Paradox, and I don't totally resent that, but I do feel like commenting on how to make a game more replayable is only a hop-skip-and-a-jump from tops on how to make it a one-more-DLC-compulsion.
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
Reactions:
@Johan - does the fact that people in this thread and others have defined about six different games with different UI- and art-styles, character-focuses, historical settings, level of abstraction, disjoint war, pop and economics systems, most of which junk the power-creep/DLC-mission gameplay which seems to be popular enough to move lots of presumably commercially succesful DLC for EU4 even if forumgoers seem to hate it, as well as demanding basically a first-principles simulation of the entirety of global history without any railroading concern you at all? (Are we all entitled little so-and-so's!?)

If anyone was going to square that circle, I'd have faith it might be you but don't envy you the task!
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
PDX still owes us EAST VS WEST, could this be it?
I seriously doubt it. This is a Tinto project and the main project of Tinto is the Europa Universalis franchise (and EUIV specifically) and with EUIV being extremely long in the tooth at this point (10.5 years and games age in dog years) and Johan has been repeatedly been spotted in EU5 related threads over the last few years, everything points to an EU5 announcement this September during PDXCon.

The fact that they're already talking about it as an unannounced game tells me that regardless of what the game is, it will be announced at PDXCon this year. There's only so much Johan can talk about this game without revealing what the game is.

It should also be noted that a release of a new Europa Universalis game would be a monumental moment for Paradox. Europa Universalis was their first PC game franchise and EU5 will be their first fifth iteration of a game. Europa Universalis is also Johan's baby (to my knowledge he was there from the beginning), so presupposing that it's EU5, it wouldn't surprise me that he wanted to talk about it months early, though it is a bit surprising that the Paradox higher ups gave him the green light to do so and risk spoiling the announcement at PDXCon.
 
  • 4
Reactions: