Tinto Talks #1 - February 28th 2024

[ljanitor]

It is hard to react to information so small as the one you have given to us. So I will instead write what I considered to be your best games so far - vanilla CK2 and EU4. They were both relaxing and highly replayable (frequent and different events, no mission/diary paths, AI world around you shaping slightly different each time, but never unbelievable... and in campain generation there was my the most favourite button, which I missed in your later games - pick random).
CK2 and EU4 were my favourite games in par with Heroes of Might and Magic 3, however, now they are not. There is plethora of new mechanics in them, making playthroughts much longer and demanding, you are no longer able to get defeated (small asian nation succesfuly fighting of european colonial powers? really? and where are those combinations of bad luck events, revolts, schemes and enemy attacks that managed to wipe out your whole dynasty?), and what is maybe the worst of all - AI is now behaving like human player in multiplayer, with its only goal being mappainting. When you were finishing CK or EU in vanilla, world after your few centuries long playthrough used to look like later startdate, now you are not even in half of game and everything is controlled by some 20 absurdly huge nations. There goes your world believability).
I understand that it is your policy to give new and fresh content to players who are loyal to that title and playing it for multiple years and it is alright with me. Continue doing it, as it seems you are doing it very well. But in your next game, I would welcome to see two options while starting it: 1, play current version 2, play vanilla version
Thanks

 

[NIRIIK]

I absolutely love the main ideas of the game, one of the things that don't convince me of other PDX products its the "believable" aspect of them, like the map painting for example. In this new experience it would be amazing to feel the development of the game through time, unlike eu4 or ck3 that are just some techs and dev, the intricacies of working towards something the player wants to build internally and completely immerse in the game feeling the consequences of the choices it makes.

What I'm saying is that the game must take care of the internal aspects with more seriousness, with vic3 we saw a little bit of progress in the sense of modifying laws and different groups taking sides and all that good stuff, but once you get a hold on those mechanics it gets a little bit boring. I expect a game where internal threats are something to take on account along with the external ones.

 

[InsidiousMage]

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.

Given how poorly Vicky3 was received by some fans, and that the devs ended up adapting a lot of the critiques made by people before the game came out, talking about the game with early might be a way for them to try and mitigate so of those issues.

 

[Arizal]

@Panagean As a « hardcore simulationist », I always saw whichever specific event or mechanic introduced as a placeholder for something more general that would replace it one day. I understand having a barebone game isn’t a great idea when you measure it against a more « complete » game, but for me, with EUIV, it went the reverse way : I was increasingly disappointed until the point of no return (Leviathan), at which I never bought anything EUIV again.

I guess it could be hard for Tinto to go away from the tried strategy of appealing to those who like specific content, but I hope they try it, since I believe there is a way for general content inspired by historical events to be more interesting and replayable than what we currently see.

One critic of EUIV, that we see in another thread, is that every content is packed at the beginning of the game. Of course, when every historical event is at the beginning, you can't help but wonder why the XVIIIth century is so bland. But what would happen if the mechanics of the game allowed for events similar to ones that happened in real history to happen much later in the game? Wouldn't that be exciting?

 

[Sighfer]

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.

I will laugh so hard at all the EU5 summoners, if this turns out to be Imperator restart, or Imperator 2. It's called Project Caesar. The picture is of olives, oil and farm. There is a house with roman tile in the background. Imperator end date is 27 BC, the end of the Roman Republic.

 

[ByzantineNova]

Have been playing paradox games for a while. Have quite a lot of hours of older PDX games and "new" ones too.

A lot of what makes a paradox game it is the grand ideas which invites curiosity but that subtle complexity that entices you into the experience. Hence, there is "newbie" fun but also enough for the "one nation, one faith one culture" people too.

At every stage very good PDX game (and most popular games for that matter) has replayability and purpose at its core.

---

But in this day and age, you have to be innovative per se. If community feedback is what you want, but you have yet to announce the game then why not innovate and create a new sales format? be innovative and do something nobody else has done?

Why not have a pre release game that's somewhere where you want it to be, people can buy into it, obviously would be a development project and you can develop with the community? Just like PDX has done with the dev diaries, except here it would be more aggressive and more general.

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?

Civilization

Jokes aside, that's what makes PDX games unique. Stellaris is representative of reality???

I think that's why EU4 comes closest to this criteria and the EU4 timeframe. Its global, its got a wide range of mechanics relative to 3 years ago now, and a lot more since release, the replayability is there (you can build tall etc), you can take your nation a number of ways using ideas and a but of planning.

But if you can't change the core philosophy now, why ask us? By your own admission, HOI4 dev diary re Air Warfare isn't what was in the release.

Additionally,

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.

How can we provide input if things are merely cryptic?

Think about it like teaching someone to swim, you can't theoretically teach them to swim, you have to put them in the water eventually and during the initial teaching process put yourself in the water to show them how it is done.

Of what use or guidance can we be if we don't know what is coming, or what the plan is, or what is your ultimate vision or what you are building. If your goal is to announce this at a later date, why ask us now?

My input ultimately is, "reveal your secrets" and the community will be your compass as you request. We are the consumers and most of us are hard core believes in your product.

Honestly, it feels like you don't want to make the same mistakes of other PDX releases and I highly respect that. But without more information all we can do is speculate and that really isn't what you want, you want input. If you want a compass you need to have a magnetic poles and defined points.

Thus, as they say, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Anyone and their dog could come to reasonable conclusion this game seems like EU5. If it is, and you are waiting to announce it at a later stage. But you know a lot of mechanics are/could change, why hold back? Could drop concepts here and release the alpha canvas at a later stage?

 

[GrandEurypterid]

I will laugh so hard at all the EU5 summoners, if this turns out to be Imperator restart, or Imperator 2. It's called Project Caesar. The picture is of olives, oil and farm. There is a house with roman tile in the background. Imperator end date is 27 BC, the end of the Roman Republic.

In fairness it was literally posted at 14:53, and the olive oil is also explainable by Tinto being in Spain and Spain being a major colonial power in EU's timeframe. So I think that even with the pretty picture EU5 is still pretty likely.

 

[Lamartine]

In fairness it was literally posted at 14:53, and the olive oil is also explainable by Tinto being in Spain and Spain being a major colonial power in EU's timeframe. So I think that even with the pretty picture EU5 is still pretty likely.

Then again, 1453 was (some argue) when the Roman (according to its own definition) Empire fell

 

[MathyM]

I will laugh so hard at all the EU5 summoners, if this turns out to be Imperator restart, or Imperator 2. It's called Project Caesar. The picture is of olives, oil and farm. There is a house with roman tile in the background. Imperator end date is 27 BC, the end of the Roman Republic.

It won't be. Imperator 1 is recent enough that a sequel wouldn't bring any new technological improvements. It won't be a rework of the game either, since 2.0 already did that, and made the game good. It's only dead because it was received poorly at release (and rightfully so), not because it needs a rework or anything.

If this isn't EU5, it's an entirely new franchise.

 

[Lamartine]

If this isn't EU5, it's an entirely new franchise

I think it's EUV, but if it were a new franchise, given the olive grove image, it could be a a manorial simulator. Build a castle, manage your tenant farmers, plant crops. It'll be like CKIII meets Harvest Moon.

 

[Koopatin]

I think it's EUV, but if it were a new franchise, given the olive grove image, it could be a a manorial simulator. Build a castle, manage your tenant farmers, plant crops. It'll be like CKIII meets Harvest Moon.

no... buuuuuttt....

i would play that

 

[Cry_Havok]

I think it's EUV, but if it were a new franchise, given the olive grove image, it could be a a manorial simulator. Build a castle, manage your tenant farmers, plant crops. It'll be like CKIII meets Harvest Moon.

I wish we could react with multiple reaction emoji. That would be quite the twist, and I would play it. Imagine if it was like, the grandest of time scales, from Al Andalus to the Spanish Civil war, but zoomed in super tight on a single farm in Andorra. You can't change the world, but you can react to the flow of history while playing dozens of generations on a single farm.

 

[Romancommander95]

is it going to be March of the Eagles 2! But if its EU5, i've got suggestions that I'd like and apparently Chat GPT agreed as well and has some input, is dynamic and improved economy and trade, diplomacy revamp, improved AI, improved warfare mechanics (but keep the unit sprites on the map (i love them)) deeper cultural and nationalism mechanics and the evolution of culture, simple interface which I like the ones in Eu4, Hoi4 and Imperator Rome where it wasn't streamlined into one thing and then have to find it. Overhaul and improved colonisation and exploration and Chat GPT also said increase in modding support and community integration for in game event sharing and collab projects. Otherwise the game should not go to 1821 because there are not many who in play in late game ( i sometimes do but mainly make it to late 1600s-1700 mark) I also think without too much CK3 mechanics but I like the Characters and Politics in Imperator Rome and whether that can be applied into a potential EU5, as i barely feel connected to my rulers or presidents etc and royal marriage should be limited depending on number of people in the royal family and not just unlimited

 

[DangerousOrange]

Immersion

What appeals to me in Stellaris is its engaging battles, where units I've designed and built go into battle. Unlike games like EU4 or HOI4, where you only see abstract representations of armies, Stellaris lets you witness the actual units in action. To make this experience more immersive, I suggest a detailed map where armies visibly gather for campaigns against neighbors, similar to VIC3's 1.5 update but more detailed.

In battles, the ability to zoom in and assess the battlefield visually would add depth. It's better to see the action unfold rather than relying on a panel with fluctuating numbers. While numbers are important, a direct visual representation, as in Stellaris, enhances player engagement and understanding of the battle dynamics.

 

[Gornova]

Late to the party it seems, my take on the points

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.

I like more the concept of layers.
On the surface we experience a world that is complex, but we want simple solutions. Then we go deep on world issues and find, in many cases, there is no one "simple solution", but instead there are multiple layers involved and multiple other people/groups/history related issues.
Take in consideration this, for me a "Believable World" is a world where I can take a look on high level (aka world map) and then go deep on local level (aka province map). The game help me to simplify this interaction where I don't want/need to go and give me back a simplification of the result.
On example is Italy (where I live!) in 14th century. It's okay go to deep on issues/challenges on Tuscany or Milan, but I don't care other part of Italy, anyway problems there can challenge me, even if I don't care. This outcome or "simplification" should be believable as possible. For example no alliance between the Pope and Ottoman!
I imply with my last example I want something resembling real world history, but if player goes outside of the "main road of history", the game should keep believably in place. One example: in one campaign I was able to start unify Italy with Milan. Great from player perspective. But what about the emperor? Asburg? France? Spain? It's not believable they will not try to stop me: coalition are not enough. My AI opponent could/should/must evaluate player threat and try to respond to it!

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.

I agree, with an exception.
During the years flavor on EU4 changed a lot. Provinces added, new missions, etc.. This change too much experience of the game during the time and also immersion could change drastically. I prefer a main focus on EU5 on Europe on start, with all the setting immersion possible, then Asia, then middle east and so on. So big expansion, but not revision on immersion. I know it's hard to achieve, but helps a lot.
I don't suggest to not patch anything (bugs, we love them!), but instead don't rework base mechanics after a continent is done. Instead add dlc/expansions to add new complementary mechanics to go deep on immersion, but don't change the base experience.
On example of game is Root, the board game. Every faction is unique, but interact on the same board. I can have really different experience (aka Immersion) and create different scenarios with different mix of factions. Different games, but I hope can illustrate my point.

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.

I agree and I suggest for the next game to help players to understand this. Many of us keep playing same regions and same mechanics over and over, and some hidden gems in EU4 I've found watching videos.
I don't know if achievements is the right word here, but "meta-game goals" should be visible and EU5 should help me to understand there is more. Maybe analyze my play-style (I like to go tall a lot .. and suggest another region where you can play tall, but interact with other mechanics / characteristics of the game).

 

[agent_45]

I believe some of EU3 mechanics would have worked great over EU4 or Imperator. This mana thing caused a lot of issues.

 

[nebulous0]

as someone who has been playing stellaris for a long time and is relatively new to the "core"/older paradox ips i wanted to mention some thoughts on the approaches to internal politics some of the different games have taken and why i think it should have more of a focus. obviously vic 3 made a huge amount of progress in this and i think there are a large amount of lessons to be learnt from it. Paradox games have become known as map painters because in most of these games there arent always many other gameplay systems than conquest and expension.

- crusader kings has inheritance and the interplay with other rulers and characters
- victoria has some amount of politics as well as factories and economics,
- ive played very little HOI4 but as far as i know its the old format of click a button in the tree and do as it tells you which is almost always claims and conquest
- stellaris has a lot of opportunities to improve your planets and systems, explore and read stories through archeology and event chains, its politics is really just an extension to leaders and some buffs and modifiers based on that
- eu4 you have some inheritance and realm management through development which is largely spamming buttons to make number bigger or get lots of buildings, and some unique mechanics for certain areas of the world

many of these games punish rapid expansion but expansion is still the main reason for people to play the game

this just comes back to the issue of what people want to do in the game, should it just be conquest and expansion once the player has formed the country they want and have all the territory they want what should they do, leave and form something else or stay and build something with the territory you have. as someone who played stellaris for a long time i really enjoyed playing tall and taking less territory than i needed and building something great within those borders.

obviously theres a lot of speculation to this being EU5 and as EU4 is quickly becoming a new favorite of mine if the speculation is true i really hope theres more engaging opportunities for sticking with the country you have created and doing more with it, and even if its not EU5 i still feel this applies to many of the types of games that the paradox studios create.

maybe im a minority in this, i see a lot of videos where creators just abandon a country after conquering the territory that they want, im not saying thats wrong, people can set whatever goals they want for a campaign but more options for the types of goals that can be set would be welcome for players such as myself

 

[starkwolf]

as someone who has been playing stellaris for a long time and is relatively new to the "core"/older paradox ips i wanted to mention some thoughts on the approaches to internal politics some of the different games have taken and why i think it should have more of a focus. obviously vic 3 made a huge amount of progress in this and i think there are a large amount of lessons to be learnt from it. Paradox games have become known as map painters because in most of these games there arent always many other gameplay systems than conquest and expension.

- crusader kings has inheritance and the interplay with other rulers and characters
- victoria has some amount of politics as well as factories and economics,
- ive played very little HOI4 but as far as i know its the old format of click a button in the tree and do as it tells you which is almost always claims and conquest
- stellaris has a lot of opportunities to improve your planets and systems, explore and read stories through archeology and event chains, its politics is really just an extension to leaders and some buffs and modifiers based on that
- eu4 you have some inheritance and realm management through development which is largely spamming buttons to make number bigger or get lots of buildings, and some unique mechanics for certain areas of the world

many of these games punish rapid expansion but expansion is still the main reason for people to play the game

this just comes back to the issue of what people want to do in the game, should it just be conquest and expansion once the player has formed the country they want and have all the territory they want what should they do, leave and form something else or stay and build something with the territory you have. as someone who played stellaris for a long time i really enjoyed playing tall and taking less territory than i needed and building something great within those borders.

obviously theres a lot of speculation to this being EU5 and as EU4 is quickly becoming a new favorite of mine if the speculation is true i really hope theres more engaging opportunities for sticking with the country you have created and doing more with it, and even if its not EU5 i still feel this applies to many of the types of games that the paradox studios create.

maybe im a minority in this, i see a lot of videos where creators just abandon a country after conquering the territory that they want, im not saying thats wrong, people can set whatever goals they want for a campaign but more options for the types of goals that can be set would be welcome for players such as myself

Do you have any ideas as to how Paradox might encourage this? I personally have not found issues with setting alternative goals, so as far as I can tell it seems to be more a community thing: people are generally accustomed to aggressive, competitive games. If you give most gamers the option, they will focus on that even if you offer alternatives that are equally viable or better.


Basically I don't know how Paradox could offer more alternatives, it seems like it is more a community preference than anything.

 

[nebulous0]

Do you have any ideas as to how Paradox might encourage this? I personally have not found issues with setting alternative goals, so as far as I can tell it seems to be more a community thing: people are generally accustomed to aggressive, competitive games. If you give most gamers the option, they will focus on that even if you offer alternatives that are equally viable or better.


Basically I don't know how Paradox could offer more alternatives, it seems like it is more a community preference than anything.

well thats the thing its a difficult question, ive been doing a couple of almost mega campaigns from ck3-eu4-vic2/3 which i guess is part of why i brought up some of the mechanics of those games, assuming this is eu5 this is a very long time period in which tribal, monarchistic and republican governments exist, taking ideas from both ck3 and vic3 to bring a large amount of depth to those different government types through more detailed characters and their stories as well as voting mechanics would be the simplest and maybe easiest option considering how those mechanics have been well fleshed out in other paradox games tho idk how much the different pdx studios can share the mechanics or whatever of their game.

but yeah i was a stellaris player and i wanna see cool shiny assets and buildings and the big modifiers, i saw some stuff about the wonder construction mechanics in imperator rome and bringing some of that customisability and modularity to the wonders and maybe the standard buildings could be interesting

its a big question and if its something the devs try to persue then i hope they encorage a lot of discussion and debates about it

 

[Alexmisy]

If I had to give my opinion about the abstract, I would say that resource systems like those in Stellaris or Victoria 3 feel closer than money-based ones like EU4 or Imperator and that the pops systems that produce things and suffer the consequences of the game's difficulties also feel very good and more real.