• 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!
 
  • 182Love
  • 143Like
  • 9
  • 3
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
For believably I think the world needs to feel alive. When a decision is made it should have implications that aren't limited to one mechanic but spread through the entire game. A living world also need to feel like the world is creating situations that the player must respond to such as the decisions of your neighbours and the opinions of your own people.

I think the most basic requirement for setting immersion is making a world that I can easily get into. Historical games like CK3 or EU4 have the advantage of there being real world history and geography that most people are already somewhat familiar with. I think this pillar becomes more difficult when dealing with a fantasy world, especially one with its own history. Fantasy world can be difficult to get into because there is a lot to learn about the world before even playing the game. I think the best way to combat this is with an empire builder similar to Stellaris. Being able to design your empire helps create am entry in to the world, based on how the player want to roleplay or the mechanics they want to interact with in a given playthrough.

When it comes to replayability if the other two pillars are fulfilled your already halfway there. I think one of the strongest ways to create replayability is to have different mechanics for different type of playthrough. For example a republic should play different from a monarchy, or different regions of the world have different mechanics to interact with.
 
  • 9
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Whatever the game ends up being, I really, really, hope that differentiating different parts of the maps is a priority for release instead of having to wait for DLC to be released. If every part of the maps feels similar enough that the only noticeable differences are flags/COAs, then believability, immersion, and replayability all go away. The differences don't need to be drastic but they need to be such that playing in Asia doesn't feeling like playing in Europe but with a palette swap and nothing else.
 
  • 10
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Interesting approach to dev diaries and revealing a game. Hopefully this works out well!
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Since we're talking about "Definitely Not EU5" I figured I'd stick my head in and talk about why I couldn't get into EU4, since I imagine most people here did in fact love and get into EU4.

It's the map-painting - it gets in the way of a lot of the things talked about in this dev diary here. It's hard to have a believable world, when the game mechanics are set up to allow you to just turn the map into a coloring book. It doesn't feel realistic, or rich in texture to just snowball everyone. Countries cease to be anything but sections of the map I have not yet colored, my eyes glaze over, I stop thinking about anything other than expansion. I'm not engaging with the world, I'm not engaging with the geopolitics, I'm just mindlessly pointing doomstacks. It's a complete tossing away of any kind of believable world in favor of player-empowerment, but not even in an exciting way. There's no sense of accomplishment when I'm done, although admittedly, I feel like I need to finish anyway, leading to not even enjoying it in the moment.

You can tack on any number of systems or features or mostly-isolated DLCs on top of this, but ultimately, the core of the game is map painting. Yeah, you can play tall. Yeah there's a bit of economics and diplomacy in there, but the bones of the game are ever-expanding map-painting. There's nothing wrong with being a war-focused game (see: HOI4), but if you want to present geopolitics, you can't let it be built on foundations of indefinite expansionism. It's not fun, it's not realistic, and frankly, it presents a bad representation of history.

Geopolitics is about the intersection of many different factors (military, politics, ideology, economics, etc.). None of these should be able to be ignored in favor of the others. Furthermore, it should involve both long-term planned strategy, but also reactive tactics - plans should need to change. Maybe I want to play tall, but situations should arise that bring that into question. Maybe I started to play wide, but the consequences of trying to hold such expansive territory catches up with me. Other countries/actors need to have agency and be able to pursue their own goals, bringing us into conflict, rather than just being obstacles for me to take down. I want less player-fantasy indulgence and more dynamic scenarios that challenge me to deviate from my plan - after all geopolitics are not static, I should need to pivot and make tough choices. Any kind of game focused on geopolitics needs to be among the most dynamic of the PDX games. That's what will make it endlessly replayable.
 
  • 31
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't mind (too much) what the subject matter/timeframe is, provided it isn't CK3 set in the EU timeframe, nor is it a port of Vicky3 to *any* timeframe. To my mind, the level of pop and character "detailing" was just about perfect in Imperator (as it ended up).

I'm excited to see what come out of this project!
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I'm looking for the ability to influence the map in dynamic ways. What I loved about Imperator was how I could make anywhere seemingly a major influencial city. If the village of Mobium (named after yours truly) beat out the village of Parisius, then Mobium, not Paris, could rise into a major city, leaving that island on the Seine to fade into obscurity.

I don't want innate potential built in to certain locations just because they're supposed to someday be big. Let historical trends be weighted in AI behavior, sure, but nothing was more frustrating in CK2 than building Dublin up to be this major center on the British Isles only to see London with extra slots for not-yet-developed barons.

If I make Bordeaux the most developed city in the world, leading European colonization of the New World in the name of the king of Aquitaine, then why on earth is trade flowing to the end-node of the English Channel, where a beaten and battered France and England lament how their squabbling allowed my Aquitaine to rise in power in the first place? Trade flow is absolutely the least immersive aspect of EU4.

Lastly, one of the most immersive little touches is seeing province and city names dynamically change depending on the culture in charge. Seeing London change to Londres when converted to the superior ways of the baguette is extremely satisfying.

(Lastly lastly, I love stockpiling things. Logistics in HOI4 and Imperator is fun. Upgrading production lines and selling off old equipment is fun. Managing army food supplies and starving out an enemy that's wandered far from its border is immersive. I would have welcomed arms stockpiling in Vicky 3. I put all this in parentheses because I know logistics isn't for everyone, so I'd rather most attention be given to the above paragraphs.)
 
  • 36
  • 4Like
Reactions:
I have about 2k hours in EU4, and I am hoping this is about EU5. But anyway, I am probably different than a lot of other players since I don't care about sandbox much. I like playing with the goal in mind, and achievements set perfect goal and provide satisfying conclusion for the campaign. If there weren't such cool achievements I would have spent maybe 20 hours instead of 2k hours in EU4.

- I don't like mods, I don't like free play, I don't like alternate modes/start dates or anything similar.
- I DO like very extensive mission trees, achievements, and AI feeling human like and "alive".

EU4 is a lot of fun for me until mid 1600s where it just becomes much less fun. I see a lot of people suggesting we need disasters and stuff, and I completely disagree with that. I think problem with EU4 in this regard is that everything scales up so quickly as the game goes. Force limit, income, manpower, everything just goes through the roof even for small nations, not to mention huge empires. All of these reaches such huge numbers in early 1700s while adding nothing to the gameplay. It just makes it all more "grindy".

I also believe that another thing that "could" make EU4 (I guess EU5 now) more fun and challenging, and different is if world conquest was almost impossible. The whole expansion could have been much harder so instead of every country becoming the same after the first 100-150 years, every country would have much different goals and would play differently. Almost any HRE nation plays exactly the same. Same goes for all nations in India, SEA, North Africa and more. You focus on taking everything around you to get you started and then you just become another generic nation. Why shouldn't we be able to have a fun game with Ragusa without expanding too much? There should be systems in place that keep us just as engaged as constant wartime does in EU4. Maybe there can still be constant wartime, but way different war goals and not as focused on massive conquest. I'm sure there are many ways to tackle this.

Final thing I would like to mention is that I want AI to feel more alive. I want ruler personalities to matter much more for AI. I want a cruel ruler for example to start a war and shift the stalemate in India. I want greedy ruler to start trade wars. I want just ruler to intervene in great powers wars, etc. There should be ways to occasionally (not too frequently) break those stalemates.

There are things that I believe most of us can agree EU4 doesn't do too well:
- late game
- trade (too static)
- tall play (without it being suboptimal)
- AI nations stalemates
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Great post! But, if it were me, I'd put "dynamic feedback systems" as an essential part of the Paradox game loop. Kind of like the old Newtonian saying that every action has an equal but opposite reaction, I've always found that the charm of Paradox games lies in the borderline between player interactivity and play passivity, when the players earlier actions are shaping the kind of pushback or reaction the rest of the world is presenting the player. While all games have some sort of feedback, it feels most essential in a Paradox game where the player creates a grand story in their head, from all these dynamic feedback loops.
 
  • 7
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Looking forward to this series. Very nice :)

Let's talk a little bit about my perspective on these pillars.

Setting Immersion
What I see as important for a good immersion world is when the mechanics of the game guide the player to different decisions without forcing him. This should feel organic. A positive example of this is the importance of certain goods and how they shape the world, like oil in Vic3, HoI4 or CiV. In EU4 there are also many positive examples like the horde mechanics, how trade nodes shape the player's view on what is important to conquer and mercenaries and their impact on playstyle. A negative example that comes to my mind is the court and country disaster where the player has to follow certain steps to improve the empire he's playing as.

Replayability
"How much of the game's mechanics does the player see in one playthrough?" is an important question in this.
I see that as a game developer you want everyone to experience everything you've created. But I'd like to argue that hiding different mechanics behind different starts and decisions makes your game way more interesting what in the long run rewards you with more people really enjoying the depths of the game. CK3 as an example is slowly getting to a point where there are some differences at least in the starting position. EU4 with it's idea groups, governments, religions, hre, mantade of heaven, mission trees, special troops by nation/culture and I'm probably forgetting something - this makes every playthrough special. I can play as Lübeck, Brandenburg, Köln or Milan and have completely different starts and playthroughs. This is just amazing and EU4 felt like it from the start and further improved on this feeling.

Believable World
The other two points have a huge connection to the believability of the world. If a horde is mechanically driven to behave "hordy" or a merchant republic goes out to create good trading posts, that's making the world believable. But also a fitting ai that behaves "like a human" and does not get cheesed super easily. I think the HoI4 ai and the EU4 ai both had very good development over the years! Ofc with room for improvement :p
I know AIs are hard to program, but I often feel like they lack recklessness, especially in peace talks. Also a feeling for how a war is currently going.

I wish you the very best coding!
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
So what happened in 1453?

My only point in all this: I once played as France in eu4 and took the whole Britain. Never culturally accepted English people. Nothing happened even though representing 40% of my whole development pool for a couple of centuries.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Which games do YOU think represent these pillars well?
I believe that no game perfectly represent all of these pillars, but some games represent one pillar quite well.

Either EU4 or Vicky 3 have the most believable world, I have to disqualify HOI4 because of its alt-history focus trees.

CK3 has the most setting immersion, because of how character-driven the game is.

Either EU4 or HOI4 have the most replayability. Mostly due to the amount of nations you can play and the large size of the Mission/Focus Trees. MP is also great in these games.

There are other core systems which some games do better than others.

HOI4 has the best warfare system, without a doubt. Though I believe that it's a bit too complicated for EU- I mean, this mystery game.

Victoria 3 has the best and most in-depth economic system, with buildings being the most important part of the entire game.

EU4 has the best historical flavour, but that's only because of the sheer amount of DLCs it has (Thanks for KoK btw it's amazing).

So this mystery game should take some aspects from these other games and make them its own. Though some of these systems will have to be simplified, otherwise the game would be way too complex. They shouldn't be too simple though, like Vicky 3 warfare on release. So in my opinion it should have:

A warfare system inspired by both HOI4 and EU4. With many new aspects added as well, especially with naval warfare.

An economic system based on Vicky 3, especially when it comes to buildings. Imagine if EU4s buildings were more like Vicky 3. I also think it's trade system should be a hybrid between EU4 and Vicky 3 trade.

Characters based on CK3, with them having in-depth personalities and ambitions. Instead of them just being represented by 3 scales going from 0-6.

That would be the perfect Paradox game, an impossible task. But one which I believe Tinto can make. I'm excited for Mystery Universalis V!
 
  • 8
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Hi,
I think you gain a lot of replayability, excitement and realism by obfuscating certain numbers, and making things less predictable. Taking decisions that will have a clear effect in one direction effects later in the game to shape your empire into what you'd like it to be : events that make you choose between more authoritarian or democratic, to befriend natives or repress them, to stimulate industry over farming... Without telling you EXACTLY what will happen makes the immersion rather strong. And then have event chains to back these choices up.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Definitely consider adding dynastic trees. They are really fun, interesting an relevant for the time period. Choosing heirs and dynamic families for rulers are not only realistic as well as extremely important historically (countries rose and fell with maritages sometimes) but also immersive and fun.
 
  • 7
  • 1Haha
Reactions: