Tinto Talks #1 - February 28th 2024

[KitChaos]

Imagine Europa Universalis with Total War battles combined.

ah yes i've always wanted to pass a campaign down to my grandchildren

 

[fraughtGYRE]

I'm a team member for the mod MEIOU and Taxes, which I almost always use when playing EU4. This might colour some of my thoughts. But I think there is a reason why I play M&T, and it definitely comes back to the questions asked in this post.

MEIOU and Taxes?
For those that don't know, M&T is an extremely ambitious overhaul mod that adds population mechanics and an in-depth political system, along with a vast number of new tags and provinces, religious minorities, and a deep economic simulation. All of these combine to give the world significantly more life than vanilla EU4.

Population
In M&T, every province tracks a few classes of population. These grow and decline on their own in response to factors like the productivity of farmland in the province, the ability to import needed goods, and the stability (or lack thereof) of the nation - especially warfare. They play an active role in the changing face of their province, building up infrastructure, participating in military service, or emigrating to other provinces. This is the absolute centrepiece of the mod, and why it feels so much more alive than vanilla - the player does not have to actively micromanage the province for it to change over time (though the player can opt in to doing so by investing in industries and infrastructure).

The existence of an active population system that changes itself and the world around it is the core for setting immersion - it is absolutely, 100% necessary to have a dynamic, engaging world. Otherwise, the world underlying the surface-level aspects of gameplay becomes static, and I think we can all understand how immersion breaking that is - the real world never stands still. This system also helps with believability, as the basic reasoning for populations rising, falling, and influencing their surroundings is sound.

So, a population system. That is my sole request for any new games. Anything else is gravy. I'm going to talk about other stuff, but you can really stop reading here.

I do want to say that the optional nature of the system contributes to its immersive feel. In theory, a player can go a whole game without once considering the state of the population in any province. But it feels good to nurture and fuss over the aspects you can control to get the best outcome possible.

Politics
The main other focus in the mod is the politics. The upper classes generate a power base from their wealth and influence in the provinces, which is carried to the national level. They then interact with the player-controlled government, pushing for policies and reforms that benefit them and creating backlash against changes in the power structure that will negatively affect them. They can even light off a civil war, splitting the country into two warring states, locked in combat over the future of the nation.

This adds an incredible amount of believability - it is totally reasonable to have to negotiate, cajole, and crush opposition as you mold your nation to your ideals. Even better, it adds so much replayability - one game you can decide to crush the nobility and institute a fully bureaucratic state. Another game, you decide that you will strengthen the nobility (at the cost of peasant freedom) and reap the rewards of a cheaper military and administration that a loyal nobility provides. Or will you instead embrace the burghers, shifting the nation to a plutocratic, mercantile ideal? All of these are possible with choices available in the mod, which is the central part of replayability, reasonable choices that have long-lasting, defining impacts on the game state.

Economy
The mod does implement an incredible economic simulation as well (though not without its quirks and bugs). Provinces produce a wide range of goods from many industries, and the population purchases and consumes these goods, as well as trading them over long-range markets, requiring middlemen and transportation. This is an incredible accomplishment thanks to some very gifted programmers, and it adds a little something extra to the believability and immersion of the mod. You need to actively ensure that the needs of the nation for various products are being met, either building up industries or opening new trade routes to do so. Problems in the supply of say, military goods, may adversely affect your performance on the battlefield.

Conclusion
These three things contribute to answering the questions posed in the main thread, with population being by far the most important. I sincerely hope that you will consider the discussion here as you proceed with development. Much luck, and I'm looking forward to seeing what comes out!

 

[P.S.]

HOLY CRAP I DIDN'T EXPECT IMPERATOR ROME 2

 

[Vlad123]

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!

Same i ever saw PDX love "try new meccanics throwing all what is well knowed, tested and loved" instead "refining the knowed meccanics and improve it"....is ever my dream see a game with
hoi4 war
ck2/3 chara
eu4 diplomacy
victoria 2 economy

 

[klingonadmiral]

Which games do YOU think represent these pillars well?

I would argue that every single Paradox game utterly fails at any of these criteria other than Replayability, with the possible exception of Stellaris because it does not paint itself in a thin coat of history.

Also I don't think that replayability is that important. My favourite paradox game to this game remains Victoria 2, but to me there are exactly 5 fun campaigns in that game (ofc running HPM): Germany, Italy, Persia, Japan, and Mughals. Stellaris actually has a massive replayability problem because the developers simply spread its content far too thin.

If we go outside of Paradox games, then there is, at least for me, one singular game that represents the pinnacle of a Versimilitude, Immersion, and Replayability:

EVE Online

Because, in a way, everything in this game is real.

 

[bkT&eam7Sb9v0irj]

The one thing I'd love to see in a future but as-yet unnamed game is more procedurally-generated country bonuses. EU4 is not just a history simulator, it is an alternate-history simulator, and having hard-coded country bonuses undermines that because the hard-coded bonuses are biased - they're based on what actually happened, not what could have happened.

An example: England / UK in eu4 gets boat stuff. Why? Because in the 1700s, England was navally dominant in the real world. Why did England become navally dominant? Because they invested heavily in (the equivalent of) naval ideas. The bonuses they had later, which became hard-coded at the start, were the result of their evolution over time.

An England which conquers France and never bothers to build navies (me) shouldn't have any hard-coded naval bonuses, because they haven't earned them yet.

Country bonuses, beyond those gotten from ideas / policies, should be earned over time just like hegemon is. If you are the first to complete say 3 naval or trade ideas, you unlock a trade / naval permabonus. And so on.

Hard-coded bonuses do add flavor to the game, so I get keeping them for historical runs, but that option should be ... optional.

(My second wish is some sort of supply lines because it's absolutely silly that my Gujarati enemy simply marches out of India, up through central asia, and into the Siberian steppe to fight me near Novgorod, but I understand limits to what's possible)

 

[Dsingis]

A game I think represent a believable world:
Even though I personally do not like the direction CK3 has been going since release, the world is definitely believable, simply because of how all these characters act and react based on their personality, religion, culture etc. You see someone do something and you know why. The world that results from that is "plausible", even if it isn't "historical".

A negative example of this is HoI4. Everything apart from the warfare there is heavily, heavily abstracted. The warfare itself however is extremely good.

In terms of flavour: I think Stellaris does this well, simply because it offers to many SciFi tropes, that you can build around and explore. And yet, all that flavour has, in the most cases, gameplay impacts.

And, well replayablity, all the PDS games are good in that regard. With the exception of Victoria 3 currently, maybe, because it largely devolves into the same steps you take every time to build the same kind of economy, for the most part.


Btw. One thing we desperately need are some sort of, I dunno, decadence mechanics? Or empire decline mechanics? Interal struggles etc. Something that makes it difficult to keep a large empire together, something that gives us a struggle and reason to play into the late game, when we have won in all but name.

 

[fyzikar123]

Yes, it sound very ambitious. You have my full attention, I love complex games and hope this will be one to remember.

 

[TolHydra]

I know that the new age hip thing to do in game design these days is to empower the player into Godhood, but I always found the heavily restricted aspects of my divinity a whole lot more engaging to tinker around with in a game that at the very least is a simulation preoccupied with itself, with me the player as a mere after thought.

I like Vic2 so much not because I am that huge of a fan of on-map warfare. I like it so much because it does its own thing while I wait helplessly for my clipper transports to be built. It makes sense that as an OPM irrelevant to the global stage I can't get what I need so easily and that feels just fair enough.

Good luck with the game and I hope it be your undisputed magnum opus.

 

[crismac]

As long as this mysterious game comes out before I die. I am older than you Johan.

 

[I Couldn't Decide]

For my own 2 cents, I think it's important to note that (assuming this is a historical game) replayability and immersion/believability are at nearly direct odds. Byzantium in EU4 is probably the best example: for replayablity, Byz needs to be able to survive at least some of the time. But historically, East Rome was basically dead even before the crusade of Varna, and certainly wouldn't have been able to fight back the Ottomans after it. Granada is in a similar situation.

This all boils down to an age-old discussion in historical GSG communities: which is more important, historical accuracy, or having fun? I tend towards the view that historical accuracy should be prioritized even if it impacts the fun, though not to the extent of ignoring playability. For HOI4, I think removing the events of December 7/8 because it's not fun for a US player is misguided: history is like gambling; at some point you win, at some point you lose, but at the very end, everybody's lost. In the short term, it's net-zero; in the long term, it's net-negative.

There won't be one answer to the question. Which is more important will always depend on your opinion. But there is a flaw with the question: it assumes that historical accuracy and gameplay are mutually exclusive, when they are actually intimately related. Part of having fun is being immersed in the world, in roleplaying. EU4's biggest flaw is a lack of roleplayability: you can name your heirs (sometimes), armies/navies, provinces, and that's it. As Byz, you can roleplay as the reborn Rome in EU4, but can you roleplay as the successors of Alexander? Not without mods. And in the mid- to late-game, every campaign really just feels the same: a slog through enemies who have a million troops over several years, all to gain a few provinces. HOI4 is similarly flawed, though in different ways. For a historical GSG, historical accuracy doesn't exist along side the fun, it is the fun.

Assuming that this is EU5 (and lets face it, EU5 is probably why Tinto was created and given EU4), my biggest advice is:

• Focus on historical events from the late 15th - mid 16th centuries far more than events from later eras. Japan is a good example; Japan in EU4 is horrible. The shogunate is simultaneously far too powerful and far too weak. The Ōnin War and its background are not represented at all (despite the fluff event), and the Sengoku era begins way too early as a result. For different reasons, it usually ends far too early, and the Ashikaga are more likely to come out on top than they were historically. Conversely, things that happened in the 18th and 19th centuries are given more priority than they really should be given. Once again, Japan provides us with the greatest offender: Japan's mission tree is based almost entirely on things that only really happened from the mid-18th to early 20th centuries. All without any alternatives (Japan throughout the entirety of the game's timeframe was (almost) exclusively isolationist, yet the game doesn't really acknowledge that at all. Likewise, there are no southern/eastern expansion paths, despite Japan being one of the more popular colonizers).

Other things to keep in mind are: colonization is far too fast and clean, the Americas need to be completely reworked, the late-game is highly unsatisfying at best, and mission trees are far too restrictive.

Assuming that this is not EU5, my advice is: make it a good game.

 

[jose2534]

I was struggling to think of a game that manages to tick all those boxes until it hit me, it isn't a strategy game, those are good in one or two of those pillars and then fail in the last one or the other two (like most people have signaled out in the replies, CK3 is good at something, EU4 at another, Stellaris at the other one, and so on), the game I'm talking about is Stardew Valley. I know it is not the genre Tinto will cover (or maybe it is, even tho we think we are seeing a pure grand strategy game that will spam like 100-500 years of history, and it probably is [75% sure, although I think it's high fantasy and not historical], we might be surprised with a hybrid of RPG/farming sim/government sim/dynasty sim/grand strategy/something else? A magnum opus as the devs put it can be anything from the best Grand Strategy refined formula ever done by Paradox or something completely new that will blow our minds... or disappoint us, after all, that is the risk of creating art), but Stardew hits all the boxes, at least I think it does, so, maybe, look at that for extra inspiration? I know the story of that game is set in stone in a sense, but you can do different things and even align yourself with the good guys or the bad guys at one point, but, like I said, different genre, but one that managed to hit all the boxes.
I don't think I can think of a strategy game that hits all that tho, so Stardew it is for me.

Spoiler: Read me if you respectfully disagree

This is all speculation, feel free to respectfully disagree with my words to infinity and beyond, I will not take this personally or anything, go bananas with the red cross, have a nice day and let's hope this game turns out to be amazing!

Wait, Civ 5 might be a close contestant in the strategy genre for these three boxes, but I'm not sure, it was great with all the expansions tho :V

 

[Lakigigar]

Believable World

The least believable game i think is Hearts of Iron IV. The most believable ones are CK III (character, immersion), Victoria 3 and EU4. I think recent games sometimes are a bit too simplistic design-wise, many people referring to Victoria 3's war system, but I have more an issue with HoI 4's political & economical system, and even Victoria 3 could actually further expand on ideologies. But for HOI 4 it's essentially 4 ideologies: communism, democracy, fascism and the catch-all ideology non-aligned. A bit too simplistic. The many alt-history paths cause it to not be the most believable, but it's also a different game with a different target audience.

I think that some of the abstract mechanics, such as mana and development, are a bit outdated (though i don't mind them having it for EU4, but a potential EU5 game shouldn't have it). Another example of what feels abstract is the EU4 trade system and also the meta basically requires you to conquer all provinces in a certain trade region (esp. downstream or upstream), and a more dynamic trade system probably would be beneficial while still being able to reflect what regions are rich in resources, population etc.

Also what would help is that if a leader of a nation has certain traits that these nations act like it or nations act like it makes sense strategically (basically AI). AI also matters in creating a believable world (whether from a nation and/or from a character POV).

Culture (ethnic group) & religion also matter in that regard. Migration from colonization, natives that integrate / assimilate in a certain culture and religion (whether by force or not), but also reflecting that a province can have multiple cultures & religions that are sizeable, though that might require a pop system which can lead to performance issues, so I personally think that Victoria 3's population system might be too elaborate/extensive to implement perhaps, and a more simple pop system that is more accurate than province X is 100% catholic / this culture, better ways to culture convert instead of spending diplo points etc might be the way forward, but more simple than Victoria 3's system which might be too demanding for the performance (esp moving into the late game).

Setting Immersion

Stellaris & Cities: Skylines do this well. I think EU4 - after so many DLC's - also does. CKIII excels in character-driven immersion. Some of the HoI 4 alt-meme paths are immersion-breaking, but generally I think Paradox does this aspect quite well.

Replayability

Also ties with nation-specific flavor, EU4 with all DLC's and HOI4 do this best, maybe Stellaris and CKIII too, the latter at least having the potential since it might be still be relatively early for its development cycle. Victoria 3 has a lot of untapped potential in this regard, but isn't there. One factor that also matters for replayability is performance, something Vicky suffers from mid & late game. But flavor is the most important thing, because if every nation feels the same, people aren't returning to it. This is what one of the reasons I:R eventually failed.

Hypothetically if EU4 releases - and what otentially it's biggest pitfall could be - is that if it feels very barebones and shallow at release, and it lacks this replayability of nations, is that people will just continue to play EU4 because it has so much content already and flavor that you can keep getting back to it, and play all these nations with mission trees and that feel different based on geographical area, mechanics, etc.

 

[Koopatin]

"Believable World"

just some rambling, cause we are all friend here?


first thing that comes to my mind is dutch revolt. why this region has its own system for revolts, why they would revolt even if they are more or less peaceful party of your empire for centuries always felt wrong to me. and sure i know how to avoid the revolt but still.


second thing that comes to my mind are the mission tree PU CBs. you can wait to press the button as long as you like and can claim the throne of another country, sometimes after you have changed dynasties through revolts a dozen times or more. still can claim the throne, does not matter the dynasty. And if one claims that realm always was a legitimate part of your kingdome, why should that give a CB the rest of the world accepts after 300+ years?

*edit*

does not mean i want everything in the world to follow the exact same rules but it should have another reason than "because of real history in EUs timeframe". for example something coming from things already in motion before the start of eu 5 (yes.. i go with it)

 

[BossE]

svearike 4 confirmed!

 

[Nikoleis]

So, let's see what we can already get from those hints:

Working on EU4 expansion:

We start by ruling out EU5, as it makes little sense to have both games at the same time.

Believable World:

Avoiding abstractions, so the game is bound to be complete, not focused on a single sector but cover them all. Rules out a simple upgrade to something like Heart of Iron, that ignores the entire economic aspect. Also it is World, singular. While it could go toward using the word for a setting in a more general way, I'd say it rules out a galactic tier conquest. It should also rule out anything "illogical", so no weird premise

Setting immersion:

The main takeaway is that it is based on the real world or an existing work of fiction, based on the existence of "What if". This would not make sense in an entirely new setting as there is no "expected" outcome, but doesn't necessarily rules out a fictional world. After all, what could prevent a Grand Stategy game to use Westeros or Middle Earth as a setting, outside of licensing? The mention of a "Setting" instead of a "Period" could lead to such a possibility but again, could be digging too much into linguistic details

Replayability:
Different ways to go from a given start leads to a fixed and defined starting point, so this rules out a more 4X approach a la Millenia (and that would compete with it anyway) but also Cities Skyline. Different mechanics in different parts of the world is a strong hint it is a world wide simulation game, so not regionally focused. If it is Earth, then we can probably ignore early antiquity and early middle age, due to entire parts of the world being disconnected from each other. This also rules out a Stellaris type setting again. What instead of Who you play leads to being an entity and not an inividual, so not a character driven game such a Crusader King

Pictures:
Assuming they are relevant to the game, I'd give a feel of Renaissance era permeate from them, possibly giving a time period

Map:
Since next time it should be about maps, it strongly implies that we're in the Grand Strategy genre, not a RPG or local simulation with a generated map. Regional control will be important

First wild guess in light of this:
A game covering mid renaissance to early modern period where instead of a country, what you command is an organization, likely something like a trade company, with a focus on trade, diplomacy and economics, with an ability to weight into politics, science or culture around the world

 

[qweyt]

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.

This is one of the main things that I was initially attracted by in Paradox games and I agree that game mechanics should be based in reality. And I think mechanics making sense from a historical perspective will make them easier to understand also for new players, thus making the game more accessible.

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.

My favourite experiences with Paradox games have come from when realistic mechanics lead to wacky scenarios. Like in CK2 when Francia's emperor converted to Cathar causing massive religious chaos all over Europe. Or in EU4 when an underdog manages to defeat a major power in a war and change the political landscape to something wildly different from history. So while being faithful to history is important with the starting scenario, for the gameplay itself immersive "what if" scenarios are exactly what would like to see.

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 don't like the mission trees from EU4, as they feel too railroady to me. Important bonuses or mechanics of your country may be locked behind missions that require you to do a specific thing or play in a specific way limiting replayability. So having a larger number of viable options from the same start also sounds very good to me.

Overall these feel very solid pillars to base the core game design on and I look forward to seeing more.

 

[Lakigigar]

I was struggling to think of a game that manages to tick all those boxes until it hit me, it isn't a strategy game, those are good in one or two of those pillars and then fail in the last one or the other two (like most people have signaled out in the replies, CK3 is good at something, EU4 at another, Stellaris at the other one, and so on), the game I'm talking about is Stardew Valley.

Wait, Civ 5 might be a close contestant in the strategy genre for these three boxes, but I'm not sure, it was great with all the expansions tho :V

Stardew Valley is actually a perfect fit, one of those games that perhaps describes those three pillars the best. It is believable, it is very immersive and it is replayable. (I disagree though with Civ 5)

For being believable, it needs to make sense: scope, AI
For being immersive (which ties with replayability), there needs to be variety, for immersion, based on character or events, like Stardew Valley has seasons and even certain "holidays". For strategy games, i think this correlates to certain events that the player may interact with and have a wide variety of outcomes, a more complex HRE and papacy could definitely contribute, perhaps in case of the papacy actually having conclaves (and cardinals as characters).
For replayability, it basically ties with variation, variation in playstyle, variation in setting, variation in who you can play as, variation in what the end goal should be, variation in how different your experience is if you play a certain nation multiple times etc.

 

[Chaotic_Good]

With the rise of new AIs, can we expect significant improvements in the AIs of upcoming video games?

The AIs in a Paradox game (or grand strategy game in general) should not be taught to play like a human player, but rather with immersive and credible behavior for the context and the future of the game. And even better if your decision making is influenced by the historical character of the faction you manage.

 

[GoguRomania]

You Know what, it's a bit early for Imperator 2, but I'm in. Let's go!