• 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:
All I ask of you Johan is that the game focuses on the gameplay elements. I want lots of content at day 1, not a barebones title. Obviously it needs room for DLC's, that's fine, but at least make sure it's able to capture the players attention and that each playthrough of vastly differing nations (or not nations) are unique and fresh.

Oh and don't make the UI look like a 3D mobile game (*ahem* Vic3 *ahem*). I like my original looking UI, spruce it up a bit, make it moddable and accessible and call it day!

That's just my opinion though, and if I am overwhelmingly in the minority I wouldn't be too mad if you did go in that direction I suppose! At the end of the day the game needs to make money and I understand that.
 
  • 9
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I just hope EU5 won't become similar to Vic 3. I have around 2k hours in EU4 and I abosolutely hated Victoria 3. I really think the ideal game for me is EU4 as a base game and DLCs on top to make it better. Maybe with some better graphics but that's secondary really. I can understand why they'd want to get rid of development and mana points. I just hope they won't add population mechanics. Development in it's core is a good system because the player can influence it to increas the value of a province very fast basically right here and now. I don't want to sit there for years and build building after building to increase my population by 1, that's just boring.
In my opinion EU4 has 3 things that have to change or at the very least be rebalanced.
1) Trade. Trade absolutely has to be dynamic and change. Maybe add some trade winds, or maybe the trade route changes to your ports when you control more then 90% of a certain market, I really don't know but it should be changed.
2) Taxation system and mana as a whole. Right now this system is abusable and taxes as they are are absolutely broken.
3) Diplomacy. The idea is amazing but the whole "reasons why they agree", "reasons why they disagree" are too set in stone. There is not flexibility in the diplomacy system right now.
There might be other things I just forgot, but these are the ones I had from the top of my head.
Anyway, I am really hyped for the next Tinto Talks!
 
  • 10
  • 8
  • 1Like
Reactions:
This studio definitely should not be concerned with how long it takes to make this. If this is EU5, it's not like the community is getting bored of EU4, and we aren't really getting restless or anything like that. They should not make the mistake Victoria 3 did where they clearly released too early and instead should take their time and make sure the game is good on release, rather than taking a few years and a few paid expansions before it does start getting good.
Also, I hope this one has the beautiful map style that Imperator had. I know a lot of people don't like it, but I love the zoom-to-geographic map feature, just make it optional for the people who don't like it.
 
  • 14
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Okay you guys, the only comment I have of any speculation/worth:

Post today was Wednesday at 14:53.

May 29 this year is a Wednesday.

May 29th 1453 is the Fall of Constantinople.

See you all then.
 
  • 6Like
  • 3Love
  • 2
Reactions:
Imagine Europa Universalis with Total War battles combined.

(Now that we know that this is not what majority wants, we can move on from that idea)
i would pay all money i have to not get this ...
i rly dislike total war battles thats NOT the way of euro universalis ...
if you want that play total war
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
So you mean its a Byzantine-focused game?
No, I do not.

I mean that 1453 is the end of the Middle Ages (Crusader Kings).

I also mean that I am predicting something dropping that specific day.

EDIT: to explain a bit further, traditionally Paradox does the dev diary for a specific game on a specific day. So if Project Caesar takes Wednesday slots, and we expect to see Dev Diaries on Wednesdays, I expect one to fall on a fairly auspicious date that coincides with a specific endpoint/startpoint for two franchises.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
We start by ruling out EU5, as it makes little sense to have both games at the same time.
IIRC, CK3 was announced before Holy Fury dropped. If anything, the 1.37 DLC supports EU5, since it covers such a broad swath of places. Also, people have noticed a few hints here and there that it might be EU5.

it's not like the community is getting bored of EU4, and we aren't really getting restless or anything like that.
EU5 has been speculated about for quite a bit now, actually. It's not that the community is getting bored with, it's that it's an old game. For reference, CK2 was 8 years old when CK3 released. Eu4 is almost 11. People still play CK2 (myself included), and it's not that uncommon an opinion that CK2 is actually better (though that's changing). I mean, there are people who still play Half-Life, an FPS that came out in 1998!

If Paradox continued to support EU4 until players got bored of it, it'd likely get almost a hundred DLCs and last until the 2030s at the very earliest. It would become so complicated and the community so insular that new players would be absolutely overwhelmed. EU4 will likely end up similar to CK2: once EU5 releases, it'll go free-to-play so that new players can get sucked into it without needing to pay anything, and then purchase the DLC to get an even better experience (I can confirm that that approach worked on me with CK2). It's not just about the community, it's about the potential community. EU4 with DLC is already bloated: can it really support an extra 10 DLC?
 
  • 4
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
i'd say that, for the 'believable world' pillar, it's good to keep away from 'magic' country/faction bonuses.

this might not be relevant, as everybody knows the upcoming game is definitely not EU5!, but to take an example from EU4 mechanics:

england are supposed to be in a good position to develop into a naval power. cool! there are lots of mechanics in the game to differentiate navies. some of these could be applied to their starting situation (e.g. they start with lots of ships, good admirals, higher diplomatic tech than surrounding nations, high naval tradition). some of those could be applied to the map (by tweaking buildings to be available earlier, and giving england some docks etc. from the start date? by tweaking the importance of resources, and giving england excellent naval resources?). some could happen through historical events (which in a sense are 'magic bonuses' too, but feel more appropriate for an alt-history game). but in EU4, instead of using ways to differentiate nations through the 'generic' mechanics, a lot of that is done through national ideas and mission trees.

the result is that i can't choose a different nation and try to build up what england has. the tag has some magic that exists separately from the rest of the game. that also means that if i become the no. 1 naval power as england/GB, it feels less satisfying. it's not just that i started with a material advantage on the map and am exploiting my advantage to the fullest, it's that i'm playing by subtly different (easier) rules than other tags.
 
  • 12
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Believable World

Setting Immersion

Replayability


Which games do YOU think represent these pillars well?

To me, the Football Manager series and recent Hitman trilogy hit these marks well. While neither would correlate exactly over to Paradox-style titles, I think the way they hit these pillars is through relatively clear and predictable mechanics (which make even a ridiculous universe like Hitman feel understandable and believeable), a saturation of detail of their worlds, and opportunities for customization of the experience (in both cosmetics and gameplay).
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Assuming that this game is Europa or takes place in the 1400s-1800s:
I'd love to see vassals handled more like CK3 at the start of the game, rather than having two separate systems for Estates and Vassals, but over time reduced in power as you centralize your nation.
In EU4, if let's say you start as England, historically you should have vassals in the Duke of York, the Duke of Cornwall etc, but they're represented by Nobility Land Ownership and Influence. But then if you take Offaly as a vassal, despite being no different from the Duke of York, the Duke of Offaly takes up a Diplo Relation slot.

Meanwhile in CK3, they'd both just be vassals in your Realm.

The reason I'd like to see it changed so that you could better represent the transition from Feudalism to centralized Absolutist monarchies. Over time you could influence your nation to centralize a professional army rather than allowing your vassals to have their own armies for instance. Or you could develop the start of institutional government, which would act somewhat like Estate Privileges but in reverse, annoying your nobles, clergy and traders for more centralized power.

Decentralized nations would grow faster, either having their own mana like EU4 or having their own advisors able to Develop County like CK3, but also limit your nation's power.
 
  • 12
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Immersion: I assume that we're talking about a board-like strategy game. If not then it would be good to know ASAP as immersion in, say, a first person game is very different from that in a board-like game. The most immersive game I've played is The Long Dark (I actually feel cold while wandering around in its world), but it's a FP. For a non-FP game I think immersion becomes mostly about believability (see below).

Replayability: I think EU4 did a great job of this. In part because of the relatively frequent updates, but also, latterly, because of the unique missions, different religions, etc. I think it's important that there be multiple ways of achieving the same goal. I don't mean multiple mechanics, but different strategies. I love that I can watch four different playthoughs of The Three Mountains and see four completely different approaches to it.

Believability: The most important factor for me is consistency. You can have the most unrealistic world and game mechanics ever devised just so long as they are internally consistent. This correlates strongly with immersion. Nothing knocks me out more than a sudden, jarring inconsistency. In EU4 whenever I lose trade to pirates my first thought is, "I have 20 ships protecting trade in that node and now I have to assign a different set of ships to protect against pirates? What are the first 20 protecting against if not pirates?"
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I always thought a robust autonomy system, the contant fight between centralization (by building/nation gardening) and decentralization (by expansion) is incredibly fun and the concept of communication efficiency from MEIOU should be a staple in every game. Scenarios like, mountains being natural country borders, and expanding along the sea, come naturally, simply by making it so "distance" actually plays a major role in the autonomy of regions.
 
  • 15
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I will like a new warfare system , something like victoria 3 but that works good.

I will like it be like a mini football manager where i can choose formation and tactics in the terrain.Each formation and tactics will work different depending of terrain type, enemy composition etc....
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I will like a new warfare system , something like victoria 3 but that works good.

I will like it be like a mini football manager where i can choose formation and tactics in the terrain.Each formation and tactics will work different depending of terrain type, enemy composition etc....
Well definetely nothing like vixtoria 3 without units on the map. But i do agree that more depth in battles would be nice, even if it isnt total war level complexity. I think the EU4 line system is already a good thing one could go off of and add more complexity to.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions: