Tinto Talks #1 - February 28th 2024

[Lamartine]

The issues with CK3 and EU4 are that once you peak in strength, it is hard to find something that will stop you aside from self-restraint or self-sabotage. Historically, a rapidly growing Spain got hit by inflation and a split of its European empire

I think the challenge is that a lot of the calamities that set back different states historically are tricky to make rewarding for players. Growing very quickly and then losing a lot of your gains just feels worse than growing more slowly.

Did you execute a masterful colonisation of the Americas? Well you're too powerful now, so yoink, your colonies have all broken free, that's your punishment for being too good at the game.

I think a good approach would be to shorten the time frame until the mid 1700s at the latest. That way the end game coincides with when the player would hit peak power.

 

[Poliut]

We're finally getting that Cold War game to extend the PDX Grand Campaigns?

(I can still hope, right?)

 

[Sighfer]

A picture of olive oil? Well, clearly, this is about Sengoku 2, an amalgamation of Crusader Kings character interactions, Hearts of Iron military micromanagement and Victoria population mechanics, in as excruciating detail as possible, but small enough to not make the processors melt.

 

[swissguy]

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…

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..

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?

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!

The most important thing before any details of a game is: please, please release a future game in a playable and enjoyable state from day 1 on.
There are too many releases from paradox that are just as bad as if no one ever has tested it. CS2, VIC3 and even DLCs that obviosly never saw a test playthrough of the devs. Thats one of the reasons that has stopped me from preorders or buys on release day.

I hope you all know, if these kind of bad releases are continuing, one lovely day a new competitior will grab his chance of getting in, as colossal order did it with CS1.

And for the DLCs, i hope there will be no flood with it as seen in example EU4. Make quality over quantity. One reason i do not buy EU4 is the price it has to buy the whole package. And subscription licese is a thing i refuse.

 

[yurcick]

I think It's hard to say what games fit the requests without speaking of the genre.
But I'd say that M&B or Space Rangers fit very well.

 

[Borgratz]

This must be the most Johan solution to an unsolvable problem that I have ever seen

 

[:+:Sparkills:+:]

Masterpiece indeed.

What a blessing it is Johan leads this project, with this mandate, and in this way. Larian's humility to develop in the open air is the difference between BG3 and the Starfield fiasco. This is the right foot forward, on soft earth.

Over the years, I've had many thoughts on complexity, strategic tension, and heroic triumph. The right person is listening, and I'll compose them.

It is time.

 

[ponpon8623]

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.

Ironically, this is some of the most abstracted development diary ever.lol

 

[Asaipuol]

On the immersion and believability points, I wanted to re-emphasize (as others before in this thread) the importance of two things: geography, and information (or lack of it).

Geographical features like rivers, oceans or mountains should feel more like obstacles. In many PDX games, mountains and rivers only give a terrain penalty when fighting. It should also be an obstacle to your administration: it's harder to control mountainous regions, it's harder to communicate through a mountains range or a river, etc... Only some narrow mountain passes or bridges let you go on the other side. My point is, there's a reason why so many borders are on mountains and rivers. Trade roads should be affected too (less traffic possible through those narrow passes, but very lucrative taxes possible on bridges...)

Which brings me to my second point: lack of information. In EU4, I know exactly which place is rebellious and when it will rebel approximately. Sure, there are dice rolls that make the rebellion progress or not, but that's not lack of information, that's just RNG. Information on other places, especially far from the capital (or on the other side of a mountain), should be much scarcer unless you actively decide to watch carefully that place. Same goes for diplomacy - I shouldn't know how Japan is feeling about a small Central Asian princedom unless I specifically go ask them about it. I would actually love having some kind of "intelligence service" system, asking agents to find me more information about the rebellious sentiment in Ireland, whether X major power would come to defend this country, find out more about this war that we hear is going on in the Caucasus, nudge a foreign country's diplomacy in a certain direction, etc... With information needing time to travel on top of it, and being able to distort on its way (though that is straining feasability honestly.) This would also add an interesting layer of "Is my limited information reliable and up-to-date?"

And finally: thank you for your games. A lot.

 

[GrandEurypterid]

I think for me, one of the most fun parts is creating a structure, rather than just improvements. In EU4, you have particular trade goods and the trade network, in CK3 you have the feudal system, in Vicky 3 you have goods production networks, and so on. Wars and whatnot are at their most fun not when it's simply a result of getting resources, or by just existing- I feel that's a major flaw in CK3 right now, and it's one of the reasons the early-game levies in Imperator felt a bit shallow (aside from not being round numbers)- but when you've manufactured something that can support it.

Take EU4. To get your first major army, your goal is to break past your initial limits and become a centralised state- once you capture enough valuable provinces or take enough trade ports in the right places, and unlock and build your first few major parts of infrastructure in those provinces, you experience an income explosion that lets you have your first real standing army while also having a standing state. I think this is a really good feeling that other games can lack sometimes; I think Vicky 3's next updates in regards to explaining why your job workers are available or not is also important here, as I've felt the hints of a similar explosion of military potential when you first get your arms industries up-and-running, where your navy can finally support your military, and where your people are educated, liberated and mechanised enough that you can afford a large standing army.

I'd like to see that sort of system reaching into a Paradox game as an intentional, consistent mechanic. Rather than focusing on workshops, why not focus on ports and roads and courts? Where the goal is to shake free a system into the hands of the state. (Of course, for people on the ground this is often a big problem- the book 'Seeing Like A State' is a great read- but I think that sort of friction could also lend to a game.) Say your armies are designed to march along roads and rivers, with specialist 'guerilla' or 'nomad' or whatever troops being needed to penetrate deep into certain terrains without major reforms or strategic improvements. Making geography and superstructure into a vital part of nation-building, instead of just arbitrary numbers.

I want to feel the reaching, expanding hands of the State, be it EU5, Imperator 2, or something completely different. I pray for roads.

Having that feeling in diplomacy would also be pretty nice- sort of like the vassal contracts in CK3 or Stellaris, where your relationships aren't just a binary 'yes/no' unless there's a big power disparity. I want my relationship with an allied Great Power to be a complex one with various clauses and negotiated advantages or disadvantages, not just 'ally Y/N?'.


In terms of replayability, something I'd like is a greater capacity for the game to integrate the Player's goals, as opposed to setting arbitrary ones or fixed ones. (That one achievement in EU4 to rule the mediterranean as Venice with fewer provinces than it starts with, it frustrates me...) Something like a 'Strategy Planner', perhaps based off of Imperator's generated mission trees; one of the big problems with those trees was that they could be 'out-of-order' or otherwise unsuited for your tactical situation, which made them finicky and awkward to deal with.

There's a few basic tools I'd really like- a 'budget' mechanic, for example, so you can set aside funds for a rainy day instead of completely forgetting that one manufactory you need to build for an estate. But on the whole, ways to set up your own long-term plan of action as an alternative to 'canon' scenarios or 'blob everywhere' mission trees- say, a Great Horde that settles and becomes not!Novgorod instead of conquering all of Eurasia- would be fantastic.

Say, for example, you start with a few basic mission trees for nations without custom missions (which might be something built into the custom mission trees, or which might be separate), or alternatively as a supplement, like a Diet versus a Mission Tree. Perhaps a 'Development' mission where you already have provinces, a 'Conquest' mission where you take things, or a 'Diplomatic' mission to stymy rivals, make powerful friends, or deal with overlord-vassal relationships. You pick 'Conquest', and you decide if your goal is 'natural borders', 'land' or 'trade posts', and you get to place down 'Provinces of Interest' in accordance with your goals. (As an aside, I think this sort of system- where you decide on your strategic goals- feels a lot more intuitive than Fabricate Claims as the 'main' method of getting a casus belli.) Then you go through with your goals on the strategic level, and see what works- I'd lean towards a shorter, repeating cycle in many cases so you don't feel obligated not to develop too much for a long stretch of time while you have conquest missions or vice versa, perhaps with certain nations (via ideas, government forms, etc) varying in which missions they're particularly competent at.

 

[Kingsleydale]

Disagree about point 3. The behavior of the AI shouldn't be transparent. That makes them predictable and too easy. You want the AI to be competent, capable of trickery that the player can later see and learn from. Every time I see the AI dogpile a country getting destroyed it honestly makes me smile. It makes the AI seem opportunistic. Competent. Something a player would do. Seeing the AI do stupid things ruins immersion.

I do agree with transparency as important though. My biggest gripe with Vic3 is it feels like there is a blurry wall in between me and my nation. I get the devs were trying to make it feel like your not just this King who can do whatever, anywhere at anytime, but it feels very strange. I actually do agree that there should be parts of national decision making outside of your hands - interest groups are pretty decent overall. But many other elements of Victoria III feels arbitrary "foggy" in a lot of ways.

I do somewhat agree with what you are saying, however, I think the difficulty here is that it could quickly become really frustrating if we don’t understood why the AI is doing what it is doing. I am not saying that every detail of the AIs strategy should be exposed, just that the a player should be to look at an AI controlled nation and should be able to figure why it is acting a certain way. Obviously this should have some level of nuance

 

[Nikoleis]

If that is indeed EU5, can we please get rid of most TAG = XXX content? Pretty please? I'd also opt for something closer to the older mission system, not something set in stone that can end up not making any sense with the reality of the game. Consequences have causes.

 

[Miguelinileugim]

EU5 announced you say?

 

[Erindel]

Believable World

- Subnautica. All the game mechanics are linked to each other in a logical way.
- Distant Worlds : the addition of the civilian trade ships and network which can be influenced by wars (instead of just a number going red), use of a jump sequence delay and freedom to warp speed to anywhere makes it a more believable world than Stellaris for example.
- Any game where the AI is competent and cannot be cheesed.

Setting Immersion

- Subnautica again. With the intended pun on immersion of course. Sound and visuals match perfectly.
- Cities Skylines. It's very easy to roleplay and get involved in your city because you can grow organically and be completely unique, adapting to terrain. Having citizens simulated helps the city remain human.
- Rimworld. Again, organic development of a colony, adapting to chaos, complete freedom to roleplay into warcrimes or do-gooders as you wish.
- Again, any game where the AI is competent and does not have to blatantly cheat to pose a challenge.

Replayability

- Rimworld : modding support is enough to keep the game going for years.
- Cities Skylines : same, modding is everything.
- EU4 : different nations strength, mission trees, branching missions, etc. And modding for MP of course.

 

[Johan]

Thank you so much for all posts. We are reading everything, even if we don't reply to it.

 

[Trunting]

Thank you so much for all posts. We are reading everything, even if we don't reply to it.

When I think of a future GSG, what should be implemented, is a stronger character focus. I like to play as historic persons and if I can trace a dynasty over the centuries nothing more makes my heart happy.

I would like to see it implemented in I:R style.

 

[JackNotLantern]

Regarding believable world

I think about game world being belivable and immersive, the history simulation needs to be able to reproduce the real world history.

What i mean by this, is in-game systems should allow player and AI to follow the real history - it should be extremely unlikely, but still possible. Or at least it should feel like it is possible.

For me in EU4 one of the biggest changes making the world unbelivable was rewark of native tribes in 1.31. The changes made playing natives much better, but they weren't exactly ideal. They were nerfed and adjusted from the pretty bad initial state, but it still is immersion breaking.

One of the effects of various mechanics is that the natives fully colonise vast lands when unitiming into federations or forming hordes. They do that on their own, not as an reaction for European colonisation - they do that even if nobody colonises.

I can't belive that tribes who lives in a very similar way for hundreds of years will (specifically in perion 1444-1600, not eatlier) always unite and colonise vast lands in NA even with no contact with colonisers. It should be a reaction to the changes, not a default behaviour.

Also, the side effect of faster native colonisation, is that European colonisation also goes faster. Colonisation speed is currently too big, but colonisers doesn't even have to use agent-colonists, just conquer already colonised native land. So almost n every game with enabled CoP North America is colonised in 1600s.

It all makes the game don't feel like you're actually in the historical period, you're just playing a game that you like to click battons and paint maps.

 

[crowdemon]

I'm thinking of Europa Universalis 5 or a fantasy game.

 

[Lightwell]

This may also be a good time to go over slave trade abstractions. As I understand it, the trade good was directly placed on African provinces to keep it from becoming "that slave-trading simulator", especially with all of the ways "X is OP!!!" youtube channels can worsen perceptions.
I would like for the real impetus for forced labor in the colonies to remain, especially in the case of the nation-consuming sugarcane trade, but I haven't settled on a model that keeps it distant enough from the state itself (or intrusive enough) to keep the reputation from potentially landing. Any thoughts?

 

[Lightwell]

Regarding believable world

I think about game world being belivable and immersive, the history simulation needs to be able to reproduce the real world history.

What i mean by this, is in-game systems should allow player and AI to follow the real history - it should be extremely unlikely, but still possible. Or at least it should feel like it is possible.

For me in EU4 one of the biggest changes making the world unbelivable was rewark of native tribes in 1.31. The changes made playing natives much better, but they weren't exactly ideal. They were nerfed and adjusted from the pretty bad initial state, but it still is immersion breaking.

One of the effects of various mechanics is that the natives fully colonise vast lands when unitiming into federations or forming hordes. They do that on their own, not as an reaction for European colonisation - they do that even if nobody colonises.

I can't belive that tribes who lives in a very similar way for hundreds of years will (specifically in perion 1444-1600, not eatlier) always unite and colonise vast lands in NA even with no contact with colonisers. It should be a reaction to the changes, not a default behaviour.

Also, the side effect of faster native colonisation, is that European colonisation also goes faster. Colonisation speed is currently too big, but colonisers doesn't even have to use agent-colonists, just conquer already colonised native land. So almost n every game with enabled CoP North America is colonised in 1600s.

It all makes the game don't feel like you're actually in the historical period, you're just playing a game that you like to click battons and paint maps.

I think this issue comes from provinces having innate development. An empty province is an empty province.