Tinto Talks #18 - 26th of June 2024

[Mulleks]

Can I still spend 50 prestiege to send bad heirs to the meat grinder?

 

[Tiredbnuygirl]

I've created mods for EU4 and HoI4 and I'm just wondering will there be in-game modification tools, and more specifically some tools built off of the tech created for modifying realms in ck3, in Project Caesar?

 

[RaccoonCity]

Great dev diary, BUT:

My only concern is that changing laws/policies costs gold. What is the reasoning behind this? I think it shouldn't. Changing laws shouldn't requiere paying anything to anyone, it should just requiere political will/power/agreements, and the cost should just be the time it takes the effects to be fully implemented.

A poor country, nearly bankrupted, should have the same capacity as a rich country to change it laws. It should be just an internal affair, and not affecting your global purchasing power (gold).

And the fact that its a flat gold cost (instead of a % of the economic power or the size/population of the specific country) for all countries worries me even more, as this will increase the snowball effect, something that should be avoided at call cost to fix one of the worst problems EU4 has that is the snowball effect.

My suggestion is that changing laws doesn't cost ANY gold, the cost to change a law should only be that you will have to wait a long time to see the changes implemented, and maybe some form of political cost like reducing stability for a while or something like that.

And if you want to make it cost some gold, then make some "changing law cost maintenance" that is a gold monthly expense proportional to the size/population/economic power of the country and that ends when the law is fully implemented. Flat costs are a lazy implementation of game mechanics, you should always aim to have proportional costs to the size of the country. This is key to keep the game balanced and avoiding the snowball effect.

There are some policies that may affect your taxing capacity, yes, although on a country and estate level, not so granular as you mention.

Does lowering taxation have any positive effect on the economy? Or is it gonna be a no brainer more tax = better for the economy of the country, like in EU4?

I expected something more realistic like Vic3. The higher the taxes the more money the government has but the less money the population has. I would like being able to do a sacrifice in lowering my taxes to improve the purchasing power of my population, thus increasing the economic activity in my country in the long term.

I don't expect the economy to be as complex and detailed as Vic3, but I would like that Project Caesar portrays this. If I abuse my population with very high taxes, I want them to not only to be angrier at their government, but also poorer because the government is literally taking money away from their pockets.

 

[Pavía]

Is there a difference between the Holy (Papal) Inquisition and the Secular (like the Spanish) Inquisition - or are they both implemented as laws of the state?

Papal-controlled and State-controlled Inquisition are different available policies of the Inquisition Law, which belongs to the Religious Laws category.

 

[Niptium]

I just love the mechanics stated here. I can see a lot of laws I'd like to enact that have collateral effects I don't necessarily want (either empowering the nobility, clergy, weakening the crown or shifting to decentralization). I love it.

 

[Elagabalus the Gobbler]

Would it be possible to have more negative modifier's to a countries's systems of laws (civil, common, and traditional)? I think that flat bonus don't exactly represent why certain countries to this day follow differing systems, and currently, the game kind of represents these systems as a flat upgrade. For example, maybe civil laws could increase burgher power, traditional laws could have an negative impact on non-primary culture pops, common law could have a negative impact on trade. I'm just brainstorming in terms of these examples, and you might already have ways to simulate this that I haven't taken into account, but I think it would be a good idea to require more thought when changing these systems, rather than just "I want different bonuses."

 

[GeneralUrist]

I like the elements of the UI presented in this Tinto Talks. clean and clear, does what it needs to do. Contrast those in say the TT on characters, where things like the portrait take up an unnecessarily massive chunk of real estate.

 

[Nikicaga]

Which unique laws would you expect?

Does Serbia get something to represent Dušan's Code, an incredibly important set of laws from shortly after the game's start (1349) or the early 13th century Nomocanon/Zakonopravilo it replaced? The Nomocanon has historical importance too, as it spread to other Orthodox countries and influenced Bulgarian and Russian religious laws too. In general, a Roman/Byzantine law distinction for the many countries around the Mediterranean using it could be useful.

Also in the Balkans, the Kanun customary laws used by Albanian tribes has ancient origins and was the de facto legal system of both Albanian and Serbian/Montenegrin tribesmen in the region for centuries.

 

[GeneralUrist]

"inclusive levies" sounds like it should not be mutually exclusive with noble/peasant levies. A better option would be to have separate law categories for what classes your levies are drawn from, and to what extent non-accepted cultures are integrated into your military.

 

[Metz]

If you PU or conquer a country implementing unique laws, can you absorb those laws into your roster? Might be interesting for more progressive economic laws to give yourself an advantage.

 

[pheonicia]

Great dev diary, BUT:

My only concern is that changing laws/policies costs gold. What is the reasoning behind this? I think it shouldn't. Changing laws shouldn't requiere paying anything to anyone, it should just requiere political will/power/agreements, and the cost should just be the time it takes the effects to be fully implemented.

A poor country, nearly bankrupted, should have the same capacity as a rich country to change it laws. It should be just an internal affair, and not affecting your global purchasing power (gold).

And the fact that its a flat gold cost (instead of a % of the economic power or the size/population of the specific country) for all countries worries me even more, as this will increase the snowball effect, something that should be avoided at call cost to fix one of the worst problems EU4 has that is the snowball effect.

My suggestion is that changing laws doesn't cost ANY gold, the cost to change a law should only be that you will have to wait a long time to see the changes implemented, and maybe some form of political cost like reducing stability for a while or something like that.

And if you want to make it cost some gold, then make some "changing law cost maintenance" that is a gold monthly expense proportional to the size/population/economic power of the country and that ends when the law is fully implemented. Flat costs are a lazy implementation of game mechanics, you should always aim to have proportional costs to the size of the country. This is key to keep the game balanced and avoiding the snowball effect.


Does lowering taxation have any positive effect on the economy? Or is it gonna be a no brainer more tax = better for the economy of the country, like in EU4?

I expected something more realistic like Vic3. The higher the taxes the more money the government has but the less money the population has. I would like being able to do a sacrifice in lowering my taxes to improve the purchasing power of my population, thus increasing the economic activity in my country in the long term.

I don't expect the economy to be as complex and detailed as Vic3, but I would like that Project Caesar portrays this. If I abuse my population with very high taxes, I want them to not only to be angrier at their government, but also poorer because the government is literally taking money away from their pockets.

Implementing a policy on a brand new law costs gold, changing already implemented laws costs stab.

 

[BI0ck]

Will there be a heir religion law for protestant countries (or at the bare minimum England) allowing heirs from other Protestant religions but not Catholics, Orthodox, etc.? The English succession notoriously allowed for having a non-Anglican heir, as long as they were protestant (otherwise George 1 wouldn't have been eligible.) From the generic laws you gave, the only options are all religions, same religious group (I'd assume "Christianity" is a religious group) or same religion, which wouldn't fit this important historical case.

 

[Failtier]

@Pavía Unrelated to today's TT, but what was the topic of your dissertation?

 

[Oglesby]

Do you mean economy sliders? If so, they're not in TT #7. Or did I miss/forget about another set of sliders entirely?

I guess I was talking about the Societal value 'sliders'

"Some of you may remember the domestic policies from EU2 and EU3. In Project Caesar we are bringing the idea back in the form of Societal Values. There are seven that we took from these games, one that was split in two, and we added four new ones, bringing the total to 13 different Societal Values. Societal Values are primarily affected by what other actions you do, like what policies you pick in a law, or what reforms you pick. As with so many other things in our game, this is not an instant action, but a gradual change over time." From DD 4

That paragraph was followed by this image

Spoiler: Eu3 Image

 

[Praetorian44]

What about countries that don't have parliaments? Does that mean that changing a law always results in huge stability loss? That seems strange and shouldn't happen in every situation. What if it's a law that the ruling elites would prefer changed? Or a law change that is good for most people in the country? What if the ruler has tamed the elites and rules with a moderate level of control, shouldn't the stability loss be less in this case?

 

[GeneralUrist]

What about countries that don't have parliaments? Does that mean that changing a law always results in huge stability loss? That seems strange and shouldn't happen in every situation. What if it's a law that the ruling elites would prefer changed? Or a law change that is good for most people in the country? What if the ruler has tamed the elites and rules with a moderate level of control, shouldn't the stability loss be less in this case?

Yeah. Unless the term "parliament" is an abstraction for something MUCH broader than what we Europeans conventionally imagine under that term and the lack of one is just something for early-game primitives to overcome, a gameplay progression of "get a parliament or get screwed" seems an unfun non-choice.

 

[Praetorian44]

Also, "Inclusive Levies" sounds very modern IMO. The word did originate in the Middle Ages, but wasn't used much until the Early Modern period (so not at the start of the game, when levies will be most prominent), and even then it was not used in the way we use it today. Some alternatives would be "Full Levies" or "Open Levies." There's also "Comprehensive Levies," but this has the same issue as inclusive, as it's a word that dates from the Early Modern period (though at least did have the same use as today). These might not be the best alternatives, but perhaps people can suggest other ones.

 

[Densetsu VII]

One of my biggest concerns with Caesar is how it will represent republics, which, particularly in possibly-unrelated game EU4, I think have gained a lackluster reputation over time. This has always seemed a huge shame to me, as the world slowly transitioned to more democratic institutions over time, and this kind of transition was never strictly incentivized in EU4, and was if anything discouraged with mechanics like absolutism which rewarded players who clung to power. Obviously Caesar has no mana, but I think it'd be a shame if the gradual progress of individualist ideals isn't modeled and incentivized as something a player doesn't just have to oppose, but WANTS to engage with in some way (perhaps an Enlightenment institution next week)?

I'm sure republics will get a DD in the future, but can you confirm whether this issue is being discussed, and whether, for example, Republics would have an easier time passing and changing laws?

Overall, very excited with this one - a great change from EU4's systems, while not taking on the micromanagement of VIcky 3's - just what I wanted!

 

[Arre_sv]

Johan, Please tell me if you will be able to change keybinds in "Eu5".

 

[SauronGorthaur]

It's getting harder to wait with each progressive Tinto Talks. And the next week's one also sounds like it's going to be a banger.