• 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 #2 - March 6th, 2024

Welcome to the second week of Tinto Talks, where I talk about the design we have for our new top secret game, which we refer to as “Project Caesar.” Today we’ll delve into everyone's favorite topic, MAPS!

Let's begin with the projection we chose for this game. In the past we have used the Mercator or Miller projection which has some severe drawbacks, as you are all aware of. As we are restricted to a cylindrical map, we had to pick the least bad of them, which is why we went with the Gall Stereographic projection.

Why is that one good? Well, it keeps areas we care most about, those in the middle latitudes, bigger without making the poles ridiculously oversized or the equator too undersized. It also has a reasonable conformal shape, meaning that the shape of the continents stays the closest to their real areas and angles without sacrificing a recognizable shape of them.


_9PYO04WeWxinmQ908H0ppIYzOEd8G2dr52m_sYlaiZCJTC9v8lfhYlwitil4ywR_ubig2b1QpP4bQA4ky64uRQ7K4kbdJ_04sVET3P9zxdJ6iSnlxfUVXloVVO2HyERtafi-H-gZJ3or_Mph8rpu-8




In most of our games set in the past, we have used the word of province for the smallest piece of clay on the map. However, with the map design we are doing for this game, it does not really thematically fit, as the map is more granular, and what people associate with a real-world province would not fit. So we went to a terminology we had used in the code since the first game we made in the old Europa Engine, which was “Location.”

So now our smallest subdivision is referred to as a Location, while a group of locations is a Province, and a group of provinces is an Area, and a group of areas is called a Region, and a group of regions is called a Subcontinent, and a group of subcontinents is called a Continent.

If we take the home of Paradox Interactive, it’s located in our location ‘Stockholm,’ which is in the province of ‘Uppland,’ which is in the “Svealand” area, which is in the “Scandinavia” region, which is part of the “Western Europe” sub continent, which is in the “Europe” continent.

Gre-y6NV8yptHswc5j9-UnVNHPeOEsitmYiVuF2SikujmPsgHVlYhIcfxqYxnFtOuZHuL6oOVwTkiLfLuZ4Mmvfr5q5rFx_pqKjXNd8ESvThSSUMVipKqnMPkr0_R9qJ_MkIp5Z6hkokcvqDF6RXNxg


Now you may wonder, why did we go with such granularity on a map like this? Well, this is entirely gameplay driven, from making a deep engaging gameplay peacetime possible, to better controlling the pacing of the game, and also to allow for more fun military campaigns.

We have tried to make provinces as historical as possible when it comes to borders, while trying to keep the size of the locations consistent, with a more or less regular progression from the smallest to the biggest, with our rule of thumb is that a location shouldn't have more than 3 times the number of pixels compared to a neighboring one.

So is the entire globe then divided into lots of tiny locations? No, as there are 4 types of locations, and for these we have taken heavy inspiration from the maps of Imperator and Victoria 3.

The first type of location is of the more uniform size. For a land location this would be the normal location that can be settled, and for a sea location, this would be a coastal sea location, or any location adjacent to a coastal sea location.

The second type is the “sea current” locations, which connect coastal areas with each other, allowing travel faster in 1 direction.

hxSrFrvpHBRP7C1FzL7yF3v_e1OeEsWIdkc4p9rQwiCUkYKRLlHjcghVclap33tUUDok0b-Bd1AACqYHvsCeVG25A1sKKd-5ua3cLsJVNJwQi-z9bpHG-IuM66UJwVBzg8ofGPX1_JE22mMiHS0y4nU


The third is what we call an “impassable wasteland,” which can be used to describe parts of Sahara, Greenland, or other places where hardly any people live even today. We also use these types for the majority of the water covering the oceans.

Finally, we have what we currently call “passages.” These are land locations that can not be settled by anyone, but can still be traversed by an army, with some insanely heavy attrition, or allow trade to pass through. Think of passages across the Saharan desert.

Speaking of desert... In a lot of our games we define each province as having a single terrain value, like Forest, Tundra, or Desert. This is rather limiting because eventually you end up with a huge list of complex things like “Arctic Forested Hill” or “Desert Mountain.” What we have done in Project Caesar is to take a deep look at how we did this in Victoria 2, where we had split terrain into topography and vegetation, and take it further. Now we have 3 different values in each location:

  • Climate - Includes things like Arid, Arctic, Continental, etc.
  • Topography - Flatland, Hills, Mountains etc.
  • Vegetation - Forest, Woods, Farmlands, Desert, etc.

What the actual gameplay impact of these is, we’ll talk about much later… Sorry.

Next week we’ll be back talking about something that could be rather controversial…
 
  • 267Love
  • 183Like
  • 16
  • 9
  • 2Haha
Reactions:
Topography wise I do feel like Portugal is a bit too flat:

GDB22aZW4AE8lEo.jpeg


The central range, Serra da Estrela should be impassable at the very least.

But I'm not from the mainland so please do correct me if I'm wrong.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Topography wise I do feel like Portugal is a bit too flat:

View attachment 1090861

The central range, Serra da Estrela should be impassable at the very least.

But I'm not from the mainland so please do correct me if I'm wrong.
Well, without an actual terrain map it would be impossible to know if it's too flat or not, it might even be mostly mountainous terrain as far as we know (albeit probably not the case).

As far as it being impassable or not, again it depends a bit on the standard, as some places seem to clearly have much stricter standards than others, i think there is as much of a gameplay reason as a strictly geographical one.

I see Sierra Morena (1,332) in Spain, the Highlands (1,345) in Scotland and the Massif Central (1,886) in France, all being impassable, while the Serra da Estrela (1,993) is higher than all of them. So Serra da Estrela most definitely makes the cut.

As for the rest of the mountains, using the ~1,350m standard that has precedent in Scotland and Andalusia as a cut-off point, the impassable areas would look something like this:
1709914124311.png
(A sort of a dorsal spine in the northern half of the country.)
I think there are historical and gameplay reasons to justify a couple more small impassable tiles in those areas other than Serra da Estrela, to create some more chokepoints.
Historically speaking most the major invasions of Portugal tended to happen from the South, and those which attempted to cross through this dorsal spine didn't work out well.
Also, the historical lay out of Portuguese fortifications was exactly made with this geography in mind
1709915627504.png
, so it would definitely add some strategic depth to what would otherwise would be a small, simple and boring theatre.
 
Last edited:
  • 9
  • 1Like
Reactions:
as its so hard to get good overviews at a glance on those.
What about double view modes? We can just switch from one to another.
 
From those visualizations I actually think the biggest missing routes are Cape of Good hope <---> Straight of Malacca passing south of Madagascar. It seems one of the most prominent routes IRL, but not possible on this map.

Meanwhile, we have that Australia <---> North of Madagascar lane that seems absent in the historical data. Might as well scrap it to make place for those others?

The routes in the Atlantic can be somewhat approximated by the current setup I think. Though you are right, it could probably be improved by centring the routes a bit more strictly on Cape Verde, and adding an Azores <---> Cape Verde Lane curving through the open ocean.

I wonder if Johan can discuss the reasoning behind the choice of sealanes yet. Is it purely from historical data? Or also theoretical possibilities from real currents that went unused?
Yeah, I totally forgot to even look at the Indian Ocean lol, that's a huge one missing for sure.

As for justifications, given how far off any sort of release this probably is I wouldn't be surprised if it's just a rough early draft or placeholder iteration kind of deal.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
One thought here, with the new sea tiles, is that fabricating claims, if that's going to be a mechanic in the new game, won't be across adjacent sea zones. At the very least
 
One thought here, with the new sea tiles, is that fabricating claims, if that's going to be a mechanic in the new game, won't be across adjacent sea zones. At the very least
Since every land is surrounded by a navigable sea tile, I don’t think it will be the case.
 
We have a map.
Let’s talk about rivers!

1. Rivers are a very important part of human relationships, and throughput history they have been one of the most important terrain features to condition trade, diplomacy, war or colonisation. Yet, up until now they are not such a relevant feature in Paradox games. How can this be improved?
2. Trade - the commercial value of a river is higher when you control (or have good relationships with upstream locations). This should be reflected in the game, making the trade bonus of river provinces higher when the player owns or has good relationships across long sections of the river.
3. Diplomacy - countries that share a river should have diplomatic events regarding the shared custody of the river. If there is a dry period, upstream countries might retain water and dry downstream provinces. If countries have a good relationship, a shared river should provide additional diplomatic bonus.
4. War - Crossing the Rhine should not be the same as crossing the Manzanares…Some major rivers were very hard to cross and this should be reflected in the game. Higher defensive bonus and lower costs for fortifications are two ways to increase the importance of holding a river frontier.
5. Colonisation - Rivers were spearheads of colonisation. The Mississipi, the Congo, the Rio de la Plata…River locations should be significantly easier to colonize. The players colonisation path should proceed faster if along an important river.

Hope these arguments are able to convince Paradox to look further into rivers this time!
Keep up the good work guys.
 
  • 15
  • 2Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
For a more detailed comment on the map:
Cape Verde should have a more direct sea connection to Brazil as it was an important port on the Portuguese routes to Brazil.
Not only for Portugal but also Spain to get to La Plata
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I love this change, I would like to see trade winds, sea currents, and storms not only impacting movement but also trade and naval combat. I much prefer the sea currents to the open ocean of eu5, I think it'll make naval combat far more engaging. It would be awesome if winds really affected where you could go with sailing ships, like with the Caribbean where you have to enter from the windward islands and exit to the north, giving a movement penalty or another obstacle to trying to sail opposite to the winds would amazingly in-depth.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I saw Johan posted "Absolutely not" to Victoria 3 warfare question.
I am sure he knows this but warfare was not the main reason for the player drop in that game. So denying the possibility of automation of army management is actually worse for me. If he meant that by "Absolutely not".
Also looks like the next week topic will be about warfare so lets see.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
Greetings Johan and team,

As someone with over 6,000 hours in EU4, who has hosted well over 1,000 multiplayer sessions and has modded the game quite a bit (For balance and gameplay of vanilla) I *implore* you to at the very least read and consider my thoughts.

1. I do not think 'mana' is necessarily the problem many say it is. I think it's how it is used. For example, you can develop a 1-1-1 province in the desert to the most well developed mega city in the world in a day by clicking the arbitrary "develop province" button. Mana isn't necessarily the issue here - it's how it is used. I think this goes for other mechanics as well. Development should take time, monetary investment, buildings, and investment into the populace. It should, imo, be passive, perhaps from laws + trade + investments, and direct, from the crowns personal investing in the area, etc.

2. Trade goods and production. Please, make trade goods matter, and make provinces have more than 1. Taking a gold mine and having an immediate gold income feels bad (sort of) and even more so with other trade goods. They mostly seem arbitrary and are nothing more than an image that means how much money you'll make from owning this province. Provinces should have natural resources and arable land akin to Victoria 3. You should be able to develop it - build mines, logging camps, expanding farms, etc. It doesn't have to be as deep as Vic 3, but it needs to be impactful. Your troops should require a semblance of goods. Maybe the most basic melee troops require only a basic blacksmith, iron, some coal/charcoal, and cloth (And food) - but when you want to start equipping your armies with guns, you should have to build buildings to convert resources into guns. Etc. Same for building material, etc. There was just as much colonization in EUs timeframe as Victoria! Resources were important! Industrialization started in EUs timeframe, too! It should have a similar system to Victoria that ramps up as the game progresses. This is, imo, the most important thing to add. Resources, have them matter, have them need infrastructure to be used, and have some sort of pop system, preferably closer to Vic than Imperator.

3. Please, make armies more customization and make the ideas system less "10% this thing". You should have way more customization over your troops gear, training, and tactics, and leadership. Think of the DLC flavor possibilities for that kind of system :) Currently EU4 has a very barebones, and dare I say it, bad system. You have "units" (stats) based on your culture and technology, that's it.

4. Please make leaders more important. It doesn't need to be Vic 3 level, but your monarch/ruler, generals, admirals, advisors, etc should be more of a 'person' than they are in eu4.

5. For the love of God, please don't leave multiplayer to die for no reason! Add a chat! I don't understand why CK3 and Vic 3 for example have no chat boxes... it's a mechanic from like, the early 90s guys! And please PLEASE don't make multiplayer unplayable with mods like Vic 3, where if you have more than 1 mod everyone gets a different checksum and cannot join the game.

6. This one will be more of a collection, and more my personal gripes. Please, don't have an overburdening UI that keeps opening up when not being used (Victoria 3, especially the lens at the bottom. If I click building on the left, I don't want the building lens to open up and take a 4th of my screen space and require me to close it every time!) - The EU UI could be better for sure, but it doesn't need to be a massive chunky thing, EU4 at least has a clean tidy UI! And lastly, please let the game be playable on release. I know whoever makes the decision really wants to release content from EU4 in EU5 for $30 in 2 years, but try to keep a decent amount of content and flavor.

Flavor/railroading is not bad! It's what players are going to do anyway, and if not, they can choose not to use the flavor!

I genuinely think EU5 has strong potential to be one of the best strategy games ever made. It just needs to keep a similar content level to EU4 - perhaps have enough fun gameplay mechanics that you don't need missions for everyone on release. It needs resources, it needs them to matter, and it needs way more army customization. Things to do at peace, of course, and a functioning multiplayer.

Thank you for reading this. I just want to see EU5 be the amazing game it can (and will hopefully) be.
 
  • 4
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
We have a map.
Let’s talk about rivers!

1. Rivers are a very important part of human relationships, and throughput history they have been one of the most important terrain features to condition trade, diplomacy, war or colonisation. Yet, up until now they are not such a relevant feature in Paradox games. How can this be improved?
2. Trade - the commercial value of a river is higher when you control (or have good relationships with upstream locations). This should be reflected in the game, making the trade bonus of river provinces higher when the player owns or has good relationships across long sections of the river.
3. Diplomacy - countries that share a river should have diplomatic events regarding the shared custody of the river. If there is a dry period, upstream countries might retain water and dry downstream provinces. If countries have a good relationship, a shared river should provide additional diplomatic bonus.
4. War - Crossing the Rhine should not be the same as crossing the Manzanares…Some major rivers were very hard to cross and this should be reflected in the game. Higher defensive bonus and lower costs for fortifications are two ways to increase the importance of holding a river frontier.
5. Colonisation - Rivers were spearheads of colonisation. The Mississipi, the Congo, the Rio de la Plata…River locations should be significantly easier to colonize. The players colonisation path should proceed faster if along an important river.

Hope these arguments are able to convince Paradox to look further into rivers this time!
Keep up the good work guys.
I also hope there's many rivers appearing on the map like in CK3. Victoria 3 was a big downgrade, it doesn't even have Daugava and Arax.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions: