• 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:
Know it was stated that there would be unpassable ocean tiles. Depending on what the time period of the game is, I would instead suggest is making then initially impassable, then able to be traverse later in the game via some progression check. How do-able does that seem engine wise?
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
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!
It absolutely is. There's natural railroading from things just being the best move to make in a given situation, but in a game like EU, with so many actors and involved elements, based on a time when opportunism was your route to success, something like Britain always going for North America and playing towards a "Rule the Waves" fantasy, then being handed India on a platter, is highly limiting and ruinous.

Being unable to compete with a rival because the devs gave them 6/5/4 admirals as a form of "flavor", or gave them such a massive headstart, relying on factors from a different timeline or just things they didn't have access to in your game, is utterly horrible. If your Spain can't secure a line of finance for naval expansion, or left the New World to Portugal and England, it shouldn't be gifted heavy ships from OTL just because 1500s Spain had an Armada to fight the Turks with.

It's nonsensical, it harms game balance, it cuts out mechanics, and it undermines the Alternate History premise of the game.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
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.
I agree! The term 'mana' is pejorative as in "something that falls into your lap over time". I won't even use the term because of that. It biases the discussion.

These are game "currencies". They are a must and can be a fun part of the game if the player can make choices and counter choices which influence how the 'production' of these 'currencies' change over time.

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.
The EU4 trade good scheme is not bad per se, but more game contribution of these goods would be very nice.

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.
Are you thinking HOI4 kind of customizable? I think you can have both stat effects as well as customizable units.


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.
Would be nice, especially with a leader leveling system.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
because we decided to not make a globe map engine, partially because it does not serve any purpose, as its so hard to get good overviews at a glance on those.

I think a globe would be real fun to have when exploring the new world, having the map start off largely flat, but you see more of the curve as you explore. Maybe in the future there could be tech to have globe and 2d maps you can swap back and forth as your needs demand.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
The EU4 trade good scheme is not bad per se, but more game contribution of these goods would be very nice.
My opnion is. The trade system and strategic value of having them is far to little. I would like them to have a more Civ 6 aproach on resources. You have a stockpile and monthly production. You don't need specific production like vic.
To build this troops i need iron. for example. No weapon factory or anything. Just iron.
To pops grow you need a steady production of foods in farms around that place, or import a steady supply of food to them grow over time. So you build food farms and supply to deposit in the winter.
You can also sell this goods and they go to trade value of the node for example. Or you reach your stock limit and all extra goes to the market.
So every province would produce a little of food and others would be expecialized on that. Horses, Iron, Naval suplies, Gunpowder, even elephants. Significant strategical resourcers than small duches and big empires should have diferent means of obtaining them. per trade. So trade don't become so superficial like eu4. Than when someone is pushing your trade you feel like you are being robbed. I want earn money selling tea to the british. Not cry because they have a merchant in my trade.
Are you thinking HOI4 kind of customizable? I think you can have both stat effects as well as customizable units.
I think is more. Units and unit roles in combat. Eu4 cavalary for example. Is a glorified infantary with an almost obsolete flanking system. Underplay the strengh of the cavalary even in periods she should still be effective in combat. You don't have distinction of light and heavy cavalary. In eu4 combat is not the focus. But it's TOO simplistic and many things could be improved. Attack formations, type of unit in combat.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Love the retooling of sea-travel, great for thematics, probably good for gameplay because it would allow people to blockade or pirate specific trade routes. If, as people are assuming, Caesar is EU5, I think trade was one of the areas of the game which no amount of DLC revision could fundamentally fix, in that it felt unintuitive and often unrewarding - these changes are very promising! In general though, it begs the question of how will naval itself change?

The biggest issues with naval in EU4 is that it was too easy to avoid or trivialize. A mediocre player like myself really only used it to make island-hopping invasions or cheese an enemy army into being stuck on an island, something I'm not aware of happening historically. And when it came to what to build, it seemed to amount to 'can you afford heavies? Build heavies. Cant afford heavies and not at sea? Build galleys. Wanna trade? Build lights. Wanna win? Build more. There's no way to replicate, for example, the exploits of Yi Sun Shin, single-handedly kneecapping the Japanese invasion of Korea through naval action, since oversea-supply of armies isn't simulated. Naval should feel more thematic, more strategic, and more important, especially to trade.

If you're not an island nation in EU4, you really don't need a navy that much, until you're so rich that it's trivial to have one. Every nation with ocean access should want a navy, and having one should affect income, available resources (like V3/Imperator) and maybe even technology growth - it should affect society. Global trade fundamentally changed the world, not just because it made some people rich and some dishes spicy, but because it spread ideas - and aside features like changing your merchant's activity at a specific node, this just isn't part of EU4. I'm really excited to see how this can change in Caesar. Godspeed Johan!
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I hope they don't shy away from it. This is pretty much a history simulator. Slavery is very important to be represented, both transatlantic and otherwise. I don't like how it is in EU4 at all. Here's hoping!
Speaking of Pops I think this would be a good way of handling it. African nations would sell off pops that get shipped to the america's, which devalues the African continent (historic) while building up the America's in terms of value and wealth (historical). I don't know if there would be some sort of 'class' system like in Imperator, but I guess there'd have to be in order to prevent ahistoric stuff, like say a black president in 1660 (then again, Haiti is a thing). Naturally african cultured pops in the America's would probably convert culturally over time to something like 'afro-american'.

This'd also be a good way to handle minority religions or populations in areas- european jews as an example. It could also be fun for starting wars- once Nationalism CB's are unlocked if someone has enough pop's in their territory you can declare war to 'liberate' them (as happened historically).
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
This is amazing. It warms my heart that you guys take so many good and reasonable choices going into this game. So much is here that I thought could be better. This all sounds very promising!
 
African nations would sell off pops that get shipped to the america's, which devalues the African continent (historic)
The African continent wasn't "devalued". There was just a low upper limit to the potential population density, and the Portuguese-Maldives connection kicked off a currency crisis and arms race when the value of labor there was far beneath the value of labor in the Americas.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
In stellaris you can literally genocide entire races and even convert them to food for your population. I don't see any outrage about that, so I think accurate historical slavery portrayal won't be an issue
Aliens eating each other won't have journalists hounding your studio the way making an "African slave-trading tycoon game" will. Portugal runs will be a meme unto themselves.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned it yet--I've only combed through about 10 pages--but, will we be seeing a multiplayer chat system like in other Paradox titles, such as EUIV, HOI4, et cetera? It really seemed strange to me that titles like Victoria 3, Imperator: Rome and Crusader Kings III dropped this essential feature, considering it's many uses. One of which--being a primary use--to send Discord links when necessary. I believe this feature alone--even if not necessarily being used for its original use-case--is a big reason why the HOI4 and EU4 multiplayer communities today are so large, considering how those who wanted to play MP could find communities so easily, rather than having to dig through the forums and Reddit constantly.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I wish this had been on the main forum page because this looks like a great map. Locations will do so much for the game.

I can imagine players wanting to do one location challenges already.

Too few islands! I want more! I need more islands!!! I want every single island in the world to be in this game! I LOVE ISLANDS!


View attachment 1089684

Well, if they include Jan Mayen, then they would have to nerf it :D

I think the southern atolls of the Seychelles are present, but I hope that barren islands with few resources are no more than potential outposts.

And I can see some added island locations in the Mediterranean, with a noticeable change to supersized Venice.

Looks like the Caspian Sea is navigable.

If they have shallow water tiles, then restricting ships of certain sizes in them would be nice.

Places like the Venetian Lagoon or the Sri Lanka strait crossing should not have ships larger than possibly a galley or transport moving through them.

However it is done, it is a pleasant addition.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The African continent wasn't "devalued". There was just a low upper limit to the potential population density, and the Portuguese-Maldives connection kicked off a currency crisis and arms race when the value of labor there was far beneath the value of labor in the Americas.
What I mean is that slavery (unsurprisingly) was something that set African nations back as it incentivized warfare to capture slaves and depopulated the continent while propping up governments that got easy money and guns from europeans. Which backfired on African governments as while they started off fairly on par with medieval european kingdoms, they ended up impovershed by the time African colonization kicked in. And EU4 didn't accurately simulate the damaging effects of the slave trade.
Aliens eating each other won't have journalists hounding your studio the way making an "African slave-trading tycoon game" will. Portugal runs will be a meme unto themselves.
Maybe spend less time wringing your hand anxiously about what people on the internet are gonna do.
 
  • 8
Reactions:
Way to miss the point. I'm saying the devs will naturally worry about it.
That's their problem. We are here to say what we, the players, would want. I am not going to suggest them to do a lite-slavery mechanism because some random internet person's feelings will be hurt. It is up to them to make the best possible mechanism while remaining respectful to the history behind it.

Let them worry about implementation, they know it better than any of us, and we worry about giving tons of ideas, and at the end we will have a kickass game.
 
  • 6Like
Reactions:
In stellaris you can literally genocide entire races and even convert them to food for your population. I don't see any outrage about that, so I think accurate historical slavery portrayal won't be an issue
From my experience, most players acts based on following quote - "One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic". So, i not suprised that there no outrage.
Personally, i believe that things that happen in video games is just things that happen in video games, you can do whatever you want in them, as it's all just fantasy and have no impact on real life.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
and your tone comes across as censorship of history.
You're misreading me. I've looked at this issue before, and I understand how it affected EU4's development.
There really is just a sizable number of journalists who could and would do harm to PDX if given enough material to work with.
Everyone who mentions the word woke is just looking to engage in the culture war. If you actually believe in what you're doing you have no need to fear the 'woke mob' cause you can actually defend what you made. In the case of making a historical video-game, I'm sure Paradox can easily point to the fact they're not endorsing colonialism and slavery, they are portraying what happened, as well as the historical factors that went into it.
  1. I was not the one to bring up "woke"-ness.
  2. Counting on people to be rational, especially with the existing stereotypes here being what they are, is a bit optimistic.