• 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:
It sounds like climate is an amalgamation of temperature band and average precipitation. Could you not split it into those two instead? It would allow for even more granularity and would also potentially allow for all 4 values to work on a numerical scale which (I assume) could make it easier to script changes in environments like deforestation, desertification, land reclamation, volcanic cooling ect.
 
While most of them (including myself to some degree) have no actual idea what that accuracy entails. Most players know the broader area they are from and have a general idea about the exact geography of their home country or region, but the further you get from that, the less they know. That of course increases the need for an accurate portrayal (many claim they learn a lot about world geography from these types of games after all), but my point is that a significant portion of us wouldn't be able to tell the difference when it comes down to the little geographical details of the map, especially of areas half a world from us. And that is why, in my opinion, a globe, or any other hyper-realistic depiction is overkill, even for a game like this.
Yeah, but even when you are playing in a foriegn locale you want it to feel authentic. All video-games have to find a balance between simulation and abstraction, but most Paradox games err closer to simulation (compared to say Civilization). As an example- Paradox added a bunch of impassable wastelands to the Himalaya's in EU4 to better simulate how they were a massive obstacle for expansion to other large nations. Most players can agree even if they never play around the Himalaya's that for the sake of historical simulation they'd prefer that those wastelands serve that same purpose because it better simulates the history of the era.
...yes. like you said, maps... not globes...
A globe is just a spherical map. And one more authentic to the placement and size of landmasses.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Yeah, but even when you are playing in a foriegn locale you want it to feel authentic. All video-games have to find a balance between simulation and abstraction, but most Paradox games err closer to simulation (compared to say Civilization). As an example- Paradox added a bunch of impassable wastelands to the Himalaya's in EU4 to better simulate how they were a massive obstacle for expansion to other large nations. Most players can agree even if they never play around the Himalaya's that for the sake of historical simulation they'd prefer that those wastelands serve that same purpose because it better simulates the history of the era.

A globe is just a spherical map. And one more authentic to the placement and size of landmasses.
I prefer a map, it feels more natural to have a 2d representation of the world on your 2d computer screen, even if it's less accurate than a globe. Plus being able to see the whole world is nice in gsg games on the scale of eu4. I can definitely see the arguments for a globe though, but i won't lie i'm pretty happy with the map projection we got.
 
  • 6Like
Reactions:
A globe is just a spherical map. And one more authentic to the placement and size of landmasses.
For immersion, I prefer a flat map, much like what CK3 has. You wouldn't see monarchs at the time (or even now for that matter) planning stuff on a globe. It's always on a map, especially since the world is not fully discovered and the maps of the discoveries were not globes. The earliest surviving globe is from 1490-ish, which doesn't even depict the americas.

Regardless, at this point it's not worth discussing this further since it is a matter of preference, which is not debatable. However saying that the devs will regret not making this a globe is, in my opinion, wrong. Strategy games on a map is a tried and tested formula that works really well and if this is indeed EU5 it is my opinion that this game cannot afford to fail.

So I would support a globe only if it is a new game series or a revival of a game series (march of the eagles 2?).
 
  • 3
Reactions:
For immersion, I prefer a flat map, much like what CK3 has. You wouldn't see monarchs at the time (or even now for that matter) planning stuff on a globe. It's always on a map, especially since the world is not fully discovered and the maps of the discoveries were not globes. The earliest surviving globe is from 1490-ish, which doesn't even depict the americas.

Regardless, at this point it's not worth discussing this further since it is a matter of preference, which is not debatable. However saying that the devs will regret not making this a globe is, in my opinion, wrong. Strategy games on a map is a tried and tested formula that works really well and if this is indeed EU5 it is my opinion that this game cannot afford to fail.

So I would support a globe only if it is a new game series or a revival of a game series (march of the eagles 2?).
I completely disgree on it not being appropriate for the period. The discovery of the New World I think more than ever would justify a spherical map. Ideally I think that zoomed in an area like europe would be pretty flat, but then as you discover more and more provinces around the world, you see more and more of the curve of the earth. Granted- that's largely for theming purposes rather than a tangible gameplay benefit.
 
Will terrain types matter more for combat/attrition? Being further from "home" climate having scaling debuffs based on how hostile the climate is, and how far from home it is in terms of type could really help keep the Iberians out of North Africa and the Ottomans out of the Russian interior (since, unless this is vicky 4, the Iberians never conquered North Africa, and Russia is infamously hard to penetrate into)
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Okay, but that was about the Barbary/Japanese trades, and that was someone else's argument.
Not referring to you ofc.
Will terrain types matter more for combat/attrition? Being further from "home" climate having scaling debuffs based on how hostile the climate is, and how far from home it is in terms of type could really help keep the Iberians out of North Africa and the Ottomans out of the Russian interior (since, unless this is vicky 4, the Iberians never conquered North Africa, and Russia is infamously hard to penetrate into)
That will require attrition not to be capped, and climate and terrain to actually mean something.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
when doing granularity, it's always smart to add an extra level for future wiggle room. you don't think you need something between the sizes of Svealand (area) and Scandinavia (region) now, but oh boy, would it come in handy two years after release when you come up with a mechanic that'd work perfectly with a Sweden (land /country / other name of your choosing).

this mistake was already made with CK3's rigid take on small duchies and huge kingdoms; please don't repeat it with EU5 or whatever else Caesar turns out to be. ;)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
If the assumption that this is EU5 I think the naval passages should better reflect the trade winds and possible sailing routes.
The Southern Atlantic allows for weird direct passages between South America and Africa and from North towards the Cape. That is not possible due to the gyres, sailing along the coast of Africa was almost impossible, instead the ships needed to go first west and then only could later turn east. This is likely the reason how the Portuguese discovered Brazil by accident and they called it Volta do Mar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volta_do_mar

In this case the passage should go from Cape Verde towards the tip of Brazil towards the Cape of Good Hope. Might even separate the northwards passage could go along a slightly more direct route from the Cape of Good Hope to Cape Verde. (that might be too confusing though - so maybe a compromise would be interesting).


On a related note: I like the idea of locations, they could allow for an interesting more diverse colonization mechanic: You have just one location as a trading post on the cost Portugal style in Africa which can be established quicker than a larger scale, self-sufficient colony with farmlands / plantations around as happened in the Americas.
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Since the concept of 'woke' doesn't appear in any Paradox game, it is therefore IRL political commentary and has been treated accordingly.

HOI4 and beyond read this and laughed.

under vanilla CK3 you cannot make same-sex couples illegal. which was doable in ck2 and historically the case.
HOI4 removed certain mustache man making them a shadow in their own nation and later removing the certain flag.
in recent CK3 dlc, its very woman-centric, before people start throwing stones at me, I love women and I am glad that women of today do not have to deal with the bull of the past but women in the period that this game is talking about... yeah, they were not the most enlightened or accepting of times.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
While in development please don't forget the people who don't have the best and strongest pc and make the game have good performance on average setups
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Next week we’ll be back talking about something that could be rather controversial…
I absolutely loved what I have been reading this far, but this....

A warning: If you even dare think about taking away from us the control of our armies, im not buying this.

Edit: after reading dev responses, I have to say im sorry, this seems to be already answered in a way im perfectly happy with