• 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 #3 - March 13th, 2024

Welcome to the third week of Tinto Talks, where we talk about our upcoming game, which has the codename “Project Caesar.” Today we are going to delve into something that some may view as controversial. If we go back to one of the pillars we mentioned in the first development diary, “Believable World,” it has 4 sub pillars, where two of them are important to bring forward to today.

Population
The simulation of the population will be what everything is based upon, economy, politics, and warfare.

Simulation, not Board Game.
Mechanics should feel like they fit together, so that you feel you play in a world, and not abstracted away to give the impression of being a board game.

So what does that mean for Project Caesar?
D4RGBO3N1xr8MhsfaTGT5DNNERZhnjijvnx4KgvFi0c2ZFBuMEvrfiht3yyayH6EloTJWJNKEh1VSCH_LsaJWUASqg1j0thITZivoIM3jtOzKM-IGlJFubDx6UZP-iMTRXmnCWAVsm5uKdmQD5F77i8


Every location that can be settled on the maps can have “pops,” or as we often refer to them in Project Caesar; People. Most of the locations have people already from the start of the game. Today we talk about how people are represented in our game, and hint at a few things they will impact in the game.

A single unit of people in a single location can be any size from one to a billion as long as they share the same three attributes, culture, religion, and social class. This unit of people we tend to refer to as a pop.
  • Culture, ie, if they are Catalan, Andalusi, Swedish, or something else.
  • Religion, ie, Catholic, Lutheran, Sunni etc. Nothing new.
  • Social Class. In Project Caesar we have 5 different social classes.
    • Nobles - These are the people at the top of the pyramid.
    • Clergy - These represent priests, monks, etc.
    • Burghers - These come from the towns and cities of a country.
    • Peasants - This is the bulk of the people.
    • Slaves - Only present in countries where it is legal.

TX1paNgsYnH4SO0ZWP2NOrbtNa8O20QO9w-Ps-VwjSN8uhMZca-pxt0P2kND5gOnejQfklB6AQpb_C3XH2cB9hF_6sd6GSxbsgygmOmvnUbPCfgWS_BvIq7fPQzBYgy0mYwAccRxR-vFvYfL5jptBMs



There are a few other statistics related to a Pop, where we first have their literacy, which impacts the technological advancement of the country they belong to, and it also impacts the Pop’s understanding of their position in life.

Another one is their current satisfaction, which if it becomes too low, will cause problems for someone. Satisfaction is currently affected by the country’s religious tolerance of their religion, their cultural view of the primary culture, the status of their culture, general instability in the country, <several things we can’t talk about just yet>, and of course specially scripted circumstances.

There are also indirect values and impacts from a Pop on the military, economical and political part of the game as well, which we will go into detail in future development diaries.

Populations can grow or decline over time, assimilate to other cultures, convert to religions, or even migrate.

Most importantly here though, while population is the foundation of the game, it is a system that is in the background, and you will only have indirect control over.

What about performance then?

One of the most important aspects of this has been to design this system and code it in a way that it scales nicely over time in the game, and also has no performance impact. Of course now that we talked about how detailed our map is with currently 27,518 unique locations on the map, and with many of them having pops, you may get worried.

14 years ago, we released a game called Victoria 2, that had 1/10th of the amount of locations, but we also had far more social classes (or pop-types) as we called them there. That game also had a deep political system where each pop cared about multiple issues, and much more that we don’t do here. All in a game that for all practical purposes was basically not multi-threaded in the gamelogic, and was still running fast enough at release.

Now we are building a game based on decades of experience, and so far the performance impact of having pops is not even noticeable.


Next week, we will talk about how governments work a bit, but here is a screenshot that some may like:

1710317019801.png
 
  • 432Love
  • 170Like
  • 17
  • 13
  • 11
Reactions:
Having 2 start dates like in every other title (except Stellaris and Victoria 3 for now) might please everyone.

A 1356 start and a 1453 start. The first one opens up new options and possibilities throughout the world. The second one avoids the gaminess of Byzantium doing a comeback while ensuring that the major powers are ready to enter the early modern period in a way that would resemble history.
This could be an acceptable compromise but i doubt it. There is a reason almost nobody starts EU4 games after 1444. The earlier one will be the default and will be the one that gets more attention by the devs. You even saw this in CK3 where 1066 was completely blindsided in Legacy of Persia.
 
  • 11
  • 1
Reactions:
Having 2 start dates like in every other title (except Stellaris and Victoria 3 for now) might please everyone.

A 1356 start and a 1453 start. The first one opens up new options and possibilities throughout the world. The second one avoids the gaminess of Byzantium doing a comeback while ensuring that the major powers are ready to enter the early modern period in a way that would resemble history.
I disagree. Maintaining even two start dates means with every expansion they'd have to spend development time to balance stuff twice, look for potential bugs twice, etc. I'd rather they get stuff right and balanced once instead of introducing half baked stuff twice.
 
  • 21
  • 2Like
Reactions:
really like how provinces (or whatever theyre called here) shows overlapping/mixed cultures instead of the hard borders that most paradox games have, im sure theres gonna be some qa to clean it up a bit but glad youre moving away from the hard borders that have traditionally been used
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm very happy to hear about the pops but I must say I'm very concerned about the start date. Early-Mid 1300s does not sound like a good start date for an early modern game. That is very much high medieval.
Certainly the game can cover a longer period but what's obvious from other Paradox games is that flavour won't be focused much beyond the start. If this game starts over 100 years before the core period its representing even starts then what does that say for the flavour in that period? It also makes me concerned that mechanics that should suits the 'core' of the period but might not be applicable for the start of the game won't be focused on, instead the opposite will be the case.

Of course if the game is a high medieval game and not an early modern game then that won't be the case. But with the maps focus on trade, and the pop with a ruff, it suggests some considerable disconnect.
 
  • 13
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I agree with the socio-poltical analysis here. However the middle ages are separated not only by historians but also by Paradox (until now i guess) from the early modern period for a reason. Much of what we interact with as players in these games was vastly different between these two ages and the more of the late middle ages gets shoehorned into a game supposedly about colonialism the more abstract and inaccurate the simulation has to become (which as far as i can tell is very important to the devs).
Not only accurate simulation without a game made specifically for the middle ages would be a problem but also the fact that we would have to wait well over 100 and up to 150 years until we reach the age of discovery and colonialism, and judging by the Infos we have so far seems to be a major focus of the game.
I don't really understand what the issue is. You're assuming you can't just speedrun any % colonisation at game start (I'm pretty sure guides will be out within days of release for this).

As a counter point I've seen some people argue for more Crusader Kings features in Europa Universalis, even if stripped down. So the argument that there's some fundamental difference between how the two periods worked doesn't compute, especially when the core gameplay of CK series about family ties and inheritance was still a hot scene of the political landscape well into the 19th century historically. So I'm stumped with what exactly you should be upset with having the start date be in the mid 1300s and not the mid 1400s.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Having 2 start dates like in every other title (except Stellaris and Victoria 3 for now) might please everyone.
It would definitely not please me. EU4's multiple start dates haven't been supported for most of the life of the game because keeping them viable and up-to-date is too resource intensive. I would much rather see Tinto put all of its efforts into a single date (the same strategy they've followed for the bulk of EU4's lifespan) than spread themselves too thin over two or more.
 
  • 10
  • 2
Reactions:
Would Scots not be the main language for Scotland at the time? So would the names not be in Scots.
Well yes, though you see what I mean.
 
I don't really understand what the issue is. You're assuming you can't just speedrun any % colonisation at game start (I'm pretty sure guides will be out within days of release for this).

As a counter point I've seen some people argue for more Crusader Kings features in Europa Universalis, even if stripped down. So the argument that there's some fundamental difference between how the two periods worked doesn't compute, especially when the core gameplay of CK series about family ties and inheritance was still a hot scene of the political landscape well into the 19th century historically. So I'm stumped with what exactly you should be upset with having the start date be in the mid 1300s and not the mid 1400s.

Bobemor sums up my main concerns better than i could i think
I'm very happy to hear about the pops but I must say I'm very concerned about the start date. Early-Mid 1300s does not sound like a good start date for an early modern game. That is very much high medieval.
Certainly the game can cover a longer period but what's obvious from other Paradox games is that flavour won't be focused much beyond the start. If this game starts over 100 years before the core period its representing even starts then what does that say for the flavour in that period? It also makes me concerned that mechanics that should suits the 'core' of the period but might not be applicable for the start of the game won't be focused on, instead the opposite will be the case.

Of course if the game is a high medieval game and not an early modern game then that won't be the case. But with the maps focus on trade, and the pop with a ruff, it suggests some considerable disconnect.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Extraneous to the topic.
But yes it can, you can just iterate over all the buildings included in the hashmap to do any calculations/effects you want and let's say you want a portion of that pop removed, you can deduct it from the value matching that key (building) and add it to another pop sharing same characteristics etc, but this is assuming we're talking C++, not modding language.
Aye it's a tangent that doesn't need to be continued here.

Yes we're talking C++. My point is: you're still doing the same number of calculations while iterating. The game still has to check whether the workforce of a building wants to change based on the rest of the job market. At present, the loop would be "for pop_i of all pops; for pop_j of all pops relevant to pop_i's local job market; calculate average wages for pop_i to compare to" (with averages appropriately cached). Looping through the aggregated pop's hashmap of buildings won't change how many calculations you are doing. Same amount of data, same number of lookups and calculations, structured differently but without improving spatial or temporal locality.

It's an alternate approach which wouldn't make a different to performance in my assessment, assuming existing game features aren't changed.
 
I don't think EU5 will feature "jobs", and thus there won't be a need to fragment populations as happens in Stellaris and Vicky. One could say it's sad, but for me it makes sense, in an era where ressources were much more "traditional" and you didn't have huge chain of productions.

The one thing I hope we have is, next to the graph saying how much of each category of Pop we have, how much influence they have. Because looking at graphs saying you have 90%+ as peasant will be incredibly common, and while it's fun to see for a completionist, there is not much point to it if you affect it very little in the span of the game.

I'm fine with a 13** stardate. What people see as too much potential for derailing history, I see as opportunity for new fantasies, hopefully derailed. (read, no mission trees)
 
  • 6Like
  • 1
Reactions:
It would definitely not please me. EU4's multiple start dates haven't been supported for most of the life of the game because keeping them viable and up-to-date is too resource intensive. I would much rather see Tinto put all of its efforts into a single date (the same strategy they've followed for the bulk of EU4's lifespan) than spread themselves too thin over two or more.

I wonder if that means that we would not see things like Ottomans and PLC too often in our games. After 100 years EU4 starts to divert from history for good.
 
Do you plan to have additional stratification within the pop classes? There are many additional distinctions which could be made within the pop classes according to a wide variety of categories such as wealth, land held, etc.

I imagine one such pop grouping could be noble-unlanded-mercenary-poor for a company of down-on-their luck condottieri.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Mechanics should feel like they fit together

This is incompatible with Paradox's DLC model. If mechanics may or may not be present depending on whether or not the player shelled out for absurdly priced DLC, then they can't be tied together too well. The EUIV problem.

I'd love to believe Paradox is turning a new leaf here, but I don't believe they'd abandon the DLC gravy train. So how are these going to be reconciled? Will the DLCs be cosmetic only like they were in Victoria II?
 
  • 4
Reactions:
I'm kinda curious how tribal/nomads will be handled,
Yeah, they should get a different system entirely. Presumably different governments give different emphasis on different classes. Like in China I would expect the Nobility to be less tied to the military than say in Medieval France. Likewise I'd imagine the nobility is de-emphasized in Italian republics, even done away with entirely for something like a Peasants Republic. Sounds like multiple nations will have slaves as a class disabled as well. Maybe more feudal nations have more restrictions on the peasantry than other governments (I have to assume that class advancement for pop's is a mechanic, and I wonder if like you'd prefer more peasants than more burgers in your nations or something).

Tribes might still have something like a nobility (a ruling class) but I think they should probably have their population be boiled down to like a singular 'tribal' class that's more versatile (plus slaves for when you conquer other tribes).
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I think the role nobility will play is that of a double edged sword, they will be against you or with you in terms of managing your lands. The clergy will be the drivers of religion and they can help pacify or radicalize the commoners. The commoners which are the burgers and the peasants will fuel your economy with production in towns and cities and with extraction in rural areas respectively. Slaves will be cheap labor that can cause problems if their numbers grow too much.

This game will practically be a coercion extraction cycle simulator with deeper levels of vassal interaction/integrating on a larger map that adds more tall gameplay through sheer volume.
 
Based off Byzantine population in last screen shot id say its probably 1337 start date as by 1356 they're probably too small for 1 million and the significant Bulgarian minority incorporated a lot of the western territory byzantines had at that time whereas in 1356 they had very little
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions: