Tinto Talks #3 - March 13th, 2024

[Algaudas]

I only logged in to say that like some others here i worry about a start date earlier then the 15th century, but i also hope that the game would cover the 18th century like all previous EU games had, but this time successfully implementing the changes that happened during that time period like revolutions, colonization etc.

 

[MrMcQue]

Johan answered this elsewhere in the forums a few days ago. The more formal answer is that different algorithms have different scaling complexity as the quantity of data entities increases. "Must do X for each pop in the game, doesn't need to look at anything else but itself" plays a lot nicer for performance than "Each pop must talk to each other pop {for some group} to calculate something".

Curious timing, the HoI dev diary this week discusses whether the game sees itself as a historical WW2 simulator first and foremost. The answer was "we're a 20th century war simulator first, we happen to use that to cover WW2 but you don't have to". And indeed, there are non-mod ways to architect a very different global conflict than what historically happened. Just need to tell some 10 AIs which railroads to take to synergise and create a train wreck that's satisfying to play through.

This was more about the theatres of the dlcs, not whether or not ww2 actually happens.

There are some who believe that ww2 and the Eastern Front is the only thing that matters during that time, which it obviously isn't.

In the same way i'm not against giving content to South America in HoI4 and portraying the aftermath of the War of the Pacific, i'm not against giving content to the African tribes around Lake Vicotria in EU4.

However some form of WW2 still happens in 90% of the games on ahistorical (albeit with differently alligned nations) while it happens 100% of the time on historical.

 

[SAmaster]

Starting the game at a significantly different date than 1444 is interesting if nothing else than for getting a vastly different starting setup than the last 10 years.
I hope it is not actually earlier than ~1350 though, because having to face the Black Death at the start of every game would be annoying, if not straight up depressing.

If it is such an early start without also having a significantly earlier end, I do think it would be good to have one more start date; one where colonization is expanding beyond just Portugal and Spain, and the Reformation is looming or already started. Because these things would be over 150 years out from a ~1350 start date.
The 2 start setup is something I appreciate in CK3; I like that I can start from the bottom, or start where I actually get to have the vital techs from the start for partition, revoking titles, and holding construction.

And it would just be neat to follow up the years of 1444 with start dates in the 1300's and the 1500's.

You know- thinking on how to start the game, I'd love if some options were given like in Crusader Kings or Hearts of Iron to mess up the starting conditions. Like- wouldn't you want to play a game as the Aztecs where the Europeans never colonize?

Some suggestions:
>Break up the major powers at the start date as much as possible.
>Alternatively, certain countries can be toggled to start already fully formed (Ottomans, France, European Russia etc.)
>Buffs or debuffs to certain tags (in case someone wants to turn the Ottomans into the Hyper Ottomans)
>Faster or slower tech research across the board
>Ahistoric gender quality
>Ahistoric gender inequality (keep the women or men chained to the bedpost)
>Nuke continents (remove all tags in places like Western Europe or India)
>Tech equality (let the Ryukans invent canons and conquer the world)

 

[SAmaster]

You know- thinking on how to start the game, I'd love if some options were given like in Crusader Kings or Hearts of Iron to mess up the starting conditions. Like- wouldn't you want to play a game as the Aztecs where the Europeans never colonize?

Some suggestions:
>Break up the major powers at the start date as much as possible.
>Alternatively, certain countries can be toggled to start already fully formed (Ottomans, France, European Russia etc.)
>Buffs or debuffs to certain tags (in case someone wants to turn the Ottomans into the Hyper Ottomans)
>Faster or slower tech research across the board
>Ahistoric gender quality
>Ahistoric gender inequality (keep the women or men chained to the bedpost)
>Nuke continents (remove all tags in places like Western Europe or India)
>Tech equality (let the Ryukans invent canons and conquer the world)

Oh also- cause I like the pirate republics in EUIV, there should be an option for automatic piracy. All pirate republics just start spawned in the game (and maybe some tags that historically embraced piracy like Tsushima or the Sulu islands just start as pirates).

Also: If someone has pirated the game this option is hard locked in, and the pirates all get a x10 buff, but you are locked from playing as them.

 

[Dwicarucymru]

So I assume that the usage of "Sunni" implies that the Sunni sect isn't going to be divided into a bunch of schools of theology like in CK3. This is probably for the best since the way CK3 handled it was weird at times.

One of the few things I dislike about CK3. They make it seem like different schools of thought or different rites within a religion (like the Mozarabic rite of Catholicism) are entirely separate religions. Their wasn't any "Mozarabic Church", it was just a rite in the Latin Church (and still is actually). It's especially dumb IMO since other rites that still existed like the Gallican rite and the still extant Ambrosian rite don't get represented but for some reason the Mozarabic and Insular do?

 

[Malivamar]

Suggestion regarding the playability of armies and the role of generals and faction leaders:

(i know its a bit early for that, but you guys mentioned wanting early feedback so that it could be easy to implement)

I think Paradox should replicate something *similar* to the Imperator system, where you can assign your king as general and has the option to assign (potentially disloyal) generals to other armies, with the player able to control only the army that their king is leading directly and the other armies being friendly AI (that you can still give targets to similar to vassals in EU4). With disloyal generals acting similar to Imperator with the chance of starting a civili war or doing a Coup d'Eta

Just please dont bind the monarch to only being able to lead levies, (if you implement that system too).

The reasons why this would be a good system:

- we are starting in an era that still sees many warrior-kings, and the player gets to understand this is out of necesity, since powerfull nobles might obey for a while, and then try to act on their own best interests, even against you
(Think Francisco Pizarro in America, where he eventually disobeyed the monarch, refused to give up command, and had to be fought to submission by another army).

- this removes the annoying micro-management of many armies players force themselves to do to play "optimally".

- This makes the player less overpowered, as they cant cheese the AI with many tiny stacks

- because theres now maaany more regions, paying attention to optimal positioning and movement becomes possible and fun, like a game of cat and mouse, while before in EU4 there werent enough regions for it to matter often, and in Imperator, you still had to manage several armies and so couldnt realistically pay much attention to any individual army except in the very early game.

- Creates a MUCH stronger sense of attachment to the leader character, as you are essentially playing them directly and cant just whisk them away and replace them with a general one day before battle.

- it introduces extra political strategic challenge; you might do wonders controlling your army directly, but what if your king is a bad general? Now you gotta weigh the advantage of potentially losing battles vs letting someone else handle it but without your direct control. Or if being able to fight in a hill is enough to overcome their bad leadership.

- rogue generals are now meaningfull threats, if your monarch's legitimacy is low and the people are unsatisfied, and then has also let someone else take control of the only army, this noble might find its their chance to march on the capital. So it encourages more pacifism or political play first, having a high level of political satisfaction before going to war if you have a monarch you cant risk in battle.

- maybe more modern societies / absolutists states eventually become so organized, that the player gains the ability to control all armies directly, while it remains unfeasable for less organized societies.

 

[shuizhu]

>Population

Already preordered 5 copies.

Edit: Having read the rest of the post, I have added 2 more preorders. This is everything I've always wanted.

how do you preordered the game when there isn't even a game tile?

 

[Awesomealan1]

I saw a few mentions of political parties/pop politics, and while I understand that there is a case to be made against implementing them due to it being integral to Victoria 2/3, I'd really love if a "political revolution" style event would appear in the 18th century and beyond, which slowly integrates a rising presence of political parties and ideologies into nations that it makes sense to appear in, as well as different ideologies being spawned in various locations. It would be a late game mechanic, and would just add more flavor to the end while not taking too much away from EU's identity, and not borrowing too much from Victoria's identity. With this mechanic, you'd be able to enable historical settings, ahistorical settings, etc,

(like early pseudo-"socialism"/"communism" being developed by a thriving Native American world power, who then spends the late game attempting to politically influence the surrounding nations, as one example of an ahistorical possibility)

I'd see it as similar to the way EU4 handles the revolution mechanics, where it appears towards the late game. With this mechanic, the rise of integral politics will unlock the pop ideologies mechanic, and would have a more profound impact on the more democratic-esque nations, republics, and federations. I also think it would be SO healthy for the end-game, I feel. The end game has always been criticized in EU4 in the sense that many can find it boring if they've already achieved all of their goals, which is why adding very late game mechanics, though only for a small moment in the grand scheme of the entire game's timeline, can still add for some very interesting late-game interactions, roleplay opportunities, and a balance of power/potential hindrance within the nations that see it most prominently, and would add a lot of depth to the end game, starting somewhere in the 1700's, as it segue's into the timeline of Victoria 2/3, which has these similar systems on full display - maybe even implementing this into the revolution mechanics in and of itself?. It'd be great as a sort of transition between games, especially if EU5, or, *cough*, Project Caesar is played all the way until 1830, while Victoria 3 begins in 1831. (Or 1819, the birth of Queen Victoria, but the longer the game, the better IMO and more opportunity for late-game mechanics that are just as interesting as early game mechanics!)

 

[Arizal]

@Awesomealan1 There needs to be "factions", but not "political parties". Those didn't even existed in the modern sense during most of the XIXth century.
Having nobles fighting to get the ear of the king (or replace him) is perfectly alright, though.

 

[Demetrios]

So if the header image showing various states with the amount of population is from the start date, wouldn’t that imply a start prior to 1347 due to no independent bahmani sultanate?

But after 1335, as the Ilkhanate is apparently in the process of breaking up

 

[MastL]

This UI seems to be not very cool, it should have done more stylized

 

[Don_Quigleone]

I generally approve of this system.

My only gripe would be that such accurate numbers feel historically "inauthentic". If we consider any time prior to the 19th century (I think it's safe to assume "project Caesar" is pre-19th century...), there were no censuses and rulers only had a faint idea of how many people they had. In this way it might actually make more sense to represent in-game populations as approximations, say instead of 64,321 the game instead showed you "~65,000", or "Large Sunni Andalusi community", or similar.

Of course, this all needs to be balanced against gameplay, but I do think it's important to maintain a sense of historical immersion.

 

[MastL]

Is the first population screenshot based on tags?

It looks like a TINY COUNTRY HELL.

If this is true,how could all these tiny tags playable?

 

[rawislon03]

I honestly don't think this start date is as early as 1330. Yunnan being it's own entity and the Delhi sultanates potential borders points to a date where the sultanate is in decline, headed towards further fracturing and a Timurid invasion.
Beyond the borders of Delhi, it's also apparent that Yunnan is a separate entity from China, which could only be historically possible if we were looking at a setting around the rise of the Ming Dynasty, when a Mongol prince continued to rule Yunnan and resist the Ming into the early 1380s.

 

[rawislon03]

To specify, I

I honestly don't think this start date is as early as 1330. Yunnan being it's own entity and the Delhi sultanates potential borders points to a date where the sultanate is in decline, headed towards further fracturing and a Timurid invasion.
Beyond the borders of Delhi, it's also apparent that Yunnan is a separate entity from China, which could only be historically possible if we were looking at a setting around the rise of the Ming Dynasty, when a Mongol prince continued to rule Yunnan and resist the Ming into the early 1380s.

To specify, I believe Yunnan being represented as separate from China represents this Mongol Prince holding out against the Ming.

Basalawarmi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[I Couldn't Decide]

I've been seeing a lot of debate on an earlier start-date, so here's my take on it:

1. The earliest possible date would be 1347. This is the most likely, based on China's population, the lack of an independent Bahmanis, the independent Yunnan (probably a subject of the Yuan), and the generally fractured look of Delhi.
2. Next up is 1353. This is right at the tale end of the Black Death; any earlier and we'd either be hit by it within the first few years, or we'd be in the midst of it. Not only is 1353 the end of the Black Death, but it was also the start of transformations in European polities. While 1453 is usually regarded as the end of the "middle ages," the Black Death was the major catalyst for many changes, primarily involving the common peoples (due to the fact that there were less of them). Likely to be an alternate start date.
3. The next possible date would be 1368, the fall of the Yuan dynasty in China. If there are multiple start dates, this is almost certainly going to be one of them.
4. The Timurid dynasty (Gurkani) was founded in 1370.
5. 1380 sees the Battle of Kulikovo, where Moscovy first secures some semblance of independence from the Mongols. It's also just about a year before the Peasants' Revolt in England.
6. 1393 is the date at which the Ottoman conquest of Bulgaria was (mostly) finished. Similar reasoning to 1444. Also likely to be an alternate start date (though less likely than the fall of the Yuan).
7. Portugal conquered Ceuta in 1415, which is also considered the start of the Age of Discovery. Likely to be an alternate start date.
8. 1444. No need to explain this one.
9. 1453. Fall of Constantinople and end of the "middle ages." Latest possible date.

I've seen the argument that it could be as early as the 1330s, and while I'll grant that I don't know much about the Sultanate of Delhi, I don't really know if that's the best date (that said, 1337 is also the beginning of the Hundred Years' war).

Note that any date after 1380 is highly unlike to be the earliest start-date, given the existence of an independent Yunnan.

Also note that this is all assuming that the graphic depicts the situation at the start-date.

 

[theJalden]

@Awesomealan1 There needs to be "factions", but not "political parties". Those didn't even existed in the modern sense during most of the XIXth century.
Having nobles fighting to get the ear of the king (or replace him) is perfectly alright, though.

Not true. England developed parties pretty quickly and had them for basically all of the 18th century. But the English system was always weirdly modern

 

[Demetrios]

So looking into it a bit closer, I'm going to guess a start date of 1353/4, if the images are indeed for the start date. 1354 was the year the Ottomans crossed over into Gallipoli and gained their first foothold in Europe (and it's a nearly a nice even 100 years before they solidify that by taking Constantinople), and the Red Turban Rebellion was in full swing, allowing one to play either the Yuan or Ming (the future Hongwu Emperor had joined the rebellion in 1352). Also, by 1353, the Black Death was winding down, which actually makes for a good start as the Eurasian world begins to bounce back.

But, as pointed out, the lack of the Bahmanids is a bit strange. Granted, they had only started out in 1347, and were only in the process of consolidating control the region six years later. Perhaps they are one of the smaller nations in southern India (the capital at Gulbarga might just be within the one with the 754K population), while the rest of the Deccan is in rebellion or occupied? It really can't be much later, since even that sort of workaround won't work much beyond 1354...

 

[ImperatorRoman]

Not true. England developed parties pretty quickly and had them for basically all of the 18th century. But the English system was always weirdly modern

I would not really call the Whigs and Tories of the 18th century political parties. Not in the way we understand political parties now.

 

[Don_Quigleone]

I would not really call the Whigs and Tories of the 18th century political parties. Not in the way we understand political parties now.

I've heard it said somewhere that the first "modern" political party in the UK was the Irish National party lead by Parnell. That's in the 1880s.