• 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:
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".
O(N) is obviously better than O(N*M), but that does not mean that a O(N) algorithm can not be CPU intensive with a very large N.

Johan made the comment in the OP that so far the performance impact of their Pop implementation was hardly noticeable. I pointed out that the more noticeable the Pops are the more CPU consumed. This is true. These games are based on math - always. The more math associated with a Pop the more meaningful the impact Pops will have on the game. There is no secret sauce here.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Based on the map of India it certainly looks very much earlier than anyone anticipated
A lot has been mentioned allready, but specifically, the tripartion of bengal was an administrative reorganization (as a part of Delhi) of 1325 that spiralled into open rebellion and de facto independence in the late 1330's. In 1340 the eastern bengali sultanate conquered chittagong, which is clearly still part of an independent arakan state on the map.
The bengalis later fought eachother and would be united by 1352

Given the above we're looking at a 1337-(early)1340 start date

Imho its far too early if the plan is to have the game run all the way to 1820 again, rather than say 1650 or 1700...
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I think we all knew POPs were inevitable. Since we have to have POPs I appreciate how minimalistically they are implemented (fewer classes even than I expected!), and Johan's stance that they can only be indirectly influenced.
I hope being a large empire will cause a lot of internal problems thanks to pops ,so that it will not be a map painting, but a simulation as already written, YAY! I want to collapse as delhi xD
And this is why I opposed POPs. I hope Johan has a better idea than this magical thinking of how POPs will make the game better and more realistic.
Personally I've found that the simulation aspects are usually the most boring and tedious parts of PDX games for me and i don't find it unreasonable that an EU4 sequel build on EU4 rather than cater to people who want a bigger focus "simulation".
Ironically, I've been saying precisely the opposite of this since dev diary #6 of EU4 development.

Maybe if you wait eleven years EU6 will swing back in your preferred direction.
 
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
O(N) is obviously better than O(N*M), but that does not mean that a O(N) algorithm can not be CPU intensive with a very large N.

Johan made the comment in the OP that so far the performance impact of their Pop implementation was hardly noticeable. I pointed out that the more noticeable the Pops are the more CPU consumed. This is true. These games are based on math - always. The more math associated with a Pop the more meaningful the impact Pops will have on the game. There is no secret sauce here.
True, though I'd describe it as a weak correlation. Not all maths possible to associate with pops will give them meaningful impact on the game. What you're saying is you're sceptical the devs can find good meaningful mechanics while keeping Pop processing within CPU budget.
 
Pleass rework the combat system. Micro is good but when we rech late game it is just pain. Make a carpet siege or it should turn macro system in late game. Handling 1m armies in eu4 is just a pain in eu4. That is why no one wants to play in late game
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
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.
This is the best news possible. EU4 really felt like a board game. I honestly thought it was a nice change of pace, but after so long it's become very tedious and I've been desperate for that simulation feeling EU2 and 3 gave me so long ago.

I actually wonder if it's possible for Paradox to (profitably) support two EU games, with EU4 staying the map painter/board game edition and EU5 being the simulation edition.
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
I think it would make a lot of sense to split up Peasants into several classes.
Fishermen tend to not make the best serfs due to their occupation requiring some degree of mobility, and could also make a greater contribution to whatever Caesar's equivalent of EU4's sailor pool is. Also, some cultures are by nature semi-nomadic fishermen (Southeast Asia comes to mind...)
The Indian caste system makes for a strong distinction between artisans and untouchables. Artisans don't fit neatly into a "burgher" category, and the "Untouchables" aren't really a good fit for serfs either. I think a distinction of "laborers vs peasants" would make sense in most contexts.
Pastoralists tend to move around a lot and having them be a distinct category would be useful if going with something close to I:R-style pop migration. This could also include other nomadic groups like hunter-gatherers. It could even make sense to combine fishermen and pastoralists into a single class of "people who migrate with animals", though I'm not so sure about that one.
 
  • 1
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
I’ve never really understood the appeal of ‘pops” as a unit of reasoning in these games. Since a pop is any size, what can I meaningfully do or think about the pop? I don’t care that the pop lets the game simulate better. I want to know what the pop enables me to do. It’s a game, not an ant farm.

The idea of a game that is more simulation than board game isn’t really appealing to me. For me to be able to strategize in a grand strategy game, I need clear levers of actions I can take and things I can act upon. So I struggle to see the appeal of amorphous units like pops as a gameplay element. They are fuzzy.

Victoria 3 is an illustration of this. It’s a magnificent simulation, but as a player what can you actually *do*? Because so many decisions have long slow term reactions, the game plays as an incredibly elaborate idle game most of the time. It’s a game of waiting.

For all its many flaws and quirks, EU4 is a game of direct actions. You do things, things happen, and then you manage the consequences. You spend resources after they have been accumulated. It’s a game of doing. The game board-roots of the thing keep the elements mentally manageable and manipulable.
 
  • 9
  • 3
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I’ve never really understood the appeal of ‘pops” as a unit of reasoning in these games. Since a pop is any size, what can I meaningfully do or think about the pop? I don’t care that the pop lets the game simulate better. I want to know what the pop enables me to do. It’s a game, not an ant farm.
For one, pops allow for a more granular expression of religion and culture. No longer do you have a province entirely populated by X religion immediately converting in its entirety.
For all its many flaws and quirks, EU4 is a game of direct actions. You do things, things happen, and then you manage the consequences. You spend resources after they have been accumulated. It’s a game of doing. The game board-roots of the thing keep the elements mentally manageable and manipulable.
In my honest opinion, many actions in EUIV are far too instantaneous. It goes with the monarch point mechanic and the way it's implemented. Lack stability? A few clicks and it's fixed. Want to make a gigantic city? Store up points and spend them. Overnight, an oasis in the desert rivals Paris in size.

Pops also allow to observe the decline in populaiton of a devastated region, whereas in EUIV you get a "devastation" value that quickly goes, but your development stays there.

Those things always annoyed me, and a lot of other people. I'm just summarizing the most glaring issues mentioned in this thread. I respect that you don't believe those were problems, but I have trouble seeing things your way, as I have always been amazed by the potential of EU as a simulation.
 
  • 11
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
True, though I'd describe it as a weak correlation. Not all maths possible to associate with pops will give them meaningful impact on the game. What you're saying is you're sceptical the devs can find good meaningful mechanics while keeping Pop processing within CPU budget.
"meaningful" is subjective. "noticeable" is subjective. "CPU Budget" is ad hoc. So it's an unwinnable bet.

I'm skeptical of claims when the claims are "performance impact of having pops is not even noticeable." unless of course the pops are unnoticeable. :D
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I have already played EU3 and have seen enough Bohemiablobs that i believe were caused, among other things, by the 1399 start date. I know about some of the things that happened between 1356 and 1444, and yet i don't see them as important as the events that shaped Europe for the centuries to come and are central to the era Europa Universalis has always orbited around.

This seems paradoxical. You acknowledge that a strong Bohemia is a major departure from OTL, but you don't think the major historical event(s) that lead to Bohemias fall, The Hussite Wars, are important?
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
:+: Spark's Note 2: Poptimization :+:

And we've arrived. The Ostsiedlung has a few more forests to chop, a Sultan in Delhi has too many slaves, and a meddling band in southwest France call themselves Englishmen.

What did we lose to get here, now mana has been retired?

With mana, you press a button and have parity with your neighbors, more or less- and that parity is at the very heart of the magic of EU4.

Is it fun to squeeze out extra performance from CK3 knights, Stellaris ships and HOI4 tanks? Sure, I'll do it. But it is not fun to steamroll your enemies. To always be better than them, because the game allows it. In EU4, some tags cannot field better armies than the French or Ottos, and that is great. You find other ways.

Pops are different- but can be similar. In Imperator, when you learn which researches and buildings allow you to manipulate pops.. you've won. It boils down to the oldest strat in 4X gaming, the boom, where you get more and better of something and you win.

Trade ship boom and idea set booms work in EU4 because of the opportunity cost to get there. So it is my sincere wish that the same principle of tradeoff is weighed against pop boom mechanics in Caesar. Do you want a great many burghers in your 16th century Germany? Then preserve the independence of the free cities for a measly century or two. And so on.

Paint considerately. And by George teach the AI to do it too.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
If the game - assuming it's EUV - is to start from an earlier date, I would like to see greater emphasis on the concept of trade relations between nations, particularly between nations of different religions/culture groups. A large factor that kickstarted the Age of Discovery was the heavy tariffs imposed on trade into Christian Europe by the Muslim nations of Anatolia and the Middle East. If it becomes possible for the Europeans to open up this trade, either through conquest/reconquest or through diplomatic trade agreements, then we should see colonization kick off much later than it did in our timeline. After all, colonization should require some kind of investment, and this may not always be lucrative if there is simply not much to be gained from doing so. In a sense, I would like to see a game where Portugal/Spain are not hard-coded to take Exploration ideas (or whatever equivalent will be in EUV) in every single case - or more generally, that the world responds dynamically to changing interests, including those that would go on to define an entire era.

This is not to say that I don't wish to see the historical scenario play out in most of the runs, just that I would also like the opportunity to reshape history with my own actions in-game (i.e. getting super rich as Venice by negotiating trade deals with the Ottomans, and becoming the primary trader of goods from Asia into Europe etc.)
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Reading posts in other places makes it seems like 1337 is the date represented in the pop map. I do not think this excludes other start dates, but the year 1337 takes place at the beginning of the Hundred Years' War (and it is also the last start date in CK2), making it a possibility.

There will likely be less start dates than EU4, kind of like CK3 which has only a few, but a 1400s start date and maybe a later 1300s start date would also be nice unless it is declared that it would not be practical.

Back to the original point about 1337, this earlier post about Bengal's setup in the map aligns closely with that year.

Bengal is probably a vassal, Delhi did not have strong control over bengal, and It is split into three. This fits with 1337, which also works with Bahmanis and South India


Here is the Bengal Sultanate Wikipedia page for what happened.

In 1325, the Delhi Sultan Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq reorganized the province into three administrative regions, with Sonargaon ruling eastern Bengal; Gauda ruling northern Bengal; and Satgaon ruling southern Bengal. Even this arrangement broke down. By 1338, the three administrative regions had separatist Sultans, including Fakhruddin Mubarak Shah in Sonargaon; Alauddin Ali Shah in Gauda, and Shamsuddin Ilyas Shah in Satgaon.[20] Fakhruddin conquered Chittagong in 1340 and was succeeded by his son Ikhtiyaruddin Ghazi Shah in 1349. Shamsuddin Ilyas Shah (or just Ilyas Shah) defeated Alauddin Ali Shah and secured control of Gauda. He then defeated Ikhtiyaruddin of Sonargaon. By 1352, Ilyas Shah emerged victorious among the Bengali triad.


The choice of 1337 could satisfy a number of players that would want to face the "Crisis of the Later Middle Ages" if it is set up right. The usual "Great Powers" and popular tags aren't really that great yet, which could lead to many smaller nations (say a Peasant Republic by the North Sea or an independent Sweden) being able to make a much more enjoyable playthrough.

And I suppose that a more difficult early start date may lead some players to choose a later date where nations like the Ottomans are stronger. November 11, 1444 or a date in 1453 would familiar, and the year 1356 that is also being talked about sounds good.

1356-1756 could be a good time frame which opens up a new slot for March of the Eagles 2 which would be from the end of the Seven Years War in 1756 to 1836.
The Golden Bull of 1356 that decided important aspects of the HRE, like the electors, would make 1356 an interesting start date. And this links to the Declaration of Rhense in 1338 as well. Plus, there's a nice HRE map in 1356 that some may end up spending time with.

I also think a March of Eagles game would make sense to have somewhere in the pipeline. Paradox has probably invested a lot into Tinto, so Tinto could switch gears into developing twice as many games. They may consider a rebranding like Imperator's though.

Well, this is some speculation that came to mind, so if there is only one start date, then maybe multiple start dates will be available in EUVI. ( Or maybe this is a controversial point hidden behind the controversial topic of pops o_O)


yeah, probably something for our games in 10+ years or so..

I hope to be there :D
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions: