• 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:
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.
There's a couple things that current EU cannot do meaningfully. Like how dead people don't contribute to the economy, meaning that a siege race suddenly becomes a demographic nightmare for you and the AI alike that compound for the rest of the game. Or like having rebel stacks that are sized appropriately to the discontent population. Or corruption of local authorities to make some place not worth conquering for more than its gold and men to ADM ratio. Some factors like "Years of nationalism" suddenly become irrelevant because tied to culture and religion directly, and their conversion to something more akin to your national preference replace the even more boring wait time of making core to avoid the all or nothing Overextension. Engaging with those religious minorities and cultural enclave, you could choose to give them more autonomy to impact the Aggressive expansion later in their territory...

This is not about slow vs fast, it is about nuance vs on/off
 
  • 9Like
Reactions:
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.
Considering the things Johan has previously said about start dates, I have my doubts that there will be alternate start dates at all. And if there is an alternate start date, I would be very surprised if it was any less than 150-200 years apart from the main start date.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
The start date is 1369-70.

Yunnan is independent and Ming just crushed the Red Turban Rebellion.
The Delhi Sultanate is losing hold in India.
The Ilkhanate is fragmented and Timur was just crowned.
The Khmer Empire is weak but Ayutthaya didn't rise yet.
A local regime called Xia based in Sichuan existed until 1371 or 1372 before Ming's invasion so I guess, that it should be a few yrs latter. It's a remanent part of the Red Turban Rebellion.

Ayutthaya rose in about 1380s. I don't know what had happened during 1370 to 1380 in Europe which, I think, should be the source that Tinto pick its start date.
 
On the subject of start date. What's seen on the images may not be the start date. It may be something that has been considered, they may have had data for multiple dates but decided that 1353 or whatever the images show is not a good start date. It may also be they haven't decided yet. Put up some images to create speculation and get some ideas from that.

As for the end date, unless they're planning on creating something else between this and Victoria (whatever number of Victoria there is when this is ready, or when this is at end of lifecycle), it should be the start date of Victoria, so with Vic3 1836. Could be even later from the grand campaign viewpoint, as there may be overlap with Crusader Kings in the start, but from mechanics viewpoint later may not be good.

As for players not playing to the end date anyway, that's often true. But at least for me it's not always because I've done everything I wanted before it, it can also be that I give up as I realize I don't have enough time left. I don't see players not playing to the end date as a problem.
 
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
Tinto is not PDS so, I will stay and watch how much they can do before having my own view.

But I believe that Johan and his team can make the best choice.
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
I'm not sure if this is pointed out yet. I assume the smaller tiles at sea are depicting common shipping routes, in which case the east-west Indian Ocean route is too far to the south. The route should go direct west from the Malacca strait and pass through the southern coast of Sri Lanka, then a straight line towards the Gulf of Aden. It is still a major route in modern times so you can refer to a modern shipping heatmap.

I'm not entirely sure how different it would be in older times, but having it that far south makes no sense either way.
 
We belive that the game is beginning from 1337.
Here is the map of Yuan dynasty in 1337.

3B4920640E30A917CDB84D6692D0816A.png


Here is the map of Yuan dynasty in 1351.
This dynasty is coming to an end. infact ,the next year.
They looks like each other , right?

EDF2B752E0BE93B6BF51E01B23FADCC3.png


However , its make me feel confused that we just get half of Chinese map from The Paradox.
So I cannot distinguish between Yuan dynasty and South Song dynasty.
And it just in 1264.

18F89C957125DBA283E5A21EA1CD189D.png


By the way, what about the end time of the game?1444?
I hope the playing time while not be so long.
When I played EU4 from 1444 to 1640 , my PC could hardly work.
Some times my screen would be green , or blue.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
"in next week's dev diary we learn how your vampire clan can influence the governments of the world to wage wars to feed your blood god"

Vampires: Rule in the Shadows confirmed!

I cannot wait for the official confirmation on April 1st.
 
  • 4Haha
  • 2
Reactions:
I think it would make a lot of sense to split up Peasants into several classes.
To all people wishing there were more classes to these Pops, I ask: what performance hit are you willing to take for that granularity? If hypothetically the addition of one single extra class was the difference between endgame being a crawl or not, would you still want it?
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.
I:R's launch met a market backlash on exactly this. "Accumulate mana, press buttons, things happen instantaneously" was met with explosive rejection. Such direct actions suit games where time passes with less granularity, like 10 years per turn. Certainly there is market demand for such grand board games. There are other suppliers who can satisfy that demand. Project Caesar is steering to be something only decades of Paradox experience can make.
 
  • 8Like
  • 2
Reactions:
All speculation on the start date is based on the assumption that the thumbnail map is the one at the start. But can we be sure of this? If the development diaries are starting now, it's probably because the game is already partly playable. So the map could result from any evolution of a game.

What makes the assumption of a mid-14th-century starting date difficult is that most of the powerful blocks of the Renaissance are not yet formed, so the chances of having at the same time, say, a strong France, a strong England and a strong Spain a century later seem low to me (unless historical evolutions are directed via events).
 
  • 4
Reactions:
All speculation on the start date is based on the assumption that the thumbnail map is the one at the start. But can we be sure of this? If the development diaries are starting now, it's probably because the game is already partly playable. So the map could result from any evolution of a game.

What makes the assumption of a mid-14th-century starting date difficult is that most of the powerful blocks of the Renaissance are not yet formed, so the chances of having at the same time, say, a strong France, a strong England and a strong Spain a century later seem low to me (unless historical evolutions are directed via events).
I also had an idea that it could just be a game in progress, but we can only guess for now.
 
When I first looked at that map at the top, I was wondering "Why aren't there any population numbers in all of china?" Then I noticed that 88.566M hiding in Hainan.
 
All speculation on the start date is based on the assumption that the thumbnail map is the one at the start. But can we be sure of this? If the development diaries are starting now, it's probably because the game is already partly playable. So the map could result from any evolution of a game.

What makes the assumption of a mid-14th-century starting date difficult is that most of the powerful blocks of the Renaissance are not yet formed, so the chances of having at the same time, say, a strong France, a strong England and a strong Spain a century later seem low to me (unless historical evolutions are directed via events).
I think it is because of the borders one can surmise, and the fitting pop numbers. It is very unlikely for a game a human or AI played to come out so fitting to the shown RL sources as seen in this thread and others. And we assume that there will not be different start dates because of past statements.
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Oh, is this a new dev diary for Meiou and Taxes? Wouldn't the too early date be a problem when the player has captured a decent chunk of Europe and the era of colonization hasn't even begun? From the screenshot here, this is an early date before 1444...
 
  • 4
Reactions:
The Map of India may be from 16th century, during Akbar's conquests. That big blob in North India is Mughal Empire and not Delhi Sultanate. Why? Look at the left most tip of Gujarat, below Kutch Island. That thin strip looks like Nawanagar kingdom and it was formed in 1540s. But I may be wrong as there are no colonies of Portugal in Diu and Surat which were formed in 1535 and 1540 respectively
 
  • 4
Reactions:
I do extremely hope that the trade system will be much more in line with EU4 than Imperator or Victoria 3, given this timeline. I don't think the single-good two-market-only routes of those games would fit what this is looking like, I like how global the EU4 trade system feels, with merchants moving goods along long distances whether your government tells them to or not.
 
  • 5
  • 2Like
Reactions: