• 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 hope the Pops System isnt too deep, otherwise you might as well play Vic…
And that would then have nothing to do with EU for me.

Excited about whats come next. But im scared
There's also the soul-crushingly lame population transfer actions micro of Imperator. Managing migration should be a result of grand strategic decisions, not an action itself.

All the superfluous bloat of late EU4 provides such limited enjoyment for those who aren't min-maxers, marrying the endless internal systems clicking of I:R with the minutiae stacking of HOI to produce the same dull granularity of Victoria 3.

There's no evidence thus far that EU5 will suffer from this, but there certainly is precedent to cause worry. It is true that early modern leaders were moved and constrained by the push and pull of organic and manufactured shifts in culture and population and that we are today as well. However, the modeling of this was once by tech, by the result of trigger points from titanic decisions or events or triggers - by playing a grand strategy game, not a simulation. Even in Victoria 2, where investments and interactions with the newspapers featured more, I felt like I was making decisions - not simply managing a bloated bureaucratic system.

I would prefer EU steer closer to its board game roots than its claim to simulation. I desperately want the world to reflect the evolution of the campaign smartly and reasonably, but I want my experience to be less rote and meticulous. When the trade nodes became the heart of EU4's design, they had players make a couple or a few clicks to impact the essential trade income. Those clicks were powerfully important because they reflected military and diplomatic and production actions/priorities and impacted them going forward. It was the nexus that decided and touched everything on a level, but you weren't forced to upgrade buildings over and over again to scale up the interconnectedness of the supply chain in Iron. You didn't have to make sure that only Protestants worked in an industry because they were the educated folks. That all was handled on the provincial level, on the building construction level, on the wealth level for manufacturies. You extracted money from wars, you aligned yourself with co-religionists, you conquered places with iron mines. It was all grand, way back when. In I:R, you stacked wheat from Egypt or some such, rather than just telling the client state to send you all their food. Anyway, I've been ranting.

Oh, the design genius and simplicity of CK - my love. Oh the commitment to grand narrative Stellaris requires - no Distant Worlds are you. My other love. Oh, EU - my fallen love. HoI and Victoria are great games - I enjoy them for a spell only however.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
To help you guys a little bit, here is a map that me and my friend have prepared for you. Please DO NOT put Turks and Arabs, Azerbaijanis and Iranians, Hungarians and Romanians, Swedes and Finns, Bausqites and Spanish, Welsh and the English in the same group. <3
There is no reason to put basques in another group. Apart from language northern spaniards are and were more similar culturally to basques than to southern spaniards. Besides in EU timeframe basques had extensive privileges, for example all people born in basque provinces were considered hidalgos (lower nobility), and many basques were in key positions in the spanish state. Discrimination against basques started in the second half of XIX century when liberals abolished the privileges and wanted to homogenize the culture of the country.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
How does this work when a tiny number of colonists are ruling over 5 or more native tribes?
I believe that Johan is stating that for that particular view only the top 5 are listed if you look at the donut chart you can see more than 5 locations. I see 9 (maybe 10) locations. I am sure there is another UX view showing the full list
1710436416521.png


What about a situation where let's say in a colonial location there are 2 local cultures and 3 immigrant cultures which all 5 all majority, but most of the nobles are of the ruling culture but they are minority. They are important but they will not be seen?
Same as above. It will also only show the top 5 religions present.

Hmm... is it a coincidence that there are 5 classes?
 
P O P U L A T I O N

gimme gimme gimme

Please get some more inspiration from guys at meiou-taxes, they have done an amazing job with EUIV.
 
There's also the soul-crushingly lame population transfer actions micro of Imperator. Managing migration should be a result of grand strategic decisions, not an action itself.

All the superfluous bloat of late EU4 provides such limited enjoyment for those who aren't min-maxers, marrying the endless internal systems clicking of I:R with the minutiae stacking of HOI to produce the same dull granularity of Victoria 3.

There's no evidence thus far that EU5 will suffer from this, but there certainly is precedent to cause worry. It is true that early modern leaders were moved and constrained by the push and pull of organic and manufactured shifts in culture and population and that we are today as well. However, the modeling of this was once by tech, by the result of trigger points from titanic decisions or events or triggers - by playing a grand strategy game, not a simulation. Even in Victoria 2, where investments and interactions with the newspapers featured more, I felt like I was making decisions - not simply managing a bloated bureaucratic system.

I would prefer EU steer closer to its board game roots than its claim to simulation. I desperately want the world to reflect the evolution of the campaign smartly and reasonably, but I want my experience to be less rote and meticulous. When the trade nodes became the heart of EU4's design, they had players make a couple or a few clicks to impact the essential trade income. Those clicks were powerfully important because they reflected military and diplomatic and production actions/priorities and impacted them going forward. It was the nexus that decided and touched everything on a level, but you weren't forced to upgrade buildings over and over again to scale up the interconnectedness of the supply chain in Iron. You didn't have to make sure that only Protestants worked in an industry because they were the educated folks. That all was handled on the provincial level, on the building construction level, on the wealth level for manufacturies. You extracted money from wars, you aligned yourself with co-religionists, you conquered places with iron mines. It was all grand, way back when. In I:R, you stacked wheat from Egypt or some such, rather than just telling the client state to send you all their food. Anyway, I've been ranting.

Oh, the design genius and simplicity of CK - my love. Oh the commitment to grand narrative Stellaris requires - no Distant Worlds are you. My other love. Oh, EU - my fallen love. HoI and Victoria are great games - I enjoy them for a spell only however.
I feel the main issue with Imperator Pop Micro was you would have to move pop's around in order to colonize a province. I think instead having a 'Colonist Unit' like in EUIV that instead just 'attracts' settlers to a region might work better. And you could have laws determining what pop's they attract to match historicity.

For instance- the Spanish went and sent a lot of Andalusian muslims out into the New World to get them out of Spain (what 'expel minority' was meant to be) that could be a law or otherwise setting you can place where you set them to attract that population within your country. Likewise the British allowed religious dissidents to settle colonies in the New World, allowing a greater variety of different religions settling in those colonies, while the French by contrast outlawed protestants settling in their colonies and had much less populous colonies as a result. Don't know if anything could be done with Penal Colonies (like Georgia or Australia). I wonder also if there's something you can do with attracting pop's out outside nations- like how the US had a lot of German settlers in it. Another idea is maybe a Colonist can only be assigned to a province rather than a singular location, given how many locations they're supposed to be, it'd get quite micro if you had to manage it on that level. Setting a colonist to a group of locations I think helps better emulate the growth of cities (there's no reason to develop New York in EUIV once you have it) while also having a smaller settlements in the surrounding area.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I don't think language should be the sole (or even primary) way of dividing up culture groups. I can't say much about your other examples but Finns in the eu4 period are a thousand times closer to swedes than hungarians culturally, even if they do share similar language roots with the latter. The english are closer to the welsh than they are to the pomeranians, even if they share a language family, etc. etc. I know paradox sometimes makes questionable decisions regarding culture groups but I prefer their approach to this one, no offense.

(also why is all of belgium considered latin, heresy)
True but... Turks share far more folklore with, say, Kazakhs or Uzbeks than they do with Arabs. At least gibe -5% Unrest :D
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
sques in another group. Apart from language northern spaniards are and were more similar culturally to basques than to southern spaniards. Besides in EU timeframe basques had extensive privileges, for example all people born in basque provinces were considered hidalgos (lower nobility), and many basques were in key positions in the spanish state. Discrimination agains
My bad there then
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Or just add ''Ethnolinguality'' with

+5% Unrest, rather than, say, %15
+5% Development Cost
-5% Central Autonomy

Or stuff, I think a Hungarian would be getting along better than a random person from Georgia :)
 
Hey, are you thinking about what level od difficulty in this game in comparison to Vic3 or CK3? For me and many of my friends and other players, they are just too casual IMO. It can be rough - maybe we should keep the Ironman or like getting some extra hard difficulty level for experienced players?
 
Or just add ''Ethnolinguality'' with

+5% Unrest, rather than, say, %15
+5% Development Cost
-5% Central Autonomy

Or stuff, I think a Hungarian would be getting along better than a random person from Georgia :)
Putting Hungarian and Finnish in the same culture group is like putting English and Greek together. Just because they are from the same language family doesn't mean they are close culturally. Also, why are Indo-European branches broken up into different culture groups, but others end up packed together? If we go by linguistics and the way you have divided Indo-Europeans then then Baltic Finnish (including Saami,. they're too small in the game), Permic, Volga Finnic, Ugric and Samoyedic should all be different culture groups. That could actually work.
 
  • 4
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Putting Hungarian and Finnish in the same culture group is like putting English and Greek together. Just because they are from the same language family doesn't mean they are close culturally. Also, why are Indo-European branches broken up into different culture groups, but others end up packed together? If we go by linguistics and the way you have divided Indo-Europeans then then Baltic Finnish (including Saami,. they're too small in the game), Permic, Volga Finnic, Ugric and Samoyedic should all be different culture groups. That could actually work.
I am talking about a different whole segment called ''Language'' where it gives really small buffs, just for historicallity and stuff :) I don't mean to put Greek and English together, but English with Welsh as culture with good buffs, but English and Danish together with small, little buffs
 
Putting Hungarian and Finnish in the same culture group is like putting English and Greek together. Just because they are from the same language family doesn't mean they are close culturally. Also, why are Indo-European branches broken up into different culture groups, but others end up packed together? If we go by linguistics and the way you have divided Indo-Europeans then then Baltic Finnish (including Saami,. they're too small in the game), Permic, Volga Finnic, Ugric and Samoyedic should all be different culture groups. That could actually work.
I was too exhausted to do all the Kra-Dai, Turkic, Indic, Iranic, Sinitic, Uralic, Slavic, Romance, & Germanic languages broken up into small pieces, it was just to show a small suggestion
 
Oh is it time to break out the cultural iceberg again?
IMG_20180325_135547.jpg
 
  • 9Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Seing all this, I just can't wait for game to come out.
Regarding doubts about start date, according to what we've seen here, game starts mid 14th century, exact year still debatable.
Some say it's too early for the EU to start that early, but I don't agree, and here's why:
1. Nation states haven't became a reality of European and World politics until French revolution, which is at the very end of EU4 span (and all previous entries as well).
2. Dinasties, royal marriages, personal relations and connections were important thing basically until WW1, but in any case, they determined european politics until end of Napoleon wars. So, whole timeline of EU games.
3. Most importantly, although the game is called Europa Universalis (or maybe it won't be anymore, we'll see), it's, well past it's eurocentric beginnings, so, "wrong dates" for Europe, could be right dates for India or China.
4. Late game blobs, micro management nightmare, and abandoning the game before it ends, are consequence of game becoming to easy after first 150 years (roughly), and not much to do except fighting wars.
That being said, few proposals for developers, regarding early start date:
The compromise between scripted events for AI to secure historical gameplay, and apeal of replayability with random outcomes, could be made with "historical button" option before the game start, similar to historical nation in EU4. If historical option is active, AI will always choose historical choices, from set of ideas (or whatever we'll have in Caesar), events, missions, laws, areas of conquest and colonisation, etc. thus ensuring Burgundian inheritance, Iberian wedding, Habsburg european dominance etc to happen on every playthrough. Personally, I like the scripted events and railroading in EU2 more than this everything can happen in EU4, even if it benefits me as a player (like Burgundian succession).
It's enough if those events/missions etc give an alternative for us, players, to choose a different path than the historical one.
If the historical option is dissabled, the AI would behave similar to EU4, so both groups of players should be satisfied.
Alternative start dates:
Except the earliest one, there should be at least one more, set sometimes in second part of 16th century, because of all important events happening during that time (reformation, end of Kalmar union, formation of PLC, Tsardom of Russia, Safavid Persia, Mughal Empire, Iberian Union, Ottoman defeat at Lepanto and first siege of Vienna, Eighty years war, Spanish conquest of Aztec, Maya, and Inca empires, Habsburg spliting into Spanish and Austrian branches, Sengoku Jidai era at it's peak).
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Are these icons place holders? I kind of like the abstract lyre and sun symbols for culture and religion and wish the pop symbol matched the theme instead. Perhaps something like a tiered triangle since it's social class.
Yes very much, if I'm playing a southeast asian kingdom I don't want my pops to be represented by some guy with a neck frill.
 
  • 1
Reactions: