• 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:
Looks good but I think there should probably be a tribal pop type to represent nomadic people and tribal people. Obviously not a perfect solution but I think it would be a better fit than them being peasants. Basically I’d have it so that tribal pops produce full resources in a tribal nation but don’t in non tribal nations and probably vice versa.
Calling it that would be a bit strange since tribal societies can also have aristocrats and clergy. But yes I agree that it's suoer important to delineate certain pops as nomadic, because ruling them and playing as a nomadic nation need to have special mechanics. This is extremely important for the game to feel believable or otherwise you get the "byzantine pontic steppe" problem in every game.
 
@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.
Thank you, that's what I was trying to get at but was wording it incorrectly. Although I was basing it on, say, the Boner Party and the Democratic-Republican party at the end of the 1700's, but even still, political parties weren't how they became over the next hundred years. So factions would be a lot better.

However, you mention
Having nobles fighting to get the ear of the king (or replace him) is perfectly alright, though
but I specifically pointed out that these mechanics would moreso be for adding flavor to democracies, republics, etc - basically every nation that WOULDN'T have a king...
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Thank you, that's what I was trying to get at but was wording it incorrectly. Although I was basing it on, say, the Boner Party and the Democratic-Republican party at the end of the 1700's, but even still, political parties weren't how they became over the next hundred years. So factions would be a lot better.

However, you mention

but I specifically pointed out that these mechanics would moreso be for adding flavor to democracies, republics, etc - basically every nation that WOULDN'T have a king...
Did Venice have political parties though
 
Seeing an actual pops system i wonder how would plauges work? Would they have a substantial impact on pops or would they be something akin to eu4 i.e. a negative modifier? Seeing how the borders suggest 14th century the black death would wipe out 1/3rd of europe and would not really ever be over.
 
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.

I think it would be interesting if technology also was based on locations/provinces instead of countries, and more passively spreading. For example a new agricultural technique gets invented and spreads faster in literate provinces than in illiterate ones, giving bonuses to the locations as soon as it is adopted. I.e. technological differences between center and periphery within countries can come to exist. St. Petersburg might have all the advances of Western Europe, but Siberian villages won't. Anyhow, great to finally see pops make a debut to EU!
 
  • 1Love
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
Here's some recent discussion from EU4 on the cultural grouping of Finns.
 
I'm going against the main trend here but I don't like pops very much.
Certainly when they need a lot of micromanagement like in I:R and Vic 3. To me it becomes a frustrating chore to deal with all the time.

EU4 to me is about playing as a country. Waging wars, forging alliances, painting the map in my colour.
Trying to increase a certain pop type to be able to advance the game is just not exciting to me.

Don't get me wrong! I understand a lot of people like pops but you have I:R and Vic 3 for that. EU4 was unique because the focus of the game lies elsewhere. That what gives it its own style over the other games. Just as CK is all about building your personal dynasty.
 
  • 4
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Did Venice have political parties though
Well, seeing as Venice had a mixed government system in the form of a Doge/Monarchy, I wouldn't really classify a Merchant Republic as the same thing as the modern republics/democracies that formed in the 18th century, like the USA or France after the revolution (prior to Napoleon), or more generally, many nations within the early 1800's, which is exactly where EU tends to end. My suggestion was for the very late game, after all.

Having political parties in Victoria is fine with a start of 1836, but having some semblance of political parties in EU5 in the late game, manifesting in the late 1700's/early 1800's, or moreover, the 1820's, is somehow unrealistic?...

The general idea is to have the very late mechanic introduce the flavor of factions/political parties in order to properly transition into Victoria's gameplay, which has a larger emphasis on said parties/factions. This would also be amazing for a more accurate game conversion from EU5-Victoria 3, where the factions and political parties that manifest in late game EU5 actually function tangibly within your Victoria 3 save/have a historical basis that you can pinpoint from one game to the next.

As I said in the original post - massive roleplay potential!
 
Last edited:
The pops are clearly trying to emulate the three estate system with the addition of slavery. It's probably serviceable with localization changes for different region. I imagine they get their behaviors from buildings they work at, which could simulate the different behaviors of different classes in composite realms. For example, Polish nobles in Prussian Poland would continue to behave like Polish nobles as they did historically.

On the other hand, I worry that it might not really capture the behavior of nascent urban proletarians and freemen that were starting to become more important in the 1700s, especially in the Americas and England. They could slot into the Burghers, but it could be awkward. That is an edge issue but I really like the way EUIV has a 'final boss' at the end of the game in the form of Revolutions, even if they don't work very consistently right now.

In terms of economics, I hope this follows a Malthusian system with low and limited population growth and very dramatic population declines as a result of wars and famines. It could make warfare much more punishing than it is in EUIV.

As an addendum to that, you often hear about rulers inviting and expelling populations in this period, often in attempts to settle lightly inhabited regions, the classical example of this being the Volga Germans. It would probably be appropriate to include an ability for players to import desired populations in exchange for paying their moving expenses.
 
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions:
I'm going against the main trend here but I don't like pops very much.
Certainly when they need a lot of micromanagement like in I:R and Vic 3. To me it becomes a frustrating chore to deal with all the time.

EU4 to me is about playing as a country. Waging wars, forging alliances, painting the map in my colour.
Trying to increase a certain pop type to be able to advance the game is just not exciting to me.

Don't get me wrong! I understand a lot of people like pops but you have I:R and Vic 3 for that. EU4 was unique because the focus of the game lies elsewhere. That what gives it its own style over the other games. Just as CK is all about building your personal dynasty.

You are right that EU should be about building a polity. However, EU4 was sorely lacking in internal state-building which arguably is the most important part of the Early Modern period. In the time period EU4 covers, you'd historically start with a feudal prince struggling to raise even regular taxes or troops reliably, whose power is based on personal relations and privileges, while at the end of the period you have states like Prussia with a fully functioning bureaucracy, standing army, tax- and education-system... i.e. a state instead of a mere princedom. Economics and demography were central to these processes of inner state-building. Look at France's historical borders at the ends of the period - France's outward expansion is noticeable and permanent, but no mad blobbing like in EU4, the main developments happened internally - growth of population and towns, literacy increases, technologies, societal and institutional changes. Imho as a player one should be able to choose what to focus on. There are states in this period that excelled in territorial expansion like the Ottomans, but there were also states who mostly 'progressed' institutionally and economically (Saxony) or some mix of both (France). For some players, demographic or economical advances might be a means to territorial expansion, to others an end in of itself.
 
Last edited:
  • 6
  • 1Like
Reactions:
[…]

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.

[…]
I've seen all the implementations of pops in PDX games. IMO, if you want to have pops while minimizing performance impact, you might want to consider saving culture, religion and social class as percentages. You can also save exclusions separately, e.g. only christians being allowed to be nobles. The percentage is "simply" carried over to the other classes, instead. While this does reduce accuracy of the data, because you cannot really express different religion-culture-social-class ratios, anymore, it shouldn't affect gameplay noticably. What you gain, however, is the confidence, that performance doesn't degrade over time by ever more pop units appearing in locations, that have to be iterated over separately for each action you perform on them.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
The pops are clearly trying to emulate the three estate system with the addition of slavery. It's probably serviceable with localization changes for different region. I imagine they get their behaviors from buildings they work at, which could simulate the different behaviors of different classes in composite realms. For example, Polish nobles in Prussian Poland would continue to behave like Polish nobles as they did historically.

On the other hand, I worry that it might not really capture the behavior of nascent urban proletarians and freemen that were starting to become more important in the 1700s, especially in the Americas and England. They could slot into the Burghers, but it could be awkward. That is an edge issue but I really like the way EUIV has a 'final boss' at the end of the game in the form of Revolutions, even if they don't work very consistently right now.

In terms of economics, I hope this follows a Malthusian system with low and limited population growth and very dramatic population declines as a result of wars and famines. It could make warfare much more punishing than it is in EUIV.

As an addendum to that, you often hear about rulers inviting and expelling populations in this period, often in attempts to settle lightly inhabited regions, the classical example of this being the Volga Germans. It would probably be appropriate to include an ability for players to import desired populations in exchange for paying their moving expenses.
I agree with all of your ideas.

Although, I hope pop growth isn't the same for all countries. If you are a more fertile country like China or France, I think you should be able to recover a bit quicker even with multiple defeats.

The Ming-Qing transition ends up killing like 25 million people and a few daces later, the Qing dynasty oversees a vast population increase in China.

And wasn't France partly so successful in the Napoleonic Wars due to its massive population size compared to other countries?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
As an addendum to that, you often hear about rulers inviting and expelling populations in this period, often in attempts to settle lightly inhabited regions, the classical example of this being the Volga Germans. It would probably be appropriate to include an ability for players to import desired populations in exchange for paying their moving expenses.

Yes, I would love for this to be in the game. In german historiography there is a term for this, "Peuplierung", which describes the planned repopulation of a sparsely-settled region. This happened especially in the 17th nd 18th century in countries like Russia, Prussia and Austria. Apart from the Volga Germans famous examples would be Prussian policies towards Jews and Huguenots (french protestants), both of whom where highly qualified merchants and craftsmen ("burghers" in the terms of this game). It would be very interesting if this was more of a mid- to late-game tool, as your goverment gets more of a handle to influencing demography more directly. In this context I would also love receiving religious refugees who get persecuted, this could be more of an event when an expulsion occurs and you are a viable target for the exiles.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
Small critique:

One of the culture groups posted is the Arvanites. Arvanite is a term used to refer to Albanians and “was at one time used by all Albanians to refer to themselves.” I appreciate the emphasis of providing a vast expansion of cultures into the game, a flavorful historical emphasis. As of now we do not understand all mechanics of the game, but Arvanites as their own distinct culture as opposed to Albanian may pose the question of how the two would theoretically interact. Based off what we are given there may be general cultural tensions between two different cultures. Although historically there had been tensions between Muslims Albanians and Orthodox Arvanites, these tensions never involved culture as they were culturally the same, hence “Arvanites (Αρβανίτες) in the more popular speech in Greek, but both were used indiscriminately for both Muslim and Christian Albanophones inside and outside Greece.” Maybe I am reading too into the diary or there’s other mechanics not released to the public, yet my hope is that there isn’t some future confusion between Arvanites and Albanians which would become unreal and ahistorical.
 
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
Imperator had a solution for that within an EU4 style combat system (in terms of micro). As it was one of the features in Imperator which was generally well received I would expect it to be ported tk project Caesar.

Like with AoE2: DE and AoE4.
I'm not sure I would agree that "Change windows language to change game language" (AoE4 with game pass) can be considered support for a game.

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.
Most people don't care about grand campaigns. They get bored long before reaching the end game of a single game, let alone three or four. The goal should be to have interesting mechanics fitting the entire timespan of the game. If that means ending in 1700, the game should end in 1700.

I:R's launch met a market backlash on exactly this. "Accumulate mana, press buttons, things happen instantaneously" was met with explosive rejection.
If the most important lesson Johan and Paradox learned from Imperator was that people doesn't want mana, Project Caesar runs a high risk of being dead on arrival. It was not even in the top 5 list of issues with Imperator, and was changed within a months after release. The mana outrage was a dead end.

IMO, if you want to have pops while minimizing performance impact, you might want to consider saving culture, religion and social class as percentages.
Wouldn't that potentially increase the need for calculations, and therefore negatively affect performance? If a population of 60% catholics, 30% muslims and 10% jews gains 5% catholics from another location you would need to recalculate the portion of other religions as well in each location. With each pop having one religion, only one calculation is needed per location.

If we also want pops to have any meaningful impact on game mechanics it also needs to be tied to actual population numbers. A location with 100% catholics losing 20% of its population doesn't make sense without being tied to raw numbers. Assigning percentages instead of raw numbers then just adds an extra step of calculations to one pop instead of applying the same total amount of calculations to two different pops.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
One question (that will not narrow down the time period in any form to be honest though most people have already assumed what this game will be), will there be a San Marino in this game? With the detailedness of the states wouldn't it be possible to represent San Marino? I guess it would technically break canon for the games due to there being no San Marino in Vic3, March of the Eagles, Hoi4, Eu4, CK3, or Imperator Rome, (or stellaris, everyone forgets about the San Marino Space Empire) but maybe this can be the first excuse to add em in. San Marino world conquest anyone?
 
  • 3Like
  • 2Love
Reactions:
If the most important lesson Johan and Paradox learned from Imperator was that people doesn't want mana, Project Caesar runs a high risk of being dead on arrival. It was not even in the top 5 list of issues with Imperator, and was changed within a months after release. The mana outrage was a dead end.
Mana was changed because of the market outrage. You call that a 'dead end', I call that 'swift, successful sway by market'. No need to continue outrage when the objective was met early.

As for what the most important lesson was, it's what Johan stated in Tinto Talk #1: dev diaries stopped being an avenue for early feedback when game development cycles stretched into half-decades. They were instead treated as marketing since feedback had no time to be actioned on. Johan led I:R without a guiding light on what the modern market really wanted. Smaller things (like having a diarch system for Rome) were implemented once the devs realised there was demand and inspiration struck. Similarly, Vic3 was developed without the guiding light of what the Vic2 audience considered sacred.

I expect Project Caesar won't be released for another 3 or more years. All this talk of what the ideal start date ought to be implies a vast amount of content designer time to shift but is possible if the market had a unified voice speaking a strong reason why it had to be some other date than what the devs initially aimed for. All while devs keep working on the engine to see what amount of detail is performant and which details are more important to the market.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
i do hope that the screenshot UI is to conceal that it is (probably) EUV, because i dislike the modern-esque office spreadsheet vibes they give (namely the last photo) because vicky 3 i feel has a similar issue even if it is better "dated" (for lack of a better term) for the era
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: