• 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:
« 27,518 unique locations on the map ».
Locations. Not provinces. Could this be a kind of ck3 compromize, ie you would get about 5000 provinces with 4 « baronies » or cities ? That you would not be able to conquer individually, like in ck3, but that you would be able to siège down, culture concert, etc.
Or can we really expect 27000 provinces to conquer ?

Personally, I’m not a fan of world conquest which I feel becomes quite boring in late games, and even the mighty Spanish and British empire did not achieve that in their time.
However, more granularity is always awesome to maintain the regional hegemony interesting, ie letting the British still have something to struggle for in India in 1800… instead of conquering north Siberia

There are 3,272 provinces in EU4. In Project Caesar there are 27,518 locations. Suppose the average was 4 locations per province, that would be 6,880 provinces which is more than double of EU4. The average might be higher but still one would expect more province density in Europe, the Levant, North Africa, South Asia, and East Asia
 
Having a golden horde till holding muscovy in the 17th century, or maybe, having france, England Portugal or castille disappear even before the colonization start ? The fact that Austria might never get emperorship or ottomans staying a little beyliks for the entire game ?
You get it, all the ahistorical crazyness that's involved by having an earlier start date.

Dont get me wrong, there was still a lot of problem in the 1444, but there was a certain consistency in the games expect for a very few ones, you had Russia forming, Commonwealth,the Austria union with Bohemia and Hungary, the end of the hyw the way it did, the Sweden independance, the trastamara union, the ottomans expansion, the formation of persia.
I like how you pretend that similar ahistorical nonsense isn't a mainstay of vanilla EU4
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
« 27,518 unique locations on the map ».
Locations. Not provinces. Could this be a kind of ck3 compromize, ie you would get about 5000 provinces with 4 « baronies » or cities ? That you would not be able to conquer individually, like in ck3, but that you would be able to siège down, culture concert, etc.
Or can we really expect 27000 provinces to conquer ?

Personally, I’m not a fan of world conquest which I feel becomes quite boring in late games, and even the mighty Spanish and British empire did not achieve that in their time.
However, more granularity is always awesome to maintain the regional hegemony interesting, ie letting the British still have something to struggle for in India in 1800… instead of conquering north Siberia
I strongly suspect that you will be able to conquer locations individually. Johan was in charge of Imperator's development, and you could conquer territories individually, not just at the level of the province that they were a part of.
 
I've never played CK3. If I remember CK2 correctly, each province contains baronies, I think it's one to seven of them. When conquering the province, each barony must be sieged separately and while some have been sieged and some not, the province is shown as partially conquered. Or partially owned, after the war ends.

If Project Caesar locations are similar to CK2 baronies, can a province be shared between several countries? The first thing that comes to mind is Papal States owning Vatican and someone else owning the rest of Rome and its surroundings.

In CK2 new baronies can be built if the province has empty slots. I don't remember if they can be destroyed. How about here?

EDIT: Never mind. If borders follow locations, none of the above applies.
 
Last edited:
Come on Johan. Finish what Imperator started and have Pops work in simplified buildings which produce goods that can then be traded via cities and stockpiled/consumed in provinces. I love Imperator but I've always felt the trade and production mechanics were the final thing which needed a full overhaul to finish the game...
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I strongly suspect that you will be able to conquer locations individually. Johan was in charge of Imperator's development, and you could conquer territories individually, not just at the level of the province that they were a part of.
He in fact already confirmed that.
Borders will follow locations. How we solve bordergore is something you'll learn about in late q2 if I my schedule does not change.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
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.
It was a dead end because noone cared. People returned to give the game a second chance without mana, but "noone" stuck around because the game was just as bad as with mana.

View attachment 1095891

Is there any difference between Catalan, Andalusi, and Sephardi besides the religion? Are they just different religious flavors of the same culture? That is, if the Jews or Muslims convert religion do they also convert culture?
Those are different cultures, not different religions. What distiniguishes the same religion and culture pops is the class (peasants etc.) The symbols in the table header and the items in the table aren't aligned. As a result the class is listed where culture should be, culture is listed where religion should be, religion is where pop size should be. Class should be listed under the triangle, culture under the lyre, religion under the sun and population numbers under the silhouettes of the heads.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
I like how you pretend that similar ahistorical nonsense isn't a mainstay of vanilla EU4
I was surprised once to see byzantium surviving and pushing back the ottomans because of an early war on Albania.
I can see the appeal sometimes when you play.

But if every game end up as complete ahistorical nonsense every game (and it will if the start date is in the 14th, unless Somes events are implemented ala crusader kings)
It's like the charlemagne start date in ck2, but worst.
cause it will impact the entire world.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
One thing that bugged me in early eu4 and in eu3 was that ruler titles were all "king". Are Caesar ruler titles appropriate to specific country? like Archdukes and counts
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
It was a dead end because noone cared. People returned to guve the game a second chance without mana, but "noone" stuck around because the game was just as bad as with mana.
I'm talking for myself. I didn't like Imperator first because of mana, but then I realized I didn't care much for the countries of the period. Except, Macedon, Seleucid, and Rome, I didn't feel like their fate engaged me, since those all are dead cultures nowadays. I guess I didn't like Antiquity as much as I thought, though perhaps if I tried again I would be more hooked.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I was surprised once to see byzantium surviving and pushing back the ottomans because of an early war on Albania.
I can see the appeal sometimes when you play.

But if every game end up as complete ahistorical nonsense every game (and it will if the start date is in the 14th, unless Somes events are implemented ala crusader kings)
It's like the charlemagne start date in ck2, but worst.
cause it will impact the entire world.
The chances of an EU4 game being historical is 0%
 
  • 3
Reactions:
The chances of an EU4 game being historical is 0%
I don't think anyone is asking for a straight 100% historical game.
But having at least the top 10 nations get a bit of historical border without the player intervention, and not ending up as an opm, is not so difficult to make
(at least in the current eu4 date)
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I don't think anyone is asking for a straight 100% historical game.
But having at least the top 10 nations get a bit of historical border without the player intervention, and not ending up as an opm, is not so difficult to make
(at least in the current eu4 date)
By what criteria do you define "top 10 nations". By all means Burgundy is in the top 10 in terms of power in Europe I'd imagine at start of 1444 vanilla EU4, but you would define them surviving as something ahistorical. You're asking for railroading rather than simulation.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
The chances of an EU4 game being historical is 0%
I don’t think historical outcome is the goal. It remains an alternative history game. Plausible outcome whoever, certainly is something people could ask for.

CK3 border gore where Portuguese duke weds and inherits à Novgorodian county is not necessarily something desirable to reproduce.

There are logics and contexts behind one’s specific growth or decline which need to be either fundamentally changed for one great power outcome to shift, not merely an EU4 rival chain alliance. Regional struggle and competitive interests could be made more important, and the later Westphalia diplomacy of the balance of power made more central.

Eu4 rival system was interesting, but it had its flaws, notably in that it was quite static (even more with historical rivals being arbitrarily prevented from allying each other, even after a 300y of gameplay change in context).
Also, in that the power balance was sometimes too unbalanced (with a 2:1 rival ratio).
More importantly, as opposite nations were, unless they were themselves great powers, unable to enter a totally unbalanced war to voluntarily join a defender and thus restore regional equilibrium. Something which is especially characteristic of the post 1648 period, even more of the British position during the napoleonic era (yet although a fierce rival, they supported Talleyrand’s position and maintained a powerful France, against the risk of Russian or Prussian hegemony in Europe)

Speaking of which, it leads me to another thing I truly hope will come take its rightful place in « tinto game ». Shared peace (HOI4 / VIC3 styled). Where everyone can advance their own participation to support getting a piece of the cake, not only the war leader. In EU4, you could have only 5% participation and still take 100% of the cake
 
Last edited:
  • 4
Reactions:
One thing that bugged me in early eu4 and in eu3 was that ruler titles were all "king". Are Caesar ruler titles appropriate to specific country? like Archdukes and counts
I also hope aside from titles they would have more specific representation AND gameplay. Which is in accord with Tintos wish of replayability.
- Give a special mechanic to elective Poland, not only a « send diplomat to support heir ».
- Bribe polish nobles to use their veto as Russia to prevent any military law from being successfully passed.
- Try to bribe the HRE electors as Charles V and Francois I, making them richer and more powerful on the way. Get elected successfully, but knowing you have seriously diminished your own ability to centralize power after that.
- Elect a danish king as Denmark, or chose not to reproduce the line at his death.
1 Hold a kurultai as a restored mongol empire, trying to avoid your realm from breaking apart (again).
- Bring the House of Commons and House of Lords together to pass a tax law on your American citizens as the British king. See it get much more difficult than a Russian Autocrat or French absolute monarchy
 
Assuming that this is for an entire country (it is likely, given the numbers), the population chart/display shown at the bottom is of Byzantium. The number of people is over one million, mostly Greek. It is fair to assume these numbers represent countries at the start date since I doubt the game is even at a playable state where they could run through conquest campaigns to get this far. This means that the game will likely not take place in 1444 like EU4, and instead will likely take place before the complete downfall of the Byzantine empire, likely to be in the 1300s.
The population map further backs this idea up, as you can see a very large nation encompassing a large portion of northern and central India, which might be some sort of representation of the Delhi sultanate.
If this is true, this will mean that we have a large, but crumbling Yuan empire at the start date, and instead of a powerful Ottomans at start date, we will instead have a lot of Turkish tribes and the ability to form the Ottomans with any of them. This would also be before the Timurids formed, so a gameplay path would be to form them and then later in the game deal with the instability problems.
It looks like. There is some realm looking similar to the Dali kingdom in Yunnan. Which was here before the Yuan (but I doubt the game would take place in the 13th century) and still maintained some regional power during the yuan.
It probably is represented as a vassal, or a rebellious vassal
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Ahaha, I see what you did there, you tricked us into thinking you were making EUV while secretly creating Victoria IV Elizabeth I!

I'm all for it, please go on.
 
  • 7Haha
Reactions:
I don’t think historical outcome is the goal. It remains an alternative history game. Plausible outcome whoever, certainly is something people could ask for.

CK3 border gore where Portuguese duke weds and inherits à Novgorodian county is not necessarily something desirable to reproduce.

There are logics and contexts behind one’s specific growth or decline which need to be either fundamentally changed for one great power outcome to shift, not merely an EU4 rival chain alliance. Regional struggle and competitive interests could be made more important, and the later Westphalia diplomacy of the balance of power made more central.

Eu4 rival system was interesting, but it had its flaws, notably in that it was quite static (even more with historical rivals being arbitrarily prevented from allying each other, even after a 300y of gameplay change in context).
Also, in that the power balance was sometimes too unbalanced (with a 2:1 rival ratio).
More importantly, as opposite nations were, unless they were themselves great powers, unable to enter a totally unbalanced war to voluntarily join a defender and thus restore regional equilibrium. Something which is especially characteristic of the post 1648 period, even more of the British position during the napoleonic era (yet although a fierce rival, they supported Talleyrand’s position and maintained a powerful France, against the risk of Russian or Prussian hegemony in Europe)

Speaking of which, it leads me to another thing I truly hope will come take its rightful place in « tinto game ». Shared peace (HOI4 / VIC3 styled). Where everyone can advance their own participation to support getting a piece of the cake, not only the war leader. In EU4, you could have only 5% participation and still take 100% of the cake
I find it amusing that people call for "plausible history" but then moan about the start date because the plausible outcome of the 100 years war of an English victory and eating France is something they don't want happening 80% of the time. Rather disingenuous of them.

I agree the issue is having mechanics that make sense so bizarre occurrences like you describe don't happen (as in make systems less arcady) but railroading for example a French victory or Muscovite rise against the Tartar Yolk should not be a thing if it compromises the simulation. "Lucky Nations" or as Otawai would describe it his ""Top 10"", were a terrible way to handle it in EU4 for example.
 
  • 7
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions: