• 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:
The discussion in this thread theorizes that we are looking at the mid 1300s. I don't know if that lines up with the numbers for Dai Viet, but it should be closer at least.
Whoops, missed that massive Delhi. Vietnam had a rough 1300s thanks to the instability up north and southern invasions, so its population remained mostly unchanged from 1300-1400. The only estimate I could find was 2.4 million in about 1300, along with the 1.5-3 million from 1400 as stated earlier. Source is from Wikipedia, which I checked the sources of. The lowest estimate was a little suspect, but the others were scholarly. Still about the same
 
I'm with you here on adding tribals, especially since culture is already represented. Social organization is heavily influenced by culture, and vice versa. So as you conquer the steppes as Russia, simply having Tatar culture pops is sufficient to know that they are nomadic tribes with their own way of life.

Really the only thing I hope you will consider is an urban population beyond burghers. Unskilled urban residents were very diverse throughout history, so the culture argument has less effect. Additionally, the legal regime for those living in cities has historically been significantly different from people living in rural areas. In many places extremely harsh tenancy laws led to land abandonment and migration into cities. Having these important factors properly represented is crucial for the time period, as it was during this time that the great urbanization began. In 1300 something like 1% of the world lived in cities. Combined with population growth and average urbanization increasing by a factor of 10, this era saw an incredible increase in the population of cities.

I'm sure you already have systems under design to properly register urban populations, so I'll withhold judgment and won't get to groveling just yet :p. Excited to see what other designs are in the works

Edit: ah, is it the case that "Burghers" represents all urban pop? Both politically significant (wealthy merchants, guild masters etc) AND the urban poor?
I'm not sure if I agree. Many cultures are divided between sedentary and nomadic people. As for your example, the core population of the Kazan Khanate were actually agriculturalists, and had to defend themselves against raids from nomadic tatars to the south. Likewise, not all arabs are bedouins, most Russians and Ukrainians are not Cossacks, etc. It's also possible for people to switch from being nomadic to sedentary or vice versa (the Turks in Anatolia being a good example that is close to the game's time frame). And there are many parts of the world that are not suitable for sedentary agriculture, and also many parts of the world that are not suitable for pastoralism. Just designating some cultures as "nomads" doesn't feel like it really capture the mechanics of this. If the Yuan dynasty colonises Guyana and imports some Mongols there (which is going to be possible in the game unless we ban certain cultures from immigrating to provinces that "aren't suitable for their lifestyles" or something), do they continue to be nomads just because they are Mongols?

I strongly believe that capturing the difference between nomadic and sedentary people should be one of the top priorities of the game. It is a massive hole in eu4's portrayal of reality. Ruling over nomads should have completely different mechanics from ruling over sedentary populations. In eu4 you can just take nomad land in a peace deal and it works exactly the same way as any other land, even though in real life, controlling nomads was always a massive problem for empires, they are hard to govern and hard to control the movements of (though this sort of also applies to tribes in general). Securing control over nomad land should be an arduous process. And nomadic countries should have different mechanics as well.

For example something that constantly happens in the game is Ming or other Chinese countries randomly annexing chunks of Mongolia and having no problems keeping control of them, even though this was impossible, they could only rule the Mongols by client relationships with Mongol princes and nobles, which is a weak form of control, and it was very difficult to prevent nomads from raiding. This is the reason why they needed the Great Wall, and why the Great Wall was built precisely along the line that divides nomad land from cultivated land.

To be fair, I do not not necessarily think that they should be their own social class. The idea of some people to represent them by duplicating the peasant estate does not really work because most nomad societies had nobles who were also nomads. But I certainly think this distinction is more important to represent than differentiating between specific types of city-dwellers. To be fair, we could just divide up all the cultures so that ethnicities that contain both nomads and non nomads are split into two. This would have some weird consequences though, like for example it would destroy Ukrainian as a culture.
I'm not surprised the number had to be trimmed down. Every new pop type is a threat to performance and must justify its existence. While the DD says "nobles, clergy, burghers, peasants and slaves", what I'm actually hearing is "3 estates pops, 1 for slaves and 1 for everyone else". I take it distinguishing pops for the 3 estates (i.e. people who could matter for politics of the era) was considered necessary to have sufficient simulation depth. Just wouldn't feel the same if there were only 3 pop types: "the high, the normal, the oppressed".

Most people asking for pop types are really asking for how to express "this social tier in this region was different to a similar tier in that region". Johan already said "serfs = peasants with X and Y" which the DD has not presented so clearly there's a lot more details yet to be revealed.
To be fair, it is possible for serfs and free peasants to exist in the same society. Though I am not sure if that was common enough in the actual game time period for it to deserve representation.
 
  • 7
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I was not here when these talks diaries started but I'd like to mention.

This is a wonderful idea! Being able to include people in the dev process and get feedback at an early stage before things are ready for announcement. I really appreciate the involvement.
Truly wish other companies would follow the same example.
 
The map at the top implies a start date of late 1300s, it seems like a political map, ( it does not match up to the cultural map we are shown), and the delhii sultanate still controls Jaunpur, so it is before 1394
View attachment 1094462
No Maldives? Well we were pretty irrelevant historically, except winning a war against Portugal lol

Was fun and challenging playing my home country in CK2, CK3, EU4 and Imperator Rome (with mods) and conquering all of South Asia, but yeah we were historically irrelevant so I get why we were excluded, still big sadge:(
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I was just watching OPB's video on the first three "Totally not EU5" Tinto-Talks, and his discussion on why he thought some sort of mission tree system, like what we have in Imperator Rome, got me thinking about other ways you guys could both set the game on historically familiar tracks, but give the player some "turnout" switches to steer their game in which ever direction they want.

So I was wondering if you guys are going to be brining back the Age of X mechanic from entirely unrelated EU4 into Totally-not-EU5, and if you do, have you guys given any thought into have a dynamic age system like what we're going to see in Millennia? (which I am very excited for)
I don't know what the practicality of a system like this would be in a game like this , but I think, where what you do or don't achieve in a previous age entirely changing what sort of age you would progress forward into, would both give players a historically familiar path to follow, but still allow them to jump off the deep end if they wanted to.

I also think implementing a system like this would make the game more fleshed out outside of Europe. Even though, surprise-surprise, a game named "Universal Europe", should probably focus on Europe, it never made sense to me why Natives in central Mexico or an Empire in far Eastern Asia would have a Age of Reformation when they would hardly even know who the Pope or Jesus was, or an age of Absolutism when those societal changes primarily hit Europe, or an age of Revolution when those revolutions happened almost entirely in the Americas and France (who proceeded to make it everybody elses problem).

I don't think a system like this would make-or-break "Totally not EU5" (and as nice as it would be I wouldn't expect a system like this off-the-bat on release), but I feel like it would give players choices, could work very well in tandem with an IR-like Mission Tree system, and make the world much more believable whether the player(s) and/or AI are following history or taking things down a different road.
What are your thoughts on that?

Very excited for the next Tinto-Talk, I'm glad you guys are going out of your way to get the communities feedback, keep up the great work!
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
"Population"

happiness noises

"The simulation of the population will be what everything is based upon, economy, politics, and warfare."

more happiness noises.


When it comes to population, Pdx games have had different approaches of implementing it:


EU4 is a great game overall with a weak population abstraction called development.


Stellaris is a fun game where the population implementation is also kind of okayish but felt like a missed opportunity to be great.

Imperator is a game that absolutely nails the depth-level for a game where population is *not* the focus. It only suffered upon release due to experimenting with too many new mechanics at once and therefore got a bad reception early on. The final game was amazing though and tbh I'd love to see the Imperator pop system replace EU4 development in some DLC at some point. RIP Imperator. For the goals mentioned above it's probably a bit too shallow though.

So we arrive at Victoria II and Victoria as the two games that would probably come closest to what Project Caesar is trying to achieve, allthough there will likely be a slightly different focus.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
"Population"

happiness noises

"The simulation of the population will be what everything is based upon, economy, politics, and warfare."

more happiness noises.


When it comes to population, Pdx games have had different approaches of implementing it:


EU4 is a great game overall with a weak population abstraction called development.


Stellaris is a fun game where the population implementation is also kind of okayish but felt like a missed opportunity to be great.

Imperator is a game that absolutely nails the depth-level for a game where population is *not* the focus. It only suffered upon release due to experimenting with too many new mechanics at once and therefore got a bad reception early on. The final game was amazing though and tbh I'd love to see the Imperator pop system replace EU4 development in some DLC at some point. RIP Imperator. For the goals mentioned above it's probably a bit too shallow though.

So we arrive at Victoria II and Victoria as the two games that would probably come closest to what Project Caesar is trying to achieve, allthough there will likely be a slightly different focus.
I can't wait for the Black Death to straight up annihilate the industry of all of Europe for decades.

I can't wait to decide to stop a winning war because I cannot afford more tax paying men dying.

I can't wait to see how the HRE becomes a desolate wasteland that willl never come close to recovery after the 30 Years War.

The impact population will have on the fundamental realities of the game. We're 3, really 2 Tinto Talks in and i'm already hyped about it.
 
  • 5Like
  • 2Love
Reactions:
I can't wait for the Black Death to straight up annihilate the industry of all of Europe for decades.

I can't wait to decide to stop a winning war because I cannot afford more tax paying men dying.

I can't wait to see how the HRE becomes a desolate wasteland that willl never come close to recovery after the 30 Years War.

The impact population will have on the fundamental realities of the game. We're 3, really 2 Tinto Talks in and i'm already hyped about it.
Different religions of the estates could also make peace time so much more interesting and lift the game above map-painter. Traditional catholic clergy fighting for a power versus protestant burghers... All these things are so much more immersive and have a lot of potential.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
No Maldives? Well we were pretty irrelevant historically, except winning a war against Portugal lol

Was fun and challenging playing my home country in CK2, CK3, EU4 and Imperator Rome (with mods) and conquering all of South Asia, but yeah we were historically irrelevant so I get why we were excluded, still big sadge:(

I really hope they add Maldives, it existed in CK2, CK3, and EU4, it wouldn't make any sense to ignore them now especially now they add more provinces to everywhere due to better tools.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
The way they have the cultures labeled (with the different font and an underline) is similar to how in Victoria 3 and CK3 you have extra information/bonuses available by putting your cursor over words. There is a chance that different cultures will have bonuses/traits like in CK3 which would be interesting. This would give a reason to maintain multicultural empires.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Whatever game this is, you are going in the very right direction. Pops are awesome, and I strongly prefer the simulationist approach. I hope that supply will somehow play a larger role (similar to I:R, which is now a very good game with flaws, esp. trade). Also, having more than 1 resource per province would feel much more immersive.
 
No Maldives? Well we were pretty irrelevant historically, except winning a war against Portugal lol

Was fun and challenging playing my home country in CK2, CK3, EU4 and Imperator Rome (with mods) and conquering all of South Asia, but yeah we were historically irrelevant so I get why we were excluded, still big sadge:(
Pretty sure the Maldives are that circle thing? I'm sure they'll be in the game because they're in all the other games. Also, while it can be easy to take everything here at face value, these screenshots are almost certainly not going to be representative of the final game presentation. It's a safe bet that the map at release will be noticeably different from this one.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
The talk about tribes, eunuchs and whatnot does make me think about how EU4 has more estates than just the 4 pop types here. And while some are just regional varieties of nobles or burghers, estates like Cossacks (or aforementioned tribes and eunuchs) don't really have a clear equivalent. Makes me wonder how they'll get reflected.

Pretty sure the Maldives are that circle thing? I'm sure they'll be in the game because they're in all the other games. Also, while it can be easy to take everything here at face value, these screenshots are almost certainly not going to be representative of the final game presentation. It's a safe bet that the map at release will be noticeably different from this one.
It does look like a visual bug. There appears to be something really tiny between the two half-circles there, right in the middle height-wise. So it looks like that area just has wrong scale for some reason.
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
Reactions:
No Maldives? Well we were pretty irrelevant historically, except winning a war against Portugal lol

Was fun and challenging playing my home country in CK2, CK3, EU4 and Imperator Rome (with mods) and conquering all of South Asia, but yeah we were historically irrelevant so I get why we were excluded, still big sadge:(

The Maldives look like a small dot with semicircular sea tiles around it in the population image but the Laccadive islands and other islands are missing, so it may be really small due to the map not using supersized islands like EU4.

There may be an option to zoom closer and see the Maldives that way.

The Maldives had economic importance in the Indian Ocean during the time period. And if they added some islands off the coast of Africa (in the map from Tinto Talks 2), then there is no reason to forget the Maldives.

And they can add the Maldives in later if it is not actually there since they are still working on the game. EU4 added the Maldives when the team shuffled around unused tags, so many years ago.


The talk about tribes, eunuchs and whatnot does make me think about how EU4 has more estates than just the 4 pop types here. And while some are just regional varieties of nobles or burghers, estates like Cossacks (or aforementioned tribes and eunuchs) don't really have a clear equivalent. Makes me wonder how they'll get reflected.


It does look like a visual bug. There appears to be something really tiny between the two half-circles there, right in the middle height-wise. So it looks like that area just has wrong scale for some reason.

The Maldives do seem particularly small but they may be using the proportions based on the map projection to keep it realistic. The Maldives are small in real life, and EU4 scaled some islands up due to the difficulty in selecting them.

In the map of the previous Tinto Talks, Venice is no longer a large island in the Adriatic Sea, so there may be a way to interact with locations, including small islands, that they have not revealed yet.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
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.
You know what I mean by this,
France, England, Spain, Austria, Ottomans, Qing, Russia, Plc
 
Interesting. Then suppose this game is EU5, what would your ideal start and end date for a normal playthrough be?
Assuming this game starts at between 1360-1380 as most people seem to be suggesting, i would have it end at 1699 (The reference being the treaty of Westphalia, marking the transition into a world of proper nation-states, rather than feudal concepts. However 1648 as an end-date would not be ideal, since several wars in Europe continued well after Westphalia, and iirc 1699 is the first year where there is total peace in Europe Post Westphalia.

The next game could start in 1648, and go all the way to ~1845 (to include the American colonial wars of independence).
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The Maldives do seem particularly small but they may be using the proportions based on the map projection to keep it realistic. The Maldives are small in real life, and EU4 scaled some islands up due to the difficulty in selecting them.

In the map of the previous Tinto Talks, Venice is no longer a large island in the Adriatic Sea, so there may be a way to interact with locations, including small islands, that they have not revealed yet.
On one hand, the individual Maldives islands are indeed small. On the other hand they do form rather widepsread atolls that could still be visually represented on the map somehow if an island as small as Car Nicobar is.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Assuming this game starts at between 1360-1380 as most people seem to be suggesting, i would have it end at 1699 (The reference being the treaty of Westphalia, marking the transition into a world of proper nation-states, rather than feudal concepts. However 1648 as an end-date would not be ideal, since several wars in Europe continued well after Westphalia, and iirc 1699 is the first year where there is total peace in Europe Post Westphalia.

The next game could start in 1648, and go all the way to ~1845 (to include the American colonial wars of independence).
Can't say I'm a big fan of this idea.
A game set between the 18th century and Vicky's start date wouldn't have much to distinguish itself from EU4 and EU5.
In both eras you witness the rise of centralized states, in both eras you have colonization (in one you start, in the other it would be something you complete, with all the major players already having seized their claims), in both eras you wage a bunch of wars for territorial expansion and few great powers come to organize themselves.

CK distinguishes itself because it features personal politics over national ones, as expected from the Medieval era, while Victoria distinguishes by its industrial age setting that makes the economy and mass politics way more important. The problem of a game set from the early 1700s to 1836 also runs into the same problem EU has that the Revolutionary period is a very unique and weird historical period that's hard to replicate right.
 
  • 8
Reactions: