• 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:
Have you thought about renaming some of these groups? I wonder if there might not be a better word than peasants for, well, peasants. A word that could encompass those farmers who were not in the lower social strata, but who were also not members of the nobility.

Actually, a better question might be: do some of these POPs change the title of their social class depending on where they are? This is especially important for those areas of the world where the peasant pop will, presumably, cover nomads, hunter-gatherers, and pastoralists.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
My idea for manpower: A new population type called soldiers with 10% equilibrium (before increases and decreases, such as barracks buildings). Armies recruited will take an appropriate amount of soldiers from said province, as well as reinforcements. If a province reaches 0 soldiers, it will stop recruitment and reinforcement. Definitely would be the most realistic, creating a version of scorched earth and penalties to constant war, not sure how fun it would be in practice. What do you think?
 
  • 3
Reactions:
My idea for manpower: A new population type called soldiers with 10% equilibrium (before increases and decreases, such as barracks buildings). Armies recruited will take an appropriate amount of soldiers from said province, as well as reinforcements. If a province reaches 0 soldiers, it will stop recruitment and reinforcement. Definitely would be the most realistic, creating a version of scorched earth and penalties to constant war, not sure how fun it would be in practice. What do you think?
What pops can become the soldiery should be based on the cultures or laws of the land rather than a unique pop type. Certain pop types would turn into certain soldier types.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
A game set between the 18th century and Vicky's start date wouldn't have much to distinguish itself from EU4 and EU5.
Exactly.
This is why for me this 17th-19th game would be the actual Eu5, and the 14th-17th century one would actually be the new franchise.

Imo Europa Universalis with it's nation-state tags and standing armies, fits much better it's later half than it's still feudal early half.

I would keep the traditional Europa Universalis mechanics for the 17th-19th century game, and would make it so that the 14th-17th century one would instead be the one with a completely different game design, leaning a bit closer to Crusader Kings in it's character and tiltles focus.

Thematically speaking "Europa Universalis" fits more with the 17th-19th centuries, when Europe basically conquered the world.
Between the 14th and 17th centuries however there wasn't much difference between Europe and the rest of the world, to justify such a title.
 
  • 4
  • 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).
I like your explanation, but all I can say is that I would feel disappointed if the game would end 1699. If the devs want to add 100 ears at the start it's one thing, but cutting off 100 at the end would make me less interested in this game overall.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
I like your explanation, but all I can say is that I would feel disappointed if the game would end 1699. If the devs want to add 100 ears at the start it's one thing, but cutting off 100 at the end would make me less interested in this game overall.
Very Understandable.
Which is why if i was in charge of making this split into two games, i would start with the 17th-19th game first, and then make the 14th-17th game after.

As i feel like there is a bigger demand for a new late-modern period game, than late medieval (which is reasonably well covered by Ck3)
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I don't know if this reply will even be read, but I ask you to please add a way to form, even if without any missions or flavor, Babylonia/Sumeria (possibly with chaldean religion...this might be too much, but still hoping). Always loved the history and mythology of this civilizations, but without the exception of Imperator, never been able to play them. If you find the time to add, even if only as a formable without flavor, I'm sure me and more people will be really happy! Thank you for reading

(btw, the game looks incredible!)
 
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
i don't like population systems . as it can be seen in victoria 3 for example, there's multiple cheesy exploits that allow players to do absurd unrealistic things. it adds too much minaxing to the game, and because of it, it feels like players have to exploit if they want to be good at the game
it's okay to represent population, but if EVERYTHING in the game is based around them... that's just too much minmaxing for me
 
  • 5
Reactions:
i don't like population systems . as it can be seen in victoria 3 for example, there's multiple cheesy exploits that allow players to do absurd unrealistic things. it adds too much minaxing to the game, and because of it, it feels like players have to exploit if they want to be good at the game
The exploits are not linked to the population system, a lot of world conquest is done thanks to exploits on eu4, it is the quality of the system which will decide whether or not there will be exploits
 
  • 4
Reactions:
If technology is tied to literacy, I think it would be about the number of literate elite. Other things being equal, 1000 dedicated scientists can invent more things than 100 scientists, it does not matter whether there are 100k or 10M illiterate peasants in the country. Then again, if there are no dedicated scientists but the same elite is also responsible for administering the country, an elite of 1000 ruling over 100k would have more time left for science than an elite of 100 ruling over 10M.

But the number of literate elite available to do science is not the only thing that matters, inventions often rise from necessity so they'd invent more when there's incentive to do so. And no hindrances to inventing, eg. religious doctrine saying that is bad to research some things.

Then again, I don't know how much of technology should be tied to literacy. An illiterate peasant is unlikely to invent theoretical physics, but he may well invent a better plow or a better spear.

Literacy = tech doesn't sit well with me either. But the only suggestions I can come up with is something with multiple needs for increase in innovation/science. So you can't just turn literacy up to 100%, while whatever else is at 20% and expect much results beyond perhaps something short term to catch up if literacy was what kept inno/science relatively stagnant. I'm not very confident about exactly what triggered the Renaissance, but I can imagine things like literacy, time, social fabric and funding being available, while the influx of greeks/romans from the east fullfilled an "exchange of ideas" need or whatever. In a simple iteration inno/science could be set by the lowest need, and anything above that would just give very diminishing returns.

Either way, I'm sure this has been thought out already here, But if anyone thinks that's a decent starting point, take it and run with it. :D

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?

Sedentary vs nomadic could be handled on location/province level. Maybe do a sanity check for which culture/religion (&groups) have the most sedentary or nomadic tags the last 200 years or whatnot when the code wants to move people around. Just to get fairly decently sane end results. Not sure if this would be more calculation efficient, but it's a halfway decen option at least.
 
I don't know if anyone has noticed this since there is almost 40 pages but China's population on the screenshot is almost identical to the 1351 population estimate for China, which hint at the game starting in the 1350s.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
I don't know if anyone has noticed this since there is almost 40 pages but China's population on the screenshot is almost identical to the 1351 population estimate for China, which hint at the game starting in the 1350s.
Borders don't match