• 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 #32 - 9th of October 2024

Welcome to another Tinto Talks , the Happy Wednesday, where we talk about our upcoming, unannounced, supercalifragilisticexpialidocious game with the codename Project Caesar.

Today we will talk about what happens when some of the pops in your country are not entirely convinced of its greatness.

Rebel Factions

There are five different categories that a rebel faction can belong to.
  • Nationalist, for all independence movements.
  • Pretender, for when they want another ruler.
  • Slave, for when they want to be free.
  • Religious, if a different religious group they want independence, else they want to convert the country
  • Estate, for when they are really unhappy and want their society to change.

patriots.png

A fair number of pops, and 12 locations, this could be a challenge..

Pops and Rebel Factions
Now let's go back to Tinto Talks #17, where we first mentioned that Pops have satisfaction, and when that is low enough a pop will join a rebel faction. The levels at which a pop joins or leaves a faction have some different factors, but the way to keep a pop from joining a rebel is to make sure they are satisfied with life.

Now, let's take a look at some Sardinian peasants in Cagliari, which has recently been conquered by Aragon, just before the start of the game.

sardinians.png

For some reason people tend to be a bit upset when conquered.

Sadly we can not make the commoners estate more happy in Aragon, as they are already at 100% satisfaction, so the +25% bonus is the maximum we can get. Otherwise to make the estates happy you can always reduce taxes or grant them more privileges.

One obvious solution here is to make them integrated which would reduce the conquered penalty of 50% to 10%, however that will take about 25 years, which may not be quick enough to avoid an uprising. If we build a castle we could add another 10% of satisfaction, and we could also station an army there to keep the peasants in line.

As they lack access to wine and legumes, and currently trade in a muslim market, we could try to deny market access to Al-Jazair, and they would be slightly happier as the wine would be easier to get from an Italian market.

All of this would make the satisfaction positive at least, but we need to get it above 29.74%, which is not feasible right now.

join_reb.png

A stable country has a higher threshold for rebels to join..

Sadly we can not yet use the Pacify Population cabinet action which you can get in the Age of Absolutism which reduces the threshold for joining rebels by 5-10% depending on the competence of your monarch and cabinet.

If we go back to rebel factions again, they have a progress value, where when it reaches 100%, and here the rebels, which will take about 23 years, so the uprising is likely to happen before the integration is done, unless you can weaken their power, or increase control over their territories so they get less money.

rebel_progress.png

Sadly Sardinia is a bit too far away for a road from Barcelona..

So what happens when a rebel faction has progressed to 100% then? Well, one of two things will happen, either there will be a civil war or a revolt. First the rebel faction forms a new country, with a relevant name, and takes ownership of the locations where it has a strong support.

Revolts
If they are a rebel type that wants to be independent, then they will start a revolt, which is almost a war where the defender can re-annex any revolter without further aggressive expansion and can always afford the peace cost.

If the culture of these revolting countries is from a country that exists on the map, they will call in the country they used to be a part of it into the revolt, and if they join, and the war is won, the revolter will become a part of the country that they belonged to in the past.


Civil War
These are started by pretenders, some religious rebels, or estate type rebels. Civil Wars work differently than other wars in that you do not have to negotiate a peace. In Civil War, as soon as you would have taken control of a location from a siege or occupation, the location would immediately flip ownership of that location instead.

This means that Civil Wars are almost always fought to the bitter end, and only one country can survive.


End of a Civil War.
As this system has a few similarities with the Civil War systems of Imperator Rome, we have to alleviate some concerns here. In Project Caesar there is no Game Over if you lose a Civil War, but instead you have the option to continue as the winning side. One thing to consider here is that the winner will have different rulers, maybe a different religion, perhaps a new government type, dramatic changes to societal values, reforms and/or privileges.

After all, if the peasants revolt and win, you will not keep your glorious full serfdom monarchy as it once was.

civil_war_lost.png

You don’t have to continue, you can pick the other option for the game over screen!



Next week we will talk more about Diplomacy, and that will for most of you be something you already are aware of, but it will list quite a few new aspects.
 
  • 257Like
  • 90Love
  • 11
  • 7
  • 4
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Imagine if they came back to Imperator and finally added back the civil war end screen to that game. People had been asking for that since...well, Imperator was still in the "dev-diaries before release" phase lmao
 
No need to nerd out. This is very simple. Nation come from nacere, to be born, like nature. It's a roman term. It's a community bound by blood, in its most fundamental sense.

Nation is a holistic term. A mongol horde is a nation. An amazonan tribe is a nation. The Theban city state is a nation. When Tokugawa, Nobunaga etc. unified Japan, they were unifying their nation.

Nationhood is fundamental human nature. You are basically putting forward an outdated and anti-antropollogical view point. You are confusing a nation with state centralized structures that bypass traditional power brokers (church, merchants, nobles) and control a polity defined by language, religion, or a defined geographical area (an island).
No, you are confusing nation (what you describe) with nationalism, i.e. creating a state for a nation (or a nation for a state). My issue is with calling this game system nationalism, not the etymological reason for using nation as a group identifier.
 
I agree, but that was never my point. Even then, quite a few medieval historians have argued that we can observe highly embryonic forms of national sentiment even as far back as the Hundred Years War and I personally consider that thesis to be quite reasonable, based on my own reading on the matter.


Nationalism in a *codified* form hasn't always existed, true. But... nationalism in a sort of informal xenophobia and affinity for a "national territory" beyond one's village or region/province *has*.


As you say, nationalism appears in both forms. The French revolution was, in part, also a nationalist revolt against its own monarchy. Really, most of France's post-1300s history has been the long road of a monarchy unwittingly abolishing itself through its sheer power-consolidation and top-down "nationalization". Obviously it wouldn't make sense mechanically to portray the French revolution as "nationalist" in game terms, but historically it was that too.


Again, I would agree, but not fully. An Occitan revolt against France maybe would be regionalist, but the men of a Marseilles regiment during the French revolution were apparently so devoted to the country that spent centuries stamping out their local identity that they sung a song which, through them, would become the literal anthem of the revolution.

On the second point about anti-imperialism, again, one could argue the Hundred Years War from the French point of view to have been an "anti-imperialist struggle", but the criteria that would make such a thing even possible to say can equally be said to have made it a "national struggle". They aren't actually different, xenophobia manifests in both, for example.

No real disagreements here!
You make fair points on the seeds for nationalism being present even before it developed into an ideology, but that is still not the same as having this overarching ideology.

Also, unifying identities beyond ones region can be as subject to the monarch and religion as well. The same way one can now for example feel ‘European’ while also ‘Dutch’ and then ‘Limburgish’ and as citizen of ‘Maastricht’ (and you could go further). It becomes nationalist when one of these takes precedent and the state has to primarily serve this select group. Whether that is French or Occitan in your example does not matter, one can be nationalistic for both. Identifying with one or more is not inherently nationalistic, just the same as identifying with other adherents of a religion does not make it nationalistic (what’s the term for forming a state to serve a religious group?).

Serving the people (read: the masses) was not needed to be legitimate as a ruler for most of history, which is partly why nation-states did not develop before. The game may present different reasons for this ideology to appear, as to not only give a teleological path, but to just portray it was there since medieval times is wrong.

I maintain that it is important to distinguish the term, and instead use the various components that you and I highlight were used in nationalism (arguably, though not decisively, in the French Revolution as you describe), to create game systems that actually simulate it as a distinct ideology that may or may not develop.
 
I really hope this doesn't end up like V3, where the revolter tag spawns with a not nearly enough soldiers ti win and then gets dogpiled by the allies of the government side.
 
Hello, I would like to know if the rebellion of Hadji Davud will be implemented and whether it will be possible to start playing for him immediately after the start of the rebellion, and not only after his victory?
 
It messes up for all royally, but far far worse for the one getting the civil wars.
So, if a player attacked a country, and the country got a civil war, would it be possible for the player to get an event that declares war on the breakaway state as well? This could then be balanced with something like a 50% increase for anything in the peace deal while the civil war is happening. An alternative solution would be for anything that the player occupies to transfer to the original country.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I think rebellions are a bit too harsh. Yes conquest was too fast in eu4, but it was also the most fun aspect of the game.
A few things I would like to suggest:
- Don't allow the rebelling country to form new alliances and call them into war. (I can imagine your rivals being very eager to join in, but it would be very frustrating if you have to fight them with each rebellion)
- Make it so only the previous owner gets called into the war and not its allies as well. (having to fight a very difficult war twice for the same provinces is a bit too harsh)
- If there is no existing country that owned those locations, no one gets called. (so a country that previously didn't care about the conquest of those locations and had nothing to do with the conflict doesn't suddenly get called into the war just because it shares the same culture)
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I have two questions about nationalist revolts
First do the revolting pops need to be a majority to then declare a state? Like can sorbian pops who are a minority in Saxony declare a state that'll rebel, but then as they aren't a majority none of their state will be considered cored.
Second if there are a majority of Ruthenian pops in the Vladivostok region and they rebel, will Ukraine that exist (and helped the rebels) get the Vladivostok as core, or there'll be green Ukraine or something?
 
Yeah, I think I'm not gonna read comments anymore, the joke got old some ten diaries ago.
We need a "turn off wow spamming" toogle.

It's almost, in line with the diarie, revolting
Gee it felt like I'm the only one. Such a childish and dishonest distraction from this upcoming beauty of a game.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Am I one of the few that think the -50% conquered is silly. Peasants wouldnt care if they were conquered. They would care if theyre being oppressed, persecuted, paying high taxes, or not having their needs met, forcibly converted, destroyed all their harvest due to mass looting when taking over the place, etc

Nobles, Burghers, and Clergy would care more about the old regime being uprooted and placed with a new one (especially if it hurts them) and might form a sort of "nationalism". But not peasants. They could welcome invaders with open arms if they hated who ever ruled over them before. Maybe even join the invaders armies!

When the real life Germanic Ostrogoths invaded the Italian peninsula and took it over completely, in game, it would probably make them very unhappy about these new conquerors until they integrated these lands. When in reality, peasants may have not even been aware anything out of the ordinary changed at all or that the roman empire even fell. They just kept going about as usual. Not mulling about how they've been conquered. Especially since they let the roman upper class continue doing what they were doing before.

To me it just seems like a very over simplified way to limit expansion without trying to realistically portray why realms and empires struggled to appease their populace.
 
Last edited:
  • 6
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions: