• 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:
no, it will name it self from the province or area or culture or so.
Will dynamic countries named after cultures use possibly a number of preset countries like Slovenia, Afghanistan etc, or perhaps there are a bunch of preset dynamic "suffixes" such as "ia", "land", "stan" etc? So for example could there be a dynamic chance for a Xhosaland tag or something similar to be generated from the culture name or you have to manually create a country name for every culture there is in the game?

It picks the one with the most pops from that culture.
Even if the culture is not accepted or just as displeased in that other country as in the rebelling one? Or rather they can only join a country where their culture is accepted or primary culture?
 
So, what happens if a country would revolt, but then minorities of said revolter country then revolt during the war.
E.g: Hungary revolting against Austria after getting annexed but then slovaks,romanians etc revolt against hungary mid war. Would it become a complete free for all or wouldnt it be possible in general
 
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Perhaps if you get into the unlikely situation where the majority of your core pops is of a different religious group, they should start a civil war instead of a revolt?

On another note:
yeah, but if integrated and high control, its less of a problem.
maybe once? Usually none if you play decently, and nothing else happens.

I know I have not played it, but from how this is presented, I still don't think I like this. Pop's rebelliousness should be based primarily on their culture's rights and relationship with your state (I hope the "accepted culture" system is good). The degree of an area's integration into your state should not make people happier! And it should definitely not be the main contributor to whether they revolt or not! (Which -50% vs -10% satisfaction compared to those other modifiers would definitely mean)
 
  • 7Like
Reactions:
Won't calling the former country to war lead to a system of double wars?

You fight the war to conquer Normandy against France, then you fight the war against the rebels that spawned, who also call in France. So you have to fight France twice to get the land. Every time you conquer a piece of land you have to fight two wars, basically, rather than a war and a rebellion.

I think the rebellion should have a grace period where the former owner country can't be called. If you deal with the rebellion quickly and efficiently enough, the former owner can't intervene.

Sure, you can also avoid the rebellion entirely, but Johan has mentioned that it requires some planning to get that done and even then it's not guaranteed that a rebellion won't spawn.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
This brings to mind questions of how New World colonial nations will become independent? Will there be some sort of mechanic representing the divergence of colonists from the mother country's own culture?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Again, the same method as in EU3: oppressive methods (stationing friendly troops or building forts ) enhance the satisfaction of the population which is quite funny. Who are happy to have a regiment on his back?
These methods should decrease the pop join rebel threshold instead.
The people may be very unsatisfied - 'but you know what happens if we do something...'
But when the troops leave the province (f.e. due to a foreign war) the populace begins to sharpen the household tools at once.
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
I preferred the term "separatist" to "nationalist", nationalism seems a bit out of scope for the period.
The (usually) Hobsbawm-inspired idea that nationalism is an invention of the post-French Revolution world is not wrong, but it is very often overblown in discussions like this.

The word itself in English supposedly dates to 1798, but it only really saw widespread usage after the 1860s-1870s, when it was already being adopted by the political right and increasingly being abandoned by its traditional centrist/center-left democratic liberal proponents, with it no longer being the core of the radical left of the time, which was now made up of socialist internationalists of various stripes.

The problem is that the most famous "nationalist movements" we know all happened between the rough period of the 1780s - 1860s, before the word was even really "mainstream" or something people actually called themselves. Even before the 18th century, ideas of sovereignty, nationhood and even of "popular national sovereignty", had already been developed, even if in very early or embryonic forms, by the mid-to-late 17th century (some were even present by the 15th or 16th centuries).

Assuming project Caesar has an end date of 1821/1830, about half of that "period of nationalism" falls clearly within the late era of the game itself, even if the term wasn't popular then. This is double true if the often-cited idea of the word being present by 1798 is true, since it means that even the word itself is part of the game's period.

"Separatist" is not a bad term, nor would I lament a renaming away from the term "nationalist", but this is not the jarring anarchronism it seems to some.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
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.
Wouldn't the logical result of that be that, if a civil war looks unwinnable, the player will simply do a 180° turn and try to lose faster? You know, so as not to waste his time and the "other" side's resources.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
So would the Sardinians not dislike the Catalans for waging war against them in the example given? I understand there is a conquered modifier as well, but I’d imagine that Aragonese soldiers or any allies of them fighting on the Sardinian soil leaves a foul taste for the local peasants against whichever culture those enemies were from.

Could that be implemented?
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Can we call them separatists rather than nationalists? Nationalism is not a thing until the last century of the game's timeframe.

This discourse about nationalism being invented in the 19th century is outdated and eurocentric. Did Japan have to wait to the 19th century to regard itself as a nation? Nonsense.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The (usually) Hobsbawm-inspired idea that nationalism is an invention of the post-French Revolution world is not wrong, but it is very often overblown in discussions like this.

The word itself in English supposedly dates to 1798, but it only really saw widespread usage after the 1860s-1870s, when it was already being adopted by the political right and increasingly being abandoned by its traditional centrist/center-left democratic liberal proponents, with it no longer being the core of the radical left of the time, which was now made up of socialist internationalists of various stripes.

The problem is that the most famous "nationalist movements" we know all happened between the rough period of the 1780s - 1860s, before the word was even really "mainstream" or something people actually called themselves. Even before the 18th century, ideas of sovereignty, nationhood and even of "popular national sovereignty", had already been developed, even if in very early or embryonic forms, by the mid-to-late 17th century (some were even present by the 15th or 16th centuries).

Assuming project Caesar has an end date of 1821/1830, about half of that "period of nationalism" falls clearly within the late era of the game itself, even if the term wasn't popular then. This is double true if the often-cited idea of the word being present by 1798 is true, since it means that even the word itself is part of the game's period.

"Separatist" is not a bad term, nor would I lament a renaming away from the term "nationalist", but this is not the jarring anarchronism it seems to some.
Still, a nationalist revolt is not at all representable for the majority of the timeframe this is played in.

Moreover, it portrays and maintains a problematic idea that nationalism in this form has always existed. Or that nationalism has always been a grassroots movement, rather than also top-down with states nationalizing its people.

The ideas of nationalism has more to do with creating a nation-state where legitimacy comes from serving the specific people, than the particularism of a cultural group wanting to secede from a tyrant. This has more to do with anti-imperialism and not wanting to be governed by an outsider, which in modern times were used by nationalist movements, but are not the same. Else you could consider tribalism nationalistic.

There are quite a few developments in philosophy and liberalism; state- and legal structures; technological advancement in mass media and education; and some degree of class consciousness missing for these identities to be constructed and distributed for it to be ‘nationalist’ separatism.

A history simulator with alternate developments could see the idea of nationalism sooner or not at all, but it should not be misunderstood as being the same as separatism.

I hope the game will portray the development and spread of enlightenment ideas and changing basis of legitimacy of rulers and states, and the varying role of pops and estates in an interesting and historical way that links properly with this rebel system.
 
  • 3
  • 3
Reactions:
Whether Specific Rebels can change their target or type?

Like many rebels in Chinese history, they did not intend to name themselves kings and emperors and establish a country at first, but to oppose the tyranny of local Great landowners or the government, which was closer to the so-called anti-tax uprising. If the government could not suppress them, or caused dissatisfaction, these anti-tax rebels would begin to consider establishing their own country, the Separatists.
 
This discourse about nationalism being invented in the 19th century is outdated and eurocentric. Did Japan have to wait to the 19th century to regard itself as a nation? Nonsense.
The already highly* (The Ryukyu and Ainu very much had their own identity) unified state of Japan used Western ideas of nationalism and applied them to their own situation to very successfully mobilize its people without the strife seen elsewhere. However, cultural unity =/= nationalism.

See how Osterhammel in his book ‘The Transformation of the World’ CH.8 described Japan as having a separate path to nationalism as an example of what I mean.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
In the history of the late Chinese Empire, the rebels who directly declared themselves to be the founders of a new country were generally people associated with some secret religions. Their doctrines were usually millennialism, and there would be a kingdom of heaven coming to the earth, so they would directly declare themselves the founders of this new country (modern historians generally believe that Hong Xiuquan was also influenced by this ideology, not just Christianity)
 
Perhaps if you get into the unlikely situation where the majority of your core pops is of a different religious group, they should start a civil war instead of a revolt?

On another note:




I know I have not played it, but from how this is presented, I still don't think I like this. Pop's rebelliousness should be based primarily on their culture's rights and relationship with your state (I hope the "accepted culture" system is good). The degree of an area's integration into your state should not make people happier! And it should definitely not be the main contributor to whether they revolt or not! (Which -50% vs -10% satisfaction compared to those other modifiers would definitely mean)
Yeah agreed. I wish they showed an example of what might make a core population rebel, since that of course happened plenty of times in history. As China I should probably be worried a lot more about keeping my Han peasants happy than I should about southwestern tribesmen, and it should be a real danger.
 
  • 2
Reactions: