Tinto Talks #35 - 30th of October

[wkscrombie]

Interesting hmm..

please please do this

It makes sense for the hegemon to have higher prestige and power projection, but I feel like it should otherwise primarily be a severe (and scaling) diplomatic malus that inspires coalitions from nearby powers.

 

[Revshawn]

Honestly, I like the Hegemon idea. I really like the idea of getting a buff on top of what you already have for winning the game and becoming stronger than everyone. I do think that you should get a coalition against you once you get to a certain point, but you should be able to control the coalition to a degree by using your diplomats to keep relations with key nations high.

 

[Salemcolt]

I don't want to be that guy, and I know that is a lot of work on the designs and art behind, but could be possible to add an option to remove the characters from the game?. I think make the game look a little goofy.

On the other hand, like a lot the new system.

 

[Emp3ror552]

Ayo, do my elven eyes lie to me or is France ranked above Mamluks, Golden Horde and Delhi Sultanate?

classic paradox. Will glorify europe so that players can play and enjoy until 1400-1500s

 

[Emp3ror552]

Yes, it's likely an issue with the calculation giving disproportionately high great power points for controlled vassals, they will fix it

what they are going to fix? If they say it is a issue about calculation, then why made mamluks so unpowered? Couldnt they understand the issue when they look the list? And they published that

 

[Emp3ror552]

Yeah, the vassal contribution was too high.

you should take history lessons

 

[ArVass]

you should take history lessons

Your hostility is your downfall

 

[Azgabeth]

This is something I've been musing over recently:

Why not add penalties to hegemonies in the other sectors?

So for example the Military Hegemon has crazy good military buffs, but in exchange they get naval, economic, diplomatic and cultural penalties?

And the more your buffs increase as you remain hegemon, the more your penalties increase in the other aspects.

This is sort of a mechanic to represent comparative advantage and that countries have an opportunity cost to everything. If you want to have the strongest military you have to make some sacrifices.

 

[zeruosi]

you should take history lessons

You shouldn't express your malice like this, really. I also think there is too much beautification of Europe, but after all, this is a game produced by a European studio

 

[Jacopo2]

Would it not make more sense for a kingdom to require a majority of the noble pops of a certain culture? For example, the medieval kingdom of Italy ruled over a majority of the Lombard nobility. And then you could declare an empire by ruling over most of the nobles of more than one culture?


Edit: Why not make coring and integration dependent on the culture of landowning pops anyway (as was the case in reality)?? This could really speed up coring of a large realm since you wouldn't have to slowly convert half of the peasants in a given area to your culture. I think this could open up really interesting avenues for hybrid cultures - formed when the lower strata and upper strata have different cultures (with the middle class being a melting pot). I'm thinking about present-day American cultures, arabic cultures, Turkish etc.

 

[Dewit]

It would be super cool and historical to have regional cultural hegemons, like how France was for a time in western and central Europe and China in east and south-east Asia.

 

[purplephoton]

Pinging @Johan since it’s been a few days and I don’t want this to get lost:

There are a few things that bother me about the implementation and abstraction of great powers in EU4 and PC, and I have some thoughts about two of those things.

1. The idea that being a Great Power increases power projection (as it does in EU4, where being a GP will give you +10-25 PP and being a Hegemon gives you another +25) should be the other way around, and the reason for this is two-fold. First, there is no real metric of what makes a “Great Power” - “Great” is just a shared opinion - but there is a good way to observe and in some ways to measure how much power a country can project within another country - for example, how effectively you can enact policies that go against the first country’s interest, or how well the first country does in a war game where they invade the second. The second part is that the status of "Great Power" and the "ability" to proclaim an empire (i.e. how seriously you'd be taken if you did) is very often shaped by events in the real world that give what EU4 calls power projection (and to a lesser extent prestige).
2. That said, I wouldn’t use factors such as “morale” or “force limit” to measure power projection, but rather have power projection come from the use of the military (not too differently from EU4, though I’d suggest largely detaching it from the rival system). I would also not have power projection come predominantly from economy, population, or development; those factors are a good way of measuring potential, but not for putting said potential into a concrete timescale for the purposes of projecting power or being a Great Power.
3. EU4 did a rather poor job of representing diplomatic soft power. Another country can be “influenced”, but it can only be done if you’re already a Great Power, is always a good thing for the country being influenced, and there is no depth to it. At the same time PC seems to have a superior diplomatic system, and an in-depth legal system, so I hope the devs of PC take a good look at ways to implement ways of turning some diplomatic asset or resource into power projection (for example by turning diplomatic capacity into a benefit for the receiving country, or by harming another country at the cost of relations and aggressive expansion). Another factor that could influence power projection is by having other countries see you as a threat

As a modern-day example to demonstrate my points, I’d like to take USA, Russia, India, and Turkey. India has the world’s largest population, a nuclear arsenal, as well as some less measurable advantages, such as a solid geographical position, yet due to low focus on diplomatic outreach and lack of military action abroad and poor military performance against China, it’s debatable whether it can even be considered a Great Power at all. Russia has a high degree of influence over the majority of its neighbors, one of the best espionage systems in the world, and a nuclear arsenal capable of striking most of the world; it was for a while considered the second-strongest “Great Power” in the world until its abysmal and humiliating performance in Ukraine led to diplomatic and military cracks that put it into a distant third. Turkey barely reaches top 20 in population and can barely hold its economy together, yet due to its ability to intervene in Libya, Syria, Cyprus, and Iraq, jostle for Israel and Iran over Palestine, support Azerbaijan and Ukraine with frequent arms shipments, and stay in NATO while doing all this, is easily considered a regional power if not a great one. USA is 3rd in population, falling behind China in economy, and faces domestic disunity; yet for the foreseeable future (at least a few years) it will remain as the world’s dominant power due to its ability to quite literally project power to most of the world while also having something to offer to the world diplomatically.

To sum up, I think power projection should come from military action (with maybe a bit more coming from rivals than from other countries but not to the degree that EU4 had), as well as from some diplomatic actions (which should have a cost to them so that you can’t just spam them with every willing country). Great Power score should in turn come at least in part from power projection rather than being the other way around.

If I had to come up with a very tentative (read: there isn’t enough info on some of these mechanics yet and this is based on an educated guess) formula for how Great Power rank should be calculated, I’d offer something like:

GPScore = (population/100000) * (1 + avg_dev/100) * (1 + power_projection/100) * (1 + prestige/200)
This way, a country with 15 average development (normal for a late-game EU4 AI but this will likely have to be adjusted for Project Caesar), 60 PP, and 60 prestige will get +15% boost to GP score for being developed, +60% for power projection, and +30% for prestige; they’d have comparable prestige to a barely-developed country with no prestige or power projection that’s twice their population, which I think is pretty reasonable.

Thanks for reading this rant of a post.

 

[Freshplayer]

My assume is that regional powers or whatever the name for it only exists within the known world for a country, or the world within certain distance. The distance may be re-calculated with power projection like Viky 3 so it will allow global powers compete with each other despite distance. It can be various combinations of regional powers from different perspectives of countries based on their discovery and distance.

For example, Egypt and Ottoman is known to the European and Muslim world and known as powers to the European and Islamic world. However, when no one in Europe really know about countries like China, or even Songhai in West Africa, Europeans will recognize unknown countries as powers. Also, Inca and Maya can claim themselves as powers regardless of existence of powers in Old World.

 

[Lavilledieu]

In eu4, I never was truly satisfied with the country rank system. It follows the classic idea of snowballing: if you are large, you get extra bonuses. Here, it's no different. I feel there must be some perks to being small. Like increased autonomy reduction or increased conversion to your primary culture. The smaller you are, the more you're like a local government and not a court somewhere in the country. I get these kind of countries have diplomatic disadvantages but there should be something else they're better at.

Aside from being less snowballing, it also gives the smaller tags a little more fighting chance, and if they have more fighting chance, they're also more fun to play with.

 

[stefffff1871]

so if am Upper Bavaria i need 1M population of upper bavarian? lower bavarian wouldnt count?
and what i form somethin like Germany, does then all the german cultures count or how does that work?

Edit:
i also hope that something like germany is now formable much earlier, it makes no sense to control all of germany but not beeing able to call yourself King of Germany, even tho this title already existed at that time. same for other culture groubs

 

[Stevo2940]

if Byzantium will be an empire, will Trebizond also be an empire because the rulers of Trebizont called their country the Empire?

Yeah though technically speaking the Emperors of Trebizond outside of their state and court were treated as Despots. When the Emperors of Trebizond stepped foot in Constantinople they were treated as a Despotes as a subordinate to the Empire. Only when the Trebizond rulers when in their own state their were Emperors.

Edit same extracts from Kaldelis New Roman Empire book.

"
He was projecting his power into Italy. Michael also intervened in a dynastic

dispute at Trebizond by backing Ioannes II Great Komnenos (1280–1297),

who sought refuge in the City at one point. Ioannes II married Michael’s daughter

and conceded the title basileus of the Romans to the ruler of Constantinople.

Henceforth, the ruler of Trebizond was deemed in Constantinople to be a despot,

and thus notionally a subordinate, whereas back in the Pontos he styled himself

either as basileus of Trebizond or as “emperor of the East, the Iberians [Laz],

and the Lands Across [the Black Sea].” “East,” of course, meant in relation to

Constantinople, a striking admission of its centrality even to the Romans of

Trebizond.80 Constantinople was regaining its hegemony."



"
They also recognized that their Church was notionally subordinate

to New Rome and that their ruler, when he was visiting Constantinople, was

only a despot compared to the basileus, but in practice Trebizond was an independent

state."

 

[zeruosi]

USA is 3rd in population, falling behind China in economy, and faces domestic disunity; yet for the foreseeable future (at least a few years) it will remain as the world’s dominant power due to its ability to quite literally project power to most of the world while also having something to offer to the world diplomatically.

whhhhat？？？Is the US economy lagging behind China?
No, no, far from it. The economic gap between China and the United States is at least three trillion US dollars. China's economy lags behind that of the United States

 

[Ardabas341]

I believe Hungarians had the most powerful European kingdom of medieval times. We anachronistically think they have always been one of the backwaters of Europe but they have taken two huge blows that totally diminished their power.
1) Being the battleground between Austrians and Ottomans for centuries, a process that started with the disasterous lose in Mohacs when Hungarian kingdom lost its nobility.
2) Treaty of Trianon. Modern state of Hungary hasnt recovered since. Many Hungarians were left out in neighbouring countries.

Mongol invasion was also a big blow but it wasnt a long process or had lasting consequences so I dont think it was as detrimental as the above.

I mean as a Turk, looking back at history I see Hungarians projecting power into Balkans albeit being unsuccessful. They were projecting power while also fighting against HRE. They conquered Vienna from HRE! Thats something English couldnt I think.
Hungary was where the military technology and doctrines were coming out of! John Hunyadi was arguably the greatest soldier of Europe. They were master metallurgists. They adopted handcannons very early on. They made hussite wagon tactics what it is and Ottomans learnt it from them. Urban was also a Hungarian.

I think Hungary should rank above both England and France.

 

[ArVass]

I believe Hungarians had the most powerful European kingdom of medieval times. We anachronistically think they have always been one of the backwaters of Europe but they have taken two huge blows that totally diminished their power.
1) Being the battleground between Austrians and Ottomans for centuries, a process that started with the disasterous lose in Mohacs when Hungarian kingdom lost its nobility.
2) Treaty of Trianon. Modern state of Hungary hasnt recovered since. Many Hungarians were left out in neighbouring countries.

Mongol invasion was also a big blow but it wasnt a long process or had lasting consequences so I dont think it was as detrimental as the above.

I mean as a Turk, looking back at history I see Hungarians projecting power into Balkans albeit being unsuccessful. They were projecting power while also fighting against HRE. They conquered Vienna from HRE! Thats something English couldnt I think.
Hungary was where the military technology and doctrines were coming out of! John Hunyadi was arguably the greatest soldier of Europe. They were master metallurgists. They adopted handcannons very early on. They made hussite wagon tactics what it is and Ottomans learnt it from them. Urban was also a Hungarian.

I think Hungary should rank above both England and France.

Most likely not above France, maybe above England, though it definitely has a smaller population than the latter. Militarily definitely punched above at least England, and economically (under the Anjous and the Hunyadis) the wealth of the monarchy was on par with the wealth of the French kings due to the sheer amount of taxes and revenues from mining and trade, although the overall wealth of the kingdom certainly lagged behind those two.

Nevertheless, Hungary's relative power projection in this era was definitely greater than France or England, especially after the Serbian Tsardom collapsed, simply because the Balkans and Central Europe was overall more fragmented, and "free real estate" for a hegemon like this. I'm certain that Hungary under Louis I (several puppet states over the Balkans, and PU over Poland), and under Sigismund (even though he was unpopular among the Hungarian and Czech nobles, he still held Hungary, Croatia, Bohemia, and was also Holy Roman Emperor) would've made the list (also depending on how PUs are calculated into the GP score).
Under Charles I, while he was economically very successful and the country enjoyed peace under his reign, it probably falls off the list, imo, though with the potential to get back to it

 

[Fehervari]

I believe Hungarians had the most powerful European kingdom of medieval times. We anachronistically think they have always been one of the backwaters of Europe but they have taken two huge blows that totally diminished their power.
1) Being the battleground between Austrians and Ottomans for centuries, a process that started with the disasterous lose in Mohacs when Hungarian kingdom lost its nobility.
2) Treaty of Trianon. Modern state of Hungary hasnt recovered since. Many Hungarians were left out in neighbouring countries.

Mongol invasion was also a big blow but it wasnt a long process or had lasting consequences so I dont think it was as detrimental as the above.

I mean as a Turk, looking back at history I see Hungarians projecting power into Balkans albeit being unsuccessful. They were projecting power while also fighting against HRE. They conquered Vienna from HRE! Thats something English couldnt I think.
Hungary was where the military technology and doctrines were coming out of! John Hunyadi was arguably the greatest soldier of Europe. They were master metallurgists. They adopted handcannons very early on. They made hussite wagon tactics what it is and Ottomans learnt it from them. Urban was also a Hungarian.

I think Hungary should rank above both England and France.

Hungary was by no means a weak country, that much is true. King Béla III had incomes on par with the French monarch of his time, for example. And it's also true that Hungary was constantly trying to project power to the Balkans, Cumania and also Red Ruthenia. Had Hungary not had constant bad luck concerning succession, Hungary might very well have established a permanent ring of vassals and kept the Ottomans far from Hungary Proper.

There are some problems that needs to be taken into account however. First of all, many of Hungary's neighbours followed different faith(s). This helped justify wars, however this also meant that the locals were hostile to Hungarian overlordship most of the time, so keeping new conquests was relatively demanding. Second, Hungary had a low population, which was also mostly rural. This limited how much tax could be collected from households, making the country's finances more dependent on its natural resources and on lands in direct possession of the crown. This was not a problem when the king was by far the biggest landowner in the country and the profits of mines flowed properly to the royal treasury, but the constant succession crises put a toll on these things.

But yeah, in the context of the start date, Hungary should certainly be one of the top dogs of the continent. Hungarian mines are estimated to have been the source of atleast twothirds of the gold in circulation in Europe, and about a fourth of the silver (if I remember right). King Louis sent troops to invade (and temporarily conquer) Naples four times, while he also assisted the Poles conquering and securing Halych and Volhynia, his troops also removed Golden Horde presence from future Moldavia, and then there's also his complete conquest of Dalmatia and humiliation of Venice to remember.

Interestingly, the offensive mindset was so deeply ingrained in the country, that the nobility took extreme offence at King Sigismund's new defensive war policies against the Ottomans following his defeat at Nicopolis. It was one of the reasons he was imprisoned in 1401, AFAIK.