Tinto Talks #38 - 20th of November 2024

[Nconstruct]

I think all "slides" should converge to 0 unless you do something for it, don't make is passive modifiers, make it an active afford to get them

 

[mcmoor]

View attachment 1219008
I'll be honest; I always felt treating these two values as diametric opposites of eachother was never the perfect solution. After all, it's not like countries good in naval matters automatically have crappy armies and logistics on land, and vice-versa. The French navy was never a pushover and neither was the British army. Spain was feared just as much for its Tercios as it was for its Galleons.

This is actually a dimension where I feel like the old system of National Focuses fared better? Having good armies or good navies is, I feel, more of a matter of long-term societal and cultural investments and not so much of mutually-excluding specialties/philosophies.

Edit: Also, yes, this Fort Defense reduction in "Offensive" feels a bit too punishing, if the dynamics will be anything like in EUIV lol Like @WhiskyGlen points out below, it's stark when compared to the 10% siege ability reward you get for it. Maybe something between 15-35% would be more reasonable?

View attachment 1219011

Also,

View attachment 1219018

I immediately thought about this "choices" we have to make and I think it's about focus. Countries who have both great naval and land can be modelled as countries that have middle (no) focus, but just have more resources.

I think you can always increase quality of one aspect without sacrificing the other, but if you want to make your land stronger without more resource, you can sacrifice your navy instead. Same will all other choices. You can convert fast even without choosing spiritualism, but it'll be more efficient if you do.

 

[Iscream@urmom]

Centralization leads to more crown power.
Absolutism leads to more crown power.
Inward leads to more crown power.
Communalism increases estate satisfaction (can tolerate you actively nudging societal values)
Concilliatory makes cabinet more efficient.

Furthermore:
Land or naval polarization leads to less proximity, which means higher control.
Inward gives you higher control.
Decentralization decreases distance to capital, which gives you higher control.
But higher control means more crown power.

And more crown power means more ability to change society values.
-> All make the cabinet action of changing the societal values easier.

I suppose what I meant was if having two societal values, if they would synergize and give an additional effect like the policy system in EU4, though I realise that might be troublesome from a balancing/programming perspective.

 

[uncle sia]

Brother, Johan specifically said it has no military bonuses.

It's still not any better really. What realistically stopped a country from having both in history? This whole mechanic is seriously dumb for most others too specially with its -100to+100 opposing slide bar; it's a downgrade from ideas back in eu4 if im being completely honest.

 

[Bozkurt]

I think balanced way should be viable too. It seems like positives of going extreme on one side is much higher than negatives which means if you try to go balanced you will be much weaker.

 

[Rinmun]

It looks like all the sliders have zero modifiers in the middle, I think it'd be better if the modifiers from both sides went from -100 to 100 rather than two separate sets of modifiers on each side.

EDIT: picture showing what I mean, the colours represent the modifiers.

Exactly. Why not just take one modifier at a time and drag it all the way from positive to negative?

 

[Fenneru]

Will some of these societal values directly impact each other? Like it's hard for me to imagine how a nation could be both highly absolutist and highly decentralized, shouldn't being really high in one give a malus to the other?

 

[Minimum]

Offensive vs Defensive
A country that is focused on offensive prefers the attack, and using their armies and navies in enemy locations, while a defensive country relies more on their forts to defeat the enemy.

View attachment 1218931
Do you want to attack or defend? Easy choice or ?

Would it be possible for defensive to have some sort of naval bonus? I can think of a number of island nations who very much want a more defensive play focus but don't necessarily focus on forts too much.

 

[Rinmun]

I agree with most of them being "societal values", but some of them like

offensive vs defensive
land vs naval
quality vs quantity

No, they're not societal values, they're strategies. If you ask the average Joe about that he doesn't have an opinion because he doesn't have to. These could be part of some "army tradition" or a "doctrine" mechanic maybe

 

[Wildrake]

I agree with most of them being "societal values", but some of them like

offensive vs defensive
land vs naval
quality vs quantity

No, they're not societal values, they're strategies. If you ask the average Joe about that he doesn't have an opinion because he doesn't have to. These could be part of some "army tradition" or a "doctrine" mechanic maybe

Average Joe doesn't have an opinion on centralization vs decentralization or mercantilism vs free trade either. Societal values are more of state doctrines rather than a representation of society

 

[Rinmun]

Average Joe doesn't have an opinion on centralization vs decentralization or mercantilism vs free trade either. Societal values are more of state doctrines rather than a representation of society

Yes I might have worded that incorrectly, but what I mean is: when I hear societal value I think of something that determines what it "feels like" to live in a given society. something rootet in collective experience, understanding and norm. (de)centralization is definitely a part of that.

 

[Wildrake]

Yes I might have worded that incorrectly, but what I mean is: when I hear societal value I think of something that determines what it "feels like" to live in a given society. something rootet in collective experience, understanding and norm. (de)centralization is definitely a part of that.

Well, then all three societal values you presented as wrong make sense:
Land vs Naval - they said that it represents is country coastal-based or inland-based (thalassocracy vs tellurocracy) , rather than military
Quality vs Quantity - the value of life is definitely a thing for military
Offensive vs Defensive - compare nomadic hordes and Swiss

 

[Coach Bud Kilmer]

The whole time reading had this stuck in my head...

 

[echuu_shen_josh]

I'd argue plutocrats

I see what you mean, since you could achieve scholar status by paying for an education. However, in the aristocrat-plutocrat paradigm, the Chinese scholar officials I think would align more with the aristocracy. This value slider seems to relate to the conflict between inherited nobility and merchant wealth. In Chinese history, social class was organized in order from Scholars, Peasant farmers, artisans, merchants; merchants at the bottom given the view of their contribution to society. But as Chinese history progressed, the wealth amassed by the merchants led to their effective elevation in society despite this cultural system. So the aristocrat/plutocrat dynamic still works in the Chinese cultural sphere, but with imperial examination system aligned with aristocracy. Only difference it was aristocracy by erudition rather than blood alone; but in my eyes Plutocracy should universally be defined by political power amassed by merchants, bankers and other financial actors.

 

[SytroStormlord]

Aragon has

centralization_vs_decentralization = 50
aristocracy_vs_plutocracy = -20
serfdom_vs_free_subjects = -10
traditionalist_vs_innovative = -20
spiritualist_vs_humanist = -50
mercantilism_vs_free_trade = 0
offensive_vs_defensive = -40
land_vs_naval = 10
quality_vs_quantity = 0
belligerent_vs_conciliatory = -10
capital_economy_vs_traditional_economy = 90
individualism_vs_communalism = 10
outward_vs_inward = -20

Based on this I would have a tough cookie, how to portray Poland in XIV century, but lets try:
centralization_vs_decentralization= hmm...
Country was just reunited back in 1320 by Casmir's father: Vladislav 'the Dwarf' Piast. Although each Duchy (reffering here to Crusader Kings duchies as they're closest in size and political importance of various regions) was pretty much a solid centralised. There wasn't much of opposition either from nobles, burghers or clergy... most of them were pleased by reuniting of Poland and having another crowned ruler in charge (especialy from Royal family of Piast)... so... back in 1280 answear would be simple: 100 decentralisation...
But after 50 years of wars amd diplomatic alliances by Vladislav, who reunited Polish lands, he left country in pretty good shape for his son with strong position amongst clergy and nobles with no real internal threat or opposition. Idk... maybe -40 ?

aristocracy_vs_plutocracy= -60
Definately
serfdom_vs_free_subjects=0

If it was XVI century or XVII it would be -80 or even -100, but at this point peasant were probably most free subjects in Kingdom of Poland history.

traditionalist_vs_innovative=
No idea here...it's just few years before building of Krakow University, 2nd University in Central Europe ( Prague was 1st one), at this point probably rathen traditionalist than innovative... i'd give it -40

spiritualist_vs_humanist=50
XIV century in Poland is when Jews where given some kind of autonomy and even protection by monarch (crimes against Jews where prosecuted as 'crimes against King's property'). Humanist for sure... this trend of religious tolerance continued in later centuries, making Poland a safe harbour for those wanting to avoid religious wars that were ravaging in western parts of continent...

mercantilism_vs_free_trade=...
No idea, probably in the middle, so 0

offensive_vs_defensive=50
Although defensive wasn't that much of Polish nature... or military concept... Casmir's rule over Poland left more than 100 stone castles. Older wooden fort where strengthen with stone, new fortitications were errected. So defensive it should be.


land_vs_naval=-90
Since losing access to Baltic Sea and Gdańsk to Teutonic Order Poland became landlocked... what navy are we even talking about?

quality_vs_quantity=0 or maybe 10
Lack of professional army (apart from some mercenaries), armies mostly composed of raised nobles and their servants... lack of public conscription- that stayed true pretty much almost till the Partitions... in XVIII century, some nobles private armies had armies bigger than King himself...

belligerent_vs_conciliatory=20
Diplomacy and seeking support in neighbouring rulers (even Pagans) to secure common goals were definately in area of interest of Poland at that time.

capital_economy_vs_traditional_economy= 70
Definately traditional. But trade was also important. Sukiennice (Cloth Market) are already present in Krakow and various goods (mostly Cloth) are traded under roof, protected from rain and various weather conditions.

individualism_vs_communalism=-20

outward_vs_inward=-30
Although no colonies, but: expansion, expansion, expansion.

Wondering, how my personal intuitions are vs what you've planned for startup.

 

[MansaYusef789]

I would expect a legalist vs mysticism value for Islamic countries being added when they get to the Islamic part

Hopefully they choose a different system, the Mysticism vs Legalist causes some problems, because usually this means making a legalistic empire, always hostile to Sufis, which in many cases helped establish the legalistic basis of many states, and for Shia which can also be legalistic. They should devise a new system.

 

[VonHohenstaufen]

A question about serfdom:
Why do serfes consume more food and produce more than free peasants? Isn't it exactly the other way around in reality? People who are more free tend to work harder/are more productive when working towards their own success and also tend to be wealthier, thus consuming more of everything, including food.

When looking at history, that is the impression I get. When serfdom was abolished, productivity and consumption usually went up, not down.

 

[Afaslizo]

How does this system work with Prussia which could almost field its whole army with the Silesian revenues, tried to muster the highest quantity of population by percentage but also trained its troops to be extremely disciplined? With EU4 you could both get quantity and quality to reflect that nature. Now a historical Prussia would have to sit in the middle between the two because they actually did both.

 

[Bauer Maggott]

How does this system work with Prussia which could almost field its whole army with the Silesian revenues, tried to muster the highest quantity of population by percentage but also trained its troops to be extremely disciplined? With EU4 you could both get quantity and quality to reflect that nature. Now a historical Prussia would have to sit in the middle between the two because they actually did both.

but quantitiy dosent actual effect how much of the population you can recruit ?

A country which favors quantity will have a higher possible frontage, cheaper armies, less food consumed by armies, but the initiative will be far worse in battle.

i feel like this means prussia is firmly in the quality camp here.

 

[GenericType]

I'll be honest; I always felt treating these two values as diametric opposites of eachother was never the perfect solution. After all, it's not like countries good in naval matters automatically have crappy armies and logistics on land, and vice-versa. The French navy was never a pushover and neither was the British army. Spain was feared just as much for its Tercios as it was for its Galleons.

quality - quantity : it just makes no sense. As it is described it's literally horde of peasants vs professional army, it doesn't make any sense for it to be a ledger, to wish to go "quantity". Let's take a look at the country synonymous with army quality, Prussia. Well, that country was described as an army with a state, cause it had a disproportionate amount of people %wise in the army. So it's quantity right? No Is it just quality? Still no. It's both. And you can't have it being both.

For me it'd make more sense a "martial" vs "developing" societal value, with one side giving bonus to prosperity, development and stability while the other giving a bonus in both quality and quantity of the army

I've long been an advocate for sliders, but yeah, now I realize that these doesn't have to be contrasting ideas.

Maybe instead of quality/quantity, you'd have levies/professional troops. That way you can tie specific modifiers to troop types. Maybe full levies slider gives them comparable morale/discipline to end-game standing armies, ala Nappy's levee en masse, while full professional slider makes them cheaper to employ instead.

And instead of land/naval, you can have logistics? Focusing on military production? State-owned industries vs decentralized/traded supplies? Kind of how several African states and most Native American polities couldn't produce firearms, so they traded them from Europeans instead? But this can be simulated already by having no factories vs putting up factories. Maybe a focus on trading vs producing military supplies?

Offensive/defensive could also be traditional/experimental, focusing again on logistics, army movement, etc?

To be honest, I'm at a lost at this. But certainly, some traditions need not contrast with each other. Another I could think of is Spiritualism/Humanism. Clergies are often the first people to embrace humanist/scientific ideologies, so I don't get the distinction between clergy-led polities and secular polities, some secular polities may even be less humanist than some clergy-led polities. I hate to take something from 40k, but Rogue Trader's Dogmatic vs Iconoclastic is maybe the best term here. You'd have something like a fervent adherence to a religion's tenets, vs something that freely challenges established religious norms, if we're sticking to this definition as surrounding religion. But we already have Traditionalism/Innovative, so IDK.