Tinto Talks #38 - 20th of November 2024

[Imp0815]

As these trickle in for months now, I start to question if this is just a presentation of done deals to test the waters, so to speak, or if it’s really about feedback and changes.

Some things seem just too worked out in detail to be restructured now based on our feedback.

So what is this exactly about again?

 

[matfer13]

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

Finally there's balance to the force

 

[Myxach]

You'll always go Offensive rather than Defensive.

-50% to fortress defense for +10 to army movement speed and +10 for siege?

 

[Johan]

Can you provide examples of the starting societal values of some countries? I am more interested in Aragon and Castile but anyone would be useful.

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

 

[purplephoton]

Subjective opinion, but I have some concerns that I can already see a heavy meta:

You'll always go Centralised rather than Decentralised.

You'll always go Innovative rather than Traditionalist.

You'll always go Free Subjects rather than Serfdom.

You'll always go Quality rather than Quantity.

You'll always go Offensive rather than Defensive.

You'll always go Capital Economy rather than Traditional Economy.

You'll always go Individualism rather than Communalism.

You'll always go Outward rather than Inward.


The only stuff that seems balanced is:

Liberalism vs Absolutism
Mercantilism vs Free Trade
Land vs Naval
Belligerent vs Conciliatory
Spiritualist vs Humanist

As you said, this is very subjective. You'll always go with those values; many other players won't.
Personally? If the mechanics that are also present in EU4 work exactly the same way, I'd actually go for defensive most of the time (especially in MP), while most of the rest is pretty balanced and probably at least viable in different campaigns. The one thing I do agree with is individualism rather than communalism in most cases.

 

[PENGUINonPC]

Will there there be any drawbacks to the cabinet attempting to alter those values? For instance, I imagine peasants wouldn’t really be happy if the societal value shifted toward 'free subjects,' yet the cabinet pursued a move toward serfdom instead. Similarly, with the market and the burghers.

 

[Tavolo87]

Offensive - Defensive:

again, another ledger that makes no sense. You could substitute by expansionist vs defensive would already be better naming, but still, your forts being worse if you're good at sieging makes no sense.

What I would highly suggest tho would be a battling vs sieging societal value :

with one you get siege and fort defense bonuses, the other gives pitch battle bonuses. I feel this would work much better in representing things like the 80 years war, the Austrian - Ottoman fights, the siege of both Candia and Malta, hordes so on so forth

and it would make a very spicy gameplay choice

at any rate I'd rather have this as a character attribute than a ledger, but still ledger is nice

 

[Wildrake]

Please find a different name for it than humanist, because in this game's timeframe humanism describes a scholarly movement that started in the 14th century that argues for studying the humanities. It was championed by many clergymen, including popes like the famous Pius II.
It makes no sense to contrast humanism with the clergy and humanism has nothing to do with tolerance for other religions.

Pluralist is there

 

[Mef]

Subjective opinion, but I have some concerns that I can already see a heavy meta:

You'll always go Centralised rather than Decentralised.

You'll always go Innovative rather than Traditionalist.

You'll always go Free Subjects rather than Serfdom.

You'll always go Quality rather than Quantity.

You'll always go Offensive rather than Defensive.

You'll always go Capital Economy rather than Traditional Economy.

You'll always go Individualism rather than Communalism.

You'll always go Outward rather than Inward.

Well that's just the reality of a historical game where you already know the historical outcomes.
If things are balanced correctly, then the choices that won historically will also win in the game as far as a generalized meta goes. On the other hand, as long as there are bonuses that are situational, off-meta values will be good for certain countries.

 

[bokorthedust]

The societal value ranges from -100 to +100 , where a -100 value is completely to the left, and +100 to the right of the value.

Yes, but he is right. The screenshots in the TT say when one value is dominant the effects start to trickle up that way. You keep it at 0 and you get nothing. It'd be better if it were a mix of both bonuses and maluses which you get the same time depending on where you are on the scale.

 

[Mef]

As these trickle in for months now, I start to question if this is just a presentation of done deals to test the waters, so to speak, or if it’s really about feedback and changes.

Some things seem just too worked out in detail to be restructured now based on our feedback.

So what is this exactly about again?

It's not uncommon for parts of a game to be fully worked out in detail, just to be changed completely again during beta.

 

[Johan]

Would a state governed by an elite class of scholar-officials, produced through the imperial examination system, be considered an aristocracy or a plutocracy? Or might it occupy a position somewhere in between on the spectrum?

I'd argue plutocrats

 

[eddin2]

Fort defense -50% for offensive? Offense is usually my mindset, but that seems steep for 10% siege ability.

That's the point, now you'll think twice before picking offensive each game, especially when playing smaller nations. Defensive seem much more appealing in PC than in EU4.

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.

It doesn't mean you'll have crappy army, just that you're naval oriented, if you choose that path. Which is, more or less realistic and historical. France didn't have shitty navy, but it wasn't what they were known for from military perspective.

Besides, if I remember correctly, you'll still have an option to pick "neutral path", and have no bonuses or maluses for neither.

How things are constructed in EU4, you can pick Offensive, Deffensive, Quality, Quantity, Mercenary, Maritime, Naval, and Aristocratic/Plutocratic in one game. Now, you have to choose your path, and, with increased bonuses for "less popular ideas" in EU4, sometimes offensive or land, won't be better in each playthrough.

 

[WeissRaben]

A lot of these aren’t contradictory, even if they are opposites. You can have a good Army and good navy and your army can be both big and good at fighting.

There should be tickers for each opposite but the higher one is on one side increases the decay rate for it’s opposite.

I mean, they are opposite - as are naval and land, or offensive and defensive; the issue is that they are dependent on how much money you're ready to throw on the whole. Yes, you might roughly train three men for the price of one well-trained man, but nothing stops you from training well three men - it just means you could train nine men if you weren't that thorough. Same goes for naval and land - can you have a great army and a great navy? Yes, if you have an amazing budget to split in two, the same split which would give you a mediocre army and a mediocre navy if the entire budget wasn't quite up to the task.

 

[Johan]

What is going to be the balance of societal values across the old world in the 14th century?

Will starting values broadly range or will they be approximately equal

countries have severly different setups

 

[Johan]

This looks great.

Will there be one view of all the societal values for your country? What will it look like?

yes, it will show all your societal values easily.

 

[LordThanatos]

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

It would be interesting to have two sliders, one for naval, one for land based modifiers. You'd be trying to get both of them higher, but maybe the higher land is, the higher a negative ticker on naval is, and vice-versa. You could do something similar with offense vs defense, too. It would ideally represent the difficulties maintaining quality forces in either direction.

That said, I'm tentatively looking forward to seeing the land vs naval modifiers before casting judgement there, and I'm sure the modifiers for offense vs defense are still being balanced. As for the cases of nations that had both a good army and navy - in my opinion the way you show that is by having the slider at 0, or close to it. You'd only favour one side or the other when you want to advance either your naval or land presence to the detriment of the other.

 

[Tavolo87]

belligerent vs conciliatory:

this makes no absolute sense at all. Like no no no no get this ledger tf out of here. Why? Cause it's simply ahistorical. If it was a character trait would be ok though.

Why? Well, cause in this period the political stance of countries did full 180s when leaders changed, simulating this with just a ledger would be annoying and representative of well, real life

 

[Johan]

how many unique societal values will there be? you mention the ones near china but are there a lot of others throughout the world? Having one of two unique ones for most regions would be a good time investment, although idk how granular they get with events and stuff so if its too much work then maybe not

At release not many.

In a decade's time... probably many

 

[Imp0815]

It's not uncommon for parts of a game to be fully worked out in detail, just to be changed completely again during beta.

Yes, I understand, and maybe I do remember the first diaries wrong in terms of collecting feedback and the implied idea of acting on it—but most of the discussions read like justifications rather than reflections, and the following DDs do not really pick up on feedback—they just proceed as normal. But maybe I missed some information by skipping the whole map posts, as I’m personally more interested in mechanics than maps.

P.S.
I do remember correctly that this whole affair is about collecting feedback and acting on it to ensure it will be a better game than I:R. But all we are getting is a piece-by-piece breakdown of finished mechanics and justifications for why they are as they are. Not sure if any reflections and changes based on these DDs have already taken place. But that migth be just me. Please do not hesitate to point me to the respective reflections and changes based on our discussions here! It would help me gain confidence in a game I’m looking forward to, as I’m highly interested in PDX games and I like the setting!