• 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 #4 - March 20th, 2024

Welcome to the fourth iteration of Tinto Talks!

Today we’ll give you an overview of the different mechanics of the Government part of the game. There will be development diaries going into much more detail for these later on.

First of all, we have 5 different government types in the game, which determines a fair bit of what type of mechanics you get access to. As an example, a Republic does not have access to royal marriages, and a Steppe Horde has a different view on how war, peace and conquest works compared to other types of countries.

  • Monarchy, which uses Legitimacy
  • Republic, which uses Republican Tradition
  • Theocracy, which uses Devotion
  • Steppe Horde, which Horde Unity
  • Tribe, which uses Tribal Cohesion

ZLW8XrWYZLxnovNzgF_7TuPQWyWmoGGLwwD2R2susU8CbvdqziEL_Ulp-yKCubRFOexelDTDIdjssj852lmLobBEQVeYT6bSkHFEIZmWUs_H-38W79jBh1S5OiDDATUVu0nB6GXgi2ze2LmNyJ115OU

An illustration from our game..

These, together with country rank, government reform, and local flavor gives countries names like “Crown of Aragon,” “Kingdom of Sweden,” “Principality of Wales.” Not all countries are countries that are based on owning locations on a map though; more on that in later development diaries.

Each country also has a ruler, or they may be in a regency, if there are no possible adult heirs.

One of the most defining parts of the government of a country in Project Caesar is the Estates mechanic. This has been one of the core parts of the game, with a full connection between the population and the estates. Keeping the estates satisfied while keeping their powers low is an important part of the gameplay loop. In this game, the Estates are also active entities and will do things on their own if they get enough power.

qYgBGNEzv3H0jQc6eneo7kkUZgpdahDdiD2oZxQEQZsEziJaaYEGiEnn0-whjga7G0UAzf7YYhABAvScXHNozJux_FGQz5ujPQN8ey_63fuKTGJCI91U-b_fQ15sn3qbalZo_HQ4dyjmlZKWg_zOT1w

Two government reforms, one culture specific and one government specific.

As time passes, different government reforms and reform-slots will be available. They can also be based on tag, culture or religion.

uS3pA3GElx0t_YJa_9rdYdyTavbK_IEfSQP1AT3GA9nESw5PidjM0ca7CawBGS80IfNTF-gFGP7O5WDOKzR9Wt5Ffn9iPUkg7hzYRIdfnGp6EG-7ssCmrxh6kd1snKgU2LssP30gr5KJqlfgGJmfIjE

These are the two available possibilities in the Law 'Language of Pleading' for the country I tested.

Something that is different from a reform is what we call a Law. A Law can have several different policies you can pick from, and several laws have unique policies only available to certain tags, religions, cultures, government types or other factors.

There are some drawbacks to adding new reforms or policies though, as it takes a few years for it to have full effect, depending on your country's administrative efficiency. (Yes, it's a name for something else in another game, but it fits here.)

Regularly, if your government allows it, you can call in a Parliament. If you don’t do it often enough the estates will start to get irritated, but each parliament has issues that need to be resolved, and the estates will have agendas they want done for their support. Of course, you also have options to push through what you want from a parliament, if you are willing to accept the demands of the estate, like changing a particular law.

Another part of the government is the cabinet, which also grows in size as you become more advanced, allowing you to do more things. This is something that can be viewed as a hybrid between EU4 Advisors and the CK2 council actions.

Some of you may remember the domestic policies from EU2 and EU3. In Project Caesar we are bringing the idea back in the form of Societal Values. There are seven that we took from these games, one that was split in two, and we added four new ones, bringing the total to 13 different Societal Values. Societal Values are primarily affected by what other actions you do, like what policies you pick in a law, or what reforms you pick. As with so many other things in our game, this is not an instant action, but a gradual change over time.

ZEZWxSpKakO4WurGDUAAsx7sedtM4QfQOCQe32TQGOWyLFGbPv2JrSLjbi0NgOMzD855iLKD6JGOWancM-kU6hqp65oRF7P7ubsaNOY9_L5kdzqELF2f26rggfEojZBnW0giSvY1Xf3thtmlKDVEtqg

oh look, its eu3!

Next week, we will go into much more detail about estates and how they work.
 
  • 264Love
  • 167Like
  • 13
  • 10
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
If Personal Unions exist in Project Caesar, and the player manages to have multiple personal unions of the same culture group, for example Crown of Aargon, Kingdom of Castile, Kingdom of Portugal, could the player create a new entity such as Iberian Union or United Iberian Kingdom the way it exists in CK2? In EU4 the personal union kingdom is integrated into the players nation whole cloth without creating something new.
 
Last edited:
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Johan just hinted that in future TT he will talk about constitutional monarchies. Not much sense creating an entire system for that if the game ends before 1700.

Could be something for the British.
Could be a Law that you enact.
Or a consequence of gameplay with the estates.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
1337 + 250 = 1587, 30 years war wouldn't appear until more than halfway through the game! (Assuming we end in 1836)

A c. 1600 start date might be needed, even just to test out mid-late game content.
 
  • 6
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
This is an interesting suggestion for the not-on-the-map countries. Someone else suggested the HRE. I can see where they're coming from, but I don't see how you could have the player controlling Austria and the AI running the HRE or vice versa (assuming the Hapsburgs rule both); that doesn't sound fun at all.

I can think of three other classes of entity that didn't control whole locations but might be counted as countries in Project Caesar:
  • Trading companies, such as the East India Companies. They controlled armies and navies and influenced trade, but didn't necessarily control territory (or the game regards it as the territory of their states). Seems most plausible to me. And it would be fun to play as the VOC even if there Dutch Republic was run by the AI.
  • Monastic orders like the Jesuits and Dominicans. Basically a side game where you build abbeys and send missionaries into other cities etc., a bit like CK2 Orders.
  • Pirate bands are counted as countries in EU4. They never really controlled territory. I'm not very keen on them but we know Mr Andersson likes them so it's a possibility.


I hope not. It makes sense in CK3 because it's partly an RPG; it really matters if you are fat or thin. But it discourages modding because making 3D models of people is hard and PDX further restricts it by only supporting very expensive software. And every penny spent on a better GPU is a penny not spent on PDX, so it's not even in their own interest. I hope Project Caesar has characters that are full of life but displayed with 2D art, like CK2 and Imperator.
I think trading companies did control territory, the Dutch government just owned the company. I suppose it is a method of colonisation
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Looks like we see some of the societal values:
Monthly progress to Aristocracy +0.10
and
Monthly progress to Serfdom/Free subjects +0.10

These are flat modifiers - I wonder if there is something counteracting them. Like an increasing modifier to an equilibrium level, the further away from it you get. Otherwise these modifiers would just make the country go full aristocracy over time.
This is a good question. While I like the idea of being able to affect your countries makeup, it shouldn't be so easy as to take one decision and then watching as your country slowly becomes different.

In EU3, you had revolts when you pushed the slider in one direction or another, some decisions and events also changed the slider, so I would suppose events could check a too important change. Maybe the closer you get to an extremity, the more punishing events get, depending on the estate that favors them. So full aristocracy with a weak nobility would very unlikely and anger the burghers, and the reverse would be true as well.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Not impossible feat, but napoleonic gameplay would fit another game better.
I'm not bothered anyway, but if I would tame my expectations for napoleonic timeline.
I think the fact that they are moving the EU start date to the 1330s is to make room for a later MOTE2. PDX has clearly decided to move from its traditional free choice of start date to fixed dates. 304 BC, AD 867, 1066, 1330s, 1836, 1936 leaves a huge gap in the middle of the second millennium AD. So I think we'll get MOTE2 (not necessarily under that name) starting perhaps as early as 1648, or perhaps later (1756? 1783?) as something that's more explicitly a wargame in the style of HoI4, focused on the Great War of 1789-1815. This might be the unannounced game that Podcat is working on, given his experience with wargames, and that it's coming from the same sub-studio as HoI.
 
Last edited:
  • 8
  • 8
  • 5
  • 2Like
Reactions:
its traditional free choice of start date to fixed dates
I believe only CK2, EUIV and EU:R had this system. Though EUIV and CK2 have been there for a long time, I wouldn't call that a "tradition".

edit : I majorly forgot that EUIII also had such a mechanic! That's when it has been introduced.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I think that this project is moving towards the right direction. It adds complexity but it can stay a game that can be played, even not successfully but enjoyable, without minmaxing everything.
 
  • 5
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I'm surprised about no mission trees.
Are we going to use Victoria 3 journal? only rely on decisions?

Because there's gotta be special events to cover things not simulated by mechanics, right?
Without mission trees or the journal you'd just end up with invisible event chains that players would have to track on wikis.
 
  • 4
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I think the fact that they are moving to the start date to the 1330s is to make room for a later MOTE2. PDX has clearly decided to move from its traditional free choice of start date to fixed dates. 304 BC, AD 867, 1066, 1330s, 1836, 1936 leaves a huge gap in the middle of the second millennium AD. So I think we'll get MOTE2 (not necessarily under that name) starting perhaps as early as 1648, or perhaps later (1756? 1783?) as something that's more explicitly a wargame in the style of HoI4, focused on the Great War of 1789-1815. This might be the unannounced game that Podcat is working on, given his experience with wargames, and that it's coming from the same sub-studio as HoI.
Age of Discovery is now Mid game content.
Industrial age starts 1760.
I do not think the game will cover the industrial age but I'm just assuming obviously.
 
  • 7Like
Reactions:
As time passes, different government reforms and reform-slots will be available. They can also be based on tag, culture or religion.

Regarding tag-based things. Will there be only a few worldwide, or will almost everyone will have one? (like in the current EUIV)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Am I the only one who thinks the "societal values" mechanic seems super abstracted and game-y? Wouldn't it make more sense to tie a modifier directly to the policies rather than have the policies affect a societal value which changes a modifier? Like instead of "Court Language" adding monthly serfdom progress which gives -X% peasant strength, make "Court Language" give -X% peasant strength.

I just think it's kind of silly to be like "France has 20 narrowmindedness points while England only has 10 narrowmindedness points". Like what does "narrowmindedness" look like in real life? What does that represent practically?
Seems to me like Societal Values are supposed to be more innert and ingrained in your country. Something that takes decades to change. Policies and laws will probably be implemented much sooner, giving us a tier of modifiers we can control directly and one we'll need to work on long-term to change.

I'll take it easily over the nonexistance of a population's stance on things we have right now.
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions: