• 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:
Damn! The more I hear about project Caesar the more I'm disappointed. Mission trees are great! Hope you reconsider. Or perhaps this changes into something different, like the journal entries in Vicky 3. Please clarify.
I imagine it would be more along the lines of I:R missions.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
If we're going to have laws and reforms cause the state/nation to gravitate towards one or another "value", please anchor them so we aren't just constantly bouncing between extremes as Muslim states do with their Legalism mechanic in EU4. Laws should, I believe, have limiting effects in either direction. Codifying land inheritance rights, but not land use or sale rights, in favor of a commoner class should cause gravitation towards an intermediate position on a values scale, for example, scaling with the administration and being hampered by both corruption and economic woe.
I suspect it works more like a sum of the effects of your laws and reforms than a drifting value.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I think mission trees (and Hoi4 focus tree) is the best feature PDX has made. You need country-specific trees for the flavor and to encourage players to try new countries. Some hard-core fans might advocate for dynamic mission trees and more sandbox-y experiment, but majority of players DO NOT want that. The dynamic trees of Imperator just weren't very engaging - players love historical content and unique content.
I can't argue about your preference or what constitutes as the majority of players, but I had a blast playing the game before missions trees (2017 or so?) existed. If the game needs a mission tree for a country-specific experience it has failed on start.

The difference between playing a Japanese Dyaymo, an HRE minor, an Iberian Colonizer, an Island nation like England vs a landlocked country like Hungary surrounded by threats, between a country with the Mandate of heaven and a tributary, a Shia nation in central Asia or a pirating sunni East Asian state, between an Aztec kingdom or a steppe Horde or a African tribe, between a trading republic in the Mediterranean and the Emperor are all só big only because of game mechanisms, events and geography that by the time the 'majority' needs more flavor through Mission Trees I can peacefully move on to EU6.
 
  • 11Like
  • 5
Reactions:
I honestly would like a system where each country can mint its own currency and when you do business, the equalization is done according to the economic power of the countries. I mean, I buy 50 elephants from Africans for one franc and they can maintain their armies for a year with that franc relative to their economy.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
"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."

I hope there are also things you can only (or at least most expediently) do by letting the some estates take power/enforce demands. Like some laws you pass that way , cultural shifts, religious reforms etc. Having to navigate through a crisis or major reform is typically what I find the most engaging, and "fighting yourself" so to speak is one of the best ways to have a balanced challenge, no matter how you are performing otherwise.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
I can't argue about your preference or what constitutes as the majority of players, but I had a blast playing the game before missions trees (2017 or so?) existed. If the game needs a mission tree for a country-specific experience it has failed on start.

The difference between playing a Japanese Dyaymo, an HRE minor, an Iberian Colonizer, an Island nation like England vs a landlocked country like Hungary surrounded by threats, between a country with the Mandate of heaven and a tributary, a Shia nation in central Asia or a pirating sunni East Asian state, between an Aztec kingdom or a steppe Horde or a African tribe, between a trading republic in the Mediterranean and the Emperor are all só big only because of game mechanisms, events and geography that by the time the 'majority' needs more flavor through Mission Trees I can peacefully move on to EU6.

Then again, majority of those things were not in the launch version of EU4 (yeah, I've been playing the game for a looooong time). Sure, different religions existed on paper, but they played pretty much identically until more and more specific features to each were added to differentiate the experiences. Same with the different regions of the world, the only practical difference were the difference tech groups. The only real differences between nations were the starting positions and the occasional flavor events some countries had. My overall concern is perhaps less with Mission Trees specifically, and more with the very sandbox-y experience some here seems to be wanting - I've already tried that with 2013 version of EU4 and although it was fun for a short while, it got stale quickly.
 
  • 9
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Sidenote: Might I suggest a toggleable game rule akin to HoI4's "Historical AI" that directs the AI to act more historically for those who want it? I'm kind of tired of seeing Spanish Canada and Portuguese Mexico.
Regarding specifically this, it’s because EUIV failed in some aspects to represent specific behaviors.
- There was a reason Portugal did not colonize Mexico : it technically could have, but it had been granted every undiscovered land east and south of certain lines in Tordesillas, and only colonized Brazil because it appeared to be on the natural wind network to go from Europe to the Moluccas. Going west of Brazil would have a)broken the treaty b)been unnecessary since they already had a direct trade route to india.
- likewise for Castile, it technically could have colonized Canada, especially since it was on its side of the treaty, and Canada was on the same tradewinds circle back to Europe. But Spain has already too many issues colonizing Mexico, with its numerous indigenous and a comparatively low European population. It simply did not have the numbers on American soil to effectively colonize all the occupied and claimed territories.

The first issue is directly tied to Tordesillas, which was badly represented in EU4 (or, maybe not badly, but intentionally different so as to open multiplayer competition)
The second was tied to the lack of a population system. I hope this will be solved by project ceasar which introduced one.

France/Britain, on the contrary, were naturally connected to North America (tradewinds speaking) but also entered the colonization period with a large population and no oversea territory yet. it was much easier for them to colonize especially since North America was less densely populated (partly due to more decentralized states, and partly due to the european diseases which had already wiped out about half of North Americans indigenous

That being said I totally support your point in general for certain other countries. One really good example would be the Safavid who took over Timurid, who never actually form in EU4, because their rapid growth is strictly impossible to model within EUIV limited mechanics (overextension, max peace cost etc).
Hopefully, they will also adress that with specific CBs which allow one country to blob rapidly (but face the risk of collapsing rapidly too). Something CK has already allowed for a long time (conquering an entire kingdom at once) since there was an internal struggle with the nobility and local cultures to offer resistance.
 
  • 6
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Will there be more Native American tribes in Project Caesar? I was wondering if the Ohlone will be in the game because they are the tribe that use to live in my area.
I hope to god so strongly, ðat every nation gets a tag especially some of ðe California, Gulf, and Floridian ones.
In particular I þink ðe Chitimacha, Apalachee, Atakapa, Timuca, Calusa, and Biloxi would be interesting.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
I'm quite sure more players are expected to interact with the Caspian Sea than with all the Great Lakes combined if the start date estimates are even remotely true, by a factor of 100 or 1000
Being able to interact with the Great Lakes for certain mechanics (trade ?) would be interesting.
I don’t expect to be able to build a game on here though, even though there was a limited historical construction of medium war ships on them during the French/British wars and British/American revolutionaries war
 
I'm quite sure more players are expected to interact with the Caspian Sea than with all the Great Lakes combined if the start date estimates are even remotely true, by a factor of 100 or 1000
It does not matter it is still important to have everywhere fleshed out, especially where large amounts of people ðat play ðe game are from, besides ðe amount of setteled/semi nomadic peoples in ðe area makes it worþ it anyways.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Then again, majority of those things were not in the launch version of EU4 (yeah, I've been playing the game for a looooong time). Sure, different religions existed on paper, but they played pretty much identically until more and more specific features to each were added to differentiate the experiences. Same with the different regions of the world, the only practical difference were the difference tech groups. The only real differences between nations were the starting positions and the occasional flavor events some countries had. My overall concern is perhaps less with Mission Trees specifically, and more with the very sandbox-y experience some here seems to be wanting - I've already tried that with 2013 version of EU4 and although it was fun for a short while, it got stale quickly.
Sure. If EU5 will be complete bare-bone at start it will definitely blander than EU4 + updates without Mission trees. I just object to the need for mission trees as necessity for flavor, Especially since I completely omit the mission trees and every campaign feels completely different.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
I just want to play as Ottomans
We can finally play the Ottomans from an early start! Since it's 1337 I believe we would play as Orhan son of Osman (Osman that the Ottomans take their dynasty name from). Also there are many more Turkish dynasties too which we can possibly play too and have alt-history with like the Karamanids.

I've always wanted to start as an early Ottoman Empire ever since playing Vic2 Japan (that era is the foundations of the Empire of Japan). CK2 offers this but only 100 years since the game ends at 1444. And in EU4 by 1444 with Mehmed is just prior to the Ottoman Golden Age, so they start steamrolling after that.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
We can finally play the Ottomans from an early start! Since it's 1337 I believe we would play as Orhan son of Osman (Osman that the Ottomans take their dynasty name from). Also there are many more Turkish dynasties too which we can possibly play too and have alt-history with like the Karamanids.

I've always wanted to start as an early Ottoman Empire ever since playing Vic2 Japan (that era is the foundations of the Empire of Japan). CK2 offers this but only 100 years since the game ends at 1444. And in EU4 by 1444 with Mehmed is just prior to the Ottoman Golden Age, so they start steamrolling after that.
Have you played Extended Timeline mod for eu4 by any chance, it sounds like its exactly what you are after.
 
  • 1
Reactions: