• 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:
I’m not familiar with these mixed culture you are speaking about .

But another option could be to not have dynamically created cultures, but instead cultures with attributes like in CK3.

And replace the static culture groups and tolerance/intolerance of EU4 by a more generic cultural affinity between cultures based on shared traits. The more traits you have in common, the easier it is to get them accepted. The more different (religion,language, nomadic/sedentary, climate, agriculture/pastoral…), the more unrest.
So instead of Catalan being 100% different from occitan (because one is Spanish and the other one is French group), have Catalan be closer to Occitan, than it is from Portuguese for example.
At the same time, have Occitan closer to Catalan than it is to wallon.

We could have a system like in Victoria III where cultures can be part of several groups at once.
So catalan could be part of the Iberian group, of the Mediterranean group and of the European group.
 
  • 8Like
Reactions:
Maybe rename "Parliament" to "Assembly of Estates" as a default, and make "Parliament" an english cultured variant. As mentioned in an earlier post, the word "Parliament" has a strong association with the english parliament and that is what people will assume when first seeing it in this game's context, even if the model that is being represented for an individual nation is notably different.
 
  • 7Like
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
I have some comments regarding the territory controlled by Simsir, the Chechen principality.
The principality controls the territories above the Sunza River, these lands should be owned by the Tatars or Kumyks.
Terek river.png

As for the names of the provinces, I think they could be changed to more important ones.
2947.png

Simsir Province: Aukh/Okoki Capital:Yurt-Aoukh

The principality of Simsir most likely existed in this region and it was probably the Chechen Aukhs tribe that founded this principality. It is known that this tribe returned to these areas immediately after the withdrawal of the Timurid troops from the Caucasus, this society then founded the Okoki country, which was destroyed by the Kumyks in 1617-1645?

Argun Province: Chechen-Aul
The name of today's Chechnya and the Chechen nation comes from the name of this village - this village was ruled by the Avar-Chechen Turlov dynasty.
They probably took the place of the destroyed Okoki principality in 1645, founding the Chechen principality.

Nikaroy - An important Chechen village of the Terloy tribe.

Targim Province: Lars capital:Lars
The village of Lars was ruled by its own prince. The village's location in the Darial Pass gave the principality control over one of three routes through the Caucasus Mountains.

The Chechen region should be divided into three states or two.
The Country Representing the Ingush who control the Daryal Gorge is Kists/Kistins/Ghalghai.

Simsir/Okoki/Chechen country represents Chechens who have accepted Islam.

Durdzuketi may represent pagan Chechens.
 
Last edited:
  • 6Like
  • 3
Reactions:
  • 32Like
  • 9Love
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Did I read this right? The game has been in dev for 4 years?
Johan started coding for it in Q2 2020, as mentioned in the first dev diary. It has likely been in development longer than that, as in discussing potential features etc.

In Q2 2020, I started writing code on a new game, prototyping new systems that I wanted to try out.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Would it be possible for country to have several mechanics from different government types at the same time? It always bothered me how countries like Golden Horde or Crimean Khanate was modelled in EU4. IRL both of these countries were settled feudal monarchies with developed urban centers, taxation system, law system, Golden Horde was even a quite scientifically developed country. On the other hand, both of Crimea and Golden Horde retained several nomadic aspects such as ways of life of rural folks, cavalry-based army, nomadic Mongol-like administrative division and some other things. Well, in EU4 they were strictly reduced to "angry tatar nomads go brrrr". I don't even mention Golden Horde successors like Kazan, Astrakhan, Qasim or Sibir Khanates that were straight feudal monarchies as well.
 
  • 5Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Would it be possible for country to have several mechanics from different government types at the same time? It always bothered me how countries like Golden Horde or Crimean Khanate was modelled in EU4. IRL both of these countries were settled feudal monarchies with developed urban centers, taxation system, law system, Golden Horde was even a quite scientifically developed country. On the other hand, both of Crimea and Golden Horde retained several nomadic aspects such as ways of life of rural folks, cavalry-based army, nomadic Mongol-like administrative division and some other things. Well, in EU4 they were strictly reduced to "angry tatar nomads go brrrr". I don't even mention Golden Horde successors like Kazan, Astrakhan, Qasim or Sibir Khanates that were straight feudal monarchies as well.
Yes, that also ties into the larger topic of "hybrids" between government systems in general. It is very clear we are getting constitutional monarchies, but what about other in-betweens? Steppe-kingdoms are maybe the most important example with the Golden Horde successors, but also monarchies all over the Middle East (Iran!) having strong tribal elements. Alternatively it could also be extremely fun playing a feudal outpost (like Theodoro was in EU4) and creating a sort of mixed government in order to rule the steppes effectively without giving up the more settled aspects of its society.
 
Last edited:
  • 4Like
Reactions:
Johan started coding for it in Q2 2020, as mentioned in the first dev diary. It has likely been in development longer than that, as in discussing potential features etc.

not really, we started talking about the design at the same time
 
We could have a system like in Victoria III where cultures can be part of several groups at once.
So catalan could be part of the Iberian group, of the Mediterranean group and of the European group.

That's actually a good idea

Only issue is Finno-ugric where hungarian probably has a little more in common with neighbouring nations than with Scandinavia where Sami and Finnish would belong too.

I would suggest a Finno-ugric group but where Sami and Finnish would have a good chance of getting integrated / accepted after a while. But even today, there is still Sami discrimination to some point. I have seen the film Sami Blood. And Sweden generally is a very tolerant nation today, so I doubt that 700 years earlier when the Sami lands would even mostly be tribal still (uncolonized) would be accepted as part of the Scandinavian parts.

Alternatively events for Sweden or Scandinavian nations to have Sami and Finnish be accepted could be an alternative instead of including them as part of Scandinavian group. And generally I don't really think Hungarians would have a lot in common with the Sami people either, including in 1300. Their migration would have occured 400 years earlier and they weren't exactly neighbours either in the Ural. But if Hungarian group and Sami/Karelian/Finnish group are separate, they could be part of an Uralic group.

The problem with that, that would make if we use this system Hungarian not really accepted within Europe which it was - also because of it's conversion to catholicism. I think Hungarian might be an exception, but a solution could be to add Uralic within European supergroup (the Ural region is still on the border with Europe). The problem with that though is that Siberian probably is closer to Uralic than Germanic to Uralic. If certain cultures within groups can be part of a different supergroup than maybe it could work (but it's complex).

Albanian i feel should also not be part of South Slavic. I think it should be separate in the Illyric group, part of a Greek group, in the European group. Generally though it'll be more straightforward but there'll be the exceptions.

Your proposal could fix balance issues while remaining more accurate.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Would "Ottoman Empire" be a country name not tied to land but rather to a ruling Dynasty? Whilst "France" might be tied to owning a certain portion of France.
Shouldn't being called "France" be tied to owning a certain proportion of provinces in Europe that have French (or perhaps Francien) culture? Same with Sweden, I've seen suggestions that we need more levels of territory because they skip from Scandinavia to Svealand, so we need Sweden so the Sweden tag can be tied to it, but why shouldn't it be tied to the Swedish culture?
I hope these government reforms will have actual effects that aren't just +10% or -10% modifiers. Seeing something as separate as having feudal landed aristocracy and appointed tenure governors (Pashas) just be a 10% modifier to crown power or local unrest is worrisome.

Also the idea that Ottomans had less "Crown power" than alternative seems patently absurd, as it was the more centralized executive government at the time compared to feudal aristocracies.
This is true but more importantly the fact that high officials and leaders in the Ottoman system were called "pashas" actually does not mean anything other than that high officials and leaders in the Ottoman system were called pashas, it is literally just a title, this is backwards causality it's like saying that the Russian monarch being called a "Tsar" was responsible for them being despotic absolutist and reactionary.

What is actually relevant here is that the Ottomans are a persianate state, and therefore they have a semifeudal military aristocracy (in the Ottoman empire these are called Timariots), and in addition their provinces are ruled by governors who have regional military authority and will monopolise the resources of their province if the central government is not strong enough to make them submit, etc. The title "Pasha" does not come into it as far as I can see especially since this system is quite similar to the systems that existed in other Persianate empires like the Mughals and Safavids which did not use the title Pasha.

As this poster points out the Ottomans were actually more centralised than contemporary European states and their aristocracy was less powerful because they could be divested of or rotated out of their fief at any time. I am not sure what feature of the Ottoman state the unrest bonus is supoosed to represent.

...

I would also like to say that some of the wording in the dev diary and the fact that modifiers that make your state more powerful are all in red makes me concerned. Having a powerful estates has consequences but it is not necessarily a bad thing, powerful nobles should boost your stability for example, and if a state is run by nobles it can actually make that state powerful in some ways as long as they are loyal. But more importantly, I am worried that what the estate gameplay will look like is that you spend the whole game mashing buttons that reduce estate power levels. That would not only be terrible gameplay but it would also be historically incomplete. If you want a strong central government you need to build up institutions and keep them under your countrol and disempower decentralised institutions. But also, this bureaucracy needs to be run by people whom you are empowering. It should be impossible to disempower one group without lifting up another to some degree (by group I don't necessarily mean one of the social classes in the game). If nobody is powerful then your state is just weak and a power vacuum is created (the process of filling it means the destruction of your state).

Also I have to ask, what does the power of an estate mean exactly? Is it their power in society? Influence in the central government? The average of those two and their role in regional and local government? What if the first and third things aren't invariant over the breadth of your state? This also brings me to another major concern which is that I fear estates will just be overhead blocks in your country and not tied to geography in any way like in eu4. The nightmare scenario is that the only difference between a Tatar nomad and a French peasant is the fact that they are ruled by the Golden Horde and France respectively and the Golden Horde estates just have different modifiers, which means that if Russia takes territory from the Horde its pops will convert into sedentary agriculturalists.
 
Last edited:
  • 13Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I think this is the single weirdest request I see regularly for EU5.

Why would anyone want this to be a feature?

A) It would just make finding royal marriages harder therefore diplomacy more obnoxious.

B) It wouldn’t even be historical. “Royalty” extends much further than the king’s kids, political marriages extended further than royalty, and all that aside waiting for duke A to get to fifteen so you can marry him off to duchess B to get +25 relations sounds like the worst part of Crusader Kings wedged into a game where it doesn’t make any sense.

Can people please stop asking for what would inevitably be the most-hated feature of whatever game it was put into? You’re just going to complain when the feature is dead on arrival and get it patched out three weeks after release.
I would like characters and royal marriages affecting them, simply to flesh out the personal union mechanics and know in advance possible succession wars. I wouldn't want to interact with them on a daily basis.
 
  • 14
Reactions:
Will we see culture hybridisation and religion reformation as in CK3 which could effect the country court? I ask as they're arguably the best features for culture and religion, or will we stick to base cultures / religions?
this. i really loved that aspect in ck3 hope it gets added. Maybe as an extra they can add actual self-made religions
 
  • 5
Reactions:
I realise you don't want to talk about it yet so I don't expect a response but PLEASE don't make the start date 1356 or thereabouts. That's well over a century before Columbus discovered the Americas, plus the game which these tinto talks are definitely not describing (EU5) should be set like its predecessors; post middle ages, leave that period to CK. Early 1400's would be fine but then I'd like features which prevent colonization until the latter half of the century. I imagine the starts date has already been chosen and can't be changed.

Edit: Something else I remembered that kinda relates to what I said earlier, while I don't want complete historical accuracy, I do like for some of it to exist. This is regarding countries like the Ottomans or Muscovy which are much weaker in earlier start dates. I still want them to be strong in most campaigns and would hate for e.g. the Byzantines to have a 50/50 shot at beating the Ottomans or any of the Russian states having an equal chance at unifying the region to form Russia. If the start date is early I would like some sort of way to boost the countries so that they can achieve their historical potential most of the time.
 
Last edited:
  • 8
  • 5
Reactions:
1. I officaily reguest to finaly called Byzantium the proper name as Roman empire, or greek-roman empire, or in greek name but i fien with late estern-roman empire too,
2. I hope ther is will be a changes to roreplay Loius the great of Anjou succes againts Venice, dont forget Venice agreed the terms of Hungary kings to tribute and once on year use hungarian flags, and dont forget the Naples Succesion crisis that saved europa economy from gold and silver crisis! So please be more gently this old great kigndom! I know the splotlight will be the relivalizasion of english and france, but this happen in balkan to more specific thats why the turks can have place to counger cause succesion crisis in roman empire so at least the balkan that make so much diverstions in history of europa can be more representative! (i mentioned Loius crusade agints Lithunia with Poland?)I
 
  • 5Like
  • 4
Reactions:
I hope these government reforms will have actual effects that aren't just +10% or -10% modifiers. Seeing something as separate as having feudal landed aristocracy and appointed tenure governors (Pashas) just be a 10% modifier to crown power or local unrest is worrisome.

Also the idea that Ottomans had less "Crown power" than alternative seems patently absurd, as it was the more centralized executive government at the time compared to feudal aristocracies.
It may not be that the actual government types themselves are more impactful direcrly, but that the doubling of Nobility power and significant Unrest decrease will send ripples through the Pop system.

No mechanics associated with the government type itself, but through the population simulation it ends up having a significant impact.

Ex. My Nobility doubles in power, which makes it more cocky. So they become less willing to fight my wars, start demanding more priviledges, lower my legitemacy as a monarch, and if it becomes critical enough start plotting to depose me (Or institute an oligarchy entirely? That'd be cool)

But at the same time my unrest decreases, so my empire is no longering bordering on collapse from petty religious and ethnic bickering between my subjects.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
1. I officaily reguest to finaly called Byzantium the proper name as Roman empire, or greek-roman empire, or in greek name but i fien with late estern-roman empire too,
You know what, initially I disagreed with this but upon further consideration I think that's a great idea, especially since they still called themselves the Roman Empire at the time and are the true continuation of it. It was the Germans who coined the term Byzantine and it was mostly done to add legitimacy points to the HRE.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Finally no mana points(which never made any sense imho), I really hope Stability mechanic will have some serious revamp as well, tied to such things as devastation/prosperity, peace/war and prolly some estate mechanics as well. Also I wonder how deep the economic system shall be, hopefully we will have overall more control over the economic policies, taxation, etc.
 
  • 6Like
  • 1
Reactions: