• 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:
And that's a gross misrepresentation, because I want flavor, but flavor that has to do with what I did with my nation and nothing else.
It's really interesting idea that made me think what is kinda wrong with EU4-style flavor. The fact is that EU4 mechanics and flavor are very tied with specific tag or specific mission tree. It's no matter how peaceful your Prussia is or how warmongering your Austria is. In the end you are always stuck with Prussian militarism and diplo bonuses for Austria. I guess that with societal values being re-introduced, such unique mechanics could be tied to these values or other requirements that can be achieved by any country no matter what the tag it is. We already had kind of proto-system like this in EU3 where part of your flavor event and missions were determined by what your national ideas are.
 
  • 10Like
  • 2
Reactions:
That’s a huge change.
It means the game starts with Pax Mongolica AND the Black Death.
In 1337 the major trade route was the Silk Road. Maritime roads got reactivated after the Yuan collapse, since it was now unsafe for merchants to travel in Central Asia with all the local conflicts.

- At this point, I guess they will make it so Yuan is also programmed to collapse (not necessarily by events but by the simple complexity of its multicultural empire and the difficulty to maintain cohesion)
- when they do collapse, that will drastically alter the trade routes, leading to the emergence of new dominating powers in South Asia /Arabia
- it will also offer the necessary conditions for a Russian and Lithuanian expansion
- the Black Death happening early game will certainly shake most powers and redistribute the cards. It will certainly be tied to some extent to the yuan crumble
- the HRE is not Habsburg, but Bavarian Wittelsbach at this time.

I’m waiting to see how the mechanics will be able to represent and dynamically alter the beginning of the year to somehow offer the opportunity to future nation states to emerge.
Starting the game with the Yuan fall and the Hundred Years War and the Black Death is going to generate a high level kf randomization early game already.

Notably, I’m a bit worried the Ming / Iran or Austria Hungary might never form, and it could turn into CK border gore again. But we will see

Hear me well, I’m not saying I want railroading for such nations to appear. Definitely not. If it’s not Safavid but Timurid Persia or another, so be it.
I’m just saying that given the early modern era represented the emergence of nation states, I want the context and mechanics to still offer consolidation for a regional Persian power, a regional Arabian power, a regional Russian power, etc.
China regardless of the start date is never going to be a scramble for all, whether you pick 1337, 1356, 1444, 1453, 1492. And Yuan-collapse is much nearer to start date than the Ming collapse is supposed to be. Given Ming always collapses, i don't think it would be too hard for the developers to make Yuan collapse most of the times, since it used to be a complaint that Ming always collapses.

Ilkhanate just collapsed, Persia is a scramble for all and all fun. The only legitimate concern is how to represent the rise of Timur in the game (which is similar to the issue of depicting rise of Mughals in EU4). But starting in Persia in 1337 will be fun, and it'll actually be easier to form Persia this time around. Restoring the Ilkhanate is also something the player can quite easily do due to several being tags still being mongol states.

The HRE being Bavarian Wittelsbach isn't necessarily a negative at this point. Black Death will add to variation at the start of the game since it's a bit random who dies. I feel like Eastern Europe, Anatolia and the Balkans are all a bit more interesting to play since it's less clear who comes out on top. Lithuania is also still pagan (vidinist) in 1337.

I wouldn't be worried about Persia never forming, i think it's easier for Persia to form this time around. But Timur, Ming and especially Austria(-Hungary) i have no idea on how they'll do it. I suspect Yuan will have a lot of trouble keeping their empire together due to the amount of perhaps unhappy pops within their realm, making a collapse at some point likely and setting up the conditions for a Han-majority state in China. Same for Russia where Golden Horde likely gradually loses power or grip over the several Russian states (but it could be Novgorod, Tver or Ryazan that comes out on top instead of Muscovy, but these will also be able to form Russia).

Timur and Mughals is a similar issue, not sure how they'll do it. And Austria is a lot weaker than 1444 and has a lot to lose from an earlier start date. But every start date has pros and cons, even 1444 has things like the PLC event or the Burgundian inheritance or even the lucky nations modifier to help the winners of later eras actually win. I just hope that people will realize while 1337 has its cons like every start date, it has a lot of pros as well. And a lot depends on how the devs intend to tackle some of these issues. We don't know a lot yet about the game.

Western Europe is mostly the same, Scandinavia - Eastern Europe - Balkans - Anatolia - Persia all have a good set-up for interesting gameplay. Indonesia has a rising Majapahit power. Southeast Asia has a lot of options. And Russia is a scramble for all if Golden Horde's grip over it weakens (with Novgorod being the more dominant power). Even India is not set in stone, despite Delhi being a very dominant power there, but there are opportunities for Vijy and Bengal - esp. in the hands of a player. And China at the very least is not a downgrade from 1444.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Not sure if this was mentioned before, but devs should include a link to FAQ for this project.. newcomers are not aware about remove of mana from this game and I've seen same question made again and again.

Go back to the content: what about heirs ? I hate (yes hate), when in EU4 my only heir dies due to random event. I don't ask for a complete family simulator like CK2, but at least more than one heir should be in the game, right ?
 
  • 6Like
Reactions:
Timur and Mughals is a similar issue, not sure how they'll do it. And Austria is a lot weaker than 1444 and has a lot to lose from an earlier start date. But every start date has pros and cons, even 1444 has things like the PLC event or the Burgundian inheritance or even the lucky nations modifier to help the winners of later eras actually win. I just hope that people will realize while 1337 has its cons like every start date, it has a lot of pros as well. And a lot depends on how the devs intend to tackle some of these issues. We don't know a lot yet about the game.
Not to forget that Habsburg still had 3 branches at the time. They still had in separate 1444 but it was overlooked by the devs to create some kind of regional power of the HRE (and avoid Nassau emperor to get eaten by France very end of truce like I saw in many game ahah)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
China regardless of the start date is never going to be a scramble for all, whether you pick 1337, 1356, 1444, 1453, 1492. And Yuan-collapse is much nearer to start date than the Ming collapse is supposed to be. Given Ming always collapses, i don't think it would be too hard for the developers to make Yuan collapse most of the times, since it used to be a complaint that Ming always collapses.

Ilkhanate just collapsed, Persia is a scramble for all and all fun. The only legitimate concern is how to represent the rise of Timur in the game (which is similar to the issue of depicting rise of Mughals in EU4). But starting in Persia in 1337 will be fun, and it'll actually be easier to form Persia this time around. Restoring the Ilkhanate is also something the player can quite easily do due to several being tags still being mongol states.

The HRE being Bavarian Wittelsbach isn't necessarily a negative at this point. Black Death will add to variation at the start of the game since it's a bit random who dies. I feel like Eastern Europe, Anatolia and the Balkans are all a bit more interesting to play since it's less clear who comes out on top. Lithuania is also still pagan (vidinist) in 1337.

I wouldn't be worried about Persia never forming, i think it's easier for Persia to form this time around. But Timur, Ming and especially Austria(-Hungary) i have no idea on how they'll do it. I suspect Yuan will have a lot of trouble keeping their empire together due to the amount of perhaps unhappy pops within their realm, making a collapse at some point likely and setting up the conditions for a Han-majority state in China. Same for Russia where Golden Horde likely gradually loses power or grip over the several Russian states (but it could be Novgorod, Tver or Ryazan that comes out on top instead of Muscovy, but these will also be able to form Russia).

Timur and Mughals is a similar issue, not sure how they'll do it. And Austria is a lot weaker than 1444 and has a lot to lose from an earlier start date. But every start date has pros and cons, even 1444 has things like the PLC event or the Burgundian inheritance or even the lucky nations modifier to help the winners of later eras actually win. I just hope that people will realize while 1337 has its cons like every start date, it has a lot of pros as well. And a lot depends on how the devs intend to tackle some of these issues. We don't know a lot yet about the game.

Western Europe is mostly the same, Scandinavia - Eastern Europe - Balkans - Anatolia - Persia all have a good set-up for interesting gameplay. Indonesia has a rising Majapahit power. Southeast Asia has a lot of options. And Russia is a scramble for all if Golden Horde's grip over it weakens (with Novgorod being the more dominant power). Even India is not set in stone, despite Delhi being a very dominant power there, but there are opportunities for Vijy and Bengal - esp. in the hands of a player. And China at the very least is not a downgrade from 1444.
I agree with most of your post. I don’t say this is not gonna be interesting, indeed the battle royal that will follow for certain regions such as Russia or Persia will be interesting.
I’m not worried about it being interesting or not, I’m worried about how mechanics will be able to recreate the balance between regions which is necessary for a pre-modern-era to develop. Not having a battle royal for 300 years. But we will see which mechanics are implemented for that.

Regarding the Yuan successor state, I hope for this one there will be some kind of unifier, not like in EUIV where mingsplosion actually meant the end of any Han regional power.
They never properly achieved that, and I believe this is partly due to the way EUIV prevented large rapid conquests with coalitions, max peace treaty and overextension. China is a special region, which saw several collapses in its three thousand years long history, but never remained fragmented for long.
 
  • 6Like
Reactions:
Regarding the Yuan successor state, I hope for this one there will be some kind of unifier, not like in EUIV where mingsplosion actually meant the end of any Han regional power.
They never properly achieved that, and I believe this is partly due to the way EUIV prevented large rapid conquests with coalitions, max peace treaty and overextension. China is a special region, which saw several collapses in its three thousand years long history, but never remained fragmented for long.
There's a way to fix that, and it's basically some kind of "unify China CB" for han-culture tags - perhaps also in part via diplomatic means, while non-han tags might get a "claim the mandate" cb (but to claim the mandate you have to declare on all han-tags, except for the ones you are allied with it - something similar to the HRE). When getting the mandate, there should also be some kind of unify china cb for the emperor.

A unify China CB should reduce province war score cost to like 20% and have no AE at all (or 10%), i believe. That would stimulate large conquests or unification a lot more.

Of course we don't know yet how the mechanics will work in EU5 (how they implement AE, coalitions, max peace treaty, overextension etc.)
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
China regardless of the start date is never going to be a scramble for all, whether you pick 1337, 1356, 1444, 1453, 1492. And Yuan-collapse is much nearer to start date than the Ming collapse is supposed to be. Given Ming always collapses, i don't think it would be too hard for the developers to make Yuan collapse most of the times, since it used to be a complaint that Ming always collapses.

Ilkhanate just collapsed, Persia is a scramble for all and all fun. The only legitimate concern is how to represent the rise of Timur in the game (which is similar to the issue of depicting rise of Mughals in EU4). But starting in Persia in 1337 will be fun, and it'll actually be easier to form Persia this time around. Restoring the Ilkhanate is also something the player can quite easily do due to several being tags still being mongol states.

The HRE being Bavarian Wittelsbach isn't necessarily a negative at this point. Black Death will add to variation at the start of the game since it's a bit random who dies. I feel like Eastern Europe, Anatolia and the Balkans are all a bit more interesting to play since it's less clear who comes out on top. Lithuania is also still pagan (vidinist) in 1337.

I wouldn't be worried about Persia never forming, i think it's easier for Persia to form this time around. But Timur, Ming and especially Austria(-Hungary) i have no idea on how they'll do it. I suspect Yuan will have a lot of trouble keeping their empire together due to the amount of perhaps unhappy pops within their realm, making a collapse at some point likely and setting up the conditions for a Han-majority state in China. Same for Russia where Golden Horde likely gradually loses power or grip over the several Russian states (but it could be Novgorod, Tver or Ryazan that comes out on top instead of Muscovy, but these will also be able to form Russia).

Timur and Mughals is a similar issue, not sure how they'll do it. And Austria is a lot weaker than 1444 and has a lot to lose from an earlier start date. But every start date has pros and cons, even 1444 has things like the PLC event or the Burgundian inheritance or even the lucky nations modifier to help the winners of later eras actually win. I just hope that people will realize while 1337 has its cons like every start date, it has a lot of pros as well. And a lot depends on how the devs intend to tackle some of these issues. We don't know a lot yet about the game.

Western Europe is mostly the same, Scandinavia - Eastern Europe - Balkans - Anatolia - Persia all have a good set-up for interesting gameplay. Indonesia has a rising Majapahit power. Southeast Asia has a lot of options. And Russia is a scramble for all if Golden Horde's grip over it weakens (with Novgorod being the more dominant power). Even India is not set in stone, despite Delhi being a very dominant power there, but there are opportunities for Vijy and Bengal - esp. in the hands of a player. And China at the very least is not a downgrade from 1444.
Also worth noting :
- 1337 means 155 years of gameplay before colonization (of the new world, there would still be a few colonies in west Africa, the acores etc).
Which is not bad in itself, on the contrary, there were a lot of complaints in EUIV about colo being too quick and the Americas being fully occupied by 1650-1700. It also means landlocked or Mediterranean countries will be less disadvantaged early game
- split of Scandinavia means it’s possible for any nation to form the Kalmar union. It also gives less of an advantage to Denmark, although its position on the Oresund tolls will likely give it a benefit in revenues (more in that when trade is revealed)
- split of Eastern Europe and Anatolia means it’s likely for any nation to achieve regional supremacy. Much easier for Byzantium the (eastern) Roman Empire.
Although it also makes it much much easier for Venice or Genoa to profit from the general fragmentation and achieve even greater dominance of the Mediterranean.
Less likely for ottoman dominance (although they will surely give Orhan a military boost early on), but likely for any beylik to unify Anatolia or restore Rûm
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
I agree with most of your post. I don’t say this is not gonna be interesting, indeed the battle royal that will follow for certain regions such as Russia or Persia will be interesting.
I’m not worried about it being interesting or not, I’m worried about how mechanics will be able to recreate the balance between regions which is necessary for a pre-modern-era to develop. Not having a battle royal for 300 years. But we will see which mechanics are implemented for that.

Regarding the Yuan successor state, I hope for this one there will be some kind of unifier, not like in EUIV where mingsplosion actually meant the end of any Han regional power.
They never properly achieved that, and I believe this is partly due to the way EUIV prevented large rapid conquests with coalitions, max peace treaty and overextension. China is a special region, which saw several collapses in its three thousand years long history, but never remained fragmented for long.
Adding to that


2LPid5c.png


Vicky 3 has a system called AI strategies (or the player has a good way of checking those out). Well in EU5 for instance, i think han culture tags should have as a goal or strategy to unify china (etc.). AI strategies or AI goals would help with a ton of potential issues in the game, even if the strategy itself doesn't mean it will necessarily be succesful in doing so.
 
  • 12Like
  • 1
Reactions:
It sounds to me like many military orders could be represented by a government that doesn't have any land, i.e., either a theocracy or a monarchy without a province. Think about Calatrava (and the German branch of the Teutonic Order) which could be otherwise hard to model within Ibera (and HRE), but this would give them some sort of a way to exist.

I do hope that the parliaments can be both within a nation as well as outside a nation, but having them only every two years doesn't make a lot of sense (if it's fixed). Nobles' demand was often to actually move to a regular annual estate day which they were often able to achieve by the early 16th century.

But, on the other hand, I hope this doesn't mean that every estate has to partake of a parliament. You could easily have states where the parliament was comprised only of the canons and nobles while the burghers of that realm had no effective say in the running of the country (or even just nobles).
 
There's a way to fix that, and it's basically some kind of "unify China CB" for han-culture tags - perhaps also in part via diplomatic means, while non-han tags might get a "claim the mandate" cb (but to claim the mandate you have to declare on all han-tags, except for the ones you are allied with it - something similar to the HRE). When getting the mandate, there should also be some kind of unify china cb for the emperor.

A unify China CB should reduce province war score cost to like 20% and have no AE at all (or 10%), i believe. That would stimulate large conquests or unification a lot more.

Of course we don't know yet how the mechanics will work in EU5 (how they implement AE, coalitions, max peace treaty, overextension etc.)
I hope there will be some sort of CK3 cb where you can unify the entire region as king as you have the de jure empire title.
For China, it means taking the mandate make it easy to claim all former yuan Chinese territories.
Without hard cap such as overextension or max peace cost , which I believe are no longer necessary in a game where they are creating more internal tension (with estates and culture resistance based on population numbers).
Like in CK, growing fast should be achievable, but would severely endanger your inheritance (ie Mongols or Frankish gavelkind) as well as the risk of rebellion and implosion if your grip is not strong enough to maintain your suzerainty
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
It sounds to me like many military orders could be represented by a government that doesn't have any land, i.e., either a theocracy or a monarchy without a province. Think about Calatrava (and the German branch of the Teutonic Order) which could be otherwise hard to model within Ibera (and HRE), but this would give them some sort of a way to exist.

I do hope that the parliaments can be both within a nation as well as outside a nation, but having them only every two years doesn't make a lot of sense (if it's fixed). Nobles' demand was often to actually move to a regular annual estate day which they were often able to achieve by the early 16th century.

But, on the other hand, I hope this doesn't mean that every estate has to partake of a parliament. You could easily have states where the parliament was comprised only of the canons and nobles while the burghers of that realm had no effective say in the running of the country (or even just nobles).
Johan probably teased this when he said “not every country owns locations”. Apart from the HRE, it could also mean nomad people or military order.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Another thing I would really like to see is rivers, I really hope they're very detailed like in CK3 and Imperator: Rome, unlike in Victoria 3 where many major rivers are missing.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
I assumed at first it would almost be like the HoI4 balance of power mechanic like in Italy, or like the Muslim piety mechanic in eu4... Maybe free citizens is one end of the spectrum and gives burgher influence + tech bonuses and serfdom is on the other and gives noble influence + goods produced

I think if done well this could be good in game, but it could also just lead to every country being played the same way because it turns out that serfdom is OP or whatever
There is an east fix by having synergies with various laws and govt types until there is so much that can be changed that there is no one route that is better than the rest.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Perhaps you can take more depending on the lack of country stability? If there's general unrest, you could take more as the former government has fewer means to exercise legitimacy over the lands. This could also work for problem areas like Hungary in Austria - if unrest is high enough, releasing them could be very cheap. Of course, if you annex lands with considerable discontent, you should also have to deal with said unrest. The latter example could also promote espionage, sowing discontent and all for dismantling unstable multicultural empires.
I think this would not be entirely accurate for a pre-national age. Multinational empires were highly succesful in the time period and the dominant organisation for most of the world until the end of the time period. The nation state developed all throughout the time period as a viable alternative and had its breakthrough only in the 19th century. National resentments and sentiments were politically important only in the context of the Napoleonic Wars.

 However, an important challenge was keeping a region's nobles happy. If rulers didn't they might invite an outside ruler to take over. Duke Sigismund of Tyrol started selling out rights and lands to the Bavarians to pay for his expenses, so the Estates forced him to abdicate in favour of his cousin Maximilian I. of Austria and Burgundy. Hungary splintered into three due to noble resistance to the Habsburgs, Maria Theresia managed to secure her succession by appeasing the Hungarian nobles and assuring their support. I would love to see a lot of privileges, power structure and struggle against the estates to work an a regional (state) level, maybe actually having the unhappy estates of a neighbouring ruler offering you the title and thus an invasion-reason, at least up to the late 16th century.

I'm NOT saying there were no nationalities, that's another question. I'm saying that political consequences were tied to other particularist factors.

Tldr: Regional and noble interests were super important, national ones not so much.
 
Last edited:
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
No, please. CK3 already turns into a mess of hybridized cultures hybridizing with other hybridized cultures, ending with completely unhinged stuff.
I'd rather not have Persia turn into a half Mongolian area most of the games.
I agree. For CK3 it is a fun mechanic, as you play a ruler in control of a cultral elite Reling a certain area. EU sidesteps this by leaving cultures more vague and not assigning then essentialist traits. We don't know how "the French" as a people change. We can look at their wealth, their literacy maybe cultural events about cultural and religious movements like the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment. We could see them become a poor but militarist people, or a rich and peaceful cultural nation. But this doesn't need to be reflected in the ingame tag "culture". This also sidesteps a whole can of worms associated with nationalist discussions. Victoria 3 also does a great job with cultures that way, even though they're more of a political force over in that period.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I think this would not be entirely accurate for a pre-national age. Multinational empires were highly succesful in the time period and the dominant organisation for most of the world until the end of the time period. The nation state developed all throughout the time period as a viable alternative and had its breakthrough only in the 19th century. National resentments and sentiments were politically important only in the context of the Napoleonic Wars.

 However, an important challenge was keeping a region's nobles happy. If rulers didn't they might invite an outside ruler to take over. Duke Sigismund of Tyrol started selling out rights and lands to the Bavarians to pay for his expenses, so the Estates forced him to abdicate in favour of his cousin Maximilian I. of Austria and Burgundy. Hungary splintered into three due to noble resistance to the Habsburgs, Maria Theresia managed to secure her succession by appeasing the Hungarian nobles and assuring their support. I would love to see a lot of privileges, power structure and struggle against the estates to work an a regional (state) level, maybe actually having the unhappy estates of a neighbouring ruler offering you the title and thus an invasion-reason, at least up to the late 16th century.

I'm NOT saying there were no nationalities, that's another question. I'm saying that political consequences were tied to other particularist factors.

Tldr: Regional and noble interests were super important, national ones not so much.
I meant it more as a general idea of low stability (for whatever reason) = the region is easier to take over, but yeah, I agree
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Soundtrack: The music, while functional, could be more captivating. Look at Civilization VI or V for inspiration.
I completely disagree. Anyone listening to, for example, "Breitenfeld" cannot be uninspired. I hope to goodness that Andreas Waldetoft is once again at least ONE of the main composers.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: