• 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 feel like we dont really need those illustrations for background when we click something, like in CK3, it really kills the simplicity of EU4s style. And also the design from the events doesnt really need to be the same like CK3 as well, I think im not in the minority when i say that i really like that old style scrolls from the current game.
From what we've seen so far, its promising but it doesnt really need to look like The post-medieval era CK3, at the end of the day its Europa Universalis, not Crusader Kings.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I'd like to share something I think is important for the future of the game, so even though I know my comment is a bit long, I'd really like you to read it in full.

(I used a translator, I'm sorry if the translation isn't of good quality)

I think we should change the way the war of conquest works, and I'm not talking about the units, I'm talking about the way the war unfolds. I think you should be able to declare war on one or more claims, and that you can, by winning a few key battles, besieging the enemy capital and if the claims are really important, occupy the claimed territories, be able to take what is claimed.

On the other hand, occupying territories should be much more costly and difficult to maintain, but if you occupy territories you haven't claimed, you should naturally annex them at the end of a war, unless you give them back in exchange for something else in the peace treaty.

Speaking of peace treaties, I think they would represent the times much better if we could make offers as well as demands. This has often happened in history, for example, I ask for a territory and in exchange I offer commercial advantages. This would limit the need for long and costly wars.

I also believe that humiliation should not be imposed as part of a peace treaty. Humiliation should be done automatically when we win any war quickly and far less expensively than the opponent, and only if the opponent is our rival or has insulted us recently.

Another system that I think could greatly enhance immersion is a more dynamic claim system. We should be able to claim any border area, but at first the claim is very weak, and nobody takes it seriously, but by investing time and effort we could make it more and more legitimate and we could ask or force other countries to recognize our claim.

I think a similar system would be interesting for legitimizing a territory (by territory I mean a set of locations that have been taken in a recent war). Legitimizing a territory, especially if the claim is weak or non-existent, would be a difficult process, requiringi mportant countries to recognize our right to these territories.

Thanks for reading, I really hope I've given you some good ideas.
Tagging onto this to add the idea of maybe much more strongly differentiating Core and Claim. I imagine Core shifting from what we think is ours, to what the world thinks of as ours. This would mean only one nation can have core on a region. Maybe for a Claim to become Core you'd have to have it inside your borders for 5 years if the current coreholder does not try to take it back in a reconquest war, or if the current Core holder gives up its core to you.

In a war you could then have different Aggressive Expansion values for your Core (none), their core (full) or 3rd party's core (somewhere in between).
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
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.
View attachment 1099097
As for the names of the provinces, I think they could be changed to more important ones.
View attachment 1099100
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.
Also, shouldn't there be more independent tags in Circassia region? There just seems to be Adyghe and Kabardia (or Alania/Ossetia?). What about Abazins, Karachays, Balkars and Ossetians? They seem to be independent at least according to this map:
dedq22k-f4e3279e-fa9d-436a-971e-692fee1cb987.jpg


I'm also excited for independent Mari and Udmurts.
 
  • 2Love
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
You'd need some insane or creative modifiers to not let that be OP
Well the AI or another player is playing Bavaria. You as HRE might not be able to do much since your realm is so decentralized. Do you even have armies you can control that aren't under Bavarian control? Maybe you can try to declare war, but the emperor and a bunch of your subjects have to agree. Etc.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
- 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).
The Azores may have been discovered, but didn't get settled by the Portugese until almost a hundred years later. Madeira had not yet been discovered. The Canary Islands had been rediscovered, but had not been claimed, and did not have any permanent European settlement yet. Cape Verde was not yet discovered, just as in the 1444 start in EU4.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I hope that unlike Vic3 and CK3 we don't get an oversized UI with 50% dead space. Vic3 is such a mess with information being hidden behind 6 different tooltips and the font becoming illegible when you downscale the UI.
 
  • 4
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Europa Universalis IV: Room for Improvement in EU V

While I love Europa Universalis IV, there's always space for growth. Here are some areas I believe EU V could improve upon:

Areas for Improvement:

  • Soundtrack: The music, while functional, could be more captivating. Look at Civilization VI or V for inspiration.
  • Complexity Creep: Adding too many intricate mechanics can make the game feel like a spreadsheet (similar to Victoria 3 with its in-depth goods system). Keep mechanics streamlined while offering depth.
  • Economic System: The current economy lacks complexity. Consider adding features like inflation, interest, multiple currencies, and economic sectors (e.g., agriculture, industry, trade).
  • Military Strategy: Introduce tactics and strategies for individual armies and navies, allowing for more dynamic warfare.
  • Infrastructure: Include elements like road networks connecting cities to improve development and movement.
  • Domestic Politics: Allow for royal marriages to potentially produce heirs and consider introducing a system with multiple heirs, like the Ottoman succession with Shahzadehs and potential throne struggles.
  • Warfare Outcomes: Expand war reparations beyond just territory. Victors could demand manpower, raw materials, slaves, and specific goods.
  • Visuals: While functional, the map graphics could benefit from a resolution bump, aiming for the quality seen in Civilization VI.
  • AI Behavior: The current AI's aggressive tendencies can feel repetitive. Implement more nuanced goals and war agreements that feel more natural.
Balancing Complexity and Accessibility:

Adding features is great, but it's crucial to avoid overwhelming players. EU V should strive for a balance between deep strategy and user-friendliness.

Looking Forward to EU V:

Despite these suggestions, Paradox continues to develop the best grand strategy games. I eagerly await EU V and anticipate years of enjoyment conquering the virtual world.

What are your thoughts?
This reads like a ChatGPT post
 
  • 10Haha
Reactions:
I hope that the national ideas of EU5 would be like CK3's cultural traditions instead. We should be able to replace them, and we should be able to set our own national ideas. If I want to play a trader, colonizer Prussia without the stupid military national ideas, I should be able to. Why would a mercantile state have access to goosestepping black-clad idiots? When can't it have a mercenary army instead?

Also, please allow us to create cultural hybrids, divergent cultures, or even forge a new culture. It's ahistorical to see that the French of 1400s is still the same French as the 18th century, when much could've changed their traditions. Maybe they're subsumed by the crown of England instead, or maybe by the Spanish, or the Germans.

And again, Prussia as an example, is already an artificial culture borne out of Germanic settlers in the region, and is not really related at all with the Baltic Prussians of old. Instead of having them there, we should be able to create that culture.

And religions, of course, we should be able to create them ourselves. We should not be railroaded into Protestants/Anglicans/Calvinist split in the 16th century when there could be Ninetyninethesesians/Divorcers/Defenestrators instead.
I do support getting some flavor to culture, à la CK3.
In eu4 there is absolutely nothing differentiating a “Provençal” from a “Cornish”, except the name.

I want to see more flavor from that, seeing how they differ, not only in language (obviously) but also in their way of life / customs / sedentary or nomad…
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Tagging onto this to add the idea of maybe much more strongly differentiating Core and Claim. I imagine Core shifting from what we think is ours, to what the world thinks of as ours. This would mean only one nation can have core on a region. Maybe for a Claim to become Core you'd have to have it inside your borders for 5 years if the current coreholder does not try to take it back in a reconquest war, or if the current Core holder gives up its core to you.

In a war you could then have different Aggressive Expansion values for your Core (none), their core (full) or 3rd party's core (somewhere in between).
Core could be closer to CK3 “De jure”. What is legitimate in the eyes of the world, but also in regard to the population living in it.
I do not think we need half core and full core though, it did not add much, was not really interesting gameplay wise (half voting for 3 years then insta full coring by clicking a few extra ADM) and differentiating states VS territories was sufficient to do this representation.
 
I really hope the siege system is more realistic. I am not a big fan of entire forts being repaired in the time span of just one single misclick. I understand that supplies would go into the city immediately once the siege is over. Yet how did you guys repair the entire damage in a single day?
 
  • 4
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Also, shouldn't there be more independent tags in Circassia region? There just seems to be Adyghe and Kabardia (or Alania/Ossetia?). What about Abazins, Karachays, Balkars and Ossetians? They seem to be independent at least according to this map:
Caucasus in 1337 in the latest paradox game Project Caesar.
CAU.png

As for the Kabardians, they came to the region called Great Kabardia only in 1350-1400 from the Taman Peninsula.

Previously, Kabardians were called Kasogi.

Kasogi​

1223 - Kasogs are mentioned in a chronicle about the emergence of the Mongols. [12] The Ossetians , long-time neighbors of the Kabardians , a Circassian tribe , still call the Kabardian country Kæsæg and the Kabardian people Kæsgon . Additionally, the Svans and Mingrelians continue to call the Kabardians "Kashgon".
As for the Turkic peoples of Karachay and Balkar, I do not know whether they were independent or under the rule of the Alans.
As for the Abazins, in 1337 they lived on the Black Sea coast and were subjects of the Georgians.
 
Last edited:
  • 8
Reactions:
Dear Tinto & Paradox peoples.
I would like to request a feature which I know I am a minority with. But this feature is incredibly important to me and those like me. Indeed, the existence of this feature in EU4 has led to over 5,200 hours invested in that game for me personally.
Please good peoples... Please bring Custom Nations, and their incredible and lovely choices to EU5. Also, don't forget the Achievements for them as well!
I Love love LOVE Custom Nations!
Thank for hearing my pleas :)

~Wolf
 
  • 5
  • 2Like
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.
Well, that's why we have game rules that with limits in diversion or hybridization, but a Mongolian Persia would be quite a sight to see, seeing as the Mongols tend to adopt to the culture of their conquered rather than force Mongolian customs on to them. The Timurids are like that, and instead of them having different Mongolian, Persian, Turkish, Arab cultures, it's maybe more organic to see a Mongolian-Persian hybrid culture instead of the Timur just turning Persian.