• 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:
Didn't Imperator have an option to let the AI handle individual armies? I didn't use it much myself as I enjoy the micro, but from what I can remember it was fairly well received. I would therefore expect a similar option to be implemented in project Caesar.
some kind of army missions like conquistadors had or navies had.
Without falling into VIC3 abstraction.

Also hopefully grouping armies together with generals. This was not enjoyable to have 20 1K armies to move here and there to just sack non fortified provinces and move them one by one.

That may be a controversial opinion but I also hope forts are gonna be back in most provinces as it was in early game, or as they are in CK3. The early modern period is characterized by a lot of fortified cities, see Le Pré Carré du Roi. Not just 3 ZoC forts to guard all the northern French border with 2/3 of Lithuania being undefended.
I have tested a private mod with some success within the limits of EU4 modding ability :
- more forts, basically every historically fortified city
- no +1 capital fort. It was completely unbalanced in the HRE.
- level 1 wooden forts building for tribes / indigenous
- reduced base siege duration to a few weeks per fort level. For wooden/ base forts, only advanced star forts historically resisted for years. Compensates for larger number of forts.
- increased warscore from forts. Basically the early modern warfare was less about annihilating the other army or carpet sieging the whole country (this would have devastated even the attacker economy), but more about winning a few decisive battles which granted the time to occupy a few key cities.
- with these changes, carpet sieging was no longer necessary.

- remove ZoC. They were never functional and never made any sense for the granularity of EUIV. They might for the granularity of EUV, but I think a system of preventing passing THROUGH and not nearby (ie entering a province you directly border but can not enter because a fort next no it also borders you) works better. Or Replace it with higher attrition non-neighbor territories, a system of supply route
1711127230563.png
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
CK3 has no mission trees. CK2 neither. Yet they have been praised for their role paying, writing of your own history, etc.
Not on CK3's own subforum it isn't. One of the most prevailing criticisms of CK3 is that while the DLCs tend to focus on RP side of things at expense of the grand strategy aspect, even that is "delivered" predominantly in the form of events and because of the many, many flaws in how those are structured (like how they pick characters to take part in the event completely at random, ending in situations where the event makes no sense for the given character's personality or circumstances) the whole things falls apart.

Also, the type of role play in EU4 @Calouro1 mentioned largely ties to providing regional or even country-specific flavor. And lack of that is an even more common criticism of CK3.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
:+: Spark's Note 3: People Puzzle :+:

This one is short and de-abstracted, and as ever focused on the experience of gameplay features.

In EU4, estates are fun for the first 100 years as you throttle up influence for resources. Rather quickly estates become a solved puzzle as you reach your long-term crownland strategy.

Estates should be an unsolvable puzzle, ephemeral and shifting. For example, nobility is promoted early to strengthen medieval armies, and suppressed later for standing armies. A prosperous cultural peasantry creates expansion demand pressure (a la the Ostsiedlung.) Etc.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
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.
Will we have a national or regional parliaments ?

As an example, in France, the provinces retained their custom laws. Even after the annexation, Provence, Burgundy and Britanny had their own parliament within the kingdom. Although they were no more vassal dynasties but integral parts of the kingdom, the king still had to respect their traditions
 
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.
Pros compared to 1444? Sure. But personally I see very few pros compared to previously theorized 2nd half of 14th century like 1356 (or my personal preference of late 1370's - early 1380's). With 1337 date very popular tags of EU4 like PLC will basically not be a thing unless PDX decides on extreme levels of railroading (meanwhile I fail to see what the issue was with the event in 1444, the ruler of Lithuania was the brother of the ruler of Poland that died just a day earlier and while technically already elective Poland did keep the Jagiellon dynasty; even then there's an option not to do so).

Ottomans are also still very weak so unless their rulers get massive bonuses (whatever they are in EU5) to represent the impact of the likes of Murad I and Bayezid the Thunderbolt, foregoing what will otherwise likely to be a random ruler system, there's no real reason they'd be bound to get an upper hand over even the Karamanids otherwise.

Or, following your example, Tamerlane is just 1 year old. And without his devastating genocidal campaigns the crumbling of regional power blocks like the Golden Horde or the Sultanate of Delhi is not initiated. The slightly later starting date on the other hand already has him and while the Ottomans are already more established, they are facing the risk of getting stomped by Tamerlane as well. Which could have a disaster triggering the capture of their ruler and a brutal civil war for other players in the region to utilize and try to kick already-somewhat-strong Ottomans out of Europe while their pants are down.

The only real upsides is that if you really hate Ottomans and want them to be as weak as possible (though as already said, that could be ruined by PDX giving them various bonuses to railroad their rise) and the presence of big Yuan. Which in 1337 was already bursting at the seams so it is likely to be a target of railroading events/disasters/whatever by the devs to represent their situation anyway, all but guaranteeing their collapse.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Really good stuff so far - thanks for sharing early and sharing so much. My big concerns / hopes so far:
  1. Information visibility. Pops are awesome - displaying the needs and wants of 350m people less so. I'd love to see more about how we are meant to know why people in provinces feel as they do. A tabular display with a list of groups of people each with their individual needs seems extremely intensive to manage, especially for thousands of provinces, are there consolidated versions of this? Aggrigate pie-charts of the most impactful issues on all pops in a location / province was my first thought but would love to hear more about what you are cooking there
  2. "Keeping the estates satisfied while keeping their powers low is an important part of the game-play loop. In this game" I really really hope this means "as low as you can" and not that you start off with weak estates and they stay that way. The path to modernity steady centralizing precent in M&T, where estates start dominant and slowly empowering the state relative to them is such a great experience and I hope that's more what you mean. The push and pull with the estates is still great either way!
  3. When you say more reforms and laws come with time, do you actually mean tech or some other thing that naturally progresses with time? I hope so!
 
Wish list of quickfire stuff:
  1. User customization of keyboard shortcuts
  2. EU4 style notifications with customization - I know you don't like situation menus (thank god) but I hope you achieve eu4s level of brilliance on notifications
  3. User customization of the outliner - this one is so important, especially as you get so much more complex on some features
  4. Message settings! So vital and so missed from many recent games - really dramatically improves the user experience when you can pick what you care about
  5. A comprehensive ledger - or equivalent.
  6. Custom mapmode placement ala IR or EU4 - ideally with layers like EU4, such a great system
So many recent PDS launches have come without these features and many have added them back in later
I implore you to get it right first time!
 
  • 3
Reactions:
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)
Not sure if the first sentence is supposed to be about 1337 or also about 1444 since the post you quoted there was talking about both dates, but in 1337 they had no branches yet. They didn't even control Tirol at all in that time to begin with. It was only obtained by the Habsburgs in 1369 and then only split off under a separate branch from the Leopoldian line of Styria in 1402. And even the split into Leopoldian and Albertian lines happened only in 1379 after the Treaty of Neuberg. Which is one of the many, many reasons why 1337 date is inferior to late 14th century start, because here we have a big Habsburg regional blob even without the devs artificially consolidating them like they did for 1444.
 
I know my comment probably doesn't have much to do with this particular dev diary, but does Project Caesar have a functional feudal system with "integrated" countries or duchies under a crown, say the principality of Wales under the kingdom of England, which still actually exists as a vassal and only shows up when you click twice on the map of England - which allows for a more rich flavour of revolter states? This would potentially allow for a smooth rise and fall of Empires, paired with events and disasters, such as when dynasties change in the Delhi Sultanate, a loss of stability allows an actual "governor of Deccan" to revolt and declare war, as opposed to just random separatists sprouting up - and establishing the Bahamani Sultanate (which actually happened around the tentative start date of this game). Such a system, on the flip side would also allow easier expansion of Empires such as the Ottomans which can just win wars with a "Integrated vassal" casus belli allowing it to engulf whole nations, while it also retains some degree of autonomy within the empire, and may strike a revolt at a later date.

Oh and btw, the start date seems to be between 1338 and 1340 because in the map of India with the populations, three independent Bengali Sultanates exist, one in Gauda (Northern Kingdom), one in Sonargaon (Eastern Kingdom) and one in Satgaon (Southern Kingdom) - as seen in the year 1338 after Delhi lost its grasp on Bengal. The Eastern Kingdom of Sonargaon conquered Chittagong in 1340 - which is NOT the case on the map, alluding to a start date before 1340. Just a fact that I thought would be nice to share with everyone. :)
 
Last edited:
  • 4Like
Reactions:
Also worth noting :
- 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)
There isn't a logical prospect of the Kalmar Union forming in this starting date. It's 16 years before Margaret of Denmark is even born and Danish rulers can just as well keep getting male heirs. Except between 1332-1340 there isn't even Demark to begin with, because it was mortgaged to various creditors of the Danish crown, mostly various counts of Holstein, with Gerhard III of Holstein-Rendsburg holding most of the country after Christopher II of Denmark financially ran his country into the ground.
 
This map is imazing. When i see the accuracy of the map, i have no words....

By the way, i would say that we are looking at 1330's Anatolia here... With so many dynasties., sounds great...:eek:

Only 1 criticize for the map...: Şanlıurfa is not the correct name. It was called Urfa. Şanlı name was added in the 20 century by Atatürk...
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Could you consider adding a family tree for your monarch and heirs? Similar to how the Medieval and Rome Total War games do it, and you can disinherit heirs and all family members have dynamic traits that change over their lifetimes. For republics, there should be rival political parties to choose from who win elections
 
  • 1Like
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.........
I agree heartily with this. What I want though is a way to have "uncommitted" wars. At the moment, the AI will go all out in any war, which just isn't accurate, and makes small wars over tiny areas feel ridiculous. For example, maybe a way for the AI to capitulate to the war goal after 1 big loss early in the war.

Perhaps, you could have it so that you prepare all your demands at the start of the war. Either the enemy can accept them immediately, fight for a little bit before accepting, or if your demands are harsh enough, they will fight all out before accepting defeat. It just doesn't make much sense that France will fight tooth and nail over a single province, or needing to conquer half a country for a single province.

There just needs to be a way to emulate small scale conflicts, or "Kabinettskriege" (cabinet war, a great example would be the Brothers War. Relatively small scale, and Austria was left pretty much entirely alone, and the peace deal was equally small scale) as Clausewitz (eh!) called them, rather than all wars in Project Caesar being "Volkskriege" (People's War, the modern concept would be Total War, a war which brings the entire nations military and industrial complex to bear against the enemy. An example would be WW1, or the 30 years war. These wars did happen, but they were NOT the rule).

If demands are light, then the war shouldn't be too big, to reflect that. If demands are an existential threat to the state, only then should the state pool all their resources together. Small colonial conflicts have a system for this already in EU4, so it can be done, and I would like to see it done. (i ramble a lot here, you can skip to the next paragraph if you like) However, these wars can expand into Volkskriege over time. The Franco-Prussian war was intended to be quick and simple operation, a quintessential Kabinettskriege, but the French society turned it into a Volkskriege, due to the arguably supreme nationalism the French have. I've seen no stronger example in history of blind faith to a national identity. Its what makes France such a strong state. Bismarck's mistake was keeping the war demands at the Kabinettskriege level. He left France in a state which could fight back, which he did with Austria as well, but that was because Austria was intended to become an ally in the new Germany's approach to European affairs. France was not, and could never be an ally after Alsace-Lorraine was taken. Bismarck should frankly have destroyed the French capacity for warfare when he had the chance.

Sorry about the ramble there, but finally, I think rebellions should have a general rework compared to EU4 (assuming this is EU5 lmao). After a particularist revolt is hanging out in Crete or whatever, perhaps they could convert into separatist rebels (either for a local core tag or a new generated tag), and begin enforcing demands. That would be specific to particularists, and would make sense for a lot of historical revolts (the American Revolution started as a particularist revolt, i.e. they wanted more local autonomy and representation, and then evolved over time into a separatist revolt)

Perhaps another equivalent could be a noble converting to a brand new vassal state (reflecting the autonomy that they want to enforce) after they control territory for long enough? You could even get a CB on them or something. Religious rebels could do something similar, or force "local acceptance", or even local religious enforcement in that small area. I'm sure theres a lot of ways you could model this, that are a lot more interesting than the current system of "win" or "lose" that rebels have (except separatists, which I think is good). Theres no intermediate option that most "successful" rebellions had.

Generally I suppose, I want ways to model small scale conflicts and intermediary stages between outright winning and losing. Negotiations with revolters perhaps?
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Few suggestions about renaming or dynamic names for provinces in the North Caucasus area (because significant part of them has russian names (mostly with endings like -aya, -oye, -sk) beside fact, that Russia had conquered them and had given these names only in XIX c. )
From west to east, divided by "countries".

Circassia
- Abinskaya (today: Abinsk, est.: 1834, named after near river) => Abin (near river name)
- Severskaya (est.: 1864, named after cavalry regiment name) => Ubin / Ubin-su (near river name)
- Khadyzhensk (est.: 1864, russified name of previous circassian settlement) => Khadyzhy
- Moschevo (couldn't find exact location, but name russified) => Makhosh (circassian tribe name inhabited near area)

Alania
- Rim Gora (today: Rimgorskoye, est.: 1905, but inhabited much earlier. Gora literally russian for "mountain") => Uchkeken (near karachay settlement)

Golden Horde (west to east)
- Belorechensk (est.: 1862) => Shytkhala (previous circassian settlement)
- Kurganinsk (est.: 1853) => Koshekhabl (modern circassian settlement) or Uashkh (circassian for "kurgan")
- Armavir (est.: 1839, named after ancient armenian city; prev.: Armyanskiy aul - russian for "armenian settlement") => Ermekhabl (circassian for "armenian settlement")
- Labinsk (est. as Labinskaya in 1841) => Chetiun (circassian settlement, meaning "cat's eye")
- Grigoropolisskaya (est. as Grigorpolis in 1784, named after Grigory Potemkin) => Temizhbek (near circassian settlement, named after circassian prince Temizh-bek)
- Uspenskoye (est.: 1864) => Kanokue or Kurgoko (circassian tribes inhabited area)
- Stavropol (est. as Stavropol-in-Caucasus (rus: Stavropol-Kavkazskiy) 1777) => Shet-kale (circassian translation)
- Nevinomyssk (est. as Nevinomysskaya in 1825) => Aryuv-kyz (nogai name for near mountain)
- Pyatigorsk (est. as Konstantinogorskaya in 1780) => Psykhuabe (circassian name for area meaning "hot springs") or Beshtau (turkish for "five mountains" similar to russian translation "Pyat gor")
- Aleksandrovskoye/Aleksandrovskaya (very hard-recogniseable, north to Pyatigorsk) (est. as Aleksandrovskaya in 1777) - Karamyk (near river' and mountain's name)
- Novoselitskoye (est.: 1786, also known as Novoselitsy) => Tumuzlov (near river's name)
- Blagodarny/Blagodarnoe (est. 1782 as Soldatskoye) => Soldus (kalmyk pronounsation)
- Novopavlovsk (est. as Novopavlovskaya in 1777) => Psyhurey (near circassian settlement)
- Zelenokumsk (est. as Vorontsovo-Aleksandrovskoye in 1781, renamed during Soviet time) => no exact replacement, possibly Kuma (river name)
- Kurskaya (est.: 1769) => Mozdok (nearest ossetian town)
- Naurskaya (est.: 1642) => Naur (lokal chechen name for surrounding area)
 
  • 7
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Sorry about the ramble there, but finally, I think rebellions should have a general rework compared to EU4 (assuming this is EU5 lmao). After a particularist revolt is hanging out in Crete or whatever, perhaps they could convert into separatist rebels (either for a local core tag or a new generated tag), and begin enforcing demands. That would be specific to particularists, and would make sense for a lot of historical revolts (the American Revolution started as a particularist revolt, i.e. they wanted more local autonomy and representation, and then evolved over time into a separatist revolt)
I agree. In my opinion revolts should spawn separatist tags that can act like "states" in EUIV (though I prefer to use the term "polity" for the time period). These states may be limited in their mechanical options, but they should be able to conscript soldiers from the population (depending on, for example, the level of satisfaction of the pops in the province, or whether it is noble/burgher-led or peasant-led). These states should also be allowed to engage in rudimentary diplomacy with others. Perhaps over time, and with greater successes, their goals may also expand.

Unsure how the AI would handle this, but I think this makes sense. It would allow, for example, certain revolts that led to an entire area splitting away into disparate smaller polities even though the rebellions itself involved some cooperation (such as the Deccan revolt against the Delhi Sultanate, which if we have a 1337 start date will have ended literally that year).
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
I agree. In my opinion revolts should spawn separatist tags that can act like "states" in EUIV (though I prefer to use the term "polity" for the time period). These states may be limited in their mechanical options, but they should be able to conscript soldiers from the population (depending on, for example, the level of satisfaction of the pops in the province, or whether it is noble/burgher-led or peasant-led).
I agree with the "Polity" naming, it's just that i've pretty much been assuming this is EU5, and am personally most interested in post-westphalia history. But polity is all encompassing. And definitely, noble revolts should be able to have just as much manpower from a province as we are at the start of the game. Ultimately the nobles are the ones recruiting them for us anyway, right? Nobles in general i think should be much more powerful and pose a legitimate threat to the player and AI, rather than being like three clicks to eradicate their threat in EU4. You've got some great points here though
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
I agree. In my opinion revolts should spawn separatist tags that can act like "states" in EUIV (though I prefer to use the term "polity" for the time period). These states may be limited in their mechanical options, but they should be able to conscript soldiers from the population (depending on, for example, the level of satisfaction of the pops in the province, or whether it is noble/burgher-led or peasant-led). These states should also be allowed to engage in rudimentary diplomacy with others. Perhaps over time, and with greater successes, their goals may also expand.

Unsure how the AI would handle this, but I think this makes sense. It would allow, for example, certain revolts that led to an entire area splitting away into disparate smaller polities even though the rebellions itself involved some cooperation (such as the Deccan revolt against the Delhi Sultanate, which if we have a 1337 start date will have ended literally that year).
Exactly what I want. A lot of great nations did arise as either revolter states, or revolters backed by other nations/polities. For example, a "governor" of Punjab may betray the Delhi sultanate and pledge allegiance to a Military leader of Kabul of a certain Timurid dynasty, and in turn as the Delhi Sultanate collapses, allows for the establishment of the Mughal Empire.

Allowing a more in-depth rebellion system adds sooo much more flavour to the gameplay, if the world around you is constantly evolving - it forces you to evolve with as the game progresses. Events and disasters alone cannot provide for such flavour. I'm so tired of seeing the same 5-way blob of Gujarat, Bengal, Vijayanagar, Jaunpur and Delhi in the Indian subcontinent. Or in most playthroughs following the collapse of the Ming, the Qing never fully unify china because of the warlords blocking the path and forming strong alliances with each other and not becoming vassals of the Qing.

PS: I believe the Deccan revolt happened in the year 1347, not 1337 - establishing the Bahamani Sultanate. :)
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
A
Exactly what I want. A lot of great nations did arise as either revolter states, or revolters backed by other nations/polities. For example, a "governor" of Punjab may betray the Delhi sultanate and pledge allegiance to a Military leader of Kabul of a certain Timurid dynasty, and in turn as the Delhi Sultanate collapses, allows for the establishment of the Mughal Empire.

Allowing a more in-depth rebellion system adds sooo much more flavour to the gameplay, if the world around you is constantly evolving - it forces you to evolve with as the game progresses. Events and disasters alone cannot provide for such flavour. I'm so tired of seeing the same 5-way blob of Gujarat, Bengal, Vijayanagar, Jaunpur and Delhi in the Indian subcontinent. Or in most playthroughs following the collapse of the Ming, the Qing never fully unify china because of the warlords blocking the path and forming strong alliances with each other and not becoming vassals of the Qing.

PS: I believe the Deccan revolt happened in the year 1347, not 1337 - establishing the Bahamani Sultanate. :)
A deeper revolt system also allows for more challenging and engaging gameplay. When you have to juggle the demands of a disparate nation, there will always be powerful people who will stand against you. Are they going to lay down and let you have your way? *sometimes* I suppose, but definitely not always. You should be scared of the powerful or numerous in your nation getting sick of your shit eventually, just as the leaders of these polities were IRL. Of course, IRL isnt everything, but i personally find that to be one of the most engaging parts of the time period and history in general; the balancing, juggling and genuine fear that these leaders went through to reach their power.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
I hope the Hundred years war is done like how struggles are done in CK3, it'll make sure that the conflict goes for a long time and isn't just finished in 3 years with France kicking out England. Actually the struggle mechanic can be used for so many things if the starting date is actually 1337.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: