Tinto Talks #40 - 4th of December 2024

[ivj9]

ICELANDIC FLAVOR ALREADY? God damn, I was not expecting this.

Snorri Sturluson saga artworks when???

 

[Zerodv]

Sailors of other nationalities might have been engaged in iberian exploratory voyages (Columbus himself being italian), but only Portugal and Castile used the carabel and had sailors that knew how to operate it. This is to say during the XV and early XVI centuries only Portugal and Castile had ships capable of crossing the Atlantic Ocean or going beyond Cape Bojador. I would expect the game to represent that it took over a century for portuguese ship designs to be adopted by other nations (other than neighbouring Castile).

This is wrong, by the early-mid 15th century North Europeans were building their own caravels:

"The decline of English bulk and long-distance trades and the primacy of theFlanders cloth route do not explain why the big ship was in decline outside England, however. One of the reasons behind the growing preference for the small shipmay have been technological, at least in northern Europe. Until the fifteenth century,all seagoing vessels constructed in medieval northern Europe were clinker-built, butin the course of the 1400s northern shipwrights learned skeleton construction. Thistechnique had previously been developed in the Mediterranean centuries before andits transmission to the north was associated with the Portuguese caravel, which beganappearing in northern waters from the 1430s onwards. It can be no coincidence that in English, French, German, Dutch and various Scandinavian languages the word‘caravel’ or ‘carvel’ became indelibly linked with the idea of skeleton construction.In some cases, craftsmen may have learned the technique by copying caravels thathad been captured or bought abroad, though in other instances it is known to havebeen taught by itinerant shipwrights. The details of the process will probably neverbe fully known, but from the point of view of this study, the important thing is thatcarvels were generally small vessels. Out of sixty-five carvels loading cargoes at Bordeaux between 1467 and 1477, for example, only five took on more than 100 tuns ofwine and the largest of these loaded 149 tuns. The reasons for the adoption of skeletonconstruction are a matter of speculation, but it is probable that they were both technical and economic. The skeleton-built hull was stronger and easier to repair than aclinker-built one and also cheaper. The technique used more wooden nails, did notrequire expensive clench-nails and roves and did not need additional areas of plankingto provide the overlapping strakes used in clinker-built hulls.29"

The World of the Newport Medieval Ship page 51

"Evidence from other north European sources points to the spread of skeletonconstruction to areas as far apart as northern Spain and the Baltic between about 1460and 1480. A carvel-built ship, estimated to have been some 35 m in length and about7.5 m wide, has been found in Swedish waters and tentatively identified as the greatDanish warship Gribshunden, lost in 1495. If the identification is correct, it showsthat, like their English counterparts, late fifteenth-century Danish shipwrights werealso proficient enough in skeleton construction to build large carvels. Naval buildingaside, it is difficult to say quite how rapidly the English and other north Europeanmerchant fleets were transformed, though three English merchantmen repaired at Bordeaux between 1502 and 1504 were all carvel-built.30"

Page 52

Insofar as exploration goes well before Columbus caravels were used and build in Northern Europe and when Columbus sailed, caravels apparently were built in the Baltic too, so I think the list of coastal ports devoid of native built caravels would be meager by 1492, so they can't be a factor behind why Iberians dominated oversea colonization... it's just geography really

 

[Goran42069]

If you happen to change your mind on adding playable polynesian tags at game start i hope they get a government reform similar to Iceland and Greenland considering their history of exploring and settling new places.

 

[Atromb]

We're not being able to get into that level of regional governance with so much granularity, sorry. And I'm telling you this from the perspective of someone who wrote a thesis chapter about the situation and development of municipal and regional 'fueros' in the Crown of Castile from 1252 to 1284, and who would love to have that level of granularity portrayed somehow.

I will wait for next week to reveal how parlaments work, but perhaps the castilian Cortes could involve a system of fueros in which provinces are given unique priviledges (modifiers). As Castile you could either follow the historical route of abolishing the fueros and limiting the power of the cortes to basically nothing, which would remove the modifiers, or go ahistorical and try to gain the loyalty of the cities (which would probably involve antagonizing the nobility), the fuero modifiers would remain but you could get bonuses that more that made up for them once you succesfully stablish a somewhat democratic decentralized realm (aka the 'good' ending).

 

[Strybjörn]

In my opinion if you were Norway(or Sweden, Scania, Denmark) and able to convert to pagan Norse, you should allowed to have Family Saga.

 

[Praetorian44]

An answer was provided to you, you don't like it but it's there. If active exploration was the only metric for who should get such a modifier then I would argue no European state should get any special modifiers at all, not in 1337 and not afterwards, not even the Portuguese as they didn't really explore until 2-3 generations after the game started.

This is a game where apparently Sweden will get modifiers for stuff they did 3 centuries in, discussing the details of a specific modifier is pointless when the game clearly is designed to be looser than how you want it to be.

My understanding is that specific bonuses should be either to represent how one country differs from others at the start of the game or to nudge countries towards certain historical outcomes. So the idea is that because Portugal did become the leader in exploration in this period, they would get bonuses to exploration. These bonuses should not be so strong that they guarantee historical outcomes, as not every campaign needs to follow history exactly, but that they make these outcomes more likely for that particular country. Neither of these situations are true for Iceland and exploration. Their history of exploration is not even close to the game's starting date, nor did they do much exploration in the game's time period, therefore it does not make sense for them to get bonuses in this area.

 

[Thrudgelmir2333]

I think Family Sagas is fine because it only allows exploration, but doesn't increase any colonization-related modifiers. Limiting it to Arctic provinces wouldn't make sense ("Can Recruit Arctic Explorers", what), and the impact of the modifier in the early game is entirely dependent on how you manage Iceland; it will be an herculean task to reenact Vinland.

I'd still like to see whatever unique trinkets the Iberians get so we can properly compare, however. Any chance, @Johan ?


EDIT--I'm stupid, there could easily be a "Can Settle Arctic locations" modifier lmao.

Not only that, but Artic climates must affect economic and population growth factors that can be geared by coders to controlling colonial growth. Obviously, colonisation doesn't work the same in EU5 as it did in EU4, but it should be exceedingly simple to isolate an advantage on Artic colonisation for a specific tag.

In my opinion, it's better than giving it an advantage towards, for example, colonise South Carolina by 1430 by colony-hopping down the East Coast of America.

 

[Zerodv]

My understanding is that specific bonuses should be either to represent how one country differs from others at the start of the game or to nudge countries towards certain historical outcomes. So the idea is that because Portugal did become the leader in exploration in this period, they would get bonuses to exploration. These bonuses should not be so strong that they guarantee historical outcomes, as not every campaign needs to follow history exactly, but that they make these outcomes more likely for that particular country. Neither of these situations are true for Iceland and exploration. Their history of exploration is not even close to the game's starting date, nor did they do much exploration in the game's time period, therefore it does not make sense for them to get bonuses in this area.

I mean it's a matter of pure opinion, I find way more absurd to railroad specific features of 17th century Sweden when most likely almost nothing will be like 17th century Europe by then than to give Iceland the small opportunity to trace back the steps of their stories and maintain and expand a declining trade route and colony in the face of encroacing mainland Scandinavian presence

 

[Turtleblaze]

No, but Hy-Brasil is the name of a seazone in the Atlantic as a small easter egg

What about the stories of St. Brendan the navigator?

 

[Árpád Álmosfi]

Can other cultures invite settlers as well? Would make sense, especially for say, inviting persecuted jews like the poles did. Or the transylvanian saxons invited by the hungarian kings, or the nomads they also settled.

 

[Praetorian44]

I mean it's a matter of pure opinion, I find way more absurd to railroad specific features of 17th century Sweden when most likely almost nothing will be like 17th century Europe by then than to give Iceland the small opportunity to trace back the steps of their stories and maintain and expand a declining trade route and colony in the face of encroacing mainland Scandinavian presence

Well I spoke out against some of those bonuses to Sweden in the related Tinto Talk as well, so we might not actually disagree on this one.

 

[hytth]

View attachment 1226108

I gotta say, I never know how to feel about this. On one hand I have to recognise that vikings did set foot in Canada. On the other, it frustrates me to see this being put on the same level of ability as Iberian explorations, mechanics-wise. Even if it's held back by population, it just always feels like an ahistorical leg-up.

I can already tell it's not going to be a popular comment to make, but I just think that if the Icelandic or Norweagian really were specially prepared to be part of the colonial powers more than, let's say, the Bretons or the Irish or the Scots, we would have seen major colonies in the game period, as opposed to the Americas' colonisation being utterly dominated by Iberians for almost a century.

Edit: I would be much more content if, instead of giving you exploration/settling bonuses, it gave you defence against native resistance on cold areas, for example, or a reduction of penalties from 'Artic' Climate on settling. In other words, some kind of hygienic advantage on specific areas the Nords would be better at settling. But not direct, general benefits befitting of early colonial empires that would apply just as well on Cuba, the Amazon, Australia and the Congo. That makes no sense to me.

Both Denmark and Sweden had colonies though. It was Swedish and Finnish settlers in the Delaware bay that were the first to use the log cabin in America. The U.S Virgin islands were originally Danish, not to mention the various Danish trade stations along West Africa and the Indian coast.

There were more colonial powers than just the Iberians.

 

[PortDoubloon01]

I see some hesitancy for the Greenland sagas and want to say I support it. The sagas were handed down by oral tradition, so Iceland and Greenland had living memory of the Vinland expeditions and knowledge sailing to North America and Greenland.

Based on what Pavia is saying, it should be very difficult for a population of only ~40k to colonize America in a way that it would not have been in EU4 for example. Just as long as Iceland cannot just invite thousands of Germans or something to help it colonize Newfoundland, I think this could be a very fun challenge/flavor thing without being 100% zany.

Also the AI should be willing to wipe out whatever settlements Iceland may manage to make. For example, if Britain discovers a sparsely populated Icelandic Newfoundland, the AI reaction should be "easy yoink" rather than passive "let Iceland keep it, maybe even colonize large parts Canada."

 

[Thrudgelmir2333]

We're not being able to get into that level of regional governance with so much granularity, sorry. And I'm telling you this from the perspective of someone who wrote a thesis chapter about the situation and development of municipal and regional 'fueros' in the Crown of Castile from 1252 to 1284, and who would love to have that level of granularity portrayed somehow.

I'd be happy with Cortes-style parliamentarism, even if it's only partial parliamentarism . That would already be a big improvement from EU4's feudal monarchy. The Cortes were vital for the Portuguese succession Crisis, for example, appointing their own monarch from the Aviz branch.

 

[eddin2]

I'm a bit dissapointed, I have to say. Not that it's bad per se, but it seems less than EU4 government reforms mechanic. And you have set the standards pretty high compared to EU4, so maybe we just expect to be like that every time.

Let me elaborate a bit my concerns.

First, game lasts for 500 years, and there are, on average, 8-9 reforms in total possible for a country. EU4, lasts less than 400 years, had 10 or 11 with the starting one.

Additionally, some of those reforms seem better suited to policies (maybe you changed policy importance and impact in this game, so I may be wrong), and some seem to be similar to policies in EU4.

Third, some of them, like Magna Carta, are laws. But, even if we accept laws being considered reforms in this game, there are way to few of them available at the same time to represent laws.

Maybe next TT should be about certain laws and policies in PC, so we can have more realistic picture about that aspect of the game.

 

[Sete]

Scandinavians were the first to set up a colony in the Americas.



Explain Like I'm Five (years old)

Ah tought it was something else.

 

[backstabber09]

1. "Adding a new reform does not have a cost, but it takes up to 2 years before the benefits are fully implemented".

-I think Crown power and control of your territory should also affect the speed; 2 years feels pretty rigid and not dynamic.

2. Where is the Estates bonuses icon, like extra tax or trade efficiencies etc or is it something you need to click elsewhere to view it?

 

[mrflagio]

It's alright I suppose. Still feels quite similar to EU4's modifier shopping every 50 years, which by its own is a pretty pointless feature.

Yeah, and the fact that it's tied to the Ages system isn't super ideal either. Reforms should generally be a tree (or really a graph) you can pass through depending on your parliament, government type (which itself is a reform), etc. and if you're just some Siberian tribe the reason you can't pass a reform shouldn't be that you needed to wait for a new Age to get a new reform (aka modifier to stack) but because from the current state of your government and people the reform is either impossible or not ideal.

This system assumes that as time goes linearly on everyone just gets better (aka more bonuses) and that's definitely not the case. There were a lot of reforms that were total failures and states collapsed due to internal and external pressures. There were also some that didn't reform when they needed to and the same happened. This system captures none of that when it's actually the ideal system to do so. It's just the loss of some modifier...that's it.

 

[The_kitten_fighter]

What would be Russian unique reforms?

 

[Myxach]

2. Where is the Estates bonuses icon, like extra tax or trade efficiencies etc or is it something you need to click elsewhere to view it?

Maybe we need to hover over the underlined text