Tinto Talks #40 - 4th of December 2024

[Sete]

Fair enough, perhaps the naval technological spread between England and Iberia was of only 50 years, and even shorter for France, 100 was perhaps an exageration. Still, based on the paper I have no reason to believe England would have been able to build and operate an exploration fleet comparable to that of Columbus first voyage until at least the 1510s.
Furthermore this paper basically proves that the caravel would have always appeared in Castile and Portugal. As it says, the caravel is the result of the intermixing of the atlantic and the mediterranean shipbuilding traditions, in particular the basque tradition with the genoese-catalan one, both of which were present in both Castile and Portugal, with some north african inspirations. It feels perfectly natural that the caravel would necesarily appear in Iberia then, with later models being developed as portuguese exploratory voyages demanded better and better ships.

I have no doubt of that of circumstances were different. I'm not an expert on English history but by 1415 they were in the 100 years war. Different priorities. Portugal was taking its first steps into africa mostly to keep the nobles busy and get some money. It's was the geopolitics of the day.

It's the same principle of why Britain started the industrial revolution and not Portugal for example.

 

[Kvesir]

Why, if their colonial efforts failed? Its not like Portugal was a massive population nexus, either.

If it really IS a matter of knowledge of how to colonise and explore, that is.

Being technically allowed to explore does not equal having successful colonies.
Iceland is very weak and poor. This is the reason they wouldn't successfully colonize - not due to lack of knowledge of how to do so or a tradition of exploration (which they definitely had) but lack of economy in their own country that could even maintain their independence from Norway and Denmark, let alone fund colonial endeavors. This is up to game balance.

 

[Nomdesnoms]

I understand the spirit of what you're saying, I'm not an anti-fun jerk . Heck, I don't mind at all discovering an icelandic colony in Canada in the playthroughs. Or Norwegian for that matter. Moreover, I am primarily arguing to changing what the benefit is, not remove it altogether. It's not like I want Iceland to be a boring nation to play.

With all due respect, though, the things being told to me to justify "helping Family Sagas happen" just keep enphasizing this cyclical argument that the Government Reform "is fine, because it's just for fun and it won't be impactful anyway." That's just... not the best argument. It defeats itself. Like I said before, either things will have an impact in the game, or they won't. You can't simultaneously argue they should get this reform and also that it's not going to affect the tag, especially when there's better ways to model the specific advantages Icelandic people would have in expanding in their particular surroundings.

So insisting on not changing this particular Goverment Reform, a unique one at that, just makes it look like a lot of effort is being put to defend making Iceland a specially effective exploration and colonisation nation, with a 100-120 year start on everyone else, when there's no good reason to do so. They do not have the background that would have them think expanding into Canada and beyond would be a natural move to make. As @mrflagio said ( I am not suggesting this, merely comparing) it would make far more sense for "Family Sagas" to provide a cultural benefit, than a colonial one.

Which is to say... this is here in the game just for the Vinland meme. That's what it is. Maybe you disagree, and that is fine, but let's not pretend that is not the spirit with which this was made. They could have given Family Saga all sorts of benefits, but an exploration and settling ability was specifically picked. And that just doesn't make sense when compared to the advantages the Iberians would have.

Just to top it with an example, the first people to colonise Canada after the failed Vinland expedition were the Portuguese and Basque, in Labrador and Newfoundland, setting up exactly the kind of colones the Icelandish would have. They didn't last either, but it shows the Government Reform being made specifically for the Icelandish doesn't make sense.

Edit: Oops, it was @ivj9 that said it, not MrFlagio. Sorry.

I absolutely agree that this is just the Vinland meme. The Vinland meme was a thing in 1337. That’s what it’s meant to represent, and that’s why it is specific to colonisation (aside from the existing bonus to cultural tradition). The Vinland meme as it was in 1337 is meant to be precisely ”the background that would have them think expanding into Canada and beyond would be” at least a move to make.

What you perceive as a cyclical argument is, at least on my part, an attempt to assuage what seem to be your main worries, viz that it would give an unfair advantage and that it wouldn’t add anything of value. Clearly the idea is that this should exist as a difficult option for the player, as well as being a rare occurrence on the ai’s part. Saying that it won’t unseat Portugal and Castile from the coloniser top list isn’t saying that it won’t be impactful. Impact isn’t the same thing as power, nor is potential impact the same as consistent and disruptive impact.

 

[Cry_Havok]

no. but give me a few reasons why you'd want it.

A theocracy might want to forbid subjects from being religiously tolerant, while a colonial overlord might be wont to enforce tolerance on a subject to (iirc, one of the real/underlying reasons for the American Revolution was Britain wanting to keep it's subjects on the Atlantic side of Appalachia), or any wrong religion overlord could also enforce tolerance on their subject.

Also, England could enforce something akin to the Magna Carta on its subjects, or you want to prevent your buffer subject from antagonizing it's neighbors and force them to be defensive and conciliatory

 

[H.A.S.E.V.I.R.]

What happens if the prequisits change?
Like you dip into chinese language, call it a oriental fascination.. enact those reforms and promptly return to your old language.

 

[Thrudgelmir2333]

Being technically allowed to explore does not equal having successful colonies.
Iceland is very weak and poor. This is the reason they wouldn't successfully colonize - not due to lack of knowledge of how to do so or a tradition of exploration (which they definitely had) but lack of economy in their own country that could even maintain their independence from Norway and Denmark, let alone fund colonial endeavors. This is up to game balance.

So now it's a resource argument? And for that, they're given access to the same exploration and settling mechanic that for other nations requires the development of 15th century naval technology? How does that make any sense? Saying "their economy was just too weak to explore/settle Canada" is the same as saying they shouldn't be allowed to at all in the game. Why take the effort to put the reform anyway if you don't even think they should be able to make good use of it?

Unless, of course, you want them to have the option to, in which case it does mean that the reform is in to help them do it in spite of their lack of resources. See how this goes in circles?

I therefore say, let them go through the tech tree, like everyone else has to. What's the difference, after all, if their economy doesn't let them make good use of Family Saga, by this framing? They're gonna have to spend the time to develop their economy and population anyway, right? So you might as well use the Reform for something else more accurate.

Anyway, I feel like I made my point more than clear, so I am not going to discuss this anymore. I don't mind if the devs keep it in, they're the ones in charge of their project. I disagree with it, but this is the last I will say about the topic.

 

[Atromb]

I have no doubt of that of circumstances were different. I'm not an expert on English history but by 1415 they were in the 100 years war. Different priorities. Portugal was taking its first steps into africa mostly to keep the nobles busy and get some money. It's was the geopolitics of the day.

It's the same principle of why Britain started the industrial revolution and not Portugal for example.

On the contrary, the 100 years war seems to have accelerated the acquisition of proven ship designs to help in the conflict, its only natural that war results in an arms race, during the XV century France purchased significant numbers of iberian made ships and hired iberian ship makers, while England would capture many of those models and eventually reverse engineer them.
While it is true that the desire for further exploration down in Africa was a big cause behind the development of the caravel, the preconditions for it were already present in Portugal, yet not in England. Circumstances as such should be understood a bit more broadly that just what the state was currently interested in doing, it is perfectly possible that if for some reason in the XIV century the iberian peninsula would have sunked beneath the waves, ocean-going navigation may have never been developed in Europe.

 

[LordThanatos]

Saying "their economy was just too weak to explore/settle Canada" is the same as saying they shouldn't be allowed to at all in the game. Why take the effort to put the reform anyway if you don't even think they should be able to make good use of it?

They don't have the resources, but it doesn't mean that the resources cannot be hard won and allow them to make use of the reform. Per the devs:

Having the ability to recruit explorers doesn't put Iceland at the same level as the Iberians, not even close. You need a good economic and population base to explore, let alone host a colonial empire. Iceland's basic situation is far more restrictive than whether or not they have this modifier.

Greenland will be lucky if they rediscover even Markland

(To be fair, I disagree with that last point by Johan. They should still know about Markland and be using it for lumber, per my last comment about continued expeditions to America)

If a player (Or an incredibly lucky AI) turns things around and gets the economy going, they should 100% be allowed to make use of the exploration and naval knowledge Greenlanders clearly still possessed in the 14th century, given that they were still visiting America.

The devs have at multiple points mentioned how difficult a tag Greenland is, and how it's a battle for survival, so yes, most of the time this reform will go unused when the tag dies or languishes, but in that small percentage of timelines or skilled players, it will be of use and create an incredibly unique experience.

 

[Arizal]

That argument is tired and an old one, but... Why not opening up the "unique" reforms to other countries which would reach certain thresholds?

Normal beneficiaries of those reforms could still start with them, but others would have access to them IF their internal makeup align (something that would be easier to represent with societal values).

 

[Kvesir]

So now it's a resource argument? And for that, they're given access to the same exploration and settling mechanic that for other nations requires the development of 15th century naval technology? How does that make any sense? Saying "their economy was just too weak to explore/settle Canada" is the same as saying they shouldn't be allowed to at all in the game. Why take the effort to put the reform anyway if you don't even think they should be able to make good use of it?

Unless, of course, you want them to have the option to, in which case it does mean that the reform is in to help them do it in SPITE of their lack of resources. See how this goes in circles?

I therefore say, let them go through the tech tree, like everyone else has to. What's the difference, after all, if their economy doesn't let them make good use of Family Saga? They're gonna have to spend the time to develop their economy and population anyway, so you might as well use the Reform for something else more accurate.

But.. Iceland did colonize... Greenland was explored and settled by the Icelandics, as was - shortly - Vinland (Newfoundland today). We are not discussing the ability of Estonia to colonize Canada here, this is an actually historical thing that was happening before the game's start and was still happening. We know for a fact that the Greenlander Norse were still making voyages to parts of Canada (Markland) in the 1300s.
These feats took them hundreds of years to achieve, and they ultimately ended in failure. But why would that mean we shouldn't have it in the game, if the causes of their failure can also be balanced in?

This is 100% a resource problem, yes. These settlement ventures failed because it was too expensive to maintain, as Iceland at the time was a weak decentralized realm, with a tiny population, very few natural resources and little trade with the rest of Europe. Iceland was also in a period of decline in the 1300s as this coincides with the end of the Medieval Warm Period. Thus Iceland gradually had less arable land and colder climate, and the same holds for the Norse settlements in Greenland, which at this period could only subsist themselves by hunting walruses. The Greenland settlements would be in significant decline from the game's start and gradually disappear rather than grow - due to the Norse migrating back to Scandinavia.

Their ships were capable of crossing the ocean through the northern sea currents hugging Greenland, but they were much worse than the Portuguese/Spanish caravel at voyages into the deep Atlantic. Each voyage was extremely dangerous and costly, with ultimately little to no benefit coming to Iceland from the settlements due to lack of profitable resources in Greenland/Newfoundland that were worth such a hassle.

The Greenlanders were literally sailing to Labrador to bring WOOD back to Greenland. WOOD. Because both Greenland and Iceland have little to no forests, and Norway is too far away.

Colonizing in the 1300s in-game as a tiny country would simply be too expensive when your precious tiny viking ships keep sinking in the Arctic, especially if your economy consists mainly of fish and the only provinces you can colonize are sub-arctic. As such, this feature is not any practical competitive advantage over the historical European colonizers. It is 90% fluff.
However, if Iceland/Greenland was to somehow overcome these huge obstacles and be the first successful colonizer of Canada (and somehow not getting conquered as well) I wouldn't even mind as that should be a very impressive accomplishment.

By the way, Iceland and Greenland would most likely start the game as vassals of Norway as they have been since the 1200s. Norway, meanwhile, is in a personal union under Sweden in the 1330s - ruled by Magnus VII. (In fact, the Norwegian rule further contributed to the decline of the Greenland colony as they imposed a monopoly on trade with it, barring the Hanseatic League from trading with Greenland. As Scandinavia was getting united in the Kalmar Union, Greenland was being left behind by the Norwegian and Danish merchants. In general, the more Greenland was integrated the more its officials preferred to remain in Norway as the settlements dwindled). So this whole Iceland/Greenland settlement thing is even less likely to succeed as they would be integrated in most games, which would lead to the settlements' ruin and the end of Norse exploration.

Pictured: Scandinavian sailing routes to North America.

 

[honkajoki]

We have like 1500+ countries... many of those will be "genericish"

I assume that even for countries with no country specific flawor whatsoever there's some flavor based on region, culture, religion, government type, possibly something else too. Given that, how many of the 1500 countries are such that all their flavor is identical with some other country? I assume there are some at least among HRE minors, daimyos, and natives if they end up being playable.

Do you have a long term plan for making every country distinct in some way?

 

[Stormy seas]

 

[Samgee Gamwise]

Why do people keep saying the Sagas is a boon/bonus to colonization when it is not?

The effectiveness/speed/better cost of a colony is NOT something that is being affected by this Reform.

The Reform is fine as a nod to their historical attempts at settlement (ability to colonize) while being constrained by the limits imposed by the Colonial system as mentioned in Tinto Talks 25 -- monetary/gold constraints, population, and power projection

In practice it will mostly end up simply as an early exploration ability and not a colonization ability.

The [very] few games where the Iceland AI may end up with a settlement would be a fun part of a historical sandbox and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[za3tarani]

so reforms arent actually reforms, but rather some modifiers to change between.

eu5/tinto tslks started great, aslä a new game, with pops, great economy etc, but is now more and more resembling eu4. things have names but no relation to the name (see institutions eu4). moreover there are weird arbitrary game rules.

 

[Knud_den_Store]

This looks like it's got some promise - makes more sense to me than the EU4 reform system.
Given how few and how significant they are, I do think changing reforms should be much harder. I don't know if the system allows for differences in how much the estates might fight against the removal of different reforms, but trying to repeal Magna Carta should almost certainly plunge England into a civil war, unless the nobility are incredibly happy or utterly exhausted.
As for reforms that are based on a longstanding cultural feature, like Family Sagas or Diplomatic Traditions, they shouldn't be removable by decree IMO. Perhaps a cabinet action, taking several years, could enable the replacement of something like Diplomatic Traditions with another reform.

If none of that is going to happen, could there in any case be varying criteria for being able to remove various reforms?

 

[Sete]

View attachment 1226215

 

[poloport]

Removing a Government Reform currently costs 20 stability, which is a bit cheap, but that may change. Some reforms can not be removed at will though, and are locked until specific circumstances allow them to be removed.

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

I would urge some reconsideration on this.

The way I see it reforms seem like a really good way to give flavor and "direct" a country, and so giving them more powerful effects and importantly making it costly and time consuming to acquire them would be a good way to reflect that, and make countries unique both flavorwise and gameplay.

I would say that the minimum time a reform should require to be effective should be 20 years, and it should likely give significant maluses while it is being implemented to reflect the changing social order.

At the same time, reverting a reform should be equally challenging.

And having the reform should also give you powerful effects... but also powerful drawbacks that "lock you in" to a particular strategy or playstyle.

 

[ero_sk]

A bit unrelated question but will the game have flavour text, such as description or context for items in the game?

 

[lazprune]

If you go for French flavorful names for Estates, maybe replace "Crown" by "Couronne", "Clergy" by "Clergé" and "Commoners" by "Bas peuple".

 

[Bisonmask]

One thing that annoys me is the constant downplaying of the Portuguese Enterprise. It was decades of exploration, studies and discoveries, advancing naval technologies and shipbuilding.

Geography population and money will limit the early northern colonization game. They are big on their oral traditions I don't see an issue with them having a bonus like that at the start of the game. Just don't kneecap Portugal later on.

That's what got the Portuguese around Africa (and potentially to Brazil before Columbus) not what sparked the colonisation of the Americas. That process was the end of decades of dedicated effort toward the end of improved sailing techniques and technology. The arrival of the Spanish to the Caribbean was, at best, an almighty fluke as was the conquest of the Mexica


That said I don't think people are understanding how this is Iceland setup is going to work in game. You're going to have player Iceland rushing the new world every single game and that's going to warp the optimal play for the British Isles and Scandinavia

Gameplay is already warped by how players know the Americas exist even though the AI doesn't and this is going to make that worse a full century earlier