Tinto Talks #40 - 4th of December 2024

[Thrudgelmir2333]

I was hoping someone would bring that up. Now I have to make Wales start as a colonial superpower.

Will you have it establish New North Wales somewhere, or will New South Wales be forever alone?

 

[dbruser]

This. It makes no sense that Iceland could use mechanics that potentially can lead to them knowing, or even settling all the American East Coast before the end of the 14th century.

At the very minimum, it is extremely logical that Iceland would be given the mechanic to colonize Greenland in the event that the 1337 colony THAT EXISTS AT GAME START fails or needs to be sent more population, instead of them somehow magically forgetting how to send people to Greenland.

Also Iceland has the mechanics to settle all of the American Coast by 14th Century (which by the way I am pretty sure it doesn't because it literally can't send that many colonists) in the same way that Ulm has the mechanics to unite all of Christendom under one nation by 1400. It is kind of technically maybe possible, but would require some absurd AI blunders of historic fashion, or heavy use of exploits/console command.

 

[Kvesir]

At the very minimum, it is extremely logical that Iceland would be given the mechanic to colonize Greenland in the event that the 1337 colony THAT EXISTS AT GAME START fails or needs to be sent more population, instead of them somehow magically forgetting how to send people to Greenland.

Also Iceland has the mechanics to settle all of the American Coast by 14th Century (which by the way I am pretty sure it doesn't because it literally can't send that many colonists) in the same way that Ulm has the mechanics to unite all of Christendom under one nation by 1400. It is kind of technically maybe possible, but would require some absurd AI blunders of historic fashion, or heavy use of exploits/console command.

I don't think what we're seeing here is a mechanic that helps Iceland colonize or settle anything (with the exception of "Can Invite Settlers" which probably just gives them a migration attraction buff). If I recall correctly, colonizing a province depends on the colonizer's power projection and isn't gated behind a "colonist" you had to unlock like in EU4.

Family Sagas just allows them to hire explorers before others can. It means they can explore before the rest of Europe (it sounds like everyone can do some kind of exploration from the start, but Icelandics will be allowed to hire explorers which help the exploration a great deal). BUT they are still limited by their lack of naval tech, meaning they will not be able to actually reach far with their explorers. And exploration is very expensive so we are probably not going to see them doing much of it.

I believe their ability to colonize Greenland comes just from their power projection as Europeans and their close proximity to it rather than from Family Sagas, but their tiny economy and lack of advancements at the start that help with colonization is what hampers their ability to actually colonize anything.

 

[dbruser]

I don't think what we're seeing here is a mechanic that helps Iceland colonize or settle anything (with the exception of "Can Invite Settlers" which probably just gives them a migration attraction buff). If I recall correctly, colonizing a province depends on the colonizer's power projection and isn't gated behind a "colonist" you had to unlock like in EU4.

Family Sagas just allows them to hire explorers before others can. It means they can explore before the rest of Europe (it sounds like everyone can do some kind of exploration from the start, but Icelandics will be allowed to hire explorers which help the exploration a great deal). BUT they are still limited by their lack of naval tech, meaning they will not be able to actually reach far with their explorers. And exploration is very expensive so we are probably not going to see them doing much of it.

I believe their ability to colonize Greenland comes just from their power projection as Europeans and their close proximity to it rather than from Family Sagas, but their tiny economy and lack of advancements at the start that help with colonization is what hampers their ability to actually colonize anything.

The power projection mechanic is for colonizing other settled countries. Anyone can colonize unsettled land as long as they have the advance (and I think a cabinet member if I recall?).

That said the ability to settle does come early - earlier than people actually sailed across the Pacific because you have to account for being able to settle Greenland, Finland, Madeira etc. all of which were settled (at least in part) well before Columbus sailed the ocean blue.

 

[Kvesir]

The power projection mechanic is for colonizing other settled countries. Anyone can colonize unsettled land as long as they have the advance (and I think a cabinet member if I recall?).

That said the ability to settle does come early - earlier than people actually sailed across the Pacific because you have to account for being able to settle Greenland, Finland, Madeira etc. all of which were settled (at least in part) well before Columbus sailed the ocean blue.

That makes sense. Anyway, Iceland will not reach the American East Coast simply because their naval tech in the 14th century won't allow them to explore deep ocean routes. They would have to take the long way around Greenland in a very long and very expensive string of explorations.
They start as a vassal of Norway so 99% of the times the AI would integrate them before they explore anything of note.

 

[ArVass]

That makes sense. Anyway, Iceland will not reach the American East Coast simply because their naval tech in the 14th century won't allow them to explore deep ocean routes. They would have to take the long way around Greenland in a very long and very expensive string of explorations.
They start as a vassal of Norway so 99% of the times the AI would integrate them before they explore anything of note.

Or a particularly harsh winter decimates their population juuust before it grows large enough to setup a colony

 

[Sete]

People in the discussion who were dismissing the Portuguese innovations in shipbuilding and the like seemed to be what they were talking about, not that the Icelanders and Greenlanders got a modifier to allow them to explore early. If I'm misrepresenting you, @Sete, please do let me know!

Nah you are right. But it seems my point was twisted and/or misunderstood. Even made it to reddit being slagged off when I like the bonus.

 

[Thrudgelmir2333]

Nah you are right. But it seems my point was twisted and/or misunderstood. Even made it to reddit being slagged off when I like the bonus.

If I did misunderstand, I apologise.

 

[Praetorian44]

Jeez, no idea why this blew up so much but I actually like the family saga's. Greenland and Iceland had a history of exploring and settling fairly recently, they had the knowledge a fertile Vinland to the west, giving them this seems pretty good from a historical and gameplay perspective. That it's going to be hard as balls to get any kind of serious colony of the ground seems pretty plausible from what we've seen of how important population is. But I for one would rellish it if once every 100 games or so the AI actually pulls off colonisation in the new world by them and I find a nordic Vinland colony when the map eventually unlocks.

Because 3 or 4 people, including myself, stated that they didn't think it made sense for Iceland to start with this bonus, and then dozens of other forum members decided to dogpile on those few members they disagreed with, hitting them with hundreds (not an exaggeration btw) of respectfully disagrees and continuing to post more replies that state the same thing as the previous dozen comments in which we already responded to.

Exploration in PC is not like it is in EUIV. Having an explorer available doesn't mean you can just send them off on as many exploration journeys as you want, look at the exploration dev diary; in order to send an exploration mission you have to provide it with money upfront, and a significant amount of sailors/manpower, things which are prohibitively expensive for Greenland and Iceland. Furthermore you then have to pay an upkeep cost, and there's a chance the mission will perish at sea and you won't get any return either.

If Greenland or Iceland manage to get together the money and manpower necessary, something which even Portugal will struggle with at the start date, why shouldn't they have a slight advantage to exploration? Unlike everyone else in Europe, they have surviving accounts of the existence of the Americas and how to get there that are widely diseminated amongst their people.

If Iceland can't take advantage of this bonus and there's no historical reason from the Early Modern period (i.e. the period in which this game covers) for them to have the bonus, then why even give them the bonus?

This is the last response from me on this topic. Clearly my opinion is not the majority opinion on this matter. The hundreds of notifications I'm getting from all these red check marks is making it difficult to engage in other discussions on this forum.

 

[TornadoWatch]

The Icelandic Sagas are good. It's flavor that ultimately doesn't have a big impact on balance because Norway and Iceland are too poor to use it.

Johan - Please don't listen to these people and stick to your guns on this, I think you're right

 

[Nullslayer]

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.

I completely agree

 

[Zerodv]

This evidence is very still very weak to make the conclusion there was prior settlement. Mice might prove that Vikings landed in the region, but not settled, as there is no structures, no cattle, nothing that proves that there was settlement. After all, Vikings were more known for their raidings and not exatcly for their settlements (even if they did on some occasions)

I think the same is true for the Azores, the norse might have found it but not settled it(which is the same with Vinland too...)

 

[Nullslayer]

The Norse getting bonuses to exploration and colonization is the same as giving that to the kingdom of Mali as there are accounts of Mansa Musa's predecessor taking 2000 ships on an expedition to the Americas.

 

[ArVass]

The Norse getting bonuses to exploration and colonization is the same as giving that to the kingdom of Mali as there are accounts of Mansa Musa's predecessor taking 2000 ships on an expedition to the Americas.

The difference is that the Norse actually did make it there and back

 

[MTGian]

Religious Tolerance
For when your country is populated by people who practice different beliefs and confessions. Therefore, it would be prudent to govern in a tolerant manner with them, ensuring their support for the government.

View attachment 1226073
It will make your country a bit more communal though..

I'm trying to understand the link between religious tolerance and communalism.

I've read fairly extensively on agricultural structures during the time period. If you look into it, this is what you come up with:

Individualism:
-scattered hamlets
-weaker manorial
-more free peasantry
-closed field or partially closed field agriculture
-less conservative (few rules when it came to farming)

Communalism
-central village
-stronger manorial
-less free peasantry
-open field agriculture
-more conservative (lots of rules/traditions when it came to farming, but likely other things too)

You get the idea. Farmers experimented more in the more individualistic societies and identified new farming methods, while the more communal societies often lagged in agricultural techniques. You could extend this to capitalism. The capitalist idea of "survival of the fittest" is a very individualistic idea.

To put it another way, when I think individualism, I think England, while when I think communal, I think France.

I'm not well versed in religion during the time period, but I don't think of France as being especially religiously tolerant.

My initial reaction would be to flip this. Religious intolerance would be linked with an in-group/out-group mentality that would promote a tighter knit community that was more communal. That makes sense to me. I'm not sure whether I think the opposite is true (religious tolerance would lead to individualism). Anybody else have thoughts on this? This could be an interesting debate.

 

[Sete]

Portugal gets some things rather early on. Besides having the absolutely best geographical position, where they can be maybe an age ahead of France and England in reaching the americas and exploring africa, they get a unique advance in the renaissance that improved colonial range and their exploration speed.

Portugal is the country we use internally for "best country to test and try out exploration and colonisation".

Its also consistely on the top 5 of countries I like playing when I personally playtest. Currently right now I enjoy Norway, Portugal, Brittany, Oman and Serbia. Maybe its time to start a new Portugal game to test out this weeks changes.

Great news. Hopefully Portugal and the Dutch have some good tall colonial gameplay focused more on trade posts.

Religious intolerance would be linked with an in-group/out-group mentality that would promote a tighter knit community that was more communal

From my point of view, which might be horribly wrong, being tolerant means working more in community, and intolerant is faced towards Individualism.

Did the Inquisition fostered a sense of community? I think not. My 0.2 ducats on the matter. Religion is not my thing.

 

[ShadowGamerXXX]

To settle the situation of Iceland I have to ask the following seriously, do we know how many maps were made by these in the period of the game?, since I sincerely believe that they could start with a vision in a northern part of Canada (From the records of the sagas), but giving them the ability to explore means that they already have to have the desire to explore (For something it is a reform as such), with which it would be good to analyze if they really did it in the period of the game to see if it is viable or makes sense, we cannot simply say that it does not matter for "reasons", if something is placed it should not be because yes or to appeal to the past when that was not used in itself, I think that it seems good to me that they can invite settlers but from their cultural group (The Nordics could be attracted by their tradition of colonizers), thus being able to make an attempt to populate Iceland and avoid the collapse of Greenland, even prepare to colonize the discovered areas of Canada, it is something that could have been viable in real life, apart from that when they manage to stabilize and centralize their Colonies can begin with broader colonial attempts and start exploring northern Canada at the same time or a little later than the first establishments of the Iberian countries, in fact I would even find it great if they then had an exclusive reform that would give them a little greater prosperity growth in cold climate provinces and a reduced cost of explorers (If you have Icelandic/Greenlandic culture and own the "Vinland" provinces) giving a thematic reward for having recovered your colonies.

The thing was that the Nordic countries had a considerable time ago abandoned their exploratory culture, in favor of establishing greater control in the Baltic Sea and fighting the Hanseatic League in the following centuries, they were also busy with the Kalmar Union, because if they had focused their sights on the North Sea and explored further they would have settled in northern Canada a long time ago, but they decided to abandon Greenland (Not even the name allowed it to attract the unwary forever xd), since it was a waste of resources or they did not really know if Vinland really existed, and even if they had known, they did not see enough wealth in the area to continue trying and decided to further increase their control in the Baltic trade (Decisions that I hope one will actually consider in the game), I think they should also receive the "Iceland reform" if they manage to recover Vinland and focus on exploration, having to redirect resources in colonization in areas with uncertain wealth in the medium term, instead of using them to reinforce their presence in the Baltic

 

[Kvesir]

This could be an interesting debate

Definitely more interesting than the Iceland debate.

I think you're right. Tolerance shouldn't increase Communialism.
A policy of tolerance in the government level sounds to me like a recognition of the different institutions of different religious communities. The classic example of this is religious minorities having their own courts of law. I have no idea how this directly relates to agricultural structures, but I could see how in general this would lead to the power structures in the country becoming less centralized and traditional, moving towards free association.
When I think of your description of a communal country I think Russian Empire - not exactly a tolerant place.
The United States, on the other hand, would be a beacon of religious tolerance and it is definitely on the individualist side.

 

[Oglesby]

legacy

While legacy can be important, clarity and correctness is also important.

I am waiting for all the discussions as to how the bonuses to Mercantilism do not make sense and X would be better just because
'it has always been mercantilism v free trade'.

 

[Atromb]

I'm trying to understand the link between religious tolerance and communalism.

I've read fairly extensively on agricultural structures during the time period. If you look into it, this is what you come up with:

Individualism:
-scattered hamlets
-weaker manorial
-more free peasantry
-closed field or partially closed field agriculture
-less conservative (few rules when it came to farming)

Communalism
-central village
-stronger manorial
-less free peasantry
-open field agriculture
-more conservative (lots of rules/traditions when it came to farming, but likely other things too)

You get the idea. Farmers experimented more in the more individualistic societies and identified new farming methods, while the more communal societies often lagged in agricultural techniques. You could extend this to capitalism. The capitalist idea of "survival of the fittest" is a very individualistic idea.

To put it another way, when I think individualism, I think England, while when I think communal, I think France.

I'm not well versed in religion during the time period, but I don't think of France as being especially religiously tolerant.

My initial reaction would be to flip this. Religious intolerance would be linked with an in-group/out-group mentality that would promote a tighter knit community that was more communal. That makes sense to me. I'm not sure whether I think the opposite is true (religious tolerance would lead to individualism). Anybody else have thoughts on this? This could be an interesting debate.

France might be more communalist than England, partially because individualism is one of the main characteristics of english culture and due to protestantism being a far more individualistic faith than catholicism, but by the end of the game both nations would be placed in the individualistic spectrum. All european nations would become significantly more individualistic by the end of the game.

Definitely more interesting than the Iceland debate.

I think you're right. Tolerance shouldn't increase Communialism.
A policy of tolerance in the government level sounds to me like a recognition of the different institutions of different religious communities. The classic example of this is religious minorities having their own courts of law. I have no idea how this directly relates to agricultural structures, but I could see how in general this would lead to the power structures in the country becoming less centralized and traditional, moving towards free association.
When I think of your description of a communal country I think Russian Empire - not exactly a tolerant place.
The United States, on the other hand, would be a beacon of religious tolerance and it is definitely on the individualist side.

The russian empire was, in fact, a fairly tolerant place (religion wise that is), that allowed the practice of islam and catholicism and granted rights to said communities, it could in fact, be a great example about what the early game reform 'religious tolerance' could refer to. The United States doesn't exist for 90% of the game's time frame and should most definitely not be what people should have in mind when discussing early games institutions. An 'age of revolutions' institution called 'freedom of thought' would be more representative of the american position.