Tinto Talks #40 - 4th of December 2024

[MyCatArchibald]

Hello everyone and welcome to another Tinto Talks, the Happy Wednesday when we talk more about our upcoming top secret game with the codename Project Caesar.

This week we will go into details about the government reforms and look into some specific ones that you may use or not.

Representing everything from ancient traditions to progressive amendments, Government Reforms outline the shape of governance in a country. Each one is unique, but they often give powerful trade-offs or open up unique play styles.

At the start of the game, countries are only allowed 2 government reforms, but in every Age there is at least one advance that unlocks another slot for reforms. Some specific reforms also add another slot, so they are essentially “free” for that country. On average in the final Age of the game, a country may have 7 or 8 reforms.

Common Government Reforms that are available to everyone are likely to have an Age requirement, spreading out their availability over the game.

Some reforms are major reforms, and a country may not have more than one major reform at the same time.

There will be a diverse selection of reforms in each age, with about 5 common new ones added each age, and another 2 per government type. The unique ones are far more plentiful, and diverse, with over 150 currently in the game.

In the User Interface, the government reforms exist in the Crown’s part of the Estates Screen, as the Crown does not really have any estate privileges…

View attachment 1226072France can have 3 reforms, but are the current ones actually beneficial?


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.



Common Reforms
Here are some examples of early government reforms that many nations have access to from the start.

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..

Diplomatic Traditions
From time immemorial our people have favored the word above the sword, giving us the ability to forge lasting relationships with our allies and friends and a reputation as honest and loyal.

View attachment 1226074
For certain types of countries, this is rather important..


Military Order
This is a major reform that catholic theocracies have access to. It is one of the types of reforms that truly defines a country.

The Military Orders were created in the Middle Ages as a militant body of the Catholic Church. Its members are both warriors and monks who take religious vows and are destined to defend and expand Christianity.

View attachment 1226075
Military Sponsorships are vitally important to a Holy Order!



Unique Government Reforms
So let's take a look at some of the more unique government reforms that we have in the game right now.

Family Sagas
This is a unique reform that anyone with the primary culture of Icelandic can get, which both Iceland and Greenland starts with.

Our ancient sagas passed orally through the generations tell of adventurous expeditions to a distant and wild land over the western sea. Perhaps one day we may follow in the footsteps of our old compatriots.

View attachment 1226076
If only they had the population to exploit it..

Three Departments
This is available to any country that has Chinese or Korean as their court language.

The Three Departments System originates from the ancient Chinese empires and is the primary administrative structure of the state. All departments focus on several aspects of the process of drafting, establishing and revisiting state policies.

View attachment 1226077
If you want laws changed, this is the reform to have..

Magna Carta
This is a unique reform that England starts with, and is also possible for any country with the English primary culture, or if their overlord has this reform.

The 'Great Charter' is a constitutional law that distributes power away from the monarch and towards the barons. First signed in 1215, it is also one of the earliest documents to enshrine the idea of civil liberties, such as the right to a fair trial, and protection against illegal imprisonment.

View attachment 1226078
It gives some power to the nobility, and shapes the country towards certain ideals.


Stay tuned, as next week we will look into all the different types of Parliaments, and how you interact with them...

How micro will army management be, will you have basic advance or defend orders like HOI4?

 

[yangzilata]

My Reform Idea #1:

Establishing Diplomatic Capitulations in the Ottoman Empire​

Region: Between Ottoman Empire and Non-Muslim Empires

Purpose: Establishes agreements with foreign powers to guarantee trade privileges and military assistance. This policy was essential to Ottoman diplomacy and trade in the early modern period but later became a point of vulnerability as European powers exploited these privileges to intervene in Ottoman domestic matters.

Validity: This reform becomes available after a certain threshold of power, such as becoming a hegemon.
Historically, it served as a tool to separate France from other Crusader states and break European cohesion against the Ottomans in Europe, preventing regional or Europe-wide crusades.
However, as the Ottoman Empire lost power, these agreements became a double-edged sword—initially beneficial but later used by European powers to interfere in Ottoman internal affairs.

Historical Background:

• The initial capitulation between the Ottoman Empire and France in 1536 set a precedent for similar treaties with other European powers, including Venice, England, and the Netherlands. The Ottomans granted foreign merchants legal protections, tax exemptions, and the right to trade within Ottoman lands. In return, they were able to maintain diplomatic relations and boost trade without surrendering control over their internal affairs.
• These agreements initially offered both sides a flexible framework for cooperation, especially during the height of the Ottoman Empire's power. The renewal and renegotiation process allowed each new Sultan to adjust the terms in line with shifting political or economic needs.
• By the time of Sultan Ahmed III in the early 18th century, these capitulations began to take on a more permanent character. This shift marked a turning point in Ottoman diplomacy, as these agreements were increasingly used by European powers to exert influence over Ottoman affairs.
• European powers, leveraging these treaties, began to use them as a means to intervene in Ottoman internal affairs, particularly by supporting minority groups within the empire. As European powers gained influence through these legal and economic privileges, they used their status to advocate for the rights of Ottoman minorities, which in turn undermined Ottoman sovereignty. This became particularly problematic in the 19th century, when European interventionist policies became more pronounced, often under the guise of protecting Christian minorities.
• By institutionalizing the capitulations, the Ottomans had inadvertently created a system that, over time, allowed foreign powers to undermine the Empire’s authority. While the early form of these agreements had been beneficial, by the late Ottoman period, they had transformed into a tool for European intervention, weakening the empire's control over its own domestic policies and contributing to its eventual disintegration. The Ottoman Empire’s failure to renegotiate these terms or resist external pressures marked the decline of a system that had once been a cornerstone of Ottoman diplomacy.

How to Implement:

• When available? This reform can be a unique diplomatic reform available once the Ottoman Empire reaches a certain level of power, like becoming a hegemon. When active, it represents the historical capitulations that allow European powers to benefit economically and legally from their presence in Ottoman lands. This reform grants economic modifiers like increased trade efficiency and diplomatic relations for the signatory European powers.
• If a European power attacks the Ottomans while this reform is in place, they face severe trade penalties and negative opinion modifiers, reflecting the historical friction and the cost of intervention.
• Enthronement Factor: Each new ruler in the Ottoman Empire must reapprove the reform upon enthronement. If they choose not to continue, the reform is removed by default, reflecting the historical flexibility of these agreements. For example, if France is hostile, the next generation of Sultan/King does not have to approve these privileges until a certain point, just as historically, these capitulations could be renegotiated or rejected over time.

Signatory Powers:

• The most crucial part of this reform is that it gives similar reforms and privileges to the other signatory countries, ensuring a balanced diplomatic relationship. For instance, if France is involved, they would also gain trade-related modifiers and benefits similar to those enjoyed by the Ottomans. This reflects the dual nature of these agreements historically—they provided economic benefits but also invited political tension.

Long-Term Impact:

• If the reform remains in place, it can lead to complex diplomatic scenarios. While initially beneficial, over time it can weaken the Ottoman Empire’s control over its internal policies. The reform’s flexibility allows players to adapt to changing political dynamics and make strategic decisions about whether to maintain, renegotiate, or abandon these treaties in response to external pressures or threats.

 

[yangzilata]

My Reform Idea #2:

The Kalmar Union (1397)​

Region: Scandinavia
Purpose: Unites Denmark, Sweden, and Norway under one monarch while maintaining their individual sovereignty.
Validity: 1397 to 1523, ending with Sweden's secession, it lasted just over a century.
Reasoning: The Kalmar Union teaches that political unity does not always require full centralization. It represents the balance between central authority and regional autonomy (Estates?), an important dynamic in managing a union.

• How to implement it to the game? This could be a unique reform that represents the political unity between Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. While unified, it provides benefits like increased loyalty and reduced unrest. Historically, the union helped create political stability, facilitated easier trade and economic cooperation, and strengthened defenses against external threats. If Sweden decides to leave the union, they’ll need to remove this reform first. The reform adds a strategic layer—players need to balance regional autonomy with the union’s goals. It could trigger events reflecting union disputes or negotiations, making players decide whether to stick together or let regions secede.

Historically, the Kalmar Union provided several key benefits:

1. Political Stability: It united Denmark, Sweden, and Norway under a single monarch, which helped maintain a degree of political stability in the region. This unified approach allowed for coordinated defense and diplomacy, reducing internal conflicts and external threats.
2. Economic Benefits: The union facilitated easier trade and commerce across the Scandinavian territories by standardizing laws and regulations. It created a larger economic market, which could boost prosperity and development across the union.
3. Cultural Unity: It promoted a sense of shared identity among the Scandinavian nations, fostering cultural exchange and reducing tensions. This common cultural heritage helped manage disputes between the kingdoms and facilitated a more cohesive political entity.
4. Strategic Defense: By combining military forces, the union strengthened defenses against external threats. This was particularly important in an era when powerful neighbors like the Teutonic Order, the Hanseatic League, and later the expansionist ambitions of other European powers posed significant risks.

 

[Ajaxwindowcleaner]

pdx fan logic: we should have alt history byzantines and rome formable, but a skilled player shouldn’t be able to discover the new world as Iceland

^
johan has iterated that this is an extremely difficult start and i trust it will be balanced by the time the game is released.

 

[CHISCHY]

As the reform "Magna Carta" present a respect to the original name( Latine ) of the Charter, it confuses me why the reform "Three Departments" (if it do refer to the centralized system 三省六部) not be named as "San Sheng Liu Bu"(modern mandarin)/"Sam Sriang Liuk Bo" (a possible pronunciation of early Chinese).

 

[Focus my son]

 

[Cooleatack]

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.

As if the Norse did not successfully colonise the lands and its natives and previous settlers of the British Isles, Rus, Normandy, etc. Not to mention their colonies in Iceland and Greenland. Of course, these were of centuries before, but it makes sense that those still living in the colonies of Greenland and Iceland retain that knowledge. If any culture in 1337 has any disposition towards colonisation, it would be the Norse with their heritage before the Iberians eventually get it for other reasons.

 

[Thrudgelmir2333]

As if the Norse did not successfully colonise the lands and its natives and previous settlers of the British Isles, Rus, Normandy, etc. Not to mention their colonies in Iceland and Greenland. Of course, these were of centuries before, but it makes sense that those still living in the colonies of Greenland and Iceland retain that knowledge. If any culture in 1337 has any disposition towards colonisation, it would be the Norse with their heritage before the Iberians eventually get it for other reasons.

If the argument that the Norse have a specially strong heritage to colonise because they colonised the British Island, Rus and Normandy is what gives Iceland/Norway this goverment reform, then we need to have a much longer and wider conversation about this, because you have to give equal government reforms on exploration and settler invitation to pretty much every single other population in Europe present at game start that also did the same.

This means the English get one for the anglo-saxon colonisation of the british isles, the moorish get one for exploring and settling outposts along the Trans-Saharan trade routes, the iberians get one for colonising lands re-conquered from Al-Andalus (the game starts just after the colonisation of Sevilla, after all), the mongols get one for colonising pretty much everything between Mongolia and the Carpathian mountains and the bretons get one for colonising Brittany and northern Galicia.

But you might say, "Wait, no, that doesn't make any sense, cause none of them discovered the New World. None of them built ocean-going vessels and none of them developed the practice of exploration in the general direction of the Americas. It's NOT the same."

Yeah, that's right. And that's why the whole background of settling Iceland, British Isles and Normandy is self-defeating, because the Vikings aren't the only people in Europe that went around by boat settling coasts or expanding into 'non-empty' lands. So, let's put those aside. This is all about the fact that the lands the Norse happened to move in the precise migration direction that pre-caravel boats could have landed them on in America, right?

But when you think about it; they basically discovered the New World the same way the Portuguese discovered the Azores; by directional-happenstance, and yet they are being offered an ability to do whole exploration voyages, skipping the tech requirements necessary for it. What happened with Vinland and Markland is closer to the EU4 ability of "automatic adjacent discovery", of when you settle a land reliably, Terra Incognita around it gets cleared as well, because we acknowledge that when people settle a land, they tend to look around nearby for more land and resources. There's a difference between island-hopping, and doing what the Colonial empires did, which was preparing big, cargo-oriented boats and send them out into enormous, continent-rounding trips for years at a time for the sole purpose of chartering. And not stopping the second the find the closest, empty coast.

This is why exploration didn't continue down the American coast IRL, because they didn't settle Markland reliably to the point the thought of going further beyond being a good idea could ever cross their minds. Because they weren't explorers in the sense that exploration voyages in EUV/PC are intended towards.

But you might say "Wait, what's the problem anyway? Why not let them have the ability since their economy is so weak that they can't make use of it? It's just for flavor."

Yeah, that's right. And I ask 'what's the point of that?' Why not take it out and give them something that will actually benefit them, give them a unique edge or help them grow that they can make use of? It can still be related to the context of Family Sagas. People have suggested cultural bonus and I suggested an advantage in settling Artic lands that no one else gets.

It's way better than giving them something they "can't make use of anyway", right? The point is to give Iceland something that acknowledges their legacies and is useful, right? It isn't just to deliver cheap dunks on people trying to add some nuance to this reform? Right?

I'd actually have a lot more respect for this Government Reform if people were consistently arguing it to me as it just being a fun meme to give Norse tags the ability to colonise Canada, but when you try to argue that they really should be given the check to, for example, explore the North Atlantic sea-lanes just south of Greenland and north of the Azores, that is where the whole thing becomes wildly inconsistent, because oral traditions aren't going to make your boats ready for when you have to go without seeing land for longer than the distance it takes to get from Iceland to Erikfyord.

 

[Tazhel]

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 hear you, but it's important to remember that if Norway don't colonize before Castile in 99 out of 100 NPC games then it should feel correct. What they usually focus on is that NPC is doing mostly historical choices while if u play as a war mongering Germany, then maybe Norway would settle quicker.

 

[Thrudgelmir2333]

I hear you, but it's important to remember that if Norway don't colonize before Castile in 99 out of 100 NPC games then it should feel correct. What they usually focus on is that NPC is doing mostly historical choices while if u play as a war mongering Germany, then maybe Norway would settle quicker.

Totally fine with that point of view. Like I've kept saying, it is ultimately a choice of the Devs, I only requested more nuance to it.

 

[viola]

Dev: "... And this is Iceland. To represent the tradition of Viking voyages that colonized Greenland, Iceland itself and even reached North America we gave it a bonus to exploration."

Portubros: "But that's wrong!"

Other users: "No, it isn't. The Vikings did get to North America and had active colonies in Greenland on game start."

Portubros: "But then Iceland will colonize America every game!"

Other users: "They don't have the population for that."

Portubros: "But that's wrong!"

Other users: "No, it isn't. The Vikings did get to North America and had active colonies in Greenland on game start."

Portubros: "But then Iceland will colonize America every game!"

Other users: "They don't have the population for that."

Portubros: "But that's wrong!"

*Repeat for 23 pages*

 

[DrStein]

I really don't see the problem with family sagas, it seems to me that the amount of games the AI will be able to effectively make use of it is next to none due to the general shittyness of their starting positions (and my personal experience with PDX AI tells me that it is not smart enough to pull anything too insane off) which leaves only the player as the actor who can make use of it. The ability also gives some very important flavour to these places, which is extremely good! One of the main problems with Imperator Rome was a complete lack of flavour for a large part of the map and stuff like this goes a long way in fixing that and gives a cool reward to those with skill to succeed as these countries. IDK I guess I just find some peoples worries about them to be a bit strange.
I guess we have to wait and see if the Invite Settlers thing is mega-OP, but I doubt it. I personally would probably pick portugal for my first colonization game.

 

[Antor Seax]

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

Sorry if someone's already answered, but:

Most importantly, player agency, people like to micromanage their sphere;

More challenge as a subject, even assuming that your gov. reforms are all good without drawbacks (perhaps you could add bad ones specifically to impose on subjects?) then you're still struggling to get the policies you want - and, as you know, challenge is what keeps people playing;

Historically countries did meddle with their subjects - look at Ireland, the English introduced things like Poyning's Law and the Navigation Acts, and they did in Scotland after the Union began as well.