Tinto Talks #45 - 8th of January 2025

[lxlTiagolxl]

Then increase the effects of food until it becomes a limiting factor. If food itself is not restrictive to population growth...then why does the food system itself even exist?

Well, it’s not like food is not a limitation at all.

Population Capacity
Each location has a population capacity which depends on quite a lot of factors. The core of it is vegetation, topography and climate, while the amount of buildings and development increases it as well. If your population is higher than its current capacity, then there is a very large impact on its migration attraction and population growth.

While there are no restrictions on how many peasants, slaves or tribesmen there can be in a single location, the amount of upper class pops there can be is limited, and depends on what infrastructure there exists for that type of pop. Of course, if their estates have money, they tend to want to construct buildings that increase how many they are to further increase their power in the country.

Population Growth
Only peasants and tribesmen grow organically on their own, but all types of pops can die off from negative growth.

Overpopulation, Lack of food, War exhaustion and Devastation have a significant negative impact on population growth, while having access to free land & lots of food increases the growth.

Not to forget, the population can die directly from diseases and warfare as well.

Peaceful and nice, the population should grow nicely here…

 

[Conde de Montanelas]

The truth is this period is not the 21st century where food can produced almost anywhere, frozen and stored and sent anywhere. Back then food had to grow elativly close so there had to be an element of self subsistence so places who could not like very horrible cliemates just did not grow.

While this is by no means false, and some degree of self sufficiency was always a must - especially when it came to quickly perishable produce, like vegetables and most fruits, there already was the ability to ship significant amounts of vital foodstuffs a long distance away (thinking about cereals, but also cured meats, cured fish, wine, olive oil, etc).

But yeah, if a location, even if well supplied by these sort of less perishable goods, couldn't grow enough vegetables or fruit or any other sources of vital micronutrients, then its population would find itself in dire straits.

And while an Arctic city or town would be quite hard to properly supply, it's not difficult to find Desert or borderline Desert ones. In this case, I think Oasis and/or underground waters are what drives the production of those vital foodstuffs that can't be shipped over large distances.

 

[Nintz]

While I agree that food should be much more of a hardcap, with the current market mechanics, as long as you have enough food on your market, all the locations can get the food they need and that would mean that desertic or artic locations could have booming cities which would be completely unrealistic. The truth is this period is not the 21st century where food can produced almost anywhere, frozen and stored and sent anywhere. Back then food had to grow elativly close so there had to be an element of self subsistence so places who could not like very horrible cliemates just did not grow. As the game stand food distribution logisitics within the market is not something that exists so to avoid that, a cap needs to exists so that you cannot build a massive megacity in an artic or dessert province by just importing food into your market.

I do agree thought that food should b e much more of a limiting factor than it was in IR but i think it will be. Pops are self subsistance so any excess you need to build RGOs, unlike IR where all provinces automatically produced food just because potato way in excess of what they needed, and you barely needed to import any food because it was so ridiculously abundant.

You're mostly making notes on potential failings of the food system, but I'm not convinced that the answer to those problems is to apply a bandaid that smothers the issues entirely.

In the game Songs of Syx, all items are subject to a spoil rate that naturally reduces their stock over time. Fresh fruits, vegetables, and fish in particular spoil very quickly, making it inefficient to rely on them if you cannot reliably produce the items yourself on a regular basis. If there is a concern that food in Caesar could teleport around to fuel a metropolis in a part of the world with poor habitability, then a spoilage system could very elegantly prevent that problem. Transporting food would always be less efficient than growing it local (assuming the same climate), and the longer the transport the more of that food would go to waste before actually making it to the destination. Putting a city in Finnmark would require increasingly unreasonable investment that directly comes at the cost of other locations in the market. In that world, the only cities actually built in bad terrain will be those in areas with only bad terrain, or those on natural resources that outweigh the negatives. Which is probably what we want, no? I would much rather have that integrated into the market logic, than having to rely on hard caps that will be difficult to work around even with mods.

 

[Thorum]

What happens when a location is both Arctic (-55% Population Capacity) & Mountain (-80% Population Capacity), that means it has -135% Population Capacity

That paradox is why real life always multiplies its percentages. A 55% and an 80% reduction, get translated to a 45% and a 20% multiplier, resulting in a total 9% multiplier or a 91% reduction.

But that's not how paradox has built / is building its engines

 

[Kotyk-durkotyk]

Then increase the effects of food until it becomes a limiting factor. If food itself is not restrictive to population growth...then why does the food system itself even exist?

Easy to say.
It's enough to look at those northern arctic locations, they mostly have food-related raw goods like fish and wild game that are really not so climate-dependent, so I can imagine why food alone was not a strong limitation for the population growth.
So they needed to introduce additional factors for more realistic balance.

 

[MarkS00N]

So this is something rather niche, but in meteorology there is a category of climate called Maritime Continent.
It is a special category to maritime southeast asia where there is an almost equal amount of land and sea.

In game, if this category exist, the bonus would probably similar to Oceanic and Continent but without winter (because it exist in maritime southeast asia), that is:
Population Capacity +50%
Free Capacity Attracts Pops
No Winters

 

[HansFlammenwerfer]

I, for one, would be completely fine with playing without terrain details on a paper map if it allowed me to modify the terrain type at will. Such a system is unprecedented in Paradox history and is a huge leap forward for it.

I think my words will resonate with the majority of the playerbase.

You could this in EU4 right now in theory, all you'd have to do is make a province modifier which adds the effects of a desired terrain (e.g., farmlands) and removes the effects of the current terrain (e.g., woods). You could create a "deforestation decision" which would do that, but no one does it because it seems janky and the AI would likely never know how to use it.

 

[Creamu]

Instead of "farmlands", there really should be a soil fertility mechanic.

 

[Mobius_Peverell]

The best climates for growing cereal grains are generally those with hot, rainy summers—which is to say subtropical, not Mediterranean. To account for that, subtropical climates should probably get a bonus to wheat production, and/or a higher population capacity.

 

[QuinnMallory]

Welcome to another Tinto Talks! Happy Wednesday where we talk about our super-secret game with the codename Project Caesar, asking you for feedback!


Today we’ll go into the details of how terrain works in the game. To iterate from the Map-Tinto-Talks from almost a year ago, each location has three different attributes instead of a single one as previous games had. This creates more variation and allows us more granular control over game play.

Each location has a climate, a topography and a vegetation set. Sea locations do not have vegetation though.


Climate

View attachment 1240989

The climate of a location impacts how well pops can live there, including how much food can be produced. It also affects the maximum winter level of a location.

View attachment 1240990 Tropical
Population Capacity +50%
Development Growth -10%
Life Expectancy -5
Free Capacity Attracts Pops
No Winters

Tropical represents areas with high average temperatures and no winter.

View attachment 1240991Subtropical
Population Capacity +100%
Free Capacity Attracts Pops
Max Winter is Mild

Subtropical represents areas with high average temperatures and mild winters.

View attachment 1240992Oceanic
Population Capacity +50%
Free Capacity Attracts Pops
Max Winter is Mild

Oceanic represents areas with mild winters but high humidity.

View attachment 1240993Arid
Wheat Production -10%
Life Expectancy -5
Free Capacity Attracts Pops
No Precipitation
No Winters

Arid represents an area that has a severe lack of available water.

View attachment 1240994Cold Arid
Wheat Production -10%
No Precipitation
Max Winter is Mild

Cold arid represents an area that has a severe lack of available water but experiences winters.

View attachment 1240995Mediterranean
Population Capacity +150%
Free Capacity Attracts Pops
No Winters

Mediterranean represents areas with a perfect climate!

View attachment 1240996Continental
Population Capacity +50%
Free Capacity Attracts Pops
Max Winter is Normal

Continental represents areas with cold winters.

View attachment 1240997Arctic
Population Capacity -55%
Development Growth -25%
Life Expectancy -5
Max Winter is Severe

Arctic represents areas with very cold winters.

Vegetation

View attachment 1240998

Vegetation represents the foliage cover of a location.

View attachment 1240999Desert
Can have Sandstorms
Movement Cost for Armies +10%
RGO Build time +50%
Road Build time +100%
Development Growth -10%
Food Production -33%
Population Capacity +10k

Deserts are barren landscapes with little precipitation and almost no potential for plant or animal life.

View attachment 1241000Sparse
Road Build time -10%
Population Capacity +25k

Sparse represent large flat areas of land with few or no trees.

View attachment 1241001Grasslands
Food Production +10%
Population Capacity 50k

Grasslands represent terrain dominated by grass with little or no trees or shrubs.

View attachment 1241002Farmland
Movement Cost for Armies +10%
Road Build time +10%
Development Growth +10%
Population Capacity +100k
RGO Maximum Size +10%
Food Production +33%

Farmland represents anthropogenic terrain, devoted to crops and/or extensive pastures.

View attachment 1241003Woods
Movement Cost for Armies +25%
Attacker Diceroll in Battle -1
Maximum Frontage in Battle -2
Road Build time +25%
Population Capacity +50k
Development Growth -20%
Food Production +10%
Blocks Vision from Adjacent Sea

Woods represent terrain with less dense vegetation than forests.


View attachment 1241004Forest
Movement Cost for Armies +50%
Attacker Diceroll in Battle -1
Maximum Frontage in Battle -3
Road Build time +50%
RGO Build time +33%
Population Capacity +25k
Development Growth -25%
Blocks Vision from Adjacent Sea
Blocks Vision from Adjacent Land

Forest represents terrain with dense vegetation.


View attachment 1241005Jungle
Movement Cost for Armies +100%
Attacker Diceroll in Battle -1
Maximum Frontage in Battle -4
Road Build time +200%
RGO Build time +50%
Population Capacity +50k
Development Growth -50%
Blocks Vision from Adjacent Sea
Blocks Vision from Adjacent Land

A jungle represents terrain with dense forest and tangled vegetation that makes doing anything on the land difficult.




Topography

View attachment 1241006

Topography represents the roughness and elevation of the land within a location. Flatter Topography is generally better for growing Towns and Cities while rougher Topography is easier to defend.


These first ones are land related topographies.

View attachment 1241007Flatland
No special attributes

Flatland represents terrain that does not have any major topographic variation, so there are no impediments for army movement or building development.

View attachment 1241008Mountains
Movement Cost for Armies +100%
Attacker Diceroll in Battle -2
Movement is Blocked in Winter
Maximum Frontage in Battle -4
Road Build time +200%
RGO Build time +100%
Population Capacity -80%
Development Growth -70%
Food Production -20%
Blocks Vision from Adjacent Sea
Blocks Vision from Adjacent Land

Mountain terrain has high altitude and also steep slopes with relatively few and narrow flat areas, so it is more difficult for armies to cross and fight in it, and also more difficult to develop.

View attachment 1241009Hills
Movement Cost for Armies +50%
Attacker Diceroll in Battle -1
Maximum Frontage in Battle -3
Road Build time +50%
RGO Build time +25%
Development Growth -30%
Food Production -10%
Blocks Vision from Adjacent Sea
Blocks Vision from Adjacent Land

A terrain with hills has variations in the topography, but the slopes are not as steep nor as high as those of mountains, so the penalties are also not as bad.

View attachment 1241010Plateau
Movement Cost for Armies +25%
Attacker Diceroll in Battle -1
Maximum Frontage in Battle -1
Road Build time +50%
RGO Build time +25%
Development Growth -25%
Blocks Vision from Adjacent Sea

They represent relatively flat areas situated at high altitude, so they have some penalties compared to flatlands due to their elevation.

View attachment 1241011Wetlands
Movement Cost for Armies +50%
Attacker Diceroll in Battle -1
Maximum Frontage in Battle -3
Road Build time +75%
RGO Build time +25%
Development Growth -30%
Food Production -10%

Wetlands are terrain that is partially flooded, generally due to being near a river, lake, or coast.


The following are the naval ones.

View attachment 1241012Ocean
Naval Attrition +1%

This is the open seas between the continents, where only the best of ships can travel.

View attachment 1241013Deep Ocean
Naval Attrition +2%

This is the open seas between the continents, where only the best of ships can travel, in the furthest areas from any coast.

View attachment 1241014Coastal Ocean
No special attributes

This is the open seas between the continents, where only the best of ships can travel, but in the areas closer to the coast.

View attachment 1241015Inland Sea
Can Freeze over during winter

Inland seas represent the land-enclosed seas like the Mediterranean or the Baltic.

View attachment 1241016Narrows
Can Freeze over during winter
Movement Cost for Navies +20%
Attacker Diceroll in Battle -1
Maximum Frontage in Battle -2
Blocks Vision from Adjacent Sea

Narrows are areas of sea with proximity of coast on many sides, like straits or the sea inside archipelagos, where there is not much space for movement.


Lakes, Salt Pans and Atolls exists, but are just graphical variants of Coastal Oceans, even if lakes could freeze over during winter.

Stay tuned, as next week we’ll delve into the wonderful world of military objectives.

The life expectancy effects should vary by culture.

 

[LunarBahamut]

Why does jungle vegetation allow for more pops than forest, and the same as woods? Seems really wrong to me.
Another thing that is weird to me is how tropical, subtropical, oceanic and Mediterranean are defined for pop capacity. Is there truly that much difference in regular oceanic (Japan, China, Western Europe etc.) and Mediterranean or subtropic climates in how many people it can hold? The north and centre of China (classical China, so not Manchuria) does really not support fewer people than the warmer, southern parts for example, right?

 

[WorrapsnehtroN2707]

View attachment 1241091
View attachment 1241093View attachment 1241094
I think climate may need some additional handling because this is in no way Mild or Normal winter:
View attachment 1241095

Location in the photo is at an altitude of about 2000 meters. In the Tinto Map, I think there will be treated as wasteland.

 

[QuinnMallory]

While culture determining the population adaptability to a climate does seem somewhat interesting, it would be far to problematic to turn into a mechanic.
Assimilated pops would instantly lose penalties, while pop born in a climate but with a foreign culture would have penalties forever unless there were a mechanic to change climate of a culture with time or to create a subculture, anyway it seems far too troublesome and unlikely to be developed.

The former is the idea: some cultures would be adapted to local environment, others not, so for example French people in the Caribbean would die from yellow fever a lot, but would also switch to the new Franco-Caribbean culture which has Yellow Fever Acclimation.

 

[ArVass]

Why does jungle vegetation allow for more pops than forest, and the same as woods? Seems really wrong to me.
Another thing that is weird to me is how tropical, subtropical, oceanic and Mediterranean are defined for pop capacity. Is there truly that much difference in regular oceanic (Japan, China, Western Europe etc.) and Mediterranean or subtropic climates in how many people it can hold? The north and centre of China (classical China, so not Manchuria) does really not support fewer people than the warmer, southern parts for example, right?

China and Japan aren't Oceanic in game, are they? I think they are Continental (same habitability, though).

Ultimately though, climate is only one aspect of pop capacity. There is also vegetation, topography, development, settlement type, etc. There are plenty of factors.

 

[Poiuymew]

The Farmland designation feels like it doesn’t fit well within the vegetation designation. Every other terrain is a natural state while farmlands is, as the tinto talk points out, a man made change to the environment. How is it determined what should be farmland compared to a grassland? When looking at the vegetation world map posted, the vast majority of farmland is located in Europe, Northern India, and along the Nile and while there is no doubt these areas are full of good farmland it is odd to see somewhere like China have very few farmland provinces (I am aware this could be something that is addressed in map reviews of regions and they simply haven’t been addressed yet). Is the “farmlands” designation a possible holdover of a terrain type from past paradox titles? Were there any other ways considered for how to represent farmland such as a Cultivation value for provinces with a maximum value related to pop size, RGO, climate, technology, or other modifiers?
The reason I ask this is because farmlands are extremely strong and valuable as provinces (as they should be) but it does feel odd that locations that have the potential to be good farmland will never be as good as farmlands at game start (at least when it comes to the bonuses farmlands gives as shown in the tinto talk). Obviously there are provinces that are not farmlands that will be better than a generic farmland but it still feels odd that farmlands are essentially a predetermined value. I understand that the game engine can’t change the map but is there some other way to show the progression of cultivation in locations? Perhaps it is outside the scope of the game but wanted to put my questions out there.

TLDR: How is the farmland designation chosen? Is there a different way to represent cultivation?

 

[Didjann]

They have to fix cold arid or the game will come out with a castillian wasteland. The BSk climate zone is not really that different from mediterranean in most areas, and especially in Iberia and Anatolia where it is pretty much identical to mediterranean but with colder winters. A lot of BSk areas are agriculturally productive and support a lot of major cities. BWk on the other hand is the gobi desert and central kazakhstan. There is quite a difference. No population cap increase or migration attraction in Madrid, Valencia, Balearic isles, Ankara, Thessaloniki, Southern Ukraine etc is ridiculous, but so is a high pop cap and migration attraction in Mongolia. The fact that the devs have considered arbitrarily changing the climate in Valencia because "it doesn't feel right" is a perfect demonstration of the problem this creates. Of course it doesn't feel right when you have made BSk as attractive as the gobi desert. There is a significant difference between these climates and it not being represented is ridiculous. My proposal is to make BSh and BSk into a semi-arid climate and make BWh and BWk into arid. Another option is make cold arid a better climate but then change desert and sparse vegetation to be worse.

Edit:
Cold Arid vs Mediterranean

One is an unhabitable wasteland, the other is the BEST CLIMATE IN THE GAME.
(It's modern data but that doesn't really change much here)

 

[korandder]

It is not just Cold Arid; Hot Arid also suffers from the same issues by combining hot desert (BWh in the Köppen classification) with hot semi-arid (BSh).

 

[Aenar212]

The 50% jumps from Continental/tropical/oceanic to subtropical and then to Mediterranean feel extreme. After all the most populous areas in the game are tropical and subtropical. I could be misunderstanding the overall impact compared to other modifiers however.

 

[WorrapsnehtroN2707]

Like wheat in arid climate, are there more modification about goods production? (especially food) If potatoes resist cold and poor soil, rulers in northern Germany or Ireland will want to introduce them into their farmlands. I think it will become a good tool to express displacement of crops.

 

[KiLLLLkA]

Замените его в игровой логике тривиально. Просто это не меняет его вид в режиме карты.

one day

It's actually inspiring. I think in a couple of years I can edit the map myself.
But in this case, will the map be in the save file, or will I have to make a backup of it in order to return it to its original state with each new game?