• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Tinto Talks #54 - 12th of March 2025

Hello Everyone and Welcome to another Tinto Talks. This is a Happy Wednesday, where we talk about our yet unannounced game with the codename Project Caesar.

The main reason for us to do these Tinto Talks is to gather feedback and improve the game. What you have been telling us really matters, and now we will talk about some important changes that have happened during this last year. When we talk about external feedback here, it's primarily from people reacting to Tinto Talks, and when we say internal feedback it's from people at Paradox and our partners playtesting it.

This first of four talks on feedback is about improvements to the economic system of Project Caesar.

Goods Rework
We added five goods and removed two by merging some goods, all from great feedback and suggestions we got.

First of all, we listened to your arguments and split spices into three, with Saffron for Europe and Middle East, Pepper for Asia, and Chili for the Americas. We talked about naming them with generic terms, but these names we went with felt more immersive.

Dates were merged into Fruits, and Soybeans was merged into Legumes. This was because we want to make sure Goods add interesting depth and flavor to the economy without cluttering the system, and we thought there are better candidates to split up.

We also added Beeswax to simulate everything from honey to candles. This was heavily requested by the community, and this is a common raw material around most of the world.

Two new produced goods were also added in Pottery and Furniture. Pottery is produced mainly from clay, and is demanded both by Pops and many buildings producing alcohol. Furniture requires lumber to be produced and is primarily demanded by pops, while some administrative buildings require a small amount of furniture regularly as well.

pottery.png

Goods tooltips show market related information when applicable. Here Riga has a +7.94 surplus of pottery so it could be nicely exported.

Some goods got increased base prices like Lumber and Salt, and many demands for goods have been changed from feedback, both external and internal. Salt as an example is now required for maintenance of auxiliary regiments and for market buildings.

Productivity and Specialization
Something that was suggested at many places was to improve specialization and make different locations more unique when it comes to the industry. This we have achieved by four mechanical changes.

First of all, we added in a soft building cap, where every town can support 25 building levels, every city 100 building levels and each development point in a location adds another building level. Each level above the cap increases building costs in that location by 10%. This, besides making you want to diversify your cities, makes the decisions to go from guilds to manufactories to mills something you want to strive for. It has the added benefits of adding some minor diminishing returns for investments for the very rich, and adding another incentive to get cities where possible.

Secondly, which ties into this specialization, is the fact that every single level of a building adds another +1% production efficiency. This serves to represent economies of scale, so if you have a town with a level 8 Brewery, you produce +8% more beer than having 8 towns with a level 1 brewery in each.

Thirdly, we added a mechanic that we have used in previous games, and added benefits to having raw materials produced locally. If you have access to the input goods in the same province as a building is in, you can now get up to 10% more production efficiency for the building.

Finally, we halved the base amount of levels of RGO you can have in a location, which were tied heavily to population and development, and then gave rural locations a +100% boost to RGO levels. This naturally makes the choice of where you build your towns and cities more interesting.

produced.png

This level 3 Brewery in Cambridge has access to what is nearby, but not enough lumber and tools... The lack of market access impacts throughput a bit though.

Minting
We reworked the minting and inflation mechanics to be more tied into the production of precious metals. In Project Caesar we have two precious metals in Gold and Silver, but a mod could have as many or few as they want. There are three different impacts from these precious metals on minting though.

First of all, the amount of gold and silver that you produce has an impact on the income you get from minting new coins (ie, more actual metals used for coins instead of lost in “transactions”).

Secondly, the production of gold and silver as a percentage of your total goods production of your economy will increase inflation.

Finally, minting requires access to gold and silver, and if a country can’t get it from their market, then they can’t produce more money.

minting.png

Hungary has a fair amount of gold and silver produced, so they can benefit nicely from it. Banning the exports of gold and silver in the Precious Metal Distribution Law has some nice benefits to income from minting, even if there are drawbacks.

Population Changes
One thing we noticed through testing was how the entire Raw Materials economy could basically ignore deaths as long as you had enough peasants around, because living peasants would just instantly fill the vacancies created by deaths. We decided to change that by splitting peasants into three different pops: Laborers, Soldiers and Peasants. Laborers and Soldiers are still lowerclass pops, and belong to the same estates, but they need to be promoted from peasants to fill vacancies in RGOs and buildings..

Peasants now represent the common people over whom we rule. Most of them live on subsistence farming, or in our villages.

Laborers represent the people who work manual labour in our town, cities and rural locations. They work the land to create, harvest and gather the raw materials that are the backbone of the country, or work as unskilled labour in mills.

Soldiers represent the common people that provide the manpower for our armies and garrisons, as well as sailors for our navies.

pops.png

Genoa has a rather diverse group of people.

Promotion has been reworked as well, where not all types of pops promote as quickly. Pops promoting to clergy and nobles promote at 10% of the promotion speed, while pops promoting to Burghers promote at 50% of the speed. Pops becoming Laborers though, promote at 150% of the speed.

promotion.png

Laborers are easier to train…


We also changed how pop demands work, and made the demands scale by development of a location, so pops in more advanced parts of the world will now demand far more goods. This creates a constant growth.

We also changed a bit on how the economy works for pops and estates, and pops are now no longer getting their goods entirely for free, but instead the estates will now pay for the goods that the pops need, with the money they have left after taxes. The amount they spend per pop scales by control of the location, so it is balanced compared to the income they get. This severely limits the snowball effect of having rich estates invest in making themselves and the country richer.

nobles_spend.png

The nobility has needs and spends money on them!


Another problem that was identified through testing was that basing the distribution of income in a location on the political power of the estates was that in almost all cases the commoners got nothing and the nobles got everything, which meant that you never wanted to tax your commoners but wanted to squeeze everything out from the nobles. While being an admirable goal, it does not reflect historical reality as much, so how to solve this?

Well, before we added the cossacks, tribes and dhimmi estates from feedback there was a 1-to-1 direct connection between a specific poptype and which estate they belonged to, so the estates could get exactly the amount of money their pops were generating. And since we did not want to do something performance crippling -like splitting pops into 1 per building- we went with pooling all income in a location and distributing it by political power. Now though, that has changed and we instead distribute it per a fixed fraction per pop in the estates, so commoners and burghers get money you want to tax from their work.

tax_base.png

1337 is a bit early to embrace the reformation so I can tax the clergy, but we could build up the city more so burghers are more taxable…







Next week we’ll go into changes that have been done to Politics, Proximity & Societal Values.
 
  • 241Love
  • 142Like
  • 11
  • 10
  • 4
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
What I meant is that, as we know, manpower is produced by buildings from pops, so essentially there are military schhol/kurultai/etc. that can "train" people, who then come out as "manpower". My main question was whether if manpower production now requires soldier pops as "input", or if they still can produce manpower out of other pop types. Idk if that makes sense
Yes (most) manpower producing buildings will require peasants to be promoted to soldier instead of a peasant directly.

The changes are really great, but I have a concern about one of them:

It looks like an overkill to me, I’d expect a significant performance impact for a really minor issue.
It also looks quite irrelevant for the game time frame before the industrial revolution, make it way too Vicky3-style and I think it is ok to be abstracted for performance reasons.
Especially Soldiers are already represented by the Manpower pool. I do not get the difference.

Otherwise thanks for the feedback and changes!
As only the peasant (and tribesmen?) are checked for 'birth rate' adding two more should not have much of a performance check (there will still be two more 'death rate' checks and the added promotion). Pops only promote if there is an available 'building'.

Soldiers are replace peasants in manpower buildings.
Laborers are replace peasants in RGO buildings. (and I think other production buildings that use peasants)
(Are peasants used directly in buildings anymore?)

Also- I'd argue that pop's should be able to promote into clergy faster than the nobility, the nobility was very closed off with blood ties while most clergies didn't have that restriction and in medieval europe at least, was one of the only forms of class advancement available until the rise of the 'middle class'.

My understanding is that Peasant (and tribesmen) are the only ones that are checked for 'birth rate' and everything else is promoted to. This is an abstraction, it isn't that every month the king is promoting 5 peasants to nobles. (This would hold true for caste questions).
 
I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but it would be great if there were cultural modifiers to good demand. Like maybe Northern Europeans have a 1.2 modifier to wool demand but Japanese culture pops have a x2 modifier to pottery demand.

You could take this a step further and modify/set demand based on events. For example, the discovery of the new world triggers a demand for chilis in India or the first Indian/Easy Asian trade post by a European triggers an increase in pottery demand.

This would be really interesting too because initially, your pops would have lower more localized demands that could be fulfilled by internal or limited trade networks, but by the end of the game, you would be forced into either a colonial empire to satisfy pop demands or a globalized trade network to fulfill the demands.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
,It's an abstraction since the game doesn't simulate lower shipping cost for nearby goods.
Then a lower base cost or lower base input for the building, tied to how much that province actually produces for that good, would be a better representation, no?

Edit:
If X units of goods are produced, we need to clarify whether this represents the net amount that reaches the market (after transport losses and other inefficiencies) or the total produced before such deductions. If X represents the net amount, then the actual goods and its value produced would be X + Y (where Y accounts for transport, waste, spoilage, or other losses).

To properly model how local industries benefit from Y, the cost of producing finished goods from a base good should be inversely proportional (at most) to the local production of that base good, rather than applying a direct, fixed bonus to production.

For example, if a province produces 10 units of iron and a blacksmith requires 30 units to operate and produce 30 finished products, the blacksmith would benefit from the local supply by reducing its requirement for those 10 locally produced units. Suppose this results in a 10% efficiency gain per unit, reducing the required amount for those 10 iron to 9 units. However, for the remaining 20 iron sourced externally, the cost remains unchanged. This means the blacksmith would now need 29 units instead of 30, which is very distinct from a say, flat 10% production increase.

Edir2: ideally transport and other costs should be represented at the local level and included to the good price in the market, with the local buldings having their own reduced costs for the good, but we can see how this would be super demanding
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Just to add some numbers to my assertion that the high base price of salt is a mistake:

In 1450 Frankfurt, you could buy one liter of salt (so ~3 pounds) for 2 Heller. A carpenter would on average earn 40 Heller per day, so salt was very cheap.
In London it was 2 pence for a liter of salt, the equivalent of 7 Heller.
Even compared to the relatively high price of salt in London, spices were way more expensive: 18 pence for a pound of pepper (60 Heller), 182 pence (600 Heller) for a pound of saffron, 16 pence (52 Heller) for a pound of sugar.

Table for easy comparison, prices per pound in the 15th century:

Salt (Frankfurt)0.22 pence (0.67 Heller)
Salt (London)0.67 pence
Pepper (London)18 pence
Saffron (London)182 pence
Sugar (London)16 pence
(The exact numbers don't really matter since obviously prices varied a lot and there are no complete sources for average prices in this time period, but I think the difference in scale between salt and spices should be obvious)

Salt was not an expensive good that had a high value per volume like spices or fine cloth. It was consumed in large amounts by everyone. It makes no sense for it to be a high base price good - its price should only be high in markets that don't have much salt production.

The screenshot showing the consumption of nobles looks absurd with salt at #2. Salt is a typical example for a good that was used by everyone across society, not something that wealthy people would spend all their money on.

The reason for why you could get very wealthy by producing/trading salt is exactly the fact that it had so much stable demand throughout society. Walmart or Aldi aren't known for their expensive luxury goods, but their founders are billionaires.
Salt also was used in very different amounts compared to pepper. But resource "units" are not standardized. If one "unit" of salt and pepper would be about the same volume (or mass), there should be a bigger difference in price per unit. But a salt mine also produces quite a different amount compared to a pepper plantation. And the salt mine probably takes up less land, so that the other resources from that location are not hindered as much (abstracted away in PC).
Because all RGOs produce a similar amount of "units", we should consider the production of a typical example for each as "one unit". The transport cost factor and the price factor again are mostly abstractions.

Hold on. What about the echanges when the Europeans start colonizing the new world. North america should get quite a lot of wheat and livestock RGOs as well as horses while the old world would introduce potatoes to boil, mash and stick 'em in a stew.
Similarly livestock in new zealand or mauritius will become extinct in the game's time period.
That will not be a change "at will". You'll have at most one option to change the resource or decline the swap and that's it. Most likely even in predefined locations.
The original poster wanted to swap the produced resource by a simple action, just following the market prices. If hundreds of locations change resources every few years, that's another matter.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Salt also was used in very different amounts compared to pepper. But resource "units" are not standardized. If one "unit" of salt and pepper would be about the same volume (or mass), there should be a bigger difference in price per unit. But a salt mine also produces quite a different amount compared to a pepper plantation. And the salt mine probably takes up less land, so that the other resources from that location are not hindered as much (abstracted away in PC).
Because all RGOs produce a similar amount of "units", we should consider the production of a typical example for each as "one unit". The transport cost factor and the price factor again are mostly abstractions.
All of these numbers (amounts produced & consumed, cost for transport, base price) can be balanced in script, so it's really mostly a cosmetic thing - although transport cost likely is the biggest factors, since they apparently don't want to go too crazy with adjusting transport cost for goods.
Spices already has a greatly reduced transport cost (a quarter of salt) so that basically translates to a 4x on its base price, but if we take a historical range of 50-100x between salt and spices, it would still translate into a spices price that's at least 10 times that of salt.

I'm not saying that the prices need to be 1 for salt and 10 for spices, but if spices is at 6, then anything more than 2 for salt just looks way too much. Especially since salt was cheap compared to many other goods too.
If base prices are largely cosmetic, then salt needs to be a cheap good because that's what it was. The wine and beer base price is 2, salt would fit right in there as a good that was widely consumed across society.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
  • In the title bar, what does the icon on the right indicate that isn't indicated by the icon on the left?
  • Market section
    • Is the 'market' part based on the markets that I am part of (will it list all of them)? Is it based on what I am looking at when I engage the tooltip?
    • Maybe I need more context but it is unclear what the vertical bar next to the pottery icon represents
    • The sub icons of + and - to me is not giving production and consumption. I think that removing the icons and making the second value negative (and leaving them both neutral white) would work better.
  • The first line I cannot figure out. again maybe context would help such as what I am hovering over to get the tooltip
pottery.png


  • The first half is going top down (lines 1-3 make 4) while the second is result first (line 5 is the result of lines 6-9)
    • maybe change the top to "Base output due to:" and move it to the top of the list
  • I think 'result' of 'subtitle' lines in lists should be slightly larger and possibly with heavier text to help differentiate.
  • Do the names of building change based on production method?
  • The first line is really Level * production method output?
  • Does a reduced market access reduce the input requirements too? Do I consume 89% of the required lumber, tools and wheat?
  • "Access to input good" would be that there is a deficit somewhere and I cannot get my desired allotment, correct?
  • Shouldn't the 'required workers' but its own line item in the list below 'Produced +2.91..."
  • What would the line "Wheat in Cambridgeshire" say if you did have enough tools but still lacked lumber? Should it just be "Local Input Goods" or something more generic? (I am assuming that it would be 10% if they could supply all the needed goods"
  • If the market access reduces the required inputs can local access to goods reduce that reduction?
  • Is there a reason that Access to input good and market access is listed as x#.## instead of percentages?
produced.png


  • I like that the 'title' lines in the list section are a different background
  • Is the 8% on the second line derived from the third line 'Current Minting"
    • If so then indent the current minting line to show that it belongs to that line and not the calculation in general
  • Where does the 0.32 come from on the third line?
  • Is the +0.13% from Current Minting Level because the 8% minting level is above the Minting threshold? If so then I think the minting threshold should be below the current minting level line and indented to indicate it is used in the production of that line
  • Move bas value for Every Country to the top of its section. (all bases should be the first thing listed)
minting.png


  • Why do all the names appear to be using a font color different from all other tooltips? (is it just the background?)
  • I don't know if I like the colored triangle for 'pop type'.
  • Can we finally stop with the guess the icon from the hat/shirt?
    • I do appreciate the attempt to have the color of the shirt match the 'banner' color selected for each type but it is not always visible.
      • The Soldier red shirt is hidden by the armor and washed out by the sailor wearing blue
      • The burghers hat color appears more prominent (and close to the tribesmen's brown) that I miss that the shirt matches.
      • The laborer isn't wearing soot grey.
      • The shirt of the chains aren't very visible to match the slaves metal grey
    • It might be better if you went to one person in the silhouette as they could be larger but I am guessing you went with two as part of inclusion.
  • I am assuming the building facade is the (local) estate power? Is there a reason not to use the lightning bolt used elsewhere for estate power?
  • Numbers don't appear to be mathing; +20 in the list isn't any combination of the +24 promotions and +100 demotions indicated
  • Are the percentages after the alterations listed?
  • This would be a case where I think tat showing the 148k and a full number would be appropriate. Assuming natural rounding I needed to get to 148940 peasants to get Burgers to not round to 5.0%
  • I agree with going to at least one decimal point as I believe the % will tend to be this lopsided I would then change your "<1%" to "<0.1%". Currently as we stand the Nobles are 0.4%, Clergy is 0.6%, and Slaves are 1.0%. I would think listing 0.0% for tribesmen in this case would also be appropriate
  • I would make the "<x%" determination after rounding
  • Can we list total pop on this screen?
  • If we are staying with donuts graphs shrink the center icon so it doesn't overlap
  • I would swap the location of Laborers and Soldiers personally (I just seems more right?)
  • So Nobles, Clerics, Burgers, Tribesmen all go to their own estate; the Laborers, Soldiers, peasants are part of the commoners. Where do Dhimmi come from? Those that would be commoners but are wrong religion, or wrong religion from all of the estates?
pops.png


  • Why is University a discrete number instead of a percentage (isn't it just +100%)
  • The math isn't mathing.
    • The upper section is 37.054
    • The lower section if I work backwards indicates it should be 54. (Burghers are 50%, Clerics Nobles 10%, Laborers 150%)
  • "promotions would happen". would? Is that 'if there are openings'? If so what aren't the other pop types listed?
  • Can you list the amount needed
  • What is "Plenty of opportunities" based on? is open 'jobs' part of it?
  • I assume construction is on a daily tick (as it lists days to complete); on the monthly tick day does it occur before the promotions tick?
promotion.png


  • These needs location based, right? (Is this a tool tip for the needs of the nobility in a certain city?)
  • I am assuming this is location based so can we change the title to "Spending 42.36 in Naples Market" instead of listing the market on every line
  • Will there be an icon for 'pops needs' or will it just be the estate icon?
  • Can we add a little more kerning between the icons and the words in the list
nobles_spend.png


  • Left v right icon?
  • thusly divided
  • Do we need both the color banner and the estate icon. The triangle of the estate icon is the color of the banner
  • Can the numbers be sorted as 4 columns
  • You lost a whole percent to rounding (in the share)
  • The share sum of the shares is 22.49 instead of 22.51
  • The sum of the taxed amount is 2.41 instead of the 2.42 going into the coffers.
    • 6.42% of 6.86 is 0.428 which should round to 0.43, are we rounding naturally? or truncating?
tax_base.png



Hope this is helpful (even though a day late)
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Hello Everyone and Welcome to another Tinto Talks. This is a Happy Wednesday, where we talk about our yet unannounced game with the codename Project Caesar.

The main reason for us to do these Tinto Talks is to gather feedback and improve the game. What you have been telling us really matters, and now we will talk about some important changes that have happened during this last year. When we talk about external feedback here, it's primarily from people reacting to Tinto Talks, and when we say internal feedback it's from people at Paradox and our partners playtesting it.

This first of four talks on feedback is about improvements to the economic system of Project Caesar.

Goods Rework
We added five goods and removed two by merging some goods, all from great feedback and suggestions we got.

First of all, we listened to your arguments and split spices into three, with Saffron for Europe and Middle East, Pepper for Asia, and Chili for the Americas. We talked about naming them with generic terms, but these names we went with felt more immersive.

Dates were merged into Fruits, and Soybeans was merged into Legumes. This was because we want to make sure Goods add interesting depth and flavor to the economy without cluttering the system, and we thought there are better candidates to split up.

We also added Beeswax to simulate everything from honey to candles. This was heavily requested by the community, and this is a common raw material around most of the world.

Two new produced goods were also added in Pottery and Furniture. Pottery is produced mainly from clay, and is demanded both by Pops and many buildings producing alcohol. Furniture requires lumber to be produced and is primarily demanded by pops, while some administrative buildings require a small amount of furniture regularly as well.

View attachment 1264543
Goods tooltips show market related information when applicable. Here Riga has a +7.94 surplus of pottery so it could be nicely exported.

Some goods got increased base prices like Lumber and Salt, and many demands for goods have been changed from feedback, both external and internal. Salt as an example is now required for maintenance of auxiliary regiments and for market buildings.

Productivity and Specialization
Something that was suggested at many places was to improve specialization and make different locations more unique when it comes to the industry. This we have achieved by four mechanical changes.

First of all, we added in a soft building cap, where every town can support 25 building levels, every city 100 building levels and each development point in a location adds another building level. Each level above the cap increases building costs in that location by 10%. This, besides making you want to diversify your cities, makes the decisions to go from guilds to manufactories to mills something you want to strive for. It has the added benefits of adding some minor diminishing returns for investments for the very rich, and adding another incentive to get cities where possible.

Secondly, which ties into this specialization, is the fact that every single level of a building adds another +1% production efficiency. This serves to represent economies of scale, so if you have a town with a level 8 Brewery, you produce +8% more beer than having 8 towns with a level 1 brewery in each.

Thirdly, we added a mechanic that we have used in previous games, and added benefits to having raw materials produced locally. If you have access to the input goods in the same province as a building is in, you can now get up to 10% more production efficiency for the building.

Finally, we halved the base amount of levels of RGO you can have in a location, which were tied heavily to population and development, and then gave rural locations a +100% boost to RGO levels. This naturally makes the choice of where you build your towns and cities more interesting.

View attachment 1264541
This level 3 Brewery in Cambridge has access to what is nearby, but not enough lumber and tools... The lack of market access impacts throughput a bit though.

Minting
We reworked the minting and inflation mechanics to be more tied into the production of precious metals. In Project Caesar we have two precious metals in Gold and Silver, but a mod could have as many or few as they want. There are three different impacts from these precious metals on minting though.

First of all, the amount of gold and silver that you produce has an impact on the income you get from minting new coins (ie, more actual metals used for coins instead of lost in “transactions”).

Secondly, the production of gold and silver as a percentage of your total goods production of your economy will increase inflation.

Finally, minting requires access to gold and silver, and if a country can’t get it from their market, then they can’t produce more money.

View attachment 1264540
Hungary has a fair amount of gold and silver produced, so they can benefit nicely from it. Banning the exports of gold and silver in the Precious Metal Distribution Law has some nice benefits to income from minting, even if there are drawbacks.

Population Changes
One thing we noticed through testing was how the entire Raw Materials economy could basically ignore deaths as long as you had enough peasants around, because living peasants would just instantly fill the vacancies created by deaths. We decided to change that by splitting peasants into three different pops: Laborers, Soldiers and Peasants. Laborers and Soldiers are still lowerclass pops, and belong to the same estates, but they need to be promoted from peasants to fill vacancies in RGOs and buildings..

Peasants now represent the common people over whom we rule. Most of them live on subsistence farming, or in our villages.

Laborers represent the people who work manual labour in our town, cities and rural locations. They work the land to create, harvest and gather the raw materials that are the backbone of the country, or work as unskilled labour in mills.

Soldiers represent the common people that provide the manpower for our armies and garrisons, as well as sailors for our navies.

View attachment 1264539
Genoa has a rather diverse group of people.

Promotion has been reworked as well, where not all types of pops promote as quickly. Pops promoting to clergy and nobles promote at 10% of the promotion speed, while pops promoting to Burghers promote at 50% of the speed. Pops becoming Laborers though, promote at 150% of the speed.

View attachment 1264538
Laborers are easier to train…


We also changed how pop demands work, and made the demands scale by development of a location, so pops in more advanced parts of the world will now demand far more goods. This creates a constant growth.

We also changed a bit on how the economy works for pops and estates, and pops are now no longer getting their goods entirely for free, but instead the estates will now pay for the goods that the pops need, with the money they have left after taxes. The amount they spend per pop scales by control of the location, so it is balanced compared to the income they get. This severely limits the snowball effect of having rich estates invest in making themselves and the country richer.

View attachment 1264537
The nobility has needs and spends money on them!


Another problem that was identified through testing was that basing the distribution of income in a location on the political power of the estates was that in almost all cases the commoners got nothing and the nobles got everything, which meant that you never wanted to tax your commoners but wanted to squeeze everything out from the nobles. While being an admirable goal, it does not reflect historical reality as much, so how to solve this?

Well, before we added the cossacks, tribes and dhimmi estates from feedback there was a 1-to-1 direct connection between a specific poptype and which estate they belonged to, so the estates could get exactly the amount of money their pops were generating. And since we did not want to do something performance crippling -like splitting pops into 1 per building- we went with pooling all income in a location and distributing it by political power. Now though, that has changed and we instead distribute it per a fixed fraction per pop in the estates, so commoners and burghers get money you want to tax from their work.

View attachment 1264536
1337 is a bit early to embrace the reformation so I can tax the clergy, but we could build up the city more so burghers are more taxable…







Next week we’ll go into changes that have been done to Politics, Proximity & Societal Values.
I still believe that a method for stockpiling goods needs to be added. If i want to fight a war and dont have any arms manufacturing i will want to purchase guns, etc. in advance to prepare an arsenal for a protracted war. This could be made possible by a store house of some sort, where the state pays some maintainance but has the ability to store some goods if they need to.
(It could also be fun to play around with cutting exports of a good to the market if the player has a monopoly on beer or other and observing the price increase and the following unrest after the price hike of a staple good. Just trade war larp)
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I still believe that a method for stockpiling goods needs to be added. If i want to fight a war and dont have any arms manufacturing i will want to purchase guns, etc. in advance to prepare an arsenal for a protracted war. This could be made possible by a store house of some sort, where the state pays some maintainance but has the ability to store some goods if they need to.
(It could also be fun to play around with cutting exports of a good to the market if the player has a monopoly on beer or other and observing the price increase and the following unrest after the price hike of a staple good. Just trade war larp)
Market stockpiles already exist. They're more for evening out prices, but you could still use them to do things like stockpile a ton of weapons in your markets.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
What did spices become in Sub-Saharan Africa? AFAIK kola nuts were the most economically important good spice in West Africa, and they seem to have been present in Central Africa too.

Edited for clarity, I assume the most important good overall was probably gold

Saffron..

What if... Kola nuts were placed with Cocoa as a raw material, so it would be Cocoa Kola :cool:
 
  • 2Haha
Reactions:
It was a 45 minute task to add them back in as we had the art from before. Indonesia now have cloves and rest of Asia Pepper.

View attachment 1264984
What is extraction method and what effects does it have? I don't think we've seen that on a trade good before.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Yes, that‘s kind of the point. European (and Japanese, to the extend that it happened, and could happen) trade with China in this timeframe can be understood as one giant arbitrage trade on sliver. China ending up silver-starved because of the collapse of its paper currency is arguably more important to the European-Asian trade dynamic than the Spices that have been discussed here for so much. Combined with the European exploitation of American silver, of course.

Silver from the Americas, to China via Europe, for goods to Europe.

To quantify: The value ratio in 16th century china between gold and silver was 1:2. in Europe it was ≈ 1:10. Silver money had five times the buying power in China, compared to Europe. (Wikipedia states just double the value for goods)

If you don‘t represent it by mechanic, you really should consider representing it by event or similar. The money of silver-rich nations should be worth more in China.

Edit: My Suggestion:
Represent the Arbitrage via the trade of the good Silver. Add a Situation to China that gives it economic maluses, as long as it has not enough money supply. To resolve, they need to mint alot of coins. This should keep silver supply very low in China until around 1640.

Some further wiki reading: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_silver_trade_from_the_16th_to_19th_centuries
So, some extra context here: the issue with the Ming was never really access to the necessary metals (their coinage was in copper). It's that the state effectively imposed self-bankruptcy from the outset and literally could not afford to mint more coins.
 
So, some extra context here: the issue with the Ming was never really access to the necessary metals (their coinage was in copper). It's that the state effectively imposed self-bankruptcy from the outset and literally could not afford to mint more coins.
How come?
 
How come?
Ideology. The Hongwu Emperor was convinced that "the best taxation is the bare minimum needed for the state to function" (as per Confucianism ideology that reducing taxation would benefit the economy; not wrong in principle) while also having a very skewed view of what the actual financial needs of the state were at the time that he imposed "revenue caps" on taxation. This policy then stuck around as a combination of "hard to go against the inertia of policies by the first ruler" and that it aligned, at least in principle, with Confucianism ideology.

So the Ming Dynasty basically ran with no state revenue whatsoever for its entire existence. This was almost immediately recognized as a problem, but because no one was willing to adjust the taxation cap, nothing was ever done about it. Basically every problem that the Ming (and honestly even the Qing) had stems from this.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Ideology. The Hongwu Emperor was convinced that "the best taxation is the bare minimum needed for the state to function" (as per Confucianism ideology that reducing taxation would benefit the economy; not wrong in principle) while also having a very skewed view of what the actual financial needs of the state were at the time that he imposed "revenue caps" on taxation. This policy then stuck around as a combination of "hard to go against the inertia of policies by the first ruler" and that it aligned, at least in principle, with Confucianism ideology.

So the Ming Dynasty basically ran with no state revenue whatsoever for its entire existence. This was almost immediately recognized as a problem, but because no one was willing to adjust the taxation cap, nothing was ever done about it. Basically every problem that the Ming (and honestly even the Qing) had stems from this.
So the Ming dinasty had very little capacity to build public works then?
 
So the Ming dinasty had very little capacity to build public works then?
It didn't even have the money to pay its own bureaucrats. As for public works, part of how taxation was handled was corvee labor, at least in the early period. This declined significantly in short order as the people managing all of it more-or-less went unpaid.

I think their military desertion rate was also extremely high due to a lack of pay, which also had to do with another one of the Hongwu Emperor's policies that the military should be "self-sufficient" and farm the land as well as defend it. This wasn't even implemented in his lifetime, let alone at any point in the future, yet every Ming emperor acted like it was.

Not that they could afford to pay 'em anyway.
 
  • 1
Reactions: