Tinto Talks #62 - 7th of May 2025

[SuperLexxe]

I think it is a series of attacks from all sides. When your regiments are in battle, enemy regiments on other flanks will attack them... I can have a mistakes. Does CK2 have another mechanic for this situation? Do the regiments quickly kill enemies on their flanks and then attack and win battles on other flanks after that?

That's the meta in CK2. Stack all your best units on one section and rush the opposite enemy 1/3 section, then flank the remaining 2/3 enemy sections.

I suspect EU5 somewhat limits this with frontage, but earlygame I believe stacking your cavalry and ranged on one flank will be very powerful.

Infantry you will want to leave to defend your own 2/3 sections, where the enemy will have a slight advantage until your flanking section has destroyed the opposite enemy section.

 

[matfer13]

The flags of the two Rigas are wrong, as I explained here(under Lubeck)
Post in thread 'FLAGS...and coat of arms too!' https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/flags-and-coat-of-arms-too.1717831/post-30038211
The current flag of the city of Riga should be given to the Archbishopric as that was its coa, while the city had another one which should be used in game

 

[Sutixela]

So we do have moveable armies, right? They just have no lil animated soldier in eu V?

The do have animated soldiers, I remember seeing a glimpse of them in previous TTs, they may just hidden the sprites for those screenshots as they don't want to reveal the 3D models yet.

 

[Paulatim]

Honestly I would rather know what kind of troop is present in the army both during movement and battle, rather than the exact origin of the troops ("woooo this is my 9th cavalry regiment from ostroda!!!!!" is useless, I would rather know the type of troop. They can EVEN have the same name in the tooltip, during battles I guarantee to you they will not cause confusion (knowing whether during a battle I can count on the 13th or 15th regiment for the reinforcement is not as fundamental as you seem to think in this game, you know). If they have different bonuses put symbols next to their name, and different stats imply different names and/or tech/advancements, which can be put as names instead of "9th kavalry ostroda glorious proud incredible ass-eating company".

 

[misopogon]

Can you explain what an "hour" means in the context of a battle?
Isn't this game a tick a day, like the completely unrelated EU4? Or will time slow down somewhat whenever a battle takes place?

 

[ETAIPOS]

So let's take a look at this war then, how should we handle it? We have about 100 regulars and about 3.8k levies, and while we have a numerical superiority on our side, Poland and their allies have a rather large army as well.

At this early, armies of both Poland and Teutonic Order should be composed almost fully of cavalry. Feudal Levies were ALSO cavalry based. Only infantry units were either rare regular infantry units or city militias.
At Grunwald/Tannenberg in 1410 Teutonic Order had just 6000 infantry to 21.000 cavalry, while Polish-Lithuanian army while larger (around 30k?) had even less infantry (according to Polish laws of the time ALL FEUDAL LEVIES for expedition abroad were CAVALRY).
Yes, I know it was somewhat different in the west with way more either infantry or units traveling on horse but fighting on foot (say English foot knights and "mounted" archers) but in central Europe it was just horsemen and a bit more horsemen. Obviously, in case of a need, like in a siege, those horsemen would be fighting on foot.

Our left flank is not engaging fast enough and our 50 armored horsemen are getting destroyed by the enemy levies, and they are way too outnumbered to rout 1000 levies. In the center the enemy have their mailed knights engaged, so this should now be interesting.


The mailed knight levies in the center shatter on our feudal levies, while our horsemen are destroyed. Luckily they bought enough time for the rest of that flank to engage.

Is it me, or cavalry is AGAIN very weak and just waste of resources unless you have massive buffs to their stats? One of the most common first moves in EU4 is to delete all cav unless you play either hordes or Poland, as they are just not worth the cost.

EDIT: The culprit seems to be tiny units that engage piecemeal and are destroyed by numbers (10-20:1 disadvantage!), so very similar to CK2 retinues where heavy cav was considered the worst and completely useless compared to more numerous infantry units despite awesome stats individual soldiers had.

 

[misopogon]

Another question if you please,
have you reconsidered the randomness of sieges? Since you can and do simulate morale, food, numbers of soldiers and illnesses, why should sieges be advanced by RNG and not by material conditions?
In other words, what is a siege if not a battle against a fixed position?
See you in a few hours!

 

[stefffff1871]

i kinda missed it in the bavarian and saxon tinto talk, but is it finally be possible to form Germany earlier? it makes no sense that i can conquer as Brandenburg or so all of germany but cant crown myself King of germany, despite the fact that the crown of germany and the kingdom of germany already existed within the HRE. the only thing a player would have to do is to unify it, which they do it by conquering it all

 

[bokorthedust]

Can you explain what an "hour" means in the context of a battle?
Isn't this game a tick a day, like the completely unrelated EU4? Or will time slow down somewhat whenever a battle takes place?

Battles are on hourly ticks to speed them up and make them last a day or two at most, which is much more realistic than the weeks long battles of EU4. For more details check out the TT on military matters from the archive.

 

[Dimitrij Dimitrinov]

I know this is not the topic of this Tinto Talks, but I can't wrap my head around the fact that we have laborers in 1337., in the 14th century, which is very unhistorical.

In the 14th, 15th, and most of the 16th centuries, the feudal system was still a strong influence where there was not much distinction between laborers and peasants.

As can be seen in the picture, it did not matter whether a person was a peasant, laborer or blacksmith, they all belonged to the peasant class. Feudalism flourished in medieval Europe from the 9th to the 15th centuries.

Only later, in the late 16th, in 17th, in 18th and in 19th centuries, new classes and differences between classes appeared. Most of the military aspects of feudalism ended by about 1500. At an early stage of the French Revolution, on 4 August 1789, France abolished the long-lasting remnants of Feudalism.

The term "middle class" is first attested in James Bradshaw's 1745. pamphlet Scheme to prevent running Irish Wools to France. Another phrase used in early modern Europe was "the middling sort". Sculpture of a chōnin, a middle class of mainly merchants that emerged in Japan during the Edo period, early 18th century.( all this can be easily found on the internet)

The same goes for the literacy of the population. There shouldn't be a big focus on the peasants, because in the 14th century it wasn't important how literate the peasant was, but how literate the nobles, merchants and clergy were. I think there is a bit too much focus on the peasants who could move up to the upper class because of their literacy, which happened throughout history but very rarely because the feudal system didn't support it.( This looks a lot like Victoria II, which shouldn't be the goal of Project Caesar). Only later, in the late 16th, in 17th, in 18th and in 19th centuries, did the focus slowly shift to the education and literacy of the entire population.

My suggestion is that in the early and mid stages of the game, peasants can have a maximum literacy of 10% (which we could see in past Tinto Talks through advances which increase the maximum literacy that nobles, merchants and clergy can have), where at the end of the Age of Reformation, in the Age of Absolutism and in the Age of Revolutions, we get through advances higher maximum literacy for peasants and the creation of laborers, farmers, etc.

I also disagree with Tinto Talks #17, that only the peasant and tribal population grows organically by itself. I believe that the noble and merchant population can also grow organically by itself and through the promotion of peasants. While the clergy population can only grow through the promotion of peasants, nobles, and merchants.

None of this matters, as I can understand that the developers did it to make certain mechanics work and not to be historically accurate. But I still wish it was more historically accurate.

 

[ETAIPOS]

I know this is not the topic of this Tinto Talks, but I can't wrap my head around the fact that we have laborers in 1337., in the 14th century, which is very unhistorical.
View attachment 1292800

I would assume those are town and city dwellers who are not rich Burghers. Essentially the manpower pool for various city militias and later more professional infantry units. The percentage of them to peasants would be what differentiate between say, Netherlands or Italian north and rural parts of France or Poland

 

[misopogon]

Battles are on hourly ticks to speed them up and make them last a day or two at most, which is much more realistic than the weeks long battles of EU4. For more details check out the TT on military matters from the archive.

Yes, I remember that TT, but I'm asking about the mechanics of it. What I meant to ask is: do battles creates hourly "sub-ticks"? And if so, when is that? When I'm clicking on a battle? Whenever they take place?
How do this works?

 

[bokorthedust]

Yes, I remember that TT, but I'm asking about the mechanics of it. What I meant to ask is: do battles creates hourly "sub-ticks"? And if so, when is that? When I'm clicking on a battle? Whenever they take place?
How do this works?

From a mechanical standpoint, it's probably always there, because you are not the only one interacting with the system, AI vs. AI battles also take place. Johan said in that TT that on higher speeds they won't be noticeable, and they don't affect anything other than the battles, but even then, I can't imagine a system where they aren't constantly there. With the announcement and youtuber videos coming, I guess we'll see soon enough.

 

[Álvaro Núñez de Lara]

I know this is not the topic of this Tinto Talks, but I can't wrap my head around the fact that we have laborers in 1337., in the 14th century, which is very unhistorical.
View attachment 1292800
In the 14th, 15th, and most of the 16th centuries, the feudal system was still a strong influence where there was not much distinction between laborers and peasants.
View attachment 1292801
As can be seen in the picture, it did not matter whether a person was a peasant, laborer or blacksmith, they all belonged to the peasant class. Feudalism flourished in medieval Europe from the 9th to the 15th centuries.

Only later, in the late 16th, in 17th, in 18th and in 19th centuries, new classes and differences between classes appeared. Most of the military aspects of feudalism ended by about 1500. At an early stage of the French Revolution, on 4 August 1789, France abolished the long-lasting remnants of Feudalism.

The term "middle class" is first attested in James Bradshaw's 1745. pamphlet Scheme to prevent running Irish Wools to France. Another phrase used in early modern Europe was "the middling sort". Sculpture of a chōnin, a middle class of mainly merchants that emerged in Japan during the Edo period, early 18th century.( all this can be easily found on the internet)

The same goes for the literacy of the population. There shouldn't be a big focus on the peasants, because in the 14th century it wasn't important how literate the peasant was, but how literate the nobles, merchants and clergy were. I think there is a bit too much focus on the peasants who could move up to the upper class because of their literacy, which happened throughout history but very rarely because the feudal system didn't support it.( This looks a lot like Victoria II, which shouldn't be the goal of Project Caesar). Only later, in the late 16th, in 17th, in 18th and in 19th centuries, did the focus slowly shift to the education and literacy of the entire population.

My suggestion is that in the early and mid stages of the game, peasants can have a maximum literacy of 10% (which we could see in past Tinto Talks through advances which increase the maximum literacy that nobles, merchants and clergy can have), where at the end of the Age of Reformation, in the Age of Absolutism and in the Age of Revolutions, we get through advances higher maximum literacy for peasants and the creation of laborers, farmers, etc.

I also disagree with Tinto Talks #17, that only the peasant and tribal population grows organically by itself. I believe that the noble and merchant population can also grow organically by itself and through the promotion of peasants. While the clergy population can only grow through the promotion of peasants, nobles, and merchants.

None of this matters, as I can understand that the developers did it to make certain mechanics work and not to be historically accurate. But I still wish it was more historically accurate.

It's funny because despite of using a 6th grade iconography of the feudal system as an argument, the picture itself disproves everything you have written by the fact that in the bottom estate, are, quite clearly, labourers included. Labourers do not represent middle class. They simply represent peasants who do not work in subsistance farming but in things like mining. And they both belong to the commoners estate, so there literally isn't a problem.

 

[Cagallo]

I'm going to be the only one giving a big fat X. So much lambasting on Vic3 because of the warfare rework and people desperate to move little guys around the map... just for EU5 to have squares instead of little guys. I guess oh well you can move those squares freely. Signed, a crackpot theory enjoyer.

 

[rautio]

There is now 3D-armies like EU4, and most of games?

 

[Oglesby]

View attachment 1292452
I meant the icons inside the bigger boxes, maybe sth like this can improve visibility of the icons.

And what I meant is that since the boxes are in the shape of the icon inside the box, do we need the icon inside the box? i.e. the left flank box of the shape should not need a shape inside the box showing that it is the left flank box.

 

[Enku7071]

And what I meant is that since the boxes are in the shape of the icon inside the box, do we need the icon inside the box? i.e. the left flank box of the shape should not need a shape inside the box showing that it is the left flank box.

Yeah, I have also noticed that too, but it was too late
Your point makes much more sense tho. Idk why they essentially redid the layout within the boxes in the layout.

 

[Oglesby]

I know this is not the topic of this Tinto Talks, but I can't wrap my head around the fact that we have laborers in 1337., in the 14th century, which is very unhistorical.

Laborers and soldiers were added so that there was some inertia on buildings. The production and military buildings that used to use peasants directly which were immediately filled upon completion or recovered upon army deaths now takes time as the pop needs to promote from peasant just like the strata above them. (tribe and slave do not 'promote')

I also disagree with Tinto Talks #17, that only the peasant and tribal population grows organically by itself. I believe that the noble and merchant population can also grow organically by itself and through the promotion of peasants. While the clergy population can only grow through the promotion of peasants, nobles, and merchants.

Promotion isn't literal promotion but an abstraction. Birth check is limited to peasant (and later tribesmen) to reduce calculations per location it was also put onto what would be the largest sizes PoPs it what I believe was an attempt to reduce the chances of outliers. (i.e. all the sub 10 noble pops roll for an increase and get it.) Also what will happen when you get more Nobles without buildings to slot them into? They 'demote' to peasant.

unless there are in game factors that adjust the death rate for the each pop-type I would reduce that to one per group also (I am assuming that there could be differences with culture/religion). I would add up the group apply the death rate to get a count (randomizing the fractional part; i.e. .2 would have a 20% change to round up) then remove that many peoples from the pops. This would 'cap' the overall death to something nears the death rate.

 

[Dimitrij Dimitrinov]

Laborers and soldiers were added so that there was some inertia on buildings. The production and military buildings that used to use peasants directly which were immediately filled upon completion or recovered upon army deaths now takes time as the pop needs to promote from peasant just like the strata above them. (tribe and slave do not 'promote')

So, it was designed that way to have more interaction with the building. I understand, thank you.