Tinto Talks #8 - 17th of April 2024

[Cephei80]

its a game rule

how about you do like stellaris ? keep the color of the country that is vassal same but add an outline of the suzerin country around it . like a blue outline for vassals of the french crown. but i guess its fine we can always use the diplomatic map like in imperator to see who is vassal and who isnt

 

[humbleacadie]

in house simpler version, but based on köppen yes.

Do we still get random winters and monsoons (with intensity and dates depending on the region) like with EU4 - Dharma ?

 

[Ispil]

Johan said in previous TT that the two forms of colonial management would be possible, either directly under the crown or indirect under some sort of charters/subjects. I totally agree that not all forms of colonial management are as efficient. It could make sense (although it is also not certain), that a Pennsylvania colony with a local capital and governor could have a more integrated economy than a remote rural settlement across the ocean, in regard to the crown, .

BUT

that's only in regard to the crown. If you compare local to local, there is no reason why the same location on the edge of Pennsylvania, with 70% control from the local Pennsylvania capital, should contribute more in terms of national economy than the neighboring or even the same state if managed as a Crown Colony.

After all, the population in each province is the same, there are as many millers who want to build mills, as many farmers who want to enroch on the Frontier, as many nobles who want to establish new lands, as many burghers who want to develop trade... The estates would individually still have the same agenda, so they should still benefit from the same amount of un-taxed money (by the state) to reinvest into the land.

If you apply strictly what is mentioned above, then that would mean in the case of the Crown colony, which has very remote control due to distance, that 90% of the economy goes to rebellions or disappears, and only 10% to the estates. After 100 years, the farmers would still be poor, the traders poor, the noble have wooden forts.
The Proprietary colony in the same place, on the contrary, with a much closer capital and governor, would have about 90% control and thus would contibute more to the development of its land, after 100 years it would have a thriving economy, trade and developed farming lands.
Yet fundamentally, they are both inhabited by the same people, the only thing which differ is the state distance and crown control.

I imagine it wouldn't make sense to hold as a "crown colony" a piece of territory that you effectively don't control. Direct control means that you're the one responsible for the governance of a place, and refuse to let any other legal entity take that role away from you.

 

[SAmaster]

Huh, super weird that you'd release a trailer about an entirely unrelated game. What's up with that?

 

[Jespoke]

People post a lot about 'solutions' how to make money not disappear, but some of the money should be disappearing. The money in these games represents not only currency, but also miscellaneous things of value. And some things get used up, wasted, or destroyed.

 

[Mik_C]

The game simulates the benefits a country can get out of land. I am pretty sure that Portugal instituted local systems for control in Goa to benefit from it, but considering the distance, there were less efficiencies and many pockets lined before the government in Lisbon saw their share. Many of the overseas territories of european powers were basically feudal subjects for all practical purposes, with local administrators and governors.


My question here though is "what is the economic output, that the government and the estates is not taking, used for, in a gameplay aspect ?"

I understand some decisions have been made with performance in mind, and I appreciate that. I also find realistic the idea of needing subjects in this way. But, with the current model doesn't low control provinces always stagnate? Is this consequence well simulated?

I'm not saying it should happen always, but I would like to see cases where a province with low control becomes successful because factors (one of them having the money). This will make the player realize that now investing in more control there or creating a subject is profitable.

This doesn't need a full simulation, only a chance to happen based on the money is not collected.

In both cases now there are some risks because the population has seen they can function well without their overlord, so maybe the subject you create is more rebellious than normal, or maybe they get more furious than normal if you try to raise control, because not only are you getting their comfy houses, you are getting their comfy houses they got in the first place without you helping.

If I recall correctly, you said some TT ago that making subjects would be always more desirable. I guess it's mainly because how control and taxes work. But is there any negatives on creating subjects? I think there should be so the player can make more meaningful decisions and this would make the decision more nuanced.

 

[SAmaster]

Anyway I hope that there's some mechanic that reflects how the Renaissance impacted the banking sector. Like maybe the estates only give out a few loans at start, but upon embracing the renaissance the Burghers give out a lot more and better loans for you.

I feel like 'raw goods' is a bit of an awkward phrase to use when discussing production in a province. Is there a reason the term 'trade good' isn't being used?

 

[Saurid]

yes, and they use it for themselves locally, which is just local minor stuff not simulated.. and the rebels use money to fund their secession

Shouldn't these groups also use the money to build up their home? If they aren't angry enough to leave why shouldn't these groups use the money to make their homes better? Like let the rebels build too as a group with money but if they get angered by for example the government starting to introduce itself more strongly they have a power and wealth base to fight back already.

 

[Ispil]

If I recall correctly, you said some TT ago that making subjects would be always more desirable. I guess it's mainly because how control and taxes work. But is there any negatives on creating subjects? I think there should be so the player can make more meaningful decisions and this would make the decision more nuanced.

I imagine the consequence is simply a ceding of... well, control in the literal sense. I imagine the point of a subject is that you're ceding some number of actions that you would otherwise be able to take in a given location, where "subject type" or whatever else gets to dictate what you still can do there (since we lack any info on subjects so far). A subject is literally you as the state actually ceding the capacity of literal control in order to gain back game-mechanic control.

That and a subject isn't going to be taxed at 100% of what they take in.

 

[humbleacadie]

We had money not disapearing, and it didnt work.. it made it far better to just conquer stuff and not build up infrastructure.

Even with devastation ?
I hear it's not what happened when the Mongols conquered Bagdad, or when the Moroccans conquered the Songhai. They extended their empire, but they did not benefit from it as the local economy had suffered.
As you pointed out in a previous TT, there seem to already be fail-safe for that such as famine, diseases, devastation and cultural / religious instability, which made playing tall more beneficial than permanent blobbing. This is something working very well in CK3, where money does not disappear, while permanently expanding generates a lot of cultural/religious instability and opinion penalties.

 

[fraughtGYRE]

I think imagining that sort of thing as handled via releasing a subject does really square away the problem. A low-control province is effectively trying to have your cake and eat it too: you want to have direct administrative control despite not having the means to, and refuse to relent and cede administrative control to any other sort of local administration. You're effectively leaving it lawless in that you both lack the capacity to enforce such things yourself and refuse to let anyone else do so for you. Hence why whatever fills the vacuum is going to exist outside any sort of "legal" system.

To let it develop on its own would be to defer to local administration (i.e. release as a subject) rather than trying to manage it yourself.

Perhaps, though I'd like to point out that this is historically accurate. Recall that the Portuguese tried to administer their Indian colonies as a part of the state (Estado da India) while the English and Dutch instead delegated it to private corporations (EIC and VOC, respectively). So at least *trying* to do the direct control trick should be possible.

 

[Ispil]

Perhaps, though I'd like to point out that this is historically accurate. Recall that the Portuguese tried to administer their Indian colonies as a part of the state (Estado da India) while the English and Dutch instead delegated it to private corporations (EIC and VOC, respectively). So at least *trying* to do the direct control trick should be possible.

Oh, for sure. I imagine it would be possible to get some amount of direct control on overseas territories, depending on the administrative apparatus that you build up abroad.

 

[Saurid]

If you are not close to the King, you lack power.


Local power blocks would be subjects. We are still in basically a feudal society for the first 200 years of the game.

I made another comment but this brought an idea to me, why not have the local pops also belong to a specific faction that collects the taxes off all estates together that's isn't part of your tax base? You could assign them based on location and culture. This faction then can use the money to expand their own economy and build their own local powerbase where yes the player gets a slice off it, but if you ensure these factions don't build things that make it easier to exploit the region for the central government it would be long term detrimental, as they build a state within my state.

What I mean by that is we would have a feudal structure like you said with a faction that is less autonomous than a subject that gives me less benefits but I can interact with and take easier over, but also run the risk of these factions taking off and declaring independence. IDK how much these factions would take up in terms of performance though.

It would at the very least ensure money doesn't vanish, but it gets put back in the game and land gets developed regardless of wether or not a state has control, which happened also IRL, these regions often rebelled when the central government came to change the status quo and it would be nice to see that simulated. Especially if they can use that money too as a fund for their army if they rebel, it may make it even more interesting as the region may saved up a huge amount of money for that exact reason as it's extremely wealthy because I couldn't tax it.

 

[ItThatAltersSanity]

more info on that in 2-3 weeks time

Questions for that future Tinto Talk: will a lategame mega blob State be one market or many? Assuming the latter, can the number of 'markets' be changed over the course of the game?

 

[Karlusrex]

Will the other estates in Sweden be called things like andelstånd or borgarstånd? Or just bondestånd

 

[Zaragoza]

The idea of a landless country is incredibly exciting to me. My speculation is that this must be tied to some sort of special use of subjugation? For example, a trade league like the Hanseatic League being a "landless country" per se, but it has a special relationship with its league members that are, in a sense, its "subjects," that perhaps pays the Hanseatic League "country" some income?

Given how it seems goods work with markets, the need to directly produce the goods yourself in your own land isn't necessary so long a location in your market produces it. That creates an incentive for the landless Hanseatic League to expand and protect its market so that it can sustain its access to goods, which it can buy from the market with the income it receives from its members.

Then for banking families, they're likely a "subject" connected to a particular city-state or location?

I'm expecting things like the Jesuits or the Order of Malta to be one type of them. So every country can have "diplo" relations with them and getting mechanics like Papal Controller (in the completely unrelated game EUIV) without them having to have a territory. They can have a territory, as the Order of St. John had in Rhodes, lose it (even ending with no land) and gaining territory again without the tag (and diplomatic history) disappear. Or you could vassalize them etc But you are not interacting with the local order in your country but rather a diplomatic game (such as when France and Spain competed by influence with the Order of Malta).

Non religious orders like the Golden Fleece may also be modelled like this although it is unlikely to be a priority on release. Austria and Spain also competed by that order control after the Spanish Succession war, so you can have them as a country with a reputation among other countries. It may be a special type of vassals, which provide some benefits to its overlord, can be transferred to another country and may be given a location as seat (but also kept landless). But the institution may have diplomatic relationships independent of their overlord, meaning that it may be more popular.

You could also model trade companies like landless countries. The Ostende Company / British India Company /Dutch may be a tags without territories and have economic interaction in a node like a regular country. And other countries in the game would get diplomatic opinion from/to them. The trade company country could eventually gain territories and lose them, but creating and wiping the country completely should need something more than they having/not having a province.

Commercial leagues (as you mentioned) would be an extension of this. You may have a country operating a fleet and thus getting part of the market control (depending on how trade works in Project Ceasar) without having a physical seat. The Hansa as tag could have trade outpost modifiers in foreign owned locations, potentially have their own locations and operate a fleet paid by its income, but also not having any specific own location. And it should not being removed on conquest - only by getting it broke, for example.

A last idea (more complex to program so Johan probably is going to dislike it) may be primitive tribes. They could migrate from location to location as in EUIV but also going to inhabited and controlled locations of other countries. There, they could act as additional population with a specific state, at least until the continue their migration outside the location. So you could be the owner of a city and their surroundings in Central Asia or a port in a colonial area and sometimes getting nomadic people in the area without an invasion. Diplomatic relationships with them may affect how they are likely to understand your borders or how they behave when inside your "self-defined" borders. So you may want a country whose population can flow from and to locations and their locations may appear on disappear (without it being conquested or reestablished)

The last idea can also work with mercenary/pirate/cossacks bands, that may be establish and dismantled. Once established, they could serve a country and even switch allegiances. They can eventually get their own territory or not, also losing that territory or being integrated into another country. But the Zhaporiya cossacks opinion of the sublime porte may be affected by the past history and prior wars, independently of whether they are now an independent country or a population inside the Commonwealth/Russia. Note that as a population I'm not talking about them being a vassal, but something like the Zhaporiya region being under the Commonwealth and having 10 ruthenian pops and 5 cossacks pops. So, for example, if you had a good prior diplomatic opinion of them as Hungary when they were independent, they may be less likely to raid them when they are a population inside the Commonwealth. For the cossack country to get finally disestablished, it should be necesary not only to for them not to posess any land, but something like their population being integrated into regular pops or their current employer taking a decision to dissolve them.

 

[grut]

To be fair, isn't that kinda the case? Wasn't that the very system (conquering for the sake of getting money out of it) the sorta thing that propelled Timur's empire to such heights (and ultimately led to its swift demise when the wealth was all spent and everyone was too busy fighting each other to actually go and get more), and the Ottomans as well? Were the Ottomans not literally "conquer the Balkans and use the loot to fund conquests in every other direction, run out of space to conquer due to running up against a sufficient-enough 'wall" (i.e. Austria) that no more loot is to be gained in that direction, then spend years reconfiguring the economy to account for the fact that these conquest gains were no longer a thing"?

Conquering very much was lucrative in this time, but once you run out of stuff to conquer... well, things aren't gonna go too well for you with a whole lot of stuff you're having to pay for and no actual income generation to maintain any of it.

Speaking about that, it would make sense if loot money was buffed in the game compared to eu4. Loot economies aren't really a thing in there, even for hordes I feel. The more massive empires did not actually rely less on loot, they had to continue expanding to fund the administration of the already conquered territory.

 

[Blust]

I hope I can raid banking countries

 

[ica2322]

Please don't forget to separate Sundanese and Javanese culture! In previous Paradox games, West Java was always included as Javanese culture. Sundanese and Javanese are different ethnicities with languages that are not mutually intelligible.

 

[Sovietgod03]

So say we end up not having enough goods flow to a province, how fast will the population decline? would it be a slow and steady decline? Could disease break out? What if a province reaching zero population? Would we still own it, or would we loose the province like in Imperator?