Tinto Talks #8 - 17th of April 2024

[Johan]

Querido @Johan In EU4, each province has a capital whose name usually, but not necessarily, coincides with the name of the province. Do locations in Caesar also have their own capital? I mean, is there a "separate" localisation code for them ? Thank you so much

no

 

[Johan]

Same question on a different scale: will provinces have capital locations?

yes

 

[Johan]

For the climates as in the screenshot, are the terms more or less 1:1 with a system like Köppen climate classification, or are they using an in-house naming system?

in house simpler version, but based on köppen yes.

 

[Johan]

Sorry so to clarify does non taxed profit not exist, or does it go into a local rebel funding pool?

The rebel funding system looks at it yes, but its not a 1 to 1 transfer. The money simply does not exist, but rebel logic checks on control and taxbase to calculate progress.

 

[Johan]

My Boy Majapahit is here!!

Questions @Johan : is there any strait crossing in this game?

yes

 

[Johan]

Can nations be "created" from having no core?

yes

 

[Johan]

Even in 1800, the major powers still relied heavily on local estates, be them of their culture or not.

Especially since, in terms of game design, every human belongs to one pop, which is the association of a culture and an estate, meaning the remote population and estates of your empire still can have a different culture than the one from your capital

It does not matter.

The design is like this for a reason.

If we let the estates have the gold, we have to disable part of the simulation, and simplify the game, as the entire system breaks apart, as we can not allow the estates to use the economy system together with the country..

OR we could remove the entire proximity and control system, and the drive to create a nation state as well, and just paint the map and tax them.

 

[Johan]

But shouldn't they also get the money? Sure there are not part of the state or the estates because of the distance and low control, but it doesn't mean that those nobles from far away can't be efficient in the local province. Why would the money/base tax/economy *not exist* there? Sure - not for the state, but why not for the local communities there? Perhaps there could be another system apart from he state and estates that could represent that.

in theory one could design such a system, but that would be far more complex, and I care about performance

 

[Johan]

Will the banks communicate? I.e if we don't pay off 1 banks loans they will tell others so we wouldn't be able to take from them too

An "agressive expansion" for bank behaviour?

 

[Johan]

Allowing the estates to collect their tax base ignoring control but then having the state tax them based on control doesn't seem at first glance to be a more complex or less performant system.

Perhaps I am missing something though of course, I am far far from informed enough to say that with confidence

What would the estates use the money on?

The current design where estates can do things in your country that is beneficial to you would have to be scrapped, as control is not something you need, you could just keep conquering and estates would instantly benefit from anything.. So no construcing or building?

Investing in a bigger loan pool for the country? same as above.

Funding a rebellion? yeah, but if they are happy and have all privileges?

ok, they could invest gold to make more power to themselves, but so would all estates then.. and you'd just be a nice figure head conquering the world.

 

[Johan]

All that said - I see that this deviates from your core design, and that's totally fine. Not trying to claim you got it wrong or that this is the only way to do it. It just seems odd that we have these estates that are effectively government factions - run from the capital - rather than local power blocks in contention with the state.

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.

 

[Johan]

Sweden didn't have serfdom according to wikipedia, and also it should give negative, not positive effects on food production

Its a societal value, and Sweden while not having serfdom did not exactly be an "all free subjects" society in 1337.

 

[Johan]

The idea that all peasants in my global empire all pull together to invest nationally and with unity of purpose is very strange.
The use of surplus to buy more goods locally, or invest in a new plow, or whatever seems such a incredibly local behavior.

Thats not simulated, and is purely local month to month decisions.

 

[Johan]

I'm sorry could you please clarify - there *are* local decisions about how to invest surplus? I thought the surplas didn't exist - so what are these month to month decisions then?

And the peasants estate doesn't invest globally?

Sorry I am a little lost, I really appreciate all your clarifications.

Peasants do not invest in a new plow centrally.. thats not simulated.

The Peasant Estate could fund the construction of a new market village.... Thats the level we talk about here.

 

[Johan]

Is the interest rate for loans from estates fixed at 10%, or will it depend on the circumstances?

many factors for it

 

[Johan]

Ok that makes sense thank you.

What were the "purely local month to month decisions" you mentioned please?

nothing game related.

 

[Johan]

I can see why the “un controled” wealth doesn’t directly have an impact as it doesn’t make sense for the player to benefit from it and a full simulation of the locals using it would be too complex. However, it having it effectively not exist doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. You could have an extremely propsperous area become poor and lose all growth overnight simply because it was conquered when arguably the reduced control should if anything increase prosperity as the local burgers would be freer to go out and trade.

its not poor, just not any wealth used by the conqueror

 

[Johan]

I think the problem with the system as it stands is it somewhat conflates the local law and order of a province and the ability of the central government to exercise its authority there. Say that Portugal through some disgusting circumstances manages to wrest Stora Kopparberget under its control and manages to stabilize the situation there over some decades. Is it really reasonable that this enormous hub of copper production doesn't see local development just because the Portuguese clergy, nobility, and state struggle to make a profit off of it themselves and it doesn't really see much investment from the Portuguese state and estates?

Now I don't know exactly how this game will work on a detailed level so this might not be how it plays out in practice, but if geographical distance to the capital becomes a death sentence for the development of a province without centralized estate and state investment (seemingly strongly disincentivized due to return on said investment) even if it has a well educated populace and great economic potential I think that breaks a bit with the pillar of immersion.

I understand the concerns with design and performance, though and I am not exactly sure how this is best fixed. In a system like that of MEIOU I think I would simply have the province reinvest in its own industries and maybe trade whatever that looks like. In a more quantized system with something more resembling building levels I would maybe make this money pool that almost exists for rebel funding actually exist for generated zones of somewhat autonomous provinces/locations associated with a certain culture and have it fund rebellion if they are unhappy and improvements if they are happy (not as a binary switch - this should shift gradually

If its under portuguese control, then yeah, its all more or less fine.

if its not, you create a subject of some sort.. feudalism works

 

[Johan]

Personally, this dev diary was rather disappointing. The control <-> tax base system still seems really opaque and counterintuitive, not to mention the fact that low control means a reduced local economy. According to this metric, when the Portuguese conquered Goa all economic output in the region should have halted because the connection to Lisbon was bad.

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 ?"

 

[Johan]

Can the ‘uncontrolled’ economic output be used by local pops for their consumption of goods?

the what for the what?