Tinto Talks #6 - April 3rd, 2024

[_Wou_]

Hello Tinto. I come from Poland. For years, a big problem for me, and I think many players from my country as well, has been the disregard for the huge number of players, omitting the Polish language, in translating games from all over the world. I have been a big fan of the brand you create almost since I was a child and I really hope that my voice will reach you and you will start creating Polish language versions of the games published by your studio.

(btw, I use a translator, so forgive me for any mistakes)

 

[Apukispay]

I really hope you reconsider having navigable rivers, you could make it so they have massive combat width reduction or to make only smaller ships able to move into river tiles but the mobility they provide like in crusader kings 3 is one of my favorite mechanics.

 

[ItThatAltersSanity]

Just an FYI, you can click the +Quote button at the bottom of a post to add it to your reply, rather than copy-pasting the URL link to it.

It doesn't do quote-within-quote. Johan's replies were very short, all the context was in the post he was quoting.

 

[Moppy771]

How are location and other borders drawn in Project Caesar?

Is it done freehand while just looking at a reference or is it actually traced/will it eventually be traced? I mean I know and understand that the map is far far faaaar away from final but I still have vivid memories of the infamous "square Memel" era of early EU4.

Mods like The Grand Combination for Victoria 2 perhaps just spoil me but as you said you enjoy Voltaire's Nightmare mod for EU4, and that mod has a detailed attempt at borders rather than a sort of "impressionistic" look that vanilla EU4 unfortunately uses for borders. I love granular hyper accurate borders because it gives a map, regardless of graphical appearance/font, such a crisp aesthetic.


The borders of the current build of Project Caesar compared with Voltaire's Nightmare in EU4:

Spoiler: Project Caesar

Spoiler: Voltaire

And here's one of the many amateur historical mapping attempts one can find on YouTube:

 

[Eruth]

im aware that roads are in the game. the question was if there would be some roads already in place at game start or if we had to build them all manually

I answered under the assumption that all the map screenshots are taken on game start, which I realize isn’t necessarily gauranteed (though feels quite likely)

 

[FulmenTheFinn]

According to this, some of Finland is going to be uncolonized, tribes, or something similar.

I see. I suppose that can make sense, depending a little on how they treat the mechanics, although I probably would've used the 1323 borders as the outer edge of what is controlled by either Sweden or Novgorod, and left the mutual hunting grounds left in the middle as colonisable land.

Novgorod didn't really exert control north of its northernmost districts either, the Votian and Onega pyatinas, and started controlling territory north of the Neva and Syväri (Svir) rivers only in the late 13th century (modern maps depicting the Middle Ages before the late 13th century almost always get this wrong), which, due to abuse by the Novgorodians and Lithuanians, to whom Novgorod awarded territories (though AFAIK they remained a part of the Novgorodian state), was met with several revolts by the native Karelians, coupled with the natives requesting help from the Swedish, in practice Finnish, forces in Viborg every time (1307-08, 1314, 1337 - and it will be interesting to see if the last one is modelled in the game at all at release, because it's the year the game starts in and it also led to a two-year war between Sweden and Novgorod; I suspect it won't be modelled, or will take some posting on the forums to get PDX to model it).

 

[margustoo]

Borders of Livonia look absolutely awful. I can't fathom how someone can look the historic maps and draw up something so abyssmal. It is especially bad in Latvia. Borders of Riga archbishopric are just utter nonsense. Also Southern border of Danish Estonia is just a random scribble. For better understanding I made pictures below that show historic borders on the game map and bogus borders that Tinto devs made up from nowhere. As a reference I added all the Hansetic towns and 1 office (aka kontor) onto the map.

Nonsensical map by game devs:

Historically more accurate version:

I don't expect that it would be a perfect rendition of historic borders. Mistakes and changes happen when historic maps are brought over to a game. But what we have now is just bad. I don't expect to see all the exclaves of Livonian Order in Ösel-Wiek, because they would be way too tiny on the map. But rest of the changes are simply inexcusable and make no sense what so ever. Courland bishopric was in 3 parts... not 1 big blob. Probably because of this separation of lands, Courland bishopric was the first to disappear and while it excisted it usually played a minor role compered to other 3 bishoprics. Riga archbishopric held massive lands north and east of Riga.. while currently in game it is an union of small exlaves. This doesn't do justice to a state that was a rival to the order and sometimes even waged war against the order. I hope that when game releases we see Livonia with borders that are more closer to what they historically were.

Dear Tinto devs. I know that you can do better.

 

[wkscrombie]

yeah.

I'd say its 99.99% likelihood of Cossacks coming in. We do have a sprint for adding content to that region this spring.

I’m glad to hear that! Will they be a subtype of a broader nomad pop? And will anything be done for hunter-gatherers?

 

[Sergares]

Amazing new features, I'm starting to get hyped for this totally not eu5 game and I really don't want to be since paradox always launches their games in a very bad state.

 

[wkscrombie]

its tracing the cheapest distance automatically

Good to know. I do really hope you’ll consider making the major rivers navigable, even if only by galleys and transport ships.

 

[Bawhoppen]

ROADS!!!!! Mixed with pops??? My dreams have truly become a reality

 

[ImperatorRoman]

It doesn't do quote-within-quote. Johan's replies were very short, all the context was in the post he was quoting.

Huh. I never knew that. I wonder if that's a function Paradox could add to the forum.

 

[Elfangor567]

In what may be my most semantic request: I'd like to ask that the lowest form of settlement be known as a village. This allows for a progression that flows naturally in English, Village -> Town -> City. (Although you could also do Town -> City -> Metropolis, depending on just how large you envision your cities.)

 

[Antonin Vuillemin]

Will there be any incidental advantages to having low control?

I know that you play the crown, so of course having higher crown control is good for the crown, but it would be nice if the mechanic were complex enough that low control isn't just pure bad. That feels too simplistic to be immersive.

It might mean, say, that nobles hold a lot of power in the area, which then makes their support more effective in wartime or something. Or a trade node with low crown control could have strong burgher control, which helps them to monopolize the trade on behalf of your nation vs other tags.

It depends if you represent the state or if you represent the entire society. If you represent the state, you should have a natural interest at increasing control for increasing your fiscality and your military power. But I agree with the idea behind your comment : a low control should have some advantages for the estates (the rent would be higher for them and they should have more influence). But I really think that a player should consider control as something to improve during all the game, it is litterally the substance of the State to increase it (I refer to Norbert Elias, La dynamique de l'Occident, or The dynamic of the West).

There is a difference between state control in a feudal society from the middle age and state control in the a modern society. State control in a feudal society doesnt meant anything because the State isn't sovereign, it only gets taxes from direct owned lands, and eventually money from vassals. But he doesnt tax the population of its vassals itself. In the early modern era, the State is becoming sovereign because it expand its fiscality beside the feudal system and can develop a bigger army and a bigger administration to manage everything.

I think the game should represent this big change. State control has to be a good thing for the player, but not necessarily for the society, at least not for the elites, at least not for the nobility and the clergy.

 

[cjhoser]

Roads can already be seen on the map of Sweden Johan posted with the OP. They are the dotted lines leading out of Stockholm.

Good catch, much easier to see now that I'm on my PC!

 

[Guilherme Moreira]

True & Real.

 

[SaltyYuyuko]

First, this looks absolutely amazing so far!! My expectations are blown away! I also appreciate the openness of Johan in talking about the game.

As for questions so far:

1.
Since you mentioned that locations can be classified as either rural, town or city I imagine it is similar in concept to what was in Imperator. Do infrastructure representations use % to population distribution like in Imperator or flat modifications? As in:
If a location is a town, each urban infrastructure level should provide some flat increase to the ideal size of some kind of urban pop. So, we can avoid building 1 level of infrastructure in one location in China/India which would essentially instantly create a moderately sized city, while building 1 level of infrastructure in Stockholm would barely make a hamlet.

2.
Are natural resources such as arable land/forests/ores also distributed to match the plausible real-life values?
Like having the Steppes in Ukraine/Russia have the potential to support large amounts of people but to be severely underdeveloped at game start.
While in places like Egypt it would be very hard to increase rural population because most of the arable land around the Nile is already being used, so to increase population a productivity increase would be needed.

3.
Does trade happen automatically and are the tradeable resources discrete quantities? (like in Vic2 as opposed to Imperator)

4.
Proximity is helped by having major rivers. Will smaller rivers also help? Are there specific buildings we can build on rivers to help this type of communication?

 

[Moppy771]

Borders of Livonia look absolutely awful. I can't fathom how someone can look the historic maps and draw up something so abyssmal. It is especially bad in Latvia. Borders of Riga archbishopric are just utter nonsense. Also Southern border of Danish Estonia is just a random scribble. For better understanding I made pictures below that show historic borders on the game map and bogus borders that Tinto devs made up from nowhere. As a reference I added all the Hansetic towns and 1 office (aka kontor) onto the map.

Nonsensical map by game devs:
View attachment 1110509

Historically more accurate version:
View attachment 1110503

I don't expect that it would be a perfect rendition of historic borders. Mistakes and changes happen when historic maps are brought over to a game. But what we have now is just bad. I don't expect to see all the exclaves of Livonian Order in Ösel-Wiek, because they would be way too tiny on the map. But rest of the changes are simply inexcusable and make no sense what so ever. Courland bishopric was in 3 parts... not 1 big blob. Probably because of this separation of lands, Courland bishopric was the first to disappear and while it excisted it usually played a minor role compered to other 3 bishoprics. Riga archbishopric held massive lands north and east of Riga.. while currently in game it is an union of small exlaves. This doesn't make justice to a state that was a rival to the order and sometimes even waged war against the order. I hope that when game releases we see Livonia with borders that are more closer to what they historically were.

Dear Tinto devs. I know that you can do better.

I agree. The map projection showcase and the screenshot of the super detailed and granular wastelands got me excited but the look of these borders in a region with some of this era's more well defined boundaries has me worried. It's really bizarre to see crooked and inaccurate borders in a PDX historic map game in the 2020s. Th older games had this problem and it reminds me of poorly done textbooks in some schools such as this:

 

[Kyoumen]

This is really interesting. One of the most continuously, criminally overlooked things in EU (and most Paradox games) is the vital role of sea power. Anyone attempting to emulate the influence and colonial antics of Portugal, the Netherlands, Spain, France and England (among others, including the Ottomans!) should need to maintain a large, powerful navy to effectively assert control over their far-flung territories, keep their sea lanes safe, and project power. And it shouldn't be as simple as just "When you're drowning in money queue up 50 heavies, naval problems solved forever".

This gives me some real hope that you can better emulate the Portuguese colonial empire (which I know there were some systems for in EUIV, but never felt they worked really well) especially. Related, I also hope we'll finally reach a point where projecting power overseas isn't trivial. Spain didn't and couldn't have just sent 15,000 men into Mexico to take over the Aztecs; Cortes had to play natives against each other and have allies to succeed. This difficulty in projecting power continues all throughout the period (like the Mapuche defending their independence, or the Dutch failures in Aceh) and while European colonial holdings should grow steadily in a normal game, it shouldn't be the utter cakewalk it always has been before.

yes, there will be some tiny remnants left..

Well... yeah, I kinda knew that was coming. I just hope that the actually living religion of Lithuanian paganism gets at least as much attention and mechanics as the moribund remnants of Norse mythology. Please?

I assume that also means we'll have other minority religions better represented, like Zoroastrians and Jains in India, and also Taoism in China won't be oddly absent despite still being a major living religion to this day.

 

[Antonin Vuillemin]

I have so many things to say about what I see, what I anticipate and what I would like to have in the final game.

My vision of a good Project Ceasar would be to represent the emerging power of the state at the end of the feudal era by making the player feel like HE is the state (or the government ruling the state).

State control should be an important mechanic, very hard to increase during the early and mid game (from 1337 to 1550-1600), only by improving technologies, by having certain societal values, and especially by making certain government reforms/laws. Indeed, the late medieval era is the acmea of the struggle between the feudal order and the crown. The transition is slow though, and tough. It should be a large aspect of the gameplay to try improving the control and the power of the state, at the same time as developping the power of your country by expanding its borders. The challenge against your authority should be important,

I think that the devs should think about making a difference between the "corporations" and the "burghers" in order to represent the old urban elite from the middle age that created a monopole of the urban production by securing the political and juridical power in the cities, and the "burghers" that are "self-made-man" from the lower class (at the beginning) that try to challenge this monopole with the help of the Sovereign State. State control should be negative for corporations (low state control should allow them to be powerful / influent / rich) and should indirectly be positive for burghers, as they are challenging the monopole of the industrial production to the urban corporations. Strong corporations and low state control should harm the good production and the trade by a LOT while making the corporations more strong, rich and dangerous ; while weak corporations and strong state power should increase the good production and the trade. Burghers want to open market and implement competition and innovation to the economy (=growth) / Corporations want to freeze markets, prevent competition and regulate innovation (=immobilism/higher price and rent). Burghers wants to make the corporations privilege weaker and weaker (and eventually non-existant) because they are outsiders in the feudal system.

Historically in France, Colbert, the treasury minister of Louis XIV in the XVIIth century reformed a lot the economy of the country by expanding the manufactures, and by promoting the mercantilism policy (export-oriented economy in order to have gold to finance army, administration and the rent of the elites). At the same time, he reformed the corporation system in order to make it less strict (in order to improve the production of goods and the exportations). This benefited a lot the burghers that were able to buy some privilege / right to produce some type of goods. It was more and more frequent until the Revolution, when they decided to get rid of the feudality once and for all (they wanted to have a "english-like" regime with a share of power between burghers and aristocrats, as they were both sharing interests).

So yeah, corporations were for hierarchy, privileges and regulation of the production (=stability and supremacy in the social order) while burghers wanted to break this system and implement liberalism (free business / free trade / no feudal taxes at every cities etc). The state wanted to find a balance between both as they wanted to both preserve social stability (=please old interests) and improve the industry and the trade (=encourage the burghers).

Another aspect of the relation between burghers and the State are the financial ones. Burghers are giving loans to the state in exchange for interests. Because of that, they want the state to have a strong fiscality in order to be sure that their money will be back. They also want to participate more and more to the power. And they want to have more and more privileges. With the "Edit de la Paulette", french burghers from the XVI-XVIIth century were able to become a new aristocracy, by buying nobility titles for the first time in history (before nobility was inherited, not bought). They formed a new social class, beside the blood aristocracy, and they both started to share the power, the privileges, and the state revenue. (it eventually led to the decline of the french nobility as a social class in the late XVIIth century). This new aristocracy was also the foundation of the enlightment movement in France.

Burghers succeeded turning the feudal society into a centralized absolutist monarchy in France, and became a new aristocracy, a state aristocracy. They did that by destroying the power of the corporations, but also by weakening the hegemony of the traditional aristocracy.

So in conclusion, my point is : Burghers should be separated from corporations in the elites. Ideally the player should be willing to make the burghers stronger and stronger with time depending on what they can do at a certain moment (era / techs / reforms / geography). This, combined with centralisation, should boost the good production, and - depending on your trade policy - your trade. It should also boost your financial capacity / loans capacity and help you improving your supply system for the military.