Tinto Talks #6 - April 3rd, 2024

[Axe99]

This sounds wonderful - noting the importance of coastal and riverine communications for state formation and maintenance will help increase the immersion for me immensely - great work Team Tinto

One concern that comes to mind in terms of tracing overseas ownership control via distance (which is totally a cool thing) is that arbitrarily impassable ocean areas will create "manufactured patterns of control" that are railroaded to the passable ocean-spaces, rather than able to develop organically in a mechanical sense based on how a particular game develops. It's yet another reason not to make (the vast majority of) ocean areas impassable. As I understand it (and I'm not an expert, so may be wrong) historical navigation patterns were not the only ones possible - they were just the ones that best suited our development historically.

So what is proximity? It is basically a distance to capital value, where traveling on the open sea is extremely costly. Proximity is costly over land, but along coastlines where you have a high maritime presence you can keep a high proximity much further. Tracing proximity along a major river reduces the proximity cost a fair bit, and if you build a road network that will further reduce the proximity costs.

Depending on the map, even "minor" rivers may be worth including as well - basically anything reasonably navigable by a barge. "Major" rivers in the map context depending on how they're chosen could be navigable by ocean-going ships at the time for some distance, and were certainly more important, but minor rivers matter too. The easy of transporting large weights on water vs land make navigable watercourses an important form of communication right up to the present day (but proportionately far more important prior to the development of the railroad and then internal-combustion-engine-powered vehicles).

In every coastal location around your locations, or where you have special buildings, you have a maritime presence. This is slowly built up over time based on your ports and other buildings you have in adjacent locations. Placing a navy in the location helps improve it quicker, but blockades and pirates will decrease it quickly, making it absolutely vital to protect your coastlines in a war, or you’ll suffer the consequences for a long time.

Depending on what you're doing with sailors, they might have an impact here as well (the coastal communications were often maintained by relatively small vessels trading and transporting people up and down the coasts). It could even be valuable to have some kind of "coastal transport" capacity that is built up over time, and degraded by pirates or warfare (this would enable coastal traffic to be raided during wartime, for example - although there are also other way to make this happen).

they work differently than in eu4

Great to hear Training people up in sea transport took serious time, and nations with maritime backgrounds had an advantage in maritime/naval matters because of this, and representing this in the game is cool The EU4 implementation, while better than nothing, wasn't one for the ages.

Its a bit hard to have a naval battle involving a few dozen ship of the lines on them.

It is, but the vast majority of naval battles historically didn't involve 36+ ships of the line - not every naval battle is Trafalgar It certainly is the case that naval vessels of the period could and did force their way down major rivers to project power and bring opposing vessels to action - a fairly well-known example is the Dutch raid on Chatham:

The Medway Raid and 17th century maritime warfare - The National Archives blog

The Medway Raid was the final and decisive major operation of the Second Anglo-Dutch War…

blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk

It's not needed in the game of course - no Paradox game to-date has even attempted to model the importance of riverine warfare historically (Imperator had some very minor representation, but its economic model meant it couldn't really have the impact it should) - but bonus points if you can

Navies helps with
a) making it tick up faster
b) make sure pirates are dealt with.
c) making sure you actually have a maritime presence during / after a war.

Sounds wonderful

 

[greywulfos]

This seems so fun !! I'm actually looking forward to playing another PDX game where the internal affairs of my country are this interesting. Can't wait to see how we pass laws

 

[Blindbohemian]

Does terrain affect the proximity calculation? For example mountains should be almost as hard to project “proximity” over as the open sea; just ask the Holy Roman Emperor.

 

[1Crazyplayer]

I don't know if this has already been asked but will there be an event or something similar related to the western schism in the catholic church?

 

[nfrank060]

The one thing that i want super bad in this ggame is more in-depth sieges. Like some actual variance from each commander or army or country. It woulld make playing a smaller nation more feasible and interesting

 

[Cardozinha]

Will lack of control have an effect on national modifiers? i.e national tax mod contributing less the weaker provincial control is

 

[Mattmine]

Will there be a simple and easy way to figure this out, so I'm not having to micromanage my entire control system or proximity after a war?

 

[Vojvoda Drago]

Belgrade compared to Stockholm in the 14th century? Stockholm was a town in the Middle Ages while Belgrade was a prosperous capital of the Serbian Kingdom, and many Orthodox Christian refugees moved from the Eastern Roman Empire, Bulgaria and South Serbia to Belgrade because of earthquakes and Turkish raids, Byzantine civil war and Ottoman expansion.

-Stockholm - "By the end of the 15th century, the population in Stockholm can be estimated to 5-7.000 people"
-Belgrade - "Its population gradually started to increase in the 13th century, numbering over 10,000 by the end of the 13th century, and 20,000 by the end of the 14th century. When the Serbian Empire collapsed, more and more refugees from the south sought refuge in Belgrade. In 1403 it became the capital of Serbian Despotovina, evolving into a Christian Mecca in Turkish-occupied Balkans. Under Despot Stefan Lazarevic, who was a true European knight, poet and artist, Belgrade was a seat of a free Christian state that regulated trade between East and West with a population of more than 50.000 people. By 1430 Belgrade was second to Constantinople in population, by the end of the century reaching 100,000 people. "
in 1377. Republic of Dubrovnik (ragusa in eu4) in their letters talked even about CITIES of Novo Brdo and Srebrenica which had a population of 40.000 while Rome itself had only 15.000 people.

P.S. I'm not someone professional, I just wrote from historical sources that I found in 10 minutes but guys you should try to be more professional while writing about historical information, it's quite easy to find information these days.

 

[Hopolit]

Belgrade compared to Stockholm in the 14th century? Stockholm was a town in the Middle Ages while Belgrade was a prosperous capital of the Serbian Kingdom, and many Orthodox Christian refugees moved from the Eastern Roman Empire, Bulgaria and South Serbia to Belgrade because of earthquakes and Turkish raids, Byzantine civil war and Ottoman expansion.

-Stockholm - "By the end of the 15th century, the population in Stockholm can be estimated to 5-7.000 people"
-Belgrade - "Its population gradually started to increase in the 13th century, numbering over 10,000 by the end of the 13th century, and 20,000 by the end of the 14th century. When the Serbian Empire collapsed, more and more refugees from the south sought refuge in Belgrade. In 1403 it became the capital of Serbian Despotovina, evolving into a Christian Mecca in Turkish-occupied Balkans. Under Despot Stefan Lazarevic, who was a true European knight, poet and artist, Belgrade was a seat of a free Christian state that regulated trade between East and West with a population of more than 50.000 people. By 1430 Belgrade was second to Constantinople in population, by the end of the century reaching 100,000 people. "
in 1377. Republic of Dubrovnik (ragusa in eu4) in their letters talked even about CITIES of Novo Brdo and Srebrenica which had a population of 40.000 while Rome itself had only 15.000 people.

P.S. I'm not someone professional, I just wrote from historical sources that I found in 10 minutes but guys you should try to be more professional while writing about historical information, it's quite easy to find information these days.

I think you are correct that saying Stockholm and Belgrade are "just" towns would be a incorrect comparison. But since Paris, at the time of 1350s, had over 100k population, I think you could think of it more like Imperator. Where you had city and metropolis. So there will probably be a cut off where a population center stops being a mere town and starts becoming a city, in this case it seems that Belgrade starts below that cut off. That would be an explanation for this I guess. You are correct at pointing out this difference, I also did not know that Belgrade was that big for the time, but even taking the size difference between Beijing and Paris into account then saying that they are both cities is a bit silly. Just my 2 cents

 

[NovaSoldier]

Will there be a system like in imperator for the army where you get comnmemorations of important battles won on the army banners?
Also since there is a pop system how will assimilation work? Will all pops be able to assimilate to each other like in vic3 or some groups of pops wont be able to assimilate to each other like in vic2?

 

[Borgratz]

Wait, your control increases your crown power, but nobles are happy with you increasing it?

 

[Lindaegan]

Will the Game add Port Cities for African Colonization? Because historically, Europeans never actually conquered much land in Africa until late 19th century and only had Port cities to syphon trade.

Johan said we will hear more about these systems in the spring.

 

[Teng_Ri]

in the spring

spring for normal people or swedish?

 

[Lindaegan]

spring for normal people or swedish?

I was wondering this as well. In India at the moment I will say we have already entered the summer (it is 43/110 degrees outside right now please send help).

 

[Sighfer]

a Bailiff that will act as a smaller proximity source, but that has the slight drawback of adding more nobles to the location, and with a cost in food for them.

How much of a "drawback" will it be? Will the nobility raise my blood pressure and make me seethe, like Landlords do in Victoria 3?

 

[Failtier]

Something that OneProudBavarian has asked, but how do you handle Proximity with scenarios where you have lands distributes across different regions, e.g. in the case of Brandenburg where some holdings were in Franconia, some in the Rhineland, some in Prussia, in Anhalt, and even in Switzerland? Will these holdings just by default suck, or will this be tied to some kind of specific administrative style?

Another question, since manpower is 100% tied to population, will you be able to implement the Prussian Canton system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canton_system_(Prussia))? In a nutshell, it meant that Prussia "was divided into recruiting districts called cantons (Kantone), and each canton was the responsibility of a regiment." According to Christopher Clark, the Canton System was very important for boosting the morale of Prussian soldiers because it increased the chance that soldiers would know each other (same village, town, etc.) and foster patriotism.

 

[darcler]

Just to be clear: have you read the Dev Diaries and Johan's responses to the questions people were asking (you can click on "show only dev responses" to easily check all dev responses under the diary or in any forum thread)? Johan has been pretty clear about the design direction of Project Ceasar, and it's not going to be the same as in the previous EU games. Which might backfire, since as you correctly point out people would expect the next game of the franchise to be more of the same and might be disappointed by the change in direction, but that's how it is. The game will have the main gameplay loop around interacting with your estates, slowly wrestling control from them in favor of the centralized state, and shaping your society (see Societal Values in one of the dev diaries) through various means (passing laws balancing your long-term interests and estates demands, developing economy together with your pops etc.). Wars and diplomacy would be important too (to ensure your survival, increase your wealth and prestige), but conquest won't be the ultimate goal of the game with everything else existing to support it or make it more challenging, as it was in the previous games of the EU franchise. Instead it will be one of the tools you use. You will be able to map paint too, if you wish, just like you can in Victoria or CK, but it won't be the playstyle the game is designed around.

I did read all the previous diaries, as well as Johan's responses (or, at least, a lot of them) - in fact, that's the very thing that prompted me to throw in my two cents, since the new project seems to be straying in the opposite direction to what made EU games fun for me to play. Assuming, of course, that this project is, in fact, EU5 - which it might not be after all. You are accusing me of misunderstanding what the game is supposed to be and what it's not, but I've only raised concerns about two of the mechanics that seemingly are being worked on - which has nothing to do about what the game is or is not. I only question whether these mechanics will be fun to interact with whatsoever, considering how their analogues worked in previous Paradox games (mostly in I:R) due to various annoyances associated with them. And I've given my rationale as to why I think as I do. So in the future I would kindly ask you, if you will, to only address what has been plainly stated in my posts, and not what you think I may or may not understand - both since you have no way of knowing, and since this thread is not the proper place for such discussions; it's supposed to give feedback to what's being revealed, and that's precisely what I did.

 

[Sirbab]

Will the HRE have special provisions for control? Given the nominal shared empire they're a part of, as well as the propensity for exclaves, I think it would be a good idea to let control propagate through other hre members assuming you're not at war with one another.
Also, I hope the Ai is able to think effectively about control, and will release vassals or change their capital as necessary to extract maximum value from their land

 

[Ololorium]

I did read all the previous diaries, as well as Johan's responses (or, at least, a lot of them) - in fact, that's the very thing that prompted me to throw in my two cents, since the new project seems to be straying in the opposite direction to what made EU games fun for me to play. Assuming, of course, that this project is, in fact, EU5 - which it might not be after all. You are accusing me of misunderstanding what the game is supposed to be and what it's not, but I've only raised concerns about two of the mechanics that seemingly are being worked on - which has nothing to do about what the game is or is not. I only question whether these mechanics will be fun to interact with whatsoever, considering how their analogues worked in previous Paradox games (mostly in I:R) due to various annoyances associated with them. And I've given my rationale as to why I think as I do. So in the future I would kindly ask you, if you will, to only address what has been plainly stated in my posts, and not what you think I may or may not understand - both since you have no way of knowing, and since this thread is not the proper place for such discussions; it's supposed to give feedback to what's being revealed, and that's precisely what I did.

I'm not "accusing" you of anything! I just wanted to confirm that we are on the same page regarding the information that's been shared about this project - it wasn't entirely clear from your posts if you know about the project's chosen direction (focus on simulation and society building as opposed to abstraction and map painting of previous EU games) or you assume this is EU4 2.0 and give your feedback based on that. Thank you for confirming that it's the former.
Now, I don't know if further discussion about levies makes sense, because your concerns about the game are much deeper. Essentially, you don't like the whole direction of this game on a fundamental level, and levies are just relatively small secondary feature. Removing it would make no sense for a game where managing population and estates is the main reason to play. It's kind of like removing different types of goods in Victoria 3 and making all buildings produce "money" instead, as in EU4.
Of course, you are free to raise your concerns about the direction of the game, and they are understandable. But I doubt the developers will make a U-turn on their design at this point.

 

[SauronGorthaur]

Regarding this weeks dev diary though, once again very interesting stuff. Distance from capital sounds like a very natural mechanic here. I'm still curious how many of the related existing mechanics will we see in EU5 though. There are a few more or less overlapping concepts in EU4, some of which also directly link with each other. Even more so in case of land obtained via conquest.

So, there are cores, later further split into territorial and full cores. There are states and territories, which directly link to the two types of cores (though you can theoretically state an area without upgrading the cores). There is local autonomy, which does interact with both conquest (high autonomy right after) and cores (main difference between two core types is the maximum autonomy allowed). There's the governing capacity, which dictates how many areas you can state and upgrade into full cores. And there's also years of separatism increasing local unrest for a certain period after the conquest.

Now, I think at least some of these should continue to be a thing, but the question is which ones. Right of the bat, I think separatism is just a logical mechanic, showcasing a period of turmoil following a conquest. With the whole unrest system behind it being a likely candidate to be one of the factors that belong in the "but many things that can decrease control further".

Autonomy may look a bit superfluous in context of conquest specifically, since you could represent the same concept by simply having lower control right after conquest right off the bat and skip the intermediary step of autonomy, but that's just conquest. Autonomy is also useful to represent a plethora of different things, like a strong holdout of the estates. Since estates are going to play an even larger role now, it'd make even more sense to keep it as well. Especially since the ability to modify autonomy manually is also a useful tool to deal with areas that are problematic for reasons like different culture or religion.

Next, states/territories split and governing capacity together, because of how closely they are related. Now, since those ultimately revolve around specific minimum autonomy caps, you could technically eschew them. That would require changes to autonomy to prevent it from ticking down though. Which does actually open up some new opportunities where you could be able to choose a specific autonomy threshold separate for different areas.

On the other hand, the states/territories mechanic could still be a useful tool for realm management in larger nations. Since from the description above control is a per-location value, but you have large swaths of land and you'd like a larger portion of it to remain with higher autonomy, states/territories could be used to set it up on per-province or even per-area level.

Also, in regards to capacity specifically, there is also the issue of verisimilitude. Because historically bailiffs were already local nobles. So it's not like settings up a bailiff building would add anything new to the world (sans maybe the actual building for the office, but that just has a gold barrier to entry). But there was more to setting up effective administrations and more logistical barriers to overcome like requiring a messanger system to carry correspondence (including orders) to and from the local bailiffs.

And while the bailiff system (or any other regional equivalent) had factors like population density differing from area to area determining why there were more bailiffs in one region than another, some had less control from the central government anyway, and not for a lack of local nobles or buildings to set up shop for them in, but because their administration's ... well, capacity, was already stretched too thin. And if the penalties in game for more bailiffs are simply more nobles and more food consumption, some kind of governing cap may also be required here. Especially if your way of playing actually utilizes bonuses from nobility and you're in a region like Ruthenia that has high food production. So states/territories and governing capacity would be a maybe.

But between control and related systems mentioned in the dev diary, what I mentioned above and any other modifiers to control that PDX has already planned, I'm not sure if cores are really needed anymore. They seem rather superfluous and the way they were set up in EU4 was already rather abstract.

Though, to play the devil's advocate for cores, let's use the following example. Let's say you play as Poland and conquer Slovakia from Hungary. You wait for separatism to go down. Religion is the same, the culture is closer to yours than it was to Hungarian, so other major reasons for unrest are not really present. The area is closer to the capital in Kraków than large parts of Poland proper so distance impact on control is minimal even without any bailiffs (though maybe the mountainous terrain across the border would act as a multiplier for distance calculations).

So from the looks of it control would be already high at this point. But on the other hand, the fact that it's not a historical part of Poland would remain in the living memory for quite some time. Which is what cores would logically represent (admittedly not EU4 cores, since coring took faster than for separatism to even tick down to 0). I suppose you could make separatism last longer to represent that and call it a day, but still, food for thought.