• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Tinto Talks #8 - 17th of April 2024

Hello, and welcome to the eighth iteration of Tinto Talks where we talk about what we are doing in our very secret future game, with the code name Project Caesar.

Btw, on a completely unrelated note, Paradox Tinto has just announced our new expansion ‘Winds of Change’ for EU4. Go check out its cool contents and trailer!




This week we’ll continue talking about the economical part of the game. Last week we talked about the different items in the monthly budget, and now we’ll continue with explaining some of the core concepts of the economy. Please be aware that all images here are tooltips or parts of tooltips, and some are very much Work in Progress!


Loans and Bankruptcy
Let's start with Loans, which will work a fair bit differently than any other previous Paradox GSG. At first glance, it is kind of similar to previous games, where you can take a loan, you get money, and you pay interest on it for a set period of time. However, in Project Caesar, there are some new changes. Take a look at this WiP tooltip for taking a loan:

nCUH7H-1ErsukKQS9473NBnKTsR05CWHRCYIaB9ntYszKs6rU5K0qzaJ1m4OimczgJtGgcJqfhzX94L9kRwi7qoi-A3J1yaQWyPzYx7e0NjbAXY3eGRsd27ZKVoXYabnz0OG_kwl1t3lpUCMsjzapNE

Yeah, 10% interest is perfectly fair…

In this game, you are not borrowing money from an abstract national bank, but instead, your internal loans are taken from what the estates have made available. The estates invest money they have, not only in immediate gains for their own power, or other ways that benefit the country, or other [REDACTED], but they also invest in having money available for the country, where they will benefit from the interests.

If there is no money to borrow from the estates available and you have no ducats left, you will go bankrupt, which is a little bit more severe than in, let's say EU4...

There is also another way to get gold, you can send a diplomat to one of the banking countries, like Peruzzi and Bardi, if there is one that you know of within diplomatic range, to request a loan. Make sure you don’t forget to pay them on time, or default on the loans, or you may never be able to loan from them again.


Core Concepts
So let’s continue, by taking a look at the tooltip for a location, so we can quickly have a reference to some important aspects in the rest of this development diary.

av2ohVCnmA8MfMHXUexuoSX7wbs5Tz0VGuP-pAGPyjo6bS_yDc4UK0pp8B0jRMDkvwXAwx9uI2Cegs3jpcIKdyR7v0kO5WtLCTD9taUF98vYzSaED6YUjOgV-oXjxgVsswlfOqlUqMoRYs8a5eu-w5k

Enjoy the nice placeholder icons, sadly the forum does not allow for nested tooltips, like the game does…


Food
If you notice the line of food above, you see that Kalmar is not self-sufficient in food, and needs to rely on the rest of Östra Småland for food, unless they buy it from the local market.
kib0U5HlyH-L2LLv71VDVZ6iOxXPS4YyDFTAS18O4FmhFnZi9XNoC67LnjO32Gnpqls7-nhY53fDQBCG3XOKR6fX1lVaOCOmLA-n2Vhq8ivty4UmijPYiazrqSpNAV5eSxchS3SvzMXPY5N266lbeV0

Even the small town of Kalmar needs food from nearby locations…

Primarily, there are a lot of burghers here that consume a lot of food. There are also a lot of modifiers that impact how much food the location produces as well.

If the granaries in Östra Småland are close to full, we would sell their surplus to the local market in Riga, but only get about 56% of the profit, as we only have 56% control in Kalmar. If the entire province lacks food, we would have to buy food at 100% of the current price in that market. The price for food is different in each market, and depends entirely on how much food is sold to that market.





Taxes
We mentioned taxes in last week's Tinto Talk, and specifically mentioned Tax Base there. The tax base of an estate is based on the total of all their Tax Base in all the locations they are present in.


aGfWyrqBlFKjmUSP_b-3bnRVeXPVVdZj8xLUgyu48qKLbW66a_hWwg7Z36YmC9E4zPYOI-CsSwPZFitdxahwe5-xuTPdp_YCA1sF_4g0aiBL_3y9Eetnak6lZfL67ql0e1ioCL1hbXYE3EmJ5-NYYaI

Quickly find the error in the text in this tooltip!

We are slowly increasing our control over Kalmar up to 58.2%, so the tax base will be slowly increasing, and if we would get it to the 100 maximum, it would be even bigger.

As you can see here, the nobility and the burghers have a fair bit of power here, and the peasants have basically none. Currently, we are able to tax more from the burghers each month, and could probably go above the 25% tax rate we have currently set on their estate.

To clarify, only the money that is in the “potential” row exists, and anything you don’t tax on that goes to the estates. So you get 0.05 ducats there (perhaps more, but Paradox rounding), and the remaining 0.37 goes to the estates.



Raw Materials
As you noticed in the tooltips above, we talk about Raw Materials and Resource Gathering Operations. Every location has one raw material possible that can be extracted, this includes things like lumber, stone, grain, amber, or copper. Of course, there are other ways to get access to the raw materials than merely owning and controlling a location.

Only peasants and slaves will work on gathering raw materials, and how many will work with it depends on how big of an infrastructure you have built up for that. Pops that are working with this will not be producing food, unless the goods are food related.

The maximum size of an infrastructure that can be built up depends on population, development, technologies, and societal values.


goa9yXee37SXwcMqzUuhChETBoZB7CLw9Q1xfT6Z4x60C1pcSOkvvUSKfdi__IrWjZbby4oVOI-LAvFOhxYbWT8LrF_kWbFBh7PQpAw3OYZjr6E17qfS9k2XZkA5LZ-7NlTD2bcbk3_0JWIOY3rHklI




We mentioned buildings in one tooltip earlier, and next week we will talk about how they work in Project Caesar.
 
  • 256Like
  • 176Love
  • 15
  • 12
  • 6
Reactions:
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.

Simply local development whatever that looks like in Project Caesar. Surely literacy rates, population type composition, and economic output will depend on the wealth of a province in some manner.

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). I imagine such groupings have to be dynamically generated anyways when looking for possible rebellions, but again you know how this game works better than me.
 
  • 12Like
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
nice, proper tables and number allignment! and maybe a button within tooltip. There is stil alot to change for the better, but I will save my feedback until June
 
Will you be able to have landless countries as your subjects? Even if it's only in certain scripted circumstances.

Also what about banking countries that own land, like The Hospitalliers or the V.O.C. how do they work?

Also are Mercenary companies landless countries like in CK3?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
For loans, there could be the existence of: Credit Rating. Loan repayments increase in interest if you are late and a cooldown if you are on time or a faster cooldown if you start to prepay installments. Monarchs that forfeit or refuse to pay may find a harder time convincing other lenders to give them money.

Will there be such a thing as central banking and stock exchange in the later centuries?
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Will you be able to have landless countries as your subjects? Even if it's only in certain scripted circumstances.

Also what about banking countries that own land, like The Hospitalliers or the V.O.C. how do they work?

Also are Mercenary companies landless countries like in CK3?

Also, how will privateers be represented? In real life they were the disbanded veteran sailors from wars who were looking for a pay day.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
its not poor, just not any wealth used by the conqueror
It’s also not used by the locals to develop their area.
I understand that the player/central government should have some interest into getting a better control. But maybe having low control area less efficient for development and giving more power to their local estate is already a good enough incentive.
If as a player you have a lot of low control area which gives a lot of power to your estate, maybe you might prefer creating a vassal to keep your mobility under control.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
closer to eu4
So with the info from previous posts saying that it's "necessary" to create vassals in order to have control on a manageable level in larger empires this seems really weird. I was assuming that vassals will be small dukes or barons whom you give land as your subjects so that they can keep control up in their local areas.
Subjects not being directly part of my/the players empire will greatly diminish the game experience of map-painting unless I am misunderstanding something here.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Its not created at all.
I think that the concept of control is not clear. What does a 100% control mean? What does a 50% control mean? What does a 0% control mean?

If the control level is meant to signify the ability of the State to impose its laws in a certain location, a 0% control shouldn't mean that the tax base is nil. It should mean that the whole of the tax in the location is collected by "other" entities (either the country's estates or bandits (which might be represented as another estate) or some other group.) In this case, control should be represented as your estates having more or less power with respect to the crown, depending on the location. Note that this doesn't necessarily equals the raw pops power of a state, since in a central location, the crown could rein their estates in (for example, Versailles was built to keep the nobles in check, so even if a ton of nobles are present, they are powerless in that location). So, in this situation, the tax base should be high, but the taxes should be difficult to collect for the crown. However, if the controlling estate in a low control province is really happy with you, they should be willing to provide some of the taxes they are collecting, so keeping your estates happy should provide passive control growth under this definition. I believe that this is the definition that has been implied the most in the past dev diaries.

If the control level is meant to signify a level of organization within the location, 0% should mean complete anarchy and 100% a perfectly organized utopia. Here, a 100% control could still mean a completely organized society controlled by the burghers, and in this case you shouldn't be able to get a ton of taxes, because the local burghers have a lot of power there. (You could have a 100% control location with crown control, in which case you can tax it extra efficiently.) But in this case, 0% control should mean complete anarchy; either a completely depopulated province, or indigenous nomadic people which you cannot control, outright civil war. Settled peoples at peace should always provide some degree of control under this definition. Also, under this definition, any building/manufactory/etc. should provide control, as the existence of these, by definition, gives structure to the society. Also, it might be possible and even common to have 100% control provinces under this definition in far away places, if your estates are interested in it. I believe this is the definition that justifies the assertion that the money/tax base is not created at all.

These definitions of control are kind of orthogonal. For example:
  • High control 1st definition, High control 2nd definition: Your capital at peace. The crown is the most powerful here, and you can keep the estates at bay.
  • High control 1st definition, Low control 2nd definition: A recently conquered land. Your estates have not had yet time to establish their influence there and the previous owner's estates are discredited, so the crown can pretty much do whatever it wants there. However, there is turmoil and it is difficult to actually collect taxes.
  • Low control 1st definition, High control 2nd definition: East India Company. A lot of control over the pops in the land, but the controlling party is actually the Burghers. This should also be the case for most of the colonies or the lands of the most powerful nobles. Monasteries/clerical land.
  • Low control 1st definition, Low control 2nd definition: An outpost/recently colonized land/a place in revolt.
I believe that both notions of control are valuable and both should be modeled. And I now believe that control per se means the second definition (since the first definition is decently modelled by pops+power modifiers, but not completely). However, under this supposition, I would like to see a couple of things: that settlements always increase control in its location and its surroundings, that sending missionaries increases control in a location, trade outposts increase control substantially for small locations, that low control depopulates the location, destroys buildings, etc. I would love to see control interact in meaningful ways with every part of your administration. I would also love to see a clearer estate control notion, so that certain provinces can be more or less taxed/levied according to your relation with the dominant estate there.

Also, in a past diary, you said that every pop belongs to an estate. However, I would love to see pops belonging to a "ghost" bureaucrats estate, the people working directly for the crown (you don't need an actual bureaucrats estate, since that would be simply the Crown). These people's livelihood and prosperity depend on you, and would be a counterpart to estate power and would increase both kinds of control, at the cost of corruption and direct expense from the budget. This estate should be the most manageable (in the sense that you can create pops of this kind out of the blue, by hiring other pops or making them move), the most loyal, but also the most expensive (as they have no other income). This estate would help model centralization vs descentralization.

So, could you explain us which is the notion of control you have in mind?
 
  • 9Like
  • 4
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
It’s also not used by the locals to develop their area.
I understand that the player/central government should have some interest into getting a better control. But maybe having low control area less efficient for development and giving more power to their local estate is already a good enough incentive.
If as a player you have a lot of low control area which gives a lot of power to your estate, maybe you might prefer creating a vassal to keep your mobility under control.

It i is better to have vassals that pay up or provide soldiers than to directly own land you can’t extract assets from. The concept of absolutism or a highly centralized state was made possible through the creation of a professional civil service. For that to expand, you need to find a way to explain and assign administration objectives (often with localized methods). Standardizing language as well as taxes and weights and measurements are the first steps in centralizing a state. Not to mention the earlier step of ensuring religious syncretization, at least in Europe.
 
So, could you explain us which is the notion of control you have in mind?

Control is abstract for things such as freedom of movement, security, and enforcement of laws and taxes. 0% may not be common unless the area is affected by a prolonged war. What the government doesn’t control, rebels controls, or in other words a shadow local government (criminals, bandits, etc).
 
in theory one could design such a system, but that would be far more complex, and I care about performance

Could it be possible to compromise, and at least have the non-controlled tax income contribute to a giant loot pool in that province representing local wealth? That way it at least still represents that money is being made efficiently despite lack of state control, even if the money is too petty to be used for society-level investments.
 
Is there a concern that you are overloading the province depth and making the more "map painting" aspects a further removed part of the game? No hate, just curious how complex these modifies are going to be both in game performance and allowing for the more traditional aspects of games like, lets say eu4
 
Could it be possible to compromise, and at least have the non-controlled tax income contribute to a giant loot pool in that province representing local wealth? That way it at least still represents that money is being made efficiently despite lack of state control, even if the money is too petty to be used for society-level investments.
I think that's how we handled it in M&T? You don't get access to the wealth in any meaningful way as the owner of the state, but it sure does encourage foreign powers to take advantage of your lack-of-control, even if they have no intent on holding those territories themselves.
 
  • 4
Reactions: