• 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 #29 - 18th of September 2024

Welcome everyone to another Tinto Talks, the Happy Wednesday where we inform you about how things will work in our super secret game with the codename Project Caesar.

In today's Tinto Talks we will delve into a few different and not entirely related topics, but they are important for what we need to talk about as they will be referenced a fair bit in future Tinto Talks.

Prosperity & Devastation
In Project Caesar this is a single value in a location ranging from -100% to +100%, where positive is prosperity and negative is devastation.

Prosperity represents how prosperous and resourceful a location is. A prosperous location increases development over time. Prosperity will slowly rise, unless different negative circumstances reduce it. If it goes negative it will cause devastation.

There is no direct way for the player to increase prosperity, but having a peaceful country will have it increase slowly over time.

prosperity.png

‘Market Fairs’ is a nice privilege to give.


Devastation represents how ravaged a location is. It includes burnt-down farms and abandoned villages, and the biggest sources of devastation are blockades and occupation.

It has a rather huge impact on a location over time, reducing how much food and raw materials it produces and the population over time.

If you have high devastation in any location in a province, the Age of Renaissance has an advance that enables a cabinet action, where you can focus on recovering devastation in a province, until it has recovered fully.

Ideally, you do not want any sort of war or conflict happening on your own lands.

devastation.png

Not ideal, let's end this war asap…

Development
One concept that has been in many of our previous GSGs is development. It has been used for various things, but in Project Caesar development represents how cultivated the land is, and how much it is used by the pops living there. The higher the development, the more people can live there, and the more it can be exploited.

As mentioned in earlier Tinto Talks, this is a value that the player mostly only has indirect control over, but you can have your cabinet working on improving development in an entire province at once.

Development helps a fair bit in improving the quality of a location, but all of these values here are still constantly being balanced.

development.png

The Woods probably has some other advantage…


Roads
We have had roads in many of our former games, and this game will also have roads. In Project Caesar this includes one of the most in-depth systems of roads we have ever made. A road is basically a connection between two land locations that reduces the proximity calculations from 40 down to 20. Most settled nations start with the capacity to build gravel roads, but there are three advances in later ages that will introduce new types of roads that can be built. Those roads will reduce proximity further, and increase movement speed for armies.

Now this may sound like it could be a lot of micromanagement if we had used the ways railroads were built in Victoria 2, or how roads were built in Imperator, but we have a few easier ways to build or upgrade road networks.

build_road.png

Here we have Kalmar selected and we are looking at building a road to Idre, which technically is in Norway at the start of the game. You can always build a road INTO the location of any country that has a positive opinion of you, so road networks can and will be connected for trade.
  • The green locations are locations you can afford to build a road from Kalmar to at the moment.
  • Striped locations are locations with a road network.
  • The white-outlined locations are the proposed path for the road between Kalmar and Idre.

Road building is one of the most important and fun parts of the control-growing gameplay loop.


Piracy & Privateers
To clarify here, a privateer is a pirate sponsored by a specific country. The ability to sponsor privateers has several different ways to unlock. First of all, every nation has access to an advance in the Age of Absolutism called Letter of Marque that reduces the cost for privateers while also making them sturdier. There are also unique advances in the Age of Discovery for some countries that allow them to hire privateers, while if you pick the Diplomatic Focus in the Age of Renaissance you have the possibility to recruit privateers that early.

Sponsoring a Privateer can be done in an area, and cost about 250 sailors per privateer, and 10 sailors each month they are active. A pirate/privateer in an area, depending on its current strength, can reduce the maritime presence of all non-friendly countries in all sea zones in that area. This hurts relations and will give them a way to get a casus belli on you though.


So how do you fight privateers? Well, you have a fleet of ships in any location in that sea area, and they will actively reduce the capacity of those pirates. Galleys are a bit better than heavy ships at hunting pirates, but light ships are by far the best at dealing with pirates, where a single light ship is about ten times as effective as a heavy ship at the start of the game.


privateers.png

You need sailors for your privateers, or they disappear..

There is a situation in the later half of the 16th century where piracy will start to grow in certain areas of the map. Pirates also have a chance to spawn from locations with pirate covens. These are buildings that peasants will build in coastal locations where control is very low.

privilege.png

This privilege when granted to the Burghers will help your privateers be more cost effective…




Stay tuned, as next week we will focus on Conquest, Integration and Casus Belli’s.
 

Attachments

  • development.png
    development.png
    387,2 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
  • 144Love
  • 138Like
  • 7
  • 5
  • 4
Reactions:
I'm not sure that separation of development and prosperity/devastation makes sense. Couldn't they just be the same thing, if the scaling is done properly?
Even though they are presented in the same TT, I'm pretty sure these represent fairly different things. Development is the long-term "extent of cultivation", while prosperity is the short-term economic health. These can be the opposite of each other, for example a region in China wracked by civil war would have low prosperity but high development, while a peaceful region in Siberia would be the opposite of that.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I also want to ask the devs, are control and prosperity connected to each other at all? Just curious.
 
My point is falling short. Whether it is Bukhara or Samarkand is besides the point. The main point is that major population centres are less developed than some backwater places in Europe and that China is hyper-developed. By all means keep Smarkand or Bukhara more devastated than Baghdad, but Baghdad shouldnt comparatively be more developed than other major population centres. You have some ~700 000 people living in north west Anatolia, which is less developed than some backwater places in central Europe (or subsahran Africa being more developed than these parts of Anatolia for that matter). Now I am no expert in the economic aspect of central Europe, but I am fairly sure that central Europe was not that far ahead of the rest of the world and I have a hard time believing that most of China was some kind of hyper-developed placed compared to the rest of the world. We are talking about some junggles/mountains having more dev than entire population centres. Idk how that's not odd.


Or another example: How is Yemen a backwater place compared to Iraq that went through mongol devastation? We are not talking about being somewhat similar, but Iraq being massively ahead of Yemen that didnt see any kind of devastation. Shouldnt Sanaa (or anything similar in the region) or Aden see some light green at least?
Fair; I'll admit I was mostly just nitpicking the particular examples. Given that the method described (pick out some particular places that should have high development and fill out the rest of the map from there by working "downstream"), there's definitely going to be room for error (particularly with places that the devs might not have thought of as being particularly developed at this time), I think the issue is mostly going to come down to... well, this sort of nitpicking of examples.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Though with the mana removed in Project Caesar, this disparity is mostly reduced I believe but I guess "more provinces you own, more strong you are" from EU4 is somehow still relevant with locations in Project Caesar. Of course more locations you own more strong you should be but what I mean by that is the quantity of the provinces beats the quality in EU4. For example, a country that own and cores every German province is much stronger than a country that owns and cores every France province because the province density in Germany is higher than France.

Because in EU4 theoretically you can create 100 vassals in an 100 provinces and develop those provinces 100x faster in comparison of 1 country owns all those provinces; because every country generates mana and uses that mana to develop the province. This is why we see German provinces is higher developed compared to other regions at the late game in EU4, because Germany starts with tons of countries and higher location density.

I think one of the two key to solve this -other than changing game mechanics which I don't think its so doable- is to adjust starting development, prosperity, devastation, raw materials and so + development, prosperity gain and lose factors over time to not create disparity between in the short, middle and long run. Maybe geographical, historical and political factors can slow down or speed up development, prosperity gain for some specific regions to balance.

The other key is adjusting location density right for every region.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
One suggestion if its not added already or suggested; maintaining the roads by money via a slider. More you spend money in roads they become more efficient, less you spend they become less efficient.
 
Regarding the map... It seems that all of the Korean Peninsula below the Yalu and Amnok rivers has a significantly higher development than Manchuria. I'm not sure if this is too accurate. The Goryeo Dynasty never owned all of the Korean Peninsula, and the northern part of what would be the Pyeongan and the Hamgyeong provinces had belonged to the Jurchen tribes in the area for almost 500 years. Koreans only reclaimed the last parts of the Korean Peninsula at the time of the Joseon Dynasty, at 1443. The northern parts would have still been inhabited by nomadic Jurchen tribes, and I think the development should be around the same level as manchuria.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Will Roads between larger locations cost more than smaller ones?

For example the distance between two locations in Italy is much smaller than locations in Eastern Europe so they should less to build
 
Will these be proper steam railroads or the prototypical railed wagonways that were the main predecessors to railroads? Steam railroads only existed at the very, very end of the time period of the game but wagonways existed throughout the 1700s (though there was one prototype steam railroad in Coalbrookdale as early as 1800)

Also, are Canals going to be a major "road" type? They were the next best thing to railroads and saw massive expansion during the time period of the game.
 
The Development map needs some serious work, there’s no way China’s South West Region was that developed, it looks more developed than France.

And the Border Areas of China is also questionable because 1. The Borderlands wouldn’t have been that developed 2. There should be a developmental transition from Green to Red near the borders
 
Though with the mana removed in Project Caesar, this disparity is mostly reduced I believe but I guess "more provinces you own, more strong you are" from EU4 is somehow still relevant with locations in Project Caesar. Of course more locations you own more strong you should be but what I mean by that is the quantity of the provinces beats the quality in EU4. For example, a country that own and cores every German province is much stronger than a country that owns and cores every France province because the province density in Germany is higher than France.

Because in EU4 theoretically you can create 100 vassals in an 100 provinces and develop those provinces 100x faster in comparison of 1 country owns all those provinces; because every country generates mana and uses that mana to develop the province. This is why we see German provinces is higher developed compared to other regions at the late game in EU4, because Germany starts with tons of countries and higher location density.

I think one of the two key to solve this -other than changing game mechanics which I don't think its so doable- is to adjust starting development, prosperity, devastation, raw materials and so + development, prosperity gain and lose factors over time to not create disparity between in the short, middle and long run. Maybe geographical, historical and political factors can slow down or speed up development, prosperity gain for some specific regions to balance.

The other key is adjusting location density right for every region.
I don't really understand what you're trying to argue here... You say that in EU4 quantity of provinces beats quality, but then state the otherwise saying small German states outpace other regions in development by the end of the game.
How would you implement abstract political or historical factors? or arbitrary dev slow downs for certain regions? The reason Germany didn't outpace France is due to the massive internal turmoil like the 30 years war, but if not massive 30 years war happens why would you slap down a random -30% dev growth on Germany for no reason?

Honestly quantity should to an extent beat quality during this time period, the reason France was so powerful later in the games time period wasn't due to some innate French genius or technological advantage, it was because France had a huge population under one semi unified polity, unlike the Germans or Italians who were far less centralised (even compared to medieval France).

Unless your worry is literally the quantity of locations could be more important than the number of people in them? If that's the case, the devs have already said that population is more important, and that fewer provinces with more population per province is actually a bonus because each 1 of your buildings provides bonuses to more pops.
 
We have something affectionately-named the 'Naked mapmode' that shows the 3D world as God intended, free of borders and other UI icons
Oh, that's going to be epic
Is it possible to customise something in between? Like to have the 'almost naked mapmode' with terrain and only countries' borders and location names?
 
can we get eventually feedback for the dev map?

It doesn't make much sense that Naples, the second most populated city in Europe and that it is a costal city has less developments than Milan / Paris / Praha etc etc

Or the Po valley, in which you represented the Po Delta to be less developed compared to the rest of the valley while it was about the same, for you chose inland locations for that zone. Really, Dev map should be refined just a bit
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Its great to see the tool-tips using higher contrast between text and background, especially compared to the last Saturday Building tooltip. Does it mean this is something the UI team are now consciously focusing on? If so: Thank You!
 
View attachment 1189129
Not ideal, let's end this war asap…


View attachment 1189128
The Woods probably has some other advantage…

Does climate and/or winter severity influence devastation and/or development growth?

I can't seem to find it in any of the modifiers presented in the list. An arctic forest feels like it should be more difficult to develop than an oceanic forest, or that a severe winter might halt prosperity or even cause devastation for a few months.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
If I want to build a road between two non-neoughbouring locations, then how exactly does the pathway get determined? Can it be planned/edited in similar vein to offensive arrows in HOI4?
 
This is the first iteration of the development mapmode, something that is not trivial to calculate (because answering the question of 'How much developed was each location of the world in 1337?' is... complex).

The way we crafted this first iteration was by setting the highest value we wanted for the most developed location in the world, which we considered to be Beijing, as being the main capital of Yuán, and a very, very impressive place by all the accounts of contemporary travelers. After that, we also discussed, coming from our experience on the map-making research process, some 'regional champions': Paris, Cairo, Delhi, etc. And from there, we 'irradiated' decreasing development values into neighboring areas and regions. Those values are also automatically adjusted by the different terrain types (as each one has a different positive or negative value), and then we made some manual adjustments, based on other factors that we aren't considering (like soil fertility). A last step was adding specific values to certain locations, to round up relative consistency.

Albeit not being perfect, we think that this is a decent system for a first iteration, as it also allow us to do further adjustments quite easily, based on playtesting and player feedback.
for example the greenish locations up to the karakorum mountains seem a bit like an exaggeration, since they are as developed as northern italy...