Tinto Talks #40 - 4th of December 2024

[Sete]

it's just geography really

And currents... and winds...and shipbuilding eg: carracks, etc.

Again the same old talk...

 

[RouteVenus]

Can some government reforms change the title of your country? (Like military order changing it from prince-bishopric of X to the X order, etc)

 

[Atromb]

This is wrong, by the early-mid 15th century North Europeans were building their own caravels:

"The decline of English bulk and long-distance trades and the primacy of theFlanders cloth route do not explain why the big ship was in decline outside England, however. One of the reasons behind the growing preference for the small shipmay have been technological, at least in northern Europe. Until the fifteenth century,all seagoing vessels constructed in medieval northern Europe were clinker-built, butin the course of the 1400s northern shipwrights learned skeleton construction. Thistechnique had previously been developed in the Mediterranean centuries before andits transmission to the north was associated with the Portuguese caravel, which beganappearing in northern waters from the 1430s onwards. It can be no coincidence that in English, French, German, Dutch and various Scandinavian languages the word‘caravel’ or ‘carvel’ became indelibly linked with the idea of skeleton construction.In some cases, craftsmen may have learned the technique by copying caravels thathad been captured or bought abroad, though in other instances it is known to havebeen taught by itinerant shipwrights. The details of the process will probably neverbe fully known, but from the point of view of this study, the important thing is thatcarvels were generally small vessels. Out of sixty-five carvels loading cargoes at Bordeaux between 1467 and 1477, for example, only five took on more than 100 tuns ofwine and the largest of these loaded 149 tuns. The reasons for the adoption of skeletonconstruction are a matter of speculation, but it is probable that they were both technical and economic. The skeleton-built hull was stronger and easier to repair than aclinker-built one and also cheaper. The technique used more wooden nails, did notrequire expensive clench-nails and roves and did not need additional areas of plankingto provide the overlapping strakes used in clinker-built hulls.29"

The World of the Newport Medieval Ship page 51

"Evidence from other north European sources points to the spread of skeletonconstruction to areas as far apart as northern Spain and the Baltic between about 1460and 1480. A carvel-built ship, estimated to have been some 35 m in length and about7.5 m wide, has been found in Swedish waters and tentatively identified as the greatDanish warship Gribshunden, lost in 1495. If the identification is correct, it showsthat, like their English counterparts, late fifteenth-century Danish shipwrights werealso proficient enough in skeleton construction to build large carvels. Naval buildingaside, it is difficult to say quite how rapidly the English and other north Europeanmerchant fleets were transformed, though three English merchantmen repaired at Bordeaux between 1502 and 1504 were all carvel-built.30"

Page 52

Insofar as exploration goes well before Columbus caravels were used and build in Northern Europe and when Columbus sailed, caravels apparently were built in the Baltic too, so I think the list of coastal ports devoid of native built caravels would be meager by 1492, so they can't be a factor behind why Iberians dominated oversea colonization... it's just geography really

We are speaking about different things, 'carvel-building' referes to a specific type of boat construcion that would already be in place on the mediterranean by game start, furthermore the caravel went through multiple stages of development, a exploratory caravel is not the same thing than an early caravel, let alone the lack of the other ship key to iberian exploration, the nao.

 

[hytth]

Agreed. This is 100% a meme policy. Going to end up with common Vinland exploits on day one.

Disagree. One of the most boring aspects of EU4 right now is Spain and Portugal colonizing literally everything. The player has to take Exploration/Expansion as their 1st and 2nd idea groups or else they will get out competed by AI Portugal and Spain. AI Russia never colonizes Alaska because Portugal or Spain gets their first. Even AI Britain underperforms in colonization because of Spain's and Portugal's innate buffs.

I want to see more AI nations colonizing, not less. It will lead to a livelier and more varied world that is more fun to play in.

 

[Thrudgelmir2333]

And currents... and winds...and shipbuilding eg: carracks, etc.

Again the same old talk...

And a whole history of interacting with Moorish culture and technology, not to mention influence of the Reconquista pushing them towards crusader-like objectives and the ambitions to contact gold-producing kingdoms in West Africa. Not to mention Prester John, of course, which sometimes gets talked about like it was the whole reason ships first went down Africa.

AND the whole thing where Portugal was forced to look out to the ocean due to being blocked out from further land expansion in Iberia, especially after the Treaties of Alcanices and the Castillian Succession Crisis, both dating all the way back to the 13th and 14th centuries. Again, it's not just the people of Iceland who felt 'pushed towards the sea'.

The difference is that more time and work was spent to make sure these voyages were a success.

 

[Ulpia Batavorum]

This is wrong, by the early-mid 15th century North Europeans were building their own caravels:

"The decline of English bulk and long-distance trades and the primacy of theFlanders cloth route do not explain why the big ship was in decline outside England, however. One of the reasons behind the growing preference for the small shipmay have been technological, at least in northern Europe. Until the fifteenth century,all seagoing vessels constructed in medieval northern Europe were clinker-built, butin the course of the 1400s northern shipwrights learned skeleton construction. Thistechnique had previously been developed in the Mediterranean centuries before andits transmission to the north was associated with the Portuguese caravel, which beganappearing in northern waters from the 1430s onwards. It can be no coincidence that in English, French, German, Dutch and various Scandinavian languages the word‘caravel’ or ‘carvel’ became indelibly linked with the idea of skeleton construction.In some cases, craftsmen may have learned the technique by copying caravels thathad been captured or bought abroad, though in other instances it is known to havebeen taught by itinerant shipwrights. The details of the process will probably neverbe fully known, but from the point of view of this study, the important thing is thatcarvels were generally small vessels. Out of sixty-five carvels loading cargoes at Bordeaux between 1467 and 1477, for example, only five took on more than 100 tuns ofwine and the largest of these loaded 149 tuns. The reasons for the adoption of skeletonconstruction are a matter of speculation, but it is probable that they were both technical and economic. The skeleton-built hull was stronger and easier to repair than aclinker-built one and also cheaper. The technique used more wooden nails, did notrequire expensive clench-nails and roves and did not need additional areas of plankingto provide the overlapping strakes used in clinker-built hulls.29"

The World of the Newport Medieval Ship page 51

"Evidence from other north European sources points to the spread of skeletonconstruction to areas as far apart as northern Spain and the Baltic between about 1460and 1480. A carvel-built ship, estimated to have been some 35 m in length and about7.5 m wide, has been found in Swedish waters and tentatively identified as the greatDanish warship Gribshunden, lost in 1495. If the identification is correct, it showsthat, like their English counterparts, late fifteenth-century Danish shipwrights werealso proficient enough in skeleton construction to build large carvels. Naval buildingaside, it is difficult to say quite how rapidly the English and other north Europeanmerchant fleets were transformed, though three English merchantmen repaired at Bordeaux between 1502 and 1504 were all carvel-built.30"

Page 52

Insofar as exploration goes well before Columbus caravels were used and build in Northern Europe and when Columbus sailed, caravels apparently were built in the Baltic too, so I think the list of coastal ports devoid of native built caravels would be meager by 1492, so they can't be a factor behind why Iberians dominated oversea colonization... it's just geography really

Exactly, these northern countries simply were not rich and or stable enough to afford the number of ships needed for such endeavours. And that is not mentioning that the actual Iberian designs were inferior to the northern designs for open ocean travel as the northerners used designs originating from local conditions (as did the Iberians) that made them better under rougher conditions (given the experience with much rougher waters). One of the reasons the Armada wasn't very succesfull in those same waters up north.

 

[ArVass]

No.


They start with two unique "entirely beneficial and good" government reforms.

Will they have unique icons?

 

[Thrudgelmir2333]

Disagree. One of the most boring aspects of EU4 right now is Spain and Portugal colonizing literally everything. The player has to take Exploration/Expansion as their 1st and 2nd idea groups or else they will get out competed by AI Portugal and Spain. AI Russia never colonizes Alaska because Portugal or Spain gets their first. Even AI Britain underperforms in colonization because of Spain's and Portugal's innate buffs.

I want to see more AI nations colonizing, not less. It will lead to a livelier and more varied world that is more fun to play in.

You don't fix that by making colonisation less accurate. You fix it by making it more.

If your concern here is that you don't want every 'empty' location to be painted yellow or blue/green, than the proper advantages should be given to the proper tags to compete the proper areas. Not give colonial empires that never existed innaccurate advantages.

 

[ivj9]

Family Sagas
This is a unique reform that anyone with the primary culture of Icelandic can get, which both Iceland and Greenland starts with.

Our ancient sagas passed orally through the generations tell of adventurous expeditions to a distant and wild land over the western sea. Perhaps one day we may follow in the footsteps of our old compatriots.

View attachment 1226076
If only they had the population to exploit it..

I get that the point of this reform is just Vínland, but if it's going to have this name "Family Sagas", then the literary part of this tradition is FAR more important to Icelandic society than the Vínland footnote. Some bonuses to writer artist spawnrates and/or literacy would be ideal. If it wouldn't make the UI too cluttered...

Also, the description emphasizes oral tradition, but Grænlendinga Saga and Eirík's Saga Rauða (the two accounts of Vínland) were already written into manuscripts in the 1200s.

 

[mrflagio]

And all of that was well over a hundred years after game start. The reconquista itself was not preordained by God as a destined occurrence, and there's no saying that iberian colonial success was likely, let alone probable.

The point is that their state of affairs made it more likely. Iceland just magically gets to colonize because they tell stories to each other. You're kinda proving his point that the situation of a country should determine who is successful at colonization, not just because reasons (in this case, pretty much TAG magic).

 

[pheonicia]

The point is that their state of affairs made it more likely. Iceland just magically gets to colonize because they tell stories to each other. You're kinda proving his point that the situation of a country should determine who is successful at colonization, not just because reasons (in this case, pretty much TAG magic).

Did it make it more likely though? Let's run it back a few thousand times from 1337 and check.

 

[Nomdesnoms]

I disagree primarily with the nature of the benefit. Please see the suggestions I made to replace it with a hygienic mitigation of resistance to settling in 'Artic' lands. That way, it both acknowledges the skills of the country, like Johan said the point was, while also impeding ahistorical explorations and colonisations.

The bonus is solely the ability to colonise. It will be of quickly diminishing value as others get the same exact ability, and it will be forbiddingly difficult to draw any benefit from, as the time window is limited and the necessary conditions hard to achieve. We have been explicitly told that the mechanics of PC prohibit the kind of cheesing that was possible in EU4.

It is not ahistorical, as the point of the bonus is to represent the cultural memory of the Vinland thing. This consists of an oral history that is still connected in significant ways to then-current social and economic practices. It reflects the significant influence of the sagas on peoples who due to material circumstances did not explore their heritage much in the time period - something which conceivably might have guided those peoples, had they only overcome those difficult circumstances.

The idea is that the family sagas suggest to people who already actively participate in long range naval travel that there might be benefit in exploring further. The idea is not that Icelandic and Greenlandic people are especially good at colonising arctic places. There is, as you note, little evidence of their skill at this, even having failed 50% of their attempts historically. The sagas do not sing of cold weather survivalism, but of a historic ambition that might be reawakened. I would find it rather strange if sagas of Vinland help you colonise Siberia in the 1700s as you suggest.

This all is supposed to contribute an element of fun and variation to the game, and increase playability for countries that historically did not get much action in the time period. From what I understand it does not reduce the fun, variation, or playability for other countries. If once in a hundred games the Iceland ai does colonise Newfoundland in the 1400s, you can always restart the campaign.

 

[Zerodv]

We are speaking about different things, 'carvel-building' referes to a specific type of boat construcion that would already be in place on the mediterranean by game start, furthermore the caravel went through multiple stages of development, a exploratory caravel is not the same thing than an early caravel, let alone the lack of the other ship key to iberian exploration, the nao.

Do you have any source on the topic? Because I see no evidence that the Iberians had a trade secrets on any kind of ship for a century.

The Mary Rose was a 1511 carrack, seemingly not built by portuguese shipbuilders and seemingly not manned by portuguese sailors:

Naming names - The Mary Rose

We don’t have a crew manifest for the Mary Rose, but we do have a few names we can attribute to the crew of Henry VIII's favourite ship...

maryrose.org

"Between1416 and 1422 six royal English ships were rigged witha second mast, according to the Genoese model, in which alsothe «flaill" – probably a Spanish windlass – was introduced toease the hoisting of the mainsail117. But soon thereafter, a thirdmast was added. The earliest evidence indicates a date arounda period of 1420-1436 in England118, not long after the earliestknown illustration of a three-masted vessel from a Catalandocument of 1406119."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309677921_Bayonese_cogs_Genoese_carracks_English_dromons_and_Iberian_carvels_Tracing_technology_transfer_in_medieval_Atlantic_shipbuilding

Speed of technological transmission seems 2-4 times faster than you seem to argue for, maybe your argument work in the context of rolling designs but clearly any specific design wasn't hard to adopt and only needed foreign expertise for a generation or two at most, not one entire century.

 

[Thales von Dasos]

Looks really cool with potential for lots of flavour and replayability. Let's hope they are properly balanced so there won't be a clearly optimal "build". Also I know graphics are subject to change, but the available slots look a bit too flashy. Maybe less gold?

 

[skull7879]

no. but give me a few reasons why you'd want it.

Role play! For example, if you are playing as a catholic military order you could turn your vassals also into military orders and have a holy catholic vassal swarm. It just sounds fun to be able to change your subjects government reforms, although there should be a cost.

 

[dbruser]

If your concern here is that you don't want every 'empty' location to be painted yellow or blue/green, than the proper advantages should be given to the proper tags to compete the proper areas. Not give colonial empires that never existed innaccurate advantages.

It's not really innacurate as their culture already historically colonized. It's not like the reform even let's them colonize by itself, they will probably have to do the equivalent of conquering the British Isles or most of Scandanavia in order to actually settle the Americas (in which case it would probably make sense for them to settle the Americas first if they somehow did that).

(heck greenland itself is a colony, so it is very logical it could continue to colonize greenland)

 

[JoshuaFitzgerald]

Love this Johan! Thank you!

Out of curiousity, is there an equivalent "National Ideas" in Project Caesar, or is this the main mechanism through which you'll give countries unique modifiers?

Secondly, if you had to put it in percentage terms, on release what amount of national flavour do you think PC will have? 20-30% or something closer to 60-70, or more?

Thank you for your time.

 

[mrflagio]

Disagree. One of the most boring aspects of EU4 right now is Spain and Portugal colonizing literally everything.

Yeah, because in EU4 National Ideas are implemented in this same meme-style. The solution isn't to give everyone memey reforms/national ideas.

 

[mrflagio]

Did it make it more likely though? Let's run it back a few thousand times from 1337 and check.

Yes, it did. Turns out having good shipbuilding traditions, technology, and centuries of experience make you more able to handle sailing to distant areas.

 

[Thrudgelmir2333]

The bonus is solely the ability to colonise. It will be of quickly diminishing value as others get the same exact ability, and it will be forbiddingly difficult to draw any benefit from, as the time window is limited and the necessary conditions hard to achieve. We have been explicitly told that the mechanics of PC prohibit the kind of cheesing that was possible in EU4.

It is not ahistorical, as the point of the bonus is to represent the cultural memory of the Vinland thing. This consists of an oral history that is still connected in significant ways to then-current social and economic practices. It reflects the significant influence of the sagas on peoples who due to material circumstances did not explore their heritage much in the time period - something which conceivably might have guided those peoples, had they only overcome those difficult circumstances.

The idea is that the family sagas suggest to people who already actively participate in long range naval travel that there might be benefit in exploring further. The idea is not that Icelandic and Greenlandic people are especially good at colonising arctic places. There is, as you note, little evidence of their skill at this, even having failed 50% of their attempts historically. The sagas do not sing of cold weather survivalism, but of a historic ambition that might be reawakened. I would find it rather strange if sagas of Vinland help you colonise Siberia in the 1700s as you suggest.

This all is supposed to contribute an element of fun and variation to the game, and increase playability for countries that historically did not get much action in the time period. From what I understand it does not reduce the fun, variation, or playability for other countries. If once in a hundred games the Iceland ai does colonise Newfoundland in the 1400s, you can always restart the campaign.

I understand the spirit of what you're saying, I'm not an anti-fun jerk . Heck, I don't mind at all discovering an icelandic colony in Canada in the playthroughs. Or Norwegian for that matter. Moreover, I am primarily arguing to changing what the benefit is, not remove it altogether. It's not like I want Iceland to be a boring nation to play.

With all due respect, though, the things being told to me to justify "helping Family Sagas happen" just keep enphasizing this cyclical argument that the Government Reform "is fine, because it's just for fun and it won't be impactful anyway." That's just... not the best argument. It defeats itself. Like I said before, either things will have an impact in the game, or they won't. You can't simultaneously argue they should get this reform and also that it's not going to affect the tag, especially when there's better ways to model the specific advantages Icelandic people would have in expanding in their particular surroundings.

So insisting on not changing this particular Goverment Reform, a unique one at that, just makes it look like a lot of effort is being put to defend making Iceland a specially effective exploration and colonisation nation, with a 100-120 year start on everyone else, when there's no good reason to do so. They do not have the background that would have them think expanding into Canada and beyond would be a natural move to make. As @mrflagio said ( I am not suggesting this, merely comparing) it would make far more sense for "Family Sagas" to provide a cultural benefit, than a colonial one.

Which is to say... this is here in the game just for the Vinland meme. That's what it is. Maybe you disagree, and that is fine, but let's not pretend that is not the spirit with which this was made. They could have given Family Saga all sorts of benefits, but an exploration and settling ability was specifically picked. And that just doesn't make sense when compared to the advantages the Iberians would have.

Just to top it with an example, the first people to colonise Canada after the failed Vinland expedition were the Portuguese and Basque, in Labrador and Newfoundland, setting up exactly the kind of colones the Icelandish would have. They didn't last either, but it shows the Government Reform being made specifically for the Icelandish doesn't make sense.

Edit: Oops, it was @ivj9 that said it, not MrFlagio. Sorry.