• 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 #40 - 4th of December 2024

Hello everyone and welcome to another Tinto Talks, the Happy Wednesday when we talk more about our upcoming top secret game with the codename Project Caesar.

This week we will go into details about the government reforms and look into some specific ones that you may use or not.

Representing everything from ancient traditions to progressive amendments, Government Reforms outline the shape of governance in a country. Each one is unique, but they often give powerful trade-offs or open up unique play styles.

At the start of the game, countries are only allowed 2 government reforms, but in every Age there is at least one advance that unlocks another slot for reforms. Some specific reforms also add another slot, so they are essentially “free” for that country. On average in the final Age of the game, a country may have 7 or 8 reforms.

Common Government Reforms that are available to everyone are likely to have an Age requirement, spreading out their availability over the game.

Some reforms are major reforms, and a country may not have more than one major reform at the same time.

There will be a diverse selection of reforms in each age, with about 5 common new ones added each age, and another 2 per government type. The unique ones are far more plentiful, and diverse, with over 150 currently in the game.

In the User Interface, the government reforms exist in the Crown’s part of the Estates Screen, as the Crown does not really have any estate privileges…

french_estates.png
France can have 3 reforms, but are the current ones actually beneficial?



Removing a Government Reform currently costs 20 stability, which is a bit cheap, but that may change. Some reforms can not be removed at will though, and are locked until specific circumstances allow them to be removed.

Adding a new reform does not have a cost, but it takes up to 2 years before the benefits are fully implemented.



Common Reforms
Here are some examples of early government reforms that many nations have access to from the start.

Religious Tolerance
For when your country is populated by people who practice different beliefs and confessions. Therefore, it would be prudent to govern in a tolerant manner with them, ensuring their support for the government.

religious_tolerance.png

It will make your country a bit more communal though..

Diplomatic Traditions
From time immemorial our people have favored the word above the sword, giving us the ability to forge lasting relationships with our allies and friends and a reputation as honest and loyal.

diplomatic_traditions.png

For certain types of countries, this is rather important..


Military Order
This is a major reform that catholic theocracies have access to. It is one of the types of reforms that truly defines a country.

The Military Orders were created in the Middle Ages as a militant body of the Catholic Church. Its members are both warriors and monks who take religious vows and are destined to defend and expand Christianity.

military_order.png

Military Sponsorships are vitally important to a Holy Order!



Unique Government Reforms
So let's take a look at some of the more unique government reforms that we have in the game right now.

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.

family_sagas.png

If only they had the population to exploit it..

Three Departments
This is available to any country that has Chinese or Korean as their court language.

The Three Departments System originates from the ancient Chinese empires and is the primary administrative structure of the state. All departments focus on several aspects of the process of drafting, establishing and revisiting state policies.

three_departments.png

If you want laws changed, this is the reform to have..

Magna Carta
This is a unique reform that England starts with, and is also possible for any country with the English primary culture, or if their overlord has this reform.

The 'Great Charter' is a constitutional law that distributes power away from the monarch and towards the barons. First signed in 1215, it is also one of the earliest documents to enshrine the idea of civil liberties, such as the right to a fair trial, and protection against illegal imprisonment.

magna_carta.png

It gives some power to the nobility, and shapes the country towards certain ideals.


Stay tuned, as next week we will look into all the different types of Parliaments, and how you interact with them...
 
  • 202Like
  • 83Love
  • 16
  • 13
  • 7
Reactions:
About the Magna Carta, there is a myth that this law defended freedom but in fact was noble's freedom. It was an act for the nobility, habeas corpus for nobility, etc. So maybe this shouldn't lead the country to "Free Subjects" and "Individualism" but rather Decentralized, or Communalism, i dont know
 
  • 11
  • 1
Reactions:
Are the unique government reforms meant to cover the same space as the national traditions were in EU4, of being mostly (but not entirely) tag-specific bonuses available from the beginning of the game?
 
I don't understand why the religious tolerance reform increases communalism though. Wouldn't religious tolerance be a sign of more individualistic societies? I guess you can argue that religious minorities would be allowed to form communities more, but that's arguably at the cost of the majority community.
Tolerance isn't the same a secularism, religion remains institutionalized but is more religions can operate under it.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
wow im pleasently surprised, i posted a comment in one of the earlier dev diaries that the UI should draw inspiration from the time period and reflect the art and architecture of the age, and i can see that has been done, hats off to you paradox. this is awesome. HOI IV art is incredible for this reason. and i hope you go even further in this direction, modern aesthetics look awful on historical games.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Nah. In Communalism, by definition you are sacrificing your individuality to conform to the identity of the community. Minority groups in Communalist cultures (and those that deviate from conformity in general) are not "part of the community" to be accepted. They are "others" to be excluded and expelled.
Communalism is about favouring the common good over the 'selfish desires of individuals' nothing to do with being homogenous. In fact in the time period the societies more tolerant of different faiths (east asian nations) were also incredibly communalistic, by contrast protestantism is a hugely individualistic religion yet, in the games time period, it was also hardly tolerant.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Its about giving Iceland and the norse there their proper knowledge and skill..
I think the problem here is the icelandic and greenlandic countries start with this, which means they can explore from the start of the game, which is ahistoric. If they didn't have this ability at the start but had to earn it through missions or whatever, I'd be more on board with the idea.
 
  • 15
  • 2
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
I think the problem here is the icelandic and greenlandic countries start with this, which means they can explore from the start of the game, which is ahistoric. If they didn't have this ability at the start but had to earn it through missions or whatever, I'd be more on board with the idea.
Why didnt they?

they were countries/locations established on exploration and colonization. why wouldnt they be able to explore? they had essentially done just that and further than their own locations relatively close to the timeline of the game.

what stopped them wasnt ability. but cost, resources and population. we know greenland has 1.5k pop and iceland 46k. we also know you need to pay for explorers, materials and ships to explore. does that seem viable from a 46k population country in harsh envioment?

Heck we dont even know how viable it even would be tech wise. There could easily be advances, ship designs and colonial advances which basically makes extremely unproductive to use some of the ability.
But at the same time make it possible for Iceland to recolonize greenland if their colonies were to fail.
 
  • 8Like
  • 3
Reactions:
But dont seriously argue to me that they should get a bonus that would apply just as well in Cuba and the Amazon River, or any of their exploration areas. Cause that's how you get e-meme-pires.
In my opinion, it's better than giving it an advantage towards, for example, colonise South Carolina by 1430 by colony-hopping down the East Coast of America.
Johan has said multiple times that will be impossible. If you don't believe him that's fine but then there's no point in discussing it.

The bonus won't apply anywhere they don't have the range to reach, nor anywhere they won't have the population to support. As soon as the main colonial race starts happening there is no advantage anymore because this doesn't make them better colonizers, just earlier ones, and once everyone else can colonize the field is equal. If they can't reach the Amazon before Spain and Portugal, and they probably can't, there will be no advantage in the Amazon.
The difference is that more time and work was spent to make sure these voyages were a success.
Which sounds like exactly what's represented in the game? They can start colonies, but they'll probably fail because they can't support them.

The whole discussion about whether they were bad at colonizing is weird to me. The bonus just unlocks the ability to start colonies - if they started a colony IRL, the bonus is justified. The whole argument about them not being willing or able to ensure lasting success doesn't apply to this government reform, because this reform doesn't give any bonuses to supporting colonies, it just enables starting them. And if we believe the devs, they'll be absolutely terrible at making colonies work long-term. It doesn't matter if the Iberians were better, because this government reform makes no statement on who was better, just earlier, and that was unquestionably the Norse. And the Iberians will supposedly be naturally better in-game because of their larger populations and economies.

The best representation of a culture that explored and colonized but was generally unable to make colonies stick long-term is making them able to explore and colonize but giving them no bonus to doing so successfully, which is exactly what this is. And if the claims of the devs hold up and they won't have the economy or population to successfully colonize anything without a ton of concerted effort by the player, that seems perfectly in line with what happened historically.

If the devs are wrong about the balance and we end up with a Vinland meta then you're absolutely right to criticize, but I don't see any reason believe that will be the case at this point.
 
  • 17
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Also! I'm very curious how populations and carrying capacity work. Say if 1000 Icelanders land in newfoundland, but don't have the population for further expansion. Will the population in this colony rapidly increase to meet carrying capacity? Or how will this work? I'm ignoring the monetary costs and specifically focusing on the population growth plans.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
It seems a bit strange that the Magna Carta, a law, which a few of the clauses are still in effect to this day over 800 years later, is part of the 'government reform' system where reforms can be changed every couple of years.
I imagine there will be some limits to changing it, like having to reduce nobility power. But it just seems odd to have it bundled in with religious tolerance or diplomatic traditions.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Johan has said multiple times that will be impossible. If you don't believe him that's fine but then there's no point in discussing it.

The bonus won't apply anywhere they don't have the range to reach, nor anywhere they won't have the population to support. As soon as the main colonial race starts happening there is no advantage anymore because this doesn't make them better colonizers, just earlier ones, and once everyone else can colonize the field is equal. If they can't reach the Amazon before Spain and Portugal, and they probably can't, there will be no advantage in the Amazon.

Which sounds like exactly what's represented in the game? They can start colonies, but they'll probably fail because they can't support them.

The whole discussion about whether they were bad at colonizing is weird to me. The bonus just unlocks the ability to start colonies - if they started a colony IRL, the bonus is justified. The whole argument about them not being willing or able to ensure lasting success doesn't apply to this government reform, because this reform doesn't give any bonuses to supporting colonies, it just enables starting them. And if we believe the devs, they'll be absolutely terrible at making colonies work long-term. It doesn't matter if the Iberians were better, because this government reform makes no statement on who was better, just earlier, and that was unquestionably the Norse. And the Iberians will supposedly be naturally better in-game because of their larger populations and economies.

The best representation of a culture that explored and colonized but was generally unable to make colonies stick long-term is making them able to explore and colonize but giving them no bonus to doing so successfully, which is exactly what this is. And if the claims of the devs hold up and they won't have the economy or population to successfully colonize anything without a ton of concerted effort by the player, that seems perfectly in line with what happened historically.

If the devs are wrong about the balance and we end up with a Vinland meta then you're absolutely right to criticize, but I don't see any reason believe that will be the case at this point.
It sounds bizarre, because it IS bizarre. I never argued to take away benefits from them, just to change their nature to something more specific and appropriate. Hell, I didn't even dispute that Icelandic people were capable of colonization, just that there's no reason they should be given the same ability checks it takes everyone else 200 more years of naval tech growth to get, especially other small naval-oriented nations like the Bretons. There's smarter ways for people to get their cookie here that aren't as exclusionary and I made that super clear from my FIRST post.

It's just dumb dog-piling now. Like, 15 other people have already argued the exact same points to me about how this apparently "will make no difference" but also that "it's super-important to include anyway", but also that "I don't get what the problem is, its just for fun" and it sounds just as circular and pointless as when the first person mentioned it. Hell, I already got like 200 notifications just the past 2 hours of some apparently-very-chill people, some which strangely have no previous activity in the forum, but decided to log in today to mark *all* my posts with an X, all making the point one way or the other that they do not like what I've argued. This DESPITE the fact I suggested a perfectly reasonable alternative benefit.

So seriously, all due respect, please quit wasting my time with this. :rolleyes: I've already said I don't mind what the devs do, since they're ultimately in charge of their project. I've never seen people get so upset at anything I've said here lol And I once argued that Vicky's combat system wasn't as bad as people said.
 
Last edited:
  • 9
  • 1Like
Reactions:
About the Magna Carta, there is a myth that this law defended freedom but in fact was noble's freedom. It was an act for the nobility, habeas corpus for nobility, etc. So maybe this shouldn't lead the country to "Free Subjects" and "Individualism" but rather Decentralized, or Communalism, i dont know
It shouldn't lead to free subjects, but the rights of lords, of nobles did not lead England down a path of communalism. It should definitely not lead towards communalism.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
It sounds bizarre, because it IS bizarre. I never argued to take away benefits from them, just to change their nature to something more specific and appropriate. Hell, I didn't even dispute that Icelandic people were capable of colonization, just that there's no reason they should be given the same ability checks it takes everyone else 200 more years of naval tech growth to get, especially other small naval-oriented nations like the Bretons. There's smarter ways for people to get their cookie here that aren't as exclusionary and I made that super clear from my FIRST post.
The point is that I disagree that your recommendation would be more appropriate. I'd argue it's actually a worse representation of what this reform is referencing. There's nothing special about Norse exploration and colonies except that they happened earlier than other nations. That's perfectly represented by an effect that lets them explore and colonize earlier but not better than other nations. I don't think they had any special affinity for cold areas, they just happened to be in the north so the places they explored were generally colder. In-game that will be handled nicely by naval/colonial range (assuming it's well balanced of course), so I don't think we need to draw exceptions to represent that in the design of this bonus.

In other terms I'd say your suggestion is more outcome-focused and less process-focused - I think many people would prefer that the bonus represent the process, especially because the outcome should already be constrained by general game mechanics.

If the Bretons had a cultural legacy of exploring and colonizing that existed in 1337 then they should get a similar bonus. It's not about the Norse being naval-oriented, its about a specific legacy of maritime exploration and distant colonies that was still in the cultural memory at the start of the game.
So seriously, all due respect, please quit wasting my time with this.
If you post on a public forum you should expect that you might get responses. I get that dog-piling can get over the top but ultimately you made a suggestion and a number of people disagree with it, it happens sometimes. Suggesting an alternate option doesn't really change anything; people can still disagree that it's a better option.

If you're tired of the debate then just stop participating in it and it'll fade away after a bit - you can't post comments participating in the debate and expect people to not respond, it's basically asking them to give you the last word in an argument. Otherwise if you're enjoying the debate then keep going, it's no more a waste of time than 90% of the other discussions on this forum :p.
 
Last edited:
  • 5Like
  • 5
Reactions:
Maybe this is a bit off-topic, but it seems wrong for their to be 2000 clergy and 5.7 million commoners for France as shown in the estate screen. IIRC, there was probably be an absolute minimum of 1 clergy per 100 commoners, which would be 57000 clergy. Similarly, the number of bourgeoisie should be somewhat higher.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Imagine if with "Can Invite Settlers", you can invite from other countries, that way it wouldn't matter how big your own population is, since you can "steal" from other countries.
I really wish there would be a colonial contract mechanic, maybe in a DLC even. In real life for example the German crown had contracts in which they moved settlers out west to spread their influence and typically there was some type of exchange. For example the spanish crown would pay them. this would be so cool
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Maybe this is a bit off-topic, but it seems wrong for their to be 2000 clergy and 5.7 million commoners for France as shown in the estate screen. IIRC, there was probably be an absolute minimum of 1 clergy per 100 commoners, which would be 57000 clergy. Similarly, the number of bourgeoisie should be somewhat higher.

Maybe only bishops and above are being counted?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: