Tinto Talks #42 - 18th of December 2024

[SaintDaveUK]

On that note- what about the non-nation nation tags? Like it was said you could play as 'international organizations' like say banks. Will they get special government powers, or just use the big ones for 'Monarchies, Republics, Theocracies, Tribes'?

International Organizations are not playable, they are something a country belongs to.

Banks are extraterritorial countries which is a country type, not international Organizations.

Government Power changes with government type, it's nothing to do with country type or IOs.
IOs can be scripted to use a currency though.

 

[SAmaster]

International Organizations are not playable, they are something a country belongs to.

Banks are extraterritorial countries which is a country type, not international Organizations.

Government Power changes with government type, it's nothing to do with country type or IOs.
IOs can be scripted to use a currency though.

Gotcha- but in this scenario if I'm playing as an extraterritorial country like a bank, what government power would I use? Since they seem like they'd be neither monarchies, republics, theocracies, or tribes.

 

[SaintDaveUK]

Gotcha- but in this scenario if I'm playing as an extraterritorial country like a bank, what government power would I use? Since they seem like they'd be neither monarchies, republics, theocracies, or tribes.

A bank is a republic I think, so it would use republican tradition. Meanwhile a minor holy order is a theocracy so would use the theocracy government power (devotion I think?)

 

[matfer13]

A bank is a republic I think, so it would use republican tradition. Meanwhile a minor holy order is a theocracy so would use the theocracy government power (devotion I think?)

Banks republics? I doubt it since many at the time like the Medici's were family run, it makes more sense to have them be considered monarchies

 

[Gurtannon]

Why should Andronikos III always die exactly when he did every single time you play the game? He randomly died of an illness at age 44. Give him another decade and who knows what could happen? The Empire could be in such a good place by then that even a mediocre 18 or 19 year old John V wouldn't necessarily do too much damage without the extraordinarily devastating civil war resulting from his ascension as a child.

Because the game contains important historical moments for both the fall and rise of Empires, for example Castile and Aragon being married wasnt always the case but it usually happens in eu4 despite there is 25 years between start date and actual date of marriage, and Timurids always get trouble with its subjects when Shah Rukh dies etc

So, Byzantine civil war should always occur considering there was only 4

BCZ if we leave it to happen dynamically it will rarely happen lol as you said he died at 44 years old, then there is no point of making any historical content about it

And making it just pure luck will only increase the savescumming instead of playing Byzantines having time of troubles during and after 1341, so it should be represented

 

[Pavía]

Would something like the Treaty of Tordesillas be a situation? And what about breaking it; in EU4, you suffered no real consequence except making the Pope slightly annoyed with you (nothing a few indulgences couldn't buy). Surely, if England or Portugal were settling Spain's God-Given land (literally), there'd be a more signficant consequence -- maybe enough to qualify as a disaster?

Yes.

 

[Pavía]

You confirmed it for the Hussites, but will generic disasters also be able to develop into situations?

I did not say that; what I meant is that the Hussite Wars were initially thought of as a disaster, but then 'evolved' into a situation while we developed it, as it had an important impact out of Bohemia.

There are disasters triggered by/while an active situation, but not the other way around.

 

[Pavía]

I'm willing to bet the following are disasters:

1. Time of Troubles
2. Nomad Frontier
3. Ottoman Crisis over decentralisation and decline
4. English Civil War
5. Decline of Cahokia
6. Incan Civil War
7. Arrival of diseases in the New World

There's a situation and a couple of disasters already implemented in the game from this list.

 

[Pavía]

What is "Government Power?" It states that increasing it is one of the ways to increase crown power, so what is the difference between "government and "crown" power?

And does the War of the Roses still require that the king not have an heir? This is one of the requirements for the disaster in EU4, and it doesn't make any sense considering that when the civil war started Henry VI did have a son who was heir, Edward of Westminster.

From the in-game concept:

This is the generic term for a measure of how well our [government|e] functions. There are several types: [legitimacy|e] (...)

PS: Crossposted with @SaintDaveUK , he has already explained a bit more in-depth what it is about.

 

[SaintDaveUK]

Banks republics? I doubt it since many at the time like the Medici's were family run, it makes more sense to have them be considered monarchies

Europeans had a pretty clear idea of what a monarchy is, and a bank was not a monarchy even if it was hereditary. Fortunately we can model that with succession laws.

 

[Frigabus]

Suggestion for Hungary:
(I don't know it's a Disaster or a Flavor)

The Holy Crown (Sacra Corona) of Hungary already played an important role in the legitimacy of rulers in (and from onwards) 1337. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Crown_of_Hungary
The legitimacy of a king who was not crowned with this crown was damaged (Charles Robert had to be crowned three times for this reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_Hungary).
If there is a violent change of ruler in the country, there is a chance that the fleeing ruler will take the Holy Crown with him, which will hinder the consolidation of the new king's power.
This happened to the famous King Matthias, as during the turbulent period preceding his reign, a lady-in-waiting stole the crown, which then went to Habsburg Frederick III, who was only willing to return it for a substantial ransom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthias_Corvinus
To strengthen his/her rule, the new king/queen must bring the Holy Crown home with diplomacy, money or war.

 

[AvatarThomas]

Times of trouble for russia could be good

 

[Kotyk-durkotyk]

I cannot think of any precise mechanics, but maybe among the generic disasters there can be purely economic one, connected with markets, goods, prices etc.
It even must not be very severe and complicated, just a minor challenge.

inspired by the Dutch Tulip mania.

For example, can also Bancrupcy become a generic disaster?
Or some kind of other Economy Crisis disaster in case of long-term deficit, high inflation, constant wars etc.

 

[Wildrake]

Because the game contains important historical moments for both the fall and rise of Empires, for example Castile and Aragon being married wasnt always the case but it usually happens in eu4 despite there is 25 years between start date and actual date of marriage, and Timurids always get trouble with its subjects when Shah Rukh dies etc

So, Byzantine civil war should always occur considering there was only 4

BCZ if we leave it to happen dynamically it will rarely happen lol as you said he died at 44 years old, then there is no point of making any historical content about it

And making it just pure luck will only increase the savescumming instead of playing Byzantines having time of troubles during and after 1341, so it should be represented

At this point, why not just hardcode every little event for historical accuracy™ ? Who needs a balance between railroading and simulation mechanics afterall?

 

[Znikii]

A bank is a republic I think, so it would use republican tradition. Meanwhile a minor holy order is a theocracy so would use the theocracy government power (devotion I think?)

Hmmm... there is a case to be made that banks and holy orders shouldnt be republics or theocracy, because that's not how they were internally organizied. Both are more akin to Coroporate organization, with central head of authority (that doen't come derive authroity and legitimacy from republican or theoratic governmental structure), with bunch of dislocated 'franchises' acting semi-indepentatly, but tied and bound to the power&prestige of headquraters.

So I would suggesst to implement a new governmental power specific to banks and holy orders called for example: Administrative Cohesion.
You, the player, as a central authority, would gain AC gov. power by protecting and growing the number and prosperity of your 'franchises' around the world. And losing it by failing to secure your interests (for example if a debtor to bank defaults and you fail to secure some other kind of payment for banks; or if holy order 'franchises' loses privliges and support from their local monarchies.)
You would need and spend AC power on combatng internal corruption and decadence.

Spoiler: and ChatGPT take on it when you forgot to ask for spelling mistake corrections only :D

You raise an intriguing and historically informed point about the organizational nature of banks and holy orders, which indeed diverges significantly from the structures of republics or theocracies. Framing these entities as "corporate organizations" with a central authority and semi-autonomous branches ("franchises") aligns well with how many such entities historically operated. Introducing a unique government mechanic like Administrative Cohesion (AC) could provide a fresh and engaging gameplay dynamic.

Implementation Concept: Administrative Cohesion (AC)​

Core Mechanic​

• Administrative Cohesion (AC): A new government attribute representing the organizational unity and efficiency of banks and holy orders.
• Base Generation: AC is generated through protecting, expanding, and fostering the success of franchises (banks' branches or holy orders' local establishments).
• Expenditure: AC is spent on managing internal challenges such as corruption, decadence, or external threats to the integrity of the organization.
• Effects of High AC: High AC enhances franchise productivity, influence, and loyalty, while low AC results in inefficiency, internal conflict, and potential loss of franchises.

AC Gain and Loss​

• Sources of AC Gain:
  • Successfully establishing a new franchise (e.g., opening a new bank branch or establishing a new holy order outpost).
  • Securing payment or assets from debtors (for banks).
  • Strengthening local privileges and influence (for holy orders).
  • Prosperity and economic success in franchise regions.
• Sources of AC Loss:
  • Debtors defaulting on loans without compensation (for banks).
  • Franchises losing privileges, protections, or resources in their host regions.
  • Corruption events within the organization.
  • Decadence, caused by prolonged periods of excessive wealth accumulation without reinvestment.

Spending AC​

AC could be spent on actions such as:

• Combatting Corruption: Reduce inefficiency and internal losses by rooting out fraudulent actors or decentralized overreach.
• Expanding Franchises: Lower the cost or increase the likelihood of success when establishing new branches.
• Defending Interests: Increase resistance to adverse external events, such as attempts by monarchs to suppress franchises or confiscate assets.
• Strategic Initiatives: Fund specific projects, such as missionary work (holy orders) or financial reforms (banks).

Strategic Gameplay for AC​

Players would need to carefully balance AC generation and expenditure. Allowing AC to drop too low might trigger:

• Internal Corruption Events: Internal factions vying for control, leading to reduced efficiency or even splintering.
• Loss of Influence: Franchises in specific regions may break away or refuse to comply with central directives.
• External Exploitation: Rivals or host nations could exploit disunity to seize assets or curtail influence.

Integration with Holy Orders and Banks​

• Holy Orders:
  • Gain AC by securing royal charters, expanding into new territories, and conducting successful missionary activities.
  • Lose AC through secularization efforts, local rebellions, or political restrictions on their influence.
• Banks:
  • Gain AC by issuing profitable loans, expanding financial networks, and influencing global trade routes.
  • Lose AC through debtor defaults, hostile takeovers, or state intervention in financial matters.

Dynamic Events​

• Holy Orders:
  • "Secularization Crisis"—A major monarchy attempts to curtail holy order privileges in their realm.
  • "Missionary Success"—Franchise expansion leads to significant cultural or religious shifts in target regions.
• Banks:
  • "Loan Dispute"—A major debtor defaults, and the bank must decide whether to negotiate, seize collateral, or abandon claims.
  • "Market Boom/Bust"—Shifts in global trade impact franchise profits.

Why AC is Better than Existing Government Types​

By introducing Administrative Cohesion, this new government type reflects the centralized yet distributed power structure of these entities, which doesn't fit neatly into theocracy or republic. It emphasizes the unique challenges of managing a networked organization, creating a distinct gameplay loop that sets banks and holy orders apart from other states.

This system could add depth and immersion for players, making these entities both more historically accurate and strategically engaging. Would you like me to expand further on how this might integrate into broader gameplay mechanics, such as diplomacy, trade, or warfare?

 

[Balesir]

Civil wars in general could be a disaster. Horde instability could be a disaster. The collaps of China could be one. The mass death of natives after introduction of new illnesses could be a disaster. The instability of a multiethnic country (f.e. Austria Hungary) could be a disaster.

I certainly hope that plagues in general will be represented, and exposure to them should be on contact with people who have had them before where you have not, but that does not seem to be the place of these "disasters", since they are country-specific (and generally more 'political'). It strikes me, though, that the apocalyptic cults and such that often accompanied or followed plages might qualify as 'disasters'?

 

[Alexander Altdorf]

Potentially interesting would be situations relating to how political changes jumpstarted/hindered/redirected scientific and artistic works. I am thinking how the decline and fall of Byzantine empire in 15th century caused a great amount of greek scholars taking refuge in central/northern italy, carring with them works unavailable at the time in western Europe, and also the know-how on how to read certain classics, thus being an important factor in the Rinascimento. Or how the intellectual melting pot in the Iberian Peninsula in the 14th century led to many greek books, which were forgotten in Europe, be re-introduced from Arabic sources via translation into Jewish.

 

[Gurtannon]

At this point, why not just hardcode every little event for historical accuracy™ ? Who needs a balance between railroading and simulation mechanics afterall?

There is only 4 years lol, and it is the most reasonable thing too railroad in the entire game by far for me, as it is too close and its outcomes were too important historywise

If Byz will not guarenteed to get civil war in 1340s, I dont know why there are special railroading for Yuan or Delhi etc as Byzantium was for certain having troubles and was very prone to civil war, and making the 4 year away very crucial disaster not fire by doing simple meta opening things (as there is only 4 years there will be either no brainer meta or it will be guaranteed to fire disaster or worse it will be by luck and just turn game start into savescumming)

Railroading the fall of Yuan and Delhi empires via situation which is guaranteed to happen, but the outcome may vary by clever playthrough, (but I think winning without losing any lands is not possible for both cases) and it should be the case for Byz civil war too

I dont mean Byz should always get rekt in civil war but civil war should always occur at the start of the game 4-10 years maybe )
but completely bypassing and avoiding the entire disaster is really inconsistent design and looks Eurocentric,


I mean in eu4 Ottomans always get decedence no matter what they do, and as a player you cant bypass decadence, but try to keep it low or remove it later,
If Ottomans decadence always railroaded in Eu4, Byz decadence should also be railroaded and the first thing to railroad is 1341 civil war xD
If not it is Eurocentrism

 

[Znikii]

Could be please get a game rule that would obscure certain tooltip information in historical/narrative content (be it disasters, situations or events,...) ?

 

[Wildrake]

I dont mean Byz should always get rekt in civil war but civil war should always occur at the start of the game 4-10 years maybe )
but completely bypassing and avoiding the entire disaster is really inconsistent design and looks Eurocentric,
I mean in eu4 Ottomans always get decedence no matter what they do, and as a player you cant bypass decadence, but try to keep it low or remove it later,
If Ottomans decadence always railroaded in Eu4, Byz decadence should also be railroaded and the first thing to railroad is 1341 civil war xD
If not it is Eurocentrism

This is not EU4. EU4 solves the Ottoblobing problem via decadence because it lacks inherent depth in internal politics not because of some Eurocentric view or hatred toward Turks.

If the Byzantine Empire had a ton of civil wars in 1400, then the logical solution would be to make them unstable from the start rather than hardcode every separate civil war.