Tinto Talks #42 - 18th of December 2024

[Lerrix04]

Yes.

On the topic of the Treaty of Tordesillas a question/Idea came to me: Will the treaty be an Event you can influence? For example, if the Player as, lets say England, would reach the new world at the same time as Spain and Portugal, will there be a big event between the three nations where they can try and influence the Pope and/or claim colonial Regions for themselves? Kind of like how the great Powers carved up Africa in Berlin?

 

[Gurtannon]

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.

Yuan dynasty wasnt that much unstable from the start game too, as they are super strong in start date 1337, and one of the main causes of Red turban rebellions were natural disasters occured one after another which created many unrest and made the folk believe Mongol rule caused that,

But it is still gonna occur every game as this is one of the crucial railroading stıff required to build a familiar and believable world it doesnt always havw to yuan losing against rebels but is should be likely for them to collapse and retreat to north and note that red turban situation should always fire


Same for Byzantines, post Late Byzantine empire succession system was kinda always troublesome , and civil wars wasnt surprising and the effects of civil war are crucial for familiar worldbuilding aspect for me as it will allow Ottomans to cross Europe and Serbia to get to northern Greece, and it is only 4 years away from start date as Byzentine ruler died pretty early, so this is a crucial aspect for railroading some aspects of history ,

Byzantine player should be more focused on getting over the civil war with least cataatrophic result and maybe try to retake their territory later on, but completely avoiding entire disaster is lame lol, if start date was a bit early then yes but it is 1337 lol, devs shouldnt make any disaster content for other nations too if Byzantines can simply avoid its startdate disaster by simply stabiltiy clicks xD

 

[nICE_man]

Government power is the generic term for the different unique currencies that each government type uses. E.g. Legitimacy for monarchies, republican tradition for republics.

Makes sense.
Is crown power the generic term for 'state power' though, shared between monarchies and republics? Because if yes, than 'State Power' would fit better I think.

 

[Oesterreich]

The times of trouble should be a unique disaster for russia

 

[Álvaro Núñez de Lara]

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

Yes because railroading this so Byzantiun always gets destroyed and the Ottomans always comes on top as the super power in the east is going to go down well with a target customer base who is obsessed with restoring the Eastern Roman Empire lol.

Just give it up, its not gonna happen. They will have content to make it difficult for Byz but they are not going to railroad it to force you to lose to the ottomans because they would get review bomb on steam and up in arms in the forums.

I dont even really ever play Byz or Ottomans but I do admit that every few years especially when they add content for it, I do have a lot of fun restoring the Eastern Roman empire.

I am sure however that Byz will have some disaster that will likely end in civil war. But as always you need to give tools to the player to avoid it. I think its a fine compromise and just like in EU4, I am sure 75% of the games if not more the Ottomans will form and will emerge as the super power in the area and it will require a human player to be able to turn it around.

But that is as hard as they can afford to go on railroading that. Asking for anything more is futile.

 

[Gurtannon]

Yes because railroading this so Byzantiun always gets destroyed and the Ottomans always comes on top as the super power in the east is going to go down well with a target customer base who is obsessed with restoring the Eastern Roman Empire lol.

Just give it up, its not gonna happen. They will have content to make it difficult for Byz but they are not going to railroad it to force you to lose to the ottomans because they would get review bomb on steam and up in arms in the forums.

I dont even really ever play Byz or Ottomans but I do admit that every few years especially when they add content for it, I do have a lot of fun restoring the Eastern Roman empire.

I am sure however that Byz will have some disaster that will likely end in civil war. But as always you need to give tools to the player to avoid it. I think its a fine compromise and just like in EU4, I am sure 75% of the games if not more the Ottomans will form and will emerge as the super power in the area and it will require a human player to be able to turn it around.

But that is as hard as they can afford to go on railroading that. Asking for anything more is futile.

1337 start date is already a big blessing for them as they have plenty of territory to sacrifice unlike eu4 xD

If Byzaboos couldnt devastate eu4, as it is super vulnarable there, then the complaints arent justified in this game and they should be grateful of starting 3x the size of Ottomans instead of altering the design approach and historical event (4 years away )applied to every other content lol (fall of Yuan, Delhi, Golden Bull etc)

 

[Wildrake]

Yuan dynasty wasnt that much unstable from the start game too, as they are super strong in start date 1337, and one of the main causes of Red turban rebellions were natural disasters occured one after another which created many unrest and made the folk believe Mongol rule caused that,

But it is still gonna occur every game as this is one of the crucial railroading stıff required to build a familiar and believable world it doesnt always havw to yuan losing against rebels but is should be likely for them to collapse and retreat to north and note that red turban situation should always fire


Same for Byzantines, post Late Byzantine empire succession system was kinda always troublesome , and civil wars wasnt surprising and the effects of civil war are crucial for familiar worldbuilding aspect for me as it will allow Ottomans to cross Europe and Serbia to get to northern Greece, and it is only 4 years away from start date as Byzentine ruler died pretty early, so this is a crucial aspect for railroading some aspects of history ,

Byzantine player should be more focused on getting over the civil war with least cataatrophic result and maybe try to retake their territory later on, but completely avoiding entire disaster is lame lol, if start date was a bit early then yes but it is 1337 lol, devs shouldnt make any disaster content for other nations too if Byzantines can simply avoid its startdate disaster by simply stabiltiy clicks xD

Because the fall of Yuan and Delhi was kinda of a singular chain of events of degradation of central authority. I agree, it probably should be less railroaded but still.
The Byzantine Empire was in a constant state of instability and political crisis.

 

[Gurtannon]

Because the fall of Yuan and Delhi was kinda of a singular chain of events of degradation of central authority. I agree, it probably should be less railroaded but still.
The Byzantine Empire was in a constant state of instability and political crisis.

İf Byzantine was in constant state of instability then the disaster should ALWAYS both for representing a major historical event close to start date and for also representing the overall rapid decline of the Byzentines

 

[crowdemon]

Here is my suggestion, what about the Black Death?

 

[mrflagio]

Why is the War of the Roses a Disaster?

 

[mrflagio]

about Savonarola :

I'd argue that that disaster should spiral out into becoming a full fledged situation if the players handles it incorrectly. Like, with the pope getting his hand dirty and joining the fray once the friar gets power (and with the papal states having the possibility to choose whether being pro or against Savonarola)

which I mean, it would make sense

Plus his involvement with France etc., the Holy League, and so on.

TBH it feels like most disasters are really situations. We're really getting into a few things now from these TT that have overlapping mechanics (reforms/policies/laws, disasters/situations, etc.). Don't feel committed to keeping them all...having fewer systems to maintain is better for the game in the long run, and so far I prefer PC's stuff like laws over government reforms and situations over disasters anyway.

 

[Álvaro Núñez de Lara]

I second the posts above regarding Savonarola. I dont know if the devs know much about Savonarola or just from Assassins Creed, but it was far from being a Tuscany's only problem. The Papal States had to get involved very early on. Savonarlas movement was very much against the degeneracy and lax secular society from the Northern Italian city states as a result from their economic wealth and Reinaissance. Should he succeed, the consequences should not be suffered only by Tuscany but by the whole of the western Church, involving as primary in danger tags northern italy wealthy countries, and with the involvment of countries like France, Naples and Aragon as mediators, usually opposing it but under the right circunstances supporting it for theological or geopolitical reasons, while the populist movment of Savonarola should be spreading like wild fire creating rebellions over northern italian tags trying to institute some kind of theocratic republic.

 

[giveasifire]

Shouldnt the religious turmoil not be Christians specific but also can happen if you have a large number of heritics in your nation? I think if there was a massive amount of percecuted sunni islams in a shiite nation then there would be some sort of rebellion

 

[SaintDaveUK]

Makes sense.
Is crown power the generic term for 'state power' though, shared between monarchies and republics? Because if yes, than 'State Power' would fit better I think.

Crown Power is a separate thing, the power of the Crown Estate, equivalent to Clergy Power and Nobility Power for example.

And even though I agree that State Power is more neutral, I can't bring myself to rename the estate to the State Estate.

 

[Soter I]

So much arguing about byzantine determinism when it could be solved via game rules before starting the campaign. Like, choose if you want a more historical campaign or a more random one

 

[Apukispay]

So much arguing about byzantine determinism when it could be solved via game rules before starting the campaign. Like, choose if you want a more historical campaign or a more random one

I would argue against leaving so many things as game rules, cosmetics options are fine like Byzantium vs Eastern Roman Empire. but mechanics per-ce seem like would be hard to balance in the future and any way the devs would surely only dedicate attention to the "vanilla" way of playing, I can imagine a situation similar with having to maintain multiple start dates.

 

[iClipse]

Maybe already mentioned in this thread, but I'd love to see Locust Swarms as some form of disaster, especially in the middle east and Africa. That and famines in general due to various reasons.

 

[Tavolo87]

Plus his involvement with France etc., the Holy League, and so on.

TBH it feels like most disasters are really situations. We're really getting into a few things now from these TT that have overlapping mechanics (reforms/policies/laws, disasters/situations, etc.). Don't feel committed to keeping them all...having fewer systems to maintain is better for the game in the long run, and so far I prefer PC's stuff like laws over government reforms and situations over disasters anyway.

honestly I agree, I feel like we're almost being bloated by mechanics making stuff unnecessarily complicated. Like, given current laws government reforms are kinda obsolete and serve just to basically pick societal values. Disaster are really just situations and very much feel like a copy and pasted system from EU4

 

[Oglesby]

Why is the War of the Roses a Disaster?

I think that 'Disaster' is the wrong name for the mechanic presented.

 

[DeLii]

I am not exactly sure, but maybe the Ottoman conquest of Istanbul or the defeat of the Crusades could have had a situation or disaster effect on the Christian countries or the participants of the Crusades. Because there is a historical event such as the fear of the Ottomans and for example the succession problems in the Bohemia-Hungary and Polish thrones after the Battle of Varna. In addition, the period of interregnum that the Ottoman Empire experienced after the Ankara War and its subsequent hesitation in declaring war against the East can also be considered a disaster or situation.