Please change the name of "international organizations" to literally anything else

[ero_sk]

Why not "affiliation"?

- The Catholic Church is an Affiliation of countries following the Catholic faith.
- An X Crusade is an Affiliation (temporary) of countries joined by the common cause of fighting for the Holy Land.
- The HRE is an Affiliation of countries and free cities under the nominal authority of an elected emperor.
- The Tatar Yoke is an Affiliation of various principalities of Eastern Europe that are subject to Tatar Rule.
- Etc. etc.

 

[pheonicia]

Why not "affiliation"?

- The Catholic Church is an Affiliation of countries following the Catholic faith.
- An X Crusade is an Affiliation (temporary) of countries joined by the common cause of fighting for the Holy Land.
- The HRE is an Affiliation of countries and free cities under the nominal authority of an elected emperor.
- The Tatar Yoke is an Affiliation of various principalities of Eastern Europe that are subject to Tatar Rule.
- Etc. etc.

We probably want to avoid words that might come up naturally in other contexts. After all, a character might be affiliated with an estate, but I can already imagine the headache of trying to explain to a newer player that sometimes when I say affiliation/affiliated I mean the word normally and others I mean a mechanic.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

We probably want to avoid words that might come up naturally in other contexts. After all, a character might be affiliated with an estate, but I can already imagine the headache of trying to explain to a newer player that sometimes when I say affiliation/affiliated I mean the word normally and others I mean a mechanic.

That's why it's important to always use the correct terminology. It helps people understand things.

I like Affiliated Powers.

 

[icsg]

What about something like Regime(s) or Multiregime System/Power?

 

[hardom]

What about Respectfully Disagrees (RDs for short)? Seems by far the most implicitly popular option here.

 

[hardom]

What about Respectfully Disagrees (RDs for short)? Seems by far the most implicitly popular option here.

Btw if you put a respectfully disagree in the comment it means you agree with me.

Agree also means you agree with me. Like obviously too, as are laugh, helpful and hearts

 

[FleetingRain]

I think the problem is that IOs feel less like a mechanic and more of an abstract concept, so as long as it *has* to be visible in-game, we're going to have this issue.

I really do think it should be more "hidden" in the UI. Like, take the Guelphs screenshot. It should say something like "Religious Association", whatever. Then you check the tooltip and there's a paragraph saying "Religious Associations are a type of International Organization. They have unique thingamajings etc". Then you have to hover the yellow text to check the nestled tooltip, in which it's explained IOs are an all-encompassing abstract concept.

In EU4 terms, it would be like having a tooltip for "Diplomatic Power" and then a nestled tooltip for "Mana", if that makes sense.

 

[Braziler]

I fink that "Behavior Orders" could be a good name, but it's hard to translate (or I can't understand English very well). Order means that the thing has a power structure, a regulation and behavior look so ambiguous, which can represent, according to the translator, in spanish "comportamiento, costumbre, funcionamiento, procedimiento" and more. Something like "Ordens de Intendência" to Spanish/Portuguese?

 

[Nostalgium]

I think the problem is that IOs feel less like a mechanic and more of an abstract concept, so as long as it *has* to be visible in-game, we're going to have this issue.

I really do think it should be more "hidden" in the UI. Like, take the Guelphs screenshot. It should say something like "Religious Association", whatever. Then you check the tooltip and there's a paragraph saying "Religious Associations are a type of International Organization. They have unique thingamajings etc". Then you have to hover the yellow text to check the nestled tooltip, in which it's explained IOs are an all-encompassing abstract concept.

In EU4 terms, it would be like having a tooltip for "Diplomatic Power" and then a nestled tooltip for "Mana", if that makes sense.

This is the best one I've seen so far. I could get on board with that if my personal "Carthago Delenda Est" of not having the name appear in the UI at all doesn't get traction.

 

[Oglesby]

I think the problem is that IOs feel less like a mechanic and more of an abstract concept, so as long as it *has* to be visible in-game, we're going to have this issue.

I really do think it should be more "hidden" in the UI. Like, take the Guelphs screenshot. It should say something like "Religious Association", whatever. Then you check the tooltip and there's a paragraph saying "Religious Associations are a type of International Organization. They have unique thingamajings etc". Then you have to hover the yellow text to check the nestled tooltip, in which it's explained IOs are an all-encompassing abstract concept.

In EU4 terms, it would be like having a tooltip for "Diplomatic Power" and then a nestled tooltip for "Mana", if that makes sense.

But what does the Guelphs have in common with other 'Religious Associations'? What does it have in common with other 'International Organizations' other than being an abstract concept? The only thing these have in common is that they do not fit into something else. I say "Misfit Toy" or "Bespoke Mechanic" if we absolutely need a name. They convey more information than IO.

I say having a common name actually hurts. Seeing that this 'new thing' that I don't know about is an IO but I do know about the HRE witch is also an IO so I will assume what I know about the HRE should transfer to this 'new thing'.

(I also feel that the subtitles on most of the shown panels are not needed; do I really need "Building Type", "Unit Type", "Advancement", etc on the panel to know that the thing I am looking at is?)

 

[FleetingRain]

But what does the Guelphs have in common with other 'Religious Associations'? What does it have in common with other 'International Organizations' other than being an abstract concept? The only thing these have in common is that they do not fit into something else. I say "Misfit Toy" or "Bespoke Mechanic" if we absolutely need a name. They convey more information than IO.

Honestly, yeah, I'm working with the assumption we do need the concept of IOs to be shown/known to the player, we could just nuke it from orbit instead (but it seems devs really want their concept/mechanics denominations to be seen everywhere). Similarly, "Religious Association" would only be a thing if there's a cohesive enough group of organizations that may be put under the same umbrella, otherwise it'd just be another vague concept.

 

[Ekyman]

(I also feel that the subtitles on most of the shown panels are not needed; do I really need "Building Type", "Unit Type", "Advancement", etc on the panel to know that the thing I am looking at is?)

The point of those is that you can hover over them and get a nested tooltip explaining each game concept. Both CK3 and Vic 3 do this - basically every element in the game will tell you what game concept it belongs to and will give you a tooltip explaining that concept.

It makes it easier to learn parts of the game through exploration because the game is telling you what things are. It also is useful when things are cross-referenced elsewhere, for example “unlocked by XYZ” might appear somewhere and this subtitle in the tooltip will tell you that XYZ is an advancement and not e.g. a law or whatever.

With the EU4 mana example above, if EU4 came out this year it would 100% have a tooltip for Diplomatic Power and a nested tooltip for Monarch Power or whatever the official name is, because those are vitally important game concepts and realistically they should be explained in-game.

 

[Oglesby]

The point of those is that you can hover over them and get a nested tooltip explaining each game concept. Both CK3 and Vic 3 do this - basically every element in the game will tell you what game concept it belongs to and will give you a tooltip explaining that concept.

It makes it easier to learn parts of the game through exploration because the game is telling you what things are. It also is useful when things are cross-referenced elsewhere, for example “unlocked by XYZ” might appear somewhere and this subtitle in the tooltip will tell you that XYZ is an advancement and not e.g. a law or whatever.

With the EU4 mana example above, if EU4 came out this year it would 100% have a tooltip for Diplomatic Power and a nested tooltip for Monarch Power or whatever the official name is, because those are vitally important game concepts and realistically they should be explained in-game.

I we need to be told what a 'building type', 'unit type' or 'advancement' is while looking at the panel for the item I think there are bigger issues. And if these things that I am calling 'panels' are 'tooltips' then they are way to verbose.

Looking back over TF1 and TF2 (as there are a lot in there) as there are a lot of screen shots. I didn't find a "unlocked by XYZ", but found plenty of "unlocks XYZ" which seemed to be followed by what XYZ was (policy, law, etc.)

 

[Ekyman]

I we need to be told what a 'building type', 'unit type' or 'advancement' is while looking at the panel for the item I think there are bigger issues. And if these things that I am calling 'panels' are 'tooltips' then they are way to verbose.

Looking back over TF1 and TF2 (as there are a lot in there) as there are a lot of screen shots. I didn't find a "unlocked by XYZ", but found plenty of "unlocks XYZ" which seemed to be followed by what XYZ was (policy, law, etc.)

Of course no one should need to be told what a "building" is. But there are many game concepts where it is useful, and if you already have an interface spot for displaying that information and a tooltip system that allows for displaying a full description it makes sense to use that spot for every game concept. It makes the interface more consistent and means the devs don't have to try and guess what things will be clear and what won't.

 

[Bisonmask]

But what does the Guelphs have in common with other 'Religious Associations'? What does it have in common with other 'International Organizations' other than being an abstract concept? The only thing these have in common is that they do not fit into something else. I say "Misfit Toy" or "Bespoke Mechanic" if we absolutely need a name. They convey more information than IO.

They're baskets of tags with unique interaction sets between each other. Or just look up how they were originally described in the TT. I'm not sure where the idea that these entities have no common traits comes from given they were explained to us through their common traits

 

[Oglesby]

They're baskets of tags with unique interaction sets between each other. Or just look up how they were originally described in the TT. I'm not sure where the idea that these entities have no common traits comes from given they were explained to us through their common traits

I have looked at the TT describing IO but will do so again.

Here is what an IO is...

What is an international organization? Well, at its heart is a group of countries that share some common things, and then quite a few attributes that can be defined for them. The instruction file right now is 140 lines long, and it will keep growing.

Here is the common traits between all IO

• The are a group of countries (have members)

a group of countries

• They will have a control group

We have “control-groups” like every PDS game has had since EU1, and Stellaris added icons for quick selects… The one for Project Caesar can be pretty much anything in the game, and if you start as a member of an organization, you get a control group for it from the start.

• They formed in script and are not hard coded

what we have here in Project Caesar is a completely dynamic system, 100% scriptable and extendable for modders, which allows for many of these, and with far more flavor.

• Must be pre-defined outside of the game

No, only types that the content designers have created will exist.

Some of them are "dynamic" and can be "multiples", like an autocephalus patriarchate, or a union.

• Are not playable entities

Only countries are playable entities

• Have a unique UI

All are unique, and show have their own flavorful building blocks

• Have a unique map mode

The mapmode depends on which one you have selected.

• Exist as a design tool to add flavor

Its a neat design tool for the dev team and modders to provide flavorful content

Each of them have more flavor and uniqueness than the hardcoded simpler systems of the path.

I was going to add 'does not block access to other IO' but don't think that you can be part of the Guelphs and the Ghibellines. Though that brings into question about unique Control Group, Unique UI, and Unique map mode. Maybe the "Guelphs/Ghibellines" is scripted as one IO? I am guessing the Patriarchates also share the UI elements.

---

So yes each IO individually can be defined as such: "They're baskets of tags with unique interaction sets between each other [tag within said basket]."

IO collectively is content pre-designed through script to provide flavor for a group of countries that also provides unique UI elements that are not playable entities.

This is why I have been stating the not having a name for IOs collectively presented to the Player as collectively the definition is purely behind the scenes.

 

[Chieron]

I propose "International Organisations", with British spelling. /s

And so I ask: Do these groupings share enough common mechanics that a name needs to be displayed in the game at all? Or can it simply be relegated to the backend, like other mechanical handles?

Probably via some section in country details that needs a heading.
But, if all details-windows state the type of entity, it would be odd, if IOs do not display theirs.

 

[Lug]

Confederation

 

[Ispil]

Alright, I've got one.

Assemblage.

 

[bokorthedust]

Alright, I've got one.

Assemblage.

Asses for short?