Tinto Talks #66 - 4th of June 2025

[786adz09]

Its nice to see the vast range of sects and groups. Especially since the differences are not really seen in EU4, mainly Sufism acts as just events and Aqidah is not explored. However, it doesnt make sense to me that Aqidah and Mazhab are included as the same, they should be seperate choices. Also, some of the Tariqas being both Shia and Sunni, some of them make sense, but Suhrawardi, Shadhili and Isawi shouldn't be Shia (idek what kalwati is lol).

Tariqa, Aqidah and Mazhab should be seperate, and not all of them should be compatible. Tariqa and Mazhab are needed, while a nation can select different Tariqas based on these.

 

[nyetflix2]

We'd like to potentially have the Madhhab and Aqidah schools separated in different categories, because you may notice that we're already covering both types in detail. But that requires some non-trivial code work to make it work as it should, which is why I'm saying potentially.

Regarding orders, we don't really have Catholic religious orders as BBCs, just some Military Orders (Iberian). If, some time in the future, we add religious orders, which is an interesting suggestion, we might think about it. We also had an initial draft of having the Schools as IOs, like with the Hindu branches, but that wasn't really working as we wanted from a design standpoint, so we changed to the current design.

Frankly it would be better to leave out aqidah and the sufi orders and just focus on madhhabs for now, rather than having them all be exclusive. Aqidah and sufi orders would be nice to have but as they are portrayed now there is no point because it's very inaccurate.

 

[Mrkew]

All characters are considered adults at 16 years old, and they can marry at 21 years old. Take into account that this is because of compliance with PEGI and other equivalent rules.

What the hell?! If my ruler ascends the throne at 16, he can't produce an heir until 21? That is ridiculous.

 

[Friedrich von Deutschland]

What the hell?! If my ruler ascends the throne at 16, he can't produce an heir until 21? That is ridiculous.

I don't know why it's 21 either since CK3 lets you get married at 16. So why would EU5 need to increase the marriage age to 21? It's a very strange choice which is historically inaccurate, poses gameplay issues, and doesn't have a clear reason behind it.

 

[Oglesby]

• Am I just old? Is the norm now to be verbose in UIs?
• Shouldn't is be 'The Islam Religion Group includes...' (the religion is Islam, the practitioner is Muslim, right?)
• Again am I just old? I think the full justified text provides a cleaner looking UI.

• Add classification to the subtitle instead of a separate line
  • "Religion | Islam" (if you feel it is needed you can add the 'Religion Group' to it)
• Still unsure what 'Slaves working with Raw Materials' mean? Is that RGO only? some buildings? What else could slaves do?
  • 'Slaved working at RGOs' <--> 'Allowed'
• Just in case it isn't obvious my format for these is "left justified" <--> "right justified".
• Change the Ban Imports to a positive statement (and change from the Yes/No). I would also change the Icon to remove the sub arrow modifier of X.
  • 'Import Wine' <--> 'Blocked'
• I don't like the different direction of a straight arrow for import/export. Might I suggest a curved arrow coming in from the right and landing at the good for import (like it is coming in and being placed) and reverse it for export where the arrow starts at the base of the good and curves up and right light it is being taken away instead
• Don't mix in bulleted items
  • 'Piety impacts country' <--> 'Allowed'
  • 'Religious Schools' <--> ' Allowed'
• IS the 'currently 32.573M Pops' known world or all of the world?
• Move the pop number over to the pop icon doesn't run into the scroll bar
• Are the pops listed in the known country list the complete population or just the Sunni ones
• If these are going to be 80% the same it would be helpful to have the 80% listed together so the 20% is more visible

• Why is label "Primary Religion" is a larger font than value "Sunnism"? Isn't the value the important part? Is the 'label' even needed?
• Same with Liturgical Language and Arabic
• Is there a difference between 'Primary Religion Tolerance' and 'Tolerance of the True Faith' used elsewhere?
• What does this picture have to do with Sunnism?
• The values down the left side feel arbitrarily chose just because there were three things down the other side
• generic background picture (visible at the bottom) also feels out of place.
• Is there something that could be to the right of the Scholar button? Why is there the blank space

• I think a list is a bad way to show the 'interaction' between the different schools.
• Why are only some of the schools shown?
• If you are keeping this method I would at least put the alternating pairs together
  • A view of B
  • B view of A

• Does the 'characters' attributes affect the modifiers?

• I wonder what this does? Or who felt they needed to list the button name three more times

• Again, does it need to be listed three times?
• Is it indicated elsewhere that the piety would change? (looking at the two previous screen shots I am not seeing it mentioned)

• Not sure I like it going from -100 to 100 (and each side having a name)
• does the current piety need to be listed twice (in the first and second lines).
• Change the titles of the 'effects' sections to included that it is scaled and the caps (100 or -100)
  • 'From 0.01 to 100.00 we would get the following scaled to piety'
  • I don't like this current verbiage but something to this fact. (If I find time I will try another go at it)

• I don't like what appears to be the need to restate the titles as the first lines of tooltips.
• Can we please stop losing negative values? If not can I pay you -$50 for EUV?
• As this is a change from extreme to 0 I would change it is
  • "Move piety 40.00 closer to zero." (or the middle)
• Why do we need the check box list failures repeated after the check box list?
• I think that the sub clauses in checkbox lists should originate from the checkbox

• Those look like giant bars to put the list of holy sites names (less that 30% used?)

• 'Progress towards' over 'progress to'
• I still don't understand the need for both the implementation status and date.
• What does the exclamation point indicate? Would it be possible to change the bullet instead of having the bullet and exclamation point (maybe a stylized bullet)

• put the classification in the subtitle
  • 'Policy | Marriage Law'
• if the when implemented list is empty remove the title and the list.
• Still don't like the nomenclature for 'When implemented:' but I follow that these are for discrete events instead of ongoing effects

• Like the title bar
• Don't need the banner any more as the information is in the title bar
• Put the 'site requirements' at the end of the 'pop-type' line
• I like that it looks like the number and the icon is on the goods 'parchment'. Is there any way to have the imperfections (nicks on edges) randomized or maybe have a few more 'options' that can get selected. Even having 8 versions of the 'background' that can help with the current uncanniness of them all being flawed exactly the same way.
• If you are going to require 0.75 Masonry then use a trailing zero on the glass and require 0.20 so they line up like a ledger should.
• Is that really a static value 'Pop Conversion Speed' or was it supposed to be +10%?

Sorry for the tardiness.

 

[BellumIustum]

Ash'arī
Māturīdī
Aṯarī
Mu'tazilī
Wahhābī

"Wahhabis" are Athari.

 

[nswag]

In case nobody has done it yet, I wanted to highlight this suggestion:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/our-mana-is-back.1766223/post-30425777
It seems pretty common sense to me; it’s weird to have a slider for how ur society views religion but not have it be a societal value. Ig this would mean getting rid of the piety-spending buttons though.

 

[aitchrtw]

This is amazing but as someone said, Madhab (school of jurisprudence) and Aqeedah (creed) should be two separate categories and combinable. It doesn't make sense to have only one choice available when for example the Ottomans were mostly Maturidi in creed and Hanafi in Madhab. Also "Wahhabi" shouldn't be a thing in the game. If you consider it to be a separate thing from Athari Hanbali then its leading scholar Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab lived from 1703-1792. At least it shouldn't exist at game start but either way he is considered a scholar in the Hanbali school.

I also regarding jurisprudence, how do they differentiate in modifiers, effects etc? An example would be how different schools see non-muslims, some Hanafi scholars extend the dhimmi ruling on many religions, granting them protection in the land in exchange of jizya, and they notoriously ruled Hindu, Tengri, Buddhist, etc lands with a lot of tolerance. In the Hanbali school the ruling is strictly applied to Christians and Jews only and other faiths must convert or leave.
I would like to see a bonus on jizya tax modifier for Hanafis and a bonus on conversion for Hanbalis for example.

Is there a mechanic for excommunication like the one for catholics? for example when a muslim nation does not choose to enact Sharia, if they choose to import wine and take loans with interest? Historically muslims have fought the Tatars and Mongols even when they claimed to have converted to Islam due to them ruling with the Yasa.

What if they claim Caliphate while there is another Caliph or if they join a non-muslim nation's war against a muslim nation? That should give negative modifiers at least and grant a CB.

 

[LegoYoda7225]

I only have knowledge on Sunni Islam but I see some concerning in-accuracies with the different schools.

There is seemingly no differentiation between schools of theology and schools of jurisprudence:

Schools of Theology:
Ash'ari
Maturidi
Athari
Mu'tazilism

Schools of Jurisprudence:
Hanafi
Hanbali
--> Wahabi would technically fall under this, but I don't think it should be included at all
Shaafi
Maliki
Zahiri (Becomes extinct fairly quickly)

There should either ONLY be schools of theology or schools of Jurisprudence, or have both but differentiated.

For example:

The Ottomans followed the Maturidi school of Theology while following the Hanafi school of Jurisprudence.
Modern Day Saudi Arabia follows the Athari school of Theology and follows the Hanbali school of Jurisprudence with Wahabbi interpretation

 

[LegoYoda7225]

This is amazing but as someone said, Madhab (school of jurisprudence) and Aqeedah (creed) should be two separate categories and combinable. It doesn't make sense to have only one choice available when for example the Ottomans were mostly Maturidi in creed and Hanafi in Madhab. Also "Wahhabi" shouldn't be a thing in the game. If you consider it to be a separate thing from Athari Hanbali then its leading scholar Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab lived from 1703-1792. At least it shouldn't exist at game start but either way he is considered a scholar in the Hanbali school.

I also regarding jurisprudence, how do they differentiate in modifiers, effects etc? An example would be how different schools see non-muslims, some Hanafi scholars extend the dhimmi ruling on many religions, granting them protection in the land in exchange of jizya, and they notoriously ruled Hindu, Tengri, Buddhist, etc lands with a lot of tolerance. In the Hanbali school the ruling is strictly applied to Christians and Jews only and other faiths must convert or leave.
I would like to see a bonus on jizya tax modifier for Hanafis and a bonus on conversion for Hanbalis for example.

Is there a mechanic for excommunication like the one for catholics? for example when a muslim nation does not choose to enact Sharia, if they choose to import wine and take loans with interest? Historically muslims have fought the Tatars and Mongols even when they claimed to have converted to Islam due to them ruling with the Yasa.

What if they claim Caliphate while there is another Caliph or if they join a non-muslim nation's war against a muslim nation? That should give negative modifiers at least and grant a CB.

Jazakallahu Khair

 

[Otto_III]

Weren't Muslim societies somewhat tolerant at this time? I can think of Christians or Jews living in the various empires of the era, while in the modern day they're not tolerated at all. That is to say, it makes sense to me that Islam has some tolerance during this timeframe

Christians and Jews should be Heretics not Heathens for Muslims. Islam did treat those differently, than pagans.

 

[Friedrich von Deutschland]

Christians and Jews should be Heretics not Heathens for Muslims. Islam did treat those differently, than pagans.

They're definitely heathens, not heretics, but the dhimmi estate should be capable of representing the difference by only including certain heretics and excluding others.

 

[Otto_III]

They're definitely heathens, not heretics, but the dhimmi estate should be capable of representing the difference by only including certain heretics and excluding others.

Obviously technically they are heathens but they aren't viewed the same as traditional heathens by Islam. Perhaps there should be another classification TrueFaith/Heretic/Heathen/(Family) or whatever it will be called as a Tolerance for Abrahamics. Even the literal definition of Heathen is someone not of Christianity Judaism or Islam.

 

[Abu Ahmar]

The way the schools are handled doesn't make sense and is very confused.

Schools of jurisprudence (madhhabs) and Sufi orders are totally different concepts and were not mutually exclusive. Someone would normally have both a madhhab and (optionally) a Sufi order (such as a member of the Bektashi order who follows the Hanafi madhhab). Countries did generally have official madhhabs (the only exception I'm aware of are the Mamluks, who treated all four of the main Sunni madhhabs as coequal), but not official Sufi orders.

Sufi orders would probably be best modeled as international organizations or building-based countries rather than as part of the state, and should occasionally form the nucleus of theocratic states like the Safavids.

Schools of theology (Ash‘ari, Maturidi, Athari, Mu‘tazili) were not particularly relevant during this timeframe and I don't see why they should be modeled at all. Wahhabism is just an outgrowth/reform movement of the Hanbali madhhab and should be modeled as such.

Sunni countries should select its own school of jurisprudence from the big four (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i, Hanbali), and those schools should be the primary way that propagate religion works via trade centers (e.g. Indonesia was converted by the diffuse activities of countless Shafi‘i merchants from a variety of countries, not by the activities of a single Shafi‘i trading state that controlled most of the trade in the node).

 

[ArVass]

Oh didn't even notice it, but then it should preferably be dynamic since it does currently say -40 piety, hence, you do loose piety currently.

No it says you "lose -40", which is double negative, so you do gain it. It is confusing indeed

 

[ArVass]

It is correct technically, because it lowers Piety if it's positive (in Legalism) and increases it if it's negative (in Mysticism). It's not very intuitive, though

@Oglesby what do you disagree with here? That's literally the case lol, it is literally explained in the post

 

[Abu Ahmar]

Again, religious schools are a very disappointing missed opportunity to have an actual impact on your society (societal values, estates...)
And religious bonuses are kind of out of place and unjustified, what makes Sunnis better at trading than Shias ? What makes Shias have higher moral ? Isn't it even just a little bit problematic to essentialize religions this way, especially when your game has better tools to represent how each religions has an impact on society.
Also, knowing that the developers have openly stated that they didn't want to make this game about modifier stacking, aren't all these unjustified modifiers counterproductive ?

What makes Sunnis better at trading than Shias is that most of the Muslim world is Sunni, so the same legal system applies in distant countries, facilitating trade with those countries.

What makes Shias have higher morale is that most of the Shia redoubts are in highly defensible mountainous locations full of hardened warrior peoples.

 

[Abu Ahmar]

Just to summarize my thoughts in a way that might be easier for the devs:

The current system is nonsensical and needs to be done away with.

Sunnis should choose between the four major schools of jurisprudence: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i, Hanbali. Zahiri was pretty much extinct at the time of the game. The schools should mostly have good relations with each other and it should be possible to switch between them for a stab hit. Propagation of trade should be based on the schools' control of trade in a node, not countries' control. The Mamluks should have a special feature allowing them to switch between schools of jurisprudence more easily, as they were the only country that treated all four schools as coequal.

Shias should be Twelvers, Isma‘ilis, or Zaydis. These are not schools of jurisprudence, they are full-fledged denominations. Relations between the three should be generally poor and it should not be possible to switch between them. Zaydis should have good or at least slightly better relations with Sunnis, particularly Hanafis, as they're widely considered the most "Sunni-like" of the Shias and Abu Hanifa was himself a Zaydi in terms of his political leanings.

Not really sure how to treat heterodox Shia-offshoot sects like the Alawis, maybe model them on weird heterodox Christian heresies in terms of how they interact with the wider Muslim world.

I don't think Ibadis need to have internal schools/denominations. They should just be treated as their own school of jurisprudence.

Schools of theology are mostly irrelevant and don't need to be modeled.

Sufi orders are not "schools," they're closer to international organizations, building-based countries, or military orders. Nations didn't generally choose an "official" Sufi order, though on occasion this does happen (like with the Safavids, who were a nation that originated as a Sufi order). Patronage of Sufi orders should not in any way be mutually exclusive with selecting a school of jurisprudence.

I agree with other suggestions that the mana-like system currently in place for piety interactions is bad. Legalism and mysticism should indeed give bonuses to the things they give bonuses to currently, but a more elegant solution needs to be found than simply clicking a button to cash in your points.

 

[Sirbab]

The marriage age of 21 makes me scratch my head. I doubt this is a pegi thing is it? What's wrong with 18 which is pretty universal in the west, heck, it's even lower in many other places. Could we get an explanation of this? It didn't seem to cause any uproar in ck3 at 16, is there some historical precedent for the restriction?

 

[bokorthedust]

I don't understand what manpower modifiers are supposed to represent. I thought that manpower came from soldier pops and was used to build units, and then when those units take casualties the pops will lose an equal amount of people. So how do you get more manpower, i.e. more people, from the same amount of soldier pops?

Disregarding the manaesque implementation of this action, the game still operates with a manpower pool even if it is linked to pops. You can store 5 years' worth of production if you don't use all your manpower on building and maintaining your units. This action just instantly adds 200% of your yearly production to the pool, but if you lose men it will still kill your pops, the problem is just the instant replenishment which otherwise isn't present in the game and upsets the careful balancing act you have to maintain between unit building&maintenance and keeping a portion of your production as reserves.