Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Tinto Maps #4 Poland, Ruthenia, Baltic Feedback

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
Linbot#6018 said:
At this point we might as well admit that the game badly lacks internal politics mechanics since there are many countries that have powerful nobility like this. It's very distressing how in order to have internal politics in the game it needs to be painstakingly hacked in with building-based tags, for each country separately. However given that this probably won't happen your suggestion is as good as any. Someone should make a mod that tries to implement this generically for more countries though.
Click to expand...
Spoken as if I'm not already planning on adding building-based countries for every single bishop in the world.

What's another building-based country for every noble house? Though it makes me think that the "hereditary administrative division" idea that I had could just be replaced with noble families as building-based countries.

I'd also certainly not call it "painstakingly hacked". Building-based countries seem perfectly reasonable for a noble family representation.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Monty is staring at me said:
Dude, you are seriously not engaging with me at this point.

Do you really, and I mean really think that these examples have merit?

The Radziwiłł case was basically the Swedes setting up a puppet state with a local powerful noble in place. That's your example of magnate families playing an important role in diplomacy? A puppet with nearly no agency that had basically no impact on how that conflict played out? What vital game function is this supporting?

Everything you mentioned otherwise are mechanics that should be within estate mechanics. Leszczyński was part of a succession war. Succession wars will happen, and we already have characters in the game.

CK2 is a completely different game, it's built around characters. We already have so much granularity here. I don't want as expansive of a character system. Imperator was already kind of a nightmare with all the governors and characters that I couldn't memorize the names of or keep track of. We already have more than 300 countries in the HRE alone. You now want to represent important noble families with tags? When we already LITERALLY have the estate mechanic for this explicit thing?

Literally everything you are talking about - parliament, rokosz, civil wars, noble armies, noble estate owning land and spreading their influence and power, different noble factions and characters, all of this can be modeled with estate mechanics and estate buildings, which we know will be in the game. They should not be independent tags. Foreign governments can already support rebels, maybe one day we'll get bigger mechanics where you can intervene in other countries' domestic politics.

There is absolutely no need to spend development time researching all of this and adding all these families as tags. Furthermore, I think it will be just bloat that will detract from the game. How about we ask for good estate mechanics instead? All of the stuff you are referencing would be cool in the game, but it shouldn't be implemented as tags.
Click to expand...
I'll try to answer point by point:

1. I never said "important" role. I said: "Magnates can also conduct diplomacy". I think that the Radziwiłł family with 6000 men-at-arms is more important than playable tags like the county of Neuchâtel with 2377 men or the An Clochán clan with 1396 men. I think that the internal politics of the state are an important feature of the game.

2. In the Livonian Order, playable church tags were added, even though in EU IV they represented estates. As for the civil war, it would be nice if noble tags could decide whether to join a coalition/confederation or not. They would have their own armies in the civil war and you could hold separate peace conferences with them. This would add more immersion to the civil wars.

3. I didn't mean the character system. I gave an example that wealthy families in the Italian republics were tags in CK2. I mean the samurai clan system in Japan. I doubt you'll remember all the names of the characters who command samurai clans in Japan, so in the case of PLC where there are fewer magnates it would be even less of a problem. However, the fact that we have the estate mechanic doesn't change anything. The previously mentioned LIvonian order, I guess, will have a clergy estate and at the same time playable tags of vassals from the clergy estate.

4. I know that all these mechanics can be modeled with the currently existing ones, but I think that by adding playable tags it would be more immersive. For example, the emperor election system in HRE where electoral tags choose the successor is more immersive than the elections in PLC, where you can pay legitimism to elect a Pole. Then after choosing the emperor you have access to the army, buildings and money that this tag had, and not like in PLC, where the new ruler is just a new mana generator.

5. But there's no need to research anything here, these mechanics are already in Japan. Just change the tag names, use one of the maps I provided and slightly change the interactions. Regarding "detract from the game" I think it all comes down to what you expect from the game. I think it's a matter of taste and you can't please everyone. As for the cool mechanics of the mansion, I'm all for it, I just wish it existed at the same time as tags.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Monty is staring at me said:
The reason that banks are tags is because they will be the main/only source of loans (especially in the early game I'd imagine) that countries will have. Their function is not domestic but international. They will conduct diplomacy, fund different sides of wars, etc etc.

The nobility, even the PLC magnates, are basically an entirely domestic force. Their private armies, political power, and land ownership could all be modeled through the estate mechanic, including unique estate buildings, that would give the noble estate private armies (that you could rely on to constitute a large part of your nation's regular army, but that would turn on you if your noble estate ever rebelled against you).

It doesn't make a lot of sense, either for historical and gameplay reasons, for specific powerful noble families to exist as tags - because tags should be reserved for entities that will have a solid gameplay loop and will conduct diplomacy and wars (and not bloat the game even more without adding enough value).
Click to expand...
It's way more satisfying and immersive for the player to interact with specific named magnate families rather than a vague homogeneous impersonal "the nobility" blob.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Linbot#6018 said:
It's way more satisfying and immersive for the player to interact with specific named magnate families rather than a vague homogeneous impersonal "the nobility" blob.
Click to expand...
that's still better to implement within expanded estate mechanics than independent tags. The magnates are part of your state, they're not their own thing, and will disappear with the destruction of the PLC.
 
Monty is staring at me said:
that's still better to implement within expanded estate mechanics than independent tags. The magnates are part of your state, they're not their own thing, and will disappear with the destruction of the PLC.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that the creators predicted in the case of samurai clans that when a province is conquered by, for example, Yuan, the clan will disappear. I think that samurai clans are part of Japan, they're not their own thing, and will disappear with the destruction of Japan. I would be surprised if samurai clans operated in areas conquered by Yuan. If that were the case, I don't see a problem why such a system couldn't work in PLC
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Linbot#6018 said:
At this point we might as well admit that the game badly lacks internal politics mechanics since there are many countries that have powerful nobility like this. It's very distressing how in order to have internal politics in the game it needs to be painstakingly hacked in with building-based tags, for each country separately. However given that this probably won't happen your suggestion is as good as any. Someone should make a mod that tries to implement this generically for more countries though.
Click to expand...
I agree. The "samurai clan" system can basically be applied to a lot of tags, which would be time-consuming to implement for everyone, sure, but hell maybe a mod or dedicated DLC later on it will be expanded to the whole map?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Linbot#6018 said:
It's way more satisfying and immersive for the player to interact with specific named magnate families rather than a vague homogeneous impersonal "the nobility" blob.
Click to expand...
Indeed, not a fan of the vague and abstracted nobility "estate" approach.

After all, Project Caesar is about the rise of the State, capital S, yes? The nobility shouldn't at the start of the game already seem somewhat reduced to a single-minded monolith that you don't actively still need to interact with on a local level. The fun part should be getting to this point later in the game! The nobility need to be physically visible on the map to denote their presence and importance, not hidden behind a menu in the background.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
whats the culture of Kazimierz III considering there are three Polish cultures, is he lesser polish because he rules from Kraków or is he greater Polish because he was born in Kowal in Kuyavia?
 
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Some minor feedback:

The culture name of Pruthenian is a bit weird. The name is a misunderstanding and morphing of the original prūši -> german pruzzen -> latin pruten -> pruthenian. When googling I see this occur in many paradox games, no clue where it originated. Pruthenian is not a thing, there's only prussian, thus both the germanic prussians and the old, baltic prussians have the same name.
It would be nice if pruthenian was renamed to old prussian, or some correction of the sort.

https://research-repository.st-andr...d=73B7A1F2220D752011997583AB0D018B?sequence=1
article for reference

Edit: location names in the Baltic area follow the consistency I would expect of a Paradox game: some are in modern Latvian and some are the Germanic versions of the names, all whilst being under the control of the Germanic Livonian order.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Kotyk-durkotyk said:
No, they are not, they follow the same logic as all other cultures in the region. Severian culture is not there due to the Severian tribe itself, but due to the name of that land, that historically comes from the name of the tribe.
The cultural division is based on the historical political division of the Kyivan Rus, based on its biggest and the most stable duchies that had existed for several centuries. According to this book, there is a strong suggestion that East Slavic identity evolved around the biggest principalities, so:

Volhynian culture - historical lands of the Volhynian Duchy
Halychan - the Duchy of Halych
Polesian - the Duchy of Turov-Pinsk
Polatskian - the Duchy of Polatsk
Smolenskian - the Duchy of Smolensk
Severian - the Duchy of Chernihiv
Ruthenian - the Duchies of Kyiv and Pereyaslav
Novgorodian - the Republic of Novgorod
Muscovite - the Duchies of Vladimir-Suzdal and Moscow

The core territory of the Duchy of Chernihiv is called Severia till now and it is the same cultural ethnographic region of Ukraine as Volhynia or Galicia. And the people that lived there at that time were called 'Sevruyks', they were kind of unique because they got used to live under much more direct mongolian rule than other southern Ruthenians. So it fits perfectly into the game logic.
Click to expand...
I agree, and would also argue in favor of redrawing the cultural map a little bit with this in mind. Halychian and Volhynian can be combined into Red Ruthenian, and the borders of many cultures would need to be adjusted to more closely match both modern dialect boundaries and contemporary principalities.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
purplephoton said:
I agree, and would also argue in favor of redrawing the cultural map a little bit with this in mind. Halychian and Volhynian can be combined into Red Ruthenian, and the borders of many cultures would need to be adjusted to more closely match both modern dialect boundaries and contemporary principalities.
Click to expand...
Didn't Red Ruthenia include principality of Halych only? ( i. e. Volhynia wasn't part of Red Ruthenia I think)
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Dan29067 said:
Didn't Red Ruthenia include principality of Halych only? ( i. e. Volhynia wasn't part of Red Ruthenia I think)
Click to expand...
Looking at it, it seems that you're right. Another name for it might be more appropriate.

Although the Ukrainian wikipedia page on Ukrainian dialects does suggest that Volhynian and Podillian are closer to each other than to other dialects (and I'd argue in favor of either making them one culture, or having them as two cultures but still separate from "Red Ruthenian" or Halychian).
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
Reactions:
purplephoton said:
I agree, and would also argue in favor of redrawing the cultural map a little bit with this in mind. Halychian and Volhynian can be combined into Red Ruthenian, and the borders of many cultures would need to be adjusted to more closely match both modern dialect boundaries and contemporary principalities.
Click to expand...
Sure, agree, the culture borders should be much more mixed at least.

Also someone earlier in the thread gave sources about Halician and Volhynian nobility had some internal conflicts and considered themselves differently because of different political views. So I think this is a good solution to have these two cultures not because of language/dialect, but because of their self identification as Halicians and Volhynians. And they all can share common dialect (South Ruthen / South Ruthenian / Ukrainian).
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
purplephoton said:
Looking at it, it seems that you're right. Another name for it might be more appropriate.

Although the Ukrainian wikipedia page on Ukrainian dialects does suggest that Volhynian and Podillian are closer to each other than to other dialects (and I'd argue in favor of either making them one culture, or having them as two cultures but still separate from "Red Ruthenian" or Halychian).
Click to expand...
Yeah, there is Volhynian-Podillian subgroup of South-western dialectal group of Ukrainian language if I'm not mistaken. I also think that entire Podillia area that is currently split between Halychian and Ruthenian cultures should be either its own culture or (quite bold) included into Volhynian. The only part of Podillia that should be Halychian is around Terebolia but it is already Red Ruthenia area anyway. Also Western and Eastern Podillia provinces are better to be named after cities, as both of them are in western part of Podillia area ( Eastern one includes Vinnytsia, Bratslav and Torgovytsia)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back