https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/tinto-talks-1-february-28th-2024.1625360/
QuoteTinto Talks #1 - February 28th 2024
Hello everyone and welcome to .. yeah, what is this really?
Is this a game called "Tinto Talks?" No.. not really.
First of all Tinto stands for "Paradox Tinto", the studio which we founded in Sitges in 2020, with a few people moving down with me from PDS to Spain. We have now grown to be almost 30 people. Now, that is out of the way, what about the "Talks" part? Well...
A long time ago, we started talking about a game as soon as we started working on it. Back in the long almost forgotten past we used to make games in about 8-9 months. I remember us announcing Vicky2 with just 2 mockup screenshots, and half a page of ideas.
This changed a bit over time, with first the rule of not announcing a game until it passed its alpha milestone, in case it would be canceled... as happened with Runemaster. And then when projects started going from an 18 month development cycle with games like EU4 to many years like our more recent games, the time from announcement to release became much closer to the release of the game.
Why does this matter?
Well, from a development perspective communicating with the players is extremely beneficial, as it provides us with feedback. But if it's so late in the development process that you can not adapt to the feedback, then a development diary is "just" a marketing tool. I think games like Imperator might have looked different if we had involved the community earlier and listened to the feedback.
If we look back at HoI4, this was from the first time we talked about Air Warfare, about 10 years ago, and it has not much in common with the release version..
However, talking about a game for a long long time is not great for building hype either, and to be able to make proper huge announcements is an important part as well.
So what is this then? Well, we call this sub-forum "Tinto Talks". We will be talking about design aspects of the game we are working on. We will not tell you which game it is, nor be able to tell you when it will be announced, nor when it will be released.
We will be talking with you here, almost every week, because we need your input to be able to shape this game into a masterpiece.
Without you, and your input, that will not be possible.
So what about Project Caesar then?
Project Caesar? Yeah.. At PDS, which Tinto is a "child" of, we tend to use roman emperor/leader names for our games. Augustus was Stellaris, Titus was CK3, Sulla was Imperator, Nero was Runemaster, Caligula was V3 etc.. We even named our internal "empty project for clausewitz & jomini", that we base every new game on Marius.
In Q2 2020, I started writing code on a new game, prototyping new systems that I wanted to try out. Adapting the lessons learned from what had worked well, and what had not worked well. Plus, recruiting for a completely new studio in Paradox Tinto, training people on how to make these types of games, while also making some expansions for EU4.
Today though, even though we are a fair bit away from announcing our new game, we want to start talking weekly about the things we have worked on, to get your feedback on it, and adapt some of it to become even better.
However, we'll start with the vision, which is not really something you do change at this stage.
Believable World
You should be able to play the game and feel like you are in a world that makes sense, and feels rich and realistic. While not making the gaming less accessible, features should be believable and plausible, and avoid abstraction unless necessary.
Setting Immersion
Our games thrive on player imagination and "what if" scenarios. We ensure both a high degree of faithfulness to the setting which will give a "special feel" to the game. We will strive to give this game the most in-depth feeling of flavor possible.
Replayability
There should be many ways to play different starts and reasons to replay them. Different mechanics in different parts of the world create a unique experience depending on what you choose to play. With a deep and complex game, there should be so many choices and paths that the player should feel they can always come back to get a new story with the same start.
Yeah, sounds ambitious right?
Which games do YOU think represent these pillars well?
Cheers, and next week, we'll talk about the most important things in the world.. Besides family, beer, friends, and the Great Lord of the Dark... MAPS!
(https://lh7-us.googleusercontent.com/75Gat6Ca0JARLF-eHpc0xp2z3YF0TVk52GfaumAeqLZ6P7oo6xgKIwUNNX9X39fYPtxhQEml5DbEwZNFnEb2S66M9BusrOI4iViiKiE8UzOx_TFSFyA4g2oWc2BC7bADhEKV1NPPQcwiFSchIt2z2mk)
I hope it is EU5.
Today, Johan wrote about the map. It's global. Obviously not Victoria, so that leaves us with the EU time period or the 20th century, aka HoI. Let's see.
How conversations are going and his level of participation, feels like it'd be PR blunder if not EU5.
Actually there is transoceanic travel, but it relies on currents and winds. So not 20th century. Must be EU5.
I'll buy it. :lol:
I'm not sure what they could do with EU that would make me want to buy a version after all the DLC's I've bought for the current version.
Quote from: Zanza on March 06, 2024, 12:57:27 PMActually there is transoceanic travel, but it relies on currents and winds. So not 20th century. Must be EU5.
I'll buy it. :lol:
That sounds potentially interesting. Though I expect its nothing more than a mild flavour thing in practice.
Still. Nice to imagine there could be an EU5 which breaks the mould and isn't just like the 3 to 4 step up.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 06, 2024, 04:50:07 PMI'm not sure what they could do with EU that would make me want to buy a version after all the DLC's I've bought for the current version.
Yeah. I'm if two minds. I still play EU4 and have most of the DLCs. But it IS feeling old. That said EU5 will have to be overwhelming from the start. They've set a very high bar
Quote from: Josephus on March 06, 2024, 07:20:11 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 06, 2024, 04:50:07 PMI'm not sure what they could do with EU that would make me want to buy a version after all the DLC's I've bought for the current version.
Yeah. I'm if two minds. I still play EU4 and have most of the DLCs. But it IS feeling old. That said EU5 will have to be overwhelming from the start. They've set a very high bar
Exactly my feelings.
Ibtemeber EU4 helped my new flatmate realise very fast the level of nerd he moved in with. :D
It came out about two weeks after I moved to England and resulted in me only leaving my bedroom for food for a couple of weeks especially since the room was an en suite. :lol:
Quote from: Tamas on March 07, 2024, 03:23:11 AMQuote from: Josephus on March 06, 2024, 07:20:11 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 06, 2024, 04:50:07 PMI'm not sure what they could do with EU that would make me want to buy a version after all the DLC's I've bought for the current version.
Yeah. I'm if two minds. I still play EU4 and have most of the DLCs. But it IS feeling old. That said EU5 will have to be overwhelming from the start. They've set a very high bar
Exactly my feelings.
Ibtemeber EU4 helped my new flatmate realise very fast the level of nerd he moved in with. :D
It came out about two weeks after I moved to England and resulted in me only leaving my bedroom for food for a couple of weeks especially since the room was an en suite. :lol:
And by en suite you mean you had enough cola bottles? :p
I can't remember the last time I played eu4.
Honestly tend to actively avoid playing paradox games given how much of a time sink they are with a very unsatisfactory end.
I know Vic 3 is right up my alley but haven't even bought it yet.
Yeah it's weird I have been unable to stick with EU4 lately. Objectively it is a great historical strategy game even if it has some silliness to enable people world conquest with Vietnam and that sort of stuff. I just... I don't know. Then again I was playing it on and off for 10 years, one is bound to burn out eventually.
Victoria 3 is suffering under its own weight. They partially succumbed to the "OMG NO MILITARY UNITS" crowd and added detail to the military which in my opinion is just now generating different sorts of problems and I think if I wanted to minmax my military stuff I'd be spending almost HOI-level time on it, which is ridiculous.
The economic and political models are fascinating though (bugs and inaccuracies notwithstanding) there there are two major issues: one is diplomacy being completely detached from those two but the upcoming expansion is bound to at least partially fix that, as I understand. The other, bigger one, is that the game's performance is atrocious. They just release a patch that was supposed to improve just that and early reports suggests it has made it worse.
My main gripe with the slowness is that my main enjoyment with the game is seeing different political and economical situations develop in my country. Any sort of bugs/inaccuracies I could be very forgiving with if I could run through a game fairly quickly and get on with a new game seeing an other alternate history unfold with interest groups rising and falling etc. But it is so. Slow.
Still, there's a great game in there and I have high hopes for the major DLC in May.
I am still playing EU4, have all but a few of the graphics DLCs. It is a great game, but it has significant areas which need redesign.
Trade is too static with the fixed one-way flow from node to node. Colonization and exploration don't work very well as both are too easy and only being controlled by some very basic mechanics. Virtually everything being influenced by somewhat random monarch mana in three categories. No concept for limited colonial wars. Etc.
Yeah, if they had a dynamic trade system and a better exploration system, that would suck me into buying 5.
But the world trade system in Vic III does not give me a great deal of hope.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2024, 01:22:33 PMBut the world trade system in Vic III does not give me a great deal of hope.
On military there was already a clear statement that the new game would not follow the Victoria design. Let's see about the trade system. Unlikely to just be the same.
I think you can safely rename this thread to EU5 @syt.
(https://lh7-us.googleusercontent.com/D4RGBO3N1xr8MhsfaTGT5DNNERZhnjijvnx4KgvFi0c2ZFBuMEvrfiht3yyayH6EloTJWJNKEh1VSCH_LsaJWUASqg1j0thITZivoIM3jtOzKM-IGlJFubDx6UZP-iMTRXmnCWAVsm5uKdmQD5F77i8)
It will have pops:
(https://lh7-us.googleusercontent.com/TX1paNgsYnH4SO0ZWP2NOrbtNa8O20QO9w-Ps-VwjSN8uhMZca-pxt0P2kND5gOnejQfklB6AQpb_C3XH2cB9hF_6sd6GSxbsgygmOmvnUbPCfgWS_BvIq7fPQzBYgy0mYwAccRxR-vFvYfL5jptBMs)
Might still be Victoria 4 Barbarossa. :P
Quote from: Zanza on March 13, 2024, 11:37:12 AMI think you can safely rename this thread to EU5 @syt.
(https://lh7-us.googleusercontent.com/D4RGBO3N1xr8MhsfaTGT5DNNERZhnjijvnx4KgvFi0c2ZFBuMEvrfiht3yyayH6EloTJWJNKEh1VSCH_LsaJWUASqg1j0thITZivoIM3jtOzKM-IGlJFubDx6UZP-iMTRXmnCWAVsm5uKdmQD5F77i8)
It will have pops:
(https://lh7-us.googleusercontent.com/TX1paNgsYnH4SO0ZWP2NOrbtNa8O20QO9w-Ps-VwjSN8uhMZca-pxt0P2kND5gOnejQfklB6AQpb_C3XH2cB9hF_6sd6GSxbsgygmOmvnUbPCfgWS_BvIq7fPQzBYgy0mYwAccRxR-vFvYfL5jptBMs)
The peasants are revolting
Actually I am not very happy about pops. Victoria 3 is crumbling under their weight, and that level of politics is less important in the EU era.
Pops though are the best way to handle lots of things going on at once in a province.
One of the big things that needs improving from the classic EU formula is colonisation and there basically just being this batch or 500 natives in a province you either kill or wait until your colony is big enough and have them join.
"Unincorporated pops" could help handle the situation a lot better.
Same too reformation. Rather than a absolute Catholic/protestant having a urban population one and harder to touch countryside another, maybe with a different language complicating matters....
I can see lots of good things to do with pops.
Though yeah. After skylines 2 hopefully they're testing on actual real world representative computers.
Yeah good points, but I think pops work better with a turn based game.
Yeah, not happy about pops. We'll see.
Is Johan making a game with pops?
I guess it's an EU Vickie hybrid. Throw in some CK too since start date seems earlier
Maybe a game to cover 500 BCE to 2000 CE? :P
Quote from: Tamas on March 13, 2024, 01:34:39 PMActually I am not very happy about pops. Victoria 3 is crumbling under their weight, and that level of politics is less important in the EU era.
It does not appear they are tracking professions and other details. Just social class, culture and religion. That should reduce the burden on the engine. It will allow more finely tuned conversion and migration.
Quote from: Syt on March 14, 2024, 07:27:14 AMMaybe a game to cover 500 BCE to 2000 CE? :P
They just did that with Millennia 😁
It looks like they will go for an earlier start, c.1340. Which is fine, but we can expect little interesting play in the 17th and 18th centuries as a consequence.
I hope that one day they will announce a 1648-1815 or 1688-1815 game so that intersting period is covered properly.
I'm not sure what to make of that level of detail on the map.
Quote from: garbon on March 21, 2024, 03:25:34 AMI'm not sure what to make of that level of detail on the map.
The only mechanic that I can think of that might use that level of detail is army movement and combat/occupation.
But due to the whack-a-mole style of combat and the necessity to carpet siege this would be very tedious if they keep the general behaviour of armies from EU4.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 21, 2024, 03:15:10 AMIt looks like they will go for an earlier start, c.1340. Which is fine, but we can expect little interesting play in the 17th and 18th centuries as a consequence.
I hope that one day they will announce a 1648-1815 or 1688-1815 game so that intersting period is covered properly.
An earlier start date means we never see some of the defining features of the current EU4 time period. It would be even more alt history.
Quote from: Zanza on March 21, 2024, 02:16:07 PMAn earlier start date means we never see some of the defining features of the current EU4 time period. It would be even more alt history.
I can only blame the Byzantine lobby for this <_<
Quote from: Zanza on March 21, 2024, 02:14:30 PMQuote from: garbon on March 21, 2024, 03:25:34 AMI'm not sure what to make of that level of detail on the map.
The only mechanic that I can think of that might use that level of detail is army movement and combat/occupation.
But due to the whack-a-mole style of combat and the necessity to carpet siege this would be very tedious if they keep the general behaviour of armies from EU4.
Yeah, that's my thinking.
I seem to remember Imperator having a comparable province scale but I can't remember how occupation and sieges work there.
IIRC in Imperator you only really need to occupy the capital of each area (and maybe any forts if they are not in the capital).
Very few forts as well. IIRC there was a lot of devastation if an enemy moved through a territory.
Quote from: Zanza on March 21, 2024, 02:14:30 PMQuote from: garbon on March 21, 2024, 03:25:34 AMI'm not sure what to make of that level of detail on the map.
The only mechanic that I can think of that might use that level of detail is army movement and combat/occupation.
But due to the whack-a-mole style of combat and the necessity to carpet siege this would be very tedious if they keep the general behaviour of armies from EU4.
The diaries indicate they have moved away from a province level abstraction to having a number of locations. Those locations imply that the things that you can build within the location will probably depend on a variety of factors.
But I hope that means is a more in-depth game for building, rather than having the same generic buildings in each province.
Some promising comments on how population, estates and deliberative assemblies (both EU4 diet and parliament mechanics) will fit together. Also comments on laws and reforms (unclear what the difference is), society value sliders (instead of national ideas?) and cabinets (mix between the EU4 advisors and CK3 councils). The much asked for internal politics?
Start date is 1337: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/why-did-we-pick-1337-for-the-start-year.1642258/
Which is fine, if the end date is mid/late 16th century and they are splitting up the old EU into two games.
Not so fine if the intent is to cover 17th and 18th centuries.
I read their reasons why and to me many of these stand out more as challenges in such a start date and reasons why not to choose it.
Though Greenland...hmm...That they specifically mention this makes me wonder how they'll handle colonisation. I have a slim hope that maybe they're going to address the simple paint the map your colour approach of previous games?- Make it so colonies failing and dying is something that happens, money and ships are what you need not 'colonists', colonies aren't automatic profit makers and more usually lose you money (in exchange for prestige amongst nations that care about colonies?- at this star date none)
The HRE state too...really implies there might be a lot more of a political than map focussed angle?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 23, 2024, 07:46:06 PMStart date is 1337: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/why-did-we-pick-1337-for-the-start-year.1642258/
Which is fine, if the end date is mid/late 16th century and they are splitting up the old EU into two games.
Not so fine if the intent is to cover 17th and 18th centuries.
Picking 1337 is very Muskian.
If the game design goal is more sandbox with random outcomes, I guess that start date is fine. Maybe have a second start date in 1492 or so for more historical outcomes in the second half of the game?
Johan also said on the forums that the goal is that the game is at release as rich in features and content as EU4 is with all its expansions. :hmm:
Quote from: Syt on March 24, 2024, 04:56:27 AMJohan also said on the forums that the goal is that the game is at release as rich in features and content as EU4 is with all its expansions. :hmm:
Most of the recent expansions were just mission trees, events and graphics assets. Maybe they have a way to migrate that content to the new game with little effort?
Quote from: Syt on March 24, 2024, 04:56:27 AMJohan also said on the forums that the goal is that the game is at release as rich in features and content as EU4 is with all its expansions. :hmm:
I do get vibes of Magna Mundi when I read through that forum and his posts. All like it will solve all the problems that have been baked into the series over time.
Quote from: Zanza on March 24, 2024, 05:02:35 AMQuote from: Syt on March 24, 2024, 04:56:27 AMJohan also said on the forums that the goal is that the game is at release as rich in features and content as EU4 is with all its expansions. :hmm:
Most of the recent expansions were just mission trees, events and graphics assets. Maybe they have a way to migrate that content to the new game with little effort?
He said he doesn't like the EU4 mission trees and that they will handle that kind of thing differently.
Quote from: garbon on March 24, 2024, 05:03:16 AMQuote from: Syt on March 24, 2024, 04:56:27 AMJohan also said on the forums that the goal is that the game is at release as rich in features and content as EU4 is with all its expansions. :hmm:
I do get vibes of Magna Mundi when I read through that forum and his posts. All like it will solve all the problems that have been baked into the series over time.
It feels like he's trying to make "the ultimate map game" - which, I guess, is fair enough. But maybe also have a look at stuff that can be *removed* :P
I guess there's no "pick your own start date" either.
Quote from: garbon on March 24, 2024, 05:03:16 AMQuote from: Syt on March 24, 2024, 04:56:27 AMJohan also said on the forums that the goal is that the game is at release as rich in features and content as EU4 is with all its expansions. :hmm:
I do get vibes of Magna Mundi when I read through that forum and his posts. All like it will solve all the problems that have been baked into the series over time.
Same. Enlarging the scope in every dimension will be tough to deliver.
Quote from: Syt on March 24, 2024, 04:56:27 AMJohan also said on the forums that the goal is that the game is at release as rich in features and content as EU4 is with all its expansions. :hmm:
Are they stepping away from the continuous income flow DLC overload model?
Quote from: Josephus on March 24, 2024, 05:22:57 AMI guess there's no "pick your own start date" either.
Why?
Surely that shouldn't be too hard to code? Its basically a save with the world as it actually was at points in history no?
Quote from: Josquius on March 24, 2024, 08:14:23 AMQuote from: Josephus on March 24, 2024, 05:22:57 AMI guess there's no "pick your own start date" either.
Why?
Surely that shouldn't be too hard to code? Its basically a save with the world as it actually was at points in history no?
They moved away from that in games as it was a lot of work for limited gain (aka most people went to earliest start).
Have we considered one thing? Since this is a Tinto project, maybe it is considered a bit of a quirky hardcore project like Victoria 3 and it is not meant to become the next flagship game of Paradox.
Well, Johan is certainly not one to design for mass market appeal. :P
Though I guess it's true that EU is no longer the flagship? Replaced by CK, HOI, Stellaris, all of which are a bit more approachable, I guess (maybe not HOI)?
Going by the peak of the last 24h, EU4 has 23k players, CK3 has 28k, Stellaris 21k, HoI4 has 65k, Victoria 3 has 11k players. Paradox considers the first four evergreens with continuous revenue potential. I am a bit surprised that Stellaris isn't higher to be honest.
Quote from: Zanza on March 24, 2024, 10:15:26 AMGoing by the peak of the last 24h, EU4 has 23k players, CK3 has 28k, Stellaris 21k, HoI4 has 65k, Victoria 3 has 11k players. Paradox considers the first four evergreens with continuous revenue potential. I am a bit surprised that Stellaris isn't higher to be honest.
where do you find this info?
What's surprising with EU4 is that we are , despite the DLCs, talking about a 10 year old game. That' s quite impressive.
Stellaris is getting fairly old too, about to turn 8 years. HoI4 is also the same age, though I guess there are enough tankies/wehraboos to keep the player numbers up? :D
Quote from: Josephus on March 25, 2024, 05:53:59 AMQuote from: Zanza on March 24, 2024, 10:15:26 AMGoing by the peak of the last 24h, EU4 has 23k players, CK3 has 28k, Stellaris 21k, HoI4 has 65k, Victoria 3 has 11k players. Paradox considers the first four evergreens with continuous revenue potential. I am a bit surprised that Stellaris isn't higher to be honest.
where do you find this info?
What's surprising with EU4 is that we are , despite the DLCs, talking about a 10 year old game. That' s quite impressive.
My figures were from steamdb.info.
Quote from: Josquius on March 24, 2024, 08:14:23 AMQuote from: Syt on March 24, 2024, 04:56:27 AMJohan also said on the forums that the goal is that the game is at release as rich in features and content as EU4 is with all its expansions. :hmm:
Are they stepping away from the continuous income flow DLC overload model?
Quote from: Josephus on March 24, 2024, 05:22:57 AMI guess there's no "pick your own start date" either.
Why?
Surely that shouldn't be too hard to code? Its basically a save with the world as it actually was at points in history no?
It is actually a lot of work to ensure some form of historical start for each possible date. That is why they are abandoning it.
They should at least allow modders to define a different start date. That's work that modders can do very well.
I hope it won't be just another map painter and attempt to focus more on the simulation aspect, but I doubt that's the audience these days. :P
Quote from: Syt on March 25, 2024, 12:58:31 PMI hope it won't be just another map painter and attempt to focus more on the simulation aspect, but I doubt that's the audience these days. :P
Based on what Johan has been saying, that is what they are attempting to do. The fact that they have 2700+ locations in the game indicates they are moving away from the paint all provinces gameplay.
Just means a world conquest with Ryukyu is even more tedious than before.
All of this chat is just going to make me more disappointed in myself when I buy it on release :(
Well, I will probably get it, but I also expect I won't play it much. I put a lot of time into Vic3 and CK3, and even (by comparison) Stellaris.
Actually, going by Steam, I have played Age of Wonders 4 over three times as much as EU4 (280 vs. 85 hours). (CK3 has 600 hours, Stellaris 400 hours, and Victoria 3 800 hours - though in the latter case I'm guessing 100-200 were observer games to check performance, how mods affect game etc.). I still suck at all these games, though. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2024, 01:00:55 PMQuote from: Syt on March 25, 2024, 12:58:31 PMI hope it won't be just another map painter and attempt to focus more on the simulation aspect, but I doubt that's the audience these days. :P
Based on what Johan has been saying, that is what they are attempting to do. The fact that they have 2700+ locations in the game indicates they are moving away from the paint all provinces gameplay.
That's what I am hoping for but if you look at Imperator it has an insane number of provinces yet it is absolutely a genuine map-painter, or at least was when released. The pre-release stream of it when Johan was playing Egypt just burned into my mind and I know I referenced it often. Johan totally got lost in the "gameplay loop" of clicking stuff so he can continue conquering which let him click stuff to resume conquering etc, the community guy next to him was desperately trying to introduce some historical or narrative context into the clickfest but Johan was too busy to oblige.
Then again I also remember many years ago Johan declaring that he hates the ancient era so hopefully it was the case of him not giving a damn about the era.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2024, 01:00:55 PMQuote from: Syt on March 25, 2024, 12:58:31 PMI hope it won't be just another map painter and attempt to focus more on the simulation aspect, but I doubt that's the audience these days. :P
Based on what Johan has been saying, that is what they are attempting to do.
But if that's the goal, expanding the timeline isn't going to improve simulationism.
I dunno. I guess there's the question for the historians. Where were the big 'mindset' shifts in history where the people of one year wouldn't be able to comprehend those of another.
It certainly seems the early start date interferes with at least one of those. There's another later too.
The problem is CK2 was following CK and was much better than CK right at launch. CK3 on the other hand...I still prefer CK2.
That's the problem with revenue by dlc. The new sequel of a game always has less features than the last iteration of the previous game.
In any regards I've been burned too many times, I finally learned my lesson. If I buy another PD game it'll be long after launch.
Quote from: Valmy on March 26, 2024, 10:11:17 PMThe problem is CK2 was following CK and was much better than CK right at launch. CK3 on the other hand...I still prefer CK2.
I can't go back to CK2. The UI hasn't aged well, and call me shallow, but I miss the 3d rulers and more engaging map. (Not to mention kinda half baked systems that were introduced and then never really updated, like merchant republics, or OP systems like bloodlines and secret societies.) YMMV :)
That said, I think there's a reason why I play other games over EU4. (And keep in mind, that's personal preference, YMMV substantially :P )
- CK3: Sure, you can play it as a mappainter. But you can also lean more into the RP aspects. Or you can set your own goals. And it's a game where if you have a streak of bad luck and lose some of your lands you can often still make a comeback.
- Stellaris: Sure, at the end it's mostly a map painter with a sagging mid/late game. However, the customization options the game gives you in creating your faction and playing to its character keep me quite interested (incidentally, same reason why I got hooked on AoW4 when it came out).
- Victoria 3: Sure, it's a game about map painting (if not directly through conquest/subjects then at least through markets), but at least it's attempting to somewhat model the societal change of the 19th and early 20th century, giving you some freedom in what you want to do. Communist Britain? Theocratic American Monarchy? Progressive liberal Austria-Hungary? You're welcome to try. It's flawed, but I enjoy it.
EU4 doesn't click for me in nearly the same way.
If EU5 moves more towards that direction, then maybe I can get back into it?
I never really got into CK3, despite having played CK2/CK a lot. Not really sure why it does not click for me. Maybe I need to try again. The area which would interest me most, the HRE has no real own content though. Makes it a bit bland.
Stellaris is mainly about the early exploration phase for me and it is better there than the other games. But I think diplomacy in Stellaris sucks and the snowballing is too severe and that takes the fun in midgame.
Victoria with the never-ending construction cycle and strong bias towards liberal reforms feels repetitive to me.
EU4 has fairly different starts, quite a few sensible mechanics. I still play it more than the others.
For what it's worth Victoria 3 is far less the "you CAN and definitely SHOULD build a 20th century Swedish social democracy ASAP, the game won't challenge it" thing that Vicky 2 was. Maybe the powergaming meta requires you to go full liberal but I found with some countries it's easier to keep uneducated apolitical masses rather than dealing with them being uppity. Or at the very least being slow and measured about lifting them up. You don't want to a starving pop having political ideas of its own.
OPB had a pretty successful Persia game keeping the unwashed masses uneducated. It's not the optimal playstyle, but very possible.
Some promising new anti-blobbing mechanics based on control, proximity and maritime presence in the current dev diary. Let's see how it works.
Current dev diary sounds like the economy and trade system is similar to Victoria 3. Not convinced that fits for EU5.
From the latest post. Maybe "a bit" too granular for a game supposed to span 500 years? :P
(https://lh7-us.googleusercontent.com/h_Uu_FZ1_xAAsG_36S0nz-4DEdR_gFQ7Jzd5wKCIMFcUW5YfQvEhN58LNAedWFUIXUb8OBl3_5U-tJD8w01KS4lHWkVdV1lQXn83jFDnEw-Cjc8nx16PRkhro6XrR79VqshTn8rvqc7zdcOc26VwRws)
QuoteFor example, building a light ship in the Age of Renaissance requires Naval Supplies, Lumber, Weaponry, Copper, Tin, and Metalworks, while moving your capital requires Paper, Books, Stone, Lumber, Marble, and gold.
QuoteBuildings are rather important in Project Caesar. There are hundreds of different types of buildings, some can only be built in rural locations, and some require a town or city. Some can only be built in ports, and some can only be built in other countries. Some you can only build when there is no owner of a location. Lots of buildings are unique to cultures, regions, religions, or even to specific tags.
Some buildings can only have 1 level, some have a fixed cap, and some have a cap that scales with the population or development, and so on.
Buildings can also be categorized into three different categories: buildings that can produce goods, buildings that only give effects, and buildings that can only be built by the estates. Those pure estates usually have a drawback to them as well, and it's not easy to remove them.
QuoteSo what about producing buildings then? This is where the truly fun parts of the economy start. Project Caesar has a large amount of different goods. We currently have about 70 different ones that have different needs, some are needed for the military, some are needed solely by pops, some are needed for buildings, and so on.
QuoteAs an example, a Castle does not produce any goods, but it still requires Stone, Metalworks, Weaponry, and Tar to function, and if it does not get those goods, then the Castle will not function properly. The effectiveness of a building is based on the lowest available percentage of goods present, and it will only purchase and use required materials in that percentage required. If the market cannot supply enough resources, then it will not work.
Plus, of course, pops to operate buildings. So basically the Vic3 economy heavily expanded? Call me skeptical re: balance, AI being able to handle it, performance ...
I've mentally written this one off. I'll be pleasantly surprised if all this results in an enjoyable game..
Worryingly, Johan said most players will be fine to just leave all that automated. :D
Now we only need detailed characters and dynasties and we can have a single game spanning 867 to 1936!
Yeah, what's the point of detailed production chains in an EU game?
In Victoria 3, sure, the time period requires heavy internal focus. But the EU period? I guess Johan is going all-in on this one. If he manages to pull it off he'll be restored as one of the great strategy game creators, but if he creates another dud after Imperator 1.0, well I don't think there's coming back from that.
Not convinced of the design. Anno and EU do not seem to mix well...
Some limited goods production does make sense for trade. And making it so you can't build a navy if you've no access to wood is common sense.
But it does seem they've overdone it quite a bit.
I am all for more complex game. I just hope it works.
One of the challenges of EU era games is to reasonably model European colonization efforts and early modern trading networks, which involved exploiting and distributing key commodities. Past EU games struggled to get these dynamics rights, including things like the development of the early modern grain trade, the struggle to secure timber for shipbuilding, the development of the Asian spice and luxury trade, the economics of the triangle trade etc. So the general idea of more formally modelling production and trade dynamics is sound. Why that requires formally modelling four distinct production methods for paper is less clear.
Thinking about it a bit more, it might make sense. Two big complaints about EU4 is trade and not much to do in peacetime. This might solve both.
Quote from: Syt on April 25, 2024, 01:01:57 AMFrom the latest post. Maybe "a bit" too granular for a game supposed to span 500 years? :P
(https://lh7-us.googleusercontent.com/h_Uu_FZ1_xAAsG_36S0nz-4DEdR_gFQ7Jzd5wKCIMFcUW5YfQvEhN58LNAedWFUIXUb8OBl3_5U-tJD8w01KS4lHWkVdV1lQXn83jFDnEw-Cjc8nx16PRkhro6XrR79VqshTn8rvqc7zdcOc26VwRws)
Finest rage paper...resistant to the passage of time. None of your modern wood pulp.
Ok that is kind of an obscure reference :lol:
(https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.yhXPRrToBfKP_PkmyD9f_wHaDM&pid=Api)
Don't write angry.
Never mind EU5, this is basically Vickie IV (in an earlier, pre Vickie era).
Other important aspects
Every building requires employed pops to function as well, and those that require "upper class" pops like burghers, clergy, and nobles, also increase the potential for them in the location, making pops slowly promoted. This can be slightly awkward as powerful nobles or clergy construct more buildings that make them more numerous and powerful.
Producing buildings that are not profitable will be closed, and pops will work in other buildings, however, you can always subsidize a building if you require the goods or other benefits it gives.
Speaking of profit. The profit of a building is added to the Tax Base of a location, split among the power of the population in the location.
You can always close and open a building, if you want to manipulate prices, or if you want your pops to work with other things, and you don't want to destroy a building permanently.
Also this game seems like it's going to be super ambitious. I think it may be a couple years away from full development.
Being so focused on production and manufacturing seems a little anachronistic. I mean I know that kind of thing did happen in that era but it was mostly crafts people and guilds and such not manufacturing buildings. A game in this era should be more focused on trade, as the EU series has historically been.
Not a fan so far.
It's a good point. Will the model of how things are produced within buildings change with technology? That would be cool.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 29, 2024, 01:17:01 PMIt's a good point. Will the model of how things are produced within buildings change with technology? That would be cool.
I feel like it would need to - and to an extent also your control. But it's always the challenge of EU4 is that it covers late medieval to Napoleonic and I'm not sure you can really do both well. I solve this by almost always getting bored by/never playing past 1600 or so :lol: :ph34r:
Although again that goes to the wider point of there being a western/great divergence teleology to EU4.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/tinto-talks-10-1st-of-may-2024.1673745/
(https://forumcontent.paradoxplaza.com/data/thfeature/feature_backgrounds/3/3027.jpg)
(https://lh7-us.googleusercontent.com/IND8u3KEluhwiu85x22WKoYosHcca0_GsOSQ4X3fkAUkxE5HJCluAOPf7Ndp1AOWs3SVq7COQGwn1pqsALYsFUh-JlKW2BQotToqtBQxdVQ_8qTRUrqrkEuG-tpOFKXY3jY2HcqGPDmkFV9dvc6vECg)
(https://lh7-us.googleusercontent.com/DmG80vDbiHg8Lz7za7ZygAL03fx0xES5mMUIPqvzcxicW20awRNeO77099TOeRNkoYxwYrsaiRThpDn_XPNE_mq3uP_Zz8YA5JbLICIemjYwsGEPRf3de9P8CXNI1JGpztSAT1PAPYjSUzinUKaVEQQ)
(https://lh7-us.googleusercontent.com/J88wyLaCAImVXdvbW7e4YTks4qTitOU--vFt8_SKhlFVS3LRU8H1uSurnqo-L28kbzZXSFTBoz23S9TT49UkpqMVps6KBNUSfw1TCRW2Wh8UIurvvmkxz0ufWPA3ZRugdLJtv2cRUSbrmOkyJ2NdojE)
(https://lh7-us.googleusercontent.com/N_IzZLynmh-xb_S63dKE5-bOopZ1LQo18PP8xrozl4i5Dpt78lHd2Z0gmu1gKrXelHOvD0weruSAlJYpUfks5RKKNw-U3J-mxFMV1XX88ULIXpfadMP6VBcm3FU70pb9pbyNOCxC_ewWSFWkOQcm3As)
(https://lh7-us.googleusercontent.com/ZZti8FBtbpZfZ0U5VjmqbP2fguK-coTm8FO0nn0aMPPpb0wJThjX2_XmvKwD-rJ4ru22FZWqQgQ55P1QfzDdqjx5C_mknn5KpbaG_9TLc3RRBXLDsVz9Q6oUe3zZNSNmbb2OI6gk3JlumV6vPoukAWE)
QuoteLet's start with the markets themselves. These are dynamic and will change through the playthrough, as countries can create new markets and disband their old if they so desire.
Each market has a center in a location, and the owner of that location is in control over that market.
Every location and coastal seazone will belong to the most fitting market, which depends on the market attraction of the market, the distance between the location and the market center, diplomatic factors, and more.
A market has merchants, who have a power depending on buildings and maritime presence in the market, and a merchant capacity which depends on the infrastructure for trade that country has in that market. The Merchant Power impacts in which order exports from a market are executed, as there is not an endless supply of goods in a market. The Merchant Capacity impacts how much goods the merchants can ship.
As you can see in the market screenshot, every good has a local price, and a supply vs demand value as well, let's take a look at the beer price in the next tooltip.
Prices change every month towards the Target Price, which depends on the supply and demand of the goods in the market, and the current price stability. Price stability can change through the ages as well.
Supply & Demand
The supply of each good in a market depends on several factors.
The output from RGO's
The output from buildings
Base Production
Burgher Trades
So what is 'Base Production'? Some goods like clay, lumber, sand and stone are produced in every market, without the need for specific RGO's, even if an RGO with that raw material can produce much more, and there are buildings that can be built to provide these as well.
Also, your burghers will trade on their own, if they have the capacity for it. They will attempt to address needs within the market, and can trade in a slightly shorter range, thus enriching their estate. There are laws and privileges that impact them, like the "Trade Monopolies" estate privilege that the Hanseatic League has granted in the earlier screenshot, which reduces their own merchant capacity by 25% to increase the capacity of the burghers by 100%
So what about demand? This is primarily from the maintenance, input, and construction of buildings, recruiting and maintaining armies and navies, and the demands of the population, but there are more sources as well.
Of course, trades themselves impact supply and demand as well.
You can use your merchant capacity in a market to either export a good from that market, or import a good from another market. Of course that market needs to be within your trade range, which is not world-spanning in 1337.
A trade is a variable amount of goods shipped from one market to another market, purchasing it for the local price in the exporting market. The longer the distance between the markets, the more capacity each good will require to ship, and higher the maintenance costs will be.
Trades have an impact on the last land location they are in before leaving the market, and the first one they enter in the importing market, giving boosts in development to them over time. A trade always has to trace a path on the map.
There are also the Sound Tolls, if you pass through Öresund or the Bosphorus to consider.
Diplomacy and Trade
There are many diplomatic factors that impact the trade and market mechanics of Project Caesar.
First of all, you can "Deny Market Access" to a nation owning a market, which will reduce the attraction of their markets on your locations, but also make anyone with merchants in those markets upset with you.
You can also request and/or offer market access preference making it likelier for a country's locations to belong in a certain market.
If you dislike paying Sound Tolls, you can always try to ask for exemption for it through diplomacy with the country controlling the strait.
Some countries have isolated themselves completely, so you need to negotiate a specific exception to allow you to export or import from their markets.
There is also the possibility to embargo a country, which would block the merchants from that country to trade in your markets, and also to not be allowed to move through your country. Of course, this a legit casus belli, so use with care.
Other aspects to Trade
Each market can have specific goods banned for export or import, with one common example being that muslim markets will ban import and export of wine, beer and liquor.
We mentioned in an earlier Tinto Talks that Markets will have stockpiles, so that surplus can be stored for a rainy day. There are buildings that will increase the amount that can be stored.
There is also food in the markets, with prices adapting to the supply and demand of food as well.
There are also automation options where you can assign trading completely to the AI. You can also lock some trades so that the AI will not interfere with them.
Stay tuned, next week we'll be talking about mercenaries, levies and regulars!
Seeing the Hansa and the Riga market here this mostly makes me wish there was a modern version of Hanse or Patrician. :P :P
(https://i.postimg.cc/V6cWbcgd/image.png)
:lmfao:
This will either be the greatest thing ever or a trainwreck that will make Imperator 1.0 look good.
I'm a bit more optimistic. I think if it is heading down the trainwreck path it will have a tonne of stuff cut and be less than it promised but OK.
Quote from: Syt on May 02, 2024, 03:36:11 AM(https://i.postimg.cc/Vcgd/image.png)
:lmfao:
Seems sensible to me, why else mention it there?
It could just be something as little as you get a bonus for trade in shared/similar language centres or ups the odds of provinces being included in them.
Quote from: Josquius on May 02, 2024, 05:27:54 AMI'm a bit more optimistic. I think if it is heading down the trainwreck path it will have a tonne of stuff cut and be less than it promised but OK.
Quote from: Syt on May 02, 2024, 03:36:11 AM(https://i.postimg.cc/Vcgd/image.png)
:lmfao:
Seems sensible to me, why else mention it there?
It could just be something as little as you get a bonus for trade in shared/similar language centres or ups the odds of provinces being included in them.
As I said earlier this is what Magna Mundi had promised. Endless set of features covering all of the minute details. One big plus this has going for it here is that Johan is a veteran game designer not just a motley crew of modders.
I wonder if this game will be fun. It certainly seems like it will be the most impenetrable game for people not familiar with paradox games.
With all these systems they plan to implement it's either too complex to meaningfully manage yourself in a game that aims to span 500 years. Or you automate it and don't bother at which point - why bother and not abstract it?
Feels like a Johan dream project, and not sure whether I'm impressed or turned off by this kitchen sink approach.
My understanding is that idea is that production and distribution mostly run themselves, but the player can step in and try to grab lucrative trade opportunities. E.g. assuming the spice trade goes into Alexandira, Venetian merchants would try to control those trades from Alexandria-Venice and then Venice to other European markets. Similar to how it worked in prior EU games except that instead of a more abstracted system where trade centers are assigned an overall value and resources are expended to get a power percentage in the center, you send merchants to make specific trades in specific goods. I.e. something you would probably automate if you were playing a larger power where trade income is not a big proportion of total income but would micro if you are playing a city-state or trading republic.
Preview of HRE map mode.
(https://i.imgur.com/APEZFVn.png)
Finally a Map of the HRE that makes sense.
I look at that granularity and mostly think,"Ugh that looks tedious!" :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2024, 07:53:50 PMFinally a Map of the HRE that makes sense.
I see what you did there :D
Good to know that I will continue to ignore Germany in any EU games :lol: :ph34r:
It would be nice to see a game that properly handles tall play.
Both of a Venice style dominant city state variety and more of a Swiss style, able to maintain their independence quite comfortably and prove a real thorn in the side of anything locally, but not a threat too far beyond their borders.
Quote from: Josquius on May 17, 2024, 10:49:15 AMIt would be nice to see a game that properly handles tall play.
Both of a Venice style dominant city state variety and more of a Swiss style, able to maintain their independence quite comfortably and prove a real thorn in the side of anything locally, but not a threat too far beyond their borders.
Yes, I would love that.
Definitely looking forward to play in the HRE. Brandenburg, Bavaria, Palatine, Hansa, Habsburg, Holland, Milan, Provence, Savoy, Bohemia, ... So many fun options.
People are using the map screenshots to try piece together a world map.
(https://i.imgur.com/1IZ4ugb.png)
Were Castille, England or Hungary really so much more centralised than France, Italy or Germany?
Quote from: Zanza on May 20, 2024, 11:24:51 AMWere Castille, England or Hungary really so much more centralised than France, Italy or Germany?
You can argue against in the game's period, but in general I think yes. I remember reading (in a non-Hungarian source :P) that 1100-ish for example, only Hungary matched England's level of centralisation.
Quote from: Zanza on May 20, 2024, 11:24:51 AMWere Castille, England or Hungary really so much more centralised than France, Italy or Germany?
I think so for England - but I'm aware that to an extent the historiographical frame for English history is the combination of parliament and centralisation (and the two go hand in hand reinforcing each other).
No idea for Hungary (although I suspect it's similar), but also striking that with England and Castille there's been relatively recent conquest. So you have more or less total replacement of the established social order with a new (pretty coherent) elite dividing up the land.
Kind of interesting to see Wales as separate from England in 1337. What is the story behind that?
Quote from: Valmy on May 20, 2024, 10:01:08 PMKind of interesting to see Wales as separate from England in 1337. What is the story behind that?
Technically it was separate until the the Tudors.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 20, 2024, 11:56:33 PMQuote from: Valmy on May 20, 2024, 10:01:08 PMKind of interesting to see Wales as separate from England in 1337. What is the story behind that?
Technically it was separate until the the Tudors.
Was it? Interesting. I thought Edward I's incorporation was thorough. Also: it had been divided between Welsh nobles and Norman/English Marcher Lords for awhile and at no point were those marcher lords considered to be part of some other Kingdom or Principality called "Wales" were they?
Huh. Well Medieval stuff was always weird.
The Act of Union between England and Wales was passed in 1536 https://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/history/sites/themes/periods/tudors_04.shtml
Which, in paradox terms, makes it a vassal of England in the 14th century.
England was a highly centralised state by 14th century standards. It had one system of weights and measures for the whole country, law was enforced and courts held by the justices of the peace and was the King's law, when parliament imposed taxes they were for the entire country. This is an important reason why the 4m English of the time were able to war succesfully with the 20m French.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 21, 2024, 12:37:58 AMThe Act of Union between England and Wales was passed in 1536 https://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/history/sites/themes/periods/tudors_04.shtml
Which, in paradox terms, makes it a vassal of England in the 14th century.
England was a highly centralised state by 14th century standards. It had one system of weights and measures for the whole country, law was enforced and courts held by the justices of the peace and was the King's law, when parliament imposed taxes they were for the entire country. This is an important reason why the 4m English of the time were able to war succesfully with the 20m French.
Was there a separate system of law and a parliament for Wales prior to that point?
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2024, 01:15:11 AMWas there a separate system of law and a parliament for Wales prior to that point?
Welsh language being what it is I assume nobody knows. :P
(https://i.imgur.com/8vX0NN4.png)
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2024, 01:15:11 AMQuote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 21, 2024, 12:37:58 AMThe Act of Union between England and Wales was passed in 1536 https://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/history/sites/themes/periods/tudors_04.shtml
Which, in paradox terms, makes it a vassal of England in the 14th century.
England was a highly centralised state by 14th century standards. It had one system of weights and measures for the whole country, law was enforced and courts held by the justices of the peace and was the King's law, when parliament imposed taxes they were for the entire country. This is an important reason why the 4m English of the time were able to war succesfully with the 20m French.
Was there a separate system of law and a parliament for Wales prior to that point?
Not only prior to
Wales and its situation does stand out as another area where paradox games tend to fail to properly handle small areas.
Maybe not being able to deal with mountains is part of the problem? Or making rebellious areas fun?
Looking at the map I'm most curious on what the deal is in Scotland.
Quote from: Josquius on May 21, 2024, 02:55:25 AMLooking at the map I'm most curious on what the deal is in Scotland.
Maybe the struggle between Bruce and Balliol?
EU4 has the province autonomy system, jacking that up way high feels a much better solution to Wales than having it as a vassal.
Second war of Scottish independence :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_War_of_Scottish_Independence
It appears that 14th century Wales was run by a ragbag of Marcher Lords, other lords and some native leaders. Each of them administered their own courts of law and the link with England appears to be fealty to the crown. Also worth bearing in mind that the population of Wales back then was only 200k so arguably the whole conquest was a bit of a waste of resources.
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2024, 01:15:11 AMWas there a separate system of law and a parliament for Wales prior to that point?
There was a Welsh legal system until the Tudors. It's very different to the history of Ireland or Scotland.
Wales was basically conquered and run as a potentially unruly province and then legally, politically and ecclesiastically effectively merged into England by the Tudors (a Welsh origin dynasty). It's not and has never really been a "union".
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 21, 2024, 04:09:06 AMSecond war of Scottish independence :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_War_of_Scottish_Independence
It appears that 14th century Wales was run by a ragbag of Marcher Lords, other lords and some native leaders. Each of them administered their own courts of law and the link with England appears to be fealty to the crown. Also worth bearing in mind that the population of Wales back then was only 200k so arguably the whole conquest was a bit of a waste of resources.
Fair - there may not be many people, but it could be a staging post for an invasion of England, which I think was ultimately part of the logic for invasions, unions etc.
My favourite Wales tale is Edward promising to name a prince "born in Wales, who did not speak a word of English" to rule wales, and then naming his infant son :lol:
I read a couple of books recently on the Marcher Lordships. They were interesting. :)
Quote from: HVC on May 21, 2024, 11:02:33 AMMy favourite Wales tale is Edward promising to name a prince "born in Wales, who did not speak a word of English" to rule wales, and then naming his infant son :lol:
To be fair Edward meant that it would be a Norman not an English noble. And he was good to his word.
Remember Edward himself did not speak English as his primary language.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 21, 2024, 12:37:58 AMEngland was a highly centralised state by 14th century standards. It had one system of weights and measures for the whole country, law was enforced and courts held by the justices of the peace and was the King's law, when parliament imposed taxes they were for the entire country. This is an important reason why the 4m English of the time were able to war succesfully with the 20m French.
I think this is also one of the points around France and England shaping and being shaped by each other.
Again I'm aware the framework for the early modern is state formation and centralisation. But I think in this period it is England's centralisation with an increasingly strong parliament that enables England to fight France; at the same time it provokes a French centralisation and state formation around the monarch that spurs the eventual French victory.
Wales is another area where making small nations work will be the challenge. It isn't even "tall" play there so much as....surviving.
Why doesn't England just annex it and culture convert it?- tonnes of explanations for why reality didn't pan out that way but in games there's no obvious answer.
Religion and international institutions sound fairly familiar, but very flexible also for modders.
Political and province map of Germany.
(https://i.imgur.com/3tBTgKB.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/bSj98dg.png)
So again are they making a game that is supposed to be fun? :hmm:
There were a few things that were baffling about Imperator: Rome. To me, one of the weirdest decisions was that the game map represented my home turf of Schleswig-Holstein - which is basically the periphery of the periphery in the game's timeframe - with way more provinces than any other of their games, including CK3.
Not convinced that having 300+ countries in the HRE is good for gameplay.
Someone stitched together the European map known so far.
(https://i.imgur.com/AohPmV6.jpeg)
Full size: https://i.imgur.com/AohPmV6.jpeg
Too thick around the ankles.
I suspect they haven't officially named it EU5 yet because they are not sure this will turn out as something they want to waste the brand on.
Quote from: Norgy on July 26, 2024, 04:22:01 PMToo thick around the ankles.
And elbows are too pointy.
I've been listening to too much Bach. The first thing I think of when looking at the map is all the potential open kapellmeister positions.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 26, 2024, 10:18:56 PMI've been listening to too much Bach. The first thing I think of when looking at the map is all the potential open kapellmeister positions.
That will probably come in the form of one flavour pack. priced at 6-10 Euros
Quote from: Zanza on July 26, 2024, 03:26:26 PMNot convinced that having 300+ countries in the HRE is good for gameplay.
Johan said on the forums that most of the realms in the HRE have partition on inheritance too :lol:
My history knowledge is insufficient, but were HRE princes really that much more independent than other feudal vassals of the time?
I hope they do some work on manpower and rather more or less overstate the importance of mercenaries.
But, I am sure that guy on YouTube will do a world conquest with Ulm with this one too, and that Polacks and Serbs will complain how underpowered their countries are.
The HRE was a mess of different laws, taxes, currencies and whatnot, Zanza. From what little I know, the prince-bishops were pretty powerful in their own right, with the church at their backs. The Hanseatic cities were pretty much independent.
Feudalism is a tricky concept to explain, as far as I know, because it varied so much. A lord swears fealty. On certain conditions. And those could vary rather a lot. Rather hard for a computer game to simulate, at least.
Yeah, hard to code for the relationships within the HRE. Let alone understand them all in sufficient detail to begin coding.
I think Paradox did a fairly good job at adding flavour and charm to EU IV after a while with all the expansions. The mission trees sort of made the game come alive. But they took their sweet time.
My hope for this new game is that they make it feel you have to make hard choices just to stay alive, rather than another paint the map game. Not that it is not fun to paint the map, but one of the strengths of EU II was the events that made you go "Oh, dear god not now!".
Colonisation should also be reverted to building a trading post etc rather than the mundane "send colonist" of EU IV.
I think the princes of the HRE would agree that programming that kind of world order within the confines of mathematics would be a bit hard.
Quote from: Zanza on July 27, 2024, 02:44:20 AMMy history knowledge is insufficient, but were HRE princes really that much more independent than other feudal vassals of the time?
I think to an extent. But also you maybe need to emphasise it in a game (if you want some degree resemblance to history) because even if there weren't huge differences between HRE and other bits of feudal Europe in the 15th century, by the 18th century there were and it was very distinctive.
Similarly the role HRE fragmentation plays in the Reformation and the Wars of Religion is really important and possible needs a little bit of hard-coding.
The 14th century emperors were weak, with competing claims in Germany and imperial interregnums, at a time when the French and English crowns were making (admittedly mixed) efforts to consolidate and expand royal jurisdiction. Erring the other way would make the emperors far too strong.
Most of the dev diaries were fairly well received, but the current one basically says that the peace system from EU4 will be taken over mostly unchanged. The forum audience is unhappy.
Supposedly a two way peace were both sides may get something is too hard to calculate and too easy to exploit. Not sure I understand why. If the AI on the winning side knows what is beneficial for it, a similar logic should be applicable to the losing side. Or the AI just has no clue no matter whether it wins or looses...
The two-way peace deals in Victoria 3 don't really work that well. But it would have been nice to have those in EU V as they seem to be a common outcome of conflicts of the era.
Next they'll be telling us that the trade flow system from EU4 will remain unchanged. :P
The mask is slipping. Just call it eu5 already.
On peace for both sides - I can imagine where this causes trouble with the AI. But yes. Would be good to see. Maybe put heavy restrictions on it so you can't give away cores in this way, can only gain cores or minor colonial possessions, and so on?
I still think there is no confidence in Johan to spend the EU5 brand on this until he has proven it's actually a solid game.
How does this accomplish that? We also all no it is that brand so ruse seems at best paper thin.
I guess its all marketing people looking at EU4's sales figures.
Quote from: garbon on October 04, 2024, 03:52:57 AMHow does this accomplish that? We also all no it is that brand so ruse seems at best paper thin.
It can still be called something else: Europa Imperiatoris or somesuch
Quote from: Tamas on October 04, 2024, 05:54:26 AMQuote from: garbon on October 04, 2024, 03:52:57 AMHow does this accomplish that? We also all no it is that brand so ruse seems at best paper thin.
It can still be called something else: Europa Imperiatoris or somesuch
Maybe but would definitely cause confusion and dilute sales if EU5 separately comes out at some point.
Overall it just strikes me as really weird.
Well I can't think of any other reason why this isn't yet branded as EU5.
Maybe moving away from a brand that can be seen as Eurocentric? And Crusader Kings 4 might not be called Crusader Kings 4.
Quote from: The Brain on October 04, 2024, 07:06:28 AMMaybe moving away from a brand that can be seen as Eurocentric? And Crusader Kings 4 might not be called Crusader Kings 4.
Then just give it a new name already. This we have confidence but also don't have confidence in what is being designed is odd.
We've all seen the recent paradox interview I suppose about how much of a cluster fuck things have been lately?
Quote from: The Brain on October 04, 2024, 07:06:28 AMMaybe moving away from a brand that can be seen as Eurocentric? And Crusader Kings 4 might not be called Crusader Kings 4.
Surprised they haven't done this already TBH. Its been clear for a while that CK has attracted a rather unsavoury element to its fanbase.
Quote from: Josquius on October 10, 2024, 09:29:24 AMWe've all seen the recent paradox interview I suppose about how much of a cluster fuck things have been lately?
Quote from: The Brain on October 04, 2024, 07:06:28 AMMaybe moving away from a brand that can be seen as Eurocentric? And Crusader Kings 4 might not be called Crusader Kings 4.
Surprised they haven't done this already TBH. Its been clear for a while that CK has attracted a rather unsavoury element to its fanbase.
CK? It was HOI about twenty years ago.
I was about to say. Before HoI the most we had was weird Euro nationalists trying to relive the quasi-legendary medieval history of the Kingdom of Serbia or whatever. The real nuts didn't show up until HoI came around.
I dunno. Expected they'd be there with a Ww2 game. I guess Ww2 being such a well known and popular topic meant the scum there were pretty common already.
Also being pro actual nazis... Not much of an issue in the modern day. Most far right folk try to distance themselves from them as hard as they can as they know it's a bad look.
CK meanwhile really feeds the islamophobes. Far more of an active issue today.
Considering the middle ages weren't half so popular either....
I do think that really brought something other games hadn't yet.
You never heard deus vult pre CK.
The north is a crazy place
Everybody here probably already has it, but just in case - the starter pack for EUIV is 90% off on steam.
The current big EU 4 sale does make me suspect a eu5 announcement is imminent
They've posted the world maps:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/tinto-maps-special-edition-6th-of-january-2025-the-world.1724921/
Mississippian culture not considered settled, it seems.
I'm curious about the locations/provinces distinction. I'm guessing it will be similar to the baronies/counties system in CK3, combined with the "split state" mechanics of Vic 3. So generally, the locations will be part of a province and will always be part of the bundle, but at game start, some of the provinces may be split to reflect historical realities - over time the provinces will become consolidated.
(I find it slightly annoying that in Vic3 you can start with split states, but no new split states can be created later. I know it would probably be a nightmare to design and balance, but it irks me :P )
Quote from: Syt on January 07, 2025, 12:45:28 PMI'm curious about the locations/provinces distinction. I'm guessing it will be similar to the baronies/counties system in CK3, combined with the "split state" mechanics of Vic 3. So generally, the locations will be part of a province and will always be part of the bundle, but at game start, some of the provinces may be split to reflect historical realities - over time the provinces will become consolidated.
I doubt that. The provinces are slightly bigger than the current EU IV provinces. And most of the mechanics so far seem to be based on locations, e.g. buildings or pops, both of which seem core gameplay elements.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 07, 2025, 12:41:12 PMMississippian culture not considered settled, it seems.
Wasn't Cahokia in terminal decline by 1337?
I didn't get their design for Japanese daimyos or why they have a few Manchu vassals in an otherwise centralist Yuan.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 07, 2025, 12:41:12 PMMississippian culture not considered settled, it seems.
I think the Haida and Nisga'a, amongst others, would have an even stronger argument, with the benefit of still being around to make it.
And I realize that the map can't be perfect, but it seems they have missed some important harbours that played a significant historical role - Victoria harbour, for one. It's the reason Victoria is our province's capital and not Vancouver.
Quote from: Zanza on January 07, 2025, 01:41:14 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on January 07, 2025, 12:41:12 PMMississippian culture not considered settled, it seems.
Wasn't Cahokia in terminal decline by 1337?
Cahokia yes, but other settlements were growing as it declined.
This map "buildings based countries" caught my eyes - in Europe it's easy - Hanseatic contors (though there should be one in Bergen, I think?)
But Japan? Daimyo castles?
(Canada is a placeholder thing according to Johan)
(https://i.imgur.com/mMcctA1.png)
Yes, was described a bit in the Japan maps dev diary.
Europa Universalis V will be officially announced on May 8th.
Looking forward to it, many of the weaknesses of EU4 seem to be addressed.
Quote from: Zanza on May 02, 2025, 08:32:02 AMEuropa Universalis V will be officially announced on May 8th.
Looking forward to it, many of the weaknesses of EU4 seem to be addressed.
Is there a list with the changes/expected changes somewhere?
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/megathread-links-to-all-tinto-developer-threads.1652130/
:punk:
Thanks for the link, started reading the army one, read that basic tick won't be days but hours. This is mental. With all the other detail in the game there is no way this is going to work.
It is either going to be a broken mess or a new masterpiece, I don't think you can end up at anything else with this level of ambition.
Quote from: Tamas on May 03, 2025, 01:38:50 AMThanks for the link, started reading the army one, read that basic tick won't be days but hours. This is mental. With all the other detail in the game there is no way this is going to work.
It is either going to be a broken mess or a new masterpiece, I don't think you can end up at anything else with this level of ambition.
EU6 is going to be a demon of laplace at this rate
So they've announced they're going to announce it? :unsure:
Quote from: Tamas on May 03, 2025, 01:38:50 AMThanks for the link, started reading the army one, read that basic tick won't be days but hours. This is mental. With all the other detail in the game there is no way this is going to work.
It is either going to be a broken mess or a new masterpiece, I don't think you can end up at anything else with this level of ambition
I think you are right and I really like that Johan continues to be ambitious.
Quote from: Tamas on May 03, 2025, 01:38:50 AMThanks for the link, started reading the army one, read that basic tick won't be days but hours. This is mental. With all the other detail in the game there is no way this is going to work.
It is either going to be a broken mess or a new masterpiece, I don't think you can end up at anything else with this level of ambition.
The economic and population simulation is also much more detailed and the map is crazy. 300+ countries in the HRE.
But I remain cautiously optimistic that it will be a masterpiece. Johan seems to have learned a lot from earlier failures based on his posts.
With the amount of buildings and complex supply chains as well as the army time ticks, it sounds like the game has a different, slower pace than EU4.
I read the Norway dev post. It made me drool a bit.
But the sheer complexity of the systems, it frightens me a bit.
I guess it's a given they'll finally make use of multiple cores then. I've heard it's a frequent moan about other paradox games that they just don't do this.
Seems I caught the announcement stream by mistake/chance...
Johann aged for sure. Obviously we all did, number V is not making me younger since I played all since EU1, but it's weird to see him with all grey hair.
I had the same reaction - "Man he is getting old" - then I looked in the mirror :D
I remember when Johan made a post telling people to stop being critical of Strategy First, because the publisher had given him enough money to make EU1 as a summer job.
Times were simpler then.
not sure if i'll be going to buy this day 1, or even year 1. Haven't really played EU4 in years, and hoi, ck and vicky in over a year...
but it looks nice and interesting
a ERE play (of course)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu-LHdhixYQ&ab_channel=LudietHistoria
I will buy it on day one.
The talk of it being super complex....
It sounds like just the kind of game I wanted 15+ years ago.
But these days I just don't have the mindset to learn such a thing. I never did figure out HOI after 2 and Vic 2 leaves me cold.
I'm skeptical. But will keep an eye on it.
People are hyping how complex and ambitious EU5 is, but the game contains many basic errors. For example, the map does not properly represent the extent and influence of Balkan Nationality X - it severely overcounts the presence of Balkan Nationalities Y & Z in insignificant Balkan provinces A, B, and C , not taking into account clear evidence from modern author of Balkan Nationality X demonstrating conclusively that the majority population of these areas was Balkan Nationality X ever since the 14th century mythic migration story of Balkan Nationality X with no supporting evidence . Shockingly, the game contains no mention of the great folk hero obscure bandit and horse thief of Balkan Nationality X who so famously defeated the Turks at the Battle of Place No One Has Heard Of. The production and technology system also fails to take proper account of the well-known cultural influence of Balkan Nationality X, who during this period introduced the rest of Europe to key cultural and scientific developments because of their leading position in metallurgy, optics, medicine, chemistry, philology, astronomy, speculative philosophy, military science, theology, sporting prowess, and astonishing physical attractiveness, and their early pioneering experiments in steam power, mechanical computing and space flight.
Because of these slights to the honor of Balkan Nationality X and the resulting gross historical inaccuracies I will be giving a one-star steam review to EU5. Unless the Chinese troll farms beat me to it.
:lmfao:
Seems like they've taken aspects from CK3, VIC3 and HOI4 and merged them into a new EU.
Like those 3 games, I ll probably buy them on Day 1 and then realize I don't have the time or patience to learn how to play these games
We shall see
A feature seems to be that you can automate aspects of running the country. Might ease learning a bit?
My initial impression is that the zoomed out map and the UI at this stage look quite bland.
I wonder how far along in development they are. I mean, Laith's video is him playing thw game.
Minsky is on a roll this week :cool:
Given how different it is from EUIV, it'll be buggy as hell upon release and I won't even consider touching it for 6 months or so. :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on May 09, 2025, 09:53:28 AMGiven how different it is from EUIV, it'll be buggy as hell upon release and I won't even consider touching it for 6 months or so. :hmm:
Possibly. While the mechanics may be new to EU, a lot of them have been experimented with and improved upon in Paradox's other games. I do expect some glitches, but they haven't promised a timeline yet, and they have been working on it for a while. I really think Johan wants to get this one right.
They certainly seem to take a kitchen sink approach with this a one. Laith said in his video that the game seems more geared towards simulation and less painting the map, though he has concerns about balance and whether all the systems will tie into each other meaningfully. He also commented that the game start seems slow. And he thinks that the game starts close to the Black Death to "teach" players that setbacks in the game are fine and you can recover from them (i.e., losing a war or having all your peasants drafted dying in battle doesn't mean having to start over).
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 09, 2025, 05:12:15 AMMinsky is on a roll this week :cool:
I just asked an AI to create a one paragraph summary of the entire Paradox board for the last 25 years and that's what I got back.
Quote from: Caliga on May 09, 2025, 09:53:28 AMGiven how different it is from EUIV, it'll be buggy as hell upon release and I won't even consider touching it for 6 months or so. :hmm:
Maybe, but for some reason I enjoy EU games on release.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 09, 2025, 05:12:15 AMMinsky is on a roll this week :cool:
I remember back in the ancient times when we had "Post of the Month", Minsky would win just about every time.
I watched some dude, Ludi et Historia, on YouTube play Byzantium, and it seems that this game already has a lot of flavour pre-release.
The sheer level of detail, from just having a peasant levy to professional soldiers, building roads to increase centralisation, it all makes me drool.
Getting it on day one, and no doubt.
And, of course, Minsky is right. One should never challenge the narrative of say, Albania, it being the culturally dominant power on the Balkans, nor should one ever say the Serbs lost at Kosovo Polje.
It also seems as a sign of our time that you can play as banking nations.
Quote from: Syt on May 09, 2025, 10:11:35 AMThey certainly seem to take a kitchen sink approach with this a one. Laith said in his video that the game seems more geared towards simulation and less painting the map, though he has concerns about balance and whether all the systems will tie into each other meaningfully. He also commented that the game start seems slow. And he thinks that the game starts close to the Black Death to "teach" players that setbacks in the game are fine and you can recover from them (i.e., losing a war or having all your peasants drafted dying in battle doesn't mean having to start over).
Sounds promising. Must say though I've never encountered a game which truly succeeds in making losing fun.
Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2025, 11:28:41 AMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 09, 2025, 05:12:15 AMMinsky is on a roll this week :cool:
I remember back in the ancient times when we had "Post of the Month", Minsky would win just about every time.
Its why we stopped doing it. The winner was already known.
I enjoyed losing in CK2, which was good because I almost always eventually did. At least if I started at the early starting dates.
Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2025, 05:36:19 PMI enjoyed losing in CK2, which was good because I almost always eventually did. At least if I started at the early starting dates.
At least there you had a fighting chance
The earliest starting dates in CK2 were just myth-based, weren't they?
But I enjoyed both CK2 and CK3, even though all my decent sons always died before me, and when I, after having about 18 of them, died, the country was in a turmoil and my heir immediately was declared war upon by all and sundry.
"This is your inheritance son"
"What, the curtains?"
"Eh, no, your 14 brothers outside the shitty stronghold your father did not have coin to upgrade"
Quote from: Josquius on May 09, 2025, 03:31:24 PMQuote from: Syt on May 09, 2025, 10:11:35 AMThey certainly seem to take a kitchen sink approach with this a one. Laith said in his video that the game seems more geared towards simulation and less painting the map, though he has concerns about balance and whether all the systems will tie into each other meaningfully. He also commented that the game start seems slow. And he thinks that the game starts close to the Black Death to "teach" players that setbacks in the game are fine and you can recover from them (i.e., losing a war or having all your peasants drafted dying in battle doesn't mean having to start over).
Sounds promising. Must say though I've never encountered a game which truly succeeds in making losing fun.
Dwarf Fortress. :contract:
I'm also thinking it's a day one purchase, though it tends to be that with most Paradox games for me. I watched Red Hawk's video, he does a good job of presenting the game's mechanics without using shenanigans or exploits or somesuch.
Quote from: Solmyr on May 10, 2025, 02:58:18 AMQuote from: Josquius on May 09, 2025, 03:31:24 PMQuote from: Syt on May 09, 2025, 10:11:35 AMThey certainly seem to take a kitchen sink approach with this a one. Laith said in his video that the game seems more geared towards simulation and less painting the map, though he has concerns about balance and whether all the systems will tie into each other meaningfully. He also commented that the game start seems slow. And he thinks that the game starts close to the Black Death to "teach" players that setbacks in the game are fine and you can recover from them (i.e., losing a war or having all your peasants drafted dying in battle doesn't mean having to start over).
Sounds promising. Must say though I've never encountered a game which truly succeeds in making losing fun.
Dwarf Fortress. :contract:
rimworld. But yeah, Dwarf Fortress is the absolute chad in that regard
Dwarf Fortress is the only game I have had pleasure in losing at.
Well, and EU IV. Stackwiped by Ottomans 110k army as Russia? Well, let us see what they say about our all new infantry raised in Moscow.
Again? Well, fuck me.
Laith going over the game mechanics (so far).
:mmm:
This definitely seems like an ambitious design. I hope Paradox has the skills to execute on it. I would definitely be interested in playing this soon after release if the consensus is that they didn't mess it up.
Quote from: Syt on May 10, 2025, 03:02:52 PMLaith going over the game mechanics (so far).
Drastically more income from trade than taxes for the state seems very silly.
Quote from: Tamas on May 11, 2025, 02:10:24 PMQuote from: Syt on May 10, 2025, 03:02:52 PMLaith going over the game mechanics (so far).
Drastically more income from trade than taxes for the state seems very silly.
Realistic I'd think?
It is a typical weird thing in strategy games that trade tends to be so unimportant and tax a reliable, predictable steady source of income like in the modern world.
Though I imagine it's something that differs widely between countries.
Thinking about England in particular... Seems it'd be quite a gameplay challenge to represent how skint monarchs tended to be yet still managing to pull together armies and navies where needed.
Quote from: Tamas on May 11, 2025, 02:10:24 PMDrastically more income from trade than taxes for the state seems very silly.
Hopefully something that will be balanced before launch.
All the videos make it look like a no-brainer that you should carpet your territories with market buildings. That alone makes it look unbalanced.
It's out! :o
The soundtrack, that is. :P
Anyways, what can be glimpsed here just confirms that the (vanilla) CK3 soundtrack remains the worst of Paradox's music. :P
The DLCs add more flavor, but I constantly seem to be stuck on sleepy tracks like these (though thankfully you can just remove them from the playlist now).
:zzz
Quote from: Syt on Today at 11:22:51 AMIt's out! :o
You got me. My heart jumped, for the split second it took to get to the next line.