• 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.

Tinto Talks #4 - March 20th, 2024

Welcome to the fourth iteration of Tinto Talks!

Today we’ll give you an overview of the different mechanics of the Government part of the game. There will be development diaries going into much more detail for these later on.

First of all, we have 5 different government types in the game, which determines a fair bit of what type of mechanics you get access to. As an example, a Republic does not have access to royal marriages, and a Steppe Horde has a different view on how war, peace and conquest works compared to other types of countries.

  • Monarchy, which uses Legitimacy
  • Republic, which uses Republican Tradition
  • Theocracy, which uses Devotion
  • Steppe Horde, which Horde Unity
  • Tribe, which uses Tribal Cohesion

ZLW8XrWYZLxnovNzgF_7TuPQWyWmoGGLwwD2R2susU8CbvdqziEL_Ulp-yKCubRFOexelDTDIdjssj852lmLobBEQVeYT6bSkHFEIZmWUs_H-38W79jBh1S5OiDDATUVu0nB6GXgi2ze2LmNyJ115OU

An illustration from our game..

These, together with country rank, government reform, and local flavor gives countries names like “Crown of Aragon,” “Kingdom of Sweden,” “Principality of Wales.” Not all countries are countries that are based on owning locations on a map though; more on that in later development diaries.

Each country also has a ruler, or they may be in a regency, if there are no possible adult heirs.

One of the most defining parts of the government of a country in Project Caesar is the Estates mechanic. This has been one of the core parts of the game, with a full connection between the population and the estates. Keeping the estates satisfied while keeping their powers low is an important part of the gameplay loop. In this game, the Estates are also active entities and will do things on their own if they get enough power.

qYgBGNEzv3H0jQc6eneo7kkUZgpdahDdiD2oZxQEQZsEziJaaYEGiEnn0-whjga7G0UAzf7YYhABAvScXHNozJux_FGQz5ujPQN8ey_63fuKTGJCI91U-b_fQ15sn3qbalZo_HQ4dyjmlZKWg_zOT1w

Two government reforms, one culture specific and one government specific.

As time passes, different government reforms and reform-slots will be available. They can also be based on tag, culture or religion.

uS3pA3GElx0t_YJa_9rdYdyTavbK_IEfSQP1AT3GA9nESw5PidjM0ca7CawBGS80IfNTF-gFGP7O5WDOKzR9Wt5Ffn9iPUkg7hzYRIdfnGp6EG-7ssCmrxh6kd1snKgU2LssP30gr5KJqlfgGJmfIjE

These are the two available possibilities in the Law 'Language of Pleading' for the country I tested.

Something that is different from a reform is what we call a Law. A Law can have several different policies you can pick from, and several laws have unique policies only available to certain tags, religions, cultures, government types or other factors.

There are some drawbacks to adding new reforms or policies though, as it takes a few years for it to have full effect, depending on your country's administrative efficiency. (Yes, it's a name for something else in another game, but it fits here.)

Regularly, if your government allows it, you can call in a Parliament. If you don’t do it often enough the estates will start to get irritated, but each parliament has issues that need to be resolved, and the estates will have agendas they want done for their support. Of course, you also have options to push through what you want from a parliament, if you are willing to accept the demands of the estate, like changing a particular law.

Another part of the government is the cabinet, which also grows in size as you become more advanced, allowing you to do more things. This is something that can be viewed as a hybrid between EU4 Advisors and the CK2 council actions.

Some of you may remember the domestic policies from EU2 and EU3. In Project Caesar we are bringing the idea back in the form of Societal Values. There are seven that we took from these games, one that was split in two, and we added four new ones, bringing the total to 13 different Societal Values. Societal Values are primarily affected by what other actions you do, like what policies you pick in a law, or what reforms you pick. As with so many other things in our game, this is not an instant action, but a gradual change over time.

ZEZWxSpKakO4WurGDUAAsx7sedtM4QfQOCQe32TQGOWyLFGbPv2JrSLjbi0NgOMzD855iLKD6JGOWancM-kU6hqp65oRF7P7ubsaNOY9_L5kdzqELF2f26rggfEojZBnW0giSvY1Xf3thtmlKDVEtqg

oh look, its eu3!

Next week, we will go into much more detail about estates and how they work.
 
  • 258Love
  • 159Like
  • 13
  • 10
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
If i remember, the devs in EUIV ever said "we not do these mixed peace, because was abusable by players"
Perhaps they will be able to adress these in EUV.
After all, they managed to code the AI to refuse province A instead of province A because -1000 does not want this

So if the war is declared over specific interests, these should take primacy above all else.
 
I'd like to say on behalf of everyone: When including the call parliament mechanic, assuming it's meant to be inspired by the English parliament, which had to be called two times a year, include a mechanic which auto-calls the parliament. Perhaps even allow us to set a time interval, like allowing us to call a parliament every X months, where X would be defined by a slider. Depending on the pacing of the game though, I'm assuming it'll be a bit "dumbed down", so you have to call the parliament only every, for example, 5 years, as to not overwhelm the player (of course depending on how much of a player interaction there is with the player). Either way, having a button you have to press thorough all the game on a set time interval just feels tedious unless given the opportunity to automate.
"the English parliament, which had to be called two times a year"

The English parliament?

A (not "the") parliament had no institutional existence. It was, literally, the name for an organized parley in a nominated location to which people were individually summoned by writ. Generally a parliament was called when the crown wanted something specific (usually money or a trial for which the parliament would form the court); or wanted to consult (eg Edward I's coronation parliament, which initially invited literally any individual in the kingdom to trot along with a grievance - that mistake was hastily corrected). Also, early on the monarch called whoever was desirable for its immediate purposes, so it might consist of anything from a few dozen to a few thousand. There were literally no fixed rules such as the one you suggest.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
... We have 5 different government types in the game, which determines a fair bit of what type of mechanics you get access to. As an example, a Republic does not have access to royal marriages, and a Steppe Horde has a different view on how war, peace and conquest works compared to other types of countries.

  • Monarchy, which uses Legitimacy
  • Republic, which uses Republican Tradition
  • Theocracy, which uses Devotion
  • Steppe Horde, which Horde Unity
  • Tribe, which uses Tribal Cohesion
Am I the only one kind of disappointed that there's just a "Tribal" government type and not more diversity, even for the disparities between African, Australian, and North American tribes? The Americas had too stunning a diversity of governance structures for them all to be lumped into "tribal" and "tribal cohesion--" so, too, with something like "kingdom" being applied to the Excan Tlatoloyan (or the so-called "Aztec empire"). They were anywhere from a little to greatly more complicated than Paradox represented them as in EU4. Of course, it wouldn't be worthwhile to account for every subtle difference, just as France's "government type" is the same as England's. But the northeastern confederacies, the Floridian aquacultural tributary states (Calusa, Tocombaga, etc.), Tawantinsuyu (Inca Empire), and the Taino Caciquedoms, just to name a few, could be interesting and unique playing experiences if only they were represented with the authenticity, care, and research that is reserved for Afro-Eurasian states.

Maybe it's just me who's passionate about playing the New World in a game about the old, and who gets disappointed when the politics are bland and uniform, and the experience slow and monotonous. But having read as much as I have about the Americas it's disappointing that they are riddled with so many inaccuracies and generalizations in EU4, seemingly founded on outdated and incorrect conceptions.

If anyone from Paradox reads this and wants to know where I'm coming from, check out "1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus" by Charles C. Mann and "Dawn of Everything" by David Graeber and David Wengrow, specifically the chapters on the Northeastern US and New France.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Regularly, if your government allows it, you can call in a Parliament. If you don’t do it often enough the estates will start to get irritated, but each parliament has issues that need to be resolved, and the estates will have agendas they want done for their support. Of course, you also have options to push through what you want from a parliament, if you are willing to accept the demands of the estate, like changing a particular law.
I really hope this isn't just a copy and paste of the EU4 parliament. That mechanic was always so tedious to play with, and so useless for big countries.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Cyprus center of the world confirmed
 
I really hope this isn't just a copy and paste of the EU4 parliament. That mechanic was always so tedious to play with, and so useless for big countries.

its definitely not
 
  • 11Like
  • 2Love
Reactions:
I am a Turkish person and want to confirm a thing. The location called "sanliurfa" in the south east anatolia here, should be called just "urfa" because the name of the city of "urfa" changed into "sanliurfa" way more after the establishment of the republic(1923) in 1984 to be more specific. Please change it in the game, I can send resources if you want but a quick google research should be enough. thank you.




those who wander "sanliurfa" means "glorious urfa" which decided to be changed because of the glory of its people where they fought on their own against the invaders and force them to withdraw. there is two more cities like this which are "Kahramanmaraş" "Heroic Marash" and "Gaziantep" "Veteran Antep"
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Am I the only one kind of disappointed that there's just a "Tribal" government type and not more diversity, even for the disparities between African, Australian, and North American tribes? The Americas had too stunning a diversity of governance structures for them all to be lumped into "tribal" and "tribal cohesion--" so, too, with something like "kingdom" being applied to the Excan Tlatoloyan (or the so-called "Aztec empire"). They were anywhere from a little to greatly more complicated than Paradox represented them as in EU4. Of course, it wouldn't be worthwhile to account for every subtle difference, just as France's "government type" is the same as England's. But the northeastern confederacies, the Floridian aquacultural tributary states (Calusa, Tocombaga, etc.), Tawantinsuyu (Inca Empire), and the Taino Caciquedoms, just to name a few, could be interesting and unique playing experiences if only they were represented with the authenticity, care, and research that is reserved for Afro-Eurasian states.

Maybe it's just me who's passionate about playing the New World in a game about the old, and who gets disappointed when the politics are bland and uniform, and the experience slow and monotonous. But having read as much as I have about the Americas it's disappointing that they are riddled with so many inaccuracies and generalizations in EU4, seemingly founded on outdated and incorrect conceptions.

If anyone from Paradox reads this and wants to know where I'm coming from, check out "1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus" by Charles C. Mann and "Dawn of Everything" by David Graeber and David Wengrow, specifically the chapters on the Northeastern US and New France.
The fact is that they can totally be modeled as a generic « tribal » with some specifically cultured laws or reforms.
They don’t need an entire new government type.
Besides, we don’t even know yet how tribes will be designed.

Yes, they were very different to African or Siberian tribes for sure. But they were not kingdoms or theocracies either, so they can be approximated more to the tribal government, with some flavor (like the council of elders)
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
And this is historically accurate. Moscow were almost equal in power to Tver. Suzdal later on even became de-jure head of Russian principalities under yoke for a short time. Ryazan succesfully had conquered from Moscow some border towns. So any of them potentially could succeed in forming Russia. Main Moscow advantage was the right to collect taxes (tribute, yoke) for Golden Horde so Moscow princes had an opportunity to buy some small neighbouring principalities, placate tatar khans and sustain larger army, which help them to beat tatar forces on battlefield in 1380.
Yeah, absolutely. But ultimately it was Muscovy that came out on top and I want the game to be reflective of that most of the time, the earlier the game starts the more variation we have which means the more unrecognizable the world will be. I want some variation but I still want to historical accuracy. Most of history is dependent on the choices of a few individuals that may seem whimsical but if a game is like that then we've essentially got CK without family dynamics.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Yeah, absolutely. But ultimately it was Muscovy that came out on top and I want the game to be reflective of that most of the time, the earlier the game starts the more variation we have which means the more unrecognizable the world will be. I want some variation but I still want to historical accuracy. Most of history is dependent on the choices of a few individuals that may seem whimsical but if a game is like that then we've essentially got CK without family dynamics.
I don't understand why why everyone thinks the game will be worse if Moscow does not unify Russia most games. I do think Russia should be united one way or another in nearly every game, but I don't understand why people are so opposed to any variety of outcomes. I'd love it if we got to see something a bit different in many games.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't understand why why everyone thinks the game will be worse if Moscow does not unify Russia most games. I do think Russia should be united one way or another in nearly every game, but I don't understand why people are so opposed to any variety of outcomes. I'd love it if we got to see something a bit different in many games.
Just because you like it one way doesn't mean other people can't prefer something else. Muscovy is an example, it's not the only thing. I enjoy seeing alternate stuff like the Teutons beating Poland but it's fun because it happens every now and again, not all the time. If Poland loses 50% of the time it's not something I'm going to enjoy. I still want a certain degree of consistency in the game, not as much as HoI but not as little as CK. It's fine if one in every 10 campaigns England beats France in the 100 year war but if it happens all the time or even half the time it'll be annoying.
As for why, 1. it's because I love history and want to participate in it with some alterations, not complete overhauls. 2. e.g. if Poland loses to the Teutons, they won't have any interesting event chains etc. lined up in the future like Poland would and even if they get some missions they won't be as flavorful as what Poland would have, at best they'll get some wacky alternate history stuff that would never happen which is just immersion breaking. If you're playing to be competitive, minmax or WQ as Ulm then I see why you wouldn't care but that's not how the game was designed (EU4), it's not League of Legends, it's made to RP to an extent. if that's how you enjoy it then keep at it but a large amount of people just want a chill out as colonial Spain, doing historical colonization and see history unfold. I purposefully limit my expansion etc. cause if I become the strongest quickly the game loses it's charm post 1550.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Just because you like it one way doesn't mean other people can't prefer something else. Muscovy is an example, it's not the only thing. I enjoy seeing alternate stuff like the Teutons beating Poland but it's fun because it happens every now and again, not all the time. If Poland loses 50% of the time it's not something I'm going to enjoy. I still want a certain degree of consistency in the game, not as much as HoI but not as little as CK. It's fine if one in every 10 campaigns England beats France in the 100 year war but if it happens all the time or even half the time it'll be annoying.
As for why, 1. it's because I love history and want to participate in it with some alterations, not complete overhauls. 2. e.g. if Poland loses to the Teutons, they won't have any interesting event chains etc. lined up in the future like Poland would and even if they get some missions they won't be as flavorful as what Poland would have, at best they'll get some wacky alternate history stuff that would never happen which is just immersion breaking. If you're playing to be competitive, minmax or WQ as Ulm then I see why you wouldn't care but that's not how the game was designed (EU4), it's not League of Legends, it's made to RP to an extent. if that's how you enjoy it then keep at it but a large amount of people just want a chill out as colonial Spain, doing historical colonization and see history unfold. I purposefully limit my expansion etc. cause if I become the strongest quickly the game loses it's charm post 1550.
The issue is we still do not know why history unfolded the way it did. Again with every argument about "historicity" the problem is we have a sample size of exactly one. We cannot make any concrete statements about what the most likely outcome would have been. For all we know, maybe in some 1000 years when we develop a supercomputer capable of simulating history considering every single possible variable and randomness within limits, our timeline is the most unbelievable of them all.

And fundamentally, the moment you inject into a historic situation an omniscient, nigh-on omnipotent being with interests beyond human comprehension (the player), any "historicity" is immediately lost. So in my opinion the game should strive to encapsulate not historicity but plausibility - things should not just happen, they should be as consequence of previous events. And for that a more thorough simulation is needed.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
And fundamentally, the moment you inject into a historic situation an omniscient, nigh-on omnipotent being
a god. i never understood why call it spirit of nation whereas player is literally a god in charge of a particular country

game should strive to encapsulate not historicity but plausibility - things should not just happen, they should be as consequence of previous events
i wanna say spot eff you see kay ing on but alas. 1000% agree
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The province names that appear in the banner seem pretty anachronistic and I hope they're fixed before release. One clear examples is Edessa, which, although an Ancient name, had been abandoned in the Medieval period and was only restored by the modern Greek government about a century ago (it was called Vodená before by all language groups living there (or some variation of that)). Another is what appears to be Alexandroupoli, which was also named as such about a century ago in honour of a Modern Greek prince named Alexandros.
The map may still be in development so it can still be renamed maybe
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Just because you like it one way doesn't mean other people can't prefer something else. Muscovy is an example, it's not the only thing. I enjoy seeing alternate stuff like the Teutons beating Poland but it's fun because it happens every now and again, not all the time. If Poland loses 50% of the time it's not something I'm going to enjoy. I still want a certain degree of consistency in the game, not as much as HoI but not as little as CK. It's fine if one in every 10 campaigns England beats France in the 100 year war but if it happens all the time or even half the time it'll be annoying.
As for why, 1. it's because I love history and want to participate in it with some alterations, not complete overhauls. 2. e.g. if Poland loses to the Teutons, they won't have any interesting event chains etc. lined up in the future like Poland would and even if they get some missions they won't be as flavorful as what Poland would have, at best they'll get some wacky alternate history stuff that would never happen which is just immersion breaking. If you're playing to be competitive, minmax or WQ as Ulm then I see why you wouldn't care but that's not how the game was designed (EU4), it's not League of Legends, it's made to RP to an extent. if that's how you enjoy it then keep at it but a large amount of people just want a chill out as colonial Spain, doing historical colonization and see history unfold. I purposefully limit my expansion etc. cause if I become the strongest quickly the game loses it's charm post 1550.
I understand what you mean in that case of war outcome between Teutons and Poland. I can see why it may make the game too weird. However when it comes to who is forming russia like it is Muscovy or Tver I don't think it is really that important because you end up with the same result anyway.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: