Please don’t have Mission Trees/Focus Trees in the game. They reduce player agency and are detached from internal game systems.

[Arizal]

Small problem: outed Henry VIII after a heavy injure changed him personality, and break with the the catholic church after he be called by the Pope "Difensor fidei" (defender of the faith)...and is very ironic, because a injure...the world changed a lot! https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-turned-henry-viii-into-a-tyrant-1670421.html

It's interesting, though according to Wikipedia, it's the Acts of Supremacy which created the Anglican Church, and those were in 1534 while the jousting incident was in 1536. In any case, do you mean that, for Anglicanism to exist, you need the exact same chain of event?

 

[Vlad123]

It's interesting, though according to Wikipedia, it's the Acts of Supremacy which created the Anglican Church, and those were in 1534 while the jousting incident was in 1536. In any case, do you mean that, for Anglicanism to exist, you need the exact same chain of event?

Well not, but i remember was the opposite (incident and after acts of supremacy, even if wikipedia not wrong)...but only a "mad" (or very brave and bold) king can do this move

 

[Keksburg]

Pray tell, how do you make a generic civil war mechanic that makes sense with the American Civil War, the Boshin war, the Taiping Rebellion, The Indian Mutiny and The Russian Civil war.

When some interest groups feel unhappy with the present situation, and find themselves able to raise an army, and realize that there might be a chance to win, here it is.

IR and Vicky3 are very suitable for such “one mechanic for all”, because the type of struggle in the age of IR is simple, while Vicky 3 does have something called interest groups.

 

[Fatherlorris]

I don't think you lot are really thinking this through tbh.

When some interest groups feel unhappy with the present situation, and find themselves able to raise an army, and realize that there might be a chance to win, here it is.

IR and Vicky3 are very suitable for such “one mechanic for all”, because the type of struggle in the age of IR is simple, while Vicky 3 does have something called interest groups.

How do you have that system but also include the flavour, the causes, and the outcomes for all those different civil wars though?

I want there to be a chance that the conflict develops in that direction, because the fact that it happened historically shows it's possible.

It happened in England due to the very specific situation in England at the time, how do you mechanically recreate that without making it tag based, or so specific that it's may as well be tag based?

I'm actually a bit confused as to which essential characteristics those three civil wars have that make them completely impossible to replicate elsewhere. I'm also not sure how you would portray them "uniquely" for England/the United Kingdom.

Because the English civil war was caused by a number of factors unique to England. The unique status of the Anglican church being the main thing; to cut a long story short, the puritans were low church Anglicans who thought that the English church should be reformed, whereas the high church Anglicans preferred a more ceremonial and hierarchical church. Puritans saw the King as being a crypto-catholic, and his marriage to a French catholic didn't help on that front.

There is also the political side of things, Charles was a firm believer in the divine right of kings and England had a relatively powerful parliament (which wasn't unique to England by any means), parliament wasn't too keen on giving up that right.

So if you want to have some generic English civil war mechanic, you need to make it make sense. If you limit it to a parliament, then Portugal will be getting Olívio Cromwell popping up, which would suck. If you limit it to being Anglican, then you need to make a generic system for Anglicanism, so;

Isn't that already here with the reformation and the hussites? How difficult would it be to have a mechanic about making up a national churches like Gallicanism, the Prussian Union or Anglicanism? Indeed, names can be dynamics. You can have "The *insert country adjective here* Church", for example "The Scottish Church".

Anglicanism is nothing like Prussian Lutherism or the Hussites, it is similar to Gallicanism though. But you have to think about the difference between Gallicanism and Anglicanism in gameplay terms if you want to have some generic 'anglicanlike' mechanic in the game.

What caused Anglicanism? Well, it was originally a split with Rome after Henry 8th couldn't get the divorce he wanted (very dumbed down, but bare with me).
Gallicanism was the religious ideology of French absolutism, and most notably Louis XIV.

What did the Gallicanism look like in comparison to Anglicanism? Well, the French church was, and is, solidly in communion with the Catholic Church even at the height of Gallicanism. Anglicanism wasn't in communion with the Catholic Church despite maintaining its catholicity, and began the process known as the English Reformation, which was a very unique reformation.
So, if we think this through and put these into the context of a game: We need to have a trigger for the anglicanlike mechanics, how do we do that in a way that encompasses Gallicanism and Anglicanism when both these similar ideas popped up in completely different environments and 100 years apart? We also need to have these mechanics make sense, how do we get this anglicanlike mechanic leading to the outcomes it did historically?

I like design challenge, sadly we have an imcomplete vision of Caesar right now to base oneself on, so there is bound to be some suppositions / simplifications

You are placing vic 3 into the framework of eu5 here, which wasn't what I was getting at, it would have been better if you tried to do this with a game that we know more about. But here goes, let's pretend that EU5 is set in the Victorian period.

We know that civil wars are represented by a new country, not necessarily landed. Territories that are strongly veering toward the new forces against the status quo would see enough traitors to capture higher institutions and gain provinces, but they would also be present in (original) state controlled territory. They have a budget and manpower to pull from

I have no idea what you mean by 'higher institutions' nor the traitor mechanic, nor how this budget and manpower system would work.

2) Unrest and Control are bound to help determine which land oppose the state and which one support it. Religion and culture can also offer weighted reasons depending on the cause of the civil war

How is the cause of the civil war defined exactly?

3) The civil war has a casus belli, that determine the victory condition for both side. Usually, the defeat of the other side is good enough, but say, War of the Rose, the first pretender to die leads to the other de-facto winning. If no one wins, and fights are ending, the status quo leads to two (hostile to each other) states. A religious civil war would be fueled by conversions, massacres and ultimately, the one faith winning being imposed. A war caused by nobles will similarly see any conquests from one side strongly damaging the number of nobility on account of people losing titles and families being purged, and the winning side would be who has the majority of nobles following their cause. But in the end, the war will only stops when the cause(s) of it will be solved, if possible

How do I get the War of the Roses casus belli?
Is a religious civil war caused by conversions and 'massacres' (whatever they are in the context of eu5, I have no idea).
What specifically causes this noble war? How does it resolve exactly? What's it trying to be?

4) Thanks to those casus belli, you can fine tune how control for each side evolve, along which lines. For your examples:
-American Civil War: Slavery was one of the main engine (not the only one, there was a race to get more state for each side leading to the conflict). States with a lot of slaves would join one side, states whith high control and few slaves the other and the ones with neither of those are staying mostly neutral. The line is clear and we have two strong forces with clear geographic lines, so it is pretty much part of the country becoming a new TAG

What causes this civil war? How do you stop this happening in every other country that has slavery? Does it always result in the CSA spawning or local equivalent? If not, how do you stop the CSA spawning in Brazil or the East India Company?

Boshin war: You kick the ruling family out, and both the state and the nobles have comparatively equivalent legitimacy. While we could see a conflict between nobles, it is however a case of burghers vs state, the casus belli combines wanting the Tokugawa back and the laws on commerce being changed. Here we can assume you can have more than one active reason for a war to happen as a general mechanic (something that hopefully exists for ALL wars)

How do you kick a ruling family out? How does that relate to the Boshin war? Where is the mechanics for restoring the Emperor? How do you have that system and not have it apply to other states?

Taiping rebellion: Control falls so low that for all intent and purpose the ability to enforce the cultural difference between people and government was not enough to preventunrest, and having more money going into rebels than state coffers, leading to them being de facto the real power, taking the opportunity when they saw it. A territory less state forms with rapid manpower gain fueled by unrest and a higher perceived legitimacy. Taking the throne is the obvious win condition for the rebels, retaking control of the peasant estate is the win condition for the state

So, if a nation's control falls, and there is a cultural difference between the people, and there was money going to rebels more than the government, then what? The brother of Jesus pops up?
And you have to take control of the peasant estate? What does that mean?

 

[Lindaegan]

The brother of Jesus pops up?

Actually, James was stoned in like 64 CE or something, according to Josephus.

 

[Asheviere]

I have to ask, though, could you not have just said this? Was calling our arguments "bad faith" helpful at all?

I believe a few people misunderstood what I said -- I said 'These are the sort of bad faith arguments most people are tired of' after explicitly using an example of such bad faith arguments (French People are unlikely to exist in one hundred years, so regional flavour events about French people are bad and a waste of time). I did not mean to imply that the complaints of your side in this thread had no merit, but I was merely pointing out why so many people have grown to be unhappy with them, as plenty of others have used just as obscene examples as I did to justify the complete removal of unique flavour events. I have seen people take weirdly hostile and confrontational tones when all someone did was disagree with them and try to point out flaws in their argument. That is what I mean by 'bad faith arguments', as in both sides don't actually want to discuss with each other and are only trying to enforce their absolute vision of what is right.

I'm sure you want a good game. But it has already been confirmed that there will be TAG specific mechanics in this game. There is no "danger" yet, based on what we have seen, of something like that happening. So why fearmonger? This game has not even been announced yet. With sufficient backlash against a fundamental system it might even be delayed for an extended period of time. Why are you acting as though we - who as you yourself admit are so few in number to hardly matter - are actually going to get exactly what we want?

My issue again is not with your arguments but with the way you are framing them. You are well-within your rights to believe in the merits of tag-based mechanics, as I am to vehemently disagree. What is unhelpful is shutting down any arguments with baseless allegations of bad faith, or comparisons to games that have received backlash. You and I both know we are not going to convince one another to "break rank," so to speak. There will not be any winners here. So you might as well stop trying to claim victory and have a conversation instead - like you have just done.

It is normal to fear the unknown. What we have seen so far of Project Caesar is so limited we might as well not know anything about the game at all, as you said. People say they like pops, but there are a lot of ways their implementation could go wrong, such as performance, or non-interaction with player agency. People say they like the new trade system, but we don't actually know whether or not it works properly in game, how effective the AI is at using, and whether it is actually a fun mechanic to engage with. Until we know such things, I will continue to fear. Because, as I said, I want a good game.

You say your side is powerless, but that is not at all true. We've already seen a few changes being made to the game according to player feedback made on these forums, and Tinto seems to place a lot of worth on the discussions made here. That is why I acted so hostile, as I do not personally believe that the forums represent a majority of players (I may be completely wrong, Tinto certainly knows far better than I do). And when people are so quick to advocate for their perfect idealization of a game, an idealization that I do not personally believe would be broadly appealing and welcoming to new players, I fear for the game's future success. And, hence, the comparison I made to Imperator -- a game that is not necessarily bad, but that did not manage to draw the attention of enough people for support to be maintained.

I do not say your personal views of how the game should be hold no merit and should be disregarded, I actually agree with quite a bit of what has been said on this thread, by both sides, but I am free to disagree with what I do not personally think would be 'fun', as you are to disagree with my opinions. I do believe that the people who are so firmly and heavily insisting on completely discarding a feature that seems reasonably liked is weird and that they are acting far too unreasonably, which is why I argue and will continue to argue about it -- because hopefully it will be seen by Paradox, and they will understand that there are two sides to the matter. And, hopefully, they will choose to go forward while taking that feedback into account.

 

[Nikoleis]

1) You are placing vic 3 into the framework of eu5 here, which wasn't what I was getting at, it would have been better if you tried to do this with a game that we know more about. But here goes, let's pretend that EU5 is set in the Victorian period.

2) I have no idea what you mean by 'higher institutions' nor the traitor mechanic, nor how this budget and manpower system would work.

3) How is the cause of the civil war defined exactly?

4) How do I get the War of the Roses casus belli?
Is a religious civil war caused by conversions and 'massacres' (whatever they are in the context of eu5, I have no idea).
What specifically causes this noble war? How does it resolve exactly? What's it trying to be?

5) What causes this civil war? How do you stop this happening in every other country that has slavery? Does it always result in the CSA spawning or local equivalent? If not, how do you stop the CSA spawning in Brazil or the East India Company?

6) How do you kick a ruling family out? How does that relate to the Boshin war? Where is the mechanics for restoring the Emperor? How do you have that system and not have it apply to other states?

7) So, if a nation's control falls, and there is a cultural difference between the people, and there was money going to rebels more than the government, then what? The brother of Jesus pops up?
And you have to take control of the peasant estate? What does that mean?

I took the liberty to edit your answer to add number and limit it to my part. No other changes were made

1) This is Project Caesar's forum. Victoria 3 is two blocks down. I am not assuming Vic 3 mechanics in the slightest. If you do, consider not reading nor replying, for it is off topic. I do not play Victoria 3 anyway so "we" is a false assumption


2) Higher institution: The government, as in, who excert control. The player is the government of his policy (I am not using the term country for it is known that you can have TAG without Location control. Location is defined as the single smallest map entity as per technical term used in DD

Traitor: Generic term for the entity opposed to the government in place

Budget, Manpower: As per DD. Population can be used in the army, this is manpower. Money is money, as in ducats. As per previous Johan post, non landed entities can siphon money, example being the Rebels (as per the common term Rebel, with the classic Red and black Flag)


3) Since entities without Location control have soldiers and money, they are assumed to be able to declare war. In case of a strong rebel / disgruntled estate, triggers would define Locations to immediately switch camp to this new tag and gain Locations under their flag, with a Control (see DD definition) that allow them to tax and levy those Locations. A Civil war is a war. Only triggered by a different set of tag for the sake of denomination, but with same attached game mechanics


4) You do not get "War of the Rose", you get "Pretender rises" (denomination made generic) the pretender being the Ruler of the (civil) war attacking country, defined with a Casus Belli a-propos (likely triggered by low legitimacy from host country Ruler, low Control over rich land, and if applicable, royal bloodline that allows to claim said throne, think Royal Marriage leading to War of succession in EU4, except internal to your Host country)

Religious civil war would have trigger based on two Heretic to each other religion being present and having large enough share of power to consider warring each other, potentially modified by tolerance / laws (we are assuming EU4 tolerance style mechanics for now, I assume Clergy estate would deal with that, but this is a yet to be shown part) but also have the non official religion unhappy, to cause unrest / rebel entity existing

Noble war follows this pattern, this time with the Noble estate being the source of unrest. All of this for now corresponds roughly to the mechanics used by EU 4 to decide rebel type in a province. How it resolve / try to be depends on Noble's demands / civil war Casus Belli. If they want privilege, forcing the country to give them. If they want to put their family on the throne, get rid of your current ruler, and so on. This part, by definition, is flexible


5) Strong slavery present in the country, laws passed by the government to ban slavery. This is bound to cause unrest, creating a rebel entity, and we're back to the usual situation from above, with the Casus Belli "Repeal this Law". Abolishing Slavery as a law is bound to have triggers, but those cannot be clearly defined with our current knowledge. In EU4, there exist a trigger to change the Slave trade goods, but I would not use that here. Slavery ban is bound to be something you do not desire financially, so many countries would not have incentive to use it. As per Johan, Slaves have no rights. Their needs are low, thus making them cheap labor. Unless railroaded, It is potentially possible for no anti slavery movements to happen if the conditions are never right for it to appear. Nothing really prevent the American civil war to not happen in any other country, for it has no reason to be prevented. And it has no reason to be a Civil was only, many non-civil wars were fought to free slaves in others countries


6) Boshin war saw the Tokugawa expulsed from power. I admit this one is likely several civil wars however, but you can see the pattern: unrest (here caused by Burghers getting powerful fast from industrialization / harsh laws they are bound to fight against). Japan is special due to the Emperor / Shogun dichotomy and would delve in a very specific government system gameplay wise. I would see it with a balance of power between both, but we are outside of parameters we can assume, so I'll put it in the "Need to know more" basket. Base mechanic is still Rebel -> War declaration


7) Control is specifically defined in DD. It is how much the state can levy taxes and mens in a given Location, and inversely how much is in the hands of the Estates. Culture are likely to have a system similar to EU 4 of accepted culture / culture group, or close to that, where cultures not tolerated by the government are generating Unrest. And yes, we are back to a new country rising with a Ruler. Due to Rulers not being yet defined fully in Caesar, I can not assume that for instance, an assembly could be a Leader by itself (see the Cromwell case presented by @Arizal ). And yet. Rebel -> War

Estate have Loyalty, as per DD. If it falls low enough, the unrest it will cause (we know it does) will be what powers the Rebel state. If you make them happy, be it by giving to demands or stomping on them or anything else really raising their loyalty, Unrest will lower, the rebel state will grow weaker, potentially disbanding

 

[Ekyman]

Actually, reading your answers, it would seem we aren't that far of from each other. We come from a different side of the spectrum, but are essentially saying similar things. I might be absolutist when it comes to giving modifiers and special mechanics, though.

I agree with this actually, in that I think everyone here wants strong core mechanics and pretty much everyone (minus the few hardcore railroaders) want general possibilities to be open to every tag. The disagreement is about the extent to which highly specific events should also be modeled in more specific ways that more accurately reflect the causes and courses of each specific event, and the manner in which that modeling is done.

And, based on the way people are wording things, I think there's a lot of basic disagreement on what it even means to represent a specific historical event in game systems. That is, to what extent can you even say that a generic system broadly inspired by a certain event actually represents that event at all, as opposed to simply being inspired by that event (see below).

Of course, but we can inspire us from them to draw more general mechanics that can then still be recognizable when you play the intended country.

Case in point

I agree with the first half - specific events should inspire general mechanics where appropriate - but the disagreement is that for many on the flavor side "recognizable" isn't satisfying when you are in the playing in the context of the specific event. It's great to play Mecklenburg and get a parliamentary crisis generally inspired by the English Civil War, it's a letdown to play England and get a parliamentary crisis that feels like a generic imitation of the English Civil War but won't commit to being the English Civil War.

What uniqueness should be represented when it comes to the English civil war(s) (or any other historical events) that can't be baked into a generic mechanic?

To be honest I barely know anything about the English Civil War(s); I'm just using the example because it was already being used when I commented and it's in EU4. But I'm confident in saying that it has unique nuance because every event does.

Theoretically there's nothing that literally "can't" be baked into a generic mechanic other than, like, names of people and such, because theoretically you can always add more generic mechanics and make them more specific and give them more nuance and make the simulation around them more detailed, etc. But in practice generic mechanics generally struggle to represent the unique nuances of institutions and situations that make them what they are. For example, it's important for the ACW that slavery was not just used in the American South but a deeply entrenched institution. As another example, CK3 switched from a custom papacy system to a generalized religious system; the papacy uses the generic spiritual head of faith system because that's what Catholicism has. This is an accurate literal representation of what the papacy is but it's ultimately pretty unsatisfying because it is not a system representing the papacy with the unique features of the papacy - it's just a spiritual head of faith localized as the papacy, behaving as any other spiritual head of faith.

-American Civil War: Slavery was one of the main engine (not the only one, there was a race to get more state for each side leading to the conflict). States with a lot of slaves would join one side, states whith high control and few slaves the other and the ones with neither of those are staying mostly neutral. The line is clear and we have two strong forces with clear geographic lines, so it is pretty much part of the country becoming a new TAG

And this is where we disagree on what it even means to represent a specific event. To me that's not the American Civil War, that's a rebellion over slavery which divides the country based on the distribution of slaves. The American Civil War is certainly an example of such a rebellion, but that doesn't mean such a generic system is truly representing the ACW. If a game promised to "represent the American Civil War" and it was done with nothing but a generic system where clicking the "ban slavery" button could trigger a revolt I would be pretty disappointed.

Now if a game wanted to be completely generalized then there's nothing inherently wrong with not having specific systems and only having the ACW in the sense that the US can, like any other country, have a rebellion about slavery. But that's the kind of game that I, and many other people, don't want to see in this case - we want the specific flavor that makes the ACW feel like the ACW and not like every other slavery revolt that could possibly happen. Which is the crux of the disagreement here.

Strong slavery present in the country, laws passed by the government to ban slavery. This is bound to cause unrest, creating a rebel entity, and we're back to the usual situation from above, with the Casus Belli "Repeal this Law".

Continuing on the above idea, this isn't even how it happened in the ACW that this system is supposed to be representing. It's a great way of making a generalized system for revolts about slavery (or any other law), but it fails to capture the ACW.

Nothing really prevent the American civil war to not happen in any other country, for it has no reason to be prevented.

Any country can have a state-based rebellion over slavery, and any country should be able to. Only America or a country with the same cultural, societal, and political makeup as America can have the American Civil War, capitalized, which was a specific event and not any civil war in America.

Which is the core of the disagreement here. For some people it is enough to see the American Civil War represented as a revolt about slavery; the English Civil War represented as a war between parliament and king. It's ok for this group that the unique nuances of those events are lost, and that they feel like any other revolt about slavery or any other war between parliament and king (maybe excepting a few custom names). For other people it's unsatisfying to lose those nuances and bland to see every slavery revolt being identical and every parlimentary conflict being identical.

So the problem isn't that your ideas are bad as general mechanics, it's that they do nothing to resolve the complaint that pure generalized mechanics with no additional representation of specific events lack nuance and become bland. Because they intentionally overlook the nuance in order to make themselves generalizable.

 

[Keksburg]

How do you have that system but also include the flavour, the causes, and the outcomes for all those different civil wars though?

Like what you quoted, ig, which reflects the fundamental nature of civil wars I think.

But PjCsr may not have something similar to ig - that's fine I think - for me personally, a civil war driven by general mechanic + specific flavours is acceptaced, like EUIV. The difference is, that PjCsr is more advance that EUIV, so it may rely on general mechanics more.

 

[GenericType]

Culture and region, yes. TAG? No please, not past the first 50 years of game. I don't want Prussia to be a super power because the Truenaming Arcane Guild cast a spell on them before the beginning of time

Agreed. Who determined that Prussian citizens can't compete with Britain in trade and the high seas just because someone set in stone that anyone who's living in that state should be a spacemarine instead?

 

[Nikoleis]

Continuing on the above idea, this isn't even how it happened in the ACW that this system is supposed to be representing. It's a great way of making a generalized system for revolts about slavery (or any other law), but it fails to capture the ACW.

Well, see, my problem here is, England was my vassal, Portugal and Italy assimilated, South Africa my richest colony, and California my main frontline against Castillan Florida, last I played. I fail to see why Great Nusantara care about a completely impossible Slavery related proxy war between France and the UK by alliance to two rival political parties. But if you don't have generic mechanics, it means that if I want to do anything not Imperialism CB spam, I should be blessed by the Truenamers back in 1300 something. My problem arises that specific events up until now were used as replacements for content for anything NOT the magical TAG. I want opportunities, not reenactment, which makes no sense late in game.

But! I am all for s different system! Scenario! Here you get a partial map (but simulated outside actors) so to not have entire new start date, but that can focus on specific events with given objectives and more local details. And this would ensure that stuffs that, to begin with, never could happen out of sheer chaos in normal gameplay, still be represented

 

[Ekyman]

Well, see, my problem here is, England was my vassal, Portugal and Italy assimilated, South Africa my richest colony, and California my main frontline against Castillan Florida, last I played. I fail to see why Great Nusantara care about a completely impossible Slavery related proxy war between France and the UK by alliance to two rival political parties. But if you don't have generic mechanics, it means that if I want to do anything not Imperialism CB spam, I should be blessed by the Truenamers back in 1300 something. My problem arises that specific events up until now were used as replacements for content for anything NOT the magical TAG. I want opportunities, not reenactment, which makes no sense late in game.

I feel like I'm repeating myself. Basically no one is opposed to generic mechanics. Specific mechanics are not meant as an alternative to the existence of generalized mechanics. The point of specific content is to make the representation of specific historical events feel like those specific events and instead of yet another generic event.

Tbh I'm confused by your example, since I don't see how it relates to specific civil war mechanics or why it's happening if it's impossible.

 

[Nikoleis]

And my point is that specific examples usually ends up being the only one represented. Westernisation, Revolutionary France, many mission trees (the Mali one originally was a fantastic example with the forced magic 20% inflation hitting all of Europe), Ottoman Decadence, English parliament, Prussian militarization, Frontier, Trade posts... some got a generalised approaches over time, but Portugal still has to conquer instead of Feitorias along Africa, Russia still isn't letting the US do the far west and so on... my desire is that generic should be used to make flavor, not have special thing for a couple TAG and nothing for the rest

 

[Imp0815]

Take a look at my previous games like eu2, hoi2, hoi3, eu3, eu4, vicky2 etc.. I'm a firm believer that mechanics should be deep and simulative.

but you also need tag/culture/religion specific content, else the game becomes bland and boring.

A predicament indeed!

Railroading a tag/culture/religion via a tree/tasks/missions will result in one or two playthroughs until it gets bland. A open system becomes a sludge without character and thus bland.

In terms of simulation i would like to know if a prototype was ever tested of action-reactions - So a tag/culture/religion would develop over time based on actions/events/environments? - Something similar as the creature in black and white with an action and the player decides if he likes it or not by being the reaction part of the equation. Now replace the creature with a country and some actions being attributed to player interactions, with events or shifts of values as reactions.
If such a system was sophisticated enough it would allow for following the historical developments of countries and provide enough ample ground of alt history freedom.

 

[Kovax]

The problem with your argument is that at this point in time when the game starts is exactly when the borders between culture and nation become murky... France is the nation of the French people, just as Italy is the nation of the Italian people and England is the nation of the English people... we can only assume that any polity that unites these regions would go by that same name, because we don't know anything else. And it is impossible to know anything else, because that is how the history of our world went.

A Duke of Burgundy that conquers France would likely call himself King of France, and for all purposes he would indeed be the 'France' Tag. So in your example, having Tag=Fra would be exactly the same as having Culture_group=French, but one is given priority because that is what we naturally assume to be the 'end goal' of any French nation: The creation of a French state, which is France. You are arguing AGAINST being France, when instead you should be thinking 'Would Toulouse, Barois, Anjou, Burgundy, or any other French minor duchy not claim to be Kings of France if they conquered France?' and the answer to that is 'No, most of the time, they wouldn't.'
.....

The problem with YOUR argument is that a Duke of Burgundy controlling 90% of what is considered "France" might want to call himself King of France, but can't because there's already a small rump remnant of that name. Until that remnant is wiped out, he is stuck with "Burgundy", and according to your logic, should be locked out of any "French" content, while the paltry remnant already known as France holding out on the fringe of the area should get it.

In my opinion, once he's completed some of the French content as Burgundy, he might actually change the name to France, either by annexing the last remnant of that name, or by forcing them to relinquish the title. The content should NOT be locked by the tag, but by the conditions which made the content historically possible, now available for whoever happens to be the "France-equivalent".

There can still be an "English Civil War", because "England" is a region. The political entity which gets that event will PROBABLY be England, but Wales, Scotland, or any other entity of "English" culture controlling the majority of the region could get the event. Same for France, where the content is aimed at any French-culture entity controlling the majority of the French region and meeting the other conditions of the event or decision. In most games, it WILL be France, but a human player or extremely unusual random outcomes can change things enough for some other country to get that content instead. The odds of it happening to an AI "not-France" should be low. The odds of it happening to or as a result of manipulations by a human player should be much higher, and "practically inevitable" for some of the more "creative" players.

 

[Asheviere]

The problem with YOUR argument is that a Duke of Burgundy controlling 90% of what is considered "France" might want to call himself King of France, but can't because there's already a small rump remnant of that name. Until that remnant is wiped out, he is stuck with "Burgundy", and according to your logic, should be locked out of any "French" content, while the paltry remnant already known as France holding out on the fringe of the area should get it.

In my opinion, once he's completed some of the French content as Burgundy, he might actually change the name to France, either by annexing the last remnant of that name, or by forcing them to relinquish the title. The content should NOT be locked by the tag, but by the conditions which made the content historically possible, now available for whoever happens to be the "France-equivalent".

I am not sure what you, on the other hand, are arguing for. So Burgundy would, at the end of the matter, still inevitably form France? You seem to agree with that. Which follows my point that most tags in the France region would inevitably seek out to form the 'France' tag.

But you also seem to be conflating the nonsensical limitations of EU4 with what should actually happen and be represented in an optimal, improved system. Sure, there may be a remnant state that argues it still holds claim to the title of 'France' while Burgundy de facto holds control over a majority of the Kingdom. But what difference is there between that situation and a situation such as the one where the Dukes of Anjou claimed to be Kings of Jerusalem? In both situations, although both the Remnant and the Dukes of Anjou lay claim to a greater title, that does not mean they actually hold any real power over it. This has happened many times in history, and it is not uncommon for claimants and pretenders to persist for years, decades, or even centuries. England only let go of its claim over the French throne with George III.

Or are you arguing that we should still follow the EU4 system? Where one can exile France to a single island in the pacific, and that somehow prevents others from forming the France tag? That is, imo, not something that should be taken as inspiration for Project Caesar.

With the limitations of Eu4, there are no ways to represent these complicated events, whether it be dynastic changes or usurpation of titles, and you appear to be looking at it through those lens. But there is a solution to this, and it's one Paradox has already implemented. As they seem to be taking inspiration from so many other games, I argue that they should also look to Crusader Kings, where such situations are well-represented by the usurpation of titles whose owner no longer controls the territories the title is centered around. With Caesar going so far back as 1337, I argue that such a system should be a part of the game, as it is still early enough that the argument around who, exactly, would come to be the 'King of France' or many other Kingdoms is still up to debate.

There are complications, of course. If the France tag is usurped, what would the previous France become? In response to that, I say that the creation of new, custom tags is not exactly a new phenomenon. In EU4, it is represented with Colonial Nations and Client States. In Crusader Kings one can create custom Kingdoms. It is not as though examples of such things do not exist.

Regarding being 'locked out of content', I never said such. There is no reason we can't have a 'French Mission Tree' that is expanded once someone actually becomes the 'France Tag'. There is no reason Burgundy wouldn't have its own missions to follow while it is in the process of dealing with the remnants of the former France. I argue that there should be 'unique content', that doesn't mean I argue that some content can't be shared between similar tags, or tags in similar positions.

So your argument, in the end, comes down to what...? That we should respect France's claim, and thus consider them to be the France tag until they are completely wiped out from the face of the earth? I do agree forcing tags to 'relinquish their title' could be something fun, especially if done through war. We have claims over territories, why not claims over tags? Perhaps that could even be the requirement to form some tags, with for example the Duke of Anjou having more relaxed requirements for forming Jerusalem while others without a claim would have far more strict ones.

There is no reason we must limit the game to what is possible in EU4. EU4, in my opinion, actually has a rather terrible system regarding this.

 

[Lindaegan]

Where one can exile France to a single island in the pacific, and that somehow prevents others from forming the France tag?

They are arguing the exact opposite - that a situation like the one you describe locks out Burgundy from France's tag-specific content, which is stupid. This then is a condemnation of tag-fixed mechanics, and the "French" content should be available to Burgundy in this instance. Essentially, the content should not be locked behind a tag, but should be locked behind the causes of that historical content happening in game. Since Burgundy is, in this case, basically France, it should be available to them once those conditions have been fulfilled.

 

[Kovax]

They are arguing the exact opposite - that a situation like the one you describe locks out Burgundy from France's tag-specific content, which is stupid. This then is a condemnation of tag-fixed mechanics, and the "French" content should be available to Burgundy in this instance. Essentially, the content should not be locked behind a tag, but should be locked behind the causes of that historical content happening in game. Since Burgundy is, in this case, basically France, it should be available to them once those conditions have been fulfilled.

Exactly. Whatever it's called, it has de facto become France, and should have access to the "French" content. It doesn't really matter whether the country will or will not eventually change its name to reflect the reality, in the meantime it is effectively acting as France. Why should it be locked out of content until it makes the official name change?

According to Asheviere's logic, Great Britain should be locked out of England's content, because it's no longer England, even though it's occupying the primarily English-culture region of that name. The tag may or may not reflect the reality.

The simple method is to program events and decisions for specific tags, which ends up having things occur for the intended country when they shouldn't, or fail to occur for another country when they should, because the triggers do not adequately reflect the reality on the ground. The more complicated but more realistic approach is to program events and decisions for a specific "role", such as the dominant power in a region, the closest competitor to that dominant power, or the most prominent trade, naval, or other power of that culture, religion, and/or form of government. In the vast majority of cases, with the AI in control, the historical course will be taken by the historical country to do so. In rarer cases, or where the human player does things to upset the apple cart, it can better conform to the events than if it's tag-specific.

Of course, they COULD do a complex set of events and decisions for every country in the regions, so Burgundy's tag-specific content could INCLUDE most of the French content, which would trigger if it becomes the dominant power, while France could get parts of Burgundy's content which it could use if it reaches into Burgundy's Flemish holdings early on, along with some Holland content, some norther Spain content, and so on. Easier to make the conditions for the events regional and tag-independent, however.

 

[A Pink Duck]

They are arguing the exact opposite - that a situation like the one you describe locks out Burgundy from France's tag-specific content, which is stupid. This then is a condemnation of tag-fixed mechanics, and the "French" content should be available to Burgundy in this instance. Essentially, the content should not be locked behind a tag, but should be locked behind the causes of that historical content happening in game. Since Burgundy is, in this case, basically France, it should be available to them once those conditions have been fulfilled.

Exactly, it's basically (to butcher the Bard), "a tag by any other name should have the flavor". Whether your tag is Burgundy, Valois, Orleans, or some custom tag, if you are French cultured and own the right parts of the French region you should have access to the French flavor (whatever that means to you). Even if you never bother to formally usurp the "France" tag because you hate the color blue.

 

[Fatherlorris]

Well, I am glad we can all finally agree we should have unique content and that if we are French and in France we should be get French content.