• 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 #22 - 24th of July

Welcome to another Tinto Talks, the Happy Wednesday where we give you fun information about the top secret Project Caesar.

Today we will talk a little bit more about how armies work and take a look at how combat works. I’d say the entire unit and combat system is based on the mechanics of the EU series, but we’ve taken influences on combat and organization of armies from March of the Eagles, ideas of the connection between Regiments and Pops from Victoria, and logistics and automation from Imperator, to create what we believe is the best of all systems.

I am now assuming that you all read Tinto Talks #11, where we talked about different types of regiments like levies, mercenaries and regulars, and discussed how manpower worked. If you have not read it already, go to https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/tinto-talks-11-8th-of-may-2024.1675078/ before you continue reading this.

Regiments can be recruited in any location you have built the infrastructure to allow recruitment in, Levies can be raised in any province capital, and mercenaries in any capital, city or town. While regular regiments go as low as 100 men at the start of the game, Levies, which fight much much less efficiently, can be organized in up to 1,000 per regiment from the start, with the Chinese even having levy regiments of 1,500 at the start. Why does it work like this? Well, calling up a levy as Poland and get 11,000 men, but 110 regiments is a bit too much, but you can live with it. Delhi, Mamluks and others with 700 regiments are rather too much; and as usual, Yuan breaks everything, where even with low control and wrong culture, calling up a levy, and being forced to handle 1800+ regiments is a bit too much to most of us human beings.

Before we go into how combat itself will work, when two armies that are hostile to each other are present in the same location, there are some things that will need to be explained. As in many other games, you have as much control over your armies as you want to, and you can move them around and reorganize them to your heart's content.

With the granularity of the map though, we could no longer use days as the smallest tick, but have to resort to hours as the time tick. The day ticks from 8:00 to 19.00 every day, and the remaining hours are skipped over (representing the fact that armies need to rest and are not always on the move). Now some may be worried that the game will be slower and perform worse, well.. When you fight a war and you care about it, you probably play at a slower speed, but at max speed the game should be as fast as EU4 or Imperator.

However, we have something here that we will only tease about today, and will talk about in a future Tinto Talks, ie, a powerful objective system that uses the same AI components as the AI itself uses.

ui_teaser.png

Is it objectively better to give an objective?


An army is a group of regiments that are organized as a single entity. These can be led by a character who may or may not have traits for being a general. If they don’t have a trait they may get one after a large battle.

The abilities of the character have a lot of impact on the military aspects, and each attribute has at least three different benefits.

general_tooltip.png

It is always better to have a commander than not..

The regiments themselves can be deployed to one of four parts of an army. They could be in the center, they could be on the left flank, they could be on the right flank, or they could be in the reserves. While you can micromanage your army in detail, there are also ways to autobalance your armies. We often refer to one of these four parts as a section as a common word.

polish_army.png

Very WiP UI, but these are the feudal levies of Poland..

So how does combat work? There are a lot of similarities here with EU4, but we only have 1 type of main phase, but the dice roll is rerolled as frequently as that game.

The battle starts with a bombard phase, where any unit that can bombard, which is basically only artillery units, will be able to fire on the opposing army. The Artillery will be able to damage units in the opposing “section”, so your left flank fires on the enemies right flank etc. If there are no units in the opposing section, it can fire at any sector that is not the reserves.

In the main phase combat works like this.

Each section tries to get as many units to engage as their maximum frontage allows. Most of the time, every regiment has the same frontage value. They will attack their opposing section until there are no possible units left there, and then they will hit enemies in the closest section.

Only engaged regiments will fight in the current round of combat. And a regiment will try to fight another engaged regiment in the opposing section first. If there is none in an opposite Section, they can attack any other Sections, where a unit with a good flanking ability can do extra damage. If there is no opposing unit engaged, they will damage the morale of all regiments in that section.

So how does a regiment engage then? Well, at each tick, they roll a dice and check against their initiative, and if they succeed, then they become engaged. This chance increases for every hour of combat. This will make you want to have every section of your army to have units that can engage quickly, to allow your heavy hitters to get enough time to engage. Now this may not always be an option, especially in the earlier game when your selection of units is rather low.

Every regiment, even those in the reserves, have a ticking penalty to morale every hour of the battle.

A regiment that gets too low morale, will break and leave their section until the end of the combat, and will be in the broken units section.

If there are not enough regiments in a section to cover the frontage, there will be a chance for units in the reserve to reinforce that section. However, only enough units for the possible frontage of the battle attempts to reinforce each hour. So having huge doomstacks has no advantage.

The broken units section are the regiments that have been routed in the current battle. They will no longer participate in this battle at all, even if their regiments are still a part of an army that is engaged.

A battle is over when one side has no regiments in their three front sections or the army retreats due to no morale or a manual order to retreat.


attacker_tooltip.png

Pretty decent army, but not sure it will win against 11,000 polish levies.

There are some important new attributes to think about for units.
  • Combat Speed: This is how quickly units can move up from the reserves section to fill holes in another section.
  • Frontage: There is a limited amount of regiments that fight from each section. Topology and Vegetation can reduce this, and some units may require more or less frontage. At the start of the game, a regular 100 men sized regiment uses the same frontage as a full 3,600 men in the Napoleonic era. This is done to scale the numbers to feel properly historical while still getting good gameplay.
  • Initiative: How quickly a unit can engage as soon as combat starts. Lighter units have higher initiative.


Stay tuned, because next week we’ll talk about Logistics and Sieges, the most important part of winning wars!
 
  • 301Like
  • 150Love
  • 18
  • 6
  • 6
Reactions:
Sooo...what is there to avoid the AI dancing the conga around your troops for months, retreating away into fog of war only to siege the opposite side of your country, as you painfully try to pin them down only to realise it's futile and have to go for a siege-race never actually fighting a battle?

It was, let's just say, dogshit in EU4. And the problem would end up being far worse if not addressed now that we have many times more locations than EU4 has provinces.
 
Speaking of war, ... will there be a traumatic 'getting war declared' Soundtrack like in EU4?

View attachment 1167369

You could also use different shocking sound levels based on the power-balance, (or how f*ed you are) ... perhaps even reuse the EU4 soundtrack for very dire moments, just to feed on old player trauma. :D

Seconding this. I believe it to be the most important element in PC's sound design.
 
  • 3Love
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Can y’all please add Ambushes?
Maybe by hiding armies in terrain that the enemy can’t see in due to FoW (Jungles, Forests) and then ambushing them from that location and getting combat modifiers? That would be so cool
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I think it makes very little sense for the Mamluks, Delhi, and Yuan to have feudal levies. All of these states had standing armies, and in the case of the first two, the state itself was almost an extension of that army. The Mamluks were not mobilising peasants to fight wars, they were, of course, fighting wars with the titular Mamluk soldiers!

It feels as though the devs have decided that standing armies are impossible to exist before 1600 because they were quote on quote invented by Sweden. But this is extremely eurocentric. Sweden did make an important innovation that seems reasonable to be represented as an institution, but having a standing army was only special and unique within Europe specifically, because medieval European states did not typically have them. Sweden should still be the origin of Professional Armies, but at the start of the game, many Asian countries should have standing armies and shouldn't be using levies.

I would also like to ask, how long does the typical battle last under this system?
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I think it makes very little sense for the Mamluks, Delhi, and Yuan to have feudal levies. All of these states had standing armies, and in the case of the first two, the state itself was almost an extension of that army. The Mamluks were not mobilising peasants to fight wars, they were, of course, fighting wars with the titular Mamluk soldiers!

It feels as though the devs have decided that standing armies are impossible to exist before 1600 because they were quote on quote invented by Sweden. But this is extremely eurocentric. Sweden did make an important innovation that seems reasonable to be represented as an institution, but having a standing army was only special and unique within Europe specifically, because medieval European states did not typically have them. Sweden should still be the origin of Professional Armies, but at the start of the game, many Asian countries should have standing armies and shouldn't be using levies.

I would also like to ask, how long does the typical battle last under this system?
Given that "standing armies" are nothing more than a particular building type, it's trivial to represent this fact. We also don't know how things look outside of the European-specific example mentioned in this TT.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Each section tries to get as many units to engage as their maximum frontage allows. Most of the time, every regiment has the same frontage value. They will attack their opposing section until there are no possible units left there, and then they will hit enemies in the closest section.
Shouldnt combat width be something that will benefit the high-quality side with smaller regiments?
Each section tries to get as many units to engage as their maximum frontage allows. Most of the time, every regiment has the same frontage value. They will attack their opposing section until there are no possible units left there, and then they will hit enemies in the closest section.
So there can be 20 regiments on one flank actively engaging 1 single enemy regiment? Or will combat width of a flank reduce depending on numbers of units currently engaged?
So how does a regiment engage then? Well, at each tick, they roll a dice and check against their initiative, and if they succeed, then they become engaged. This chance increases for every hour of combat. This will make you want to have every section of your army to have units that can engage quickly, to allow your heavy hitters to get enough time to engage. Now this may not always be an option, especially in the earlier game when your selection of units is rather low.
Does that mean that units which are not engaged will suffer damage?

Also its missing the most important bits. How does terrain, technology and army composition interplay?

In all honesty, it does feel like a downgrade compared to the standard EU4 "chess" which had better granularity and less micro. Especially with imperator which even had a skirmish pseudo-phase. What do you think the game gains from having flanks instead of fully homogenized combat line aka CK3? Not suggesting to remove them, just wondering what does it add apart from flavour.

Few suggestions and observations
  1. Cavalry. Cavalry. Cavalry. Where and when do I want to have army with a lot of cavalry?
  2. IRL Fire-centric combat did last longer, cause more casulties and decreased skill-requirements on soldiers. Would be cool to have this implemented in some way. Perhaps replacing "engagement" with melee.
  3. Please consider distinction between flanks and center. At the very least cavalry should have easier time reinforcing flanks from reserve.
  4. Make distribution of troops into sections automatic-only. This way you can have cool features like using a water or a fort as an obstacle to block a flank or using a forest as a flank where light infantry is king instead of cavalry
  5. Add a retreat phase depending on terrain and army composition. Retreat was the phase where armies suffered most casulties. Cavalry excels here, artillery sucks.
  6. Give defender ability to dig in and give attacker ability to negate it via victory in bombardment phase
  7. Initial Recce phase where victor gains bonus for the rest of combat. Size of bonus depends mainly on terrain and can be very severe in mountains or woodland.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
I think it makes very little sense for the Mamluks, Delhi, and Yuan to have feudal levies. All of these states had standing armies, and in the case of the first two, the state itself was almost an extension of that army. The Mamluks were not mobilising peasants to fight wars, they were, of course, fighting wars with the titular Mamluk soldiers!

It feels as though the devs have decided that standing armies are impossible to exist before 1600 because they were quote on quote invented by Sweden. But this is extremely eurocentric. Sweden did make an important innovation that seems reasonable to be represented as an institution, but having a standing army was only special and unique within Europe specifically, because medieval European states did not typically have them. Sweden should still be the origin of Professional Armies, but at the start of the game, many Asian countries should have standing armies and shouldn't be using levies.

I would also like to ask, how long does the typical battle last under this system?
Yeah, China had figured out how to move on from levies under the Han. I hope they at least have professional troops as well.
 
Given that "standing armies" are nothing more than a particular building type, it's trivial to represent this fact. We also don't know how things look outside of the European-specific example mentioned in this TT.
This tinto talk mentions all three of those countries as having levies:

Regiments can be recruited in any location you have built the infrastructure to allow recruitment in, Levies can be raised in any province capital, and mercenaries in any capital, city or town. While regular regiments go as low as 100 men at the start of the game, Levies, which fight much much less efficiently, can be organized in up to 1,000 per regiment from the start, with the Chinese even having levy regiments of 1,500 at the start. Why does it work like this? Well, calling up a levy as Poland and get 11,000 men, but 110 regiments is a bit too much, but you can live with it. Delhi, Mamluks and others with 700 regiments are rather too much; and as usual, Yuan breaks everything, where even with low control and wrong culture, calling up a levy, and being forced to handle 1800+ regiments is a bit too much to most of us human beings.
 
you can drill regiments yes, its an action you can unlock from an advance.

you can create a new subject state from any province you own, and you should be able to make a specific person its ruler yes.
Does that mean Vassals can be released from a location without any nation having a core on the location like the "Client States" in EU4 but from the start?
 
Well, calling up a levy as Poland and get 11,000 men, but 110 regiments is a bit too much, but you can live with it. Delhi, Mamluks and others with 700 regiments are rather too much; and as usual, Yuan breaks everything, where even with low control and wrong culture, calling up a levy, and being forced to handle 1800+ regiments is a bit too much to most of us human beings.

Why not leave Poland as the only playable country in Project Caesar? Problem solved! I can even see the subtitle similar to other PDX projects: "Project Caesar: Poland".
 
  • 2Haha
Reactions:
I think all these questions about nighttime raids, timezone synchronization, whether fighting stops at 19:00 for the night, different tick lengths for different game speeds, etc are missing the actual point of the hourly ticks.

I doesn't look like these ticks (battle subticks would perhaps be a better description?) are something that you would or should be able to micromanage - you are not going to be pausing the game at 14:00 on a specific date to give out further orders on what the army should do until 15:00. There's probably not going to be a clock in addition to the date either.

As I see it, the main goal of these hourly ticks is to prevent battles lasting months or years. The game will still run on 1 day ticks, but for battles, it will simulate 12 separate subticks between each day tick to make the battles go faster. The alternative would be to still do only 1 day ticks as in EU4, but scale all damages etc up 12-fold, but that would mean that a) battles will be very RNG if each dice roll has a huge impact and b) the reinforcment mechanics won't have enough time to properly work.

So any talk of night raids, days being shorter in the winter etc aren't really valid here at all - the purpose of the hourly ticks isn't to provide more micromanagement, but just to better simulate the battles without them lasting forever. Whether they are described as hourly subticks from 08:00 to 19:00 or two-hour subticks over 24 hours or anything else doesn't have any actual difference.
 
  • 8
  • 2
Reactions:
1. Do Nations have Terrain Combat Bonuses due to their knowledge of home territory? Like Vietnamese Troops being better in Jungles? Or Cossacks being better in Steppes?

2. Do Leaders have Terrain Related Traits? Like if a General that has fought in Mountains a lot gaining a Mountain terrain expert trait that gives them bonuses in Mountains?

3. Can we built Military Academies to give us better Generals or Admirals? Or Build Training Camps so that our recruited Troops start with more experience?

4. Does the Game have Weather that could effects Troops?
For Example if it Rains during a battle, Heavy troops get malus while light troops get bonus? (Agencourt Reference)

5. Can Troops be taken as Prisoners and Ransomed? Or Enslaved and Sold for Profit?
This is something that happened quite a lot
 
Are there army automation options like Imperator?
The tinto talk did say this:
However, we have something here that we will only tease about today, and will talk about in a future Tinto Talks, ie, a powerful objective system that uses the same AI components as the AI itself uses.
Which seems to refer to the sort of army automation option you are asking about.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I think all these questions about nighttime raids, timezone synchronization, whether fighting stops at 19:00 for the night, different tick lengths for different game speeds, etc are missing the actual point of the hourly ticks.

I doesn't look like these ticks (battle subticks would perhaps be a better description?) are something that you would or should be able to micromanage - you are not going to be pausing the game at 14:00 on a specific date to give out further orders on what the army should do until 15:00. There's probably not going to be a clock in addition to the date either.

As I see it, the main goal of these hourly ticks is to prevent battles lasting months or years. The game will still run on 1 day ticks, but for battles, it will simulate 12 separate subticks between each day tick to make the battles go faster. The alternative would be to still do only 1 day ticks as in EU4, but scale all damages etc up 12-fold, but that would mean that a) battles will be very RNG if each dice roll has a huge impact and b) the reinforcment mechanics won't have enough time to properly work.

So any talk of night raids, days being shorter in the winter etc aren't really valid here at all - the purpose of the hourly ticks isn't to provide more micromanagement, but just to better simulate the battles without them lasting forever.
That seems likely, yeah. And I'm pretty happy about this, although I would be opposed to having more ticks on principle, I think it makes sense if the devs are trying to make battles last less time while still giving them multiple ticks, which fulfills pretty much the main thing I wanted out of the battle system.
 
yeah, good description. Keeping the core, while adding things we know will improve it.

why are we still calling it project ceasar and not eu5? so many comments where "the standard"/baseline is eu4, and the additions are other pdx games... like this comment, where "the core" is eu4.