• 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:
I think you are wrong:
View attachment 1167389
The TT itself says that you'd probably slow down for war, presumably so that you can take advantage of the granularity the hourly ticks offer. Dice is rerolled every 5 hours, if the game were still ticking on a daily basis and the hourly ticks would be just simulated subticks that would mean that you wouldn't be able to follow along the battle or issue a retreat if it goes heavily against you. Battles in that case would be non-transparent RNG laden slugfests the player would basically have no control over outside of maneuvering their armies into them, which would be the antithesis of what this game promises to deliver. Let's say an average EU4 battle takes two weeks, or 14 days/ticks. Johan said in this thread that battles in Project Caesar take 20% less ticks on average compared to EU4, so 11-12 ticks. If those ticks don't happen real time and are just simulated under the hood, that'd mean that the battle is over in a day without any possibility of player involvement. If that were the case, with a little exaggeration everyone would riot and the game would flop.
Battles could happen in a single tick and it wouldnt be a big deal.

Instead of following along, you would just get a message with replay of individual turns. Player involvement was already limited to calling premature retreat (which should have been largely automatic).
 
  • 2
Reactions:
8:00 to 19.00 clock timer? This could be option named Flavorful Clock.
Otherwise it would go 0:00 to 24:00 ticking 2 hours (0/2/4/6/8/10/12/14/16/18/20/22).
Vicky 3 has smallest tick of 6 hours, so here time is 3x more granular.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
Will the same be possible for colonies? Like Spanish generals governing territories after conquering them.
 
Player involvement was already limited to calling premature retreat (which should have been largely automatic).
That is where we differ then. Calling a retreat is an important aspect of every battle, and could play an even more significant role in Project Caesar, where it's your actual pops are dying. Having no control over that would be a huge flaw of the game's combat system.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Was there some mechanical reason to not just do 24 ticks but give like a 99% net penalty to movement and damage during "night" (after all other modifiers were applied) to sort of simulate the same effect but without the weird hour skipping?
Constantly gaining and losing a movement penalty would be miserable. The hour skipping is purely visual and if you’re not staring at the clock you won’t even notice it.
I was more thinking that at high 'speeds' the game doesn't count hour ticks so it's less processing but this probably creates more problems than it
I would assume the engine doesn’t distinguish the timeframe of what tick it’s ticking, it just knows that a tick has been ticked and it needs to calculate the stuff assigned to that tick. Also if we assume unit movement also runs on the hourly ticks you couldn’t skip them anyway. And the game switching granularities would be a weird and annoying gameplay experience as well.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
To have realistic numbers, can Artillery regiments scale from something like:
5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50? 1, 2, 3, 6, 10? And then just give them either a modifier for the entire section or a massive combat power modifier?

Scaling from a realistic 10 cannon regiment to 1200 feels absurd. Napoleon's Grand Armèe only had 300 cannons in total.

Yes, there were a lot of men to use them, but we may as well depict the regiment to be the number of cannon pieces instead of men since that's the actual relevant regiment strength.

Since the number of men in the regiment is irrelevant since we can give the unit a combat power modifier, I feel this would help provide immersion.
People who dislike your comment apparently haven't done any basic research.

The Encyclopædia Britannica (1771) describes that one cannon was manned by a dozen people. Wiki:

"Each cannon would be manned by two gunners, six soldiers, and four officers of the artillery. The right gunner was to prime the piece and load it with powder, while the left gunner would fetch the powder from the magazine and keep ready to fire the cannon at the officer's command. Three soldiers stood on each side of the cannon, to ram and sponge the cannon, and hold the ladle. The second soldier on the left was charged with providing 50 rounds."

I didn't look up your numbers (and you didn't provide a source), but for the Seven Years' War, these numbers seem to be accurate (which is why I am surprised that Napoleon's army only had around 300 cannons).

Battle of Rossbach:
  • Prussia: 22,000; 79 guns
  • France, HRE: 41,110; 114 guns
Battle of Leuthen:
  • Prussia: 36,000; 167 guns
  • Austria: 65,000; 210 guns
Battle of Kunersdorf:
  • Austria, Russia: 59,500; 248 guns
  • Prussia: 50,900; 230 guns
Battle of Torgau:
  • Prussia: 48,500; 309 guns
  • Austria: 52,000; 275 guns
--
So the question is rather this: How many cannons will be in one regiment? In the Age of Absolutism, you will have an artillery regiment consisting of 600 men; does that mean we will get 50 cannons per artillery regiment? EU4 was unfortunately not good at representing what an artillery regiment consisted of. A regular player would interpret this as 1000 cannons, which is extremely unrealistic.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Constantly gaining and losing a movement penalty would be miserable. The hour skipping is purely visual and if you’re not staring at the clock you won’t even notice it.
That's fair, but it does bring up the question that others asked if why ticks don't just represent 2 hours instead. Skipping time isn't more immersive then marching through the night.
 
That is where we differ then. Calling a retreat is an important aspect of every battle, and could play an even more significant role in Project Caesar, where it's your actual pops are dying. Having no control over that would be a huge flaw of the game's combat system.
Its the general who calls the retreat when he sees that battle can not be won anymore, not the king. Hence automation.

In EU4 it was annoying to babysit battles waiting until you can finally retreat and you could even miss it if you werent paying attention.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
A question
In a multiplayer game, when two nations are at war, how will time run? per hour?
Suppose that in Indochina two players are at war, in Europe everyone will be waiting 12 ticks for the day to pass?
 
People who dislike your comment apparently haven't done any basic research.

The Encyclopædia Britannica (1771) describes that one cannon was manned by a dozen people. Wiki:

"Each cannon would be manned by two gunners, six soldiers, and four officers of the artillery. The right gunner was to prime the piece and load it with powder, while the left gunner would fetch the powder from the magazine and keep ready to fire the cannon at the officer's command. Three soldiers stood on each side of the cannon, to ram and sponge the cannon, and hold the ladle. The second soldier on the left was charged with providing 50 rounds."

I didn't look up your numbers (and you didn't provide a source), but for the Seven Years' War, these numbers seem to be accurate (which is why I am surprised that Napoleon's army only had around 300 cannons).

Battle of Rossbach:
  • Prussia: 22,000; 79 guns
  • France, HRE: 41,110; 114 guns
Battle of Leuthen:
  • Prussia: 36,000; 167 guns
  • Austria: 65,000; 210 guns
Battle of Kunersdorf:
  • Austria, Russia: 59,500; 248 guns
  • Prussia: 50,900; 230 guns
Battle of Torgau:
  • Prussia: 48,500; 309 guns
  • Austria: 52,000; 275 guns
--
So the question is rather this: How many cannons will be in one regiment? In the Age of Absolutism, you will have an artillery regiment consisting of 600 men; does that mean we will get 50 cannons per artillery regiment? EU4 was unfortunately not good at representing what an artillery regiment consisted of. A regular player would interpret this as 1000 cannons, which is extremely unrealistic.
To have realistic numbers, can Artillery regiments scale from something like:
5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50? 1, 2, 3, 6, 10? And then just give them either a modifier for the entire section or a massive combat power modifier?

Scaling from a realistic 10 cannon regiment to 1200 feels absurd. Napoleon's Grand Armèe only had 300 cannons in total.

Yes, there were a lot of men to use them, but we may as well depict the regiment to be the number of cannon pieces instead of men since that's the actual relevant regiment strength.

Since the number of men in the regiment is irrelevant since we can give the unit a combat power modifier, I feel this would help provide immersion.
Something that stands out a lot to me is that in real history, whenever you read about the strength of the artillery arm of an army, it literally is always (with very few exceptions) given in number and type of guns, not number of people manning the guns (the reason for this should be self-evident, and it's similar to why in naval battles, what we typically care about is the number of type of ships). It would be absolutely fantastic for the game's immersion and role-play if it represented this by having the number of cannons in an army be the relevant number, so armies are listed as "50,000 men, 70 guns", and presumably have artillerists be attached to guns rather than the other way around. This would also make it easier to represent capturing guns, something that happened a lot.
 
  • 13Like
  • 2Love
Reactions:
I think you are wrong:

The TT itself says that you'd probably slow down for war, presumably so that you can take advantage of the granularity the hourly ticks offer. Dice is rerolled every 5 hours, if the game were still ticking on a daily basis and the hourly ticks would be just simulated subticks that would mean that you wouldn't be able to follow along the battle or issue a retreat if it goes heavily against you. Battles in that case would be non-transparent RNG laden slugfests the player would basically have no control over outside of maneuvering their armies into them, which would be the antithesis of what this game promises to deliver. Let's say an average EU4 battle takes two weeks, or 14 days/ticks. Johan said in this thread that battles in Project Caesar take 20% less ticks on average compared to EU4, so 11-12 ticks. If those ticks don't happen real time and are just simulated under the hood, that'd mean that the battle is over in a day without any possibility of player involvement. If that were the case, with a little exaggeration everyone would riot and the game would flop.

We'll see. If you want the same (or even higher) control over the battles as in EU4, the battles would need to be played out at about the same speed (let's say 10-30 seconds of actual time in most cases?), so you would have the opportunity to detect the need for and issue manual retreat orders (or even micromanage the battle a bit more). However, if the battles happen over the hourly subticks, it would mean that the rest of the game would need to be about 12x slowed down during that time, compared to EU4.

While probably not an issue for single player (probably could use a separate speed setting or toggle for battles, as this would likely be even slower than speed 1 for EU4), this would likely cause real issues with multiplayer, as the players that aren't in wars would need to crawl along with the speed where a single day may take 10+ seconds to pass, while another player is at war. Of course it could be possible to slow down the game only when one of the players is in an active battle, but this would probably also be distracting to others (and if the players want to be able to reinforce a nearby battle where initially only allies are involved, the speed would need to be reduced in those cases as well).

The alternative to this would be not slowing the game to the lowest speeds at all in multiplayer games, so that battles end in a few seconds, preventing most or all manual commands, but this would mean that battles are completely different between single player and multiplayer games.

I don't have a real preference either way, but to me, it seems that the more logical solution would be to accept the fact that once a battle starts, the player doesn't have any real input, and the army generals will make decisions based on their skill or the previously assigned objectives (fight to the last man or prevent excessive casualties etc).

Johan could probably elaborate on how the battles are currently played out, and what they have in mind for multiplayer cases.
 
People who dislike your comment apparently haven't done any basic research.

The Encyclopædia Britannica (1771) describes that one cannon was manned by a dozen people. Wiki:

"Each cannon would be manned by two gunners, six soldiers, and four officers of the artillery. The right gunner was to prime the piece and load it with powder, while the left gunner would fetch the powder from the magazine and keep ready to fire the cannon at the officer's command. Three soldiers stood on each side of the cannon, to ram and sponge the cannon, and hold the ladle. The second soldier on the left was charged with providing 50 rounds."

I didn't look up your numbers (and you didn't provide a source), but for the Seven Years' War, these numbers seem to be accurate (which is why I am surprised that Napoleon's army only had around 300 cannons).

Battle of Rossbach:
  • Prussia: 22,000; 79 guns
  • France, HRE: 41,110; 114 guns
Battle of Leuthen:
  • Prussia: 36,000; 167 guns
  • Austria: 65,000; 210 guns
Battle of Kunersdorf:
  • Austria, Russia: 59,500; 248 guns
  • Prussia: 50,900; 230 guns
Battle of Torgau:
  • Prussia: 48,500; 309 guns
  • Austria: 52,000; 275 guns
--
So the question is rather this: How many cannons will be in one regiment? In the Age of Absolutism, you will have an artillery regiment consisting of 600 men; does that mean we will get 50 cannons per artillery regiment? EU4 was unfortunately not good at representing what an artillery regiment consisted of. A regular player would interpret this as 1000 cannons, which is extremely unrealistic.
Rename artillery "regiment" to "battery" and you will get "100-200 men, 200-300 horses, 6-8 guns, numerous limbers, caissons, a traveling forge, a battery wagon and supply wagons." for napolonic warfare. So starting with 50 men strong regiments and ending with ~250 would be reasonable. Dont forget that arty needs lot more men than just the battle-crew.

Artillery in general is so expensive and rare that it should practically ignore manpower and combat width.

sauce
 
  • 4
  • 1Love
Reactions: