• 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 #30 - 25th September 2024

Welcome to another Tinto Talks, the time of the week when we give you new information about our entirely super secret upcoming game with the codename Project Caesar.

Today we will talk about how conquest works and how integrating the new locations you have conquered will work. With conquest, we are talking about how you take territory through warfare. For how the actual military campaigns work, I recommend reading Tinto Talks 22, 23 and 24.

Casus Belli
To start a war many feel that you need a casus belli for it, which we will refer to a CB for the rest of this talk. If you lack a CB and start a war you will gain some aggressive expansion and lose some stability. Now while this may not be something you may always want, it is a more lenient way to recover instead of spending precious paper mana like in EU4. However, there are multiple ways to get a CB in this game.

Now, Project Caesar does not have a ‘Fabricate Claim’ button that magically creates a CB on any nation, nor do we have a system of claims, but you have several different options to get a CB.

First of all, there is the super old school way of getting one from an event. This may not cater to everyone's playing style, as it is way too random, but if it was good enough for your parents back in 2001, it is good enough for.. Eh, n/m.

Secondly, we have the option of calling a Parliament and asking them to come up with a valid reason for war against a nearby country. This is powerful, but unless you have a high Crown Power, you may need to negotiate with your Estates for their backing. And Parliaments can not be called every month either, democracy is not even invented yet.

Finally we have the way of creating a CB, when there is a more or less legitimate way to one. First of all, creating a CB on a country requires you to have a spy network in the target country, similar to how claim fabrication works in EU4, but you also need to have some sort of reason to create the type of CB you want. If you let's say play Denmark and want to take back Skåne from Sweden, as you have cores on it, then you can create a ‘Conquer Core’ CB on them, or if they have used Privateers in sea zones where you have a Maritime Presence, you can create another CB on them. There are 50+ different CB you can create depending on circumstances, including everything from ‘Flower Wars’ for countries of Nahuatl religion, ‘Dissolving the Tatar Yoke’ for the tributaries under that International Organization, or ‘Humiliating Rivals’.

war_overview.png

31 allies and subjects for Bohemia, hmmm…

Just remember.. No CB is best CB!


War Goals
Whether you decide that a small border adjustment is needed, or you wish to wage a total war, you need to pick which War Goal you wish to pursue. Different casus belli will allow you to pick different War Goals and the War Goal you pick impacts the cost of conquest as well. A conquer CB will make taking land cheaper, while a ‘humiliation CB will make them more expensive.

A War Goal for a province requires you to occupy that entire province, while a Naval Superiority War Goal will give you a bonus score for blockading the enemy, and defeating their navy if possible.

If your War Goal is fulfilled then the warscore from it ticks up to a maximum of 25, and the total impact from battles in this game can be worth up to 50, while occupations and blockades have no cap and can reach over 100 warscore if possible.

In Project Caesar, therefore, not every war is necessarily a total war like some previous games we have made.

If the War Goal is not fulfilled, it is only possible to get 100% War Score if the winning side controls all of the losing side's locations, and the losing side controls no towns or cities.

This means that if you have your wargoal taken care of, winning some important battles and occupying some land, you will be able to force a reasonable peace on someone.

war_goal.png

Give me liberty or ehh.. annexation?


Integration
So what do you do then, when you have signed a peace and got some new land to your country?

First of all, it is not as simple as a location being a core or not, as Project Caesar introduces a new system of integration for locations. There are four states of integration in this game, first of all the conquered locations, which have a high separatism, lower control, and make pops unlikely to convert or assimilate. This is the state of any location you conquer that is not a core of yours. When a location becomes integrated, separatism drops to one fifth of the previous levels, and control has a higher maximum. When a location becomes a core, the minimum control is higher, and your primary and accepted cultures grow more, while minorities become stagnant. We also have the colonized status, which is after you have colonized a location, and it is not yet a core. A colonized location has lower maximum control.

What is separatism then? Well, it is the reduction of satisfaction for pops that are not of the primary culture. This is very likely to make the locations very unproductive for quite some time.

A location becomes a core automatically if it's integrated OR colonial, and at least 50% of the pops are of the primary or accepted cultures of that country.

core.png

It is beneficial to get your locations to become your cores…

How do you integrate a location then? Well, this is the challenge in Project Caesar, as you do not have any magic paper mana to spend on it, but instead you need to use one of the members of your cabinet to integrate it. At the start of the game, a cabinet member can integrate an entire province at once, but in the Age of Absolutism you have an advance that will let you integrate an entire area at once.

This integration is not instant, but depends on many factors, like the status and the population living in the locations affected, but on average integrating a province may take between 25 and 50 years.

integration.png

And what are all of these factors then?


Stay tuned, as in next week's Tinto Talks, we will talk about how peace treaties themselves work, and which ones we have.
 
  • 207Like
  • 74Love
  • 17
  • 16
  • 9
Reactions:
@Johan
Is 25% from controling the wargoal enough? I think controlling the wargoal would make sure that it will give enough warscore the aim of the war in CB so be fulfilled. For example, if done kind of subjegation CB exist (aim - make the target Into a subject, wargoal - contol capital) would occupying just the capital long enough make it possible enforce this[...]
My intuition tells me, that controling enemy capital and wiping most of their armies(=losing pops) should make them more willing to surrender.
 
I don't think the PLC is a particularly good example (that is to say, it actually supports your argument that such a thing was uncommon) since many Lithuanians including the entire elite became Polonised. Lithuanian culture was very much not equal to Polish culture, even though the Lithuanians had the same political rights as the Poles.
Ah, you're right. Polonization was definitely also very much a thing. So, another "strike-out" for a properly bicultural state in this period.

...honestly the only example I can think of that would've come close is, in fact, the Serbian Empire. However, it was so short-lived that it's hard to say whether or not Serbian and Greek were on genuinely equal footing or if it was simply a consequence of the brief rule. He did appoint Serbs to top positions in Greece, but that's less likely to have been due to a nationalistic preference of Serbians over Greeks but more to reward loyalty of those in his own envoy. Given the ultimate goal (ruling over Constantinople as a successor to the Byzantine Empire), I think there might be a reasonable argument to be made that in the Serbian Empire, Greek would be an accepted culture.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
This does have some interesting implications. We have heard earlier how cabinet posts are a valuable resource and integration of new lands tying them up for a considerable time seems like a significant break on conquest. You could skip that step, but then you are at constant risk or rebels and the province has low control (low tax and manpower)

I do wonder how the big historical conquests of the age will be simulated. I'm thinking of things like the Ottoman conquests into Europe (Greece, Bulgaria, Constantinople), or later into Egypt. The Mughals conquest of India. Or even Spain's conquests (Mexica, Peru and the Philippines)- would they need to keep ahistorically large armies in America to keep the gold and silver flowing and put down rebels? Or Russia's expansion South into the Horde, West into Lithuania and East to Siberia (although low populations make integration easier in Siberia).

I hope these don't rely on magic like ahistorical free cores or accepted cultures (that railroad only historical conquests being possible and not alternative history ones).
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Will it be possible to do a world conquest in Project Caesar? Please guys think carefully about this bc I'm a big fan of EU4 and HOI4, not so much of EU3... and I'm quite confident I'm not in a minority here. Nation blob is a core theme in EU4, HOI4 and even I dare to say CK3. I'm afraid that it just won't be possible to blob anymore in PC. I know it's more realistic, but here I fear that playabillity is being sacrificed in benefit of "realism".
 
  • 10
  • 2Haha
Reactions:


Will there be a mechanic for multiplayer, whereby you can force a peace on another player at certain warscore %, or cause them nation-wide instability (like EU4 stab-hits)?

Players are famously stubborn, so devastating their entire countryside and starving their pops might not be enough to persuade them to accept your peace deal


 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
idk how i should feel about 50 years to core
thats a long time especially one after another (at least thats how i understood it)
so playing as the manchu tribes i will prob need like 150 years to unify them and then how long would it take to unify all of china
i feel like that would be the end of the game before i do that.
i understand making it slower but thats a long time
i would like to see at least some events or mechanic to shorten that
like if the standard of living (using Vic3 terms) increases and the pops become more loyal they will integrate faster but if they are unhappy they will make your live hard.
Or some mechanic where it takes like 10 years to integrate the elites of the province and thats what the minister is needed for and the rest is a waiting game where you dont need the minister to do anything.
Cuz i feel like a lot of newer players wont like that and will instantly install a mod that makes it 1/10th and it breaks the mechanic instantly.
lets say i start expanding around 1350 and the game goes to 1850, thats 500 years and around 10-20 corings
expanding 10-20 provinces is nothing if i think of china or india and not rly historically accurate cuz the Mughal empire conquered half of india in what like 50 years
same thing as the later Jin with ming
if i were to do that in this game i would need 50 armies just to pacify my land
pls make it shorter or make it idk
half coring is 5 years and after then it only becomes a core if the culture becomes an accepted culture and make that a slow thing like it takes 50 years or something per culture subgroup and slowly i sinosise my culture or make their culture fit mine
or you take over cores from the old nation that you conquered if you also take over their institution like the cast system of India or the Confucian birocracy of china or the shogunate of japan.

-dearly someone who has spend 1500 hours in eu4 (i am still nowhere near some other people on this forum)
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
i love this approach its strategic, its realistic, which is literally what this genre is. its a grand strategy game, its not suppose to cater to people with ADHD who want instant gratification. you should'nt be able to conquer all of europe as lubeck, its silly, and it doesnt make sense that the people you just conquered will give you tax and manpower after just a few years. this will force the player to play with subjects more and think more about where to expand. the thing that made EU4 boring in later ages is the approach they're not going with, as conquering so many provinces quickly will make you so powerful that the later ages which have alot of content you dont even get to because the game gets so boring.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:


Will there be a mechanic for multiplayer, whereby you can force a peace on another player at certain warscore %, or cause them nation-wide instability (like EU4 stab-hits)?

Players are famously stubborn, so devastating their entire countryside and starving their pops might not be enough to persuade them to accept your peace deal



I sure hope there are some mechanics to prevent death/nation ruining wars across the spectrum (non-mp, too!)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
i love this approach its strategic, its realistic, which is literally what this genre is. its a grand strategy game, its not suppose to cater to people with ADHD who want instant gratification. you should'nt be able to conquer all of europe as lubeck, its silly, and it doesnt make sense that the people you just conquered will give you tax and manpower after just a few years. this will force the player to play with subjects more and think more about where to expand. the thing that made EU4 boring in later ages is the approach they're not going with, as conquering so many provinces quickly will make you so powerful that the later ages which have alot of content you dont even get to because the game gets so boring.
If you play the game 500 years and your an extremly good player you shoud be able to at least conquer a big part of europe as lubeck.
Why ?
1)Because if you can't it means the game will have nearly no replayability, you will see the same countries blobing the same way with the same results an it might be even worse than eu4. It should be extremly hard and not be possible to achieve for eveyone ,but still it should be possible.
2)It's not by nerfing the player that you will make the game better. A dumb AI that take bad decision and do not know how to expand/exploit well their ressources and so on will not be a chalenge ,it's the case in eu4 and will be the same in eu5 and nerfing you,the player will not make the game more fun, it will just limitate the options you have.

I am also worried about the core system 50% accepted culture and 50 yers to integrate seems way too long. At the early game it MUST be this long ,but at the end it makes no sense (Frederic the second ,Napoleon,The mughal conquest of india, the marath conquest of india etc) took them very few years to achieve because they had the warmachine ready to conquer.

The other problem might be the time between 2 conquest ,eu4 is a daily tick game ,project caesar will be an hourly tick game, if you take 25/50 years to integrate a province what do you do during this time ? Conquer more might lead to massive rebelions and if you just not integrate a province i am worried you might have rebels spawning all the time ,and the more territory you have the worse it will become. And yeah, fighting hordes of rebels wasn't fun nor a real chalenge in eu4.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Trying to reconcile both disappointed and satisfied players with the long integration time.

Maybe it's worth adding an option at the start of the game to increase the integration speed. This would allow players to adjust the gameplay to their preferences, similar to CK2.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
If you play the game 500 years and your an extremly good player you shoud be able to at least conquer a big part of europe as lubeck.
Why ?
1)Because if you can't it means the game will have nearly no replayability, you will see the same countries blobing the same way with the same results an it might be even worse than eu4. It should be extremly hard and not be possible to achieve for eveyone ,but still it should be possible.
2)It's not by nerfing the player that you will make the game better. A dumb AI that take bad decision and do not know how to expand/exploit well their ressources and so on will not be a chalenge ,it's the case in eu4 and will be the same in eu5 and nerfing you,the player will not make the game more fun, it will just limitate the options you have.

I am also worried about the core system 50% accepted culture and 50 yers to integrate seems way too long. At the early game it MUST be this long ,but at the end it makes no sense (Frederic the second ,Napoleon,The mughal conquest of india, the marath conquest of india etc) took them very few years to achieve because they had the warmachine ready to conquer.

The other problem might be the time between 2 conquest ,eu4 is a daily tick game ,project caesar will be an hourly tick game, if you take 25/50 years to integrate a province what do you do during this time ? Conquer more might lead to massive rebelions and if you just not integrate a province i am worried you might have rebels spawning all the time ,and the more territory you have the worse it will become. And yeah, fighting hordes of rebels wasn't fun nor a real chalenge in eu4.
the best middle ground would be to decrease integration time as the game goes on, so that by the napoleonic age it becomes like EU4, as for things like the early ottoman expansions. that could be scripted, i wouldnt mind that. and for the players that dont like that they could add a non_historical mode like HOI4 that would be fantastic, i want to fight a massive russia or austria by the end of the game.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
the best middle ground would be to decrease integration time as the game goes on, so that by the napoleonic age it becomes like EU4, as for things like the early ottoman expansions. that could be scripted, i wouldnt mind that. and for the players that dont like that they could add a non_historical mode like HOI4 that would be fantastic, i want to fight a massive russia or austria by the end of the game.
It depends where you play and how the game grow ,you might not see a powerful Austria ,Russia ,France or England every game.
What i am also worried is the time it take to integrate will be complicated for an Ai to use well. Imagine the AI needs cabinet for other purpose and just drop integration and at the end it take 100 years to finish the task?
Or worse if it need it for somethign even more urgent but can't cause it's locked at it's task to integrate some provinces...

Let's Imagine i play France and i conquer most of GreatBritain and say Spain i would love to face a powerfull Ottoman maybe allied with Russia And Sweden And other minors to stop me. Cause yeah the player will always be the biggest factor that influence the game and seing any chalenges late game is fairly rare in paradox games ,exept in stellaris and in the last ck3 patch.
 
It depends where you play and how the game grow ,you might not see a powerful Austria ,Russia ,France or England every game.
What i am also worried is the time it take to integrate will be complicated for an Ai to use well. Imagine the AI needs cabinet for other purpose and just drop integration and at the end it take 100 years to finish the task?
Or worse if it need it for somethign even more urgent but can't cause it's locked at it's task to integrate some provinces...

Let's Imagine i play France and i conquer most of GreatBritain and say Spain i would love to face a powerfull Ottoman maybe allied with Russia And Sweden And other minors to stop me. Cause yeah the player will always be the biggest factor that influence the game and seing any chalenges late game is fairly rare in paradox games ,exept in stellaris and in the last ck3 patch.
johan said that you can have the cabinet member do something else and then get back to integrating so it wont be locked, and even if the cabinet member never goes back to integrating the province will still integrate by itself, albiet at a slower rate
 
This is exactly what i am saying... I dunno if the Ai will be able to integrate in less than 50 years all the time ,if they take 75 or more they won't be able to have an econnomy as stable as the player and so not be able to be stronger...
 
I have some questions about cultural acceptance:

1) How many accepted culture slots a nation starts with, and how do you acquire more slots. By size, by technology, by policies?

2) Will there be culture groups in which similar cultures have a better tolerance to each other? (For example, in EU4 the Swedish and the Danes belonged to the Scandinavian culture and thus the cultural penalty among the two was much smaller than to cultures outside their culture group.)

3) Will cultures that belong to the same culture group be easier to integrate and count as favorable pops in coring a province?

4) In EU4, when a nation reached the rank of empire, all of the cultures inside their culture group automatically became accepted for free. Will there be something similar in Project Caesar?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
This is the first time I have not been pleasantly surprised by these Tinto talks. One has to realise that while in Eu4 where one can choose to play either tall or wide these new mechanics, in theory, seem to make playing anything but tall unplayable unless other mechanics are added these mechanics do not SEEM to add to the gameplay but rather restrict the freedom that us players usually have while playing and that to me doesn't sound very enjoyable.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Given how controversial this has all been, it would be a fair compromise if the devs made the integration time something for the player to choose. That way, it will satisfy both people who want a more realistic gameplay and those who want to blob all they want.
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
unrelated but please make combat similar to hoi4's as in eu4 or ck3 fighting is less about strategy or actual 'skill' but more about stupidly massive your armies can get and how many modifiers you can stack.
 
  • 4
Reactions: