• 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.
 
  • 208Like
  • 74Love
  • 17
  • 16
  • 9
Reactions:
I know that cores are supposed to influence control, but shouldn't it also be the other way around? Higher control means you can integrate/core something faster?

Also I really wish the core/integration system wasn't just "click on provinces one by one and wait for the cabinet action to finish". That seems rather shallow. Wouldn't it be more interesting for it to also passively gain over time from stuff like market access, road building, and culture acceptance?
Right? It seems to me that high control is integration. A special "integrate" action seems super gamey. Unless I just don't understand what it's supposed to represent.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Wait, why do I need a spy network to justify even such things like taking back my own land or revenging piracy? That doesn't sound reasonable. What are the spies even doing exactly without which taking back my own land would be unjustified? And in general what's the connection between spies and justifying a war?
 
  • 7
  • 3Like
Reactions:
I am not sure I see why being integrated more tightly into your state's system should make people that do not see themselves as part of your nation feel more satisfied than before.

What real life effect is integration supposed to represent anyway?

And what gameplay effect is it supposed to achieve? Is cultural hostility and the control system not a strong enough drawback to conquest?
think of berbers . they got recognised and integrated in morocco by officialising their language , making their culture not taboo , making kids study the language in school and preserve the folklore and history and make all official building have a berber name below the arabic one then the european one below .
this is what integration is to end the issue of arab vs berbers in the country.
austria did same with the hungarian after centuries of supression .
if peoples arent happy they will obviously revolt and in case of a different culture they will have a percentage that follow a separatist agenda obviously but when the game mention happy integration it mean something like the above . this is why bavarians and bretons and corsicans didnt seek independence but a tiny patriotic minority that can be found anywhere

1727275121245.png
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I know that cores are supposed to influence control, but shouldn't it also be the other way around? Higher control means you can integrate/core something faster?

Also I really wish the core/integration system wasn't just "click on provinces one by one and wait for the cabinet action to finish". That seems rather shallow. Wouldn't it be more interesting for it to also passively gain over time from stuff like market access, road building, and culture acceptance?
Right? It seems to me that high control is integration. A special "integrate" action seems super gamey. Unless I just don't understand what it's supposed to represent.
I mentioned it elsewhere, but it seems rather clear to me that it represents something similar to the Serbian conquest of Greece at this time: the local villages and towns were left to administer themselves, following the same laws that they did prior to Serbian conquest with basically no oversight aside from having to pay taxes to the Serbian state. Effectively whatever the Byzantine administration of those regions were, remained the same (even with the same officials) after Serbian conquest, with the only change being that taxes went to a different state. It was even all still done in Greek, even.

This is what an unintegrated province is: a province still following whatever laws, customs, administration, administrative language, and whatever else was there prior to it changing hands. That is something that would require active effort to change (that the Serbian Empire never got around to doing due to collapsing on itself before getting a chance), and is absolutely not something that would passively happen. This is also why it is integration that impacts control and not the other way around: it's a deliberate policy. Serbia approached things this way because it literally did not have people in its empire who understood the way that the Byzantines administered their cities, and simply sending over Serbian bureaucrats to administer the place as if it were a Serbian city would have been absolute chaos. This would be true even if these locations were right next to the Serbian capital and highly developed (and hence having high control); in fact, the Serbian Empire's entire approach with these conquests was to keep moving its capital closer and closer to Constantinople.

High control is a consequence of development, roads, and proximity to the capital. It cannot account for the fact that no one's gonna know how the hell to rule a place that they just conquered with foreign laws, customs, and language. This is why integration impacts control and not the other way around. It is also why "integrating" is an action you take, to convert the local administration over to use the same shared set of laws and customs as the rest of the state.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Is integration a “yes” or “no” in terms of benefits to the country or do you get proportional benefits based on the integration progress?
 
  • 3Like
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
I feel like there's the possibility of some risk/reward here. If you were able to set more locations (say a whole province or more) as your wargoal, you could make the wargoal portion of the warscore greater. Like one location is 25% as stated in the diary (ish?), but a province could be 50% and a state could be 99%. If you go into a war saying "I WILL TAKE ALL OF THIS LAND", then you better have the bite to match that bark or else you'll get nothing from the war.

If you set the entire province of Derbyshire as your wargoal, and say that constituted 50% of the warscore, then doing everything else (winning battles, other occupations etc) but not occupying Derbyshire would only get you the other 50% warscore.
Whereas if you set Derby location as the wargoal, then doing everything else would be 75%

So you could see how that as a feature could reward a confident leader who knows that they could win that war (and harm an overconfident one), and also makes a war more focused in that, if you made Derbyshire your wargoal, you're going to fight tooth and nail to make sure you get it, otherwise your <50% war spoils wouldn't compensate the expense.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I mentioned it elsewhere, but it seems rather clear to me that it represents something similar to the Serbian conquest of Greece at this time: the local villages and towns were left to administer themselves, following the same laws that they did prior to Serbian conquest with basically no oversight aside from having to pay taxes to the Serbian state. Effectively whatever the Byzantine administration of those regions were, remained the same (even with the same officials) after Serbian conquest, with the only change being that taxes went to a different state. It was even all still done in Greek, even.

This is what an unintegrated province is: a province still following whatever laws, customs, administration, administrative language, and whatever else was there prior to it changing hands. That is something that would require active effort to change (that the Serbian Empire never got around to doing due to collapsing on itself before getting a chance), and is absolutely not something that would passively happen. This is also why it is integration that impacts control and not the other way around: it's a deliberate policy. Serbia approached things this way because it literally did not have people in its empire who understood the way that the Byzantines administered their cities, and simply sending over Serbian bureaucrats to administer the place as if it were a Serbian city would have been absolute chaos. This would be true even if these locations were right next to the Serbian capital and highly developed (and hence having high control); in fact, the Serbian Empire's entire approach with these conquests was to keep moving its capital closer and closer to Constantinople.
That's a reasonable point, but in this example, why would Serbia go around integrating individual Greek provinces instead of changing the status of Greece as a whole?
High control is a consequence of development, roads, and proximity to the capital. It cannot account for the fact that no one's gonna know how the hell to rule a place that they just conquered with foreign laws, customs, and language. This is why integration impacts control and not the other way around. It is also why "integrating" is an action you take, to convert the local administration over to use the same shared set of laws and customs as the rest of the state.
But high control is equivalent to the things that bring populations more into contact with each other. Therefore the Greeks in areas with better connections to Serbia would have more interaction with the Serbian culture which eventually might bring them closer to the state.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I mentioned it elsewhere, but it seems rather clear to me that it represents something similar to the Serbian conquest of Greece at this time: the local villages and towns were left to administer themselves, following the same laws that they did prior to Serbian conquest with basically no oversight aside from having to pay taxes to the Serbian state. Effectively whatever the Byzantine administration of those regions were, remained the same (even with the same officials) after Serbian conquest, with the only change being that taxes went to a different state. It was even all still done in Greek, even.

This is what an unintegrated province is: a province still following whatever laws, customs, administration, administrative language, and whatever else was there prior to it changing hands. That is something that would require active effort to change (that the Serbian Empire never got around to doing due to collapsing on itself before getting a chance), and is absolutely not something that would passively happen. This is also why it is integration that impacts control and not the other way around: it's a deliberate policy. Serbia approached things this way because it literally did not have people in its empire who understood the way that the Byzantines administered their cities, and simply sending over Serbian bureaucrats to administer the place as if it were a Serbian city would have been absolute chaos. This would be true even if these locations were right next to the Serbian capital and highly developed (and hence having high control); in fact, the Serbian Empire's entire approach with these conquests was to keep moving its capital closer and closer to Constantinople.

High control is a consequence of development, roads, and proximity to the capital. It cannot account for the fact that no one's gonna know how the hell to rule a place that they just conquered with foreign laws, customs, and language. This is why integration impacts control and not the other way around. It is also why "integrating" is an action you take, to convert the local administration over to use the same shared set of laws and customs as the rest of the state.
I'm not sure I entirely agree. Control means "ability to enforce laws, etc" so in a place with low control you can't enforce your laws. No matter who happens to live there. Certainly, people speaking a different language will impact your ability to enforce your rule but over time you can increase your control via a variety of means.

I'd even go further, if a core province loses enough control it should cease to be a core province because clearly the government doesn't have any ability to rule it. The government's ability to impose it's rule should be what determines how integrated the province is, not some arbitrary integration value.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Are there any policies that deal with unaccepted cultures or religions in a way that will accelerate your integration? Can you relocate population to places so that your accepted culture becomes the majority?

Will raiding be a thing which then decreases your neighbors opinion of you?
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Let's say I lose a war to England, and they snatch one or two North or South American colonies away from me in a peace treaty.
  1. How would that work for me to take back these from England ? Do I have automatic CBs on England for a while after they conquered land from my realm?
  2. Would I need to reintegrate these colonies when I recapture them ?
  3. Will the culture of colonies diverge from their European overlord after a while ?
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
@Johan I think it's a bit early to talk about this since we don't know how cultures work yet...but shouldn't coreing be more difficult than integrating? If we consider the integration as the act of "adding" the amministartion of a province into our realm and the coreing as making it into a indispensable part of our country then from what you showed us so far it seems to be the opposite, it takes from 25 to 50 years to integrate a province into a country but the moment we accept their main culture it becomes a core? It seems very unrealistic ulnless it takes even more time to accept that said culture of course and in that case it would take al least from 50 to 100 to do as such which is ridiculous and makes empires like the Ottomans which expanded historically so rapidly(thanks also to their advanced administration) impossible to govern.

Although I don't have idea how this would feel in the game(since we don't have our hands on it) I think the integration time should be either reduced to something like 5 to 15 years or keep it the same and make the integration into an action that happens automatically after conquest without the need of a cabinet member.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
For manual creation yes,..

good spy defence helps, but its not a wall stopping everything.
Is spy defense still only against one nation at a time or is it universal?

In EU3 it took 50 years, which was like 1/5th at release.
As a related question, can I set my advisors to core the next available province/area when they're done with the one I assign first if I don't care about the order? It didn't sound like a ton of micromanagement but it does feel like it would be annoying to have to manually assign them to every single province I conquer ever.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
That's a reasonable point, but in this example, why would Serbia go around integrating individual Greek provinces instead of changing the status of Greece as a whole?

But high control is equivalent to the things that bring populations more into contact with each other. Therefore the Greeks in areas with better connections to Serbia would have more interaction with the Serbian culture which eventually might bring them closer to the state.
1) Greece is big and this would have to be done on a town-by-town basis, at least in this era. Again, it's not just "we set a particular policy"; you have to educate Serbian bureaucrats in Greek administrative law so that they're familiar with what's there, replace whoever's in control with them, change the laws over time to be more aligned with the state (while dealing with complaints from the people who chafe against the changes). It's a whole process, involving a lot of patience and manpower.

2) Counterpoint: the high level of adjacency and connections that Greek and Serbia had for centuries prior to Serbian conquest, including Serbia literally being ruled by the Byzantine Empire for several centuries directly, evidently made no difference to the extent that Serbia was familiar with Byzantine administrative laws and customs. One might call Serbia an unintegrated part of the Byzantine Empire.
I'm not sure I entirely agree. Control means "ability to enforce laws, etc" so in a place with low control you can't enforce your laws. No matter who happens to live there. Certainly, people speaking a different language will impact your ability to enforce your rule but over time you can increase your control via a variety of means.

I'd even go further, if a core province loses enough control it should cease to be a core province because clearly the government doesn't have any ability to rule it. The government's ability to impose it's rule should be what determines how integrated the province is, not some arbitrary integration value.
The key word there is "your laws". You're not enforcing your laws there; you're letting them enforce their own laws. There's certainly an argument to be made in favor of integration being a gradual transition (after all, this game does love its gradual transitions), to represent the slow but steady administrative efforts to transition their legal system to that of the state.

Again, Serbian counterpoint: Serres was at one point the capital of the Serbian Empire. Serres, a recent conquest, still under its own Greek laws and Greek administration and Greek everything else. Under your proposal it would be instantly integrated once the capital is moved.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I want to ask, why did you say democracy hasnt been invented yet when not only does Venice exist but democracy predates the Project Caesar time period. i.e Athens. Also Johan why did you go back to the EU3 system of coring/integrating for 50 years? I am genuinely curious.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I guess I'd need to get a better idea of how plausible it is to maintain large amounts of conquered, non-integrated, locations. But seeing how slow integration will be makes me immediately concerned as someone who primarily plays these games to make big alt-history empires.

It seems like there's a pretty hard limit on how many locations can be integrated over the course of the game. So unless the negative impact of a location not being integrated is manageable through effectively propagating control or other methods, I don't think the kinds of goals I like to pursue are really viable.

Edit: Apparently you integrate by province, not location. Not sure how I misunderstood that, my concern is substantially lessened albeit not completely.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions: