• 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:
Amusingly enough I did actually suggest some of the rough contours of integration back in May, though I had the idea then as "up control but also up noble estate power and lower loyalty" rather than "set low max cap on control and up separatism", which honestly works just as well.
 
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

View attachment 1192968
I think this would be "accepted culture" status in "Caesar". Integration is clearly about locations being integrated into your administration.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
The problem is that you'd have to siege down the whole area. Areas are pretty large; the resulting war would take forever and mostly favor the defender.
Could be good as a late game CB where you basically trade ease of winning the war for ease of integrating because you just made a show of force, maybe easing the diplomacy of the conquest / the integration coming after.
 
I'll admit I'm a little bit disappointed that integration is still something you actively do, rather than something that happens organically over time, but it overall sounds like a much better system than EU4.

Is there any situation in which integration is a choice you have to weigh up, or is it always a no-brainer to do when you have a free cabinet member?
This, I would have expected integration with time from policies and not being "hand made" by some guy at the court.
From a gameplay perspective it is even worst. Coring will be a nobrainer and you'll put your entire court on coring provinces and areas all the time.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Honestly, if you had some spot where you just... left people to their own devices, without much influence from the state (they get to write and follow their own laws, in their own language, with their own native administration with only some lip service and taxes paid to an overarching state that they barely get much in the way of benefits from) for 200 years, I'm not entirely sure they'd then integrate themselves into the overarching state apparatus.

Like, it's not costing them anything to do their own thing.
That's a fair argument, maybe a general, slow integration could come with research - expanded administration would allow for a slower but ongoing integration
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Why? The point is to slow early aggression so that the game isn't over in 200 years
Because there are plenty of other things to do for your ministers.
If one of them will we busy integrating single province for 25-50 years, you'll get 2-4 provinces for a 100 years - hardly excessive. That leaves you with only one minister to deal with all the current affairs for the first hundred years of the game. That's not much.
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
1) Greece is big and this would have to be done on a town-by-town basis, at least in this era.
I don't think that actually makes sense, and I'd like you to provide examples of it actually working like this.

An easy example that comes to mind is the English integration of Wales, where you have stuff like the Statute of Rhuddlan, and the Laws of Wales Acts, which incorporated Wales into England (though you could argue it should be considered integrated, but not a core). The English did not list every single town in Wales individually and specify that their laws had to be changed. That would be ridiculous. These documents effected legal changes in the whole of Wales, at once.

The spread of English culture in Wales did proceed on a more local basis, but that's not the same thing as the way we are describing coring.
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.
But your reasoning implies that the only reason it didn't happen IOTL is because they didn't click a button. What do you think the actual cause of this was?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Because there are plenty of other things to do for your ministers.
If one of them will we busy integrating single province for 25-50 years, you'll get 2-4 provinces for a 100 years - hardly excessive. That leaves you with only one minister to deal with all the current affairs for the first hundred years of the game. That's not much.
Not a lot but considering it's provinces and not locations it doesn't make it as bad.
Also we can still conquer without integrating (probably bad ) or expand trough vassal

I'm not sure how many locations integration should be the goal the balance should allow on average/max
 
Will it be possible to do dynamic peace terms? Like exchanging Provinces? Would love to trade provinces in a war of equals if it is not possible to win the needed warscore.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Since I don't see it mentioned anywhere, I wanted to ask: is it only possible to conquer entire provinces as a whole, rather than individual locations?

If this is the case, it would cause the map to become more unified as the game progresses, much like what happened historically. However, this unification would occur for the wrong reasons, as there is no option to conquer individual locations, which would otherwise lead to a more gradual process.

Wouldn't the unification of a province make more sense if a single country begins to dominate the region and is therefore able to exert its power over the entire province?
I fear a scenario like in V3, where several Split States exist at the beginning, but once unified, nothing besides events is able to tear them apart again.
 
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.
Why am I letting them enforce their own laws? They aren't vassals who owe allegiance but are otherwise allowed to govern themselves, they are a conquered people. It's my way or no way. And that's what control is. I want them to follow my laws instead of theirs, but I don't quite have the ability to force them yet. Thus I need to improve control or grant them autonomy (make them a vassal).

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.
Why would you move your capital to a place you have no control over? That seems like a bad idea. Also, I see no reason why the capital should be forced to be 100% control.
 
  • 1
Reactions: