• 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:
Will Agressive Expansion/infamy differ between nations? Like say the Spaniards conquering a trillion native tags will probably make them very unpopular in Mexico, but their other European neighbors might not care as much.

Opinions will impact differently yes.
 
  • 40Like
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
Conquest will be easier, but you’ll want to do it less often. Alleviating two problems: frustrating EU4 total wars and snowballing. Quite ingenious!

That is the intended goal.
 
  • 43Like
  • 11Love
  • 1
Reactions:
Will "Hasn't taken Fort in Random part of Siberia" still block the AI from accepting peace?

At 100% warscore what the AI or Player thinks does not matter...
 
  • 31Like
  • 5
  • 3Love
Reactions:
Hello thanks for the dev diary ! Ihave a few questions especialy about integration.
"integrating a province may take between 25 and 50 years.".

What if the province is taken by the rebels or by another country will it delay integration even more ?
Will we have more options later in the game to reduce integration to less than 25 years ?
Can we add 2 members of the cabinet to do the same thing to take less time but be less efficient overall ?
And lastly could religion be a factor of integration like culture ?

Sry i know it's quite a lot of questions.:eek:
 
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’.

View attachment 1192808
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.

View attachment 1192807
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.

View attachment 1192806
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.

View attachment 1192805
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.
Hey. Been exticted to read every TT until now and really appreciate your work, but this one has some things that make me want to engange in gentlemanly discussions here.

A) Some thoughts on CB

1. I would suggest to at least add "legitimacy/republic tradition" hit. I cant imagine a ruler going into war with a neighbor without even giving a reason why, but somehow retaining his public image and people's support. Every time it happened historically it wasnt treated nicely, so even Mongols tried to come up with excuses for attacks, sending their own diplomats to get killed somewhere. Though hordes could have this debuff reduced.
2. When catholic attacks another catholic without CB, it could decrease relations with the pope.
3. Having to make a claim to justify independence war is questionable. It makes sence in some cases of highly integrated vassals (like Dominions), but doesnt in many others. Being oppressed and controlled by someone else is not something natural to begin with, and If I take Tatar Yoke from this TT, it would look like this:

- Guys! Guys! I dont want to pay tribute and bow to khans anymore!
- What basis do you have to become independend? Do you not like those dudes who came with weapons to your homeland, burned your towns, and then extorted you for money for the entire century?
- Fuk *takes huge stability hit and aggressive expansion for trying to become independent*

B) How integration works is really worrying. It literally renders all other interactions with your cabinet to be useless. Why would I increase control or development of a province if I have a huge batch of land that needs 30 years to get integrated and wont do this on its own untill the end of the game? It creates a meta where 90% of players will just permanently spam integrations for their entire cabinet, not doing anything else for the first 3 centuries of the game. Cabinet has shown many fun interactions so far, but now I cant imagine anyone using them unironically.

I know that this mechanic is supposed to fight blobbing and expansion, but lets be honest, its an overkill. EU somehow went from "lets core half of germany in 3 years by pressing a few burrons" to "I cant integrate more than 2 provinces in 50 years". When Frankish empire was made, Charlemagne didnt need age of absolutism innovation to consolidate his realm, and when Ottomans conquered Bulgaria, they didnt need 11 cabinet advisors to start integrating every province simultaneously. This game already has contol system, technological advances and many other things that make blobbing hard enough in early centuries compared to EU4.

If I was to suggest something:
1. Every province itegrates autimatically over time. Lets call it basic speed.
2. Basic speed is always slower than that of cabinet member. Maybe it could equal the speed of cabinet without anyone being assigned to it.
3. Basic speed of integrationg gets affected by the distance to the other integrated lands (represents empire sending smaller local bureaucrats to conquered states) and average control propagation of province (you cant enforce new laws without having control there).
4. You can assign cabinet member to increase speed of integration, but instead of being combined, it gets replaced. For example, when your basic speed is 0.3 per month, and cabinet member has 0.5 per month, new speed becomes 0.5 and not 0.8.

This system will basically create a choice between "I want to integrate this land 10 years sooner" and "I want to have 10% more development in my capital", without making people worried that they are missing on something. Also it wouldnt increase blobbing ability that much, because even if you conquer 20 provinces, they will still require around 50-60 years to get annexed on their own, while the distand ones will take around 100 because they are simply too far from your mainland nation to send anyone. Not to mention that you will have to fight revolts the entire time and manage control proximity without high-tech roads somehow.
 
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I really hope PC doesn’t turn into one giant awkward total war over every little thing. Like, can you imagine a Portugal vs. Ottoman naval showdown in the Indian Ocean, and then watching the Ottoman armies go on an epic road trip from Anatolia, through Hungary, Austria, Venice, Milan, Savoy, France, Castile, and finally rolling up to Portugal?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Not sure what you mean with "occured in PC after 170 years, hardly EG", but the first revolts in the Levant were by defacting Mamluks that were put down by other Mamluks. I would hardly portray this as the region revolting against the Ottomans. Clearly the region was loyal to the Ottoman throne. There were other revolts happening (e.g. mid 19th century), but they were directed at the governor himself, not the Ottoman dynasty. Various Ottoman sultans were quite popular among their arab subjects, getting prayers in friday-prayers and poems written for them by arab poets. It usually went along with the Ottoman conquest of christian territory. From Bruce Masters we also know for a fact that arab cities massively profitted from Ottoman rule in the first century of Ottoman rule. So I dont see a reason to dispute the fact of Ottoman ruler over the Levant. From Selim to Süleyman we are talking about ~10-20 years, entirely within the intended timeframe of integration (make it 25 years or 30 years for full control for all I care).

The Ottomans also hired local arab troops and built fortifications along the pilgrimage road. The pilgrimages were also organized by the Ottomans. Idk where the "not fully integrated" part would come in. You may argue that various governors did a bad job, but I dont see how that should be an exclusivly Ottoman thing, since feudal structure in Europe also had good and bad governors. Like the Ottomans have janissaries stationed in the Levant. They built fortifications wherever they seem them fit. They hired mercenaries and local troops and moved them around, however they want to. There was no local rule, but direct ottoman rule through governors that were specially educated and sent from Constaninople. Where is the "not integrated" part? You may argue that the local mufti was elected locally and that he had more sympathy among the locals or that arabs in general were not conscripted until the 19th century, but that is more related to the Ottoman style of governing than to not being integrated. The only area in the Levant, where you have a point, are the druze. They were left to themselves and governed themselves, however this also happened with the kurds in south east anatolia.

It would help if we knew more about the various governors, but such an analysis does not exist as of now. Hence, I would let the Ottomans incooperate the Levant, but make a special status for Hejaz and Egypt. The various maghreb states were also de facto independent, but that comes with proximity anyways. Or they can introduce a special eyalet system.
occured in project cesar after 170 years (1337 +180 = 1517), so more 180 years, which makes it hardly still an "early game war", so it helps to consider that the systems you'll have at that point will be better than those from early game so it's not an "early game example" (which i.e https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...-30-25th-september-2024.1705317/post-29901812 seemed to miss).

As for the "not integrated", the fact there were revolts (even if it was between defecting mamluks and loyal mamluks) is one of the example. Not being integrated doesn't mean the region isn't ruled, it "just" means it has "a high separatism, lower control, and make pops unlikely to convert or assimilate".

You even say so yourself (at least for egypt and not the levant) : "The reason why Egypt stayed semi-autonmous was also not because the Ottomans didnt have the means to enforce their rule, but because it was very conveniant." aka : they found it better to let the region not being fully integrated, which hopefully the game will accurately represent. The cabinet system intends to represent that you'll "have the means" to change things in your country, but because of limitations on cabinet members, will try to "find convenient ways" to administer your lands without cabinet coring / integrating everything / everytime.

I think it'd be good to have some sort of either special subject or faster integration where it makes sense (such as the ottoman conquest of mamluks), but hopefully the situations where it makes sense, and the various policies and integration factors can help make it feel alive and not a pure steamroll.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I don't get why there should be less total wars than in eu4. As far as I understand the war score system is the same. And that didn't hinder the AI of fighting to the death every time over thefe
the warscore system is slightly different, as now battles are more important, and provided you took the war objective, you can reach 100% warscore without carpet sieging the whole of the enemy territory. So a 100% warscore is possible without fully conquering / being conquered.

As for AI, I hope they won't destroy their country over minor wars, but that is something the existing systems at least incentive (pop dying and being hard to replace make killing your whole country for a single loc... suboptimal), so I hope the AI will follow.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Oh the byzantophiles on this forum are gonna love that header image…
They won't, because none of them have checked the forum yet, they're all playing the new CK3 expansion, living their fantasy Byzantine empire for the 19th time. I am willing to bet a tenner that at least half of them called in sick today, just to spend two more minutes looking at the new expansion clothing items.
 
  • 3Haha
Reactions:
Has the possibility of adding proximity to integration speed been concidered? It'd make sense that places that are closer, that are well connected to the homeland are easier to integrate than far off places where it takes a few months to get a message out. It would also make nations spends money on infrastructure in those regions to help integrate it.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
1485 - The Ottomans lost to the Mamluks. That's almost 150 years into the game. Unlike EU4, the Ottomans shouldn't be given instant and ahistoric superiority dominance.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Wouldn't it make sense that integration is a slow natural process even without cabinet interference? Pops move in, people adjust to live in your country etc. Maybe it makes more sense to add a core action for the cabinet together with an action that speeds up integration. Because a nation can see land as a core of their nation even if less than 50% there are "their" people. It just makes sense if you hold the land long enough it doesn't quite matter who lives there if you think that's your land (aka a cabinet action to core an integrated province with a speed based on how close it is to be cored automatically).

Also can you lose a core if you have gained it?
 
  • 4
Reactions:
occured in project cesar after 170 years (1337 +180 = 1517), so more 180 years, which makes it hardly still an "early game war", so it helps to consider that the systems you'll have at that point will be better than those from early game so it's not an "early game example" (which i.e https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...-30-25th-september-2024.1705317/post-29901812 seemed to miss).

As for the "not integrated", the fact there were revolts (even if it was between defecting mamluks and loyal mamluks) is one of the example. Not being integrated doesn't mean the region isn't ruled, it "just" means it has "a high separatism, lower control, and make pops unlikely to convert or assimilate".

You even say so yourself (at least for egypt and not the levant) : "The reason why Egypt stayed semi-autonmous was also not because the Ottomans didnt have the means to enforce their rule, but because it was very conveniant." aka : they found it better to let the region not being fully integrated, which hopefully the game will accurately represent. The cabinet system intends to represent that you'll "have the means" to change things in your country, but because of limitations on cabinet members, will try to "find convenient ways" to administer your lands without cabinet coring / integrating everything / everytime.

I think it'd be good to have some sort of either special subject or faster integration where it makes sense (such as the ottoman conquest of mamluks), but hopefully the situations where it makes sense, and the various policies and integration factors can help make it feel alive and not a pure steamroll.
We are talking about Ottoman rule, are we not? The Ottomans conquered the Levant in the early 1500s. I specifically commented the "how did the Ottomans do it?" part. Not the rest. However the devshirme was established as early as the late 14th century, so around 40-50 years into the game (which is early game to me). From the "very beginning" this is the case (of governors being directly trained and sent to govern provinces). Also who says the player will beat the Mamluks around the 1500s and not earlier?

And with respect to the "special cases" like Egypt: You can count them on both hands. The Maghreb + Egypt + Hejaz + Wallachia (you may or may not add Moldovia to this), Hungary and Transilvania. Bosnia, the Druze and Albania had relatively speaking large autonomy. However, the vast majority of Ottoman land is governed through governors and they were very obsessed with recording everything (relative to contemporary Empires). Bosnia and Albania can just be represented with the intended system of integration, Hejaz as a vassal and Wallachia and such as either Eyalets or Tributaries (contributing manpower and money). We just have to concern ourselves with respect to Egypt and the Maghreb.

The Maghreb was essentially independent. So they should be able to do whatever they want to, except declare war to other de jura Ottoman territory and declaring war on them should involve the Ottomans. Centuries later, the Ottomans should also be able to directly rule the Maghreb.

And Egypt just had a very special case. Too bothersome to remove the Mamluks, so they were simply accepted. However the Ottomans still de facto ruled over the region. Maybe establish them as a special vassal type (akin to how it was handled in EU4).
 
We are talking about Ottoman rule, are we not? The Ottomans conquered the Levant in the early 1500s. I specifically commented the "how did the Ottomans do it?" part. Not the rest. However the devshirme was established as early as the late 14th century, so around 40-50 years into the game (which is early game to me). From the "very beginning" this is the case (of governors being directly trained and sent to govern provinces). Also who says the player will beat the Mamluks around the 1500s and not earlier?

And with respect to the "special cases" like Egypt: You can count them on both hands. The Maghreb + Egypt + Hejaz + Wallachia (you may or may not add Moldovia to this), Hungary and Transilvania. Bosnia, the Druze and Albania had relatively speaking large autonomy. However, the vast majority of Ottoman land is governed through governors and they were very obsessed with recording everything (relative to contemporary Empires). Bosnia and Albania can just be represented with the intended system of integration, Hejaz as a vassal and Wallachia and such as either Eyalets or Tributaries (contributing manpower and money). We just have to concern ourselves with respect to Egypt and the Maghreb.

The Maghreb was essentially independent. So they should be able to do whatever they want to, except declare war to other de jura Ottoman territory and declaring war on them should involve the Ottomans. Centuries later, the Ottomans should also be able to directly rule the Maghreb.

And Egypt just had a very special case. Too bothersome to remove the Mamluks, so they were simply accepted. However the Ottomans still de facto ruled over the region. Maybe establish them as a special vassal type (akin to how it was handled in EU4).
my bad, confused levant with Egypt, which is... well not the same region at all. Sorry.

Regarding the player possibility of doing better than history, it definitively is. But at the same time, it shouldn't be shocking he won't have the same tools than those that were historically available to administer his conquests.

The levant doesn't seem to be THAT big of an area to integrate however, so I'd say existing system ought to work somewhat properly, shoudn't they ? maybe give a slight bonus to integration speed based on the amount of "land" you already have / your total "integrated" pop, but I think existing system should properly represent this, eventually with some more tweaks to properly represent why this integration was fast, but I'd expect culture difference / proximity to give enough boni for this.
 
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.
I only hope that there will be plenty of things to do besides expansion, since from the looks of it expanding will be a rather sluggish affair, where you'll be accumulating swathes of unproductive land - and it will stay unproductive for a very long time. Yes, it will most likely help alleviate late-game blobbing, since it will be rather pointless to have sprawling empire with only a small core of fully integrated provinces creating any significant amount of resources, but I'm afraid that it will also defeat the purpose of expanding in the first place, that is precisely to build a sprawling empire. Why would I want to recreate the Ottoman conquests - and go beyond them - if the lands I conquer will be pretty much worthless for a long time? (Granted, I don't know exactly how significant the maluses of low integration will be.) Will there be at least some engaging gameplay built around enforcing your rule over newly conquered provinces, or will it simply be a waiting game until the various numbers go up or down sufficiently? Because if it's the latter, then it doesn't sound very appealing.

EU4 might've tackled the issue in an abstract and game-y way, but at least it allowed for rapid expansion that was worth the trouble, providing gratification for winning wars. Granted, in that game there wasn't much else to do besides just that, but I've yet to see how PC would differ in that regard from its siblings.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Will we still get free cores on things like ottomans on Constantinople through decision?

Edit: or I guess Castile free integrating Aragon or Poland free integration on Lithuania.
With this start date, forming PL-Lith Union might not even be guaranteed. If you want to keep things somewhat historical, Poland would need to have a female ruler with Piast ancestors (not nessesary being Piast herself)... so a bit like reversed Ibberian weeding ;)
Heck, if Casmir had some sons he'd never pick his nephew as successor ( who, again, if had any sons wouldn't split Polish and Hungarian crowns between his daughters, but instead tried to force both of crowns going to male successor)... keeping that in mind such historical unions aren't guaranteed- but there should be a mechanic in place to make such unions happen, under given conditions: no legal heir and nearby ruler of same dynasty/ ancestry
Or rules of nearby countries being of opposite sex with slme additional requirements (like possitive opinion + lack of wars in last 50years or so...)
 
EU4 might've tackled the issue in an abstract and game-y way, but at least it allowed for rapid expansion that was worth the trouble, providing gratification for winning wars. Granted, in that game there wasn't much else to do besides just that, but I've yet to see how PC would differ in that regard from its siblings.
I'll mention that conquest of land isn't something that exclusively strengthens the conqueror, but will also weaken the conquered. If I as France bereave Spain of Catalonia, sure, it might only operate at 10% of its potential under my rule, but it will operate at 0% potential for Spain - on account of them no longer owning it. You may only strengthen yourself marginally in the short term, but you can weaken your immediate enemies significantly.
 
not sure we have any atm.
What about proximity to capital? Would it not make sense if a province adjacent to a capital - say Skene and Copenhagen - is conquered, then integration should be quicker. Also, buildings that increase control can they influence integration? I understand that integration is the precursor to control but it would be nice to have the option to force more control and have that influence the integration rate. I approve in trying to stop snowballing but it would be nice for richer/more powerful nations to have some advantage for realism purposes.

One more thing, can you buy provinces? If so how does the integration process work then?
 
  • 2
Reactions: