Tinto Talks #31 - 2nd of October 2024

[Znikii]

Different types of Treaties?

 

[Sulphurologist]

Sorry if these 'colorblindness reviews' are becoming boring, but the dark red in the UI is reaaally straining my eyes.

Perhaps a sightly brighter/lighter shade of red (e.g. #bd8483) could do the trick? (2nd column).
What do regular sighted people think about this color suggestion? Yae or nae?

(I do hope red on green will not appear anywhere in game though...)

 

[LiquidIExtasy]

Instead of favors and land? Like a monetary promise?

Yes, exactly.

In EU4, the money I get from my enemy is automtically split up.

Sometimes I can only satisfy my ally if I give him 2 or 3 provinces and thats a big limitation.

It would be easy to assign the money manually to my allies to make them happy.

Money is one of the most important resources in the game and in the real world (even in the 14th century). So it would make sense.

Also as I said, for the human player it would be more attractive to join AI wars to get some money out of it.

 

[Cephei80]

Project Caesar diaries been amazing but no bilateral peace is the first sad news. Think about the Spanish war of succession and how land charged hands there. Simply impossible with no bilateral peaces.

how is it a sad news when its proven it doesnt work in paradox games yet and players abuse it already turning a loss to a win to cheat ?

 

[Diskianterezh]

A Peace Offer, will consist of a set of treaties that can have a total value of up to 100 Peace Cost. Of course the other side would have to agree, and they are very likely not to accept anything where the peace cost is higher than the current warscore.

About that 100 Peace cost value,
I have a question about the limits that can be taken by a winning nation:
Generally speaking, we like to keep a leader in place who is capable of negotiating for his country in front of us: you need someone to sign and enforce peace in your country.
The limit of 100 is therefore logical in the context of negotiations and the potential for the defeated to accept peace under these conditions, or to refuse and continue the fight (costly for everyone).
Proposing a peace that is ‘just’, and therefore acceptable, and within the 100 limit is therefore entirely logical, given the desire to put an end to hostilities.

But what if the defeated nation is completely broken, occupied, and therefore at the mercy of a conquering victor? I'm thinking here of the eternal question ‘I occupy 100% of my enemy, he has no army left, why can't I annex him completely and am I limited to these 100 points?
In the case of an absolutely and completely defeated nation, the defeated has no means of refusing peace, since the occupation is already de facto present. Making peace and thus ending hostilities is therefore pointless, since the entire nation is occupied and ‘pacified’. So why limit the number of requests to 100?

You could say that it's for gameplay reasons, and that would be logical.

But in these specific cases, wouldn't the model be granular enough to say to the player ‘fine, occupy what you want, I won't stop you’, BUT the difficulty would lie in occupying and managing this newly occupied territory (not to mention aggressive expansion)?
A peace treaty above 100 would be possible, for example, in the case of total surrender (or 100% occupation&no more army), but would entail very large control penalties, exponential AE, and even internal unrest among the country's elites who saw no point in such a costly undertaking ... and a long way from the initial war objectives.
This would naturally lead to internal tensions, perhaps a situation and the independence of the occupied nation.

 

[Ditzed]

Sad to see there are no two way peace deals

Yes!! We need 2-way peace deals. Please Paradox!!

 

[albertolazo]

Also I really hope we get a culture dev diary soon as it comes up in every map diary and half the talks ones and its still a total unknown.

yes, i need see iberia and france

 

[merokrl]

You should make it so when you get 100 ws then it removes the cap on how much provinces you can take, this is balanced by aggressive expansion, control, and integration anyways

 

[Quizok]

Edit: NVM, I didnt read properly.

 

[Svenska Super]

In my long analysis the community is ready for even more granularity on demand, expand tooltips and more detailed map mode. Think its safe to say
that it will take probably more time to develop. Personally i would also be happy if besides 2d 3dish graphics small movie clips like shogun tw are blended in.
It would be a missed opportunity to release this dlc oriented.

 

[RMS Oceanic]

1 Could Castile annex Portugal in a single war? How would this affect Castile?
2 Could Castile attack Morocco right at the start of the game while Morocco attacks Tremecen or must it wait a while?

It was interesting the AE example shown was the Teutons vassalizing Lithuania. Maybe they aren't as big as in EU4 yet but in EU4 without a subjugation CB that takes several wars to achieve. Maybe certain peace deals max out at 100% but other penalties like AE go forever?

 

[Metz]

What about changing war goals mid war for a cost (maybe a war score cap or prestige).

 

[Monty is staring at me]

I understand that two sided peace deals is something too complex and time consuming at the moment, but maybe still some options could be added? Like some peace option for the winner called "Monetary Compensation" that offers some amount of fixed money to the loser based on the land taken ( based on population mostly I'd guess) and that increases a fair bit their willingless to accept the peace treaty, especially (or only) If they are already losing.

Maybe you can compensate your enemy for conquered provinces (this actually happened historically) and in return your opponent loses claims to that province in the future?

So essentially a "buy a claim" mechanic?

Actually, that could be expanded further out. Maybe you could "buy" a claim or CB from other countries?

Also, would be cool if you could "rent" a province in addition to selling it (this has also happened historically, where countries "loaned" some towns to other countries for money).

 

[RMS Oceanic]

"To be able to take land, you also need to have control over the province capital."

Im a bit worried about this statement. It may make sense in Europe centric playthroughs, but for "long range" wars so to say, its not great.

Imagine I play as Japan and get in a war with Russia to take land. Do I really have to go half a globe away to Moscow to siege it down, even if I decisively win in the east? Seems kind of unnecessary tbh.

Province capital, not country capital. So for example if you want to grab Silesia you'd have to occupy Breslau.

 

[Red Death]

Overall a bit disappointed, no significant improvement compared to EU4, and maybe some regression.

I also see nothing to fix the "better for 2 allies to declare 2 separate wars on the same target" situation.

You may sometimes have to convince your allies to join an offensive war that you are starting, and thus you can promise them part of the spoils of the war. If the part that they gain from signing a peace is less than their participation they will get upset.

Without multilateral negotiation, this should be a hard requirement, not a "they will get upset" situation. You should be incapable of signing a peace that does not give your allies what you promised them. (Unless you did not actually win the war enough, of course). This represents the fact that IRL, those other parties would be AT the peace negotiation table, and need to agree to it just as much as the "war leader".

One thing that is important to notice, is that if you declare war for a war goal to conquer a certain province, then you can not take any other land, UNLESS you take the wargoal.

This is bad. Check out the War of the Spanish Succession if you want to know why.

I was at least hoping for something like Stellaris' Status Quo peace, where both sides take all claimed territory that they successfully occupied.

Aggressive Expansion
Aggressive Expansion is one of the drawbacks of strengthening your own country ahead of others. Taking territory is one of the easiest ways to increase it. While taking land impacts your own country a fair bit, it also impacts the opinions of other countries near the source of the aggressive expansion a fair bit. If you get your AE high enough, countries with a low enough opinion of you may join a coalition against you. A Coalition is an international organization oriented around severely reducing the power of a single country.

Hmmm, I was really hoping Coalitions would be more influenced by the actual threat countries perceive from other countries, instead of the same old arbitrary "recent conquests", regardless of whether the conqueror can actually pose a threat to you.

 

[Limyx826]

Let me reiterate in case devs never seen it. About the harbour map mode, I kept thinking how about making inland locations black in colour while bad harbour as white colour for clarity purpose? Cause I can't really see the location name in black, and a scale from green to white may be great for visual purpose.

 

[Ivardj]

Could you allow bilateral peace treaties between players?

 

[Trukester]

Will we be able to transfer occupation before a peace deal to an ally? Will allies be able to get land out of a war?

 

[Quizok]

Province capital, not country capital. So for example if you want to grab Silesia you'd have to occupy Breslau.

Oh my bad then.

 

[Metz]

Its one of those "this sounds like a damn good idea", which ends up with a lot of development time required, and ends up with a worse experience for the user, as the balance is almost impossible.

Instead of bilateral peace treaties what about a diplomatic option to swap land (for other land and or gold, plus a non aggression pact, etc.). So players may not get the bilateral treaty aspect but they can get bargaining chips in a war to then get what they want in a future.