Tinto Talks #31 - 2nd of October 2024

[Ilinar]

In CK2, the impact of aggressive expansion was progressive. I liked that countries would first unite defensively with related nations, and only later form an offensive alliance regardless of religion.
In EU4, the sudden shift from "we don't care" to "we're going to attack you" feels unnatural to me.

I suspect it’s better to stick with one IO that has varied membership statuses depending on AE, for example:
35 AE - joins the IO and defends other members of their religion group
45 AE - additionally defends members of other religion groups
55 AE - will also support an attack by another member targeting a coalition target.

 

[Masau]

I have asked this in the previous TT but you might not have seen it so I'll ask again because I feel it's important for everyone to have the flexibility to enjoy the game their way:

"I personaly will use a mod to decrease the integration time but I would prefer if there were an in-game option to boost/nerf integration time so that the player can adjust this feature before starting the game.
Can you give us that mr. Johan so that everyone can enjoy the game how they like? More options are always better and perhaps it will help ease players into the intended balance for the game! "

 

[ramius3443]

Would it really add that much if the only “counter offer” option was money? Because that was a fairly common “bilateral” concession and since its just a single item of equal value to everyone in all instances (i.e. its value ain’t situational/subjective like provinces or treaties), surely it could just be subtracted from the war score value without any additional ai thought?

On that note, my least favorite change over the course of EU4 (aside from missionary maintenance) was when the peace AI got the “-1000 wants more than gold” malus that prevented them from taking all or mostly gold peace deals.

Paying off potential or ongoing invaders was **extremely** common, and outside of very particular cb’s (league wars v Emperor) I don’t see why the AI should be programmed to automatically reject such deals, so long as you pay them enough.

 

[lazprune]

View attachment 1196559
We got a little sneak peek here

This is obviously very WIP but I do hope they go with a beautyful organic map like imperator and not a "readable" terrain map à la CK3 which looks bland.

View attachment 1196560
First Tinto talk to hit net negative. I hope the more interesting topics such as culture and parliments will come soon since this has been a streak of meh

Hopefully it's not the imperator curse.

 

[P.Quirinius]

Will expansion in areas with a lot of small nations like HRE lead to disproportionately strong coalitions or will small nations be strong proportionately to their size?

 

[perceval350]

I understand the disappointment of this week as I'm myself quite dissapointed, but man, how is this thread getting more review bombed than the tech and institutions one

If I had to choose from what I know, I would rather change the tech system than the peace deal system

 

[ivj9]

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.

I hate this.

 

[germaniec7]

Yeah, its not really something thats feasible to do, as the AI logic for it would be very very complex, and all our previous negotiate systems like that have been exploitable even when blindfolded.

Please do give it another shot. If not for base game then in updates for games. That would be major change for good for paradox games if you could figure it out.

 

[Cephei80]

I have to say this is the first dev diary I am disappointed in.

I get the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality, but I just disagree that the EU4 AI diplomacy system worked well - in the sense that, in EU4, the AI doesn't use diplomacy to their maximum advantage.

The AE system is to gamey and rigid to work well, and it doesn't distinguish between an OPM and a huge empire expanding; in other words, AE is not a good reflection of the threat a given country poses, it doesn't enable to AI to react well to snowballing players, and is just a boring mechanic that just slows the player down without making the game more challenging in any meaningful way.

For a full breakdown of the diplomacy changes I wanted to see, you can look at this post:

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/a-bold-new-diplomacy-system.1698444/

(you can ignore point 8, as two-sided peace deals are not viable)

EDIT: I hope that maybe you get to revisit coalitions for a future DLC!

mate already this game is complex enough it will likely appeal only to eu4 players but less of new players and you want them to narrow that even more by testing new experimental things that when tried in vic3 for example it failed it made the player numbers goes from 100k expected to play it to 10k just because they changed things .

to succeed is not to fix it when its not broken . the game already have plenty flavoring that we dont know how it would work such as stockpiling to wage wars and integrations and now you do want more experimental ideas

if this game is eu5 indeed then it should be more modern but not more different

 

[lazprune]

Rip Auvergne you lasted for a feedback
View attachment 1196565

How will we volcano enjoyers ever recover.....

 

[kinte991]

What happens if two countries declare war against Country X with the same a war goal to conquer province, and one of them annexes the targeted province? Will the other country be unable to annex anything? Or, if the wargoal becomes unachievable , does it automatically change to sth else?

 

[Cephei80]

Could you allow bilateral peace treaties between players?

this should be the suggested thing yes . it will allow to fun peace deals and negotiations like in vic3
but please keep the Ai from it , it was proven a failure on vic3
this is by no mean a second consul situation , in that one we were proven right but here its already tested in games with horrible results

 

[Fehervari]

Since they haven't really altered the system, I'd wager it's the same 5 years base for a white peace, plus a 10 year proportionally sliding term for each percent of warscore taken, so the same 5-15 years range we got used to in EU4.

It should be multiplies of 3 instead, honestly.

 

[theEXPERTpt]

Breaking treaties should be possible, although at a high cost. I hoe there's also the trust factor in PC, which could go severely down like in eu4 when you break those treaties. I also hope you're able to claim land or rights to conquest by peace treaty like the treaty of Tordesilhas did.

 

[agent_45]

It was the best system we have made for a GSG.

Soooo... considering how everyone does not want a similar peace negotiation system similar to EU4, but you said it was the best one ever made and it very much looks like it will continue to be in this project, are you willing to listen to the community? You said the main reasons of these "tinto talks" were primarily for the community feedback, and it's obvious the majority does not want something similar to theEU4 peace system.

 

[aantia]

Thanks for the dev diary!
Suggestion: could you additionally make allies upset based on their manpower losses? Even if they waste all their troops without accomplishing anything they should be upset about the outcome of the war - unless of course you give them more rewards than their achievements merit.
This didn't matter so much in eu4, but with losses mattering so much more now I think it might be worth capturing, so that the ai is encouraged to leave expensive alliances.

 

[FryFroFella]

View attachment 1196560
First Tinto talk to hit net negative. I hope the more interesting topics such as culture and parliments will come soon since this has been a streak of meh

Presumably theyre focused on working on the game, fine by me. So far what we've seen is great and aligns with priorities of most longtime EU4 players, between that and the extreme level of transparency the devs are providing, I am completely inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to speed of information. Dont forget these are dev diaries for a game that hasn't even actually been announced yet.

 

[Nostalgium]

Soooo... considering how everyone does not want a similar peace negotiation system similar to EU4, but you said it was the best one ever made and it very much looks like it will continue to be in this project, are you willing to listen to the community? You said the main reasons of these "tinto talks" were primarily for the community feedback, and it's obvious the majority does not want something similar to theEU4 peace system.

I'll elaborate on my own stance here, while not claiming to speak for everyone: If I had to choose between EU4 and literally any other PDX peace system I'd take EU4's without hesitation or doubt. Johan is, as far as I am concerned, correct in his statement that EU4 has the best peace deals in the PDX lineup, and it's not close. I'm disappointed it's seemingly not being iterated on, but my red X here doesn't mean "I hate it, throw it all out."

I DO in fact want something similar, but I was hoping it would be improved upon too.

 

[Lebyodka]

Blue is town, green is city.




View attachment 1196562

Why are there so few towns in Eastern Europe? For a region that once used to be called Garðaríki ('the country of cities', Nobgorod and several other subregions) they are extremely few, which is quite astounishing

 

[ramius3443]

mate already this game is complex enough it will likely appeal only to eu4 players but less of new players and you want them to narrow that even more by testing new experimental things that when tried in vic3 for example it failed it made the player numbers goes from 100k expected to play it to 10k just because they changed things .

“Vicky 3 failed because it tried too many new things and was too complex” is an utterly laughable diagnosis of that game’s problems.

And “this game is complex enough, it will mostly appeal only to EU4 players”… I mean where do you begin with this. Is it worse that you think that designing a game that primarily caters to its large existing player base is bad, or that you think people who are drawn to Paradox games are gonna be averse to more strategic depth despite that being the whole point of such games?