Tinto Talks #31 - 2nd of October 2024

[Polesie Admiral]

Blue is town, green is city.

View attachment 1196562

RIP Mazovia it got half annexed by the Order

 

[Commandocat]

I think instead of having you be forced to take the war goal you could instead have it that if you don't take the War goal you get the same negatives that you would get from a no cb war.

 

[DizzyWaddleDoo]

EU4 has the best peace deal system in a paradox game so this is fine by me

 

[Failtier]

I think you are right and wrong at the same time.

Maria Theresia did not forget Silesia, but as time passed every other country accepted it. Even Austria.

The reason for this is the change of state interests over time.

And is it really a good idea to make "eternal coalitions" possible? I think not.

I would argue that building a big empire should always be possible in any EU game.

I was referring to the Diplomatic Revolution. Of course, after the Seven Year's War, she had to accept her loss as Prussia became even more powerful after the First Partition of Poland and thus emerged as a member of the European "pentarchy." Key to understand actors' motivation here is what scholars conceptualize as "balance of power," and interrelated, threat perception.

The difference between Threat and AE is: With AE, everyone at some point just forgets about it, but with Threat, there is a calculation of the Threat perception based on military and economic power, proximity, and other factors. So no one forgets about it, as your newly acquired possessions form the basis of how others perceive you. If you are super dominant in Europe, like France when it aspired to become the "universal monarchy," others will constantly view you as a Threat, and the more you conquer, the greater the Threat. Threat is always relational, AE is a number that ticks down over time.

Good luck with snowballing then as you will face a whole lot of coalitions which don't just disband over time, even if you wait a hundred years. The perception of you as a Threat doesn't magically disappear.

 

[Testerian2]

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.

Maybe those could only weigh for max 10% of the peace cost? That way AI could do wild things and still go away with it, because it would not matter too much. On the other hand, if the player only needs a few points to get what he wants, he may offer gold or something small and not fight a boring war for another year...

 

[Tavolo87]

Johan, riddle me this : why so far you implemented all mechanics that discourage blobbing and make you think in a much more strategic way to then implement the most blob encouraging peace treaty design?

It honestly makes no sense. War is going to be something extremely expensive and crippling, and now the only way to make a war worthwhile in the short - medium term too (instead of just a longterm gain) is to totally commit to a war and 100% warscore in every war. Like. I hope you do realise how this utterly contrast what you want to encourage the players to do and what the rest of the game is designed for

 

[Oglesby]

although i also think that humans will be able to exploit the ai every time, there will always be a flaw in a calculation, or a meta exploit, or whatever, so i don't think that's necessarily a valid counterargument either.

I think it is better argument than "Other things may be broken so it is okay to deliberately add more broken stuff."

 

[Movet]

1. If war leader iż always the country with higher rank, IT make no sens to call stronger allies, because you will not have any Control on peace deals. AM i understand IT correctly?
2. It was always annoying, when you call ally and promise something, and you need to fulfill all his wishes based on his warscore. Or you can not promise anything, and he will be happy too. It is all or nothing. There is nothing in the middle :/ Maybe there should be some mechanic, that you can promise land for 25%/50%/75% of contribution?
3. Will there be a way to tell your AI ally what do you want in peace deal when AI will make it? I never liked when AI give you some random province or something, when you want the province X. Maybe make turns in peace deals will be a good idea? But only for humans player, for example:
AI get 75% warscore, and player have from it (based on war contribution) 25% so:
1. AI will get land for himself and rest of AI allies for 50%
2. Player after that can take something for 25%.

 

[MasterPaw]

Peace Treaties

View attachment 1196506
Numbers are still being tweaked..

If the base is always 1 it's weird to display it as multiplicatuve modifiers

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.

Could not respecting promises give CB for reparations and AE?

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

Doesn't that encourage carpet sieging?

 

[Failtier]

the devs stated long ago that the Ai cannot handle it

"in Vic 3 The Ottomans consistently reconquer their lost Arab holdings and then in the same deal give Egypt Ankara."
a random complaint for what bilateral peace look like if implemented

bilateral peace was never in eu games and there is a good reason for why its not here called border gore . unless you want china to suddenly appear in europe it should not be a brainless hype train . the Ai will ruin the map with it especially in coalition wars

Well the AI shouldn't do that because they have full control over Ankara, it's a core, it's a location/province/area with their primary culture and it has close proximity to their capital and cores. If it's a location with a non-accepted culture that is far away with almost no control, and it's none of their vital or strategic interests, they might consider it, even with higher costs maybe (for balancing, whatsoever).

There will be mission trees anyways, so why not tie that with what the AI considers as vital or strategic interests to prevent it from messing up like that?

 

[CorpusIurisCivilis]

A B S O L U T E C H O N K E R

 

[Ratanka]

i cant think of a single good reason other then to exploit the AI to have a two way peace deal ...
making so much more work and complexity for something that in the end always will be abused sounds rly bad ...
i dont get why people are mad

 

[ItThatAltersSanity]

So why is there no bilateral peaces?

For games with peace-negotiations, about 20%+ of all AI development tend to goes to understanding situation of war and negotiate peace. Its a super complicated thing to work on, to make sure that

1) the AI is able to play the game and keep somewhat of a progress.
2) not frustrate the player and make him quit.

Making it support "treaties" going multiple ways for a peace would not just double the complexity, but instead of N, its a NxN problem at least.

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.

Would the complexity be manageable if it wasn't a deal to end a war? As in, a peace-time deal where two nations agree to trade locations? Is that too abusable?

Instead of favors and land? Like a monetary promise?

When we get to the TT topic of Condotierri, can we discuss if it's possible to actively request another nation to rent out their army to you?

 

[dbruser]

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.

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 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.


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.

Well to be fair, the war of Spanish Succession was not a war over the conquest of a specific location, so the location restrictions wouldn't apply (from my understanding)

 

[kc01]

When are two way peace treaties coming to paradox games? That is, where it can be negotiated to give up x while taking y: Like MOST wars in history involved, ESPECIALLY in the renaissance and early modern period. It was simply far more pragmatic to offer a little and take something for yourself too in most cases.

Here are just 2 random examples for those who only understand history through the paradox games.

Treaty of Niš (1739) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Treaty of Ganja - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Surely, with a game intended to be this feature complete, this most essential characteristic will not be missing again?

 

[baracube1440]

Peace cost has always bothered me, taking into account how enormus Egypt is can you mention a time when it was not one piece, also this game take place only 41 years after Mongol Empire fell apart.

 

[sr_joan]

it currently depends on the warscore used.

Please make it so it's clear when you peace somebody how long is the truce that you will both get

 

[eqez]

From the last two Tinto talks it feels like wars will still be full out total wars by 1338.

I really hope for a good amount of beta testing to see how players actually will handle wars and peacedeals with all the new mechanics.

I also wonder if PDX focus on single player or multiplayer in their design. Because i think the playstyles and behavior differ enormeously.

 

[KreeperGamer]

How is peace score generated? I'm hoping that very limited peacemeal wars against other powers are doable, for example as a burgeoning pirate republic, you don't need to invade the home islands, you just need to starve out Bermuda

 

[Mindel]

If the peace treaty system is going to be so close to EU4, then I might as well make some QoL requests.

When separate-peacing out enemy nations one by one and taking their land, there is no way to see how much AE you will get at the end of all your treaties. In practice, I end up having to simply guess and then sometimes restart if I happen to undercount and get a coalition. It would be nice to have some kind of AE calculator window where you can feed in multiple peace treaties and see what the estimated AE and coalition will be.

Another feature that isn't exactly QoL but is badly needed is an ability to communicate with AI allies when you or they are getting sick of some war and planning to separately peace out soon. I want to be able to tell the AI to wrap things up within a year or six months or else I bail, and I would also like them to have the courtesy to pass the same message to me before leaving.