Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries
Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Previous dev diary Next dev diary
Show only dev responses

Tinto Talks #31 - 2nd of October 2024

Welcome to another Tinto Talks, the Happy Wednesday where we spill the secrets of our upcoming game, with the codename Project Caesar.

Last week we talked about wars and wargoals, and today we are going to talk about how wars will end, as we discuss the peace system. If you have played other GSG games for Paradox, some of this may not be news to you though.


Peace Offers
To end a war you need to negotiate a peace with either the leader on the other side, or if you are the leader on your side, you can negotiate a separate peace with a single independent country on the other side.

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.

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

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.

message.png

Peace in our time?

Peace Treaties
A peace treaty can be the transfer of a location, province or area. It can also be to force another country to stop sending privateers, or transferring gold to you, or dismantling fortification in a location, humiliating them or any other of the dozens upon dozens of possible peace treaties of Project Caesar.

The cost of each treaty depends on many factors, whether it’s part of the wargoal or not, the population, the type of the treaty and so on.

peace_cost.png

Numbers are still being tweaked..


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.

ae_impact.png

We can probably live with this AE though?


War Enthusiasm
When it comes to how willing a nation is to fight, much comes down to their War Enthusiasm. If this is high then the AI is unlikely to accept a peace that is not favorable to them. This is determined by the state of the country, with war exhaustion, control of capital and military strength are big factors. For the leader of a side in the war the overall military balance is a huge factor as well.


enthusiasm.png

Bohemia really wants to continue this war…


War Participation
Most of the time you bring allies to help you out in a war, but they expect to be rewarded for the part they pull. The War Participation is how much a country has contributed to the progress of the war. This is primarily done through battles, blockades and sieges.

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.



Stay tuned, as next week, we’ll talk about the conflicts in the world that do not involve declarations of war, and negotiations of peace.
 
  • 305
  • 131Like
  • 39
  • 16Love
  • 5Haha
  • 5
Reactions:
Sort by date Sort by reaction score
gamdese said:
I think removing the 100 point cap on peace negotiations would go a long way, it does not make sense we cannot annex a country, does not matter the size, if we ocupy the territory and the enemy has 0 troops
Click to expand...
To me it does make sense, short term you won't be able to hold on to all this land but you are getting an insurance on future expansion as it will fracture in multiple smaller parts, which to me is an exploit.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Moppy771 said:
AE calculation shouldn't be uniform.

A big country swallowing an OPM should generate way more AE than an OPM eating another OPM. Basically already being large and "threatening" should be a multiplier on all AE calculations.

I also think a big country taking some locations from another big country should generate less AE, as in the "threat" levels sort of cancel each other out.
Click to expand...
I agree. AE should depend on the size difference between countries.
1 OPM might get very threatened when another OPM triples in size, but France shouldn't care as it is still too small to notice for them.

Your second point... Maybe. I guess something along the lines of percentage taken from country as a modifier to AE.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
ezno said:
I think that taking provinces should be more expensive if the war goal one isn't controlled, but a hard limit seems weird if england controlled all northen France during a war, they should be able to ask for some land even tough the war goal was Bordelais
Click to expand...
It's also a tiny bit gamey. You now know beforehand which provinces to defend to the death and which you can lose control of. As long as you keep the war goal in control they can't take a single province of you.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
It's worth noting, to defend the "you can't take anything if you don't at least take the wargoal", is that this only really applies to setting your war goal (which is now independent of what CB you use) to one that demands a particular province.

Given that claims no longer exist, it's quite likely that more often than not, you'll be using a wargoal that doesn't demand a particular swathe of territory in the first place. Hell, given the fact that you have to use spies to even be able to get a CB in the first place (not something I entirely agree with, but I like the spirit), you're likely going to be going to war with no CB at all quite often, particularly when you're just wanting to fight over some small chunk of territory at the fringes of two empires.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Johan said:
1 - no, to allow for free selection its one-way only.
2 - higher rank becomes leader.
3 - 50 atm iirc
Click to expand...
For the second point, what would determine rank? Would it be population, diplomatic reputation, or military size at the start of the war or something that will be discussed in a later tinto talk?
 
TheDungen said:
Johan said similar things about mana in imperator. And about pops in Europa universalis games. If we keep asking he'äs going to cave and then it'll turn out it wasn't impossible after all.
Click to expand...
Neither mana nor dual consuls was avoided at release because they were technically/mathematically difficult to implement in a good way. Those were purely gameplay choices, this is not.

Also, neither of the two mattered anywhere as much as some people think they did for Imperator's lack of success. Anyone who thinks they are good arguments for why Johan should change anything about project Caesar should be ignored. Fixing those issues did just about nothing to help the Imperator player numbers. The game simply had too many far bigger flaws.
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
ruben_men said:
It's also a tiny bit gamey. You now know beforehand which provinces to defend to the death and which you can lose control of. As long as you keep the war goal in control they can't take a single province of you.
Click to expand...
That's also true, but being a bit gamey is way better than what looks like a purely arbitrary constrain, without any logic, imo it would be very frustrating to just white peace (or just take gold) if you control 3/4 of a country
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
ruben_men said:
It's also a tiny bit gamey. You now know beforehand which provinces to defend to the death and which you can lose control of. As long as you keep the war goal in control they can't take a single province of you.
Click to expand...
On the plus side the AI also knows which terrain to hold and hopefully will actually put up a fight this time.
 
ezno said:
That's also true, but being a bit gamey is way better than what looks like a purely arbitrary constrain, without any logic, imo it would be very frustrating to just white peace (or just take gold) if you control 3/4 of a country
Click to expand...
No offence, but if you took 3/4 of a country under control but not the war goal you set yourself, there is nothing wrong with the game, there is certainly something very wrong with the player.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Johan said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm currently trying to make some code for the double sided peace deals, so you don't have to (that mathe degree has to have some usefullness)

@Johan would you be able to give me the details of one or more location (the more details you give me the better the code will be :) ),
I probable can not ask you to give me the current AI for peace deals, can I ? XD
 
Brynjar said:
Neither mana nor dual consuls was avoided at release because they were technically/mathematically difficult to implement in a good way. Those were purely gameplay choices, this is not.

Also, neither of the two mattered anywhere as much as some people think they did for Imperator's lack of success. Anyone who thinks they are good arguments for why Johan should change anything about project Caesar should be ignored. Fixing those issues did just about nothing to help the Imperator player numbers. The game simply had too many far bigger flaws.
Click to expand...
Building a pop system would have required a lot more work than coding the ai to deal with two sided peace deals, especially since they need to code the AI to deal with peace deals regardless.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
TheDungen said:
Building a pop system would have required a lot more work than coding the ai to deal with two sided peace deals, especially since they need to code the AI to deal with peace deals regardless.
Click to expand...
Not sure why you think those are even relevant to compare. Are you ignoring the requirement for the system to be well working? Again, the coding is not the problem. The problem is the logic behind it. The devs would have to pre-define rules for all cases, without any of them ending up with the AI basically giving away provinces at any point in the game's timeline.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Brynjar said:
Not sure why you think those are even relevant to compare. Are you ignoring the requirement for the system to be well working? Again, the coding is not the problem. The problem is the logic behind it. The devs would have to pre-define rules for all cases, without any of them ending up with the AI basically giving away provinces at any point in the game's timeline.
Click to expand...
No they would not have to and how they proiritizze provinces is soemthign they have to code anyway for one sided peace deals. but I guess screwing the Ai over in one sided peace deals is completly ok so long as you don't do it with two sided ones.
 
TheDungen said:
No they would not have to and how they proiritizze provinces is soemthign they have to code anyway for one sided peace deals. but I guess screwing the Ai over in one sided peace deals is completly ok so long as you don't do it with two sided ones.
Click to expand...
What? Does that mean you just want the AI to be willing to trade 5% warscore for 5% warscore? Should I be able to take a couple of English cores on the British isles, then trade them for French provinces in the hope that it will cause a devestating war between two major powers? How about trading early game colonies for Moroccan cores to effectively block Portugal from ever establishing a colonial empire?

A simplified solution which allows those is the only way your statement above would make sense. Allowing that would be madness.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Johan said:
Blue is town, green is city.




View attachment 1196562
Click to expand...
Hey, i'm just curious as to what factors in for decision of what are cities at the start date?
Is it the pure population numbers of the time or how they will grow immediately after, or through the game's timeframe.

I.e. i can see Ribe and Aarhus aren't towns in Denmark. I know Ribe kinda starts falling off after the middle ages and never really recovers, but it was pretty big in Denmark at the time of the start date..
Aarhus is smaller than Ribe at that time, but it was positioned well, and grew significantly and economically through the rest of the game's period.

Then again i don't know if this map mode change through gameplay or not. If it has been mentioned in a previous Tinto talks, then im sorry, i must have missed it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back