Tinto Talks #31 - 2nd of October 2024

[Failtier]

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.

You name it, we should use "threat" and not AE. Using "threat" would be so much richer in many way, as the concept is also widely used in international relations and thus connectable to many societal discourses.

 

[bokorthedust]

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

And what do you have in mind for situations where a war ally occupies the location, refuses to transfer it or take it in the peace deal, essentially forcing a white peace? How about simultaneous wars where one country is beaten to the wargoal by an other, which proceeds to take it (provided they don't end up in the all so familiar situation from EU4 where neither party can get what it wants but continues the war because their enthusiasm is through the roof from the defender being beaten to a pulp), blocking you from taking anything and condemning you to expend resources for ziltch?

It might be the best system you've ever made but it certainly has its kinks and this new restriction while might solve a couple exploits and griefs as you put it, creates others, maybe even less fun ones.

 

[LiquidIExtasy]

True. I do wanna see how culture integration will work since it is something that will greatly affect the integration process. And also because I love making multi-cultural nations.

I would prefer automatic culture assimilation. I mean we play from 1337 until the 19th century.

Do we really think we have to manually culture convert a province because it wont happen over the decades by itself?

The different cultures would converge over time and get assimilated by my country's main culture.

If we talk about a more believable world in EU5, the culture system of EU4 just makes no sense and we need a dynamic culture system.

 

[SugaryWind63002]

In which part I get Queen of Bohemia as my sons new wife? I hear nothing about kidnaping peoples wife in treaties

 

[Ispil]

Are provinces the smallest units of land that can be exchanged in peace treaties, or can you give and take locations as well? Not talking about when my enemy only controls one location in the province, I'm talking about being able to take specific locations from a province.

A peace treaty can be the transfer of a location, province or area.

 

[Johan]

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.

 

[Zeard]

In my opinion, unfortunatelly, taking this dev diary and the one from the last week, this is a major setback to the game. All the outstanding mechanics the game will be overwhlemed by frustration in the moment of inabilty to take whole enemy land in one sweep due to some unrealistic, artficial, gamey war score, even when we conquered the whole enemy country. War score, focusing on occupation, comparison of army strenght, prediction and current state of economical impact due to war and war exhaustion, should be factors for a weaker state to accept the terms even without a fight, while the same factors + threat of coalition will limit weaker state's conquest or in tough faits just declare white peace. What's more taking too many lands without enough many in the bank to build administrative betwork and provide garissons for public order also should reduce the amount of conquest.

Solution: Instead of hardcapping conquest, softcap it. This would mean that we can take whatever we conquered in any amount if we are decisevely winnig the war, but are limited by possibility of coalitions, our own funds to keep order with garrisons and maintain administration in our own and newly conquered rebelios lands. Of course the less claim to the land we have, the greater this would impact the aformentioned limiters. Aldo there would be some logical limit to how much these limiters can increase.

Please let's get this into the game in some way, it's time to move on from ancient unrealistic systems, which you beautifully removed in project ceasar. From tinto talks it looks like this would be the game to play for maaaany yars to come, please don't force me to make myslef some junky mods for warscore and aggressive expansion as I had to do for EU4 or especiqlly Imperator.

That being said I absolutely love the game so far aprat from war goals and war score, I will blindly buy expansion pass once problems in last 2 tinto talks gets resolved.

Sorry for very big post, I'm passionate about his problem, as it cursea my paradox campaigns fir faaaar too long and makes me insane.

 

[bretjemaine]

I made this point already in last TT, but Aggressive Expansion (AE) feels extremely outdated compared to other much more innovative approaches of PC. If Bohemia takes Berlin from Brandenburg, why would Brandenburg ever forget that the Bohemians did that to them? Did Maria Theresia ever forget that Frederick took Silesia from her (well no, she didn't, and she did everything in her power to make friends with her arch enemy, the French, in order to take Silesia back).

Again, to quote from this post long time ago, I feel that "threat" is a vastly better mechanic than AE.

A small country at the border to the Ottomans should not just join a coalition once the Ottomans gobbled up every other state around them, and then come to the conclusion "well, I had enough now," they should always be willing to join any coalition vs. the Ottomans. Once the Prussians take Silesia, which is the most prosperous province of the Austrians, the way how Prussia is perceived by others in terms of their military capacities should overall change; the potential threat that Prussians now pose to others does not just magically tick down over time, they are now considered as one of the most powerful countries in Europe. If someone becomes the economic hegemon, they too should be perceived as someone who could be a threat in many terms as they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries against others.

Honest feedback here, AE is a bad mechanic for many reasons:

1. It is "gamey" because it is just a number that ticks down, which implies other actors just "forget" about the incidents that triggered it.
2. It is applied only after the peace treaty has been signed, so only to some degree useful in terms of preventing snowballing.
3. The threshold of 50 seems arbitrary, which is against the general design philosophy of PC which removed arbitrary limits like force limit
4. AE is just a number, and many players don't care about it too much anyways as they will continue expanding somewhere else.

And many more reasons that we will hopefully discuss here.

Excellent post and linked post.

 

[Johan]

Do I misremember something or wasn't there going to be something slightly new to AE and Coalition system? (I probably mix it up with something else)

just that coalitions use the new IO systems

 

[killrocker]

yes, but it also removed a fair bit of griefing and exploits.

What about cases, when wargoal gets conquered by other nation during the war? Does this mean, that you are not allowed to take any land in this war?

 

[Johan]

You should really be able to sweeten the deal by paying the loser for the land you take to make a marginal difference towards accepting the deal. Or trade provinces that each side controls. A give and take.

it would increase the evaluation complexity

 

[Nostalgium]

i would like to hear what those who "respecfully disagree" are respectfully disagreeing about with a good counter argument instead of empty youtube dislike button like reactions . we are building a game here with feedbacks not asking for likes

For me, at least, it's a combination of factors. The first is that as you say, it's very close to the EU4 system. No change means nothing to really sway me in a positive direction. Second, it's the lack of a bi-lateral peace deal. While I accept Johan's response that it would be incredibly easy to exploit, I am nontheless disappointed that they couldn't find a solution. Thirdly, it has more restrictions - such as "must take wargoal to take other land", which feel arbitrary and prone to cause incredibly frustrating situations. I'd probably settle for a response if such a thing existed, but alas, my options are not so granular.

Much like this peace deal system.

 

[pheonicia]

Basic system the same as EU4, so it'll be functional and that's a plus.

I do wish though that we could have moved to a system where you plan your peace deal at the start of the war and then depending on if you take what you promised, you get penalties (if you take more/different you get a bunch of extra ae, of you take less you lose a little prestige). It would have also helped out in that promising your allies land would have required you to state ahead of time what you were going to give them.

 

[Witcher587]

Everything cool but I don't see why Duchy of Inowrocław is in the game? In 1320s two dukes in kuyavia exchanged their lands for duchies of Sieradz & Łęczyca so that Polish King Władysław Łokietek could better controll border with TO.

Przemysł of Inowrocław exchanged Inowrocław in 1327!
Kazimierz III of Gniewkowo(Not Kazimierz III the Great) exchanged Dobrzyń Duchy also in 1327

"Duke of Inowrocław after 1320/24, in 1327 he exchange Inowrocław for Sieradz."

"Together with his brother, he maintain his alliance with Władysław I. In view of the constants wars against the Teutonic Order, and in order to facilitate the Polish King an open warfare, between 28 May 1327/14 October 1328 Przemysł agreed to exchange his ancestral domain of Inowrocław for Sieradz. In this conflict, the new Duke of Sieradz tried to serve as mediator; however, this didn't protect his domain to be ravaged by the Teutonic Knights."

Przemysł of Inowrocław - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Na przełomie 1327 i 1328, wobec zagrożenia księstwa ze strony zakonu krzyżackiego, król polski zaproponował zamianę rodowych posiadłości na księstwo ze stolicą w Łęczycy. Od 1328, po śmierci brata Bolesława, Władysław przejął pełnię władzy. W 1343 w wyniku pokoju kaliskiego Władysław powrócił do księstwa dobrzyńskiego (tak pewnie stanowiła umowa z przełomu 1327/1328). Ziemia łęczycka z woli króla Kazimierza Wielkiego została w jego panowaniu dożywotnio."

Władysław Garbaty – Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia

pl.wikipedia.org

Inowrocław shouldn't exist at this time.

Instead of Inowrocław you should add Gniewkowo location & with it Gniewkowo duchy.

Gniewkowo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"
The Teutonic Knights laid siege to Gniewkowo in 1332 during their war with Poland. To avoid capture Casimir set fire to his stronghold and abandoned the town. He would not regain control of the duchy until the Treaty of Kalisz in 1343.

And Gniewkowo was ruled back then by Kazimierz III of Gniewkowo. NOT Kazimierz III the Great !!

__

and I guess in game Inowrocław is PU of Poland because you took Kazimierz III of Gniewkowo for Kazimierz III the Great xDD, those are 2 seperate rulers

Kazimierz III of Gniewkowo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Johan]

No wow.
It's literally the same as in EU4.

I especially dislike the 100 points WS limit. It's too game-y. What's stopping me from annexing as much land as I want after fully destroying the enemy? There's already a massive penalty for doing this in AE, lack of control, not integrated provinces etc etc. No reson to further arbitrarily restrict it.

Its there to make the AI function and be able to understand when its beaten.

 

[pheonicia]

In my opinion, unfortunatelly, taking this dev diary and the one from the last week, this is a major setback to the game. All the outstanding mechanics the game will be overwhlemed by frustration in the moment of inabilty to take whole enemy land in one sweep due to some unrealistic, artficial, gamey war score, even when we conquered the whole enemy country. War score, focusing on occupation, comparison of army strenght, prediction and current state of economical impact due to war and war exhaustion, should be factors for a weaker state to accept the terms even without a fight, while the same factors + threat of coalition will limit weaker state's conquest or in tough faits just declare white peace. What's more taking too many lands without enough many in the bank to build administrative betwork and provide garissons for public order also should reduce the amount of conquest.

Solution: Instead of hardcapping conquest, softcap it. This would mean that we can take whatever we conquered in any amount if we are decisevely winnig the war, but are limited by possibility of coalitions, our own funds to keep order with garrisons and maintain administration in our own and newly conquered rebelios lands. Of course the less claim to the land we have, the greater this would impact the aformentioned limiters. Aldo there would be some logical limit to how much these limiters can increase.

Please let's get this into the game in some way, it's time to move on from ancient unrealistic systems, which you beautifully removed in project ceasar. From tinto talks it looks like this would be the game to play for maaaany yars to come, please don't force me to make myslef some junky mods for warscore and aggressive expansion as I had to do for EU4 or especiqlly Imperator.

That being said I absolutely love the game so far aprat from war goals and war score, I will blindly buy expansion pass once problems in last 2 tinto talks gets resolved.

Sorry for very big post, I'm passionate about his problem, as it cursea my paradox campaigns fir faaaar too long and makes me insane.

We already snowball way too fast with 100 warscore cap on peace.

 

[Johan]

I love the Eu4 favour and trust system too ... i hope we get something similar

these things exists in PC

 

[papapyro]

Is taking land and vassalising the only thing that causes AE? I made a post on the EU4 forums a while back arguing that forcefully converting people should also give AE.

 

[MrMess85]

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.

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.

 

[Nostalgium]

@Johan

What happens if the war goal is occupied by another party in a separate war? Or is annexed by that same enemy? Example: The Ottomans declare on Eastern Rome for Constantinople. The Bulgarians sense weakness, and declare war on Eastern Rome for Thessaloniki. But the situation develops so that the Ottomans occupy Thessaloniki, and the Bulgarians occupy Constantinople.

Do all parties just pack up and go home dissatisifed after ravaging the Greek countryside for a while?