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
Gianvitus said:
I understand your point, but I think that if Civ AI can handle two-way deals, why not Project Cesar one? Maybe it can be limited to diplomatic concessions and payments, if it improves the situation.
Click to expand...
Civ ai absolutely cannot handle 2 way peace deals what are you talking about? It's one of the easier ways to cheese the ai.
 
  • 13
  • 2Like
  • 2Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
Can we at least, at least, have the ability in the peace deal to also spell out how long the truce lasts?

Or are we stuck with "5 year truces" for everything forever?
 
  • 11Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Polesie Admiral said:
@Johan can you add two sided peace treaties? Where the defender(if it managed to conquer by itself) will get compensation or gain something, like money for land, or land for land?
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • 85
  • 49Like
  • 34
  • 17
  • 1Love
Reactions:
This is just EU4's system with a few extra limitations.

Why do you say that it's not possible to introduce two-sided peace deals when a similar system already exists in vic3? You can even exchange land during peace time.

I understand that having N options on both sides would increase the complexity dramatically, but maybe you could solve this by putting some hard limit on what the winning side can offer to sweeten the pot (like only war reparations and maybe provinces that fall with severely restricted criteria, e.g. non-core provinces that are a core of the losing side etc).

This could be a good compromise.

Also, the favour system is extremely gamey and does not lead to a realistic simulation. Why not force the AI/player to give concessions to each winning party based on their war contributions? Huge empires conquering the world for me just because my diplomats had been licking their boots makes no sense.

You could offset this by making warscore cheaper the more great powers are fighting in a war, so that even if you only get a part of the warscore, you still get the same amount, although at the cost of potentially strengthening a future rival (i.e. your present allies)

I also hope that the alliance system will be more fluid and based on actual geopolitical interest rather than eternal alliances and random rivalries.
 
Last edited:
  • 16
  • 7Like
  • 5
Reactions:
Thumpster said:
It may have been talked about last week but if you *must* take the wargoal in a CB war, doesn't that really mean no-CB really is the best CB? No limitations on what you can take. There will really need to be strong disincentives to avoid the same total war from EU4.
Click to expand...

Without a wargoal its much harder to enforce a peace though.
 
  • 45Like
  • 14
  • 4
Reactions:
Gianvitus said:
It's almost everything like in EU4, so I have some questions:
1) peace deals are one-way like in EU4 or can both sides earn something like in Vic3?
2) about last week screenshot of 1st crusade for Lithuania, why the leader is Poland? Is there a system like in early EU4 when an ally morepowerfull then you became the new leader?
3) 73 is pretty high AE: which is the minum for coalitios to trigger? (i know numbers are wip, but just to have a proportion)
Click to expand...

1 - no, to allow for free selection its one-way only.
2 - higher rank becomes leader.
3 - 50 atm iirc
 
  • 40
  • 16Like
  • 8
Reactions:
Erbeilas said:
Can we get some more information on how things impact AE?

Russia defeating some Turkic polity should be very upsetting among the Central Asian khaganates, but perhaps only mildly concerning among their European neighbors.
Click to expand...

AE and the opinion impact from it is seperate.
 
  • 39Like
  • 10
  • 2Love
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Johan said:
Its there to make the AI function and be able to understand when its beaten.
Click to expand...
It doesn't need to restrict how much I can demand, though. So often in EU4 have I run into the issue of not being able to take that one extra province due to it ading up to 101 WS.

Idea - maybe add the ability to go OVER 100 WS in a peace deal for let's for double the penalties or losing stability, somthing liek that. Having just a set limit makes no sense.
 
  • 21
  • 2Like
Reactions:
"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 kind of dislike it when something is just not permitted when it seems like it should be possible - would you consider just making it a bad idea not to take the wargoal too, as in, there is a big stability hit, or some multiplier to aggressive expansion (e.g 2x AE) or something like that, rather than making it a blanket ban?
 
  • 13
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Jon Snow21 said:
How will the battles be seen on screen? Like 2 soldiers fighting each other like EU4? P.S. I hope you wll do smth more:(
Click to expand...

something more
 
  • 74Love
  • 41Like
  • 11
  • 5
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back