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
  • 135Like
  • 39
  • 16Love
  • 5Haha
  • 5
Reactions:
Sort by date Sort by reaction score
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...
could you not, perhaps programm it so that treaties between players can be twoway or bilateral? That way, at least multiplayer would get to play with that.
 
Last edited:
  • 7Like
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
bruh

this is just EU4 through and through both with peace deals and AE

just... why? Like obviously all of this is not great, but seriously, why? It's not like you don't have an AI valuation tool for provinces / locations, it's exactly the same reason why you are able to sell provinces in EU4. This make no sense. As it was pointed out in the other comments AE doesn't make any sense. And it does not make sense to not put in double sided peace deals or territorial exchanges. It was one of the things that killed EU4 for me, and seeing this again? Oof..
 
  • 13Like
  • 2
Reactions:
With this game seeming go be moving in so much of a better direction than eu4 or other recent paradox games to basically copy and not innovate anything about the eu4 peace treaty system is immensely disappointing what was point of this talk, ge could have basically said as a side note last week's talk that we decided not to do anything on peace treaties and copied and pasted eu4 system. Really sad, downer on what is shaping to be a great game.
 
  • 16Like
  • 2
Reactions:
EU4 has the best current peace system - I don't think anyone can deny that - but people are disappointed that this is just the same system without introducing anything new.

I (and I assume others) would appreciate if you could explain why you can't. The AI already values parts of the peace deal, why can't you try to balance those? People will always try to game to AI, so I feel that isn't a sufficient explanation.

The AI already needs to understand why* it should/shouldn't have pieces of land, else it cripples itself in it's own preferred deal

*'My' control over these locations would be too low to be worth it, these locations don't provide enough money/resources/people compared to the land/money 'I' would lose, etcetera.
 
Last edited:
  • 14
  • 2Like
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
I hope war score gets drastically reworked, I always hated how the 100% limit stopped countries from rapidly expanding and led to some weird situations. Like often as Spain you couldn't conquer the Incas in one war, which is ahistorical and honestly kinda dumb. Or the Ottomans having to slowly chip away at the Mamluks in EU4. Imagine if in PC Timur's expansion gets stifled by war score cost. There should be systems where you can take over 100% war score in a total victory, or ways to escalate a war into a full on "death-war".
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Well, I'm a bit dissapointed, but, maybe it's because you made us expect wow every time.

I understand AI is the hardest part of the game, and when it comes to wars and peace deals, it's visible the most.

The positive thing is, you have so many war goals types, which is a plus.

If you can conquest and get whole Hungary in a peace deal, because it would be around/under 100WS, I have no problem with that system per se. In EU4 it got on my nerves cause I had to fight 4 wars at least to conquer Mamluks as Ottomans, even if I could do it in one war (and it happened like that historically). If it's going to be the same as EU4, it's bad. There should be other ways to make conquest whole country in a war harder.

One question @Johan , regarding AI behaviour in bilateral peace deals: Can you add to 100WS concept, aspect of control after the peace deal, to help AI decide?
For example, there's all in all a tie in a war, so it would end up in a white peace (or whatever you gonna call it), but, if you calculate total control of territory, exchanging couple locations between two sides, would increase that control for both (their culture, religion, historical claims, whatnot), and AI "seeing" increase of control with such peace proposal, accepts it, cause he "understand" it as a win.
Would that be something not too hard to implement for getting better and more realistic peace deals?

And another question, with current system, would it be possible to switch sides during the wars, as happened historically?
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Would it be possible to promise an ally a wargoal which you then need to give them? Like something more substantial more ein line with Vicky 3?
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
Johan said:
Without a wargoal its much harder to enforce a peace though.
Click to expand...
Is it though? You need to win but to be honest the war goal doesn't seem to be worth it, you get most wars core through conquest and battles anyway, so the 25 points you lose for no CB is not that big of a problem ... If the CB would limit us more and provide much greater benefits for the war it may be different though.
 
Johan said:
not in the plans yet, could be part of some else.
Click to expand...
Might as well ask here then: In EU4, the AI dealt very poorly with threat and expansion long term (usually from the player, but quite frequently with the Ottoblob as well), as long as no one went past an arbitrary threshold, it didn't really care much about it.
Would be nice if, when one nation becomes too powerful with no counterweight in the region, the AIs surrounding it actually got together and thought "hm, maybe we should do something about it".
Rivals should see someone becoming too powerful as a direct security threat, and neighboring nations should care if the balance of power is stable in the region so can seek an ally in case of aggression, ideally scheming and banding together to cut the threat down to size.
That's pretty much what defines a coalition, but the way AE worked in EU4 didn't properly dealt with that, will PC do anything differently?
 
  • 13Like
Reactions:
I think that overall the peace deal system is disappointing and doesn't bring anything new or exciting to the table. I understand the technical limitations and difficulties with AI, but there should be a more realistic depiction of peace deals in the game, and having basically the same as in EU4 is not that.

Two sided negotiations could work with some hard coded limitations, I think. For example, that only adjacent provinces can be swapped, or that only money can be swapped for provinces, or that you can only give up provinces that are not your cores, have low control and aren't majoritarily of your culture/religion group.

AE should be calculated when starting a war. Like if you start a war against all the HRE, how realistic is that the neighborhood only cares after you annex the territories? And then there should be a second impact when you sign the deal (and AE should exist no matter what the type of deal you signed, even if it's just money and war reps you should get some kind of AE).

Lastly, you should be able to take whatever you want from a peace deal, without a hard cap of 100. If I want to take the entire Russian Empire because I occupied every province, I should be able to (and occupying every province should already be almost impossible), but the game should be virtually impossible for the player after they do that. Like constant rebellions and provinces getting independence because you don't have money to build roads or manpower to exert your control there.
 
Last edited:
  • 16
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
AE from eu4 are one of the better mechanics of any pdx game - however i wish eu5 would expand on it. i wrote down some ideas somewhere, basically smaller nations should be able to join in a coalition against a larger threatening country, even if it didnt expand recently.
 
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
The 100 war score cap feels like a relic from when not being able annex an opponent in a single war was new and innovative. I’d much rather have the game engine have make eating large regions in a single bite unwise than just forbidding it outright.

In general, I think replacing hard caps with soft limits should be a design principle.
 
  • 24
  • 8Like
  • 1
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back