Tinto Talks #33 - 16th of October 2024

[Monty is staring at me]

Depends primarily on your rank, and an Empire wants 4, but a country only needs 1

How likely will it be though that an empire will even have 4 peer-level powers to rival though?

 

[Oglesby]

Aren’t “Military Access” and “Food Access” a bit repetitive? If one wants to move their army through a country, then of course they also want the army to have access to food. “Food access” should already be included in military access.

I would say that it is the other way around.

Allowing a military force to pass through with the expectation that they will not just take the food from the land would be the norm I would think. Now giving them permission to sustain themselves from the land would also indicate that you are allowing them access to same said land.

I think that the three 'access' treaties should be on a scale. No access <--> Just Ports <--> All land <--> Food. Where military access also allows the ships into port (how am I to get the troops there). Sure for lots of cases the ports access would not be needed but I think that it makes more sense that if you are allowing me to have my troops pass through your land and you have ports that you would also allow me to land my troops.

 

[Jesfey1]

Pretty lame. Copy-pasting diplomatic actions from EU4, which were one of the worst things in the game, with just simple additions seem so lazy and uncreative. Small sized nations will yet again rival each other instead of allying to face larger nations. I can guarantee someone no matter what opinion of me they have, but I can join the defensive battle only if they have high opinion of me? And favors... what a nonsense.

 

[honkajoki]

I think that the three 'access' treaties should be on a scale. No access <--> Just Ports <--> All land <--> Food. Where military access also allows the ships into port (how am I to get the troops there). Sure for lots of cases the ports access would not be needed but I think that it makes more sense that if you are allowing me to have my troops pass through your land and you have ports that you would also allow me to land my troops.

Ships can go to port, load or unload and leave. Or they can resupply there, whether loading or reloading or stopping just for the resupply. Should ships' resupply also be somewhere on the scale?

 

[Oglesby]

Ships can go to port, load or unload and leave. Or they can resupply there, whether loading or reloading or stopping just for the resupply. Should ships' resupply also be somewhere on the scale?

Interesting question. I think as of now there is only a 'food' supply that applies to both armies and navies. I would think that you would need the 'food' access to resupply the ships with supply that can be given to armies (ships can supply armies per DD 33).

In EU4, port access extended 'range' which implies some form of resupplying.

If I was in charge, which I am not, I would have the 'port' access extend range, remove to long at sea penalties but you need food access to 'gather food' to later 'distribute food' (actions per DD 33).

 

[Clyde Wallach]

Access Actions
There are 3 types of access here, Military Access, where you can march your armies through another country's territory. Food Access, where you can have ýour armies supplied in another countries territory, and Fleet Basing Rights, where you are allowed to base your ships in their ports.

What about garrisoning rights? Off the top of my head, I can think of at least 2 historical occasions in the game's time period when a weaker country granted a stronger one the right to garrison certain parts of its territory for fear of a common enemy, those being the Treaty of Nonsuch and the Barrier Treaties. (It may or may not be a coincidence that those both involved the Low Countries.)

Also, can these rights be made specific to certain locations or provinces, or do access rights apply to the whole territory of the country granting them?

 

[Domina Arberiae]

what did they do

In this map they posted, if you look closely at Albania, you can see they listened to feedback and fixed it. Now, instead of it just being Angevin Albania, there are the Albanian Principalities of:
Muzaka
Matrënga
Thopia
and maybe Gropa (though that can't be seen here since it's in Ohër/Ohrid)
alongside Angevin Albania.

Fixing Albania is something I've been asking for since they revealed the Balkans, and the fact they listened has truly made my day.

 

[Focus my son]

A couple of suggestions and questions:

1. In EU4 diplomats can immediately carry out diplomatic actions upon reaching their destination, regardless of the distance between countries. However, this feels unrealistic. Shouldn’t there be a mechanic that better reflects the time it would take for diplomats to communicate between distant nations, such as Aragon and a Russian principality?

For example, in real life, a diplomat would need to travel to the destination, propose an agreement, wait for a response (which could still be simulated as instant in the game for simplicity), and then return to deliver the message—or send it back through the slower communication methods of the time. This process would be influenced by travel time and the state of postal infrastructure. Wouldn't it be more realistic if the game included a delay to reflect this, rather than allowing for instantaneous diplomatic actions once the diplomat arrives?

Implementing this change would also reshape the political landscape. It would no longer be practical for a Russian principality to have close relations with a distant nation like Aragon. The response time for aid would be so slow that any conflict might be resolved by the time help could realistically arrive. Why would a country seek an alliance with a distant power under these conditions?

Additionally, the removal of unconditional access (as mentioned in another answer) would further increase the difficulty of direct interaction between distant powers. Accessing each other over land would require permission from intermediary countries, and a sea route would be a significant challenge—especially in the 14th century. While technically possible, it would be a monumental effort. By increasing the time required for diplomatic correspondence and interactions, these changes would make long-distance alliances far less appealing and align the game more closely with historical realism.

2.

• Request a Loan - This is something you usually send to a banking country, so you can get money from them.

Does this mean that it’s no longer possible to secure a loan through the economic tab from an omnipresent, invisible bank that always has funds available, without considering the state of the economy or diplomatic relationships? In EU4, loans can be taken without any real interaction or consequence beyond simple repayment, which feels unrealistic.

In contrast, Game of Thrones presents a more nuanced depiction of banking with the Iron Bank. While the idea of such a powerful, monopolistic bank might be fantastical, it does capture an important reality: maintaining good relations with financial institutions and paying debts on time is crucial. A nation couldn't endlessly draw funds from a bank without facing consequences.

While interacting with national banks becomes more realistic in later periods of history, I would suggest that even these institutions should require some form of diplomatic engagement—something more complex than the current EU4 model, where loans can be taken freely and declaring bankruptcy is treated as a tactical choice. In reality, bankruptcy should be a last resort, driven by genuine economic hardship rather than a calculated strategy to reset one’s finances every few years. Adjusting this would make the game’s portrayal of loans more realistic and immersive.

3. So there are three types of military acces. Are these types mutually exclusive, or can they be combined?

For example, if a country’s army has military access through another nation's territory, how is it supplied? Does it rely on a supply route from its own territory? And if this supply route is cut off, what happens to the army? Does it suffer from attrition and gradually lose strength, or does it live off the land—potentially at the expense of the host country?

If the army is in neutral territory, not enemy land, and its supply route is cut, does it starve without access to food, or could the host country be asked to provide supplies in addition to military access? Alternatively, is it possible for the army with military access to resort to plundering the host country’s countryside to survive, and if so, would this damage diplomatic relations between the two countries?

 

[honkajoki]

1. In EU4 diplomats can immediately carry out diplomatic actions upon reaching their destination, regardless of the distance between countries. However, this feels unrealistic. Shouldn’t there be a mechanic that better reflects the time it would take for diplomats to communicate between distant nations, such as Aragon and a Russian principality?

OTOH, it has been argued that orders for armies should also take days or months, depending on distance. That was counterargued by noting that in the EU series the player does not represent the ruler, but some abstraction of the nation, which is present at all corners of the country and all its units. By that argument, diplomatic actions should also have no distance delays whatsoever. The logic should be the same, whether commanding generals or diplomats.

 

[lewismac]

In terms of blocking a state from building buildings in your locations, should this perhaps be affected by control. For example if England was to ban the Hanseatic league from building in their country this would only apply to locations with enough control. However if England has locations with no/low control England would be incapable of enforcing this and therefore the Hansa could build in these territories?

 

[JMorais]

A bit late to the party, but maybe calling diplomats "diplomatic corps", "diplomatic missions" or "embassies" would work better?

 

[mcmanusaur]

So essentially what we've learned from the past two dev diaries is that diplomacy is going to be the weakest part of this game. What a shame that such an important pillar of gameplay is barely receiving any attention... strange priorities.

 

[Myxach]

So essentially what we've learned from the past two dev diaries is that diplomacy is going to be the weakest part of this game. What a shame that such an important pillar of gameplay is barely receiving any attention... strange priorities.

I would say it doesn't live up to expectations. I mean most of the dev diaries are about economics and DIPLOMACY(TT 15, TT 12, TT 14, TT 27), so the expectations for the core mechanics of diplomacy were higher.

 

[Myxach]

Does this mean that it’s no longer possible to secure a loan through the economic tab from an omnipresent, invisible bank that always has funds available, without considering the state of the economy or diplomatic relationships? In EU4, loans can be taken without any real interaction or consequence beyond simple repayment, which feels unrealistic.

TT8 https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/tinto-talks-8-17th-of-april-2024.1666167/

In this game, you are not borrowing money from an abstract national bank, but instead, your internal loans are taken from what the estates have made available. The estates invest money they have, not only in immediate gains for their own power, or other ways that benefit the country, or other [REDACTED], but they also invest in having money available for the country, where they will benefit from the interests.

If there is no money to borrow from the estates available and you have no ducats left, you will go bankrupt, which is a little bit more severe than in, let's say EU4...

There is also another way to get gold, you can send a diplomat to one of the banking countries, like Peruzzi and Bardi, if there is one that you know of within diplomatic range, to request a loan. Make sure you don’t forget to pay them on time, or default on the loans, or you may never be able to loan from them again.

 

[margustoo]

Rivals
In Project Caesar we have the system of rivals, which is fairly similar to the one in EU4, with a few differences.

First of all, the selection of rivals is less opaque and follows a few simple rules. A valid rival is someone within a geographical area that is of a similar or higher rank, or shares a culture group. The geographical area for an empire is the same continent or adjacent sub-continent, while for a county is the same area or adjacent province definition. Of course you can always rival someone that has declared you as a rival.

Secondly, if you don’t pick enough rivals, your actions that increase aggressive expansion will give you more, and your spy networks become far weaker.

Thirdly, you can always create a casus belli on your rivals if you have a spy network built up there.

Finally, there is no cooldown on replacing a rival, but it will cost you 25 stability.

Remember that a rival is a country that is perceived as having conflicting interests, and will block you from having alliances. Any countries that share rivals will get higher opinions with each other.

View attachment 1202682
So these are the possible rivals for Aragon at the start of the game..

I have few issues/ideas based on the current information about rivals

Firstly, having not enough rivals should not be punishing. Instead you should just loose out on benefits from having rivals (like easier casus bellies). It isn't logical that random countries see you more aggressive simply because you have 2 rivals and not 3. Also having weaker spy network simply because you don't have enough rivals is illogical. Why spies would care that you have 2 rivals and not 3.

Secondly, rather than getting increased ammounts of aggressive expansion when you don't have enough rivals, you should get less aggressive expansion when you take AE increasing actions against your rival. It is quite logical that random countries would see your actions less aggressive if you attack your rival.

Thirdly, it isn't mentioned here, but I do hope that it is harder to build spy network in a country that considers you to be their rival. Latter could depict situations where a country as a whole is quite logically more vary of their rival's activities in their country. That could be another benefit for picking rivals. For this change I would remove EU4 benefit to spy network building when you do so in a rival country. It isn't logical that you are able to build spy network easier simply because a country is a rival. Especially because you are doing so in your rival's land and not yours.

Fourthly, rather than getting a -25 stability hit, the downside of changing your rival should depend on your country's opinion of them and the ammount of threat they pose (for example do they have similar sized or bigger army than you? how much agressive expansion they have cumulated? do they border you? do they claim any of your lands? etc). For example if the rival has a massive army and have cumulated a lot of agressive expansion then I think that the stability hit should be even bigger than 25. People would be quite angry if for example England would suddenly unrival France when Naepolic Wars are still ongoing and they still pose a massive threat to the country. At the same time, changing a rival who has been rival for ages (and thus the penalty to opinion has ticked down) and they don't pose any threat nor have they aggresively expanded, should be possible to change with minimal or no stability hit.

Fifthly, your rivals should cumulate more agressive expansion toward you than others. That again is related to quite logical varyness your country has when your rival takes any aggressive actions.

 

[EdoGiar]

Could diplomatic range not be based only on distance between capitals? I think this could severely limit gameplay as trading republics with far reaching outposts. I am thinking of Genoa with its “colonies” in Crimea while it cannot have diplomatic relations with the Golden Horde because it is out of diplomatic range - as I suppose will happen seeing the diplomatic range of Aragon.

 

[pejocho]

I think there should be the option of making temporary alliances against specific countries. For example, defensive alliance between Castile and Venice only if it is an aggression by the Ottomans (if the invasion is from another country, there is no alliance)

Or offensive alliance against specific countries (France and England united to fight only against the Spanish Netherlands)

 

[Metz]

I think there should be the option of making temporary alliances against specific countries. For example, defensive alliance between Castile and Venice only if it is an aggression by the Ottomans (if the invasion is from another country, there is no alliance)

Or offensive alliance against specific countries (France and England united to fight only against the Spanish Netherlands)

Maybe "form defensive pact against X country" and "form coalition against X country" diplomatic options. With X country qualifying as a target if they have earned a certain amount of belligerence either regionally or against a specific religion (if say it is a Sunni/Shia/Protestant country vs a Catholic country or vice versa for example). The Ottomans pushing westwards against other Muslim countries should not really concern Hungary or Poland but it should concern them if they are pushing to the Balkans and eating countries like Montenegro and Serbia.

 

[Polesie Admiral]

Maybe "form defensive pact against X country" and "form coalition against X country" diplomatic options. With X country qualifying as a target if they have earned a certain amount of belligerence either regionally or against a specific religion (if say it is a Sunni/Shia/Protestant country vs a Catholic country or vice versa for example). The Ottomans pushing westwards against other Muslim countries should not really concern Hungary or Poland but it should concern them if they are pushing to the Balkans and eating countries like Montenegro and Serbia.

I thought something like
Defensive alliance - "we are allied against X country cuz he wants to war us"
Coalition - "X country is dangerous while expanding, we ally to war him to halt and reduce his expansion"
Offensive alliance - "we allied against X country cuz we want to war him for reasons of interest(example: Hansa and Novgorod ally against Sweden for their personal CB goal unless the goal is conflicting like both want the same land or vassalage)"