Tinto Talks #51 - 19th of February 2025

[Cyrillius]

Shouldn't declaring war on your overlord as a loyal subject nation cause a large hit in stability/unrest/manpower/diprep/prestige (or a hit scaled to loyalty/disloyalty)? The fact that the player country can now be a loyal or disloyal subject makes it possible to facilitate this.
I always found it quite cheesy that in EU4 a player controlled subject nation did not have to abide by their country's loyalty or disloyalty to their overlord, and could just declare an independence war without any consideration for the loyalty mechanics.

 

[Merrivale]

Good points. My only gripe with this is from a gameplay prespective - I don't think it's wise to lock different mechanics of colonization for specific countries, because it would mean that for the majority of countries there will only be barebones mechanics remaining. I am worried that colonization will end up being like it was in EU4 - not varied, not fun, not engaging, and much quicker than it should be. To counteract this we need to have a variety of methods each country can use to colonize. And I think that if we lock up such methods it's better to lock them behind Societal Values for better gameplay value. Maybe, for example, aside from being Iberian you could also unlock Conquistadors by being a colonizer who is Belligerent/Offensive enough?

In a completely different example, the Dutch and English often colonized by granting charter rights to public stock companies. It was the Virginia companies (there were two) that started colonizing North America, and obviously there were the Dutch and English West Indies and East Indies trading companies, and many more, and they enjoyed a great deal of independence. If the devs are willing to lock Conquistadors for just Iberians I could see them locking charter companies for just the English and Dutch. But wouldn't it be much better if any colonizer country whose Free Trade/Capital Economy values were high enough could unlock that?

It's not that I am against country-specific flavor, not at all. But if a mechanic is useful and important enough it should be available generically, and specific countries should only get buffs to such mechanics instead of being the only ones allowed to use them.

Totally agree with this and I wanted to add, this relates back to some of the flavor content we've seen to this point, like the Mali disaster. Mechanics in a game like this should be reliant on the underlying conditions that brought about the situation, not tags. The underlying conditions in Iberia should lead to conquistadors, for sure. But if these underlying conditions exist elsewhere, that place should be not be unable to have conquistadors simply because they lack the magical Catholic Iberian tag. Islam is a religion that famously also was keenly interested in expanding its reach, but they are locked out because they are not Catholic. A militantly religious France could play out quite differently than historical France, but they are locked out by not being in Iberia. If England, instead of turning toward Catholic-lite Protestantism instead becomes Mary's England--bent on spreading the word, they would be locked out again because of not being in Iberia.

First thing I've seen that I've clearly thought: "yup, going to mod that right out".

 

[CEG_TorentalAce]

Getting the cores of an integrated subject sounds VERY strong. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't cores require you to either assimilate or accept the population of a location? So will integrating Brittany as France grant you cores on all the Breton land, even if you don't accept the culture?

This was the same in eu4 on diplo annex, if you state the annexed lands you kept their cores.

 

[Berasa 16]

Is a conquistador only allowed to conquer in America?

I mean, the early conquests of the Philippine islands were mede in the same period and almost in the same way.

 

[H.A.S.E.V.I.R.]

Sorry for a silly question/comment.
BUT re the conquistadors being Iberian Christians only just strikes me that pan- Islamic Ghazi states might be even more awesome/human rights trampling to unleash while being a very virtuous thing to enable and fund. Enslaving whole continents of the red man and turn some of those into more Ghazi-Mameluks to conquer even more.
Funded in pat by millions of red slaves exported back home for guns and armor to gather even more slaves.
Then enjoy your Ulema-Something-Allahuakhbar new state covering all of north, south and middle Americas.

maybe even have some grand conversion of 3 continents and ending of slavery thingy. But what do i know.

 

[Aleksader]

Actualmente totalmente autónomo.

How will the game depict the wars of independence of the colonies? In the EU4, when the colonies declared war on you, you had to invade them as if it were another conquest. In general, the wars of independence seemed more like a civil war between the royalists (loyal to the crown) with the support of the metropolis, and the independentists, in many cases with the support of foreign powers. Could the game represent something like this or similar?

 

[Friedrich von Deutschland]

We could call them "Military Expeditions" and use them to model long-distance, inter-continental invasions. Perhaps with technology, the amount of resources a tag can apply to them increases, enabling more ambitious projects.

Also, it does seem a bit unfair that conquistadors are only available to Iberians? Perhaps some lesser leeway can be given to other Atlantic cultures? Or even Maghrebians?

I think this is a good idea. Perhaps conquistadors unlock earlier and are cheaper, while other countries get military expeditions later and need to invest more in them since would be conquerers aren’t chomping at the bit to conquer for god glory and gold.

 

[xRedster]

Wil other nations have unique(ish) colonization methods or styles like Iberians do?

For example the Dutch in Indonesia or the British in India?

 

[Ulpia Batavorum]

The reason is that the devs probably believe that conquistadors were the direct result of the Reconquista culture that was established in Iberia. During the Reconquista, the kings granted privileges to those that went to the frontier towns to help populate and defend them. For example, the concept of "caballeros villanos" (literally villain knights, but with its original meaning is more like villager knights, since villain comes from village) is uniquely Iberian, and created a class of not nobility that acted like mounted knights and owned land they used on the frontier. The Iberian kingdoms were also constantly creating holy orders to defend the frontier against muslims, there's a reason in the game they start as patrons of many holy orders, unlike most Catholic countries.

If you believe conquistador culture was something that was created because of the legacy of the Reconquista, that created a type of warriors that sought to both enrich themselves and expand Catholicsm, that is something that other countries shouldn't be able to do, since the starting situation of countries is set. You cannot have France retroactively have gone through a Reconquista.

I'm not saying this is a definitive reason, I'm just explaining what I think the reasoning is. Even though the other colonial countries may have used tactics that seemed similar, they had a very different conception of colonialism than the Spanish. The Spanish kings saw the colonies as primarily a way to expand Catholicism. Then the actual conquistadors were on it primarily for the money and privileges they could gain, which is why they often got in conflict with the Crown over the treatment of natives, as the Crown wanted to have the natives turn into new Catholic subjects, while the conquistadors wanted to exploit the natives as much as possible to make as much money as possible. Like with the frontier privileges, the crown had a history of using the prospect of riches and privileges to attract people in order to expand Catholicism, which translated directly into the concept of conquistadors. This is uniquely Iberian, so other countries that don't have the historical circumstances at game start wouldn't have it. Of course, this lead to problems over the treatment of natives between the crown and the new colonial elite, but that's a different story.

I am not suggesting anything different. The crown needed to keep the nobles happy/busy to make it possible to centralise power at the crown after the Reconquista had finished. The crown basicaly needed them to have a new toy to play with or the crown itself would/could become that toy. All of human/feudal history shows that if warriors don't have an outsider as an enemy to fight, they will find an insider to fight as an enemy. So my point is that this strategy should not be unique to the Iberians but a game rules for monarchies in the same situation. An example would be Mali being able to restabelise as a dominant power after the dead of Mansa Mussa. Shouldn't those nobles be given the 'conquistadore' privelage so they can find a new outsider as an enemy? And how about the English, would the war of the roses have happened if the English nobles had been busy gaining wealth and power in the new world after the 100 years war. Or would Castille have had a guerra de rosas after the reconquista had finished without the conquistadores 'option'? And do we really want a single province/location Casille or Portugal to 'escape' to the new world because of this unique subject becoming available?

 

[Iosua111222]

the mechanic with conquistadors is by far my favorite from all of tinto talks. hope you guys develop it enough. respect

 

[Big_birdy]

AI Colonization was ridiculously fast in EU4. Forget about the Americas, every game has colonial nations forming in Australia in 1600's.

the colonization of Australia was definitely possible in the 1600's it didn't happen because the Dutch saw no value in colonizing the land mass

but I do agree that colonization is way too fast in eu4

 

[nsyw]

hoped that the subject type + overlord relationship will be further diversified and have more regional flavors

 

[LACHLIAN]

Does a colonial nation form always when a charter is finished or is it an option? (Like, in theory, are you able to retain direct control over a colony in america from europe?)

 

[Bigsoulja9]

Definitely seems like an interesting system, but I must join the cacophony of Conquistador criticism. Current implementation seems way too "video gamey" in the hopes of making a specific outcome more likely (the uniqueness of early Iberian colonialism, especially in the Americas), similar to the implementation of farmlands. Echoing @klopkr's sentiment, what actually differentiates a conquistador from your run-of-the-mill state-sanctioned army or expedition? And since the term is clearly being defined solely with reference to Iberian conquistadors, the given definition cannot be applicable elsewhere.

Like, I understand that during the early European "age of exploration", Portugal and especially Spain achieved a notable amount through the model of "send a small force out and see what happens" (at least, compared to other European powers), but at the end of the day it's not like Iberia was the only part of the world where this kind of imperialism was practiced. What actually differentiates an army of conquistadores from the armed force which felled the Songhai empire and attempted to conquer the entire Western Sudan? What actually differentiated them from coalitions and companies of enterprising Swahili merchants, accompanied by armies, who established colonies and outposts in the African interior long before Henry Morton Stanley began his trek into the Congo? My knowledge is limited to African history examples, but I have a hard time believing there are not numerous examples in Asia of similar things happening.

So for a game which prides itself on historical dynamism to lock this kind of mechanic to "Iberian Christian powers" seems quite bizarre. Surely, there are other ways to incentivize other forms of colonialism, as appropriate, aside from an arbitrary region and religion check "nope you can't do this". Maybe this could be combined with making conquistadores something you need to specifically spec into.

pre-emptive edit: who are all of these people disagreeing with the conquistador criticism? What are your actual arguments in favor of this system as-implemented? I'm seeing people voicing what I'd consider pretty milquetoast critique getting "respectfully disagree"'d into the earth. Why?

 

[Zerodv]

The reason is that the devs probably believe that conquistadors were the direct result of the Reconquista culture that was established in Iberia. During the Reconquista, the kings granted privileges to those that went to the frontier towns to help populate and defend them. For example, the concept of "caballeros villanos" (literally villain knights, but with its original meaning is more like villager knights, since villain comes from village) is uniquely Iberian, and created a class of not nobility that acted like mounted knights and owned land they used on the frontier. The Iberian kingdoms were also constantly creating holy orders to defend the frontier against muslims, there's a reason in the game they start as patrons of many holy orders, unlike most Catholic countries.

If you believe conquistador culture was something that was created because of the legacy of the Reconquista, that created a type of warriors that sought to both enrich themselves and expand Catholicsm, that is something that other countries shouldn't be able to do, since the starting situation of countries is set. You cannot have France retroactively have gone through a Reconquista.

I'm not saying this is a definitive reason, I'm just explaining what I think the reasoning is. Even though the other colonial countries may have used tactics that seemed similar, they had a very different conception of colonialism than the Spanish. The Spanish kings saw the colonies as primarily a way to expand Catholicism. Then the actual conquistadors were on it primarily for the money and privileges they could gain, which is why they often got in conflict with the Crown over the treatment of natives, as the Crown wanted to have the natives turn into new Catholic subjects, while the conquistadors wanted to exploit the natives as much as possible to make as much money as possible. Like with the frontier privileges, the crown had a history of using the prospect of riches and privileges to attract people in order to expand Catholicism, which translated directly into the concept of conquistadors. This is uniquely Iberian, so other countries that don't have the historical circumstances at game start wouldn't have it. Of course, this lead to problems over the treatment of natives between the crown and the new colonial elite, but that's a different story.

For Portugal the reconquista ended almost 250 years before game start, for Aragon too... why would people in 1492 living in Portugal or Aragon know about this ? There is a far stronger argument for Iceland having access to exploration than there is for this because Icelanders actually kept up a lifestyle of long sea distance trading, what did Portuguese and Aragonese do between 1292-1492 that justifies this? They had no frontier with Muslims, they pretty much resemble Norman Sicily more than they resemble Spain where Granada survived for longer.

I also don't see the connection between a frontier society and long distance oversea expeditions, the 2 couldn't be more unlike each other. Your argument especially doesn't even justify conquistadores as a useful mechanic to have, you talk about mainly administrative and societla structures but conquistadores are not just or mainly that, they are a seemingly QoL tool to conquer large swaths of the Americas

 

[Zerodv]

pre-emptive edit: who are all of these people disagreeing with the conquistador criticism? What are your actual arguments in favor of this system as-implemented? I'm seeing people voicing what I'd consider pretty milquetoast critique getting "respectfully disagree"'d into the earth. Why?

There is different criticism, I'm fine with how conquistadores seem to work, I'm not happy with them being restricted to Iberians based on very flimsy and ad hoc arguments that don't apply to 2 out of the 3 Iberian nations affected

 

[Bigsoulja9]

Something else that slipped my mind:
Conquistadors seem to be a rather natural response to the issue of being able to send your army halfway across the world to conduct conquests. If so, then this is great, since being able to do so is kind of ridiculous, and honestly the lack of restricted war mechanics is one of the things I find most immersion breaking in these games. But if this is the case, and if "conquistadors" are only accessible by countries from one region of the world, then what's preventing the rest of the world from doing this? IRL, even trying to send 30,000 men halfway across the world would've probably bankrupted even the wealthiest of countries at this time...

 

[HansFlammenwerfer]

However, the other option in Project Caesar, is to start an independence movement. This is somewhat similar to a coalition in that it is an international organization with a target country. You can invite other countries to join it, including other subjects of the same overlord, and when you have gathered enough strength in your movement, often securing the backing of another powerful country, you can start the war and have a chance at liberty.

This is a very cool feature, and sort of similar to EU4's 'support independence' feature, but fundamentally, these features still lack the necessary dynamism of vassal diplomacy in my opinion.

My suggestion is three-fold:

1. That you allow 'support independence' schemes to have different extents. I don't think countries generally handed out blank cheques of 'whenever you declare war, we'll rally all our men to your side'. The support was generally diplomatic or economic, and I think the rivals of your overlord would be more comfortable sending you some ducats and guaranteeing your independence against annexation attempts than they would be declaring a world war.

2. As a subject, I shouldn't seek independence first and foremost. I should be able to assert my autonomy without necessarily declaring war, if I sense that my liege is weak enough for me to get away with it. For example, I might start refusing to pay my overlord's dues; or I might reassert my trade rights and stop transferring trade over. If my overlord contests me, I should have the option of backing down or calling their bluff. Importantly, my overlord should declare the war to rein me in, not me.

3. There should be subjects that are de facto independent. I shouldn't *need* to fight an independence war, if I start conducting my own diplomacy, refusing to pay my overlord their tax, not handing over my trade rights and never joining my overlord's wars -- I *am* independent. And if my overlord does not attempt to rein me in, then sort of like the shadow kingdom, I should just gain my independence unopposed.

 

[Karl I]

Even though many people seem to disagree, I'm going to say that I personally like the concept of certain mechanics being exclusive to specific regions. Conquistadors existed as a result of the unique socioeconomic and political conditions in Spain at that particular time, shaped by the history of Iberia. I believe countries should be inherently different from each other rather than generic. The way Spain handles colonization should be fundamentally different from how, say, England or even Italy does it. When every nation follows the same mechanics, you end up with a generic system that only differs in appearance but not in function.

That said, if Iberian nations receive unique mechanics, other colonial powers should as well. As some have pointed out, charter companies should be a feature for the British Isles or even the French under Colbert. The Dutch capitalist (or proto-capitalist, depending on your preferred historical perspective) approach should differ from Spain's conquistadors and Britain's charter companies, and so on.

Just because England goes fully Catholic doesn’t mean conquistadors should suddenly become central to its playstyle (in fact, history shows that didn’t happen under Queen Mary). The same applies to France. I would much rather play a unique country with a distinct and enjoyable experience than a generic nation with only superficial differences (that kind of design philosophy is how you end up with a certain civilization-based game currently in its seventh iteration—wink wink).


One last thing, are there any plans to represent realms ruled by leaders with different allegiances—such as Burgundy?

In the medieval era, it was incredibly common for lords to owe allegiance to multiple rulers, and this practice continued well beyond that period. For example, the Liechtenstein family owned most of its land in Bohemia despite technically ruling an independent principality within the Holy Roman Empire. These complex feudal relationships were precisely why realms like Burgundy and the Duchy of Brittany were able to exploit their strategic positions to remain de facto independent and secure their existence despite precarious geopolitical circumstances.

I understand that implementing such a system would likely be difficult to code, but I would love to see you tackle this fascinating aspect. It would also add a whole new realm of strategic planning to the game while giving a chance for realms like Britany to act as relevant players. This could also help flesh out the Hundred Years' War more than ever before, as the sovereigns of England and France wouldn’t just be fighting a literal war but also competing for the allegiance of the lords. And, as in real life, perhaps the Holy Roman Empire could have an opportunity for some shenanigans—maybe by arranging a marriage with, say, a certain young female heir to a duchy in the northwest of France? Wink wink.

Now, regarding criticism… The moment I saw Diplomatic Capacity, I almost had a stroke lmao. I love that you've already moved away from EU IV’s rigid limit on the number of subjects, but I beg you to think this mechanic through very carefully. More than ever it looks like decentralized nations will play a crucial role and that will affect many many many realms (I’m thinking, for example, of Austria trying to secure personal unions with Hungary and Bohemia). Diplomatic Capacity is one of those mechanics that kind of makes sense from a mechanical perspective but can also make or break the game since, at the end of the day, it's just an arbitrary number.

 

[CaesarOfCK]

Really not a fan of the conquistador and annexation mechanics

Firstly on conquistadors, the idea of it being an ABC is really unique and well thought of. However, the whole mechanic of them conquering every location they occupy and being able to magically raise non-accepted cultures as levies seems to me both extremely ahistorical and disapointing in terms of gameplay.

It kinda feel like those mechanics are there to make sure that conquistador are able to conquer a whole region on their own, which, perpetuates hurtful clichés about the conquest of Mesoameria and the Andes by conquistadors and also leaves out a whole lot of potential diplomatic gameplay for conquistadors

Why can't conquistadors simply be an army based country that can conquer territories and also has a special cassus belli against overlords which allows them to conquer the lands of the overlord and get the former overlord's subjects as subjects of its own. Subjects of the attacked overlord would then have the option of joining the conquistadors in their war if they are disloyal enough and friendly enough with the conquistadors

Secondly on annexation, I really hoped PC was going to take a different route than EU4, especially after seeing how cool, historical and engaging the junior partner integration mechanics are. Why isn't there a mechanic as good for annexations even though they are pobably going to be as common if not a lot more common than junior partner integrations during a campaign ?

The way I see it, PC should really take inspiration from CK where annexation necessarily means a destitution of some kind. Is there a single example of a vassal in history being annexed simply because the overlord really "worked at it" for a long time until the vassal finally said "ok I gess you can have my lands" ? Or even an example of a vassal being annexed while in very good terms with their overlord ?

Annexation should almost always be a form of destitution by the ruler on the vassal. Here you could have brought a whole lot of other PC mechanics, for example, you could use your spy network to try to prove your vassals dissloyalty or that their hold on their land is somehow illegal (which would be especially easy if your vassal has a weak legitimacy and/or has been at war against you in the past), which would then give you an option to confiscate the territories, which could then trigger a war with your vassal depending on its power (much like in CK)

You could also imagine an option to simply buy all the lands or some lands of your vassals, which the vassal would be even more enclined to accept if they are emdebted

There could also be an option to reach out to your vassal's estates and/or for them to be able to reach to you if they are extremely disloyal and demand the overlord to be annexed, which could result in annexation, failure of annexation and even a civil war in your vassal depending on the influence of the estate that wants to be annexed. The overlord could even give guarantees to the vassal's disloyal estate in exchange for annexation (kinda like the union parliement in which you can give guarantees to your partner's estates)

Of course, there would also be the option of desperatly trying to turn your vassal into a dominion (which is also a kinda CK mechanic), although we don't know much about how dominions are handled for now

In a nutshell, annexation should not be a "risk free" and "diplomatic only" enterprise that requires very good relationships with the vassal, which doesn't reflect reality at all and results in a very passive gameplay ; but should rather be a risky move that overlords can make only under certain circumstances.

This leads to 2 big changes. Firstly, as an overlord, the player won't have to simply wait for ten years and have good relationships with their vassals fo then to be able to annex the vassal, which take time during which you barely give attention to the annexation process. The player would now have to be vigilant about the status of their vassals : how are their finances, their legitimacy, the loyalty of their estate, the matter of succession... (which could be brought to the player's attention with pop ups to avoid too much tedium/micro). Players would also have to be ready to potentially fight a war to annex their vassal, which seems to me much more engaging than simply "wait 5 years and sit back while vassal gets annexed"
Secondly, as a vassal, the player would not have to simply make sure they have a bad relationship with their overlord (which is kinda historically counter intuitive) but would have to make sure that they do not end up in a situation in which an annexation can happen, which means having to make extra sure that you're country doesn't end up in a weak place (which I think is a lot more immersive and closer to how a vassal that doesn't want to be annexed and doesn't want either to be fully independant would act)

I agree