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 #51 - 19th of February 2025

Welcome to the 51st Tinto Talks, the Happy Wednesday where we give you information about our entirely secret game with the Codename of Project Caesar.

Today we will talk about subjects and how they function in our game


Subjects and their Overlord
In Project Caesar, as it starts at the end of the Medieval Era, and reaches into the Post-Napoleonic World, we have to have a system that works for feudal states and also for grand empires spanning the world. This is simulated by our subject system.

A Subject is any country that is subordinate to an overlord. It typically has limitations on its diplomacy in return for protection in a war. Subjects may also suffer subject taxation, and have a certain percentage of their great power score exacted by their overlord. Additionally, a subject may not become a great power. The exact rules are dependent on the subject type. Subjects have subject loyalty towards their overlord, and a liberty desire - both of which indicate their current stance on their subordination. Any subject may in turn be the overlord of other countries, allowing long chains of Subject-Overlord relationships.

An Overlord is a country that has any number of subjects as its subordinates. In return for protecting each subject in wars, it typically receives subject taxation, and exacts a certain percentage of the subject's great power score. The exact rules are dependent on each subject's subject type. Any Overlord may in turn be the subject of other countries, allowing long chains of Subject-Overlord relationships.


Subject Loyalty
Every subject has a Subject Loyalty towards their overlord. Ranging from 0 to 100, and when a subject has less than 50 subject loyalty towards its overlord, it becomes a Disloyal Subject. When in such a state, it will no longer join the wars of its overlord and cannot be annexed.

There is also the concept of ‘Liberty Desire’, which represents a subject's current drive for independence from its overlord, and it affects subject loyalty. Its value is from -100 to +100, but it has a monthly decay towards 0. The value is also used as a currency in some Subject Interactions.


subject_loyalty-png.1256229

The Bretons are loyal.. for now..


Diplomatic Capacity
As we mentioned in earlier Tinto Talks, the cost of having a subject is not a fixed number as in previous games we have made, but depends on many factors, including the type of subject.

diplomatic_capacity.png
Of course we have nested tooltips to find out detailed information..


Create New Subjects
If you have locations in more than 2 different provinces, you’ll always have the possibility to create a subject of one of your provinces. You can also select from the valid types of subjects that your country can have in that province. After you have selected the type of subject you want, you may, if the type of subject allows it,also pick the character to be the ruler of the new subject.

There are also ways to convince your subject to change from one type of subject to another type, where it would be valid.


Vassal
The most typical type of subject, a vassal oversees its territory on behalf of its overlord, pays vassal fees and joins the military campaigns of its overlord.

Almost all countries can make Vassal Subjects.

vassal.png

Probably needs to improve and merge some lines here to make tooltip less unwieldy..

Fiefdom
A Fiefdom is a junior title that is the property of its overlord's ruler. This can only be created and maintained by a Monarchy though. There are some drawbacks to it, as it can not be created by diplomatic offers, and does not grant any prestige.

March
A March is a subject country focused on defending our domain, acting as a barrier between their overlord and external threats.

A March pays half the gold that a vassal does and can not be annexed, but the March gets a discipline boost and gets better-lasting forts that are also cheaper.

Colonial Nation
A Colonial Nation is a subject centered around the administration of overseas colonies on behalf of its overlord.

There are two ways to create a colonial nation. First of all, you can make one from a conquered overseas territory, but secondly, and most commonly you have the option to create one directly from when one of your colonial charters finishes.

A Colonial Nation gives up 33% of its trade capacity and trade advantage to their overlord, while also giving up 10% of their manpower and sailors, and pays 20% of their tax to the overlord.

Conquistadors
Conquistadors are the leaders of a private army who have signed contracts with their rulers to explore and conquer certain territories in exchange for the title of Governor, and a share of the new lands and spoils.

This is a unique type of subject that is only available to Catholic countries with the Capital in Iberia, and this advance is available from the Age of Discovery.

A Conquistador can be commissioned by selecting an area in America, and then a character to lead them. It will also require about 2,000 manpower and some gold to start. It will start with preparing in a nearby good port.

conq_1.png

Just a few months…. And then it’s Conquest of Paradise.

Afterwards the Conquistador have gathered enough resources for their expedition they will set sail, and you will hear from them the next time in a few months time, informing you that they have started their activities.

conq_2.png

Let's see what he can do!

This spawns an army-based country in a location in the area, starting with about 2 regiments of conquistadors. They start at war with the owner of the location where they spawn, and will automatically conquer any location they get control over. They also have the capacity to raise levies from the local people, even if it's from a non-accepted culture. If they manage to get to peace or get enough locations they will convert into a colonial nation of yours.


Some other unique subject types we will go into detail on when we talk about countries that can use them in a Tinto Flavor include Appanages, State Banks, Hanseatic Members and more..


Playing as Overlord
Several types of subjects allow the overlord to annex a subject. Annexation is when an overlord completely takes over one of its subjects. The overlord will gain all of the subject's owned locations, and any character not fleeing to other countries.

A disloyal subject can not be annexed though, and the cost of annexation depends on the amount of cities and towns that a subject has, with rural locations having less of an impact.

scania.png

Less than 30 years, should be worth it..

There are also plenty of different subject interactions, like giving locations or provinces to your subjects, take land, manpower, gold or sailors from them and much more.

actions.png

And of course there are other unique ones..

Playing as Subject
If you play a country that is a subject you have a few tools at your disposal. First of all there are two different cabinet actions that you can use.

Frustrate Annexation
This action uses the administrative ability of the ruler and the cabinet member assigned to the task to slow down annexation.

By hindering their delegates with an archaic constitutional legislature and obstructing them at every turn, we can increase the amount of time it will take for our overlord to annex us.

Sow Disloyalty
This action uses the diplomatic ability of the ruler and the cabinet member assigned to the task to reduce the loyalty to your overlord.

By spreading cruel rumors about our overlord and espousing the benefits of ruling ourselves, we can decrease our own subject loyalty, potentially becoming a disloyal subject.


disloyalty.png

Maybe I need a better cabinet member to do it?

And if you want to become independent there are two ways to do it.

First of all, there is the classic option of just declaring war on your overlord, but that is often not entirely a good idea, especially not if you have a tax base at about 1% of your powerful overlord.

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.



Stay tuned for next week we will delve into weather and natural disasters.
 

Attachments

  • subject_loyalty.png
    subject_loyalty.png
    169,3 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
  • 158Like
  • 106Love
  • 10
  • 7
  • 2
Reactions:
Sort by date Sort by reaction score

Moving Capital to Iberia – Access to Conquistadors?​

If a non-Iberian country manages to move its capital to Iberia, can it gain access to Conquistadors? Specifically:

  • Hungary: Since Hungary starts as Catholic, if I establish a base in Iberia and move my capital there within the Age of Discovery, would I be able to access Conquistadors?

  • Mamluks: If I play as the Mamluks, switch to a Coptic, then later convert to Catholicism, and move my capital to Iberia before the Age of Discovery ends, would I also qualify for Conquistadors?

Note: Assuming I have already unlocked Exploration Advances in both cases.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Merrivale said:
In my opinion the worst parts of the entire EU series are things that are in the game "just 'cause". The Brits should excel at naval power because they are on a small island and that is the only way for them to be a dominant power. The Russians should have an abundance of manpower because they literally have that manpower, and whatever decisions you want to make about how exploitative the state is in this regard. It's unfortunate that the main DLC cash cow is adding just such content, because IMO it lessens the game.

Where the game fails is when it has to resort to tag-boosting just so history can play out the way it did most of the time. Magic British ships shouldn't come out of magic tags but out of centuries of investment in their navy and their unique circumstance. Magic Prussian soldiers shouldn't come out of their tag. Magic Russian hordes shouldn't come of out their tag. And magic conquistadors should not come out of magic Iberian Catholic tags. The whole point of strategy, as you put it, is you should have to work toward those advantages, which are based on the underlying conditions of your nation. In other words, you have to earn it, not just have it handed to you because you picked a certain country at start, and then 250 years later that country still exists. Which also allows for dynamic instead of railroaded gameplay. A game where Spain is conquered by the Muslims, who then look to the New World in a similar way the Spanish did should not box the Muslims out.

I don't want this to be misconstrued--the vast majority of games should develop in a manner so that due to circumstances the Spanish are basically the only people to use conquistadors. The British should have the best navy in the world. The Russian hordes should exist. But not just because.
Click to expand...
I agree with you actually. Though the limit of where a nation can realistically appropriate a different mechanic is a debate on itself, in a matter of principle I thing you put things right.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Are there any rules/conditions regarding country rank when making subjects, or is that determined by the subject type? For example, could a duchy/county make a kingdom a vassal? If not, could they make them a different subject type?
 
I really hope Flanders has a ton of flavor, or at least SOME unique missions and events that make it interesting, since it should be in its golden era at this time and had such a rich and important foothold in Europe, if not the MOST important. I also hope it doesn't just disappear in every game; also, how is Flanders SOMEHOW more loyal than the Bretons? This I don't even believe for a second.
 
Johan said:
Yes, you can always ask to become a vassal of a more powerful country.

One of the only ways to survive for more than a decade as Granada..
Click to expand...
In the event of a subject's betrayal, what cb is gained against them if any?

Reconquest might be too much and Subjugation would sinply allow wallachia hypothetically to continually flip back and forth an ottoman or hungarian march unless thats intended or there's a 'recent uprising' on liberty desire?
 

Andalusian Re-Reconquest – What Happens to Conquistadors and their Religion?​

If Spain establishes Conquistadors and their colonies in the Americas but then suffers a major political shift—such as being defeated by a Granada-France alliance, becoming a vassal of Granada, and forcibly converting to Islam—how will this affect the Conquistador subject types?

  1. Will they also convert to Islam, or will they break free and declare independence since non-Catholic nations are not allowed to have Conquistadors?
  2. Would this cause a crash due to the game not being designed for non-Catholic Conquistadors?
  3. If they remain as subjects but become unmanageable due to game mechanics, would this be considered a bug?
  4. Would Conquistadors still be able to colonize empty lands and fight natives after this religious shift?
  5. How would this affect their own religion (Conqistadors themselves) and the religion of their colonies (pops level)?
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
Tercio Soldier said:
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.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with your theory that the idea that the conquistadors were special and different comes from the direct tracing of conquistadors to the reconquista. I think an emphasis on this has lead the devs to have a pop history view of conquistadors and working their uniqueness backwards from it. What is unique about the Conquistadors coming out of Iberia is their innovation and trail blazing. Similarly the Portugese trail blazed in their expansions in the east with factories and forts dotting coastlines everywhere their explorers and traders went.

But the specific thing about being a trail blazer, or innovative, is that it only lasts so long until everyone else adopts your model and then expands on it.

Your last paragraph is exactly why conquistadors are not a uniquely Iberia (or new world) phenomenon. The idea that they were is a romanticizing and othering lens poets and historians took on long after to distinguish the Iberian colonization of the americas and their outcomes from the rest. But in reality we just have to look at france to see the exact same modus operendi playing out in north america. New France was 'discovered' by the same entrepreneuring state sponsored 'explorers' as New Spain or Brazil. They founded colonies, governed the territories, warred and expelled or 'coqnuered' native peoples, converted native peoples, and set up industries exploiting local native peoples. France literally dirrected New France to convert the native populations and set up missions from the beguinning. When they didn't find gold or spices they turned to exploiting the local exotic goods, furs. They set up such a fur trading legacy with the indigenous peoples that it echoes in most of the settlements of Canada, and Greater Louisiana. Hell by the end of New France they were running massive coalitions of indigenous peoples against their rivals the english. They followed the Conquistador playbook to the letter. They even spoke a latin language! :p If there's any distinction on the treatment of religiosity in the new world (and later colonies, especially destinctly in east asia later on) it's that destinction between catholic and protestant.

Even the english Followed much of this in their early settlements in the Thirteen Colonies and Hudson Bay.

To see a distinction is to work backwards from history. Hell these colonial powers didn't even really see much of a distinction between their colonizing in the new world and the old world other than having a much much harder time with it in Africa and Asia due to all the not dead people being there to resist and for africa all the diseases too.

These european colonial kingdoms would pay 'explorers' to 'discover places', make trades and relations with the locals, these explorers were often incentivized in making little outposts wherever they could to get a little fiefdom of their own, then charter companies to continue their financial interests in far away regions, some of which were prime for settlment attempts so they'd sponsor settlments, others less so so they would sponsor forts and factories for trade, and then enterprising companies and settlments and sometimes exploerers themselves, with or without the consent of their lord would wage wars, take part in local politics, factioneer among the locals, and make alliances with local powers. When they were successful they'd end up on top in the region, and over time the most successful ones became governments administered either by the company or the crown.

There's no special Iberian sauce to it. The Iberians were justpioneers most of the time because Spain 'discovered' the new world 'first' and Portugal 'discovered' the old world 'first' and their governments saw how lucrative it could be early and went for it early.

Hell even the reconquista isn't that unique. Most of the conquest based conversions were pretty similar, it's just that the reconquista were among the last non christian areas being bordered and activley campaigned in in the late meadival era. Before that you saw similar stuff against heretics and pagans across the rest of europe. And you'd see some of it come back after the reformation. The catholics took a very long time to stop converting by the sword.

So all that to say that I get it, I see where this weird view of history is coming from. I thought this game was trying to be a little less pop-history and I think it fell flat on this mechanic only because it chose to gamely tie it to having a capital in Iberia. (A funny limit because you best know I'll just be moving France's capital to Navarra.)

Apukispay said:
I believe they confirmed this was the case but probably you would not want to do it because low control in such a faraway land would make it practically useless.
Click to expand...
It makes me wish there were more directly internal nations in this game. Some of the mechanics of the game try to do that but it's not as built in as CK3.

I think it would be cool to be able to have nations that are very very closely tied to your own, even more than vassal states. So you can directly mess with colonial nations and trade companies from above or let them handle their own affairs. Kinda like designating a part of your nation to be autonomous until you come in and directly change anything its done.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Johan said:
Vassal
The most typical type of subject, a vassal oversees its territory on behalf of its overlord, pays vassal fees and joins the military campaigns of its overlord.

Almost all countries can make Vassal Subjects.

View attachment 1256231
Probably needs to improve and merge some lines here to make tooltip less unwieldy..

Fiefdom
A Fiefdom is a junior title that is the property of its overlord's ruler. This can only be created and maintained by a Monarchy though. There are some drawbacks to it, as it can not be created by diplomatic offers, and does not grant any prestige.
Click to expand...

[EDIT: context revised, you can ignore this post, thanks Ispil!]

I Did some digging, and apparently Flanders is to be considered a Fief of France, not merely a vassal.
After the Franco-Flemish war of 1297-1305, the Flemish got to keep their independence as a fiefdom autonomy, but had to surrender Lille, Douai and Orchies (Treaty of Athis-sur-Orge).

I'm not 100% sure what you guys consider a fiefdom in game terms (as the description is rather short), but just an FYI.
 
Last edited:
Sulphurologist said:
I Did some digging, and apparently Flanders is to be considered a Fief of France, not merely a vassal.
After the Franco-Flemish war of 1297-1305, the Flemish got to keep their independence as a fiefdom, but had to surrender Lille, Douai and Orchies (Treaty of Athis-sur-Orge).

I'm not 100% sure what you guys consider a fiefdom in game terms (as the description is rather short), but just an FYI.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia is wrong. Per their own source, which they cite for that very thing:
1740418180101.png

A fiefdom, by this game's standards, is something held as personal territory of the monarch. Flanders still had a count, and that count still had control. I don't know where Wikipedia got the idea that it was reduced to a "fiefdom", but nowhere in their own citing text is such a thing stated.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
Ispil said:
Wikipedia is wrong. Per their own source, which they cite for that very thing:
View attachment 1258334
A fiefdom, by this game's standards, is something held as personal territory of the monarch. Flanders still had a count, and that count still had control. I don't know where Wikipedia got the idea that it was reduced to a "fiefdom", but nowhere in their own citing text is such a thing stated.
Click to expand...

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but outside of the game's terminology: isn't a fief a parcel of land 'loaned' to a vassal, where a vassal is the person receiving it?
With the game mentioning a fief as being 'personal property', don't they actually mean it being owned by the crown, rather than the person itself per se?

In that sense, this explains why the Philip the Bold of Burgundy inherited Flanders as a personal union, where he inherited the country of Flanders, which is a loan of the French crown?

(I'm not a historian so I'm trying to make sense of this ^^ )

In that sense, the IRL distinction for fief/vassal is a bit vague anyway in game terms, so I'll retcon my post as I shouldn't take it too literally apparently.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Sulphurologist said:
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but outside of the game's terminology: isn't a fief a parcel of land 'loaned' to a vassal, where a vassal is the person receiving it?
With the game mentioning a fief as being 'personal property', don't they actually mean it being owned by the crown, rather than the person itself per se?

In that sense, this explains why the Philip the Bold of Burgundy inherited Flanders as a personal union, where he inherited the country of Flanders, which is a loan of the French crown?

(I'm not a historian so I;'m trying to make sense of this ^^ )

In that sense, the IRL distinction for fief/vassal is a bit vague anyway in game terms, so I'll retcon my post as I shouldn't take it too literally apparently.
Click to expand...
Yeah, outside the game's terminology a fiefdom is just the name of the land that a vassal has as a part of the feudal vassalage relationship. Nothing actually changed in terms of land ownership here, since Flanders was already (nominally) a vassal of France and consequently France (nominally) owned the land of Flanders.

It's just that, oftentimes with these sorts of relationships, if the top-level doesn't actually enforce the fact that the land is nominally loaned rather than granted, then the one on the receiving end could very well act like the land is theirs in its entirety. Which is how you get conflicts like these.

In-game, "fiefdom" means land personally owned by the monarch, which is something else entirely.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:

Non-Catholic Christian Iberian Nations – How Would This Work?​

If an Iberian-based Catholic country later converts to another branch of Christianity (such as Protestantism, Coptic Christianity, or even heretical movements like Hussitism), how would this impact the Conquistador mechanics? Specifically:

  • Would existing Conquistador subjects remain loyal, or would they break away due to the game's rules restricting them to Catholic nations?
  • If they stay, would they continue to function as normal, or would they become unmanageable due to mechanics not accounting for non-Catholic overlords?
  • Would they still be able to colonize new territories, fight natives, and expand their holdings?
  • How would their religion be affected—would Conquistadors convert along with their overlord, remain Catholic, or become independent?
  • What happens to the colonies they establish afterward—would they follow the overlord’s new religion, stay Catholic, or function unpredictably?
 
Ispil said:
Yeah, outside the game's terminology a fiefdom is just the name of the land that a vassal has as a part of the feudal vassalage relationship. Nothing actually changed in terms of land ownership here, since Flanders was already (nominally) a vassal of France and consequently France (nominally) owned the land of Flanders.

It's just that, oftentimes with these sorts of relationships, if the top-level doesn't actually enforce the fact that the land is nominally loaned rather than granted, then the one on the receiving end could very well act like the land is theirs in its entirety. Which is how you get conflicts like these.

In-game, "fiefdom" means land personally owned by the monarch, which is something else entirely.
Click to expand...
I just hope the dev's don't sleep on Flanders since it's without a doubt 1 of the most important regions in Europe at the time and right at it's golden era, but knowing paradox... They'll probably just give them default french vassal missions... sad, also, why does it make sense to have Walloon and not Flemish? I know they removed Flemish back in the early stages of the tinto talks, which i don't get? If i look up which is older i can see that although you can't compare the Flemish back then to today (you can't for almost any language), Flemish is way older than Walloon... I understand that i might be a little biased and maybe it's too little of a change, but the sources i've been looking at tell me that i'm correct and maybe you can help me out?
 
I don't think conquistadors should be locked to Catholic Iberians or the Americas.


The Portuguese conquest many of their colonies can be seen like the system, Malacca, Goa, Sri Lanka; Spain in the Philippines; Great Britain and France in India, and explorers like Captain Cook, I feel, would fall under the system.


I believe Iberians should have a bonus to their conquistadors - since they had more and larger conquests - maybe theirs are stronger, higher leader stats, more manpower or money, or they get access to them earlier.


Muslim Iberians should definitely get them since in alt-history the Andalusians are usually just Muslim Spain, so they should get them too.
 
Last edited:
Does the overlord have a say in anything trade related? For example, I want to monopolize a specific kind of trade good. Besides personally owning most locations that have said trade good, I also establish vassals to own the last of them across the world. As the overlord, can I make my subjects give me (for a price including shipping) their surplus of that trade good rather than put it up for sale on their respective markets?
 
Last edited:
Historical counterexample to conquistadors "automatically conquering any location they get control over" - the De Soto expedition through the American southeast strategically occupied prominent towns and used them as bases to pillage the surrounding areas, but they ultimately failed to establish any actual colony or conquer anything for Spain.

I guess this particular problem might be solved if conquistadors aren't used against SoPs, and the Mississippians remain SoPs (at this point I'm leaning towards them being settled states).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back