• 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.

Tinto Talks #56 - 26th of March 2025

Hello and Welcome to another Tinto Talks, the Happy Wednesday where we give out information about our super top secret game with the codename Project Caesar, so that you can give us feedback!

Today we will talk about some of the changes to the diplomacy and warfare mechanics we have done since we started doing these Tinto Talks.


Diplomatic Expenses
As you may have seen, in some previous Tinto Talks we added another expense to the economy to give more control to the player. The cost for this Diplomatic Expense is based on the tax base of your country, and the more you spend, the greater benefits your diplomatic corps gets.

56_diplospending.png

If you play France you may have this maximized, but may not if you play a smaller country without subjects unless you you want to be able to maintain an alliance with a bigger and stronger country.


Antagonism
In older GSGs we made, we had a concept called ‘Badboy’ which impacted how badly you had behaved and other countries would treat you more harshly according to it. This evolved into the Aggressive Expansion systems we used in Eu4 and Imperator which had a direct impact on opinions that also allowed Coalitions to be formed.

While these were useful systems, they all were a bit limited;as a global variable in your country it was too broad, and as merely opinion impacts, it was rather hidden and hard to get overviews.

In Project Caesar we developed a new system called “biases” which has static impacts and temporary values that change over time, like opinions work in most of our games. We had this for Opinions and Trust, and when we were not happy with AE and neither were you, we decided to scrap AE and instead make a new bias, which we call Antagonism.

Antagonism indicates how other countries are likely to view us. If they feel a lot of antagonism towards us, countries that consider us as relevant to their interests will be less inclined to engage in diplomacy and may act against our interests. Antagonism is caused by basic differences between countries' societal values, government types, religion, culture and language, and actions can cause an antagonism 'bomb' in a location that affects the countries near it to varying degrees depending on how much they care about that location and about the antagonistic country. Antagonism 'bomb' effects will generally dissipate with time. Antagonism also affects a country's opinion of you.

Of course, a country needs to have caused a certain amount of Antagonism against you before you can join a coalition. The overall effect of this is that you can get away with fewer antagonism ‘bomb’ effects against countries that have a baseline of antagonism for you before they start thinking about forming coalitions against you, and countries that are more similar to you will probably allow a bit more to slide.

56_antagonism.png

Ottomans will always have a base antagonism to Byzantium..

Independence Movements
Trying to become independent as a subject is usually a tough life. In some previous GSGs you could ask another country to support your independence and they could help you in a war. To make this better, we took inspiration from Crusader Kings where subjects usually band together to fight for independence. As we have the International Organization code, we made a new type of it, called Independence Movements. Any subject with a loyalty below 50% can start such a movement, and any subject can join it. Other countries can be invited as well, and the goal of the war is to get independence for all subjects!

56_indep.png

Probably need some more members for this..



Civil War Surrenders
Sometimes you are in a civil war and you know you are about to lose, and it's just a matter of time, so we added in an action to surrender in a Civil War when the other side is more than twice the size than the other.

And as some of you pointed out, losing a civil war as soon as possible to avoid it, may or may not be an exploit, so currently there are some penalties to jumping to the new country.

56_civil_war.png

At least Scotland will be free!


Naval Combat
During testing, we discovered that with all types of ships having the same frontage made it so that you wanted to stack almost purely the biggest ships and the rest were not useful. So instead they now have different frontages, so the categories have different roles.

Heavy Ships have a frontage of 2 and a combat speed of 0.5 & Galleys get 0.5 frontage, but their combat speed is 1. Light ships get higher initiative and combat speed, and have a frontage of 1.

New Objectives
When we talked about the military objectives, there was a request to add automated rebel suppression, and this was something we definitely added in. We have now also added a Hunt Navies that works like the Hunt Armies, and tries to engage and destroy enemy navies when spotted in the designated areas.

We are also looking into adding a few more objectives, like defending the coasts or focused sieges, and will tell you when more are implemented.

Logistics Improvements
While we were very happy with having a logistics system in the game, and where food mattered, it was a little bit limited in that you could only trace supply two locations away at most. So we introduced a concept called Logistics Distance, and now every single army traces a path to the closest valid supply source. The length that can be traced can be extended through advances in several of the later ages.

A valid supply source is a Supply Depot, a port or seazone with a navy carrying food that will distribute it to you, or a province-capital that is under control of a country giving you food access and actually has food.

Supply paths can only be traced through friendly controlled territory, but not through any location that belongs to the Zone of Control of a hostile fort.

We also made it so that armies can only carry a single month's supply of food with them, except for the auxiliary units, which can carry many months for several regiments each. This means that even if you can march deep into unprotected territory or have the ability to ignore the Zone of Control for forts, you need to get a supply path to the source you can get food from.

Of course, you can always see the path your armies trace supply from when you have selected an army, as a thin green arrow goes from the supply source to the army.

56_papermap_logistics.png

Here I walked past the Lithuanian armies (I used the remove fog of war cheat code, as they would have been hidden for me otherwise), and tracing supplies from Goriadz, and they will easily be able to cut my supplies by movingmy moving into Lipsk. This is the paper-map-mode where everything is icons on the map.



Monthly Attrition Losses
One thing that was requested by you guys was the ability to see how much attrition a unit has taken recently, so we added some history to it, so you can see how many died in the last year.

56_attrition.png

My army lacks food to continue the siege… a few more months at most..


Recruit Admiral/General
Another worry that was pointed out by the community was the potential lack of generals or admirals for your units. So we added two new actions where you can recruit either a general or an admiral for your country for gold. The price is based on the economy of your country, but the price is reduced by the military ability of the ruler.

The abilities of the new commander depends on the current army or navy tradition, which is also reduced a bit by recruiting a new commander.


56_general.png




Next week we’ll go through the mixed collection of all other major changes we have done..
 
Last edited:
  • 165Love
  • 160Like
  • 9
  • 9
Reactions:
yeah, no good ideas yet

Isn't Rivalry tied to Antagonism? This way it makes sense to me, you should not just be able to randomly select rivals becase the game says you should have three, for buffs and debuffs. Rivarly should be the "final level" of Antagonism, where two countries end up after multiple hostile actions and other differences between them. And there should be no limit to having rivlas it should be organic.
And also, the buffs and debuffs should be between the rivlas only, I don't like the game rewarding you with for exemple "power projection" (If you are an OPM and rival an OPM you recieve 15 PP, and if you rival Austria you also recive only 15 PP on the world stage).

How much power you have dosen't have to depend on the number of rivals. Having a rival is a bad thing, because they are activly trying to hinder you, but is univoidible due to conflicting interest.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
They showed some Silesian flags in the Germany feedback, in the picture of the HRE members but unfortunately they didn't put the name of the countries under the flags but if you are interested I dropped all the Coas I could find for Silesia in my thread called "Flags and Coa too" so you can compare some
I'd love to see it.

I hope they will show it someday.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Antagonism feels weird: suppose I am starting out as Venice and I conquer the mainland. Now, italian states will have less antagonism towards me than say the southern german states because they are the same culture or we speak the same language? Am I getting this right? If anything being backstabbed by your cultural brothers should incur in more antagonism not less....
Or say I play as the ottomans and conquer the turkish bayleks in anatolia. Now, Byzanzium is going to have more antagonism towards me then the other turkish states? Why? It just doesn't feel right, I think it might make consolidating your home region too easy because no one will be willing to stop you just because you share a religion/language/culture.

I just hope that the modifiers for same religion/culture that were in effect for AE in say EU4 will apply to antagonism bombs in PC as well, so it's going to be more "expensive" to constantly expand in a single region over and over again.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
yeah, no good ideas yet.
I hope not choosing enough rivals will not incur in a penalty, but rather choosing enough will grant a bonus. You could even tweak the numbers to leave the final balance unchanged. It just works better psychologically for us players that way. Having a debuff feels like the game forces you to play a certain way, while just having a buff feels like having a tool at your disposal that you can choose to use or not use.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Awesome changes, especially to Antagonism and Diplomacy. One thing I'd like to ask is if "areas" in this quote refers to the geographical unit that is a collection of provinces?
We have now also added a Hunt Navies that works like the Hunt Armies, and tries to engage and destroy enemy navies when spotted in the designated areas.

Because in EU4 you had to select individual states for rebel suppression or autonomous sieges. But for naval units you could select entire regions. So I wonder if in Project Ceasar, when we give armies AI commands, do we select entire Areas, or individual Provinces (States in EU4 terms)? I would like it if it were entire areas, not individual provinces, that would reduce the needed clicks a lot.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Can I just say, that papermap screenshot is beautiful. I really like the design of the whole thing. The locations, the fonts, the pretty tree illustrations. Looks really nice
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Absolutely love the concept of Antagonism! However, the presentation has left one big question for me. What exact actions «can cause an antagonism 'bomb'»? Information given in this Tinto Talks highlighted the antagonism between the Ottomans and Byzantium. In general, the Ottomans is somewhat antagonized towards Byzantium because of their differences in language, culture, religion, etc. If I understand correctly, the same amount of antagonism would be applied to any European country from Portugal to Muscovy. Should I say that irl the Ottomans was many times more hostile to Byzantium rathen than, let's say, England?

But what was the reason for such hostility? The answer is simple: resources. The majority of wars, schemes, plots, coalitions and other conflicts in the past (and even present) had one thing in common. Resources are limited and everybody wants to have them, to be the power, the top of the line. Therefore, the Ottomans was so hostile to Byzantium irl not because «they believe in different god and speak different language», but because the Ottomans wanted that chunky boy Constantinople, so they can thrive upon its wealth and strategic location. Lithuania and Muscovy were rivals not because different religious rituals, but because they both wanted to unify the lands and wealth of former Rus.

So, I guess, provinces of interest and vital interest was a decent mechanic to simulate these hostilities. I would like to see it implemented one way or another in the upcoming antagonism mechanic. The only flaws that interest mechanic had for me is that relationship would drop in a single day. IMO, this can be improved in general by adding some ticking antagonism increase if both of you have conflicitng interests (both of you want the same region, one of you have an ally who is hostile to another, etc.). This, I believe, would create a good mix of static antagonism due to fundamental differences between your countries and dynamic antagonism based on your direct actions.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
So i have a few questions about logistics:
1) Can the we see the enemy supply lines/ is there a way for us to find them?
- Like if the enemy supply lines go through one of my unoccupied locations do i see them. Or is there an espionage mechanic that would allow us to detect them.
2) Is there such a thing as "living of the land/foraging" and how does it work? What is the tradeoff between that and the logistics system?
- For example is there a price to maintaining a supply network going from the depo to the army?
- Dose living of the land/foraging remove that cost in exchange for devastation of the location?
- Dose living of the land/foraging upon reaching a certain level of devastation cease providing supplies?
- Does the amount of devastation change based on the ratio between the army size and local population?
- Is it possible for one army to live of the land/forage from multiple locations at once, if yes will the amount of cavalry change the distance form witch my army can forage?
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I think the antagonism from religion should be dynamic based on the countries tolerance towards that religion. Otherwise it would be weird if we had country that accepts certain religious minority and hate another country for having that religion as their official one.
 
  • 5
  • 2Like
Reactions:
OMG YES!!! Antagonism is something I have been asking for for ages! A system of permanent AE in which it just doesnt just go away with time so you can keep getting away with murder.

I WOULD add some feedback. The antagonism bombs should have a time effect and a permanent effect. If Spain has Milan, low countries, Napales, Austria, HRE under control, it should not go away with time. It should have a score that create antagonism with all other major powers in Europa because it is a constant threat to them and the balance of power.

Other than that, THANK YOU.
Rather than the bomb having a permanent effect, there should be static antagonism values for 'has non-core locations near me', 'has non-accepted-culture locations of my culture group', etc.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Do you reckon the logistics part of the army movement / deployment will become a microing hell?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Antagonism feels weird: suppose I am starting out as Venice and I conquer the mainland. Now, italian states will have less antagonism towards me than say the southern german states because they are the same culture or we speak the same language? Am I getting this right? If anything being backstabbed by your cultural brothers should incur in more antagonism not less....
Or say I play as the ottomans and conquer the turkish bayleks in anatolia. Now, Byzanzium is going to have more antagonism towards me then the other turkish states? Why? It just doesn't feel right, I think it might make consolidating your home region too easy because no one will be willing to stop you just because you share a religion/language/culture.

I just hope that the modifiers for same religion/culture that were in effect for AE in say EU4 will apply to antagonism bombs in PC as well, so it's going to be more "expensive" to constantly expand in a single region over and over again.
It goes the other way as well, Poland and Russia will be less hostile to each other and not act against eachother interests since both Slavic and Christian, same goes for Denmark and Sweden
 
  • 1
Reactions:
There are 3 things, that bother me.

1. The grafics just look shit, i cant tell why, but i realy hate the interface design, especially the armies on the map look so clumpsy and outdated. I just hope all of this is temporary, but the longer i wait for it to get a big change, the more i get concearned, that is the artstyle for the final game. Pls consider rethinking the art style as a whole. its like you never even talked about it and just copied it from some other games you made in the past. Give us something unique.

2. no mention about peace deals and threaties? I hope i just remember it wrong, but i was hoping for a revamp of the diplomatic systems. i welcome the change to AE, but what about a more complex alliance system. with defence alliances, alliances depending on specific targets, or religions, or cultures, or regions. like the HRE nations forming an defensive alliance against france. Or the hungarians and the polish unite against the ottomans, even thou they are fighting over bohemia. this could tie in well with the new AE system. Also this could be part of peace deals, as they needed a lot of deapth. Imagine austria threatening a war against genua only to make them form a defesive pact against the venecians, and if they dont oblige, they can force this pact through a small war.

3. i hate prices, that depend on your income, while having a fixed value, like generals. This feels realy bad when playing with big nations, as it seems like there is no point in expansion. The increased costs should come from the ammount of generals needed, but the cost for each one should stay the same to give tha player the feeling of achievement and power. It should be a principal design element, to avoid those things. In EU4 i realy hated those. Like paying thousends of ducats to reduce a debuff on one province. if you want to keep the impact of those things in later stages of the game, try to implement some form of automation, as increasing the ammount of generals you buy at once.



To not give you the feeling, that i dislike your work in general, let me tell you, that i enjoy a lot of the new mechanics, especially the economic ones and i'm looking forward to seeing the final product, but as i dont have any trust in you after the cities skylines release and the still not working victoria 3, i'm only gonna buy a game, that is finnished at release, and i see a lot of things that could go wrong at the moment. No second chances anymore.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Antagonism feels weird: suppose I am starting out as Venice and I conquer the mainland. Now, italian states will have less antagonism towards me than say the southern german states because they are the same culture or we speak the same language? Am I getting this right? If anything being backstabbed by your cultural brothers should incur in more antagonism not less....
You will have lower Antagonism base value - but the Antagonism bomb for having invaded their neighbours/allies will probably VASTLY out number the base.

If you stop invading and let your antagonism tick down then the Italian states will, over the centuries, consider you acceptable. The Southern German states would probably still consider you foreigners.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
I hope in EU5 you fix the problem with the "Want's your provinces" the colonial nations have. The moment they reform the penalty should go.
Worst case scenario after the first victorious war which we impose terms or got them to sign white peace.
 
  • 1
Reactions: