• 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:
  • 167Love
  • 162Like
  • 9
  • 9
Reactions:
yeah, no good ideas yet.
I feel like antagonism kinda works? Like Ottomans and Byz obviously hate each other so are natural enemies. France and England both fought for the same resources (French crown, North America, Africa, India) so stayed rivals throughout the timeframe.

You could maybe assign the top 3 antagonists as your rivals.

For roleplay purposes you could give static antagonism too. For instance:
-Caliphate has antagonism to Christian/non-Muslim countries
-Hordes to settled countries
-2 countries with colonies in the same region
-countries with emancipation against countries with slaves
They could be age/reform-based too. Like in the Age of Reformation, anyone with the counter reformation would get -5 or something to every Protestant (on top of the different religion malus). Revanchism might also cause antagonism too.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
yeah, no good ideas yet.

There were lots of suggestions to change the rival system in this thread by me and good ideas by other users too.
What do you guys think about having rivals as a relation you have to maintain diplomatically? Think of it as a relation that is activated when X county is most hostile towards you, but the negative relations decay overtime so you eventually fall out of a rivalry if there's no input. There should also be restrictions as to which countries that are hostile to you can actually be rivals. You would have to maintain poor relations or occasionally oppose X country in some way etc. to keep them rivals and vice versa. This would provide both more depth and give reasons for players to revisit the rivals system instead of just choosing rivals once and never interacting with the system again. It would also solve the issue of rivals not making sense narratively speaking, because you would have to always be at odds in some way.

I also don't think rivalries should completely block out diplomatic interactions and there should definitely be more nuance involved. I would also like to see unique diplomatic options unlocked for having rivals too. As Project Caesar is a grand strategy game, its game systems should really be feeling "Grand Strategy". There should be more thought and planning on the players part when interacting with a rivals system than what is currently in place. I want rivalries to be part of my overall strategy which interconnects with other parts of the game.

For example, let's say I want to declare war on my neighbor. To prepare for the future war, I am thinking about rivaling them because it will open up opportunities for my neighbor's other rival to possibly ally me. In order to push my neighbor over the edge to become rivals I would have to embargo them, but parts of my country are in their market. Should I rival them to gain an ally, even though it would make my economy weaker for the upcoming war? There would be strategic thinking involved in this, rather than the current system where you will always pick 3 rivals or suffer a debuff.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Wait: if an independence IO wins the war, all subjects become independent? Including loyal ones that fought on the side of their overlord?

That doesn't seem right.

I like the other changes! I'd need to see Antagonism in action before judging it, but I love the naval changes and I adore the fact that navies can now supply land units. Anything that makes navies more relevant and connected to land combat is, in my opinion, worth considering.
Don't know if it has been confirmed, but the way I read it as "all of the subjects that were part of the independence movement" not "all of the subjects of the overlord"
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Just making sure I understand the system correctly: In a hypothetical war between me as Persia and the Ottomans, if I have access to the black sea, and somehow naval superiority, I could march across the north coast of Antonia ignoring the forts and use my black sea navy to resupply my armies while they siege down Istanbul?

I assume there are number of factors that would make this a bad idea still, but in a pure vacuum that would work?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Just making sure I understand the system correctly: In a hypothetical war between me as Persia and the Ottomans, if I have access to the black sea, and somehow naval superiority, I could march across the north coast of Antonia ignoring the forts and use my black sea navy to resupply my armies while they siege down Istanbul?

I assume there are number of factors that would make this a bad idea still, but in a pure vacuum that would work?
ZoC would keep you from ignoring forts, though you could embark/disembark your army anywhere along the coast to get around that.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Just making sure I understand the system correctly: In a hypothetical war between me as Persia and the Ottomans, if I have access to the black sea, and somehow naval superiority, I could march across the north coast of Antonia ignoring the forts and use my black sea navy to resupply my armies while they siege down Istanbul?

I assume there are number of factors that would make this a bad idea still, but in a pure vacuum that would work?
Provided there wasn't anything blocking your movement, it does sound like it. Also assuming that you are not attacked and your navy isn't also. Plus at some point your navy will have to head back and resupply (or you need two navies)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
From the TT on religion we saw that religions have different views on each other.

Is antagonism from differing religions affected by the religions view on the other religion?

It doesn't make much sense to me if two religions that are kindred cause antagonism between them
 
  • 2
Reactions:
not atm, its not an easy solution.
To make things even more complex... since pops and armies are now linked there could potentially be rebellions in which part of the army joins the other side (depending on pop type). Kind of a Cipay rebellion.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Good changes for diplomacy and warfare.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
My assumption here is that the problem is which coalition to join, if there are several. The "laziest" way would be to make it be per religion group, but that doesn't solve the geography problem. Could also just drum up a metric involving "distance to closest member of the coalition" and things like "shared religion with members of the coalition" and whatnot, where if the cost is too high for any existing coalition they'd just make their own instead.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
"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."

I really like this idea. You pulled some commander from your pool of potential candidates, now that pool shrinks and you get worse options.

is this reduction a fixed value or something with variables behind?
like for instance (imho):
  • recruiting 3 absolute elite commanders should affect the talent in your pool way more, than recruiting 3 guys, that barely know what war is.
    • this would add some "bad luck prevention". You rolled bad, you lost money, BUT at least your tradition didn't drop as much, because that guy didn't contribute much anyways
    • if you happen to fetch 3 guys, that are the best of the best your country has to offer, you first need to go out and get your armies experience, so new good candidates can develop
  • for small countries the effect should be way higher, because there's a smaller number of potential candidates. (allthough I'm not sure, what that would do to balancing)
    • even if you are a highly militarized society, if there's only 200 soldiers in total, there's not much potential for commanders
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I am sorry, you say that auxiliaries can supply many regiments for many months, then you say that it is necessary to be very fast and have a supply line. I intend auxiliaries as a way to do few-months incursions inside enemy territories regardless of supply lines. Am I wrong?
 
Will it be possible for a larger nation supporting a foreign Independence Movement to offer a restricted amount of support, rather than being dragged right into the war? Gold, food, market access for trade, possibly recruiting grounds or mercenaries?

Reasonably this would anger the overlord whose subjects are rebelling, but it might not go to outright warfare.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions: