• 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:
I really hope that PC supports transferring occupied territories between players and AI :) The race to occupy a territory was not fun in EU4 and seems like it could have supply implications here. Can you get supplies through an allied/ vassal occupied province?
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
yeah, no good ideas yet.
I hope that, at least, it's more like the Victoria 3 system than the EU4 system, where declaring a rival is more fluid and enables further diplomatic options, and aligns you with your rival's enemies.

I think the coolest thing to do is to not be able to declare rivals, but rival relationships naturally form based on, for example, antagonism, border friction, colonial disputes, etc.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
1) When you said that any subject can join independence movements after they were started, does that include loyal ones?
Wouldn't it be better if only disloyal or mildly loyal subjects can join, but overwhelmingly loyal ones cannot?
Possibly easier to join the movement than start it.

2) You said that an independence movement's goal is the independence of ALL subjects, I hope you don't mean even the loyal ones? It would be both illogical and rather awkward for that to be a thing.
I believe it would be for all the subjects that are part of the movement. (As opposed to just the originator as it was in EU4)

Does that mean that if the AI surrenders in a civil war, we'd lose prestige, legitimacy, etc?
That is not the penalty for surrendering, but the penalty for jumping from the losing side to the winning side after losing a civil war.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Is it possible for a country's internal actions to affect antagonism? For example, if a Non-Muslim country tries to convert a bunch of Muslim locations, would nearby Muslim countries get mad and potentially form a coalition to try and stop it?
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Will troops still be able to resupply food from a hostile location they are capturing, or from an occupied/friendly location they are standing in/marching through?

if they control the province capital, and it has food it can take from there.
 
  • 22Like
  • 18
  • 3
Reactions:
  • 48Like
  • 3
  • 1Love
Reactions:
In my opinion, religion should affect antagonism about twice as much as culture/language, especially before the rise of nationalism. Even antagonism towards a different religion in the same group could be notably high, because, well, just look at the friendly history between catholics and orthodox, or catholics and protestants, or sunni and shia.

agree, changed it
 
  • 63Like
  • 43Love
  • 4
  • 3
Reactions:
Can there be several coalitions against you? It would make sense for example that countries in India aren't coordinating with countries in Mexico.

hmm.. no
 
  • 109
  • 20
  • 8Like
  • 4
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Regarding calculating antagonism:

56_antagonism.png


There's a system of viewing other religions and other cultures from kindred to enemy.
Could the strength of the antagonism be based on that opinion, rather then just foreign/same? I.e. enemy culture gives bigger penalty than just negative, kindred culture lowers antagonism even if it belongs to a different group.
 
  • 11Like
Reactions:
yeah, no good ideas yet.
Maybe give more buffs (or less debuffs) for picking countries as rival based on 1. Antagonism, 2. Size difference and 3. Distance?
Having a big bad Badboy right next to your country as a rival should be more rewarding than just picking random guys you maybe want to attack in the future.
In a gameplay and realism kinda sense.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
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..
I do like this a lot, but it would be nice to have other modifiers here, like rivalry, overlapping claims, having claims on one another, and maybe even how strong one country is compared to its rivals.

The last one brings an interesting point to the rivalry system, where you'd be incentivized to make more rivals, so they can theoretically keep you in check (as a balance of power thing) and other nations don't feel so antagonistic against you.
This way, becoming too big* and dismantling your rivals might not be a desirable outcome in some cases, because this would only increase the chances of everone else feeling threatened by the shift in the balance and band together against you.
This was a consideration in peace deals of the time, with special mention to the congress of Vienna, where they could've dismantled France, but specifically choose not to to keep a balance.

*Ps.: Of course, becoming too big has the implication of conquest, which naturally increases antagonism as it did with AE, but there are other ways to expand, like annexing vassals, integrating your PUs with the IO mechanics, and even unifying the HRE, all of which should shift the current balance of powers (especially the last one).
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Since this is the TT about diplomacy changes, are there no Rivalry changes? :(

It's the only one thing I'm most concerned about coming back from EU4. It feels forced and gamey, and it feels like I have to arbitrarily pick some countries bc the game told me to to not get any debuffs and not what I naturally want to do
yeah, no good ideas yet.

Couldn't we co-opt the "Province of Interest" mechanic from EU4 to create a system to create rivalries? But instead of being able to select locations, you can select areas/regions, as well as create a difference between "conquest" and "influence". Like that nations with competing interests will eventually end up being rivals when too many of their interests overlap or if they're the target of "conquest interests".

Have conquest interests only target areas, while influence interests target regions. Have the amount of areas of interests a nation can choose be limited to the power projection (maybe divided by nation size) of the respective nation.

This too might help shape possible alliances as well, if a country is split between two different areas then nations with compatible interests will be more likely to ally each-other.

1743001504184.png
 
  • 6Like
  • 2
Reactions:
I love the logistic changes. Supply lines have been a dream of many a GSG gamer for over a decade. I can tell this game is made by people who love the genre.

It is truly a game changer!
 
  • 85Like
  • 8Love
  • 7
Reactions:
Could both the pops and subjects of a rebellious culture join together in a rebellion against their overlord? (As in the pops already incorporated into the ruling country)

not atm, its not an easy solution.
 
  • 48
  • 10Like
  • 2
Reactions: