• 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:
While I love the supply system, I have one question regarding living of the land. Es an example: the 30 Years War. One reason why the 30 Years War was so devastating is that most of the armies, like the Austrians under the leadership of Wallenstein and even more so the Swedes later, deliberately ignored the supplylines, living of the land and devastating it in the process. It was rather effective for the great powers, because they didn't have to worry about the expanses of their large (mostly mercenary) armies, because, well, the native population paid for them, in a way. The war had dramatic consequences for Germany, entire regions were left empty, people moved in to the cities for protection from the mercenaries, large scale famines and so on..
So, with that, is there mechanically an option to let the armies get their own supplies from the population in the location/province they stay in, severely devastating it in the process? Because right now, it seems like only the attacker suffers consequences in the form of attrition, not the population. And this is not portrait, I don't think the game can really show the real consequences of the 30 Years War and other similar conflicts..
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
sure, tweakable
can they be dynamic? I think religion was quite important at first, but in the 18th century, noone really cared that much about it, and cared more about social values and being a monarchy or a republic in general.

The switch can occur at the age of revolutions. And be gradual
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
View attachment 1271891
What country's flag is that on the left???

(I hope this is not the flag of the Duchy of Rawa - because if so, it's a bad color scheme that doesn't fit Mazovia)
We have the issue that the traditional designs for Płock and Rawa are almost identical unless we change a colour. For countries that are adjacent and in a very similar situation under Poland, it's not ideal at all. If you have suggestions we'd love to hear them.

1743003553685.png
 
  • 45Haha
  • 22
  • 18Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Any chance you will allow inheritance treaties where two countries will form a PU if the ruler of one of them dies childless and not just the scripted one for Hungary and Poland? The Polish-Hungarian one being scripted is fine since it was made very close to the starting date, but it being treated as unique lowers diplomatic play options for other countries and prohibits the recreation of various important opportunities for countries in Europe.

For example, a fair share of Burgundian spread across the Low Countries was done with their rulers making such deals with childless female rulers. Including the case where such a deal was enforced in a peace treaty at the end of Hook and Cod wars, which is how Burgundians got Zeeland, Holland and Hainaut. With the curious detail here being that as it was enforced through war it also included a caveat that Jacqueline, Countess of Hainaut was not allowed to remarry without Burgundian consent.

There are key differences between that and claiming the throne through war. One, the Burgundians didn't have a claim to begin with. Two, even if they did, since this deal relied on a gamble of childlessness (even if further enforced by the "no marriage without our consent" clause), in game it could have resulted in lower antagonism than forced subjugation or forced PU, so even with a claim you could decide to opt for the other option after weighting in the risk vs reward ratio of the antagonism bomb factors. Three, in this particular case it also allows the other country to go "You know what? I WILL remarry without your consent", which opens further diplomatic shenanigans down the line.

Then there are the multiple cases where it happened through peaceful means. Again, there's the key distinction between that and normal PU formation where it relies on a bigger gamble, whereas PU - especially in totally-not-EUV with its deeper dynastic plays - has a higher dose of certainty because you have specific people in specific places that lead to a PU formation much more conclusively, like one country being ruled by a man and another by a woman and the two getting married, or one branch of a dynasty dying out. It also extends the possibility to form a PU to cases where PU would not normally form.

Also, not including such deals would technically make the PU system in EUIV more comprehensive, because there it is possible to form a PU where you don't have a shared dynasty and both countries are ruled by men. Depending on the cycle influenced by Papal and HRE elections, you can get a PU with a country of different dynasty with just a royal marriage (or in an even shorter time window, outright inherit it). Which, logically, would represent an inheritance treaty.

Now, because it is a powerful tool and further extends PU opportunities, it would be perfectly limit it. One way would by high opinion and trust requirement between the countries. Another would be social value leaning towards conciliatory. Or gating it behind a specific advancement (which could then put it behind a further cultural limit, because such deals were more popular in some parts of Europe than others). Still, I think it'd be a very valuable tool for players trying to play more diplomatically, especially with expansion through war being much more limited compared to EUIV.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
agree, changed it
Can this be a dynamic value based on the 2 religions opinion of each other(in my understanding they can be kindred or same faith, negative for christianity-judaism, enemy for catholicism-sunni). That means for example that catholic countries have more antagonism for sunni than jewish countries.
 
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
regarding Logistics Distance:
Is this a soft or a hard end? Like within Distance i get full supplies, and outside i get nothing?
Or is it gadually decreasing the further i am away from my food source ?

i could imagine the green arrows turning red the longer i stretch my supply routes :)
 
  • 3
Reactions:
not atm, its not an easy solution.
Maybe if you are fighting against rebellion war of indepandance, all the pops that are alreafy incorporated in your empire, but share primary culture with the revbellion will have much higher chance of spawning local polular rebel revolt, friendly to the enem? Armies..?
Or maybe those pops would create temporary cheap mercenery unit that is aveliable for hire to anyone fighting the overlord...

Both would also play nicely into espionage mechanics....
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
We have the issue that the traditional designs for Płock and Rawa are almost identical unless we change a colour. For countries that are adjacent and in a very similar situation under Poland, it's not ideal at all. If you have suggestions we'd love to hear them.

View attachment 1271918
Could two clearly different shades of red do the trick?
I agree with @Teutonic_Knight_2000 that yellow with black makes you think of Silesia.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
yeah, no good ideas yet.
It might help if there were more internal mechanics (hidden from player view) to generate and lay out each nation's strategic goals, such as

A) a mechanic for each AI nation to decide what its short-term and long-term goals are,
B) a second mechanic to assess who is standing in the way of these goals,
C) a third one to decide which course of action to take.

Then we could use these decisions to assign large amounts of antagonism towards nations obstructing C. and this should hopefully generate emergent rivalry-like behavior in an organic way.

For instance, Russia might

A) decide it wants land access to the Baltic
B) assess that it needs to cut through either Teutons, Poland, or Sweden to get this land access
C) decide that Sweden seems like the best target

Then Russia will generate huge antagonism towards Sweden and its allies, and try to seek out alliances with Poland and/or Teutons if they can help go after Sweden.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I think the antagonism icon is fine.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
  • Judging by the icons we are having a concept conflict. Rename the "Diplomatic Capacity" as "Diplomatic Relations Capacity" to help differentiate it from the diplomat capacity which is for actions.
  • I personally think that "Diplomatic Corps" is better than Diplomats
  • Why base it on the base tax? As a large country could I not just keep spending more for a larger diplomatic corp?
  • Please align the decimal points
  • Diplomatic Spending... so good it was named twice.
56_diplospending.png


  • If you are going to show a list of parts that combine to make a whole please have the parts with more decimals than the whole. This will help with the appearance of rounding errors. In this case change the Antagonism to 12 or the parts to x.xx.
  • Why the nomenclature difference of 'Foreign' and 'Different'?
56_antagonism.png


  • Why include the subtitle of 'International Organization'? Does this have any resemblance in game to other IO other than the container?
  • Add flags to members
  • Can Overlords attack disloyal subjects? (If so will this defend?)
  • Who can declare the war? the originator?
  • What happens to the movement if other subjects are involved but the originator is no longer a subject?
  • Do subjects declare independence and their overload can declare the war to keep them or just let them go?
  • in a war of independence, what is the war goal? protect subjects capital/territory or do we need to take the overlords capital?
56_indep.png


  • Stop losing negative numbers. You can change by the negative number or lose the 'value'.
56_civil_war.png


  • Can I change the direction of my supply lines (i.e. to keep them near my other lines) or is it always the 'shortest'?
  • Is that the 'siege' icon? looks ok
  • Add the Morale to the army 'panel'
  • Isn't that going through enemy controlled territory? (I also take it the Sokolka and Suwalki are both province capitals that do not have forts as neither of them are blocking either?)
  • Does the amount of supply we get dependent on the distance or is the Logistics Distance the maximum the distance can be?
  • Can we get supplies from non-capital locations that we are currently in and control if we do not control the province capital?
56_papermap_logistics.png


  • Change the Unit Weight title to "Unit Weight in territory" with the value of "(Base 3.05) 3.05". This keeps the important value outside of the parenthetical and also aligned with the other important values.
  • How many months are we going to show? If it is just a few then years shouldn't be needed. If it is many I prefer the year before the month "1338 January" as it will keep the years and the months aligned"
  • Does this subtitle need to be so verbose?
    • "Attrition taken over the past months"
    • "January 341"
    • "December 380"
56_attrition.png


  • yahoo... Eu4 issue flags (hopefully discrete)
  • Why is the cost based on my economy? Is there an ongoing cost for generals to better control the amount of generals?
  • Train general price icon should be the helmet base with coin modifier.
  • When you say you added two new actions you mean (1) train general and (2) train admiral?
  • Should we treat the % as an icon and have the same kerning between it as we do with the stack of coins?
56_general.png
 
  • 6
  • 3Like
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions:
I have a suggestion for the unit icons, as they currently look too much like capital names, which from a distance looks a bit confusing especially when dealing with a ton of units on the field. Here is the original for comparison:

1743004049063.png


Suggestion:

1743003894478.png


  1. Have the nation flags be above the troop numbers, like that you can add more than one flag if the unit is made up of a coalition of troops.
  2. Have it be more tall than wide, so it isn't confused with the province capital icons.
  3. Have the status icons hang below the troop icon, which is in line with most of the design logic of the game (e.g. alert pop-ups)


Another suggestion: Have the contours of the icon change depending on the troop type (mercenary, cavalry, artillery, etc.) and what activity they're currently involved in. Like that, I can know at a glance what the unit is doing. Instead of having to click on every unit to know whether it is or isn't the cavalry I have just split off moments ago.


EDIT:

icon suggestion.png


Excuse the mock-ups above, had trouble cobbling together images I want. I was more thinking of a more minimalist tone, like these icons from Imperator:

1743007226096.png
1743007249622.png
1743007260952.png


Having simplistic representations of the kind of troop stick out from the contours of the unit icon, like spears, guns, horses, siege engines, camels, etc. etc. Having some way to present specialization of your troops like in Hearts of Iron 4 would help wonders for army management.
 
Last edited:
  • 8
  • 6Like
  • 3
  • 2Love
Reactions:
Has anything been said about how forts work yet? I am asking here, because I may have just missed a dev response in one of the threads.

If not, I've got the following question for the devs: How will PC handle fort garissons? Will we be able to garrison armies inside fortified cities/forts? I really hope we don't get the EU4 experience where your army is just killed outside your city, because apparently you couldn't use the fortifications to get your army to temporary safety (which always felt very silly to me).
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
We have the issue that the traditional designs for Płock and Rawa are almost identical unless we change a colour. For countries that are adjacent and in a very similar situation under Poland, it's not ideal at all. If you have suggestions we'd love to hear them.

View attachment 1271918
I mean... just roll with it? Just look at the Silesian duchies, there is no way you can differentiate all of them and if you change them too much they will look to different from their actual flag/coa which can impact the whole meaning of it, in this case giving it a yellow background makes it look like a Silesian country more related to the HRE than Poland and besides they are "minor" countries both vassal of Poland, giving them a different map colour will be enough to distinguish them if they become indipendent
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Can we have more than one 'general' in an army so when it is split into smaller groups it will not be crippled? Alternatively can we have the lack of a general not be the same as having a general with 0/0/0 stats?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
You can chose to strategically to suffer handicap to your advantage. So it is not mandatory. I am not so sure how things work in VIC 3, but if I am not mistaken if you have more rivals you gain more authority ... no? Why is that not magic?
Also, I think the game "forcing" you to be faced with some countries that are much more likely to oppose you may not be a bad thing. Obviously there are places where the system can be upgraded, like a better logic of what countries are valid targets, more reasonable rivalry distances (in my last EUIV games I've constantly seen Denmark rival someone in Africa), etc. Also, maybe there should be circumstances where rivals would still work together against an even bigger threat. So more treating rivalries as countries competing with you in a shared sphere of interest and not enemies to the death.

Also, looping back to the number of rivals you have to choose, maybe social values of Belligerent vs Conciliatory could help here. Want to have less rivals? Get conciliatory values. Seems like a logical fit to me if there's a problem with the number of rivals.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
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.
 
Since there was Poland mentioned in the screenshot. have you fixed Poland's borders? I mean the fact that Duchy of Inowrocław shouldn't exist and it should be a core territory of Poland and not it's PU. 2nd that there should be added Duchy of Gniewkowo, a vassal of Poland, with location Gniewkowo occupied by Teutonic Order. (Poland shouldn't be at war with TO to begin with. Casimir's III first diplomatic action as the King was to extend truce with TO.

In 1314 Duchy of Inowrocław was divided among the sons.
In 1327 Bolesław Dobrzynski and Władysław Garbaty who jointly ruled Dobrzyn exchanged Dobrzyn for Duchy of Łęczyca
In 1327
Przemysł Inowrocławski Duke of Inowrocław exchanged his Duchy of Inowrocław for Duchy of Sieradz
Kazimierz III Gniewkowski (not Casimir III the Great) Duke of Gniewkowo he didn't exchanged lands and remained the sole vassal in the Kujawy region of Poland in his Gniewkowo after/before peace in Kalisz.

1743007902014.png
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions: