• 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 #30 - 25th September 2024

Welcome to another Tinto Talks, the time of the week when we give you new information about our entirely super secret upcoming game with the codename Project Caesar.

Today we will talk about how conquest works and how integrating the new locations you have conquered will work. With conquest, we are talking about how you take territory through warfare. For how the actual military campaigns work, I recommend reading Tinto Talks 22, 23 and 24.

Casus Belli
To start a war many feel that you need a casus belli for it, which we will refer to a CB for the rest of this talk. If you lack a CB and start a war you will gain some aggressive expansion and lose some stability. Now while this may not be something you may always want, it is a more lenient way to recover instead of spending precious paper mana like in EU4. However, there are multiple ways to get a CB in this game.

Now, Project Caesar does not have a ‘Fabricate Claim’ button that magically creates a CB on any nation, nor do we have a system of claims, but you have several different options to get a CB.

First of all, there is the super old school way of getting one from an event. This may not cater to everyone's playing style, as it is way too random, but if it was good enough for your parents back in 2001, it is good enough for.. Eh, n/m.

Secondly, we have the option of calling a Parliament and asking them to come up with a valid reason for war against a nearby country. This is powerful, but unless you have a high Crown Power, you may need to negotiate with your Estates for their backing. And Parliaments can not be called every month either, democracy is not even invented yet.

Finally we have the way of creating a CB, when there is a more or less legitimate way to one. First of all, creating a CB on a country requires you to have a spy network in the target country, similar to how claim fabrication works in EU4, but you also need to have some sort of reason to create the type of CB you want. If you let's say play Denmark and want to take back Skåne from Sweden, as you have cores on it, then you can create a ‘Conquer Core’ CB on them, or if they have used Privateers in sea zones where you have a Maritime Presence, you can create another CB on them. There are 50+ different CB you can create depending on circumstances, including everything from ‘Flower Wars’ for countries of Nahuatl religion, ‘Dissolving the Tatar Yoke’ for the tributaries under that International Organization, or ‘Humiliating Rivals’.

war_overview.png

31 allies and subjects for Bohemia, hmmm…

Just remember.. No CB is best CB!


War Goals
Whether you decide that a small border adjustment is needed, or you wish to wage a total war, you need to pick which War Goal you wish to pursue. Different casus belli will allow you to pick different War Goals and the War Goal you pick impacts the cost of conquest as well. A conquer CB will make taking land cheaper, while a ‘humiliation CB will make them more expensive.

A War Goal for a province requires you to occupy that entire province, while a Naval Superiority War Goal will give you a bonus score for blockading the enemy, and defeating their navy if possible.

If your War Goal is fulfilled then the warscore from it ticks up to a maximum of 25, and the total impact from battles in this game can be worth up to 50, while occupations and blockades have no cap and can reach over 100 warscore if possible.

In Project Caesar, therefore, not every war is necessarily a total war like some previous games we have made.

If the War Goal is not fulfilled, it is only possible to get 100% War Score if the winning side controls all of the losing side's locations, and the losing side controls no towns or cities.

This means that if you have your wargoal taken care of, winning some important battles and occupying some land, you will be able to force a reasonable peace on someone.

war_goal.png

Give me liberty or ehh.. annexation?


Integration
So what do you do then, when you have signed a peace and got some new land to your country?

First of all, it is not as simple as a location being a core or not, as Project Caesar introduces a new system of integration for locations. There are four states of integration in this game, first of all the conquered locations, which have a high separatism, lower control, and make pops unlikely to convert or assimilate. This is the state of any location you conquer that is not a core of yours. When a location becomes integrated, separatism drops to one fifth of the previous levels, and control has a higher maximum. When a location becomes a core, the minimum control is higher, and your primary and accepted cultures grow more, while minorities become stagnant. We also have the colonized status, which is after you have colonized a location, and it is not yet a core. A colonized location has lower maximum control.

What is separatism then? Well, it is the reduction of satisfaction for pops that are not of the primary culture. This is very likely to make the locations very unproductive for quite some time.

A location becomes a core automatically if it's integrated OR colonial, and at least 50% of the pops are of the primary or accepted cultures of that country.

core.png

It is beneficial to get your locations to become your cores…

How do you integrate a location then? Well, this is the challenge in Project Caesar, as you do not have any magic paper mana to spend on it, but instead you need to use one of the members of your cabinet to integrate it. At the start of the game, a cabinet member can integrate an entire province at once, but in the Age of Absolutism you have an advance that will let you integrate an entire area at once.

This integration is not instant, but depends on many factors, like the status and the population living in the locations affected, but on average integrating a province may take between 25 and 50 years.

integration.png

And what are all of these factors then?


Stay tuned, as in next week's Tinto Talks, we will talk about how peace treaties themselves work, and which ones we have.
 
  • 208Like
  • 74Love
  • 17
  • 16
  • 9
Reactions:
How often does the AI use no-cb vs claims? Claims would give the player more time to prepare and not be too surprised and or frustrated at a declaration of war.
I feel as though these is an ideal ratio of something like 15% of the time the AI uses no-cb, 85% of the time they use a claim.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
The question of how to legitimise a casus belli for non-core provinces still remains unanswered, I think. I understand creating a CB based on core lands owned by a different tag, but how do you create a CB by demanding lands you do not have a core over if we don't have a claim system? Is this through the parliament or the spy network? Or perhaps both?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
It does seem a little weird that you could conceivably conquer a marginal province at the beginning of the game and never integrate it at all. Maybe provinces could integrate on their own with a super long timer, like 200-250 years.
Honestly, if you had some spot where you just... left people to their own devices, without much influence from the state (they get to write and follow their own laws, in their own language, with their own native administration with only some lip service and taxes paid to an overarching state that they barely get much in the way of benefits from) for 200 years, I'm not entirely sure they'd then integrate themselves into the overarching state apparatus.

Like, it's not costing them anything to do their own thing.
 
  • 8
  • 1Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
It does seem a little weird that you could conceivably conquer a marginal province at the beginning of the game and never integrate it at all. Maybe provinces could integrate on their own with a super long timer, like 200-250 years.
I would add to that requirement that you have a control over certain level of that territory.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I think that hordes (army-based countries?) and maybe some other tags (like the Ottomans, other Turkic bayliks, ... ) should have much smaller or no penalty to stability in case of no-CB war, but quite higher aggressive expansion penalty compared to others.
That would represent that their society was focused on expanding and conquest and to make defensive coalitions against them easier. That is quite historically accurate in the firs approximation.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I have a few questions.

1) Do i understand it correctly, that no CBing will be less punishing that in EU4? Will your parlament and estates be upset if you no CB?

2) Why did you guys choose to bring back ticking wargoals? I feel when i play EU4 that if i declare war for a single province, and then take it, having to sit around for a few years to get a meager 25 warscore really just incetivises me to go and push much further. And when i go further, why not take more land whilst i am at it? It feels like alot of the reasons EU4 wars end in total war everytime is still in this system. I fail to see how this system encourages smaller wars, something EU4 desperately needs atm.

3) Will it be much cheaper to take your wargoal than other parts of opponents lands?

4) What can we do in the peace deal other than take land and presumebly money? I liked some of the options HOI4 have added, such as taking ships, and demilitarizing an area. Can we depose the enemy ruler? Forcefully change their laws? I just love peace deal options!

5) Can i declare a war with a cb for multiple different provinces? if i say have CBs to take skåne, Halland and Blekinge, can i declare for all 3 at once?

6) Will there be systems for taking land without going to war? EU4 had a threaten war system that often felt a little underwheling and in need of reworking. Will i be able to occupy an area without declaring war, like Denmark historically did to Skåne.

7) Have you guys considered using another word than core? I always thought it was a weird name for it. If i play France and take Catalonia, it feels weird that integrating it will make it part of the core of France, despite not even being French. I typically associate "core" with the most essential part of the nation. Italy was the core of the Roman empire. It was especially weird with the "territoial cores" in EU4. Calling a part of the county that wasn't fully integrated a core part of it is a bit odd.
 
  • 7
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Honestly, if you had some spot where you just... left people to their own devices, without much influence from the state (they get to write and follow their own laws, in their own language, with their own native administration with only some lip service and taxes paid to an overarching state that they barely get much in the way of benefits from) for 200 years, I'm not entirely sure they'd then integrate themselves into the overarching state apparatus.

Like, it's not costing them anything to do their own thing.
You have plenty of examples for that period when laws where codified - including system of administration - for the entire country, without giving much thought into individual provinces. Keeping one area with separate laws would require more work.

In such a situation integration will slowly take place.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
pardon me for asking but this seems a little... slow? as in I feel like I wont be able to get any territory at productivity near my starting for a lot of the campaign.

Edit: im fine with it being slow, but this makes it seem like smaller nations are at a huge long term disadvantage since even after they expand they still wont get their new lands as functional for a very long time.
Small nations should indeed be harder. Paradox never wanted to make a fully balanced game, and it's good that one can't conquer all of Russia as Riga in 50 years
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't know how accepting cultures works, but is it possible to accept a culture to get cores on their provinces, then unaccept the culture (in case the system is like EU4 where you can only have so many accepted cultures)
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Just to confirm, does accepting a new culture speed up integration?
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
You have plenty of examples for that period when laws where codified - including system of administration - for the entire country, without giving much thought into individual provinces. Keeping one area with separate laws would require more work.

In such a situation integration will slowly take place.
What you describe is actively flipping over the local laws of recently-conquered places into the state apparatus.

If you conquer a place and tell the people "the laws have changed and you now must do X, Y, and Z", you are actively integrating.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
I hope PC doesn't follow the same approach as EU4 regarding war goals. In EU4, when you pick a specific casus belli—like one based on naval friction—you’re limited to demanding certain things from the AI, which diminishes the value of war goals outside of conquest (with the exception of humiliation wars, which also offer some strategic advantages). In my experience, I rarely initiate wars with these goals unless I misclick or want to roleplay.

This system creates an imbalance where you can devastate your economy just to demand something relatively minor, like an embargo or the annulment of diplomatic ties. While the intention is to add depth to the diplomacy system and emphasize that war isn’t only about territorial expansion, it ultimately feels restrictive. Diplomacy in times of war is fluid; alliances shift, sides change, and new powers can emerge. However, EU4 maintains a rigid, binary view of conflict, where peace demands are closely tied to the initial casus belli, even if the scope of the war escalates.

I hope PC will allow more flexibility, so that different war goals don’t strictly limit what players can demand in peace negotiations. A small-scale skirmish for toll rights could spiral into a large-scale conflict, and by the end, the victors should be able to demand whatever fits the outcome of the war, not just what was tied to the initial war goal. The course and consequences of the war itself should influence what can be negotiated in the peace deal, not the predefined war goal.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
A question to clarify: So a newly conquered province will have it's unaccepted POP happiness reduced, and thus these POPs don't produce as much? But, if theoretically my POPs would be soooo happy, that separatism has no big effect, then the POPs there would produce as much as if it was my core?

Not accounting for any lack of control, I mean.


Also: we really need to know how accepting cultures is going to work now, since that seems to be an incredibly important part of coring land now.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Please make gaining CB from spynetwork or from an another source automatic. I always forgot that in EU4 and even with a lot of more countries in PC it would be a hassle.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
This depends on the level of integration the subject had, the culture of the locations and the type of subject.
Can you promote the growth of your culture within a subject, e.g. if a player England has Scotland as a subject can they promote English culture in Scotland or is that only possible after you have annexed Scotland?

Is there a way to encourage growth of primary culture pops more than accepted pops? If not it may be tricky to get your primary culture to grow to be the primary culture in areas currently dominated by an accepted culture.
 
  • 2
Reactions: