• 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:
I see your point. I hope @Johan will clarify this for us :)
He already did in a earlier post.

Cabinet Member/Action is needed to integrate.
Impossible without.

Cabinet Action continues if member dies although it is slower until the cabinet member is replaced.
If cabinet member dies, all that happens is that the progress is a bit slower until you assign a new member.. that is true for ALL cabinet actions.

And it can be paused
yes, it can be "paused"
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
It does feel to me like there should be some sort of mechanism dealing with recently lost land in a war. Say France loses a province to England. Once the truce is over, it feels pretty counterintuitive that France does not have a CB to reconquer the lost land for a period of time and must instead go through all the same hoops just as if the land was some other core province that wasn't part of the country.

Practically speaking, it makes the player less afraid of the AI coming back around on them once a truce expires. Say you opportunistically snag a province off a more powerful nation while they are embroiled in some other war. Once your truce with them expires, if you know they are going to have a CB on you for that land for a period of time you are going to be more cautious than if you know they have to go through a process to create a CB. And while the AI may very well do so, it also may not and you're in the clear.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
is there some kind of consolidate region CB allowing you to atack several smaller nations in a region or something similiar? sounds annoying to have to create a new CB with parliament for 10 OPMs in the same area individually
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
Reactions:
I like how this impacts wars against medium-large states (it wont be easy to conquer Denmark in one war, say) but I'm not sure how it will work on smaller states - if I have a claim on one province against a nation of three provinces, is there any real disincentive to just full annex them after I win the war?
 
How will succession issues get you CBs? Like say I change my succession law so that my nephew the king of spain or whatever who was previously my heir is not anymore and instead my daughter is, will Spain automatically get a CB since I displaced them as heir?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I know that cores are supposed to influence control, but shouldn't it also be the other way around? Higher control means you can integrate/core something faster?

Also I really wish the core/integration system wasn't just "click on provinces one by one and wait for the cabinet action to finish". That seems rather shallow. Wouldn't it be more interesting for it to also passively gain over time from stuff like market access, road building, and culture acceptance?
 
Last edited:
  • 5Like
Reactions:
I still wonder how you are going to ensure that each war is not a total war, which is a big problem in eu4. Although it is always fun to see 80k Ming troops crossing the Tibet to defend the super important and strategic country of (insert any random tag in the world's ass) I don't see how you are going to limit the AI from sending 100% of its military capacity every time they help an ally even if it is in the most distant and smallest conflict in wich such force is unnecesary, or even do it for the player aswell. We need some sorf of "scale" of importance in such conflicts
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Got an interesting suggestion from our community:
It would be interesting to see markets as a hierarchy of markets. Instead of just one big market there should be one big market with every country having it's own market (like in Victoria 3), state market and province market.
This concept is not mine and I could imagine this would be a headache to implement, but it sounds interesting (if not considering a lot of micromanagement and logistics issues).
 
no.

Accepted cultures never convert, as accepted cultures are a part of your nation.
for peoples who disagree with johan about this , they are like saying that a southern american or southern french or a napolitane or a bavarian or a north english should be converted to the culture where the capital is located overtime .
an accepted culture will often have its region , it wont need to fade overtime to the central culture because this never happen anywhere
if only peoples think twice before giving that dislike to johan as if they have a better more logical alternative such as maybe making liverpool and manchester culture slowly become londoner over time ? is this your counter to what he say or do you just dislike for the sake of it ?
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
This all seems... pretty bad to be honest. It seems like Paradox is trying to cater to a small subset of forumposters who have a very skewed version of history. This is a view that looks like Anno 1404, where conquest barely ever happens and nations become powerful mostly through internal development. It's a fantasy.

Restricting wargoals is silly. This was a time when "Might Makes Right" was in full swing. Giving a generic way for any nation to fabricate a CB on a neighbor was an improvement from EU3 --> EU4. Why are we regressing?

The implicit early game speed limit of 2 provinces every 25-50 years is *absurdly* slow. EU4 already had gigantic problems modeling rapid conquest that was hardly an uncommon occurrence in this time period. The rise of the Ottomans, the Mughal conquests, the Ming-Qing transition, the Mongol conquests (which occurred just before the timeframe), etc. EU4 tried to do some bandaid fixes 8-10 years after it was released, but most of them suffered from being far too ad-hoc, or even tag-locked altogether. I would have hoped EU5 would try to improve on this by adding in something like Imperial Challenge from I:R. Instead, it seems like EU5 isn't even trying to improve in this regard, and we'll need to suffer through years of Partitioned Egypt being the norm.

Obviously things can change, future dev diaries can have more info, etc. but this start doesn't look promising.
 
  • 22
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
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.
I am not sure I see why being integrated more tightly into your state's system should make people that do not see themselves as part of your nation feel more satisfied than before.

What real life effect is integration supposed to represent anyway?

And what gameplay effect is it supposed to achieve? Is cultural hostility and the control system not a strong enough drawback to conquest?
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
EU4 has a lot of interesting tags with cores at the start date, many of which are gone after exactly 25 years due to core decay. How does core decay work in Caesar?
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
This all seems... pretty bad to be honest. It seems like Paradox is trying to cater to a small subset of forumposters who have a very skewed version of history. This is a view that looks like Anno 1404, where conquest barely ever happens and nations become powerful mostly through internal development. It's a fantasy.

Restricting wargoals is silly. This was a time when "Might Makes Right" was in full swing. Giving a generic way for any nation to fabricate a CB on a neighbor was an improvement from EU3 --> EU4. Why are we regressing?

The implicit early game speed limit of 2 provinces every 25-50 years is *absurdly* slow. EU4 already had gigantic problems modeling rapid conquest that was hardly an uncommon occurrence in this time period. The rise of the Ottomans, the Mughal conquests, the Ming-Qing transition, the Mongol conquests (which occurred just before the timeframe), etc. EU4 tried to do some bandaid fixes 8-10 years after it was released, but most of them suffered from being far too ad-hoc, or even tag-locked altogether. I would have hoped EU5 would try to improve on this by adding in something like Imperial Challenge from I:R. Instead, it seems like EU5 isn't even trying to improve in this regard, and we'll need to suffer through years of Partitioned Egypt being the norm.

Obviously things can change, future dev diaries can have more info, etc. but this start doesn't look promising.
this is the best way to preserve nations instead of having that giant ulm by 1500.
this is how historical nations preserve their borders for a deep run . i literally use command consol to preserve countries from disappearing only 150 years in to ridiculous CB . beside mongols and ottomans no country was able to swallow a whole country in this period and last time ottomans did that in europe was to hungary where they only conquered 2/3 in the 1500s and to tunis after that.

in stellaris we didnt get a galaxy with 10+ nations in late game till CB and hyperlines were corrected and thanks to this we got a functioning senate and post late game galactic civil wars if anyone try to become the senat .
i am personally tired of a HRE with 3 nations a century in so a slow game with complex geopolitics is the way to go . if you go the arcade way you are free to go to eu4 or do the no CB is best CB

also "Giving a generic way for any nation to fabricate a CB on a neighbor was an improvement from EU3 --> EU4. Why are we regressing?" this is only good if you want to steamroll your way , that is still possible as stated but it will require a mature approach this time such as having a spy network and a parliament debate.
sorry but i call this progress not regression .
 
  • 9
  • 5
Reactions:
You will be able to force peace at 100 WS even though you occupy maybe 25% of the country, and have won most of the battles and have the War goal under control for some time.
Would it be possible to have a system (maybe game option?) that prevents taking land that is not occupied?
The idea being is that you don't have forces to take over the basic administration at the start.
 
  • 4
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Is there going to be a way to represent overextension of states? Currently in EU4 overextension is just such a temporary thing but in reality it made a lot of states really unstable and unable have more direct control if they were overextended administratively and militarily which often lead to more autonomous rule the larger the states were.

Perhaps having a lot of unintegrated or uncored land could affect how much control you could have over non-core lands. That could fairly represent how there were states that simply weren't able to derive as much resources from all the territory they nominally were sovereign over. This includes states like Spain, Ottomans, Mughals and others.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
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’.

View attachment 1192808
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.

View attachment 1192807
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.

View attachment 1192806
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.

View attachment 1192805
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.
Hm, so is there any equivalent of overextension? In that timeline Ottomans could swallow entire empires in one chunk, will it be possible here?