• 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.
 
  • 207Like
  • 74Love
  • 17
  • 16
  • 9
Reactions:
Maybe what some people are missing is that it's probably mostly okay to have land in the "conquered" integration level. It's not optimal, it poses big revolt risks, but there's no overextension.

And, most likely, most of the Balkans will never be Ottoman cores in game (which honestly makes sense).
 
  • 8Like
  • 1
Reactions:
It is also not what happened in real life. North Wales and South Wales were not treated separately, but as a single unit.

What you're describing here is the Ottomans dealing with actual vassal states, which would be represented by the vassal state mechanics, not coring. They're not going province by province, but subject state by subject state (and these subject states weren't equivalent to provinces in the game anyway).

Also worth noting that Bulgaria is eleven provinces, not one. So in the system as it is described to work in this TT, it would be physically impossible for them to integrate it all at once immediately after conquering it, therefore I'm not sure how this explains how Serbia and Bulgaria were treated differently by the Ottoman system.

I don't think this particularly supports either your argument or mine. I would say that they couldn't core Serbia and Bulgaria within 200 years because they had low control there, you would say that they didn't want to because they would have low control there.
To the first point, yes, but ultimately that is a consequence of the fundamental abstraction that the game makes with regards to "balanced" regional sizes. At the same time, it does help to have the fidelity of province-sized integration for empires that didn't expand too much in this period. Maybe area-based integration should exist even in 1337, but at a much slower rate? How long would you say it took the English to really "integrate" Wales?

And yes, I agree with that assessment and would very much prefer to represent that sort of thing with subjects.

...wait, where'd you get that Bulgaria is 11 provinces? It's two or three, at least for this particular context (so, not including Vidin or the coast, for specifically talking about the Bulgaria that the Ottomans annexed which at this point had lost both Vidin and the coastline) depending on how you measure.

Regardless, I personally prefer the idea of integration being an active choice to be made regarding one's territories rather than a consequential happenstance of better transit, because to me it represents a different problem not captured by control: that of differences in language and culture. Things that aren't going to go away just because they're close by.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
That's probably it. We're talking past each other. I'm not convinced that "integration" and "core states" should be a thing at all.

To my mind, a core isn't really a thing. What it's trying to approximate is "long term province where we have a high degree of control/authority". Since control is a thing, we should have no need for cores in the game. If integration means to align the institutions of government to the central authority, then that's part of what control is. Can I really say that I have control over a region if it doesn't even have the laws and institutions that I want?
I think this system's answer to that is "no", hence why it caps the max control.

I, personally, find that there's benefit in distinguishing "ability for a state to administer a region" and "the state actually making an effort to administer a region". Just because you can, doesn't mean you do.
 
Hi!
Chiming in to ask, regarding the War Score system and the claim of difference from previous titles;

When I compare your sentences, "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."

to the information on the EU4 Wiki: "Warscore is measured using a number of different parameters: Occupied provinces. Battles won or lost, to a maximum of 40% in either direction. Blockaded ports, and met war goals. A met war goal will cause war score to gradually tick up for whichever side has met it, to a maximum of 25%."

Unless by "previous titles" you don't mean EU4, in what way apart from a 10% increase in battles won/lost score impact does the system differ?
Apologies for changing the formatting on the information on the EU4 wiki but I am a simpleton in forum-fu.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I think you are over using cabinet as a way of interacting with basically anything and I still do not like it. Not being able to promote migration, increase development and integrate land at the same time is a definite downgrade from EU4.
no.

Accepted cultures never convert, as accepted cultures are a part of your nation.
Victoria 3 did this and it's pretty bad. It's counterintuitive, it is ahistorical and I heavily dislike it. I hope you reconsider this. Isolation and othering has always been a hindrance to assimilation, whereas acceptance is mostly the gateway to it. I also fear the culture system simply lacks the granularity and gravitas of most other systems in the game, which is weird considering you made Imperator which was great with this stuff.

I also feel like peace deals could be included in this Tinto Talk as this is the size of a Saturday Building thread, which is very underwhelming.
 
  • 8
  • 6Like
Reactions:
Can you pay someone to declare war for you (for example, you’re a banking nation or maybe you’re geographically distant but want to weaken them or support an ally in the region) and/or to fight as an ally?
 
Perhaps this is not the right tinto talks for me to ask this but could a location's culture merge/shift the further away it is from the nation's power center?

For example if England conquered Croatia, rather than assimilating into English (since it would be pretty far away from England) perhaps the Croatian culture would shift into something of an Anglo-Croat culture? The further away a location is from the main power center of a nation the less likely it is to assimilate, but if it is not too far away then it may merge cultures instead.
 
I think you are over using cabinet as a way of interacting with basically anything and I still do not like it. Not being able to promote migration, increase development and integrate land at the same time is a definite downgrade from EU4.

Victoria 3 did this and it's pretty bad. It's counterintuitive, it is ahistorical and I heavily dislike it. I hope you reconsider this. Isolation and othering has always been a hindrance to assimilation, whereas acceptance is mostly the gateway to it. I also fear the culture system simply lacks the granularity and gravitas of most other systems in the game, which is weird considering you made Imperator which was great with this stuff.

I also feel like peace deals could be included in this Tinto Talk as this is the size of a Saturday Building thread, which is very underwhelming.
I:R being good about this? It has the exact same issue: if you grant a people citizenship, they can't assimilate. Literally the exact opposite way of how it worked, especially with the Roman Empire itself.

I think "accepted culture" for the sake of this game is something like an actual equal-in-all-regards culture, which is not actually especially common in this time period. Everything that I can think of it representing (Austria-Hungary as a prime example) is well outside the game's timeframe.

EDIT: Forgot about the PLC. I suppose that would be the prime example.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 1
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.
Will occupation be based on population, i doubt the Russian empire with its capital, and population/economic centers in Europe would care much if their enemies occupied half of Siberia for example.
 
"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".

So it basically works like in EU4 and incentives total war then...

A bit disappoiting at how this is still the same not gonna lie
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Victoria 3 did this and it's pretty bad. It's counterintuitive, it is ahistorical and I heavily dislike it. I hope you reconsider this. Isolation and othering has always been a hindrance to assimilation, whereas acceptance is mostly the gateway to it. I also fear the culture system simply lacks the granularity and gravitas of most other systems in the game, which is weird considering you made Imperator which was great with this stuff.
Also, for what it's worth (doing some investigating), I honestly think that the current system might be more correct for this period. Basically any sort of "cultural assimilation" for this time period was in many regards forced.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Maybe what some people are missing is that it's probably mostly okay to have land in the "conquered" integration level. It's not optimal, it poses big revolt risks, but there's no overextension.

And, most likely, most of the Balkans will never be Ottoman cores in game (which honestly makes sense).
That's not the issue. The problem is not that people think coring will be too difficult, the problem is that they think the process of coring will feel unrealistic.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I think you are over using cabinet as a way of interacting with basically anything and I still do not like it. Not being able to promote migration, increase development and integrate land at the same time is a definite downgrade from EU4.

I will take this over monarch points but there is still this bitter taste because a single feature is used for everything. I would prefer selecting policies for provinces or locations (for micro enjoyer) or general preselected policies (when you conquer much) about how you deal with the people and integration being a result of pops happiness rather than the cabinet working to... calm down the locals?

These policies could be sending manpower in those lands to pacify them (you lose access to this manpower until you recall the soldiers), or bribing the local nobility and burghers (giving gold to their estate), or putting another culture's noble in charge instead of the accepted culture of the previous holder (opinion increased for Breton noble pops and deacreased for French nobles if I conquer Brittany and it was owned by France for example), or giving the local peasants more freedom (spawns an annoying estate building but gets them happy), or just kill pops (horde behavior)... There are drawbacks for each policies and you can remove them years later.

Victoria 3 did this and it's pretty bad. It's counterintuitive, it is ahistorical and I heavily dislike it. I hope you reconsider this. Isolation and othering has always been a hindrance to assimilation, whereas acceptance is mostly the gateway to it. I also fear the culture system simply lacks the granularity and gravitas of most other systems in the game, which is weird considering you made Imperator which was great with this stuff.

I would enjoy two axis: integration - assimilation and domination - acceptation. The first axis determines if the culture change or not and the second if the pops are happy about it (integration + domination = special treatment like dhimmi status, integration + acceptation = austro-hungarian-like situation, assimilation + domination = forced assimilation and persecution, assimilation + acceptation = formal equality but with cultural universalism like the French republic).
 
  • 6Like
  • 1
Reactions:
To the first point, yes, but ultimately that is a consequence of the fundamental abstraction that the game makes with regards to "balanced" regional sizes.
No, I don't think this makes any sense. It would be much more reasonable for "Wales" to be a unit that England can interact with, rather than the arbitrary regions of "North Wales" and "South Wales". Likewise if Wales conquered parts of England, they wouldn't go around integrating specific counties, if they integrated anything at all, I argue would probably be sliced according to levels of connectivity to Wales rather than arbitrarily selecting some region.
At the same time, it does help to have the fidelity of province-sized integration for empires that didn't expand too much in this period.
I do think it could maybe alleviate some of my anxieties if the level of unit you interacted with varied depending on the size of your country.
Maybe area-based integration should exist even in 1337, but at a much slower rate? How long would you say it took the English to really "integrate" Wales?
Well the obvious "moment of coring" would be 1542, I think, though I'm not completely confident about that. The English conquest of Gwynnedh happened in the 1270s-1280s (though the English had ruled large parts of Wales since two centuries before that. So between ~250 and ~450 years depending on your reckoning.
And yes, I agree with that assessment and would very much prefer to represent that sort of thing with subjects.
Well, do you have any other examples that would support your argument?
...wait, where'd you get that Bulgaria is 11 provinces?
1727310287081.png

It's two or three, at least for this particular context (so, not including Vidin or the coast, for specifically talking about the Bulgaria that the Ottomans annexed which at this point had lost both Vidin and the coastline) depending on how you measure.
Vidin and Dobrudja were Bulgarian splinter states (both in the sense that they broke away from Bulgaria and that their populations were ethnically Bulgarian) which were also conquered by the Ottomans, therefore part of Bulgaria in a notional sense but not part of the primary splinter state. If you weren't referring to them, it wasn't clear, but

1. 2 and 3 are ALSO greater than 1
2. I don't understand Dobrudja and Vidin to have had significantly different fates, in terms of the process of incorporation into the Ottoman Empire, from the primary Bulgaria.
Regardless, I personally prefer the idea of integration being an active choice to be made regarding one's territories rather than a consequential happenstance of better transit, because to me it represents a different problem not captured by control: that of differences in language and culture. Things that aren't going to go away just because they're close by.
What is this strawman? Absolutely nowhere did I say that I think cultures should have no impact on coring. The immediate reason why Serbia and Bulgaria were not core parts of the Greek empire was because they were not Greek. However the whole point of this discussion is that we are debating what circumstances other than cultural acceptance could lead to the integration or coring of territory.

Obviously, I believe that cultural proximity should be a major factor in the rate of passive drift (if anything, cultural acceptance should do this by impacting control), and I think your attempt to lecture me about this is insulting.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I will take this over monarch points but there is still this bitter taste because a single feature is used for everything. I would prefer selecting policies for provinces or locations (for micro enjoyer) or general preselected policies (when you conquer much) about how you deal with the people and integration being a result of pops happiness rather than the cabinet working to... calm down the locals?

These policies could be sending manpower in those lands to pacify them (you lose access to this manpower until you recall the soldiers), or bribing the local nobility and burghers (giving gold to their estate), or putting another culture's noble in charge instead of the accepted culture of the previous holder (opinion increased for Breton noble pops and deacreased for French nobles if I conquer Brittany and it was owned by France for example), or giving the local peasants more freedom (spawns an annoying estate building but gets them happy), or just kill pops (horde behavior)... There are drawbacks for each policies and you can remove them years later.



I would enjoy two axis: integration - assimilation and domination - acceptation. The first axis determines if the culture change or not and the second if the pops are happy about it (integration + domination = special treatment like dhimmi status, integration + acceptation = austro-hungarian-like situation, assimilation + domination = forced assimilation and persecution, assimilation + acceptation = formal equality but with cultural universalism like the French republic).
Agree with everything in this post, and especially want to comment that I really like the "two axes" you outline and was thinking about suggesting essentially the same thing myself. It should be possible to have a minority that is not accepted culture, but still has rights that protect it from encroachment (to prevent destabilisation).
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I:R being good about this? It has the exact same issue: if you grant a people citizenship, they can't assimilate. Literally the exact opposite way of how it worked, especially with the Roman Empire itself.

I think "accepted culture" for the sake of this game is something like an actual equal-in-all-regards culture, which is not actually especially common in this time period. Everything that I can think of it representing (Austria-Hungary as a prime example) is well outside the game's timeframe.

EDIT: Forgot about the PLC. I suppose that would be the prime example.
I don't think the PLC is a particularly good example (that is to say, it actually supports your argument that such a thing was uncommon) since many Lithuanians including the entire elite became Polonised. Lithuanian culture was very much not equal to Polish culture, even though the Lithuanians had the same political rights as the Poles.

Also, I personally think that Austria-Hungary should actually be interpreted as two states in a close personal union, one with German primary culture and one with Hungarian primary culture. Magyarisation proceeded in the Hungarian half but not in the Austrian half.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
@Linbot#6018 (since at this point trying to keep up with... whatever example we were arguing about wasn't actually going anywhere useful to the actual point, which is how to better represent the process of integrating foreign-conquered territories and my contrived attempts at justifying the dev's approach weren't helping matters), I think my issue is mostly that I don't like the "passive gain" idea, since it was by no means guaranteed that there would be an actual desire from a state side of things to integrate a given location.

Egh... can't really think of a good system, personally. Any ideas of how you think this should work, as a broader mechanic of "integrated" versus "unintegrated" territory (not counting cores which are a whole other can of worms)?
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: