Tinto Talks #31 - 2nd of October 2024

[GrandEurypterid]

In regards to AE- perhaps certain interactions could cause a 'minimum AE'? Representing, for example, countries like Albania or the United Kingdom refusing to stop making angry noises at the local regional hegemon. Basically, if you gather AE against certain polities, it won't decay beyond a certain level until certain conditions are met.

For example, you could use this sort of thing to implement a 'balancing' effect- EU4 is at its best when you're on the verge of local hegemony, so making it increasingly harder to avoid coalitions if you're massively stronger than all your neighbours could be both fun and realistic (sort of like Imperator defensive leagues, but less frustrating due to being reactive rather than an arbitrary point of difficulty spiking). Similarly, it would make having local allies much more important for invading forces- making it a matter of carefully playing local powers against each other to break up coalitionary risks, rather than simply marching in or navally invading and being done with it.

 

[Nostalgium]

"To be able to take land, you also need to have control over the province capital."

Im a bit worried about this statement. It may make sense in Europe centric playthroughs, but for "long range" wars so to say, its not great.

Imagine I play as Japan and get in a war with Russia to take land. Do I really have to go half a globe away to Moscow to siege it down, even if I decisively win in the east? Seems kind of unnecessary and my army should not even make it there in good shape, if at all alive.

Moscow is not the province capital, it's the capital province. The province capital is the location that serves as the capital of the specific province. So in your Japan example, you'd need to occupy Vladivostok to take land on their southeast Pacific coast.

 

[Miguelinileugim]

Can't we just have uncapped peace deals (well over 100 warscore if you've completely dominated them) but with some sort of organic reason to deter us from just taking over the entirety of France in one go? I'd imagine aggressive expansion would be enough?

 

[Cephei80]

This is just EU4's system with a few extra limitations.

Why do you say that it's not possible to introduce two-sided peace deals when a similar system already exists in vic3? You can even exchange land during peace time.

I understand that having N options on both sides would increase the complexity dramatically, but maybe you could solve this by putting some hard limit on what the winning side can offer to sweeten the pot (like only war reparations and maybe provinces that fall with severely restricted criteria, e.g. non-core provinces that are a core of the losing side etc).

This could be a good compromise.

Also, the favour system is extremely gamey and does not lead to a realistic simulation. Why not force the AI/player to give concessions to each winning party based on their war contributions? Huge empires conquering the world for me just because my diplomats had been licking their boots makes no sense.

You could offset this by making warscore cheaper the more great powers are fighting in a war, so that even if you only get a part of the warscore, you still get the same amount, although at the cost of potentially strengthening a future rival (i.e. your present allies)

I also hope that the alliance system will be more fluid and based on actual geopolitical interest rather than eternal alliances and random rivalries.

that similar system in vic 3 failed

players cheese it
ai is confused about it
you will see a nation win a war then give away a core province
its ugly , its unrealistic , its chaotic , its not needed , its only good in theory

bilateral peace was rare , more rare than naval battles in medieval days and we have no naval battles in ck games ever

 

[Erbeilas]

"To be able to take land, you also need to have control over the province capital."

Im a bit worried about this statement. It may make sense in Europe centric playthroughs, but for "long range" wars so to say, its not great.

Imagine I play as Japan and get in a war with Russia to take land. Do I really have to go half a globe away to Moscow to siege it down, even if I decisively win in the east? Seems kind of unnecessary and my army should not even make it there in good shape, if at all alive.

No no, he's talking about the capital of the province. If you want to take Vladivostok, you have to control the capital of the Vladivostok province, not Moscow.

 

[pheonicia]

Instead of favors and land? Like a monetary promise?

I'd certainly be more willing to help my ai allies if I knew I was going to be reimbursed a fixed amount of gold for every point of warscore I earned. Not sure if I would ever call in the ai for money though if I can still screw them over by not giving them land or call them in for free with favors.

 

[philipschall]

I totally get why sticking with an upgraded old system is the sane move from a development standpoint, but the old system sure had some issues.

In this version, are there at least systems in place to prevent every war being a total war with full mobilization on both sides, where the AI doesn't peace out until it gets 100%? Can enthusiasm drop depending on the wargoal? If, for example, a trade war fires with the war goal price being trade concessions and monetary reparations, can the enthusiasm drop on both sides drastically once the price of the concessions are met in the war? If it's an insult or humiliation war, can there be less appetite for it to be a multi-year debacle?

Or, depending on the war, the price of everything outside the wargoal increases drastically, but the wargoal has a quicker tick with no cap to warscore, leading to extracting maximum concessions without it becoming a years-long siege-slog for a trade, insult, or humiliation war.

 

[perceval350]

that is one of the goals of the game, to have alliances less static.

But wouldn't systems like favors and trust encourage long lasting alliances and hugboxes?
Truces were one of the most arbitrary/frustrating mechanics in Eu4 for me

 

[Xuarion]

Kind of an edge case, but can appear often when everyone goes vulture mode :
What happens if another country takes your war goal in another war peace deal (even as a separate peace of the same war technically) :

• You can just ignore the condition to take the war goal & take what you want.
• It become kind of no-cb war ?
• Something else ?

 

[perceval350]

it currently depends on the warscore used.

Is AI also a problem that stops you from making less rigid truces ?

 

[Old_Sealand]

just that coalitions use the new IO systems

Oh yeah, that was the thing. Was hoping to see more on that part, how it works exactly.

 

[BabyBuffalo]

Just to clarify. If we declare war for a province, are we still able to peace out for JUST things like money and war reps? Or are we required to take the wargoal for anything beyond a white peace?

I assume the restriction is just for things like taking land, but I want to make sure.

 

[Ispil]

Is peace cost scriptable?

 

[Mid Ocean Ridge Basalt]

I am quite glad that Paradox decided NOT to implement "two-way" peacedeals. Why they do have some historical basis, ingame they would just be used for cheesing purposes.

 

[Polesie Admiral]

Yes, exactly.

In EU4, the money I get from my enemy is automtically split up.

Sometimes I can only satisfy my ally if I give him 2 or 3 provinces and thats a big limitation.

It would be easy to assign the money manually to my allies to make them happy.

Money is one of the most important resources in the game and in the real world (even in the 14th century). So it would make sense.

Also as I said, for the human player it would be more attractive to join AI wars to get some money out of it.

would also be interesting to form alliances for land, money and whatnot

 

[Octopuses69]

I am very happy to see there are no 2 way peace deals. That would be so easy to abuse and would make the game too easy. Would work for multiplayer but definitely not against AI.

However, I wish we got some changes/improvements overall instead of just copying the EU4 system. AE for example in EU4 often feels either too punishing or not punishing enough. Coalitions don't feel good too. Even if you keep the same system, I wish you would build on it a lot more (not just having couple more peace deal options like destroying forts).

 

[Irredentista]

That's blatantly false. Treaties including bilateral concessions were the norm.

Whether if was financial concessions for land transfers, the application of utis possidetis, or some other type of concession, just go read any of the peace treaties signed in that era (war of Spanish succession, polish succession, etc)

Vic3 might not have the best system but it's better than nothing.

 

[Lude_has_come]

There are things that are frustrating with the eu4 peace system, so I am not exactly thrilled to see the system being recycled here, even with some added complexity. One such problems is seeing a nation ally with multiple opm's one continent away, forcing me to traverse multiple deserts and mountain ranges to get them out of the war if I want a 100% peace deal. Not to mention, while it was acceptable in eu4, in Project Caesar it will be maddening because of a more in depth attrition and supplies system. Like, is a Bohemia fully sieged for years going to defiantly refuse peace because Schittenhollen, Poopeni and the mighty city of Weakensko have still not surrendered, while they just didn't engage in a single battle during the whole war? That's how it would play out in eu4, and I do not want a flawed sytem being introduced in a game that may exacerbate its defects.

How about making it that a country that did not engage in combat or sieges does not make the others more willing to fight, aka doesn't count towards the global warscore calculation? Or could it be a gradual thing depending on the level of involvement? And maybe add a mechanic that changes the willingness of a country to be active in the war depending on what they have to gain. For example, if the war target is the rival of your ally or the ally has territorial/economic interest there, not only is he more likely to join but also to be active. No more dead ai doing nothing without a good, predictable reason and no more siamese and ethiopian troops in southern France.

 

[RedRosalia]

Well dang. I expected something more than this. War and peace will again feel bland, unalive, and unintuitive. A lot of hope and excitement for this game just died. I hope you all rethink this. These types of one-way peace deals are truly uninspiring.

 

[Cephei80]

Just to clarify. If we declare war for a province, are we still able to peace out for JUST things like money and war reps? Or are we required to take the wargoal for anything beyond a white peace?

I assume the restriction is just for things like taking land, but I want to make sure.

it will be like the older games , you will use your warscore points to earn them
as for conquering the province capital thats just the condition to include it but you still must have the points for it
its just like imperator