• 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:
You will have lower Antagonism base value - but the Antagonism bomb for having invaded their neighbours/allies will probably VASTLY out number the base.

If you stop invading and let your antagonism tick down then the Italian states will, over the centuries, consider you acceptable. The Southern German states would probably still consider you foreigners.
Idk we haven't seen what a culture bomb looks like yet so we can't tell, I was just express a worry I had.

Aside from that it also feels weird that nations that consider you foreign will be more and not less likely to join coalitions against you. When I think about a foreign country I am not immediately hostile, rather I'd be neutral: I would want to keep myself out of their politics. Idk if it makes sense to add those modifiers for "foreignness" to antagonism, maybe a new counter for "how much a nation is willing to make deals and pacts / remain neutral with you" would be better, although at that point we've gone back full circle to opinion (considering that different religion and culture is counted inside that, like in eu4).
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Some questions regarding supply lines. I hope its not too late to get these answered.

  1. Is it possible for the player to intentionally redirect supply lines to their units, either to group them together or spread them out?
  2. How visable are enemy supply lines inside your land?
  3. If a supply line is broken will the game attempt to auto path another alternative. If so how long does it take for the new supply line to reconnect.
  4. Is there a convenient way, beyond forts, to cut off supply routes? For example if an enemy unit is being supplied through a border province "A" and I cut it off by sending a unit into it, then another supply line is created through province "B" beside it, will I have to keep moving my army back and forward between the two provinces every time the supply line resets to keep cutting the enemy off? Are units able to project a zone of control over supply lines like forts?

I think it would really be an interesting option to be able to force enemies out of deeper parts of your nation by target unprotected supply lines at the borders. It would force troops to left behind to protect the flow of supplies, limit the amount of troops that could be commited the further into another nation you go organically, and add another dimension to the usual total war that every war in eu4 turned into.

Beyond just that in general I think the game should limit your ability to direct 100% of your forces anywhere at one time.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
İ am unsure about the price of generals (and potentially other characters?) been linked to your economy. While some costs should indeed scale, having everything scale was one of the worst feelings in Crusaders Kings, as you never felt you actually improved the richness of your country.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Let's say Frisia (Frisian Freedom) is a vassal of Holland, and an IO is created for its independence. IF rebels were to spawn in West-Frisia (provinces Hoorn and Alkmaar), would they join on the side of the IO, or would they only be "friendly" to the nation they can possibly join (Frisian Freedom)? Having rebels automatically join the IO as opposed to being just a wandering army on the map would probably work rather well, as it could be the impetus for declaring the independence war, as there is suddenly a shift in the balance of power.

Maybe declaring an independence war should make it so that areas which used to be part of the vassals core area suddenly see a drastic rise in separatism?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
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.

View attachment 1271790
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.

View attachment 1271791
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!

View attachment 1271792
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.

View attachment 1271793
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.

View attachment 1271794
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.

View attachment 1271795
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.


View attachment 1271796



Next week we’ll go through the mixed collection of all other major changes we have done..
Just a random question and not sure wether it has already been answered, but would it be possible to, for example, switch sides in a war? So when multiple vassals are fighting for independence, some might choose to settle to gain some land or concessions in order to switch sides and aid the crown
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I've heard people suggest before that armies should be able to hide in forts or refill garrisons, I think a gameplay-friendly way to do this is to dictate that whenever an army captures a fort, the garrison in that fort is filled up with manpower from the army, and armies also have a button allowing you to take a fort's manpower at the cost of leaving it undefended, or convert the manpower in a fort into regiments. I think fort garrisons taking manpower is a big missing component of warfare alongside attrition and supply lines.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Is it planned to be able to attempt to convert heathen nations as an Abrahamic nation, at least pagan ones through missionary expeditions or what not? If religious differences are one of the biggest factors in increasing antagonism, wouldn't converting heathens be a smart strat to prevent/delay coalitions?
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Antagonism
...
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.

View attachment 1271791
Should we wait for a new mechanic that directly links internal tolerance (or intolerance) to external effects based on factors like foreign culture group, language family, religion, government type, or societal values?
  • For example, if a country like the Ottomans is tolerant toward its Orthodox minorities, could that lead other Orthodox nations to reduce their antagonism toward them? Conversely, if they choose intolerance toward Orthodox or even Hungarians, would that increase tensions and push up antagonism between Hungary and the Ottomans?

I remember and know that with AE, culturally similar countries, like neighbouring pagans or Catholics, didn’t add as much AE value when you conquered an Orthodox country.
That was an external effect, though, and not really tied to any internal mechanics. We just had events—like converting Hagia Sophia into a mosque—that affected neighbouring countries' opinions, but those were isolated cases and not part of a systemic mechanic.
If we had a proper mechanic for this, it would add a sense of realness and also force us to think twice before acting against certain minorities or their estates, considering how it aligns with our external policies. That would also bring a roleplay element into the game. After all, we can erase a country from history, but not its entire population. If we could feel the weight of that in both internal and external affairs, it would be really satisfying, in my opinion.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
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.

View attachment 1271796
  • A historical example would be Gustavus Adolphus at Lützen—despite his death in battle, the Swedish army didn’t just collapse. Instead, they regrouped under Bernhard of Saxe-Weimar and even managed to win the fight.
I’d love to see a mechanic that lets us replace an empty general/admiral seat during battle if they die in combat. Early on (ages), it makes sense that losing a general causes the army to flee since command structures were heavily centralized, but as military doctrine evolved, armies became more reliant on tactics, formations, and discipline rather than just one leader’s abilities.

Maybe there could be a military advancement for some nations that unlocks the ability to recruit a replacement general/admiral during battle phases?
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
yeah, no good ideas yet.
If you look at how rivalrys work in reality, you would rather get a debuff in diplomatic relations and trade towards them and their allies. Rivalrys breeds and justifies hostile actions and your rival and its allies knows it. The benifits would be that expanding and doing hostile actions at the cost of your rival would be more accepted by your own people and your allies. You would also have the opportunity of befriending your enemies enemy, it would not happend automatically like in eu4.

On the other hand having no rivals should come with its own benifits. If you dont have any rivals you would be seen as a more peaceful country and thereby more trustworthy. You would probably be seen as a more trustworthy trading partner and other countries would likely be more open to diplomatic proposals from you since they consider you less likely to be engaged in a war that could disturb their trade or disrupt their balance of security. Perhaps you could be more likely to be let in to international organizations if you are seen as less belligerent.

All in all the EU4 model of rivalry captured the benifits of having a rival well, but left out the benifits of not having a rival. You where also forced to rivaling someone by basically getting a debuff if you didnt. Hopefully we will get to see the benifits of having no rival and more choice in the matter in EU5.

This new game has already added a lot of features I have been dreaming of in many of the previous games in the EU series. Looking forward to the finished product and Great work!
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I don't know where it's better to ask about this here or in the reviews about colonialism, but I want to know about how the Treaty of Tordesillas will be implemented. Will it be scripted or could there be alternatives if some other Catholic country starts colonizing before Portugal and Spain. And will there be similar mechanics for other faiths?
 
  • 1Haha
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Yea, but Antagonism due to religion should decrease in Age of Absolutism and Age of Revolutions compared to Age of Traditions ,Age of Reformation

Actually I remember we had opinions regarding to religiond as Enemy, Neutral etc, these should also affect the value of Antagonism due to religious difference
I feel like that should also be dependent on a country's values. I don't recall if there is "innovative" vs "traditionalist" one, but obviously a very religious country should care more about it than a Revolutionary France that's trying to pull away from it.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
yeah, no good ideas yet.
Hello Johan, here is a rough idea of how I think it could work. It may overlap with one of the features you showed off here, but I think they could be tied together.

1. Competitive Interests (Antagonism Modifiers)


These are actions or objectives that put two nations at odds with each other:


  • Trade Node Competition:
    If Country A and Country B are both active in the same trade node, and Country B is actively trying to dominate it, then B would gain a +3 to +5 modifier toward antagonism against A.
    The stronger the trade competition—and the more central that node is to B's strategic goals—the higher the antagonism.
  • Strategic Objectives Overlap:
    If two nations have conflicting interests in the same region (e.g., colonial expansion, diplomatic influence), a rivalry becomes more likely. But rather than it being automatic, it should be scaled based on how much their ambitions actually interfere with each other.


2. Economic Interdependence (Negative Antagonism Modifiers)


Not every powerful neighbor is an enemy—sometimes, they’re indispensable.


  • Resource Reliance:
    Let’s say Country A is the largest global producer of paper, and Country B’s economy depends heavily on imported paper. This would apply a negative modifier to antagonism from B toward A—because rivalry would be self-defeating. The greater the dependency, the less likely rivalry becomes.
  • Supply Threats Trigger Antagonism:
    However, if Country A begins to restrict exports or loses access to key trade routes, this increases antagonism rapidly. The system should recognize not just what a nation has, but how much another nation needs it. Threatening a nation’s economic security should naturally push them closer to rivalry.

3. Dynamic Antagonism Spectrum


Rather than flipping a switch and saying "Country X is now your rival," I envision a spectrum of antagonism—a score or scale that reflects underlying tension.


  • If that score passes a threshold, rivalry becomes possible or automatic.
  • If it dips below another threshold, the AI re-evaluates and may remove the rival over time.

This way, rivalries are earned and evolve over time based on how nations interact with each other, not just static borders or scripted AI desires.
 
  • 5Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
I feel like the cost of hiring a new general/admiral shouldn't just scale directly to the economy of the country, because if your country is huge the cost would be ludicrous. There should be a soft cap to prevent a general from costing 5 bazillion ducets if you are playing China.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Bias shouldn't be based on simple parameters like religion, language etc. In real life country's 'bias' works around natural geopolitical points of its interest, and may change its direction depending on other party's actions.

E.g. USA naturally want to have control over the Panama Canal. So if Panama is okay with that, the US likes Panama, otherwise they didn't.

Maybe in-game bias should work around that points of interest
 
  • 1
Reactions: