Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #64 - Post-Release Plans

[aGamingMonkey]

Just my two cents after playing a lot. Most of these feel like good things to focus on.

I think most issues with war fronts can be resolved by using strategic regions. Too many fronts? Combine fronts within the same strategic region. Too few fronts? Split fronts along strategic regions.

I had hoped for an infamy revision in the diplomatic play. If I'm not mistaken currently there is no difference in claiming an incorporated state compared to an unincorporated state. Meaning that claiming a big African state from France as Germany would give you so much more infamy then it would if you claim Alsace Lorraine for example.

I'm kind of saddened that there is no mention of production method splitting of single buildings. It would allow for so many more things. Like upgrading to more advanced production methods requiring construction points. With PM splitting it could be done one building level at a time. This would also allow for more autocratic/conservative plays as there would be an even bigger cost to industrialize (which many argue is too easy right now)

It would also allow for the idea that foreign investment can happen when the stock market is unlocked. Where you have a stock market building in your market capital that "produces" all the profit of publicly traded companies. It can grow like a trade centre and buildings you build in another country can have it applied automatically so your pops still profit off of it. But most importantly, the country in which it is build can still build their own levels with their own ownership PM. So it's not first come first serve with the middle eastern oil wells.

Lastly, I'd like to congratulate Martin, Mikael and the entire team. What an incredible game. All the mechanics operating and interacting makes it feel like you're playing with a giant clockwork machine. Quite fitting for the time period it is set in.

 

[priamossz]

Yeah I've got a few outstanding notes to myself to see what I can do to address that but not make it a painful process as a result. Don't want to just nerf tech spread into the ground though, need to find that middleground. But I am keeping eyes on it, and if you don't see it in the next few patches thats because I'm working on a few other things first.

one solution could be to add additional filler techs between some of the most outstanding techs no? It could even build into new trade goods or other fun stuff to fix this issue. Bare in mind I havent bought the game yet (my PC too old), its just a suggestion.

 

[Burma Jones]

What other paradox titles occupy all your time with war? I don't spend all my time with CK focused on war, I spend most of it plotting and scheming, but I am appreciative of the fact that when I do have to fight a war I am in control. EU4 I don't spend the whole game moving stacks, but I enjoy that I can. Same with the other Paradox titles I play. HoI being the obvious exception, but even then I spend a large amount of time doing things other than microing units. This idea that having control of warfare detracts rather than adds to the strategy in these games is simply asinine.

Yeah but the war in those games allow for genuine player control and aren't purposely designed to be opaque and hands-off. No one is saying we want the game to be nothing but warmongering or whatever. We just want to be able to actually control our own military instead of letting AI generals RNG them to ruins. Why does that bother people like you so much? It's not like it'll affect you or that the current autopilot system will disappear. We just want the option to control units. Is that okay? Sheesh.

 

[TiagoJRToledo]

There's plenty of games for those of you who enjoy moving toy soldiers around and want to play a wargame. Not just Hearts of Iron, but previous Victoria games (unfortunately), Europa Universalis, Crusader Kings (though it looks like they're also finally trying to figure out how to make toy soldier warfare less of a distraction from the primary mechanics), Stellaris, all the Civilization games, all the Age of Empires games, Humankind, basically every computer strategy game out there, board wargames, even a lot of city builders keep trying to tack on toy soldier warfare for some reason including the Anno series... the list goes on.

Your way has unfortunately been done as the convention for how warfare is designed in strategy games for three decades with no real innovation. It's old and stagnant. Time to let people try something new. Yes, it might end up that your way of thinking goes from being 100% of the market to only 90%. Maybe even 75%! Oh no, your way still dominates the market by far, the horror! Oh no, another way of thinking might actually be popular and something people want, how dare!

"There's plenty of games for those of you who enjoy producing and moving commodities around and want to play an economic simulation. Not just Anno 1800, but previous Anno games (unfortunately), Patrician, Tropico (though it looks like they're also finally trying to figure out how to make commodity production and transportation less of a distraction from the primary mechanics), Transport Fever, all the Railroad Tycoon games, all the Port Royale games, Factorio, basically every computer strategy game out there, board games, even a lot of city builders keep trying to tack on commodity production and transportation for some reason including the Caesar series... the list goes on."

I hope you recognize that your argument isn't as sound as you think. You seem to be purposefully forgetting all the economic simulation games that saturate and saturated the market, and that they were actually the norm way before current Grand Strategy games.

 

[EwaldvonKleist]

Very nice!

What I missed a bit was the economy.
1. General economic AI.
2. Trade improvements, fixing of the infinite money loop

Trade value calculation leads to infinite resource loops and infinite money.

I'm having lots of fun with the game. But there is a pathology with the way that trade value is calculated that seems like it can lead to trade loops that in effect create arbitrarily large free resources, free incomes for your pops, and free...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

3. Incorporation of some AI inprovements modders have made, e.g. better Autoexpand mod: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2879922071

 

[Monkey89Brains]

I never said that in other titles was a bad thing! I was merely making a comparison. The frontline system makes sense for HOI4, and the systems EUIV and CK use make sense for them as well. I just think it also makes sense that Victoria 3, given its timeframe and that unlike HOI4 it is not a wargame first and foremost, has a different war system that doesn't require nearly as much constant direct attention from the player.

The game can focus on one system without removing player agency from another. The war systems in these games are not deep, I would argue even HoI does not do war all that well, yet they allow player agency in the other systems even if they are not the focus. It baffles me that people are defending a game where agency on a core system is taken away from them.

 

[Burma Jones]

The feedback is coming from players who would prefer the micro focus to be the other way around. The players who are content with this existing placement of player micro are not making much noise.

As a design choice it's nonsensical though. They don't want too much "micro" or tedium so they neuter the player's ability to engage in war, but then they refuse to create a similar hands-off system for economics?

I am aware the people who do and do not want army micro are two different groups. That doesn't address what I said at all though.

 

[IndigoRage]

From what I see on wikipedia map, to get initial borders you need Wallachia, Moldavia and Dobruja and Romania needs at least 3 provinces to form so it's possible?

Nope. The Kingdom of Romania you are looking at does not have South Dobruja or Bucovina, which in Vicky3 terms would make them both partial states. You would only be 1/3 states towards formation. You need to take land from the Ottomans, Russia, and Austria to form Romania.

Prior to the image you are looking at, a single prince was selected to rule both Wallachia and Moldavia in the 1850s. This period is referred to as the "Old Kingdom" or the "Principality of Romania" (which was also an alternate name for Wallachia in any case). A Romanian nation-state de facto existed during this time. Just Wallachia and a partial (in game terms) Moldavia.

 

[wilcoxchar]

It seems odd that you refuse player agency with warfare but insist on never allowing a hands-off system for the economy, even when the vast majority of feedback touches on these things specifically.

In an economic strategy game you're going to mostly be doing stuff with the economy, so most of the game mechanical detail (micro) should be on doing economy stuff, while other areas don't need as much detail. Much like how in a wargame, you're mostly going to be doing war stuff so most of the game mechanical detail (micro) shold be on doing war stuff, while other areas don't need as much detail. It's only a few people who don't understand this who are complaining. They just are good at complaining very loudly like any vocal minority.

 

[Miguelinileugim]

I think that we should be able to start a "conquer five states" diplomatic play. If this means war is 100% guaranteed to happen then so be it! Perhaps that's what we wanted all along!

 

[Tadhg]

The sooner the "I want to be able to plant my army in a mountain to abuse the AI" (strategy!) folks reach the Acceptance stage of grief the better.

why should that not be a thing? its the main countries like reason ethiopia and nepal weren't conquered within the games time window in real life.

 

[Mucsaccso]

Instead of trying to actually focus on what the players like about their games, this team chose to knowingly alienate a portion of the crowd for really no reason

It's not true at all that the war system's change was done without any reason. It was communicated since the beginning, that the focus won't be on war, as it should be only the extension of diplomacy, as Clausewitz wrote. Instead of the traditional war-centric gameplay, they put the emphasis on society and economics. And that's not a bad idea, considering that these two are always important and war depends on them, while war is only important during war.

They had their reasons. You don't have to agree, I also have several problems with the game design, but don't say that it was without any reason.

 

[wilcoxchar]

As a design choice it's nonsensical though. They don't want too much "micro" or tedium so they neuter the player's ability to engage in war, but then they refuse to create a similar hands-off system for economics?

I am aware the people who do and do not want army micro are two different groups. That doesn't address what I said at all though.

I really don't see how hard it is to understand that an economic and societal strategy game should have its gameplay centered around managing the economy and society. Like what else are you actually expecting to do in such a game?

 

[alanschu]

Why not leave an option in the menus for those who want it? It won't kill anyone. Let those who love this system and will go to their death with it keep their fun, no problem. But why not let those who like a bit of micromanagement in managing their army have their fun too? Just an option in the menus, just a little something available. Why are we stuck with something that has to be black and white just for the sake of some farted out principles of never admitting that you went a little too far in one direction without leaving a little workaround for those who didn't want to follow you?

I suspect it's not a trivial addition.

It'd probably be easier to allow a building automation option for people (that they could turn on if they had Laissez-Faire or something) that just leverages the existing systems for AI building factories/RGOs as that is something that is actually present in the game.

If there's no concept of an individual army unit they'd need to construct it, the ways to move those around, and that isn't going to be a quick addition. So the reality comes with opportunity costs on spending time working on that versus other stuff.

 

[BrokenSky]

The second area is historical immersion: While we have always been upfront with the fact that Victoria 3 is a historical sandbox rather than a strictly historical game, we still want players to feel as though the events unfolding forms a plausible alt-history, and right now there are some expected historical outcomes that are either not happening often enough, or happening in such a way that they become immersion-breaking. Again, in no particular order, some areas targeted for improvement in the short term:

• Ensuring the American Civil War has a decent chance to happen, happens in a way that makes sense (slave states rising up to defend slavery, etc), and isn’t easily avoidable by the player.
• Tweaking content such as the Meiji Restoration, Alaska purchase and so on in a way that they can more frequently be successfully performed by the AI, through a mix of AI improvements and content tweaks
• Working to expose and improve content such as expeditions and journal entries that is currently too difficult for players to find or complete
• Ensuring unifications such as Italy, Germany and Canada doesn’t constantly happen decades ahead of the historical schedule, and increasing the challenge of unifying Italy and Germany in particular
• General AI tweaks to have AI countries play in a more believable, immersive way

We're balancing cultural/religious tolerance laws by having more restrictive laws increase the loyalty of accepted pops, so there is an actual trade-off involved.
View attachment 901288
​

In the same vein as this, in my first game I noticed that as my country became more developed, the power of the devout interest group waned a lot, despite continuous support from my government. While browsing the files, I found that it looks like the devout IG is basically only supported by clergy, aristocrats and peasants, and that as literacy went up, devout attraction went down (compare intelligentsia, who receive support from all literate pops). This seemed rather strange considering that the church ran all the schools, the universities and the hospitals.

Is it worth having another look at pop attraction in that sort of system? In particular it seems to me like if you have Church Schools, Literate pops should support the Devouts (and likewise if you have Private Schools, they should support the Industrialists and possibly the Petite Bourgeois). State Schools pushing literate pops to support the intelligentsia makes sense still?

 

[Faeelin]

Any thoughts to nerfing developing nations? I have never seen the AI pursue a treaty port because the Qing raise millions of men.

 

[Tadhg]

I really don't see how hard it is to understand that an economic and societal strategy game should have its gameplay centered around managing the economy and society. Like what else are you actually expecting to do in such a game?

Victoria isn't just a game about economics and society, it is a game about STATECRAFT, a thing which economics and politics are two important elements of! Do you know what else is important about statecraft? Ensuring your state survives so you can continue to craft it how you see fit! THAT is why military is important.

 

[TempestM]

I really don't see how hard it is to understand that an economic and societal strategy game should have its gameplay centered around managing the economy and society. Like what else are you actually expecting to do in such a game?

People told you many many times. You can manage economy AND have agency in wars. We already know this from previous games, it's not a theory

 

[acidsun]

Trade could use some tweaking as well, with stuff like:
- Making it easier to know which countries have a high demand for a good you have a high offer, so that you can then declare an interest there and trade with them. Doing this manually is ineffective
- Make the AI export more to players when they notice a good is in high demand. There's not a huge different between free trade and protectionism because you almost never have to protect your market and infant industry because the AI almost never export more or less aggressively to your market, but mostly import.
- Make it so that trade routes start counting from the nearest port, and shift the convoy burden to the inner routes. It's weird how Cuba spends a lot of convoys to export to the US but 0 to export to France, and other weird stuff when you are in someone else's market but far away.

 

[TempestM]

Any thoughts to nerfing developing nations? I have never seen the AI pursue a treaty port because the Qing raise millions of men.

I've seen them do this. And have beaten Qing. Also once Qing and Heavenly Kingdom split in two and they latter just gave me a port without a war. So maybe their willingness to press demands or fold needs tweaking