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

[Zer00]

I'm glad that the post-release plans seem to address most things that I've had an issue with aside from bugs and so forth. I would like to suggest that a better colonization system would also be worth looking into. Currently it's too mechanical and flavorless—none of the issues that cropped up concerning the natives and their treatment really factor in besides the stuff like another GP arming them to resist. Seems silly to give IGs agency and a way to influence politics but not the people that you're colonizing and/or repressing.

 

[coorta19]

To all those people saying that the lack of micromanagement in warfare is bad, be quiet and go back to hoi4. V2 wasn't a tactical anything.
The issue with war right now isn't the lack of micro, it's the inability to figure out what's going on.

And who are you to say what other people are supposed to do ? Everyone is entitled to opinion, wheter you agree with it or not.

 

[Soranya]

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.

Probably this is kind of realted to the overly high Literacy rates all over the world (even from the start i think?)

Anything on your plans for the current Economic Loop Trading and the stuck Wars - thos two currently kind of break the game for me.

 

[AceGoat]

Please fix multiplayer not working with mods! My friends and I have same checksum, same loadorder, etc but when we try and join eachother it says "Host is running different mods"

 

[TiagoJRToledo]

People really need to stop pretending they speak for the entire community like this.

Not speaking for anyone, only for myself.

But from what I've been able to gleam from user reviews, forum posts and the like, it seems that a very sizeable portion of the criticisms are related to the lack of interaction with warfare in general.

You can disagree, of course. And you may like it just like it is. More power to you. But I think that there's a healthy middle ground between the new war system and more optional controls over your armies and navies that the developers (and a sizeable portion of the community) simply abhor for no observable reason. There is a way to please both sides, but the developers simply refuse that possibility. And THAT is what's frustrating about it.

I also find the "micro in economy good, micro in warfare bad" arguments comically hypocritical.

 

[johnty5]

it's already lost over half of its playerbase according to Steam Charts.

I know people have differing views on the game - but can we please not do the whole "It's lost players since launch, so it's a failure/in trouble" thing?

Almost every single game spikes at launch and immediately falls back. It's not a sign of anything other than people are excited to play on launch day.

EU4 player numbers spiked on release day and then went down by 40% over the next 10 days. Stellaris' player numbers went down 43% over it's first 10 days. And HoI4's numbers went down by 51% over it's first 10 days.

 

[Fanstar1]

Please fix multiplayer not working with mods! My friends and I have same checksum, same loadorder, etc but when we try and join eachother it says "Host is running different mods"

I ran into a different issue when I was trying to play a game with some folks a couple of days back. Once we got into a war the game constantly was desyncing over convoys.

 

[AceGoat]

I ran into a different issue when I was trying to play a game with some folks a couple of days back. Once we got into a war the game constantly was desyncing over convoys.

I had this today too, was having a really good game with my friends (No mods installed sadly) and we went to war and then all of them had de-sync over convoys, completely ruined the save and that was that.

 

[Al-Khalidi]

Pliz pliz balance it so that its victoria 3 and not napoleon on amphetamine 3

France is waaay too powerful and other countries waay too weak (especially Brits and russians)

 

[Cymsdale]

I've found a game for you: Anno 1800. It's even in the same era! You're welcome

Really, those who disagree should check it out. Definitely no "toy soldiers", just pure Victorian economy. Meanwhile people who wanted actual Grand Strategy that combines all of those elements into one actually had no other series but vicky

I like Anno 1800 as well. Both are great games.

 

[wilcoxchar]

I also find the "micro in economy good, micro in warfare bad" arguments comically hypocritical.

This in particular is always funny to me, because it really speaks to a very basic misunderstanding of design. Micro in warfare is not bad, if the intended primary focus of the game is around warfare. It is bad when it's not the focus of the game, because then all it does is get in the way of the intended primary focus of the game. It's why HOI has such a simplified economy, so the economy doesn't get in the way of the warfare micro.

Different games are allowed to be about different things and have different levels of detail in certain areas depending on what each one is focusing on.

 

[TempestM]

I like Anno 1800 as well. Both are great games.

Great, at least that might settle "we never had game without war for us" argument

 

[toegut]

Meanwhile people who wanted actual Grand Strategy that combines all of those elements into one actually had no other series but vicky

just play Pride of Nations, dude /s

 

[Fanstar1]

I know people have differing views on the game - but can we please not do the whole "It's lost players since launch, so it's a failure/in trouble" thing?

Almost every single game spikes at launch and immediately falls back. It's not a sign of anything other than people are excited to play on launch day.

EU4 player numbers spiked on release day and then went down by 40% over the next 10 days. Stellaris' player numbers went down 43% over it's first 10 days. And HoI4's numbers went down by 51% over it's first 10 days.

(not saying this is exactly equivalent but) It does kind of remind me how people sometimes (intentionally or not) misuse box office figures and other statistics like that to "prove" that series x is flopping cause of y reason. They'll take a drop from week 1 to 2 that may be perfectly reasonable and point to that as if it is abnormal.

 

[Fanstar1]

Great, at least that might settle "we never had game without war for us" argument

Can't tell whether or not you are intentionally being facetious here, but Anno 1800 is pretty clearly in its own genre separate from Victoria 3.

 

[TempestM]

Can't tell whether or not you are intentionally being facetious here, but Anno 1800 is pretty clearly in its own genre separate from Victoria 3.

Yeah, and Vic3 being it's own genre is a reason to NOT call it just "economic simulator" like wilcoxchar loves because it's not. It's a grand strategy. Anno is economical simulator

 

[Squashyhex]

Really looking forward to these two. Being able to say to the AI "I will join you for this" as you would in multiplayer would be a big help.

As would expanding the primary war goal. The fact that I can't do a historical Mexican-American War because Mexico backs down every time (so it takes 40 years of truces to get all the states) is really annoying.

I don't know if it would be better to say "all these conquer state war goals are primary war goals" or have an option to reject a backing down. If I want to go to war, I should be able to. Maybe I want to go to war and cause devestation in my enemy.

Its a tricky one, because you don't want the player to be in a situation where they are trying to back down in a diplo play, and the AI (or other player in multiplayer) can forcibly go to war with you even though you've backed down. Maybe it should only be possible with like a 50 Infamy hit or something, or it reopens the Escalation phase and other countries are far more likely to side against you, particularly majors

 

[Imperialfish]

Please keep historical railroading to a minimum! Or at least include a game option to keep the alt-history more, well, ALT-history instead of just history! I want every game to be different, not like you've left historical focuses on in HOI4.

 

[TheGatherer]

I'm a longtime Paradox game player (Stellaris, EU4, CK2 & 3 and Victoria 2) and while I appreciate the sentiment of wanting to get to work, I must echo the sentiment that this game was *not* ready for Primetime.

That being said, I would like to highlight several areas you did not mention for examination, especially in terms of being a historical sandbox:

1.) France is, It must be said, far, far too powerful for this era of history. While post-napoleonic france (Circa the beginning of this game) was far from powerless, it was also not the all-encompassing land power that it had been in the early 18th century., and its economic power was held back by the lack of international trade presence and colonial holdings In the game, France remains utterly unassailable in Land combat for the entire duration of the game. Their offense and defensive strength are leagues ahead of other states, regardless of technological levels, and it becomes extremely frustrating to play against them in any European conflict unless every other Great Power jumps on them with both boots - and even then, the outcome is in doubt.

With this vastly superior land-army, France can overcome pretty much every single other negative in terms of Naval combat (It's navies suck, and spend most of the game sucking)simply by virtue of being able to *outlast* every single War. No one can invade the French mainland (I watched Austria, Germany, Italy and the UK execute a land-invasion of France Circa 1890s, and the Front never moved an *inch*.), ergo, no one can actually win a war against France.

Combine this with in-built advantages over *every other economy on earth*, including and *Especially* The British Empire, France is immune to all of the political turmoil and struggles of the 19th century. It sails through the entire game, utterly unbothered, unaffected, and indomitable in power, straight through to the Modern Age.

1b.) Added later in the writing of this post, Warfare needs a better 'win condition' against the Great Powers other than bankrupting them (by a miracle) or occupying their *capital city*. The restriction of imposing war-goals on someone unless you completely occupy their nation makes warfare a "Get there first" affair - Don't ever, not once, try to execute warfare on anyone in Europe. You'll always lose. Always. The AI can just wait you out.

2.) The lack of a Diplomatic-built-in function to stop major wars between The Great Powers is telling. It was the signature historical fact of the era that The Congress of Europe determined affairs on the continent for a century, before poor leadership killed it just in time for WW1. There should absolutely be *Some* kind of system in place - multiple maluses, at minimum - to prevent Great Powers from getting involved directly in wars with other great powers, at least until some crucial part of the tech tree (most lilely the one that allows for multiple alliances)

3.) Speaking of Great Powers, there also needs to be a nerf in the "Interests" System, currently allowing Great Powers to involve themselves in any - and every - war between powers on the planet. The UK and France should not be treating the Mexican-American war as an opportunity for a knock down, drag-out fight in Texas between British and French troops, which they have done *every single time* I have tried to start a USA game. Great Powers should not be dictating local affairs between nations unless they have a *genuinely vested* interest in the region. This should include, but not be limited, by things like Trade, Pacts, and set-in-stone diplomatic alliances.

Additionally, When a war threatens between The Great Powers, there should be additional roadblocks and exchanges between them to hash out the problem.

4.) The complete lack of flavorful nation-based events is incredibly obvious for anyone who has played Stellaris or even HOI4. Every single nation is interchangable with each other, excepting some very specific, small, early-game events. While this contributes to the "Historical Sandbox" it also completely obviates any long-simmering conflicts, interests, and political situations that existed *long* before the game start.

While you have already mentioned the civil war, and the Unification of European powers, there are other major historical things, early in the timeline, which should be *part* of the setting of the game. Tokugawa Era Japan should not be making full-blown alliances to Tsarist Russia during the Sakoku Decree - where are the mechanics standing in the way of that? Where are the major diplomatic hurdles towards overcoming it? France should not be able to dodge The Febuary Revolution (Not to mention it should be *deeply involved* in The Springtime of Nations) The Opium War causes are *well entrenched* by 1836. - why is England not obligated to respond to it? Why does U.S. Politics feel identical British Politics, Circa the same era, despite *massive* cultural and governmental differences? There is, of course, far more, but these are just The Big Points that come immediately to mind for 1836.

In a Sandbox world that completely lacks any dynamically generated events to give your self-built world narrative heft, you have created a world of identical nations, whose only true difference is in how powerful they start the game and how little your AI opponent interacts with it, other than to do things that frustrate you personally. Rather than making a sandbox, you have created a historical beige paste, with no flavor or substance to it, creating an unsatisfying experience even when you DO accomplish ridiculous ahistorical things.

5.) Alliances and pacts between great and minor powers *need* to better reflect the costs - and benefits - of such diplomatic agreements between nations of such vastly differing sizes. It is currently completely numerically impossible for the United States to impose The Monroe Doctrine in any meaningful way due to every single pact and alliance costing 100s of influence that the U.S. *doesn't have* in the early 1800s. Likewise, English political dominance over the Indian Subcontinent is basically equally impossible. Far from allowing a historical sandbox, VIc3 completely fails to let Great Powers create or expand specific sphere's of infliuence for *most* of the game, instead creating a vast multi-polar world, mostly dominated by France. (See Point 1.)

6. Lastly, at least for now, the single *greatest* failure of Diplomacy is that - once a DIplomatic play turns to War, it becomes *impossible* to intervene in it. Utterly contrary to historical realities, once two sides of a war square up, and the fighting starts, no one else can get involved. This leads to the hilariously a-historical failure of Texas Revolution, as a seemingly powerless US sits there and watches as Sam Houston gets his ass kicked repeatedly, or European Great Powers refusing to intervene in Prussia's offensive wars of unification, just as two examples. There absolutely, positively, *NEEDS* to be a way to get involved in political interests and conflicts post-hoc, and this needs to be a design *priority.*

I hope these thoughts are helpful. I have many other issues - The political governmental systems are identical to one another, and do not reflect the historical realities of the nations they are in, just as an example - But these are the truly big ones.

I *dearly* want this game to get better, to succeed. I loved Victoria 2. I want to love this game. But Victoria 3 makes it extremely difficult to love it, in any way, shape, or form.

 

[wilcoxchar]

I've found a game for you: Anno 1800. It's even in the same era! You're welcome

Really, those who disagree should check it out. Definitely no "toy soldiers", just pure Victorian economy. Meanwhile people who wanted actual Grand Strategy that combines all of those elements into one actually had no other series but vicky

The correct response to "there are thousands of games done in way A and few if any done in way B" is not "here's precisely one game in a completely different genre done in way B, why can't you be happy with that tiny piece of scrap?" It's extremely dismissive of the opinion of others and does not address the actual problem that there should be more games done in way B at all.