Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #7 - Laws

[safferli]

Sigh. I can't stay off the forums for a single day, it seems.

Let's get back to game-related discussions, please.

 

[Vladimir Pavlov]

Thank you for the diary. I was thinking, that it would be great if Bureaucracy and / or Secret Police laws affected the level of information about the population that player has access to and its accuracy. We take for granted that the players always know how much population they have, and what are their needs, and what are they up to, but it actually takes quite an administrative system to keep track of that.

 

[CrackingShow]

Will parents stop sending their children into the factories if the wages of the parent(s) increases to such a point that they no longer need the children working for the sake of the families income? Or am I compelled to ban child labour to prevent children dying in factories.

 

[crowdemon]

Interesting diary, thanks Paradox.

 

[DominusNovus]

Without running afoul of the mod’s warning, it would be interesting to have a lot of nuance in the relationship between church and state (and if the previous discussion had cut out the sniping back and forth, it had a few valid points to make).

But don’t mind me, I just want to form a integralist-syndicalist pan-slavic Intermarium (albeit anachronistically early).

 

[dragonluke]

Without running afoul of the mod’s warning, it would be interesting to have a lot of nuance in the relationship between church and state (and if the previous discussion had cut out the sniping back and forth, it had a few valid points to make).

Yeah, hopefully we can have christian socialist countries (or other forms of religious socialism)

 

[Clophiroth]

Yeah, hopefully we can have christian socialist countries (or other forms of religious socialism)

That would be a cool achievement

"Jesus was the first communist: as a Christian country, establish a theocracy with a Cooperative economical system"

 

[rodgerdavies]

Excellent diary thanks, really enjoyable read.

 

[Churchum]

@lachek this Dev Diary has inspired my first comment of the Victoria 3 forms, and I've been playing Paradox games for some time.

I was wondering if the government type would affect the time it takes laws to be changed. For instance if you had a absolute monarchy would it be possible just to pass laws instantly. Thinking of Russia, Prussia, Japan and others, governments with no "parliamentary system" let's say.

Looking forward to Vicky 3

 

[Leoreth]

Enacting a Law is far from an instantaneous, one-click affair. First off, any reform must be supported by at least one Interest Group in your government who can champion the change. Once the reform has begun it can be a smooth process that’s over in a matter of months, or it can take years of gruelling debate in parliament or horsetrading between Interest Groups in order to pass. The amount of time it takes depends both on your government’s Legitimacy in the eyes of the people, and also on the Clout of the Interest Groups in your government that supports and opposes the new Law relative to the one it’s replacing. While broader coalitions of Interest Groups in government give you more options of Laws to enact, it also complicates getting them passed.

Changing your laws isn’t an entirely straightforward process in Victoria 3! In this case it’s just a matter of time before the Law is enacted, but if dissenting Interest Groups had also been part of this government there would be plenty of room for Debate and Stalling tactics that could cause this reform to take more effort than it’s worth.
View attachment 742133​

This is a bit vague about what the actual "win condition" for an attempt to pass a law actually is. Do I need the approval of enough interest groups so that their political clout adds up to 50+% of the nation? Everyone in my government? Everyone in my government AND at least 50+% clout?

The use of the "siege mechanics" UI suggests that it's more of a push-and-pull system where interest groups are pulling the law to either success or failure depending on their clout, but does that mean that 50% never actually has to be reached?

The way I am reading this, only interest groups that I have invited into my government are participating in this push and pull, and I need to be careful to include interest groups that would hinder laws that I want to pass. But why do I need to invite them in the first place, besides the ability to propose a law that they are championing? When is their political clout useful to me, except in situations that I want to pass a law they support?

Does passing a law that an interest group that is part of the government is opposed to cause any opinion penalties beyond the effect of that law being in effect? In would assume that inviting someone into your government and then passing policy that is opposed to their desires would cause hard feeling beyond just a disliked law being in effect. Like many others, I think the legitimacy penalty for having too many interest groups in your government is an ill-conceived counterbalance to such an approach.

In my opinion, having many interest groups in your government should be balanced by the fact that you inevitably have to pass laws that are opposed by interest groups in the government, and have to not pass laws that these interest groups want to see passed (because they are opposed by another IG in the government). A government containing too many IGs should be inherently unstable because they are hard to keep all happy, and there should be a mechanic where an IG leaves the government (maybe with an associated political crisis) if its demands and interests have been ignored and overridden too often and for too long.


Lastly, I understand that you do not want to introduce another time period to put a law into effect after it has been passed. Can I suggest that passing a law still takes up some of your bureaucratic capacity for a period of time, at least for laws where that makes sense? Many laws involve setting up entirely new institutions (e.g. expanding the police force, establishing public schools, establishing an authority to oversee workplace safety), which should reasonable tax your administrative apparatus. I think it's both strategically interesting and desirable from a historical simulation perspective that nations with a solid bureaucracy are more capable at reforming their society without adverse side effects.

Yes, I think serfdom should be represented in a similar way, by allowing/disallowing it in certain states.

I hope that's not going to happen, it sounds like a micromanagement nightmare. Like others, I am hoping for some sort of federal system with sub-regions following their own laws, but if that means that laws have to be managed on a per-state basis I wouldn't consider that a great solution. Approaches that give client nations like Hungary or Finland their own laws make sense, but that's hardly a solution for the United States and questions like slavery and other powers left to the states.

 

[Somberg]

This is a bit vague about what the actual "win condition" for an attempt to pass a law actually is. Do I need the approval of enough interest groups so that their political clout adds up to 50+% of the nation? Everyone in my government? Everyone in my government AND at least 50+% clout?

The use of the "siege mechanics" UI suggests that it's more of a push-and-pull system where interest groups are pulling the law to either success or failure depending on their clout, but does that mean that 50% never actually has to be reached?

The way I am reading this, only interest groups that I have invited into my government are participating in this push and pull, and I need to be careful to include interest groups that would hinder laws that I want to pass. But why do I need to invite them in the first place, besides the ability to propose a law that they are championing? When is their political clout useful to me, except in situations that I want to pass a law they support?

Does passing a law that an interest group that is part of the government is opposed to cause any opinion penalties beyond the effect of that law being in effect? In would assume that inviting someone into your government and then passing policy that is opposed to their desires would cause hard feeling beyond just a disliked law being in effect. Like many others, I think the legitimacy penalty for having too many interest groups in your government is an ill-conceived counterbalance to such an approach.

In my opinion, having many interest groups in your government should be balanced by the fact that you inevitably have to pass laws that are opposed by interest groups in the government, and have to not pass laws that these interest groups want to see passed (because they are opposed by another IG in the government). A government containing too many IGs should be inherently unstable because they are hard to keep all happy, and there should be a mechanic where an IG leaves the government (maybe with an associated political crisis) if its demands and interests have been ignored and overridden too often and for too long.

I feel like political parties would partially resolve the issue of not having a reason to include certain interest groups in the government. There would be some you have no choice but to have in government because there are other interest groups in the same party you find desirable to have in order to pass certain laws. Of course this would only be the case for those countries that have parties but in also makes sense in a more autocratic form of government to only champion those interest groups that don't interfere with your agenda as the player. I think it would be interesting though because then the player has the choice of whether to just ignore that interest group they didn't want and face the consequences or maybe decide to try to placate it to avoid the consequences of an unstable governing coalition.

It would be a way to give penalties for passing laws one or more interest groups in the government oppose if implemented properly. Destabilizing the governing party by pissing off interest groups within its coalition could have the knock-on effect of making the passage of additional laws more difficult until the next election or require horsetrading where you pass a law an interest group is opposed to but balance it out by agreeing to pass a law they want in return in order to prevent such penalties from kicking in and keeping the party united. Or you couldn't and intentionally destabilize it in order to elect a different party the next election or cause the party to splinter. There's more that could go along with this, this is just one idea.

I am curious how it works in the current system, it does seem like there's some issues with how the player would manage interest groups that might have competing interests in government. It is also clear that the devs intend to incentivize the player to include certain interest groups in the government as it was mentioned in the Reddit preview post that if you don't have the interest group that the Head of State champions in the government you would end up taking a hit to legitimacy.

 

[Arbus]

I hope that's not going to happen, it sounds like a micromanagement nightmare. Like others, I am hoping for some sort of federal system with sub-regions following their own laws, but if that means that laws have to be managed on a per-state basis I wouldn't consider that a great solution. Approaches that give client nations like Hungary or Finland their own laws make sense, but that's hardly a solution for the United States and questions like slavery and other powers left to the states.

Why would it be a micromanagement nightmare? If slavery is abolished, at a national level, then slavery is abolished in all states. If slavery is allowed, then some state allow it, some don't, as in the antebellum United States. To manage state laws I imagine you would have access to a proper interface, like the one you use to build buildings and infrastructure on a state level. So it's not that complicated to add some laws as well.

 

[grommile]

For instance if you had a absolute monarchy would it be possible just to pass laws instantly.

king: decrees a thing
also king: "Oh, hello, committee of eunuchs, priests, bureaucrats, and wealthy magnates, what brings you all to my chambers this fine—urk!"

 

[Lorehead]

king: decrees a thing
also king: "Oh, hello, committee of eunuchs, priests, bureaucrats, and wealthy magnates, what brings you all to my chambers this fine—urk!"

Or sometimes,

King: I want everybody to do something.
Bureaucrat: Sure, I’ll tell everybody what Your Majesty said.
[Time passes.]
King: Why isn’t anything happening?

 

[GrafKeks]

Or sometimes,

King: I want everybody to do something.
Bureaucrat: Sure, I’ll tell everybody what Your Majesty said.
[Time passes.]
King: Why isn’t anything happening?

This is the reason the army IG is better on your side :O

Monarchies at least absolute ones should start with laws that allow for more authority and maybe monarchies itself should let you boost IGs easier. Or something else, they should be viable at least cookie-cutting playstyles are rather boring. And considering the topic arises far too often, I dislike authoritarianism, even though it's a good meme. I am talking from a game perspective. Everything should have at least a small benefit in some area. Slavery for example is good for landowner-income.

 

[Samitte]

Cool DD, with some interesting stuff. Looking forward to seeing whats under the hood here as well!

Conscription lets you raise a part of your civilian workforce as soldiers in times of war

Will this be like in Vicky2, gradual and across a wide area? Or stick to Vicky 2 (or maybe Imperator's model) of instant and perhaps localized?

Also, how moddable is it. Can we change the troop outcome based on cultures? (For example, mobilizing Bedouin pops gives cavalry). Or will it just spawn infantry for everyone? (And once again, can this be changed for mods?)

That is all for me this week! In this dev diary I mentioned Institutions a number of times, and next Thursday I will be back with more details on this powerful society-shaping tool. Until then!

Looking forward to it, the glimpse in this DD looks super interesting!

 

[Shadowstrike]

I'm sure I'm not saying anything new here, but I'm concerned this one-size-fits-all model misses out on the specifics of how different parliamentary designs had precise effects on blocking some kind of legal changes, or making it easier to make others in specific circumstances (by magnifying the power of some interest groups, or by giving them outsized vetos to new legislation). For instance, the bicameral design of the US - specifically with a Senate based on representing states (combined with the Missouri Compromise), and a House that inflated the number of representatives from slave states (since slaves counted as 3/5th of a person for representational purposes, but had no vote, thus artificially inflating the voting power of voters from slave states) - played an important role in making it very difficult to abolish slavery in the US. Later on, the creation of numerous new Western states had a corresponding shift in terms of the influence of agrarian versus mercantile factions. The British Parliament went through several significant changes in this period - the gradual weakening of the power of the Lords to block legislation, changes to the franchise due to Reform Acts (and the concurrent change in which areas would represented in Parliament), made it easier or more difficult to pass various reforms. Then you have examples like Imperial Germany, where Bismarck was able to concentrate power by specifically limiting the franchise in Prussia to the wealthy, and then used that to control the more egalitarian Reichstag. Or Austria-Hungary, which operated as effectively two separate countries that shared a monarch, army and foreign policy, and had frequent crises as a result of renegotiating the balance of power every decade.

To put this into more precise terms, I feel like the game should model both the number of subnational units, and also the number and composition of parliamentary bodies/houses, how those are elected (or otherwise chosen), and what powers are devolved to each body. This would then in turn affect how many veto points there are, how strong the opposition or support of interest groups are in each of those bodies, and which veto points they can use to delay or block legislation. To use a specific example, if you were the US and wished to abolish slavery, you would have to somehow overcome the slaveholder interest group, which holds vetos in the House (by number of Congressmen) and the Senate (by number of slave states). You might have to bump up the number of pops in free states to overcome the House veto, or somehow buy off enough of the slave state Congressmen, and then also somehow either create a ton of new free states, or disempower the existing slave states (which ended up happening IRL when they withdrew to form the Confederacy). Or alternatively, you could somehow overthrow the Congressional system and do it extrajudicially, or create new bodies/shift powers of bodies around to let you do it (all of which would probably create other conflicts if you tried any of them).
It wouldn't just be you clicking on the "end slavery" law, and then having to overcome -10 slaveholder IG opposition.

 

[Leoreth]

Why would it be a micromanagement nightmare? If slavery is abolished, at a national level, then slavery is abolished in all states. If slavery is allowed, then some state allow it, some don't, as in the antebellum United States. To manage state laws I imagine you would have access to a proper interface, like the one you use to build buildings and infrastructure on a state level. So it's not that complicated to add some laws as well.

First of all, Slavery being allowed nationally does not imply that individual subnational units have the authority to ban it. In fact, not even the existence of subnational units should be considered a given. So those are already additional cases.

And yes, even with a "proper interface", it would be too much micromanagement. First of all, there are laws besides slavery. Can every law specifically be enacted on a state level as opposed to the national level? Do all of them have an additional national setting that decides whether states (or other subnational units) have control over it?

But either way, any interface would have to accommodate for displaying which laws are enacted in which states, and also provide buttons to interact with them. I assume you do have control over state laws? Which rules do they follow, anyway? It can't use the rules described in this DD because they rely on IGs and their clout, which are national. Unless you want to introduce state sub-units of the IGs that reflect their state's population? If so, even more stuff to display and keep track of as the player.

Honestly, I don't want to bother keeping in mind that Massachusetts has lower labour standards than Connecticut but better health insurance and a public schooling system. I don't think that's fun to do as a player at all.

As I said, I agree that there is some need to reflect federal states of various natures. But still, there's a wide gap between e.g. the United States and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and I am worried that discussions are dominated by USians that want their historical system replicated, even though it is pretty much sui generis for its time and should not serve as a template for a general system.

And I do think there needs to be some way to reflect the internal division of the US over which states allowed slavery and which didn't, because I don't see how to model the Civil War otherwise. I just don't think that goal is worth granularizing the entire law mechanics down to the state level.

To put this into more precise terms, I feel like the game should model both the number of subnational units, and also the number and composition of parliamentary bodies/houses, how those are elected (or otherwise chosen), and what powers are devolved to each body.

I think the game is much more well served with the abstract system they are describing.

Everything you are talking about can be modeled with it. You mention different national political systems that give different amounts of power to specific groups. The system is already capable of modeling that, the laws you can pass include stuff like the franchise which in turn determines how much political power an IG has. It's both flexible and still applicable to a wide spectrum of political cultures and circumstances.

It sounds like you want to make stuff like a bicameral system etc. explicit in the game mechanics, which I don't see as desirable. That's way too much "every country is a special case" for me, where either nations are hard coded into a specific political system, or specific political systems are implemented with special rules to cover specific prominent nations, leaving every other nations with subpar base mechanics and a system that is full of special cases. Not to mention that you would have to learn how a specific system works.

I much prefer the generic but versatile approach they are taking from what we know so far. And honestly, I am really worried they will still go down the path you describe when it's time to sell DLCs and we get the "US government DLC" and "British government DLC" and "German government DLC". EU4 already went down this road where every country eventually had their separate systems, leading to a disconnected game with neglected base mechanics.

 

[Chinese Gordon]

It’s good to see countries will start historically accurately.

Will there be parameters set to ensure they do not deviate from their historical path too quickly - unless of course some major player-induced incident occurs?

Like in HOI, my preference is historical realism, so will there be a similar Historical mode or will this not be necessary?

 

[Vernichtere]

First of all, Slavery being allowed nationally does not imply that individual subnational units have the authority to ban it. In fact, not even the existence of subnational units should be considered a given. So those are already additional cases.

And yes, even with a "proper interface", it would be too much micromanagement. First of all, there are laws besides slavery. Can every law specifically be enacted on a state level as opposed to the national level? Do all of them have an additional national setting that decides whether states (or other subnational units) have control over it?

But either way, any interface would have to accommodate for displaying which laws are enacted in which states, and also provide buttons to interact with them. I assume you do have control over state laws? Which rules do they follow, anyway? It can't use the rules described in this DD because they rely on IGs and their clout, which are national. Unless you want to introduce state sub-units of the IGs that reflect their state's population? If so, even more stuff to display and keep track of as the player.

Honestly, I don't want to bother keeping in mind that Massachusetts has lower labour standards than Connecticut but better health insurance and a public schooling system. I don't think that's fun to do as a player at all.

And I have problems with the fact that the population is allowed to vote at all. To use the argument of gambling in order to force a central state to be installed is relatively weak.

On the contrary, it would be interesting for me to have to decide which rights to leave at the federal level and which to give to the states. There is nothing wrong with destroying US federalism in the game. I just want the option.

The option would also be important for states without democracy. My tsarist empire might want to create a tax paradise in a province to attract people or to prevent rebellions.