Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #73 - Open Beta and Update 1.2 overview

[FizCap]

That's a fair point, especially considering how significant the victorian era was for humanity. In my experience, changes do happen quite frequently but not in a very organical manner, like fascist France for the 35th time in a row. Perhaps a solution to that could be having more events related to political movements of the period for a particular country, or having more granularity between interest groups from different countries to allow local idiosyncrasies to arise more frequently, giving birth to movements advocating for things like, idk, afro-brazilian ethnostate. Would add a lot of depth and interesting flavors (like smoked paprika) to gameplay.

Rebellions do happen, I won't deny that. And I agree, the rebellions need to feel more dynamic. Like when the Russian civil war happened real life, there were so many factions involved but you won't ever get a scenario similar to the Russian civil war in Victoria 3. When a Victoria 3 rebellion happens, it's just a different government type and nothing else changes and I think more should definitely happen

 

[Chief of Staff]

Interesting. I wonder if the music player will show the name of the currently playing track? It took me a while before I finally identified the track I was interested in, which turned out to be the one called "Tea Time". One of my favorite Victoria 3 music tracks, by the way!

Exciting times! A while back, the possibility of a "reverse sway" mechanic -- basically, here's what you could offer for me to join your war -- was mentioned. Did that idea ever pan out? Of all the features that have been brainstormed in these DDs, that one sticks with me as one that could be a massive improvement to the diplomacy experience.

It won't be in patch 1.2, sadly. It's still something we're passionate about and are looking into adding in the future.

That's interesting. If the diplomacy mechanic could be significantly expanded in the future to better simulate the complex and intricate nature of the diplomacy, I might demand as a condition for joining the war that the capital of a certain country not be attacked, effectively setting the limits on how far the war can go, for maintenance of the balance of power in Europe and/or maintaining the territorial integrity of the said country's core territories. But it may not be feasible to go this far, as I don't know how far Ai is capable of at this point.

One thing that sort of disappoint me is the inability of countries to join the wars after it already had broken out, something that often happened throughout the human history. But I suspect this might be simply a cost of maintaining the gameplay balance... I think? Or that the AI players is incapable of doing this in a rational manner, or something. Otherwise, I might be able to threaten intervention if I feel the attacking countries are going too far or about to cross the "red line" like attacking the capital that would potentially threaten the balance of power.

The reason I mentioned all of this was that I once read about how, during the Second Schleswig War between Denmark and the German Confederation led by Austria and Prussia, the British prime minister Lord Palmerston (otherwise known as Henry Temple in the game) apparently warned the Austrian ambassador, after learning of the Austrian fleet being on the way to attack the Danish capital of Copenhagen, that if the fleet were to enter the Baltic, the result would be a war with Britain. Austria, naturally wary of adding more enemies than needed in the war, responded by saying the fleet would not enter the Baltic, and it never did. Amazing.

Lord Palmerston, of course, was a notorious Foreign Secretary and later Prime Minister of Britain who was well known for his infamous so-called gunboat diplomacy, as manifested in the Don Pacifico affair and Sulphur Crisis of 1840.

 

[Idle America]

The most important feature needed: a unique flag for Guatemala as a US puppet! All the other Central American countries get one, but not Guatemala.

...I've been Manifesting a lot of Destiny lately.

 

[Gui10]

Because it would introduce an absolutely insane amount of micro to manually set sliders of PM distributions on individual buildings.

We're considering different solutions to the industrial good output substitution problem long-term, but at the moment balancing the system we have is better.

While I do agree that some of the production methods need balancing and some limitations are weird (why is the shipyard still dedicating so many resources to the civil industry if there is no demand? Why is it impossible to focus labor to a greater degree on luxury clothes/furniture/etc.), some of the other limitations were quite interesting: providing enough explosives for my mines meant a lot of fertilizer as a byproduct, which meant that my farms could benefit simply because it was already there. It reminded me of gas being produced as a byproduct of many oil wells, where it initially would be extremely cheap because it would otherwise be burnt.

 

[DebbieElla]

Stay on topic, stay kind folks!

 

[za3tarani]

If it costs the same amount for the output as the input why would your value increase?

Isn't the old way as follows (I am using the same assumption from your example that glass is made from lead without wood)
old lead only = L; old glass only = G; old both = L+G
new lead only = L; new glass only = G-L; new both = L + (G-L) = G

The new calculation shows the value added in production.

i think we are talking past eachother (is that a saying in english?). we both agree on how the old and new calculation of gpd works, and we both agree that the new calculation is better.

but your question "If it costs the same amount for the output as the input why would your value increase?" is my whole point, it shouldnt. but for balance purposes, if prices are balances (to make finished goods generally more expensive), then in price equilibrium producing glass will increase your gpd.

i dont know if devs are looking at balancing prices after the change, but they are probably doing it. my question to the devs was simply - is this being looked at?

 

[za3tarani]

Because it would introduce an absolutely insane amount of micro to manually set sliders of PM distributions on individual buildings.

We're considering different solutions to the industrial good output substitution problem long-term, but at the moment balancing the system we have is better.

ok understand. i just hope you dont add new type of buildings, or improve ui to sort/group related buildings together. as of now, it is a hell to scroll down down down just to reach saw mill to again rebalance output.

more buildings(like vineyard) for a specific cosumer good doesnt add anything to quality, just more quantity and more chores.

 

[Wendigo514]

As part of the update can we get a rework of religious law. Perhaps something about heritage like accepting all: Abrahamic, Eastern, or Indic religions

Probably too late for this update but using the Religious Families of CK3 and adding one more law would be an interesting option.
If I'm not misremembering Buddhist faiths already have two traits (Buddhist and Eastern), at the moment this changes nothing since passing Freedom of Coscience will accept all Eastern religions which contains all branches of Buddhism.

 

[Saurid]

Hi great dev diary love all the changes you announced really looking forward to it.

A question I have though is wether or not you think about splitting production of goods more, for example splitting luxury clothing completely off from normal clothes. It is a bit tidious and tanks my good price all the time just because I want to export luxury clothes or furnuture.

Same goes for explosives and so on, I feel like I need to build much more factories to make explosives and get useless products in between. Splitting these off and making one or two a resource requirement for the more advanced factories would increase trading management but would also allow especially for smaller nations to more easily specialist.

 

[Bshepp]

Probably too late for this update but using the Religious Families of CK3 and adding one more law would be an interesting option.
If I'm not misremembering Buddhist faiths already have two traits (Buddhist and Eastern), at the moment this changes nothing since passing Freedom of Coscience will accept all Eastern religions which contains all branches of Buddhism.

Probably true. But I'm just trying to get it on the Devs radar. If they work it into the next patch thats fine.
I actually didn't know Buddhism had an Eastern trait. But thats a great start, all the devs would have to do is add a heritage Traight to the other religions (like giving shinto eastern too) and than having a cultural exclusion law only for religion.

 

[Lazy Sorcerer]

• More clarity on ... Radicals and Loyalists

Ugh, great, just the opposite of what I wanted.

 

[Leoreth]

Because it would introduce an absolutely insane amount of micro to manually set sliders of PM distributions on individual buildings.

I agree with this, however it would be nice to see some kind of acknowledgement that PM settings on individual buildings already require an insane amount of micro, sliders or not. Improvements to the building interface are sorely needed.

I am also disappointed that after all the conversations around messages and notification spam - including an acknowledgement that the scope and complexity requires player customisation - the best we get is "we changed how notifications work it will be less spammy this time, trust us". When that is the exact promise we have been given in previous patches already.

 

[Soranya]

Not for 1.2, but splitting out Vineyards into its own Plantation-type building is something we're looking into for the reasons you mention.

In General it is a Problem that half of the goods can not be produced on their own. This makes balancing the outputs extremely difficult. Maybe a Productionmethod that only produces the secondary output would be a good idea?

 

[Anonim97]

Because it would introduce an absolutely insane amount of micro to manually set sliders of PM distributions on individual buildings.

We're considering different solutions to the industrial good output substitution problem long-term, but at the moment balancing the system we have is better.

Maybe instead of "pure sliders" we would get a "slider with different levels"? As in if the building has multiple outputs you decide how much production should go for each output - be it 0, 20, 40, 60, 80 or even 100%.

I think it would be nice compromise between the lack of control that is now and the absolute micro hell that full sliders would be.

 

[Aloraand]

Tech queueing, yes. Multiple battles per front was added as an experiment in the Game Jam and will not be turned on by default, as it introduces complications with the design (e.g. more generals = more win, which is not a dynamic we want). We all want multiple battles per frontline to be a thing and remain committed to trying to solve these design problems. In the meantime, you can try out multiple battles for yourself by changing a define in the configuration files, or installing a mod that does it for you.

Could you also add a define to remove the limitation of one general being able to fight in only one battle? That would solve the more generals to win issue and could be fun to play around with.

 

[Gui10]

Could you also add a define to remove the limitation of one general being able to fight in only one battle? That would solve the more generals to win issue and could be fun to play around with.

I have had the curious situation that, when two opposing generals push the front at the same time, both of them end up as the attacker and defender in two separate but simultaneous battles. I didn't get around to reporting it as a bug though ><.

 

[Burma Jones]

Do you mean "can we just get tin soldiers/cardboard chits we can push around the map?" If so, then no, we can't.

If not, then you'll need to be clearer, because it seems like most people who say that mean "I want tin soldiers / cardboard chits to push around the map".

Clearer about what? CONTROL over the military? Like actually being able to choose where generals and units go rather than hoping AI does the thing you want?

No idea what makes you so insecure about other players wanting to actually control their own armies in a strategy game but trying to be purposely obtuse and belittle others isn't going to make you feel better about yourself.

 

[Star Seeker]

Clearer about what? CONTROL over the military? Like actually being able to choose where generals and units go rather than hoping AI does the thing you want?

I mean, there is "Strategic Objectives for planning military campaigns" right there in the dev diary.

 

[Chief of Staff]

Clearer about what? CONTROL over the military? Like actually being able to choose where generals and units go rather than hoping AI does the thing you want?

No idea what makes you so insecure about other players wanting to actually control their own armies in a strategy game but trying to be purposely obtuse and belittle others isn't going to make you feel better about yourself.

President Abraham Lincoln would like to have a conversation with you about the - control - over - the - military.

 

[Lazy Sorcerer]

President Abraham Lincoln would like to have a conversation with you about the - control - over - the - military.

You aren't playing as the head of state in this game though.