• 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.

Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #89 - What’s next after 1.3?

16_9.jpg

Hello and welcome to our Post-Release Plans update dev diary for 1.3. Just as we did in Dev Diary #79, in this dev diary we’ll be going over what changes and improvements we have planned for the game in future free updates such as 1.4, 1.5 and beyond. In the previous Post-Release Plans Dev Diaries we outlined four key areas of improvement for the game, which we’ll be sticking to for this one: Military, Historical Immersion, Diplomacy, and Internal Politics. The Other section is also still there for anything that doesn’t fall neatly into one of the four categories.

Just as last time, I’ll be aiming to give you an overview of where we stand and where we’re heading by going through each of these four categories and marking on each one with one of the below statuses:
  • Done: This is a part of the game that we now consider to be in good shape. Something being Done of course doesn’t mean we’re never going to expand or improve on it in the future, just that it’s no longer a high priority for us. Any points that were already marked as Done in the previous update will now be removed from the list, to avoid it growing unmanageably long!
  • Updated: This is a part of the game where we have made some of the improvements and changes that we want to make, but aren’t yet satisfied with where it stands and plan to make further improvements to it in future updates such as 1.4, 1.5 and so on. Note that this section will mainly focus on updates made in 1.3.
  • Not Updated: This is a part of the game where we haven’t yet released any of our planned changes/improvements in any currently released updates but still plan to do so for future updates.
  • New: This is a planned change or improvement that is newly added, ie wasn’t present on the list in Dev Diary #79.
  • Reconsidered: This is a previously planned change or improvement that we have reconsidered our approach to how to tackle from previous updates. For these points we will explain what our new plans are, and change the list appropriately in future updates.

Finally, just like in the original Post-Release Plans dev diaries, we will only be talking about improvements, changes and new features that are part of planned free updates in this dev diary. So then, let’s get to the categories and see where we stand! For each point in each category that isn’t new to this update there will be a sub-point detailing our progress on the point so far.

Post Launch 2 v2.png

Military​

Done
  • Solving the issue of armies going home after Generals die during a war by adding a system for field promotion
    • Field promotions have been added to the game in 1.3 to solve the most critical issue of armies simply going home. In the future we’ll aim to further improve this through changes to armies/navies and having defined successors for your commanders.
Updated:
  • Improving the ability of players to get an overview of their military situation and exposing more data, like the underlying numbers behind battle sizes
    • This is an area where we are continuously making improvements but where we still definitely have more work to do. A particular area of improvement we’ve identified is the need to more clearly be able to see a summary of a country’s military strength instead of just seeing unit counts.
  • Increasing the visibility of navies and making admirals easier to work with
    • As above, this is an area where we are continuously making improvements but still have work to do. In particular, we want to improve the sense of where exactly your navy is and what exactly it is doing.
  • Finding solutions for the issue where theaters can split into multiple (sometimes even dozens) of tiny fronts as pockets are created
    • We have mitigated this issue in update 1.2 by auto-closing small pockets and improving battle province selection but the issue still persists (particularly in wars with a large number of small countries) so further improvements are needed here
New:
  • Adding a system for limited wars to reduce the number of early-game global wars between Great Powers
  • Adding systems for organizing your generals and admirals into discrete armies and navies to allow more control over geographic positioning, military composition and unit specialization
  • Adding more options for strategic control over your generals to allow for more ‘smart play’ in wars
  • Adding more on-map graphics for armies and navies, including soldiers on the map
Reconsidered:
  • Experimenting with controlled front-splitting for longer fronts
    • After some internal design consideration, we have decided that this is not the best approach going forward - instead we will aim to solve the issues with long fronts by supporting multiple battles and improving the strategic options you have to direct your generals.

Historical Immersion​

Updated:
  • 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
    • Improvements to this were made in both 1.2 and 1.3 (the most significant being preventing journal entries such as Fragile Unity from being broken by revolutions) but we still have some work planned here, particularly to the Meiji Restoration and the willingness of AI countries to open up Japan.
  • Ensuring unifications such as Italy, Germany and Canada don’t constantly happen decades ahead of the historical schedule, and increasing the challenge of unifying Italy and Germany in particular
    • The German Unification received a significant rework in 1.3 to more closely follow the historical narrative, with other unifications planned to receive similar improvements in the near future.
  • General AI tweaks to have AI countries play in a more believable, immersive way
    • This is something we are continuing to work on in every update. Some tweaks and improvements were made in 1.3 but the biggest improvements here should come alongside planned updates to diplomacy.

Not Updated:
  • Adding more country, state and region-specific content to enhance historical flavor of different countries

New:
  • Going through the base game Journal Entries and events and making improvements and additions to ensure that they feel meaningful and impactful for players to interact with


Diplomacy​

Not Updated:
  • ‘Reverse-swaying’, ie the ability to offer to join a side in a play in exchange for something
  • More things to offer in diplomatic plays, like giving away your own land for support
  • Trading (or at least giving away) states
  • Foreign investment and some form of construction in other countries, at least if they’re part of your market
  • Improving and expanding on interactions with and from subjects, such as being able to grant and ask for more autonomy through a diplomatic action
  • Allowing peace deals to be negotiated during a Diplomatic Play instead of only having the option to give in

Internal Politics​

Done:
  • Improving the mechanics of law enactment and revolutions to be more engaging for the player to interact with
    • Law enactment and revolutions received a significant rework in 1.3 to behave in less random and more engaging ways, while also somewhat (intentionally) increasing the challenge involved in rapidly reforming your country
  • Adding more mechanics for characters and giving the player more reason to care about individual characters in your country:
    • Agitators were introduced as a new character type in 1.3 that directly interacts with political movements and serves to push more forcefully for political reforms. There are definitely more types of characters we want to add and more we want to do here in the future, but right now it’s not a high priority when compared to the other items on this list.
  • Added Petitions to ensure the Interest Groups you add to your government has agency in demanding political change
    • This was not previously on the list but is something we’ve added since we consider it a fairly significant change to internal politics.

Updated:
  • Making it more interesting and ‘competitive’ but also more challenging to play in a more conservative and autocratic style
  • New laws were introduced in 1.3 (such as One Party State) that makes late-game autocracies more viable, and the addition of Agitators means that conservative countries now face a greater internal push for reform.
  • Adding laws that expand on diversity of countries and introduce new ways to play the game
    • A number of new laws were introduced in Update 1.3, but there is definitely more we want to do in the future here

Other​

Updated:
  • Improving Alerts and the Current Situation widget to provide more useful and actionable information.
The Current Situation widget received a series of tweaks in 1.3 to give more useful and actionable information. In the future, we want to improve this further by giving the player much more custom control over the alert/current situation system similar to what we’ve done with message settings.

New:
  • Increase the overall challenge in the economic core loop, as well as creating more clear mechanical differences between different countries and their starting positions in ways that encourage more economic specialization.
  • Find a way to deal with the excessive fiddliness of the trade system in large economies, possibly by allowing for autonomous trade based on your laws in a similar way to the autonomous investment system.

So when can you expect these changes to reach the game? I can’t give specifics for any particular points but what I can say is that we are planning a large update with an extended open beta period in the second half of this year which will check off a considerable number of points from the list. In particular, that update will be aiming to tackle many of the points from the Warfare and Diplomacy sections of this list. I’ll end this dev diary by reminding you yet again that this list only covers changes and additions that will be part of free updates.

Well then, that’s all for today’s update. We will see you in two weeks for our next Dev Diary, on the 22nd while we work on 1.3.3!
 
  • 132Like
  • 44Love
  • 14
  • 3
  • 3
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
I like a lot of this!

But, and maybe I missed this, I see nothing about IGs having opinions about foreign policy. I cannot more strongly reject to Paradox's approach here. IGs will remain only half complete until the wall between foreign and internal dynamics finally comes crashing down.
Unfortunately it looks like that might not happen. IIRC the devs said that they tried this early in development and it caused some kind of serious issue or issues that forced them to shelve it. It would definitely be a cool feature, but might not be possible.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Wiz's "what's next?" summaries are probably my fav kind of dev diary among all PDX games.
 
  • 7
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Lol. Nice white all over for diplomacy. It's so good to know that diplomacy is one of the fundamental pillars of V3, as evidenced in DD#0, because otherwise I'd think it an insipid goop with basically no choices or impacts with the only actual activities being "let's go to war in a few months". Wars that then become a locked-down club, with no evoving goals and no people jumping in as needed.

If there's one thing I regret buying V3 over, is the horrid state of diplomacy and the blatant disregard for improving it.

EDIT a few hours later: a reminder to not post when mood is really bad for IRL reasons.
Not that the core of the message is any different, mind you: diplomacy is laughable, for something that was described as a central focus of the game, for the reasons I (sourly) expressed above, and it fails utterly in representing many of the diplomatic maneuvers that happened in the time period.
"We can't join the Great War, because it's already started."
-Mexico and the United States, responding the the Zimmerman Telegram

"I get that you want to abolish slavery in Brazil, but we're going to take their side without any war goals."
-Austria to the United States, every freaking game

"Well, since Upper Canada annexed the Columbia District we went to war over, I guess we just won't get anything out of this years-long conflict."
-The United States, when Canada confederates in the middle of a war
 
  • 16Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
What about garrisons? The AI sends all of its troops to a frontline in the jungles of africa. If the AI does this then the human player too dosent have to worry about someone invading their home country in Europe. Its very unrealistic

This is unfortunately very familiar to anyone’s who’s played HoI 4 as well. The AI will happily send its army to defend some far-off corner of the world while leaving nothing at home. I guess it’s a consequence of making it easier for the player to ship troops overseas, as opposed to loading stacks on to transport ships etc. It just leads to really weird, immersion-breaking things, like the situation you mention, or the flip side, where GB and France are duking it out with 300 battalions each over some barren state in the Sahara. Some logistic limits are really needed. And probably some better geographic prioritization by the AI.

Unfortunately it looks like that might not happen. IIRC the devs said that they tried this early in development and it caused some kind of serious issue or issues that forced them to shelve it. It would definitely be a cool feature, but might not be possible.

I’ve read someone else say this too, haven’t gone back to look at old DDs to verify, but I hope it’s not true. 100% agree that IGs caring about foreign policy is the missing puzzle piece for this game to shine. Having the AI just randomly roll strategies is not cutting it.
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Unfortunately it looks like that might not happen. IIRC the devs said that they tried this early in development and it caused some kind of serious issue or issues that forced them to shelve it. It would definitely be a cool feature, but might not be possible.

It's worth trying again, I believe. It is a pretty fundamental mechanic to lack.
 
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
I’ve read someone else say this too, haven’t gone back to look at old DDs to verify, but I hope it’s not true. 100% agree that IGs caring about foreign policy is the missing puzzle piece for this game to shine. Having the AI just randomly roll strategies is not cutting it.
If I remember the comment correctly it was more to do with early iterations of IGs being more 'outgoing'. They altered their views on laws, etc. much more often. Unfortunately in early playtesting they were too random and the users couldn't 'grow their garden' successfully. So they switched to the much more static version they have now where IGs are similar the world over.

As Wiz says about all 'done' features - it doesn't mean they wont go back to look at the issue in the future, it just means they are stable and useable enough that other firefighting is more important.
 
  • 6
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I certainly can't fault your communication, clearly laying out a roadmap and expectations for what will (and, just as importantly, what will not) be the focus for short- to medium-term is very much appreciated! I don't have V3 yet and am likely waiting until the first 'season pass' of content is known to take the leap (I made this promise to myself after my disappointment in CK3's post release content) but following the progress and really looking forward to it. Thanks!
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Hey @redrum68

Rather than fixing the construction point/population issue (which we should take a look at at some point, but independent of this), the goal is about what you said: "the core construction loop is improved some to have more variety depending on what nation/region you are playing". Which is also exactly what the original text says.

I can't give too many details yet, but the idea is to add a new (but related) layer of difference between most countries (due to player's and AI's specialization), while also providing a bit of extra interesting options for the most relevant countries during the time. If you're playing as Great Britain you should have some different options to specialize your economy than if you're playing as Hamburg. We will probably talk more about it in a future Dev Diary. Hope this helps you a bit more.
Please, do not make it as another layer on top of the world of Victoria 3. I am concerned about the computational problems of adding more calculations to the game but having options for specialization makes the game less diverse as the player will know in advance what those options will be, limiting his/her playthroughs.

I have made this suggestion as an example of how the simulation could bring some specialization:

 
  • 3
Reactions:
Do you really consider "Internal Politics" (almost) achieved ?

EDIT :
How come can People disagree to a Question ? Should I jump to some Conclusions ?
I'll quote what's written in the dev diary on what "done" means:
  • Done: This is a part of the game that we now consider to be in good shape. Something being Done of course doesn’t mean we’re never going to expand or improve on it in the future, just that it’s no longer a high priority for us.

In other words, there's only a couple points remaining on internal politics that we consider a high priority for the next few updates, but of course that doesn't mean it's 'done' in the sense of not being improved on in the future.
 
  • 10Like
  • 8
Reactions:
So, out of curiosity, do you think the new war system in Vic3 is making things simpler or more complicated for both the programmers and the players? From a player standpoint, it is less interactive in good ways than the traditional war system while requiring more micromanagement to prevent stupid decisions- while some of that has been fixed, it seems like the “best case” scenario is going to be, 99% of the time, to set your generals to advance and ignore the war while continuing to micro your trade. And for you guys on the dev side, it seems like you’re having to put in a ton of time and effort to make this system work, since you’re creating it from the ground up. So do you think it was the right call?
I can't speak from a programmer's side, since I'm a game designer and only know a little bit of coding. But generally, both systems seem to have their advantages and challenges when it comes to working with them or playing with them. In Victoria, we have the issue of front splitting and having no general there, in HoI I always get frustrated when my fronts expand due to an encirclement of the enemy, causing my troops to leave their defended positions to shuffle around. Pros and cons, really.
And for Victoria, it was important to have a different front system than HoI because the game is focussing on very different things. Of course, I'm not saying it's perfect as it is and that's why we're adjusting it. But overall, yes, I personally think it was the right call to go with a different approach to warfare in general and I think the automatically generated front system is generally the right idea for it.
 
  • 18Like
  • 7
  • 5
  • 4
Reactions:
Unfortunately it looks like that might not happen. IIRC the devs said that they tried this early in development and it caused some kind of serious issue or issues that forced them to shelve it. It would definitely be a cool feature, but might not be possible.
It's not impossible but it is very, very complex and would be a major undertaking to implement in a satisfying way.
 
  • 20
  • 1Like
Reactions:
It's not impossible but it is very, very complex and would be a major undertaking to implement in a satisfying way.
Really hope you find it worthwhile to put in. I wrote this in my last post too, it feels like a missing puzzle piece to the game, especially with regards to AI behavior towards other nations. For instance, if my neighbor elects a jingoist, it would make sense for them to adopt a hostile attitude towards me, and pursue any claims they have. Or if a humanist comes into power, they might want to slow down or liberate colonies, which might make it a good time to move in on this territories. Lots of potential there.
 
  • 8Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Question: if we were to get autonomous trade... what would be left for the player to do?

Directing big picture, possibly enable embargoes, help other countries develop their latent resources by diplomatic actions, choose preferred suppliers.
All things that depend on political system and laws for example or could depend on.
 
  • 9
  • 2
Reactions:
Directing big picture, possibly enable embargoes, help other countries develop their latent resources by diplomatic actions, choose preferred suppliers.
All things that depend on political system and laws for example or could depend on.
Also setting tariffs, which could be more important than it is today, making good trade agreements, adding countries to customs union (although this is a mechanic that I think is overused atm), and of course acquiring resources in other eays, aka conquest or foreign investment in.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
Also setting tariffs, which could be more important than it is today, making good trade agreements, adding countries to customs union (although this is a mechanic that I think is overused atm), and of course acquiring resources in other eays, aka conquest or foreign investment in.

Yes all kind of these things, so much more to add - what has nothing to do with warfare :), in case of a customs union im glad more automatisation is coming atm a customs union looked very complicating to manage.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions: