• 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 #93 - Military Improvements in Open Beta

16_9.jpg

Happy Thursday to you all! This is a particularly exciting dev diary for me to write, because I finally get to reveal details on what we've been working on since before the summer months - and strap in, because it's a lot!

I want to start out by talking a bit about the Open Beta and expectation setting. As we discussed in Dev Diary #91, we will be running an extended Open Beta from Aug 28th (alongside the launch of the 1.4 update) until our final release of 1.5 in late autumn. During this time we anticipate releasing at least 2 additional updates to the Open Beta branch, coinciding with our 3-week sprint schedule.

Expectations for the first update
Launch date: Aug 28. In the initial release, new features will be in a rudimentary state, with plenty of placeholder interfaces, graphics, and missing mechanical details. Many features will be exploitable and buggy, and absolutely not balanced. Some features will be unused or underused by the AI. Core components of the game that we have not touched should continue to work, so playing a game focused on economy and politics should not be heavily affected by these changes, but be aware that military campaigns may feel unsatisfying or cumbersome. If you wish to partake in testing this update, focus on feedbacking on what additions or balance changes would make the new features fun, not on whether they feel great right now.

Expectations for the second update
Tentative launch: mid September. By this time the new features should feel a lot more mature, with bugs and missing information / graphics filled in, additional mechanical details closing exploits and providing new optimization challenges, and in general more bells and whistles available to you. While beta testing this update, in addition to the aforementioned considerations, focus on balance and UX improvements.

Expectations for the third update
Tentative launch: mid October. If all goes as planned, at this point we should be fully feature-complete for the 1.5 release. This doesn't mean everything is wrapped up and ready to go! We will spend the time between this update and the final release fixing bugs, doing balance updates, and reacting to your feedback. While testing this update you should be able to focus on how fun the game is to play with the new features.

But first a short message from our Community Manager Pelly on how the Open Beta will be run!




Hello! For those that don’t recognise me, I am the Community Manager for Victoria 3 and helped run the Open Beta for 1.2 last time.

Open Betas are a very involved process, not just from the developers, but also on the community team end too!

When the Open Beta for 1.5 starts, the old 1.2 channels will be reopened for usage by the community! Any user can access these, to make it as easy as possible to provide feedback and chat about the Beta update!

As soon as the Open Beta is live, you can access the Beta Steam branch by following these instructions:
  • Right click Victoria 3 in your steam Library, select properties.
  • Click on ‘Betas’, then in the ‘Beta Participation drop down box select the 1.5 Open Beta option, when it is live, it will appear there similar to these options:

DD93_1.png

Now a bit about the Discord Channel structure:
  • Open-beta-news - where news about the open beta is posted, e.g. when Beta updates are announced.
  • Open-beta-changes-and-bugfixes - where changelogs for the Beta updates are posted so you know what has been changed or fixed between versions.
  • Open-beta-pelly-post - this is where I go through all the feedback and bug reports for the day. Then I list them here, with any dev responses or mark if they are duplicates. This helps everyone know that their items have been looked at and seen by the devs! This is updated every day for the previous day's issues, normally closer to 16:00 CEST!
  • Open-beta-chat - the area to chat generally about the beta updates, I still know people who really enjoyed talking here and became part of the ‘open-beta-chat’ gang!
  • Open-beta-feedback - The place to post any feedback about the updates, tags are used to distinguish the topic and if it has been looked at by devs/! Developers will be around to talk in these threads, however don’t expect an answer for every single thread!
  • Open-beta-bug-reports - We don’t normally have bug reporting on discord, as the bug reporting forums are the place to post these issues. However, during the Open Beta period it is easier if we have both feedback and bug reports on the same platform for ease of communication.

That is all from me, I hope you will enjoy the Open Beta when it starts and I see people around!

I will be there most of the time and happy to chat to y’all if you have any questions.




Now let's jump into the juicy stuff! For these features we are looking to improve the military gameplay in three broad areas: Agency, Depth, and Visuals.

By Agency we mean the degree of control the player feels they have over their military campaigns. Equally important to granting more agency is ensuring the player doesn't experience a lack of agency, for example by having more fronts to manage than Generals; uncontrollable, unpredictable front splitting; or armies that suddenly return home because their General decided an active front was an opportune place to die of old age.

Depth refers to both detail and realism. More military attributes and configuration options, armies and fleets that are composed and behave more like you'd expect from history, and more interesting decision-making during warfare.

Visuals require little introduction: it's about what we have come to affectionately refer to internally as "little dudes on the map". Seeing your armed forces in action, in transit, and being able to put a concrete location on everything (which also helps with agency).

Shared Fronts​

One issue that can rear its ugly head from time to time in the current version of Victoria 3 is the very large number of fronts you may be dealing with at any given moment. Many of you have pointed out that this leads to mandatory micromanagement of the war effort, which defeats the design goal that led us to create a more hands-off system for Victoria 3 in the first place. Reducing the number of fronts, especially in wars involving several countries on either side, to a more manageable number is a big priority for us.

The first in a one-two-punch effort to solve this problem is to make fronts adjacent between two or more allied countries into a single unified front. This can drastically reduce the number of fronts active at the start of a war.

There isn't that much more to say about shared fronts, which is a good thing. While quite complex in implementation (and we still have a few edge cases to sort out), they do what it says on the tin and are very intuitive in play. Here's an example of a single front between Bavaria and Württemburg on one side, and Hesse, Frankfurt, and Baden on the other. In the current live version this would be 4 unique fronts!
DD93_2.png

State-based Front Movement​

The second strike in our fight against too numerous and unpredictable fronts is state-based front movement. While merging adjacent fronts is a method of controlling the initial number of fronts between known participants, the bigger problem for most players is the unpredictable front splitting and merging that happens during the course of war, as battles are won and small pocket theaters are created. This feature eliminates the uncertainty of what might happen once a battle concludes, and drastically reduces the number of "temporary" fronts that emerge (which then causes you to lose the war because you don't have another General to staff it with so your enemy stomps all over you).

It works like this: battles will be fought in a province like before, but when you win you capture a fraction of the state that province is in, not a number of provinces. Only one state can be captured at a time, and only once the whole thing has been captured will the front actually move.

As part of this we have also permitted battles to be disconnected from frontlines, so you won't be attacking only the border provinces repeatedly until you have won the entire state. In our current build the province is chosen randomly from provinces in the state, but during Open Beta we will enhance this to select from provinces deeper and deeper into the state depending on occupation already earned.
DD93_3.png
As a battle concludes, the winning side earns a victory score - currently just a flat value, but this will eventually be changed to be conditional on the size of the victory. This victory score is allocated towards gaining or clearing occupation in states adjacent to the front, depending on the winning side; defenders will only clear occupation while attackers will clear some from their own states (if any) and gain some in the state they attacked.

In the current version of Victoria 3, the number of provinces gained on winning a battle are dependent on the size of the win, the stats of the advancing General, and some randomness within a min-max range. With 1.5, the amount of occupation gained in a state from a battle is dependent instead on a comparison between the victory score and the "occupation cost" of the state(s) in question. The occupation cost is determined by a number of factors:
  • State population
  • Amount of provinces with difficult terrain
  • Number of mobilized battalions left standing in the defender's theater compared to the size of the theater

Both victory score and occupation cost are broken down in the UI and fully scriptable/moddable. We intend on tweaking both during the Open Beta phase heavily in response to your feedback, to make sure states that are supposed to be hard to take are actually more challenging to conquer (without it becoming a slog) while depopulated savannahs are easier to march across.

What we have found in testing this feature is that in addition to controlling the sudden appearance of new fronts, this new behavior also makes it very easy to determine whether you're in control of a particular wargoal. In the future we hope to add new mechanics tied into this feature, such as economic exploitation of states occupied during war.

An example of the new outcome of battle and the occupation cost breakdown. In this case Piratini should have gotten to plant their flags across 87% of the state, but some advanced math (a.k.a. bug) as described by this screenshot only granted 10% - guess it's back to the code mines for me!
DD93_4.png


Speaking of flags! While it won't be in the initial Open Beta build, this is one way we plan on visualizing partial state occupation despite the frontline itself not moving, in addition to shading the terrain itself.
DD93_5.png

While state-based front movement is primarily a way to control and predict the number of fronts that emerge during a war, this feature is also something we're looking to expand on in the future by tying state occupation tighter into other game mechanics, like economics and military supply.

I'll close this section out by saying that while multiple simultaneous battles per front won't be in the initial beta release (should be coming in the 1st or 2nd update), the way we plan to implement and balance them is to only allow 1 battle / front / state at a time. This means you would only potentially benefit from having more Generals than your enemy on particularly long fronts, and even then only if you outnumber their defending troops. This is however an area we are actively going to solicit feedback on, and you'll hear more about it in future dev diaries.

Military Formations​

This feature has a number of sub-features that I'll go into in some detail, but first a bit of background to what this is and why we're doing it.

Having Generals and Admirals as the leaders of your armed forces is great both for flavor and for the knock-on effects it can have on the political system, but in retrospect characters are simultaneously too static and too ephemeral to serve as good containers of military units for a player to control. Commanders are meant to have names, traits, and faces so you can remember them, and if you have too many of them you can't tell them apart. But limiting the number of them you can maintain simultaneously restricts your ability to fine-tune your military and control who goes where, which can be frustrating (especially when you have to assign Generals to an indeterminate number of fronts!)

But, let's say we put gameplay over narrative concerns about identity uniqueness and removed the cap. Then we run into the issue of having to give every one of them a unique order every time we want them to go somewhere or do something different. This is very annoying when you just want everyone to go defend your single frontline.

To make things worse, if one of them kicks the bucket due to old age or gets suddenly ripped away due to some special event, your entire military campaign might be irrevocably disrupted in an instant! While we made an initial pass to address this issue in 1.3 with Field Promotion of new commanders, having a non-character container for your armed forces removes this problem altogether - your units will remain in place, and you can assign or recruit a new commander to lead them as you wish.

Another issue with the current system is that Buildings act as your only main vector for customizing your military. While this makes sense to model the economic and population impact your armed forces have, it can be a cumbersome and unintuitive way of constructing a diverse and capable military.

Military Formations tackles the issue of commanders being simultaneously too static and too ephemeral by providing a container for both commanders (generals or admirals, depending on formation type) as well as combat units (battalions / flotillas). You can create as many Formations as you want - with or without commanders, each with as many commanders as you like, and you can move both units and commanders between formations at will.

The design intent here is to provide you with a kind of entity - that's programmer-speak for thingamajig - that is more customizable to your own needs for agency than commanders are. These needs may vary a lot depending on what kind of country you're playing, where in the world you are, and what kinds of wars you happen to get yourself into. It also gives us a better platform for customization - adding depth - than commanders and buildings are, which we will see below. And finally, facets we're including with formations such as concrete movement and unit types give us a lot more opportunities to visually represent your military on the map and in the UI. So let's get into some more details!

Combat Unit Types​

In addition to recruiting commanders into Military Formations (which works similarly to how it currently does in the live version) you can also recruit specific unit types and mix and match to your heart's desire. If you're playing a single-state country and want to recruit 5 Skirmish and 10 Line Infantry, you cannot do so in the current version of the game since unit type is governed by Production Method and all levels of a building must have the same methods. But in 1.5 you can do just that in a Formation, and the Barracks that get constructed "around" those units as a result will maintain the mix.

This works by creating the units inside the scope of the Military Formation itself, not by expanding buildings directly. That follows our UX design vision for this feature: rather than configuring and maintaining your military through an awkward mix of interactions with buildings and characters, all interactions with your military are done through formations first and foremost, with characters and buildings appearing around the formations as supporting entities to ensure existing game mechanics continue to function.

In addition to the different types of infantry units, we are also adding additional groups of units with different properties: infantry, artillery, and cavalry on the army side; as well as light ships, capital ships, and support ships for the navy. For the final release, most or all of these will have unique illustrations/icons; right now they all have the same placeholder icon.
DD93_6.png

Units constructed in this way will be upgradeable between types (though not for the first Open Beta release) but only in certain cases: you will be able to upgrade your Ship-of-the-Line to Ironclads, as was often done historically, but you cannot upgrade your Ironclads to a different ship class like Battleships.

We're very interested in hearing your feedback on the specific units we're adding into the Open Beta, how they're grouped and balanced, and how managing them in the UI feels!

Mobilization Options​

I've always been happier with the current mobilization mechanics in theory than in practice. I like the increased demand on my industry during wartime and how that changes my economy (and my pops' economy). I also appreciate that I can't cheese the game by cranking down my consumption of military goods to zero in peacetime and turn it up to max when I'm at war, and that increased consumption is handled automatically as I mobilize a General into activity. I enjoy the tough decisions I sometimes have to make about whether I can truly afford to mobilize another General, or if my currently mobilized forces should be able to mop up the opposition in time.

What I don't like about it is how hard it is to balance, both as a designer and player, since it only increases the quantity of goods they're already consuming and therefore can only do so in a quantity that doesn't cause immediate shortages in your economy. Having to maintain mandatory unprofitable import trade routes for guns & ammo with potential elasticity to ensure I can prosecute my future wars sounds cool but can feel a bit much in practice sometimes.

Mobilization Options permit you to customize what goods you want to give your battalions when they're out active soldiering, with powerful effects providing trade-offs for the increased costs. Sometimes those goods are military hardware, other times they're just better rations or fancier uniforms. Adding consumer goods as a possible cost to mobilization also means a stronger impact on the civilian population during the war effort, which is both realistic and a great game dynamic.

Mobilization Options (typically) impose a cost in goods per unit in a Formation, which is applied to that unit's building, in exchange for an effect on all units. Both cost and effect are applied only when mobilized, and Mobilization Options can be toggled on or off only while the Formation is demobilized.

This is the list of Mobilization Options we will launch with the initial Open Beta release (fully unlocked, of course), but it's neither finalized nor well-balanced. Some of the options may even end up as new unit types instead (or in addition to) for example. We will be actively seeking feedback on what other options you want to see, and rework the UI to allow us to fit more options. Icons are currently borrowed from other areas of the game and are particularly WIP.
DD93_7.png

Mobilization Options don't have to be just about goods, it can also just be toggles on how you want this Formation to behave. For example, Forced March causes the Formation to move faster but at a cost of increased morale loss (a penalty which could be countered by Luxurious Supplies, if desired). Rail Transport is mutually exclusive with Forced March, doesn't cause morale loss, but requires both the Railway tech and Transportation goods.

The way we see Mobilization Options used is as toggles that can be set prior to active warfare, taking properties like market conditions, commander traits, and combat unit mix into account. You could customize a small, fast formation of elite crack troops or a giant army of cheap irregulars forced to march on an empty stomach, depending on your strengths as a nation and who you're likely to be fighting against.

Early Demobilization​

While we initially added early demobilization with 1.3.6, it was a little bit hacky: it operated as a character interaction rather than a military command, and only applied a flat cost to a country in response to the goods cost prior to demobilization instead of incurring actual consumption.

We have now made it possible to demobilize armies during active warfare if desired. When this happens, the army will first have to travel home, and will then spend 4 months in demobilization (exact value very much subject to feedback) where mobilization supply cost will be gradually decreased over the duration. Unlike the current live implementation on Generals, these goods will be properly consumed in the interim so your industries and trade routes don't immediately collapse with nothing to gain for it.

Early demobilization can also be a little more relevant in the Open Beta due to Mobilization Options, in case those options you provided ended up a little too costly over the course of the war and you want to return home for reconfiguration.
DD93_8.png

DD93_9.png

Station at HQ​

Military Formations, both armies and fleets, are initially created in an HQ but do not need to stay there. You can re-station a Military Formation at an HQ - even a temporary one you have established during the course of the war on allied or occupied territory - if you're willing to pay the increased supply cost for doing so depending on where your combat units are actually from (once we get around to adding that increased supply cost that is - until then, re-station away!).

You can station a fleet in any coastal HQ. Later during the Open Beta we will require an active Naval Base to exist in order to station your fleet there.
DD93_10.png


This also means if you want to move an army to proactively defend against an impending naval invasion, you can do so (as long as you're quick about it!)
DD93_11.png

Concrete Location​

Another thing we have been dissatisfied with is the lack of a tangible location for your armed forces. In the current live version, Generals and Admirals are either at the HQ they're recruited into or on a mission somewhere, depending on their current order. But when a commander moves somewhere in response to their order changing, they are put into a kind of limbo while they are moving to a new location (typically a front, with naval movement being more abstracted as an "execution time") with the travel time only visualized as a countdown in the UI.

In the Open Beta, Formations will always have a concrete on-map location, so you can track their real-time movement between locations more easily. Generals and Admirals no longer have their own independent locations as this is inferred by their Formation, but Generals can autonomously spread out across fronts to visually indicate what state they are primarily defending and/or attacking.

For the first Open Beta release, movement will be tracked only in straight lines. Here we see an army moving first from the Maranhão Pará Front, then towards the Maranhão Rio Grande do Sul Front, and finally back towards its HQ in Rio de Janeiro when it's demobilized.
DD93_12.gif


For upcoming Open Beta releases, formations will pathfind across roads, railways, and sea lanes (or sea lanes only for fleets, for obvious reasons) and travel along those to their destination. Here we see the path taken by an army traveling from Örebro, Sweden to Tampa, Florida. The short skip over English territory visualized here is because the pathfinder currently does not take either military access or spline travel time into account but just travel length; once we've completed our work on the pathfinder it should still be possible for armies to disembark/traverse land/re-embark if the time savings makes it worth it, but it will generally be avoided.
DD93_13.png

Transferring Commanders and Units between Formations​

Of course there will be moments where you would like to split, merge, or transfer commanders and units between two formations of the same type. Even with shared fronts and state-based occupation, there may be instances where a new front is created in an area where you already have an army - for example, if you join a totally separate war while you already have another military engagement.

This can be easily done in the field if you have a single formation with multiple commanders. You can right-click one of those commanders and choose to "Split" it off into a new formation, which will cause them to quickly take a number of representative units in proportion to their own Command Limit and form a new formation with the same properties and in the same place.

You can tune this more precisely if you like by opening a Transfer popup, where you can select the exact commanders and units you want to move, select a target formation (which could be a brand new one), and execute the transfer. If the target formation is not in the same location as the origin, a temporary formation will be created that automatically travels to the destination where it will automatically merge with the target.

In-game mockups of what the Transfer popup will look like. We're hard at work trying to get this implemented for the first Open Beta release but it might not be fully functional until the second release, in September. We're also considering other potential enhancements to this, such as a double-sided panel where you can transfer Commanders and units back and forth between two formations.
DD93_14.png


DD93_15.png

Name and Icon customization​

When a formation is first created it gets a name selected based on your primary culture, type, and how many other formations you have of that type. You can change that name to your liking, to help you remember what you've designed it for or just for flavor and immersion.

In subsequent releases of the Open Beta you will also be able to customize the symbol and color of the formation icon, making it even easier to identify which formation is traveling across the map or deploys across a front.

A very work-in-progress screenshot of the formation appearance customization popup. The "pattern" section will provide a list of possible unique icons while the "color" section will contain a palette suitable for the formation type.
DD93_16.png

Revised Naval Invasions​

Naval Invasions have also been revised to accommodate the new state-based occupation mechanics and improve the UX in managing naval invasions. Naval Invasion can be initiated either from a formation or the Military Lens. Like in the current version of the game you target a state, but as a follow-up step you then get the option to add the formation(s) to be involved in the invasion. During the Open Beta we will enhance this panel with more information to help inform you on the likelihood of success, such as exposing information about landing penalties and the like.

In the initial Open Beta release, only one formation of each kind can be assigned to a naval invasion. In upcoming releases you will be able to assign multiple formations of each kind.
DD93_17.png

As you confirm the naval invasion, the formations selected will travel to the sea node just off the coast of the targeted state. When they have both arrived, landing battles will commence. A proper front (with armies assigned to that front) will not be created until the state is fully occupied. When this happens the naval invasion has been concluded.

In the interim, the supporting fleet may be attacked by enemy fleets. If any of these naval battles are lost, the naval invasion will fail and both formations will return home. If a naval battle is won but heavy ship casualties are taken, landing battles will take higher penalties until the fleet can be reinforced. During the Open Beta we will also look into adding more formations to a naval invasion already in progress.

Aside from closing some exploits relating to war exhaustion, this revision will make naval invasions a much more serious affair that requires naval dominance. We will be actively seeking feedback during the Open Beta to ensure executing and defending against naval invasions is more fun and interesting than it is in the currently live version.

I don't know about you but I can't wait to see these little guys in action!
DD93_18.gif

Frontline Graphics​

While most of the graphical enhancements will be appearing across the Open Beta period's two updates, we already have a first iteration of frontline graphics functional in the current development build.

In this screenshot, the frontline graphics system is using the previous battle graphics and additional VFX as placeholder for the assets we are currently producing.
DD93_19.gif


You can even see it from space!
DD93_20.png

Frontline graphics will represent the current formations at the front, with models being selected based on unit type, culture, tech, and mobilization options active. Specific formations, and even specific Generals, will have a distinct location on the frontline, with "their" units organized in their vicinity.

Concept art of our visual target for the final frontline graphics. One of these dioramas will be assembled dynamically based on formation composition and placed in each province along the front (possibly with some provinces omitted if the front is particularly long and the formations particularly small, to avoid miscommunication about the size of an army).
DD93_21.png

We are currently experimenting with our approach to animation and applying VFX to these models. It would not be appropriate for all units along a front to be animated at all times, since they aren't necessarily engaged in active warfare, so we will likely trigger animations on and off at certain intervals. This approach would also help with graphics performance.

We have a lot more WIP eyecandy to show you, but I'll leave that for future dev diaries!

What we broke :(

As a result of a lot of revisions, a few features have been disconnected from the game to be reworked during the Open Beta period. If you intend on evaluating the Open Beta you should be aware of these omissions and how we intend on addressing them in the updates.

Conscription​

Conscripts no longer make sense as raised on a state-by-state basis, since that makes it hard to determine which army they should belong to. Since we also have distinct unit types not tied to Production Methods, we would also need to know the nature of the conscripts that need to be raised.

The way we intend to solve this is by allowing players to assign conscripts of particular types to their formation, much like you build regular units. This will result in Conscription Centers being built as usual in specific states, but will not automatically raise those conscripts - that will be a toggle on the formation itself. Once formations start raising conscripts, the Conscription Centers will start staffing up as usual, up to the conscription percentage limit imposed by the population of the state, your Laws, Technologies, etc.

Putting conscripts on formation level also means you will be able to demobilize conscripts early, using the same Early Demobilization mechanics as described above.

Naval Warfare (other than naval invasions)​

Naval Warfare is scheduled to be reworked to support the new mechanics around concrete locations. This means that all actions you perform with your fleets will be based around sea nodes, not more abstract concepts like HQs or trade routes. If you are raiding convoys in a sea node, you can only be intercepted by other nearby fleets; if you want to defend against a naval invasion, you have to sail your fleet over to that naval invasion.

To account for the issues that may arise from moving fleets around to intercept each other, we're considering a number of solutions including:
  • Fleet Range: the ability for a fleet to be active also in adjacent sea zones, possibly at a reduced interception effectiveness or at a variable range determined by tech or unit type
  • Limited Fog-of-War: obscuring your enemy's positions and actions and only revealing them under certain conditions (Battleship board game style)
  • UI alerts and other visual indicators
  • Some manner of fleet automation, like patrol routes

This is an area we expect to do a lot of work in during the Open Beta, and will probably require a dedicated dev diary later on.

Conclusion​

As you can see, we've been quite busy! There's still a lot of work to be done, but we're all very happy to be addressing so many high-frequency community concerns in the context of a free update, and the new military mechanics already feel like a huge upgrade even in this immature state. With your direct input during the Open Beta period, on these as well as other features - like the new Companies and several other tweaks and improvements, which will be outlined in upcoming dev diaries - I have no doubt that the 1.5 update will bring Victoria 3 to new heights!

Next week we will hear more exciting stuff from our Art Director Max, this time about what to expect from the new Art Pack: Dawn of Wonder! After that we will move to a dev diary schedule of once every three weeks, to coincide with our sprint schedule and Open Beta update releases. This is to ensure that all members of the team are hyper-focused on the upcoming beta build itself and have time to communicate with you all on the Open Beta channel on the Discord server. See you there!
 
  • 178Love
  • 126Like
  • 15
  • 8
  • 5Haha
  • 2
Reactions:
This comment is reserved by the Community Team for gathering Dev Responses in, for ease of reading.
Good afternoon,a great dd and these changes will add considerable depth to warfare.Can't wait to try them in the open beta.However,i have a few questions:
1)How moddable military formations themselves will be?Can i create new,lock them to certain pm or laws for example?
You cannot create new types of formations, they will be of either Army or Fleet types. However, all properties of formations - like combat unit types and mobilization options - can be modded.
2)How moddable goods costs for soldiers will be?Can i add new ones,remove some,or things like that?
Everything can be modded for unit types and mobilization options.
3)Do you plan to add country-specific 3D units models in futures immersion packs/expansions?
Probably! Nothing decided as of yet, but the tech is there for it.
Nice I hope railways will boost your military movement speed :). Maybe even tie them to supply (like HOI4 supply system).
Boosting speed is something we've planned for, at least! For the time being we're not making major changes to how the supply system works, but the new pathfinder we're adding would potentially allow for a more in-depth supply system in the future.
Yeah that's what i meant, the properties of formations,sorry for confusion about that,another question though,since it was not mentioned in the dd,how the mass conscriptions and peasant levies law will work now?
Will they forbid some military formations like it did with pm in the current versions or will it work differently?
The current plan is that they will continue to limit how many units of a type you can support from each state and what units you can recruit. But we will be open to feedback during the Open Beta period and will implement good suggestions as time allows!
are the devs planning in streamlining, putting generals of the IG's we want in the army?, right now it's, it's possible to put any IG in charge, wich is fine, but the way we go about this is too rng dependent, requiring multiple commisiong and retiring of general until we get those of the IG's we want
I'd consider revisiting which commanders spawn for the recruitment pool. Right now there's some conditional logic that influences which commanders you have available to you at any given time, and maybe we can give players more ways of influencing that. But I don't want to just give players full control of which IG to recruit from, either; part of the fun for me at least is that you have a limited number of options at any given time, forcing me to occasionally choose between the perfect candidate from an IG I don't want to empower or a sub-standard candidate from an IG that agrees with me.

A more attractive option (to me) to solve the problem you're presenting is to actually allow the pool to empty out and only refill over time, as more pops become educated to become officers. In the past we haven't been able to do this since commanders were always required to maintain your troops, but since you could now create another Formation even though you don't have any commanders to lead them, this again becomes a possibility.
I can't wait to try this, this looks like it will be fantastic
Out of curiosity, have the devs started looking into connecting wars and domestic opinions, making pops actually pro/anti war?
Not for this update. We're considering ways of making pops and IGs care about diplomatic relations for the Sphere of Influence expansion, though.
All great changes and greater in scope than I imagined, devs are doing great work.

Will armies be able to move from land to sea to land again, if they are reinforcing an allied front across the sea without any cost? I would think that armies moving across sea even to friendly regions through sea lanes should cost appropriate amount of convoys, which would limit the ability of landlocked militaries to just spirit away their troops across continents. It would also create interesting dilemmas in war time with supplying existing troops, moving new troops and available trade routes costing convoys.
This will be (re)implemented, yes. Shipping Lanes supporting overseas Generals has always been in the game (albeit a bit hidden) and for the first Open Beta release there won't be a cost at all, but we will definitely require Shipping Lanes supporting overseas armies in later beta updates (probably update 1).
Not a fan of this one, as it exposes the utter strangeness/silliness of Transportation "goods". Specifically, the fact that they are treated as goods at all. How does the fact that I have railways built in my homeland, with excess transport capacity, allow my military to somehow utilize that excess capacity on the far side of the world where there might not even be any railways at all?
The way this is currently implemented - and let's be perfectly clear, the functionality is just a placeholder right now, we need the full pathfinding system to make this work properly - is with a speed modifier on railways specifically, possibly only on friendly railways or railways in states occupied by you. As for the cost, it's somewhat abstracted as a "budget" assigned to the formation for travel purposes - the cost is always incurred, and the Transportation goods always purchased, whether the formation is currently traveling along rails or not.

However, this is something we will be taking very active feedback on during the Open Beta period. If it feels weird or immersion-breaking, we'll remove or rework this option. That goes for virtually everything in this dev diary, and is why our beta period will run for so long.
Not bad, but im still waiting for a diary about performance and optimization.
Yep! We know we need to work on this more, and as the Open Beta build matures we intend on moving more resources onto working on performance. We recognize this remains a big concern and want to see marked improvements before 1.5 release. More on this in later dev diaries.
So with trying to give armies more concrete locations on the map and having them actually travel to fronts, does this mean military access will become a thing beyond just having access to allies’ territory? I’m thinking more in terms of EUIV where you have a diplomatic pact with another country to allow your army to move through their territory. It can be frustrating not being able to send your army to certain fronts bc you don’t have direct land access to them via your allies. This can be problematic as Prussia for example if you go to war with Denmark, Schleswig, and Holstein but are forced to naval invade bc you can’t ask Hanover for military access if they aren’t your ally. Will we be able to ask countries for military access to be able to travel to otherwise inaccessible fronts and form a front on the border of a country that has allowed us military access?
It's come up in design discussions and with the new pathfinder it would be more feasible for us to implement something like this. One issue here is historicity; in this era of nationalism it was quite rare for countries to just march their armed forces across another nation's territory (without that nation being under occupation, that is). It doesn't exactly ring true to me to allow countries to have permanent "military access" pacts with one another outside the context of a particular war; ideally I'd want it to be an agreement negotiated in the context of a particular war, and irrevocable for that war.

Feedback much appreciated!
Why design it again in a way so we can’t modify our units with additional supply? Got more food and clothes to be able to equip your troops with better rations and uniforms? Not possible because you need to demobilise your army. Got new tech for weapons like machine guns? Too bad we cant transport them to the frontline. Each soldier needs to come home and pick one up themselves.

You cant go into proper war economy to suit help the war effort or invest into military research. That is the opposite like i think wars should play out. I want to be able to adjust my economy and go all in if desired in the current war like in WW1. Not waiting for the next war because military progress cant happen in my country unless troops are demobilised.

It was not possible to do this so far, because switching production methdos made your military bronze age soldiers and unaware what a rifle even is. Now it would still not possible to adapt during a war.
I'm not entirely clear on where you're coming from here, to be honest - this system does permit you to send your troops home to remobilize with different armaments without penalty, if you research some new tech during the war or decide you want to spend more (or less) on them than you had planned originally. There's a time factor to consider for doing so, which seems perfectly rational to me. The mobilization mechanic, now as always, is intended as a way for you to have to pre-plan a bit how many of your armed forces you want to commit to a given conflict, not to let you min-max damage output just before a battle breaks out for example.

The demobilization time is open for feedback to help figure out what the right balance is, and you can also restation an army to a closer HQ (in subsequent beta releases, with some effects on supply based on where your units are actually supplied from) to cut down on the travel time when demobilizing.
I have advocated many times for animated tiny soldiers and they will finally come. :D
Based on my negative experiences with judging features before actually getting my hands on them I will not comment on these changes as of now, but just a short reminder that many people are still unhappy with construction points being the beginning and the end of all gameplay, so maybe have a look at that next!
We're aware and discussing possible improvements here. Companies is one (small) part of the solution to this puzzle, since it will mean greater focus on competitive advantage over simply building whatever happens to be in demand, and has a big impact on construction efficiency.
What does 1 battle / front / state mean? I assume this means only 1 battle / state?
There could potentially (though rarely, with the new front improvements) be 2 fronts bordering a single state, and both those fronts could potentially have simultaneous battles in that state. It would be weird to force one front, which could be a totally different country in a different war altogether, "wait their turn" to attack a certain state.
Also couldnt the general problem be fixed by allowing a single general to preside over multiple battles if needed?
We want to try to avoid this solution since it means we couldn't give you the precise map location for a particular military resource, which is one of our main goals for this update. It's also weird on very long fronts, to see the same guy in two places.
I like all these changes. It's great that you're listening to the community but I also REALLY ask you to add display of HQ borders in barracks/naval base construction mode. It is very inconvenient to constantly switch to the recruit generals mode in order to try to remember which state belongs to which HQ. The same goes for the mode of activation of conscripts.
Great feedback, I'll pass it on to the UX team! Should be very doable.
Will military-centered companies be able to provide benefits/modifiers on the battlefield? ex: Mauser-owned Arms Industries providing a % bonus to Land offensive and Henschel offering reduced rail transportation costs to the armies utilizing it?
100% yes.
I'm sure that it's not going to happen right now but this new way of structuring armies sure does look like it would be far more conducive towards having some kind of military heirarchy (or even a full OOB) system set up which would then allow for all sorts of good old fashioned political tomfoolery with internal military politics as well as government interference (or not) with military appointments and vice versa
You're right that it's not going to happen right now, but we will be working on creating a kind of pyramidal rank structure of commanders within a formation and we can't wait to actually leverage that for cool political effects and events in the future!
Valid concerns, for what it's worth I've had my own suggestion for this mater:

basically: outside of the rng generated generals (wich in this mode while having random IG's would be weighted to have better traits) there would also be a section of "politicla appointees" basically an extra pick per IG in goverment, these generals would either be weighted to having worse/less traits than the rng generals, alternatively they would have a "political appointee" trait gives reductions in promotion and beurocracy costs in short buff that make them better at sitting pretty rather then actual warfare.

taking a page from yuor idea and victoria 2, literacy affects both the quality of the generals available (tough obviously the rng ones would benefit more from it than the poltical appointees) but also the number, so one can relatively rapidly run out of competent rng generals, or even of rng generals altogether, while the player never runs out of political apointees (shortages of officers where a thing in this period but never shortage of generals) each apointee recruited, decreases the quality of the next one (wich replenishes overtime), the goal of the desing is that also make the political dynamics of the country affect the officer make up, since the quality of political apointees
is determined per slot ( so even with high literacy if you keep mass recruiting officers from the Landowner IG eventually you will start drawing atrocious generals, wich has the side effect of encouraging authoritarians countries to keep few generals of verry high rank which is appropriate) this means that democratic countries by virtue of having a usually wider pool of political appointees can better bear the cost of a massive military expansion (say creating a large number of conscript formation before a war and so on)
Click to expand...
"Political Appointees" is a fantastic suggestion and compromise here, will add it to the list of ideas!
This is a very small potatoes matter, but will the changes to the way fronts operate change automatic front naming? Seeing “New York-Utah Front” during p much any American war always made me cringe some.
Front naming is on our list of things to address, it's super weird right now (worse actually due to the shared fronts). One issue is that we want to try to keep fronts as uniquely identifiable as possible, but they can also move, which adds a wrinkle to naming them according to geography. Very open to ideas here!
I hope that formations force the player to NOT put every barracks in their capital as that allows cheesing civil wars under certain circumstances.
This is more a problem with the fact that civil wars always exclude the capital rather than, in some circumstances, splitting it. I really want us to change how revolution state selection is managed, for this reason and others.
1. What are the thoughts regarding troop and naval movement when moving through the Suez and Panama Canal? Will it work like HOI4 where neutral and allied countries can pass freely and enemy countries cannot? (perhaps also doing so rival countries can’t for Vic)
Variable canal access (and tolls, or similar) is something we want to do at some point. Not coming for 1.5 but definitely something we want to do eventually.
2. Will equipment become a factor for combat stats? So when going from muskets to rifles, instead of only producing more small arms, you also gain an offensive and defensive combat stat.
The core way this will work is that higher-end units will often require more of the goods in question. Since you have the option of customizing your army more with this system - it's not a "PM on or off" kind of situation - this becomes a more usable mechanic than it has been. However, we're also looking into the option of certain techs providing unit-specific bonuses - this is particularly relevant for Cavalry type units, since we can't unlock different types as the game progresses (it'd make no sense to not have access to Lancers in 1836, for example).
Man, seeing that one gif of the army moving through Brazil felt so good. Excellent DD and changes, this addresses so many of the warfare issues.
It's hard to overstate my enthusiasm when I saw that little marker move on the map for the first time! Even though it's currently just a straight line, it makes everything feel so much more tangible. Once we have these guys move across splines, people in the office will start hear me squealing in my chair again.
The new method of taking states looks like it's probably mechanically more reasonable than the old way, but it reminds me how much I wish there was a way to create split states in peace treaties. I don't know if that's even at the bottom of someone's design doc, but I really wish it was possible to split a partially-occupied state rather than either take the whole thing or white peace out with whatever the previous borders were.

I wouldn't be surprised if creating split states (aside from treaty ports) is something that would particularly cause trouble for the game engine, but I still kinda want it.
Splitting states is not technically hard, but it creates a bunch of weird edge cases so it's not something we like to do a lot right now. But speaking of "bottom of a design document", I have a Partition wargoal I want to implement on some rainy day.
With the switch to formations instead of industry for equipping and organizing units, will it now be possible to field a modern/semi-modern force on imports alone?
With mobilization options and different unit types giving you much more control of your military spending, this is more reasonable with this system, yes.
Maybe a recruitment of foreign officer option that allows you to equip units under that officer's command with tech equivalents from the source country?
We're considering some sort of "lend aid" option for Sphere of Influence, and the formation system gives us a nice layer to use here. We will see.
Excellent post! Can't wait for some of these changes.

Have you addressed or are planning to address that captured states still provide their full industry and resources to their original owners?
With state-based occupation this is something we can more easily address. Not promising anything here for 1.5 release though, but it's something we want to build on in the future.
You've sort of addressed this already, but I thought I'd ask about it in a slightly different way. I know it will not be for this update, but are there plans/thoughts for the future to make the generals more alive as actual characters with desires of their own? Political appointees of course would fall into this, but I'm just thinking that if our role is to manage the war, not to manage the troops, that the primary "job" that entails is managing the generals. I know it can be controversial for games to botch carrying out your orders but if we have the tools at our disposal, I think it makes for interesting and active gameplay, without being overwhelming and micro-managey, to have politically strong but inept generals messing up your wars if you don't find a way to get rid of them. I hate to always bring up the same examples, but the Union army in the US Civil War is a prime example of this in action. This would also be another way to further differentiate government types: obviously the Kaiser in Germany can more easily and freely pick whatever generals he wants--but he might have to worry more about revolutionary or coup-like consequences than Lincoln who is more concerned with losing political power and elections.

I can see some cheesing strategies that would have to be addressed with deliberately tanking your government to get a new one but I still believe there is a nice middle ground between micromanaging all of your armies all over the map and telling your general to attack or defend over an entire front (I know we are getting strategic objectives too already that mitigates some of that).
Click to expand...
It's a good point and definitely on-theme for the game! Let's see what we can do here, now or in the future.
As a player, I have to say that I am a greedy person.
I am pleased with the modifications to the military system. However, I still hope to see the real air force in the game.

During World War I, the Air Force made the most rapid progress, and within a few years, these aircraft evolved from simple reconnaissance missions to powerful strategic forces.
Unfortunately, the current role of airplanes in games is not even as good as that of VIC2.
We're considering exactly how to implement an airforce. Right now they aren't exactly units, but a mobilization option. We'd like to see them act more like units, but the idea of 1000 guys in an air "battalion" is also weird - so is the idea of them taking casualties (at least to the same degree) as they're being fired on by cannons artillery. Feedback and ideas during Open Beta very much desired!
First of all, great DD! This is way more than I was expecting and are all great changes. The only thing I'm utterly confused about is occupation. What does it do exactly? When you have enough occupation then you take a province or maybe it determines how many provinces you get after a battle? Or does it affect war score?
Occupation builds up in a state as a result of battle, and when total occupation reaches 100% the country/front with the most occupation gains the state and the front moves. War score (through War Exhaustion) is affected even before that based on the occupation percentage you have reached, but you have to capture the whole state to make it count as a "captured wargoal" and bring the enemy below 0 War Support.

We intend on working more with this during the Open Beta, and in preparation for that has made War Exhaustion fully scriptable(/moddable) so we can more rapidly react to feedback.
Exciting changes! I feel like nitpicking for little moddability things but they seem to be mostly done, so I have only one question:

Will there be proper trenches getting built and connecting from one side of the front to the other in longer/larger late game wars? It's kind of a hope of mine to see the race to the sea happen live as trenches get laid down in Vicky 3 (I know, more complicated than it seems)
It's very complicated and very performance-heavy :( We're looking into building trenches along the front when suitable units are there, but it might not be along the whole front and they won't remain after the front moves.
I'm really and thoroughly impressed, this is exactly what I was hoping for.
Glad you like it!
Is there a reason why every commander simply must belong to an IG? Wouldn't it be also possible to have commanders without any party preference, because they don't like politics?
We like the idea of every character belonging to an IG, so they interface with the political system. "Belonging" in this case might mean they support the IG or the IG supports them. Technically we could have some commanders be more like "I just want to grill" I suppose but I'm not sure if it'd be an improvement.
And also, how hard would it be to make the IG affiliation dynamic? I'm thinking of a general commanding a very bloody battle, only for him to turn his back on the Armed Forces IG, go Catholic Church instead and becoming a pacifist. Just as an example of what I mean.
We can definitely do this with events! And events are also a good way to let the player know something like this happened.
Please, for the love of all that is good and holy, don't re-use the same ship pic for three consecutive ship types.
We will have different icons for every ship type, for sure!
Since we're already talking about ships, how does the new system support battles between several fleets? One problem currently is that only one battle can take place per node. That creates some exploit-y tactics when it especially comes to naval invasions. What if I send three 50 ship strong fleets to make naval invasions and the defender has 100 ships? Will only 50 ships engage, the other 100 wait and then turn back home if the first battle is lost? Or fight three consecutive battles? Or engange all at once?
We're currently revisiting this system so I will have to get back to you on that in a later dev diary.
And while we're talking ships and pathfinding, how about options regarding the Suez and Panamal Canals? They make for great shortcuts, but what if I want to block someone out of using the canals? Similar to how GB denied Russia's Baltic Fleet passage through the canal after they attacked some fishing boats. Didn't lead to war, but still had consequences on the path the entire fleet had to take.
Answered above to some extent. tl;dr probably no special canal access mechanics for 1.5 release, definitely on the roadmap for the future.
This was a pleasure of a DD to read. Very excited for the upcoming changes. The increased options for mobilization is something I didn't realize I needed until it was brought up. Would it continue to work as it does now with the raised troops increasing demand for military goods or a could a national stockpile be implemented to cushion some of the pain of having to deal with the increased demand?
Yes, it works like it does currently. Some sort of stockpile system is something we're looking into, hopefully for release sometime 2024 - we have a lot of ideas and see a good number of use cases for it, especially with local pricing.
It was also mentioned that you guys are looking to push the AI into building taller rather than churn out the number of buildings they currently do. Would a building cap per state be possible like in V2? With localized prices implemented it sounds like the modernized version of the throughput bonuses from resource extraction and factory chains. Having a build limit might force us to make more strategic decision about what to build where as well as improving performance.
Total building cap per state would be very hard to scale, unfortunately, since some countries only have a single state so it would artificially penalize them. However, working more with competitive advantage and other mechanics to naturally encourage specializing your states is something we're actively working on in the design team (when we're not otherwise occupied with military, right now).
maybe I have overlooked it.
But will it be possible to create army formations especially with conscript units in mind?
So I have a core army of 10K professional troops and in case of war I can activate 50K conscript troops letting this small intervention force swell up to become my main battlegroup
Conscripts are disabled currently, but this is something we'll be reintroducing in later Open Beta updates. Once we do, you can do exactly what you suggested.
There has been a significant move toward doing away with Provinces for warfare and replacing them with States, which totally make sense due to the issues of frontlines. There are also talks about tying army speed to local infrastructure.

But in that case, why do you want formations to have free positions? Why not simply tying them to States, and having them move from one to the other, until they arrive where they are needed? That's more or less how ALL the other Paradox games do it, and with good reason : making a graph-based system (the States/provinces and their neighbors) interact with free floating objects (Formations here) would generates an awful lot of painful edge cases.
Formations will always have an on-map location, but we don't want to target formations to specific geography - rather, their targets are game objects like fronts, HQs, sea nodes, or other formations. The reason not to let them target a province or state is because of the babysitting / micro that would enforce, and the complexity that would introduce for the AI. It's certainly possible to write decent AI for a system like that, but it's not trivial and adds a lot of opportunity for cheesing the AI. Or alternately, if we make the AI too good - i.e. the AI knows it can intercept you by splitting its formation in 3 at a moment's notice and cut off your path - we make it so you absolutely always have to be monitoring every formation at once. It's a problem many of our other games don't have, either because they're more strictly wargames and so that's where your attention should always be during war, and/or because they're much more local with countries being smaller and embroiled in smaller conflicts.
Great stuff you have cooking here!

Will there be 3D animations of land and naval formations moving from province to province and node to node before reaching their destination? Or will it just be the formation’s 2D icon moving across the map?
Yes, there will be both 2D icon and 3D models of soldiers and their equivalents moving along roads/sea nodes to their destinations
Yes, there will be both 2D icon and 3D models of soldiers and their equivalents moving along roads/sea nodes to their destinations
Naturally including armored trains!
Lots of good mechanics here! Visually though, state percentage occupation really seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Is it really that hard to have discontiguous front lines, or to fake it by just graphically occupying provinces in the state?
Graphical visualization of occupation will be coming during the beta, both with texture overlay and occupation flag models placed in provinces. I think I mentioned that in the diary, but grateful for the opportunity to clarify!
First of all thanks for the answer, but I think I'm even more confused now. :D

That's entirely how I expected the system to work, but what i *really* don't understand is how the position of the formation is tied to these elements? Is it just a graphics gizmo to see at a glace how far they are from the place you want them to be, with no "real" gameplay impact (which would be an entierly valid functionality in itself)? Or will this floating position it be used to calculate dynamically how fast the army is advancing?

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting *at all* to let either the AI or humans to target states directly, its' just that I don't get how this position is supposed to interact with the gameplay.
Ah, understood! My misunderstanding.

The position is a visual representation of the progress the formation has made towards its target, but we're working - as part of the full travel implementation - to also have the precise nature of the path the formation is currently on have an effect on the speed. For example, rail travel is much faster than traveling between two towns with no road connection between them.

However, their location (currently at least) has no effect beyond that - for example, you can't "meet" an enemy army on the road and do battle with them. This follows from the military access and front system we have, so probably not surprising anyone. As for seeing formations visualized as bordering or targeting specific states though, as opposed to "being everywhere" on a front at once, this is indeed something we're working towards on the level of Generals in a formation.
First off kudos to the team this is great!

How to will mobilization goods be accounted for with local prices? Will the consumption cost be accrued at barracks local state price, or the state they are actively assigned to ? Will transport be treated differently than other goods?
All consumption happens at the location of the units' supporting buildings, so where the Barracks/Naval Base/Conscription Center is located. Basically they buy the supplies locally and are considered to be transporting them to the formations they support.

Granted, this makes the rail travel mobilization option a little extra weird, especially with Transportation being a hyperlocal goods in 1.5. Take that into consideration when feedbacking on it after playing with it - if it feels too immersion-breaking we'll have to redesign or remove it.
I know this will probably be harder than it seems but couldn't the trenches be part of the devastation visual, that way it would remain in place after a battle but also move if and when the front moves? if the front moves a lot it would be cool to see the sheer destruction of the war. Plus it would naturally fade away after a while and not disappear after the war ends :)
I'll take it to the environment art team, but my understanding is that devastation is a different type of graphics entity than the frontline meshes, so they might not... mesh
It looks like some massive steps in the right direction.

One suggestion for the "front" animations. Up until the late 19th century it would be better to depict parked field armies waiting for battle and only fighting animations once a battle starts. Hopefully the trench warfare explosions all along the front won't be there until late game.

Looking good guys. I am so happy to say that.
Good feedback! We know we have to be a bit sparing with animations on the frontline for performance reasons anyway, and I think something like what you're suggesting is the plan from tech-art's side.
It feels that this is a good step in the right direction, however, I cannot help but feel that certain terrains or regions should have special modifiers or technology that need to be overcome for you to be effective. This potentially could allow for some gameplay differentiations, add flavor, and serve as support for unrecognized countries.
I am specifically talking about a few regions and was thinking about how Malaria does not affect countries with main cultures from Africa.
- The Amazon: Now that the war system takes into account environments that are being fought on, the war system should have severe malice for fighting in the Amazon due to increased deaths due to diseases.
- Africa: This historically kept out colonizers due to Malaria, which affected expeditions that attempted to conquer the region prior to Europeans discovering medicines and strategies to deal with it.
- Arabia or North Africa: It would be interesting if you could implement a system where camel/cavalry troops with high mobility or low supply consumption could fight, which would mitigate heavy attrition costs that should be attached to the desert. Especially, as the hit-and-run tactics of the Bedoiun are not reflected in the game and it is too easy for the Ottomans to conquer the region, which did not happen historically.

Finally, A similar argument could be made that a buff should be made to countries that can be colonized, that they should gain as a part of the war system some form of Guerilla warfare that trades the large space and porous borders for additional casualties against the colonizers.
Click to expand...
Please bring this up as feedback during the beta! Travel times will of course be affected, but I also hope to have time to tweak e.g. battles according to terrain more, so it's more relevant than it is currently. However, the priority we put on things will be highly influenced by the response we get during the beta, so don't be afraid to let your voice be heard!
Question, will there be potential political loyalty for your military formations? One thing I liked about Vic2 is that your military units actually had ideology, so in some cases you couldn't simply suppress a movement with raw military force cause your own soldiers are part of that movement.
I've actually been thinking of exposing this more on the formation level, since they will be a bit more prominent than individual commanders now. Quantifying it as a loyalty score is a cool idea.
Wow, that's really promising! I'm very excited to see how it will actually feel gameplay wise.

Two little things, about navies :
First, naval battles right now are just a manpower contest in the ocean, much like land battles; will the basic unit of sea warfare switch to ships with this update?
With the switch to proper unit types, our intent is to implement actual cost in goods and time to both build and upgrade units, in addition to or possibly taking the place of the building construction cost / time. This would mean we could make building, upgrading, and repairing ships take much longer than battalions, instead of the workaround with low recruitment speed currently applied to Naval Bases.

In terms of changes to how battle mechanics work on land and at sea, that's sadly unlikely to happen in time for 1.5 release, but I really would love to add differentiation (different stats and behavior etc) for naval battles in the future.
Second, historically, many "naval invasions" were just marines landing from their ship to fight on land. Would it be possible to give the player the ability to either invade without any army attached, using the fleet (or ships) manpower, or if it's impossible, to make some specific specializations for small land formations to be especially effective as marines, and maybe be permanently attached to a fleet? For the latter case, I was thinking of a Mobilization Option that gets rid of the difficult landing modifier, gives a generous bonus to morale, consumes ships, and makes recruitment slower (like naval bases) and scaling with naval doctrine techs.
A mobilization option to make a formation a special Marine invasion force is a fantastic idea and should be quite easy to do! Thank you for that. :cool:
A question for clarification: since we now more or less directly recruit units into formations, around which the infrastructure is built accordingly, and since the goods are consumed at where the infrastructure is standing, what influence do we have on the location of the barracks? Furthermore, is the old limit of 100 barracks per province still standing?
You still choose the state you want the unit to be "built" in. Underneath the hood it's still the same "construct building" interaction, it's just initiated from the formation the unit will be going into.

Regarding the barrack building limit level, I think it still applies for the same reason it used to.
Please be so kind and remind me of that reason, which seems to have slipped my mind... is it balance, so that China doesn't become too powerful? Or do you hate Belgium and don't want them to have too many troops? :p

I honestly don't know the actual reason.
Yeah, it's a rather artificial limitation to make it so really populous countries can't recruit 100 million soldiers, particularly through conscription. It's one of those "this makes no sense in theory but makes the game feel more correct in practice" kind of mechanics.

But with the changes to conscription we're envisioning, maybe the 100-level max cap is less relevant. I'll give it some thought, thanks!
Does this mean that Transportation is even more localized than other goods within a market? The ability to stack transportation, electricity and services in particular in your core territories and have it affect your worldwide empire always felt extra weird. If I'm reading this right it should go a really long way to encouraging the colocation of industry and resources with population centers.
Yeah, in 1.5 those goods have no market price at all, they are ONLY produced and consumed locally. This comes with a bunch of rebalancing to ensure there's always both supply and demand for Services, usually supply for Transportation, and (eventually) limitations for Electricity use.
I'm extremely excited for these changes (seems like they'll solve most of my current gripes with the game), but I'm a little disappointed that (if I'm interpreting this correctly) the visual feedback of your occupation crawling over a state, a few provinces at a time, will be gone. I totally get why you'd want to model occupation on the state-level in the backend (e.g., it opens up the very exciting possibility of economically exploiting occupied states), but I feel like it feel a bit underwhelming to see an invasion move across the map only in these large chunks of territory.

So, I'd like to suggest that the occupation % could also be visually represented on the map as control of provinces (maybe with some provinces being "contested" instead of being controlled by either side). So, if a state was 68% occupied by you, you'd control ~68% of the provinces (or, perhaps, ~68% of "province value", however you'd estimate that).

Also, how do split states work with regards to occupation? Are they considered completely separate places with completely separate occupation values?
We're going to do exactly what you suggest, a visual representation of percentage occupied without moving the actual front. That was mentioned but easily missed in the diary, apologies.

Split states are just treated as distinct states, no special handling.
Once you order a new army, how do you build the new recruitment centres? Say you need another 40 barracks, do they just auto assign as you plop them anywhere, or do you need to build them first to fill up a surplus pool?
You create new barracks directly from a formation's panel. So if you want to add 40 barracks to your "2nd Dutch Dike Army" you go into the army's panel, choose the kind of units you want to add and queue 40 barracks in the state(s) you've selected. This will create empty combat units which are assigned to that formation which then fill over time as recruitment happens in the barracks.
The interaction of building the barracks is the same as before, but the path to access it is a different one.
There is something that I still do not understand, are generic barracks that are used or differentiated Cavalry/Mobile Artillery/Line Infantry barracks
Before building the barracks, you choose which type the units should have, e.g. if they should be Lancers, Line Infantry or Mobile Artillery on the formation panel.
The building is the same for any of these. No separate building types.
Other than that they have thought about adding fortifications (I made a non-serving unit under generals with a lot of defense in a personal mod) because it could be interesting alongside some kind of naval bombardment and partisan/back-front uprising/military occupation mechanics. (Useful for staking the revolutions)
Fortifications is something we have on our list of things to take a look at, but no concrete plans if and when to do that yet.
Great Dev Diary here!
Just a question: With the way occupation now works, does this call for more state regions throughout the game?
We don't have plans to increase the number of state regions as of right now.
For that kind of decision there's a bunch of things to consider. An important one among them is performance for example.
Good, good, good!

Just one question, sorry if I missed it: are there plans for 3D representations of navies moving through the map like in Vic2/EU4?

It's a small detail but I think it makes the world feel more alive.
We will represent fleets on the 3D map, yes. For the time being, we will have to apply a thick layer of abstraction though, e.g. always showing exactly 3 ships that don't exactly match the composition of your fleet, not differentiating between different fleet orders in animation (we have another way planned to signal that) and so on. We're not exactly sure at this point what we can end up with, but it's definitely on our plate of things to look at.
Also it's not coming with the first release of the beta, but at a later stage.
Wohooo. Best news ever, just kidding, best news ever would be the implementation of the Cabinet but this is huge. Thanks.


Will there be some sort of repercussions if the physical location of an HQ is overrun.

In addition how will my 1st Dresden Fusiliers feel if their Homearea is under occupation by the evil Austrians while they are fighting the English in Africa?
If supply is short or cut in their barracks' location, it is going to affect their combat ability, yes. Same as before if I'm not mistaken.
These look good.

Will the progress in guns /rifles technologies be taken into account (mobilisation options maybe)?

Changing to rifles and then to breech loaded was had a big impact on the Battlefield back then... Not so much in the current version.
Any changes planned?
Well you still have different unit types in Infantry for example that you unlock via tech, which arguably have a pretty significant impact.
Upgrading from Line to Skirmish Infantry with higher combat stats for example is still going to be a thing.
So if at pne point I want to replace the 1st Bückeburg Lancers with tanks I can do this? No new barracks needed. I just dissolve the Lancers and reestablish them as 1st Tanks or I could give the command to upgrade the Lancers into Tanks?
If a unit can be upgraded into another one, then they will be able to keep the barracks, e.g. from Line to Skirmish Infantry.
In the case of Lancers to Tanks that would not work in the future because you won't be able to upgrade them. So you'd have to dissolve the Lancers and create a new barracks for the Tanks.
We will need to investigate how we can make sidewards changes of units better. Right now you go through the cavalry types in a line for example, but we would like all types of cavalry to have a more distinct role going forward so we'll need to investigate how to replace a type with another one that's not an upgrade, but a sidestep.
A similar thing then might be applied to the cavalry to tank battalion switch. But we'll need to design that properly.
So expect some weirdness for the initial beta release on that front as well, which we'll address going forward.
This is a good direction of development, it would be nice if new methods of fighting on the frontline were added, such as a careful, slow, planned offensive that would reduce, for example, casualties and slow down the army's rate of advance, possibly give a better chance of getting random battle tactics, or avoiding surprise or counterattack. Or a defensive combat order focused on counter-attacks, traps, where the army retreats faster, loses more territory on defeat but has a chance to inflict more losses on the enemy or to fight a more equal battle thanks to the cavalry's mobility. I think 5, 6, 7 available tactics would be optimal. I would also reduce war losses resulting from exhaustion at least during border fights, with good supplies, infrastructure or general, they should be reduced or with the development of technology. Currently, it looks like the losses from exhaustion of the army often significantly exceed the war losses of the side during the fight
We're actually looking at a system that would work similarly to this tactics system you describe, where different generals would apply different tactics based on your selection.
We're not 100% sure when we can actually get around to implementing it, but it should be coming sometime during the beta. When it's there we do encourage everybody to provide feedback on it though!
Well, currently I guess Skirmish is rifled/minié guns + early breech loaders (chassepots, dreyse, Martini Henry).

This is somewhat debatable as each gun development was a huge step (in both fire rate & range) from the previous one.
Something like this could do :

- Line infantry = 18th century/napoleonic infantry with muskets. -> current requirements
- Skirmish = rifle infantry (still fighting in lines, btw)... US civil war like; -> rifling
- ???? non existing tier = early breech loaders; -> bolt action/repeating
- "trench" = modern magazine fed + machine guns; -> automatic guns
- "modern" infantry = combined squad+motorized; - something later

IMO, it currently does not feel that rewarding to be ahead in terms of gun techs in the 1840-1880.
Click to expand...
One of the persistent issues with balancing military tech advantages in a historical strategy game is that in real history, Austria didn't know ahead of time that they'd lose the Brothers' War if they didn't invest in the latest rifles while the Prussians did. A player of Victoria 3 however, very much knows this and can fully utilize that foreknowledge to a degree that their advantage can become insurmountable if it's balanced in a way that's 'too' representative of history.

Looks massive.
If I start a game with this open beta at launch, should I expect to be able to keep playing this saved game through the three beta updates and the final launch?
Of course I'm not asking for an absolute guarantee that it will work, and even less that it should work smoothly, but how likely is to be reasonably doable? How much effort will you put into making this save-compatible?
We try not to break saves throughout the beta releases but no hard guarantee. If it requires too much work then that time will be better spent on the new features instead.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Good afternoon,a great dd and these changes will add considerable depth to warfare.Can't wait to try them in the open beta.However,i have a few questions:
1)How moddable military formations themselves will be?Can i create new,lock them to certain pm or laws for example?
2)How moddable goods costs for soldiers will be?Can i add new ones,remove some,or things like that?
3)Do you plan to add country-specific 3D units models in futures immersion packs/expansions?
Thanks for any replies about this.
 
  • 10Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
For upcoming Open Beta releases, formations will pathfind across roads, railways, and sea lanes (or sea lanes only for fleets, for obvious reasons) and travel along those to their destination. Here we see the path taken by an army traveling from Örebro, Sweden to Tampa, Florida. The short skip over English territory visualized here is because the pathfinder currently does not take either military access or spline travel time into account but just travel length; once we've completed our work on the pathfinder it should still be possible for armies to disembark/traverse land/re-embark if the time savings makes it worth it, but it will generally be avoided.


Nice I hope railways will boost your military movement speed :). Maybe even tie them to supply (like HOI4 supply system).
 
  • 19
  • 4Like
Reactions:
Good afternoon,a great dd and these changes will add considerable depth to warfare.Can't wait to try them in the open beta.However,i have a few questions:
1)How moddable military formations themselves will be?Can i create new,lock them to certain pm or laws for example?
You cannot create new types of formations, they will be of either Army or Fleet types. However, all properties of formations - like combat unit types and mobilization options - can be modded.
2)How moddable goods costs for soldiers will be?Can i add new ones,remove some,or things like that?
Everything can be modded for unit types and mobilization options.
3)Do you plan to add country-specific 3D units models in futures immersion packs/expansions?
Probably! Nothing decided as of yet, but the tech is there for it.
 
  • 20
  • 14Like
  • 8Love
  • 3
Reactions:
Nice I hope railways will boost your military movement speed :). Maybe even tie them to supply (like HOI4 supply system).
Boosting speed is something we've planned for, at least! For the time being we're not making major changes to how the supply system works, but the new pathfinder we're adding would potentially allow for a more in-depth supply system in the future.
 
  • 35Like
  • 9
  • 1
Reactions:
You cannot create new types of formations, they will be of either Army or Fleet types. However, all properties of formations - like combat unit types and mobilization options - can be modded.
Yeah that's what i meant, the properties of formations,sorry for confusion about that,another question though,since it was not mentioned in the dd,how the mass conscriptions and peasant levies law will work now?
Will they forbid some military formations like it did with pm in the current versions or will it work differently?
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Yeah that's what i meant, the properties of formations,sorry for confusion about that,another question though,since it was not mentioned in the dd,how the mass conscriptions and peasant levies law will work now?
Will they forbid some military formations like it did with pm in the current versions or will it work differently?
The current plan is that they will continue to limit how many units of a type you can support from each state and what units you can recruit. But we will be open to feedback during the Open Beta period and will implement good suggestions as time allows!
 
  • 18
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
are the devs planning in streamlining, putting generals of the IG's we want in the army?, right now it's, it's possible to put any IG in charge, wich is fine, but the way we go about this is too rng dependent, requiring multiple commisiong and retiring of general until we get those of the IG's we want
 
  • 9Like
  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
All great changes and greater in scope than I imagined, devs are doing great work.

Will armies be able to move from land to sea to land again, if they are reinforcing an allied front across the sea without any cost? I would think that armies moving across sea even to friendly regions through sea lanes should cost appropriate amount of convoys, which would limit the ability of landlocked militaries to just spirit away their troops across continents. It would also create interesting dilemmas in war time with supplying existing troops, moving new troops and available trade routes costing convoys.
 
  • 8
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I can't wait to try this, this looks like it will be fantastic
Out of curiosity, have the devs started looking into connecting wars and domestic opinions, making pops actually pro/anti war?
 
  • 16Like
  • 1
Reactions:
are the devs planning in streamlining, putting generals of the IG's we want in the army?, right now it's, it's possible to put any IG in charge, wich is fine, but the way we go about this is too rng dependent, requiring multiple commisiong and retiring of general until we get those of the IG's we want
I'd consider revisiting which commanders spawn for the recruitment pool. Right now there's some conditional logic that influences which commanders you have available to you at any given time, and maybe we can give players more ways of influencing that. But I don't want to just give players full control of which IG to recruit from, either; part of the fun for me at least is that you have a limited number of options at any given time, forcing me to occasionally choose between the perfect candidate from an IG I don't want to empower or a sub-standard candidate from an IG that agrees with me.

A more attractive option (to me) to solve the problem you're presenting is to actually allow the pool to empty out and only refill over time, as more pops become educated to become officers. In the past we haven't been able to do this since commanders were always required to maintain your troops, but since you could now create another Formation even though you don't have any commanders to lead them, this again becomes a possibility.
 
  • 28
  • 16Like
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
I can't wait to try this, this looks like it will be fantastic
Out of curiosity, have the devs started looking into connecting wars and domestic opinions, making pops actually pro/anti war?
Not for this update. We're considering ways of making pops and IGs care about diplomatic relations for the Sphere of Influence expansion, though.
 
  • 51Like
  • 14
  • 13Love
Reactions:
Rail Transport is mutually exclusive with Forced March, doesn't cause morale loss, but requires both the Railway tech and Transportation goods.​
Not a fan of this one, as it exposes the utter strangeness/silliness of Transportation "goods". Specifically, the fact that they are treated as goods at all. How does the fact that I have railways built in my homeland, with excess transport capacity, allow my military to somehow utilize that excess capacity on the far side of the world where there might not even be any railways at all?
 
  • 17Like
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
A more attractive option (to me) to solve the problem you're presenting is to actually allow the pool to empty out and only refill over time, as more pops become educated to become officers. In the past we haven't been able to do this since commanders were always required to maintain your troops, but since you could now create another Formation even though you don't have any commanders to lead them, this again becomes a possibility.

This could also represent the chronic shortage of officers that countries with low literacy and insufficient schooling had at this time. Such as Ottoman Empire and Russia. It could be a great way to represent one of the qualitive differences between more developed and less developed societies.
 
  • 17
  • 1
Reactions:
All great changes and greater in scope than I imagined, devs are doing great work.

Will armies be able to move from land to sea to land again, if they are reinforcing an allied front across the sea without any cost? I would think that armies moving across sea even to friendly regions through sea lanes should cost appropriate amount of convoys, which would limit the ability of landlocked militaries to just spirit away their troops across continents. It would also create interesting dilemmas in war time with supplying existing troops, moving new troops and available trade routes costing convoys.
This will be (re)implemented, yes. Shipping Lanes supporting overseas Generals has always been in the game (albeit a bit hidden) and for the first Open Beta release there won't be a cost at all, but we will definitely require Shipping Lanes supporting overseas armies in later beta updates (probably update 1).
 
  • 24
  • 13Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
So with trying to give armies more concrete locations on the map and having them actually travel to fronts, does this mean military access will become a thing beyond just having access to allies’ territory? I’m thinking more in terms of EUIV where you have a diplomatic pact with another country to allow your army to move through their territory. It can be frustrating not being able to send your army to certain fronts bc you don’t have direct land access to them via your allies. This can be problematic as Prussia for example if you go to war with Denmark, Schleswig, and Holstein but are forced to naval invade bc you can’t ask Hanover for military access if they aren’t your ally. Will we be able to ask countries for military access to be able to travel to otherwise inaccessible fronts and form a front on the border of a country that has allowed us military access?
 
  • 20Like
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions: