• 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 #19 - Relations and Infamy

Thumbnail.jpg

Hello and welcome to another Victoria 3 dev diary! This one is going to be a little bit broad, as we want to go through the fundamental mechanics of Diplomacy before moving on to more specific topics. Today, the mechanics we’ll be going over are Relations, Infamy and Interests, so let’s get to them one at a time, shall we?

Starting out with Relations, this is a value on a scale between -100 and +100 that determines the overall diplomatic standing between two countries, similar to relations/opinion in games such as Europa Universalis and Stellaris. The key difference between Relations here and in those games is that in Victoria 3 relations are bilateral, meaning that while in Europa Universalis France can have a relations of -100 with Prussia while Prussia has a relations of +100 with France, in Victoria 3 these two countries will always have the same Relations score towards each other.

There’s a few reasons for this change, such as making it more clear exactly where two countries stand with each other, but the most important is that we want Relations to be a mechanic with significance and mechanical effects not just for AI countries but also for the player, and even in multiplayer. Your relation number will translate into a relations level, and the different relations levels are as follows (from highest to lowest): Warm (80-100), Amiable (50-79), Cordial (20-49), Neutral (-19 to 19), Poor (-20 to -49), Cold (-50 to -79), Hostile (-80 to -100).

Your relationship with the Great Powers will be especially important, as they are the ones with the global reach to potentially affect you no matter where your country is located
Country List.png

All of these have an impact on the AI’s decision-making in terms of which diplomatic proposals it will accept, which side it will want to join in diplomatic plays, and so on, but besides that there are also limitations on what actions you can take against another country based on your mutual Relations. For example, a relations level of Cordial or above acts as a non-aggression pact: It isn’t possible to start most Diplomatic Plays against a country with which you have that relation level without first acting to reduce said relations. On the flip side, signing and maintaining a Customs Union with a country requires you to be at or above Cordial relations, and there are other actions that cannot be taken unless relations are at other certain negative or positive thresholds.

So, how do you raise and lower relations? The primary way is through the Improve Relations and Damage Relations ongoing diplomatic actions (more on those next week), but there’s many other ways in which relations can be increased or decreased, including various events, Diplomatic Incidents (see the section on Infamy below) and the Expel Diplomats diplomatic action (which we’ll also go over in detail next week), which is a way in which one country can act to prevent another from cozying up to them relations-wise, though at the cost of gaining Infamy.

Here, France finds itself with few friends in Europe - the only other Great Power they have decent relations with is Austria, and it seems like it may not stay that way...
Diplomatic Relations Map Alt.png

That covers Relations, so let’s move on to Infamy. This is a system we have previously talked about a little under the name of Threat, implying that it works similarly to Aggressive Expansion in Europa Universalis, but is actually something we have since redesigned following tester feedback, as the very localized effects of Threat/Aggressive Expansion did not feel appropriate to the far more globalized Victorian era. The result is something that could be described as a hybrid between older Infamy (or ‘Badboy’ as those of you who have been around Paradox GSGs for a long time might recall) systems and the newer, more localized systems.

In Victoria 3, a country has an Infamy value that starts at 0 and can increase to… well, anything, as there’s no upper cap on it. As a country’s Infamy increases, other countries will become more wary, resulting in various diplomatic penalties for the infamous country.If Infamy exceeds the Pariah threshold (which is currently set to 100) the country becomes a potential target for a special Contain Threat diplomatic play where the Great Powers step in to ‘restore order’. Infamy decays slowly over time, and its rate of decay can be increased if the country has a large amount of unallocated Influence capacity, representing that capacity being put to use trying to salvage the country’s global reputation instead.

After making some aggressive moves against its neighbors, Bolivia’s infamy has increased to the point where they will start feeling some diplomatic effects - though it’s not yet too bad
Bolivia Infamy.png

So far this should probably sound very familiar to anyone who has played Victoria 2, but the key difference between Victoria 3 and its predecessor here is the Diplomatic Incident mechanic tied to Infamy. In the vast majority of cases, any action a country takes (for example demanding land in a Diplomatic Play or violating a neutral country’s sovereignty during war) that increases Infamy will also create a Diplomatic Incident localized at a particular Strategic Region (more on that below) on the map.

For example, starting a Diplomatic Play to demand a colony in West Africa will result in a Diplomatic Incident occurring there. Whenever a Diplomatic Incident happens, the country that caused it immediately suffers a penalty to their relations with all countries that have an Interest in the region, with the amount of Relations lost based on the amount of Infamy attached to the Incident in question.

Infamy in itself should be understood as a measure of how concerned the Great Powers are about a country, and as such, country Rank has an effect on how much Infamy a country gets when it commits a diplomatic transgression against another. Generally speaking, the lower the rank of the two countries involved, the less Infamy will be generated, as the Great Powers care a lot more about actions taken by and against other Great Powers than they do over two Minor Powers being engaged in a local squabble.

The Sikh Empire’s ambitions on India are not going to go unnoticed by countries with an Interest there
2021_10_07_3.png

Ultimately, what this means is that Infamy doesn’t just have a global effect, and where you’re accruing it matters. If you keep taking actions that destabilize a particular Strategic Region, you can expect to quickly become very unpopular with both the locals and any outside powers that have taken an Interest in it.

By now, I’ve said the word Interest a whole bunch of times, so it’s probably time to finally explain what they are. To do that though, I first have to explain the concept of Strategic Regions. A Strategic Region is a large predetermined geographic area consisting of a number of State Regions, with the 715 State Regions of the current internal build divided into a total of 49 Strategic Regions.

A look at the Strategic Regions of Europe - do note that as with all parts of the map, this may not be how it looks on release!
Strategic Regions.png

Interests is, put simply, a mechanic that determines whether or not a country has a stake in a particular Strategic Region and plays into numerous different mechanics such as Diplomatic Plays, Colonization and the aforementioned Diplomatic Incidents. A country can gain an Interest in a region in one of two ways: either automatically by having a geographical presence there (owning land or controlling subject nations in the region) or by using a Declared Interest.

A Declared Interest is a country quite simply saying that, regardless of their lack of a geographic presence, a Strategic Region is still of importance to them, perhaps because they plan to colonize it, or because they want to prevent a hated rival from expanding into it. A country can Declare an Interest in any region that is either adjacent to a region where they already have an Interest, or which they can reach through the support of their naval supply network (more on that later!). The number of Declared Interests that is available to a country depends on their Rank - a Great Power can choose to have its fingers in a great many pies, while an Insignificant Power is limited to acting only in regions where they already have land.

You might want to declare an Interest in Persia for numerous reasons, such as checking Russian or British aggression in the region… or as a precursor to seizing colonies there for yourself
Declare Interest.png

Interests do not provide any inherent benefit to a country besides the ability to throw their weight around in a Strategic Region, and can actually be a bit of a double-edged sword in that a country with Interests all over the world may get dragged into a lot of local conflicts. Ultimately, Interests are our attempt to simulate such historical occurrences as why certain parts of the world simply got a lot more attention from the Great Powers than others at particular points during the century that Victoria 3 covers, and to make nations act and care about things in a way that makes sense according to their national self-interest.

Right then, that’s all for today! Join me again next week as I continue to write lots of words about diplomatic things, this time on the topic of Diplomatic Actions!
 
  • 280Like
  • 95Love
  • 25
  • 11
  • 10
Reactions:
Why is infamy a global value and not tied to each country, or somehow merged with the relations value? I don't think all actions should be perceived equally dangerous for all great powers. For example, I don't see great powers that are strongly anti-slavery starting a "contain threat" war against you because your last diplomatic action was demanding that some country bans slavery, and that put you over the infamy threshold.

Great powers will see this as interfering with another country's politics, so a threat in a way, but they could very well agree with the demand and I don't think they should start a war because you have done something they actually agree with.
If I'm unfriendly with your country already, and you've been taking aggressive actions recently, and now you're demanding that other countries change their laws, I could definitely see those as threatening "incursions on the sovereignty of foreign states," even if I like the new laws too. And regardless of whether I'm also an abolitionist country, I could definitely see my country starting a war in order to put you back in your place (telling you to stop messing with other countries).

On the other hand, I'd probably be less likely to attack you than a slaver nation (that could probably be represented in relations, where forcing abolition will make you more infamous, but also make abolitionist countries like you more - making it a little harder for them to muster up the support for war).
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
On an unrelated topic, it certainly seems like Strategic Regions would be perfect to allow for limited wars, something I (and other) have been wanting for a long time in a Paradox game. Basically if Britain declares war on France with the wargoal of taking a colony in Vietnam, they should be able to get to, or near, 100 percent warscore just by occupying colonies in the "Indochina" region (assuming that exists). Maybe the armies of both powers stare very tensely at each other from across the English Channel, but it would be great if it was possible to start, fight, and win a war in Asia without firing a shot in Europe. Similarly, let's say Brazil wants to acquire Suriname from the Dutch; in other Paradox games (I'm looking at you, HOI4) the Brazil player would sometimes have to go on a global crusade to occupy every single Dutch-owned province in the world, only to give almost all of them back after the peace deal is signed. It would be great if the game could recognize that Brazil occupies all of the Dutch territory in the "Northern South America" Strategic Region, or whatever it's called, and that the Dutch have no chance of sending enough troops there to stop them, and might be willing to surrender that state and end the war early, rather than face the consequences of a prolonged conflict (whatever those are). Heck, maybe if the UK has announced a Declared Interest in the same region, they could pressure the Dutch to surrender quickly to preserve the stability of the region.
 
  • 15Like
  • 8
  • 2Love
Reactions:
IMO that's the same thing. By not utilizing any extra influence, those will be automatically used instead to lower infamy. Depending on how large the extra influence capacity of a state is, eventually there will come a time where that state can incur infamy in a short time, lower their infamy for 5 or so years, then raise infamy again, thus the cycle, essentially blobbing.
You may want to go look at the capacities dev diary again. Because the influence capacity generated from the state level that we've seen is... zero. And from that dev diary, the infamy decay is still probably based on a percentage unused capacity, which means is scales so larger powers are going to have to cut down on diplomatic participation a lot more than smaller countries to achieve the same effect.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
2021_10_07_3.png



Sigh, there go any dreams of ever liberating India :_( I think colonial states should generate far far less infamy. 62 infamy is what you would probably get for taking London lol.
Honestly, I think taking London would probably be above 100 infamy. Taking the capital of a great power should be enough to cause a coalition just on its own.
 
  • 6Like
  • 4
Reactions:
Excelent DD, mostly everything I expected Vic3 to be. I just dont get the diametral identical relations; can't I like the guys while they dislike us? Like in EU4?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
By that logic I kinda feel most of Norway should be part of the North Sea strategic zone then.
I think that kinda would make sense, having a North Sea region but it seems there already is a North Atlantic replacing that. So idk.
 
If it was similar to the old system but doing bad actions against minors and demanding smaller states gave less infamy it's fine.

I hope it's not the same infamy generation for a state in russia that has 5 million people to a state that has 400k. Value should be important
 
If it was similar to the old system but doing bad actions against minors and demanding smaller states gave less infamy it's fine.

I hope it's not the same infamy generation for a state in russia that has 5 million people to a state that has 400k. Value should be important
Of course, a flat penalty is archaic :)
 
  • 38Like
  • 9Love
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
On an unrelated topic, it certainly seems like Strategic Regions would be perfect to allow for limited wars, something I (and other) have been wanting for a long time in a Paradox game. Basically if Britain declares war on France with the wargoal of taking a colony in Vietnam, they should be able to get to, or near, 100 percent warscore just by occupying colonies in the "Indochina" region (assuming that exists). Maybe the armies of both powers stare very tensely at each other from across the English Channel, but it would be great if it was possible to start, fight, and win a war in Asia without firing a shot in Europe. Similarly, let's say Brazil wants to acquire Suriname from the Dutch; in other Paradox games (I'm looking at you, HOI4) the Brazil player would sometimes have to go on a global crusade to occupy every single Dutch-owned province in the world, only to give almost all of them back after the peace deal is signed. It would be great if the game could recognize that Brazil occupies all of the Dutch territory in the "Northern South America" Strategic Region, or whatever it's called, and that the Dutch have no chance of sending enough troops there to stop them, and might be willing to surrender that state and end the war early, rather than face the consequences of a prolonged conflict (whatever those are). Heck, maybe if the UK has announced a Declared Interest in the same region, they could pressure the Dutch to surrender quickly to preserve the stability of the region.

Good point. Heck, even amongst great powers on their own mainland; the Crimean War can be understood as a limited war as I doubt any of the involved nations would even consider anything outside of the Crimea itself as a theater of operations, or perhaps on Russia's part, going after some target within the Ottoman sphere or something like that. I guess this could be called an implicit limited war since it was a given that France/GB would never think of conquering Russian territory anywhere and vice-versa, Russia wouldn't disembark on the French riviera, let alone try to annex it, after liberating the crimea. And still, that's what eventually happens in a PDX game. They really should think of a way to set up limited wars.

Agressive expansion as it is called in EU4 with its coalitions, and now its equivalent here seen in this DD, are decent workarounds to keep wars from going all over the place but a proper limited war casus belli would be even better.
 
Last edited:
  • 6
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I wouldn't mind seeing Danubia renamed to Carpathia but I'd be interested to see if anyone else has any other suggestions

Carpathia makes the most sense, Danubia implies land by the Danube which would cover a good chunk of the Balkans. Basically the Danube is what separates the Balkans and Carpathia. Danube goes from the Black Sea at Dobruja all the way to Swabia in Germany, it's a bit broad to call the portions of Hungary and Romania as Danubia and ignore everyone else.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Does anyone know anything about the background image of Commodore Perry in Japan? All of the Victoria 3 artwork is great, but this 'painting' is just amazing, and as far as I know there are no contemporary images of the event, as important as it was in Japanese history. An artist's name? Where to download, etc?
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I do wonder if fixed strategic region (and not any dynamic) is a good call
Wouldnt that lead to some weird/less interesting stuff if it goes alt history enough?

I know its not final numbers, but it is really sad that out of the total of 49 geographical regions, 22 regions are in Europe+ northern africa. That means the rest of the world really does not have that mean regions left and we could start to expect the whole of india to be a region, while china might be divided into south china, north china, west china/ tibet+Xinjiang and maybe if we are pushing it manchuria + korea and maybe even japan into a single region.

Adding onto both of these sentiments. I understand why you'd make these fixed, small, dense regions in Europe and larger regions in the rest of the world: so that (European) colonial powers (which is, frankly, what these games always seem to be built for) can have more focused interests at home while having broader ones overseas. For example, the UK only needing to have an interest over Northern France (pretty small region tbh) while also having an interest over Northern India (a massive region with far more people).

But I'm not a fan of the inherent eurocentrism of that framework, and really, I think this dynamic probably applies to all countries at some level: smaller, specific, but more intense interests at home (someone conquering Calais would be a very big deal for the UK) while having broad, but less intense interests abroad (conquering half of Gujarat would be of interest to them, but not monumental). I think this could work with countries anywhere: a powerful, expansionist Chile might have a more focused interest around the Rio de la Plata, but also a more general one over all of Indonesia. An independent and colonial-minded Vietnam might have a localized interest over Borneo, but also a more expansive one over the entirety of East Africa.

I think the conflation of these two concepts - the localized interest and the overseas one - makes the fixed regions a bit of a problem, making it so European nations are the only ones that can have them both work properly. So, maybe, we could have interests not be based on static regions, but, could instead have interests be dynamic and "based in" a specific state. For this, how far away that state is from your metropole would determine how intense your interest is (an interest further away from your metropole means regional relations hits affect you less) and also the breadth of your interest (an interest further away from your metropole means you get touched by regional relations hits in states much further away from the "core state" of the interest). This would presumably also propagate from your borders, where actions right next to you have a much more intense effect, but you're also not interested in actions that far from your borders.

Alternatively, you could have it so whenever you declare an interest, you get to customize how "focused" it is (also events that add interests could do the same - for example, a colonial power with an interest focused at the Suez Canal would take great interest in someone conquering Sinai, but wouldn't care much about stuff happening far up the Nile in Egypt or deep in the Arabian desert).
 
Last edited:
  • 6
  • 5Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
It's great that you're trying to model the closer attention to the specificity of Great Power interests. I must ask, why is France split into two Strategic Regions? Are there any countries in Northern France that could pose a threat?

I think top level of positive relations should be renamed: warm doesn't really convey the image of close relations as well as "Cordial" and "Friendly" did in Vic2
Maybe France has releasables like Brittany and Occitania, and that can happen if it loses a war
 
Good point. Heck, even amongst great powers on their own mainland; the Crimean War can be understood as a limited war as I doubt any of the involved nations would even consider anything outside of the crimea itself as a teater of operations, or perhaps on Russia's part, going after some target within the ortoman sphere or something like that. I guess this could be called an implicit limited war since it was a given that France/GB would never think of conquering russian territory anywhere and vice-versa, Russia wouldnt disembark on the french riviera, let alone try to annex it, after liberating the crimea. And still, thats what eventually happens in a PDX game. They really should think of a way to set up limited wars.

Agressive expansion as it is called in EU4 with its coalitions, and now its equivalent here seen in this DD, are decent workarounds to keep wars from going all over the place but a proper limited war casus belli would be even better.
I really like your example of the Crimean War being a limited conflict, I hadn't even thought of this when I wrote my post. And I think we can consider alternative histories to illustrate why this sort of thing is important. In real life, many of the great powers joined against Russia to prevent them from becoming too powerful in the Balkans, and to preserve the Ottoman Empire as a counter-balance in the East. But what if things were different? What if Germany and Russia had allied before the war, and Germany agreed to send troops to Crimea to help the Russian armies (and weaken the French at the same time)? That shouldn't necessarily change the calculus for the UK and France, who still just want Russia to stop their attack on the Ottomans and make peace, and aren't interested in starting a general European war. But, if Germany is confident they could win such a war, and they do decide to attack France through Alsace, obviously that escalates the situation and the other great powers would mobilize everything in defense of France, and suddenly the war stops being limited.

I guess if I was a game developer, and I had to convert the above into game systems, it would look like: Russia declares a war on the Ottoman Empire, AND declares their intent to only fight the war in the Balkans region. UK and France intervene in the war after it's started to protect the Ottomans. Germany intervenes to assist the Russians. All five nations send troops into the Balkans region, and engage there only. But then the British aren't able to force the Russians out of the mountains and achieve a decisive victory, so they decide to escalate the situation and navally invade the Crimea in the South Russia region. Maybe this escalation incurs a cost of infamy for the UK, as other nations now see them as the aggressors to some extent. As the war continues in only those two regions, maybe Germany sees the French forces on their border move away, to participate in the East, and decide they could be in Paris by Christmas. This would also generate infamy for them, and this massive escalation could lead to further escalations by other powers, all the way (in the late game) up to great war. Alternatively, a smart Russia could see this coming, and decide to end the war early by giving up some embarrassing concessions, but saving millions of lives (my understanding, mostly from Wikipedia, is that this is exactly why the real Crimean War ended).

Basically I think it would be cool if with each war declaration, a nation could declare their intent to fight this war only in a limited theater, leaving it up to the other belligerents to escalate further. If nobody escalates the war is limited in geographic scope and casualties and over quickly. If someone chooses to escalate, they can do so at the cost of infamy for themselves, and maybe making it easier for the war to be escalated later.
 
  • 10Like
  • 3
  • 2Love
Reactions:
I really like your example of the Crimean War being a limited conflict, I hadn't even thought of this when I wrote my post. And I think we can consider alternative histories to illustrate why this sort of thing is important. In real life, many of the great powers joined against Russia to prevent them from becoming too powerful in the Balkans, and to preserve the Ottoman Empire as a counter-balance in the East. But what if things were different? What if Germany and Russia had allied before the war, and Germany agreed to send troops to Crimea to help the Russian armies (and weaken the French at the same time)? That shouldn't necessarily change the calculus for the UK and France, who still just want Russia to stop their attack on the Ottomans and make peace, and aren't interested in starting a general European war. But, if Germany is confident they could win such a war, and they do decide to attack France through Alsace, obviously that escalates the situation and the other great powers would mobilize everything in defense of France, and suddenly the war stops being limited.

I guess if I was a game developer, and I had to convert the above into game systems, it would look like: Russia declares a war on the Ottoman Empire, AND declares their intent to only fight the war in the Balkans region. UK and France intervene in the war after it's started to protect the Ottomans. Germany intervenes to assist the Russians. All five nations send troops into the Balkans region, and engage there only. But then the British aren't able to force the Russians out of the mountains and achieve a decisive victory, so they decide to escalate the situation and navally invade the Crimea in the South Russia region. Maybe this escalation incurs a cost of infamy for the UK, as other nations now see them as the aggressors to some extent. As the war continues in only those two regions, maybe Germany sees the French forces on their border move away, to participate in the East, and decide they could be in Paris by Christmas. This would also generate infamy for them, and this massive escalation could lead to further escalations by other powers, all the way (in the late game) up to great war. Alternatively, a smart Russia could see this coming, and decide to end the war early by giving up some embarrassing concessions, but saving millions of lives (my understanding, mostly from Wikipedia, is that this is exactly why the real Crimean War ended).

Basically I think it would be cool if with each war declaration, a nation could declare their intent to fight this war only in a limited theater, leaving it up to the other belligerents to escalate further. If nobody escalates the war is limited in geographic scope and casualties and over quickly. If someone chooses to escalate, they can do so at the cost of infamy for themselves, and maybe making it easier for the war to be escalated later.
Indeed. Thus, the singular feature of Great Wars could be that there are no theaters, and everywhere on the planet is fair game.
I'd also say the ticking warscore from achieving a particular wargoal should apply instantly, rather than ticking up slowly, and adding other wargoals after achieving the first one should give a significant infamy hit.
 
  • 10
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Warm (80-100), Amiable (50-79), Cordial (20-49), Neutral (-19 to 19), Poor (-20 to -49), Cold (-50 to -79), Hostile (-80 to -100)
I just read the all the comments up to this point. I am surprised that some people do not like the levels of diplomatic rating. I am guessing it is mostly non-native English speakers, based on the alternative suggestions. Personally, I think they are perfectly fine the way they are. Although of course I really don't care, so if they change, whatever haha
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I just read the all the comments up to this point. I am surprised that some people do not like the levels of diplomatic rating. I am guessing it is mostly non-native English speakers, based on the alternative suggestions. Personally, I think they are perfectly fine the way they are. Although of course I really don't care, so if they change, whatever haha

I agree. Hostile is the ultimate of bad relationships, as you're openly seeking to kill the other dude. A nation can have a good relationship with another nation, but it's hard to imagine a world where one nation is 'In love' with another nation. Which in my option would be the step above 'Warm.'

Even 'Heated' would be a stretch. I don't think Russia would even look at Ukraine in that fashion. Russia is a strong, independent woman.
 
That is a thick Oman.
 
Basically I think it would be cool if with each war declaration, a nation could declare their intent to fight this war only in a limited theater, leaving it up to the other belligerents to escalate further. If nobody escalates the war is limited in geographic scope and casualties and over quickly. If someone chooses to escalate, they can do so at the cost of infamy for themselves, and maybe making it easier for the war to be escalated later.
Reading up on your post I wonder if it'd be a neat mechanic to only allow combat within the limited theater (and maybe adjacent areas to protect some gaming of the system?)

Like Crimean War means fighting in Crimea, not at Vladivostok.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions: