• 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 #33 - Decentralized Nations

16_9.jpg

Hello folks, I'm Ofaloaf, one of the content designers on Victoria 3, and I'm here today to talk about decentralized nations. What are they? Why are they there?

To start with, let's talk about what came before - let's take a quick look at what Victoria (well, Victoria: Revolutions) and Victoria II did when it came to regions outside of traditional imperial homelands.

Africa in Victoria: Revolutions
image1.png

Above is Africa as it was represented in Victoria: Revolutions. Most of the continent is open territory for any Great Power to colonize. There's people living there, but they don't do anything. Outside of a few limited cases, like Sokoto, they're represented by… nothing. They do not do anything on their own, and when added to a colonizing power, they just immediately become pawns in the imperial game and don't really care for independence or their own homeland.

Africa in Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
image2.jpg

The same is broadly true in Victoria II. Regions historically colonized by imperial powers, such as most of Africa and parts of the Americas, are represented as unclaimed swathes of land just waiting for an empire to come by and colonize them. The people who live there do not care who marches in, and will just be members of one empire or another forevermore after they are colonized. It's… a model that could use some improvement. It didn't do justice to the people who historically lived there, and, frankly, it made colonial gameplay kind of boring.

Africa as it currently stands in Victoria 3
image3.jpg

In Victoria 3, decentralized nations exist to address both the issues of gameplay and better representation of indigenous peoples. No matter where an empire tries to colonize, someone already lives there. They're organized, although they don't have the same level of international recognition and administrative organization as, say, Congress of Vienna attendees.

No formal declaration of war needs to be made in order to make an incursion into the territories of decentralized nations and start colonizing, although the deeper you colonize into a decentralized nation's lands, the more likely it is a diplomatic play will kick off where the decentralized nation starts a real war of resistance against you. Even if a colony is successfully established, the people living there aren't just pawns - they'll remember that they weren't always colonized subjects, and just like any other part of an empire they'll agitate for independence if conditions are right.


Mapping these nations has been a challenge. We essentially started with the Victoria II map as a base to build off of, which meant we had a lot of work to do just gathering information for peoples across the globe. Records of who lived where, and how many people lived there, have been difficult to obtain for some regions. Gameplay considerations have also driven some design choices - let's look at North America for an example of that process.

Behold the snippet of a beautiful draft image used when presenting the original proposal.
image4.png

This is part of one drafted proposal for the implementation of decentralized nations in North America. There's already some compromises in this version - peoples have been consolidated into some larger polities, and some state borders have been followed largely because having just one or two provinces on the other side of a state line can create regions too small to provide anything or anybody - 400 pops living in State X aren't able to provide enough men to contribute a single battalion to a native uprising, among other things. This design isn’t just for the decentralized nations - it is something we also do elsewhere in the world when trying to balance historical accuracy with gameplay, although we of course try to avoid steering too far away from actual history.

North America after the revised proposal was implemented.
image5.jpg

Even with these considerations, we still ended up pursuing a modified version of that proposal that did more to preserve the borders of larger imperial borders - we didn't want too many avenues for the United States to colonize its way into historical Canadian territories, or for Mexico to colonize its way into Minnesota. I do miss the Council of Three Fires and hope I can get it back in, but that depends on getting a design hammered out that works with the considerations and limitations we just went over above.


Other regions have had design considerations made in their implementation, too.

(from Wikipedia)
image6.png


I'm gonna be real with you, there was no way we were going to accurately and sufficiently map out all the peoples of New Guinea. That's one region where I think we've probably done the most consolidation, but I think it was necessary in order to provide anything like the combined strength needed in order to give the indigenous peoples of New Guinea a decent punch in case of a native uprising.

West Africa in Victoria 3.
image7.jpg

West Africa had many design decisions made since it was first mapped out for V3; as mentioned above, the original map built off of was Victoria 2's, so the first thing done was just getting some entity everywhere on the map. This early draft has been revised and revised and revised again, and probably will still be subject to further revisions. Countries that were first marked as decentralized have been centralized, such as the Ashanti Empire, and tag additions and renamings are a thing that's happened already and will happen again, as we continue to invest time in research and listen to feedback from our fans.

Decentralized nations give life to regions that have been treated as blank slates up 'til now. Mapping them out, getting them right, and balancing the challenges of precision and gameplay are a constant struggle, one which we are constantly tackling and working through. The result of all this, though, is a world that feels much more alive, one that I hope you'll be happily exploring at Victoria 3's release.

I'm terrible at transitions so let me just say that next week is @neondt's dev diary, and we're going to ship some monumental information there! And by that I mean it's on canals and monuments.
 
  • 257Like
  • 83Love
  • 21
  • 12
  • 3
Reactions:
Very nice DD and an extremely promising development.

As always - questions:
1. What about places that genuinly had zero or almost zero population before some developed country claimed them (its mostly small islands in Pacific, but they can be valuable basing points for navies)?

2. Can you "absorb" a non-centralized nation without colonizing, through diplomatic plays? For example if US completely surrounds Sioux Nation territory and includes them into their market - will there be an option for a peaceful annexation or maybe protectorate?

3. Likewise - will decentralized nations be able to start any diplomacy besides anti-colonial uprisings? It would be especially interesting if they could ask for protectorate/colony status from other nations - for example the same Sioux feel threatened by USA, but have better relationship with Canada - could they ask Canada to become their protectorate/colony?

4. Can a developed nation foment uprisings in colonial territories of another nation? Without this the "Great Game" would largely be impossible to simulate.
 
  • 19
  • 6Like
Reactions:
No matter where an empire tries to colonize, someone already lives there.
What about the (very few) places that are uninhabited?
 
  • 6Like
  • 5
Reactions:
Are there mechanics in place for potential rebellions of the Natives in already colonized areas? For example in the HBC area, an area that historically was mostly just Natives and very few Europeans up until the late 1800's/early 1900's, would it be possible for the Natives there to start an uprising and then create their own nations? If so, what kind of nations would they form? For example: the Inuit in the Canadian Territories, or the Dene and other peoples of Northern Alberta/Saskatchewan/BC/Manitoba etc.

I am glad that the Red River area (Winnipeg and surroundings) didn't end up as a Native tribe/decentralized nation, as that is one area that did have a more substantial settlement at the time (even if it was mostly Metis).
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions:
It seems that in addition to cutting the Ojibwe, the Iron Confederacy also got nerfed to reduce the decentralized nations straddling the US-Canada border.

Thing is, by 1836 the US-British border was already defined by treaty as the 49th parallel, so American settlers barging into native land north of that line would have caused a severe diplomatic incident. Has the dev team made any thoughts about implementing treaties between countries where they would agree to split up a decentralized region along X border and a country violating that would trigger a diplomatic play? This would also be useful to represent stuff like the Scramble For Africa, where the Europeans drew up planned colonial borders a good decade before they had serious boots on the ground at those borders.
 
  • 32
  • 14Like
Reactions:
Thank for the DD but Not too much new info here tbh. I’m left with more questions than answers. For instance, can decentralized nations join diplo plays? I mean if I’m trying to colonize some decentralized nation and they trigger a diplo play, can other decentralized nations in the area join? Can other regular nations? Can a regular nation engage in diplomacy with a decentralized one? Help them centralize? Trade? Can decentralized tags be released?
As I said a lot of questions.
 
  • 14
  • 3Like
Reactions:
What is the design basis on choosing whether a native nation is decentralised or centralised? From what we've seen so far, the difference is that the latter requires an actual war to be declared. So is it based on how much resistance a certain people put up against colonisers?
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Great stuff!

Are some of the political map elements open to change? I'm currently having a little difficulty, at a glance, telling the difference between centralized and decentralized nations (especially in Africa).

Would you consider possibly darkening the internal color of some of the centralized nations (especially that very light blue nation by lake victoria) and lightening/removing the colored borders of the decentralized nations? The borders in central Africa are kind of creating some visual noise that's confusing (and a little unpleasant) to look at.

I think that'd really help me at least. Maybe others disagree though. Thanks!
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
TL;DR:
If New Guinea needs to be able to stage large-scale uprisings against colonisers to remain mostly undisturbed, that suggests to me that there is a problem in the colonisation mechanics. This will presumably be felt equally in similarly difficult-to-colonise countries, like Vanuatu and the Andamans.

Does it really make sense for New Guinea to be able to stage large-scale uprisings? Historically they never did, AFAIK, and they didn't really need to, because colonisation beyond the coast was so difficult. The terrain is extremely rough, and the natives of the interior were always able to just kill or drive off foreigners (as they still do today; the government of PNG doesn't even know the names or territories of an uncertain number of tribes).
There obviously was some colonisation, but largely it was of the variety where a corporation paid farmers for a cash crop (cursory reading says this was copra) and their parent country claimed sovereignty over the region without informing the natives.

edit 17/2: I'm curious about all the disagrees. If I'm disagree with me about something, please reply and correct me! If you don't then I can't tell whether you're saying I'm factually wrong or whether you disagree about historical representation of PNG etc being important (which sounds pejorative when I say it like that, but please do make your case).
 
Last edited:
  • 11Like
  • 10
  • 3
Reactions:
I like the presence of the Dakota, and hopefully something like the 1860s Dakota War can be properly represented with this system. Not sure about including the Ojibwe however because I don't really know that they had much autonomy in the northern part of Minnesota at the time, they at least had much less of a sovereign presence than the Dakota by the 1860s
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
TL;DR:
If New Guinea needs to be able to stage large-scale uprisings against colonisers to remain mostly undisturbed, that suggests to me that there is a problem in the colonisation mechanics. This will presumably be felt equally in similarly difficult-to-colonise countries, like Vanuatu and the Andamans.

Does it really make sense for New Guinea to be able to stage large-scale uprisings? Historically they never did, AFAIK, and they didn't really need to, because colonisation beyond the coast was so difficult. The terrain is extremely rough, and the natives of the interior were always able to just kill or drive off foreigners (as they still do today; the government of PNG doesn't even know the names or territories of an uncertain number of tribes).
There obviously was some colonisation, but largely it was of the variety where a corporation paid farmers for a cash crop (cursory reading says this was copra) and their parent country claimed sovereignty over the region without informing the natives.
they never even implied that they would need large scale uprisings to remain undisturbed and you have invented this reasoning for no clear reason. all they said is that fracturing the decentralized nations makes them impotent if they do in fact revolt
 
  • 6
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
There should probably a system where countries can claim the territories of Decentralized Nations before they actually colonize it. This would solve the issue of the US potentially colonizing it's way into Canada, as everything north of the 49th would be already be claimed by Canada/Britain, and the US attempting to colonize it would cause a diplomatic Incident. This system could also model the European Powers agreeing on colonial borders in Africa before the actually get there.
 
  • 25
  • 5Like
Reactions:
Are the rumors true that a centralized country can turn into decentralized one in certain situations?

Would the Ottomans (as the Dead Man of Europe when that fires) be one as suspected?
 
  • 6
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
TL;DR:
If New Guinea needs to be able to stage large-scale uprisings against colonisers to remain mostly undisturbed, that suggests to me that there is a problem in the colonisation mechanics. This will presumably be felt equally in similarly difficult-to-colonise countries, like Vanuatu and the Andamans.

Does it really make sense for New Guinea to be able to stage large-scale uprisings? Historically they never did, AFAIK, and they didn't really need to, because colonisation beyond the coast was so difficult. The terrain is extremely rough, and the natives of the interior were always able to just kill or drive off foreigners (as they still do today; the government of PNG doesn't even know the names or territories of an uncertain number of tribes).
There obviously was some colonisation, but largely it was of the variety where a corporation paid farmers for a cash crop (cursory reading says this was copra) and their parent country claimed sovereignty over the region without informing the natives.
Good catch. Native uprisings and competing colonizers are societies hindering colonization, but so far only malaria is mentioned as a natural blocker for colonizers. Then again, colonization is probably seen as a supporting feature, and thus cutting some corners is understandable.
 
  • 6
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Will there be any chance of reverse cultural-penetration? As in, can there be a route for native ideas to flow back and affect Europe? Spain realising its centralised Monarchical Imperialism was bringing everyone nothing but misery and decentralising would be awesome, FX. Or, indeed, the English and French, Dutch and Portoguese. That would be hard to implement. Although if the argument in Dawn of Everything is correct, then ideas such as the Enlightenment at least partly came from interactions with the human victims of European colonisation.
 
  • 12
  • 1Haha
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
The terrain is extremely rough, and the natives of the interior were always able to just kill or drive off foreigners (as they still do today; the government of PNG doesn't even know the names or territories of an uncertain number of tribes).
What's your source for the current situation, and what's the situation on the other half of the island? Is there a difference between the pre-1918 German and British parts?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I'm puzzled by the complete lack of gameplay/mechanic discussion when it comes to the Decentralized nations, the dev diary ended just as I thought the introduction of how they were mapped into the game ended. They look nice on the map but I thought we would get more information what the interactions with decentralized nations would be like at the very least
 
  • 31
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions: