• 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:
You know what, hot take: I do kinda want a mechanic for a nation to fall from centralized to decentralized (and I mean that, not just from recognized to unrecognized), maybe if only in a mod. Something that doesn't happen every game, maybe only 1-in-10.

I'm just imagining a nation getting so overcome by rebels, again and again, time after time, in a very short period of time, that the nation devolved into basically Warring States China, but so much worse than even that. Complete lack of any centralized rule, leaving it open for neighboring powers to come in to "re-establish authority" is said nation, essentially turning it into a set of protectorates.
 
  • 8
  • 8
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Would love to see the Seminole represented. They were in control of enough of Florida that the US was in active warfare with em until the late 1850s. Plus I think it would help break up the power of the Us mega bloc a bit
 
  • 6
  • 1Like
Reactions:
This has been my biggest complaint about the EUIV colonial system, so good job fixing this before it became an issue. How exactly do the mechanics of colonizing work though? That wasn't explained well in the previous Dev Diary, and we learn now that there will be no regions of the world that start uncontrolled. If I am playing as the US, do I just select a state region that still has decentralized nations in control of part of it, then push a button to start the colony? Is a colony ever considered "finished" and stop taking up part of the colonial resources, or do all unincorporated states take up a permanent part of your colonial pool, unless they become incorporated?

All in all though, brilliant job in handling something that needs to be a big part of this game without making it tedious as in EUIV and also trying to represent even humans that do not belong to any state during this time period.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Oh, really? That's interesting, I didn't consider that.
Absolutely,if you go to old dds,you will see the 'show only developers' post button.But since on this one,there is currently no dev response,there is by definition no developer posts to show,so i guess that's why the button don't appear.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The decentralized model seems to be the same as V2 in the sense of land containing pops that still doesn't do anything except endure rich countries' game systems. Which is fine! But obviously goes counter to the mood music about agency etc. And they may have told us less than they know. True, there will be some alt-historical diplomatic plays for independence to add player interest, as a gesture to "representation" but not really representing the historical reality that these movements were generally ignored by the global powers rather than being used as a casus belli; the local people typically just suffered for decades, with no America nor Soviet Union paying attention to their needs until possibly the last 4 or 5 years of the game. (V2 had good representation of the imperialist process. The European countries generally didn't care about each other's interests to a great extent, and players who paid attention to the events would notice regular colonial brutality and mass deaths of local people thanks to their imperialism.)

Of course a lot of regions don't have a good solution in the Victoria game design because of migration of entire societies for pasture, trade and conquest, and there's nothing reasonable that can be done about these really.

Nice to have more historical accuracy including states that should play a small role in a typical game - mostly not "decentralized", just extra details like Schaumburg-Lippe.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm kind of concerned they haven't answered any questions yet. In almost all the previous dev diaries they answer questions almost right away. Usually by mid-second page there is a dev response
 
  • 2
Reactions:
One common question "how do I colonise?" was answered by Ofaloaf already:
"No formal declaration of war needs to be made in order to make an incursion into the territories of decentralized nations and start colonizing"
In other words, V2 sans micro; though we don't know if this is a diplomatic play exactly, it sounds like not, because it only increases a "likelihood" of war.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Well here's exactly what I wanted after seeing the colonization dev blog!

It kinda sounds like all these decentralized nations are very similar mechanically to the centralized ones, just with a lot of functionality removed. It will be interesting to see how this design impacts the way colonization plays out.

For example, does it make more sense to take on one decentralized nation at a time until they're weak/assimilated enough to no longer be a constant issue? Or does it make sense to spread out into shared states so that the decentralized nations have to contend with multiple different imperial overlords and not just you?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Lunda, Luba, and Kazembe should be centralized.

They had a complex system of administration involving the sacred institution of the kingship.

If Buganda is centralized (and Buganda certainly deserves it), then those three should also be centralized.

When the Belgians encountered them they were greatly weakened by slave raids from neighbors with more modern weaponry, but there is no reason that need be true in V3. And they certainly rate centralized status at start.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
With how few people the Seminole had by the 19th century historically, it's very likely that the Seminole are simply not viable as a centralized or decentralized nation with how the game mechanics work. It would be bad misrepresentation to make them a country that can easily be rolled over by the US because they can't properly function with the economy, and don't have enough population to the units to actually launch a native uprising, so they're probably better represented through other means than an extant country, like as pops within the US and giving Florida a modifier at game start giving the state high turmoil.
Ngati Toa is a tag, despite having a population of maybe 2000* (half that of the Seminole) and being similarly geographically restricted. "Can't function properly as an economy" also makes no sense as a criticism since the pops would be living a subsistence lifestyle, which does not require economies of scale to function.
FLKbveLX0AoQOKY

At 1840 Ngati Toa Rangatira were a trans-Cook Strait iwi. Their settlements in the North and South Islands were predominately coastal. The explorer and naturalist Ernst Dieffenbach estimated a Maori population in Te Tau Ihu of 1,500 in 1840. Several hundred people were recorded as „Ngati Toa‟. Another 320 „Ngati Toa‟ were recorded at Kapiti, Porirua and Mana
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Thanks for the very nice DD, I'm happy to see that indigenous peoples are getting more representation in Vic3.

Here is a question on the topic: Will Vic3 have the Sámi people of Sápmi be a decentralized nation up in the Fennoscandian Peninsula?

I really hope you will include it because I think it will add more representation and more interesting gameplay for Sweden-Norway and Russia
 
  • 3
Reactions:
True, there will be some alt-historical diplomatic plays for independence to add player interest, as a gesture to "representation" but not really representing the historical reality that these movements were generally ignored by the global powers rather than being used as a casus belli; the local people typically just suffered for decades, with no America nor Soviet Union paying attention to their needs until possibly the last 4 or 5 years of the game. (V2 had good representation of the imperialist process. The European countries generally didn't care about each other's interests to a great extent, and players who paid attention to the events would notice regular colonial brutality and mass deaths of local people thanks to their imperialism.)
? No one is claiming these systems are going to fundamentally change the dynamics between most colonial powers and most colonized peoples/regions in the 19th century, because doing so would make the game a-historical. The only things that have been presented here are reasonable mechanics that allow the game to simulate anti-colonial resistance, that thing that happened for a substantial part of the colonial period, in a videogame that aims to simulate the colonial period.
  • Colonized regions frequently staged revolts. Depending on how strong your country is, these could be quite threatening.
  • Some European countries made concerted efforts to incorporate colonies (France + Algeria, Portugal + Angola/Mozambique, as examples).
  • Colonized regions often relied on the assimilation into and co-opting of the pre-existing classes of the society to function (India, Nigeria, Burkina Faso if I recall)
  • Colonized regions often created their own power structures using natives where they didn't co-opt pre-existing class systems (to an extent in Rwanda, development of the legally codified "hard Apartheid" system in South Africa, Rhodesia).
Though their importance varied by place and time, these all seem like dynamics some players might care about and want to interact with. In any case, implementing them should only make playthroughs more immersive.

I can't speak to the process of imperialism in Victoria 2 since I'm not familiar with the game, but it looks to me like European powers, in a historical context, had many reasons to care about some elements of their colonial population. Of course, that doesn't mean they should be as powerful, in this game, as an equivalent pop from the "heartland", but this game already has a system for determining the relative power and influence of pops. And if you want to ignore them, go ahead! It's your campaign. Someone else might not. I don't know why you'd present this argument as historically consistent when, in fact, a process that entirely ignores the potential for local agitation, revolt, and so on doesn't seem detailed enough to justify being called reflective of history to begin with.

Lunda, Luba, and Kazembe should be centralized.

They had a complex system of administration involving the sacred institution of the kingship.

If Buganda is centralized (and Buganda certainly deserves it), then those three should also be centralized.
They haven't finished adding things. Look at how long it took for Asante, an obvious candidate, to "become centralized". I'd hold off before making judgements.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
Reactions:
They showed New Zealand on twitter:
FLKbveLX0AoQOKY

Thank you!

Bit of a shame really - United Tribes as one entity is not particularly accurate - several of the tribes within the 'federation' were at war with each other within a year of signing the document (i.e.: game start) and the constituent tribes still had individual rangatiratanga.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions: