• 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.

Dev Diary #41 - Revolutions

16_9.jpg

A glorious Thursday to you! Today we will finally get into details of what fate befalls the state that fails to deliver what its people demand - revolution!

Revolutions in Victoria 3 can be seen as a result of failure in the game’s economic and political core loops. When this happens it means you have failed to balance the material and ideological desires of the different segments of your population, resulting in one or several groups deciding to take matters in their own hands. The result is a tremendous upheaval which could go very wrong for you - but play your cards right, and there’s a chance you might bounce back from this crisis even stronger than before.

A design goal we have kept front and center is that outright armed uprisings should be rare but still feel threatening. There is a lot of foreshadowing and opportunity to course-correct or compensate if you want to avoid a revolution. Not all movements will actually be powerful or angry enough to pose a real threat to you, and if they aren’t, they won’t drag you into a pointless war with an obvious outcome but bide their time until they become relevant.

A revolution always starts with a Political Movement demanding some kind of change to the country’s Laws. The demand might be to enact something novel (perhaps Universal Suffrage or Workplace Safety), preserve something you’re about to change (maybe the Monarchy you’ve been trying to abolish), or restore something you used to have (Free Markets? Outlawed Dissent?). Any of these could end in a violent uprising if the movement is radical enough and you fail to meet its demands.

Political Movements have two major attributes to keep an eye on: their Support and their Radicalism. A movement’s Support affects how much help they would lend to enacting their desired change if you choose to go along with them, or how much resistance they put up in case of a movement to preserve a law you’re trying to change. It also determines how powerful a revolution they can muster, should it come down to that.

Meanwhile, Radicalism measures how likely they are to revolt if they don’t get their way. A movement with strong Support and high Radicalism is of course very dangerous. A movement with strong Support but low Radicalism can be a nuisance but is relatively harmless: they’ll work within the system, maybe raise a placard or two, but won’t take up arms. Finally, a movement with low Support but high Radicalism might not stand much of a chance to overthrow the government on their own, but the instability caused by their ideological fervor could be damaging to your country in the short-term and might even create geopolitical opportunities for your neighbors.

The movement to restore the Republic is not the most powerful one, but those who do support it care a great deal - and may even be willing to lay down their lives for it. It is supported by both the Armed Forces and the Intelligentsia - not the most likely of bedfellows typically, but united in this case for this particular cause.
DD41 01.png

A movement’s Radicalism originates from two sources: the number of Radicals among the Pops that support the movement, and the Clout of supporting Interest Groups with Approval low enough to be Angry. Since an Interest Group’s Approval originates both from the Laws of your country and also how Loyal vs Radical its supporters are, Radical Pops can potentially double their impact on a movement’s Radicalism. The major difference between these two factors is that when Pops act through their Interest Groups their impact is through Clout (the national share of their Political Strength) while direct Pop support makes a difference through sheer numbers. This means populist uprisings are possible even though the affected Pops don’t have any real representation in the halls of power, assuming they’re angry enough about their living conditions.

While a movement’s demands remain unmet, any Pops that belong to them will gradually gain Radicals. Once the Radicalism of a movement has exceeded a certain threshold it will begin organizing an armed uprising. You can monitor this progression in your outliner to see both how rapidly you’re moving along the road to revolution and how far you have already gone, both determined by Radicalism.

This means you can have a direct impact on revolutionary progression. Of course you can cave to the movement’s demands, which will placate them and eventually cause them to disband. But you can also address the problem by identifying the troublemakers and deal with them directly: either deradicalize them by improving their living conditions, or suppressing their contrarian ways by other means.

The ability to deal with insurgents by issuing Decrees to suppress Radicals can be a helpful tool in more authoritarian countries with concentrated populations, or where the insurgency is very localized. This is much more difficult in case of broadly supported populist movements in a large country.
DD41 02 v2.png

If you manage to get the movement’s Radicalism under control, you can make the revolution fizzle out on its own without giving an inch.

Another way of keeping revolutions in check is by establishing a Home Affairs Institution. By sinking Bureaucracy into Home Affairs you can more easily keep your troublesome elements in check, giving you more room to maneuver politically. As usual such an Institution can take several forms depending on what Law establishes it. A National Guard can require you to take more overt, proactive steps to keep law and order, while a Secret Police is able to operate more effectively in the background.

A minimal Home Affairs Institution under the Secret Police Law.
DD41 03.png

When radical movements are met with obstacles to their revolution for a long time, there’s an increasing chance that its revolutionary fervor burns out and the movement disbands.

But let’s say you don’t manage to placate or obstruct the political movement and the revolutionary progression boils over a required threshold. In this case an armed uprising will take a number of your states, proportional to the strength of the movement and localized roughly where its supporters are, to form a new revolutionary country. This country has the same technology as you but with some differences in laws, to reflect the ideological desires of the political movement’s leadership. Furthermore, the Interest Groups in this new country will become marginalized if they do not support the revolution, while the opposite is true in the loyalist part of the country.

Obviously, characters supporting revolutionary Interest Groups will join the revolution. This includes not only Interest Group leaders, but also those Generals and Admirals you may have carefully nurtured over many military campaigns and who may by now be in charge of most of your forces. Even if you win against them, they won’t be making it back to your country - alive, at least.

All other properties of this new country are dependent on the states they won over. If the revolution takes all your Barracks and Arms Industries, you might be in big trouble; if the revolutionary states consist mostly of Paper Mills and Art Academies, maybe you’re not so worried (until your Government Administrations start grinding to a halt and your aristocracy get mad about the lack of culture workers to patronize, that is). And of course, the loyalist part of the country retains all their hard-won diplomatic pacts and treaties, while the pretender has to start from scratch.

What follows is a Revolutionary [Diplomatic] Play where the stakes are very simple: the loyalist part of the country tries to crush the rebellion, while the revolutionary country tries to swarm the loyalists. Other countries with an Interest in the region can participate in this Play as usual. It is not uncommon for countries with good relations to the country before the revolution to support the loyalists in restoring order. It is also possible for a country whose government supports the ideals of the revolutionaries to back their side. As such, a revolution might not only result in you having to fight and kill your own people, but your nation might even become the ideological battleground of Great Powers.

A revolution in South Germany might prove a perfect opportunity for some old rivals to weaken each other and perhaps woo a potential Subject nation without having to take on any Infamy of their own.
DD41 04.png

If the prospect of winning against the revolutionaries doesn’t look good, like in all Diplomatic Plays you have the option of giving up. But rather than simply backing down and letting the revolutionaries have their way (which, to be frank, you could and should have done a long time ago if that was your intention), in Revolutionary Plays you only have an option to switch sides and take over the revolutionary part of the country in its fight against the loyalists. A daring player might decide to manufacture a powerful revolution on purpose in order to push some highly contentious laws through, though this strategy definitely straddles the line between brilliance and madness.

It’s important to note that there is no potential for a “white peace” in a revolution. Either side can capitulate, of course, but a peace cannot be signed without one party pressing their war goal and annexing the other side. By the end of the revolution, only one country will be left standing.

Needless to say, while all wars are expensive, civil wars are doubly so. A quick and decisive victory with minimal casualties is the best you can hope for - a long, drawn-out war amassing casualties and devastation on both sides might result in a country so broken it will take decades to rebuild. But once the war is over, the Interest Groups that lost the power struggle are defeated, for a time. Perhaps during this “golden age” you will have the opportunity to effect some much-needed political change and rise from the ashes?

Losing a revolutionary war means your country loses all its territory and Pops, in other words Game Over. This is something we’ve gone back and forth on during development, because while we do want you to be able to drastically transform your country through revolution, we don’t want to encourage you to just give up if things are looking bleak because resisting means a prolonged conflict leading to a more war-torn country in the end. So pick your side, but do it carefully! Should you end up losing after all, just like in any Game Over situation you can choose to continue playing as a different country, including the political faction that just took over yours. But to be clear, we still haven’t fully made our mind up on this and might well change our mind again! What do you think? Feel free to let us know in the comments!

Next week I’ll return with part two of civil wars: cultural secessions. Until then!
 
  • 217Like
  • 88Love
  • 16
  • 14
  • 5
Reactions:
DD41%2003.png

Interesting that every number is negative while there are 3 different colors and the red number seems like a good thing and the 2nd green one seems bad.
I hope we get some clarification on what the colors mean in relation to negative percentages of different modifiers. I am guessing the -10% in Red is a bad or negative modifier so Interest Groups are getting Radicalized with a 10% higher chance rate due to Secret Police.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
What about national revolts looking to establish independent countries? Presumably these should allow both white peace and potentially even multiple nations to appear at once. Do they have a seperate system or are they a special case of revolutions?
Re read the last line of the DD.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
A revolution always starts with a Political Movement demanding some kind of change to the country’s Laws. The demand might be to enact something novel (perhaps Universal Suffrage or Workplace Safety), preserve something you’re about to change (maybe the Monarchy you’ve been trying to abolish), or restore something you used to have (Free Markets? Outlawed Dissent?). Any of these could end in a violent uprising if the movement is radical enough and you fail to meet its demands.
Does it have to be a single law or can the movement chose a whole set of laws?
Also, the way I understand this, independence is not seen as a special case of revolution, but is a independentist movement a special case of political movement? Can we have a movement which is both political and nationalist? For instance the winegrower's revolt being both socialist and Occitan. Given that it seems that you're not allowing two separate movements to participate to the same uprising.
But let’s say you don’t manage to placate or obstruct the political movement and the revolutionary progression boils over a required threshold. In this case an armed uprising will take a number of your states, proportional to the strength of the movement and localized roughly where its supporters are, to form a new revolutionary country. This country has the same technology as you but with some differences in laws, to reflect the ideological desires of the political movement’s leadership.
"Some" differences in laws which go beyond what was the change of law requested by the political movement? Is it selected dynamically based on the desires of the "leader" POPs/characters/groups of the political movement or is it defined at the time of the creation of the movement based on its demands?

Those questions are in particular important to reproduce historical revolutions, or revolts which were close to become revolutions. In those historical cases we typically had a mix of various demands and aspirations, and the player is aware of this complexity. While for generic revolutions it is fine to approximate the situation as having a single demand, historical revolutions would need the ability to introduce more nuances (even if this requires to write a dedicated chain of events or make a mod)
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
About the game over thing for revolts,if you are not playing on IronMan,can you confirm that you will be able to continue in observer mode and/or select a new country as in all recent Paradox Games or you haven't decided yet for that and there is still a chance you implement it the CK2/VIC2 way where you are completely locked from continuing the game,even in a non-ironman or non-multiplayer game?
Can Turmoil and radicalism be modified by some country,pop,states or Interest Group Modifiers?
Thanks for any replies about this.
Can definitely confirm that outside of Ironman you'll be able to keep playing, as Observer or any country still on the map, after Game Over.
Radicalism Gain modifiers from various factors (such as decreases in Standard of Living or from being Discriminated) can be individually applied on a Country or State level where they would affect the relevant Pops (we don't apply modifiers to Pops directly as they're too mutable ) and are fully available to modders. We're considering implementing them on Interest Group level as well.
 
Last edited:
  • 26Like
  • 9
  • 4
  • 1Love
Reactions:
To be honest, I would prefer an option for a negotiated peace with the revolutionaries if the war drags for too long without either side getting an upper hand. It's not a big deal, all real-life examples of a long ceasefire between the sides in a civil war are outside of the game's timeframe, so it's not going to break immersion too much, but it would be pretty interesting to see. From a roleplaying perspective it would be cool to lead a semi-successful revolution, industrialize and prosper in your half of the country while the reactionary half falls further and further behind until it collapses and joins you - now you will need tons of investments to bring them up to higher living standards and extend the welfare provisions, while experiencing high unemployment and falling wages which brings resentment from both your existing population and the new compatriots.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Is it possible for a cultural secession also happen to one of the sides of a civil war? Or vice-versa?
 
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
why couldnt a revolution end up with two countries? after all, didn't we have east/west germany, north/south vietnam or today korea? you could also argue that prussia and austria were two germanys... you are able to have more than country for a nationality, arabs have 22 countries.
this exemples are quiet bad. Also they were formed during another era. Neither of them was the result of a civil war except maybe Vietnam.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
for ease of modding, will the revolutionary country have a new tag, or for example, revolutionary russia still be RUS?
Revolutionary Russia will share the country definition (i.e. RUS) of loyalist Russia, but there are ways of altering its behaviors or appearance based on its revolutionary nature. So for example, in the country definition file for RUS you could say "The name of your country is Russia, unless you're Revolutionary, in which case if the Rural Folk are Revolutionary your name is Russian Agrarian Uprising, or... ". You can also change flags the same way.
 
  • 34Like
  • 13
  • 8Love
  • 1
Reactions:
What are "progression thresholds"? The threshold where it boils over into civil war is straightforward of course, but are there other steps on the way that you have to watch out for? (Over and above the usual effects of having so many unhappy, radical pops and interest groups, of course.)
This is very unclear in the dev diary, mostly because of a bug that inverted its logic that didn't get quashed until after the screenshot was made. :oops:
Basically the threshold is the level where, if Radicalism is currently below this level you're safe, while if Radicalism is above it it's only a matter of time until the uprising.
 
  • 27
  • 11Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I am disappointed that a revolutionary play can't move into an independence play. This system appears eminently suited to depicting the US Civil War as a result of ongoing political struggle with slavery as the central question, with the CSA deciding that they'd rather be independent and the USA deciding that the nation is indivisible and will be maintained as such.

However, there was to my knowledge no sincere talk in the CSA's halls of power for forcing the USA as a whole to accept slavery, nor was the USA at the start all that interested in forcing the abolishment of slavery. That was actually a later development.
On the topic of the ACW and CSA, we consider this a special case that shares elements of both Revolution and Secession mechanics. We'll cover this more later on, but it has not been forgotten about or misrepresented within these Revolution mechanics.
 
  • 35
  • 22Like
  • 4Love
  • 1
Reactions:
We will have game rules to adjust the threat level from internal unrest/revolutions or to adjust the easiness of unrest supression? I think that it would be a great addition to game rules.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Is there truly no possibility for a "white peace" in a revolution? I believe that such a possibility coming to fruition would be awesome, it would create a lot of interesting scenarios in-game. I would love to hear the reasoning for this decision, for i truly believe that it is a shame that this is not a possibility.
What cases are there of a civil war, not a succession, ending in a lasting ceasefire? I cannot think of any. The Chinese Communist Party started fighting the Kuomintang again immediately after hostilities with the Japanese ended, and that is outside of the time period of this game anyway.

EDIT: Secession, not succession.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
What cases are there of a civil war, not a succession, ending in a lasting ceasefire? I cannot think of any. The Chinese Communist Party started fighting the Kuomintang again immediately after hostilities with the Japanese ended, and that is outside of the time period of this game anyway.
Just Korea afaik, though I still think they're /officially/ at war and both see themselves as the only true korea, it's just an unspoken rule that continueing the war will lead to foreign intervention, so even that one's dubious.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
On the topic of the ACW and CSA, we consider this a special case that shares elements of both Revolution and Secession mechanics. We'll cover this more later on, but it has not been forgotten about or misrepresented within these Revolution mechanics.
I do hope that the USA isn't the only country who can get a mixed revolutionary/secessionist war. For example, the Taipings IMO should have multiple ways of ending the war against the Qing, ranging from outright replacing the Qing, which would of course be the goal as any self respecting wannabe dynasty should know, split china if neither side is able to make significant headway in conquering the other(basically reforming the Song/Jin borders in a way, with a toss up on which side would get Yunnan or Sichuan), or alternatively basically doing what the Ming did to the Yuan and driving the Manchu's out of China Proper but keeping them as a power in Manchuria(and mongolia, plus maybe a shaky hold on Tibet).
 
  • 5
Reactions:
That sounds good but what about simple coups within the elite that don't tear the whole country apart ?
Yeah, coups are an interesting design challenge actually because nobody wants to just Game Over with no warning just because they lost track of their military for a couple months, yet that's basically the whole point of coups. :)
There are two mechanics in the game that duplicate what a coup does in practice:
1) An Interest Group gets so powerful and cranky that a player realizes they cannot ignore them, and is forced to put them in charge to prevent a revolution.
2) A revolution breaks out that the player feels they can't win, so they Capitulate to it, Game Over, and switch country to prevent too much bloodshed.
You can of course roleplay these as a coup, but to be honest none of them really have the "feel" of one. However, since they fill the role of what a coup actually does we'd need to come up with unique and compelling mechanics for them so they're not just yet another way to create the same effect. So for the moment, coups are not represented in the game other than through things like assassination events.
 
  • 33
  • 17Like
  • 13
Reactions:
Is there truly no possibility for a "white peace" in a revolution? I believe that such a possibility coming to fruition would be awesome, it would create a lot of interesting scenarios in-game. I would love to hear the reasoning for this decision, for i truly believe that it is a shame that this is not a possibility.
If I recall correctly, the original reason was because
1) there's little historical precedent for things like this*
2) we didn't want to have to deal with a map full of countries named things like "Radical Revolutionary Rebellious Saxony" after 100 years of ever-fragmenting micro-states

*edit to add: specifically, little historical precedent for revolts by political movements over a specific legal framework for the nation, that ended up in two permanent states with the same national identity but different laws
 
Last edited:
  • 30Like
  • 12
  • 8Haha
  • 4
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
What about national revolts looking to establish independent countries? Presumably these should allow both white peace and potentially even multiple nations to appear at once. Do they have a seperate system or are they a special case of revolutions?
Separate but related system, covered next week!
 
  • 29Like
  • 5
  • 4Love
  • 1
Reactions: