• 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:
All of this is very interesting! So I've read some comment asking about coups and the answer being that it's still being decided and I have a suggestion (although for it to be fully fledged then individual characters shoud be able to radicalize). Basically a coup could be launched by a rather small group but with a big clout AND "access" to the current government (for example, in an absolute monarchy a peasant wouldn't be able to do it but a member of the aristocracy could). When the coup launches it could have three outcomes: success (which would force the player to adopt the laws/policies/etc of the faction that launched the coup instead of triggering a game over), parcial success which would mean basically a normal civil war (the coup unable to depose the government but managing to get enough support for a revolt, similar to the start of the spanish civil war) and failure (which means that it fails and the traitors are dealt with peacefully-ish). This outcomes would be depending on the support of other factions to the one that launches the coup but primarily depending on the attitude the army has towards the government and the faction that would launch the coup. A faction that launches the coup against a government whose army is completely loyal is very likely to fail. The main difference between a coup and a revolution would be that even though war may be initially averted the new government could be facing more opposition than the old one, causing a counter-revolution (more or less what happened to Napoleon III). Sorry for the long post
While this seems quite difficult to add to the current revolution system, it's a very interesting idea and there are real-life examples (Pedro II of Brazil would be a very good example of this type of coup working successfully), great idea!
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I like game over after a loss, but only if I can choose what faction to play before the war starts.
1. If we tagshift, people are gonna do as we did with the french revolution in eu4, help the rebels, it just doesn't make sense.
2. If we just tagshift but get extra penalties the new tag is given extra problems just because the player took the "wrong" faction.
3. Bad management should be punished, I don't think we should tagshift if we loose other wars either.

If anyone disagree with my points I would like to see your arguments.
 
  • 3
  • 3
Reactions:
I would really prefer if on losing the revolution, you kept playing as them, not have the option of switching by just continuing as nation as that would feel different that the game continuing. Vicky has always been a serious about revolutions and covering the revolutionary period. The same should stress a continuity of nation through revolution, not a game over with an option.
Losing to a revolution should never feel the same as losing to another nation, or have the same consequences. This is a Victoria game.
 
  • 5
  • 2
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.
I agree, Taiwan still claims to be China. If that's not a white peace, what is?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
for ease of modding, will the revolutionary country have a new tag, or for example, revolutionary russia still be RUS?
Both Russia and Rev. Russia inherits the Rus "country definition" but only the original country has the RUS tag - unless Rev. Russia wins, then it inherits it.

EDIT: only now saw Lachek already answered this :)
 
Last edited:
  • 15Like
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
The American Civil War is without a doubt going to be represented by journal entries, so doesn't neatly fall into either the revolutionary or cultural secession mechanics and doesn't really have to strictly conform to either.
ACW is indeed a special chain of events/journal entries
 
  • 14Like
  • 5Love
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
So, just to be completely clear: when a Revolution Diplo Play breaks out, the player can switch sides to the rebels. Can they do this as often as they like, switching forward and back? And could a player, for instance, delete the original nation's entire military / military infrastructure and then swap over to the rebels, allowing them to totally steamroll over them (except for their allies)?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
So, just to be completely clear: when a Revolution Diplo Play breaks out, the player can switch sides to the rebels. Can they do this as often as they like, switching forward and back? And could a player, for instance, delete the original nation's entire military / military infrastructure and then swap over to the rebels, allowing them to totally steamroll over them (except for their allies)?
You can only switch once.
Once Revolution is on the way you can't cheese it by disbanding commanders and downsizing barracks etc. Also revolutionary country has access to special conscription centers so even if there was no barracks there they can still pack a punch.
 
  • 19
  • 9Like
  • 7
  • 2Love
Reactions:
Asking again because I am not sure it was answered. Is it possible for a country to have simultaneously a revolution and cultural secession?
Like, Austria-Hungary is in the middle of a civil war for, say, end of the corvée system AND a Serbian Bosnian separatist war?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
My two cents: You should be able to pick a new country after losing a civil war, or any war for that matter, but at that point you're forced to revert to a non-ironman game. Or if that isn't feasible, just make it a game over for ironman runs, and have the option for a country switch otherwise. That way fighting a civil war only matters for the playthroughs people want to take seriously anyway.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
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.
Spain, Latin America, and China could all get a lot more realistic now by accurately replicating the long-term costs of the destructive civil wars these nations endured. Just to name a few.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
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.​


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!
I dare say a player of a grand strategy game has to already be somewhere between brilliant and mad. You've described a system where the player is given ample opportunity to stop a revolution if they don't want it. That they've let it trigger at all means they want it. If the player ends up with such an evenly-matched revolutionary war that it gets drawn out and expensive, I see two possible interpretations:
  • the player has room to improve so next time they exercise their intent better
  • it was a really satisfying, apocalyptic, up-hill war which could serve as the defining moment of the whole campaign
In either case, a Game Over seems appropriate. A daring, competent player will have engineered a very lop-sided revolutionary war to serve their plans in a cost-effective manner.
 
  • 3
  • 2Love
  • 2
Reactions:
Revolutionary countries automatically changing to demanded laws and (presumably) instantly getting rid of radicals calling for those changes is not very representitive of how revolutions worked in real history. Take Russia in 1917, where there was a revolution which got rid of monarchy, but the new revolutionary government haven't fulfilled all of the people's demands, and so was toppled by a second revolution in a matter of a few months.

Also, what about multi-way Civil Wars? What about opportunistic warlords taking control over certain areas? What about uprisings within uprisings? What about revolutionary country signing a peace treaty while the Civil War is still ongoing, giving up territories which it technically doesn't control yet? What about those ceded territories having uprisings instantly siding with the revolutionaries in their former overlord's Civil War?
 
  • 3
Reactions:
You mentioned that the player can avert a revolution by enacting the law change demanded by the angry political movement. But is it possible that the ruling IGs of your nation will stop the new law and thereby force you to face the revolution?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Just a minor UI comment here - I am not a fan of the enumeration of Radicalism and Support at a first glance. It might be a more organically learned number but unitless values can be hard to comprehend. I'd recall Super Smash health indicators, 100% is pretty arbitrarily 100% but it's a signal that things are getting serious. Displaying these as

Support 21%
Radicalism 103%

would probably provide a much clearer instant recognition of when your levels are reaching a danger zone. Keep up the good work!
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Cheers for the DD Iachek, and the extra info from you and Kaiser Johan - revolutionary stuff and sounds tops :) I really like the sound of those mechanics, and how they sound like they'll play :)

One thing that comes to mind is - is there anything for non-radical but upset pops? So something like my soldiers aren't "revolutionary" upset, but they're also not happy about this law or other. Maybe something like a "disgruntled" between "normal" and "happy to take up arms and kill people to get the law changed". This could potentially help people know there's trouble on the way, and also add flavour? From a naval perspective, things like the 1931 (? going from memory) mutiny for better pay in at least one ship in the RN - where they were never trying to overthrow the state (ie, weren't radical) but wanted a better deal, compared with the Imperial German Fleet going the full revolution in late 1918?

For a naval-themed revolutionary pic, I think I've already done said German Navy revolution, so here's Shah (British unarmoured but iron-hulled frigate) and Huascar (Peruvian revolutionary masted turret ship) duking it out in 1877 (during the Peruvian civil war, during which Huascar had sided with/been taken over by the revolutionaries, the British got involved when Huascar started boarding British merchant vessels). This battle saw the first (unsuccessful) use of the self-propelled torpedo, but was otherwise uneventful - going from memory, Shah wasn't comfortable getting close enough to Shah that her rounds were likely to cause serious damage (although I think there was one waterline hit that caused at least a little damage) and Huascar wasn't able to do more than damage Shah's mast with splinters (even in 1877, it wasn't the case that the turret was preferable to a broadside arrangement for all seagoing warships, and the rate of train of Huascar's turret (as for all early turrets) was very slow, complicating targeting).

1649375179498.png
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
So, can a revolution have different competing interest groups? For example, the Russian Revolution was started by various interest groups (basically), and then the Bolsheviks took over the revolution.
The Russian Revolution can still be largely modeled by a chaotic chain of several revolutions.

1: February Revolution: More of a coup-type revolution. Reorganization of laws and IGs, abdication of the Tsar, change to Republic.
2: Red October: Revolution by Labor Unions, Rural Folk, Intelligentsia and a popular movement containing a lot of Armed Forces members (but not the Armed Forces IG) in favor of Presidential Dictatorship and Planned Economy, civil war against White forces.
3: Capitulation to Germany causes the release of several independent nations.
4: Kronstadt Rebellion: Revolution by Labor Unions and Rural Folk in favor of Council Republic, failed.
5: Ban on Factions: With the Labor Unions and Rural Folk out of order from the failed Kronstadt Rebellion, Lenin changes laws to clear out remaining democratic garbage, ensuring a further marginalization of LU and RF in favor of his Armed Forces/Intelligentsia coalition.
6: Several wars to clean up the released nations from the Germany treaty. Poland and Finland survive, everyone else is eventually absorbed into the Soviet Union.

(Of course, the release of nations was not part of Germany's original war goals historically, but that's the DP system for you.)
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
So... that screenshot with Switzerland and Rev. Switzerland, their flags look almost exactly alike. How concerned should I be about this?

I realize that it may not be as big a deal since we won't be moving troops around on the map, and because one or the other of them is going to win the right to fly the one true flag over their re-unified nation. At the same time, I'd really prefer to be able to tell one flag from the other at a glance without having to scan for a few bronze pixels.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Is there a possibility for "double-dip revolutions"? Think February Revolution and October Revolution, or German Revolution and Spartacist Uprising. Different interest groups under the same political movement successfully pull out a revolution, but a few months later, the winners - who had no common ground other than fighting the previous status quo - fight it out among themselves to see who comes out on top.
 
  • 5
Reactions: