• 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:
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.
An interesting thought, but the idea of an immediate game over for losing a war doesn't follow as neatly in the Vicky meta as it does in, say, HoI4. In HoI4 a single war will annihilate a nation as it was representing the all-or-nothing nature of that single conflict. Vicky follows the life of a nation through a turbulent time.

According to my reading of the DD a V3 revolution isn't like the V2 revolts which fundamentally rewrites your nation's laws into those of a political ideology: they just enforce the single law that they cared so much about. Everything about the nation otherwise remains intact, yet we are turning this into a do-or-die struggle for existence?

Under that same logic, why wouldn't we have any war that you lose be a game over? Well:
A) Your country, its people, and its way of life still exists (unless you just lost your last province), so it would be odd to consider that a game over when there is still plenty left for you to do.
B) Instant game overs of any type, in grand strategy games where you aren't the literal dynasty leaders, subverts the underlying idea that you are seeing this nation through its history, for better or for worse. In other words, it would be lame to end your game just because you lost a war.

From a mechanic standpoint: Given that diplomatic plays allows other great powers to get involved, you might prepare yourself and still lose your game, when in any other war where your enemies stack up on you will likely take a pummeling, but you get to keep going to fight another day.

In short: it seems too harsh an outcome for a situation which doesn't fundamentally destroy your nation, doesn't follow with the spirit of sticking it at through thick and thin, and will reward (perhaps even mandate) players trying to cheese the game by making an otherwise important/shaping event of your nation a game over if they don't win.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
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
Let's not forget Rebellious Radical Revolutionary Saxony
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Important question: if a country is suffering a “revolution”, and another country goes to war against that country for other reasons, do both sides of the “civil war” go to war against that country, or only the “loyal” part? Would loyalists and revolutionaries fight together against that country? Or would this end up in a 3 side war?
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
How does the diplomatic play works? Does the play start at the same time as the war, or is there an awkward period of several months during which the country is split but without conflict?
I doubt that it's either. The rebels don't need to be an on-the-map faction for the diplomatic play to happen. The play must start before the war (to give everyone else time to pick sides, and give the government a last chance to change their minds) and there doesn't seem to be any benefit to spitting the country before the rebels actually rebel.

Lastly, is there any drawback to accept the demands of the revolutionaries? Can't it be a cheesy way to radically change your country without civil war?
If the rebels' demands were popular, or even neutral, you could vote them into law faster than letting them boil over into revolution. If they're unpopular, then acceding the them will please the rebels but it will anger even more of your population. Now, it may happen that the law changes the balance of power sufficiently that the rebels can keep their demands, but it's hardly a sure thing.

Also, turmoil and having lots of radicals around are themselves harmful to your country, diminishing your economy and making passing laws you actually do want more difficult. Even though the rebels go away, the long-term effects of having them will linger.

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
This sentence gave me violent Stellaris flashbacks. :eek:

Only one revolution at a time, please. Form an orderly line.
Can two interest groups who are upset at you join forces into a single revolution, or does the second one have to wait around simmering while you try to fight off the first?

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?
Interest groups that are unhappy, but not radically so, apply a negative modifier to the country such as Industrialists reducing the investment pool or Trade Unions reducing factory output, and they've teased events like strikes to make their pleasure known.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Only one revolution at a time, please. Form an orderly line.
How quickly can one revolution happen after the conclusion of another? Is there a hard lock "after a revolution, one can't revolt again for a year"? Or can another revolution happen immediately after the conclusion of another? Say the Soviets win, but they immediately piss off the army, so they start a revolt two days later to remove them?
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
I feel a coup should be a change of government (and 2-3 laws) against your will, only initiated when a powerful IG is unhappy and somewhere between "we can tolerate it for a bit" and "civil war it is" on the radicalism scale.

It just suddenly happening would obviously feel bad, so what about a warning message "risk of coup"

The player could defend with a good secret police and loyal military, and a failed coup gives the player a few options that allow to reduce the responsible factions power or reduce the risks of further coups.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Can multiple revolutions occur at the same time?

If so, would successive rebellions fight all factions within a country or just the faction they are sub-rebelling against?
 
  • 3
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.
That exact civil war. The "Republic of China" still exists on Taiwan despite the civil war ending. Although that is the only example I can think off.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
That exact civil war. The "Republic of China" still exists on Taiwan despite the civil war ending. Although that is the only example I can think off.
Korea to some degree. You could argue it was a civil war with outside forces involved, or outside forces making local puppets fight.

But definitely no examples in the 1836-1936 timeframe.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Yes, these are represented as events.
So strikes are only represented as events? In a game about the industrialization, strikes, lockouts and all of those conflicts would seem like something that could deserved a core system? Well, hopefully that can be a focus for the future then :)

The revolutions themselves sound nice though :)
 
  • 2
Reactions:
So strikes are only represented as events? In a game about the industrialization, strikes, lockouts and all of those conflicts would seem like something that could deserved a core system? Well, hopefully that can be a focus for the future then :)

The revolutions themselves sound nice though :)
General strikes are actually represented as Journal Entries, so they function a bit more like a scripted mini-system that plays out over time than one-shot events.
 
  • 20Like
  • 7
  • 3Love
  • 1
Reactions:
So, can the revolutionaries not try to coup the government? I would think that if the revolutionaries meet some conditions, for example they have high support in the capital (probably more than that but we'll just roll with this for now) then they could simply declare themselves the new government, and the "loyalists" would then become the "rebels" with significant impacts on how alliances et al play out, or even bypassing the civil war altogether. But it reads like that is not possible.

> 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.

How does this play out in, for example, the US Civil War? The Confederacy had no interest in annexing the Union. National revolutions don't fit this model very neatly because usually they want out of the parent country but don't have any real desire to occupy said parent (unless I'm forgetting that national revolutions are handled differently?).
 
  • 2
Reactions:
What about the Carlist war in Spain at the start of the game? Is it a normal revolution or a special one?
I guess that would work as a regular "change laws from constitutional monarchy to absolute monarchy" revolution. Propably mostly supported by devout and landowner factions (and possibly the rural folk?)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I am extremely hyped for Victoria 3, but one aspect of this dev diary left me a bit puzzled overnight: It appears to me that there is a rift between the way gameplay mechanisms are based on pops before and during the revolution.

I'll try to explain: We all know that Victoria's unique selling point is the pop system, and the game is rightly announced as "the ultimate society simulator". And I cannot wait to see first hand how my neglect of pop needs will result in them getting dissatisfied, organising a movement and even take up arms to fight for their demands. I look forward to interacting with pops and IGs using all the tools the game provides.

If I understand the dev diary correctly, however, this wonderful emergent social gameplay gets thrown out of the window once the revolution fires: at that point, it seems, the mechanisms of pop-based gameplay are replaced by mechanisms in which pops appear to play less of a role. Thus, there is a dissonance between the pop-based (including IGs) pre-revolutionary times and the revolutionary period, where pops seem to leave the stage and the once social conflict is transformed into an affair between two countries. I am aware that games like Victoria 3 have to reduce the complexity of social, political and economic dynamics, but unless I misunderstand how revolutions work, the shift from pops to countries goes against Victoria 3's own DNA for two reasons.

First, the moment a revolutionary country spawns, the diplomatic gameplay mechanisms of Victoria 3 take over. Suddenly, the complex and muddy pre-revolutionary social realities are replaced by a clear-cut diplomatic play, in which (by the dev diary's own admission!) "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".

Sure, the diplomatic level has been an integral part of that period's revolutions, and in fact you cannot tell the stories of '48, '71 or '17 without including the diplomatic stage. But why is the social pop-based system purged from the revolutionary stage?
Throughout the Eighteenth Brumaire, Marx provides plenty of insights on the social complexities before and during the revolution. Only because arms are taken up, the social struggle over alliances between interest groups does not disappear. I am certain that the devs have studied this work, and I am certain that there are technical and other design limitations that I am unable to grasp with my limited understanding of how games work. And maybe it is also a conscious choice by the developers to not subscribe to Marx's understanding of social revolutions, which is fair enough. But not putting the pop/IG system at the center of an ongoing revolution of all things does appear as an oversight to me.
I hope that most of this is just due to me misunderstanding how it works or the the devs withholding information for future dev diaries (the role of characters springs to mind).


The second element where the muddy pre-revolutionary reality is suddenly transformed into a clear-cut black and white situation is the geographical aspect. Until the revolution breaks out, Victoria 3 relies on its pop system to trace the complex distribution of pops and their needs. But the moment the revolution does break out, this complex situation is pressed into the tight boolean corset, where every state is either given to the revolutionary or the loyalist country. I am sure there is much more to this than what the dev diary could give away, but it still feels like this step overrides many of the nuances that lead to the revolution.

Historically, cities like Paris quite often were a central battleground from the first moment the barricades were erected. As such, it would feel inappropriate to give it to either side at the beginning of a revolution, because the fighting in the streets meant that neither side really controlled it (the obvious exception that proves the rule being the Commune).

I also wonder how exactly is decided whether a state is given to the revolutionary country or the loyalist country? Let's say there is a country where 51% of the total population supports the revolution. Let's further assume that this percentage is true for every single state within the country. One would assume that 51% of the original country's states will be controlled by the revolutionary country, but how is that decided? Does it go right down to the pops, seeing which pop is revolutionary? What happens to the pops that are the minority in a given state? Does it matter during the revolutionary diplomatic play whether the pops in a given state are 51% or 95% revolutionary? Will the player have some indications which state will be given to the revolutionary country before the revolution breaks out?

I guess many of these questions will clear up with future dev diaries. I just hope that pops and IGs (and especially the interaction among IGs, especially alliances, back-stabbing, changing sides, etc.) will take the spotlight in Victoria 3's revolutions even after the first shot is fired.


Some smaller questions I have:

1) Will there be transnational associations among movements, such as the Communist League and the First/Second International?

2) Can you exile leaders of interest groups that you wish to get rid of, in turn resulting in countries like the UK having quite a collection of exiled radical leaders? If so, can exiled characters become leaders of IGs in other countries?
 
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
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.

who cares about the examples. the point is that a revolution and later civil war should be able to result in two different states over the same territory.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
I am extremely hyped for Victoria 3, but one aspect of this dev diary left me a bit puzzled overnight: It appears to me that there is a rift between the way gameplay mechanisms are based on pops before and during the revolution.

I'll try to explain: We all know that Victoria's unique selling point is the pop system, and the game is rightly announced as "the ultimate society simulator". And I cannot wait to see first hand how my neglect of pop needs will result in them getting dissatisfied, organising a movement and even take up arms to fight for their demands. I look forward to interacting with pops and IGs using all the tools the game provides.

If I understand the dev diary correctly, however, this wonderful emergent social gameplay gets thrown out of the window once the revolution fires: at that point, it seems, the mechanisms of pop-based gameplay are replaced by mechanisms in which pops appear to play less of a role. Thus, there is a dissonance between the pop-based (including IGs) pre-revolutionary times and the revolutionary period, where pops seem to leave the stage and the once social conflict is transformed into an affair between two countries. I am aware that games like Victoria 3 have to reduce the complexity of social, political and economic dynamics, but unless I misunderstand how revolutions work, the shift from pops to countries goes against Victoria 3's own DNA for two reasons.

First, the moment a revolutionary country spawns, the diplomatic gameplay mechanisms of Victoria 3 take over. Suddenly, the complex and muddy pre-revolutionary social realities are replaced by a clear-cut diplomatic play, in which (by the dev diary's own admission!) "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".

Sure, the diplomatic level has been an integral part of that period's revolutions, and in fact you cannot tell the stories of '48, '71 or '17 without including the diplomatic stage. But why is the social pop-based system purged from the revolutionary stage?
Throughout the Eighteenth Brumaire, Marx provides plenty of insights on the social complexities before and during the revolution. Only because arms are taken up, the social struggle over alliances between interest groups does not disappear. I am certain that the devs have studied this work, and I am certain that there are technical and other design limitations that I am unable to grasp with my limited understanding of how games work. And maybe it is also a conscious choice by the developers to not subscribe to Marx's understanding of social revolutions, which is fair enough. But not putting the pop/IG system at the center of an ongoing revolution of all things does appear as an oversight to me.
I hope that most of this is just due to me misunderstanding how it works or the the devs withholding information for future dev diaries (the role of characters springs to mind).


The second element where the muddy pre-revolutionary reality is suddenly transformed into a clear-cut black and white situation is the geographical aspect. Until the revolution breaks out, Victoria 3 relies on its pop system to trace the complex distribution of pops and their needs. But the moment the revolution does break out, this complex situation is pressed into the tight boolean corset, where every state is either given to the revolutionary or the loyalist country. I am sure there is much more to this than what the dev diary could give away, but it still feels like this step overrides many of the nuances that lead to the revolution.

Historically, cities like Paris quite often were a central battleground from the first moment the barricades were erected. As such, it would feel inappropriate to give it to either side at the beginning of a revolution, because the fighting in the streets meant that neither side really controlled it (the obvious exception that proves the rule being the Commune).

I also wonder how exactly is decided whether a state is given to the revolutionary country or the loyalist country? Let's say there is a country where 51% of the total population supports the revolution. Let's further assume that this percentage is true for every single state within the country. One would assume that 51% of the original country's states will be controlled by the revolutionary country, but how is that decided? Does it go right down to the pops, seeing which pop is revolutionary? What happens to the pops that are the minority in a given state? Does it matter during the revolutionary diplomatic play whether the pops in a given state are 51% or 95% revolutionary? Will the player have some indications which state will be given to the revolutionary country before the revolution breaks out?

I guess many of these questions will clear up with future dev diaries. I just hope that pops and IGs (and especially the interaction among IGs, especially alliances, back-stabbing, changing sides, etc.) will take the spotlight in Victoria 3's revolutions even after the first shot is fired.
Just my insight as someone with a little experience in game design:

You always have to make concessions on how detailed you make mechanics in order to make the gameplay handleable for the player and the engine. (And also dev time, unless you prefer to play Vic3 in 2036)

Let's take your "51% support in every state" example. Under the constraint of the fronts system you are forced to draw the frontlines somewhere, you could have a battle between loyalists and radicals happen in every province and get a huge randomized patchwork of borders, but that would pretty much crush the nation, as all infrastructure is interrupted, factories randomly assigned to different patches, lacking input goods. (And the outcome of the revolution would be very random)

Typically revolutions had localized support, but for that the game would have to handle in wich province a pop lives, while it's currently only handled at state level to make things more managable.

It's just simpler to simulate AND play when a revolution picks a state with highest revolution support and then build a cluster of states around it until X% of support are reached (preferring to pick states with lots of revolution supporters obviously)
 
Last edited:
  • 6
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I do think that if you're playing a country and lose a civil war/revolution you should still play on as that country. After all we aren't characters, we are the spirit of the nation. Like if you were to be France in the 1780\90s and you want to retain monarchism but can't then you can play on as an extremely unstable republic, that then has a couple of other revolutions. I know that's before the timeframe but a revolution is a revolution. In fact it's similar to the Russian revolution as well, which is within the games time frame. As the Tsar you may be trying to hold on but fail, so you become the first revolutionary government, but then you're very weak and unstable which allows further revolutions, until you end up able to get things under control.

If you were the Tsar and trying to play it historically how could you do it? You would want to foment revolution. Historical run would be game over. Seems a bit unfair.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
I am extremely hyped for Victoria 3, but one aspect of this dev diary left me a bit puzzled overnight: It appears to me that there is a rift between the way gameplay mechanisms are based on pops before and during the revolution.

I'll try to explain: We all know that Victoria's unique selling point is the pop system, and the game is rightly announced as "the ultimate society simulator". And I cannot wait to see first hand how my neglect of pop needs will result in them getting dissatisfied, organising a movement and even take up arms to fight for their demands. I look forward to interacting with pops and IGs using all the tools the game provides.

If I understand the dev diary correctly, however, this wonderful emergent social gameplay gets thrown out of the window once the revolution fires: at that point, it seems, the mechanisms of pop-based gameplay are replaced by mechanisms in which pops appear to play less of a role. Thus, there is a dissonance between the pop-based (including IGs) pre-revolutionary times and the revolutionary period, where pops seem to leave the stage and the once social conflict is transformed into an affair between two countries. I am aware that games like Victoria 3 have to reduce the complexity of social, political and economic dynamics, but unless I misunderstand how revolutions work, the shift from pops to countries goes against Victoria 3's own DNA for two reasons.

First, the moment a revolutionary country spawns, the diplomatic gameplay mechanisms of Victoria 3 take over. Suddenly, the complex and muddy pre-revolutionary social realities are replaced by a clear-cut diplomatic play, in which (by the dev diary's own admission!) "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".

Sure, the diplomatic level has been an integral part of that period's revolutions, and in fact you cannot tell the stories of '48, '71 or '17 without including the diplomatic stage. But why is the social pop-based system purged from the revolutionary stage?
Throughout the Eighteenth Brumaire, Marx provides plenty of insights on the social complexities before and during the revolution. Only because arms are taken up, the social struggle over alliances between interest groups does not disappear. I am certain that the devs have studied this work, and I am certain that there are technical and other design limitations that I am unable to grasp with my limited understanding of how games work. And maybe it is also a conscious choice by the developers to not subscribe to Marx's understanding of social revolutions, which is fair enough. But not putting the pop/IG system at the center of an ongoing revolution of all things does appear as an oversight to me.
I hope that most of this is just due to me misunderstanding how it works or the the devs withholding information for future dev diaries (the role of characters springs to mind).


The second element where the muddy pre-revolutionary reality is suddenly transformed into a clear-cut black and white situation is the geographical aspect. Until the revolution breaks out, Victoria 3 relies on its pop system to trace the complex distribution of pops and their needs. But the moment the revolution does break out, this complex situation is pressed into the tight boolean corset, where every state is either given to the revolutionary or the loyalist country. I am sure there is much more to this than what the dev diary could give away, but it still feels like this step overrides many of the nuances that lead to the revolution.

Historically, cities like Paris quite often were a central battleground from the first moment the barricades were erected. As such, it would feel inappropriate to give it to either side at the beginning of a revolution, because the fighting in the streets meant that neither side really controlled it (the obvious exception that proves the rule being the Commune).

I also wonder how exactly is decided whether a state is given to the revolutionary country or the loyalist country? Let's say there is a country where 51% of the total population supports the revolution. Let's further assume that this percentage is true for every single state within the country. One would assume that 51% of the original country's states will be controlled by the revolutionary country, but how is that decided? Does it go right down to the pops, seeing which pop is revolutionary? What happens to the pops that are the minority in a given state? Does it matter during the revolutionary diplomatic play whether the pops in a given state are 51% or 95% revolutionary? Will the player have some indications which state will be given to the revolutionary country before the revolution breaks out?

I guess many of these questions will clear up with future dev diaries. I just hope that pops and IGs (and especially the interaction among IGs, especially alliances, back-stabbing, changing sides, etc.) will take the spotlight in Victoria 3's revolutions even after the first shot is fired.


Some smaller questions I have:

1) Will there be transnational associations among movements, such as the Communist League and the First/Second International?

2) Can you exile leaders of interest groups that you wish to get rid of, in turn resulting in countries like the UK having quite a collection of exiled radical leaders? If so, can exiled characters become leaders of IGs in other countries?
The revolutions of 1848, the Paris Commune etc are best implemented through events/journal entries.
 
  • 1
Reactions: