• 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 #67 - Patch 1.1 (part 3)

16_9.jpg

Happy Thursday! Today we'll talk about some more changes we've introduced in patch 1.1, including how Morale works.

For starters, why rework morale? One piece of feedback we heard a lot of post-release was that it was frustrating to watch long, drawn-out battles that tied up the front while your battalions that weren't in that combat perished from attrition. Our goal with these changes is primarily to make battles snappier, ensuring that battles that are all but decided can come to a rapid conclusion so the front can start moving again. Some nice side effects are that your supply, morale recovery rates, and having reinforcements and reserves start to play a greater role than they used to.

In the new system, instead of the losers typically being the only side to take morale damage, units on both sides will take a certain amount of morale damage for each round of combat. That morale damage can be modified by various factors, such as technologies and production methods. In addition, the side that has taken the most casualties will suffer an additional multiplier to their loss of morale, ensuring that combat superiority is still what ultimately wins battles.

The basis for how much morale units lose each day is determined by the organization or ship class production method groups in Barracks / Conscription Centers and Naval Bases respectively. The more modern the method of warfare, the lower the loss of morale. Also, conscripts now differ from regular Battalions in that they suffer more morale damage.

These Ohioan conscripts have a relatively high base morale loss of 15 men per day, but this is reduced due to National Militia. Their morale losses increase somewhat from currently being in a battle where more casualties have been inflicted on them than they have on the enemy. When all remaining men in the unit have been lost to casualties or morale loss, the battalion will detach from the battle. Once fighting has concluded, their commanding General's Experienced Diplomat trait will increase the speed by which their morale recovers. Morale will also recover along with fresh reinforcements from the Conscription Center supporting them.
DD67_1.png

Modifiers can affect how much morale your own troops lose, such as good modifiers from First Aid and Field Hospitals, or bad modifiers from battle conditions such as Broken Supply Lines or commander traits like Reckless. But the morale damage you take can also be modified by the enemy's forces, for example via production methods like Siege Artillery or Chemical Weapon Specialists, or character traits like Wrathful.

When battles start, units are now deprioritized to enter combat if they are injured or demoralized. What this means is that even if you end up with fewer than your full complement of battalions in a particular fight, the rest of them will make use of this short respite to recover for the next one.

Speaking of recovery, we have also made a few changes to the way Wage levels work. Higher military wages than usual now affect how quickly units recover morale when not in combat, letting flush governments push frontlines by gradually overcoming the enemy's fighting spirit - at least as long as you're able and willing to rack up an enormous body count in the process.

Recovering Morale faster than the enemy does could be well worth the expense in the long run. It will also give your Officers and Servicemen a better Standard of Living, building Loyalists in your Armed Forces over time. Their increased Wealth will provide them with more Clout to throw around in internal politics as well, of course, so take that into account.
DD67_2.png

This isn't the extent of the changes to government and military wages in 1.1. These settings used to be a highly efficient way of directly and immediately altering your Interest Groups' Approval scores, which we have toned down a bit in 1.1 by making the Approval changes limited to -2 / -1 / 0 / +1 / +2 for the five different levels. Of course, the act of raising or lowering wages still has the usual knock-on effects on Approval by increasing or decreasing the purchasing power of the pops that tend to make up those groups, leading to changes in Standard of Living and therefore Radicals and Loyalists.

High or low military wages also affect your armed forces' Power Projection, leading to a Prestige impact also during peacetime. Low military wages also affect your buildings' training rate, i.e. how rapidly they can reinforce battalions and flotillas that have become underpowered due to casualties. To round it out, low government wages provide a direct impact on Prestige while higher levels now provide additional Authority.

As a final note, an update from our first Patch 1.1 update on Legitimacy levels. One oft-repeated concern with how Legitimacy works currently is that under most democratic systems, having two parties in a coalition government does not provide much of a penalty, even if those parties are vehemently opposed to each other. From one perspective this was working as intended, as it represents a trade-off between Legitimacy (in this case, popular representation) and ability to actually enact any new Laws (since the incoherence between the ideologies in government would make debate and stall outcomes very common). But on the other hand it felt wrong to have the two completely incompatible parties working together in a highly functional government - as long as they didn't try to make any changes, that is.

In response, we have changed the Legitimacy penalty from government size to one that actually represents ideological incoherence. Adding a party or Interest Group to government will now cause any conflicting ideologies (as measured by their stances on Laws) outside party boundaries to inflict a Legitimacy penalty. This encourages formation of government groups that are both strong and effective together. We're very interested in hearing how this change feels to you all, once patch 1.1 drops!

Despite representing the majority of Clout and Votes in Great Britain, an unholy alliance between Tories and Whigs is just too incoherent to form government together. You could still confirm such a government, but the penalties for doing so would be enormous and no legislation could be passed while Legitimacy is that poor.
DD67_3.png

The changes we have discussed in this and the previous two dev diaries represent just a fraction of the changes you will see in the new update. These ones are maybe the most visible, but a number of under-the-hood improvements and bugfixes have been made as well. Next week we will go through the full changelog! Until then!
 
  • 177Like
  • 48Love
  • 12
  • 6
  • 2
Reactions:
The upcoming changes look promising and are greatly appreciated.

However:

In response, we have changed the Legitimacy penalty from government size to one that actually represents ideological incoherence. Adding a party or Interest Group to government will now cause any conflicting ideologies (as measured by their stances on Laws) outside party boundaries to inflict a Legitimacy penalty. This encourages formation of government groups that are both strong and effective together. We're very interested in hearing how this change feels to you all, once patch 1.1 drops!​

My first thought was "great, legitimacy sucked before, and now it's getting even more annoying"

It's kind of strange that democratic systems, in which everyone has a vote and everyone is part of the governing process, actually work faster than any autocracy. Simply because they have much more legitimacy through the current system, in which enactment times are tied to legitimacy. Now you include ideologies into the mix to bring legitimacy down even more?

What's more, revolutions from an IG don't even remove the ruler who is affilated with them, so after the revolution you end up with a ruler whose IG is at 0% clout. You lose out on the big legitimacy bonus, as the ruler's IG isn't in the government. So not only do revolutions bring nothing revolutionary to the table in terms of changes to existing laws and the government, they even preserve the old ruler and slap you with lower legitimacy.

I'm usually not one to complain, but in this case I dislike the changes to the political system with each update. It's probably the one system that isn't remotely fun to me in the entire game.
 
  • 9
  • 5
Reactions:
Oh wow, this is actually VERY cool!
 
I have noticed something: First, before release, they said stuff like "players get to decide the direction after release". Now they are publishing dev diaries that state that the reason for a given change in the game is feedback. I find this sort of approach to game design rather novel.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
What does "in government" represent? That IG/party has representation that takes part in debate? That IG/party is part of a coalition for the majority?

(and I have trouble seeing how any of this really ties into the concept of "legitimacy")
 
  • 1
Reactions:
This is not the military system that needs to be solved, I think it's not 1-2 buff or nerf, it bothers me that in every paradox game, the soldier's morale drops just because there is little money.
Lack of pay and bad food are probably the most common complaints in military history. They're already risking their lives, you might as well enable them to have a decent life outside of that, or else you're only going to be recruiting the dregs of society.
 
  • 11
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Are there any plans to "fix" the current implementation of how units are picked from battle (top of the list down), so that if a General has 30 troops, the top 10 of which are depleted from a recent battle, and they get a 12 width engagement, they do not once again just have 10 depleted armies and 2 fresh ones taken into battle, and they can actually draw from the bottom of the list as well?
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Please allow more than one battle at a time.
We're looking into it! The challenge with it is not technical per se, but rather an issue of what it would mean for the complexity of the frontline mechanics - for example, if your general advances with 90% of the troops on the front (woo!) but the enemy has two generals, one that's defending and one that's advancing, and now while you're fighting the big battle the other guy advances against your remaining 10% (boo!), and while that fight is going on his two allies on the same front advances and just easily marches in to occupy territory because there's nobody left to defend (nooo!), so in response you frantically hire several more generals, and before long you're saddled with dozens of boring randos leading your army instead of a handful of interesting ones, requiring dozens of clicks to manage... So this is the core issue, not enabling multiple battles per front. I can promise a thorough design investigation, and I hope we can find a good solution!
 
  • 61Like
  • 27
  • 3
  • 1Love
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
Adding a party or Interest Group to government will now cause any conflicting ideologies (as measured by their stances on Laws) outside party boundaries to inflict a Legitimacy penalty.​
Something doesn't feel right. If you do some sort of national union, your governement will be seen as illegitimate and radicals will appear? You risk revolution because two parties who disagree join the same governement?

I get the incentive from a gameplay perspective, but flavor-wise it doesn't sound logical.
 
  • 6
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
What is the average duration of a battle in days now, roughly? Current game they can last a month, while really 3 to 7 days would seem much more appropriate.

Second, I hope there are some changes to the battle UI coming as well. Mostly, showing the number of troops engaged, not just battalions as a topline number. (and why only X joined). Currently so much of the frustration in the battle system comes from seeing that you have a huge offense/defense advantage but are losing bc you have brought half strength battalions, but knowing that takes scrolling down past the giant picture and opening a series of dropdowns to see how many forces you actually have
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Hi! Thank you for reworking some points, but I have a question. Are you changing/reworking the Service Centre? Now these centres do not work normally in the middle and end of the game, because the consumption of services is lower than production, especially when we use high methods in service centers.
That's good feedback, thanks! It's not necessarily a given that all buildings will be more profitable at high technology tiers though, it's (as you've noticed) very much conditional on your population's demand and the supply of your input goods. Demand for services is virtually infinite, as it increases exponentially for wealthier pops, so to build your demand for services you need a large population of very wealthy people - or you could focus more on your supply of Glass, maybe by subsidizing your Glassworks.

But we'll keep your feedback in mind, maybe the balance is a bit off on the high-end Urban Center PMs!
 
  • 23
  • 10Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Something doesn't feel right. If you do some sort of national union, your governement will be seen as illegitimate and radicals will appear? You risk revolution because two parties who disagree join the same governement?

I get the incentive from a gameplay perspective, but flavor-wise it doesn't sound logical.
I understand your perspective, but note that these radicals will come only from the politically active part of the population - i.e. the ones whose Interest Groups are forced to work side-by-side with hated enemies, or are kept out of government while an unholy, incoherent alliance reigns.
 
  • 19
  • 16Like
  • 2Love
  • 1
Reactions:
Hi! Will you be able to fix the dozen fronts breaking apart into another dozen fronts situations for the upcoming patch btw?

And yes, I also always leave services at somewhere around second production method as they usually stay below 80% base price even at high average SOL (~30 in my last playthrough). Seems that there are just too many Urban centers...
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Hi! Thank you for reworking some points, but I have a question. Are you changing/reworking the Service Centre? Now these centres do not work normally in the middle and end of the game, because the consumption of services is lower than production, especially when we use high methods in service centers.
Its on my list of things to look at, just sadly down a bit further from the things I am currently working on.
 
  • 21
  • 11Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Something doesn't feel right. If you do some sort of national union, your governement will be seen as illegitimate and radicals will appear? You risk revolution because two parties who disagree join the same governement?

I get the incentive from a gameplay perspective, but flavor-wise it doesn't sound logical.

You could also think of it as the US pre-civil-war. The Whigs were nominally one party but were deeply split on key issues, causing strife and unrest, and, well.. literally the civil war.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I'm not entirely sure how to feel about wages giving army projection in regards to overall prestige spamming into a GP spot. I'm a bit fearful it might also lead to AI death spirals over the last two spots. Still, I'm glad to see that the issue where a general kept pulling the same troops over and over again is fixed with 1.1, it means that you can finally start spreading out your barracks across the country instead of being forced to slap everything down in one state per HQ just to have some modicum of control over how a battle progresses and I do love the idea of higher wages giving morale recovery. Hope you guys will do something about the bloat on the map when it comes to big wars / multiple fronts, as right now the sheer information incoherence is worse than the lag when zooming down to map level.

I can promise a thorough design investigation, and I hope we can find a good solution!

I'm one of the people that is actually fine with one active battle per front after getting more experience with the system. Still, wouldn't it be possible to make it so the side that has more generals per front gain some supporting benefits while the main battle is active so there's something for them to do while keeping the main core of singular active battle? Say General A-1 and B-1 are fighting while General A-2 and A-3 are stuck waiting on the sidelines. Since they don't have an opposing general, A-2 and A-3 can slowly creep into enemy territory one province at a time to represent a less rigid command structure reliant on a single general and give some form of stacking bonuses/maluses. Say making them represent raids on logistics or left-behind ambushes, improve chances for positive/negative events, and the like. The later is more clear-cut while the former gives you an edge in getting the war goal for the sub-zero ticks with the slow snipping of land that needs to be accounted for and countered by your generals (advancing leaving some of the snippets, defending focusing on removing them, etc).

This coming at the price of losing more men to attrition by having the extra generals mobilized and on the front, paying for equipment and resupplying them, and eating away at the reinforcement rate of the main army, all maluses that are currently in the game -- so there is some incentive to not go silly with the amount of generals you hire.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions: