• 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:
Are there any plans to rework how generals are assigned troops? Having them tied to strategic areas creates a lot of undesirable edge cases. I’d love to be able to actually build army groups from the ground up and assign generals to lead them.
Yeah, this is cool, but would conflict with the political side of the military gameplay. Currently, you promote your commanders to lead more troops, which give them more political power and makes them a bigger threat in case of uprisings. If you could just give your Field Marshal command of five conscripts with muskets to declaw him, he's not much of a potential threat to you.

Not to say there aren't solutions to this and it is one area we're looking to explore in the future, but we have to be careful that it doesn't wreck existing features.
 
  • 30
  • 29
  • 20Like
  • 12
Reactions:
How does ideological incoherency gets calculated? Do internal party disagreements count if the government is a coalition?

(i.e. will a PB Ints liberal party have a penalty to legitimacy because of different Home Office preferences once another party is invited to the government? Or will the penalty be ignored due to them being in the same party?)
The penalty is ignored within party boundaries. Of course, law enactment penalties (stalls, debates) still increase in frequency with such a party in government.
 
  • 29
  • 9Like
  • 1Love
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. 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!​
If this is going to matter more, one additional thing that I'd like to see more clearly conveyed to the player is how IGs pick parties. Right now it's super unclear why some IGs go into a party and then back out into no party. It seems to close to a crapshoot if a party forms or not, or if it does then who is in it.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Alive game

Is oil never being bought for pop needs also getting fixed in 1.1?
You're the first person I've heard complain about too little demand for oil :)

I haven't seen this bug show up yet, so likely not for 1.1, but I'll keep an eye on it!
 
Last edited:
  • 21Haha
  • 12Like
  • 9
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
Will there be any change to life expectancy of generals? I see, and gets lots of reports about cases of starting generals like Elder Moltke living to the end of the game.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Regarding radicals:

One of the problems standard of living affecting radicals as it is right now is that the decrease of standard of living affects in a disproportionate way so it basically doesn´t matter whether your pops have a superb standard of living, higher than anywhere else in the world, they'll just get mad because some trade route was cancelled or because an event run out, etc,etc. This also makes it too op to just tax the hell out of people in the begining of the game as you'll just be able to get rid of all the radicals as you increase standard of living steadily through building quicker.

Radicals from discrimination is also a huge problem as right now there is no way to tackle it except going for multiculturalism. People will get mad because you don't accept them regardless of how wealthy they are. I had games as Brazil where the Amazon region was twice as rich as the country and still full of radicals because I didn't accept them. I know I can get multiculturalism and solve it, but it just doesn't feel realistic at all just accepting everybody from everywhere in the 19th century. That is a problem in itself as well as there is no gradual approach to accepting cultures.

Let's see the example of the Ottomans. You either accept all cultures in order to accept the greeks, albanian, bosniak, etc, or die out of radicals in those areas. I was wondering if you had plans related to this because it really makes no sense that the cultural acceptance towards greeks (who were well integrated in the Ottoman empire at least until the end of the century) is exactly the same than towards somebody from New Zealand or Namibia. The fact that assimilation only works on already accepted cultures only makes matter worse. Why would I want to assimilate somebody if the effects are 100% the same (cause I can't assimilate if I don't accept him). The thing is that you normally want to assimilate discriminated cultures into the main ones in your country. It is what happened at this time period. The examples of China promoting the Manchu over the Han (after 1912 it was the opposite way), or France culturally unifying the country are clear in this matter. I think a system of cultural relations between different cultures would be quite cool. At the end there are some cultures closer to others and there could be ways to influence this. If I remember well it was implemented in Imperator. Also I believe that it should be possible to assimilate pops in their homelands, only it would be quite difficult to do so and require high standard of living or a high cost by the state. At the end, this is the era of nationalism and nation building. I'm aware this idea is quite hard to implement but I think it would make for a dynamic and alive game.

Nevertheless I do think that radicals from discrimination should weight less than the standard of living. Same with the standard of living decrease (or increase) against the standard of living.
 
  • 5
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
You're the first person I've heard complain about too little demand for oil

I haven't seen this bug show up yet, so likely not for 1.1, but I'll keep an eye on it!
Sounds to me more like a question about goods substitution in general working for goods where you start at zero demand. That is a known issue right?
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Are there any plans to improve migration in this patch? Right now the Colonial Resettlement law gives +100% migration attraction in unincorporated states, which is insane. I've run several test games while working on mods and I've consistently noticed the Eastern United States becoming depopulated because everyone is migrating to become peasants in unincorporated North Dakota.
Sweet, sweet tax evasion :)

Most migration work is being done for 1.2 alongside a big rebalancing of Arable Land.
 
Last edited:
  • 23Haha
  • 18Like
  • 18
  • 1Love
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?
Yes:
When battles start, units are now deprioritized to enter combat if they are injured or demoralized.
 
  • 25Like
  • 7
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Sounds to me more like a question about goods substitution in general working for goods where you start at zero demand. That is a known issue right?
You're the first person I've heard complain about too little demand for oil

I haven't seen this bug show up yet, so likely not for 1.1, but I'll keep an eye on it!
This one is written up and in our database at current.
 
  • 23Like
  • 7
  • 1Love
Reactions:
You're the first person I've heard complain about too little demand for oil

I haven't seen this bug show up yet, so likely not for 1.1, but I'll keep an eye on it!

I believe this may refer to early oil from say whaling industries used for pop heating, before you have access to larger demands for oil. Specifically Japan, has marginally profitable whaling industries mostly propped up by the price of meat, with a tiny oil demand. Whale oil was highly sought after for oil lamps and soap, but in game only really gains value when you can put it in cars
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Is there a chance you will do something about Civil Wars blocking plays against countries? Especially in case of bugged never-ending wars, it prevents totally aggressive interaction with these countries. I have just dropped a nice Cracow run as I couldn't unite Poland being unable to conquer Prussian parts because Prussia gut stuck in never-ending civil war.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
Will there be any change to life expectancy of generals? I see, and gets lots of reports about cases of starting generals like Elder Moltke living to the end of the game.
Yes, the bug that caused extremely long-lived characters will also be fixed for 1.1. Full changelog next week.
 
  • 52Like
  • 10Love
  • 6
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Could You pls add some reduction of infrastructure usage if input goods are locally available. It would balance whole game and enforce gathering of industry in state where resources are mined. Thx If not, pls tell me why and is it possible (and how) to add such modifier by modder??????????????????????????? Thx a lot.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions: