• 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:
This is looking great. Are there any plans in 1.1 to improve historical outcomes (like Austria declining due to nationalism or US taking the west), or is it a later/flavor issue to address?
 
Keeping military pay at max should be very corrosive over time, like mandatory increases year over year (especially to maintain IG approval) and a very real possibility of revolution (since there's no coup mechanic) if you try and decrease it.

Seriously can we please not do something stupid like tie unit stat increases to increased military pay? You're already stupid if you're not paying them at max because it barely costs anything until you're at war and it's incredibly easy to stockpile enough money prewar to prevent this from ever being a problem. You already gain an unfair advantage in the government because you have pops that on average will be far more loyal and powerful (because of wealth).

If you're going to do this you HAVE to also modify the number of goods being used so they use up more to balance this. You can already bring the world to it's knees by the end of every game by spamming tank regiments with +30% offense and defense from the military's approval bonus. The Prussian way of governance (AKA military with a government vs government with a military) is far too OP as of now.

Edit: That being said, you should have worse morale when you're paying less.

The morale/stat bonuses should be based on the previous five years or something and max pay in peace time should be roughly equivalent to paying for full mobilization (assuming a cost difference between mobilized and in combat).
 
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!
Glass isn't really that infinite you know? you either need Lumber, Lead, and/or Oil to make it which are not exactly in excellent supply and Services have a demand that is shared with equally good goods like Transportation (that you need for other reasons), Art, Telephones, Cars, etc. so the demand drops like a rock late-game
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Will 1.1 seek to improve the warfare UI? My biggest challenge right now as a player is simply reading the screens to determine what is going on--I know devs are aware and working on the overall display of info (which is really hard in a game this comprehensively huge!) but am curious if there are any specific tweaks that, for instance, will help players better understand up front why troop numbers alone don't determine a battle (i.e. putting the kill rate front and center on the battle screen).
 
  • 7
Reactions:
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..
i already do that when i have a General I like and in a territory i don't care about
I haven't seen this bug show up yet, so likely not for 1.1, but I'll keep an eye on it!
What, How? Pops don't buy oil early game because they can't properly substitute the good
 
  • 1
Reactions:
i already do that when i have a General I like and in a territory i don't care about
Maybe when some generals rebel, based on their popularity, the rebelling country gets to reassign all their generals and give a field marshal more troops
Or they could have some "memory" of their wars and power they once had, so general with less troops assigned still would be powerful
Anyway, right now as it is it's just a dead end of design, almost no interaction
 
Can you please allow an easier way to assign battalions between generals?
 
  • 9
  • 1Like
Reactions:
From my experience service centers are barely profitable even at the lowest PMs, i never go above the second one as even that struggles and is usually mostly unemployed, ive found street lights to be a downgrade due to this as they tend to both crash the price of services and drive up their production cost quite. So while demand for them might be infinite in theory in practice its all the other goods that are the limiting factor, especially since increasing their production directly increases services production too at what seems to be an even higher rate making it nearly impossible to increase demand for them without increasing their supply.

All of this also makes journal entires involving them impossible to complete as they usually require iirc them to be staffed and profitable, especially the elevator one since that requires 75% of them to have the highest PM on top of that.

And while at it ive had some similiar experiences with food (especially grain), difference being that you can just build less farms and export them, the actual production potential seems way too high, im pretty sure you could feed all of Europe with just Scandinavian farms and still have some leftovers.
buying Transportation and firing workes is a good way to increase their profitability a bit
 
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.

Might be too late to do anything about it this patch, but only assigning batallions to moblized generals would be useful without disrupting the political factors. Like mobilizing just one general will have them get assigned units up to their command limit, and mobilizing a second general leads units to be split up as they are now. While the political weights would treat each general as if they were mobilized so their relative political power is always the same regardless of actual mobilization. That way we could give a one star one division for a small expedition while the field marshal still has more clout.

It could also lead to a potential funtimes of what the officer pools can do even demoblized, serving as general staff assisting or hindering mobilized field generals, but thats a whole nother discussion. For now, being able to reliably mobilize one general to their command limit regardless of demobilized generals would be a godsend.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Yes, the bug that caused extremely long-lived characters will also be fixed for 1.1. Full changelog next week.
Thank you so much. This is one of the top two issues that has been keeping me from playing the game.

(It's not all bad. I've got other games, and I've been working on modding in a specific tribe of Native Americans that were omitted.)
 
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!
Maybe there could be one battle per attacking general, and attackers will always match up against defenders (if any) until no one is free? There could also be a combat penalty the more generals there are in one side (coordination penalty?), to incentivize having fewer generals with larger armies.

The situation you described just sounds like one army finding a breach in the line (probably because 90% of the troops just left) and outmaneuvering the other side, which sounds very plausible to me lol. It just sounds weird because armies are not physical entities, geographically positioned in the game world, which IMHO they should be. I think it would make warfare more understandable and realistic.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
There is a principle of localization of industry. It would be logical to reduce the local price of the goods in the states where it is produced.
This is logical because the price in the state where the goods are made does not include transportation to another state.

It will make local production more profitable.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Sweet, sweet tax evasion :)

Most migration work is being done for 1.2 alongside a big rebalancing of Arable Land.
Good to hear that migration is on the table. In that context I hope that there will be some mechanism to distinguish between internal migration (between different states of my country) and external migration (from outside of my country) and treat them differently, e.g. have the option to have more restrictions on the latter.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Will 1.1 seek to improve the warfare UI? My biggest challenge right now as a player is simply reading the screens to determine what is going on--I know devs are aware and working on the overall display of info (which is really hard in a game this comprehensively huge!) but am curious if there are any specific tweaks that, for instance, will help players better understand up front why troop numbers alone don't determine a battle (i.e. putting the kill rate front and center on the battle screen).
Some improvements and bugfixes have been made in this area, but more enhancements to military UX are scheduled for 1.2.
 
  • 20
  • 13Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
I feel that if you're going to make certain IGs unable to exist in the same government together by just reducing legitamacy, you should, in turn lower or change the penalties for low legitimacy.

Reasoning being, the main way of providing high legitimacy, giving all strong IGs slots, is no longer possible. And I can forsee unfortunate events where x IG wants to join y party, which is outside player control, ruining everything, with no fix.

Legitimacy has been inconcsistent and I think the debuffs for low legitmacy should be changed, if it is to represent the ease of policy and governming for the ruling parties. It doesn't quite make sense how it is. I don't see why the radicals generated are targeted at SOL decreases when a much better thing to multiply would be radicalism from political movements. I understand that political movements occur much less often than the constant rate of SOL increases and decreases but it's much more reasonable and visable to the player. That a government that can't make policy, would in turn, upset it's people who cannot enact, or resist changes.
 
  • 2
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I feel that if you're going to make certain IGs unable to exist in the same government together by just reducing legitamacy, you should, in turn lower or change the penalties for low legitimacy.

Reasoning being, the main way of providing high legitimacy, giving all strong IGs slots, is no longer possible. And I can forsee unfortunate events where x IG wants to join y party, which is outside player control, ruining everything, with no fix.

Legitimacy has been inconcsistent and I think the debuffs for low legitmacy should be changed, if it is to represent the ease of policy and governming for the ruling parties. It doesn't quite make sense how it is. I don't see why the radicals generated are targeted at SOL decreases when a much better thing to multiply would be radicalism from political movements. I understand that political movements occur much less often than the constant rate of SOL increases and decreases but it's much more reasonable and visable to the player. That a government that can't make policy, would in turn, upset it's people who cannot enact, or resist changes.
They said few comments ago that differences in IG within a single party would not impact it, only between separate parties/IG outside party. It would make single-party governments more reasonable choice.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions: