• 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 #89 - What’s next after 1.3?

16_9.jpg

Hello and welcome to our Post-Release Plans update dev diary for 1.3. Just as we did in Dev Diary #79, in this dev diary we’ll be going over what changes and improvements we have planned for the game in future free updates such as 1.4, 1.5 and beyond. In the previous Post-Release Plans Dev Diaries we outlined four key areas of improvement for the game, which we’ll be sticking to for this one: Military, Historical Immersion, Diplomacy, and Internal Politics. The Other section is also still there for anything that doesn’t fall neatly into one of the four categories.

Just as last time, I’ll be aiming to give you an overview of where we stand and where we’re heading by going through each of these four categories and marking on each one with one of the below statuses:
  • Done: This is a part of the game that we now consider to be in good shape. Something being Done of course doesn’t mean we’re never going to expand or improve on it in the future, just that it’s no longer a high priority for us. Any points that were already marked as Done in the previous update will now be removed from the list, to avoid it growing unmanageably long!
  • Updated: This is a part of the game where we have made some of the improvements and changes that we want to make, but aren’t yet satisfied with where it stands and plan to make further improvements to it in future updates such as 1.4, 1.5 and so on. Note that this section will mainly focus on updates made in 1.3.
  • Not Updated: This is a part of the game where we haven’t yet released any of our planned changes/improvements in any currently released updates but still plan to do so for future updates.
  • New: This is a planned change or improvement that is newly added, ie wasn’t present on the list in Dev Diary #79.
  • Reconsidered: This is a previously planned change or improvement that we have reconsidered our approach to how to tackle from previous updates. For these points we will explain what our new plans are, and change the list appropriately in future updates.

Finally, just like in the original Post-Release Plans dev diaries, we will only be talking about improvements, changes and new features that are part of planned free updates in this dev diary. So then, let’s get to the categories and see where we stand! For each point in each category that isn’t new to this update there will be a sub-point detailing our progress on the point so far.

Post Launch 2 v2.png

Military​

Done
  • Solving the issue of armies going home after Generals die during a war by adding a system for field promotion
    • Field promotions have been added to the game in 1.3 to solve the most critical issue of armies simply going home. In the future we’ll aim to further improve this through changes to armies/navies and having defined successors for your commanders.
Updated:
  • Improving the ability of players to get an overview of their military situation and exposing more data, like the underlying numbers behind battle sizes
    • This is an area where we are continuously making improvements but where we still definitely have more work to do. A particular area of improvement we’ve identified is the need to more clearly be able to see a summary of a country’s military strength instead of just seeing unit counts.
  • Increasing the visibility of navies and making admirals easier to work with
    • As above, this is an area where we are continuously making improvements but still have work to do. In particular, we want to improve the sense of where exactly your navy is and what exactly it is doing.
  • Finding solutions for the issue where theaters can split into multiple (sometimes even dozens) of tiny fronts as pockets are created
    • We have mitigated this issue in update 1.2 by auto-closing small pockets and improving battle province selection but the issue still persists (particularly in wars with a large number of small countries) so further improvements are needed here
New:
  • Adding a system for limited wars to reduce the number of early-game global wars between Great Powers
  • Adding systems for organizing your generals and admirals into discrete armies and navies to allow more control over geographic positioning, military composition and unit specialization
  • Adding more options for strategic control over your generals to allow for more ‘smart play’ in wars
  • Adding more on-map graphics for armies and navies, including soldiers on the map
Reconsidered:
  • Experimenting with controlled front-splitting for longer fronts
    • After some internal design consideration, we have decided that this is not the best approach going forward - instead we will aim to solve the issues with long fronts by supporting multiple battles and improving the strategic options you have to direct your generals.

Historical Immersion​

Updated:
  • Tweaking content such as the Meiji Restoration, Alaska purchase and so on in a way that they can more frequently be successfully performed by the AI, through a mix of AI improvements and content tweaks
    • Improvements to this were made in both 1.2 and 1.3 (the most significant being preventing journal entries such as Fragile Unity from being broken by revolutions) but we still have some work planned here, particularly to the Meiji Restoration and the willingness of AI countries to open up Japan.
  • Ensuring unifications such as Italy, Germany and Canada don’t constantly happen decades ahead of the historical schedule, and increasing the challenge of unifying Italy and Germany in particular
    • The German Unification received a significant rework in 1.3 to more closely follow the historical narrative, with other unifications planned to receive similar improvements in the near future.
  • General AI tweaks to have AI countries play in a more believable, immersive way
    • This is something we are continuing to work on in every update. Some tweaks and improvements were made in 1.3 but the biggest improvements here should come alongside planned updates to diplomacy.

Not Updated:
  • Adding more country, state and region-specific content to enhance historical flavor of different countries

New:
  • Going through the base game Journal Entries and events and making improvements and additions to ensure that they feel meaningful and impactful for players to interact with


Diplomacy​

Not Updated:
  • ‘Reverse-swaying’, ie the ability to offer to join a side in a play in exchange for something
  • More things to offer in diplomatic plays, like giving away your own land for support
  • Trading (or at least giving away) states
  • Foreign investment and some form of construction in other countries, at least if they’re part of your market
  • Improving and expanding on interactions with and from subjects, such as being able to grant and ask for more autonomy through a diplomatic action
  • Allowing peace deals to be negotiated during a Diplomatic Play instead of only having the option to give in

Internal Politics​

Done:
  • Improving the mechanics of law enactment and revolutions to be more engaging for the player to interact with
    • Law enactment and revolutions received a significant rework in 1.3 to behave in less random and more engaging ways, while also somewhat (intentionally) increasing the challenge involved in rapidly reforming your country
  • Adding more mechanics for characters and giving the player more reason to care about individual characters in your country:
    • Agitators were introduced as a new character type in 1.3 that directly interacts with political movements and serves to push more forcefully for political reforms. There are definitely more types of characters we want to add and more we want to do here in the future, but right now it’s not a high priority when compared to the other items on this list.
  • Added Petitions to ensure the Interest Groups you add to your government has agency in demanding political change
    • This was not previously on the list but is something we’ve added since we consider it a fairly significant change to internal politics.

Updated:
  • Making it more interesting and ‘competitive’ but also more challenging to play in a more conservative and autocratic style
  • New laws were introduced in 1.3 (such as One Party State) that makes late-game autocracies more viable, and the addition of Agitators means that conservative countries now face a greater internal push for reform.
  • Adding laws that expand on diversity of countries and introduce new ways to play the game
    • A number of new laws were introduced in Update 1.3, but there is definitely more we want to do in the future here

Other​

Updated:
  • Improving Alerts and the Current Situation widget to provide more useful and actionable information.
The Current Situation widget received a series of tweaks in 1.3 to give more useful and actionable information. In the future, we want to improve this further by giving the player much more custom control over the alert/current situation system similar to what we’ve done with message settings.

New:
  • Increase the overall challenge in the economic core loop, as well as creating more clear mechanical differences between different countries and their starting positions in ways that encourage more economic specialization.
  • Find a way to deal with the excessive fiddliness of the trade system in large economies, possibly by allowing for autonomous trade based on your laws in a similar way to the autonomous investment system.

So when can you expect these changes to reach the game? I can’t give specifics for any particular points but what I can say is that we are planning a large update with an extended open beta period in the second half of this year which will check off a considerable number of points from the list. In particular, that update will be aiming to tackle many of the points from the Warfare and Diplomacy sections of this list. I’ll end this dev diary by reminding you yet again that this list only covers changes and additions that will be part of free updates.

Well then, that’s all for today’s update. We will see you in two weeks for our next Dev Diary, on the 22nd while we work on 1.3.3!
 
  • 132Like
  • 44Love
  • 14
  • 3
  • 3
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Tweaking content such as the Meiji Restoration, Alaska purchase and so on in a way that they can more frequently be successfully performed by the AI, through a mix of AI improvements and content tweaks

Are the AI improvements going to involve more ways that we can modify AI behavior in the script or will you just be using existing script like altering weights to get them to do what you want?

The last dev diary mentioned that we'd get journal entry mechanics that allow multiple progress bars in a journal entry at the same time. Are there plans for any other new features being introduced to JE's or events for more ways to make them more flexible to help with flavor? I work on flavor mods so am interested in getting more tools for good flavor.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Good things are moving forward. I'm following this with interest.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I see some new things on the roadmap which are good to see. Can you expand on this item?
  • Increase the overall challenge in the economic core loop, as well as creating more clear mechanical differences between different countries and their starting positions in ways that encourage more economic specialization.
Hopefully this means addressing the issues around construction points growing exponentially while running out of population to build stuff? Also hopefully means the core construction loop is improved some to have more variety depending on what nation/region you are playing? Outside of some issues around military and diplomacy systems, addressing this is probably the number one thing to make the game more compelling and replayable.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
I am extremely excited for these changes to warfare. I hope they turn out as engaging as they bullet points sound to me. Also finally soldiers on the map was the last bit of immersion I was missing during war, thank you thank you thank you! Everything else seems great too! :)
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I don't read the statement of @Wizzington as "...and we dropped it", rather that not yet a concept is there ready for implementation. For potential reasons, see my post above. Because of those, it might be necessary or at least easier to implement the various "automation mechanics" one after the other instead of all of them at the same time. We started with autonomous construction, we will get it expanded into foreign investments at some point, automated trade routes have appeared on the horizont...so PMs at some point seem not unlikely to me, but I can see why it might take time.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I don't think the game is currently in a great state, but I'm glad that the developers seem to know exactly what to do to make Vic3 better. The only thing I'd add to this list is improvements to performance. Things were bad before 1.3, but now they're dire.
 
  • 4
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Im a bit disappointed that there isnt any sort of "Diplomatic Questions" mechanic being designed for the diplomacy update. Having nations have public and private positions on major diplomatic questions in order to influence their behavior would be a lot more interesting, I think. Would also be nice if there could be more negotiation or back and forth in diplomatic plays before war
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm not sure you're ready to give a detailed answer but in case I'll ask, in a detailed way to reiterate my own ideas on the subject.

On warfare, will we have expanded stances to go along with multiple generals and targets per front? And will the actual generals you pick have effects on the execution of your strategy? Including political consequences for reaching too far down command chains?

I'll use my favorite US Civil War example since it's easy for me to grasp. Are you aiming for a system where, even though there is one long front, the player could actually assign McClellan to Virginia with orders for an aggressive concentrated attack with Richmond as his goal, Grant to the Mississippi basin with orders for a passive mobile attack with Vicksburg as his goal, Halleck to the Western states with orders for aggressive counter-offensive, with perhaps areas in Texas as goals, and Sherman to Ohio with orders of an aggressive dispersed attack with various cities in Tennessee as goals? I'm deliberately inserting my own expanded idea for fronts and stances here. Heck might as well repeat it again in the post just for visibility ;)

Stances would also determine force concentration (or desired force concentration, the generals themselves will matter here). If you chose guerilla defensive warfare, your troops would be widely dispersed and unable to effectively fight pitched battles. If you chose concentrated attack, your troops would be highly concentrated and best able to fight in a pitched battle but would be more suspect to being outmaneuvered by defense in depth or mobile attack. We would also need a passive and aggressive modifier.

This is by no means a comprehensive list, but a basic start would be (all can be either passive or aggressive):

Concentrated Attack
Mobile Attack
Dispersed Attack
Counter-Offensive (basically you want the other side to attack you, but if things go well go on the offensive immediately)
Concentrated Defense
Defense in Depth
Organized Retreat
Guerilla Defense

In the above example, would McClellan dither and botch the assignment, while you accrue political trouble for sidelining Halleck and boosting up Grant and Sherman? Could we have political effects from sidelining politically powerful generals, from mere disgruntlement lowering army morale and effectiveness to outright insubordination (attacking without orders, refusing to do anything, outright quitting). Perhaps you are Germany in a war that involves the Alps and don't want to do anything but sit there with some troops, except you send Von Moltke to that front (you aren't the best player). You upset perhaps not just him but some of your other generals as well as your troops and if you don't fix the situation he might just quit in rage or launch an attack you didn't want. A hothead general may launch a crazy attack against superior forces because that's what you asked (or even sometimes if you didn't) but a more cautious one simply won't. A super cautious general may win a big battle but fail to achieve as much in the result (province-wise) as better one would (Meade versus Grant, say).

Can we also have the enemies army as a target? Grant famously targeted Lee's army for destruction rather than being as concerned with specific geographic locations.

And then the stances would also help determine results, particularly as they interact against each other. Concentrated attack against concentrated defense gives you the Western Front, for instance. Defense in depth could throw off a superior attacker who chose concentrated attack as they waste too much of their force in attacks you are happy to let them win while preserving the majority of your force.

There would have to be timers on the stances so you can't change them super rapidly except for input allowed after major battles (moving commanders around the same thing). There is an issue about how much you know about what the enemy is doing so as to not turn the game into a rock-paper-scissor cheese fest of simply doing whatever the best counter is to the enemy.

Making warfare interesting on the strategic level means situations like the North in the ACW are possible: you have trouble with your generals, who can't seem to fight effectively or follow your strategic goals. Maybe as a player you find a better solution than Lincoln did earlier and survive the political fallout or maybe you end up imploding the country due to forcing out politically powerful and popular generals.
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I see some new things on the roadmap which are good to see. Can you expand on this item?
  • Increase the overall challenge in the economic core loop, as well as creating more clear mechanical differences between different countries and their starting positions in ways that encourage more economic specialization.
Hopefully this means addressing the issues around construction points growing exponentially while running out of population to build stuff? Also hopefully means the core construction loop is improved some to have more variety depending on what nation/region you are playing? Outside of some issues around military and diplomacy systems, addressing this is probably the number one thing to make the game more compelling and replayable.

Hey @redrum68

Rather than fixing the construction point/population issue (which we should take a look at at some point, but independent of this), the goal is about what you said: "the core construction loop is improved some to have more variety depending on what nation/region you are playing". Which is also exactly what the original text says.

I can't give too many details yet, but the idea is to add a new (but related) layer of difference between most countries (due to player's and AI's specialization), while also providing a bit of extra interesting options for the most relevant countries during the time. If you're playing as Great Britain you should have some different options to specialize your economy than if you're playing as Hamburg. We will probably talk more about it in a future Dev Diary. Hope this helps you a bit more.
 
  • 30Like
  • 7
  • 1Love
Reactions:
I'm really excited to see that Diplomacy and Warfare are the next area of improvement later this year!
I'm also happy that some Automatic Trade is being considered, the introduction of Automatic Investment was really good and this looks like a good next step.

A thing I would add to this list of improvements is tying internal politics to the external ones, the fact that interest groups have no opinion of what's happening around you or of your actions (be it either diplomatic actions or diplomatic plays) is a missing area imo.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I don't quite understand the arguments about the issues with "front splitting". Forgive my ignorance- I haven't played HoI4 for quite a few years- but the game has many, player-drawn fronts. Does HoI4 suffer from front splitting disease? If not, why not use that experience?
 
  • 3Haha
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I really hope for autonomous trade to make it into the game.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
@ero_sk

In HoI, if a front split occurs, some of the units of the same army can simply split up to the newly created front while keeping all of the units under the same army commander. In our case, there's one general that controls all units, so they have to decide which of the two fronts they go to now.
That's why we're trying to mitigate the issue with the merge of allied fronts etc.
 
  • 16
  • 8Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Hey @redrum68

Rather than fixing the construction point/population issue (which we should take a look at at some point, but independent of this), the goal is about what you said: "the core construction loop is improved some to have more variety depending on what nation/region you are playing". Which is also exactly what the original text says.

I can't give too many details yet, but the idea is to add a new (but related) layer of difference between most countries (due to player's and AI's specialization), while also providing a bit of extra interesting options for the most relevant countries during the time. If you're playing as Great Britain you should have some different options to specialize your economy than if you're playing as Hamburg. We will probably talk more about it in a future Dev Diary. Hope this helps you a bit more.
Thanks for the response. The only thing I'll add is if the construction point/population balance isn't improved then you can make the most compelling construction loop that varies greatly by nation but if you run out of pop after 30-40 years to support the construction points then it becomes irrelevant. I realize that maybe construction point/population balance isn't a large enough item to list on the roadmap? but I would definitely stress that its important to address sooner rather than later. I also don't think its necessarily that easy to fix in an effective way as if we continue to have PMs that focus on making population more efficient if you just considerably reduce construction point growth then those PMs could become useless and it also varies significantly from nation to nation based on how much population they have.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
@ero_sk

In HoI, if a front split occurs, some of the units of the same army can simply split up to the newly created front while keeping all of the units under the same army commander. In our case, there's one general that controls all units, so they have to decide which of the two fronts they go to now.
That's why we're trying to mitigate the issue with the merge of allied fronts etc.
To be honest it still sounds to me like "artificially" generating problems and then trying to solve them, rather than tackling the problem at its core.

Also- unless I misinterpreted today's DD- there is some work planned on assigning units and generals to armies, so that should resemble more the HoI4 system (at a more abstract level ofc) and hence allow multiple fronts, ideally manually drawn by the player (or automatically generated for those who don't want to do it).
 
  • 6
  • 3
Reactions:
Reinvestment can go 10x - 1000x over course of entire game, while your nation population maybe goes 10x.
So maybe problem is with Capitalists contributing 20% of dividends to IP instead of 10% or 5%.

Later PMS - productivity in low hundreds instead of tens meaning potentially 10x higher dividends.
Automation - buildings hire less people, meaning easier time to get enough of buildings to get 50% economy of scale bonus.
Workforce ratio goes 25% -> 50% if you have women rights and happy, powerful TU.

At some point you have so much reinvestment, that you could handle 5% if not 10% yearly growth population with late game economy, if resource caps were like 100x bigger.
So for now players can curb IP growth by switching to worker coops - 5% of dividend pretty much locked forever doesn't hurt pops in any way - at most they would have SoL 1 point higher, while regular taxes hit them more.

To balance it: GDP shouldn't destroy money going to IP (dividends efficiency).
Instead of it accumulating IP should be softcapped in same way as gold reserves.
Once soft cap is reached, then contributions of pops gradually decline to 1% of dividends.

Early game GDP/capita is $0.5 - $1, while in late game it can be as high as $20.

Alternative solution: Construction sector grows and shrinks completely organically just like in this mod: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2882745172
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
Thanks for the response. The only thing I'll add is if the construction point/population balance isn't improved then you can make the most compelling construction loop that varies greatly by nation but if you run out of pop after 30-40 years to support the construction points then it becomes irrelevant. I realize that maybe construction point/population balance isn't a large enough item to list on the roadmap? but I would definitely stress that its important to address sooner rather than later. I also don't think its necessarily that easy to fix in an effective way as if we continue to have PMs that focus on making population more efficient if you just considerably reduce construction point growth then those PMs could become useless and it also varies significantly from nation to nation based on how much population they have.

i forgot about the construction game mechanic concept in the game. current system feels like a state controlled and owned construction labor force.
we need to get used to construction in certain political systems that is completely automatic and you can only give directions or focus points same take almost as what needs to happen with simplifying and deepening things like warfare as such it needs to drift more towards vic2 mechanics
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:


  • Adding systems for organizing your generals and admirals into discrete armies and navies to allow more control over geographic positioning, military composition and unit specialization
  • Adding more options for strategic control over your generals to allow for more ‘smart play’ in wars
  • Adding more on-map graphics for armies and navies, including soldiers on the map
Yeah, something like a Hoi4 "lite" system... That was my proposition about warfare from the beginning. Good to see that the devs are understanding that the initial "hands off" design has failed and are choosing the correct approach
 
  • 6
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions: