• 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 do understand not wanting the player to choose the side they want to lose and 'throw' in order to make their real chosen side wins. That does feel incredibly cheesey, but the cure feels so much worse than the disease. You should be able to have setbacks, even major ones, and continue to press on and do your best to pick up the pieces.

We need ways to motivate the player to put in a good faith effort into the side they picked. Carrot instead of stick. But in the game over case the stick is a nuclear bomb.
 
  • 4
  • 3
Reactions:
Likely, but since the only other mechanic mentioned is next week's cultural secession which the confederacy is obvious not while the dissent over a law fits perfectly the question still stands.

And I wish people would stop disagreeing with questions, is the most nonsensical response I can think of.
The American Civil War is without a doubt going to be represented by journal entries, so doesn't neatly fall into either the revolutionary or cultural secession mechanics and doesn't really have to strictly conform to either.
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Sounds good. Just a couple of comments.

I strongly prefer a Game Over if you lose a revolution. A state that just overthrew the old order and probably killed or exiled the previous elite is a fundamentally new entity with a new "Spirit of the Nation" even if it keeps the old name (i.e. Revolutionary France rather than the USSR). After all the player could have picked the other side in the Revolutionary play or can tag switch after the GO screen. But I guess a game rule wouldn't be a problem if the player base prefers that.

It's a shame a White Peace is not available even after fighting has exhausted both sides. I think that a truce allowing such frozen conflicts to fester would be very interesting.

I am excited for next weeks DD on cultural secessions. The US Civil War was, IMO, more a political revolt than a cultural one but without bespoke mechanics that's not an unreasonable way to represent it. I hope that both types of civil wars can fire simultaneously. While the full chaos of the Russian Revolution and Civil War probably can't be fully modeled by the game, something like the historical outcome with several new ethno-states seceding and the rest united under a new revolutionary state should be at least possible.

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
  • 4Like
  • 2Love
  • 1
Reactions:
"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."

Read the diary again. If you get a Game Over, you can still play as any nation, including the newly formed revolutionary nation.
The devs have specifically said that it's not set in stone and still can be changed.That's why some people like me are worried about that.However,with how this has been received so far,i think this will probably stay as it is.
 
Do revolutions necessarily result in civil war? I am curious what happens if there is a palace coup. Is this an option being explored, if (for instance) revolutionary elements have high enough institutional organization? Or is this covered by an entirely different mechanic?

Also, would full annexation have to be the only option here? I am imagining a long and bloody civil war that reaches a stalemate, eventually settling in an independent confederacy. Or, in a Russian Civil War, where the White Army holds out in Siberia. Why couldn’t a truce between forces be an option?

Finally, flags seem to be really special and dynamic in this game. I am wondering if a revolutionary country would bear a different flag while at war, only to change this (or present an option of changing this) upon victory.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
Thanks for the DD!
I'm missing two important aspects of the revolutionary "engine":

1) What are the interactions between movements within a given country? Often, revolutionary situations are the result of a convergence of a variety of movements, and usually there was quite a lot of effort necessary to forge an alliance among social groups to turn a multiplicity of movements into a revolution (see Gramsci for some reading on the Vic 3 time frame).
Even if the revolution is the result of just one particular movement: will the other movements active in that country at the time get a chance to "take sides" (I'm not quite sure if the paragraph on loyalists in the DD covers this)? Is there a possibility for them to think that this is an opportune moment to take up arms as well, for instance? Or will everything move from the social level to the diplomatic level once a revolution fires?

As a side note: will all political movements be single-issue movements? I would appreciate the complexity of movements having multiple demands, which wold allow me to concede on some issues t stay firm on others and still successfully neutralise a movement.

2) What about the spread of revolutions to other countries? 1848/49 was special in that regard, and in the game it would have huge consequences for the formation of Italy, etc. I hope that it will focus more on the pop systems rather than EU4's mechanisms (the centers of reformation appear rather lifeless in this regard).
 
  • 2Love
  • 2
Reactions:
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.​
I was wondering how this would work in the case of a Monarchy. If a country has a civil war that is completely unrelated to the Monarchy, what sort of Government does the Revolutionary tag get? Do they automatically become a republic, even if they're represented by particularly conservative IGs? And if they retain the Monarchy, who becomes their Monarch? Would the Revolutionaries try to elevate some random noble to King because the sitting Government tried to change the tax laws?
 
  • 6
  • 1Like
Reactions:
This may be jumping the gun, but the team previously mentioned parties are(?) being explored.

As far as I know, the model will basically function as an organized union of one or more interest groups that appears later in the game (as it did historically — e.g. Democrats of 1865 being Landed Gentry, Republicans the petty bourgeoisie and industrialists… all of these allegiances are able to switch dynamically reflecting political developments).

How do parties work in Revolutions? Are there certain parties which, upon being made illegal (or with the interest groups supporting them repressed) become the organized center for revolution? Could a legal political party turn revolutionary, and then we can ban them if we’re on the loyalists side?

ALSO — I think this would solve some of the concerns mentioned by others regarding “single issue-minded revolutions.” A party would, conceivably, have a lot of things they want to change. So maybe Abolition of the Monarchy is the tipping point that sparks the revolution, but when the leading revolutionary party wins, it enacts all the reforms it wants to see.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
why couldnt a revolution end up with two countries? after all, didn't we have east/west germany, north/south vietnam or today korea? you could also argue that prussia and austria were two germanys... you are able to have more than country for a nationality, arabs have 22 countries.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
"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."

Read the diary again. If you get a Game Over, you can still play as any nation, including the newly formed revolutionary nation.
So extra tedium of switching over when they could just disable the game over and let you keep playing anyway. What a waste of game resources.
 
  • 14
  • 3
Reactions:
I think a game over for civil wars is good. As you said, you can still just contine playing as "Another" country after losing, but if you just switch after losing, I can smell the Ironman cheese already. Provoke civil war, side with the loyalists, disband your entire army and offer no resistance, radical change accomplished with hardly any casualties and devastation. Maybe some concessions to foreign supporters at most.

Also, I hope the revolution 'tracker' isn't too precise. It's fine if you have a rough sense of "We could face a revolution any day now" but I'd rather that be a risk (By hiding the exact numbers or using an EU4-style ticker where the speed affects the chance of the revolution drawing closer) than clairvoyantly knowing a civil war is going to break out in 1 month, 7 days and 9 hours.
 
  • 9
  • 6
  • 2Like
  • 1Love
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? If it's the latter, would it be possible for you to create a mechanic to force the new side to still be in the same market as the old one until the war actually starts, in order to avoid needing to form a new industry of coal or something when the current one is in a border state and will be taken within the first weeks of the war anyway?

I really like the idea of being able to choose the revolutionary side btw, I hope you keep it regardless of your decision regarding the game over.

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?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
It seems to me the simplest solution for the game over situation is: if the game is an ironman game, you get to pick a side in the revolution. If you lose, then switch ironman and achievements off, but let someone keep playing if they want to. In a non-ironman game let the player decide either though a game rule (or just quitting and starting over the old fashioned way.)
 
  • 4
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Do revolutions necessarily result in civil war? I am curious what happens if there is a palace coup. Is this an option being explored, if (for instance) revolutionary elements have high enough institutional organization? Or is this covered by an entirely different mechanic?
In the least not all revolutions will result in a bloody civil war - or any fighting for that matter thanks to the ability to simply give up before the actual 'war' in 'civil war' begins. Now this might just be my reading comprehension, but it seems like giving up at the diplomatic stage does not result in a game over. Either way at least the AI will probably just throw in the towel without fighting should the revolution be far too strong.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I guess the ACW has some special mechanics then? It's awkward if it uses the Cultural Seccession mechanics, given that the primary conflict is over a Law. But the South wanted independence. I guess it's handled by a special journal entry instead of the usual mechanics.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
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.​

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.
How will this dynamic work? Is there a radicalisation decay ticker, depending on laws etc...?
Even if you win against them, they won’t be making it back to your country - alive, at least.
I wish the opposite is not true - that a winning revolutionary state can decide to pacify with the old enemies and recuperate the military elites.
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.
So there is no way for a foreign power to groom a revolutionary movement that will be his ally from day 1?
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.
That sounds a bit weird to me. A Civil War should mutate to a Secession War if a prolonged status quo is reached...
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Looks very good.
This sounds as if the American Civil War could be a revolution, unless it will be treated like an independence war
 
  • 1
Reactions:
It seems to me the simplest solution for the game over situation is: if the game is an ironman game, you get to pick a side in the revolution. If you lose, then switch ironman and achievements off, but let someone keep playing if they want to. In a non-ironman game let the player decide either though a game rule (or just quitting and starting over the old fashioned way.)

The easiest situation is make this ironman-only. Or a toggleable game rule. Don't foist it on the normal players.
 
  • 4
  • 3
Reactions:
I must say requiring that only one country exists at the end of a civil war is a MAJOR letdown. There are countless examples of breakaway countries/regions that stayed independent in this timeframe.
It seems like something that is going to HAVE to be changed at some point so might as well do it sooner rather than later.
 
  • 5
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions: