• 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:
It's not a proper Victoria experience unless there's 50K rebels all simultaneously rising up all over the country despite things not being that bad.
Not that bad for you maybe, but I could only buy 24.7 units of Porcelain last week and I'm ready to blow
 
  • 70Haha
  • 9Like
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
I'd like a solution that doesn't result in a game over but somehow punishes the player harshly for choosing the losing side. I don't know what that might look like off the top of my head though.
I would be inclined to go with something along these lines. A flat game over certainly raises the stakes, but given the intended increased difficulty/threat revolutions would provide, this could create some really sudden game overs far into a playthrough, making the mechanic more of a drag as people stop playing simply for the spirit of the game and focus on how to min-max the situation to their advantage in order to avoid losing all their progress.

Something alone the lines of a short-to-long-term malus seems reasonable. Something like "Brutal Civil War" country modifier that represent the old guard (i.e. you) getting slaughtered to the last in a protracted civil war, destroying any semblance of functional bureaucracy and international reputation, making recovery slower or giving more opportunities to your enemies to take advantage of your weakened state. You are still in a bad situation (that you would have avoided by winning) and are probably gonna take some bigger hits in the years to come due to the malus modifier, so you are suitably punished for your mismanagement, but the game carries on and you get to live and learn with your mistakes.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
"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."

So does this mean that civil wars and revolutions are different things, or is the Confederacy required to conquer the Union?

Also, definitely in favor of being able to continue the game after a loss
To you, and all those other people worried that the ACW is poorly represented by this system, I’m pretty sure the ACW will be depicted as a Cultural Secession, an alternative type of revolt mentioned in this DD.
I think it’s fair to see the ACW as a war based around nationalism, rather than based around the political issue of slavery. The Revolutions system here seemed to be focused with political conflicts in mind.
 
  • 1
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Let's say you have a large country, and the revolutionary supporters are dispersed throughout your borders. Will the states they take control of be centralized, or could they end up taking patches of unconnected states here and there? In other words, could there be a blobbing effect when revolution breaks out?
At the moment it's possible for revolutionary states to be disconnected from each other, but this is a rare occurrence that may or may not be present at release.
Another question I have, is could we see a multi-sided revolution break out, like the Spanish Civil War in HOI4?
Sadly no, there's no support for that at present and things tend to be chaotic enough without simultaneous counter-revolutions. Something I'd love to explore in the future but right now it would conflict with some fundamental rules around Diplomatic Plays.
 
  • 27
  • 14Like
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
Will revolutions be able to change multiple laws at the same time or is only one law per revolution changed?
So can political movements that do not contradict unite to achieve the same goal? For example a Political movement/Revolution that seeks to implement "poor laws" in welfare and a movement that seeks to implement autocracy in power distribution might unite to both achieve their laws or not?
A Political Movement is only for one particular Law, but if a revolution actually breaks out into its own country over not getting that, the revolutionaries change not only that Law but also some other ones on their wishlist while they're at it. If they win the war, those Laws remain in place, so a larger political shift than was originally intended may be on the table in that case.
 
  • 33Like
  • 7
  • 4
  • 3Love
Reactions:
Will it be possible to have multiple revolutions fire at the same time? And if so will the various revolutionary states all be at war with one another? Or just the "parent" state?
Only one revolution at a time, please. Form an orderly line.
 
  • 43Haha
  • 11Like
  • 5
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Can definitely confirm that outside of Ironman you'll be able to keep playing, as Observer or any country still on the map, after Game Over.
Radicalism gains modifiers from various factors (such as decreases in Standard of Living or from being Discriminated) can be individually applied on a Country, State, or Pop level and are fully available to modders. We're considering implementing them on Interest Group level as well.
it could be nice to have a quick "play as other faction" button for non-ironman rather then having to manually select the country like you're playing as any?
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Personally I would really love to see some ability to partake in revolution mechanics. What if there was only an opportunity at the very beginning of a revolution to choose the side of the Revolution. I feel like it would be a shame if you couldn't have the Russian Revolution since you are stuck playing as the tsarist and the only way to change to ML would be through tsarist reform? I may have misunderstood but it feels like a massive disappointment to hear that it's locked into playing reform only and it would take away a large amount of flavour and emergent gameplay for the player. I would really like to see the ability to choose the side of a revolution and play as them. It would lead to scenarios of self sabotage but in all fairness, sometimes nations were truly inept at running their country and so it wouldn't make it too ahistorical or incongruous, in some ways it would be more believable. Love the development so far just really hoping for that partaking in Revolution part!
 
I like the idea of a flat game over, if you suffer a game over you can just switch to another country anyway, you can even choose again your old country under new revolutionary government, the end result is very similar for the case where you lose a revolution but instead of a game over you are forced to play your new government.
The beauty of a flat game over instead of a automatic switch to the revolutionary government after losing a revolutionary war is because a flat game over screen make players psychologically more inclined to fight until the bitter end instead of giving up at first signal of failure, it works to incentive peoples to play more intense and dramatic stories instead of giving up early at first sign of failure.
In non-ironman games the practical end result is the same but the psychological experience is very different, while for ironman games the stakes are much higher and it makes achievement hunting a more challenging experience.
 
Last edited:
  • 5
Reactions:
I like this. And I just wanted to say that I really like the way you write your DD's (or whoever office lowling does it for you)
 
A Political Movement is only for one particular Law, but if a revolution actually breaks out into its own country over not getting that, the revolutionaries change not only that Law but also some other ones on their wishlist while they're at it. If they win the war, those Laws remain in place, so a larger political shift than was originally intended may be on the table in that case.
Does the number of Laws changed depend on Radicalism or Support or some other factor? Do some Laws change together as a group more than other combinations of Laws?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Sadly no, there's no support for that at present and things tend to be chaotic enough without simultaneous counter-revolutions.
Can a revolution happen in a country that's already having a revolution, or it's hardcoded not to happen? I imagine devastation caused by the civil war drives up radicalization. Also it's possible to have different Interest Groups to want completely different things and one of them can rise up before another: for example, a poorly managed liberal republic can have angry Trade Unions that want to establish a Council Republic as well as angry Landowners that want to restore monarchy. What if Trade Unions rise up, and a few months later radicalism of the Landowners causes them to rise as well?
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
how genuine of a threat are revolutions to the player? Will a skilled player be able to avoid almost any revolution, no matter how polarized society is or how oppressive the government, or is a revolution almost guaranteed in such playthroughs?
Revolutions and Political Movements in general are less common when there's a lot of political apathy, which is inversely related to Literacy and Standard of Living, so if you're playing a very rural, low-tech, low-wealth society you're going to be more capable of managing your politics than if you're an industrialized Great Power. You can also dodge a lot of political conflict by refraining from enacting new Laws since this is often what triggers backlash. You can also be purely reactive in your law enactments, waiting for supporting movements to demand them before embarking on passing them. So yeah, a skilled player can avoid the threat of revolution by being risk-averse, but might also fall behind other nations by being risk-averse.
 
  • 30Like
  • 9
  • 2Love
  • 2
Reactions:
Do army sizes scale with IG clout? So like how slaveowners are a small population but since they command a lot of power in the American South, they rebel with all the people affiliated with them?
The territory taken by the revolution at the start of the uprising scales with Clout (Support, actually, but that's based on Clout), and the size of the army they get is based on what territory they get. Revolutions also get a temporary boost to Conscription Rate, so can raise more civilians in their cause (for obvious reasons) than the loyalist country can.
 
  • 21
  • 10Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Looks like a really interesting thing both as the country involved and for others. One question I have is how would the interest groups of surrounding countries react to revolutions? Would the clergy and landholders in France, Germany and Belgium demand that the government intervenes in a socialist revolution in the Netherlands?
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Personally I would really love to see some ability to partake in revolution mechanics. What if there was only an opportunity at the very beginning of a revolution to choose the side of the Revolution. I feel like it would be a shame if you couldn't have the Russian Revolution since you are stuck playing as the tsarist and the only way to change to ML would be through tsarist reform? I may have misunderstood but it feels like a massive disappointment to hear that it's locked into playing reform only and it would take away a large amount of flavour and emergent gameplay for the player. I would really like to see the ability to choose the side of a revolution and play as them. It would lead to scenarios of self sabotage but in all fairness, sometimes nations were truly inept at running their country and so it wouldn't make it too ahistorical or incongruous, in some ways it would be more believable. Love the development so far just really hoping for that partaking in Revolution part!

From what has been said above, seems like the February Revolution would be more like letting the Industrialists interest group take charge after serious unrest. Revolutions that do not involve a large series of battles are lumped in with soft coups.
 
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.

So, can a revolution have different competing interest groups? For example, the Russian Revolution was started by various interest groups (basically), and then the Bolsheviks took over the revolution.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Personally I would really love to see some ability to partake in revolution mechanics. What if there was only an opportunity at the very beginning of a revolution to choose the side of the Revolution. I feel like it would be a shame if you couldn't have the Russian Revolution since you are stuck playing as the tsarist and the only way to change to ML would be through tsarist reform? I may have misunderstood but it feels like a massive disappointment to hear that it's locked into playing reform only and it would take away a large amount of flavour and emergent gameplay for the player. I would really like to see the ability to choose the side of a revolution and play as them. It would lead to scenarios of self sabotage but in all fairness, sometimes nations were truly inept at running their country and so it wouldn't make it too ahistorical or incongruous, in some ways it would be more believable. Love the development so far just really hoping for that partaking in Revolution part!
This is confirmed, mate! You can play as the revolting side at the beginning of a revolt, I definitely remember seeing a dev confirm it somewhere...
 
  • 1
Reactions: