• 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 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.
Maybe this will be possible in cultural secessions i.e CSA
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Will there be a way to generate dissent in another country? For example, if I'm China and want to invade Cambodia due to its incredibly profitable trade and possible recognition in the near future, could I cause dissent in Dai Nam and then use that to help Dai Nam with their "problem" in order for an obligation and then use that obligation for military access into Cambodia? It could be balanced with a chance of discovery every month or so and laws like outlawed dissent could keep that chance lower.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
1 - I see Switzerland and Revolutionary Switzerland have the same flag. Will that be present on release or will we have a system similar to EU4, where every revolutionary state gains a three-colored flag?
2 - Can repression actually make a revolution stronger instead of necessarily weakening it? I can think of a few historical examples of that.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
To counter players to cheese revolutions by playing the tag they want to loose and then try to give as little opposition as possible two ideas:

If the players is playing the loyalists (since losing as rebels should be game over by not having a country anyway, or am I wrong?)
there could spawn counter-revolutionary militias who take high losses and cause high devastation when a certain warscore is reached or the player doesn't send enough troops to the fronts compared to the rebels.

Otherwise after the war a player who continues to play as rebels after being the loyalist in the civil war will suffer from loyalist pops getting killed of and migrating away and states with a certain amount of this pops could suffer from devastation.
 
To counter players to cheese revolutions by playing the tag they want to loose and then try to give as little opposition as possible two ideas:

If the players is playing the loyalists (since losing as rebels should be game over by not having a country anyway, or am I wrong?)
there could spawn counter-revolutionary militias who take high losses and cause high devastation when a certain warscore is reached or the player doesn't send enough troops to the fronts compared to the rebels.

Otherwise after the war a player who continues to play as rebels after being the loyalist in the civil war will suffer from loyalist pops getting killed of and migrating away and states with a certain amount of this pops could suffer from devastation.
I think they're leaving an option open where you give in to the revolutionaries' demands at an earlier stage, representing a soft coup. In such a scenario, a counter-revolutionary movement should immediately appear.
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Will there be a function within the diplomatic play for interested foreign powers on either side to affect militancy/radicalism, either averting or provoking the revolutionary conflict? Immediate historical example that springs to mind is the German empire re-inserting the exiled Bolsheviks via secret train to Petrograd, but counter-revolutionary examples are present during the period I'm sure.

To be clear, thinking about this less as adding a power's weight to one side of the conflict (which appears clear) so much as speeding up/slowing down the progress of the Play towards war.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Can a country have more than one revolution at once?
"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.", Hope this helps!
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Will there be a function within the diplomatic play for interested foreign powers on either side to affect militancy/radicalism, either averting or provoking the revolutionary conflict? Immediate historical example that springs to mind is the German empire re-inserting the exiled Bolsheviks via secret train to Petrograd, but counter-revolutionary examples are present during the period I'm sure.

To be clear, thinking about this less as adding a power's weight to one side of the conflict (which appears clear) so much as speeding up/slowing down the progress of the Play towards war.
Having this be added would be a dream come true, and really it would give a nice finish to the whole geopolitical intrigue angle.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
"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.", Hope this helps!
Thank you!
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I probably did not understand it but what are the units for support and radicalism in the first picture on the political movement? How can I understand these values in relation to the 204k people in that movement if at all?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
There's a lot I like about this!

A few things I wish would change:

1) Pops that are very radical yet not big enough to cause a revolution should still cause debuffs in certain states.

2) While white peace shouldn't be possible, perhaps negotiated peace should be, where the two sides agree to form a coalition government. This could be handled via event if a civil war has dragged on for a long period of time. The resulting government might be very unstable. This point I'm less certain about.

And a few things I'd like more information about:

1) Can radical pops radicalise each other?

2) Can secret police and the like cause radicalisation if they do their job with too heavy a hand?

3) If the government backs down and gives the agitators what they want, will that anger those interest groups who oppose that law?

3.5) If the gov backs down, will other radical groups get further radicalised because they've seen the gov back down to threats of force already?

3.7) If the gov backs down, will the country's prestige drop?

4) Can there be multi way civil wars?

4.5) How do multi civil wars work? Do the revolting groups always fight against each other or can they partner up?

5) How does waging war as an outsider work? Let's say I'm Britain and I push a diplomatic play against an Ethiopia that's wracked by civil war, how does that work?
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Can A country Sponsor Revolution in other Countries? Before it has broken out? Aka Germany and Bolsheviks.
Can The Country Recognise the Revolutionaries in that country as the real country?
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
All of this is very interesting! So I've read some comment asking about coups and the answer being that it's still being decided and I have a suggestion (although for it to be fully fledged then individual characters shoud be able to radicalize). Basically a coup could be launched by a rather small group but with a big clout AND "access" to the current government (for example, in an absolute monarchy a peasant wouldn't be able to do it but a member of the aristocracy could). When the coup launches it could have three outcomes: success (which would force the player to adopt the laws/policies/etc of the faction that launched the coup instead of triggering a game over), parcial success which would mean basically a normal civil war (the coup unable to depose the government but managing to get enough support for a revolt, similar to the start of the spanish civil war) and failure (which means that it fails and the traitors are dealt with peacefully-ish). This outcomes would be depending on the support of other factions to the one that launches the coup but primarily depending on the attitude the army has towards the government and the faction that would launch the coup. A faction that launches the coup against a government whose army is completely loyal is very likely to fail. The main difference between a coup and a revolution would be that even though war may be initially averted the new government could be facing more opposition than the old one, causing a counter-revolution (more or less what happened to Napoleon III). Sorry for the long post
 
  • 2Like
  • 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.
Can you elaborate and clarify the current state of the game over conditions here? I'm seeing a lot of back and forth about how things are and what you are considering changing.

It sounds to me that under the two basic game types (excluding multiplayer for the moment)

Normal/Non-Ironman: A revolutionary war starts > you can pick a side > your pick loses > game over screen (like the points summary?) > you can keep playing as the winning side in the revolution or any other country

Ironman: A revolutionary war starts > you can pick a side > your pick loses > game over screen (like the points summary?) > *current* return to main menu, *on the table* letting players continue playing as any country the same way as non-ironman. (I would suggest the latter, but just disabling ironman and achievements to make the choice matter and prevent exploiting revolutions)
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Great DD as always. I have three questions:

What will be the consequences to caving into a revolutionary movement’s demands? Other than enacting the specific law.

How will independence and unification revolutions work? Or is that what you are discussing next week?

Can a revolutionary movement gain more radical demands as it becomes more radical? E.g. if you have absolute monarchy and a movement wants to establish a constitutional monarchy. Can they become radicalised enough for them to instead demand the complete abolishment of the monarchy and the establishment of a republic?
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Picking a side before the revolution has occured should always be an option. But losing the civil war should count as a game over, and then it depends on your game settings how that is handled; whether or not you're given a direct option to continue playing as the winning side.

In free-save / non-ironman mode, sure. I mean, it's effectively saving then loading as a different nation, only built-in in the UI. Why not?

Whereas in ironman mode, I think it should cause a full-on game over, or at least break ironman and switch to free-save mode. The whole idea of ironman is to force you to live with your choices. You chose this side of the civil war. Why would you have a get-out-of-jail-free-card?
 
  • 3
Reactions: