• 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:
Aside: losing the war in HoI4 doesn't necessarily end the game. I once started as Fascist Italy, didn't join Axis then got defeated by Allies. Peace Conference results: Italy flipped to Democracy. I was still playing as Italy, was immediately pulled into the war on Axis and was pumping out units from scratch while the Allies bought me time. If the player starts in a Democracy, they have the option to play as a government in exile.

Back to Vic3: A game over when you lose a revolutionary war is little different to a game over from losing your last province because you were an OPM who started the war - both are high stakes, high reward plays. When you're a big blobbed out nation, a single war is much less consequential so rightly shouldn't result in a game over. I disagree with your reading of the DD that the consequence of the rebels winning the revolutionary war to be so trivial - Interest Groups will have shifted in power, opening up the path for a lot more legal changes in quick succession.

You speak of rewarding "players trying to cheese the game" as undesirable. Could you elaborate on what you mean by 'cheese' in this case? To me, not giving a game over is how you open the door to cheesing the game by letting an undercooked revolution still win by deliberately playing badly so you get the benefit of the revolution for less effort. Yes, other nations can get involved in your country's revolution making it harder to engineer the desirable outcome. I consider that to be part of the game's skill requirement - track international diplomacy (and market conditions) then time your revolution when it's favourable for your objective (be it crushing it or tag switching).

I agree that the spirit of immersion ("you are playing as the spirit of a nation, through thick and thin") is not being prioritised by giving a game over from losing a revolution war. It's part of the trade offs being made to produce a game - historic accuracy and immersion are second priority to gameplay feel. Now, what happens after that "game over"? You can switch tags, regardless so you can still play as the same nation that just finished a revolutionary war. Presumably continuing to play would disqualify the game from Ironman but that's it - player pride is wounded but you can do exactly what you want: dust off your battered nation and continue overseeing it.

Aside to your Aside: Agreed it doesn't need to end the game, but the purpose of HoI4 is to reflect a single conflict and what that encapsulated, and while a player can work the game to get back in there, the AI struggles to be of any value in the war (much like in real life) on account of making up for the destruction they experienced in being defeated (loss of entire army, factories/infrastructure damaged, etc). And I would argue a flat game over in HoI4 would make perfect sense as the whole point of HoI4 is that one war, but I am glad they didn't make it a game over for the exact scenario that you described above.

Back to Vicky 3 (as well): You mentioned the new interest group comes to power post revolution. I didn't see anything about shifted power dynamics after a revolution, just enforcement of the law they were after. Can you quote where you saw the part about the "new order" taking the reins of power? That would make perfect sense in context of the game, I just don't remember seeing that. I do remember there being implications in the DD (or a follow up dev post) about the leaders of the other side not making it out alive and that particularly group losing influence for a time, so we can expect a clout crash there, but it was not clear to me that there is an explicit shift of power at the end of the war.

Assuming what you state is true, however, it doesn't change the underlying idea that you are losing the game over a lost war for reasons that don't make sense in terms of gameplay consistency. If another power uses a "Stamp out the Revolution" diplomatic play and wins, overthrowing your government, would that be the same thing and a Game Over as well? If you "give in" to too many law changes is that a Game Over as your current leadership is effectively ousted from power in one form or another? Clearly not, but if we were being consistent about how sudden/rapid changes in government = death, then all those situations would apply, which would be asinine.
If we work under the assumption that you are playing as the leaders of the country (Crusader Kings style), then sure: falling out of power = game over. If you are simply playing as the nation then your current government collapsing has no reason to be a game over, though you should take a significant hit for doing so (in Vic2 that was a prestige hit. In Vic3 it should be something far more substantial).

In terms of cheesing I mean setting yourself up for victory in ways that is more meta/external to the gameplay loop than just being effective with the game system. For example: the DD mentioned they will prevent you from quickly hamstringing (sp? Real word?) a faction as the civil war kicks off to get an easy win, but players can easily play a longer game, locating where the core of the rebellion will be and intentionally destroying the infrastructure local to that region and angering the already disgruntled population, kicking off a civil war where the enemy takes possession of territory around an area you've already crippled. Is that a smart thing to do? Intentionally undermining your own country in that fashion? If you keep playing afterwards: no, you'd be less inclined to partially cripple yourself with that sort of cheese, as that will simply be another thing you have to fix after the devastation of the war. If the game is over when you fail (potentially resulting in loss of Ironman mode and ending your Achievement playthrough): hell yeah it's a good thing to do.

To your concern on what cheesing would look like, that is why I suggested in an earlier post that there should be a significant malus for being defeated in a civil war to represent the absolute slaughter that occurred due to fighting to the last. Big hits to bureaucracy points/prestige/military effectiveness/whatever for a period of time that still cost you and set your nation up to get ripped into by other powers, without some sort of arbitrary statement that losing a civil war is the same as being annihilated.
EDIT: Also, the DD did mention that a civil war is doubly destructive as a normal war (for obvious reasons), so trying to cheese it by intentionally failing would still be damaging in its own right. We could just add the extra debuff as a way of making sure that those that try to disband their everything to take an easy loss still take a hard hit they could have avoided by just accepting the faction's demands in the first place.

I won't suggest that seeing a game over screen means its time to pull out the cyanide and end yourself IRL for dishonoring your family, but let's be clear on what a game over screen does mean: You failed. You lose. You were unable to keep with the game and fell by the wayside.
Your character died in a game? Sure, the character died, and assuming the world doesn't have some in built system of resurrection it is understood "in that timeline" that you lost and the world moves on, having to deal with your failure. In Vicky games, that is not the assumption. Your nation changed and had to suffer in order to do it, but it still stands. How will you proceed now? Time will tell and that is part of the fun, just like your HoI4 Italy game.
 
Last edited:
  • 4
Reactions:
TL; DR: Questions in green.

How would a revolution such as the Mexican Revolution be modeled? Specially the fact that there were several factions all vying for control of the country, with their own demands, sometimes allying amongst themselves against other factions, sometimes taking control of the government and then losing that control because their leader died or they lost otherwise.

Also, to which degree can foreign countries intervene in a country's ongoing or upcoming revolution?

Also, would it be possible for the rebels to be appeased by the government accepting some demands? For example in the aforementioned revolution, one of the factions demanded "rural land reform, specifically reclaiming communal lands stolen by hacendados in the period before the revolution".

They ended up being allied to other factions. So can different radical movements rise up in the same revolution?

EDIT: Are links disallowed in this forum? I had cited most of the claims in my message but it didn't allow me to post.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
You mentioned that the player can avert a revolution by enacting the law change demanded by the angry political movement. But is it possible that the ruling IGs of your nation will stop the new law and thereby force you to face the revolution?
They can stall and debate them, yes.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Could we please have an event in a dev diary in which generals switch sides? (Similiar to HOI4's new Russian civil war mechanics) You could even have "cowardly" generals be more likely to switch in the case of one side gaining a clear advantage, this at least gives some variety to generals if the player chooses the revolution as their new country. And furthermore, how are the generals for both sides calculated? By revolution power/size or random chance, please I am desperate to know.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Losing a revolutionary war means your country loses all its territory and Pops, in other words Game Over.

Hmm...I don't know why but this has the "civil wars in Imperator are always game ending" energy to it. And look how that turned out - not good.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
  • 2Haha
  • 2
Reactions:
So, can the revolutionaries not try to coup the government? I would think that if the revolutionaries meet some conditions, for example they have high support in the capital (probably more than that but we'll just roll with this for now) then they could simply declare themselves the new government, and the "loyalists" would then become the "rebels" with significant impacts on how alliances et al play out, or even bypassing the civil war altogether. But it reads like that is not possible.

> 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.

How does this play out in, for example, the US Civil War? The Confederacy had no interest in annexing the Union. National revolutions don't fit this model very neatly because usually they want out of the parent country but don't have any real desire to occupy said parent (unless I'm forgetting that national revolutions are handled differently?).
This would be very nice for a multi-step journal entry, similar to how strikes will be handled - you could unlock certain entries with good enough home affairs or relations with certain interest groups (e.g you could order a round-up of the leaders of a suspect IG if you are approved by the army, capture/spy on them with the secret police or national guard or simply pay the would-be assassins to spill the beans so to speak. All in all, I think coups should be separate events from revolutions, maybe done if the IG is powerful but not enough to have an all-out battle.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
How would something like West Virginia work? That part of Virginia split off and became its own state during the ACW, because they objected to what the state gov was doing. Will the game support this sort of split in general, or is WV going to be a special case?
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
How would something like West Virginia work? That part of Virginia split off and became its own state during the ACW, because they objected to what the state gov was doing. Will the game support this sort of split in general, or is WV going to be a special case?
West Virginia and Virginia are separate state regions.
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
The devs have confirmed that the American Civil War will be a special case between revolution and secession war, but what about the Taiping rebellion? Will it be treated as a revolution, or some other type of revolt?
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Can you clarify what "-15 % suppressed interest group radicalization" means? I would imagine it means that the suppressed group is radicalized 15 percent less, but the fact the tooltip is in red confuses me. Clarity in things like that from the UI would be really helpful.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Also, would it be possible for the rebels to be appeased by the government accepting some demands? For example in the aforementioned revolution, one of the factions demanded "rural land reform, specifically reclaiming communal lands stolen by hacendados in the period before the revolution".
If you change your country's laws in a way that appeases the radical faction before it turns into a civil war, the movement should succeed or de-radicalize and no longer threaten civil war. (However, you might stir up an opposing movement from the other side if they don't like said appeasement.). Once it escalates to a diplomatic play, you can no longer give in to their demands. You have to fight it out (with a one-time option to switch to the rebel side at the start of the conflict). There should in theory be plenty of time to see a movement escalating towards that point-of-no-return, giving you the opportunity to take action before the diplomatic play.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Aside to your Aside: Agreed it doesn't need to end the game, but the purpose of HoI4 is to reflect a single conflict and what that encapsulated, and while a player can work the game over to get back in there, the AI struggles to be of any value in the war (much like in real life) on account of making up for the destruction they experienced in being defeated (loss of entire army, factories/infrastructure damaged, etc). And I would argue a flat game over in HoI4 would make perfect sense as the whole point of HoI4 is that one war, but I am glad they didn't make it a game over for the exact scenario that you described above.

Back to Vicky 3 (as well): You mentioned the new interest group comes to power post revolution. I didn't see anything about shifted power dynamics after a revolution, just enforcement of the law they were after. Can you quote where you saw the part about the "new order" taking the reins of power? That would make perfect sense in context of the game, I just don't remember seeing that. I do remember there being implications in the DD (or a follow up dev post) about the leaders of the other side not making it out alive, so we can expect a clout crash there, but it was not clear to me that there is an explicit shift of power at the end of the war.

Assuming what you state is true, however, it doesn't change the underlying idea that you are losing the game over a lost war for reasons that don't make sense in terms of gameplay consistency. If another power uses a "Stamp out the Revolution" diplomatic play and wins, overthrowing your government, would that be the same thing and a Game Over as well? If you "give in" to too many law changes is that a Game Over as your current leadership is effectively ousted from power in one form or another? Clearly not, but if we were being consistent about how sudden/rapid changes in government = death, then all those situations would apply, which would be asinine.
If we work under the assumption that you are playing as the leaders of the country (Crusader Kings style), then sure: falling out of power = game over. If you are simply playing as the nation then your current government collapsing has no reason to be a game over, though you should take a significant hit for doing so (in Vic2 that was a prestige hit. In Vic3 it should be something far more substantial).

In terms of cheesing I mean setting yourself up for victory in ways that is more meta/external to the gameplay loop than just being effective with the game system. For example: the DD mentioned they will prevent you from quickly hamstringing (sp? Real word?) a faction as the civil war kicks off to get an easy win, but players can easily play a longer game, locating where the core of the rebellion will be and intentionally destroying the infrastructure local to that region and angering the already disgruntled population, kicking off a civil war where the enemy takes possession of territory around an area you've already crippled. Is that a smart thing to do? Intentionally undermining your own country in that fashion? If you keep playing afterwards: no, you'd be less inclined to partially cripple yourself with that sort of cheese, as that will simply be another thing you have to fix after the devastation of the war. If the game is over when you fail (potentially resulting in loss of Ironman mode and ending your Achievement playthrough): hell yeah it's a good thing to do.

To your concern on what cheesing would look like, that is why I suggested in an earlier post that there should be a significant malus for being defeated in a civil war to represent the absolute slaughter that occurred due to fighting to the last. Big hits to bureaucracy points/prestige/military effectiveness/whatever for a period of time that still cost you and set your nation up to get ripped into by other powers, without some sort of arbitrary statement that losing a civil war is the same as being annihilated.
EDIT: Also, the DD did mention that a Civil War is doubly destructive as a normal war (for obvious reasons), so trying to cheese it by intentionally failing would still be damaging in its own right. We could just add the extra debuff as a way of making sure that those that try to disband their everything to take an easy loss still take a hard hit they could have avoided by just accepting the faction's demands in the first place.

I won't suggest that seeing a game over screen means its time to pull out the cyanide and end yourself IRL for dishonoring your family, but let's be clear on what a game over screen does mean: You failed. You lose. You were unable to keep with the game and fell by the wayside.
Your character died in a game? Sure, the character died, and assuming the world doesn't have some in built system of resurrection it is understood "in that timeline" that you lost and the world moves on, having to deal with your failure. In Vicky games, that is not the assumption. Your nation changed and had to suffer in order to do it, but it still stands. How will you proceed now? Time will tell and that is part of the fun, just like your HoI4 Italy game.
The two sections of the DD about the "new order" taking the reins of power:
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.


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?
I read the first section to be "the revolutionary country already has some law changes before even finishing the war, tag switch to them to benefit from those 'instant speed' law changes". The latter I read as "the loyalists who defeated the revolutionaries now have no/reduced opposition to flexing desired political change". So to me, winning the revolutionary war as either side has some big upsides to counterweigh the downsides. The main line of our debate is about trying to interpret what the upsides vs downsides are/should be. As we don't have the released game and the game over question has yet to be settled, there is a wide range of valid interpretations to this balance question. The auxiliary side of this is on what the principle should be for issuing a game over: consistent immersion vs game balance.

"Is that a smart thing to do? Intentionally undermining your own country in that fashion? If you keep playing afterwards: no, you'd be less inclined to partially cripple yourself" Disagreed. I see it as EU4's "provoke rebellion" button but at a much larger scale. Depending on circumstance, I do see that as the smart thing to do irregardless of whether an Ironman campaign is at stake. In fact, especially when it's a non-Ironman game and save scumming is being done.

With a game over established as a mark of failure, this debate can also be interpreted as "what's a fair player skill level for Vic3 after the tutorial assuming basic aptitude for Grand Strategy Games?" With a small country, it doesn't really matter whether a game over is issued from losing a revolution as the country is likely to be eaten up fast when crippled by the revolution - especially if the Revolutionaries win as they start with no diplomatic pacts. A large country should survive the aftermath. Less experienced players will gravitate towards playing big countries as they learn the game. This is how I could see an argument made for not issuing a game over on revolution loss. The argument of gameplay consistently does not convince me when I see so much potential upside for deliberately crippling your own nation to minimise the cost of the revolutionary war.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
In Vicky you're a spirit of the nation, not the government. Losing a revolution meaning losing the game, is as out of place as losing an election=game over would be.
Revolutions should be an element in emergent storytelling, not game over. In V2 and Ricky, revolutions aren't just a struggle to overcome ala CKseries but a major part of the story and in many cases a desirable outcome and tool to tell that story and simulate the history you're playing.
Even if 'mechanically' its the same as a war with neigbouring country, it shouldn't feel the same and having it end the game does change the feel and meta narrative.

An event/pop-up on losing the war to continue or resign could be a good compromise between V3 as immersive sim and V3 as wargame while still keeping the tension?
 
  • 8
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
The two sections of the DD about the "new order" taking the reins of power:

I read the first section to be "the revolutionary country already has some law changes before even finishing the war, tag switch to them to benefit from those 'instant speed' law changes". The latter I read as "the loyalists who defeated the revolutionaries now have no/reduced opposition to flexing desired political change". So to me, winning the revolutionary war as either side has some big upsides to counterweigh the downsides.
Thanks for the references. Your interpretation is entirely reasonable.
The main line of our debate is about trying to interpret what the upsides vs downsides are/should be. As we don't have the released game and the game over question has yet to be settled, there is a wide range of valid interpretations to this balance question. The auxiliary side of this is on what the principle should be for issuing a game over: consistent immersion vs game balance.

Immersion vs game balance and the trade-offs is a reasonable debate to have. My point is more along the lines of "why is this where they draw the line in the sand?" Why are revolutions the sudden death of your country? They don't have to be and it doesn't follow with the theme of the game to make THAT the great struggle. If we take a game like Sid Meier's Colonization, the Revolutionary War (which will probably be "The Cultural Secession War" if we are forecasting their DDs correctly) is the penultimate point of the game that has clearly been built up to through game progression. Losing the war and losing the game makes perfect sense as that conflict is the be-all-end-all of the game. Unless they've decided to resurrect the "Victoria: Revolutions" name for this game, nothing we've been shown so far suggests that a revolution is what this game is all about, so there is no reason to worry about sacrificing immersion (and if they want to make revolutions really matter, rather than Vic2 revolutionary whack-a-mole, then clearly they care a lot more about of immersion and involved gameplay than you might be giving them credit for) for game balance, when the game can be balanced elsewhere in a less extreme fashion. Making a Great War/WW1 scenario a Game Over makes more sense, both thematically and mechanically, as that was the event that shattered the Victorian era and martialed in a new age.

"Is that a smart thing to do? Intentionally undermining your own country in that fashion? If you keep playing afterwards: no, you'd be less inclined to partially cripple yourself" Disagreed. I see it as EU4's "provoke rebellion" button but at a much larger scale. Depending on circumstance, I do see that as the smart thing to do irregardless of whether an Ironman campaign is at stake. In fact, especially when it's a non-Ironman game and save scumming is being done.
Smart, sure, but gamey and cheesy. Anything you can do to the game that the game is unable to respond to is cheese. It might not be bug abuse, but it is cheese. And if a player wants to go that route: power to them! Just don't make it a requirement to avoid losing a game you've otherwise been enjoying the pace of, because you can't risk the random number generator of AI decision-making causing it to dogpile on you during a hard revolution.

With a game over established as a mark of failure, this debate can also be interpreted as "what's a fair player skill level for Vic3 after the tutorial assuming basic aptitude for Grand Strategy Games?" With a small country, it doesn't really matter whether a game over is issued from losing a revolution as the country is likely to be eaten up fast when crippled by the revolution - especially if the Revolutionaries win as they start with no diplomatic pacts.
To the first point of fair player skill: reasonable, if we assume enemies don't jump in on you. Which is a big IF as in pretty much every Paradox game, your enemies make use of your internal struggles because they recognize the moment of weakness. If a revolution is even remotely even, then it doesn't sound like it would take much outside perturbation to weaken you chance of success. If losing means "Man, this is gonna hurt", then you struggle hard to win, but then try to make a comeback. If losing means "Ahhhhh &$#$, my game is over." then its a portion of the game that risks being avidly avoided or cheesed, rather than embraced as an exciting struggle. At least, to reference someone who mentioned Imperator: Rome earlier and its civil wars, that's why I gladly cheesed and undermined the game to avoid them, but that could easily just be my preference.

For the matter of a small country, certainly so. And if a small country lost a regular war it will soon be gobbled up as well, whether because that was the last bite, or because that one bite makes you helpless before the swarm anywho. But the country ceasing to exist is a good reason for your game to end. Not so much your country had a nasty bit of in-fighting. And even as a small country that has just gone through the ringer (and assuming you didn't lose as the rebels, in which case you're the old guard that still has their existing alliances in place), you can probably find friends who would rather keep you out of your greedy neighbors mouth for the same reasons you made alliances as the old guard in the first place. Odds aren't in your favor, but they never are for small countries.

A large country should survive the aftermath. Less experienced players will gravitate towards playing big countries as they learn the game. This is how I could see an argument made for not issuing a game over on revolution loss. The argument of gameplay consistently does not convince me when I see so much potential upside for deliberately crippling your own nation to minimise the cost of the revolutionary war.
I disagree with your view of the "potential upside" for intentionally detonating parts of your country to make a side in a revolution take a dive, both for the aforementioned cheese (but YMMV for this one) and because, like all such situations, it simply becomes the go-to strategy for winning and then requires you to fix everything afterwards. It would basically just be taking a few years of gameplay to spin your wheels while you got past this revolution business.
If there were journal entries and decisions where you could try to scorch earth the other side as the revolution kicks off at the cost of further radicalizing the enemy nation (giving it some sorts of bonuses to recruitment/morale/whatever), angering your own populace and/or increasing the level of devastation that would need to be recovered from as a result of your ploy then that would be pretty neat. Just quickly blowing your own stuff up (assuming your laws let you. Laissez faire for the win.) doesn't sound immersive or game-play balanced.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Please reconsider having Revolutions be a gameover. In RP playthroughs of VIC2 it was fun desperately trying to win against a revolution, failing and then changing up my playstyle to accommodate the revolutionized country. Not being able to continue as a revolutionized country in VIC3 is revoking a big chunk of potential in playthroughs.
 
  • 4
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Please reconsider having Revolutions be a gameover. In RP playthroughs of VIC2 it was fun desperately trying to win against a revolution, failing and then changing up my playstyle to accommodate the revolutionized country. Not being able to continue as a revolutionized country in VIC3 is revoking a big chunk of potential in playthroughs.
It's possible to switch to the other side when loading savegames and when it's game over. Just not "while staying in game", and achievements are propably impossible once you do. (Mostly as a way to prevent cheese strategies like sparking a revolution, deleting all loyalist barracks, switch sides, win easy, have the government you want without any losses)
 
  • 5
Reactions:
“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.” Will we have a plan to use spy to check it in the future? Maybe getting the wrong state of revolution at a low spy level could be funny.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Will there be any provision for things like the Russian Revolutions, where one Revolution cascades into another? Or something like the disintegration of China into many warlord factions?
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions: