• 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:
Is it a valid strategy for particularly vicious monarchs to deliberately provoke a revolution in order to purge interest groups that have become problematic to the ruling regime? Because I can definitely see particularly ruthless players trying that.
 
  • 2
  • 1Haha
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?
Read the diary and developer replies, people.

Yes, you get a Game Over splash screen, but you still get to KEEP PLAYING as the new revolutionary nation or any other nation.

Unless it's an ironman game. In which case, you had it coming.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Read the diary and developer replies, people.

Yes, you get a Game Over splash screen, but you still get to KEEP PLAYING as the new revolutionary nation or any other nation.

Unless it's an ironman game. In which case, you had it coming.
Don't worry, some/many of us have! We just find it to be an arbitrary and inelegant method of trying to bolster the gravitas of a revolution. Rather than making it thematically/mechanically risky, they've just made it an end to your iron man playthrough (and given previous concerns about potential outside influences working to stamp you out in the meantime, your best options are to either avoid an important aspect of the game or cheese it) or make you do the walk of shame for reasons that don't make a lot of sense. I won't rehash the specifics of that point as I have already eaten enough of the forums pixels in previous posts on this thread, but it just doesn't feel right. Unless giving in to a revolution has some really extreme advantages (well beyond simply getting a set of laws in place), as long as a revolution hurts regardless, the risk of people abusing revolutions will be reduced. And if people want to do it anyway, despite that, power to them.
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 4
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Wish they had devised a different solution, the extra star on the US flag is going to wreck havoc on my ocd. :)
If you look at pictures of the US, the flag has the correct number of stars. It's a pretty easy script addition to make it so, f.e., West Virginia doesn't count toward the number of states until the Civil War triggers.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 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. 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?

For me, Vic 3, like all other Paradox GSGs, will be a sandbox game and when I play, yes I want to play well and avoid defeat, but I'm just as interested in the world around me as any sense of "winning", and so I'd like to be able to play on if I lost in this scenario.

I remember one dev said they'd seen a theocratic America in a AI game. Let's take that scenario; so I was democratic America but lost a revolution to the theocracy and game over. Fine - but I'd then be really interested to see what happens to that theocratic America, quite possibly taking over Canada or Mexico and seeing how the theocracy approaches its neighbours.

So by all means stop achievements after Game Over, and maybe even don't allow the player to take on the victorious country, but I would definitely like to be able to continue the game if I lose a revolution to see what happens next.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Read the diary and developer replies, people.

Yes, you get a Game Over splash screen, but you still get to KEEP PLAYING as the new revolutionary nation or any other nation.

Unless it's an ironman game. In which case, you had it coming.
I did. read my post, a very short post at that, before assuming I don't know that as that is addressed in it.
 
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
According to DD#15, yes, radicalism and rebellion will naturally flow from having an enslaved population (especially if any of your important interest groups end up with an abolitionist leader, but presumably even without that they will eventually be able to rebel).
 
Is there a plan to make Worker States that are Great Powers Revolutionary Targets like in EU4? Those definitely make other states upset at them for existing, really shakes up worker soda worldwide, while conferring powerful bonuses to literacy gain and industrialization.

"We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or we shall be crushed."

-Joseph V. Stalin. On Soviet Industrialization, Speech to Industrial Managers, February 1931
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Perhaps in order to prevent the use of the revolution to actively achieve certain goals, it can be set that if the revolution breaks out and chooses to surrender immediately, the interest groups on the counter-revolutionary side will also break out a counter-revolutionary war, unless only when the power of the counter-revolutionary interest groups is consumed, or More bloodshed can be avoided when their counter-revolutionary demands compromise with the revolutionaries
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Taking the historical Chinese revolution of 1911 as an example, the Han nationality and the republican revolutionaries owned half of China, and the Beiyang army was loyal to the Manchu monarchy at the beginning and fought.
But when the two sides reached a balance of power, the Beiyang Army and the revolutionaries chose to negotiate, and the Beiyang Army agreed to force the Manchu monarch to abdicate by force, ending the rule of the Manchus and the monarchy. The revolutionaries agreed that the first president of the future republic would be Yuan Shikai, the leader of the Beiyang Army.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Taking the historical Chinese revolution of 1911 as an example, the Han nationality and the republican revolutionaries owned half of China, and the Beiyang army was loyal to the Manchu monarchy at the beginning and fought.
But when the two sides reached a balance of power, the Beiyang Army and the revolutionaries chose to negotiate, and the Beiyang Army agreed to force the Manchu monarch to abdicate by force, ending the rule of the Manchus and the monarchy. The revolutionaries agreed that the first president of the future republic would be Yuan Shikai, the leader of the Beiyang Army.
This could be a peace deal of "regime change" I believe? As well as the full annexation of Beiyang of course - I don't know if this is possible in a revolutionary diplomatic play / peace deal BUT I certainly hope it is.
 
This could be a peace deal of "regime change" I believe? As well as the full annexation of Beiyang of course - I don't know if this is possible in a revolutionary diplomatic play / peace deal BUT I certainly hope it is.
The PDX may consider setting up numerous claims of interest groups as part of the negotiation, or at the time of negotiation it may be set to give the other party some requirements to reach the negotiation.
For example, in the example above, the revolutionaries required 100 negotiation points to abolish the monarchy and Manchurian dominance, but only 50 points were obtained through the military at this time. Then the revolutionaries can add compromise requirements to the negotiation, allowing the other party to become the largest party, thus making the negotiation successful.
 
Of course, there may also be some strange phenomena. For example, the Qing Empire made the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom its vassal state instead of completely destroying it. Of course, it is not impossible for the game. The premise is that The Taiping Heavenly Kingdom removed the ideology of extermination of the Manchus or Hanism
In other words, the respective ideologies and demands of interest groups should be reflected in the negotiation terms, and how to make good use of this is very important. For example, when the dominant interest group of the Qing Empire is not Beiyang, but a business group, it may be possible to give most-favored-nation treatment to peace.(LOL)
Whether it's EU or CK, the negotiation seems to be too winner-take-all rather than compromise, and I think it needs to be corrected.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Is it a valid strategy for particularly vicious monarchs to deliberately provoke a revolution in order to purge interest groups that have become problematic to the ruling regime? Because I can definitely see particularly ruthless players trying that.
Suharto likes that !
 
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.


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
This is one of the great debates of gamers - how much RNG can you put in a game before player skill ceases to exist? I regard hedging the risks of AI diplomacy with tens of relevant tags to be part of player skill. There is much room to debate whether it's fair to expect that skill in the average player, but it does not sit well with me to imply grand strategy diplomacy is a pure luck game where skill does not exist outside managing your own internal affairs.

Now, regardless of where we individually stand on the above question, from a commercial perspective there's a sizable player population that would be unhappy getting a game over due the RNG getting the better of them in the revolutionary play. Not issuing a game over would make a different player segment disgruntled, but likely not as much as the former segment. I could see the commercially sensible decision to be embracing the risk-average player segment.
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.

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.
And this is the other key factor which should go into the decision on issuing the game over: will "revolution engineering" be supported properly by the devs and content designers by the release (or before the first major expansion)? By your definition, whether this player behaviour is cheese or not is dependent on how much Paradox invests its finite dev time baking in good responses. My opinion that a game over should be given comes with the expectation that it is right to invest in accommodating "revolution engineering". If the opportunity cost of focussing effort here is too great, then a game over should not be issued.

One tangential topic: what counts as "winning" in a grand strategy game? Different player psychographs will have different answers to that. I regard the ideal balance to aim for as "player avoids revolution" if they want to maximise conventional Winner metrics (like territory size, pop size, GDP). "Revolution engineering" should be for players seeking to create an extremely ahistoric nation just to show they can do it, not because it's the best strategy to maximise.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
If you beat a revolution in war. What do you do with the rebells?
Hope it wont be like in Victoria 2 were you let them go home and then they are back with another revolution in one year.
 
  • 2
Reactions: