• 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.

Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #102 - What’s next after 1.5

16_9.png

Hello and welcome to our Post-Release Plans update dev diary for 1.5. Once again, just as in Dev Diary #79 and Dev Diary #89, we’ll be going over what changes and improvements we have planned for the game in future free updates such as 1.6, 1.7 and beyond.

Before we get started, a quick note that we are planning to release hotfix 1.5.11 next week. This hotfix addresses a few dozen remaining issues in the 1.5 release, including some rare crashes and out-of-syncs, graphics polish, some military-related modifiers not working as they should, and convoy raiding balance.

Today we will continue talking about the same key four improvement areas as in previous dev diaries, namely Military, Historical Immersion, Diplomacy, Internal Politics and Other for anything that falls outside those four categories.

Just as before, I’ll also be aiming to give you an updated overview of where we stand and where we’re heading by going through each of these four categories and marking on each one with one of the below statuses:
  • Done: This is a part of the game that we now consider to be in good shape. Something being Done of course doesn’t mean we’re never going to expand or improve on it in the future, just that it’s no longer a high priority for us. Any points that were already marked as Done in previous updates will now be removed from the list, to avoid it growing unmanageably long!
  • Updated: This is a part of the game where we have made some of the improvements and changes that we want to make, but aren’t yet satisfied with where it stands and plan to make further improvements to it in future updates such as 1.6, 1.7 and so on. Note that this section will mainly focus on updates made in 1.4 and 1.5.
  • Not Updated: This is a part of the game where we haven’t yet released any of our planned changes/improvements in any currently released updates but still plan to do so for future updates.
  • New: This is a planned change or improvement that is newly added, i.e. wasn’t present on the list in Dev Diary #89.
  • Reconsidered: This is a previously planned change or improvement that we have reconsidered our approach to how to tackle from previous updates. For these points we will explain what our new plans are, and change the list appropriately in future updates.

Lastly in the ‘things that haven’t changed’, we will still only be talking about improvements, changes and new features that are part of planned free updates in this dev diary. I will also remind you that this is not an exhaustive list of the things we are going to do, and that something being ‘Done’ doesn’t mean we’re not going to bugfix, balance or make UX improvements to it afterwards. Right, that’s enough of repeating myself, onto the actual content of the dev diary!

Post Launch 3.png

Military​

Done
  • Improving the ability of players to get an overview of their military situation and exposing more data, like the underlying numbers behind battle sizes
    • The military rework in 1.5 completely overhauled the interface and the addition of discrete armies makes it far easier to see where your soldiers are and what they are doing. We still have UX polish work to do here, but this is otherwise done.
  • Increasing the visibility of navies and making admirals easier to work with
    • The 1.5 military rework changed navies to work on a fleet basis, to have a visual representation on the map and to always operate in a specific node, which addresses the vast majority of the issues listed above. As with armies, there are still some UX quirks to work out here, but otherwise we consider this done.
  • Finding solutions for the issue where theaters can split into multiple (sometimes even dozens) of tiny fronts as pockets are created
    • With the addition of front consolidation in 1.5 and the ability to split formations to cover more fronts, this should no longer be a major issue. There may still be bugs that cause unintentional front splitting, and we will of course fix those as they pop up.
  • Adding systems for organizing your generals and admirals into discrete armies and navies to allow more control over geographic positioning, military composition and unit specialization
    • Added to the game in the 1.5 update
  • Adding more options for strategic control over your generals to allow for more ‘smart play’ in wars
    • Added to the game in the 1.5 update
  • Adding more on-map graphics for armies and navies, including soldiers on the map
    • Added to the game in the 1.5 update
New:
  • Turning individual ships into proper pieces of military hardware that can be built, sunk and repaired rather than just being manpower packages.
Not Updated:
  • Adding a system for limited wars to reduce the number of early-game global wars between Great Powers

Historical Immersion​

Updated:
  • Tweaking content such as the Meiji Restoration, Alaska purchase and so on in a way that they can more frequently be successfully performed by the AI, through a mix of AI improvements and content tweaks
    • This is mostly done but there are still some issues with certain pieces of content, particularly the Meiji Restoration that the AI still struggles with.
  • Ensuring unifications such as Italy, Germany and Canada don’t constantly happen decades ahead of the historical schedule, and increasing the challenge of unifying Italy and Germany in particular
    • Both Italian and German Unifications received some key improvements in 1.4 and 1.5, but we’re still not entirely happy with these and plan to do some further improvements before we consider this done.
  • General AI tweaks to have AI countries play in a more believable, immersive way
    • As before, this is something we are continuing to work on in every update. The highest priority improvements planned here is to make the AI more ‘active’ on the world stage and to make the diplomatic AI in particular feel less random and volatile.
  • Going through the base game Journal Entries and events and making improvements and additions to ensure that they feel meaningful and impactful for players to interact with
    • Several pieces of content such as Scramble for Africa had improvements and changes made to them in 1.5 but we are not done with this.
  • Adding more country, state and region-specific content to enhance historical flavor of different countries
    • Companies, country-unique IGs and a number of new State Traits were added in 1.4/1.5, along with several new pieces of regional content, but this is a point we are also aiming to continue to improve on in upcoming updates.

Diplomacy​

Done:
  • ‘Reverse-swaying’, i.e. the ability to offer to join a side in a play in exchange for something
    • Added to the game in the 1.5 update
  • More things to offer in diplomatic plays, like giving away your own land for support
    • Added to the game in the 1.5 update
  • Trading (or at least giving away) states
    • Added to the game in the 1.5 update
Updated:
  • Improving and expanding on interactions with and from subjects, such as being able to grant and ask for more autonomy through a diplomatic action
    • Increasing and decreasing autonomy as well as imposing laws on subjects was added in 1.5, but we still want to add more ways to interact with your subjects in the next couple of updates.
New:
  • Have Interest Groups weigh in on diplomacy, for example having the Armed Forces disapprove of an alliance with a country that recently took land from you due to revanchism
  • Make declaring and holding onto diplomatic Interests a more rewarding and challenging aspect of global empire-building
Not Updated:
  • Foreign investment and some form of construction in other countries, at least if they’re part of your market
  • Allowing peace deals to be negotiated during a Diplomatic Play instead of only having the option to give in

Internal Politics​

Done:
  • Making it more interesting and ‘competitive’ but also more challenging to play in a more conservative and autocratic style
    • There are now specific laws for late-game autocracies such as One Party State and generally both more benefits to holding on to power and more pushback against it. This is in ‘done’ not because we no longer want to do it, but because we consider further improvements to this part of the ‘New’ points about legitimacy and national pride below.
Updated:
  • Adding laws that expand on diversity of countries and introduce new ways to play the game
    • We have continued to add more laws and ideologies to the game in 1.4/1.5 but this is still an ongoing area for improvement, particularly in improving on the migration law group to be more about what kind of migration you want to encourage/discourage rather than whether it’s allowed at all.
New:
  • Turn legitimacy into a more interesting mechanic, where the strength of a government depends on their successes and failures, and highly legitimate governments can’t simply be ousted at a whim but have to be undermined first.
  • Introduce a concept of national pride which can increase or decrease depending on a country’s actions and which ties directly into legitimacy.
  • Have discrimination not be a purely binary status and reflect forms of discrimination aside from what’s written in the law, as well as making assimilation into a more meaningful mechanic in the process.

Other​

Done:
  • Improving Alerts and the Current Situation widget to provide more useful and actionable information.
    • The Current Situation and Alert system is now fully customizable and you can choose which information you want presented as an alert, important action (or not at all)
  • Increase the overall challenge in the economic core loop, as well as creating more clear mechanical differences between different countries and their starting positions in ways that encourage more economic specialization.
    • This was done through a combination of Local Prices and Companies in the 1.5 update, so that it now matters a lot more what you build where
New:
  • Improve on Companies by turning them into actual actors in your country that can own/expand buildings and interact with characters/politics.

Not Updated
  • Find a way to deal with the excessive fiddliness of the trade system in large economies, possibly by allowing for autonomous trade based on your laws in a similar way to the autonomous investment system.

So as always, when can you expect all this? As usual, I’m not able to make specific promises, but what we have planned next is a standalone free update (1.6) that will be primarily focused on polishing the game (bug fixing, AI improvements, performance improvements and so on), so for that one you should mainly expect points that are about improving existing systems to be done, rather than ones that are about adding brand new systems and major features. In particular, Historical Immersion has several ongoing points like this and you should see some progress on that front. I’ll end this dev diary with one final bit of repeating myself by reminding you yet again that this list only covers changes and additions that will be part of free updates.

That’s all for this time! The next dev diary will be after the holidays in January and then we'll talk more in detail about Update 1.6. We hope you have a lovely holiday season and a happy New Year!
 
  • 152Like
  • 66Love
  • 11
  • 11
  • 2Haha
  • 2
Reactions:
I might raise a concerned elbow about front splitting. It sound like you consider fronts consolidation as a solved matter and only few bugs remain.

However I'm playing in India a lot these days, and the mosaic borders are pure nightmare.
I'm thinking about states like Rajputana where EIC or GB directly annex some vassals in the divided state, but the two part of the state doesn't touch themselves and are separated by out-of-war vassals making weird situation where you can conquer Rajputana by having a front at one extremity, then get the state, and move the front to the other side somewhere you cannot reach.
Gujarat has multiple front between the same Kush and Singh because of the isthmus being badly managed.
And in general, warring in India often create new fronts because the EIC is weirdly shaped.

Fear not, there might be some solutions as now the front are fixed and their movements can be known in advance (as the whole state switch) : could it be possible that a Frontline indicate to us in advance if new fronts will be created and where once the state change hands, and could we assign in advance where our formations will go ?
This would fix the weird situations of "oh no, 3 new fronts were created, my army has to run like an headless chicken around to reach the front aaaand too late the new front is at the exact opposite of this big chunk of land, you have to move quickly aaaand my capital has fallen"
 
  • 4
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Historical Immersion has several ongoing points like this and you should see some progress on that front.​
Does this mean that Victor de Broglie might get that parlement fight that made him historically resign one month after the start of the game ? Or will we keep enjoying Orleanists Landowners until 1870 (he has CK3 levels of health) to cement Louis Philippe in 10 years as usual ? :D


(Pretty please ?)
 
  • 3Like
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
I hope you can reconsider at least flotillas engagement of eachother when passing through nodes for 1.6, as having to deploy a flotilla to a node to cause a battle forces the player into really annoying games of whack-a-mole. It feels quite bad.
This responds to an arcade view of the game that does not reflect the reality of naval warfare before the invention of modern detection technologies like the radar.

Sea nodes represent vast regions that allow for navies to pass through unseen if they are not targeting coastal objectives or following/protecting convoys.

I do not want to play cat and mouse with navies. Sea nodes are like fronts and navies are deployed in each node to perform their missions. Encounters with the enemy fleet should not be guaranteed unless trying a naval landing or escorting/attacking convoys.

I agree on the range limitation for navies to promote spreading ships in the nearest sea nodes.

Also, being able to see the enemy units in the map should be optional, until they engage your units in naval and land combat. This will make war more exciting even.
 
  • 7
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Brazil needs more states!
 
  • 3Like
  • 3
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Please give the player the ability to run pure conscript armies, or at least remove the rule that to raise conscripts and mobilize the army you would need 1 regular battalion, because apparently it's not possible to make a mod that enables this, so please add this option or at least make it moddable, would be great for roleplay reasons
 
  • 5
Reactions:
This responds to an arcade view of the game that does not reflect the reality of naval warfare before the invention of modern detection technologies like the radar.

Sea nodes represent vast regions that allow for navies to pass through unseen if they are not targeting coastal objectives or following/protecting convoys.

I do not want to play cat and mouse with navies. Sea nodes are like fronts and navies are deployed in each node to perform their missions. Encounters with the enemy fleet should not be guaranteed unless trying a naval landing or escorting/attacking convoys.

I agree on the range limitation for navies to promote spreading ships in the nearest sea nodes.

Also, being able to see the enemy units in the map should be optional, until they engage your units in naval and land combat. This will make war more exciting even.

This also gets at how weird sea node-based convoy escorts are. Conceptually, when escorts are enabled on a route a convoy should form with its escort at one end of the route and they should travel the whole route together. The escort doesn't actually care about the vast area of a sea node because it's only ever covering the tiny patch its convoy is currently in.

But since afaik goods don't exist in Vic 3, only rates of goods, the game can't represent things like "every x (days/weeks/months) a new convoy leaves from the source of this route with that many (days/weeks/months)' worth of goods, escorted by whichever portion of the escort fleet was available at that port at that time, and y (days/weeks/months) later those goods arrive at the other end, less any portion sunk along the way, then the escort returns to pick up a new convoy" so we're stuck with this weird numerical abstraction of what a convoy even is.
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
Reactions:
I would appreciate an opportunity to transfer specific units/battalions between armies like suggested in Dev Diary 93. I understand it was a lot of clicks for someone who just wanted to rebalance armies; however, there is some nuance lost in the current transfer system.

If a barracks from a state is out of manpower to recruit, those units will not replenish manpower. Rather than reduce power projection by disbanding the units and downsizing the army, I would like those units to be in a reserve army. As it stands, the units cannot specifically be transferred.

Also, it would just be cool flavor to have armies composed of certain states or cultures. If I call an army "The 1st Polish Corps", I would like that army to be composed of Polish units, not some luck of the draw.

Perhaps a nested option in the transfer army menu could exist so that players could transfer, say, 3 line infantry, and then open a drop-down menu with the checkboxes of which 3 units are being transferred?
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I would appreciate an opportunity to transfer specific units/battalions between armies like suggested in Dev Diary 93. I understand it was a lot of clicks for someone who just wanted to rebalance armies; however, there is some nuance lost in the current transfer system.

If a barracks from a state is out of manpower to recruit, those units will not replenish manpower. Rather than reduce power projection by disbanding the units and downsizing the army, I would like those units to be in a reserve army. As it stands, the units cannot specifically be transferred.

Also, it would just be cool flavor to have armies composed of certain states or cultures. If I call an army "The 1st Polish Corps", I would like that army to be composed of Polish units, not some luck of the draw.

Perhaps a nested option in the transfer army menu could exist so that players could transfer, say, 3 line infantry, and then open a drop-down menu with the checkboxes of which 3 units are being transferred?
I think this actually gets at an issue with specific units coming from specific barracks. I get that they want units tied to specific pops so that you feel the losses but I think it is so obfuscated right now that it doesn't matter. A better solution might be that we use the manpower pool of other games, but group it by pop type, so culture, literacy, etc. that matters for troops. Then you build barracks to get troops into the pool but units are built from there. I think it would be easier to understand and lower the learning curve just a tiny bit. Plus it would be easier to say, make all of your minority or unaccepted pops have the lower quality troops in case of rebellion.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Really liking the improvements from 1.5 and great to see how much of the original check list has been completed to a great standard. I am interested in how you'll implement the new idea on navy ships being more static (would you have to commission and rebuild your fleet when upgrading between ship types) and how diplomacy can influence internal politics.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
It is concerning to me how much of the military to-do list is marked as "Done". The military in it's current state is barely functional and not something I'd consider fit for release. The lack of player agency combined with the nonsensical decision making of the AI feels awful.
Hard agree. The entire war system is hilariously shallow and far too abstracted. It boils down to "hit stop or go" without any way to utilize some kind of strategy or sneaky plan to win the day...how exactly are minor nations supposed to fight wars and get some kind of victory without sucking up to a major for protection?

It is depressingly shallow and boring for how important wars were in this Era, especially as industrial warfare became a thing.

If I'm missing something please tell me, but I really don't see how wars aren't literally just telling armies to stop/go until the AI kills itself and gives up or meatwalls their way through.
 
Last edited:
  • 10
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Thanks for working on the game all this year! Can you say anything about what happened to the railways in the current patch, they are extremely unprofitable, and their importance is underestimated by AI. Is the railway fix planned for 1.5.11, or for 1.6?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Just want to say, as someone who has been more of a doomsayer, 1.5 feels like a whole new game, especially with the new military mechanics. As the roadmap shows, there's still some work to be done, but Victoria 3 1 year later is shaping up great.
I concur with this sentiment! I have been a strong critic about the game but I’m really enjoying 1.5 as it is and optimistic for the future of Vic 3 if all this can come to fruition.

One of the things I really hope that can be tied to the discrimination mechanic is separatism, in particular separatist parties and the idea that having mass numbers of ethnic groups would really jeopardise ur empire. Would it be possible if the developers can look into this as part of the eventual update to that, such as maybe Revolution diplomatic plays available for separatist parties?

It is partly why huge empires like Austria etc just remain so strong till the endgame.
 
  • 8
Reactions:
Not sure if reverse swaying should be green. In about 200 years of ingame playtime since the patch, I have not been able to reverse sway any country once.
 
  • 2Haha
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Already read it and will definitely consider some of the suggestions there (I definitely like the idea of a Von Moltke's reforms JE)
That’s fantastic and hope u will be able to implement some of the suggestions there! Could the fixes be focused on the fact is Austria is too strong and should be nerfed?

I think personally from my experience the focus should be on the fact Austria is far too strong, most likely due to the lack of separatism, or a lack of proper separatist parties/revolutions. Iirc Austria-Hungary also had 2 separate bodies for the legislature with their own competing aims which tore apart the fabric of the empire, as Hungary fought to assure its own rights over the other races of the Empire as well.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
WRT to making events like the Alaska Purchase happen more often, I feel like the solution should be more systemic rather than limiting it to a journal entry. We should be able to purchase economically minor states from friendly nations who have no use for them without being limited to whichever prescriptive options the devs chose to code in. There are so many examples of minor colonies and the like being sold off or potential sold off in this time period I think it would be a worthwhile addition.

There's already a state trading system, ideally they could just change it to allow for you to offer up a hard cash down payment rather than a state of your own. Russia chose to sell Alaska because they had little economic use for it, they knew they could not defend it in a war, and they would rather the friendly US have it than their rival the Brits. Factors like this could be translated into the AI's potential willingness to accept any such offer. And if the devs are really worried that the players might exploit it, they could had a hard stop that the AI will never accept such an offer if the territory in question has over X GDP or Y population.

For example, I did a Quebec into Canada playthrough recently. And while it was very good fun, one thing that annoyed me is that there was no way for me to acquire Newfoundland, Alaska, or Turks and Caicos [1] without console commands or declaring unwinnable wars, despite the fact that these were all very plausible potential concessions during the game's timeframe. And rather than forcing the devs to code in a prescriptive journal entry for every potential peaceful land swap like these in the game, a systemic solution could handle them all much easier.

[1] An actual proposal from the time period, would link to the Wikipedia page for it but the forum flagged the link as spam lol
 
  • 4
  • 3
Reactions:
Not sure if reverse swaying should be green. In about 200 years of ingame playtime since the patch, I have not been able to reverse sway any country once.
if anything it needs a re-balance, I've had AI give up their territory for wars they can win on their own
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions: