• 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 #118 - Power Blocs Round Two

16_9.png

Hello and happy Thursday!
It’s Lino, back from the depths of development, to talk about more details on Power Blocs, one of the central new systems coming to you with Sphere of Influence on June 24.
If you don’t know anything about Power Blocs yet, I recommend you to give my first Dev Diary on them a good look because we will be referencing a lot of the terminology today.

Small disclaimer for today’s Dev Diary:
You will see a lot of WIP values, for modifiers and bonuses, for special powers and so on. Take them all with a grain of salt please, as we’re in the process of touching a number of these right now. If you have feedback on them, we’re happy to read it though! We have plans to adjust some values before release.

Identities​

On release, there will be five different Central Identity Pillars to choose from for your Power Bloc. One of which is available to everybody, even if you did not purchase the DLC.

The Identities differentiate themselves from another by a couple of things:
  • All five Identities have a unique power that the leader has access to which is central to how the Identity plays out
  • They have one or more unique effects for the leader or members
  • The Primary Principle Groups which each Bloc needs at least one Principle from are different
  • Some Principle Groups are unlocked only by a specific Identity
  • How a Power Bloc’s Cohesion value is calculated depends on its Identity


Even if you do not own Sphere of Influence, you can play as the countries that have a historic Power Bloc at game start, even if they are not a Trade League (Great Britain, Russia, Ottoman Empire, Austria). You can keep the Principles their Power Blocs start with, that you would not usually have access to, but you will not be able to expand on them or replace them with other principles you could not usually pick.

The five Identities are:
  • Trade League (free with 1.7)
  • Sovereign Empire
  • Military Treaty
  • Ideological Union
  • Religious Convocation

So let’s look at some Identity details, shall we?

Trade League​

DD118_01.png

The first big thing we can see for the Trade League Identity is their unique attribute which automatically makes every Power Bloc member part of a Customs Union under the Power Bloc Leader.
This lets you recreate the Customs Union pact functionality which will be removed with the 1.7 update.
Don’t worry, for all other Identities there will be an alternative path which we’ll get to.

Next up, we can see the Bloc Leader only effect for Trade Leagues. In this case, 4 Trade Routes will be free of bureaucracy cost for the leader.

Also the Internal Trade Principle Group is unlocked by this Identity and is in fact one of Trade League’s Primary Principle Groups. One of these Primary Groups is required to be picked from when you first create your own Power Bloc.
Speaking of that Principle Group, here is a closer look at Internal Trade.
DD118_02.png

DD118_03.png

DD118_04.png

As you can see, the first tier comes with a heavy hitter in the form of a bonus to Market Access Price Impact (also lovingly called MAPI) for all Bloc members.
Growing convoy contributions to the Power Bloc Leader can be seen, alongside tariff increases and other infrastructure improvements due to the harmonization of regulations within the Bloc.

The other Primary Principle Group for Trade Leagues is the External Trade Group:
DD118_05.png

Note that in some cases (a customs union in the Bloc) the bureaucracy cost is not actually going to provide any benefit. But since you can use it also outside the Trade League, it will provide a benefit for you there.
DD118_06.png

DD118_07.png

Due to unified trade policies, various improvements to Trade Routes can be found in this group. But we also see a new thing in the list, which is the unlocking of a new Production Method (PM) for Trade Centers.
When selected, that PM will replace the base PM since it is an upgraded version of it and provides you with a bonus to Influence!
Last but not least, we can see that on tier 3, members will gain the power to establish trade routes without requiring interest in the region. That should make it easier, even for small member countries, to engage in trade across the globe.

The last thing that is specific for Trade Leagues is how their Cohesion value is calculated. For this we look at the leader’s GDP share of the total Bloc GDP. The higher the leader’s share, the better for Cohesion. Then we also apply a penalty for each shortage that is happening in your market. To compensate for this, we are adding a bonus for each top producer of a good (rank #1 to #3).

Sovereign Empire​

DD118_08.png

Onwards to the Sovereign Empire Identity. At game start, multiple Power Blocs will have this at their core. Namely the British, Russian and Ottoman Empire.
It allows the leader to subjugate other Power Bloc members and make them a vassal of their own!
Additionally, choosing this Identity reduces the weekly Liberty Desire progress of all subjects that the Power Bloc leader has. Note: The current effect’s description is wrong, it will be updated for release to indicate this applies to their subjects, not themself.

Next up we also have two Primary Principle Groups for the Sovereign Empire. Let’s start with a closer look at Vassalization:

DD118_09.png

DD118_10.png

DD118_11.png

We can see that it does what the name promises - various improvements to having subjects and managing them with the third tier even allowing you to enact decrees in your subjects which you use to further bolster them.

Next is a group that is exclusive to Sovereign Empire Power Blocs, Exploitation of Members:

DD118_12.png

DD118_13.png

DD118_14.png

Here we see that this group comes with some penalties for the regular members, in favor of only providing the leader with benefits.
In turn, since members will not enjoy that of course, the Power Bloc’s Cohesion takes a hit. So you will need to evaluate if the benefits outweigh the costs for you or if you are able to find other ways to cut down on Cohesion penalties.

Speaking of Cohesion, for Sovereign Empires you will have to manage your subjects and strengthen your Prestige. The highest Liberty Desire among the leader’s subjects imposes a penalty of equal value. So if the British East India Company has the highest Liberty Desire among the British subjects with a value of 40, the Cohesion penalty will also be 40 for example.
On the other hand leaders get a bonus to Cohesion based on their share of total Prestige in the Power Bloc.
DD118_15.png

The third Identity we’re looking at today is the Military Treaty (yes, it received a catchier name).

Military Treaty​

DD118_16.png

Military Goods Cost is a placeholder effect which will be replaced before release

First thing we see is “Allows free War Goal”. But what does that mean? It means that the Leader of a Military Treaty Power Bloc may add a single secondary War Goal to any Diplomatic Play of members that the Leader is also involved in, even if they joined of their own volition. This war goal can “cost” up to 30 maneuvers, but it will not actually subtract any when selected.

There is also a placeholder modifier in this screenshot (which will be replaced before release!), that reduces the military goods cost for all Bloc members. In its place another effect is going to be added, with the focus remaining on the military side of things of course.
In addition there are a few more for increased Prestige from Power Projection for both, leader and member.

As for the other identities, we have two Primary Principle Groups, one of which is exclusive to Military Treaty Blocs.

The first group is Defensive Cooperation:

DD118_17.png

DD118_18.png

DD118_19.png

Like most other Principle Groups, Defensive Cooperation does what you would expect. Through mutual commitment, Power Blocs with this Principle are not able to wage war among each other. On the higher tiers, swaying countries gets easier if you’re the target of a play and on tier 3, all members are being forced to join all Diplomatic Plays if a member is being targeted.

But what would imperialism be without waging some war yourself? That’s what the other, exclusive to the Military Treaty group is for:
DD118_20.png

DD118_21.png

DD118_22.png

Ranging from lower infamy generation to forcing every member to join all Diplomatic Plays of any other member, this group is for you if you’re planning to conquer the world (or at least parts of it). Beware of the Cohesion penalty on the third tier due to members not wanting to go to war constantly.
Cohesion in Military Treaty Blocs is dependent on the leader’s share of the Bloc’s Power Projection, similar to how Prestige works for Sovereign Empires in that regard.
Reductions to Cohesion are based on the highest infamy value in the Bloc and the country with the worst relations with the leader.

Next up, we’re taking a peek at Ideological Unions:

Ideological Union​

DD118_23.png
Here we see that Ideological Union leaders can Force Regime Changes in member countries. There are a few conditions like how different their laws need to be compared to the leader’s, how much Cohesion the Power Bloc has and some minor others.
When you do it, what happens is again what you would expect: You enforce a regime change on the target country, changing their laws, without having to go to war.

Good thing the Ideological Union Power Blocs have an easier access to Regime Changes. Because one of the negative Cohesion factors for these Blocs is the country with the biggest difference in Governance Principles and Distribution of Power law groups compared to the leader.
A positive factor is found in the form of the leader’s Legitimacy.

Creative Legislature and Ideological Truth are the two Primary Principle Groups for Ideological Union Power Blocs, with the latter being exclusive to them.
DD118_24.png

DD118_25.png

DD118_26.png

For Creative Legislature we see various bonuses to the enactment of laws. It allows you to have more setbacks on the third tier, essentially giving you another roll at it, in addition to the reduced stall chance, making the process proceed faster. Also, it reduces Movement spawn chances that would undo the work you are trying to do with the enactment of your desired law.
Now let’s take a look at the Principle Group exclusive to Ideological Union Blocs.
DD118_27.png

DD118_28.png

DD118_29.png

Here we can see that this group focuses on Interest Groups (IG) and your government. It not only makes unwanted Agitators’ lifes harder, lets you bolster your desired IGs and suppress your enemies at the cost of less authority, but even increases your Minimum Legitimacy by 25 on the third tier.

The fifth and last Central Identity Pillar is great for everybody who always wanted to play as a religious great power, uniting the world.

Religious Convocation​

DD118_30.png

Religious homogeneity is what this Power Bloc Identity strives for. It allows leaders to impose their state religion on other members. It’s an unique Diplomatic Action which will set a member's State Religions to the leader’s. Similarly to other Power Bloc Leader actions, it requires a certain Cohesion and Prestige value and also cannot be used immediately on a new member.

The Religious Convocation Identity also boosts conversion rates in all members, which goes nicely with your power to convert Power Bloc members. For release, we’re supplementing this effect with another one, likely along the lines of reducing radicalism.

Its Primary Principle Groups both deal with the involvement of church in different aspects of life.
The first of the two is also exclusive to the religious Identity - it’s Divine Economics.

DD118_31.png

DD118_32.png

DD118_33.png

We see here that we get various effects with relation to faith and economy. Higher subject payments if they’re following a different religion, but on the flip side higher trade route competitiveness if they are following the same religion for example.
The PMs that you can unlock on tier 2 allow you to exchange some workforce in the new Manor House and Financial District buildings with Clergymen. You don’t have to make use of it of course, but you get the option to.

The other Principle Group is Sacred Civics:
DD118_34.png

DD118_35.png

DD118_36.png

This group features three unique effects. It improves upon Liberty Desire and general acceptance for diplomatic proposals if the country shares the same state religion.
On tier 3, you can see it also allows the leader to impose their own church and state laws onto Power Bloc members.

Cohesion for Religious Convocations has a few factors as well. First, it looks at the leader’s Devout IG clout to determine a bonus to Cohesion. Secondly, we add or subtract Cohesion based on the lowest share of population in a Bloc member that follows the same religion as the leader’s state religion.
So if you have a member that has 0% of their Population following the same religion as yourself as leader, you will get a penalty, but if you are actually able to have the lowest member value be 50%, you will get a bonus instead.

That was a detailed look at all the Identities. But wait, there’s more!

Principles​

Apart from the Primary Principle Groups, there are a number of other groups of different flavors that you can make use of to assemble your dream Power Bloc. In total, including the 5 Identity exclusive groups, there are 20 Principle Groups with three Principles each for you to choose from.
Here are some examples:
DD118_37.png

DD118_38.png

DD118_39.png
This Principle Group is the alternative route to get to a Customs Union without having to pick the Trade League Central Identity Pillar.
It comes with a few other bonuses on the lower tiers, in particular the +5% MAPI bonus you have seen in the Trade Union exclusive group.

Another example I’d like to show because of its differently themed effects is Police Coordination.
DD118_40.png

DD118_41.png

DD118_42.png

This group provides multiple positive effects for the Police Institution in particular and upgrades its effects. The +50 Authority and reduction in Political Movement Radicalism is applied to each level of the institution. So the deeper you go into this, the more you will profit from it too.

The last group we want to show you today is dealing with Foreign Investment.
DD118_43.png

DD118_44.png

DD118_45.png

We can see three interesting effects in this group. On the first tier, you will get a higher amount of Leverage from Economic Dependence which, if you recall, is based a lot on how many investments you have in another country which makes them more dependent on you.
The second tier provides you with a reduction for Nationalization cost, which you can make use of to decrease your own dependence on other countries for example.
On the last tier, every member of the Bloc gets automatic Investment Rights in other Members of lower rank. This should allow you and other powerful countries to spread your influence inside your Bloc more easily, which in turn makes it more likely for the lower rank countries to stay inside your Bloc.

Another thing that has changed slightly since the original Power Blocs Dev Diary is the slots that are available to your Power Bloc.
If you own Sphere of Influence, by default each Power Bloc you’re leading has two slots that you can fill with Principles.
Even if you don’t own the DLC, you will still have one slot available for customization, where you can choose one of the two Primary Principle Group paths to take.
You can unlock the third and fourth slot by overtaking the other Power Blocs in the rankings for which we look at the total prestige of all members.
For the third slot you will need to be among the top 5 Power Blocs and have at least 5 members, the fourth one will be unlocked if you are among the top 3 and have at least 10 members in your Bloc.
Due to this change, we have removed the maximum number of Principle Mandates which you can spend. So in theory you can now get to 4 fully leveled tier 3 Principles, it is just going to be harder for you to do so.

Next, I’d like to provide you with a seemingly small, but significant update to how we deal with Leverage.

Leverage 2.0​

Since the last Dev Diary on Power Blocs, we have made some changes to how Leverage works and also added a few more sources of Leverage. If you recall, Leverage is what you need to build up in other countries to make them join your Bloc.
Apart from the sources mentioned last time, we have now added factors for adjacency, meaning if you have a direct adjacency or a treaty port for example, you will get more Leverage in the target country. High infamy values on the other hand will reduce the gain of Leverage, so you will have to keep it in check if you want to make good use of the resources you’re investing into building up Leverage.
Various other diplomatic pacts now will also provide or reduce the Leverage you can build up in other countries.

The main change we’ve done though is how Leverage is calculated. Before it was basically a never-ending race of building up infinite amounts of Leverage. Now we have changed it so that there is instead a shared pool of 1000 Leverage which all involved parties (including the target country) need to fight over. This value of 1000 never changes, never shrinks or grows.

The best way to understand this is by looking at a screenshot of the WIP tooltips that our UX designer Aron has made:

DD118_46.png

Here we see (from the British perspective), how Leverage over Greece is currently split up and what distribution it is trending towards.
In the upper bar, we see the current Leverage situation and we can see that Greece is currently able to stand up for itself against the Blocs trying to influence it. Its value of 584 is 490 higher than the British value which therefore is currently at 94, resulting in 9.4% Leverage Share for Great Britain. The Greek value is also directly translatable into their Leverage Share of 58.4%. The target country’s Share is called Unclaimed Leverage since no Power Bloc is taking that for themselves. If no Power Bloc was active in gaining Leverage in Greece (this should barely ever be the case), their Leverage Share/Unclaimed Leverage would be 100%.

What is actually happening in that situation though is that all 4 involved Power Blocs currently have a higher Leverage Factor (which is kind of like a Leverage “income”) than Greece has resistance. They might have a bunch of diplomatic agreements with Greece or trade or have sided in Diplomatic Plays with them for example. So over time, the Greek share of the pie will decrease, while all Power Blocs in this case will make gains and expand their influence over Greece, eventually (and if nothing about this situation changes) resulting in the situation depicted in the bar on the bottom of the tooltip.
The Russian Empire will have roughly 40% of the Leverage Share then and will likely be able to invite Greece to their Bloc with a good chance of success.
You can hover over each bit of the bars of course to get more detailed information on how the depicted share is calculated.

This system change makes Leverage something worth fighting over even if you are late to the party because nobody will be able to accumulate mountains of Leverage before you try yourself to get active in the country.
It also makes it possible to not only build up more Leverage, but reduce another Bloc’s Leverage Share, by having more positive Leverage Factors going for you than they do.

Another thing that we’d like to bring to your attention is a few examples for how Leverage is tied into our narrative content, in particular the Great Game content that was presented to you in the previous Dev Diaries for the Great Game and the Graveyard of Empires.
For example, in the Afghan unification, if you appeal to Great Britain or Russia, this will create Leverage on your country for their respective Power Blocs.

Similarly, the Eastern Frontier Journal Entry buttons and also an accepted Circassia recognition will create some Leverage for the according Power Blocs in the target country.

That’s it for today. We hope you liked this expanded outlook on Power Blocs. Next week, Alex is going to talk about some general changes that we’re making with the 1.7 update. Get ready for a cute mapmode and have a lovely rest of this happy Thursday!
 
  • 115Like
  • 39
  • 35Love
  • 13
  • 3
Reactions:
This post is saved for developer responses!

Is this new information or did I miss something in a previous dev diary? (The latter is definitely very possible)
It has been announced before (in the original linked Dev Diary on Power Blocs) and in some replies, but yeah, definitely possible you missed it.




Is this new information or did I miss something in a previous dev diary? (The latter is definitely very possible)
We mentioned it in the comments of the Art Diary previously and elsewhere e.g.


1716473721861.png

1716473604100.png

Please consider removing the Market Access Price Impact bonus from the Internal Trade Principle Group? All the other modifiers make sense as changes in policy to encourage internal trade, but a MAPI bonus feels magical. I find it hard to believe that expanding my market would eliminate inefficiencies regarding the movement of goods within it. MAPI should primarily be affected by physical infrastructure and technologies, not diplomatic pacts or politics.
We will consider it.
But I will say that I think it does make some sense narratively. Countries reducing the hurdles to trade with each other, e.g. removing customs etc. would naturally increase a state's access to others.

What is the “party whip” in the ideological truths part? Is this something new?
It is an effect that's present in the game already.
If members (IGs) of a party are ideologically conflicting, the party whip effect reduces the penalty that you receive on your legitimacy. The party leader acts as the party whip.
So this principle modifies that value, therefore reducing the penalty on legitimacy further.

Looks good.

On a sidenote for the artists, the Coat of Arms for the starting Power Blocs could use some work. Maybe add some historic symbols as an option, for example, instead of the Russian Empire's symbol being a circle with a flag on top, could you add the Russian two-headed eagle? The British one is trying to imitate the IRL coat of arms, but I don't think the boat does it, maybe add a lion or a harp, or both. The Ottoman's coat of arms looks perfect to me.
We are looking at our historic power blocs emblems.
I can't promise too much (about 100 other things on the plate), but we will try to improve it with other options we already have in the game.

But MAPI isn't about trade between different countries, but about moving goods within a country, so it's a bit odd

Removing borders for goods between France and Germany won't make moving clothes from Britanny to Provence easier

Having rethought about it however, it is a primary principle of a Custom Unions, which implies a unified market. So it could actually kinda kit
Exactly, we're basically implying a unified market. Which is why we felt it was okay to add it.
But as I mentioned we will consider replacing it. But no promises, it's a neat bonus after all.

Maybe I am reading this wrong, but I don't like the clear separation between ideological and economic unions that is made here. It seems to me that a liberal customs union would care to some degree about ideological cohesion, as would a military alliance involving an absolutist monarchy. Does this mean a radical liberal republic could be in a bloc with an absolute monarchy without friction, or a council republic be in a customs union with liberal nations without friction?

Also does this mean it would be impossible for an Ideological Bloc to also have a customs union between its members, or have I misunderstood?

Apologies for any misunderstanding, I often find it hard to conceptualise mechanics before I can play them.
You can create a liberal customs union for example by picking the ideological union identity but also picking the market unification principle which will turn your power bloc into a customs union.
So yeah, any bloc can become a customs union when picking the according principle.
Depending on the identity, yes, there could be scenarios where the countries' laws do not have a particularly big impact on the bloc's cohesion. In others (ideological union), it matters a lot more.
Hope that answers your question.

Great DD!

Just two small things (I know its WIP)
Vassalization Principle: I am not entirely sure if giving a flat amount of authority is a good idea. Im not concerned about the number but more about the principle. Encouraging having a bag full of tiny puppets is neither good for performance nor realistic in terms of the consolidation Empires did back then. Or people releasing all kinds of stuff just to have it, especially in MP.
Like imagine gamey UK making 1000 princely states to farm authority. Id rather see see a scaling absolute value but with a cap so you are incentivised to have like multiple medium sized countries around. Countries that by extension warrant you authority given their significance. Having more authority at home because you command the 20 ethiopian states does not sound right to me like I said before.
Thanks for the feedback!
Agree, turning it into rank based authority gain sounds like a good idea. Not sure we'll have time for the release version, but I have taken a note.

Defensive Cooperation Principle: "Cannot start or join wars amongst Power Bloc members". What are you trying to say with the wording?
To me it sounds like you also wont be able to defend your bloc members as the wording basically says any play pertaining to bloc members is off limits for you.
Do you mean Cannot start or join wars against Power Bloc members?
As mentioned on Discord, bloc member cannot declare war against fellow members is what it translates to. That's why we wrote amongst and not against, because you can of course still join plays that are targeting (against) bloc members from the outside of your bloc.

I have one question and one proposal:

What stops me as a big power to just create a Ideological Union, change some laws and then disband it after im done, and making another PB? Aside from loosing the leverage over my current subjects and all that. Is there a mechanical stopping block for this exploit? Or is it not worth it at all?
Thanks for the feedback!
They need to have been in your PB for at least 5 years and you need 3 times their prestige and they need to be ideologically different enough and your bloc needs high enough cohesion for you to do the regime change.
I'd say there's not really an exploit with that specific idea in mind just due to the time it takes. (I'm sure there are others which we'll discover)

I wanted to ask for ... well, flavour Text, more fitting one at that. My main gripe comes from the "Aggressive Coordination I", which only gives Infamy reduction, but the flavourtext states reagrdless: "Strenghtening the Blocs capabilities to plan offensive maneuvers.", which feels unfitting. Some along "The Members coordinate their diplomatic responses to cover for other members aggression." or something like that would make more sense. Adding short fitting descriptions too all principles is probably a tall order, and its no immediate need, but think about it. (Speaking of which, i believe that "Aggressive Coordination I/II/III" etc. sounds very... well, not fitting into the game world. Same as with "Military Treaty" i believe better words can be found to immerse the players.

View attachment 1137658
Yeah, we have thought about it, but felt like we were running into some inconsistencies. If you have flavor per tier principle, but the effect displays some of the previous tier effects, it feels odd. It also felt odd to not have custom names for the principles when you had custom flavor. For custom names, we'd be losing the feeling of it belonging together with other principles to the same group or at least we'd need to find a different solution on how to tie it together.
All in all, it was not only considered more effort but harder to bring into a cohesive form. So maybe, some day, when somebody finds the time to redo the whole description thing, which is sadly not now :/

Nice! Are you allowed to form a block composed from blocks? Like, in the entente you had two of the countries that are leading a sovereign empire block (GB and russia)
Not for release version at least, no. That would have exploded the scope of this feature.
As I mentioned before, we do see some possibility (no guarantee!) that some pacts between blocs could be established in the future, but that's for another day if it happens.

This DD has a bunch of modding implications that I want to figure out;

First of all - this is the first case of a non-law modifying an institution in vic3. Is this limited to the principles only, or can we hope to be able to apply modification to institution effects through other modifiers in other parts of the game?
It should be possible for you to apply that wherever you see fit. It is a set of country modifiers after all:
country_institution_size_change_speed_institution_police_mult = 0.5
country_institution_cost_institution_police_mult = -0.5

for example for the shown Police Principles.

Secondly - the leverage utilizes a bar with multiple potential fillings. Can modders have access to a similar UI element with an ability to set arbitrary values/script_values and corresponding colors and icons for them (i.e to put in a JE about multiple ideologies in a power struggle?)
That I am less sure about, meaning I doubt it would be possible. I'll poke some folks and get back to you, but don't get your hopes up yet.

Will the influential trade center production method be usable if your trade law is Mercantilism?

Generating massive tarrifs as an absurdly protectionist Trade League sounds rather fun.
I don't think we've put it behind another restriction

I hoped that one of the principles would allow to block trade with countries outside of Power Block entirely. Have you considered this kind of Block isolationism? I think it could be very nice additional option to introduce a need to fight for resources.
We had a few principles with that idea in mind on our tables for a while. Ultimately we decided to focus on others that were going more into a gameplay enabling rather than blocking direction.
Personally, I still like the idea of adding more blocking principles as alternatives. But we'll need to wait and see how Power Blocs as a feature develops in the future for that.

1) The MAPI bonus: Maybe the +5% MAPI bonus could be only on tier II or even tier III? I agree its a neat bonus a I am for NOT removing it entirely. Just make it not that easy to obtain.
Fun fact: It was on tier 3 and 2 for a long time during development because we felt that's where it should go. Then feedback came in that the principle group did not feel very satisfying to play with because of that. We will take another peek at this situation as I mentioned before.

2) Vasallization vs. Exploitation: I thing the balancing could be better. Vassalization gives you +25% income transfer, but Exploitation gives you "only" authority and influence? Shouldnt it be the other way around? Exploitation seems too weak perhaps with the -20 cohesion.
Exploitation also gives you +5% income from all power bloc members. The vassalization merely increases the payments from subjects. Depending on whom you have in your bloc, exploitation can have a substantial impact.
But we'll give it another look. Thanks for the feedback!

I could be mistaken, but isn't religious conversion only possible if the culture and religion (edit: only culture needs to be accepted) of a pop is not discriminated? At that point, mechanically speaking, there's little point to actually convert. The Sikh Empire for example is notorious for being a minority religion with potential expansion to Afghan/Persian territory full of non-Indians (aka, discriminated pops) - most of the nation's population receives discrimination.

I think a religious bloc should do two things:

1. All pops of the religion are accepted, regardless of culture
(edit: I should clarify so as to not make this overpowered, I think all primary cultures of bloc members belonging to the religion of the bloc should be accepted. So if in the highly theoretical world where the Sikh Empire and Persia form a religious bloc, then Sikh Persians should be accepted in the Sikh Empire, and Punjabi Sikhs should be accepted in Persia)
2. It should be mechanically possible to convert an unaccepted pop to the bloc religion

(If only one of those could be achieved, I'd prefer #2)

Click to expand...
The forced conversion action that religious blocs have access to does not require acceptance.
Fulfilling a few basic conditions (5 years in PB, Cohesion above 50, Prestige high enough), you can basically just set another country's state religion to yours and suffer a cohesion penalty.

Will atheist countries be able to use Religious Convocation and force State Atheism on all its members?
I'm afraid you cannot as fun as it sounds.
You need to have either State Religion or Freedom of Conscience to form a Religious Convocation Power Bloc.


In description it says that it reduces Tardids on internal trade, yet later levels increase them. Is it more of placeholder or...?
Good catch, that text was from a previous iteration!
Will note it down to fix, thanks :)

My only minor gripe with power blocs right now is that they appear to require a leader, and that leader receives extra benefits. It doesn't allow for a theoretical "alliance/treaty of equals".
I would say a trade league with either one of their primary groups does not provide drastic leader-only benefits.

I'm really hoping for a Leverage Map mode or another easy way to see your leverage over the world. Instead of having to maybe click several buttons on every country.
There is :)

Will there be a mechanism which allows certain members of the power bloc to launch a leadership play against the bloc leader?
Not quite.
If you are familiar with HoI4, we have a mechanic called Power Struggle that works very similarly. If a country has 20% more Prestige than the current leader, they automatically trigger it. If they stay above 15%+ more Prestige, they will overtake as the new leader.

This looks brilliant. This has probably already been answered, but is there any way for a member to leave a block peacefully?
You can leave peacefully if the Leverage of your Power Bloc leader on you is low enough




One question I had on power blocks was whether it affects crises and power plays.
If it involves one member, will it pull in the other members?

a bloc, and membership thereof should have be a gamechanger for these. It would also move us into the direction of WW1... (hopefully coming, Paradox)
By default PB members do not have to join one another. But using the correct principles (as shown in the Dev Diary, e.g. tier 3 of aggressive coordination group), yes, you can force your members to join you.
 
Last edited:
  • 6Like
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
This lets you recreate the Customs Union pact functionality which will be removed with the 1.7 update.
Is this new information or did I miss something in a previous dev diary? (The latter is definitely very possible)
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Is this new information or did I miss something in a previous dev diary? (The latter is definitely very possible)
It has been announced before (in the original linked Dev Diary on Power Blocs) and in some replies, but yeah, definitely possible you missed it.
 
  • 9
  • 4Like
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
Could we get some examples of what IRL systems the Ideological Union and Religious Union are representing? For the former, I would have said something like the Holy Alliance, except power blocs inexplicably explicitly are not about multilateral treaties between major powers, so I am rather at a loss. And for the latter, the closest I can think of is the factions of the 30 Years War, a good 200 years prior to our start date. I can’t think of any states forming explicitly or primarily religious organizations during this period.
 
  • 21
  • 3Like
  • 3
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Could we get some examples of what IRL systems the Ideological Union and Religious Union are representing? For the former, I would have said something like the Holy Alliance, except power blocs inexplicably explicitly are not about multilateral treaties between major powers, so I am rather at a loss. And for the latter, the closest I can think of is the factions of the 30 Years War, a good 200 years prior to our start date. I can’t think of any states forming explicitly or primarily religious organizations during this period.
I think Austria's power bloc is an Ideological union?
 
  • 10
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
Can you add wage history for buildings? So we can see if they have increased, decreased, or stagnated over time. Also a general view of immigration/emigration at the national level and how it affects population as currently it’s only seen on a state by state basis.
 
  • 29Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Please consider removing the Market Access Price Impact bonus from the Internal Trade Principle Group? All the other modifiers make sense as changes in policy to encourage internal trade, but a MAPI bonus feels magical. I find it hard to believe that expanding my market would eliminate inefficiencies regarding the movement of goods within it. MAPI should primarily be affected by physical infrastructure and technologies, not diplomatic pacts or politics.
 
  • 33Like
  • 18
  • 7
  • 2
Reactions:
I have a feeling that Power Blocs will end up disconnected from Leaders politics. Lets say block starts as Sovereign Empire (which heavily exploits its subjects), but later becomes liberal democracy or even communist and question will they start Ideological Union Block instead that would make sense to them?
 
  • 32Like
  • 5
  • 4
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Looks good.

On a sidenote for the artists, the Coat of Arms for the starting Power Blocs could use some work. Maybe add some historic symbols as an option, for example, instead of the Russian Empire's symbol being a circle with a flag on top, could you add the Russian two-headed eagle? The British one is trying to imitate the IRL coat of arms, but I don't think the boat does it, maybe add a lion or a harp, or both. The Ottoman's coat of arms looks perfect to me.
 
  • 23
  • 6Like
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Could we get some examples of what IRL systems the Ideological Union and Religious Union are representing? For the former, I would have said something like the Holy Alliance, except power blocs inexplicably explicitly are not about multilateral treaties between major powers, so I am rather at a loss. And for the latter, the closest I can think of is the factions of the 30 Years War, a good 200 years prior to our start date. I can’t think of any states forming explicitly or primarily religious organizations during this period.
Comintern/Warsaw Pact for the ideological union, I'd imagine.
 
  • 17Like
  • 5
  • 2Haha
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions:
I think Austria's power bloc is an Ideological union?
Well that’s rather silly, if so.
Austria was certainly a very conservative state, and based their foreign policy around this, but they conducted their meddling primarily through their alliances with other significant powers, namely Russia and Prussia, since all 3 had a strong interest in stopping a liberal uprising.
But if power blocs are representing hegemonies of a strong state over weaker ones, then how is Austria’s dominance over their neighbors any more “ideological” than every other empire? The British Empire certainly wasn’t going to be tolerating any of her colonies saying that they didn’t recognize the Queen, Russia was just as, if not more, conservative and reactionary in its dominance over other states, and Prussia’s actions during this period were largely around ensuring that it was a conservative, not liberal, Germany that emerged- and this was shaping their actions within the Zollverein, trying to prevent liberal takeovers of other states. But to my knowledge, neither the British, Russian, or Prussian dominated systems are represented as ideological unions.
 
  • 28
  • 3Like
  • 1Love
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I have to say I dislike the basic idea of this, that you form a bloc and day one get a bonus like -5% MAPI or cheaper military goods, just for signing the paper without doing anything that seems like it could plausibly cause that benefit. It seems un-immersive, gamey, and against the simulationist spirit of this game that I think is what separates it. Signing a pact with another country or countries should be worthwhile for its own sake, not propped up with gamey bonuses so it’s always worthwhile.

Edit: maybe this is a bit too harsh. I think some things, like taking authority from members and giving it to the leader, are great. But it should be about leveraging resources that members actually have, not creating new abilities out of thin air. Edit2: and even that authority bonus would be better if it varied depending on the relative PP of the leader and member.
 
Last edited:
  • 60
  • 15Like
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
I must admit I'm not entirely fond of this entire concept. It feels like Stellaris federations are just being copy-pasted into Vic3 blocs. While federations can work in the fictitious future Stellaris, I don't feel like the blocs here adequately describe real interstate diplomatic relations in the Victorian age. The Sovereign empire in particular feels like it should be more an internal mechanism for decentralized states like the Russian and British empires than something for state to state diplomacy, while other things like the trade league or ideological union feel like they should more naturally arise from bilaterial or multilateral agreements, not any particular bloc mechanic. In the end, much like Federations in Stellaris it feels like just another way to get more tacked on bonus modifiers than something that organically fits in with the simulation.

Edit - One thing I think they really seem to miss is a good give and take for all parties, especially the bloc leader. Interstate diplomacy should only rarely be a overall win for everyone, there should be advantages and costs to it.
 
Last edited:
  • 58Like
  • 21
  • 5
  • 1Love
Reactions:
What is the “party whip” in the ideological truths part? Is this something new?
Thr party whip is the most powerful IG in a political party, they reduce the legitimacy penalty from differing law views in a political party
 
  • 6Like
  • 3
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Please consider removing the Market Access Price Impact bonus from the Internal Trade Principle Group? All the other modifiers make sense as changes in policy to encourage internal trade, but a MAPI bonus feels magical. I find it hard to believe that expanding my market would eliminate inefficiencies regarding the movement of goods within it. MAPI should primarily be affected by physical infrastructure and technologies, not diplomatic pacts or politics.
We will consider it.
But I will say that I think it does make some sense narratively. Countries reducing the hurdles to trade with each other, e.g. removing customs etc. would naturally increase a state's access to others.
 
  • 39Like
  • 19
  • 14
  • 2
Reactions: