• 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 #124 - What’s next after 1.7

16_9.png

Double Happy Thursday! As promised last week, today we’ll be returning to the future update plans, which we last touched on in Dev Diary #102. Just like the previous times, we’ll be going over what changes and improvements we have planned for the game in future free updates such as 1.8, 1.9 and beyond.

Once again we will be talking about the same key four improvement areas of Military, Historical Immersion, Diplomacy, Internal Politics as well as 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 be removed from the list, to avoid it growing unmanageably long, but you can look at the older dev diaries (#79, #89 and #102) if you’re interested in what was done previously.
  • 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 1.8, 1.9 and so on. Note that this section will mainly focus on updates made in 1.6 and 1.7.
  • 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 #102.
  • 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.

For the final bit of repetition: Just as before 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. Alright then, onto the dev diary proper.

DD124_01.png

Military​

New:
  • Making navies more important for projecting global power and securing control of coasts.
  • Adding a proper system of military access and finding solutions for the other remaining rough edges in the frontline system.
Not Updated:
  • Turning individual ships into proper pieces of military hardware that can be built, sunk and repaired rather than just being manpower packages.
  • Adding a system for limited wars to reduce the number of early-game global wars between Great Powers

Historical Immersion​

Done:
  • 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
    • Asides from the AI challenges when it comes to forming Germany/Italy, we are now relatively happy with the state of the unifications. There are certainly ways we want to improve unifications in the future, particularly in tying them much closer to the political systems, but that falls outside the scope of this particular point.
  • General AI tweaks to have AI countries play in a more believable, immersive way
    • With the introduction of Diplomatic Catalysts and various AI improvements in 1.7 we now consider this to be ‘done’, though in reality this is the sort of point that is never going to stop seeing improvements from our end.
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
    • After the release of 1.7.2 we now consider this to be ‘almost there’ but still in need of a bit more work.
  • 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
    • We’ve made a number of changes and improvements to older journal entries in 1.6/1.7 such as the addition of scripted progress bars, but we still have more work to do here.
  • Adding more country, state and region-specific content to enhance historical flavor of different countries
    • As before, this is something we’re simply going to keep adding to every single update and is never really going to be ‘Done’. For now I am leaving this entry here to mark that this is still one of our top priorities

Diplomacy​

Done:
  • Improving and expanding on interactions with and from subjects, such as being able to grant and ask for more autonomy through a diplomatic action
  • 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 (Lobbies)
  • Foreign investment and some form of construction in other countries, at least if they’re part of your market
Not Updated:
  • Make declaring and holding onto diplomatic Interests a more rewarding and challenging aspect of global empire-building
  • Allowing peace deals to be negotiated during a Diplomatic Play instead of only having the option to give in

Internal Politics​

Updated:
  • Adding laws that expand on diversity of countries and introduce new ways to play the game
    • Similar to the point for region-specific flavor, this is something that will never really be ‘Done’ but remains here to highlight that we consider it an important priority
Not Updated:
  • 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.
New:
  • Find a better solution for the ways ideologies appear, attract followers and create support for reforms than the current RNG-heavy leader ideology system.

Other​

Not Updated:
  • Improve on Companies by turning them into actual actors in your country that can own/expand buildings and interact with characters/politics.
  • 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.

As always, I cannot make any specific promises about when these things will be coming. However, I can tell you that the next update (1.8) will be a standalone free update that should knock a point or two off this list, but will mainly be focused on bug fixing, general polish and more AI improvements. Before then we also have at least one more hotfix (1.7.4) planned to address the remaining high priority issues from the 1.7 release (tentatively planned for next week) and part of the team will continue working for a few more weeks like I mentioned in last week’s dev diary.

Right then, that’s all for this time, and all for this side of the summer! Dev diaries will return on August 15th but until then, I can but wish you many a Happy Thursday in the sun (or possibly snow, if you happen to live in the south hemisphere). Regardless, I hope you have a great July!
 
  • 128Like
  • 50Love
  • 14
  • 1
Reactions:
I enjoy Victoria 3 a lot now which I couldn't say for the first couple years. I'm still not happy with the warfare system at all but it has definitely improved a lot from release. Rather than making warfare more simplistic and streamlined and less detailed I think Paradox should do the opposite and make it more detailed and hands on. The AGEOD/Slitherine games Field of Glory: Empires and Field of Glory: Kingdoms have a really cool warfare system which I think Paradox should look into.

And I still have to use the stockpile mod too.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
The army pathing has been causing defenders who lost teleport to the next front while attackers take days to move up, which causes the front to immediately move again. Often this cause a total loss of territory and all attackers teleport out of the theatre.

The army movement situation is very much not ok.

Is there plan to rework army movement?
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
National pride could be an interesting mechanic, where if it is very high, it can lead to jingoism. If it is very low it can lead to cynicism and pessimism, sort of a fin de siècle attitude. National pride could increase by winning wars and increasing SoL while losing wars and decreasing SoL would cause the opposite. Incorporating some sort of system that created temporary recessions in an organic way as well as certain social technologies (anarchism for instance) could help prevent national pride always going up.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Hi everyone,

I’ve been following the updates for Victoria 3 and appreciate the improvements in the recent patch. However, I’d like to discuss the current warfare system for what's next after topic. Since its release, the game has focused on automated fronts, which is historically accurate for the Victorian era. However, considering the Napoleonic Wars that preceded this period, there’s room for more strategic depth.

Arguments for an Optional Manual Command System:

  1. Historical Context: The Napoleonic Wars involved direct commands from generals and strategic manoeuvres. Incorporating an optional manual command system would enhance historical accuracy and provide a richer strategic experience.
  2. Increased Player Engagement: Allowing players to take control of key fronts, especially during critical moments, would enhance immersion and engagement. It offers a hands-on approach to warfare, similar to what we see in Europa Universalis 4.
  3. Optional Feature for Flexibility: Making this feature optional ensures that players who enjoy the current automated system can continue using it, while those who prefer detailed strategy can opt for manual control. This flexibility caters to diverse playstyles.
Proposed Feature: Introduce an optional manual command system that lets players control critical fronts during wars. This system could be toggled on or off, providing both strategic depth and ease of management for different player preferences.

By integrating this feature, Victoria 3 can appeal to a wider audience and enhance the overall gameplay experience. I believe this addition would offer a compelling blend of historical accuracy and player engagement.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts

From the outside it's super easy to suggest 'make it optional' but there is one standard rule of game dev:

It's not optional if it gives better results
It's not worth developing if it gives worse results
 
  • 12
Reactions:
I would be be happy if you develop expansions rather than flavor packs, those should be for new units, cosmetic changes, etc. And they can be on a country by country bases, and should all be included with season passes in the future, by proxy, as for the expansions, I would say a season pass per year with at least three major game expansions included. I would not be against flavor packs including alternative historical paths like reforming of the Roman Empire, but these should not be at all the focus of developers as the game is set in Victorian time. More Tech tree, more buildings, more units, cosmetic changes, and upgrades to the game performance, those could be the focus of updates, patches and flavor packs.

As for game expansions I would suggest:

- The Hungarian Revolution - Formation of the Austrian - Hungarian Empire

- Crimean War - And the revitalization - modernization attempt of the Young Turks, as well as the Sale of Alaska, California Gold Rush, Reigns of Nicholas I, Alexander II and Alexander III and the first steps in industrialization of the Russian Empire.

- The Meiji Revolution and the beginning of the Japanese Empire along with the Stagnation and collapse of the Qing Dynasty China, Opium War and formation of the British Raj.

- The Spring of Peoples 1848 revolutions, the Unification of Germany and Italy, campaign diary, technologies, economic changes, etc, with deep dive in the Franco-Prussian War and the three wars of Italian Unification

- The American Civil war should also be considered for a full fledged expansion.

- The Boer Wars the Conference of Berlin, the Scramble for Africa, the building of colonial Africa, The Ethiopian - Italian War, The British Ultimatum on the Portuguese Monarchy and the Pink Map.

World War One could be a a season pass for one or two years all by itself
- multiple start points
- new technologies and industry buildings
- new equipment and research trees
- new armed forces units
- new states in the map

- Other changes I would suggest are:

- Cabinet (letting an absolute monarch or a president) change people in the Cabinet-
- Ministries and Secretariats of State, with character swapping, nomination or election.
- Micro and Macro Economic development and controls to be revamped on the Buildings diary
- A Menu for Law thinking, debating, voting and enactment
- Productive Buildings for the Armed forces, jail industries, workhouses.
- The Kiel Canal
- The Ability to quash dissent, stop secession, and stop revolutionary movements by force of the military even if this adds to the enemy side dissenting officers and troops.
- Increase the Company setting limit and grant them the ability to build (as you seem to already be thinking of doing)
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I would be be happy if you develop expansions rather than flavor packs, those should be for new units, cosmetic changes, etc. And they can be on a country by country bases, and should all be included with season passes in the future, by proxy, as for the expansions, I would say a season pass per year with at least three major game expansions included. I would not be against flavor packs including alternative historical paths like reforming of the Roman Empire, but these should not be at all the focus of developers as the game is set in Victorian time. More Tech tree, more buildings, more units, cosmetic changes, and upgrades to the game performance, those could be the focus of updates, patches and flavor packs.

As for game expansions I would suggest:

- The Hungarian Revolution - Formation of the Austrian - Hungarian Empire

- Crimean War - And the revitalization - modernization attempt of the Young Turks, as well as the Sale of Alaska, California Gold Rush, Reigns of Nicholas I, Alexander II and Alexander III and the first steps in industrialization of the Russian Empire.

- The Meiji Revolution and the beginning of the Japanese Empire along with the Stagnation and collapse of the Qing Dynasty China, Opium War and formation of the British Raj.

- The Spring of Peoples 1848 revolutions, the Unification of Germany and Italy, campaign diary, technologies, economic changes, etc, with deep dive in the Franco-Prussian War and the three wars of Italian Unification

- The American Civil war should also be considered for a full fledged expansion.

- The Boer Wars the Conference of Berlin, the Scramble for Africa, the building of colonial Africa, The Ethiopian - Italian War, The British Ultimatum on the Portuguese Monarchy and the Pink Map.

World War One could be a a season pass for one or two years all by itself
- multiple start points
- new technologies and industry buildings
- new equipment and research trees
- new armed forces units
- new states in the map

- Other changes I would suggest are:

- Cabinet (letting an absolute monarch or a president) change people in the Cabinet-
- Ministries and Secretariats of State, with character swapping, nomination or election.
- Micro and Macro Economic development and controls to be revamped on the Buildings diary
- A Menu for Law thinking, debating, voting and enactment
- Productive Buildings for the Armed forces, jail industries, workhouses.
- The Kiel Canal
- The Ability to quash dissent, stop secession, and stop revolutionary movements by force of the military even if this adds to the enemy side dissenting officers and troops.
- Increase the Company setting limit and grant them the ability to build (as you seem to already be thinking of doing)
I like your thinking, but still, Hungarian Revolution, Crimean War, Meiji/Quing/Raj sound like they could well be handled by flavor packs working within the system to just flesh these out.

Then the Spring of 1848 is a great expansion for "civil liberties", American Civil War one for "civil wars" and WW1 for "the great war and the end of times"

Kiel Canal.. btw is the Saima Canal in the game yet?
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
It's not optional if it gives better results
It's not worth developing if it gives worse results
I understand the concerns about the "optional" feature. I'd like to revise my suggestion based on this:
  1. "It's not optional if it gives better results" – In Europa Universalis IV, carpet sieging is an optional feature that many players find helpful for managing vast empires. Similarly, Victoria 3's large-scale conflicts could benefit from a similar approach.
  2. "It's not worth developing if it gives worse results" – The success of manual and automated command systems in EU4 demonstrates that this concept can be worth exploring for Victoria 3 as well.
By offering both manual and automated options, we can cater to different playstyles and potentially enhance the overall gameplay experience.
 
I understand the concerns about the "optional" feature. I'd like to revise my suggestion based on this:
  1. "It's not optional if it gives better results" – In Europa Universalis IV, carpet sieging is an optional feature that many players find helpful for managing vast empires. Similarly, Victoria 3's large-scale conflicts could benefit from a similar approach.
  2. "It's not worth developing if it gives worse results" – The success of manual and automated command systems in EU4 demonstrates that this concept can be worth exploring for Victoria 3 as well.
By offering both manual and automated options, we can cater to different playstyles and potentially enhance the overall gameplay experience.
You're comparing apples to oranges (also you didn't revise anything, just offered a defense).

Anyway, your original suggestion is also rather vague, "an optional manual command system that lets players control critical fronts during wars"

Manual command meaning what exactly? There aren't individual divisions or battalions to command like in HoI4, nor could you have one side use the front system and the other an army stack on a province.

So, what do you mean by manual control?

Also, does optional mean per game session (i.e. a game rule), or per army? The latter again runs into the issue that both sides have to use the same system (or at least compatible systems).
 
  • 7
Reactions:
You're comparing apples to oranges (also you didn't revise anything, just offered a defense).

Anyway, your original suggestion is also rather vague, "an optional manual command system that lets players control critical fronts during wars"

Manual command meaning what exactly? There aren't individual divisions or battalions to command like in HoI4, nor could you have one side use the front system and the other an army stack on a province.

So, what do you mean by manual control?

Also, does optional mean per game session (i.e. a game rule), or per army? The latter again runs into the issue that both sides have to use the same system (or at least compatible systems).
In my opinion a little bit more of similar mechanics for division control taken from hearts of iron iv would not hurt. Of course applied with the limitations of the time period. Or in an expanded campaign that includes the 20th century although that would be off focus for Victoria and cannibalisation of the hearts of iron franchise... Although nukes in the nineteenth/ early twentieth century would be fun to play...
 
You're comparing apples to oranges (also you didn't revise anything, just offered a defense).

Anyway, your original suggestion is also rather vague, "an optional manual command system that lets players control critical fronts during wars"

Manual command meaning what exactly? There aren't individual divisions or battalions to command like in HoI4, nor could you have one side use the front system and the other an army stack on a province.

So, what do you mean by manual control?

Also, does optional mean per game session (i.e. a game rule), or per army? The latter again runs into the issue that both sides have to use the same system (or at least compatible systems).
I appreciate your detailed response and the opportunity to clarify my suggestions. Here are my thoughts on your points:

  1. Comparison of Game Features:
    • While comparing features from different games can sometimes be inaccurate, I believe it's helpful to look at successful mechanics from other titles to inspire potential improvements. Europa Universalis IV’s carpet sieging is just one example of how manual control can enhance strategic depth.
  2. Manual Command System Details:
    • I understand that my initial suggestion was vague. I'm currently working on a more detailed proposal. Implementing a manual command system within Victoria 3’s current framework is challenging, especially given the automated front system. A solid, well-thought-out suggestion requires more consideration to ensure it complements the existing mechanics without overwhelming players.
  3. Historical Context:
    • Unlike Hearts of Iron IV, which focuses on the 20th century, Victoria 3 aims to simulate the complexities of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Incorporating a manual command system should align with this historical context, ensuring it adds to the realism rather than detracts from it. For instance, the way the game handles pop assimilation and the impact of injured soldiers on the economy and society demonstrates the developers' commitment to realism.
  4. Optional Feature Implementation:
    • I believe the manual command system should be optional per army rather than per game session. This allows players to focus on specific fronts while other fronts remain under automated control. It could provide a richer, more engaging experience during critical moments in warfare, adding depth without making the game unplayable. Players could take command of a key front, slowing down time to manage it effectively, and then return to the broader strategic overview.
  5. Game Balance:
    • Game balance is indeed a complex and evolving aspect of any game. Introducing a manual command system might initially pose balance challenges, but with player feedback and iterative development, it could be fine-tuned. The goal is to enhance player engagement and strategic depth without compromising overall balance.
I humbly hope this clarifies my suggestions. I look forward to further discussion and ideas from the community.
 
This update is great, but somehow the combat system has regressed to new levels of non-sensical. This system has never worked. Since launch, you can outnumber an enemy 3:1, have higher off/def rating, more morale, yet the battles will still not go in your favor. The 'battle conditions' have never made any sense to what is happening in the battles and where they are happening. Although this was slightly improved in this patch, it is still so so far from accurately representing the battles. Battles themselves don't make any sense. They have always lasted for months sometimes years on end, which is somehow still a recurring problem years after launch. Often frontlines where you outnumber an enemy 30:1 you will find that battles pit the same number of regiments against each other. Even naval invasions, which make slightly more sense in this patch, wait for arbitrary amounts of time between engaging naval and land battles. Despite the improvements to army organization (controlling armies with multiple generals) these problems persist, some even worse than ever in this update!

For example: This battle between my French army (46 off) and EIC army (14 def) goes on for a week while they have one troop left who is in a 'panicked retreat'. He also kills many men on his way out XD. I don't how anyone who has played with the combat system could say it makes sense. It doesn't need to be fully reworked, it just needs to be play-tested.
Vic1.PNG
Vic2.PNG
Vic3.PNG
 
Wouldn't it be great to have "tax incentives'' as a tool to get the Investment fund "following" your idea of development?

I mean, given that the "Direct investment" control was deleted as a game rule option, would it be nice to have "a way around" the issue of AI building tobacco plantations with 2.1 productivity instead of cotton plantations with 12.4 and 5 tiers of building?

I've been thinking about this for several hours and I can't find any issues with it. This "tax incentive" is for laissez faire. For other "free market" economic systems, a "development plan" that costs money and/or bureaucracy could work.

Just an idea. Thanks for reading, Paradox team.
 
Wouldn't it be great to have "tax incentives'' as a tool to get the Investment fund "following" your idea of development?

I mean, given that the "Direct investment" control was deleted as a game rule option, would it be nice to have "a way around" the issue of AI building tobacco plantations with 2.1 productivity instead of cotton plantations with 12.4 and 5 tiers of building?

I've been thinking about this for several hours and I can't find any issues with it. This "tax incentive" is for laissez faire. For other "free market" economic systems, a "development plan" that costs money and/or bureaucracy could work.

Just an idea. Thanks for reading, Paradox team.
Currently the best you can do currents is to slap a company
 
Let me guess, now you're going to spend weeks producing a DLC to go with this patch focused exclusively on the Dutch East Indies?

/s
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions: