• 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 #126 - Update 1.8 Overview

16_9.png
Happy Thursday and welcome back to another Victoria 3 development diary. This week we’re going to take a bird’s eye view of the headline features of update 1.8, which is of course the next free update for the game, planned to be released sometime later this year. However, before we start on the dev diary proper I should tell you about a slight change of plans in our release schedule. Back in Dev Diary #124 I told you that update 1.8 would be a smaller update, focused almost entirely on bug fixing and general polish.

This was indeed the plan, with update 1.9 intended as a larger update following relatively closely on the heels of 1.8, but when we sat down to work out the details we realized that our intended timeline simply didn’t work out, as we would either have to work on the two updates in too close proximity (creating major challenges for 1.8 post-release support among other things), or delay update 1.9 all the way to next year, which we didn’t want to do. So we decided to combine the two updates, with the result that 1.8 is now going to be a single update with the combined scope of both 1.8 and 1.9, meaning it will contain not just bug fixes and polish but also some juicy new free features.

But enough about update planning, let’s get into those headline features I just mentioned! As I said, this is just an overview dev diary, so we’re not going to go into any great detail today, but we have plenty more dev diaries planned in the upcoming weeks where we will fill in the blanks. One final thing before I start: All of the features mentioned are still in early stages of development, so any screenshots, numbers and art shown are going to be very, very, very (very) work in progress.


Ideological Forces (Political Movement Rework)

A frequent complaint about Victoria 3’s political system is the highly random nature of leader and character ideologies. The way in which you build up support for certain laws among your Interest Groups can be frustratingly opaque and reliant on using certain pieces of content (Corn Laws, anyone?) in a way that is neither immersive nor feels particularly rewarding.

In update 1.8, we are taking aim at this problem, alongside a number of other issues with a feature that we have dubbed ‘Ideological Forces’, but which can be more accurately called ‘Political Movement Rework’. The plan is to transform Political Movements from spontaneous and temporary demands for a single legal reform into longer-term ideological movements with a broader political agenda. For example, instead of a movement popping up to abolish slavery, you will have an actual Abolitionist movement with a long-term legal agenda, which will attract supporters from your Pops and influence the politics of the Interest Groups that those Pops are backing. Political Movements will also include religious and cultural minority (and majority!) movements, with some corresponding changes to civil war and secession mechanics.

One of the major aims of the Political Movement Rework is to make the mechanics around how we assign ideologies to Interest Group leaders much more transparent to the player
DD126_01.png

Discrimination Rework

Another issue straight off the future update plans that we’re tackling in 1.8 is the way pop discrimination works. Ever since release, we’ve said multiple times that the overly simplistic nature of discrimination is something we want to improve on in the future, and now that future is finally here! This feature is still in the ‘figuring it out’ stage, so I’ll eschew the details, but our principal goals with are as follows:
  • To introduce multiple ‘levels’ to discrimination instead of it just being a binary state
  • To have the level of discrimination faced by a Pop be determined by factors other than just what the law says
  • To turn assimilation into a properly useful feature that isn’t only available to fully accepted pops

UX mockup of what discrimination/acceptance of a particular culture might look like in 1.8. Note that everything here is just placeholder/example data and not necessarily planned features (sadly there will be no ‘let them eat fish’ law).
DD126_02.jpg


Food Availability, Famines and Harvest Incidents

In update 1.8, we’re also planning to expand on the gameplay around agriculture and food availability, which of course was an issue of great importance to governments at the time. After all, the 19th century saw events such as the Irish Potato Famine, the repeated famines in British-controlled India and the world-wide famines in the wake of the Krakatoa explosion.

To do this, we are going to introduce the concept of food availability for Pops, which is a factor that is separate from, but intrinsically linked to a Pop’s standard of living. Currently, we’re thinking that food availability for a Pop will be determined by how much of their buy package goes towards feeding themselves, how expensive the food goods they’re purchasing is, and whether there are any shortages among those goods. Low food availability will increase pop mortality and radicalism and may trigger a state-wide famine if it’s widespread enough.

Food production at the time was highly dependent on the weather and climate, and many peasant families were only one or two bad harvests away from the brink of ruin. To simulate this unpredictability, we’re also adding something called ‘Harvest Incidents’, which can increase or decrease agricultural output in different regions over a longer timeframe.

Early development mapmode showing harvest incidents. Korea is experiencing a period of bountiful harvests, while the situation is less rosy in the East African interior (ignore the colored sea zones, as that is just a bug from the feature being WIP).
DD126_03.png


These are the ‘big ones’ for update 1.8, but of course it is by no means all we’re planning to do in this update. A few honorable mentions of other changes and improvements you can expect in 1.8, all of which we’ll explain in detail over in the upcoming weeks:
  • Companies owning and investing in buildings
  • Bulk Nationalization tool
  • Multi-select and right-click orders for formations
  • Adding wargoals on behalf of subjects

Along with, of course, many bug fixes, balance changes and other miscellaneous improvements.

That’s all for today! More details on all of these features will of course follow, starting with Bulk Nationalization and Companies Owning Buildings, which Lino will tell you all about next week. See you then!
 
  • 212Love
  • 100Like
  • 5
  • 4
  • 4
Reactions:
I was literally about to make a post about Assimilation being a genuine waste, so I hope to see these changes alter my opinion. Really like the look of Political Movements, currently Politics are too set in stone and not dynamic enough.
 
Making it to where discrimination can happen regardless of laws is a good change.

It always puzzled me that outlawing race based discrimination just removed all racism from the nation.

I only hope there are ways for the player to have agency still. A way to crack down on people violating the law for instance.

I'm also happy assimilation is being looked at again. It was very common for the time to try and 're-educate' people especially young people, to abandon their culture for that of the state, and authoritarian governments would likely use this.
 
I like the Ideology changes a lot. Interest Groups and Ideologies have become pretty stale and really a non-issue for me after a while:

1) I don't even look at ideologies, tbh because they have either been: fixed or (via the leader trait) wholly random as has been pointed out here.
2) Interest groups themselves seem kind of stale also. My own game-play style, I aim for a set of laws and then balance interest groups (or not) to get them passed. I attempt to play historically accurately (according to time) so in some play-throughs the laws never change once set, in others they will, like if I'm trying to simulate a communist revolution or a monarchical overthrow, etc. With that all said, eventually there is very little for me to "react to" which is why I think these changes will be challenging in a good way.
3) I LOVE what I think is the brewing concept of broader movements. Especially because I'm a historical-only player. I'm watching Peaky Blinders on Netflix right now, and I'd really enjoy seeing a communist MOVEMENT that had a broad set of policy goals, as opposed to being stuck around one single law. So good job there, that should be a lot of fun.
 
1. Does this mean Frederick Douglass will stop supporting slavery, and Susan B. Anthony will stop supporting secret police?
2. Will there be modifiers for local pests and such, like locusts? And will the extinction of the Rocky Mountain locusts be depicted in-game?
3. HOORAY FOR IN-DEPTH RACISM!
 
  • 1
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Everything you've listed is amazing. Perhaps it's just me, but these seem like the perfect features for a dev team to handle, so congratulations on both your updates and your priorities. I've been especially eager for a discrimination rework, and what you've said so far seems very similar to what I consider the ideal. I will refrain from indulging my ego too much by assuming you're drawing on my suggestions, but I'm overjoyed regardless.



The plan is to transform Political Movements from spontaneous and temporary demands for a single legal reform into longer-term ideological movements with a broader political agenda. For example, instead of a movement popping up to abolish slavery, you will have an actual Abolitionist movement with a long-term legal agenda, which will attract supporters from your Pops and influence the politics of the Interest Groups that those Pops are backing.
This one interests me a great deal. As ever, I have a couple of thoughts. First: will these Ideological Forces change the core Ideologies of the IG/s involved? For instance, a longstanding Communist IF might leave a lasting mark upon the Intelligentsia, changing it from Liberal to Socialist or perhaps to an intermediate Ideology which equally supports all three Republic types. Second: are you open to changing up how Women in the Workplace functions? At the moment it requires Feminism unlocked and tends to get similar levels of support and opposition to the altogether better Women's Suffrage. This means it's basically only worth doing as a compromise to tide over the Landowners and Devout, or alternatively as the best possible law under non-voting regimes.*

The thing is, women didn't join the workforce exclusively because of feminist movements. Putting aside that there weren't always formal restrictions of the type envisaged by both Legal Guardianship and Propertied Women, insofar as women were encouraged to join the workforce before they gained equal franchise, it was often because of wartime pressures on the male workforce, as was the case in WWI. As such, you have potential IGs and IFs which might see value in passing WITW but not WS, which currently isn't represented in game. Without knowing exactly how the IFs will work, I still think there ought to be some separation to represent this: namely, I think WITW should only require either Egalitarianism or Human Rights, and it should potentially acquire support from the Trade Unions earlier on, but also possibly from Industrialist-backed IFs under certain circumstances (e.g. heavy wartime recruitment).



*On that note, I don't think Women's Suffrage ought to be limited to voting Power Structure laws. I understand why you made this change, but I disagree with it for a couple of reasons. First, to be petty, it is annoying. The last time I tried playing Despotic Utopian Paraguay, I realised that you kind of have to drop the dictatorship if you want to achieve the fullest extent of equality, because women will always be systematically disenfranchised under non-elective regimes. Given you otherwise allow the hypothetical of an authoritarian egalitarian regime, it feels odd that in this specific case you're locked out. You can't even have women leading IGs, which is especially odd. I understand that if you don't have elections, nobody has suffrage, so "Women's Suffrage" could be misleading. But if that's the case, you could always just rename it to Political Equality, or Women's Representation, or something like that.

More generally, I don't think the restriction lines up correctly with the way Power Structure laws are presumed to operate in game. For example, Mexico at the start of the game is depicted as an Oligarchy, so it can't have Women's Suffrage, because nobody can vote. But that doesn't actually line up with reality: Mexico did have elections in this period, they were just rigged. So Women's Suffrage makes complete sense for this system. The problem is, Autocracy and Oligarchy can represent formally electoral systems, and they clearly do in game. The distinction with Single-Party State isn't that one has elections and one doesn't: the distinction is that Autocracy and Oligarchy represent personalistic regimes, which may or may not have elections depending on the particular country, but those elections are always secondary to the dictator's power. For this reason, I think you should enable Women's Suffrage as it stands for non-elective regimes - even under absolute monarchies, there might still be elections for local representatives, so it's never a completely inaccurate term.



With all that being said, I am hugely excited for this update. Keep on cooking!
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
After the release of spheres of influence, an error appeared. When playing for Brazil, there is a task aimed at Bolivia. One of the conditions is to join the customs union. But such unions no longer exist. I hope this will be included in the list of fixes
 
with some corresponding changes to civil war and secession mechanics.
Thank you! It's frustrating to have two possible civil wars, one if I do a reform, another if I don't, from entirely different interest groups but that will be exactly the same size in exactly the same places.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
It would be great if companies could use more advanced production methods on the buildings they own in your subjects even if those subjects don't have the tech.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
With the introduction of famines and the discrimination rework, are there plans to separate "grain" into separate substitutable goods? I am not a historian, but from what I understand the severity of the Irish potato famine, for example, was greatly exacerbated by the export of cereal grains from Ireland to Great Britain, leaving primarily potatoes for the Irish masses. That split and discrimination by the UK against the Irish allowing them to say, not eat certain cereals (not technically the case, but an approximation given the market mechanics) when/if the famine rolls along would organically give rise to a particularly severe famine in Ireland (or allow a more benevolent player to try and reform their way out of it before gets that bad).
 
If it is possible I want my entire country only eat meat.;)
Current game version is stable to play for a while, so please take your time for major feature update. Slower update is better than a buggy quick update.
 
For the love of Johan, please why you guys don't use transportation of goods as a market access capacitor? transporting good 1 unit of x from state A to B (adjacent) consumes 1 unit of transportation (or movement of goods), creating a market for the service of transportation and market access??? Is it too much processing demand? That would be a lot more realistic and solve the problem of having excess transportation, it would be more strategic to choose where to build railroads and could also allow the player to build early means transportation such as carts moved by horses and stuff.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Actually. I think sea regions should be able to be targets for harvest events, a harvest event that targets a particular ocean region should give bonuses or penalties for fishing and whaling in bordering states to represent a particularly abundant or lean fish harvest in a given year.
 
Please don't make pop up events for famines I get sad
I just started playing CK2 and was pleasantly surprised to see an audio option for turning off death sounds.

Very much wish Victoria 3 had that. Being hit by the sounds of grown men sobbing is quite unpleasant.
Like my reaction is usually either "you're a jingoist racist agitator, I don't care if jail makes you sad" or it's "I'm trying really hard to fix your horrible living conditions, please don't bum me out when I'm making measurable progress"
 
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
"Exclusive access to Comfy Chairs"

I, for one, didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition!

Ximinez: Confess! Confess! Confess!
Biggles: It doesn't seem to be hurting her, lord.
Ximinez: Have you got all the stuffing up one end?
Biggles: Yes, lord.
Ximinez [angrily hurling away the cushions]: Hm! She is made of harder stuff! Cardinal Fang! Fetch...THE COMFY CHAIR!
 
Ideological Forces (Political Movement Rework)

A frequent complaint about Victoria 3’s political system is the highly random nature of leader and character ideologies. The way in which you build up support for certain laws among your Interest Groups can be frustratingly opaque and reliant on using certain pieces of content (Corn Laws, anyone?) in a way that is neither immersive nor feels particularly rewarding.

In update 1.8, we are taking aim at this problem, alongside a number of other issues with a feature that we have dubbed ‘Ideological Forces’, but which can be more accurately called ‘Political Movement Rework’. The plan is to transform Political Movements from spontaneous and temporary demands for a single legal reform into longer-term ideological movements with a broader political agenda. For example, instead of a movement popping up to abolish slavery, you will have an actual Abolitionist movement with a long-term legal agenda, which will attract supporters from your Pops and influence the politics of the Interest Groups that those Pops are backing. Political Movements will also include religious and cultural minority (and majority!) movements, with some corresponding changes to civil war and secession mechanics.

I think minorities with significance should be accounted for with their own pertinent IG.
In Egypt, for example, there was and there is a significant Orthodox Christian minorities, including Syrian-Lebanese and Coptic in Egypt; and also a significant Jewish population in Ethiopia. They should all get their own Religious IG in Egypt, even if they are marginalized at game start. Migrations and other events can change their clout during the game.

Other example is having Rural folk and Landowners from different cultures. If a large majority of a somewhat marginalized culture becomes a bit too powerful - say conquered Han for Great-Brittain or its allies after conquering some land following Opium wars. These new IG could offer a novel set of ideologies within the range, but add some more tension in politics if empowered. They should extraordinarily offer the possibilities of enacting more multicultural laws, at the expense of enraging the more accepted IG (e.g. the Traditional and original Landowners).

Discrimination Rework
[...]
  • To introduce multiple ‘levels’ to discrimination instead of it just being a binary state
  • To have the level of discrimination faced by a Pop be determined by factors other than just what the law says
  • To turn assimilation into a properly useful feature that isn’t only available to fully accepted pops

If you are still figuring this out, consider my suggestion above for increasing the number o IG to better represent overall Discriminated but voting Pops. I add:
  • Instead of simply trying to secede, there could be political pressures from these IG in these Political Movements.
  • Pops that become allowed to vote can form a new IG or join an existing IG. This should only recalculate before elections to prevent IG spam and allow IGs to colapse into others if too marginalized.
  • Large enough religious minorities should always have an IG to add political tension. There is opportunity for a Mandate of Palestine (DLC/event) for persecuted Jews to migrations, witch happened by the time the endgame is happening.

Food Availability, Famines and Harvest Incidents

[...]
To do this, we are going to introduce the concept of food availability for Pops, which is a factor that is separate from, but intrinsically linked to a Pop’s standard of living. Currently, we’re thinking that food availability for a Pop will be determined by how much of their buy package goes towards feeding themselves, how expensive the food goods they’re purchasing is, and whether there are any shortages among those goods. Low food availability will increase pop mortality and radicalism and may trigger a state-wide famine if it’s widespread enough.

Food production at the time was highly dependent on the weather and climate, and many peasant families were only one or two bad harvests away from the brink of ruin. To simulate this unpredictability, we’re also adding something called ‘Harvest Incidents’, which can increase or decrease agricultural output in different regions over a longer timeframe.

I don't think you're nailing this approach. I don't think this would or should be a priority by now. What you described is basically adding radicalism and mortality after jumping through some hoops.

Climate seed could be simulated for each diplomatic region by Jan 1st. The production for said year would be based on a Sine-graphed (or cosine-graphed for other hemisphere) outputting function calculated with base in the seed with salt added by said "Harvest incidentes" witch I wish are positive sometimes, and are related to increase in industrial activity world-wide.

I think this would not cost so much in terms of calculations and can better represent price variations due to the global climate.

Food consumption, on the other hand, must take in account what is cheap in the Pop's state, otherwise someone could be starving but not buying cheap meat and fruits. MAPI should indirectly account a lot in this decision.

"Honorable Mentions"

  • Companies owning and investing in buildings
  • Bulk Nationalization tool
  • Multi-select and right-click orders for formations
  • Adding wargoals on behalf of subjects

These are all nice.

An interface similar to the army management one should be great for managing multi-owned levels in a building, with a line for each owner and an input for how many are being nationalized.

The youtube video you released (
) talked a little about navies and legitimacy. Are you talking about these soon?
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
This all sounds great! With both food scarcity and political movements being addressed in one update, I hope the Springtime of the People content can be revisited. It almost never seems to fire, and when it does it generally just fizzles out. IMO it should be almost inevitable and have major consequences, especially for the conservative regimes like Austria. Also from a game balance point of view it can help shake up the early game a little and give players something else to worry about than min-maxing industrialization (if you’re playing in Europe).
 
After the release of spheres of influence, an error appeared. When playing for Brazil, there is a task aimed at Bolivia. One of the conditions is to join the customs union. But such unions no longer exist. I hope this will be included in the list of fixes
Customs unions do still exist, just not as a separate diplomatic pact. A customs union now is a trade league bloc or another bloc with market unification 3.