• 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 #129 - Discrimination Rework

16_9.png

Happy Thursday Victorians!
It’s me, Lino and in today’s Dev Diary I’m going to walk you through the upcoming changes to one of the game’s central society features, namely the discrimination system.

Until now, discrimination was always binary in Victoria 3. A Pop either was discriminated against or they were not. This has led to a fairly one-dimensional feature where there’s not a lot of variety in what Pops can be experiencing. It also has made it hard for us to add harsh consequences to discriminated against Pops since it would have affected so many Pops around the world.

So we are taking some steps to make that more interesting. First of all, we’re saying goodbye to talking about discrimination. Instead, we are introducing the opposite, Acceptance.
Each Pop will have an Acceptance value between 0 and 100. This value is determined by the Pop’s country’s laws, in particular the Citizenship and Church & State groups which play the biggest role here. There are other laws that will have an impact, but we are going to talk about those in a later Dev Diary.

Primary cultures are clearly the points of authority when it comes to Acceptance values
DD129_01.png

As you can see, the old rules of cultural similarity still apply in the new system. Now though, instead of being immediately accepted if the culture shares a heritage trait, they will gain a high acceptance value bonus for example. This allows a broader range of acceptance, from the cultures that are facing violent hostility to the primary cultures who will always have the highest acceptance value.
The religious impact is changed to provide a bonus if a religion shares a trait with the state religion.

This brings us one step closer to the full picture, but we’re not quite there yet. The Acceptance value actually determines which Acceptance Status a Pop has. There are five possible Statuses, ranging from Full Acceptance to Violent Hostility, which will be used in order to apply consequences to the Pops in question.

Figure.09: WIP list of effects. This is definitely going to change - we’re looking at solutions to make it more readable for release.
DD129_02.png

You can see that we are not only reworking the system to fit the new vision, but are also expanding on it with new effects, besides the Acceptance value itself. From simple statistical changes like the tax burden per acceptance status to rules for who can work in government buildings or serve in your military, we have added a decent amount of new things to the laws.
Another factor that determines a Pop’s Acceptance value is the age of the Pop’s cultural community in their state. An immigrant Pop that is "fresh off the boat" will not be as accepted as that of another culture which has been there for 30 years already. No matter what your laws say, your Pops will need some time to get used to the new faces in their neighborhood–but, eventually, the new arrivals will reach the Acceptance value which the laws have determined for them.

“Have you seen the looks they gave us? By myself, I couldn’t stay here, but with you by my side I know I will make it.”
DD129_03.png

Of course you can still improve your Pops’ situation by enacting more progressive laws. These provide higher acceptance bonuses to cultures. For example Ethnostate doesn’t grant any bonus to cultures that share a non-heritage cultural trait with your primary culture, but National Supremacy grants +25 acceptance if they do.

Alright, so you passed Multiculturalism, but you didn’t think your Pops would immediately hug and welcome the people they were despising yesterday, did you?
Law enactments that increase a Pop’s Acceptance value will suffer from a penalty much the same as the newly established cultural communities, which will decay over time. This shows the establishment of these new laws quite well and delays the full effectiveness of the more progressive laws.

Another thing we are changing is conversion and assimilation (so that your Pops can escape from the undesirable lower statuses of Acceptance).
When 1.8 comes out later this year, Pops will be able to assimilate and convert to any culture or religion that would provide them with a higher acceptance value, even if it is not the primary culture or state religion. There is a minimum assimilation value difference that needs to be crossed in order for them to be eligible. For example if their current Acceptance is at 25 and the minimum assimilation value difference from the Citizenship law is defined at 50, their target’s culture Acceptance would need to be 75 or higher in order for them to assimilate.
This still looks at cultures that are present in the same state, so if none of them have a value of 75 or higher, the assimilation could not happen. The assimilation process may also still be forbidden by laws, e.g. under all laws it is currently not allowed for members of the lowest status to assimilate at all. Similarly, Pops of the highest status also do not assimilate in the current setup, as they already possess enough rights and privileges to enjoy a good life.

All of these changes require a fairly substantial rework of our interface. A lot is currently still in development and is coming in pieces, so you will have to discover it on your own, but I still wanted to provide you with a faint idea of what’s coming.
The Cultures panel has been renamed to Society, which fits better since it also includes Statuses and Religion. The acceptance statuses are listed in a new tab, providing an overview of what percentage of Pops falls under which status and who exactly that is.

WIP interface showing the breakdown of acceptance statuses in your country
DD129_04.png

In the end, we hope this feature rework will enhance your experience with regards to managing your Pops and that it will show much more variety in the Pops’ lives. Especially on the lower end of the spectrum, you should see a lot more consequences, as sad as that is.
This rework is an important step for us, since we can make better use of this system in future narrative content too, and we also have some ideas for future mechanical changes that require this rework as a foundation.

That’s all for today. Next week, on October 3, I’m handing it back to Martin again, who will provide some more information on what we’re doing with civil wars. That should be an interesting one, be sure to check it out!
 
  • 116Like
  • 97Love
  • 5
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Amazing DD congratulations! Love it

Is there a way to add acceptance variance due to wealth?

Poor POPs will not be as acceptable as wealthy ones. No matter laws, culture, religion or whatever.

 
Last edited:
  • 7Like
  • 5
Reactions:
For now: Yes, that can happen.
But we're looking at potentially adding restrictions like heritage. That's gonna upset the balance in major fashion though, so we'll have to investigate in a bit more detail first before making a call.
What seems like a decent compromise to us is that we make Pops highly prefer assimilation to cultures of same heritage, so that it'd happen less often. We'll have to see how much more we can get done on that front.
While that works great for most circumstances, I imagine it could lead to some weird situations with cultures like Ashkenazi or Yankee. Is there any plan to give certain cultures "modifiers" to their assimilation status/priority, such as Ashkenazi being tied in some way to religion or Yankee being a preferred target in their homelands? Or would that be considered too "railroaded" for what you have planned?

EDIT: Or some specific "this culture cannot assimilate to X" or "this culture has higher discrimination in Y homelands" modifiers. I'm specifically thinking of the US and Austria. It wouldn't make sense for the US to pass Cultural Exclusion and in 20 years the racial tensions in the South are gone, or for the various cultures in Austria to give up their dreams of self-determination because the Emperor says we're all European and should get along.

Unless of course you plan on introducing a sense of "nationalism/cultural pride" in an upcoming patch and this is just a stopgap until more.

Either way, I do love what I see. Keep up the great work y'all
 
Last edited:
  • 7
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Some of the demands from cultural minorities and nationalists during this time period revolved around decentralisation of the state- demands for federalism and devolution, differentiated legal and political decentralisation, authority over regional education, etc. Many separatist movement at this time originally began as movements for decentralisation which radicalised when their demands and wants were never met. Have you considered introducing a system relating to political centralisation or laws relating to it, and adding a relationship between that and minority acceptance/satisfaction of cultural minorities?
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Do discriminated pops receive any modifiers to military performance?
Like it would probably make sense that discriminated pops who can work in the military see a negative in morale gain and organization gain. That would help reflect Austria's military challenges, but I don't see it in the list of multipliers.
 
  • 10Like
  • 1
Reactions:
The different levels are nice, but everybody was expecting societal discrimination the state just can't do anything about.

This system is still 100% driven by laws, with just a timed decay modifier slapped on top.

Will any other temporary factors influence acceptance? I’m especially thinking of lobbies - surely the French living in my country would be negatively affected by a loud and influential Anti-French League.

Lobbies and add a "racism" value to the IGs, and their clout to weight it, then add that to the acceptance value.
Landowners and PB are strong ? Discrimination increase. Intelligentsia is in fashion ? Discrimination decreases. That won't be perfect but that would bring variation.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Will the level of acceptance be global or based on pops? I'm thinking of the US here, the level of acceptance of African-American pops should vary by pops, with Dixie having the least acceptance that frankly shouldn't really change at all in the game's timeframe. And recent immigrant communities, in addition to facing low acceptance from established pops also frequently had low acceptance of pops considered "beneath them", like the Irish with African-Americans.

If pops also would then want to migrate from areas where they face lower levels of acceptance this would also simulate the great migration north of African-American pops, who would then lower the acceptance level of Yankee pops after they arrive, being newcomers, but not as much as the Dixie pops, so you wouldn't get ping-ponging.

That may all be too complicated and too much of a CPU eater of course.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
These changes are generally good and much-needed. However, pops shouldn't convert religion on their own just because they want to be accepted. Historically, religious discrimination absent government coercion actually causes people to dig in on their religious beliefs. Pops should only convert if there's some government policy (like Religious Schools, State Atheism, or a conversion decree) which is heavily pressuring them to do so.
 
  • 6Like
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
I know this is a touchy subject, and I understand that the developers may not want to touch it. However, "visible" minorities had/still have a much harder time assimilating. Not allowing assimilation to a different heritage group would capture this. Apology if this already in place and I missed it.
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I am divided on this change. You seem to have mostly taken the feedback to heart that discrimination/acceptance is currently too binary - and from that perspective the rework addresses the issues that people had quite well. However, there are other problems with the system that are also frequently discussed that remain unaddressed. So while I am happy with every change mentioned here, I am also concerned that you now consider discrimination "fixed" and that the chances of seeing them addressed are lower than before.


My main issue is the question of why would I be interested in interacting with this system. The old system was simplistic and not very interesting. But the reason it was not interesting isn't just that it was simplistic, it was also that there was not much to think about. Acceptance is good and discrimination is bad, so your goal is to accept as many pops as possible by passing progressive citizenship laws. Restrictive citizenship isn't really an option unless you are roleplaying, because the other bonuses they provide are not really worth considering. More importantly, they do not capture why many nations stuck with restrictive citizenship laws.

The problem is that none of that basic formula has really changed. Now acceptance is more gradual but it is still not very interesting because I still want there to be as much acceptance as possible. Taking the most negative perspective, you could even argue that a complex ignorable system is worse than a simple ignorable system. I think the game is still missing an answer to what the benefits of a more exclusionary society are beyond nice to haves like "more authority".


Secondly, I feel like there are a few missed opportunities. I am thinking particularly about non-incorporated states and institution access. It seems that being a non-incorporated pop is a sixth status you can have that is independent of your acceptance status and affects a bunch of other things such as the mentioned institution access. I would much prefer if instead these were folded into the system described in the DD. Obviously, pops in non-incorporated states would have a much harder time gaining more acceptance (i.e. a cap or strong negative modifier) but it would help making the system more streamlined and also let acceptance modify things currently dictated by incorporation. For example, depending on the laws, second class citizens would get a lowered benefit from institutions.

Likewise, it's a little disappointing that the game still only considers discrimination as a source of radicalism for the discriminated pops. It makes sense that being institutionally discriminated radicalizes pops. But history bears out that the presence of discriminated pops can also radicalize accepted pops, i.e. racism. That should be especially true in tough economic conditions (job competition) or when pops that long time accepted pops think should be discriminated suddenly are being accepted. Even with the change to make it take some time before the benefits of being accepted kick in, the game still fundamentally takes the stance that once the state decides that a certain pop is accepted, everyone who has been accepted before suddenly agrees. That's a huge oversight considering how (even successful) expansions of civil rights actually played out.


Regarding the complicated UI, I am wondering if the decision to make things granular has gone a bit too far. I think it's wrong to see this as just a UI challenge but would instead question if the thing the UI is trying to represent is too complicated in itself.

For example, does a law need to define from scratch what each acceptance level does? I think it would be much simpler to understand if there was a base effect for each level, and to give a law only modifiers for these effects. For example, let's say we have a -10%/-20%/-30% base wage modifier for Cultural Erasure/Open Hostility/Violent Erasure. Then it should be sufficient to give a more discriminatory law a +50% wage modifier based on discrimination modifier and the values would change to -15%/-30%/-45%.

(A good example of this problem are how the voting system currently works. I don't think any player is aware of what all the +x power from votes +y power from wealth modifiers actually mean in practice. Fixing that is a different discussion but let's not introduce another system that is complicated to the point of nobody being able to gauge the effects anymore.)

I would also question if the numerical values i.e. 0-100 acceptance are really needed anymore. Wouldn't a +1 level of acceptance be good enough? Right now the system is: acceptance value determines acceptance level determines modifiers that are also modified by law. I think it would be preferable to cut out one level of indirection. You could still keep the gradual timer that a pop needs to upgrade from one level to the other, once it qualifies.
 
Last edited:
  • 10
  • 5
  • 3Like
  • 3
Reactions:
I think assimilation to a difference heritage should only happen with certain laws. For example, in a Brazil with Racial Segregation Fulbe pops (or any other African Heritage pops) that have gotten out of Violent Hostility should be able to assimilate to Afro-Brazilian, but Afro-Brazilian pops should be unable to assimilate to Brazilian. If Brazil instead has Multiculturalism it should be possible for Afro-Brazilian to assimilate to Brazilian.
 
  • 6Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
What about migration? Will this now be largely SOL driven (so we could get for instance Han/Japanese in the Americas), or will this be based on some minimal acceptance category?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I assume all law effects per status and the actual statuses themselves are entirely scriptside?
You'll be able to move the newly added effects around, change their values etc.
Since the new effects all have their own modifier, for example country_allow_voting_violent_hostility_bool (violent hostility is the lowest acceptance bracket), you will not be able to throw everything onto the statuses, e.g. you can't add country_bureaucrats_pol_str_mult to a particular acceptance status since that would require a new acceptance-status-specific modifier type. The reason for this restriction is that performance would have taken a significant hit if we had made it more free form.
You will also be able to add new brackets or remove them and change their thresholds as you see fit though.
 
  • 11
  • 6Like
  • 1
Reactions:
> The assimilation process may also still be forbidden by laws, e.g. under all laws it is currently not allowed for members of the lowest status to assimilate at all.​
Will there also be laws similar to this for conversion? considering the game runs until 1936 it would be interesting to see the profound hunt of discriminated religions being respresented accordingly (e.g. n*zi-germany not caring if someone is christian now when it comes to jewish but only caring about if people decend from jews, essentially forbidding them from converting).

also as I read it right now even the most extreme types of legislative discrimination still gives discriminated groups at least some kind of rights, will there also be laws that strip them completely from any rights regardless of the remaining circumstances? (with same example again as above)

(writing all this makes me feel really sus btw, I hope it's clear I am just curious of how accurate/close to history you guys wanna stick, I do not approve any discrimination irl o.o )
 
  • 2
Reactions:
For now: Yes, that can happen.
But we're looking at potentially adding restrictions like heritage. That's gonna upset the balance in major fashion though, so we'll have to investigate in a bit more detail first before making a call.
What seems like a decent compromise to us is that we make Pops highly prefer assimilation to cultures of same heritage, so that it'd happen less often. We'll have to see how much more we can get done on that front.
Couldn't you gate non-heritage assimilation behind going from Racial Segregation to Cultural Exclusion?
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Hello looks really good!
I would like a clarifications about the system and how dhimmi in islamic society will work? Are we able to simulate something similar to this or will we still need to use a modifier like it's the case for the ottoman currently?
You'll probably still require a custom solution for this. But it depends a lot on what you'd expect from the system of course.
 
  • 7
  • 4Like
Reactions:
What determines which culture a tag assimilates into? Is it completely random?
The main question is: Can modders have some control over which cultures are preferred for assimilation? So I can have my anbennar elves assimilate to another elven culture rather than becoming a halfling
There's only a few things in the algorithm in code that determines who they assimilate into:
If a primary culture is present in the pop's state which qualifies as target, they prefer that. If not, the one with the highest acceptance value. For ties there should be additional considerations for size of the population.
We're investigating the option of adding a heritage check, but can't make any guarantees for it at this point.
 
  • 14
  • 6Like
Reactions:
How would this work for a place such as Puerto Rico in game whose population saw two different citizenship and 2 different sovereigns in the span of the game but the culture didn't change that much in the timespan?
 
  • 1
Reactions: