• 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 #130 - Political Movement Radicalism and Civil Wars

16_9.png

Happy Thursday and welcome back to yet another Victoria 3 development diary. A few weeks ago I went over the changes we’re making to Political Movements in update 1.8, and promised a followup going more into how this impacts Civil Wars and particularly Secessions. As you might have guessed by the title, this is precisely what we’ll be discussing today, along with a bit more detail on Political Movement Radicalism, where it comes from, and how it ties into Civil Wars.

As I went over in the aforementioned Dev Diary, Political Movements have a Radicalism value going from 0-100%. More specifically, this is two values: The current value and the target value, with the current value drifting towards the target value over time. The target value is calculated from a number of factors, including:
  • Which laws you have enacted or are in the process of enacting (if the movement’s core ideology has a stance on them)
  • How many radicals and loyalists are members of the movement
  • Other factors specific to a particular movement type. For example, a Cultural Majority movement might be upset if the ruler of the country isn’t of one of your primary cultures, or a Pro-Slavery movement might be upset if they perceive that Slave States are not receiving their fair share of government building construction, particularly for the army.

A side note is that we’re currently thinking of renaming ‘Political Movement Radicalism’ to ‘Political Movement Activism’ as we feel this better describes how the system works now, but this isn’t done yet so I will continue to refer to it as Radicalism for the moment.

The Abolitionist Movement in the USA is currently ‘Passive’, but drifting towards ‘Agitating’ due to the Legacy Slavery law, the fraction of Slave States versus Free States in the country, and a smattering of Radicals among the movement supporters
DD130_01.png

DD130_02.png

I already went over the different Radicalism thresholds and their effects, so I won’t repeat myself there, but instead focus on the highest radicalism threshold (currently called ‘Rioting’, but we’re probably going to rename it) where Civil Wars become possible. While this isn’t technically all that different from before, what is different is that all civil wars are now started by Radical movements, including Secessions.

What this means is that the previous system we had for Secessions, where they just randomly start when a culture has high turmoil, is completely and utterly gone from the game. Instead, Movements can ignite a Civil War that is either a Revolution or a Secession. Whether a radical movement starts a Revolution or a Secession depends on the Movement Type and the specific circumstances in your country, so I’ll list a few examples of how we currently envision this to work (the exact details may change before release though):
  • Cultural Minority movements will generally always try to Secede if they can
  • Royalist Movements will generally always launch a Revolution if they can, but might Secede under very specific circumstances (see below)
  • Pro-Slavery/Anti-Slavery Movements will usually launch Revolutions, but under Legacy Slavery (ie the American Civil War situation) will tend to secede instead
  • Religious Minority movement might launch a Revolution to change the State Religion if they have broad enough support, but otherwise would Secede

Whether a Movement is able to start a Civil War doesn’t solely depend on their level of Radicalism. For one, in order for a Revolution to start, there must be at least one Interest Group willing to side with the Political Movement. The precise conditions for when an Interest Group sides with a Revolution are still being tweaked, but right now we’re thinking along these lines:
  • The Interest Group must be influenced by the Movement (ie be able to get character ideologies from it)
  • The Interest Group must be Angry
  • The Interest Group must be at least somewhat ideologically aligned with the Movement (ie, Landowners led by a Slaver wouldn’t join an Abolitionist uprising)

Secessions, on the other hand, never pull in Interest Groups directly, and so one of the conditions under which a Secession could happen is when a Movement is extremely radical but unable to garner any Interest Group support and decide to instead break off and make their own country with their own Interest Groups. As an example, the Royalist movement in a Republic flight find the overall support for restoring the monarchy is so weak that they try to create a breakaway Kingdom in whatever region they are still able to garner support in. This may of course not make sense for all movement types, so we’ll have to decide on a case by case basis for each.

The American Pro-Slavery Movement is rising up, taking the Slave States with them in their attempt to secede from the union. Note that the tooltip/UI here is very WIP!
DD130_03.png

Another part of Civil Wars that has changed considerably is state assignment, ie which precise states rise up against you. Previously, state assignment worked according to a few basic rules:
  • For Revolutions, a fraction of states would rise up based on Movement Support (frequently this would be ‘everything but the capital’ if the movement was strong enough)
  • For Secessions, a fraction of cultural homelands would rise up based on level of turmoil (usually, all of them)
  • For Revolutions, only Incorporated states could rise up
  • The Capital could never rise up

All of these rules, including capital immunity, have been tossed out the window. Instead, the precise configuration of states depends heavily on the type and support of the movement, and where its support comes from. For example, a movement with high Military Support will tend to get more of the states with Barracks/Naval Bases, while a movement backed by a large portion of the population would gain a greater share of states overall. In other words, if you stack all the barracks in your capital, and then proceed to anger the military, then well… that capital is likely going to be on the other side of the war in the coming scuffle. Unincorporated States are now also able to take sides, so that Revolutions aren’t just a concern in the metropol anymore.

Overall, just like the Political Movement Rework overall, the new system relies a whole lot less on blunt same-for-everyone rules and much more on precise scripting and rule-setting (all of which is of course fully moddable) for the different movement types, allowing us to create much more interesting and immersive mechanics for the different movements, what they want to achieve, and what they are willing to pick up a rifle to fight for. We are also aiming, overall, to have less inconsequential civil wars going on, but to try and increase the danger and unpredictability for even large countries when they do happen.

The Royalist Movement, giving up on Britain as a whole, are instead trying to create a breakaway monarchy in the north (note that dynamic secessions are also still WIP, so don’t read too much into the name and other details here)
DD130_04.png

Alright then, that’s all for today, but do join us again next week, when Alex will tell you all about Famines and Harvest Conditions. See you then!
 
  • 113Like
  • 88Love
  • 5
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
This comment has been reserved for developer responses!

Will this also change the annoying situation that could happen where a large portion of states would start a revolution to change Law A, you'd start passing it, and the exact same states would immediately start a revolution to preserve Law A, trapping you in a no win situation?
This should at least be more unlikely to happen with individuals only being able to support one movement and movements having more dynamic calculations for which states back them - I can't promise that it will never happen though.

Is there any factor which makes political secessions more likely in the young, federal and multicultural American colonies when compared to European states with centuries of continuity?
Not yet but that's a good idea, I'll note it down for the balancing pass on the feature!

This sounds like a great rework, however about the cultural minorities will always Secede when possible, does this entail that every cultural minority will always have an independence movement? How will this be balanced so that it does happen, but not that brutal so you can still play multiethnic nations?
They may have a movement to promote their rights but that doesn't mean the movement is trying to launch an independence war - it depends on their level of Radicalism (see political movement rework dev diary).

If Secessions no longer pull in interest groups does this mean the American Civil War is no longer impacted by angry Southern Planters and/or Slavers/Jacksonian Democrats?
It'll be a factor, but the ACW (as in a secession around slavery) isn't going to happen just because the Southern Planters are angry about something else - it actually needs to be about slavery for there to be a confederate secession under the new system.

Well, yes and no, because the "European states with centuries of continuity" tended to be multicultural empires with a lot of boiling nationalism within!
Yes, I wasn't thinking of this in context of cultural/religious secessions.

This all looks very interesting. However, I have a kind of minor question.

As civil wars are currently implemented, AI countries that lose a civil war to an uprising often end up being stuck with the wrong capital, and have a bad habit of losing any unique IG ideologies they may have had. Is there anything planned to fix these issues?
I'm planning to change it so that whichever side in a revolution wins automatically moves back to the old capital. The IG ideologies issue I'll have to look into.

Why aren't the southern planter IG supporting the secession of the pro-slavery secession?
This is one of those cases where it would make sense for an IG to secede but frankly we just don't have any mechanics for it. We might end up doing something bespoke here for specifically the ACW.

Will this stop the "facist/communist country name here" civil war moments when not a single thing about them is fascist/communist
It should, yes.

Can multiple Political Movements team up in one Civil War?
At the moment the answer is yes but only in very specific context of movements in different countries rising up together - ie the Polish cultural minority movements in Russia and Prussia seceding simultaneously. Having civil wars be more a distinct gameplay object where movements can 'take sides' would be a great improvement for sometime in the future but is outside the scope of 1.8.

A sensible change to civil wars/revolutions.


What exactly does this mean? Are you aiming for a set of scripting and balancing that achieves this? Is there some other mechanic that aims to achieve this? Or is this the intent behind the changes described in this dev diary?
The intention is to tune the balance for when movements become radical and launch civil wars to achieve this effect.

On that

On this can we also please get the Red Scare event to only trigger on Major Powers or Great Powers? Portugal kicking off the Red Scare always feels wrong
I checked and it's supposed to work like this already so we'll see what's bugged and fix it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 9Like
  • 3
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Hello, happy German Unity Day!

Can we now dynamically assign/unassign slave states since the USA secession element was generified into the legacy slavery law?Also, why is Texas there in that weird colour? Is the USA ACW content seeing a rework also or am I grasping at straws?
 
  • 11
  • 8Like
  • 2Love
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Will this also change the annoying situation that could happen where a large portion of states would start a revolution to change Law A, you'd start passing it, and the exact same states would immediately start a revolution to preserve Law A, trapping you in a no win situation?
 
  • 25
  • 10Like
  • 3
Reactions:
Those changes sound absolutely fantastic! This is definitely going into the right direction!

I think this will make revolutions and secessions way more interesting and realistic.

Hypothetical question: If I start building a lot of industry in the South of the US would that possibly lead to less states joining the Confederate states?
 
  • 6
  • 4Like
Reactions:
Is there any factor which makes political secessions more likely in the young, federal and multicultural American colonies when compared to European states with centuries of continuity?
 
  • 6Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
This sounds like a great rework, however about the cultural minorities will always Secede when possible, does this entail that every cultural minority will always have an independence movement? How will this be balanced so that it does happen, but not that brutal so you can still play multiethnic nations?
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
Can Royalist movements now support specific dynasties, instead of just selecting their leaders as the new founders of the royal house?

I had an odd game where the Brazilian First Republic was unexpectedly overthrown by the Orléanists, and even less expectedly, where the Orléanists invited a random South German exile to rule Brazil.

It would be nice if Royalist movements were a little more selective, or maybe had candidates generated from the correct dynasties.
 
  • 14Like
  • 10
  • 4
Reactions:
Is it possible to give in during the rioting phase? That way we could represent the 1830 / 1848 French revolutions where the Monarch gave in and gave up.
 
  • 14
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Good afternoon,a great dd and can't wait to try all of this at release.Also glad for the fix for the 'capital will never revolt' exploit.It was so unfun and exploitable that i'm glad you have rebalanced it.However,i have a few questions:
1)Since it's not mentioned in the dd,i guess the consequences for losing a revolution remain the same as before,aka Game over/fully annexed,or it hasn't been determined yet and can still change before 1.8 release?
2)Will the way the movement progress for civil war/secessions will remain the same as before?I am asking this because in one of the dd screenshots,we still see the old system with checkpoints progressions but i wonder if there is some changes in that regard as well?
Thanks for any replies about this.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
If Secessions no longer pull in interest groups does this mean the American Civil War is no longer impacted by angry Southern Planters and/or Slavers/Jacksonian Democrats?
 
  • 9
  • 1
Reactions:
Will there be special rules for communist and fascist revolutions? One of the things that made Victoria II's late game interesting was that those were usually REALLY nasty when they started popping up.
 
  • 11
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Good dev diary and great changes overall! You mentioned the “proportion of slave/free-states”, though, which got me wondering: is there or will there be a way to choose which is which? As far as I know, the only country with both is the US, and I am not aware of any non-event way of impacting this as a player…
 
  • 9
  • 1
Reactions:
Is it possible to have multiple secessions concurrently? Similar to how subject will declare independence together.
E.g., as Austria, maybe Venetia and Hungary both want to secede; are they allowed to launch two simultaneous secessions?

If your capital joins the revolution, then does the game just automatically reassign the capital somewhere new? And does that affect war score?

With a secession, can we ask for secondary war goals? E.g., if I'm fighting the Confederates and I can't re-annex them, can I at least ask them to ban slavery or to give back certain states? Maybe it can be something where you automatically get the war goal "return state" with no infamy for all the states that secede, so you can at least take back some states, and the seceding force is asking to revoke claims? That way you can have a world where the Confederates win, but maybe the Union retakes Texas. And because the Union still has a claim on the rest of the Confederacy, the AI will continue fighting to retake it in the future.
 
Last edited:
  • 9
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
My go to way to remove power from landowners in order to remove traditionalism and serfdom was either corn law abuse or purposefully triggering civil war while making sure majority of my barracks is in the capital and crushing the landowners, without those two now, how am I supposed to remove landowners without taking decades fishing for good leader/agitator and law advancement RNG?
 
  • 3Haha
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
Great DD !

Some questions that are still unanswered for me are still about the IGs :

Previously angering the IGs meant that they could virtually make a civil war out of every movement they could back. This did prevent us from - let's say - revoke monarchy in Russia day 1. IGs creating or bolstering a movement also meant more radicals each week, thus pleasing the IG is actually a very important way to keep the radicals down.

Now that movements are instead influencing IGs, what are the means for IG to have a big effect ? Let's say that I make an egyptian governement without landowners in early (thanks to the king being armed forces), and decide to revoke serfdom.
Such change previously send them to the -20 approval, create then a "keep serfdom" movement they bolstered, then civil war.
Now if i understand, as no movement have been create about serfdom or agricultural laws, nothing will happen ?

Are we now assured that the game still have a "reaction capacity" to keep us from using those little breachs where no movements have a stance on - but the very powerful IGs have a very strong stance on.

What are the damages a very angry 25% clout landowners can do ?
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
My go to way to remove power from landowners in order to remove traditionalism and serfdom was either corn law abuse or purposefully triggering civil war while making sure majority of my barracks is in the capital and crushing the landowners, without those two now, how am I supposed to remove landowners without taking decades fishing for good leader/agitator and law advancement RNG?
Import agriculture goods and export industrial goods to bias your economy to industry.
Use foreign investments to build industries everywhere.
Nationalize all farms.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions: