• 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 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?
 
  • 8Like
  • 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.
It would be nice if number of revolutionaries/loyalists gave you bonus, temporary troops in civil wars, or something like that. E.g., you can simulate 1890s/00s Philippines as a long, slow secession "war" against the US. However, it wasn't led by many state-sanctioned leaders, but rather by guerrillas.

I'd love something like, for every x,000 relevant radicals/loyalists in a seceding state, you get one battalion of upgradeable irregular troops when the war kicks off that are automatically destroyed afterwards. ~10% of the US population fought in the civil war and ~2% died in it. I think this would also help the 0 vs. 0 batallion civil wars in one-state countries.
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
What are all flavor names for support level?
And for radicalism level in those political movements?

What are all those new SoL icons?
1727965519950.png
 
  • 3Haha
Reactions:
This looks excellent, will more than one succession movement be able to fire at once? And if multiple succession movements exist can they revolt to form multiple states?
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Overall very happy with this rework, but I’d be a bit concerned about the screenshot of British monarchists seceding - if they take the territory of Scotland, the resulting state should be the kingdom of Scotland, not the kingdom of Britain or anything like that. Ideological secessions should always have logical names corresponding to their geography, so for example if republicans secede from Austria Hungary in the Pannonia plain, the resulting state should be the republic of Hungary, not the republic of Austria Hungary
 
  • 5Like
  • 2
Reactions:
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.
I missed this when I was reading through – this is a spectacular detail to include. I was wondering how you avoid gaming things where you avoid the US Civil War by deleting barracks in the South, but this seems to fix that, and I love the idea that people get upset if their state is being neglected by government investment.

I'm a little worried that the AI might struggle with that, though – is the AI getting new code to encourage them to build equally? (Or even: does a landowner president in the US become more likely to invest in government buildings for their states?)
 
  • 11Like
  • 1
  • 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?
By actually playing the game oh no

Industrialize, work on your luck, pay attention to agitators, and make lateral moves instead of resolving the core challenge of being a backward state through a single event
 
  • 11Haha
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
This seems.... good. It will depend entirely on balance, I think. The lack of capitol immunity is a huge game-changer that could make things much better or much worse. I think the civil war difficulty target should be about halfway between the excessive ease that happens when you put all your army in the capitol and the absurdity of when you don't know to do that and the entire country rises up over nothing with most of your military. The game has always needed a realistic distinction between what laws an IG member would be willing to die to stop and which they'd simply be irritated or angered by. A pattern of personalist and non-responsive government should matter, but it shouldn't be the only thing that matters.

The changes to secession sound good too, but if making them a kind of political movement doesn't make them more dynamic, with options for appeasement or deliberate aggravation, it isn't likely to help that much. I reiterate what I said in the last dev diary, we NEED greater granularity in discrimination than what was described. The discrimination rework described in the last diary was little more than the current system with a timer added to ensure that discrimination changes are not immediate. That doesn't really help at all, and with the changes from this diary, it won't make secessions any more interesting, just a little less common and more significant.

If I conquer Indonesia as Peru-Bolivia (or whomever, really), and end up with some Indonesian race making up 20-30% my country (a major minority, basically), I should have some path to eventually making them a primary culture. Not just accepted, a primary culture. Acceptance doesn't meaningfully change the visual character of your nation, after all, as admirals, generals, and political leaders are only chosen from primaries. It shouldn't be easy, and it shouldn't be quick, but it should be possible.

Regressive laws should be stopping block preventing this from happening, not the thing that causes it to start in the first place. We also need more laws, and/or more granularity in specifically what each law accepts or rejects. If I were to build a ton of Universities and factories in the cultural homelands of my hypothetical Indonesians, not only making individuals, but the culture as a whole richer and more learned, this should be the primary motivator of increasing cultural acceptance. They should be able to start movements asking for greater individual political enfranchisement (for their culture alone, not every other one covered by the current laws) as well as trying to secede, and the secessions should be stronger and more militarized if it's done by a culture with greater wealth or more significant repression.

It would also nice if there were options for culture-specific voting or investment rights, but most important is culture-specific paths to full citizenship. As it stands, the difference between Cultural Exclusion and Multiculturalism is cavernous, and not only does Multiculturalism do nothing to let you get leaders of different races, but it's also unrealistic, as I don't think there's ever been a country in history that fully accepts literally everyone. I personally think it's a lot more realistic to fully add a single culture to the character of your nation than it is to accept literally everyone, but still exclude them from leadership. I've always hated how few ways there are to add primary cultures in Victoria 3, as well as how easy it is to get the ones that do exist. It would make the alt-history possibilities of the game much more interesting and dynamic if you could take over Africa as democratic China and eventually make your most populous group of Africans a primary culture, or to make Afro-American a primary of the USA by making them wealthy and literate, rather than just passing cultural exclusion. It should take many decades, a lot of money, and a lot of intermingling to convince your people this is a good idea, but it should be possible, and I don't see much reason to do the discrimination rework without at least making something besides laws (many somethings) affect who and how long it takes to accept a culture.
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I just want to say I love Law-based seccession! I'm making a flavor mod for Japan, and this would accurately reflect movements like the Ezo Republic and the Satsuma Rebellion, where states broke away in protest of the Meiji Restoration rather than attempted to reverse it.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm really intrigued to see how this turns out, especially in terms of variation and dynamics. Really hoping I'll get to see unscripted monarchist secessions and minority revolutions, but if it turns out to be more historically railroaded I'll trust that was for the better.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
How likely is it for pops to fight against their own desires even when radicalized? It was always rather silly in previous versions to see radical devout or landholders in the Ottoman Empire have their entire powerbase be in Christian lands that disliked them. Maybe barracks and pops could be temporarily moved in some manner?
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
It’s honestly fascinating that we can now have ideological secessions and not just cultural ones. But I’m wondering that if such a secession were to win the war would the parent country end up with claims on their lost states so they can attempt to retake them in the future? So if that royalist secession in Scotland from the example screenshot were to succeed then would Britain end up with a claim on Scotland? Or would it have to eat up extra infamy in order to retake its former territory?

I’m also a bit concerned with that screenshot of the US Civil War showing all of the slave states ready to secede since this is obviously not what happened historically. Obviously how many states secede should be driven by a variety of factors but in a situation like that with a pro-slavery secession is there a way to avoid all slave states from seceding? Can we avoid that from happening by trying to industrialize some of them to reduce economic reliance on slaves? Or is it just that all slaves states are coded to join a pro-slavery secession?
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Nice work.
And I think the movement of preserve monarchy should be tweaked so that when the civil war begins, the original monarch moves to the rebels as leader, and the player immediately passes the government reform, similar to the German Civil War in HOI4. The current version seems strange in that even if the royalists win the civil war, the monarch they are trying to defend will disappear.
 
  • 4
Reactions: