• 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:
On that
Will this stop the "facist/communist country name here" civil war moments when not a single thing about them is fascist/communist
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
 
  • 3Haha
  • 3
  • 2
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?

You can probably still trigger a civil war with landowners by making them upset while they are demanding something.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
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
Yeah, I'm tired or Communist Lubeck causing the world to go into a panic instead of, say, Russia or Germany. Relatedly, it would be cool to see more GPs actually adopting the more extreme ideologies and doing something with it instead of just changing map color/flag.
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
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 once had the Red Scare go off because of Communist Iceland. The subsequent victory of the Paris Commune got no notice from anyone, but Iceland? There's a real crisis!
 
  • 8Haha
Reactions:
A sensible change to civil wars/revolutions.

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.
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?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
 
  • 11
  • 3Like
Reactions:
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.
 
  • 18Like
  • 13
  • 3Love
Reactions:
Maybe it's an idea to make a Secession an outcome of a semi-failed Revolution (as a compromise). Like a Communist Revolution in Britain, but they can't conquer the entire country so they settle on a People's Republic in Wales during the peace talks.
 
  • 8Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Will you make religious revolts rarer, especially in "developed" countries like Europe and the USA? They seem to happen a lot right now, which seems kind of out of place for the time period. AFAIK the last thing that could really be called a "religious revolt" in Europe was sometime in the 1600s.

Maybe restrict it to certain edge cases for these countries (ex. there's a communist revolution and they try to impose State Atheism).
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Well, yes and no, because the "European states with centuries of continuity" tended to be multicultural empires with a lot of boiling nationalism within! On the contrary, new federal countries offered opportunities for new culture groups to feel they have a say in an evolving political context, less stagnated than the European ones.
I think with the discrimination rework in place, this will be modeled in the game as you describe.

Possible Future Changes for PDX to Consider
On the other hand, a young government (arising out of a successful revolution/civil war) might have a penalty to legitimacy or at least a penalty for legitimacy loss from ideological conflicts between parties/IGs in government. Or maybe the result of winning the revolution/civil war is a time-decaying boost to legitimacy.

This would both reward a new government that won its freedom in a revolution but also punish its "newness" and broken revolutionary promises as IGs and Pops sour on the new coalitions that have to rule.

(Edited for clarity)
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Now, after a brief jump to HoI4's Götterdämmerung, I'm free to finally ask the question that I wanted to ask earlier, but ran out of time: How will the new secession system tie in with Risorgimento? I'm asking POV Austria-Hungary mostly, who had clockwork-esque secessions in Venice thanks to that mechanic.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Will you make religious revolts rarer, especially in "developed" countries like Europe and the USA? They seem to happen a lot right now, which seems kind of out of place for the time period. AFAIK the last thing that could really be called a "religious revolt" in Europe was sometime in the 1600s.

Maybe restrict it to certain edge cases for these countries (ex. there's a communist revolution and they try to impose State Atheism).
Hmmmm. One of the reasons the Belgians revolted against the Netherlands was that they were mostly Catholic and they were ruled by a Protestant king (there were also other reasons). This happened right before the game's start. In later decades the relations between Protestants and remaining Dutch Catholics were tense (although it never turned into violence, but theoretically it could have).

Also the conflict between the Irish and the British had a lot (but not only) to do with religion.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
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)
Reading too much into the name and other details: I assume this is already under consideration, but I think there ought to be a check for whether these dynamic secessions could work instead as releasable country secessions. What I'd suggest for a checklist:
  1. Do the main secessionist hotspots conform to a country which is currently unreleased?
  2. Would the bulk of supporting pops be either primary culture, or not significantly less accepted under the same citizenship laws, in that state?
  3. Would the new country have a different recognition status than the current one?
  4. Are the secessionist hotspots in primarily incorporated or unincorporated states?
The latter two would be somewhat less important individually, so that a seceding minority might accept starting with unrecognised status if it meant having a homeland of their own. However, if the secessionists are of accepted cultures, they would be far less willing to take that blow, and might instead try and carve out an unstable new nation for themselves. This would be much more likely if the secessionist hotspots build up in primarily unincorporated states; a secession in the metropole would likely need a more coherent identity to succeed, whereas a colony could break away more easily.

In general I'm glad that you're getting unincorporated states involved, but I do think movements centred around those states should be much more likely to pursue secession over revolution. It feels plausible that you'd see revolutionaries proclaim a Republic of Scotland, or that you'd see a Republic of Kenya led by disenchanted British colonists, but I don't know that a Republic of Northeast England would be quite such an easy sell even disregarding the obvious strategic difficulties. Ideally, I think you'd also see any settler-republics struggling with native representation, perhaps by a JE that starts up if they successfully break away and might lead to new primary cultures.

If so, how would you determine which PB Pops, in which states, are Royalist, and which are Republican?
Also, following on from this question: suppose the Royalists are still present in a few incorporated states but, because they have a much harder time than their compatriots in unincorporated states, they don't manage to join a successful new secessionist movement. What becomes of those Pops? Do they still cling to their movement in the metropole? Or do they migrate to the new nation? Would we see a similar population transfer of loyalists out of the secessionist territories? Now that secessions can be ideological, it only makes sense that such a movement's victory would result in mass migrations.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
Ooooh does this means we could have theorical cases where several movements team up to create a major revolution, made both of political and cultural movements, thus end in a greater collapse of the empire (China style) in the aftermath ?

Maybe a special journal entry about collapse could be interesting if conditions are met for anyone.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I Really love the new mechanics.

Question.

Will you be able to restore a previously deposed King to the throne?

It will be great than in a Monarchy revolution you can restore the deposed monarch and not just a random new king.
 
  • 8Like
  • 1
Reactions: