• 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 #134 - How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Map

16_9.png
Happy Friday, and welcome to our third and final Dev Diary for the Anniversary week! Before we get into the meat of the diary, we have an infographic showing the progress of free updates since release, visually shown in the look back at free updates video at the start of this week:

DD134_01.jpg

That entre is followed up with a delightful smattering of statistics from the game, can you see the difference in how many yellow Prussia’s there have been since last time?

DD134_02.jpg

That is all from me, Community Manager Pelly, I hope you enjoy the Dev Diary proper from Hansi and Victoria!



India Map Rework

Welcome, map affectionados, to this week’s map bonanza. I am Lufhansi, narrative designer and main map man on Victoria 3, and I will be your host for this evening.
As you might expect, Pivot of Empire’s narrative content for India will be accompanied by relevant map work, including new and reworked state regions, cultures, and countries for the Indian subcontinent. In addition to miscellaneous other, exciting additions that will be detailed further down. As always we got some ground to cover, so without wasting more of your time, let’s get into it:


DD134_03.png



DD134_04.png

South Asia
If you find yourself thinking that India has too many tags already, this update may not be the one for you. To help illustrate the immense complexity of 19th century India, for Pivot of Empire we have added over 30 new tags to the 1836 startdate, as well as multiple new formables and releasables that these new nations can aspire towards, all with distinct identities and new flags. Former abstractions, like Orissa and Bundelkhand have been replaced by new princely states, and in Gujarat, Baroda is now simply the most important Gujarati state instead of the only one. The fan favourites of Garwhal and Manipur have made their debut, along with a slew of other states and nations, ranging from the the decentralised tribes along the Assam-Burma border in the north-east, to the British crown colony of Ceylon and the Sultanate of the Maldives in the south-west

DD134_07.png

In the northwest, the Sikh Empire, now known as the Khalsa Raj, faces a somewhat different position compared to previous patches. In addition to grappling with the internal intrigues of the Lahore court—historically a source of weakness for the empire during its critical struggle against the British—it must also contend with a new, powerful vassal: the ambitious Gulab Singh of Jammu, who in 1836 finds himself preoccupied with suppressing a revolt in the newly conquered region of Ladakh.

DD134_08.png

DD134_09.png

Other exciting additions include the rump state of Satara, led by the last Chhatrapati of the Maratha Empire, and the once-mighty Mughal Empire, now reduced to the confines of the city of Delhi. Although the Mughals controlling more than their own palace grounds isn't entirely historically accurate, their newfound autonomy allows them to serve as a vehicle for narrative content.


DD134_08.png

India’s state regions have also been reworked and redrawn where deemed appropriate. We have tried to strike a balance between administrative borders fitting for the 19th century, and cultural borders better reflecting the ethno-linguistic makeup of the subcontinent, all the while trying to not divide the map into too many unwieldy state regions for gameplay-purposes. Notable changes include a new East/West split for Bengal, mirroring a similar division in Punjab, along with the addition of new state regions such as the Ceded Districts and Arakan, and a reshaping/redefinition of most pre-existing state regions.

DD134_09.png

We have also added a selection of new cultures to India to showcase the extraordinary diversity of the subcontinent, such as Hindustani, Chhattisgarhi, Naga, Deccani, Pathan, Lushai, and many more.

DD134_14.png

In a similar vein, India’s hub and spline system has been reworked from the ground up, which has seen the elimination of a lot of anachronisms and misplaced hubs. So to the valiant forum member that has championed the good cause of Jamshedpur for years now, you can now rest easy, knowing that we have finally fixed its location.

And should that not be enough, well good news, because with 1.8, Victoria 3 will now have:

Dynamic Renaming

DD134_15.png
DD134_16.png


That’s right, it’s finally here. And what a version of it you will get! Most current dynamic naming in-game is decided by the owner’s cultures, the above examples being Turkish and Greek, but there are exceptions to this. For example, moving your capital to Edo as Japan will now rename the city to Tokyo, and the city of Bismarck, North Dakota, will be named Edwinton until the Iron Chancellor has actually made a name for himself, just to name a few.

DD134_17.png

And should none of the picks we have made be to your liking, then fear not! For hub and state names are now fully customizable in-game. Of course, we fully expect you all to be sensible and measured in your application of this newfound power.

DD134_18.png

For modders, it goes without saying that this is an incredibly flexible system, and we hope you will have a lot of fun with it going forward.



Narrative Content

Hello. This is Victoria, Narrative Design Lead of Victoria 3, and today I will be covering the free narrative content and political setup changes which are coming in Update 1.8. The paid content that will be coming in Pivot of Empire will be covered in a later dev diary.

Indian Political Setup

DD134_19.png

Upon beginning the game as the East India Company, one may notice that the interest groups one must contend with are not those that they have become accustomed to. The EIC has been given a full suite of custom interest groups, designed to accurately represent the unique situation that finds itself in.

The most notable of these new interest groups is the East India Company interest group, representing European colonial interests within India. It has received a set of all-new ideologies and traits for this purpose, transforming it into a representation of the ideology, mindset, and interests of the British colonial administration. Upon the establishment of the British Raj, it will be renamed to the “Government of India”, but its ideology will stay essentially the same.

DD134_20.png

The new Colonialist ideology has been implemented in various places both new and old, with the East India Company as only one example. It is also used to make the Industrialists in colonial administrations support resource extraction rather than independent economic development. Their instrument in doing so is the new Extraction Economy law, which increases the efficacy of agriculture and resource industries whilst crippling the investment pool.

Most notably, Extraction Economy harms the native landowning classes’ ability to reinvest, representing the historical effects of the British Indian land ownership structure. The “Zamindari” system of land ownership was predicated upon the use of Indian landowners as tax collection agents for the British administration, under the expectation that the landowners could use their revenue for internal improvements. In reality, very few internal improvements were actually made, and Indian agriculture remained largely stagnant. Landowners’ estates were constantly partitioned, with chunks being sold at auction in order to make up for shortfalls in tax collection.

DD134_21.png

Whilst the Zamindari system was not the only system of land ownership put in place by the British administration, it was the dominant form in the Bengal presidency, and thus the most economically impactful. The other major land ownership system, the “Ryotwari system”, in which taxes were collected directly from individual peasants, is represented by persistent modifiers on southern Indian states which permit for greater self-ownership of agricultural buildings in these states.

Pictured: This land ownership setup allows for peasants in southern India to receive dividends from their plots, marginally increasing their base quality of life.
DD134_22.png

In order to represent the power structure of colonial India, British India will have one of two modifiers, depending upon whether the Company or Crown is in command. These modifiers greatly increase the political strength of bureaucrats and depress the influence of the Indian aristocracy, as well as making it nigh-impossible to create a legitimate government without the designated ruling IG in command. British India also has a custom rule for selecting its government - the leader of the Industrialists will necessarily become the next ruler of the country upon the death or removal of the previous one.

DD134_23.png

With the Industrialists transformed into a colonial bureaucratic nightmare, who will advocate for economically modernising India? Whilst the East India Company represents European colonial interests, the economic interests of the native Indian bourgeoisie are represented by the Bhadralok interest group. “Bhadralok” is a Bengali term which translates to “gentlemen”, and represents the moneyed upper classes which initially rose to prominence through collaboration with the EIC during their conquest of India. Whilst the majority of European capitalists gravitate towards the EIC, Indian capitalists will join the Bhadraloks instead.

Once it achieves independence, of course, India’s Industrialists will return to their normal role as the Indian industrial upper classes, and the Bhadraloks will once more represent exclusively the petit-bourgeoisie.

The Bhadraloks start with two ideologies that differ from the standard petit-bourgeoisie, Sovereignist and Modernizer. Fans of Colossus of the South may note that Modernizer is used for the Brazilian PB past a certain point - its use has been expanded to the PB across the Indian subcontinent.

DD134_24.png

The Sovereignist ideology replaces Patriotic, making the Indian PB support a lessening of discrimination and restrictions upon political expression. If India is to achieve independence, however, this ideology will immediately switch back to the default Patriotic. The Bhadraloks will not support a discriminatory British police state, but this does not mean that they oppose a discriminatory Indian police state. This ideology switching is used throughout India content, such as with the new Minoritarian Traditionalist ideology.

Pictured: I am pleased to introduce something we have been missing since release - hypocrisy mechanics.
DD134_25.png

The Minoritarian Traditionalist ideology prevents leaders from supporting State Religion if the country’s state religion does not match their personal religion. If the country’s religion ever switches to their personal religion, however, they will stop supporting secularism and immediately begin supporting State Religion again. These ideology switches are handled in on_actions, as well as various cases throughout the narrative content.

There are many other changes to pop attraction values and traits, but to go over the changes to every interest group in depth would, unfortunately, put me over the per-post image limit.

Finally, here is the new East India Company law setup.

DD134_26.png

Whilst the EIC possesses the Oligarchy and Caste Not Enforced laws, the institution of the British Raj following the Indian Uprising will lead to the enactment of Autocracy and Caste System Codified. This represents the centralisation of power in the Raj, and the efforts made by the colonial administrators of the 1860s to codify the Indian caste system into the modern, nationwide varna system.

The Indian Uprising

DD134_27.png

In the year 1857, years of mismanagement by the British East India Company spiralled into an uprising which briefly rendered a third of the Indian subcontinent ungovernable. This uprising has been referred to as the Sepoy Mutiny by various British sources, and various names from the First War of Independence to the Great Rebellion by Indian writers. For the remainder of this diary, I will refer to it as the Indian Uprising.

The Indian Uprising was previously represented by the Avert Mutiny journal entry, which would spawn the Mughal Empire as a revolt if the EIC failed to complete various journal entries. In 1.8, this journal entry has been completely reworked.

DD134_28.png

The new Unstable Raj journal entry is available upon game start for the East India Company. All Princely States will have a more concise version of this journal entry, for the purpose of tracking the level of unrest in the EIC.

The stability of each Presidency within the East India Company is tracked with its own progress bar, which increases or decreases depending on various conditions. These conditions include taxation, the liberty desire of princely states within a given region, the presence of Utilitarian administrators [more on this in a future diary], state turmoil, and more.

DD134_29.png

What is a Presidency? Historically, they were the highest-level administrative units of colonial India. In-game, their borders are determined by the various Indian strategic regions. The Presidency concept details precisely which regions equate to which Presidency.

DD134_30.png


DD134_31.png

A major event chain which will affect the stability of the Presidencies deals with the cartridges issued to Indian sepoys. After researching Rifling, a rumour will begin to spread throughout the ranks of the Company’s soldiers about the nature of the cartridge grease. If mismanaged, this event chain can lead to a sharp decrease in the stability of the Presidencies.

DD134_32.png

If the stability of any Presidency drops too low for a period of 100 months, or if 25 years elapse without completing the Consolidate Colonial Rule journal entry and raising the Standard of Living of India to the requisite level, India will explode into rebellion.

Pictured: The Consolidate Colonial Rule journal entry has also been amended, removing the time limit and making some other quality of life changes.
DD134_33.png

The precise character of this rebellion depends upon which regions are most afflicted with unrest, as well as the Liberty Desire of various Princely States. If unrest is concentrated in the Bengal Presidency, the main drama of the rebellion will revolve around Delhi, and the bid of the mutinying sepoys to restore the Mughal Empire. Each Presidency possesses a major revolter - the Mughals in Bengal, Satara and the Chhatrapati of the Maratha Confederacy in Bombay, and the rebellious princely state of Kurnool in Madras.

With all of these factors, the Indian Uprising can possess endless permutations, from something similar to the bounds of the historical uprising…

DD134_31.png

…to a distributed revolt across multiple regions, encompassing various Princely States…

DD134_32.png

…to an apocalyptic collapse of British authority across the subcontinent.

DD134_36.png

If a Princely State possesses high liberty desire when the Uprising breaks out, it will have an opportunity to either join the Marathas or the Mughals, or try to forge its own path. Pledging fealty to either the Mughals or Marathas will make a princely state a vassal of the Emperor or Chhatrapati.

DD134_37.png

Once the shape of the uprising has been determined, a war will break out between a coalition of revolters and the British. In order to preserve itself, the East India Company must put down every revolter and restore their order to India.

DD134_38.png

If the British win, as they did historically, the British government will step in to reform the administration of India to ensure that this does not happen again. The East India Company will be reorganised into the British Raj, and much of its autonomy will be stripped from it.

DD134_39.png

However, what if the Indian Uprising is triumphant, and the British are driven from the subcontinent?

DD134_40.png

After losing to the revolters, the East India Company will be able to retreat to one of the three Presidencies, abandoning its holdings in all other regions. Alternatively, it may abandon India completely. Some possible outcomes from this event are below.

DD134_41.png

Once the British are gone, or reduced to a rump state hanging on to whatever they could hold against the revolt, the Indian contenders may shift to managing their newly acquired empires.

Interest Group Priority Cultures

Astute observers may note that, in the above screenshot, the leaders of the EIC and Presidency Armies are European, whilst the leaders of every other interest group are Indian. Prior to 1.8, interest groups were only able to select leaders of primary cultures. This is no longer the case. Interest groups can now be assigned priority cultures, which will force characters of an interest group to have certain cultures, given a set of conditions.

Pictured: Leaders of the Industrialists interest group in India can only be British, Scottish, or Irish for as long as British rule persists.
DD134_42.png

This has enabled us to flavour the East India Company [Industrialists] and Presidency Armies [Armed Forces] interest groups as European, whilst the other interest groups represent various classes amongst the native Indian population.

New Subject Tracks

DD134_43.png

In 1.8, two new subject types have been added, and the existing ones reconfigured into three separate “tracks”. Dominions now belong to a different track than puppets, and all tracks have two steps. Rather than needing to promote from a puppet to a dominion to a protectorate, puppets now directly promote to Protectorate.

Chartered Companies are a new subject type, which possess all of the autonomy of a Protectorate whilst paying a higher share of their income to their overlord. Examples of Chartered Companies include the Hudson Bay Company, East India Company, Russian-American Company, and chartered companies which may be established through African colonial administrations.

Pictured: All subject types as of 1.8.
DD134_44.png

In terms of narrative, Dominions and Colonies represent colonial governments of various types, whilst Protectorates and Puppets represent native-ruled states that nonetheless lack political autonomy. Tributaries and Vassals have remained unchanged.

Pictured: Colonies can now have subjects of their own, which means the Princely States stay safely connected to the Raj. Also visible here is a selection of new flags that we’ve added.
DD134_45.png

Corporate States

DD134_46.png

Pivot of Empire and Update 1.8 are largely centred around the British East India Company, a massive corporation that acts as a state. We have also added a Corporate State law. These two things are completely unrelated.

Corporate State is a new Governance Principles law added in 1.8, designed to represent states such as the Federal State of Austria, Fiume, the Italian Social Republic, and Ireland, as well as the end goals of various late-19th century and early 20th-century political movements. The Corporate State law focuses around institutionalised class collaboration as the basis of the state. In this conception of society, different classes and professions can be likened to vital organs within a single body, all serving different yet equally important functions.

Corporate State is primarily supported by Corporatists and Fascists. It also serves as a “midpoint” for various ideologies, being more favoured than their least favourite governance principles, but inferior to their preferred governance principles. The enactment of Corporate State serves as an endgame to a fascist playthrough, much as Council Republic serves as the endgame to a communist playthrough.

Whilst enacting Corporate State, one may choose which groups that its corporatist structure will benefit, permanently improving the clout of the player’s choice of interest group for as long as the law is active.

DD134_47.png

In order to represent the historical fondness that certain strains of fascism have possessed for state-supervised workers’ cooperatives, the Corporate State law enables the Cooperative Ownership law. Enacting Cooperative Ownership under a Corporate State will empower the petit-bourgeoisie through funnelling dividends to Shopkeepers, benefiting the state’s most favoured demographic.

The journal entry formerly known as the Path to Fascism has also been completely reworked in 1.8, now mirroring the Spectre Haunting the World journal entry. If the growth of the fascist movement cannot be contained, they will launch a march on your capital, possibly seizing power in the same way that Mussolini did in 1922.

DD134_48.png

The London Conference

DD134_49.png

The modern borders of Belgium and the Netherlands were only settled upon in 1839, through a process which involved every European great power. The historical result of the London Conference was the Treaty of London of 1839, a document which provided for the independence and neutrality of Belgium.

The London Conference journal entry will appear for European great powers in 1838-1839, and will permit each power to vote upon a desired settlement between the Netherlands and the newly independent Belgium. This conference can have various outcomes depending on how the Great Powers vote.

Pictured: Two of the possible outcomes.
DD134_50.png

There is more free content included in 1.8, but I have unfortunately exhausted the limit of images one can fit in a single forum post. The remainder awaits its discovery once the update is released.

And that is all. Thank you for reading. Next week, Kenneth will cover the new 2D art for Pivot of Empire.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 125Love
  • 93Like
  • 6
  • 5
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Why is Corporatism the end goal of fascism? I'd expect most fascists to be more interested in Military Dictatorship.
because it was the states goal of fascism, this was more implicitly the case, in Italian fascism pre-march on rome, has the devs have stated the Italian fascism we got was a compromise (better represented by single-party sate monarchies rather than this law) corporatism is more patently a goal with Integralism (the specifically non-monarchist factions), national syndicalists, the afore mentioned strasserists, technically many catholic corporatists also apply, but Imho clerical fascism is a better fit all told, one can argue Nazi Germany also fit the bill, but that example is more fraught what with all the insanity going on.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
The corporate state law would be far better if there were more power structure law categories (executive v legislative and so on).

This is a government principle law, so at least a good thing is that you can in theory have a corporate state with voting or be a single-party state (as distribution of power is a different law from government principle).

But yes, as was said above, that you would have to necessarily abolish the monarchy is strange. While many fascists along the 'd'Annunzio's exact definition' line did like republics more than monarchies, fascism is a lot more malleable and adaptive to conditions on that front. Corporatism as well. If you want to give Ireland as an example, that was technically still a monarchy in personal union with Britain for 16 years after independence.
 
Seeing this, I get excited about the future of Victoria 3. In the future, the game will be so well-developed that there will be different mechanics for each country, with economic and cultural systems tailored to all types of nations, with their own struggles. In its current state, I feel that there isn't much diversity, all the countries have a similar kind of gameplay. Right now it feels the same playing Mexico, Austria, Sikh Empire or Japan.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
This looks excellent. The love here applied to the specifities of India I hope can be eventually applied in other places, also allowing for the dynamic formation of colonial societies as the game progresses.

Thumbs up from me so far
 
It's bizzare that Corporate State is a governance principle. It obviously should be economy law or a new category of laws (for example it could be within laws regulating legality of trade unions).

After all historical example of facist corporatist state was Italy with monarchy governance principle.
The corporate state law would be far better if there were more power structure law categories (executive v legislative and so on).

This is a government principle law, so at least a good thing is that you can in theory have a corporate state with voting or be a single-party state (as distribution of power is a different law from government principle).

But yes, as was said above, that you would have to necessarily abolish the monarchy is strange. While many fascists along the 'd'Annunzio's exact definition' line did like republics more than monarchies, fascism is a lot more malleable and adaptive to conditions on that front. Corporatism as well. If you want to give Ireland as an example, that was technically still a monarchy in personal union with Britain for 16 years after independence.
The Ireland reference here is to the 1937 constitution, which ended the personal union and implemented a corporatist senate. The idea behind the Corporate State is that it's something you'll see very rarely in-game, for much the same reason as you don't often see Theocracies: only a select few ideologies want it, and those ideologies usually compromise with other IGs who don't want it. Essentially, as I understand it, the Governance Principles are about where the state claims its most fundamental authority; a Corporate State is distinct from a monarchy with corporatist characteristics because the latter still derives its authority from the monarch. It's a more revolutionary incarnation of fascism, basically, or at least one which rejected and marginalised conservative forces unlike Mussolini's version.

Why is Corporatism the end goal of fascism? I'd expect most fascists to be more interested in Military Dictatorship.
Not especially! They were much more keen on having the military as a tool of the state than the state as a tool of the military.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
AI fascist governments tend to settle for alliances with conservative forces, and thus stick with their existing governance principles. Corporate State serves as an aspiration for a player who wishes to go that way, and as the default governance principles for a fascist revolution - ie, fascists who break away from conservatism and develop in the direction of Fiume- or Strasser- style revolutionary ideology.

re: economic laws, Fascists, by default, prefer Interventionism to Cooperative Ownership. Getting Cooperative Ownership would require an alliance of fascists and corporatist trade unions.

I really like this approach. And it definitely reflects forms of goverment like Francoist, which weren't full corporatist but they were to a great extent and you could not model that type of goverment before.

What I am not sure is what the benefits or mechanics of that government forms are other than allowing you to choose cooperative ownership. I get that the form of goverment is supposed to work in tandem with the One Party Law but...I can't think right now of feedback or suggestions but i just thought that a mere +25% petit b. did not seem like much.

But very excited to try that form of getting cooperative ownership without having to go communist. Roleplaying possibilities have multiplied! I personally love about Victoria roleplaying societal changes, where society goes from old regime to liberalism, to socialism to end up in fascism at the end of the game. So looking forward to this change to have more tools and alternative endings for my campaigns thank you!

Can I ask if this new form of goverment is unlocked since the beginning of the game? I would like to do some irish run to roleplay as a corporate state but not fascist.

Who is the head of state in such a new form of goverment? I think its a bit werid since it prevents a corporate state which is a monarchy, when it should not be mutually exclusive but oh well
 
Why is Corporatism the end goal of fascism? I'd expect most fascists to be more interested in Military Dictatorship.


Most fascists need to keep the military at an arms length to prevent a military dictatorship. Fascism is a political movement that seems militant but it still need to play an internal balance of power game with factions.
 
The Ireland reference here is to the 1937 constitution, which ended the personal union and implemented a corporatist senate. The idea behind the Corporate State is that it's something you'll see very rarely in-game, for much the same reason as you don't often see Theocracies: only a select few ideologies want it, and those ideologies usually compromise with other IGs who don't want it

I think this is why new a series of power structure law categories may have been better. For example separating the executive (if there is one), the upper house and a lower house.

You could, in that context make a corporatist upper house control all the power. Then make sure the upper house is selected by corporatist panels instead of being a hereditary body, or a regionally elected one. The more economic effects could be shifted to an economic system law, 'Corporatism' or 'Corporatist Cooperatives'

Maybe they'd have a chance to do this whenever internal politics get a major update, though. I think most people would be happy with a system that actually represented the status of a prime minister constitutional monarchies, for example.

It's a more revolutionary incarnation of fascism, basically, or at least one which rejected and marginalised conservative forces unlike Mussolini's version.
Yeah, that is fine... but it raises the question now of whether Fascist in-game is now supposed to be true believers in the core d'Annunzio points. The majority of the historical characters represented as Fascists did not believe in that so much.

Additionally it means the game is now in need of distinguishing corporatism from Welfare Liberalism. This goal of creating a Corporatist state means that it will now be wrong to represent Lloyd George and the British Liberal Party as being Corporatist for believing in a combination of welfare, the free market and opposition to socialism. With this new law available they would now want to abolish the British monarchy too.
 
A major event chain which will affect the stability of the Presidencies deals with the cartridges issued to Indian sepoys. After researching Rifling, a rumour will begin to spread throughout the ranks of the Company’s soldiers about the nature of the cartridge grease. If mismanaged, this event chain can lead to a sharp decrease in the stability of the Presidencies.

AH! Paradox left no stone unturned.

I remember when this was mentioned in documentaries on British TV about the uprising.


Astute observers may note that, in the above screenshot, the leaders of the EIC and Presidency Armies are European, whilst the leaders of every other interest group are Indian. Prior to 1.8, interest groups were only able to select leaders of primary cultures. This is no longer the case. Interest groups can now be assigned priority cultures, which will force characters of an interest group to have certain cultures, given a set of conditions.

This has enabled us to flavour the East India Company [Industrialists] and Presidency Armies [Armed Forces] interest groups as European, whilst the other interest groups represent various classes amongst the native Indian population.

A change like this is exactly what is needed to allow for the creation of some form of colonial society, which I hope can happen dynamically in other places going forward.
Great job.

Not an easy thing to do, but I personally think this will go a long way towards historical immersion.


I still would however like to know:
Obviously the EIC in game is heavily scripted for good reasons, owning territory and subjects with its own laws etc...

To what extend can similar setups be formed? Could you as of now, have a Prussian Africa Company take parts of Benin and similarly have a structure of interest groups and exploitation laws? Or is this not yet the case?
 
Last edited:
Corporate State is a new Governance Principles law added in 1.8, designed to represent states such as the Federal State of Austria, Fiume, the Italian Social Republic, and Ireland, as well as the end goals of various late-19th century and early 20th-century political movements. The Corporate State law focuses around institutionalised class collaboration as the basis of the state. In this conception of society, different classes and professions can be likened to vital organs within a single body, all serving different yet equally important functions.

Isn't this fascism essentially?

Corporate State is primarily supported by Corporatists and Fascists. It also serves as a “midpoint” for various ideologies, being more favoured than their least favourite governance principles, but inferior to their preferred governance principles. The enactment of Corporate State serves as an endgame to a fascist playthrough, much as Council Republic serves as the endgame to a communist playthrough.

I should have read on... yes, basically.


The journal entry formerly known as the Path to Fascism has also been completely reworked in 1.8, now mirroring the Spectre Haunting the World journal entry. If the growth of the fascist movement cannot be contained, they will launch a march on your capital, possibly seizing power in the same way that Mussolini did in 1922.

Cool. Can't remember whether for Victoria 2 it was in the original game or via HPM, but having this in vanilla is great.


The modern borders of Belgium and the Netherlands were only settled upon in 1839, through a process which involved every European great power. The historical result of the London Conference was the Treaty of London of 1839, a document which provided for the independence and neutrality of Belgium.

Often forgotten when students get to WW1. "Why is Belgium so important all of a sudden?"

The London Conference journal entry will appear for European great powers in 1838-1839, and will permit each power to vote upon a desired settlement between the Netherlands and the newly independent Belgium. This conference can have various outcomes depending on how the Great Powers vote.

I am however curious what recourse you now have as the Netherlands to tell the countries to stuff their treaty and try to retake Belgium.
 
The London Conference

The modern borders of Belgium and the Netherlands were only settled upon in 1839, through a process which involved every European great power. The historical result of the London Conference was the Treaty of London of 1839, a document which provided for the independence and neutrality of Belgium.
Is this a subtle way to foreshadow the London naval treay that will come with the navy and ships improvments ?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Lahore is the capital of Punjab! Confirmed in the comment screenshot! Thank you for fixing this! My mod addressing it (and some city locations I think) can now rest in peace.
 
I think this is why new a series of power structure law categories may have been better. For example separating the executive (if there is one), the upper house and a lower house.

You could, in that context make a corporatist upper house control all the power. Then make sure the upper house is selected by corporatist panels instead of being a hereditary body, or a regionally elected one. The more economic effects could be shifted to an economic system law, 'Corporatism' or 'Corporatist Cooperatives'

Maybe they'd have a chance to do this whenever internal politics get a major update, though. I think most people would be happy with a system that actually represented the status of a prime minister constitutional monarchies, for example.


Yeah, that is fine... but it raises the question now of whether Fascist in-game is now supposed to be true believers in the core d'Annunzio points. The majority of the historical characters represented as Fascists did not believe in that so much.

Additionally it means the game is now in need of distinguishing corporatism from Welfare Liberalism. This goal of creating a Corporatist state means that it will now be wrong to represent Lloyd George and the British Liberal Party as being Corporatist for believing in a combination of welfare, the free market and opposition to socialism. With this new law available they would now want to abolish the British monarchy too.
I believe we are suffering from terminal paradox word soup here, but I think only characters with the fascist ideology prefer the corporatist principle above monarchy, while the corporatist ideology ( and one would imagine the integralists as well since in game these seem to represent the brasialian and Lusitanian variants) are either ambivalent in terms of government principles or prefer monarchy above corporatism, but prefer corporatism above all other alternatives.
 
Great Britain doesn't break the top 5 most played countries? Am I reading that wrong?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Building on this: it'd be cool if you either can't embrace Monarchy as a colony of a certain level or (in my opinion much more interesting) any Colonial-type nation that embraces Monarchy as a Dominion or Colony while its overlord is also a Monarchy just gains the overlord's ruler. Sort of like a Personal Union but they otherwise maintain their current autonomy level. Actually, that's a good point for @PDX_Asteraceae: how does the game decide which track a releasable nation goes down? Is it hardcoded based on the type (Colonial/Recognised/Unrecognised) or do you get to choose to some degree?


Hey, we're getting a Russian-American Company too!


The remaining vocational panels are also corporatist! You're thinking too much about the contemporary use of corporation, where it refers to a very specific business entity, but the corporatist understanding of the term comes from the medieval use where it was essentially the same as a guild. A Corporate State is a Governance Principle, which means it's as much about how the state conceptualises itself and where it tries to draw its legitimacy as it is about the actual institutions at play. So, a De Valera RP Ireland would still have Universal Suffrage, but it'd be a Corporate State because the Senate is rooted in the Catholic-corporatist ideal of fostering harmony and collaboration between classes.
But the senate had no power except to delay bills as the dáil, which was directly elected by universal suffrage, ratified/s legislation. It would be like calling the UK a theocratic state because some members of the house of lords are bishops.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Will Novonikolayevsk become Novosibirsk if Russia becomes the USSR? And St. Petersburg become Petrograd, and potentially even implement a name change to Leningrad should we get Lenin as leader and then have him die? I assume there will be no Tsaritsyn to Stalingrad name change since Stalin's not in the game rn though it would be a cool thing to implement should you ever add him.