• 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 #141 - What’s next after 1.8

16_9.png

Double Happy Thursday! As is customary after each major update, today we’ll be returning to the future update plans, which we last went over in Dev Diary #124. Just like the previous times, we’ll be going over what changes and improvements we have planned for the game in future free updates such as 1.9, 1.10 and beyond.

Once again we will be talking about the same key four improvement areas of Military, Historical Immersion, Diplomacy, Internal Politics as well as Other for anything that falls outside those four categories.

Just as before, I’ll also be aiming to give you an updated overview of where we stand and where we’re heading by going through each of these four categories and marking on each one with one of the below statuses:
  • Done: This is a part of the game that we now consider to be in good shape. Something being Done of course doesn’t mean we’re never going to expand or improve on it in the future, just that it’s no longer a high priority for us. Any points that were already marked as Done in previous updates will be removed from the list, to avoid it growing unmanageably long, but you can look at the older dev diaries (#79, #89, #102 and #124) if you’re interested in what was done previously.
  • Updated: This is a part of the game where we have made some of the improvements and changes that we want to make, but aren’t yet satisfied with where it stands and plan to make further improvements to it in future updates.
  • Not Updated: This is a part of the game where we haven’t yet released any of our planned changes/improvements in any currently released updates but still plan to do so for future updates.
  • New: This is a planned change or improvement that is newly added, i.e. wasn’t present on the list last time we went over it
  • Reconsidered: This is a previously planned change or improvement that we have reconsidered our approach to how to tackle from previous updates. For these points we will explain what our new plans are, and change the list appropriately in future updates.

For the final bit of repetition: Just as before we will still only be talking about improvements, changes and new features that are part of planned free updates in this dev diary. I will also remind you that this is not an exhaustive list of the things we are going to do, and that something being ‘Done’ doesn’t mean we’re not going to bugfix, balance or make UX improvements to it afterwards. Alright then, onto the dev diary proper.

image1.png

Military​

New:
  • Make sure that supply is an important and meaningful part of the military system that can win or lose you wars.
  • Tweaking and improving the frontline system to eliminate excessive front splitting and troop teleportation once and for all

Not Updated:
  • Making navies more important for projecting global power and securing control of coasts.
  • Adding a proper system of military access and finding solutions for the other remaining rough edges in the frontline system.
  • Turning individual ships into proper pieces of military hardware that can be built, sunk and repaired rather than just being manpower packages.
  • Adding a system for limited wars to reduce the number of early-game global wars between Great Powers

Historical Immersion​

Done:
  • Tweaking content such as the Meiji Restoration, Alaska purchase and so on in a way that they can more frequently be successfully performed by the AI, through a mix of AI improvements and content tweaks

Updated:
  • Going through the base game Journal Entries and events and making improvements and additions to ensure that they feel meaningful and impactful for players to interact with
    • As always, we’ve updated some of our older Journal Entries for 1.8 and will continue to do so in future updates.
  • Adding more country, state and region-specific content to enhance historical flavor of different countries
    • Also as always, this is something we continue to do each update and which I will keep on this list as it remains an important priority.

Diplomacy​

New:
  • Improve on the Treaty Port mechanic and create more ways for countries to cooperate, compete with and exploit others using trade
  • Improving the war support system to be much clearer UX-wise about what is needed to contest wargoals, and less all-or-nothing in terms of when countries are on track to capitulate

Not Updated:
  • Make declaring and holding onto diplomatic Interests a more rewarding and challenging aspect of global empire-building
  • Allowing peace deals to be negotiated during a Diplomatic Play instead of only having the option to give in

Internal Politics​

Done:
  • Find a better solution for the ways ideologies appear, attract followers and create support for reforms than the current RNG-heavy leader ideology system.
  • Have discrimination not be a purely binary status and reflect forms of discrimination aside from what’s written in the law, as well as making assimilation into a more meaningful mechanic in the process.

Updated:
  • Adding laws that expand on diversity of countries and introduce new ways to play the game
    • In 1.8 we added Caste System/Social Hierarchy laws to make India more accurate and flavorful.

Not Updated:
  • Turn legitimacy into a more interesting mechanic, where the strength of a government depends on their successes and failures, and highly legitimate governments can’t simply be ousted at a whim but have to be undermined first.
  • Introduce a concept of national pride which can increase or decrease depending on a country’s actions and which ties directly into legitimacy.

Other​

Not Updated:
  • Find a way to deal with the excessive fiddliness of the trade system in large economies, possibly by allowing for autonomous trade based on your laws in a similar way to the autonomous investment system.
Updated:
  • Improve on Companies by turning them into actual actors in your country that can own/expand buildings and interact with characters/politics.
    • In update 1.8 we made Companies into more distinct entities with headquarters and ownership of specific buildings. We plan to continue to develop these entities in the future and tie them into more systems.

As per usual I’m not able to make specific promises about when all these improvements will come out, but I can say that the next update (1.9) is going to be quite a large update that should tackle several points on this list, and that two particular focuses for it will be Trade and Improvements to the Frontline system. For a bit more detail on the latter point, I refer you to last week’s dev diary where I went over what I consider to be the most pressing issues with the frontline system, all of which we’re aiming to fix or at least improve for 1.9.

Right then, that’s it for today, and in fact, a wrap for 2024. I’ll be back on January 16th to give you a retrospective on the entire year, what we think went well, what we could do better in the future, and see if I can’t find some fun dev moments from the year to share with you as well. See you then!
 
  • 130Like
  • 28Love
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
Still no news about Germany and Italy not forming properly?
In our internal handsoffs they tend to form around 50-75% of the time. There are certainly improvements that can be made but it doesn't seem to us that they don't form at all.
 
  • 23
  • 11
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions:

Internal Politics​


Not Updated:
  • Turn legitimacy into a more interesting mechanic, where the strength of a government depends on their successes and failures, and highly legitimate governments can’t simply be ousted at a whim but have to be undermined first.
  • Introduce a concept of national pride which can increase or decrease depending on a country’s actions and which ties directly into legitimacy.
I think, that before you tackle Legitimacy, you need to work on parties. The way IGs join parties, or stay outside of any, are pretty basic and doesn't feel good. Especially considering, that IGs choose to join a party without the party or the player having much control over it (outside the cheesy not reforming the government to keep them outside of a party they want to join), and since Legitimacy is so important, and yet completely ignored by IGs - they will make grand coalitions in order to win the vote, but you still need to put the opposition into government, because they are such a complete mess of ideologies, that they tank Legitimacy even as winners.

Like I agree, I like the roleplay of ousting a government, that failed to deliver its promises, or lost a war, but it's important not to build a system on top of something that already feels kinda meh.

Maybe if parties were more of a movement kind of thing, advocating for a certain law changes? Maybe they literally could be about movements!
 
  • 6Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Allow armies to be assigned to multiple fronts, up to the number of generals in an army.

Allow you to split fronts. Similar to Hoi’s front line editing.

Total navy rework. Ships are not just armies but on water.
I definitely agree that front splitting onto itself is not the problem, but the way how rest of the system interacts with the fronts.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Improving the war support system to be much clearer UX-wise about what is needed to contest wargoals, and less all-or-nothing in terms of when countries are on track to capitulate.​
This is the one I am most excited about. Wars right now are a chore to get stuck in, and instead of thinking about the right military decisions I am mostly worried about how the arcane war support and "must be capitulated" or "must control capital" requirements shake out to randomly kick allies out of the war. Currently the conditions needed to win or sustain a war feel very disconnected and often antithetical to how the war is going for the sides involved.

So this isn't just a diplomacy issue like the categorization suggests. I would say it is the most pressing issue in warfare overall. I don't usually like saying things like that but plainly copying the wargoal system from EU4 would be better than what we have now. "War support" is detrimental both to enjoying wars and having them unfold realistically right now. All the extreme conditions tacked on to enforcing war goals demonstrate this.

I hope this includes a re-examination of how war goals are integrated into domestic politics as well, both in the diplo play stage and in the making peace stage. It is very strange that we have this abstract war support meter that supposedly represents domestic opinion but that is in practice entirely separate from the other game systems for domestic politics.

I would much prefer a warfare system that translates the economic costs of warfare (occupation, enlistment, transportation, supplies, death, injuries...) into public opinion and using that as the pressure on states to conclude a war. On the other side, there should be pressure from certain IGs/lobbies/ideologies to start plays for war goals and to actually enforce them when the war is going. The new movement system would be an excellent outlet for such an approach.

It would be a lot more fun if I had to end a war that I would like to continue because my government's legitimacy tanked or I have a revolution brewing, rather than being unceremoniously booted out of the war because an arbitrary war support meter ticked down. Decisions with consequences are always more fun than the game deciding things for you!
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
When it comes to peace deals, capitulation and war support I think it would be good if it was more linked to movements and revolutions. Insted of having war support as a separate ticking value it should insted generate support for peace movements, secession movements and revolutionary movements. when Sol goes down, goods are lacking and losses go up radicals amass and movements pushing for an end of the war in one way or another grows. Ignoring it and continuing the war will lead to a situation like the one in Russia 1917 och in Germany 1918 rather than simply forcing capitulation all of a sudden.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
In our internal handsoffs they tend to form around 50-75% of the time. There are certainly improvements that can be made but it doesn't seem to us that they don't form at all.
That’s interesting. 50-75% is a good benchmark. That doesn’t seem to be the case in my games though (and I tend to play smaller countries that wouldn’t impact the unifications). Prussia in particular - they tend to suicide charge into a much stronger Austria as soon as they get nationalism. Italy does form some times, meanderingly, but they are also rarely able to challenge Austria for the Italian lands they hold.
 
  • 10
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I know this is not the right place to request random features, but since war goals are in scope I would also like to raise the issue of war reparations.

They are currently too easy a tool to farm money from other powers. Even if they do not compensate your expenses for the war that yielded them, your expenses went back into your own economy but war reparations transfers money from another nation into yours.

I would suggest that war reparations should not be proportional to the target's revenue but rather to the war expenses of the recipient. Since these are shown in the war screen anyway, the game is already tracking them - they just need to be used for this purpose. That would fix the exploit of the minimal wars -> war reparations exploit and also be more realistic overall.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
In our internal handsoffs they tend to form around 50-75% of the time. There are certainly improvements that can be made but it doesn't seem to us that they don't form at all.
Honestly, I do not intend to debate datas you surely have gained with many more tests, but in my games (several dozens) I NEVER have seen both Germany and Italy, and in other cases there were still Milan and Venice under Austrian control, as well as a plethora of German states independent. Same goes for time-lapses on YT, for what matters. I still think giving AI an aggressive focus on taking their homelands would improve the situation quite easily.
 
Last edited:
  • 9
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Honestly, I do not intend to debate datas you surely have gained with many more tests, but in my games (several dozens) I NEVER have seen both Germany and Italy, and in other cases there were still Milan and Venice under Austrian control, as well as a plethora of German states independent. Same goes for time-lapses on YT, for what matters. I still think giving AI an aggressive focus on taking their homelands would improve the situation quite easily.
I'm approaching 1000 and yeah anecdotally, they form much less. I'm usually surprised when either DO form. Interesting. I wonder if observing changes things? Obviously paradox isnt lying, so I wonder why the discrepancy.

As for the solution. Wouldn't making them more aggressively go after their homelands make them lose unification more often? Seems like they just get curb stomped on the battlefield.
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
The scope for military improvements in 1.9 is more focused on fixing the issues with front splitting, teleportation, military access and so on rather than doing any major additions to the system. I definitely think we'll add fortifications in the future though.
Thx so you do not plan to rework ships?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm approaching 1000 and yeah anecdotally, they form much less. I'm usually surprised when either DO form. Interesting. I wonder if observing changes things? Obviously paradox isnt lying, so I wonder why the discrepancy.

As for the solution. Wouldn't making them more aggressively go after their homelands make them lose unification more often? Seems like they just get curb stomped on the battlefield.
I feel like in the case of Germany the issue is that Austria is still ahistorically strong (Austria was arguably the weakest of the 5 Great Powers in 1836).
As I see it, there are several ways of potentially fixing the German unification issue:
1. Nerf Austria or buff Prussia
2. Add a later start date (post-1871) so the Germany already exists
3. Add a game rule to railroad German unification in some way (ex. ordering AI Austria to deliberately lose to AI Prussia)
4. Add a game rule to have a united Germany exist at game start
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I feel like in the case of Germany the issue is that Austria is still ahistorically strong (Austria was arguably the weakest of the 5 Great Powers in 1836).
As I see it, there are several ways of potentially fixing the German unification issue:
1. Nerf Austria or buff Prussia
2. Add a later start date (post-1871) so the Germany already exists
3. Add a game rule to railroad German unification in some way (ex. ordering AI Austria to deliberately lose to AI Prussia)
4. Add a game rule to have a united Germany exist at game start
Austria is quite weak, Austria-Hungary is quite strong. They even invaded China. Right now the game plays like Austria-Hungary even without fulfilling the dual monarchy when they should start out as just Austria.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Austria is quite weak, Austria-Hungary is quite strong. They even invaded China. Right now the game plays like Austria-Hungary even without fulfilling the dual monarchy when they should start out as just Austria.
True, but I feel like the original point is still valid. Playing as Austria or Austria-Hungary should be a "stalling for time" situation like Ottomans or Qing.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
It would be great if you could comment on the pressure you were under in the year 2024 when doing your retrospective.

The general sentiment throughout most of the year was, that Victoria 3 is in danger of getting Imperator Rome'd and that if the major expansion doesnt deliver it could be a deathblow. It would be interesting to read your comments on how realistic of an outcome that was.

Furthermore the talks about Victoria 3 getting Imperator Rome'd are not entirely gone, it would be interesting to see comments on how well Victoria 3 is doing financially, some numbers would be great.

It would also be interesting to hear about how far you are planning and developing ahead currently with Victoria 3, that could be an indirect anwser to the questions above if you cant comment on them. With CK3 devs have commented on how far they are planning ahead, if i remember it correctly it was said, that work on the next Expansion was allready ongoing even when the major expansion of the current year wasnt released yet.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Furthermore the talks about Victoria 3 getting Imperator Rome'd are not entirely gone, it would be interesting to see comments on how well Victoria 3 is doing financially, some numbers would be great.

Unpopular Opinion Alert!

I genuinely think the game is much closer to getting abandoned now, than it was back then. If Paradox abandoned Victoria 3 while it was a dumpster fire so close to Imperator Rome's abandonment, their reputation would have been completely destroyed. That's not even mentioning that if they abandoned the game without delivering on their Grand Edition obligations/refunding it, they would have probably been in big legal trouble.

Whether they abandon the game now will depend on if the next few big DLCs sell well. Now that the Grand edition's promises have been  fulfilled, and the game is in a more "acceptable" state. They can more comfortably stop development, if the DLCs don't make money.
 
Last edited:
  • 6
  • 3
Reactions: