• 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 #145 - Military Improvements

16_9 (3).jpg

Hello Victorians,

I’m Lino, Game Design Lead on Victoria 3 and I welcome you all to another Dev Diary and wish you a happy Thursday!
Today we’re looking at some Military changes that are arriving with the free 1.9 Update, coming to you on June 17, the same day our Mechanics Pack “Charters of Commerce” releases.

Before we begin: As always, any values, texts, designs, graphics etc. are work in progress and are subject to change!

So, obviously warfare has some issues, which we want to address. To repeat what we have stated before: The ambition for 1.9 is not to majorly expand on warfare, but rather to fix the most egregious persistent issues.
The main areas we had identified before embarking on this quest to improve warfare were:
  1. Too many front splits, which results in having to micro too much
  2. Shuffling of units along a front (usually when two fronts merge), leading to them not being defended while the units were travelling
  3. Formations teleporting home when they don’t have a valid route to get there

There are of course other issues, e.g. our user experience and interface could certainly be improved in some areas, supply should matter more etc., but these three are the cause of most of the warfare feedback posts we see on our forums, discord and other social platforms.
We have read through all your posts and decided on addressing the three points above (and more), based on your extensive feedback. First up is addressing frontlines and their splitting.

Frontline generation​

Faced with the problem of having to micro after front-splitting, we sat down to talk about some requirements and possible options.
We knew that it’s impossible to fully avoid front-splitting from happening in general. But that’s okay, that was never our goal. We cared about addressing the resulting issues.
One use-case we really wanted to improve was India. Well, fronts in India. Once the princely states decide they’ve had enough and declare war, we get an insane amount of frontlines generated all across the subcontinent.
This is due to the algorithm of how frontlines are created. It looks at continuous pieces of land that are connected to another continuous piece of land that is owned by your enemy and then spawns a frontline between the two basically.
Well, in the case of India, this will often lead to having 10-15 fronts because the princely states aren’t always located next to each other.

But what if we had a different algorithm? One that resulted in fewer fronts.
Let me introduce our patented “Why not jump?” front generation algorithm:
Instead of requiring fronts to be along a continuous piece of land, we are now telling it to jump for some distance if it would reach another front which it can merge with.
In the current version we have internally, we are looking at covering one state region of a gap. We will be experimenting with a version that instead looks at a specified distance in pixels to cover some of the weirder edge-cases where a state is either very small or very large.

We are quite happy with the results when you apply it to actual use-cases, for example the case of the Indian revolt that I mentioned earlier.

No longer will we have to endure 13 fronts
DD145_01.png


Now it’s just two instead
DD145_02.png

This is the biggest visible improvement we have done for this Warfare improvement cycle, but we have a lot more to cover. Next up is the shuffling of army positions.

Front camps​

So, we’ve probably all seen armies march to the other end of a front they were assigned to, seemingly just because they felt like it.
Well, in reality this is because armies are assigned to front camps, specific positions along a front to spread them out.
When two fronts merged or a front split, we would re-evaluate the front camps and the armies in them were assigned a new valid front camp. That could mean their new camp was on the other end of the front, meaning they’d pack up their things and start marching.
So we have taken a look at this algorithm as well and made some seemingly small changes which should result in a much smoother gameplay experience though.
We now make it so that as long as an army is positioned in a front camp, which is still valid after a front change, they stay there. The armies were spread out evenly before, so the same distribution should make sense after a split/merge too. This can still lead to armies starting to move, e.g. because it was their front camp that was invalidated (because it’s no longer part of the front for example), but that is a logical reason to move.
It’s hard to showcase this behaviour change in images, but internal test results have been positive about this and we hope you’ll feel the same. There’s much less unintentional shuffling of armies along a front which was the main point of this change.

Next up is another big frustration point.

Teleporting Armies​

“Beam me up Scotty!” General Wolseley exclaimed when he found himself unable to attach to a front in India. And sure enough, two minutes later he was drinking tea with the Queen in Buckingham Palace.
At least that is how it sometimes worked out in our game. Until now!

The issue of teleporting armies comes to be when there’s no valid front available for a formation to go to. This can happen for example when a formation is isolated by neutral territory or the front they were moving towards being pushed into unavailable space.
We’ve always had some fallbacks for missing spline connections for example, which allowed armies to simply march through terrain though there wasn’t really a path defined.
And teleportation was our fallback solution for the worse cases.
But now we are refining this particular one into more of an actual feature, which should make it possible for armies to not teleport home again. What we’re doing is to take a lesson from our other titles and implement an exiled army status.
Once an army finds itself in a situation where they would have previously beamed home, now they’ll enter exiled status and have to walk (or ship) home.

Exiled armies have a few special rules:
  • They can march through neutral and enemy territory
  • They are not able to attach themselves to a front, they need to regroup in a friendly HQ first. They will automatically target the nearest HQ (ignoring landlocked HQs unless it’s their home HQ) and go there.
  • They suffer from attrition as if they were present at a front (more attrition in enemy territory than in neutral)
  • Their organization value will drift towards 0 over time

Once an exiled army reaches their target HQ, they lose the exiled status and act like a regular formation again.

As this feature is still in development, I can’t show you too much yet, but here’s a teaser for the icon which will be used across all interface screens to visualize the exiled state
DD145_03.png

That’s the big three out of the way, but I have more to show today.
Since I just mentioned the army organization value, I think this would be a good time to briefly mention some changes on that front (ha!) before coming back to juicier additions.

Organization, Supply and Morale​

Right now, organization is a value whose limit is determined by the commanders in the formation and used by your units. If there are sufficient commanders, it always is at the maximum value and if there suddenly isn’t (because an unfortunate accident happened), well then the organization will drop immediately to the new target value, leaving the army shattered.

What we’re doing now instead is making organization a drifting value, meaning that when an important commander dies, the target is set to say 40 but it will take a while to go down from 100. Enough time for you to hire or promote a new general in their place.

Organization drifting from 100 towards 0 at a rate of 5 per day because the army is exiled (and has too many special units)
DD145_04.png

Negative effects from low organization also scale a bit differently now. When you have full organization, you suffer no consequences of course. If you go down to 0 you’ll suffer 100% of the penalties. Previously this was set to 25, but it’s working better with 0 and the drifting value.
Another small change we’re doing alongside this is that we’re adding a base command limit of 10. That means that small formations (max 10 units) do not require a commander to have full organization anymore.

Lean, mean killer machine
DD145_05.png


With regards to supply, we are making some small, but impactful changes too.
Previously supply impacted morale, instead it now affects it via organization. It does so by multiplying the organization target. So if the organization target of a formation is currently 100, but the formation’s supply is only at 50%, the organization target will be set to 50 instead.
This gives supply a lot more teeth than the previously rather harmless effects.


Here we can see the impact of a small supply penalty
DD145_06.png

Alright, so much for our little tour around these values.
Let’s get back to some meaty stuff again that I’m sure will excite many people.

Military Access​

Military Access has been on our wishlist for a long time. It has proven tricky in our military system to define what exactly it actually means and how we can make it work in a way that makes sense for us.
I don’t think I need to explain that much why having a military access system in the game is a good idea, but let’s just say it should allow a lot more countries to conduct war without a naval invasion.
The way this is set up is via a diplomatic pact that two countries establish. It’s one-sided, so for example Belgium could grant military access to Prussia without being granted the same. Additionally, having an alliance with another country will inherently also provide military access.
Note that the example of Prussia marching through Belgium is incidental and not a reference to any particular historical conflict which involved German soldiers marching through Belgium.

Small relevant spoiler for our next Dev Diary :eek:
DD145_07.png

What I should explain though is how Prussia can actually make use of the military access rights they just secured.
Let’s imagine we play as Prussia and find ourselves at war with France (silly example I know). Now we’d like to open a second front with them using a route through neutral Belgium’s territory into Champage to get to Paris.
Well, with the press of a few buttons, we’re able to do so.

Incorrectly found in the Navy tab currently. This will be adjusted before release.
DD145_08.png

Once you press the plan invasion button, you’ll see an interface you may know from Naval Invasions already, which shows all potential invasion targets, via the sea, but also via land.

Note the extra options for states Champagne and Lorraine which are accessible through the military access to Belgium.
DD145_09.png


When we select Champagne, we see the panel where you select your armies. Once selected, they’ll prepare for a while.

While the 2. Armee defends, the 1. Armee shall advance through Belgium!
DD145_10.png


These invasions via land will work almost like naval invasions, minus the boats. While preparations are ongoing, a new front is already spawned at the point of invasion so that the defender also has the time to react and send forces to defend. Once prepared, the Prussian attackers will be able to start advancing the new front.

Again, the invasion icon will be fixed before release
DD145_11.png

France on the other hand will only be able to defend this front and cannot push into Belgium. The conditions to see this front disappear are the same as for naval invasions, so after 3 failed attempts, the front disappears and the attackers return to their HQ.

But what if France wants to fight back and take the fight into Prussia? Well, they can also open a second front via Belgium. When any country uses their military access via a neutral country to invade another country, their enemies will also gain military access to the neutral country.
So keep that in mind when you go around securing these rights.

Next up, some interface improvements we’re doing.

UI Improvements​

We have done a number of changes to the UI surrounding military and warfare which I’d like to present to you in this section.

First up, we now use the more compact Mobilization window layout for formations by default. Previously the long list was very ineffective for how much space it was using and required a lot of scrolling.

Lots of small buttons, making better use of the space
DD145_12.png

We have updated the formation tooltip. It now shows which units are in said formation. Additionally we now expose Offense and Defense stats of units in fitting places.

Updated formation tooltip, including its units and offense/defense value in them
DD145_13.png


Default unit selection
DD145_14.png

Also, the cost of war needed to be highlighted a bit more as it’s a pretty important number.
So in the Military tab, you’ll find a summary of your Military expenses now.

“4.56K for Iron bars?! Who approved this?”
DD145_15.png

Another change we’re doing is to stack all allied/enemy formation markers that are on the same front. This drastically reduces the amount of clutter you see on screen when you’re at war. Your own formations are not affected by this. Hovering over the stack allows you to still see the individual groups that are summed up in it.

Before: Chaos!
DD145_16.png


After: So fresh, so clean
DD145_17.png


Showing what’s in a stack
DD145_18.png

Alright, I have one last feature outlook I want to mention today.
This feature is still very actively in development, but we want to let you know that we are currently working on implementing the possibility to edit mobilization options for your formations in bulk.
This will work by multi selecting any formations you want this to apply to and then have a central editing process which will apply the mobilization options to all selected formations.

Here’s a little outlook (all very much WIP), you can see 3 armies selected, the blue and yellow lines indicating that at least one army has selected the option
DD145_19.png

Closing thoughts​

We are very happy with this set of improvements which ended up a bit bigger than originally expected and we look forward to hearing your feedback once you get your hands on it.
I can’t stress enough that this is not marking the end of military improvements. We will continue addressing issues that aren’t up to par in free updates as we have always done.
We also would like to come back to the naval improvements we have previously teased, but these changes are much larger in scope so we can’t tell you exactly when they are coming at this point.

Also, before I leave you, here's an outlook of further Dev Diaries up until release of the 1.9 Update and Charters of Commerce, which releases June 17th:
  • May 1st: Diplomatic Treaties
  • May 15th: Company Charters
  • May 29th: Prestige Goods
  • June 5th: Other changes
  • June 12th: Changelog

DD145_20.jpg

We will be back with Alex who will walk you through the very exciting Diplomatic Treaties feature in the next Dev Diary on the 1st of May.
Have a good day and see you in the comment section!
 
  • 137Like
  • 55Love
  • 23
  • 9
  • 6
Reactions:
Nope, still putting make up on a pig. Till this system is torn out by the roots it will still be garbage. Fundamentally flawed, you take agency away from the player.
 
Last edited:
  • 11Like
  • 10
  • 2
Reactions:
>They can march through neutral and enemy territory

Why do they gain the ability to march through enemy territory when they got to the point that they have to become exiled by the action of the enemy force? What should happen is that they should be erased from existence in that instance(flavor could be either killed or turned into PoW) like in HoI4 encirclement, just getting some extra attrition while marching through a territory of a state that is actively trying to kill you seems silly.
My thoughts exactly, this is how it worked up till now, they jsut added an "exiled" status, name to it, and added attrition and called a day. When I read I immediately realized that it's all they did basicallly.

I am dissapointed.
 
  • 6Like
  • 1
Reactions:
This would mean that for example any force you are naval invading with would be 100% wiped out if beaten back after taking a state, which I don't think would be great. In general you'd get a lot of army wipes where previously you had army teleportations. I don't think this is too realistic either - there are plenty of historical cases of armies stuck in enemy territory who were able to make their way home.
There were cases where armies made it home, but in general, if an armu was sourrounded, it was destroyed. Even if some made it home, it was a fraction of scattered people. And Yes, Naval invasions shouldnt be stackwiped, but is it not possible for naval invasions being able to return (if you have naval supremacy or fleet present, which isnt evena thing in the current system) and in the meantime, land armies that are sourrounded or cut of, be able to get destroyed? It really seems like this system is reaching its limits does it? Please tell me I am wrong and that a major overhaul is planned.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Maybe stupid question, but what's exactly the point of going through Belgium in this game for Prussia/Germany?

The historical reason for the Schlieffen Plan was to spearhead to Paris and circumvent the defenses in Lorraine, then circle back and hit the fortified French positions along the front from the rear, to completely encircle the defenders there and force their surrender. Hammer and anvil.

But if the invasion feature works anything like naval invasions, the entirety of upper France is just part of the France HQ. All present armies/free generals will simply defend automatically against any attempt to "land" into France HQ from any direction. Let alone that the game has no forts or fortifications that need to be circumvented, nor does the game support encirclements to take out entire armies.

To me it seems that this feature tries to give the player historical options, while the game itself doesn't support the historical reality of warfare. Please, tell me, what am I missing here?
There's other use cases for which players have wanted to get military access, for example the Schleswig-Holstein problem for Prussia (forcing them to use naval invasion)
 
  • 12Like
  • 6
  • 3
Reactions:
If I understood correctly Belgium and Germany are allies, that means that Germany gets military access through Belgium in a war with France (where Belgium is not a participant). In this case why would France get military access through Belgium to attack Germany?
Because it wouldn't feel good to just sit at the border as France, waiting for the attackers to come without having any agency to counter it.
 
  • 14
  • 10Like
  • 3
Reactions:
Lots of really interesting changes! It seems like these resolve a lot of issues which is great.

A few questions:
  • It's great that home bases are more static, but I'd still worry about when they move, and joining the home base. E.g., if the US fights Canada, and the home base is on the Pacific, do we still end up with troops from the East coast hiking all the way over there before joining the fight? Or do they just march to the nearest border?
That shouldn't be happening now and it shouldn't be happening in the future.
If they find a valid position alongside a front, they will go there. Only when they can't they should travel home.
  • When the frontlines move and the home base is no longer valid, will the new home base be the closest possible one? Taking US vs Mexico, when the frontline moves we don't want the home base to go from Texas to Baja California to Veracruz.
They should take the closest possible one.
  • For an invasion via eg Belgium, would that be a 1-state wide front, or would the front be along the entire Belgian border?
1-state wide until the invasion has completed, then it can merge with others.
  • I think the "no generals for 10 unit armies" is great especially for AI, but does this incentivize hundreds of 10-unit armies instead of one bigger army?
It shouldn't.
 
  • 5
  • 3Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Looks good, although I do think perhaps some of the front splitting seems a bit overtuned, only having two fronts on that entire map of India seems kind of silly IMO.

Then again, given how much of a pain point this is for people, I suppose a little overcorrection isn't bad, it's not like it can't be loosened later as necessary.
Exactly, we can tweak this further.
We're going to experiment with a "distance-based gap" instead of the "one state wide gap" for example. So we're happy to listen to feedback once you all get your hands on this.
But so far every single person that's played with it has said it feels like a big step forward. So let's see :)
 
  • 22Like
  • 1Love
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I know perhaps this is asking a bit too much but would there be a way to coordinate invasions? (Say, only start invasion A and B when both A and B have everything to start engaging, or after the naval phase ends). That would be chefs' kiss
This would be a lot more effort and honestly I'm not sure it's that valuable. You're unlikely to launch more than a couple invasions at once, they take the same time to prepare etc., so the benefit decreases a fair amount.
 
  • 7
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I am a bit worried that this frontline merging fix will result in most wars having just one very big frontline and it being a "who has better tech & more units" competition such that the outcome of wars basically is being predefined before it even started (excluding wars with fronts that have large distance between each other and overseas wars of course)
 
  • 6
Reactions:
The biggest concern I have with supply is that as I understand it, it only really considers if there are convoys reaching the army in question, it doesn't really care about actual military production. Atm, even if army goods are completely unsupplied, this has little to no effect beyond cost, meaning a sufficiently rich nation can seemingly conjure military equipment from thin air. While obviously adding stockpiles or making other fundamental changes to the purchasing system would be beyond the scope of this update, armies should, at the very least, take a significant org penalty when experiencing input good shortages.

Longer run, it's a significant design problem that fundamentally military industry *doesn't matter.* Because money is a sufficient substitute for military goods, there's way less reason than there ought to be to invest in military production. You can just use the accumulated revenue from that profitable industry to pay for the military goods at a slightly higher rate, rather than trying to sustain an industry that is fundamentally unprofitable. Hopefully the world market will help a bit since you can have an arms export industry without micromanaging exports to warring nations, but that's a band-aid. There should be a significantly military advantage for countries that can produce more arms and ammunition, *especially* as we get further into the game, and at the moment, there just isn't.

The big story of war across the period this game covers is the rising importance of military industry, the declining importance of men as opposed to guns, and ultimately the total redirection of economies to military production to win wars. At the moment, Vicky just doesn't really simulate that, and you can plausibly wage war throughout the entire game while barely paying attention to your military industry. Unlike a lot of people, I'm actually totally okay with the simplified front system being used to keep focus on the core economic gameplay. But for that to really work, that core economic gameplay needs to have *WAY* more impact. By the late game, it should be borderline impossible for a less industrialized nation to compete with an equivalent more industrialized one on the battlefield, *even given tech parity.* The Russian army was a mess in WW1 not because they didn't know how to make good rifles or artillery, but because they lacked the capacity to produce enough of them. The game in its current state cannot simulate that.
I'm not sure I quite follow the military goods industry not mattering.
If you have an army lacking supply, e.g. by having a goods shortage in small arms, they will suffer from offense, defense, morale recovery and recovery rate penalties.
 
  • 10Like
  • 2
Reactions:
I hope that, with the pass for the military panels, that the consumption doesn't get a pitiful "The amount of <good> consumed by buildings" and have at least the regular cooltip we have for everything else. I know we can access the information for the good anywhere else, but it is a stark contrast that we have some of the most useless tooltips in the Military tabs – I don't ask for having military-specific tooltips and cooltips that explain the goods in terms of warfare, but at least to have the regular ones that let you move to other tabs to fix potential issues we could have on those departments.

View attachment 1282421
What exactly would you expect to see in this tooltip when you hover the increased Grain input cost on mobilization options?
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Kinda worried about this military acces invasion option. (Perhaps I misunderstood). But If I got it right isn't it going to be weird to get invasion through the same country if both war parties have military access there. Like in example of Belgium. Prussians go to invade France, French soldiers going to invade Prussian lands through Belgium. In theory troops of both countrues simply pass by each other in middle of Belgian lands, wave at each other and proceed to attack? From game mechanic pov I understand. From point of view of immersion is kinda shaky.
Yeah, it's certainly not perfect and it was raised during design sessions of course.
The way that I see it now that kinda makes sense in my head is that the two parties are actually fighting for control in the wider belgian area (including the two states in France and Prussia that are being invaded by each other). Eventually, one side may be able to overcome the other one and it results in a regular front after capturing the full state. Once one of the invasions succeeds, the other one will disappear, indicating that one side has won, pushed the enemy out of Belgium and further back into their target country.
I of course see it's not perfect, but for me at least this kind of worked after playing with it.
 
  • 13
  • 9
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Are there any plans to change how you access information on enemy armies?

Right now it's possible to determine the rough army composition of an opponent (if their armies are line infantry or skirmish infantry etc.) but this information is buried behind a half dozen nested tool tips which are extremely obtuse.

Are there any plans to simplify this to make it easier for players to roughly gauge the strength of the AI?
I'll poke our UX designer about it. No promises as time is short at this point, but certainly a good topic for future improvements if we can't make something now.
 
  • 13Like
  • 1
Reactions:
oh i had missed this yesterday because it wasnt on the front page. looks great. i like this direction.

if there is one thing that *really* grinds my gears than it's odd numbered battelions from states that i cannot easily remove/ reorganize. The situation is even worse after forming a new tagabsorbing other nations and their armies. nothing worse than states with 1, 3, 7, 11 battelions instead of multiples of 2 and 5.
my proposed solution is the same one as for sailors. have the states recruit manpower into a pool from which the navy and army draws their men and the 100 cap is silly for states with sufficiently many pops.

which navy has ever only recruited sailors from coastal staes? none i believe.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Are you of the opinion that this should be the case?
With unlimited resources and time, maybe.

More realistically looking at this, I would not want to commit the resources this requires to it anytime soon. Having a supply status based on availability of goods + secure shipping lanes works well enough for all our games I'd say.
 
  • 13Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Would it be possible to get some tooltips or stats regarding the cost to supply a standing army in addition to the projected costs of mobilizing the army? The actual cost of supplying a specific army would be great too. I think *some* of this is in there, but it's not very intuitive.

Love the other improvements!
I wanna say all the info you're looking for is already in the game.
You can see the total cost of an army while not mobilized in its formation window.
When hovering the mobilize button, you will see the predicted additional cost this would incur for this formation and if you do, the cost is added to the summarized cost of the formation.

Maybe I'm missing something that you'd like?
 
  • 5
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Do troops invading via military access suffer from the amphibious landing penalty?
No amphibious landing penalty because it's not an amphibious landing :p But also no other penalty at the moment.
Also, are there any restrictions on military access when it's overseas or only one party benefits, e.g. a Zimmermann telegram situation where Germany invades US with Mexican military access?
No restrictions currently planned. I'll have a think if that's necessary but intuitively I'm leaning no.
 
  • 7Like
  • 5
  • 2Love
Reactions: