• 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:
Do you have any plans to overview the unit types and possibly get rid of discrete units to reintroduce cavalry and artillery as PMs? I really think they add nothing to do the game currently and significantly detract from both strategic and economic options. Particularly because they add unnecessary micromanagement.
 
  • 14Like
  • 4
  • 3
  • 1Love
Reactions:
I want to say that this sounds great, but I’m honestly not convinced that these changes will make the war system feel any less frustrating.

I also predict that the invasion/military access system will be just as clunky and annoying as naval invasions. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
 
  • 4Like
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Nothing about the micromanagement of raising armies? The finickiness of constructing regiments that aren’t just homogenous blocks of infantry really puts me off the game at this stage and I was hoping for a tool to build up regiments at a set ratio, such as 5/2/3. Is such a macrobuilder in the cards or am I out of luck?
 
  • 6Like
  • 2
Reactions:
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:

What does this mean?
 
  • 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.

Being stuck is a very different thing than being defeated. When the initial naval invasion is successful and the army can open a front there, they should be able to hold for for a while (with support).

But your case is actually the best one where "wipes", so great losses to man and material, can happen. An army disconnected from the homeland, unsupported by its fleet AND defeated in battle after some time is the ideal case for a "wipe". Such an army is lost, 100%.

How often will that happen? The sea node needs to be under enemy control or without fleet, the front is lost, the organisation is low and the losses most likely already super high. Just kill all remaining soldiers and commanders, remove all experience, reset to base HQ and start rehiring at 0.

There are also plenty of historical cases where cut off armies do not return home. I am willing to accept that every army can return home as long as a path is somehow open, if not, well so be it.
 
  • 5
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
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.

The component missing here however is what this means for the neutral country, i.e. Belgium in this case.

It makes no sense for this war to be going on at its doorstep, its territory invaded, without some repercussions on the people and its politics.

Please keep this in mind.

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.

Having a true playthrough of the game and think this is good QoL.
I almost didn't know what this window did at first.

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.

I could also hardly find these and didnt get it later. Better this way.


So in the Military tab, you’ll find a summary of your Military expenses now.

This is really good.

Anyway, I like what I see but still look forward a general war rework, more flavour and content, as well as one day being able to halt the hun.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
Reactions:
While you’re at it, could you please make it so that Great War era units are actually built?

The problem is that anything beyond Shrapnel Artillery and Trench Infantry is gated behind goods the AI doesn’t produce, period. Siege Artillery, for example, requires Radios, but the AI often doesn’t even get to the technology that lets it produce them, let alone build enough factories and upgrade the units. Even in late 1920s, the AI uses 1890 technology despite researching better unit types.

It’s even worse with the fleets, which consist of Monitors and Ironclads with an occasional Torpedo Boat.
 
  • 9Like
Reactions:
As we state in the Dev Diary, granting one country military access will also grant their opponents military access.
Ah must have missed it.
So Germany and France will duke it out on Belgian soil. Nice one.
Belgium freely granting access to Germany, France reacts, Belgium devastated.

Unless that rule applies:
Gentlemen-you-cant-fight-in-here-This-is-the-War-Room.jpg
 
  • 2Haha
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!
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Hello,
Thank you for your work. I am a bad English speaker so I use a translator, I hope you understand me.
I am interested in the situation with military access. The main problem now is that Germany needs to take some political actions to get military access, spend resources on it, because Belgium will not give access just like that, but in case of war, France will get this access without doing anything. I think this is the first problem. The second is the access itself and the lack of consequences for the so-called "neutral side", although it is obviously no longer neutral. You answered that your opponent, for example France, will also get access (for free). And although your answer is valid from the point of view of gameplay, but from the point of view of logic it is not. Further my subjective opinion. I like the Paradox games for logically sound functions, role-playing, and not just for the sake of gameplay.
Thanks again for what you do. Good luck and all the best to you!
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Really, really nice stuff. I was really worried when you started taking surveys and went silent for a long time, and then the new Expansion Pass had nothing about military in it, but I guessed that you might put the military update into a free update, according to your philosophy. I'm very glad and relieved that that guess turned out to be correct. I'll be getting the new pass to support future updates
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Can we just remove the unit type fiddle? Not sure why they were implemented in the first place. The previous system was so convenient to use, and existence of discreet units add nothing to the game, except now that AI is completely incapable of designing their army.
 
  • 13
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Do troops invading via military access suffer from the amphibious landing penalty? 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?
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Hello,
Thank you for your work. I am a bad English speaker so I use a translator, I hope you understand me.
I am interested in the situation with military access. The main problem now is that Germany needs to take some political actions to get military access, spend resources on it, because Belgium will not give access just like that, but in case of war, France will get this access without doing anything. I think this is the first problem.
I don't think this is a problem, it's a reverse violate sovereignty.

The second is the access itself and the lack of consequences for the so-called "neutral side", although it is obviously no longer neutral. You answered that your opponent, for example France, will also get access (for free). And although your answer is valid from the point of view of gameplay, but from the point of view of logic it is not. Further my subjective opinion. I like the Paradox games for logically sound functions, role-playing, and not just for the sake of gameplay.
Thanks again for what you do. Good luck and all the best to you!

Something we could potentially do is allow violate sovereignty on any country granting access to the enemy and make the AI much less likely to intervene to defend them, since they're not really being neutral.
Or nicely ask them for your own military access to go punch the germans.
I agree the military access should not be automatic when the opposite side gets one, you should do some work, either asking or threatening.
 
Hi Lino,

Is there any chance we will see changes to the UI for merging and splitting armies? It feels like making this process the click of a single key on my keyboard would make it so much easier to respond to things like naval invasions or front splitting, which of course will still exist as per the dev Diary.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't really see why it would be a tougher thing to fix, than the unfixable system we have now, and were receiving constant fixes for the whole life of Vic3.
I mean just looking at it. I don't even think there's a point where 4 Strategic Regions touch each other, and the only relation there is between two would be "there exists a connection between war involved land in one to the other", that's not many interactions to solve. Meanwhile with fronts there's constantly gonna be new cases, because there's gonna be weird borders and army interactions.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Looking forward to the changes!

One small request. Can we add a hotkey to mobilize the selected army(s)?

Now that we can drag to select an army and right click to send that army to a front from earlier patches, the only thing holding me back from not having to interact with the army menu on the far left of the screen at all is having a hotkey to mobilize.

This would be just a small but impactful change to help the user efficiently prepare for a war which I'm pretty sure every paradox player enjoys probably to much
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Out of pure curiosity, with the new "close-enough" merging of fronts, would it be possible for the frontlines to move along provinces without having small pockets along the coast or neutral territories create new frontlines? Essentially how it was pre-1.5, just without having to split an army to deal with 1-province pockets on the coastlines.
 
  • 3
Reactions: