• 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 #152 - What’s next after 1.9

16_9.png


Happy Thursday today, Happy Thursday forever! As is by now long established tradition, after each major update, today we’ll be returning to the future update plans, which we last went over in Dev Diary #141. As we always do, we’ll be going over what changes and improvements we have planned for the game in future free updates such as 1.10, 1.11 and beyond. Can you tell I copy the previous dev diary and slightly rephrase the intro each time? You probably can!

Before hopping into post-release plans, I do want to take a moment to reflect on the release of 1.9 and Charters of Commerce, and what can I really say except that I am absolutely blown away by its reception! 1.9/Charters of Commerce not only exceeded all our expectations (in players, reviews and sales), not only had the highest active player count since November of 2022 (when counting Monthly Active Users - Steam concurrent players got close but didn’t quite exceed 1.5), but also finally brought Victoria 3 to Mostly Positive overall reviews on Steam.

This is of course something we have been working towards ever since the release of the game by addressing the community’s feedback and constructive criticism, one item at a time. It hasn’t always been an easy road, but we never had any intention of giving up on Vicky, and clearly, neither did you! The future of Victoria 3 has never looked brighter, and we have all of you to thank for it.

Just as it’s important to learn from your mistakes, it’s equally important to look at your successes and try to figure out why they were successes so that you can try and repeat them. We’re still very much in the process of doing so for 1.9/CoC but I do want to list a few things off the top of my head that I believe were contributing factors in the positive reception:
  • The Trade Rework managed to find a good balance between autonomous economic actors and player control, giving the player powerful strategic tools to manipulate trade but removing the micromanagement aspect present in the previous trade system. This level of control is something we intend to use as a guideline when creating or redesigning features in the future - for example, I could envision doing something similar with production methods on privately owned building levels.
  • Having a much more robust trade system also paid considerable dividends towards improving the performance of the AI and allowing countries to actually properly specialize in resources, removing much of the samey-ness present in the old, autarky-centric economic loop.
  • We spent extra effort on ensuring that the features of 1.9 and Charters of Commerce would all hook heavily into and compliment each other, which made them individually much stronger. As an example, without the Grant Monopoly Treaty Article, Monopolies would be a feature with much more limited, internal-only use instead of a tool of unbridled economic imperialism.

To celebrate hitting Mostly Positive, we got the team some custom-ordered cake!
DD152_01.jpg


All of this is to say that while we’re very happy with how everything’s gone, we’re not just planning to rest on our laurels! There are still many things about the game we want to improve and expand on, so let’s get to talking about that. Once more 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, #124 and #141) 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. I know we say this every time, but it really is a pretty necessary disclaimer. Anyway, let’s get to the good stuff!

V3-DD-Infographic-July2025.png

Military​

Done:
  • Tweaking and improving the frontline system to eliminate excessive front splitting and troop teleportation once and for all
  • Adding a proper system of military access and finding solutions for the other remaining rough edges in the frontline system.

New:
  • Make generals/admirals into more meaningful and noticeable actors in countries and reduce the micromanagement of large numbers of commanders.

Updated:
  • Make sure that supply is an important and meaningful part of the military system that can win or lose you wars.
    • Supply is a lot more significant in 1.9 but we still want to do more in terms of adding interesting gameplay around logistics and tying them to the navy
  • Make navies more important for projecting global power and securing control of coasts.
    • The addition of blockades has made navies more important for global power projection, but of course much remains to be done here!

Not Updated:
  • Turn individual ships into proper pieces of military hardware that can be built, sunk and repaired rather than just being manpower packages.
  • Add a system for limited wars to reduce the number of early-game global wars between Great Powers

Historical Immersion​

New:
  • Improve the way we simulate certain historical conflicts such as the Opium Wars, American Civil War and similar to play out a bit closer to the way they did historically. For example, the Opium Wars should not regularly play out as 100k British regulars seizing control of Beijing.

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 1.9 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​

Done:
  • 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.
New:
  • Rework the War Exhaustion system from one where a single uncontrolled war goal can stalemate wars towards one where war goal control and war outcomes are more dynamic and interesting (and much less frustrating).

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​

Updated:
  • Adding laws that expand on diversity of countries and introduce new ways to play the game
    • In 1.9 we introduced the concept of ‘Law Variants’, which we plan to use extensively, creating unique national variants of baseline laws so that those countries' political systems feel more distinct 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​

Done:
  • 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.
  • Improve on Companies by turning them into actual actors in your country that can own/expand buildings and interact with characters/politics.

As is always and forever the case I’m not able to make specific promises about when all these improvements will come out, but I can say that the next three updates (1.10, 1.11 and 1.12) which are all coming out later this year will be smaller in scale than 1.9 and will be more focused on bug fixing, quality of life and general game polish. You may have noticed that there’s not too much new added to the plans this time around, and if you choose to believe that’s because some longstanding, boat-shaped things may be looming on the horizon beyond 1.12, all I can say is [words drowned out by a very loud foghorn].

Right then, that’s all for this Happy Thursday, and also for this side of the traditional July summer vacations. We’ll be back in early August to talk about 1.10 and National Awakening, the Immersion Pack that will be accompanying it. See you then, and hope you all have a lovely summer!
 
  • 142Like
  • 85Love
  • 10
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Couldn't one way with making legitimacy better is by having an actual parliament mechanic? That way legitimacy can be tied to forming a government with a majority or a coalition of like minded parties. If you form a government with just a minority party or with 2 parties that are ideologically against each other you get low legitimacy.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
For the very least we should expect National Pride this year (because something called "National Fervor" is mentioned in description to National Awakening DLC) and it will be reasonable to assume that it comes together with being tied to legitimacy
Would the "nationalism rework" count as a major? I think a lot of people are expecting that from the Austria patch.
As always, I'd encourage anybody to wait until we share more about what it (in this case National Fervor) entails, rather than speculating/expecting and then getting disappointed because it doesn't fully align with the own wishes.
We'll share more once we're ready to share more :)
 
  • 32Like
  • 11
Reactions:
The message on the cake is funny out of context, but well. Hope it was tasty :D

Post-release plans check out. I'd add two big things: building the army and determining its composition has still been a pain ever since the 1.5 reworks; and there's all the discussions about how IGs, parties and movements should work.
 
This 1.9 patch was truly excellent - I felt the game was finally complete. Thanks to the developers, I was able to enjoy a truly fun game.

However, while the game has become more enjoyable, I feel saddened to see the Junkers disappear by the mid-game. I play as another country, it pains me to see Bismarck get expelled. I think Victoria 3 has the fun of building up different countries to your own liking.

As the game progresses, the landowners and aristocrats become weaker and disappear, which seems to be the developers' intention. But I think some players may want to lead the German Empire centered around the Junkers.

Instead of giving a +25% success rate when adopting treaty laws regardless of national rank, how about strengthening the political power of the landowners and nobles by further strengthening the laws that strengthen the hereditary bureaucracy and local police, so that the lords can maintain power until the end of 1936? Then, users who want to play by reforming the landowners can get a 25% success rate through treaties, and it would be nice if it could satisfy users who want to build the strongest nation with the landowners. Please help us enjoy the game according to each person's taste with various concepts.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Improve the way we simulate certain historical conflicts such as the Opium Wars, American Civil War and similar to play out a bit closer to the way they did historically. For example, the Opium Wars should not regularly play out as 100k British regulars seizing control of Beijing.
Congratulations on Mostly Positive. And I will say it right now - in a sandbox vs. railroad slapfight, I care more about playing in a history I recognize.
 
  • 6
  • 2Like
Reactions:
  • Turn individual ships into proper pieces of military hardware that can be built, sunk and repaired rather than just being manpower packages.
If I can humbly suggest a Leviathan: Warships Jazzy Trailer style for this one ;)
  • Allowing peace deals to be negotiated during a Diplomatic Play instead of only having the option to give in
YES ! And if can pitch in along side it: being able to threaten to start a diplomatic play if a treaty is refused, and being able to remove demand while in diplomatic play.
  • 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.
If I may also suggest: right now there is modifiers that add flat +%/-% to various stuff, on threshold that can be crossed from week to another, which can create big swig in your resources, especially in late game.
It would be nice to change those: either by removing the threshold, or make the +%/-% variable. so that things get more predictable.
 
and even worse, some are simply merged just to simplify things, when what’s really needed is to add more for greater detail.
Is this a general (as opposed to region-specific) request for partitioning the map into more states? If so, no thank you; too many things in the game right now reward high-density states, and even without those we could do with far fewer barely-populated microstates for the player to manage.*

*The northeastern USA is the absolute worst in this regard; at least the Germanies, the princely states and the East Indies need to be independent polities
 
  • 6Like
Reactions:
  • Make sure that supply is an important and meaningful part of the military system that can win or lose you wars.
    • Supply is a lot more significant in 1.9 but we still want to do more in terms of adding interesting gameplay around logistics and tying them to the navy
  • Make navies more important for projecting global power and securing control of coasts.
    • The addition of blockades has made navies more important for global power projection, but of course much remains to be done here!
  • Turn individual ships into proper pieces of military hardware that can be built, sunk and repaired rather than just being manpower packages.
  • Improve the way we simulate certain historical conflicts such as the Opium Wars, American Civil War and similar to play out a bit closer to the way they did historically. For example, the Opium Wars should not regularly play out as 100k British regulars seizing control of Beijing.
I feel like these points are all tied together. The opium wars did not feature hundreds of thousands of troops landing in China proper and razing the countryside. They were extremely small scale affairs with about 20,000 total troops from Europe & the USA who wiped the floor with the Qing banner armies. Right now the game doesn't display any of the factors that led to these results that well. To my mind a few key fixes are required to improve historicity and make gameplay more challenging/fun:
  • Massively increasing the cost per sea-node for an overseas invasion from the market centre of a country. The UK sending 10,000 troops to China was a monumentally expensive endeavour that was not taken lightly by the British government and was coordinated entirely through London. In game terms the convoy system needs to be enhanced again to require significantly more convoys for early game invasions, with the port techs scaling up to the point that a WW1 type invasion and supply system is only possible for the absolute richest countries. Right now that is simply not an issue at any point in any game.
  • The buffs to move towards line and skirmish infantry needs to be significantly higher compared to irregular infantry. Western troops were better equiped, trained, and had significantly more firepower than Qing armies, and delivering 10:1 wounded & killed ratios were not uncommon in those encounters. Right now that level of disparity is not possible in game.
  • A lot of troops in this period were not dedicated to frontline combat but instead garrisoning and acting as deterrent to uprisings. This was very relevant among many Imperial powers who were generally terrified of their own populace. Super relevant for the Qing example, as they did not commit all their armies to defending Beijing in part because they kept most troops where they were. I feel like this could be factored in with the Austrian Empire DLC/update as Austria-Hungary faced a similar dilemma in the early days of WW1 where they were reluctant to actually send armies to fight since they were viewed as critical to keeping their own population in check.
  • One smaller idea woudl be to potentially slow down the movement of troops so that it takes weeks or months to move from say southern China (sticking with the Opium wars example) to northern China without rail PMs/infrastructure available, so that countries with large geographic areas have to position defensive troops well in advance of a potential invasion.
Combined with the naval changes overall, I feel like these would improve historicity without railroading too much (my biggest fear as a constant Qing player lol - I like having the chance to avoid the Opium wars entirely if I play my cards right).
 
  • 11Like
Reactions:
First and foremost: Congratulations! 1.9 is a great success!

Do you have any plans on reworking the building ownership? The main issue I see here is that wealth doesn't accumulate in the hands of a few actors, but instead there are just more and more capitalists. You just tweaked down the amount of capitalists in ownership buildings but it doesn't really solve the root cause of the problem.

As I would do it, I'd add an "economy of scale" modifier to ownership buildings, but instead of increasing throughput it decreases the number of pops employed. This way # of owners is not proportional to # of building levels owned. We could also imagine more severe class struggle with this new wealth accumulation.

A second point is on local company branches. As they stand now they steal IP from the target country to build in it. As well as providing free IP to the origin country. It makes no sense that we use Japanese IP to build in Japan as a US company. I would make the regional headquarters still syphon income to the parent company, still use local construction queue, but instead use origin country's IP. It would also make countries like tall Belgium that has too much IP for its construction points available able to construct more, using other countries' construction but its own IP.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
While I applaud and appreciate your concern with historical outcomes of important conflicts (like the Opium War), I would like to gently remind you that many players, myself included, really like playing as Qing, industrializing and reforming and there's a lot of videos, guides etc. on how to survive the Opium War as Qing, and I would like to petition you not to increase the difficulty for the players too much when enticing the game to have a historical outcome.
What I want to say is: Please try to keep the Opium War winnable as Qing without being a very good player or resorting to cheeese.
 
  • 8
  • 2Like
Reactions:
1.9 is so fantastic, thanks again to all the devs!

As for the future, I still feel like the lack of a Great War mechanic and large disasters in general is really holding back the late game. It feels really odd for the year to tick to 1936 without some major changes in government or borders caused by a World War One-esque conflict or major economic depressions.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Great work, the game keeps getting better and better with every patch/DLC. My own wishlist for what it's worth:
  • Setting to automatically use the most profitable production method on default, while keeping a possibility to use exceptions.
  • Local preferences for ideologies: like abolitionists in New England for example. The Rural Folk in state A should be different than the Rural Folk in state B on the other side of the country.
  • Fun immersive way to play decentralized/releasable countries (I've added a post in discord about this).
  • Prime minister should be a (de facto) Ruler in some constitutional monarchies while the monarch is merely a 'figurehead' when the country gets more and more democratic.
  • Make railroad/power plant management less tedious.
  • Art should be more impactful than just a product from an 'art academy'. For example: The Arts & Crafts movement could lead to more Luddites, Wagner Festivals could lead to more Fascists/Ethno-Nationalists, etc.
  • Characters called Scientists, Innovators or how you would like to call them should help with tech spread and sometimes introduce specific technologies. Also historical characters, like Alexander Graham Bell helping with the Telephone tech.
  • More stuff like terrorism, assassination plots, strikes, etc. and ways for the player to combat these. Turmoil should be more than a boring percentage about missing out on taxes.
  • Interest Groups should have an opinion about your subjects. It's weird that an Abolitionist wouldn't care about a colony with slaves.
  • Interest Groups should have an opinion about Power Blocs and their principles. An Anarchist should be pretty pissed off about Police Coordination for example.
  • And a lot more wishes I forgot.
 
Last edited:
  • 4Like
  • 3
Reactions:
If we're at historical immersion, then please add Hungary as a separate country in personal union with Austria. Pre-1849, that was the reality of things both de facto and de jure!

On another, but slightly related note: Please polish the various tile borders! It would be nince if they could becone more detailed and accurate!
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
  • Improve on Companies by turning them into actual actors in your country that can own/expand buildings and interact with characters/politics.
This point doesn't feel fully realized.

Executives are totally not interactable (at least no character interactions), even when the ruler of a company country, and I'm not aware of any content where a company or executive makes a demand or request of a country. Executives can become leaders of an IG potentially, but that's barely any interaction compared to what we might expect from 19th century conglomerates, industrial magnates, and "robber barons".
 
  • 12Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
As always, I'd encourage anybody to wait until we share more about what it (in this case National Fervor) entails, rather than speculating/expecting and then getting disappointed because it doesn't fully align with the own wishes.
We'll share more once we're ready to share more :)
So you're telling us to stop speculating widely? But where's the fun in that?
 
  • 5Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
I think the part about limiting wars is key. In my opinion, wars, wargoals and the overall diplomacy surrounding wars needs an important rework. In my last playthrough in 1.9.5, I have seen France and Russia go in an all-out war only to change the regime in Tahiti (in the 1850s), with France even suffering a major revolution and civil war in the process.
This is nuts.

A better system should allow for a range of limited to very harsh wargoals depending on the intensity of the war, set during the course of the war and not a priori during the diplomatic play. For instance, acquiring a treaty port from China should involve only limited naval warfare (without the need of occupying Beijing, as the devs say). In that case, minor victories should suffice to impose limited wargoals - on the contrary, if the war bugs down, the casualties mount, and you finally occupy the enemy's capital, then you unlock more harsher impositions (big war reparations, territorial conquest of core states, regime change, etc.).

In this regard, wars would be organically limited or total depending on the course of the war itself - if you just want german leadership, the war can be brief and victory achieved with 1-2 battles; if you want to include the conquest of Bohemia, then you need to fully occupy Vienna. In the current system, these two very different objectives are not differentiated at all (you need to occupy Vienna in either case). In addition, if you pursue the latter, the other great powers should be able to intervine, representing the balance of power of the age.

I know such system would be complicated, but I think it would make the war part of the game much more enjoyable.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
This point doesn't feel fully realized.

Executives are totally not interactable (at least no character interactions), even when the ruler of a company country, and I'm not aware of any content where a company or executive makes a demand or request of a country. Executives can become leaders of an IG potentially, but that's barely any interaction compared to what we might expect from 19th century conglomerates, industrial magnates, and "robber barons".
Barely anything on our list is ever done done.
But once an area is fleshed out enough for the moment, you see how other areas are lacking, e.g. navy, so that's what we'll focus on.
So I'd be surprised if we didn't return to strengthening this bond of characters and politics further in the future, but it's certainly not nearly as urgent as it was before the 1.9 update.
 
  • 33Like
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions: