• 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:
So you're telling us to stop speculating widely? But where's the fun in that?
I'm always happy to see speculation, but I'm just trying to caution people to not see this speculation as more than it is. :)
Some players have a tendency to "demand" a certain speculation to become implementation, which tends to only result in disappointment, because production reality or different design goals aren't considered. That is natural and bound to happen, but it's much easier if we can just take one step after the other :D
 
  • 25
  • 10Like
  • 2
Reactions:
“Turn individual ships into proper pieces of military hardware that can be built, sunk and repaired rather than just being manpower packages.”

This is nice. Real navy battles at that times didn’t play hide and seek. Just pour in and make a big decisive win.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I love the new patch, thank you for your good work. The economic side of things is in much better shape now and gives freedom to play smaller countries and create export industries without constant trouble with trade routes. One single thing I consider to be most important in increasing the enjoyability of the game now is reworking war goals and exhaustion. Currently many countries join major wars with goals that are absolutely useless like investment rights in some 100k population backwater, or counterproductive like unreachable regime change in some colony.
I had a game where I as Finland tried to puppet Denmark with Russian backing around 1915 (yes, I know it sounds silly), but of all countries Italy and Belgium intervened and managed to defeat the weak and outdated Russian navy and even land in Ingria. This could've been a gamechanger moment where these lower powers prove Russia a weak paper tiger and enforce serious punishments on it, but because their war goals were something like "investment rights in Lanfang", their war support just dwindled while the Russian side managed to stay at zero and eventually win the quite farcical war.
 
  • 3Like
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.
To be clear we're not talking about forcing historical outcomes here so much as making the mechanics of the conflict closer to what it was in history. The Opium Wars were not full on invasions of China and should not play out as such.
 
  • 48Like
  • 15
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Congratulations on the fantastic update and I personally really appreciate all of pdx’s hard work.

As feedback I’d like to say I am a little disappointed by the lack of focus on internal politics going forward and would urge more consideration towards it. We still are lacking different government types feeling unique mechanically, parliaments, cabinets, an engaging election system and something to replace frustrating eu4 siege style law enactments. Having to actually secure and whip votes via deals and pressuring to get a law passed feel like it has been overlooked.

We could also do with more interactivity with religion, the rise of nationalism, and a shift in pops going from caring about religion to nationality to political ideology.

And as a side note it would make more sense for “national pride” to play a bigger role in momentum and thus legitimacy rather than legitimacy directly. The successes of a government throughout their term should help get them into office the next election but just because you won a war under conservatives doesn’t mean the newly elected liberals should be legitimate. Just food for thought.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
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.
Navy really needs reworking and I’m quite excited you said it!!!
 
Overall, I see the learnings align with what I enjoy in the new update so far, so from my point of view, you are clearly right. Adding strategic mechanics that mimic realistic tools of the state to steer trade and the economy by introducing tariffs is a major plus point of this update and for the game as a whole. I really hope we will see more of this indirect steering with more detailed tools like taxes, tax breaks, regulations, direct mandates, and more "charts"-type allowances.

If it were up to me, I’d instantly add a railway planning system to connect major hubs — and either let the state-run railway company build it or outsource it to a company, which could be its own type of company with different types of charters and interactions.

In addition, a system where the state only issues building permits for industries, rather than allowing wild growth of useless or unfocused industries by private investments, would be really neat. Like on a per-province level to allow certain industries and deny others — or on a case-by-case basis. Maybe that could tie into the market policy?

Anyway, more mechanics like the new trade system are really exciting, and seeing that you’ve identified the right indicators from the recent success of the update fills me with hope and excitement for what’s next!
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I love the new patch, thank you for your good work. The economic side of things is in much better shape now and gives freedom to play smaller countries and create export industries without constant trouble with trade routes. One single thing I consider to be most important in increasing the enjoyability of the game now is reworking war goals and exhaustion. Currently many countries join major wars with goals that are absolutely useless like investment rights in some 100k population backwater, or counterproductive like unreachable regime change in some colony.
I had a game where I as Finland tried to puppet Denmark with Russian backing around 1915 (yes, I know it sounds silly), but of all countries Italy and Belgium intervened and managed to defeat the weak and outdated Russian navy and even land in Ingria. This could've been a gamechanger moment where these lower powers prove Russia a weak paper tiger and enforce serious punishments on it, but because their war goals were something like "investment rights in Lanfang", their war support just dwindled while the Russian side managed to stay at zero and eventually win the quite farcical war.
The way I see it is that we first have to rework the wargoal system to be more sensible in general before the AI can be made to use it more sensibly. The all-or-nothing way war support works is at the very top of my chopping list right now.
 
  • 57Like
  • 14Love
  • 2
Reactions:
1000023506.jpg


Touching on this and the upcoming focus on qol. Would you consider revising construction along similar lines too?

The gameplay loop of "you set how much you want to spend on construction by building the exact right number of construction sectors" always felt backwards and filters a lot of newer players (and the ai) who often don't know how many sectors they ought to have.

Either way building stuff is what we spend 75% of our time doing in play so I know we'd all appreciate any improvements to that aspect of the experience. Even if its something as little as being able to reduce our construction allocation from the max
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
View attachment 1329213

Touching on this and the upcoming focus on qol. Would you consider revising construction along similar lines too?

The gameplay loop of "you set how much you want to spend on construction by building the exact right number of construction sectors" always felt backwards and filters a lot of newer players (and the ai) who often don't know how many sectors they ought to have.

Either way building stuff is what we spend 75% of our time doing in play so I know we'd all appreciate any improvements to that aspect of the experience. Even if its something as little as being able to reduce our construction allocation from the max
Short answer: Yes

Long answer: Yes, but construction is such a core element to the game loop that this is not a light undertaking and would have to be extensively prototyped. Sooner or later construction is due for a rework though.
 
  • 54Like
  • 6Love
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
Certainly, I appreciate that and totally understand. I very much enjoy the changes made to companies overall, but it does feel like interactions are mostly one-way (charters), and that companies are an almost wholly good thing for any country, rather than an active agent whose desires may not coincide with the player's. I suppose it's mostly a quibble where I would have categorized that point as "updated" rather than "done".

For example, even a simple copy of the interest group law demand journal, but for a company would be something. I understand that Charters of Commerce was content-light by design, but if companies are going to be actors, I'd like to see something beyond construction and purchasing buildings.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
I completely agree with this idea!

I think this could be a mechanic that could ultimately lead to the Great War. Moreover, this mechanic could be based on two opposing blocks of interest whose leaders would be Great Britain (Entente) and Prussia (Alliance) - the rest of the powers could be "bribed" by the leaders. The remaining powers would be: France, Russia, Austria and free vacancy. All these powers would have the power to decide. Other European countries could be smaller members.

This mechanics could be used for boundary corrections - e.g. regarding the Netherlands and Belgium. Through voting it would be possible to control politics within Europe until the system "burns out" - this would threaten the Great War.
This sounds like something like the Great Game. Else, it would be something that would only work if the Blocs were those when they reach that point.

I've been touting about giving some more juice to the Power Blocs, and how those, alongside a "Bloc diplomacy" could make it so, if tensions between those Blocs end up in conflict, you could systemically reach to the state of WWI/the Great War.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I'm always happy to see speculation, but I'm just trying to caution people to not see this speculation as more than it is. :)
Some players have a tendency to "demand" a certain speculation to become implementation, which tends to only result in disappointment, because production reality or different design goals aren't considered. That is natural and bound to happen, but it's much easier if we can just take one step after the other :D
I agree

Buuuuuuuuuut…
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The way I see it is that we first have to rework the wargoal system to be more sensible in general before the AI can be made to use it more sensibly. The all-or-nothing way war support works is at the very top of my chopping list right now.
<3
 
Short answer: Yes

Long answer: Yes, but construction is such a core element to the game loop that this is not a light undertaking and would have to be extensively prototyped. Sooner or later construction is due for a rework though.
Sliders!

elaboration: to control how much of your construction output you want to utilize
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Since 1.9, Vic3 has finally become the good game that it has always meant to be, and as a long time Paradox fan, I have been waiting for this so long before returning. More scripted events and deeper internal politics definitely would make the game richer and more replayable.

A wish: fix electricity.
I am sick and tired of having the #1 GDP by a wide margin whenever electricity becomes a thing. You guys need to make it easier for the AI to build and use electricity even without those good late game PMs. And for players, electrifying the country right now is a micro-heavy pain in the butt especially when the country is big.

An idea would be to reduce the size of the power plant and to increase the heating preferences with electricities in rich big cities. That way at least the AI builds them in major cities (like irl).
 
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
"for example, I could envision doing something similar with production methods on privately owned building levels."
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, I beg you to give some sort of automation on production methods. I almost abandoned a German Empire campaign because by the 1900's I had states with THOUSANDS of buildings and microing my economy became an absolute nightmare. Just this change would make playing great powers much more smooth and enjoyable.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: