• 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:
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.
Some of the best news in here!
This is the most urgent thing that needs improvement, so I'm really looking forward to seeing the improvements here. Combine the limited wars, improved war goals, more realistic wars and naval improvements and I think the game is in a really excellent place.

Now all we need is a system to model the Panic of 1873 including the transition from bimetallism to gold standard, railway bubbles, monetary policy liquidity, and bank runs...
 
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
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).
Didn't they just halve the output of power plants with 1.9? (Power gives 25/50/80 now instead of 50/100/200.)

Having more granular electricity demand would help. It's nice that the cost of some electric PMs went down with the power change so there are fewer massive demand swings, but there's still a huge jump between 7 background pop demand and even just turning on electric streetlights in a dense province.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Didn't they just halve the output of power plants with 1.9? (Power gives 25/50/80 now instead of 50/100/200.)

Having more granular electricity demand would help. It's nice that the cost of some electric PMs went down with the power change so there are fewer massive demand swings, but there's still a huge jump between 7 background pop demand and even just turning on electric streetlights in a dense province.
I'm really hoping a forthcoming logistics patch addresses the electricity problem. Electricity grids were (and are!) a thing, and it makes little sense that you spend lots of resources building up hydro power generation across many of your states, only to then switch to coal/oil later on.

It would be much better to have localised markets which can affect/link up with adjacent provinces (both for electricity and other goods; e.g. it should cost less to ship sulfur from the province next door where there's a mine to the paper plant, than it is to ship it to the capital and sell it on the world market).


Now that global trade has been addressed, I'm really hoping that localised markets linked by logistics can become a thing, particularly for the larger nations like Quing, Russia, USA, Britain, even France/Austria/Prussia (with first roads - starting from before the game period - then railways and then electricity lines being ways of bringing those sprawling countries together).

We can only hope (and enjoy the game as it is, in the meantime ;) )
 
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.



Ohh, some Saltsjöbaden deal worker rights laws for Sweden would be really cool, getting the whole collective bargaining on

Something like making Trade Unions more powerfull but less radical
 
Last edited:
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.
I would greatly encourage the use of lobbies on this matter. If a 50% PB is actively lobbying for Russia, you should have a real challenge during your war against it !
There should be more effect of the internal politic on such outcomes !
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I have over 10k hours cross all paradox games, start from EU 1. Vic 3 is, by far my favorite! I really had big fear that Paradox give up. I m so happy that this will not and you´ll continue to fix,rework and improve vic 3.

Btw : Trade was most needed to rework! Good job
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
I'm asking for a small update on military access: if you have a strategic interest in a region and there is a viable path to a country from my country (even through a third country) please allow me to negotiate military access and let me start an invasion.

Currently the only way is to be a direct neighbour, but if for example I as a southern german country want to invade Denmark I don't have any way of doing it because me and Mecklenburg don't have a "strategic adjacency" to eachother even if I have military access trough Prussia.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I am a bit saddened to see the issues regarding crashing and freezing (especially with Windows 11 24H2) are not listed as a priority. I have tried all the workarounds and yet the game will still freeze and crash my PC every time I play this game.
I had this problem constantly as well. I updated to the newest driver and the newest windows experimental update and I don't get the freezes anymore.
 
  • 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.

I will be so happy if I don't have to micro what production methods my Iowa logging camps are using anymore.
 
  • 2
  • 1Haha
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.
Sir, I am so very happy to see this.

No complaints from me. I am very much looking forward to this. Currently my largest gripe.
 
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.

Overtime and higher pay for faster construction?
 
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.
What was the logic of this type of wargoal system in the first place, if I may ask?
 
On the subject of the military system, I think you need to give enforced military access on nations which capitulate for the duration of the war. It's super annoying when your armies all have to teleport home because you... crushed and occupied one of your foes. Here's an example:

I'm playing Sardinia-Piedmont and launch a Unification play against Two Sics who are supported by the Papal states. It actually becomes a big war as NGF supports me while Austria and Russia support 2S. War breaks out and my side is winning - my troops with some German aid push in and occupy the Papal states... and then pow! PS capitulates and suddenly I have no land access to 2S anymore and my troops are forced to relocate to the Austrian front. Meanwhile my army-focus has left me with a navy which is more powerful than 2S, but not large enough to transport an army large enough to invade them, so I am stuck waiting until both Russia and Austria are defeated and the NGF launches their own invasion of 2S.

This is stupid. What should happen is, either PS is forced to stay in the war, fully occupied, OR when they peace out I should automatically have military access through them and the front should continue into 2S.
 
  • 6
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Not Updated:

  • Turn legitimacy into a more interesting mechanic, where the strength of a government depends on their successes and failures, and highly legitimate governments can’t simply be ousted at a whim but have to be undermined first.
  • Introduce a concept of national pride which can increase or decrease depending on a country’s actions and which ties directly into legitimacy.
I really like the idea of pursuing a "National Pride" mechanic, but I think it should tie in more heavily with prestige. It can (and should) tie into legitimacy as well, but I think Prestige is the concept that could really use more meaning, because I have always felt attaching company throughput bonuses to it is quite janky. National Pride should primarily respond to whether or not the Nation's Prestige continues to grow at an adequate rate, for example 4-5% a year, and should decline if prestige grows at less than 2-3% a year. Prestige should also respond more to various diplomatic factors, such as the presence of unequal treaties, or defeat at the hands of a rival. And I don't have too many ideas for this, but there should be more of a 'cultural' component to prestige; a nation that offers more to the world in the arts should be more prestigious, beyond the fine arts good production bonus.

Overall, I think National Pride should represent the degree to which the ambitious middle classes conflate the existing government/leadership with their conception of the nation. When National Pride is high, the PB and Intelligentsia are less likely to support radical ideologies. In fact, they want to devote themselves to the existing government, boosting society research, reinvestment rates, legitimacy, and most of all, authority. Having higher national pride for a longer period of time makes it easier for the government to mobilize its people behind certain kinds of initiatives, be it the construction of new irredentist claims, the growth of existing institutions, the use of its authority, or the number of conscripts it can draw up. Mechanical additions here would be allowing players to construct claims on states, significantly increase the number of available conscripts, increase institution change speed and decrease its costs, and add new special uses for authority. More National Pride also reduces the likelihood of pacifist leaders, the rate of war exhaustion, and inspires more morale in its soldiers. But on the other hand, it also ossifies the status quo, by increasing support for existing legal structures and interest groups, as they are the rightful shepherds of the Nation. In effect, it leads to longer enactment times, more characters that support ideologies of the existing government, and much more clout for the interest groups which represent the current vision of the Nation. In countries with elections, parties that represent the vision of the Nation should perform a lot better during periods of high National Pride.

Low National Pride, on the other hand, means that the popular conception of the Nation is either broken, or deeply out of step with the status quo. People do not trust the central government, and parochialism takes hold, leading to much less authority, reduced taxation efficiency, higher interest rates, and penalties to institution effects. However, this also enables greater dynamism to the legal structure of the state, making it easier to rapidly change laws, gain interest group leaders with radical ideologies, and attraction to reformist political movements. If a period of low National Pride can be ended, it leads to a sort of mini "golden age," where the player gets further bonuses to construction efficiency, law enactment speed, and interest rates, representing a renewed commitment and trust in the national government to pursue the national interest. If National Pride drops too steeply, it may even provoke a Nationalist Revolution, which as the representative of newly resurgent forces, should gain the same bonuses as a golden age nation, and comes with very high likelihoods of having newer leader ideologies; liberal for conservative countries, socialist or fascist for liberal ones, and modernizer for unrecognized powers. In the case of unrecognized powers, it should have a very high likelihood of drawing in GPs that have unequal treaties with the ancien regime to intervene and keep the unrecognized power weaker. These Nationalist Revolutions would be a mechanical way of representing the Japanese Restoration, Boxer Rebellion, Turkish Independence War, etc., while also providing a very simple 'Revanchism' analogue from Eu4 that feels realistic and fitting to the time period.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: