• 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 #19 - Relations and Infamy

Thumbnail.jpg

Hello and welcome to another Victoria 3 dev diary! This one is going to be a little bit broad, as we want to go through the fundamental mechanics of Diplomacy before moving on to more specific topics. Today, the mechanics we’ll be going over are Relations, Infamy and Interests, so let’s get to them one at a time, shall we?

Starting out with Relations, this is a value on a scale between -100 and +100 that determines the overall diplomatic standing between two countries, similar to relations/opinion in games such as Europa Universalis and Stellaris. The key difference between Relations here and in those games is that in Victoria 3 relations are bilateral, meaning that while in Europa Universalis France can have a relations of -100 with Prussia while Prussia has a relations of +100 with France, in Victoria 3 these two countries will always have the same Relations score towards each other.

There’s a few reasons for this change, such as making it more clear exactly where two countries stand with each other, but the most important is that we want Relations to be a mechanic with significance and mechanical effects not just for AI countries but also for the player, and even in multiplayer. Your relation number will translate into a relations level, and the different relations levels are as follows (from highest to lowest): Warm (80-100), Amiable (50-79), Cordial (20-49), Neutral (-19 to 19), Poor (-20 to -49), Cold (-50 to -79), Hostile (-80 to -100).

Your relationship with the Great Powers will be especially important, as they are the ones with the global reach to potentially affect you no matter where your country is located
Country List.png

All of these have an impact on the AI’s decision-making in terms of which diplomatic proposals it will accept, which side it will want to join in diplomatic plays, and so on, but besides that there are also limitations on what actions you can take against another country based on your mutual Relations. For example, a relations level of Cordial or above acts as a non-aggression pact: It isn’t possible to start most Diplomatic Plays against a country with which you have that relation level without first acting to reduce said relations. On the flip side, signing and maintaining a Customs Union with a country requires you to be at or above Cordial relations, and there are other actions that cannot be taken unless relations are at other certain negative or positive thresholds.

So, how do you raise and lower relations? The primary way is through the Improve Relations and Damage Relations ongoing diplomatic actions (more on those next week), but there’s many other ways in which relations can be increased or decreased, including various events, Diplomatic Incidents (see the section on Infamy below) and the Expel Diplomats diplomatic action (which we’ll also go over in detail next week), which is a way in which one country can act to prevent another from cozying up to them relations-wise, though at the cost of gaining Infamy.

Here, France finds itself with few friends in Europe - the only other Great Power they have decent relations with is Austria, and it seems like it may not stay that way...
Diplomatic Relations Map Alt.png

That covers Relations, so let’s move on to Infamy. This is a system we have previously talked about a little under the name of Threat, implying that it works similarly to Aggressive Expansion in Europa Universalis, but is actually something we have since redesigned following tester feedback, as the very localized effects of Threat/Aggressive Expansion did not feel appropriate to the far more globalized Victorian era. The result is something that could be described as a hybrid between older Infamy (or ‘Badboy’ as those of you who have been around Paradox GSGs for a long time might recall) systems and the newer, more localized systems.

In Victoria 3, a country has an Infamy value that starts at 0 and can increase to… well, anything, as there’s no upper cap on it. As a country’s Infamy increases, other countries will become more wary, resulting in various diplomatic penalties for the infamous country.If Infamy exceeds the Pariah threshold (which is currently set to 100) the country becomes a potential target for a special Contain Threat diplomatic play where the Great Powers step in to ‘restore order’. Infamy decays slowly over time, and its rate of decay can be increased if the country has a large amount of unallocated Influence capacity, representing that capacity being put to use trying to salvage the country’s global reputation instead.

After making some aggressive moves against its neighbors, Bolivia’s infamy has increased to the point where they will start feeling some diplomatic effects - though it’s not yet too bad
Bolivia Infamy.png

So far this should probably sound very familiar to anyone who has played Victoria 2, but the key difference between Victoria 3 and its predecessor here is the Diplomatic Incident mechanic tied to Infamy. In the vast majority of cases, any action a country takes (for example demanding land in a Diplomatic Play or violating a neutral country’s sovereignty during war) that increases Infamy will also create a Diplomatic Incident localized at a particular Strategic Region (more on that below) on the map.

For example, starting a Diplomatic Play to demand a colony in West Africa will result in a Diplomatic Incident occurring there. Whenever a Diplomatic Incident happens, the country that caused it immediately suffers a penalty to their relations with all countries that have an Interest in the region, with the amount of Relations lost based on the amount of Infamy attached to the Incident in question.

Infamy in itself should be understood as a measure of how concerned the Great Powers are about a country, and as such, country Rank has an effect on how much Infamy a country gets when it commits a diplomatic transgression against another. Generally speaking, the lower the rank of the two countries involved, the less Infamy will be generated, as the Great Powers care a lot more about actions taken by and against other Great Powers than they do over two Minor Powers being engaged in a local squabble.

The Sikh Empire’s ambitions on India are not going to go unnoticed by countries with an Interest there
2021_10_07_3.png

Ultimately, what this means is that Infamy doesn’t just have a global effect, and where you’re accruing it matters. If you keep taking actions that destabilize a particular Strategic Region, you can expect to quickly become very unpopular with both the locals and any outside powers that have taken an Interest in it.

By now, I’ve said the word Interest a whole bunch of times, so it’s probably time to finally explain what they are. To do that though, I first have to explain the concept of Strategic Regions. A Strategic Region is a large predetermined geographic area consisting of a number of State Regions, with the 715 State Regions of the current internal build divided into a total of 49 Strategic Regions.

A look at the Strategic Regions of Europe - do note that as with all parts of the map, this may not be how it looks on release!
Strategic Regions.png

Interests is, put simply, a mechanic that determines whether or not a country has a stake in a particular Strategic Region and plays into numerous different mechanics such as Diplomatic Plays, Colonization and the aforementioned Diplomatic Incidents. A country can gain an Interest in a region in one of two ways: either automatically by having a geographical presence there (owning land or controlling subject nations in the region) or by using a Declared Interest.

A Declared Interest is a country quite simply saying that, regardless of their lack of a geographic presence, a Strategic Region is still of importance to them, perhaps because they plan to colonize it, or because they want to prevent a hated rival from expanding into it. A country can Declare an Interest in any region that is either adjacent to a region where they already have an Interest, or which they can reach through the support of their naval supply network (more on that later!). The number of Declared Interests that is available to a country depends on their Rank - a Great Power can choose to have its fingers in a great many pies, while an Insignificant Power is limited to acting only in regions where they already have land.

You might want to declare an Interest in Persia for numerous reasons, such as checking Russian or British aggression in the region… or as a precursor to seizing colonies there for yourself
Declare Interest.png

Interests do not provide any inherent benefit to a country besides the ability to throw their weight around in a Strategic Region, and can actually be a bit of a double-edged sword in that a country with Interests all over the world may get dragged into a lot of local conflicts. Ultimately, Interests are our attempt to simulate such historical occurrences as why certain parts of the world simply got a lot more attention from the Great Powers than others at particular points during the century that Victoria 3 covers, and to make nations act and care about things in a way that makes sense according to their national self-interest.

Right then, that’s all for today! Join me again next week as I continue to write lots of words about diplomatic things, this time on the topic of Diplomatic Actions!
 
  • 280Like
  • 95Love
  • 25
  • 11
  • 10
Reactions:
Don't you think though, that if a possibility of having a free interest exist, it should primarily cover your own borders? This sounds like a very basic rule that should absolutely be adopted. In none of possible worlds I can think of, loosing Galicia could lead Austria to abandoning its interest in Silesian - Bohemian border.

Furthermore, as devs stated, declared interest can be double edged as it might drag you to conflicts you are not interested in. As Saxony, I would probably want to have interest in who holds Silesia - in the same time I would probably prefer to stay out of, say, polish - ukrainian dispute over Lwów. In fact, I don't see any decent rationale behind connecting these two.
It already does cover your own borders, to an extent. That's why the European strategic regions are drawn the way they are, so that in most instances countries will have an automatic strategic interest in the territory near their border because the other side of the border will be in the same region. However, if there is a major geographic barrier on a border like, say, the Alps or the Pyrenees, or an economic barrier like being further inland from the Turkish Straits or the edge of the Rhine basin, then the area will naturally be of less interest to a country and it just won't be as big of a priority unless the country specifically makes it a priority i.e. actively spends influence capacity on declaring an interest. It's about having a passive interest vs. an active interest in a region and, yes, there are some cases where a country would not automatically have an active interest in what is going on directly across its border.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
It already does cover your own borders, to an extent. That's why the European strategic regions are drawn the way they are, so that in most instances countries will have an automatic strategic interest in the territory near their border because the other side of the border will be in the same region. However, if there is a major geographic barrier on a border like, say, the Alps or the Pyrenees, or an economic barrier like being further inland from the Turkish Straits or the edge of the Rhine basin, then the area will naturally be of less interest to a country and it just won't be as big of a priority unless the country specifically makes it a priority i.e. actively spends influence capacity on declaring an interest. It's about having a passive interest vs. an active interest in a region and, yes, there are some cases where a country would not automatically have an active interest in what is going on directly across its border.
may i kindly ask are u one of current game devs? such impressive profile
 
  • 6
Reactions:
It already does cover your own borders, to an extent. That's why the European strategic regions are drawn the way they are, so that in most instances countries will have an automatic strategic interest in the territory near their border because the other side of the border will be in the same region. However, if there is a major geographic barrier on a border like, say, the Alps or the Pyrenees, or an economic barrier like being further inland from the Turkish Straits or the edge of the Rhine basin, then the area will naturally be of less interest to a country and it just won't be as big of a priority unless the country specifically makes it a priority i.e. actively spends influence capacity on declaring an interest. It's about having a passive interest vs. an active interest in a region and, yes, there are some cases where a country would not automatically have an active interest in what is going on directly across its border.

Well then, what is this geographical barrier between Schleswig and Denmark? Between Bavaria and Saxony?

I just don't get how its more logical to you that Bavaria might stay neutral in case of an imminent threat on their northern border, like Prussia annexing Saxony, but will have an automatic, forced interest for some diplomatic play in Netherlands.

I must say that your last sentence made me curious; I am eager to discuss any example of a country not interested in what is going on across its border - please, please don't say Switzerland. (In the same time this country should be interested in every area of every strategic region assigned to it under current design).
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
I just don't get how its more logical to you that Bavaria might stay neutral in case of an imminent threat on their northern border, like Prussia annexing Saxony, but will have an automatic, forced interest for some diplomatic play in Netherlands.
Huh? Bavaria doesn’t have a territorial presence in the Rheinland Basin. They’d only be pulled into a diplomatic play in the Netherlands if they manually extended an interest.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Huh? Bavaria doesn’t have a territorial presence in the Rheinland Basin. They’d only be pulled into a diplomatic play in the Netherlands if they manually extended an interest.

you must not deem that people write things without a reason. You can learn a lot from goldfinch.

In those times those regions where not only looking at each other because of borders. These regions are historically intertwined. So did german regions provide troops to netherlands and vice versa.
Answer the question yourself through whoms teritorry they marched.

That is why my game design suggestion of implementing a common threat unifier is important.

Lets say if eg. poland (hit me if it was poland lithua or commw at that time) is strong, that strenght tickles down into countries not immediately bordered with them in a certain matter.

I hope with these rich contributions single monolog game design directions are over and things get worked out slightly better, to accomodate players like gofi and me.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
the pro
tirolo-storico.gif
blem is the map is not good as it has been done so far. the tyrol for example is not all Austrian or Italian bolzano and the majority Austrian trento and the majority German, as well as in istria the coasts are the majority Italian the interior Slavic you can not take everything must be divided by city provinces, country
 
  • 3
Reactions:
may i kindly ask are u one of current game devs? such impressive profile

What does this have to do with anything?

you must not deem that people write things without a reason. You can learn a lot from goldfinch.

In those times those regions where not only looking at each other because of borders. These regions are historically intertwined. So did german regions provide troops to netherlands and vice versa.
Answer the question yourself through whoms teritorry they marched.

That is why my game design suggestion of implementing a common threat unifier is important.

Lets say if eg. poland (hit me if it was poland lithua or commw at that time) is strong, that strenght tickles down into countries not immediately bordered with them in a certain matter.

I hope with these rich contributions single monolog game design directions are over and things get worked out slightly better, to accomodate players like gofi and me.

Between this post and the one rambling about game prices, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. I'm sorry if English isn't your first language. I'm not trying to insult you, or anything like that. It just isn't easy to parse out exactly what you are trying to convey.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
What does this have to do with anything?



Between this post and the one rambling about game prices, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. I'm sorry if English isn't your first language. I'm not trying to insult you, or anything like that. It just isn't easy to parse out exactly what you are trying to convey.

i like writng english in my own style, as I like american and uk grammar and its slang, i gues its a particular fetish to like that. im srry having bothered you. to keep me away from the forum give me a good game. imperator and thebelated implemetnation of fuel in hoi4 drew me into this cyberworld this prdx forum. people like you fascinate me and make stick like superglue.
i think this will not be censored as i gave away key reason why i'm here and sending a message
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
I just don't get how its more logical to you that Bavaria might stay neutral in case of an imminent threat on their northern border, like Prussia annexing Saxony, but will have an automatic, forced interest for some diplomatic play in Netherlands.

Historically, Bavaria was very interested in the efforts of Prussia to unify Germany, but that doesn't mean the player has to be. I would guess that they start with the natural strategic interests, as well as a declared interest in northern Germany. If the player wants, they can remove that declared interest and give Prussia a free pass.

I also wouldn't find it odd for Bavaria to naturally oppose want to have a say in aggressive actions in the Rhineland, seeing as the Napoleonic wars are still in living memory at game start. This doesn't necessarily mean they will take up arms or join one side against another. It just means they will be sitting at the table during the argument.
 
Last edited:
  • 4
Reactions:
i like writng english in my own style, as I like american and uk grammar and its slang, i gues its a particular fetish to like that. im srry having bothered you. to keep me away from the forum give me a good game. imperator and thebelated implemetnation of fuel in hoi4 drew me into this cyberworld this prdx forum. people like you fascinate me and make stick like superglue.
i think this will not be censored as i gave away key reason why i'm here and sending a message

You haven't bothered me, and like I said I'm not trying to insult or censor you. I had hoped that the tone of my previous post was civil, but apparently I failed.

I am simply having a hard time understanding what message you are trying to convey. Since the entire purpose of posting in a forum like this is to convey information from one mind to any others that are reading, any difficulties in understanding that message only hinder that purpose. If you feel that clarifying your posts is censorship, that is fine, but don't be surprised if the message is ignored or improperly interpreted.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
in no paradox game can they be made to form separate territories such as danzic or kaliningrad unless they are preordained at the beginning
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
You haven't bothered me, and like I said I'm not trying to insult or censor you. I had hoped that the tone of my previous post was civil, but apparently I failed.

I am simply having a hard time understanding what message you are trying to convey. Since the entire purpose of posting in a forum like this is to convey information from one mind to any others that are reading, any difficulties in understanding that message only hinder that purpose. If you feel that clarifying your posts is censorship, that is fine, but don't be surprised if the message is ignored or improperly interpreted.

ok thx . i need to do some business reading now cu.
 
Historically, Bavaria was very interested in the efforts of Prussia to unify Germany, but that doesn't mean the player has to be. I would guess that they start with the natural strategic interests, as well as a declared interest in northern Germany. If the player wants, they can remove that declared interest and give Prussia a free pass.

I also wouldn't find it odd for bavaria to naturally oppose aggressive actions in the rhineland, seeing as the napoleonic wars are still in living memory at game start. This doesn't necessarily mean they will take up arms or join one side against another. It just means they will be sitting at the table during the argument.

That does not refute my argument. Let me repeat:

1. Natural interest = interest you CANNOT remove

2. Therefore - since it is forced upon you - natural interest has to, generally speaking, make MORE SENSE than declared interest, be more <inevitable>.

3. Now, back to your comment: why would it make MORE SENSE for Bavaria to oppose Netherlands recapturing Belgium than to oppose Prussia annexing Saxony and thus directly threatening their northern border.
Using your words: why Bavaria HAS TO sit at the table between Netherlands and Belgium and DOES NOT HAVE TO sit at the table between Saxony and Prussia. What is the justification of prioritising one above the other.

Because in my humble opinion indeed interest in Benelux would be declared, and interest in Saxony would be natural
 
  • 3Like
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
That does not refute my argument. Let me repeat:

1. Natural interest = interest you CANNOT remove

2. Therefore - since it is forced upon you - natural interest has to, generally speaking, make MORE SENSE than declared interest, be more <inevitable>.

3. Now, back to your comment: why would it make MORE SENSE for Bavaria to oppose Netherlands recapturing Belgium than to oppose Prussia annexing Saxony and thus directly threatening their northern border.
Using your words: why Bavaria HAS TO sit at the table between Netherlands and Belgium and DOES NOT HAVE TO sit at the table between Saxony and Prussia. What is the justification of prioritising one above the other.

Because in my humble opinion indeed interest in Benelux would be declared, and interest in Saxony would be natural
They don't have to oppose it, though. Maybe they decide to support Dutch aggression. They just want to be involved.

As for why the mechanics are the way they are. It's a game. If you split everything up too much then it gets in the way of the game mechanics. PDX decided a long time ago that they would make games for entertainment rather than simulations that recreate reality. I don't really see a difference between having an interest in the Rhineland for free and paying for north Germany, or vice versa. The cost is the same, and the result is the same. I would be shocked if every German minor didn't spend their limited declared interests influencing their local the German region, whether they have territory there, or not. Bavaria just gets lucky, and gets 2 areas for free (southern Germany and the Rhineland)
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
They don't have to oppose it, though. Maybe they decide to support Dutch aggression. They just want to be involved.

As for why the mechanics are the way they are. It's a game. If you split everything up too much then it gets in the way of the game mechanics. PDX decided a long time ago that they would make games for entertainment rather than simulations that recreate reality. I don't really see a difference between having an interest in the Rhineland for free and paying for north Germany, or vice versa. The cost is the same, and the result is the same. I would be shocked if every German minor didn't spend their limited declared interests influencing their local region, whether they have territory there, or not. Bavaria just gets lucky, and gets 2 areas for free (southern Germany and the Rhineland)

Whether they oppose it or not is irrelevant in that matter.

We arrived in the heart of the matter: I am genuinely surprised if you really don't see a problem in paying for conflict on the border and having way more distant and way less relevant conflict for free. It just does not make sense.

Its just a game indeed, but I think we can easily make its mechanics better, by eliminating problematic cases. Here, another example: Greece (lets say with present day borders) has to pay for having an interest in case of Bulgaria taking Istanbul. In the same time Greece has a free interest in Slovenian - Austrian war. Still no problem here?
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Well then, what is this geographical barrier between Schleswig and Denmark? Between Bavaria and Saxony?
I suggest you look at a map because Bavaria and Saxony are divided by the Thueringenwald highlands, as well as the divide between the Danube watershed and the Elbe watershed which creates completely different directions for trade, economic, and thus diplomatic interests for the two areas.

But the real crux of it is you have to put strategic region borders somewhere. Unless you want there should only be one strategic region in the world and everyone automatically have a diplomatic interest in everywhere, which completely defeats the purpose of the mechanic. Some borders are going to look better than others, and no matter where you put them they won't be perfect and people are going to have random nitpicks and pedantry. It's the same with deciding state region borders or province borders, you can't please everyone, especially the people who make their primary concern nationalism or aesthetics and not the important thing for a game which is gameplay. So trying to nitpick or meticulously justify each and every one is a pointless exercise.

So that's why you make the regions from a game design perspective first and foremost. And from a game design perspective, you're trying to balance where countries should reasonably have an automatic diplomatic interest because of geographic, economic, and trade factors with a reasonable expectation of how much different size powers should be dedicating their influence capacity to declaring an interest. Bavaria being landlocked is not going to have much use for its influence capacity at game start, and since it's separated between the core and the Palatinate, it's already going to have an automatic interest in two strategic regions just because that's how the mechanic works. So to give the player or AI Bavaria something to do with its influence capacity, you divide Germany into a north and south strategic regions so they have a logical and clear start on where to dedicate their influence.

It goes the same for Denmark and Germany. You could reasonably put the strategic region border between North Germany anywhere along the Jutland Peninsula. But for gameplay purposes, you want the border to be somewhere where Denmark is going to have an interest in North Germany but the north German states are not necessarily going to have an interest in the Baltic. Putting all of Schleswig in North Germany but keeping the area north in the Baltic also creates an added synergy between history and gameplay incentives for a player trying to unite Germany, because the Germany player now has the incentive to not necessarily take all of Schleswig but just have Schleswig be not Danish as historically occurred with the result of the Second Schleswig War, in order to push Denmark completely out of the strategic region and make them have to dedicate more influence capacity to intervene in North Germany later on.

It's also why for instance that one state region in northeast Turkey is part of the Caucasus region and not the Anatolia region, because that gives the Ottomans an automatic declared diplomatic interest in the Caucasus instead of requiring them to commit part of their influence capacity to declaring an interest in the region.

I must say that your last sentence made me curious; I am eager to discuss any example of a country not interested in what is going on across its border - please, please don't say Switzerland. (In the same time this country should be interested in every area of every strategic region assigned to it under current design).
You're once again failing to understand the fundamental purpose of strategic regions. It's not about "not caring", it's about having a passive interest vs. an active interest and actually declaring to other powers that you will intervene in the region vs. that being an intrinsic understanding. So to give you some examples. Spain did not really have an active diplomatic interest in game terms in Southern France for much of the period of Victoria despite being on its border. As people have said many times in the thread, an independent Ireland or Scotland would not have an active declared diplomatic interest in controlling or intervening in whatever is happening in Kent.
 
  • 11
  • 4
Reactions:
2. Therefore - since it is forced upon you - natural interest has to, generally speaking, make MORE SENSE than declared interest, be more <inevitable>.
I think this is the key factor. No game system is going to be absolutely perfect, and any way you draw Strategic Regions is going to lead to some odd situations like the one you highlight here (though, again, in this case you can just have Bavaria start with a declared interest in Northern Germany and things won’t be that weird).

Giving nations a strategic interest in every region they border, though, would lead to a proliferation of automatic interests, which could potentially have all kinds of weird knock on effects. Should Prussia, for instance, automatically care if Norway tries to break away from Sweden? Given how much the Devs have talked about how much they iterate while designing the game, it wouldn’t surprise me if they’ve tried it your proposed way and decided it was unwieldy.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions: