• 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:
Guys, have you considered letting the strategic regions overlap a bit? Because trying to make hard borders like those in the current map is always going to force you into impossible choices, like whether Norway is in the Atlantic or Baltic regions, or whether Mount Ararat is Anatolia or Caucasus, or whatever made you put half of Belarus into South Russia.

If they overlap partially, Norway can be both Atlantic and Scandinavian for example, and Sweden can be Baltic and Scandinavian.
I think this is a good idea; the one that immediately comes to my mind is Istanbul falling into both the Balkan & Anatolian region rather than somehow just being important to one side of the strait.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Guys, have you considered letting the strategic regions overlap a bit? Because trying to make hard borders like those in the current map is always going to force you into impossible choices, like whether Norway is in the Atlantic or Baltic regions, or whether Mount Ararat is Anatolia or Caucasus, or whatever made you put half of Belarus into South Russia.

If they overlap partially, Norway can be both Atlantic and Scandinavian for example, and Sweden can be Baltic and Scandinavian.
The problem with overlapping strategic regions is that it immediately creates a heavy imbalance where the state regions where strategic regions overlap are inherently more valuable than state regions that are only part of one strategic region. By restricting every state to one strategic region you avoid that problem and keep the primary value focus of a state region and incentive for a country to own it where it should be, on the economic, population, and cultural factors.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
The problem with overlapping strategic regions is that it immediately creates a heavy imbalance where the state regions where strategic regions overlap are inherently more valuable than state regions that are only part of one strategic region. By restricting every state to one strategic region you avoid that problem and keep the primary value focus of a state region and incentive for a country to own it where it should be, on the economic, population, and cultural factors.

I don't think it would make them more valuable, it would just make them more contested. If anything, as a player, i would avoid putting resources into a state that was going to be in twice as much conflict.
 
I think this is a good idea; the one that immediately comes to my mind is Istanbul falling into both the Balkan & Anatolian region rather than somehow just being important to one side of the strait.
Free automatic interest. The ones that do not get that can decide that it is important and declare it so.
 
I don't think it would make them more valuable, it would just make them more contested. If anything, as a player, i would avoid putting resources into a state that was going to be in twice as much conflict.
It's inherently more valuable because it would give you two free Diplomatic Interests instead of just one. That would be a huge incentive for controlling peripheral states in strategic regions over core states in those regions, which seems counter to a lot of the diplomatic game and would be a huge shift in how player activity is directed.
 
  • 3
  • 3
Reactions:
It's inherently more valuable because it would give you two free Diplomatic Interests instead of just one. That would be a huge incentive for controlling peripheral states in strategic regions over core states in those regions, which seems counter to a lot of the diplomatic game and would be a huge shift in how player activity is directed.

It would be a weird situation where you wanted to own those areas for the diplomatic benefits, but you wouldn't want to invest in those areas due to the increased chance of potentially losing it. It would be simultaneously valuable to have but worthless to use.
 
Does anyone know anything about the background image of Commodore Perry in Japan? All of the Victoria 3 artwork is great, but this 'painting' is just amazing, and as far as I know there are no contemporary images of the event, as important as it was in Japanese history. An artist's name? Where to download, etc?
Here’s a Japanese recollection of the Americans sailing into Edo harbor:
1634836165192.png

And an American one:
1634836202955.png

Some other Japanese artists were less literal:
1634836294973.png
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
This is very odd shape of strategic regions in Russian Empire. Why half of Bryansk area is in "Northern" when they were in gubernia from mainly "Southern"? And why "Southern Russia"? Very odd
 
So, if your country's government type changes radically in particular sorts of revolution (as in, Napoleon being replaced by the Second Republic, or the Tsar being replaced by Lenin) does your infamy get reduced? Because historically, other countries would continue to blame the successor government for the prior government's actions to *some* extent, but not nearly as much as if the government had continuity. The new government could make diplomatic deals the old one could never have made.

Since revolutions generally weaken a country's ability to wage offensive wars, this should work OK mechanically as well; it wouldn't give too much advantage to the country having the revolution.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
So, if your country's government type changes radically in particular sorts of revolution (as in, Napoleon being replaced by the Second Republic, or the Tsar being replaced by Lenin) does your infamy get reduced? Because historically, other countries would continue to blame the successor government for the prior government's actions to *some* extent, but not nearly as much as if the government had continuity. The new government could make diplomatic deals the old one could never have made.

Since revolutions generally weaken a country's ability to wage offensive wars, this should work OK mechanically as well; it wouldn't give too much advantage to the country having the revolution.

I think it would have to depend on the nature of the revolution. A peaceful transition from a constitutional monarchy to a full republic shouldnt wipe infamy as much (if at all) as a violent overthrow of that monarchy to form a republic. One sends more of a message to the world that the old ways of doing things is over, even if they would ultimately end up taking the same actions either way.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
I think it would have to depend on the nature of the revolution. A peaceful transition from a constitutional monarchy to a full republic shouldnt wipe infamy as much (if at all) as a violent overthrow of that monarchy to form a republic. One sends more of a message to the world that the old ways of doing things is over, even if they would ultimately end up taking the same actions either way.
Absolutely agreed. It should be related to a "discontinuity of government" in modeling terms -- and in game-mechanical terms should only happen at the sort of revolution where the country is getting swamped with penalties related to that change in government.
 
A Power should not be able to start a diplomatic play in the Sphere of interests of its ally. Or in this case, the alliance must cease.
At game start Portugal and Britain are allied and both have land in Iberia. Should it be completely impossible for either of them to start a play against Spain?
I do agree that there should be mechanics to represent countries (especially allied) agreeing to respect each other’s spheres of influence but a hard lock definitely seems like a poor war to do that. Should it create tension? Probably. Should it always be an automatic end to the alliance? Absolutely not.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
At game start Portugal and Britain are allied and both have land in Iberia. Should it be completely impossible for either of them to start a play against Spain?
I do agree that there should be mechanics to represent countries (especially allied) agreeing to respect each other’s spheres of influence but a hard lock definitely seems like a poor war to do that. Should it create tension? Probably. Should it always be an automatic end to the alliance? Absolutely not.
But are you aware that relations between Britain and Portugal will be damaged? Otherwise, the strategic region in Iberia should not be one.
 
But are you aware that relations between Britain and Portugal will be damaged? Otherwise, the strategic region in Iberia should not be one.
They will be damaged.
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.