• 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:
Reading up on your post I wonder if it'd be a neat mechanic to only allow combat within the limited theater (and maybe adjacent areas to protect some gaming of the system?)

Like Crimean War means fighting in Crimea, not at Vladivostok.
Yeah I thought about that as well, and I think it could be a neat mechanic if the game wouldn't let you attack someone outside the declared theater of war, and if you wanted to anyway you would have to announce it through a diplomatic action or something. But it feels to me like that might be too limiting for the player, by preventing you from being creative during war. Especially in multiplayer, if I want to send a sneaky naval invasion while the other player isn't looking it would kind of ruin the idea if I had to announce my invasion before it started. In this case I think it works better to punish a player after the fact, rather than have a mechanic that limits their options. But for wars between the AI's I absolutely think this could be a fun limiting mechanic.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I really like your example of the Crimean War being a limited conflict, I hadn't even thought of this when I wrote my post. And I think we can consider alternative histories to illustrate why this sort of thing is important. In real life, many of the great powers joined against Russia to prevent them from becoming too powerful in the Balkans, and to preserve the Ottoman Empire as a counter-balance in the East. But what if things were different? What if Germany and Russia had allied before the war, and Germany agreed to send troops to Crimea to help the Russian armies (and weaken the French at the same time)? That shouldn't necessarily change the calculus for the UK and France, who still just want Russia to stop their attack on the Ottomans and make peace, and aren't interested in starting a general European war. But, if Germany is confident they could win such a war, and they do decide to attack France through Alsace, obviously that escalates the situation and the other great powers would mobilize everything in defense of France, and suddenly the war stops being limited.

I guess if I was a game developer, and I had to convert the above into game systems, it would look like: Russia declares a war on the Ottoman Empire, AND declares their intent to only fight the war in the Balkans region. UK and France intervene in the war after it's started to protect the Ottomans. Germany intervenes to assist the Russians. All five nations send troops into the Balkans region, and engage there only. But then the British aren't able to force the Russians out of the mountains and achieve a decisive victory, so they decide to escalate the situation and navally invade the Crimea in the South Russia region. Maybe this escalation incurs a cost of infamy for the UK, as other nations now see them as the aggressors to some extent. As the war continues in only those two regions, maybe Germany sees the French forces on their border move away, to participate in the East, and decide they could be in Paris by Christmas. This would also generate infamy for them, and this massive escalation could lead to further escalations by other powers, all the way (in the late game) up to great war. Alternatively, a smart Russia could see this coming, and decide to end the war early by giving up some embarrassing concessions, but saving millions of lives (my understanding, mostly from Wikipedia, is that this is exactly why the real Crimean War ended).

Basically I think it would be cool if with each war declaration, a nation could declare their intent to fight this war only in a limited theater, leaving it up to the other belligerents to escalate further. If nobody escalates the war is limited in geographic scope and casualties and over quickly. If someone chooses to escalate, they can do so at the cost of infamy for themselves, and maybe making it easier for the war to be escalated later.

Yes exactly. Great, wildfire spreading wars should happen when big coalitions collide, or like the 30 years war when every now and then another major player jumps in with fresh troops and its own agenda. Other than that it should be mostly limited to some defined span.

You know what would happen all the time, really ad nauseam, when I played GB or France or the US? Eventually I would come into some issue with Russia. The outcome was
always the same: blockade them in the black sea, blockade them in the north sea, doomstack lands in St Petesburg. War over. You see it never mattered what the issue was. It could be some congolese swamps, it would always lead to total war. There was something fundamentally wrong there, I just dont see nations doing that.

Maybe this new "interest area" thing provides a new framework for this. I am understanding roughly that this new system of declared interests comes to replace the old "flashpoints" system, which in itself was a good new thing but was sometimes a bit crazy and unsatisfying - it could lead to some nail-biting moments, for sure, but it would normally just put me in a pickle over some bullshaitte I couldnt care less.

Maybe this new "declared interest" framework could also be used to limit what a war about that "interest" could be limited to. Yeah it could spiral out of control too but that would require more than just two great powers bickering about their declared interest in, say, afghanistan. That happened between GB and Russia for decades (the "great game") and I doubt anyone ever thought the risk of total war ever came from that side.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
If Malta is properly small then maybe Gibraltar could also be smaller.
 
Reading up on your post I wonder if it'd be a neat mechanic to only allow combat within the limited theater (and maybe adjacent areas to protect some gaming of the system?)

Like Crimean War means fighting in Crimea, not at Vladivostok.

In theory it's a nice idea and I would like limited conflicts but there should be options to scale it towards something bigger.

On top of that, I do just want to say that fighting in the Crimean War was not limited to the Crimean Peninsula and that there were attempts to escalate. The Greeks tried to get Russian support and invaded the Ottomans, the British and French tried attacking in the Far East, the Russians invaded the Romanian Principalities, fighting in the Caucasus and the Baltic Sea, heck even the White Sea saw limited action.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I agree. Hostile is the ultimate of bad relationships, as you're openly seeking to kill the other dude. A nation can have a good relationship with another nation, but it's hard to imagine a world where one nation is 'In love' with another nation. Which in my option would be the step above 'Warm.'

Even 'Heated' would be a stretch. I don't think Russia would even look at Ukraine in that fashion. Russia is a strong, independent woman.
hard disagree. there definitely have been countries that were "in love" with each other. In my earlier post I suggest the highest good relation should be called "fraternal", the opposite of the "hostile" level where instead of hating each other, they are brother-countries with deep trust and cooperation. Look at modern examples such as Australia + New Zealand, or Canada + USA, Hungary + Poland, etc...

19th century equivalents could be UK + dominions, Russia + Serbia, China + Korea
 
Seeing Thrace/Istanbul in the Anatolia region hurts my brain.
Then you must suffer your brain damage in peace as after being a part of Ottoman Empire for 400 years Istanbul has a lot more in common culturally and politically with Anatolia than Balkans, a region which includes Croatia here.
 
Last edited:
  • 8
  • 3
  • 2Haha
Reactions:
Not to drag you back into domestic politics when you've just spent several DDs describing it, but do your Pops and Interest Groups have an opinion on your foreign policy? If I start breaking alliances willy-nilly or invade the mother country of an important immigrant group, am I going to have to deal with Radicals or maybe a Political Movement aimed at getting me to knock it off?
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Again, I am very happy that the dev team has reworked infamy in the fashion they have. I also like how aggression in a particular region hurts your relations with countries with an interest in the region. It is another factor that you have to think about when considering diplomacy. I look forward to hearing more about Naval Supply and its affect on the game.

I think given that the majority of complaints in response to this DD are about the names of the strategic regions, this is a sign of what a good job the dev team has done on these game mechanics.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Is there a way for a country to actually approve of a diplomatic incident even though they have an interest in the region?

For example if I play Persia and take a chunk out of the Ottomans in Anatolia, my guess is that the Greek would be quite supportive of that because it damages their main antagonist, even though they have themselfves an interest there.
Or if Poland miraculously becomes independent and is subsequently divided again, would the three great powers in the region actually start hating each other for reconquering their land?
 
  • 6Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I like the "declare interest" but I fear that if it's a bit of a double edged-sword players will just not use it. There has to be some usage for it other than potentially getting dragged into multiple and faraway conflicts.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I like the "declare interest" but I fear that if it's a bit of a double edged-sword players will just not use it. There has to be some usage for it other than potentially getting dragged into multiple and faraway conflicts.
I will definitely use it a lot for these simple reasons:
1. Preventing other GPs from taking colonies which I want for myself.
2. Preventing rivals from expanding around me.
3. Taking part in slave trade (must have interest in decentralized regions).
4. Protecting areas of the world I generally consider important (for example Persia).
Its a very useful, lovely, realistic thing.
 
  • 8
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Sorry if this has already been asked.

Is there a 'push pull' way to relationships now that they're 1 number. So like, if the Prussia wanted to lower relations with Austria but Austria wanted to improve relations with Prussia, would Prussia just get a +5 and Austria a -5, canceling each other out. Or would say, Prussia because they're stronger they could exert more force over Austria and so maybe the net result is +2 or something. If that makes sense.
 
I can't help but notice the European regions of interest are much smaller (in area and population) than the Asian ones - England, Poland, Rhine basin, North/South Germany vs. Persia, North/South India (I counted 17/49 regions in Europe, about one third). I understand this is how Western powers saw it and will feel right in a European imperialist playthrough, but it might be awkward when playing a non-Western power.
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
Looking at the map of the regions I think Eastern Thrace and Istanbul should be separated. Maybe Istanbul being part of a "Straits" region together with the Dardanelles since it would make sense for Russia to conquer just the straits while giving the area around Edrene to Greece/Bulgaria/seperate tag? according to who their Balkan ally is. Also maybe split Dobrogea if it is a single state region and put the southern part in the Balkans and Northern in Danubia since.... it was split historically :D
Also will it be possible to have interest based on ethinicity, for example Italy will probably care about the situation in Tunisia if there was mass migration of Italians to that state region which made Italians big part of the population, even if Italy doesn't have declared interest in North Africa region, so if diplomatic play about Tunisia happens Italy will be able to take part, but if let's say there is a play about Algeria where Italians aren't significant part of the population Italy wouldn't be able to intervene if it doesn't have declared interest.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions: