• 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:
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?

Lets remember we are discussing a WIP. I would defer to the game testers and devs as to what ends up feeling right during gameplay. Since we don't know what the costs are, how many interests different parties get, or to what extent nations are forced to get involved in conflicts within areas they have a strategic interest, we are just making assumptions. Perhaps areas with a natural interest have very limited (if any) repercussions for ignoring what happens there. We just don't know, and at this stage the devs likely don't entirely know, either.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
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.

As for your last paragraph - I am advocating for strategic interest in every STATE they border - not stategic region. This can be simply resolved by getting a diplomatic incident whenever diplomatic play concerning state at your border happens
 
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?

i dont want to make matters more complicated. but interesting for some who know not detailed history is to look at culture group distribution as well as religion also clarifying a lot of things..

it's not easy! designing this well. Things should be deeper and more complex than EU4 and the perfect recording of what happended during vic age should warrant that
 
As for your last paragraph - I am advocating for strategic interest in every STATE they border - not stategic region. This can be simply resolved by getting a diplomatic incident whenever diplomatic play concerning state at your border happens
Then, once again, you completely fail to understand the basics of how strategic regions and diplomatic interests work as stated in the developer diary. You cannot have a diplomatic interest in a state region. Only in a strategic region.
 
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.


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.

1. Starting from the Last one: oh mate your examples really made my day. Spain didn't have interest? Maybe because little was happening there. What were they supposed to do?

"Hey France we express our deep concern over your borders being very very stable and peaceful"

And you are saying that an independent Scotland would not send an automatic protest if Kaiser Wilhelm invaded England? Damn, I heard about their cold temper but come on

2. Geographical borders: you ommitted Schleswig/Denmark. Anyway discussing it further would be a waste of time since with this sort of arguments you could justify hundreds of different, alternative SRs borders: important hills, river, trade connections, etc, etc - pointless.

3. All the rest: listen, I am not completely negating concept of Strategic Regions. Nor am I "nitpicking". I simply look at the map and see tens of potentially problematic cases. And I come up with a solution. Again, very simple question and try to answer as specific as you can:

Why Bavaria has to pay for interest in Saxony but has a free one in Benelux? Why Greece has to pay for an interest in Istanbul, but has a free one in Slovenia? (Remember, free interest sort of drags you to those irrelevant conflicts, in the same time you have to spend capacity to react to a relevant one) These are serious flaws of current design.

Having a free interest in bordering STATES (not whole SRs) solves these issues and makes a lot of sense; I am yet to see an convincing argument on why NOT to do that

Then, once again, you completely fail to understand the basics of how strategic regions and diplomatic interests work as stated in the developer diary. You cannot have a diplomatic interest in a state region. Only in a strategic region.

I am aware of that; thats why I suggest to change it, so you CAN either:
-have a strategic interest there
-have <something equal> to strategic interest there; this would not be hard, since, as far as I know, strategic interest equals diplomatic incident when diplomatic play happens. Is it unimaginable to slightly alter it to respond to issues mentioned above?
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
let's say that the republic of 1848 wins in italy france germany, no preordained schemes how does the game manage it? all interests change history changes new balances
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Having a free interest in bordering STATES (not whole SRs) solves these issues and makes a lot of sense; I am yet to see an convincing argument on why NOT to do that

Just to clarify, are you referring the states as in nation states, or states like local states/provinces?

If it's the former that creates entirely separate issues with very large nations, like Russia not having to spend its influence on its borders and getting to play basically everywhere for free.

If the latter, it doesn't really solve most of your problems, as Greece and Bavaria, to stay consistent, would still have to declare interest in Anatolia and North Germany respectively to check their aggressive neighbors. At a certain point concessions need to be made if it means better/more entertaining gameplay.

Edited for clarity
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Just to clarify, are you referring the states as in nation states, or states like local states/provinces?

If it's the former that creates entirely separate issues with very large nations, like Russia not having to spend its influence on its borders and getting to play basically everywhere for free.

If the latter, it doesn't really solve half of your problems, as most of the nations, I'll use Greece and Bavaria to stay consistent, would still have to declare interest in Anatolia and North Germany respectively to check their aggressive neighbors. At a certain point concessions need to be made if it means better/more entertaining gameplay.


I am referring to states as local provinces, ingredients constituting Strategic Regions. This idea would allow AI/player to react to any aggressive action happening at their border. They could oppose replacement of their peaceful neighbour with aggressive warmonger - whether they had declared interest there or not.

So indeed, without declaring interest in North Germany Bavaria would not be able to check ALL aggressive Prussian actions - but at least would be able to react to direct threat rising on their border.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
let's say that the republic of 1848 wins in italy france germany, no preordained schemes how does the game manage it? all interests change history changes new balances
I don’t understand what you’re asking me. What do you mean by “preordained scheme?” Why do you feel like the game would not be able to handle the revolutions winning?
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
Just to clarify, are you referring the states as in nation states, or states like local states/provinces?

If it's the former that creates entirely separate issues with very large nations, like Russia not having to spend its influence on its borders and getting to play basically everywhere for free.

If the latter, it doesn't really solve most of your problems, as Greece and Bavaria, to stay consistent, would still have to declare interest in Anatolia and North Germany respectively to check their aggressive neighbors. At a certain point concessions need to be made if it means better/more entertaining gameplay.

Edited for clarity
ethnicity of a county also counts in the claims. beyond politics and strategy. Alsace and Lorraine are regions with many Germans but have an important strategic value in the war of 1871, 1914 and 1939
 
let's say that the republic of 1848 wins in italy france germany, no preordained schemes how does the game manage it? all interests change history changes new balances

Are you asking what happens if the second French republic declares war on various Italian and German states, and wins? My guess is they get what they declared war for, and get some infamy. Other nations would them form new alliances in an attempt to check French aggression or try to ally themselves with this stronger France.
 
As for your last paragraph - I am advocating for strategic interest in every STATE they border - not stategic region. This can be simply resolved by getting a diplomatic incident whenever diplomatic play concerning state at your border happens
We’d need to see a lot more of the diplomatic system to know how viable this is/how much work it would entail to implement. It would seem odd to me that Bavaria would get pulled into a dispute over Saxony but not, say Nassau.
 
I don’t understand what you’re asking me. What do you mean by “preordained scheme?” Why do you feel like the game would not be able to handle the revolutions winning?
if the game starts in a given and preordained epoch but if the game takes a different turn, due to a rigidity in the map of Alsace, Lorraine, Nice, Savoy, for example if Piedmont is defeated much more heavily in 1848, no united Italy, no Nice sold to france, the game creates a nice province because in the future it will be sold ...... maybe. the same thing in hoi with gdansk. Karelia and the Bulgarian regions, because that is how the story goes
 
ethnicity of a county also counts in the claims. beyond politics and strategy. Alsace and Lorraine are regions with many Germans but have an important strategic value in the war of 1871, 1914 and 1939

Okay. I'm not disagreeing with you, but what does that have to do with what you quoted? Nothing is stopping the German states or France from having an interest in the Rhineland. In fact I would be shocked if they all didn't have a declared interest there at the game start.
 
Are you asking what happens if the second French republic declares war on various Italian and German states, and wins? My guess is they get what they declared war for, and get some infamy. Other nations would them form new alliances in an attempt to check French aggression or try to ally themselves with this stronger France.
no if the liberal movements had won republics in germany france italy in 1848 how does this AI manage? a completely different situation from the original story
 
if the game starts in a given and preordained epoch but if the game takes a different turn, due to a rigidity in the map of Alsace, Lorraine, Nice, Savoy, for example if Piedmont is defeated much more heavily in 1848, no united Italy, no Nice sold to france, the game creates a nice province because in the future it will be sold ...... maybe. the same thing in hoi with gdansk. Karelia and the Bulgarian regions, because that is how the story goes

The map has to be divided up because this is a game. Yes, where the lines were drawn could have been anywhere, but for gameplay purposes that is beyond the capabilities of nearly everyone's computer. They could divide the entire world into 1sq kilometer chunks, but then the game would run like crap for anyone not playing on a supercomputer. Every time they divide the map into smaller and smaller pieces its at the expense of computational speed. Maybe there will be a time in the future that kind of granularity can be achieved, but we aren't there yet.
 
if the game starts in a given and preordained epoch but if the game takes a different turn, due to a rigidity in the map of Alsace, Lorraine, Nice, Savoy, for example if Piedmont is defeated much more heavily in 1848, no united Italy, no Nice sold to france, the game creates a nice province because in the future it will be sold ...... maybe. the same thing in hoi with gdansk. Karelia and the Bulgarian regions, because that is how the story goes
I still don’t understand. Nice shouldn’t be a state? What?

If Sardinia Piedmont gets wrecked, wouldn’t it be easier for France to get a hold of Nice? Regardless, if it doesn’t get Nice it doesn’t get Nice. You seem to think that it’s railroaded by event or decision but I don’t think that’s the case. I assume that if the acquisition of Nice happens, it happens through the Diplomatic Play system.


no if the liberal movements had won republics in germany france italy in 1848 how does this AI manage? a completely different situation from the original story
Then there are republics in France, Germany, and Italy. What’s the issue?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I am referring to states as local provinces, ingredients constituting Strategic Regions. This idea would allow AI/player to react to any aggressive action happening at their border. They could oppose replacement of their peaceful neighbour with aggressive warmonger - whether they had declared interest there or not.

So indeed, without declaring interest in North Germany Bavaria would not be able to check ALL aggressive Prussian actions - but at least would be able to react to direct threat rising on their border.
So assuming that Bavaria isn't an Insignificant Power so therefore has at least one declarable interest where would you place it? It already gets The Rhine Basin and Southern Germany by virtue of land?

I don't think that we can look at this and ignore the declarable interests.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
no if the liberal movements had won republics in germany france italy in 1848 how does this AI manage? a completely different situation from the original story

Every game is going to have things happen that aren't what happened in history. That's the point. This isn't just going to be a video of how the map looked throughout history. If all the monarchies are overthrown, I would expect to see monarchist movements in those nations. Maybe they keep their republics, maybe they don't. Maybe they all have a big giant war, maybe they don't. It will all depend on what choices everyone makes, as well as a bit of random chance.
 
  • 3
Reactions: