• 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:
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.
it depends on what year in 1848 not in 1866 nor even in after 1870 when the industry had developed in the sahar and in the ruhr
 
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.
that's why maps need to be more flexible
 
it depends on what year in 1848 not in 1866 nor even in after 1870 when the industry had developed in the sahar and in the ruhr

I'm confused about what your issue is. What is the point you are trying to make, exactly? If its that different nations will have different priorities depending on the specifics of how the game plays out, then I 100% agree. If the events in game mean that the most industrialized part of europe becomes southern France, I would expect that to become a major focus of European powers, regardless of what they considered important when the game began.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
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
Looking at the Berlin Conference splitting the Balkans - if something similar happens in the game, the small nations will largely be ignored when the big influencers decide what should happen, and Greek interest will only ever be interesting if they are among a group of equals (and no greater power comes by to decide for them).

..but that kind of decision-making might not be acceptable, game-wise, since it puts such emphasis on greater powers instead of the 'rags-to-riches' story that is so popular in those P-dox games that span longer time periods.
So the game might allow Greek interests to actually matter when splitting the Balkans.. but such a thing would already be ahistorical so any other instance of weirdness could and should also just be chalked up to 'sandbox gamplay fun' and then we go on and hope the internal politics of the game will be able to keep us busy.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
that's why maps need to be more flexible

Like I said in my previous response, there are computational limits to how small the map can be divided. If you look at their games over time, you will see that areas have been subdivided more and more as the computing power has improved. What you are asking for is a level of granularity that just isn't possible with what most user's computers are capable of handling. Maybe you would be fine with each tick taking 15 seconds to process, for example, but most people aren't. At the end of the day their goal is to sell as many copies of the game, not make the most accurate portrayal of what could actually happen.
 
I'm confused about what your issue is. What is the point you are trying to make, exactly? If its that different nations will have different priorities depending on the specifics of how the game plays out, then I 100% agree. If the events in game mean that the most industrialized part of europe becomes southern France, I would expect that to become a major focus of European powers, regardless of what they considered important when the game began.
certainly Europe should be centered. the problem with paradox games and which claim to have to manage the whole world, eg what is the point of governing nicuaragua? belize, a pre-unification Vietnamese state but so it dsperede to govern small states especially with the boom of the first industrial revolution. however for the maps let's say that I invade the Lorraine half of a state for example in the paradox games this is not possible or you take all or nothing depending on the outcome of the battle but if I only take a region of the Lorraine? paradox has too much a monopoly map from monolithic regions, feasible for the usa but for europe ................................ ....well
 
  • 6
Reactions:
certainly Europe should be centered. the problem with paradox games and which claim to have to manage the whole world, eg what is the point of governing nicuaragua? belize, a pre-unification Vietnamese state but so it dsperede to govern small states especially with the boom of the first industrial revolution. however for the maps let's say that I invade the Lorraine half of a state for example in the paradox games this is not possible or you take all or nothing depending on the outcome of the battle but if I only take a region of the Lorraine? paradox has too much a monopoly map from monolithic regions, feasible for the usa but for europe ................................ ....well

And for the third time, there are simply limits on how small areas can be subdivided while still allowing the game to be playable on the most machines possible. They have to make a decision somewhere about how many potential customers they are willing to lose to have that level of granularity. It would be neat if we could carve some village off of our neighbor and move the border 10km, but I wouldn't be willing to sacrifice any appreciable amount of gameplay speed for that option.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
certainly Europe should be centered. the problem with paradox games and which claim to have to manage the whole world, eg what is the point of governing nicuaragua? belize, a pre-unification Vietnamese state but so it dsperede to govern small states especially with the boom of the first industrial revolution. however for the maps let's say that I invade the Lorraine half of a state for example in the paradox games this is not possible or you take all or nothing depending on the outcome of the battle but if I only take a region of the Lorraine? paradox has too much a monopoly map from monolithic regions, feasible for the usa but for europe ................................ ....well
You should probably revisit the earlier dev. diaries, especially the one about how states can be split up further to have several owners. (So as if every province in HoI4 could have a separate owner - but it will still count as being part of the same state as before, and re-merge if someone starts taking over the other provinces as well)
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
You should probably revisit the earlier dev. diaries, especially the one about how states can be split up further to have several owners. (So as if every province in HoI4 could have a separate owner - but it will still count as being part of the same state as before, and re-merge if someone starts taking over the other provinces as well)
also divide the same territories .. I think of a mixture of sub maps, with more cities for each country instead of a single large city eg piedmont, turin capital, cuneo, alessandria, novara etc
 
  • 3
Reactions:
There can be multiple cities per state in the current build of the game.
me neither and as last ditch attempt to express my wishes i hope many empire total war features to be seen. So large troop variety, change of musket tech/pike shot and battles for cities and as its relations topic: really good diplomatic relations and also features like war weariness and proper naval combat. The icing on the cake will be to show in this game that naval presence matters in terms of power projection and blockades.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
me neither
Huh? You neither what? All I was pointing out is that the game currently supports multiple cities in a single state.
and as last ditch attempt to express my wishes i hope many empire total war features to be seen. So large troop variety, change of musket tech/pike shot and battles for cities and as its relations topic: really good diplomatic relations and also features like war weariness and proper naval combat. The icing on the cake will be to show in this game that naval presence matters in terms of power projection and blockades.
Large troop variety? If you mean like Guards vs. standard Infantry as in Vicky 2, then sure. But this isn’t a Creative Assembly game with tactical level battles. Having Scottish Highland Grenadiers or whatever would be pointless. And why would anyone be using pike and shot in the 19th century?
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Huh? You neither what? All I was pointing out is that the game currently supports multiple cities in a single state.

Large troop variety? If you mean like Guards vs. standard Infantry as in Vicky 2, then sure. But this isn’t a Creative Assembly game with tactical level battles. Having Scottish Highland Grenadiers or whatever would be pointless. And why would anyone be using pike and shot in the 19th century?

more troop variety i want ok? ur wish is ok to?
i do think a more granular troop variety is needed. Elite troops are needed if other parts of army lets say revolt.

as complained in ck3 game design people would like to feel the cost of war and in the end want more realism and more complexity.


Cited from wiki:

As late as the Napoleonic Wars, at the beginning of the 19th century, even the Russian militia (mostly landless peasants, like the Polish partisans before them) could be found carrying shortened pikes into battle. As the 19th century progressed, the obsolete pike would still find a use in such countries as Ireland, Russia, China, and Australia, generally in the hands of desperate peasant rebels who did not have access to firearms. John Brown purchased a large number of pikes and brought them to his raid on Harpers Ferry.

One attempt to resurrect the pike as a primary infantry weapon occurred during the American Civil War (1861–1865) when the Confederate States of America planned to recruit twenty regiments of pikemen in 1862. In April 1862 it was authorised that every Confederate infantry regiment would include two companies of pikemen, a plan supported by Robert E. Lee. Many pikes were produced but were never used in battle and the plan to include pikemen in the army was abandoned.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
i do think a more granular troop variety is needed.

I don't recall them even having a military dev diary, yet. Let's hold any criticism about how that is handled until we actually know what they are doing.
Cited from wiki:

As late as the Napoleonic Wars, at the beginning of the 19th century, even the Russian militia (mostly landless peasants, like the Polish partisans before them) could be found carrying shortened pikes into battle. As the 19th century progressed, the obsolete pike would still find a use in such countries as Ireland, Russia, China, and Australia, generally in the hands of desperate peasant rebels who did not have access to firearms. John Brown purchased a large number of pikes and brought them to his raid on Harpers Ferry.

One attempt to resurrect the pike as a primary infantry weapon occurred during the American Civil War (1861–1865) when the Confederate States of America planned to recruit twenty regiments of pikemen in 1862. In April 1862 it was authorised that every Confederate infantry regiment would include two companies of pikemen, a plan supported by Robert E. Lee. Many pikes were produced but were never used in battle and the plan to include pikemen in the army was abandoned.
This just seems to reinforce that pikes were used by irregular forces at best. Since irregulars were a thing in vic2 they will most likely be represented in vic3, as well. I'm sure their description will include how they are armed with whatever they can get their hands on, including pikes and old muskets. I don't think there will be much of a need to differentiate between various types of irregulars, but, as I mentioned before, we don't actually know how military will be represented.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
I don't recall them even having a military dev diary, yet. Let's hold any criticism about how that is handled until we actually know what they are doing.

This just seems to reinforce that pikes were used by irregular forces at best. Since irregulars were a thing in vic2 they will most likely be represented in vic3, as well. I'm sure their description will include how they are armed with whatever they can get their hands on, including pikes and old muskets. I don't think there will be much of a need to differentiate between various types of irregulars, but, as I mentioned before, we don't actually know how military will be represented.

ok thx for adding that i barely played a vic title before although i own 1.
i m contributing to the forum as last time with imperator i think writing what to see here matters.

that its a good game i would like to play in the end matters also to me.

of all prdx games i played the most: hoi4 with 300 hours, last played sept 28 2020
i want this to change, i hope vic3 will be good since launch at least better than average launch standard until now as well as having it such gameplay that i clearly feel difference in playing a nation, learn from playing that nation (history etc, economic challenges) and feel challenged by AI

maybe to many wishes but fact is only 1 game prdx on ssd CK3 with 76.2 hours last played jun 9 this year, hoping for better updates to give it one more shot, i found it good at launch but for me lacked the punching power like hoi4 had and vic3 could be even better

i promis prdx if i rack in 500 hours of play with vic 3 within 5 years since launch i will disappear
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Considering the Victoria series is a grand strategy game and is neither a tactical battle game like Total War or a wargame like Hearts of Iron, the military unit variety really isn't something that needs to be focused that much on compared to the economic, social, and political gameplay elements that form the core of the Victoria series. And I sure hope Victoria 3 has a more in depth diplomatic gameplay than any Total War game considering how simplistic the diplomacy and strategic campaign gameplay in Total War games is. Luckily from what we've seen of the diplomatic gameplay in Victoria 3 it already is better than the Total War series.
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
in addition to the provinces, royal marriages between dynasties should be considered:queen victoria was considered the grandmother of europe all dynasties were related to her and politics are
very important: the revolutions 1821, 1830. 1848. 1871 the revolutions are not only an obstacle to the player but a passage from the restoration to the liberalism of the mid-1800s .the ships should be able to hit the coast and the cities, and if taken in a port is lost
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Excuse me, but what? How does the control of a region, that has, historically, been always in the Austrian/German sphere, and in fact was always considered as such by others, transpose into a strategic interest in Italy? You seem to be missing the point completely. Whilst most of Austrian Italy was ethnically Italian, Südtirol never was. In fact, more than 90% of its population was Austrian. And you cannot say that geographically, it is more Italian than Austrian. So it remains a mystery to me, as to why it was integrated into the Italian strategic region, as there is no logical explanation to it. Unless they just got lazy and simply copied the modern political maps.
I think Südtirol in the Italian region allows a simulation of Italian irredentism without having Italian powers at odds with the whole German world when they were historically only hostile to Austria.
 
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions: