• 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:
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.
Ethnical or linguistical divisions should not be considered when drawing Strategic Regions. It wasn't the case in Africa, I don't see why it should apply in Europe. Südtirol is through it's geography inherently tied to the Po valley. All it's rivers and easy to build railway lines connect it to Verona, not Vienna.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
we should put a dynastic line like crusader kings. then if in a war a port is taken with a ship inside it is considered lost, the ships should be able to bomb the coasts, we should put the figure of the big capitalist and big industries, first sugar, coffee, bananas, then iron, steel, coal , important in history the standard oil the rothshild for the railways the brothers perierre railways, banks i vanderbilt finance
 
  • 5
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

This is all post enlightenment. I doubt that who some royal decided to marry is going to have any influence on international diplomacy. It may get represented through some events, but it won't be like eu4, where your ruler marries another ruler and now your nations are in an alliance.

I highly doubt there will be hard coded revolutions. There is an entire system in place for determining how revolutionary the people are. Maybe go back and reread the previous dev diaries if you wonder how that will work.

They haven't talked about warfare, yet, so we don't know what any of the mechanics are regarding naval combat.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
we should put a dynastic line like crusader kings. then if in a war a port is taken with a ship inside it is considered lost, the ships should be able to bomb the coasts, we should put the figure of the big capitalist and big industries, first sugar, coffee, bananas, then iron, steel, coal , important in history the standard oil the rothshild for the railways the brothers perierre railways, banks i vanderbilt finance

Are you some sort of chat bot? You keep posting in response to no one. You seem to switch subjects partway through a sentence. It seems more like a listing of keywords haphazardly thrown together than a coherent thought.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
This is all post enlightenment. I doubt that who some royal decided to marry is going to have any influence on international diplomacy. It may get represented through some events, but it won't be like eu4, where your ruler marries another ruler and now your nations are in an alliance.

I highly doubt there will be hard coded revolutions. There is an entire system in place for determining how revolutionary the people are. Maybe go back and reread the previous dev diaries if you wonder how that will work.

They haven't talked about warfare, yet, so we don't know what any of the mechanics are regarding naval combat.
instead weddings in 1800 are very important! the reigning houses in italy, modena, tuscany, parma under the habsburgs i but royal marriages of the savoy, the mother of vittorio emanuele 2 was Austrian the mother of ferdinand 2 of bourbon was a savoy the wife of francesco giuseppe was Bavarian the wife of federico iii of germany was the daughter of victoria
 
  • 3
Reactions:
instead weddings in 1800 are very important! the reigning houses in italy, modena, tuscany, parma under the habsburgs i but royal marriages of the savoy, the mother of vittorio emanuele 2 was Austrian the mother of ferdinand 2 of bourbon was a savoy the wife of francesco giuseppe was Bavarian the wife of federico iii of germany was the daughter of victoria

And it stopped none of their nations from declaring wars on each other. Like I said, it was important for them, but not for the nation's government.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
And it stopped none of their nations from declaring wars on each other. Like I said, it was important for them, but not for the nation's government.
at the time the state was the king
there are no constitutions the only italian constitution was piedmont in 1848 in the rest of europe it did not exist apart from england france the revolutions of 1820 of 1848 france, then napoleon 3 come from that
 
Last edited:
  • 5
Reactions:
at the time the state was the sovereign there are no constitutions the only italian constitution was piedmont in 1848 in the rest of europe it did not exist apart from england france the revolutions of 1820 of 1848 france, then napoleon 3 come from that

They weren't absolutist rulers, though. They didn't make the laws, and the web of relations did very little to stop nations from going to war. Its possible there may be events about marriages that give a temporary relation boost between nations, but what would be the point of having an entire dynasty system for the game if it doesn't have any relevance?

Do you just want to be able to say, "Oh look the wife of the prince of saxony is cousins with the king of bavaria, and now they are at war."

Why would you prefer the devs spend time on adding that mechanic over any other?
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
I think strategic regions are an interesting idea, and am especially interested in this part:
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
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
They weren't absolutist rulers, though. They didn't make the laws, and the web of relations did very little to stop nations from going to war. Its possible there may be events about marriages that give a temporary relation boost between nations, but what would be the point of having an entire dynasty system for the game if it doesn't have any relevance?

Do you just want to be able to say, "Oh look the wife of the prince of saxony is cousins with the king of bavaria, and now they are at war."

Why would you prefer the devs spend time on adding that mechanic over any other?
yes they were! france of king louis 18 was an absolute monarchy the reign of francis ii of austria was an absolute monarchy there was no parliament marriages between dynastic still counted a lot in 1800 in the revolutionary period a liberal and a reactionary king counts
 

Attachments

  • images (65).jpg
    images (65).jpg
    15,9 KB · Views: 0
Looking at the map of the strategic regions for Europe, might I suggest that there should be less adherence to political boundaries and more adherence to geographical and, well, strategic areas?

France would not have a strategic interest in a whole "England" region as such, but it would in an "English channel" region. Indeed, it would make a lot more sense for both the UK and France to start with an interest in an English channel region from the start by virtue of their starting points, rather than each need to declare an interest in "North France" and "England" respectively. Surely countries should straddle strategic regions to represent this interest in what's going on near their borders, or across a valuable stretch of water, rather than neatly fitting in regions by themselves?

Say a country has grabbed a Black Sea port. Is it more interested in what's going on in Hungary/the middle of Russia, or what's going on at Constantinople and the narrow, strategic Bosporus? Shouldn't holding land on a Black Sea port provide that interest on a "Black Sea" region without needing to go through a mechanism to declare one instead on the entirety of an "Anatolia" region, which an AI might not recognise as necessary, or might take away an opportunity to declare an interest elsewhere?
 
  • 3
Reactions:
yes they were! france of king louis 18 was an absolute monarchy the reign of francis ii of austria was an absolute monarchy there was no parliament marriages between dynastic still counted a lot in 1800 in the revolutionary period a liberal and a reactionary king counts

That would be fine as a form of government with different levels of influence on the nation (something that was already represented in previous entries), but none of it explains why their should be a dynasty tracker, like ck2. You aren't playing as a dynasty or worried about inheritances, in this game. Its supposed to be more about economics and changing internal politics of the day, not which royals fancy each other. The last name of your ruler has little bearing on which economic laws should be passed or how much leeway the intellectuals should have.

I'm done discussing your random suggestions in this thread. It has no bearing on the dev diary. If you want to continue, start a seperate thread to compile all of your suggestions in, and we can talk about it there.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Looking at the map of the strategic regions for Europe, might I suggest that there should be less adherence to political boundaries and more adherence to geographical and, well, strategic areas?

France would not have a strategic interest in a whole "England" region as such, but it would in an "English channel" region. Indeed, it would make a lot more sense for both the UK and France to start with an interest in an English channel region from the start by virtue of their starting points, rather than each need to declare an interest in "North France" and "England" respectively. Surely countries should straddle strategic regions to represent this interest in what's going on near their borders, or across a valuable stretch of water, rather than neatly fitting in regions by themselves?

Say a country has grabbed a Black Sea port. Is it more interested in what's going on in Hungary/the middle of Russia, or what's going on at Constantinople and the narrow, strategic Bosporus? Shouldn't holding land on a Black Sea port provide that interest on a "Black Sea" region without needing to go through a mechanism to declare one instead on the entirety of an "Anatolia" region, which an AI might not recognise as necessary, or might take away an opportunity to declare an interest elsewhere?
Nothing you've said here creates a need for a free, automatic Diplomatic Interest which is what being in the same strategic region gives you. All you've made arguments for here is reasons why the player or the AI should prioritize dedicating some of their influence capacity on declaring a Diplomatic Interest in the respective regions, since part of declaring an interest is ensuring other countries know you have an interest there and creating a mutual understanding between powers as such. So it sounds like the strategic regions are working exactly as intended.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Nothing you've said here creates a need for a free, automatic Diplomatic Interest which is what being in the same strategic region gives you. All you've made arguments for here is reasons why the player or the AI should prioritize dedicating some of their influence capacity on declaring a Diplomatic Interest in the respective regions, since part of declaring an interest is ensuring other countries know you have an interest there and creating a mutual understanding between powers as such. So it sounds like the strategic regions are working exactly as intended.
I mean, I haven't seen them working at all, being a humble person giving my thoughts here. But no, I don't think it should be entirely left to priorities. Obviously countries had immediate and inherent concerns in certain strategic areas based on their very location (the map literally exists to try and capture that), but I don't believe the map is adequately reflecting them because I think it has been drawn poorly. So I guess, no, actually, I don't think they look like they'll work as well as intended.
 
I mean, I haven't seen them working at all, being a humble person giving my thoughts here. But no, I don't think it should be entirely left to priorities. Obviously countries had immediate and inherent concerns in certain strategic areas based on their very location (the map literally exists to try and capture that), but I don't believe the map is adequately reflecting them because I think it has been drawn poorly. So I guess, no, actually, I don't think they look like they'll work as well as intended.
I don’t think your contention that the regions are poorly drawn stands up to scrutiny though.

Take your proposed “English Channel Region.” Why should France have an inherent interest in what is going on in Kent, or the UK in Brittany? Certainly they should both care about traffic through the English Channel itself, but that’s another system entirely.

Same thing with your hypothetical with a Black Sea port. Certainly, if the Ottomans attempt to block me off from my newly acquired port I should have a say about that. And I’m pretty sure I would: blockades are almost certainly going to trigger a Diplomatic Incident at a bare minimum, if not an outright declaration of war. But that doesn’t seem to me to justify putting Romania in the same Strategic Region as Georgia.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I don’t think your contention that the regions are poorly drawn stands up to scrutiny though.

Take your proposed “English Channel Region.” Why should France have an inherent interest in what is going on in Kent, or the UK in Brittany? Certainly they should both care about traffic through the English Channel itself, but that’s another system entirely.

Same thing with your hypothetical with a Black Sea port. Certainly, if the Ottomans attempt to block me off from my newly acquired port I should have a say about that. And I’m pretty sure I would: blockades are almost certainly going to trigger a Diplomatic Incident at a bare minimum, if not an outright declaration of war. But that doesn’t seem to me to justify putting Romania in the same Strategic Region as Georgia.
I don't wish to assert that I've somehow come up with exactly how the map should look, and fully concede not all my ideas on how to draw the map will be/were good. My examples were trying to illustrate that just having countries sit happily in their own bubble isn't too helpful for adequately reflecting that concern for security just the other side of a country's border, which drove Foreign Policy quite a lot.

That said, the French absolutely should be concerned about who is in control on the South of Great Britain (Kent especially, given Dover), and I don't think it should cost influence points to reflect that, or give the AI the option to ignore it.
 
I don't wish to assert that I've somehow come up with exactly how the map should look, and fully concede not all my ideas on how to draw the map will be/were good. My examples were trying to illustrate that just having countries sit happily in their own bubble isn't too helpful for adequately reflecting that concern for security just the other side of a country's border, which drove Foreign Policy quite a lot.
But countries aren't just sitting in their own bubbles, at least the big ones. Austria, France, GB, and Russia are are divided among multiple Strategic Regions. Germany will be too once it is formed.
That said, the French absolutely should be concerned about who is in control on the South of Great Britain (Kent especially, given Dover), and I don't think it should cost influence points to reflect that, or give the AI the option to ignore it.
Who is in control of Southern England is not going to be up for grabs in any but the most bizarre playthrough.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
But countries aren't just sitting in their own bubbles, at least the big ones. Austria, France, GB, and Russia are are divided among multiple Strategic Regions. Germany will be too once it is formed.

Who is in control of Southern England is not going to be up for grabs in any but the most bizarre playthrough.
GB crosses strategic regions in a very strange way, and I do find it a little odd people apparently like the map where it gets the free interest with Iceland but not around the Channel. I do appreciate that some do straddle, and I'd suggest parts of the map are better than others. Essentially, I think there needs to be less "Englands" and more "Rhine basins".

It's true who is in control of Southern England is unlikely to come up in most playthroughs, but if it did come up France would care and I like a game design that accounts for certain strange games as well. Vicky 3 is after all supposed to be something of a sandbox. Anyway, it's why I largely framed it as a British concern over the European side, and that was a real and very historically significant one.
 
Let's remember that not every member of these forums has English as their 1st language.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
GB crosses strategic regions in a very strange way, and I do find it a little odd people apparently like the map where it gets the free interest with Iceland but not around the Channel. I do appreciate that some do straddle, and I'd suggest parts of the map are better than others. Essentially, I think there needs to be less "Englands" and more "Rhine basins".
GB should have the freedom to choose how involved they want to get in the continent. That seems to fit the history of British foreign policy much better. The North Atlantic, though, seems like it should always be a priority. Can you imagine the British not getting involved if say the Germans tried to take a base that close to Scappa Flow?
It's true who is in control of Southern England is unlikely to come up in most playthroughs, but if it did come up France would care and I like a game design that accounts for certain strange games as well. Vicky 3 is after all supposed to be something of a sandbox.
And if GB is stumbling badly enough that it looks like there might be a Diplomatic Incident in England, then France can extend an interest into it. Hell, in most situations where something like that happens France is probably the one who gimped GB. Regardless, drawing immovable Strategic Regions around situations as unlikely as that doesn't seem like good design.
 
Last edited: