• 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 #33 - Decentralized Nations

16_9.jpg

Hello folks, I'm Ofaloaf, one of the content designers on Victoria 3, and I'm here today to talk about decentralized nations. What are they? Why are they there?

To start with, let's talk about what came before - let's take a quick look at what Victoria (well, Victoria: Revolutions) and Victoria II did when it came to regions outside of traditional imperial homelands.

Africa in Victoria: Revolutions
image1.png

Above is Africa as it was represented in Victoria: Revolutions. Most of the continent is open territory for any Great Power to colonize. There's people living there, but they don't do anything. Outside of a few limited cases, like Sokoto, they're represented by… nothing. They do not do anything on their own, and when added to a colonizing power, they just immediately become pawns in the imperial game and don't really care for independence or their own homeland.

Africa in Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
image2.jpg

The same is broadly true in Victoria II. Regions historically colonized by imperial powers, such as most of Africa and parts of the Americas, are represented as unclaimed swathes of land just waiting for an empire to come by and colonize them. The people who live there do not care who marches in, and will just be members of one empire or another forevermore after they are colonized. It's… a model that could use some improvement. It didn't do justice to the people who historically lived there, and, frankly, it made colonial gameplay kind of boring.

Africa as it currently stands in Victoria 3
image3.jpg

In Victoria 3, decentralized nations exist to address both the issues of gameplay and better representation of indigenous peoples. No matter where an empire tries to colonize, someone already lives there. They're organized, although they don't have the same level of international recognition and administrative organization as, say, Congress of Vienna attendees.

No formal declaration of war needs to be made in order to make an incursion into the territories of decentralized nations and start colonizing, although the deeper you colonize into a decentralized nation's lands, the more likely it is a diplomatic play will kick off where the decentralized nation starts a real war of resistance against you. Even if a colony is successfully established, the people living there aren't just pawns - they'll remember that they weren't always colonized subjects, and just like any other part of an empire they'll agitate for independence if conditions are right.


Mapping these nations has been a challenge. We essentially started with the Victoria II map as a base to build off of, which meant we had a lot of work to do just gathering information for peoples across the globe. Records of who lived where, and how many people lived there, have been difficult to obtain for some regions. Gameplay considerations have also driven some design choices - let's look at North America for an example of that process.

Behold the snippet of a beautiful draft image used when presenting the original proposal.
image4.png

This is part of one drafted proposal for the implementation of decentralized nations in North America. There's already some compromises in this version - peoples have been consolidated into some larger polities, and some state borders have been followed largely because having just one or two provinces on the other side of a state line can create regions too small to provide anything or anybody - 400 pops living in State X aren't able to provide enough men to contribute a single battalion to a native uprising, among other things. This design isn’t just for the decentralized nations - it is something we also do elsewhere in the world when trying to balance historical accuracy with gameplay, although we of course try to avoid steering too far away from actual history.

North America after the revised proposal was implemented.
image5.jpg

Even with these considerations, we still ended up pursuing a modified version of that proposal that did more to preserve the borders of larger imperial borders - we didn't want too many avenues for the United States to colonize its way into historical Canadian territories, or for Mexico to colonize its way into Minnesota. I do miss the Council of Three Fires and hope I can get it back in, but that depends on getting a design hammered out that works with the considerations and limitations we just went over above.


Other regions have had design considerations made in their implementation, too.

(from Wikipedia)
image6.png


I'm gonna be real with you, there was no way we were going to accurately and sufficiently map out all the peoples of New Guinea. That's one region where I think we've probably done the most consolidation, but I think it was necessary in order to provide anything like the combined strength needed in order to give the indigenous peoples of New Guinea a decent punch in case of a native uprising.

West Africa in Victoria 3.
image7.jpg

West Africa had many design decisions made since it was first mapped out for V3; as mentioned above, the original map built off of was Victoria 2's, so the first thing done was just getting some entity everywhere on the map. This early draft has been revised and revised and revised again, and probably will still be subject to further revisions. Countries that were first marked as decentralized have been centralized, such as the Ashanti Empire, and tag additions and renamings are a thing that's happened already and will happen again, as we continue to invest time in research and listen to feedback from our fans.

Decentralized nations give life to regions that have been treated as blank slates up 'til now. Mapping them out, getting them right, and balancing the challenges of precision and gameplay are a constant struggle, one which we are constantly tackling and working through. The result of all this, though, is a world that feels much more alive, one that I hope you'll be happily exploring at Victoria 3's release.

I'm terrible at transitions so let me just say that next week is @neondt's dev diary, and we're going to ship some monumental information there! And by that I mean it's on canals and monuments.
 
  • 257Like
  • 83Love
  • 21
  • 12
  • 3
Reactions:
So noted! Not punching in a fix immediately right now just because of work priorities, but with the next opportunity to punch in some fixes I'll make sure this gets addressed then.
Genuinely awesome to hear! Just in case you're interested; I did do a post on some ways that I think that NZ could be represented more accurately to 1836, possibly with some gameplay improvements, but also understand that it's late in development, NZ's a long way from being a priority, and that some of these options may have been considered and not work well with the gameplay mechanics: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...cal-and-wack-an-overly-pedantic-post.1510452/. Mostly around breaking up the United Tribes into some really historically interesting (IMO) iwi and shifting the British influence north to Kororareka, a whaling town that would have likely been the most densely populated European area of NZ in 1836.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
If the decentralized nation cannot be "centralized" by the player, how will they be able to survive, especially considering that the great powers will get more and more advantage with military and administrative development as time passes?
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
but I've seen games where the US continued to intrude into Native American territory even while at war with the British, resulting in a Sioux uprising succeeding, regaining the lands lost to the US in earlier colonization.

Could we get some clarification on this - Will already colonized areas with large Native populations be able to revolt and gain independence if the circumstances are right? For example those other Sioux lands, or the other Cree lands in Canada?
 
If the decentralized nation cannot be "centralized" by the player, how will they be able to survive, especially considering that the great powers will get more and more advantage with military and administrative development as time passes?
Decentralized nations can't also be played by the player, so that particular challenge is not currently a major design consideration.

Could we get some clarification on this - Will already colonized areas with large Native populations be able to revolt and gain independence if the circumstances are right? For example those other Sioux lands, or the other Cree lands in Canada?
They're still pops, and pops do pop things like revolt. On a pop-by-pop basis, there is no mechanical difference between a pop that is culturally Comanche and a pop that is culturally Polish. In the same way that a Polish pop, if it is sufficiently angry and part of a non-Polish realm, may support a Polish nationalist uprising, a Comanche pop might also revolt if it's sufficiently angry.
 
  • 19
  • 12Like
  • 4Love
  • 1
Reactions:
They're still pops, and pops do pop things like revolt. On a pop-by-pop basis, there is no mechanical difference between a pop that is culturally Comanche and a pop that is culturally Polish. In the same way that a Polish pop, if it is sufficiently angry and part of a non-Polish realm, may support a Polish nationalist uprising, a Comanche pop might also revolt if it's sufficiently angry.
I assume the answer is yes, but just to be sure: if a colonized pop revolts and gains independence, would their new independent state be centralized?
 
Last edited:
3. No, part of what makes a decentralized nation functionally different from a centralized one is the lack of an active foreign policy, or much of any organized and directed policies. The Nyamwezi of East Africa do not exchange ambassadors with Oman, and the Pawnee are not centralized enough for any protectorate to stick. If you go through the records of treaties arranged between the US and various native nations, many of them have notes like "Part of the tribe refused to be governed by this act and it had to be repealed later", because there isn't a central authority that can make these things stick.
Thank you for your reply.

Does the above mean that there can be no peace treaty with a decentralized nation? In a later DevResponse you gave an example of "I've seen games where the US continued to intrude into Native American territory even while at war with the British, resulting in a Sioux uprising succeeding, regaining the lands lost to the US in earlier colonization"

- can USA make peace with Sioux in the above described situation?

- And what might Sioux want from such peace treaty?

- can British in any way aid Sioux in the above situation? It would be logical to supply them at least with guns and ammo. Generally aiding tribal uprisings against powers that are your rivals was a time-honored tradition in many regions.

- what happens if an uprising by a decentralized nation manages to conquer an incorporated state of a centralized nation?

- What happens to a colonial uprising if it succeeds? For example (and looking at the map of Africa that you have posted in OP) - suppose Portugal tries to colonise Herero people and suppose Herero people are resisting and are successful in this resistance. Will this Herero Uprising just stop on their border once Portuguese are kicked out? Or will they march on and try to take neighbouring Portuguese colonies in Congo? Will they try to conquer or maybe just raid colonies of nations other than Portugal? Will they try to conquer / raid their decentralised neighbours - like Tswana?
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
  • 7
Reactions:
For example, let's say that the United States fully annexes the Sioux nation but then loses them to an uprising a few years later. Will the newly released tag be decentralized well?
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Hello folks, I'm Ofaloaf, one of the content designers on Victoria 3, and I'm here today to talk about decentralized nations. What are they? Why are they there?

To start with, let's talk about what came before - let's take a quick look at what Victoria (well, Victoria: Revolutions) and Victoria II did when it came to regions outside of traditional imperial homelands.

Africa in Victoria: Revolutions
View attachment 804446
Above is Africa as it was represented in Victoria: Revolutions. Most of the continent is open territory for any Great Power to colonize. There's people living there, but they don't do anything. Outside of a few limited cases, like Sokoto, they're represented by… nothing. They do not do anything on their own, and when added to a colonizing power, they just immediately become pawns in the imperial game and don't really care for independence or their own homeland.

Africa in Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
View attachment 804447
The same is broadly true in Victoria II. Regions historically colonized by imperial powers, such as most of Africa and parts of the Americas, are represented as unclaimed swathes of land just waiting for an empire to come by and colonize them. The people who live there do not care who marches in, and will just be members of one empire or another forevermore after they are colonized. It's… a model that could use some improvement. It didn't do justice to the people who historically lived there, and, frankly, it made colonial gameplay kind of boring.

Africa as it currently stands in Victoria 3
View attachment 804451
In Victoria 3, decentralized nations exist to address both the issues of gameplay and better representation of indigenous peoples. No matter where an empire tries to colonize, someone already lives there. They're organized, although they don't have the same level of international recognition and administrative organization as, say, Congress of Vienna attendees.

No formal declaration of war needs to be made in order to make an incursion into the territories of decentralized nations and start colonizing, although the deeper you colonize into a decentralized nation's lands, the more likely it is a diplomatic play will kick off where the decentralized nation starts a real war of resistance against you. Even if a colony is successfully established, the people living there aren't just pawns - they'll remember that they weren't always colonized subjects, and just like any other part of an empire they'll agitate for independence if conditions are right.


Mapping these nations has been a challenge. We essentially started with the Victoria II map as a base to build off of, which meant we had a lot of work to do just gathering information for peoples across the globe. Records of who lived where, and how many people lived there, have been difficult to obtain for some regions. Gameplay considerations have also driven some design choices - let's look at North America for an example of that process.

Behold the snippet of a beautiful draft image used when presenting the original proposal.
View attachment 804452
This is part of one drafted proposal for the implementation of decentralized nations in North America. There's already some compromises in this version - peoples have been consolidated into some larger polities, and some state borders have been followed largely because having just one or two provinces on the other side of a state line can create regions too small to provide anything or anybody - 400 pops living in State X aren't able to provide enough men to contribute a single battalion to a native uprising, among other things. This design isn’t just for the decentralized nations - it is something we also do elsewhere in the world when trying to balance historical accuracy with gameplay, although we of course try to avoid steering too far away from actual history.

North America after the revised proposal was implemented.
View attachment 804453
Even with these considerations, we still ended up pursuing a modified version of that proposal that did more to preserve the borders of larger imperial borders - we didn't want too many avenues for the United States to colonize its way into historical Canadian territories, or for Mexico to colonize its way into Minnesota. I do miss the Council of Three Fires and hope I can get it back in, but that depends on getting a design hammered out that works with the considerations and limitations we just went over above.


Other regions have had design considerations made in their implementation, too.

(from Wikipedia)
View attachment 804454

I'm gonna be real with you, there was no way we were going to accurately and sufficiently map out all the peoples of New Guinea. That's one region where I think we've probably done the most consolidation, but I think it was necessary in order to provide anything like the combined strength needed in order to give the indigenous peoples of New Guinea a decent punch in case of a native uprising.

West Africa in Victoria 3.
View attachment 804455

West Africa had many design decisions made since it was first mapped out for V3; as mentioned above, the original map built off of was Victoria 2's, so the first thing done was just getting some entity everywhere on the map. This early draft has been revised and revised and revised again, and probably will still be subject to further revisions. Countries that were first marked as decentralized have been centralized, such as the Ashanti Empire, and tag additions and renamings are a thing that's happened already and will happen again, as we continue to invest time in research and listen to feedback from our fans.

Decentralized nations give life to regions that have been treated as blank slates up 'til now. Mapping them out, getting them right, and balancing the challenges of precision and gameplay are a constant struggle, one which we are constantly tackling and working through. The result of all this, though, is a world that feels much more alive, one that I hope you'll be happily exploring at Victoria 3's release.

I'm terrible at transitions so let me just say that next week is @neondt's dev diary, and we're going to ship some monumental information there! And by that I mean it's on canals and monuments.
Hi thank you for including the somali kingdoms this time , as a avid hoa player its been displeasing to see the geledi and hobyo sultanates not be represented

the hobyo sultanate was largely independent of italian control other than some goods and military treaties until they were defeated in 1927 but in every game they are represented as colonized since day one ,

the geledi sultante defeated the ethiopian empire and had one of the largest armies in the region but none of this were properly represented in previous games
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Apologies if this has already been asked, but I do not see it clarified in the responses.

The DD mentions future revisions of decentralised nations still coming up, does that include a rework of the state boundaries in Africa? It feels very dissonant that on the one hand you are making the effort to represent pre-colonial peoples and nations instead of a terra nullius, but then portray their extent on the map (which is the main medium of communicating them to the player) as coterminous with arbitrary boundaries drawn by colonial powers.

Seeing Algeria's modern borders stick out like that is very grating in particular.
 
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Apologies if this has already been asked, but I do not see it clarified in the responses.

The DD mentions future revisions of decentralised nations still coming up, does that include a rework of the state boundaries in Africa? It feels very dissonant that on the one hand you are making the effort to represent pre-colonial peoples and nations instead of a terra nullius, but then portray their extent on the map (which is the main medium of communicating them to the player) as coterminous with arbitrary boundaries drawn by colonial powers.

Seeing Algeria's modern borders stick out like that is very grating in particular.
They've managed to add some nations while avoiding the colonial borders in some areas at the same time (for example, there are a couple examples in modern-day Mozambique, Zambia, and Kenya). Split States are a thing, pops are still tracked, the Decentralised Nations of North America did go under revisions, and Decentralised Nations don't necessarily need to conform to State borders, all of this makes me think that it's possible to touch up some more borders before the game's release.

Seriously, how difficult would it be to add a Decentralised Nation on the Libyan Desert to avoid that deep of a penetration into the Saharan Desert by the Ottomans? What about adding an Unrecognised Rashidi nation stretching from the Syrian Desert into the Arabian Desert to avoid the horrendous Sykes-Picot borders at game's start but keeping the States' borders the same to allow for recreating those treaty borders? My only explanation to why these aren't in the game yet (or won't be) would be that they're way lower on the priority list, which is something I can accept I guess.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Pardon me if it's already been asked but should the whole of modern Libya be under Turkish rule in 1836?
You are right according to maps. I believe it is to balance out the game since the southern part of Libya is not an important region for the first half of the game and you can act like Ottomans already colonized that region. Though of course I want the southern area to be decentralized as well.
1644601141725.png
 
Wouldn't "stateless nations" be a better label to describe what developers puts under the "decentralized nations" label?
 
  • 5
  • 1Love
Reactions:
I mean, they were called primitives in Vicky 2 because that's how they were viewed by Imperial nations at the time. The whole gameworld was deliberately shown through that lens; you had to read between the lines to understand the underlying message.
Yes, I understand that, I just dislike the term.
 
So in the Slavery DD it was mentioned that countries with Slave Trade get new slaves from Decentralized Nations that practice slavery in areas the centralized nation has an active interest in. Are there any more details to that system than what was said then? We've now had DDs on Interests and Decentralized Nations, so I was curious.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
An impressive and commendable effort, although the DD is indeed very light on gameplay details.

Two thoughts I don't think were shared above - I wonder:

1. Will there be mechanic to enable diplomatic or subterfuge/espionage involvement of decentralised nations (without colonizing them first) as local agents, e.g. to start rebellions or contribute manpower to local wars? This used to happen quite often (although more before the XIX c.) with European powers playing the local peoples against each other and making up for the lack of their own manpower "on the ground".

2. Will decentralised nations participate in markets and trade at all, prior to being colonized / incorporated? This may be especially interesting in States with complicated "ownership" status, e.g. partly colonized by a few different powers and partly decentralised. This was also, obviously, a thing historically, especially when chattel slavery still flourished in Africa.
 
  • 1
Reactions: