• 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 #57 - The Journey So Far

16_9.jpg
Hello all! Now that we know the Victoria 3 release date and have seen a bit of actual, live gameplay, I thought it would be a good idea to recap what the game is and tell you a bit about how we got here. Today I'm going to focus less on abstract principles and pillars and more on concrete game mechanics, the play experience and the process by which we arrived at the current version of the game.

It took us a while, but we built a world!
DD57_1.jpg


Let's start with simply: What is Victoria 3? We call it a society builder grand strategy game, where the focus is to mold and shape your chosen country's population, economy, and laws to navigate the power struggles, revolutions, and devastating wars of the 19th and early 20th centuries. In practice this means you will be making many difficult decisions about how to construct your economy, which political factions to empower, and which other countries to befriend and rival.

Everything in Victoria begins and ends with Pops, a.k.a. your population. Pops and their living conditions determine what sorts of economies you are able to run. An agrarian economy may be great at feeding itself and could sustain itself for a long time, but lacks access to manufactured goods to increase living standards. Manufacturing-based industry is more centralized, creating urban centers with wider wealth gaps, but the resulting increase in domestic demand can provide a stable economic foundation for your market. Laissez-faire could make sense for countries whose population demands a wide variety of products while specializing in highly effective production of specific goods, while a command economy may be desirable to counteract foreign influence and steer your population with more precision.

Your people, the bedrock of the simulation and the enduring feature of Victoria games.
DD57_2.jpg


Your economy is based around a web of industries (a.k.a. "buildings") that produce and/or consume goods, and the consumption demands of the Pops themselves. Buildings do nothing on their own but must be staffed by Pops, who in return are (hopefully!) provided with wages sufficient to purchase goods and services to improve their living conditions. Privately owned buildings have owner Pops who collect the profits, which they may reinvest or conspicuously spend on lavish luxuries, driving up demand for exotic imports like Fruit or new inventions like Automobiles. As the spirit of your nation, you decide which buildings to construct, where they should be situated, and whether they should be state-subsidized or not. Each such decision will have long-term implications for your country's future.

Buildings are your main tool for nation building, as you determine what your population should be occupying their time with and how. During development, more and more gameplay features were implemented using buildings and their production methods.
DD57_3.jpg


Pops are "real people", they don't suddenly appear just because there's work to be done. This begs the question, what would Pops be doing before suitable workplaces have been constructed for them? In Victoria 2, Pops not employed in factories or in special roles like Capitalists contributed towards "Resource Gathering Operations" (RGOs) which created all raw resources in the game. In V3, we wanted resource industries to be among the viable, active choices you could focus your efforts on, but we also didn't want the majority of the population to work on high-yield modern farms at game start. The solution we came up with was subsistence farming, where all unused arable land in a state could be used by Pops of the Peasant Profession to sustain themselves and produce a very small amount of excess goods for the market. These subsistence farms will gradually disappear as modern, industrialized farms and organized plantations are constructed in their place. As there is no guarantee that proper resource industries will pay lower-class Pops a better wage than the living standard Peasants could achieve by simply working the land, depending on when and how this transition is done it may lead to increased wealth disparity even while it's certainly better for your market economy.

Each Pop has an amount of Political Strength derived primarily from their size and wealth, modified by the country's laws. This influence is distributed across the various Interest Groups the Pop supports, empowering them to steer the country's political direction. For example, a wealthy plantation-owning Aristocrat might put most of their gravitas behind the Landowners, espousing a kind of patronizing conservatism. A nation of Farmers might champion the Rural Folk and their simple, honest, and non-expansionist way of life. Meanwhile, a group of coal mining Machinists might join the Trade Unions to push for both workplace safety regulations and more egalitarian expansion of the voting franchise. Over time you will start to recognize the patterns in how your economy has developed over the decades, and how this results in altered power distributions and the emergence of different political movements demanding change.

Interest Groups are new to Victoria 3 and act as the people's voice in their interactions with you. Just like everything else in the game they ultimately only function due to the Pops that lend them support, so impacting the Pops directly will also affect the Interest Groups.
DD57_4.jpg


In the earliest playable iteration of Victoria 3, Interest Groups were very dynamic and always organized into parties or factions. Interest Groups could suddenly appear in a country or change their beliefs based on triggered conditions. They had opinions on everything from reforms to what buildings should be constructed to which wars should be waged. This turned out to be extremely confusing, as players never really got a handle on what their country was all about or the outside limits of what might happen if they performed an action. To combat this we created eight Interest Group "templates" which were the same for all countries, with individual variations on those templates for different countries. Rather than popping into existence or fading away as there were causes to champion, we split off a new type of organization - Political Movements - from Interest Groups, so the latter would always have their own identity and ideology while the former could be used to push issues. Rather than changing Interest Groups' opinions based on triggered conditions, we introduced Interest Group Leaders which could modify an Interest Group's ideologies. Finally, we removed the Party/Faction layer altogether, only to reintroduce Parties much later in development as a more comprehensible political layer active only in democracies that still puts Interest Groups front and center.

The set of laws available for a player to try to change has evolved during development, with different tax laws merging into a single category, trade policy being split from the economic system, and the various army model laws being introduced.
DD57_5.jpg


The laws themselves, and the institutions they sometimes enable, tie back into the economy through the Pops. Changes to your taxation system might require you to course-correct your economy to both keep your people fed and your treasury in the black. Different army models might permit you to maintain a well-trained, professional army, or require you to rely on raising part of your population as conscripts during times of war which could disrupt your industry. Universal pensions will raise your overall standard of living and decrease poverty rates and turmoil, but can be costly to maintain. And without an education system, you will have a hard time developing the qualifications your Pops need to take advanced professions in cutting-edge factories, academic, and financial institutions.

Our initial model for how Interest Groups should support one Laws over another was based on a kind of 3D political compass, or maybe something akin to Stellaris' Ethics system. But it did not take long for us to realize just how inadequate this method was for describing all the different political positions people in the 19th century could take. For example, is "colonization" a progressive or conservative policy? The answer is that it entirely depends on the context, culture, and whatever intellectual arguments had been voiced by one philosopher or another within the prior decade. So rather than trying to create a brand new theory of Political Science, we abandoned this matrix-model for a much more bespoke system of many dozens of ideologies that each have their own set of stances on specific laws.

An enduring question during early development was, how much should government employees be paid? A fixed amount seemed particularly wrong, but so did a fully configurable amount. We settled on a continually updating national Normal Wage value - a weighted average of wages paid by private industry across incorporated states - and letting the player set wages in steps around this norm, with bonuses or penalties applying for paying more or less.
DD57_6.jpg


If you want to run a competitive nation, you cannot rely exclusively on private industry - the bureaucratic machine has to function, taxes must be collected, trains and ships have to depart on time, and the army and navy has to be fully staffed and on alert. These government functions are also represented via buildings, with the Pops who work there paid directly by the treasury. Every individual in your country is represented by Pops, who perform all the functions that make your nation what it is.

Originally Institutions was just another type of Law that you could invest Bureaucracy into. Splitting them out into their own entities whose nature can be changed by Laws made them come alive in a totally new way, and lets you more clearly see how your country's becoming more capable and complex over time.
DD57_7.jpg


One design challenge we had to tackle early on in development was how we would represent institutions: as concrete buildings on a local level, or more abstractly on a national level? We really wanted Pops to be responsible for staffing the public sector, so as to not pretend that things like healthcare, education, and policing just happen from legislating their existence. But on the other hand we didn't want to have to saddle the player with having to micromanage constructing the exact right number of hospitals, jailhouses, employment offices, tax collectors, etc etc in every state. In a fit of insanity we briefly flirted with the idea of non-local buildings, where Pops would live in one place but work in an indeterminate "cloud-based" workplace that provides benefits to the entire population, but this started looking like the kind of weird hacky solution that would come back to haunt us later in development and we thankfully abandoned it quite quickly. After consulting a programmer with much fresher eyes on this issue than the design team at this point, we decided to make a building that creates a currency (Bureaucracy) that institutions would consume, just to see how that felt. This proved an excellent trade-off, letting players customize which parts of their country their administration was centered in while ensuring that legislated promises of access to services were distributed correctly across the country in different proportions without excessive micromanagement.

With a well-oiled market supported by appropriate laws you can turn your eye to the economies abroad. Not all goods your people demand can be acquired locally, so which countries do you want to trade with? Importing another country's products could be exactly the kickstart your economy needs, but will also enrich the exporting nation and make you dependent on their economy. Exporting consumer goods will benefit those of your Pops who own the factories the most, while it will come to the detriment of Pops consuming those goods. Each decision made will impact different segments of your population, both economically and politically.

In the original trade system, the amount of goods your routes moved was quite open-ended and required trade center management on both ends. It was micromanagement heavy, complex to understand, and easy for both player and AI to abuse.
DD57_8.jpg


Trade has gone through a number of iterations, as it works very differently from both Victoria 2 and most other strategy games. We knew very early on that we wanted market-to-market trade of specific goods, and our supply-and-demand system works well out of the box for creating incentives to trade. The first trade system was serviceable - you would earn trade routes from building Trade Centers and would spend them to move a certain number of goods between two markets. It made sense and was simple to understand, but turned out quite micro-intensive as you had to babysit routes to move just the right amount. It was also much too easy to destroy foreign economies by simply stealing all their supply of a crucial good or oversaturating a market, which was nominally fun to do to the AI but less fun when the AI did it to you.

In the new system, only the country establishing the route gets a trade center to manage it, and the quantity of goods is dependent on what is actually profitable to trade. You can still fine-tune who your trading partners are and how large the routes can grow by using tariffs and embargoes, but the level of interactivity is much more even.
DD57_9.jpg


The trade system currently in the game instead creates and expands Trade Centers to manage trade as needed, earning money for the Pops who work it based on the marginal price difference between the two markets. This way you simply establish a route between two markets, and if that good is in high demand in one and in high supply in the other, it will grow until there's no money in trading a larger quantity. That also meant we could implement a tariff system where a player can both earn money off trade and deter other players (or the AI) from importing or exporting particular goods. Crucially though, we needed to see the first, simpler system in action before figuring out what the problems with it would be.

Your nation's prestigiousness, determined by the size and power of its economy, military, culture, and other aspects, sets its position on the global power ranking ladder. Are you but a Minor Power, barely involved in local affairs involving your neighbors? Or a Major Power, a regional powerhouse or up-and-coming global player? Or one of the few Great Powers, whose tendrils reach all over the world, constantly trying to one-up each other so none get too far ahead?

This ranking sets the amount of Influence you receive, which can be used to establish and maintain Diplomatic Pacts with other nations. Trade Agreements simplify trade between your countries, Alliances permit you to come to one another's aid, Customs Unions merge several markets, and numerous types of Subject relationships can be either demanded or requested - by either party, since enjoying the protection of a Great Power may be worth the loss of freedom it entails. Pacts can only be established if countries have overlapping strategic interests, a limited resource forcing you to pick and choose between the parts of the world that matters to you. Interests have always been core to the design principles of Victoria 3 but have gone through a number of revisions as well, some of which will be covered by Martin next week!

Rather than fabricating claims or war justifications, in Victoria 3 you can be as bold and brash with your demands as you wish - for as long as you can afford the Infamy and don't endanger the wrong Great Powers. Finding a balance between the ability to strategically pre-plan your Plays and still having to navigate uncertain outcomes is key to making Diplomatic Plays feel satisfying, and a lot of iteration on both mechanics and AI has gone into finding it.
DD57_10.jpg


Demands between nations can also be asserted as Diplomatic Plays, where every country with a stated interest in a region may weigh in on the issue by supporting one of the sides. With enough military strength supporting your claims, even a territorial dispute may be resolved without a single shot being fired. But this is much less a negotiation and more a game of chicken, where in a best-case scenario at most one side walks away with what they want. If that would be you, are you prepared to press this issue even to the point of war, knowing the tremendous loss of money and lives that would bring? Or should you make a concession now and start planning your revenge?

Diplomatic Plays is in many ways an evolution of the Crisis system from Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness, where a "flashpoint" somewhere on the globe could spark an international crisis involving several Great Powers picking sides. The mechanic works well to emphasize the importance of international "policing" of world conflict in the era. Instead of it arising from a flashpoint, issuing a Diplomatic Play in Victoria 3 causes an incident which adversely affects the country initiating it. It can also involve a lot more countries than just Great Powers, as regional or local players might also become involved or recruited.

The point of going to war is to press your war goals and sign a peace deal as soon as possible. Nothing is worse for the economy than a forever-war (unless the foundation of your economy is arms manufacturing, that is…)
DD57_11.jpg


Should war become inevitable, you have many further choices to make. What proportion of your population do you conscript into service, and which parts of the country do you leave to keep the economy running? Which of your generals do you mobilize, and which do you retain in reserve? Which troops do you send where? Do you keep your navy back to defend your shorelines, send them out to protect your trade routes, or try to sabotage enemy trade and supply lines? As generals and admirals have different ranks, skill traits, and force allocations from supporting barracks and naval bases, which resource you utilize where can make a big difference in the outcome of the war. Since generals and admirals also support their own Interest Groups, their performance against the enemy can also cause political shifts that persist even after the war.

After having allocated your resources and issued orders, your generals and admirals perform their duties to their best abilities, letting you focus on managing the home front - expanding or subsidizing industries necessary for the war effort, establishing trade routes, managing your taxes, and dealing with dissidents and radicals that use the chaos of war to further their own causes. The outcome of the war is to a large extent determined by if you can keep your population's spirits high - even if your frontlines are gaining ground, it won't help a people demoralized from lack of bread (or furniture, or coffee, or…). Such a population may insist you sign a peace deal as quickly and favorably as possible, whatever your long-term plans were.

As you might imagine, the warfare mechanics have gone through extensive iteration to hit the design goals. Moving stacks of variable-sized armies between small provinces and having fights break out when they overlap is a tried and true mechanic that works great in many strategy games, not just Paradox GSGs. But for Victoria 3 it didn't feel right - the pacing felt off compared to the management/society building gameplay, handling multiple simultaneous wars (or multiple fronts) as a global Great Power was a pain, and the element of "tactics cheese" where a human could use trickery to devastate an AI with a superior army actively harmed the dynamics of Diplomatic Plays where armies are measured against each other by statistics.

Of course, new systems come with new sets of challenges. If you are forced to manage 20 generals and their orders, it's no less work than managing 5 stacks and their locations. Giving the player a sense of presence and an overview of their forces when you can't give a precise location for an army or fleet is a challenge, especially when they're moving to or from something. And most of all, even though we want to reward foresight and strategic thinking, having the outcome of a war virtually predetermined the moment someone starts a Play against you is no fun at all. We're happy with the way it works now, but it has required a lot of experimentation, testing, compromises, and particularly UX work and visual polish.

The true enemy of Victoria 3 is often found inside your borders.
DD57_12.jpg


Fail to keep your population content and you may have a revolution or even a cultural secession on your hands. As a populace grows more literate they become class-conscious and politically active, starting or supporting movements to change the nation's laws or demand autonomy. Such situations can be dealt with in several different ways, ranging from the classic bread-and-circus approach of ensuring everyone is so materially satisfied they have no reason to complain, through granting other popular concessions such as welfare programs or a somewhat expanded voting franchise, to suppressing the rowdy Interest Groups and cracking down on protesters with a national guard or secret police. Managing such uprisings before they break out is important even if you have a strong military, since other countries may take advantage of your internal strife and support the revolutionaries in exchange for making you a future puppet state.

One system we thought we'd knocked out of the park on the first attempt was the algorithm for determining which states would rise up against you in case of a revolution. The number would be largely based on the total Political Strength share of the revolting Interest Groups, so if 25% of the Political Strength was against you and your country had eight states, two of them would revolt. Furthermore they would tend to revolt in a cluster, so you wouldn't be fighting on a number of fronts against individual states but as a unified force. The state with the highest proportion of revolutionary Political Strength would be selected as the epicenter, with states neighboring the epicenter likely to follow them.

That worked quite well for large, terrestrial countries like for example France, USA, Brazil, and Russia. But for some reason, every progressive reform in Sweden would result in Gotland - a small sheep-farming island between Sweden and the Baltic states - rising up in lone protest. Can you guess why? The very small population of Gotland consists of only politically apathetic Peasants, and those few Aristocrats who own the land. Therefore, the conservative Landowners held the most dominant position there - relatively speaking - by far. And, in order to be guaranteed more than 1 rebellious state out of Sweden's 5, the Landowners would need to hold 40%+ of the Political Strength. The current algorithm is substantially less elegant but a lot more nuanced, producing results that don't require launching naval invasions against angry shepherds with every social reform you make!

This is of course just scratching the surface of all the systems and dynamics that emerge within Victoria 3's simulation of the modern era. I didn't even get into technology, colonization, infrastructure, slavery, literacy and qualifications, enactment of laws, population growth and migration, national unifications, and all the journal entries and events that shake the game up and keep it eventful throughout the century-long campaign. You can look back at previous dev diaries to get more details on all of these, or wait a mere 8 weeks to see for yourself!

As mentioned, next week Martin will return to discuss the revisions we have made to the Interests mechanics. Tomorrow the team will head out to PDXCON to see several hundreds of you play the game for the very first time, help moderate a massive Victoria megagame, and run panels about the game and its development. We'll be back to continue polishing the brass and tweaking the knobs on Monday, getting everything just right for when you get your hands on the game on October 25th!

Victoria 3 is now available for pre-order! https://pdxint.at/3KlLWgf

v3_discordbanner.jpg
 
  • 123Like
  • 65Love
  • 21
  • 12
  • 5
Reactions:
Not necessarily. But since the devs said:

I personally think it's something to leave alone. At least for now.

Not going to prevent you from saying otherwise, though.
He finally speaks! I wasn't sure you were real!
Don't worry, you're not the only mate. He must be one of those users who disagree with anyone who's not part of the hype bandwagon party ;)
The funny thing is, I am hype for Victoria 3 and I've already preordered it lmao. It's just funny that he clicks on my profile and goes down the list of my posts every day to downvote them all. Rent free, just like the housing market in Victoria 3 LOL
 
  • 4
  • 2
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
It's just funny that he clicks on my profile and goes down the list of my posts every day to downvote them all
I didn't actually do that. I think you got that impression from the fact we are reading the same threads, one of which was made by you. If I disagree with one post made by a user, then chances are I will disagree with the posts made by the same user saying almost the exact same thing. It's not really a personal thing, the user who made the comments is usually not something I care about
 
  • 12
  • 1
Reactions:
In the earliest playable iteration of Victoria 3, Interest Groups were very dynamic and always organized into parties or factions. Interest Groups could suddenly appear in a country or change their beliefs based on triggered conditions. They had opinions on everything from reforms to what buildings should be constructed to which wars should be waged. This turned out to be extremely confusing, as players never really got a handle on what their country was all about or the outside limits of what might happen if they performed an action. To combat this we created eight Interest Group "templates" which were the same for all countries, with individual variations on those templates for different countries. Rather than popping into existence or fading away as there were causes to champion, we split off a new type of organization - Political Movements - from Interest Groups, so the latter would always have their own identity and ideology while the former could be used to push issues. Rather than changing Interest Groups' opinions based on triggered conditions, we introduced Interest Group Leaders which could modify an Interest Group's ideologies. Finally, we removed the Party/Faction layer altogether, only to reintroduce Parties much later in development as a more comprehensible political layer active only in democracies that still puts Interest Groups front and center.

This is incredibly interesting and makes me better understand how we came to the current system and why. I still have to ask, is there a chance we might see some of the features of the earlier iteration appear as political movements? Something along the lines of "Movement to acquire more colonial territory" or "Movement to acquire Alsace-Lorraine" or "Movement to build a building to give jobs to a poorer region X" or "Movement to strengthen the military" or "Luddite movement to demolish the disgusting new factory in our beautiful shire" or "Movement to prevent X factory from being closed."

These, especially the building ones could be quasi-random and it would be quite realistic. As the government, it always seems incredibly random which factory out of the 10 you built might become embroiled in controversy due to a particularly nasty injury, and it would give the political discourse in your country a more 'alive' feeling.
 
Last edited:
  • 5Like
Reactions:
the trade system during the stream was of peak interest. i love how indepth it is and that more thought goes into internal production & international trade now. it will make relationships with other countries much more important
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
what is a cultural sessession?
People of a non-primary culture, living in your country, in states that are Homelands of their culture, rising up and creating their own country.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
People of a non-primary culture, living in your country, in states that are Homelands of their culture, rising up and creating their own country.
Oh , separatists. i'll have to look on how to improve the nationals percentage when the game id out
 
I can say that we intend for Immersion Packs to contain a mix of art and narrative content supported by one or two new mechanics that enhance and deepen some aspect of the game, while expansions are meant to introduce major new gameplay features in addition to a wealth of supporting content, and is more of a "game-changer".
I'd really REALLY prefer not having any mechanics in Immersion Packs. Content atomization is exactly why I never bought more EU4 after getting it in a humble bundle. It's expensive and confusing and legitimately time consuming having to read every single store page in case there's a single sneaky mechanic hidden away somewhere. I don't like having my time wasted just trying understand what's actually being sold.

Meanwhile I've got zero hesitation paying full price on recent HOI4 Expansions because I know what I'm getting. The last few DLCs have all been big solid packages and I don't feel like I'm being actively tricked.
However I sat down with my housemate because he wanted to learn HOI4. His interest evaporated like ice cream in an arc furnace when I tried to teach him about Spearhead commands, but I didn't realise that small yet fundamental planning tool was locked behind a UK-focused Country Pack. Universal mechanic, bundled with a region-specific DLC was a huge turnoff for him.

I've been very positive about Victoria 3, so this is my first expression of concern.
For me, the gold standard for 'mid-sized' DLC is in Stellaris with the Leviathans Story Pack which is laser-focused on interactions with non-empire entities, and the Aquatic Species Pack which is laser-focused on a single campaign theme with no strings attached for non-aquatic campaigns.
Only the 'major' expansion packs should ever be a mixed bag of nation-specific content and global mechanics.
 
Last edited:
  • 13
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
That worked quite well for large, terrestrial countries like for example France, USA, Brazil, and Russia. But for some reason, every progressive reform in Sweden would result in Gotland - a small sheep-farming island between Sweden and the Baltic states - rising up in lone protest. Can you guess why? The very small population of Gotland consists of only politically apathetic Peasants, and those few Aristocrats who own the land. Therefore, the conservative Landowners held the most dominant position there - relatively speaking - by far. And, in order to be guaranteed more than 1 rebellious state out of Sweden's 5, the Landowners would need to hold 40%+ of the Political Strength. The current algorithm is substantially less elegant but a lot more nuanced, producing results that don't require launching naval invasions against angry shepherds with every social reform you make!
Making sure Sweden's overpowered again, I see.
 
  • 3Haha
  • 1Love
Reactions:
In Vic 3 how can I see if a country has a specific natural ressource?

There is literally a lens that shows where resource distribution potentials are. There reason why there aren't icons is because each "tile" can have a dozen or so different resources on it. Information overload is a thing. Nobody wants to see 14 resource icons when all you want to see where coal is.
 
  • 10
  • 1Like
Reactions:
This is incredibly interesting and makes me better understand how we came to the current system and why. I still have to ask, is there a chance we might see some of the features of the earlier iteration appear as political movements? Something along the lines of "Movement to acquire more colonial territory" or "Movement to acquire Alsace-Lorraine" or "Movement to build a building to give jobs to a poorer region X" or "Movement to strengthen the military" or "Luddite movement to demolish the disgusting new factory in our beautiful shire" or "Movement to prevent X factory from being closed."

These, especially the building ones could be quasi-random and it would be quite realistic. As the government, it always seems incredibly random which factory out of the 10 you built might become embroiled in controversy due to a particularly nasty injury, and it would give the political discourse in your country a more 'alive' feeling.

I like the idea of having movements for things like foreign policy and laws etc.
But because it seems like they're focusing the main game-play loop on the player deciding what buildings to build I think adding movements that (are likely too) have a malus if ignored would be a poor design choice. At least, with the building system, I think it's probably better to not take agency away from the player or influence their decision making.
 
  • 4
  • 4
Reactions:
I like the idea of having movements for things like foreign policy and laws etc.
But because it seems like they're focusing the main game-play loop on the player deciding what buildings to build I think adding movements that (are likely too) have a malus if ignored would be a poor design choice. At least, with the building system, I think it's probably better to not take agency away from the player or influence their decision making.

The game also has significant mechanics focused around changing and enacting laws, and movements spawn to oppose the player when they do. I don't understand the idea that giving the player any pushback whatsoever is taking away agency.
 
  • 4
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
On the topic of Interest Groups having previously had opinions on foreign policy such as wars with specific countries. As with all design cuts this was painful, but I stand behind the decision. Something like spawning a political movement to encourage a revanschist war against Spain, and have Interest Groups line up in support of opposition of that, could probably be okay (though would bring its own set of additional design issues to solve). But having one Interest Group intrinsically support or oppose a war with Spain, while another supports or opposes a war with France, while another cares a lot about Lucca for some reason - it just felt weird and gamey, and impossible for the player to predict and have any agency over. We know the Trade Unions will always want Progressive Taxes, and if we don't we can take many different steps to weaken them so they won't be a problem. But if the Trade Unions for some indiscernible reason wants you to take a Treaty Port in Ingria today, whereas yesterday they wanted you to force the Ottomans to end the slave trade, this doesn't mean anything to your gameplay other than making a decision to go along with the game's suggestions or not.

I do look forward to designing more interactions between politics and warfare in the future, but something like that would have to be a new feature, not shoehorned into the IG Ideology system. In the meantime, IGs still do care about laws which affect your foreign policy, of course.
 
  • 34Like
  • 28
  • 6
  • 1Love
Reactions:
On the topic of Interest Groups having previously had opinions on foreign policy such as wars with specific countries. As with all design cuts this was painful, but I stand behind the decision. Something like spawning a political movement to encourage a revanschist war against Spain, and have Interest Groups line up in support of opposition of that, could probably be okay (though would bring its own set of additional design issues to solve). But having one Interest Group intrinsically support or oppose a war with Spain, while another supports or opposes a war with France, while another cares a lot about Lucca for some reason - it just felt weird and gamey, and impossible for the player to predict and have any agency over. We know the Trade Unions will always want Progressive Taxes, and if we don't we can take many different steps to weaken them so they won't be a problem. But if the Trade Unions for some indiscernible reason wants you to take a Treaty Port in Ingria today, whereas yesterday they wanted you to force the Ottomans to end the slave trade, this doesn't mean anything to your gameplay other than making a decision to go along with the game's suggestions or not.

I do look forward to designing more interactions between politics and warfare in the future, but something like that would have to be a new feature, not shoehorned into the IG Ideology system. In the meantime, IGs still do care about laws which affect your foreign policy, of course.
We were advocating for something more like "Trade Unions should not support war, unless to spread the revolution", and "industrialists should support war, unless it is taking too long", or "PB should support all revanchist wars". Of course, granularity with what war targets are acceptable would be hard to track and react to, but I don't think anyone really suggested that (although IG leaders personal affiliations like "anglophile" or "russophobe" could add a nice touch).

Arguably the bigger issue with "IGs only react to laws and being in government, and nothing else" is not even the foreign policy, but rather domestic development. Currently there is an obvious meta of "industrializing to destroy Landowners and Devout power to speed up development". I strongly believe this meta should be broken by making this ten times harder than it is at the moment. And IG's negative reaction to "hostile development" (that would lead to them losing clout) sounds like a natural mechanism to combat this gamey strategy.

tl;dr aristocrats should not give up power, nor should they be happy to give money to projects that would be filled with capitalists and skilled workers that would take aristocrats' power. This is plain wrong and should be killed. IGs' opinion modifiers seem to be a good way to counterbalance that player behaviour
 
  • 6
  • 4
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
On the topic of Interest Groups having previously had opinions on foreign policy such as wars with specific countries. As with all design cuts this was painful, but I stand behind the decision. Something like spawning a political movement to encourage a revanschist war against Spain, and have Interest Groups line up in support of opposition of that, could probably be okay (though would bring its own set of additional design issues to solve). But having one Interest Group intrinsically support or oppose a war with Spain, while another supports or opposes a war with France, while another cares a lot about Lucca for some reason - it just felt weird and gamey, and impossible for the player to predict and have any agency over. We know the Trade Unions will always want Progressive Taxes, and if we don't we can take many different steps to weaken them so they won't be a problem. But if the Trade Unions for some indiscernible reason wants you to take a Treaty Port in Ingria today, whereas yesterday they wanted you to force the Ottomans to end the slave trade, this doesn't mean anything to your gameplay other than making a decision to go along with the game's suggestions or not.

I do look forward to designing more interactions between politics and warfare in the future, but something like that would have to be a new feature, not shoehorned into the IG Ideology system. In the meantime, IGs still do care about laws which affect your foreign policy, of course.
I feel like in the future when/if you revisit this, tooltips can really just about solve this issue of confusion, making it mostly dependent on why the IGs want you to do certain things and how much they want you to do it and how many wants they have at a time.

For instance, I can foresee a problem; if the Landowner IG wants you to invade nearby republican nations, and suddenly 3 nations turn republican, and they disapprove of you not invading, the Landowners can turn downright mutinous instantly in a way you can't respond to. But there I don't think the problem would be confusion, the tooltip over their opinion can just say "Disapproves of diplomatic stance regarding nearby republican nations" with a nested tooltip over 'diplomatic stance' saying "Landowners oppose the spread of liberal or socialist ideology, and disapprove of governments doing nothing to stop it. Declaring war or rivalry on the nearby republican nations of X, Y, and Z will appease them." Rather, the problem would have been the player suddenly being barraged with information signalling a downturn they couldn't predict, which might come across as confusion, but isn't necessarily.

I think it's no more complicated to understand than most mechanics. Maybe it was just one too many complex mechanics to add, or maybe it was because at that point in your development you didn't have a proper UI to visualize it, or the nature of how the IGs were reacting to foreign policy was overcomplicated, but the idea of IGs reacting to foreign policy is not at all more complex than any other mechanic. I think this is a super workable problem for you guys and I highly encourage you to pursue it in the future development cycle.
 
  • 6Like
  • 4
Reactions:
On the topic of Interest Groups having previously had opinions on foreign policy such as wars with specific countries. As with all design cuts this was painful, but I stand behind the decision. Something like spawning a political movement to encourage a revanschist war against Spain, and have Interest Groups line up in support of opposition of that, could probably be okay (though would bring its own set of additional design issues to solve). But having one Interest Group intrinsically support or oppose a war with Spain, while another supports or opposes a war with France, while another cares a lot about Lucca for some reason - it just felt weird and gamey, and impossible for the player to predict and have any agency over. We know the Trade Unions will always want Progressive Taxes, and if we don't we can take many different steps to weaken them so they won't be a problem. But if the Trade Unions for some indiscernible reason wants you to take a Treaty Port in Ingria today, whereas yesterday they wanted you to force the Ottomans to end the slave trade, this doesn't mean anything to your gameplay other than making a decision to go along with the game's suggestions or not.

I do look forward to designing more interactions between politics and warfare in the future, but something like that would have to be a new feature, not shoehorned into the IG Ideology system. In the meantime, IGs still do care about laws which affect your foreign policy, of course.
It could be at least ideological wars. Slavery, the spread and containment of socialism or monarchism
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I feel like in the future when/if you revisit this, tooltips can really just about solve this issue of confusion, making it mostly dependent on why the IGs want you to do certain things and how much they want you to do it and how many wants they have at a time.

For instance, I can foresee a problem; if the Landowner IG wants you to invade nearby republican nations, and suddenly 3 nations turn republican, and they disapprove of you not invading, the Landowners can turn downright mutinous instantly in a way you can't respond to. But there I don't think the problem would be confusion, the tooltip over their opinion can just say "Disapproves of diplomatic stance regarding nearby republican nations" with a nested tooltip over 'diplomatic stance' saying "Landowners oppose the spread of liberal or socialist ideology, and disapprove of governments doing nothing to stop it. Declaring war or rivalry on the nearby republican nations of X, Y, and Z will appease them." Rather, the problem would have been the player suddenly being barraged with information signalling a downturn they couldn't predict, which might come across as confusion, but isn't necessarily.

I think it's no more complicated to understand than most mechanics. Maybe it was just one too many complex mechanics to add, or maybe it was because at that point in your development you didn't have a proper UI to visualize it, or the nature of how the IGs were reacting to foreign policy was overcomplicated, but the idea of IGs reacting to foreign policy is not at all more complex than any other mechanic. I think this is a super workable problem for you guys and I highly encourage you to pursue it in the future development cycle.

The idea of political movements spawning dynamically to request a specific action be taken, and IGs either supporting or opposing it based on their own ideologies would work better. (Pacifist IGs would oppose wars, the Armed Forces would usually be in favour, the PB would support revanchism, the Devout war against religious enemies, the Trade Unions wars to spread the revolution... As well as a bunch of other variables).

I'll also reiterate that this extends to building actions. There's been a great thread recently about the fact that IGs seem to do very little to strengthen their own position or weaken rivals. So having a situation where Landowners support dynamic movements to build plantations, opposing ones to build factories, or even supporting movements for the demolition or downgrading of existing ones would make the game feel much more alive and dynamic.

In this way, we could hit two birds with one stone by greatly expanding the scope and scale of the existing Political movement mechanic, by simply expanding it beyond just law enactment.
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
In this way, we could hit two birds with one stone by greatly expanding the scope and scale of the existing Political movement mechanic, by simply expanding it beyond just law enactment.

Take the way the Political movement system works currently. They can either advocate for the passage of a certain law ('Enact universal suffrage') or defend a law that is currently under threat ('Preserve the monarchy'). I'd simply (I say simply, but this certainly wouldn't be easy to code) make it so that this also extends to other actions. Say you want to make an alliance with Russia, negating alliances takes time, even when your counterpart is the recipient to it, so we'll have... let's say a 100 days window during which negotiations for this alliance are underway. The Intelligentsia does not like the reactionary Russians so they start a movement 'Oppose alliance with Russia.' Alternatively, the Intelligentsia could support the 'Ally with Britain' movement (Which would represent the coveted Anglophilias, Francophilias, Germanophilias etc. Though this particular type of movement should probably only be directed at great powers). The same logic applies to building buildings.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
I still think the POPs, general, etc look a bit silly, but that's just cosmetics. I trust someone will come up with a mod that replaces the 3d models with the 2d sprites from Vicky 1 or 2 sooner or later, so that will sort itself out.

As for the design decisions outlined in this DD, they sound very reasonable and make me look forward to playing the game even more!
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: