• 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 #6 - Interest Groups

DD6 Thumb.png


Hello once again and welcome back to yet another Victoria 3 dev diary. Where previous dev diaries have been focusing on the economy, we’re now going to switch gears to another core pillar of the Victoria series - internal politics! More specifically, we’re going to be talking about Interest Groups, which form the nucleus of Victoria 3’s political gameplay.

What then, are Interest Groups? Fundamentally, an Interest Group is a collection of pops that espouse certain political views and want to change the country to be more in line with those views. Interest Groups are drawn from a number of different templates, but will vary in their exact views from country to country, based on factors such as the local religion, which social movements have appeared in the country or the personal views of their leader.

The Landowners is an Interest Group dominated by the Aristocracy and tends to be firmly in the conservative side of politics
dd6_1.png


As mentioned, Interest Groups are fundamentally made up of Pops - all individuals in all Pops are either members of an Interest Group or Politically Inactive, with the ratio in each based on factors such as Profession, Wealth, Literacy etc. Individuals inside Pops contribute Political Strength to their Interest Group of choice, with the amount they contribute again dependent on multiple factors, the main ones being their material Wealth and the status (and/or votes!) they are offered under the nation’s power structure.

For example, a single wealthy Aristocrat in an Oligarchy will provide hundreds or even thousands times the political strength of a poor laborer. The total Political Strength of all Pops in an Interest Group is what gives it its level of Clout - the amount of political weight it can assert on the country and the government. It’s important to note though that Pops are not unified in which Interest Groups they support - individuals within Pops are the ones who decide their Interest Group, and a single Pop can potentially have individuals supporting every Interest Group in the game (in different numbers).

Some Pops have no political strength at all, usually due to being disenfranchised under the nation’s laws (such as people of a religion or culture that is discriminated against, or women in countries that haven’t instituted women’s suffrage). These Pops are ‘outside the system’ so to speak, unable to demand reform through the regular political system of Interest Groups, and instead having to rely on other methods to put pressure on the government, but we won’t focus on those today.

Individual members of a Pop can support different Interest Groups - or stay out of politics altogether!
dd6_2.png

As mentioned above, Interest Groups have a number of ideologies which determine their views on which laws the country should or should not enact. Different Interest Groups will have different ideologies (the Landowners are significantly more conservative than the Trade Unions, for example - shocking, I know!) but these are not entirely set in stone - they can change over the course of the game and will also vary based on the current leader of the Interest Group, who comes with his or her own personal ideology and view of the world. Additionally, some Interest Groups in certain countries have unique ideologies colored by their religion and culture, such as the Confucian Scholars Interest Group in Qing China who (unsurprisingly) espouse a Confucian ideology.

Interest Groups will generally favor laws that benefit them in some way
dd6_3.png

I mentioned previously that Interest Groups have a level of Clout based on the total Political Strength of their constituent Pops. Clout is calculated by comparing their Political Strength to that of the other Interest Groups in the country - if all the Interest Groups in Belgium put together have 100k Political Strength and the Landowners have 30k, they correspondingly get 30% of the Clout in Belgium. The Interest Group’s Clout will determine their classification - Powerful, Influential or Marginalized.

Interest Groups also have a level of Approval, which is based on factors such as how much they approve of the country’s laws, whether they are in government or in opposition, and how many of their individual members are Loyalists or Radicals (more on those in a later dev diary). There are numerous other factors that can affect Approval as well, such as how you react to certain events or decisions that you take.

Together, the classification and Approval of an Interest Group determines which Traits are active for an Interest Group at any given time, and how impactful they are. There are different traits, positive and negative, with positive traits being activated when an Interest Group is happy and negative ones when they are… not so happy. If an Interest Group is Powerful, the effects of any traits they have active (good or bad) are stronger, while an Interest Group that is Marginalized cannot activate traits at all, as they are too weak to exert an effect on the whole country.

Traits are, of course, not the only way that Interest Groups can affect a country, and it’s even possible for one (or several!) angry Interest Groups to start a civil war, potentially bringing in foreign countries to support them.

Keep the aristocracy happy, and they’ll be more willing to reinvest their ‘hard-earned’ money into the country
dd6_4.png

Now, something that’s been a hotly debated topic in the community in regards to Interest Groups is Political Parties and whether they will be a part of Victoria 3 so I want to briefly touch on this. What I can tell you for now is that we are currently looking into a solution where parties can form in certain countries as constellations of Interest Groups holding a shared political platform. This is something that’s by no means fully nailed down at this point though, so don’t take this as a 100% firm commitment to how they would function. What I can tell you for sure is that we will come back to this particular topic later!

That’s all for today, though we’ll certainly be coming back to the subject of Interest Groups and looking at the different types you will encounter in later dev diaries. With July and summer vacations coming up, we’re going to take a short break from Development Diaries, but we’ll be back on July 22nd as Mikael returns to continue talking about politics in Victoria 3, on the subject of Laws.
 
  • 342Like
  • 122Love
  • 21
  • 8
  • 6
Reactions:
Very glad to see that you are planning to add way more options than in Vic1/2 in this regard, btw.
I also hope we will have several level of wealth suffrage.
 
Will interest group attraction gradually decrease the longer an interest group is in government?

If not, it should. Even if governments are successful and don't upset the electorate, they run out of steam in campaigning efforts and it also becomes more fashionable to support the opposition. This would give the game more dynamic governments, especially in more democratic countries. Other types of government might reduce the impact of this but it should always be a thing.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Somebody on /gsg/ made an interesting proposition how to implement the parties, so I'm going to just copy paste their comment here:

just make it a law
>No established parties.
functions the exact same as they have it, this is the law in most of the world except Britain, America, France, etcetera
>Two Party System
all interest groups align with one of two parties, that party's policies are the same as the interest groups that support it, the larger the interest group the more of their policies they adopt
>Multi Party System
same as two parties but with more parties, interest groups can more closely follow their goals, for example "trade unions" would be forced to support either liberals or conservatives under two party, but under multi party they can support the socialist party
>One Party State
all (allowed) interest groups support ONE party and that party's policy is decided based on the interest groups that support it, but the party can also marginalize interest groups
realistically this would result in a communist party where industrialists, intelligentsia and trade unions try to get control, but all other groups are marginalized
Is there any state with a two party system? The USA is NOT a two party system. Historically there were some parties which were pretty close to getting support.
 
  • 14
  • 1
Reactions:
Is there any state with a two party system? The USA is NOT a two party system. Historically there were some parties which were pretty close to getting support.
It will depend more on whether the US electoral system is implemented. Majority suffrage tends to be concentrated. But I fear that the developers will leave it at just using proportional representation everywhere. With this you will have many different parties in the USA throughout.
 
Is there any state with a two party system? The USA is NOT a two party system. Historically there were some parties which were pretty close to getting support.
The US is a two-party system. Historically any time you had a third party getting a lot of votes it either was a splinter of a major party that quickly went away by the next election or it was a protest party representing disaffected folks that served more as a spoiler than a party that held significant political power. At the same time hardcoding it the way it was suggested is not the best way to handle it, there needs to be a bit of fluidity in case you have a situation where a two party system gets briefly broken by a third party that then ends up replacing one of the major parties.

There are multiple cases of this happening over the time period Vicky 3 covers. The Republicans in the U.S. for example quickly replaced the Whigs as the major opposition to the Democrats in the mid-1850s with a brief period where the Know-Nothings (American Party) also had some power before they ended up folding mostly into the Republicans. Or there's the case of Britain where the Labour Party emerged in the early 20th century as a third party, then the Liberals had a rift after WWI that ended up allowing Labour to end up as the opposition by the early 1920s, with only one election after that point where the Liberals were able to win a not insignificant share of the vote and seats before their support finally collapsed fully and they became irrelevant.

I don't know how the game would be able to allow something like this to happen other than through events and maybe as a result of changes in the leadership of IGs. There should be some sort of laws that restrict how many major parties there would, could be linked to the electoral system rather than just "this is how many parties there can be." But the number of parties should still be allowed to be variable within a reasonable range within each system.
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions:
How will corruption among government officials and in the church be implemented in the game? Will the game show corruption and the fight against it?

Written with Google translator.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
To me, politics in Vic2 were kinda that thing that just happened behind the scenes and I never really understood (and unlike the economics, there were little means to understand the mechanics behind it).

Vic3 is is looking like it will make sense and be more involved.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Thanks for clarifiing.

Small caveat : I am not a native speaker, and translated census suffrage is a synonym of censitary, so I was under the impression you were talking about the same thing.
The definition you found is the standard one. The Devs seem to be describing what’s called a literacy test.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Is there any state with a two party system? The USA is NOT a two party system. Historically there were some parties which were pretty close to getting support.
Well legally it's not a two party state and in game shouldn't be modeled as such, but realistically speaking it works like a two party state as various laws encourage this development even though they don't legally require it.

Probably similarly to how Vic2 had laws about non secret ballots that strengthened the strongest party in each state there should be some laws in Vic3 that affect how likely it is for a democracy to have many parties rather than keep the number low.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The US is a two-party system. Historically any time you had a third party getting a lot of votes it either was a splinter of a major party that quickly went away by the next election or it was a protest party representing disaffected folks that served more as a spoiler than a party that held significant political power. At the same time hardcoding it the way it was suggested is not the best way to handle it, there needs to be a bit of fluidity in case you have a situation where a two party system gets briefly broken by a third party that then ends up replacing one of the major parties.

There are multiple cases of this happening over the time period Vicky 3 covers. The Republicans in the U.S. for example quickly replaced the Whigs as the major opposition to the Democrats in the mid-1850s with a brief period where the Know-Nothings (American Party) also had some power before they ended up folding mostly into the Republicans. Or there's the case of Britain where the Labour Party emerged in the early 20th century as a third party, then the Liberals had a rift after WWI that ended up allowing Labour to end up as the opposition by the early 1920s, with only one election after that point where the Liberals were able to win a not insignificant share of the vote and seats before their support finally collapsed fully and they became irrelevant.

I don't know how the game would be able to allow something like this to happen other than through events and maybe as a result of changes in the leadership of IGs. There should be some sort of laws that restrict how many major parties there would, could be linked to the electoral system rather than just "this is how many parties there can be." But the number of parties should still be allowed to be variable within a reasonable range within each system.
In addition, the process of absorbing Third Parties had major effects on the Parties. It’s hard to see the Democrats engaging in the New Deal without William Jennings Bryan bringing the Populists into the party with his embrace of Free Silver. This could easily have gone the other way: Southern Republicans entered into an alliance with Southern Populists and briefly took control of the North Carolina state legislature. That ended when the National Democratic Party absorbed the Populists.
 
Is there any state with a two party system? The USA is NOT a two party system. Historically there were some parties which were pretty close to getting support.
The winner takes it all makes the USA defacto a 2 party system. Yes, there are more parties, and yes at some point of history there were even more bigger parties with real chances, but the winner takes it all will alwasy reduce the number of parties with a chance of winningt to 2 parties. It just takes time and election circles.

CGP Grey made a few interesting videos about that.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
The winner takes it all makes the USA defacto a 2 party system. Yes, there are more parties, and yes at some point of history there were even more bigger parties with real chances, but the winner takes it all will alwasy reduce the number of parties with a chance of winningt to 2 parties. It just takes time and election circles.

CGP Grey made a few interesting videos about that.
Which is why I would like to have electoral systems and other structural things in the game. Many things are banal due to the rules of the game.

Another example. In the USA, the compulsion to vote with the parliamentary group is not as pronounced as in Germany, for example. But that is not due to the individualism of the MPs. The existence of the government does not depend on the majority in parliament. The US President is elected directly, the German Chancellor by Parliament.

There are of course other rules of the game that affect how the system works in the end. And also safety precautions that can soften certain tendencies.

For example, the secured voice system can also be used to help political newcomers. The voter casts a vote that prefers a candidate. And then he also specifies who the vote should go to if the candidate does not make it. This, for example, softens the majority voting system a little.

In general, proportional representation is of course more democratic. If the US were to change its system, several parties would immediately be on the stage.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
While Interest Groups in all countries follow the same broad templates, there can be local variations. From your example, the US variant of the Landowners (Southern Planters) do support slavery, while in other countries where slavery has already been abolished the Landowners tend to be ambivalent to it. In some countries they might even oppose it as uncouth and barbaric.
What will determine this at game start in the game script? Will it be on a case-by-case basis (base is "oppose slavery", then alter the history files for the US landowners), or by whether abolition has already been passed (so no need to script a base position for them)?
 
The winner takes it all makes the USA defacto a 2 party system. Yes, there are more parties, and yes at some point of history there were even more bigger parties with real chances, but the winner takes it all will alwasy reduce the number of parties with a chance of winningt to 2 parties. It just takes time and election circles.

CGP Grey made a few interesting videos about that.
This should be represented by the VOTING system not by forcing the USA to have only two parties. That's what I meant. The Socialist and Progressive Party for exemple should exist but politically unimportant because of the voting system. Remember the election of 1912? The Progressive Party was WAY more important than the Republican Party during this election. Also the Populist Party was quiet strong and won in some states.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
This should be represented by the VOTING system not by forcing the USA to have only two parties. That's what I meant. The Socialist and Progressive Party for exemple should exist but politically unimportant because of the voting system. Remember the election of 1912? The Progressive Party was WAY more important than the Republican Party during this election. Also the Populist Party was quiet strong and won in some states.
Above all, you have the option of implementing multiple voting systems. The game knows where the population is. It is not that difficult to simulate the sub-sectors of a state as electoral districts with a certain weighting. If you have such a simulation, it is not difficult to implement a filter for majority voting or double majority voting. Mixed systems would also be possible.
 
Above all, you have the option of implementing multiple voting systems. The game knows where the population is. It is not that difficult to simulate the sub-sectors of a state as electoral districts with a certain weighting. If you have such a simulation, it is not difficult to implement a filter for majority voting or double majority voting. Mixed systems would also be possible.
The only thing I'm oppose is a party law which has 'two party system' in it to represent the USA by forcing it to only have two parties. USA should have 'Multi Party System' with a 'Winner takes it all' Voting system for exemple.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
The only thing I'm oppose is a party law which has 'two party system' in it to represent the USA by forcing it to only have two parties. USA should have 'Multi Party System' with a 'Winner takes it all' Voting system for exemple.

I just fear that the developers are laypeople in that regard. This is not general knowledge. The normal person does not necessarily know how the systems affect the number of parties or changes in political distribution. In addition, you also have to deal with the historical models.

General knowledge is more the right to choose according to wealth. Influencing the outcome of an election solely through the design of the election process is not general knowledge.
 
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
I am wondering how many people just saw the mention of parties in the DD and immediately started clapping because they like parties, because a lot of the commentary praising or defending their plans for parties don't seem to have a lot to do with what they intend to do. There is a lot of talk about things like first past the post etc. that doesn't seem to have anything to do with what they have in mind.

I am agnostic on whether parties are good or needed, but what they have in mind seems to be unneeded. From what we know from the DD, interest groups can group together to form a party if they have shared interests. That's it. Now that leaves a lot of room for detail, but as is, this seems tacked on and pointless. What's the difference if two or more interest groups with shared interests are in a party, as opposed to separate interest groups that push for the same interests. If they oppose you for disregarding their interests, you will get the drawbacks associated with them, if they support you for embracing their interests, they will give you bonuses each. This will happen whether or not they are labeled as "the same party".

Seems like this only adds a layer of complication into the game that doesn't change any of the political interactions. Furthermore, I am worried how that may look. If my landowners and clergy ally to form a conservative party but all the remaining interest groups decide to be on their own, does that mean that there is just a standalone conservative party but no other parties? Things like this would break my immersion more than aid it.

If you want to introduce political parties into the system, I would put them between the voters and interest groups, instead of above interest groups. That makes a lot more sense to me. Right now the mechanics seems to be that interest groups receive political power from pops, which determines their clout. Part of the political power (but not all) comes from the vote.

If democratic societies have parties, the power of the vote should first go to the parties, who then use this power to support the interests of particular interest groups. They could be a means by which the power of the vote is bundled and then split between IGs based on the party interests (which would be subject to the same baseline inclinations and circumstantial factors). If your political system has no elections, we don't have parties, because there is no voter power to relay to interest groups.
Well what can I say, I guess you might end up unhappy then when you play Britain. Sorry it wasn't an absolute monarchy in 1836 with no political parties.
Isn't being unhappy with the British political system the most British thing to do anyway?
I just fear that the developers are laypeople in that regard. This is not general knowledge. The normal person does not necessarily know how the systems affect the number of parties or changes in political distribution. In addition, you also have to deal with the historical models.
Not to be dramatic but literally every English speaking person online knows how the American political system works.
 
  • 12Like
Reactions: