• 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:
They can be totally different so there is no conflict. The Anglicans don't need to care about land ownership while the Landowners don't need to ask for religious schooling. They are interest groups, not political parties, so they only need to care for their direct interests.

What conflict should there be? The Anglicans support land reform while the Landowners are against it? Which means some Aristocrats that belong to the Anglicans interest group are against their own interest? That would make no sense.

I am not sure about the time-spending argument. So you mean an atheist Aristocrat pop will make Landowners stronger than a devout one? Because they spend 24/7 lobbying for that only group? Why does it need to be so?
Okay, now I get what you mean with "no conflict ". But I don't agree with you on two accounts.

Even if there is no conflict, then it would still matter what IG's the Pop supports. You can't spend all of your money twice and the same goes for influence. You can't ask your political contacts to put two different things as a no. 1 priority.

That said, even between Pious and Landowners there is conflict. If you have a very atheistic country than you'd expect the Aristocrats to mainly support the landowning class which would mean that they are mostly working towards things that directly benefit themselves. In a highly religious country where they really (have to pretend to) believe in Christian doctrine a part of the aristocrats will support the goals of the Pious, which includes support for the poor (this I would assume is the symbol of the set of scales). Is this against their interest? Yes. But philanthropy is certainly something that happened in the period.
Historically you'd also see aristocrats who supported enfranchisement due to idealogical reasons and there are plenty of examples of socialists who came from the nobility. I don't expect to see the aristocratic pops to have 10% support for the working class IG, but support for the (probably liberal) Intelligentsia is certainly plausible.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
They can be totally different so there is no conflict. The Anglicans don't need to care about land ownership while the Landowners don't need to ask for religious schooling. They are interest groups, not political parties, so they only need to care for their direct interests.

What conflict should there be? The Anglicans support land reform while the Landowners are against it? Which means some Aristocrats that belong to the Anglicans interest group are against their own interest? That would make no sense.

I am not sure about the time-spending argument. So you mean an atheist Aristocrat pop will make Landowners stronger than a devout one? Because they spend 24/7 lobbying for that only group? Why does it need to be so?


The IG will have different ideologies, so the Anglican Church can have points in common with the Landowners, in the dev diary they share one, and probably can have opposite ideologies, like the in US with the Landowners supporting slavery and the Pious groups supporting the abolition of slavery.

Another similar example can be the Spanish army, in the beginning of the century the was a liberal bastion, because many of the come from the guerrillas of the napoleonic wars, but for the end of the century they become a conservative bastion that support the same of the Church and the Landowners.

Another week argument from you is that a Landowner can go against his own interests, but for example maybe a landowner want a more developed nation and need to vote a land reform in order to become a capitalist which can be richer than before the land reform.

Many Russian that support the revolution probably end the revolution in a worst position than before.
 
Q1
In vic2 issues are the driving force behind a pop associating with an ideology. From the DD it sound like pops are directly associated with the "interest group" (depending on literacy, etc.).
Is this correct?

Q2
Are pop preferences dynamic or static? From the DD it sound like static, i.e. given a certain literacy the pop will prefer a certain interest croups.
An alternative model would be to also allow for dynamic preferences, i.e. Interest group X got which political weight and the pops income fell or did not improve fast enough when X dominates politics, remove support for X and vice versa. This allows for challenging game play and constant challenge to power, as pops will only be temporarily satisficed.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
On randomly-generated Interest Group Leaders- I think their names should be determined based on a percentage of Clout contribution from various cultures in your countries. For example, if you're playing as Poland and 70% of the Clout generated by your Trade Unions Interest Group comes from Ashkenazi pops, there should be a 70% chance the leader of that IG draws their name from the Ashkenazi namelist rather than just defaulting to a Polish namelist. Same for women- as their share of contribution to Clout grows, the more likely it is for a woman to become an Interest Group leader.

Also re: Political Strength of discriminated pops- I think it should vary by how harsh the discrimination is, rather than just being a flat binary of "no Political Strength" and "full Political Strength". For example, laws banning unaccepted cultures from political participation vs ones that "just" favor accepted and/or primary culture pops. Also, even in regimes where there is no de jure discrimination, primary culture pops should have a slight edge over non-accepted cultures in terms of Political Strength.
 
Last edited:
  • 5Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Q1
In vic2 issues are the driving force behind a pop associating with an ideology. From the DD it sound like pops are directly associated with the "interest group" (depending on literacy, etc.).
Is this correct?

If you look at the image with the map it shows the PoP group in Svealand split their membership across multiple interest groups. So it's not like all capitalists will be in the industrialist group if that is what you're asking.

Q2
Are pop preferences dynamic or static? From the DD it sound like static, i.e. given a certain literacy the pop will prefer a certain interest croups.
An alternative model would be to also allow for dynamic preferences, i.e. Interest group X got which political weight and the pops income fell or did not improve fast enough when X dominates politics, remove support for X and vice versa. This allows for challenging game play and constant challenge to power, as pops will only be temporarily satisficed.

Dynamic as shown in the quote below. They talk about attraction and the interest groups shifting over time as you research techs (so early on Landowners or Church of Sweden might be a major interest group but in the late game they might have fallen out of favour and Industrialist or Socialist might have taken over.)

Yes, for example Religious Schools increases Devout pop attraction :)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Interest Groups' relationship to whoever is 'In Government' is mentioned quite a bit, forgive me if this has been answered elsewhere but how exactly do we determine which interest groups are 'In Government'? Or is this potentially a subject of discussion if political parties come into the equation as you guys develop the game?
 
What conflict should there be? The Anglicans support land reform while the Landowners are against it? Which means some Aristocrats that belong to the Anglicans interest group are against their own interest? That would make no sense.
Why wouldn't that make sense? People join causes that are superficially against their own interest all the time. It just means there is a deeper, underlying interest that overcomes the superficial interest. An aristocrat who is joining an Anglican interest group that supports land reform might for example be an aristocrat by circumstance of birth who's had a spiritual awakening and now views land reform as a greater good than keeping all of their own landholdings.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Why wouldn't that make sense? People join causes that are superficially against their own interest all the time. It just means there is a deeper, underlying interest that overcomes the superficial interest. An aristocrat who is joining an Anglican interest group that supports land reform might for example be an aristocrat by circumstance of birth who's had a spiritual awakening and now views land reform as a greater good than keeping all of their own landholdings.
because that not what interest groups suppose to do. If factory workers want to receive less wage, capitalists want to pay more taxes, and aristocrats want to share their lands, then it will be too random to be a gameplay mechanics.

You should want to join an interest group for your own interest, not against your own interest. An Anglican interest group is about religious issue, not a " greater good" groups. If the Anglican interest group can lobby for all random issues, then the Land Owners group can do, too. And they may even lobby for land ownership abolishment too. If you insist that the Anglican interest group suppose to fight for land reform, then well, no Aristocrats should join that group. A "spiritual awakening" aristocrat should first give up all their lands for charity and become a peasant first, before joining that group.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
because that not what interest groups suppose to do. If factory workers want to receive less wage, capitalists want to pay more taxes, and aristocrats want to share their lands, then it will be too random to be a gameplay mechanics.

You should want to join an interest group for your own interest, not against your own interest. An Anglican interest group is about religious issue, not a " greater good" groups. If the Anglican interest group can lobby for all random issues, then the Land Owners group can do, too. And they may even lobby for land ownership abolishment too.
Fredrick Engels owned a factory.
 
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
because that not what interest groups suppose to do. If factory workers want to receive less wage, capitalists want to pay more taxes, and aristocrats want to share their lands, then it will be too random to be a gameplay mechanics.

You should want to join an interest group for your own interest, not against your own interest. An Anglican interest group is about religious issue, not a " greater good" groups. If the Anglican interest group can lobby for all random issues, then the Land Owners group can do, too. And they may even lobby for land ownership abolishment too. If you insist that the Anglican interest group suppose to fight for land reform, then well, no Aristocrats should join that group. A "spiritual awakening" aristocrat should first give up all their lands for charity and become a peasant first, before joining that group.
The Devout interest group, however it gets named in certain countries, might be primarily about religious issue, but that doesn't mean it only concerns itself with things like religious schooling. And during the 19th and early 20th centuries, in many countries land reform and the betterment of the impoverished classes was a religious issue. Look at the rise of Social Gospel in the US and Canada as a precursor and contemporary to the Progressive movement as an example. There's no reason a Devout interest group can't adopt something like land reform or other social policy that isn't directly tied to religion because that just wouldn't be realistic considering how often during this period such social policies were pushed or even directly started as a movement by religious groups specifically out of a "greater good" interpretation of their religious teachings. And there's really no reason why an aristocrat wouldn't join that movement if they were so inclined.

Also, what you describe as an aristocrat giving up all their lands and becoming a peasant is, again, as you say against that aristocrat's self-interest. If they're pushing for a certain policy, why would they give up all the clout and ability to influence policy? It makes no sense. They might become a less wealthy aristocrat, but they're not going to suddenly become a peasant just because they are pushing for land reform. Their class and profession has not changed so they would remain an aristocrat in terms of POP, but it's almost like they suddenly have a different interest than typical land owners so they would leave the land owners interest group to join one more suited to their new self-interest.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
And? What interest group he belonged to? You mean the game should let capitalists join trade union groups?
Sure, why not? It might be rare but I don't see why it should be totally impossible.

To be honest, I find the view that capitalist must be completely against trade unions pretty laughable.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
And? What interest group he belonged to? You mean the game should let capitalists join trade union groups?
Some capitalists did push for union, yes, and not just Engels. Josephine Roche, for example, inherited her father's large coal company and then promptly invited UMWA in to unionized the company's mines and adopted pro-labor policies. It's certainly not going to be common and trade unions should not be a majority interest group of capitalists, but capitalist POPs containing a small percentage who are aligned with the trade unionist interest group should not be impossible or unheard of.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
If you look at the image with the map it shows the PoP group in Svealand split their membership across multiple interest groups. So it's not like all capitalists will be in the industrialist group if that is what you're asking.



Dynamic as shown in the quote below. They talk about attraction and the interest groups shifting over time as you research techs (so early on Landowners or Church of Sweden might be a major interest group but in the late game they might have fallen out of favour and Industrialist or Socialist might have taken over.)

@BeauNiddle thanks for the feedback.

On Q1, maybe I was not clear. My question is not on multiple interest groups per pop. In v2 pops thinks "issues" are important, and through ideologies having a certain stance on an "issue" they attaches to the ideology. But from the DD it sounds like pops directly attaches with the "interest group" .

On Q2. my question is pop centric. The "Religious Schools increases Devout pop attraction" sounds static. Imagine a pop, with the children in a " Religious School" and the Devout interest group dominating politics, then the life condition of that pop goes to shambles (of whatever reason). That pop would not be as inclined to support Devout interest group (at least for a some time). That is a dynamic scaling of interest group support effects.
 
@BeauNiddle thanks for the feedback.

On Q1, maybe I was not clear. My question is not on multiple interest groups per pop. In v2 pops thinks "issues" are important, and through ideologies having a certain stance on an "issue" they attaches to the ideology. But from the DD it sounds like pops directly attaches with the "interest group" .
We don’t know for sure that’s how it works. It could be the reverse, and that their attachment to an ideology is what makes them take certain positions on issues.
On Q2. my question is pop centric. The "Religious Schools increases Devout pop attraction" sounds static. Imagine a pop, with the children in a " Religious School" and the Devout interest group dominating politics, then the life condition of that pop goes to shambles (of whatever reason). That pop would not be as inclined to support Devout interest group (at least for a some time). That is a dynamic scaling of interest group support effects.
Being economically destitute is almost certainly going to push a POP towards radicalism and away from the Devout interest group. It’ll probably radicalize the lower class aligned interest group, and you’ll end up with a communist Rural Folk IG banging down your chateau doors.

Can’t wait for the DD on how Loyalty/Radicalism works.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
@BeauNiddle thanks for the feedback.

On Q1, maybe I was not clear. My question is not on multiple interest groups per pop. In v2 pops thinks "issues" are important, and through ideologies having a certain stance on an "issue" they attaches to the ideology. But from the DD it sounds like pops directly attaches with the "interest group" .

On Q2. my question is pop centric. The "Religious Schools increases Devout pop attraction" sounds static. Imagine a pop, with the children in a " Religious School" and the Devout interest group dominating politics, then the life condition of that pop goes to shambles (of whatever reason). That pop would not be as inclined to support Devout interest group (at least for a some time). That is a dynamic scaling of interest group support effects
The developers tells that the changes of your population will lead to a changes in the IG that will force you to change the laws or face a revolution, at least this is that I understand.

The religious schools leading for more religious pops is something logic for me, and again it has a drawback, you will have less literacy than a nation with public schools.
 
@BeauNiddle thanks for the feedback.

On Q1, maybe I was not clear. My question is not on multiple interest groups per pop. In v2 pops thinks "issues" are important, and through ideologies having a certain stance on an "issue" they attaches to the ideology. But from the DD it sounds like pops directly attaches with the "interest group" .

On Q2. my question is pop centric. The "Religious Schools increases Devout pop attraction" sounds static. Imagine a pop, with the children in a " Religious School" and the Devout interest group dominating politics, then the life condition of that pop goes to shambles (of whatever reason). That pop would not be as inclined to support Devout interest group (at least for a some time). That is a dynamic scaling of interest group support effects.

Ah right I understand Q1 now. From my reading of the DD & Dev comments they are using attraction to cover a statistical spread of opinions rather than modelling issues for pops. One of the Dev's comment was:

While each individual within a Pop is considered to support a single Interest Group in this tooltip, functionally there's no difference between 150 people in a 1000-strong Aristocrat Pop giving all their support to the Anglicans and all 1000 individuals providing 15% of their Political Strength to the Anglicans. You can look at it however you like.

Since the Devs admit it's open to interpretation I assume that they are using attraction to work out 15% follow Anglicans rather than working out individual issues and then trying to match IGs to the issues.

As a coding optimisation is makes a lot of sense and with the numbers of Pops we're hoping for in Vic3 a statistical approach should be reasonable.

They haven't given any details of how attraction accumulates or changes during a Pops 'lifecycle' yet so I guess we'll just have to wait for the appropriate DD (whilst speculating widely of course!)

They definitely said Techs will alter attractions & depending on how you view their comments about survivors from wars becoming dependents it suggests that world events will also alter attractions ( wars & nationalists being an obvious connection)
 
Some capitalists did push for union, yes, and not just Engels. Josephine Roche, for example, inherited her father's large coal company and then promptly invited UMWA in to unionized the company's mines and adopted pro-labor policies. It's certainly not going to be common and trade unions should not be a majority interest group of capitalists, but capitalist POPs containing a small percentage who are aligned with the trade unionist interest group should not be impossible or unheard of.
well, then, personally I don't like the idea of pop randomly decide to go against their interest. That makes the game too random, because it deals with political classes in society, not every individuals with their own personal interest.
I would be like divisions in HoI randomly decide to switch sides and betray you.
 
  • 8
Reactions:
well, then, personally I don't like the idea of pop randomly decide to go against their interest. That makes the game too random, because it deals with political classes in society, not every individuals with their own personal interest.
There is likely nothing random about it. Likely, by default Capitalists have no Attraction towards Trade Unions but some event or other situation might get them some Attraction which will turn small percentage of them towards Trade Unions.
I would be like divisions in HoI randomly decide to switch sides and betray you.
Like how in Victoria 2 regiments would join revolt if their parent pop revolted?
 
  • 2
Reactions: