Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #64 - Post-Release Plans

[wilcoxchar]

State religion should shift net conversion toward that religion.

It already does. Only pops of discriminated religions will convert, and state religion discriminates against more religions. Since conversion amount each tick is percentage based, there's a higher base from which the % is being calculated where more discriminated pops are present, so it will therefore convert more people per tick than freedom of conscience would.

 

[omega20056]

Why not add full player agency? For a game that specialises so heavily on diplomacy and allowing the player to take advantage of it, it is quite stupid to completely neuter the FUNDAMENTAL BASIS for all diplomacy: military. In this game there is no way to simulate the outcomes of some of the most important fronts of the time, which were won by tactics and positioning. This is impossible to replicate in this game as where your army ends up is completely down to a roll of the dice.

I would argue that the system Victoria 2 uses is good, but needs somewhat more depth. Victoria 2 doesn't really represent warfare well after 1918. Planes are a single unit and submarines and aircraft carriers just don't exist. Mobilising creating hordes of farmer-infantry also isn't an enjoyable system. It thoroughly messes up your army composition and gives you little more than cannon fodder. Mobilising should boost army recovery rate at the cost of experience and slowly convert farmers into soldiers, not create hordes of second rate infantry. The ability to create reserve units that only get filled when you mobilise (as in HoI3) is also a viable option.

 

[alanschu]

So, what would I do, wall of text #2 in this thread. First of all, rules should change. 1836 should be the era of pitched battles: one battle per general at a time, as their specific army marches onward and meets the enemy. Kind of like now, but with higher numbers - like, a lot higher. Koniggratz saw over 400 units divided between the two sides, all of them concentrated on a single battlefield. Later on, as lethality increases, meeting the enemy face-on should be costlier and costlier, and you would move your generals into frontline combat - more battles, over the entire front (or not - more on this later), but smaller compared to the total size of the army. This is important, because of course Verdun was still a gigantic battle, but it did not involve literally half the forces on either side, the same way Koniggratz did. Advances should be slower, battles longer, but losses relatively contained, when compared to the slaughter of sending your soldiers into an ordered battle line and marching forward the enemy.

Seeing this makes me think of combining it with another cost I had considered earlier in the thread.

Your post makes me think that there needs to be some reflection of doctrinal changes. Not so much in tech (though indirectly I suppose?), but some of the issues with WW1 was the idea of the cult of the offensive that permeated so many generals, leaning on that huge decisive battle, that led to millions of men being fed into a meat grinder.

I'd like to see the warfare system reflect some of these changes. Generals that become less popular because they butchered half their divisions for no gain. But at the same time, charismatic generals that are difficult/impossible to remove without some sort of political cost (like McClelland) that may unfortunately still subscribe to the outdated doctrines.

Which leads to doctrinal shifts that come when the world, and especially your nation, learns about changes to warfare. If you lose a lot due to bad doctrines, those generals get easier to replace, and you start to spawn new generals with different doctrinal approaches based on the needs of the time.


This is SUPER high level and probably a lot of implementation details I'm not aware of, but I'd love it if the system had Generals a bit more autonomous and have great success lead to greater political influence, whining if they aren't on a prestigious front line and radicalizing groups, and things like that.

 

[Kellendros95]

I really like what I read! But... what about trade loops?

 

[Jays298]

It's going to happen eventually. The current war system is going to be nearly impossible to properly balance and robs the player of a great deal of agency no matter how it's set up. If they wanted fronts, they should've gone with a simplified version of HoI4's system, just with regiments instead of divisions. Building proper armies and navies was like half of the enjoyment of Victoria 2.

EDIT: I know that this, like most posts that disagree with the war system or other controversial aspects of the game, is going to get downvoted into oblivion, but if some of you could at least tell me why you think I'm wrong, I'll consider what you say. I might even warm up the system over time if improvements are made.

Let's say you have a perfect society builder with a focus on economics and society and you have generals that know how to wage war.

The basic problem with this game and most other so-called strategy games that have strategic warfare with no tactical combat is that the AI does not understand war strategy. It works on an air naval or space level. But not so much for land because it's not about destroying the enemy it's about pushing them into a corner or creating movement.

So yes it would either have to get much deeper or the player would have to control it somehow.

War has a directionality (not just forwards and retreat). And a strategic goal. Are they sieging the capital or are they encircling the army?

And if the devs are able to actually teach the AI how to do that then they deserve a prize. Because it's never happened before.

Even in HOI the AI has to be really railroaded into doing stuff and if the player puts up any resistance it just won't work for the AI. And by the time you have hundreds of divisions dozens of Air wings and dozens of ship fleets it gets to be a real mess. So I can understand why they want to move away from it except for the issue that the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction.

I mean from observer's standpoint the war in the game right now seems to have a complexity of tic-tac-toe. And people on this forum like myself are considering the Schlieffen plan and other very advanced things.

On another note, would France build fortresses in this game in the 1870s?

And is a grossdeutsch German unification ( led by Austria rather than Prussia) possible?

 

[Kimlin1004]

*rubs hands together* Looks like they read my feedback post.

 

[wilcoxchar]

While I'm more than accepting of the current wafare system (in principle, it still needs a lot of work) this is a particularly bad take. Just because some of our number wish for more micromanagement in war does not mean they want or even like HoI4.

Look at @Lord Lambert . He has made it clear that he doesn't even like HoI4.

Takes, like the one quoted, do nothing but antagonize some within our community and contribute to turning this community into a toxic environment.

We all want to make Victoria 3 into a better game, there's no need to say stupid nonsense like the above quote.

On your 6, Lamb Chop.

True, telling them to go back to HOI4 isn't helpful. Because there's also plenty of other games for them to go to. They could go to Victoria 2, the Europa Universalis games, Stellaris, the Crusader Kings games... and that's just among Paradox's games.

The point is that for people who want war micromanagement, there are already plenty of strategy and even grand strategy games out there to choose from. For people who don't want war micromanagement though, there is pretty much nothing. So when we finally get a game that doesn't have war micromanagement getting in the way and instead actually is trying to move to something different to appeal to different people, the war micromanagement crowd making a stink about how one game out of thousands is not directly appealing to them and demanding it be fundamentally changed to do so, and acting like their way is the only way that should exist ever and no other way can possibly be good or have people who like it, gets really annoying.

Some people just need to learn how to say "this game isn't entirely my thing" without knee-jerk tacking on "and therefore it's bad." Not every game needs to be made exclusively for you. "Better" is often subjective, and different design decisions can exist in different games. And that's okay.

 

[alanschu]

Bavaria should never join the French market if it has zero ability to connect to it; it's ludicruous, obligation or not.

This would work around another issue I had too.

I was able to get Hannover and Dai Nam to join my Customs Union in my first game as Sweden. Neither had a port. It just tanked their economy as a result. (could possibly be solved with local markets working a bit better, but I feel that's an even bigger fish to fry!

 

[xor]

Yeah I've got a few outstanding notes to myself to see what I can do to address that but not make it a painful process as a result. Don't want to just nerf tech spread into the ground though, need to find that middleground. But I am keeping eyes on it, and if you don't see it in the next few patches thats because I'm working on a few other things first.

I was also thinking about tech speed recently, my take is:

1) spread is too fast/high
2) base tech gain (50) is too high
3) and thus uni bonus is too low.

The idea to connect some of that to literacy is a good and sensible idea though, I just feel like it needs some number tweaking.

Currently it feels like deciding is not that relevant because the passive gain via spread is so huge (point 1) and building unis is not that much worth it because spread and base value is so high (point 1, 2 and 3). Games are fun because of decisions (what tech do I want) and less so "hm I guess I unlocked something, whatever".

I think it would be ok to buff uni tech output, maybe also increase paper consumption at the same time so they don't get too efficient, but a much more worthwhile decision (am I able to sustain an uni that boost my tech speed? do I need and want that tech speed?)
But I understand (and support) that it should not be another "tech rush" game, so it needs some thought about the numbers.
Also maybe it would actually be ok to split some techs, I feel it's very unbalanced with some techs doing a lot and some almost nothing.

If you even read this I assume you have similar thoughts, just wanted to add another player experience.

 

[Baro]

This is a fantastic list of improvements. One thing I'd love to see touched on is immigration policy. Right now it's way too binary, and you can't close your external borders without closing your internal borders. I'd love more granular policy here where we can have free internal borders but no immigration. Or allow emigration but not immigration to help encourage over-populated high unemployment countries.

 

[Jorlem]

I want to refrain from filler techs for the sake of filler techs, we will have enough techs as the years come and this game continues. Right now its just to slow things down a bit so tech feels more of a goal you achieve instead of something thrown your way.

I think part of the issue might be the speed it is possible for techs to spread from other countries. I was getting techs that way faster than I could research them normally.

 

[Froonk]

In love with all these planned improvements. Particularly the private-sector autonomy (presumably using investment pool) and investments. If private-sector autonomy is added, it would also make a future expansion focusing on financial sector that adds stock market and actual banking for pops much more interesting too. Since dividends and company reserves would play a role in it.

 

[omega20056]

So I can understand why they want to move away from it except for the issue that the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction.

I mean from observer's standpoint the war in the game right now seems to have a complexity of tic-tac-toe. And people on this forum like myself are considering the Schlieffen plan and other very advanced things.

This is it really. I'm not strictly against it so long as fronts can be split and it's balanced better. I would prefer being able to form distinct corps and use them to make fronts, but we'll see what happens.

 

[monksimus]

First I want to applaud the team for making an ambitious game and taking a lot of chances on new design ideas. Some of them worked well like the new tutorial system (I would be shocked if all new strategy games don't include a tell me why button in a few years), and some that need some love before they are finished (like warfare). I for one am glad you are experimenting with new ideas even if I expect some of the elements we are used to come back.

An idea for the issue of backing down for one wargoal, when the attacker would have never agreed and would have attacked anyway:
What if in the last two phases, one side could offer to back down and cede some number of wargoals (1 or more). The proposed peace offer stops the clock for 1 or 2 weeks. If the attacker refuses, they get an infamy hit relative to the size of adding those wargoals in the first place. Then the clock starts again and the side has the option of offering up a new set of wargoals as a peace offer, as long as the total maneuver cost or infamy hit is higher.

The effect here would hopefully be that a side can back down at any time they don't want to fight, but an aggressor can always force a war. If the defender plays their cards right, they might be able to raise the infamy of the aggressor enough that other nations see them as being more of a threat and become more willing to side with the defender.

 

[TempestM]

The point is that for people who want war micromanagement, there are already plenty of strategy and even grand strategy games out there to choose from. For people who don't want war micromanagement though, there is pretty much nothing

Nope, there's plenty, you just ignore it:

"There's plenty of games for those of you who enjoy producing and moving commodities around and want to play an economic simulation. Not just Anno 1800, but previous Anno games (unfortunately), Patrician, Tropico (though it looks like they're also finally trying to figure out how to make commodity production and transportation less of a distraction from the primary mechanics), Transport Fever, all the Railroad Tycoon games, all the Port Royale games, Factorio, basically every computer strategy game out there, board games, even a lot of city builders keep trying to tack on commodity production and transportation for some reason including the Caesar series... the list goes on."

I hope you recognize that your argument isn't as sound as you think. You seem to be purposefully forgetting all the economic simulation games that saturate and saturated the market, and that they were actually the norm way before current Grand Strategy games.

 

[TempestM]

2) base tech gain (50) is too high
3) and thus uni bonus is too low.

I think this should be the best solution in a short term. There's too little difference in base speed at the start and very wealthy nations don't get that much benefit for a lot of unis

 

[girolamo]

\o/

 

[NilsFabian]

I like your roadmap.
Thats very promising, you seem to have adressed all the pressing issues the current version has.
Thanks for that it is much appreciated.
Now all that is left is to wonder WHEN

 

[ItThatAltersSanity]

• Adding the ability for countries to set strategic objectives for their generals
• Increasing the visibility of navies and making admirals easier to work with
• Improving the ability of players to get an overview of their military situation and exposing more data, like the underlying numbers behind battle sizes

Convenience features I'd like to see while retaining the general approach to Vic3 warfare:

• Being able to change production methods for all barracks associated with a particular general. I want the ability to tell (in a few clicks) "Offense Expert General, gear up your army with squad infantry and flamethrowers" while saying "Defense Expert General, prepare some trench infantry".
• Priming Naval Invasions. If I started a Conquer State play on some far off country, I want my armies already loaded onto ships and en route to that land while the play is escalating. If that naval invasion is repelled once war starts, I want the unused, full strength battalions to regroup at some nearby land I control while the depleted battalions sail all the way back to their HQ. Should that not be possible, then at least give me the option to tell that general to start and retry invasions from that nearby land I control.
• Multiple battles on wide fronts manned by multiple generals (without needing to do a naval invasion to open extra fronts)
• Late game, allow generals to requisition Transport/Engine/Automobile/Coal/Oil goods from the market to compensate for poor infrastructure in enemy territory to widen the combat width.

That's what the devs presented to us in the game though. All-in super micro on building and all-out no agency in wars. That's why it's such controversial issue: those design choices contradict each other. If we're "a spirit of the nation", then we should have either both, neither, or in-betweens for both

I agree the current distribution of micro vs auto in both economy and war aren't optimal. I believe that Vic3 should never allow those two areas to have an equal split in micro. The finite computing resources (and developer time) the game has to work with should be devoted to what the game's core premise is. There should be enough capacity in the war system for the player to have their will enacted adequately. There should not be over-engineering so individual battalions are clickable units on the map.

 

[wilcoxchar]

Nope, there's plenty, you just ignore it:

When a vast majority of what you can come up with are a completely different genre, city builders, and you can't even come up with any strategy games let alone grand strategy games that put economic strategy first and foremost, that just proves my point.

Victoria 3 really is unique in this regard and it's sad that some people are so desperate to strip that uniqueness away just because it's something different.