• 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 #64 - Post-Release Plans

16_9.jpg

Hello and welcome to the first of many post-release Victoria 3 dev diaries! The game may now be out at last (weird, isn’t it?) but for us that just means a different phase of work has begun, the work of post-release support. We’ve been quite busy collecting feedback, fixing bugs and making balance changes, and are now working on the free patches that will be following the release, the first of which is a hotfix that should already be with you at the time you read this.

Our plans are naturally not limited to just hotfixes though, and so the topic of this dev diary is to outline what you can expect us to be focusing on in the first few larger free patches. We will not be focusing on our long-term ambitions for the game today; we certainly have no shortage of cool ideas for where we could take Victoria 3 in the years to come, but right now our focus is post-release support and patches, not expansion plans.

However, before I start, I want to share my own personal thoughts on the release. Overall, I consider the release a great success, and have been blown away by the sheer amount of people that have bought and are now playing Victoria 3. I’ve had a hand in this project since its earliest design inception, and have been Game Director of Victoria 3 since I left Stellaris in late 2018, and while it certainly hasn’t been the easiest game to work on at times, it is by far the most interesting and fulfilling project I’ve ever directed. The overarching vision of the game - a ‘society builder’ that puts internal development, economy and politics in the driving seat - may not have changed much since then, but the mechanics and systems have gone through innumerable iterations (a prominent internal joke in the team is ‘just one more Market Rework, please?’) to arrive where we are today, at what I consider to be a great game, one that lives up to our vision - but one that could do with improvement in a few key areas.

V3-PostLaunch-ForLoc.jpg


The first of these areas is military: The military system, being very different from the military systems of previous Grand Strategy Games, is one of those systems that has gone through a lot of iterations. While I believe that we have landed on a very solid core of how we want military gameplay in Victoria 3 to function and we have no intention of moving back towards a more tactical system, it is a system that suffers from some interface woes and which could do with selective deepening and increasing player control in specific areas. A few of the things we’re looking into improving and expanding on for the military system follow here, in no particular order:
  • Addressing some of the rough edges in how generals function at the moment, such as improving unit selection for battles and balancing the overall progression along fronts
  • 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
  • Finding solutions for the issue where theaters can split into multiple (sometimes even dozens) of tiny fronts as pockets are created
  • Experimenting with controlled front-splitting for longer fronts

The second area is historical immersion: While we have always been upfront with the fact that Victoria 3 is a historical sandbox rather than a strictly historical game, we still want players to feel as though the events unfolding forms a plausible alt-history, and right now there are some expected historical outcomes that are either not happening often enough, or happening in such a way that they become immersion-breaking. Again, in no particular order, some areas targeted for improvement in the short term:
  • Ensuring the American Civil War has a decent chance to happen, happens in a way that makes sense (slave states rising up to defend slavery, etc), and isn’t easily avoidable by the player.
  • Tweaking content such as the Meiji Restoration, Alaska purchase and so on in a way that they can more frequently be successfully performed by the AI, through a mix of AI improvements and content tweaks
  • Working to expose and improve content such as expeditions and journal entries that is currently too difficult for players to find or complete
  • Ensuring unifications such as Italy, Germany and Canada doesn’t constantly happen decades ahead of the historical schedule, and increasing the challenge of unifying Italy and Germany in particular
  • General AI tweaks to have AI countries play in a more believable, immersive way

We're balancing cultural/religious tolerance laws by having more restrictive laws increase the loyalty of accepted pops, so there is an actual trade-off involved.
DD64 01.png

The third area is diplomacy. While I think what we do have here is quite good and not in need of any significant redesign, this is an area that could do with even more deepening and there’s some options we want to add to diplomacy and diplomatic plays:
  • ‘Reverse-swaying’, that is the ability to offer to join a side in a play in exchange for something
  • The ability to expand your primary demands in a diplomatic play beyond just one wargoal (though this has to be done in such a way that there’s still a reason for countries to actually back down)
  • More things to offer in diplomatic plays, like giving away your own land
  • Trading (or at least giving away) states
  • Foreign investment and some form of construction in other countries, at least if they’re part of your market
  • Improving and expanding on interactions with and from subjects, such as being able to grant and ask for more autonomy through a diplomatic action

While those are the major areas targeted for improvement, there are other things that fall outside the scope of either warfare, historical immersion and diplomacy where we’ve also heard your feedback and want to make improvements, a few examples being:
  • Making it easier to get an overview of your Pops and Pop factors such as Needs, Standard of Living and Radicals/Loyalists
  • Experimenting with autonomous private-sector construction and increasing the differences in gameplay between different economic systems (though as I’ve said many times, we are never going to take construction entirely out of the hands of the player)
  • Ironing out some of the kinks with the late-game economy and the AI’s ability to develop key resources such as oil and rubber
  • Making it more interesting and ‘competitive’ but also more challenging to play in a more conservative and autocratic style

One of the first mechanics we're tweaking is Legitimacy, increasing its impact and making it so the share of votes in government matters far more, especially with more democratic laws.
DD64 02.png


The above is of course not even close to being an exhaustive list of everything we want to do, and I can’t promise that everything on the list is going to make it into the first few patches, or that our priorities won’t change as we continue to read and take in your feedback, only that as it stands these are our plans for the near future. I will also remind once again that everything mentioned above is something we want for our free post-release patches. At some point we will start talking about our plans for expansions, but that is definitely not anytime soon!

What I can promise you though, is that we’re going to strive to keep you informed and do our best to give you insight into the post-release development process with dev diaries, videos and streams, just like we did before the game was released. I’ll return next week as we start covering the details of the work we’re doing for our first post-release patch. See you then!
 

Attachments

  • V3-PostLaunch-ForLoc.jpg
    V3-PostLaunch-ForLoc.jpg
    4,7 MB · Views: 0
  • 372Like
  • 193Love
  • 33
  • 23
  • 19
  • 7Haha
Reactions:
You had mentioned that one of the focuses of the game is to have it partly be an ahistorical sandbox, with plenty of historical flavor for immersion. With the ahistorical sandbox in mind, for future ideas or expansions I'd love a CK3 Custom Religion-Styled political party builder for Victoria 3. Obviously pops and interest groups would be the driving force behind these, and the player would need to adhere to those pre-established systems (after all, we're playing as an outside observer), but the Victorian Era saw a rise of all sorts of new ideologies, governments, and political parties, and I'd love to be able to fine-tune individual parties and make unique combinations of certain laws and government types, or even being able to customize what kinds of interest groups are attracted to certain laws and parties.

I think this could allow for a lot of very unique, very ahistorical scenarios that could arise just from playing the economic/politics game, and something that is vaguely touched on with HOI4 and the way ideology works in that game. Being able to influence ideology's and politics in that game was very surface-level, and I'd love to have a very in-depth, hands-on approach to customizable political parties/interest groups, government formations, political uprisings and the subsequent civil wars or wars that are caused by them!

I think an "ideological crisis" could arise in the form of a potential Great War scenario towards the mid-late game, with various nations forming together to attempt to quell the spread of the ideology due to its threat on their economy's and governments in general. For example, with heavy maneuvering by the player, it would be incredible to see a scenario where the United States is the first to develop a new type of ideology, spreading it throughout the America's either diplomatically or through war, and potentially starting the Great War in an attempt to bring it to Europe. I know that war is not the focus of the Victoria games, however I think it is still an important part of this game with the time period leading into the first Great War and I hope that it isn't looked over moving forward in regards to intertwining it with various gameplay mechanics.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
To all those people saying that the lack of micromanagement in warfare is bad, be quiet and go back to hoi4. V2 wasn't a tactical anything.
The issue with war right now isn't the lack of micro, it's the inability to figure out what's going on.
My main concern is the long-term effects the warfare changes will have on the multiplayer community. There aren't many feats more euphoric than outplaying another player in a multiplayer lobby of xyz Paradox game with superior micro, however in Vic 3 you simply outplay by building more barracks than your opponent...
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
This looks great. It addresses almost all my complaints, and shows that the devs listen to community feedback. Also the fact that it's all free debucnks the stupid consiracy that warfare was made bad on purpose so that an improved ersin could be sold as DLC. The only thing I'd like to add is that I hope the ability to stockpile goods is added
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
A game design that does not satisfy its designers cannot excel. It may or may not be fun (if it is fun, that is probably only a happy accident), but it cannot excel.

Since "getting what you want" is apparently not on the table, what would you prefer: the kind of mealy-mouthed marketing handwaves about "investigating future options" that prove Bill Hicks was right, or an honest statement of Paradox's intentions?
Very much agree with this.

It's a common sentiment where "Because I liked previous game, if I don't like next game it is a betrayal" which is, IMO, not the healthiest way to see your relationship with a game developer (especially given how corporate/consumerist/commercial it is - I say this as a dev myself).

And I get being bummed especially if you've been super stoked for more, and what your imagination imagined a sequel could be like. I will never get another Fallout game like the first two again and that does make me feel a bit sad.


As for your second point: EXTRA agree. I'd 100% prefer they be direct with their vision of the game, rather than avoid it or, worse, dishonest about it in the hopes of securing more purchases.

Best to be clear and up front about that sort of stuff.
 
  • 3Like
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
Perhaps I should have worded the specific part a bit better. Paradox has a system of war which offers an optional amount of micro. This system has been in development for years and though it's not perfect, it is far better than what we got, and importantly offers a way to bridge the gap between people who just want to assign generals to frontlines and press go, and people who want to micro or play mp.

Instead the devs made a decision they knew would split the community. They created a new system of warfare that favored ones side interests entirely, and completely ignores the other side. They did this for seemingly no reason, as they already had an in house war system that offered both sides a compromise and works pretty well.

They literally explained the reasons in the dev diary and have reiterated them since. People who like the system have also pointed out reasons why they like it over and over and over and over again in the entire year that has passed since then.

You are perfectly free to not like it, but saying it was "for seemingly no reason" is tantamount to saying "I refuse to listen to anything anybody who disagrees with me has to say". There were reasons. Pretending they don't exist does not make it so.
 
  • 10
  • 9
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I'm very happy to hear what you want to work on in the next few patches.

I believe the military has a solid foundation and I'm glad you belief so to. It just needs a lot of QoL improvements. Additionally to what you said in the dev diary I have a few ideas:
-Let higher lvl generals have a certain number of sub commander like a lvl 2 general having 1 a lvl5 having 4 and if the front splits they automatically take a small part of the main of the army to fight on the new additional fronts while your high lvl general is staying at the main front.
-Make it easier to have more armies of varying sizes from one HQ and let me choose how many battallions each army has
-The unit type(equipment) should be changeable at the HQ and not only on the buildings tab and/or make it easier in the general tab.
-Let me transfer armys to different HQ as soon as a diplomatic play starts. Especially for naval invasions it would be very nice to use arrmies from other HQs and have them idle at another HQ
-Let me prepare naval invasions during the diplomatic play phase
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
@Wizzington
Two other things that would be very nice in a warfare update are:
  1. Allow moving generals to different HQs
  2. Better white peace and surrender logic (right now, you can have endless wars and it takes long enough for a fully occupied minor opponent to surrender that I thought there was a bug at first).
EDIT: I forgot to say that this sounds like an excellent list of areas for improvement! I hope that all these things make it in as soon as is reasonable. :)
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
It's insane that it's not how it works NOW. Like the post I saw today on reddit: "Russia mobilizes 180 batallions against the steppes of Kazakhs, yet 9 Kazakh battallions of psykers form a psychic wall that makes all the enemies fight them in one spot one by one"

The first part of that sentence is a much bigger problem than the second.

The fact is, decentralised/unrecognised countries frequently gave fits to colonising powers instead of being squashed flat immediately. This has literally never been represented in anything Paradox has ever done before now. Can it be tweaked and iterated further? Of course.

But any system that cannot represent the Dutch conquest of Aceh was always a bad system that was going to contribute further to the mythology of colonial empires.

And yes, sometimes it wasn't actually that troublesome for the colonising power... although this rarely was as neat and clean as Paradox games made it (it often would represent only controlling the capital and not the hinterland, and there would be compromises with the local powerful interest groups to gain their acquiescence, etc., but the game represents it as "all this is yours now, to do as you please, no meaningful further resistance).
 
  • 6
  • 5
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
That's a solid wishlist !
If I can chime in a small one: having some sort of UI update would be very nice. Right now everything feel crammed on the right side, with event overlapping generals, diplomatic plays (in the late game especially) pushing everything else down. Having also a way pin down somewhere the places missing infra or bureaucracy would be nice, instead of just display it in the alert menu.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
All good news. It looks like the developers know exactly what the game needs. Hopefully there will also be some more minor patches soon to deal with the remaining bugs. The first hotfix seemed to get rid of most of the crashes I was experiencing, but there are still some annoying issues with generals getting stuck on expeditions forever and civil wars ending inconclusively and the resulting revolts being untargetable for diplomatic plays.
 
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.

Posts that don't like the war system but aren't unreasonable and uncompromising don't tend to get heavily downvoted, but they're few and far between. Part of the issue too is the sheer fatigue of a year of people raging and making constant redundant threads and saying the same things over and over as if they're an insightful new take. That doesn't mean you have to agree with that, of course, but that's how it looks to me and, I would suspect, to many others.

But I didn't downvote your post because I appreciate your openness to hear other viewpoints. So here's why I (respectfully!) disagree:

- It's not going to happen eventually, and I would go so far as to say that as part of the core vision for the game Wiz had, it will absolutely never happen as long as he's the lead developer. It would be such a change of focus for the game that it simply isn't likely to be worth it for Paradox, particularly as it would simply exchange one raging portion of the fanbase for another (although I wouldn't hang around for a year constantly starting new threads about it, I'd just lose interest in the game, and go elsewhere).

- I don't agree it robs players of agency, any more than not stockpiling goods does. It's a different way to represent the same thing. There is agency jn the current system, and there could (and should, and by this dev diary will) be more. It is just not a specific sort of agency that people are used to having but is in no way the be all and end all of war. I want more agency in high level things like strategic goals, production methods and (down the line) how to use new technologies like aircraft. I don't want the agency of moving individual armies because that inevitably becomes THE focus, both of the war system and of the game at the time you're playing it. I want the focus to stay squarely on the economy and diplomacy in this game, with warfare's outcomes as the outcomes of both the economy and diplomacy. I also genuinely like that it is not quite predictable how easy a war will be, because that is very much a reality of the period where almost every major country badly miscalculated this at times.

- I don't agree building armies and navies was half of the fun of Vicky 2, or even particularly fun. I can see it being fun in HOI, and it's not as if I can't nerd out about big botes, but Vicky 2 had a very simple meta that only really changed based on how much money you had (in SP, the only game mode I play). It was also trivial to spam a navy in an unrealistic manner and casually sink the Royal Navy simply by getting to ironclads or dreadnoughts first. In fact I would say Vicky 3 is already better in that regard because it is actually possible to wage a U-boat campaign, a first for the series (how well it works may of course need tweaking). It is also possible to specialise armies in Vicky 3 (ie, flamethrowers for your offensive army), though this could use some further development and an easier interface.
 
Last edited:
  • 13
  • 8
Reactions:
My main concern is the long-term effects the warfare changes will have on the multiplayer community. There aren't many feats more euphoric than outplaying another player in a multiplayer lobby of xyz Paradox game with superior micro, however in Vic 3 you simply outplay by building more barracks than your opponent...
I think that is simply not the crowd paradox is aiming for with vic3 (mp) and that I believe is a good thing because there is a large community that like paradox games but does not like the micro esportesque character of it. I count myself and my friend group amongst this group.
I get what you are saying, I love seeing Bo meme on Swimmy in the Med. or Dankus 1v3 microing the east, but I will never play games like that myself.

I understand some whish things were different but Paradox has been very open and clear from the beginning that this game will be what it is with military only on a strategic level.


I think Vic3 mp will be very different to other paradox mps but will be great. We will have to wait and let it play out but diplomacy, especially ressource based diplomacy will be essential for survival.
One thing to consider is that everyone can see how large the war goals are and that wars are not instant. If I as Britain see Germany taking Elsaß I might not intervene but if they want to annex 5 states I would definetly intervene. Going to war in Vic3 is very risky.
Again maybe a meta develops but Bos video was hella fun to watch.
 
  • 7
  • 5
Reactions:
One suggestion that I have for legitimacy, specially for the ones that have some sort of election is making the legitimacy of the government diminish with every law change, in a way simulating that the "mandate" they got from the population who voted for them diminishes with every reform.

That should only really happen if the people who voted for the government don't like the law change. Ie, if the party of the armed forces and rural folk got the most votes, an IG coalition trying to pass something hated by those constituencies should lose legitimacy, but not for doing something they want. Even then that might be double jeopardy since legitimacy already drops for putting IGs that didn't win votes into power.
 
Last edited:
I am very happy with this post. I'm a big believer in paradox, especially when it comes to post release support. everything outlined here are things i've had gripes with and the combination of these changes and hopefully some top tier community mods will make vicky 3 a game to sink 1000 hours into
 
  • 4Like
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
Here's the thing though, the current implementation of the war system is bad, not irredeemably unfixably bad (in my opinion), but still bad. And makes it really easy for the War Micro crowd to cry out "I told you so, war micro should've been in from the start!"

And on top of that there's a distinct lack of things to do consistently enough to replace war, which just makes the situation worse.
 
  • 6
  • 4
  • 3Like
Reactions:
I hope there will be changes in the system for creating and displaying a fleet? To date, the fleet is not felt as the pride and symbol of the nation, which is built over the years and consolidates the interests of the nation far from its native shores. The feeling that the whole mechanism of the fleet is built by analogy with the ground army. This is strange. You can drive a thousand men into the barracks and give them guns, drill them, then give them other guns all at once. It's realistic. But you can't launch 200 ironclads or other modern warships all at once or replace your old wooden ships with them (it also feels weird that you can literally build 200 naval bases in half a year or even faster and turn from a nation without a fleet into a nation with a huge fleet). In addition, the maintenance and construction of the fleet are cheap.
I am very glad to see that there are requests for a better display of the fleet on the map. Now it is very difficult to find it, and it is difficult to manage it. I hope we will see some models of armadillos crossing the ocean, or at least convenient static epoch-style figures on the map showing where our fleets are.
 
Last edited:
(it also feels weird that you can literally build 200 naval bases in half a year or even faster and turn from a nation without a fleet into a nation with a huge fleet).

If you actually tried doing this, you will see that, in fact, it takes forever to get the fleet you built the naval bases for, even with the conscription decree.

I agree with several of your other points, but it is actually impossible to become a major naval power in a short span of time.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions: