• 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:
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.

View attachment 902219

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.
View attachment 901288
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.
View attachment 901289

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!

I think the military system should create space for establishing strategic rather than tactical goals. A simpler version of the fronts system from HOI4, or even designating strategic goals within the campaign would be an extremely welcome change. The war system is also extremely buggy and prone to faults. For example, I was at war with a nation in the interior of Africa. Unfortunately, the primary target of the war capitulated and got puppeted by my nation, but I was no longer able to establish a front or access the nations I was still at war with even though that nation shared a border with my new puppet. I also think it would be good to model the armies as sprites on the map again, even if the player cannot directly control them. It gives players a way to observe the conflict other than simply starring at a red or green bar or looking at casualty figures. Watching army uniforms and technology evolve over time is half the fun of paradox grand strategy titles!

The other thing I've noticed is the ease with which great powers and other nations involve themselves in diplomatic plays of two countries that they have no ties to. It is too easy for a nation to get involved in internal conflicts, such as an annexation war with a puppet or a revolution. A great power should only be able to intervene in a revolution in a narrow range of circumstances, such as ideological opposition to the revolution etc. I think it should cost the participant nation something to take sides in a diplomatic plays and they should only do so when it is in their strategic interests. For example, Austria or France intervening in Prussia's wars make sense because they have a clear interest in keeping Prussia weak. But Russia randomly inserting itself into conflicts in the United Kingdom or the lowlands of western Europe, or even North America seems far less believable and to some extent breaks imersion (Russia, in particular, seems prone to involve itself in conflicts to an absurd degree.) AI Countries can currently declare an interest in a region, but cannot define what that interest is in a way that seems logical and not random. I understand it is difficult to model strategic interests in a game, but the system as it stands now just isn't very realistic in my opinion.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
This "future plans" sounds like they should've been the 1.0 but oh well. At least its a solid base
As I understand it, it was planned but the game was already behind schedule.

Games these days are so complex that they require post-release support of some measure. You can't keep a team at a loss for such a long time (unless Sweden suddenly switches to council republic and command economy :p).
 
  • 7
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
Very nice dev diary! Its good to see that you want to iron some of the game aspects before the big expansions!

The one thing I would love to see is for the diplomatic plays to continue after the war. For example a forth phase where the war begins but you can still spend points to invite allies, add wargoals etc and even end the play and war through it... with maybe more points beeing collected if the wars go well (with a cap of maybe 200?)

In the topic off war, I believe the off hand idea is the right one with some tweeks, and in my mind a perfect system would be the HOI Battle plan system, which lets you draw a specific frontline for every general and how to push it through enemy territories... no need for the army units etc and the micro that comes with it (but add models for immersion plz).. this would allow the control of the frontline shape to the player without actually controlling the units and makes sense as the head of state could actually give such orders.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
I ordered 365 military bases with 135 initially (50 anchors ready at launch time). October 5, 1890 Let's see how many ships I will have in a year. (unfortunately, armadillos have not yet been studied (14 months, but it doesn’t matter). And now I have 150 ships. The year 1891 has passed on October 5 (x3 fleet). Let's see how many ships there will be in another year. The funny thing is that again, this does not depend on your production of ships, the issue is that a huge mass of people in these provinces do not want to fill vacancies. Surely you can make this filling faster. So. I rolled another year. My fleet is 256 anchors out of 510. That is, during this time I increased my fleet by 5 times from the original one, or twice if you count by the number of bases at the start of the test. At the same time, my industry fully provided the fleet with ships, the only reason for the slow growth is not that ships generally take a long time to build, but the fact that the game artificially (apparently) underestimates the desire of people to go to the fleet (even to the army they go faster, and Yes, I have a lot of free and poor population). In addition, I also transferred the entire fleet in one click from wooden ships to battleships (almost 200 anchors). This not normal.
Well, yes, my expenses have not increased much. I literally built up a huge armored fleet in a couple of years, and I think it looks stupid. It doesn't feel like "My nation has worked hard, built ships and bases for years, learned to sail and spent a lot of money and now we are proud of our huge fleet that protects our interests in other parts of the world." It feels like "Hmm that's a whole 365 clicks to make myself the most powerful fleet in the game, which will cost my economy next to nothing, "
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Can we get an option to turn off the moving portraits? If there's one, I haven't found it yet. My laptop cannot handle it, and I'm certain I'm not the only one with a low end machine. Thanks
yes plz look into this every fps matters to crank it just to medium setting where wished (with usual suspects like shadows and other gimmics disabled)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
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).
The fact that - as anyone, I'm sure, could attest - squashing a mosquito is possibly one of the hardest things possible doesn't attest to the fact that the mosquito is a 300-pounds super-beast able to shrug off your attacks. If the colonising power was able to bring their forces to bear against the colonised, the ensuing battle would almost always be extremely one-sided. What happened, instead, is that the colonising power couldn't bring their full power. Lack of infrastructure or motivation or the sheer distances and travel times involved usually conspired to make it so that the coloniser would end up using a tiny fraction of their theoretical power - tiny fraction that could, in fact, be overcome. But at the moment you can mobilize your entire army, and call up every single conscript while you're at it, and send them half a world away, in order to fight tiny two-tiles Bumfuckingstan (population, 47): and despite this overwhelming force, be stopped by Wakanda's elite psionic armies forcing your men into single combat after single combat. The end result might - might - look somewhat okay, but the way there is a bit more than somewhat ridiculous.
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions:
though as I’ve said many times, we are never going to take construction entirely out of the hands of the player

As I've said many times, until it can be taken out of the hands of the players that wish it, I'm never going to buy the game.
 
  • 9Like
  • 7
  • 1Haha
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...
micro is insanely boring
 
  • 4Like
  • 4
  • 4
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
How about bringing back unit types, like Victoria 2 had? Should fit right into the building system, no? At the moment, all battalions are basically just defined by what upgrades you're giving them access to. That might add some strategic depth.

Also, I really don't understand the argument for not letting letting give up control of building as an option.
 
  • 5
  • 2
Reactions:
Anything on migration? The inter market migration feels a bit silly. If Cuba or any central american country becomes free, they're unable to get immigrants from their previous overlord or any other european power unless they join those markets
 
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
At a minimum it has been represented in CK and Imperator, so I’m not sure that ”literally” means what you think it means.
 
Glad to see the plan, however, for modding, I desired to see a good supporting.

For the variables, they can not visuallized. For production method, there are no accurate trigger to enable/disable it. For the builidings, it is hard to add level in event, The scripted gui can not be used, and for technology, the technology is hard to save as scope.

Both in game play or modding, the decision system is too simple, and it is pretty hard to find it, so do the country formation. The entire decision system has no background piture, they just merely the Text and text and buttons. And I have to select the journal entry and select the second tab to find the decision.

If the problems would be resloved or be considered, I would apperciate it.

AND there is Foreign investment! THAT IS GOOD!
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
It was completely obvious they weren't going to compromise this from the moment the war dev diaries came out. It continued to be obvious non-micro of military was never, ever going to change in the year since.

You have every right to be upset and not want the game if that was so important to you. But if you bought the game thinking they were going to give you army micro at some point, you were deluding yourself.
Where did I ask for micro? I didn't. What I want is agency. I want to direct the front, I want to set provinces as goals, I want to determine how many soldiers go where along that line. If that is too much "micro" for your grand strategy game, well then just remove warfare all together in my opinion.
 
  • 8
  • 4
  • 1Like
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.
Vic 2 wasn't tactical? My man just because you don't understand Vic 2 combat doesn't mean it's not tactical. At the very least you can fight guerilla wars in V2 something you can't in V3.
 
  • 4Like
  • 3
Reactions:
be quiet and go back to hoi4
Not sure why I should go back to a game I have never enjoyed, nor why I should accept your demand that I be quiet. Maybe you should stop telling people to go away, it will get you nowhere.
 
  • 21
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
micro is insanely boring

I find the economic micro of Vic3 more boring than war micro of HoI4 because it's less (though still somewhat) dependent on the geography, and also isn't as fun to watch as a huge, well-organised army you built advancing into enemy territory.

Victoria 2 had war and also economics without any micro, whereas Victoria 3 only has economics with micro.
 
  • 6Like
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions: