• 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:
  • ‘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)
Really looking forward to these two. Being able to say to the AI "I will join you for this" as you would in multiplayer would be a big help.

As would expanding the primary war goal. The fact that I can't do a historical Mexican-American War because Mexico backs down every time (so it takes 40 years of truces to get all the states) is really annoying.

I don't know if it would be better to say "all these conquer state war goals are primary war goals" or have an option to reject a backing down. If I want to go to war, I should be able to. Maybe I want to go to war and cause devestation in my enemy.
 
  • 29
  • 6Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't think illegitimate governments should be blocked from passing laws, plenty of such governments pass laws anyway. But instead passing a law with an illegitimate government should increase radicals. Also most passive radicalism growth.
 
  • 57Like
  • 13
  • 3
Reactions:
I for one think the war system foundation is solid, and correct. Just needs to be more fun and transparent.

Those saying they want to micro armies around the map are free to play every other Paradox game.
 
  • 66Like
  • 52
  • 32
  • 3Haha
Reactions:
Interesting - going to hold off on getting the game till I see how these improvements pan out, but its looking like its trending in the right direction.

Can we please at least visualise armies? Would like to see where the units actually are moving around on the map. You could do so much with units actually fighting each other visually, especially later as devastation and trench warfare comes into play.
Totally agree. We are used to see sprites in the map. We like sprites. There are trenches and cannons and its nice, but it would be nice to see soldiers, tanks, planes along all fronts.
 
  • 39Like
  • 19
Reactions:
Looks like a good high level plan. I guess the only thing I wish was mapped out but isn't is adding more depth around internal politics. For being one of the design pillars, I have found managing my internal politics to be simplistic and rather trivial to bypass regardless of my government type. Impacting legitimacy is a nice start but outside of the RNG for passing a law, I wish legitimacy was more impactful in how it may radicalize your pops.

Additionally a few small areas that I think would lead to more interesting internal politic management:
  • Rulers/IG leaders to lend more to a country's/party's stability.
  • Humiliation war goal being imposed on your nation add significant radicalization of your pops (compounding if you have nationalism tech)
  • IGs/Parties demanding certain types of investments in states/types of buildings based on their interests and power base
    • This could be something like political parties making election promises to IGs in governance radicalizing if you consistently work to minimize their influence (e.x. player focusing on industrializing as Japan with Shogunate IG in government, southern landowners wanting more plantations built, etc.)
 
  • 23Like
  • 8
Reactions:
As one of the people who are currently very unhappy with the war system, it is encouraging to read that some changes are planned. It would be really nice if battles were less RNG-dependent and if how they work was actually explained somewhere. Also, having more five times more troops on a front than the other side should actually help with winning battles maybe.
 
  • 26Like
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Interesting - going to hold off on getting the game till I see how these improvements pan out, but its looking like its trending in the right direction.

Can we please at least visualise armies even if we stick with the front system? Would like to see where the units actually are moving around on the map. You could do so much with units actually fighting each other visually, especially later as devastation and trench warfare comes into play. Would be amazing to see the transition from the heraldry and intricate, colorful uniforms of the early 19th century to the mud n' blood, soiled, muted colors of WW1.
Armies are actually represented visually when a battle is ongoing, as two forts trading fire. It's not terribly impressive, but no worse than the older historical games' two soldiers waving weapons at one another.
Devastation is graphically represented and looks quite good. I had a hard-fought war and turned the south of Turkey into an artillery-blasted wasteland (no poppies, though!).

edit: somebody disagreed with this comment today (5 months later!) and I realised how many people had. Weird. I guess people really liked the little man shooting a gun. Feel free to reply if you disagree with me and want to explain why!
 
Last edited:
  • 41
  • 17
  • 5Like
  • 2
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
I was really hoping to see the performance issues addressed in this post. I hope that you and your team are going to solve the performance issues that so many people have when getting to the middle and late game. This should be a priority before even thinking of gameplay tweaks and add-ons if you ask me.
 
  • 26
  • 4Like
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.
The point of the argument is that HOI4 actually does have optional micro. You dont actually need to micro the armies to win the game, only to really over preform. Instead of trying to actually focus on what the players like about their games, this team chose to knowingly alienate a portion of the crowd for really no reason, as I just said HOI4 already has a optional system of micro.

I love many parts of the game, and will keep supporting this, but this is not the hill vic3 should die on. It does so many other things right, that are defendable.
 
  • 56
  • 51Like
  • 6
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
Looks like a good high level plan. I guess the only thing I wish was mapped out but isn't is adding more depth around internal politics. For being one of the design pillars, I have found managing my internal politics to be simplistic and rather trivial to bypass regardless of my government type. Impacting legitimacy is a nice start but outside of the RNG for passing a law, I wish legitimacy was more impactful in how it may radicalize your pops.

Additionally a few small areas that I think would lead to more interesting internal politic management:
  • Rulers/IG leaders to lend more to a country's/party's stability.
  • Humiliation war goal being imposed on your nation add significant radicalization of your pops (compounding if you have nationalism tech)
  • IGs/Parties demanding certain types of investments in states/types of buildings based on their interests and power base
    • This could be something like political parties making election promises to IGs in governance radicalizing if you consistently work to minimize their influence (e.x. player focusing on industrializing as Japan with Shogunate IG in government, southern landowners wanting more plantations built, etc.)
I agree with this and would add that interest groups need to be distinguished from similar groups in other countries more. Too often the game comes down to getting the landowners out of power, and the method for doing so is pretty much the same.

I like the basic design of politics - it just needs more depth and variability.

The point of the argument is that HOI4 actually does have optional micro. You dont actually need to micro the armies to win the game, only to really over preform. Instead of trying to actually focus on what the players like about their games, this team chose to knowingly alienate a portion of the crowd for really no reason, as I just said HOI4 already has a optional system of micro.

I love many parts of the game, and will keep supporting this, but this is not the hill vic3 should die on. It does so many other things right, that are defendable.
I appreciate your point, but I completely disagree. (And I hate that "respectfully disagree" reaction!) Anything that pushes Vicky toward being more of a detailed wargame would be a serious mistake.
 
Last edited:
  • 45
  • 38
  • 12Like
Reactions:
I'm very happy that all the major issues will be improved before new DLCs being releases, so those will have a more solid foundations to build on :)
 
  • 13
  • 3Like
Reactions:
i love this message. some things left out; consider introduce border war diplo play, guerilla fighting warfare option, consider goods production measurement in tonnage, bring back world market overview from vic2 in terms of produce etc., bring back sphere of influence, consider when doing expedition or colonisation to invest in different degrees of the efford, consider stockpiling. Scavenge steam mod workshop, to integrate desperate things like better resource placement on map.
 
  • 8Like
  • 6
  • 5
Reactions:
I like everything i read, but i also curious about UI changes. 6 of the 8 most popular workshop mods right now are UI improvement mods. Do things like notification filter, alert filter, better workforce info, better building lenses adding to it like unemployment, infra, already constructed buildings etc... on the todo list?
 
  • 22Like
  • 4
Reactions:
Interesting - going to hold off on getting the game till I see how these improvements pan out, but its looking like its trending in the right direction.

Can we please at least visualise armies even if we stick with the front system? You could do so much with units actually fighting each other visually, especially later as devastation and trench warfare comes into play. Would be amazing to see the transition from the heraldry and intricate, colorful uniforms of the early 19th century to the mud n' blood, soiled, muted colors of WW1.
This. Probably the thing I'm missing the most immersion wise.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
Are there plans to patch up the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom?
Currently, it's completely controlled by a weird event chain that randomly creates 10% Protestant population in each province, and will detonate as soon as there is more than 30% unrest, regardless of the cause of the unrest.
There is already a political system in the game to simulate the emergence of a revolution, and there is no reason to simulate a revolution with a chain of events that players have difficulty understanding the internal logic of.
Yeah, China's flavor seems a bit... strange at the moment. A bit broken and antithetical to the design of the rest of the game.

Nothing new, because every paradox game struggles with modeling (or not modeling) China, but still.
 
  • 8Like
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
 
  • 13
  • 3Like
Reactions: