• 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:
There definitely should be a way to press the matter into a war or more demands and to prevent the enemy from just backing down. If I want to conquer 5 out of 6 of my weak neighbor's states why he has an option to slowly buy time for himself? I want the land now, when I'm stronger
Maybe there can be a push option for when they try to back down but it costs more infamy.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
This is excellent, everything I wanted to see implemented to flesh the game out to the way it ideally should have been at release. Not the backhanded compliment it might sound like. I am disappointed at the state of the game at release, but what's done is done and these are exactly the kind of adjustments and additions needed, imo looks like you all took the best of even the harsher player criticism without getting too bitter to see what was constructive in it. Also gotta assume that many of these were features intended for release and got dropped due to deadline crunch and other problems, and so long as those features are implemented in free updates it'll go a long way to win back plenty of people who (imo justifiably) felt cheated by the state of things at release.

Once the major issues are fixed the game will be fun and playable, but the game has enormous potential beyond that, and I'm glad to see a path for it to live up to that.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2Haha
Reactions:
I also agree with the user who voiced surprise at the conflicting statement that Victoria 3 is a huge success and the devs are taking all the feedback provided. It is either one or the other since the feedback is mostly negative period.
It's because in general most people are quiet.

And depending on where you go you may or may not be exposed to enthusiasm or criticism. The game has flaws but I love it and already have 80 hours in it.

As with everything, your mileage may vary.
 
  • 44
  • 3Like
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
This reads like a post-Early Access launch roadmap. Not that I don't want all of these improvements, but it's baffling that we got to a full price, 1.0 release with none of this in the game. Please consider actual early access in the future, or at least a vastly expanded beta program than the one you have now.
At least they didn't sell personal Airships like in Star Citizen... this time...
 
Last edited:
  • 11Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
Maybe there can be a push option for when they try to back down but it costs more infamy.
I could see there being something along the lines of a peace deal (before the war) where concessions are offered in exchange for a backdown?

The trick of course for this is to still make there be some sort of incentive to actually backdown (or accept one).
 
  • 4
Reactions:
UI improvements, pretty please!
In particular for trade and diplo - like showing acceptance status and number immediately in the list of targets for the selected diplo action.
And in trade good screen hide the local province costs, nobody cares about the single cost in every state 99% of the time. Instead in the good view it should be possible to see all export-import routes of the selected good and manipulate (cancel) them.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
What kind of cadence/frequency do you wish/hope to accomplish for the first few bigger patches? More akin to Stellaris, or more in line with CK3?
 
  • 6
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I also agree with the user who voiced surprise at the conflicting statement that Victoria 3 is a huge success and the devs are taking all the feedback provided. It is either one or the other since the feedback is mostly negative period.
The game is a success in the sense that it sold well (though I would like to see the numbers of refunds that were processed, but I know that data will never be released), but it's already lost over half of its playerbase according to Steam Charts. PDX can say it's a success all they want, and in the short term it is, but even they know it won't be a long-term success if they can't fix the fundamental design issues it launched with. The fact they they put war first on the list, despite the constant refrain that Victoria 3 isn't about war, shows they know exactly how badly they miscalculated with the war system they launched with. I'll commend them for listening to feedback, but the game launched way too early. If they did an early access launch, or an open beta, all these issues would have been able to be worked out pre-launch.
 
  • 31
  • 29
  • 4Like
Reactions:
Sounds great! All good steps for moving forward, and very glad to hear that there should be lots of support moving forward.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
The sooner the "I want to be able to plant my army in a mountain to abuse the AI" (strategy!) folks reach the Acceptance stage of grief the better.

Given how utterly terrible the AI is at literally every other aspect of the game, I'm not sure this particular strawman holds much water.
 
  • 28
  • 10
  • 2Like
Reactions:
With almost 40% of negative reviews , the release is not what I may call a great success.

Beside this, I noticed that many favorable reviews were pointing out serious problems, especially in warfare, maps, and historical veracity.
 
  • 28
  • 15
  • 5Like
Reactions:
You dont actually need to micro the armies to win the game
"The AI is so bad that you don't have to micro your armies" doesn't mean the micro is optional.

It means the AI is bad.
 
  • 19
  • 3Like
  • 2
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
I just want to express my displeasure with the warfare system. I am glad you have acknowledged the issues, but I think you are making a big mistake by doubling down on this system. With all respect to the developers, I know you wanted to try something different and to focus on the economy, but this system is terrible and it ruins the game for me, and I assume others. I really wish I could refund at this point since it is obvious you will not compromise with the members of the community who want more from this aspect of the game.
 
  • 41
  • 29
Reactions:
Given how utterly terrible the AI is at literally every other aspect of the game, I'm not sure this particular strawman holds much water.
I literally never "planted my army in the mountains to abuse AI" in any game with micro. I don't think that the previous system is really. I just think that what we got instead is terrible. Yet those strawman arguments place everyone who disagrees in the same group
 
  • 25
  • 6
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Indeed it is awkward for devs to highlight so many fundamentals gameplay area to rebuild from scratch or pretty much so closely after release. This simply underlines the game was released before it was ready.

And before someone suggest I should be happy they want to redesign bad features through patch, I stand by the opinion that once a game is released too early, it is a loose - loose situation. A game should not have 4 big area of rework only a week after release. It is insane unless the game is a Pre-Release.

Hell a game like Mount and Blade Bannerlord was released as Early Access and yet did not need such post release hotfix plan

I also agree with the user who voiced surprise at the conflicting statement that Victoria 3 is a huge success and the devs are taking all the feedback provided. It is either one or the other since the feedback is mostly negative period.

The only good is that, sometimes, bad games are eventually turned into okayish / nice game like Ghost Recon Breakpoint. But not great games.
Unfortunately, the grand strategy gaming genre isn’t that big, relatively speaking compared to the gaming industry. Because in an ideal world, I would punish developers for troubled releases by purchasing a competitor’s title instead. In the real world? Good luck finding a competitor to Vicky or Hoi.

Now I wouldn’t call Vicky 3 bad, it’s got lots of issues, but I feel they aren’t as bad as previous PI releases like Vicky 2, Hoi3, Hoi4 and others were at release, so that is an improvement, and I am VERY confident Vicky 3 will mature very well.

To offer some middle ground though, I was super unimpressed with Stellaris at release, and went back to the “Distant Worlds” series made by code force. In that case there was a competent competitor, so before anyone assumes, I am not just a fanboy or shill. I have put my money where my mouth was lol.
 
  • 9
  • 8Like
Reactions:
I m glad there will be several patche
The game is good but feels like early access

About diplomacy, it would be nice that subjects can launch a play together against their master
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Maybe I'm just a stupid utopist, but while I understand wanting to make autocratic/nationalist play more interesting, I believe it makes sense that being more progressive is overall better. The setting of the game was a time of great social progress. It makes sense to me that such should be a goal for nations. Not overpowered, of course, but I'm not sure if making more "backward" politics "better" is all that much of a good idea.

That's mostly about for example the buffs like less radicals due to state religion. Once again it's clear that making such gameplay more fun and involved would be good.
 
  • 22
  • 2Like
  • 2Haha
  • 1
Reactions: