• 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's plenty of games for those of you who enjoy moving toy soldiers around and want to play a wargame. Not just Hearts of Iron, but previous Victoria games (unfortunately), Europa Universalis, Crusader Kings (though it looks like they're also finally trying to figure out how to make toy soldier warfare less of a distraction from the primary mechanics), Stellaris, all the Civilization games, all the Age of Empires games, Humankind, basically every computer strategy game out there, board wargames, even a lot of city builders keep trying to tack on toy soldier warfare for some reason including the Anno series... the list goes on.

Your way has unfortunately been done as the convention for how warfare is designed in strategy games for three decades with no real innovation. It's old and stagnant. Time to let people try something new. Yes, it might end up that your way of thinking goes from being 100% of the market to only 90%. Maybe even 75%! Oh no, your way still dominates the market by far, the horror! Oh no, another way of thinking might actually be popular and something people want, how dare!
Your toy soldier argument got old long ago. I don't care about wargames. (I don't even micro in HOI) And many people who don't like the new system neither. How hard it is to understand - it's not about "toy soldiers", it's about having agency as a player. I don't want control of my armies in CK because I want Medieval:Total War from Paradox. It just wouldn't make sense that I have no control of my own army. It's a completely different thing
 
  • 21
  • 9
  • 2Like
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 more autonomous 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, gold braided uniforms of the early 19th century to the mud n' blood, soiled, muted colors of WW1.
Give a cookie to this man!
 
It would be nice if they came up with like a toggle switch and design a more complex battle system of control, to benefit both types of players, but more than likely mods are going to be the only option here.
As I've expressed before that would likely be far too costly in development resources to be worthwhile.
 
  • 8Like
  • 5
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Imagine thinking that a Grand Strategy game set in the period between 1836 and 1936 shouldn't have an expressive, interactive and feature-rich warfare system.

Or maybe the Crimean War, the Oriental Crisis, the American Civil War, the Franco-Prussian War, the Opium Wars, the Great Game and World War I happened in another time period, in which case you are entirely correct! My apologies.
The way you talk, you act like nothing happened int the 19th century besides war, which is obviously as ridiculous as claiming that people think war didn't exist as you are claiming here..

People are allowed to be interested in something other than war. A grand strategy game can still be good and be representative of the 19th century without having warfare or toy soldiers as its primary focus. As Victoria 3 demonstrably shows.
 
  • 28
  • 10Like
  • 7
Reactions:
This comment is reserved by the Community Team for gathering Dev Responses in, for ease of reading.
  • (from the Dev Diary) 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


Well. I think that there may need to be some improvement in the Canada section - as American AI tends to try to colonize Alberta and Saskatchewan (both of which are needed for the current confederation) and due to the fast colonization mechanic that they have, it is practically impossible for the HBC (you or AI) to claim ALL of Alberta in time to stop the Yanks from stealing from you. Honestly, I think the easiest solution is a similar situation with the Columbia District border - having the colonizable territory INSIDE of existing concrete borders - you still need to do it, but the chance the Americans will screw over the confederation will be none.

Plus this could tie in with making the confederation take longer. Maybe also add a requirement for all the states in the confederation to be incorporated states as well?
Not too sure if self-quoting is allowed - but I'm hoping this gets the issue more visibility.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Thanks for the relatively quick update after release. One really big issue though, and I hope you guys answer sincerely and actually address this specifically:

Why are you so dead set on keeping player interaction with the military so minimal? Also, why are you so dead set on players having to manually push construction and trades?

It is blatantly ruining the warfare aspect of the game and forcing some tedium on the player in the rest of the game which you said you wanted to do away with. It's also creating a ton of unnecessary problems (e.g. front splitting) for you to solve. It also makes no sense for nations with their heads of state being commanders-in-chief, shouldn't such legal systems in-game create direct player control over the military? Likewise with the economy: if I've got a laissez-faire and free-trade economic system, why do I manually have to do everything as though I'm a Soviet council?

It seems odd that you refuse player agency with warfare but insist on never allowing a hands-off system for the economy, even when the vast majority of feedback touches on these things specifically.
 
  • 18
  • 8
  • 1Love
Reactions:
While the warfare system absolutely needs a lot of work (and much better UI), I do think it was the right course to represent it in that way rather than how it was in victoria 2 and some other paradox games like EU. It's also somewhat disingenuous to call it "completely abstracting warfare" when that is simply not true; it is merely no longer the central focus that occupies most of a player's time like in other PDX titles.
What other paradox titles occupy all your time with war? I don't spend all my time with CK focused on war, I spend most of it plotting and scheming, but I am appreciative of the fact that when I do have to fight a war I am in control. EU4 I don't spend the whole game moving stacks, but I enjoy that I can. Same with the other Paradox titles I play. HoI being the obvious exception, but even then I spend a large amount of time doing things other than microing units. This idea that having control of warfare detracts rather than adds to the strategy in these games is simply asinine.
 
  • 18
  • 11
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The way you talk, you act like nothing happened int the 19th century besides war, which is obviously as ridiculous as claiming that people think war didn't exist as you are claiming here..

People are allowed to be interested in something other than war. A grand strategy game can still be good and be representative of the 19th century without having warfare or toy soldiers as its primary focus. As Victoria 3 demonstrably shows.
War was never a primary focus in Victoria 2! Neither it was in EU, CK, etc. The only game where it is is HOI. You're talking about something that just isn't true.
 
  • 22
  • 9
  • 1Like
Reactions:
On the warfare- are there any plans for making limited interventions possible? For example, ensuring that opium wars don't have to end in a full scale war.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
One minor annoyance is that when cancelling a building from a full page in the constructions tab, I am instantly scrolled all the way back to the top against my will and have to scroll all the way down to continue interacting with buildings in that section of the list.

Also in regard to tweaking formation: It's currently impossible for Romania to form unless it expands at least partially to borders it wouldn't have until after WW1. When the Principality of Romania began its de facto existence it was literally just Wallachia and Moldavia sans Bucovina.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
Reactions:
What other paradox titles occupy all your time with war? I don't spend all my time with CK focused on war, I spend most of it plotting and scheming, but I am appreciative of the fact that when I do have to fight a war I am in control. EU4 I don't spend the whole game moving stacks, but I enjoy that I can. Same with the other Paradox titles I play. HoI being the obvious exception, but even then I spend a large amount of time doing things other than microing units. This idea that having control of warfare detracts rather than adds to the strategy in these games is simply asinine.
I never said that in other titles was a bad thing! I was merely making a comparison. The frontline system makes sense for HOI4, and the systems EUIV and CK use make sense for them as well. I just think it also makes sense that Victoria 3, given its timeframe and that unlike HOI4 it is not a wargame first and foremost, has a different war system that doesn't require nearly as much constant direct attention from the player.
 
  • 9
  • 6
Reactions:
  • Making it easier to get an overview of your Pops and Pop factors such as Needs, Standard of Living and Radicals/Loyalists
I find that the thing tiding me over between in-game weeks waiting for construction and tech is watching how my pops are changing. Currently I need to jump a lot to see that "Building A poached some Shopkeepers from Building B, which promoted Labourers from Building C, which in turn elevated Peasants out of subsistence farms". I'm also really curious where some unemployed workers came from: did they migrate from one state to fill the new vacancies or half the continent? Some sort of weekly "pop job change" summary would enhance my engagement.

  • Making it more interesting and ‘competitive’ but also more challenging to play in a more conservative and autocratic style
Currently I have a conflict of interest when I want to play a more conservative regime. I want to be using more advanced tech, open new industries as that's part of the key sell of the game: upgrading your economy. Yet doing so moves pops into jobs that make them interested in more liberal interest groups. Perhaps with experience I'll know which industries to build up to remain stable as an autocrat, but I'd like to see that as an in-game tooltip. Similar to predicted price changes (even if inaccurate), I'd like a "predicted clout changes" tooltip when I'm considering a new building or production method.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
Similar to predicted price changes (even if inaccurate), I'd like a "predicted clout changes" tooltip when I'm considering a new building or production method.
That's an interesting idea, and I would like to see something like that as well if practicable.
 
War was never a primary focus in Victoria 2! Neither it was in EU, CK, etc. The only game where it is is HOI. You're talking about something that just isn't true.
You're almost correct. It wasn't supposed to be. In theory. But that's not how it ended up in practice. The problem is that in all those games, warfare and moving units on the map ended up in practice being the primary focus simply because micromanagement of warfare takes up so much of the player's attention compared to the intended focus of those games, that warfare becomes the primary focus even when it's not supposed to. And Victoria 3 finally fixed that problem by removing the parts of warfare that pull so much of the player's attention away from the intended focus of the game (economic and societal management) so the player can actually focus on the intended primary mechanics.
 
  • 18
  • 12Like
  • 7
Reactions:
One minor annoyance is that when cancelling a building from a full page in the buildings tab, I am instantly scrolled all the way back to the top against my will and have to scroll all the way down to continue interacting with buildings in that section of the list.

Also in regard to tweaking formation: It's currently impossible for Romania to form unless it expands at least partially to borders it wouldn't have until after WW1. When the Principality of Romania began its de facto existence it was literally just Wallachia and Moldavia sans Bucovina.
From what I see on wikipedia map, to get initial borders you need Wallachia, Moldavia and Dobruja and Romania needs at least 3 provinces to form so it's possible?
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
It seems odd that you refuse player agency with warfare but insist on never allowing a hands-off system for the economy, even when the vast majority of feedback touches on these things specifically.
The feedback is coming from players who would prefer the micro focus to be the other way around. The players who are content with this existing placement of player micro are not making much noise.
 
  • 18
  • 8
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Can we please at least visualise armies even if we stick with the more autonomous 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, gold braided uniforms of the early 19th century to the mud n' blood, soiled, muted colors of WW1.
I only agree if you want units on scale with the map ground and objects all around. The world is more immersive without big units walking around. But if they were to make scaled units of different kind, infantries, artilleries and planes, fighting over states on the map, that would be insane. But very gpu heavy.
 
  • 8
Reactions:
I believe the absolute biggest problem with Victoria 3 is that it is unplayable past 1865. The lag is atrocious, fixing that right there would make this a 9/10 game for me, even as it stands right now.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
You're almost correct. It wasn't supposed to be. In theory. But that's not how it ended up in practice. The problem is that in all those games, warfare and moving units on the map ended up in practice being the primary focus simply because micromanagement of warfare takes up so much of the player's attention compared to the intended focus of those games, that warfare becomes the primary focus even when it's not supposed to. And Victoria 3 finally fixed that problem by removing the parts of warfare that pull so much of the player's attention away from the intended focus of the game (economic and societal management) so the player can actually focus on the intended primary mechanics.
If clicking on enemy castles and waiting for them to be sieged down took so much of your attention, that sounds like your personal issue. I've never had anything like that. Of course during war you're supposed to pay at least some attention to what going on on the map. It's a war! Those are kinda important. Especially big ones. If you don't have pay any attention to a war that would shape the next centuries then it's a real problem, why this war is even in the game
 
  • 20
  • 16
  • 1Like
Reactions: