Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #64 - Post-Release Plans

[PDJR_Alastorn]

one solution could be to add additional filler techs between some of the most outstanding techs no? It could even build into new trade goods or other fun stuff to fix this issue. Bare in mind I havent bought the game yet (my PC too old), its just a suggestion.

I want to refrain from filler techs for the sake of filler techs, we will have enough techs as the years come and this game continues. Right now its just to slow things down a bit so tech feels more of a goal you achieve instead of something thrown your way.

 

[TempestM]

I want to refrain from filler techs for the sake of filler techs, we will have enough techs as the years come and this game continues. Right now its just to slow things down a bit so tech feels more of a goal you achieve instead of something thrown your way.

Could you please explain the idea of Airship technology? I feel like I'm missing something, is +10 prestige on skyscraper and one timed event form Journal is all you supposed to gain? Is it not a filler?

 

[jmansuper08]

It's not true at all that the war system's change was done without any reason. It was communicated since the beginning, that the focus won't be on war, as it should be only the extension of diplomacy, as Clausewitz wrote. Instead of the traditional war-centric gameplay, they put the emphasis on society and economics. And that's not a bad idea, considering that these two are always important and war depends on them, while war is only important during war.

They had their reasons. You don't have to agree, I also have several problems with the game design, but don't say that it was without any reason.

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.

 

[nerdaocn]

the concept of customs unions seems very bad to me in terms of immersion and realism. Having all products made in france immediately available in the southern chile market is very unrealistic and gives me a very bad feeling

 

[WeissRaben]

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.

Warfare in the period was extremely important - and on this, it's difficult to disagree. But what about warfare is the most important for the representation of the Victorian Era, I ask? It's not the movement of troops itself, but the modes of war evolving and changing, from pitched battles to frontlines, the rise of conscription as the needed part of forming an army (something most nations were caught unaware by, historically - see the British Expeditionary Force in WW1, for example), trench warfare, the adaptation to ever increasing firepower, and so on. This doesn't require units on the map - I'd argue, in fact, that it would make representing such a change harder.

This said, there's much lacking in the current system. First of all, it's static: stats aside, a battle is the same in 1836 and in 1936. Which is, of course, not really exemplificative of how warfare evolved. Second, it's far too hands-off: while fighting every single battle manually in every painstakingly chosen province is way beyond its scope, you can't even decide which general to send where - a Russo-Chinese war sees a single front infinitely long, with generals being sent to an unspecific "there" and being able to attack on every point of that line, but if two side-by-side city states are at war with you no, you need two generals to cover the whole three and half miles of that line.

So, what would I do, wall of text #2 in this thread. First of all, rules should change. 1836 should be the era of pitched battles: one battle per general at a time, as their specific army marches onward and meets the enemy. Kind of like now, but with higher numbers - like, a lot higher. Koniggratz saw over 400 units divided between the two sides, all of them concentrated on a single battlefield. Later on, as lethality increases, meeting the enemy face-on should be costlier and costlier, and you would move your generals into frontline combat - more battles, over the entire front (or not - more on this later), but smaller compared to the total size of the army. This is important, because of course Verdun was still a gigantic battle, but it did not involve literally half the forces on either side, the same way Koniggratz did. Advances should be slower, battles longer, but losses relatively contained, when compared to the slaughter of sending your soldiers into an ordered battle line and marching forward the enemy.

Second: frontlines shouldn't be fixed. Drawing a frontline should rather be more similar to how it is done in HoI4, with you deciding which general has competence over which part of the front, and the front not being frozen into being country-to-country. This would allow for greater granularity - you want to hold in Alsace-Lorraine, but push through Northern France to Paris? Perfect - that's two different frontlines, with two generals having different orders. Otherwise, you want to advance in the Ardennes, and don't particularly care if they're held by Luxembourg, Belgium, or France? Perfect - one single line, one single general, one single order (as far as they're all on the same sides, of course - I understand stuff might become a bit messy otherwise).

Third: objectives. Maybe you don't want to do human waves to free every inch of the Motherland. Maybe you want to reach strategic objectives first - the coal and iron mines of Lorraine, or the heavy industries of the Ruhr, or break through a heavily defended line in one single pickaxe-like attack to open them up like a tin can. This should be possible. Not manually, of course - we've abandoned that - but you should be able to give an "advance to objective" order, or even a "spearhead to objective" order if you want it to be even more precise and direct.

And speaking about the effectiveness of such an order: you can't build a powerful army for the AI to use without forming an effective officer cadre. You need to be able to define how much you want to invest into such training in the years before a war. Because this is long before you get stuck in the Great War - you need to be ready. Which is, I believe, the general theme of warfare in Victoria 3: getting ready for the fight is more important than anything done in the fight itself. At the moment, you have very little to influence that, beyond production methods for your barracks. This should change. Maybe military academies should be a thing, and give you better generals and improved stats in battle (to represent a well-trained and well-formed officer cadre). Maybe. Who knows.

Ooof. Okay, this was longer than I expected. Feel free to disagree and not bother to even reply why.

 

[alanschu]

I know people have differing views on the game - but can we please not do the whole "It's lost players since launch, so it's a failure/in trouble" thing?

Almost every single game spikes at launch and immediately falls back. It's not a sign of anything other than people are excited to play on launch day.

EU4 player numbers spiked on release day and then went down by 40% over the next 10 days. Stellaris' player numbers went down 43% over it's first 10 days. And HoI4's numbers went down by 51% over it's first 10 days.

I agree. I did a quick look and it seems like PDX games on Steam typically surge, probably around new expansions, and so far the release seems to mirror initial numbers of their other franchises, from mainstays like HOI4 to new additions like Stellaris.

(HOI4 is interesting as there's a definite inflection curve of the game moving upward over time with new content spikes. I'd be tickled pink if my favourite PDX franchise, Vicky, were to follow a similar path).

 

[TempestM]

the concept of customs unions seems very bad to me in terms of immersion and realism. Having all products made in france immediately available in the southern chile market is very unrealistic and gives me a very bad feeling

Yep, the problem of logistic seems to have been completely ignored intentionally and by design. Goods teleport across market, distant colonies like Alaska is too easy defend and building 100 levels of railroads in one state would allow to use Transportation railways in every other state. The latter one I can deal with as an abstraction but the former should be more important for a game about big empires)

 

[alanschu]

the concept of customs unions seems very bad to me in terms of immersion and realism. Having all products made in france immediately available in the southern chile market is very unrealistic and gives me a very bad feeling

I do think that there could be some value in simulating cost to transport within markets (and also within trade).

Not sure on the implementation but I think it could be interestingly done and create a bit more thought in how industrialization is planned out rather than the current system which leans a lot more heavily on "maximize economies of scale."

The system would need to be extended as the only real cost at this time that gets simulated is convoy usage.

The plus side is that a system being extended like this is it could apply to challenges with services/electricity/transportation usage as well.

 

[long_fella]

I do think that there could be some value in simulating cost to transport within markets (and also within trade).

Not sure on the implementation but I think it could be interestingly done and create a bit more thought in how industrialization is planned out rather than the current system which leans a lot more heavily on "maximize economies of scale."

The system would need to be extended as the only real cost at this time that gets simulated is convoy usage.

Agreed. I always look askance at the 10k grain Qing is importing to me as Russia with...

 

[StJimmyRocks92]

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.

Please. I mean The battle screens don’t even have sound effects, warfare is so bland and boring right now.

 

[SingularityHRT3]

• Foreign investment and some form of construction in other countries, at least if they’re part of your market.

Really? Sounds close to a comment I made in the suggestions post. Love to see the devs actually using players' suggestions.

 

[elandread]

​

• 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

Is adding a way to reassign generals and admirals between HQs considered? I mean, it doesn't really make sense that it's not possible. If you feel that it can be cheesed, just add some hefty temporary malus for this (like with changing production methods in the barracks), it would make sense.

 

[CMDR_HERNE]

This looks promising. I'm currently on the fence about getting Vic 3 at this stage but I'm warming to it.

 

[alanschu]

I'm not going to copy/paste my entire suggestion I've posted numerous times over the past months, but to put it simply: on warfare, beyond setting strategic objectives for generals, being able to have multiple fronts in war with differing stances (and more detailed stances available than simply attack/defend) and more in-depth interaction with generals as unique characters who may or may not effectively carry out their given stances (someone like McClellan being told to attack for instance) would add to the strategic depth of warfare without violating your vision.

I 100% second the mechanics around Generals being very important. I want my McClelland.

I think a system that also sees replacing generals require a political cost (and perhaps radicalization) combined with traits that manifest after recruiting would be A+ too.

 

[awmobile367]

Sounding good from my end, a quick way to get information on unemployment figures both nationwide and statewide would be appreciated.

Actually employment figures too, such as how many open job slots there are.

 

[Tenderkaj]

Maybe I'm just really dumb, but isn't historically forming Italy as Sardinia-Piedmont (that is, without invading countries) excessively difficult?
Austria and France making all the minors protectorates, the Two Sicilies clearly having a land advantage, no Plombieres, no Garibaldi's Redshirts... Historically uniting Italy was not a "deal" made by the pre-unitary states, it was not just a play by Piedmont, it was the people raising the Italian Flag all over Italy. Also in my experience even when meeting all the requirements (good relations, market union) the minor states (even those supporting me) don't ask to join (maybe because they're my puppets? why would that be an issue though).
Also it's really too time expensive to get Two Sicilies to support you (you first have to fight them to make them renounce the unification ambition, then you have to get good relations, you have to add them to your market or to make them support you...)

So my main question is: do you intend to make national unifications more about the people at the bottom than about the countries? Do you plan to add a political movement of people willing to achieve national unification?

To me it seems the major unification mechanics were thought with Germany (and only Germany) in mind. There is no Carbonari, no revolutionary central italian governments petitioning for annexation... Any thoughts?

 

[TempestM]

First of all, rules should change. 1836 should be the era of pitched battles: one battle per general at a time, as their specific army marches onward and meets the enemy. Kind of like now, but with higher numbers - like, a lot higher. Koniggratz saw over 400 units divided between the two sides, all of them concentrated on a single battlefield. Later on, as lethality increases, meeting the enemy face-on should be costlier and costlier, and you would move your generals into frontline combat - more battles, over the entire front (or not - more on this later), but smaller compared to the total size of the army. This is important, because of course Verdun was still a gigantic battle, but it did not involve literally half the forces on either side, the same way Koniggratz did. Advances should be slower, battles longer, but losses relatively contained, when compared to the slaughter of sending your soldiers into an ordered battle line and marching forward the enemy.

Two problems:
1) The game leaned into representing everything through production methods way too hard, and moving through one era to another is allowed simply by producing more guns. And what's worse, you can just regress if you produce less guns.

2) What if armies are in different eras? Progressive modern army with machine guns vs old tactics. Colonial empire vs natives. Also guerilla warfare. Right now it's just non-existant.

 

[Dimo87]

I would like to see a slowing down of the research/tech progress. Playing a Prussia then North German Confederation I was getting Dreadnoughts and Machin Guns in the 1880's on top of the production tech's that were far too advanced for the period. The tech tree moves way too quickly for the time period being played imo.

This might be too brutal, but something that might help is having tech spread only affect 1 type of tech of your choosing (maybe a law that choose which). I'd say 2 spreading within that 1 tech at a time. Then it's spreading less than before, but more focused. This would lead to a lot more diversity in each individual nation's tech, which means more flavor and roleplay. So if you are Prussia and focused on dominating your neighboring counties, your tech or the ai's will reflect that strategy more. Right now too many nations have the same tech and doesn't affect playstyle as much as it should.

 

[TempestM]

Really? Sounds close to a comment I made in the suggestions post. Love to see the devs actually using players' suggestions.

It's a very popular suggestion, one of the reasons it's so important is subjects not developing critical resources like opium or oil or dyes so having subjects hurts you more

 

[favourites]

Great! I especially appreciate being able to designate important areas to a general, more difference between economic systems and a more competent AI when it comes to developint its economy.

A few things I'd like to note:

The Unification of Germany appears to be nearly never happening if Prussia is played by the AI. In fact, in the countless games I've played to 1900 by now, I have seen Germany form twice: Once missing Hanover, Bremen and Hamburg and once properly, but I played Russia that time and ensured they would get there. Every other game, and I played many, it just didn't happen.

So with whatever adjustments you're going to make to make it more challenging, please also ensure the Ai is capable of achieving it.

Research is, as I expected pre-release, not only far too fast but also basically ends by 1890 as a result. This really needs to be adjusted.

Population growth in general is far too low. Historical data is out there, to the point where you can quite literally see the specific time the modern agricultural revolution occured - Every single game I've played, Korea stagnates and either ends up with less population by 1900-1936 or the exact same as in 1836. The same goes for Japan and obviously every other country, but those are the easiest examples since they're largely isolated.

The game emphasises migration a lot - but Germany had millions emigrate and yet, its population grew significantly over the game's timespan. The game does not in any way, shape or form model population growth, it simply assumes every country with it does so because of migration - which simply historically was not the case.

Internal politics are a joke as it currently stands. The intelligentsia can be boosted into prominence by1845 even as Russia or China, the Trade Unions just as easily anywhere withouot serfdom - you can become socialist incredibly quickly and it really does take away from the game. There need to be more nuanced stages to the laws (and thus more laws), they need to have more of an effect and inhabitants of countries should be able to vote against their own interest - plenty of the poor and middle class always did and to this day continue to do so.

Then there are some issues:

Bavaria should never join the French market if it has zero ability to connect to it; it's ludicruous, obligation or not.
Krarkow regularily ends up with 40k inhabitants because apparently it just doesn't do well in Austria's market.
The Taiping absolutely never (!) in any of my games appeared where they historically did (but 40/40/20 Xinjiang/Manchuria/Shandong) - this is just absurd.