• 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:
Yeah I've got a few outstanding notes to myself to see what I can do to address that but not make it a painful process as a result. Don't want to just nerf tech spread into the ground though, need to find that middleground. But I am keeping eyes on it, and if you don't see it in the next few patches thats because I'm working on a few other things first.

One thing which might be cool is if you're the first to research a tech it takes a lot longer, but you get bonus prestige?
(Maybe something decaying, so initially you get 10, but when anyone researches a tech of the next tier which uses this as a pre-requisite it goes down by 2, and so on for each subsequent tech tier?)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
In regards to setting strategic objectives, would it be possible to add some arrows pointing to the objectives (like the visualization of offensive orders in hoi4)? I feel like that would do wonders for the immersion (actually feeling like I’m planning a war on the macro level), which I feel is lacking in warfare right now. Just to be clear, I’m not talking about controlling army stacks, but just being able to set an arrow and watch the army fight battles along it, could help with both visualization and at least the feeling of more control.
And as I understand it, the new state and province system could allow you to get much more granular with your arrows compared to hoi4 (given how many provinces are within a state).
 
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
2) is not really an issue, the way I see it. Modern Army is in frontlines, so it attacks, starting a lot of battles all over the front - but those battles are uncontested, because Old Tactics has stuck all of its troops in one battle. And hell, that one single battle they might even win (though, I expect, with horrific losses) by virtue of numbers, but Modern Army has advanced everywhere in the meanwhile.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
2) is not really an issue, the way I see it. Modern Army is in frontlines, so it attacks, starting a lot of battles all over the front - but those battles are uncontested, because Old Tactics has stuck all of its troops in one battle. And hell, that one single battle they might even win (though, I expect, with horrific losses) by virtue of numbers, but Modern Army has advanced everywhere in the meanwhile.
It's insane that it's not how it works NOW. Like the post I saw today on reddit: "Russia mobilizes 180 batallions against the steppes of Kazakhs, yet 9 Kazakh battallions of psykers form a psychic wall that makes all the enemies fight them in one spot one by one"
 
  • 9
  • 4
  • 2Haha
Reactions:
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
Uh, no? Are you serious? Germany literally doesn't unify until 1910 in most games, and you want to make it happen later? I don't remember if Italy unifies ahead of or behind schedule, but it never fully unifies, as Modena and Parma always stay independent. Not to mention Canada is completely fine, I don't see the problem. Unless this is a mistake and it's supposed to be the other way around, this is incredibly stupid.
 
  • 4
  • 3
Reactions:
It's going to happen eventually. The current war system is going to be nearly impossible to properly balance and robs the player of a great deal of agency no matter how it's set up. If they wanted fronts, they should've gone with a simplified version of HoI4's system, just with regiments instead of divisions. Building proper armies and navies was like half of the enjoyment of Victoria 2.

EDIT: I know that this, like most posts that disagree with the war system or other controversial aspects of the game, is going to get downvoted into oblivion, but if some of you could at least tell me why you think I'm wrong, I'll consider what you say. I might even warm up the system over time if improvements are made.
 
Last edited:
  • 20
  • 11
  • 1Like
Reactions:
It's insane that it's not how it works NOW. Like the post I saw today on reddit: "Russia mobilizes 180 batallions against the steppes of Kazakhs, yet 9 Kazakh battallions of psykers form a psychic wall that makes all the enemies fight them in one spot one by one"
I'll state it again: to be honest, V3 looks like a very ambitious, experimental endeavor, made out entirely of proofs of concept. There's no system I would say is decently fleshed out and deeply developed, though most of them show great promise in their fundamentals. It's just that there isn't a lot beyond those fundamentals.
 
  • 16
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Uh, no? Are you serious? Germany literally doesn't unify until 1910 in most games, and you want to make it happen later? I don't remember if Italy unifies ahead of or behind schedule, but it never fully unifies, as Modena and Parma always stay independent. Not to mention Canada is completely fine, I don't see the problem. Unless this is a mistake and it's supposed to be the other way around, this is incredibly stupid.
I've noticed this as well, Germany doesn't unify, but Italy always unifies and always without northern parts and doesn't pursue them. Another frustrating point about UI - we don't even get notified like something important like that happens
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
By all means keep trying to develop the current war system (do the idea justice), but I think in the end you’re going to have to reintroduce tactical depth, even if it’s just in the form of elite units or the ability to swap between what we have now and individual units on specific fronts of importance.

There might be a way for the two to work together, without there being an either/or situation.

Some people suggested introducing tactical depth in the later game towards WW1, which is an interesting idea.
 
  • 11
  • 9
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
I don't know if it's the same issue or what is the case but my 1070 was really ramping up the fans with the game paused just looking at menus.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
As a design choice it's nonsensical though. They don't want too much "micro" or tedium so they neuter the player's ability to engage in war, but then they refuse to create a similar hands-off system for economics?
You appear to say that there's only 2 sensible design choices: all-in super micro, or all-out no micro. Or possibly that "war micro on, economy micro off" has sense but the opposite doesn't. Certainly you can argue that such a design choice is preferable to what got released, but arguing there is no sense to it? Disagreed, there is rationale to it and it's open to interpretation whether that fits what each player wants.
I am aware the people who do and do not want army micro are two different groups. That doesn't address what I said at all though.
Indeed, I was primarily addressing the end of your post where saying "look there's lots of loud feedback" implied "it must be a majority opinion, not acting on it is a sign of being deaf to what the community wants". Apologies if I misread your intent, but why else would you say "vast majority of feedback"?
 
  • 5Like
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
This is a nice plan.

Please add the Second Empire as soon as possible. Just do anything to make it possible to form the Empire. I don't care how elaborate or elegant it is. It's a crime that the regime isn't in the game at all. Its historical importance cannot be overstated and its omission is bizarre (it's like not having the Tsars in the game).
 
  • 2
Reactions:
be quiet and go back to hoi4.

While I'm more than accepting of the current wafare system (in principle, it still needs a lot of work) this is a particularly bad take. Just because some of our number wish for more micromanagement in war does not mean they want or even like HoI4.

Look at @Lord Lambert . He has made it clear that he doesn't even like HoI4.

Takes, like the one quoted, do nothing but antagonize some within our community and contribute to turning this community into a toxic environment.

We all want to make Victoria 3 into a better game, there's no need to say stupid nonsense like the above quote.

On your 6, Lamb Chop.
 
  • 23
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
You appear to say that there's only 2 sensible design choices: all-in super micro, or all-out no micro.
That's what the devs presented to us in the game though. All-in super micro on building and all-out no agency in wars. That's why it's such controversial issue: those design choices contradict each other. If we're "a spirit of the nation", then we should have either both, neither, or in-betweens for both
 
  • 13
  • 10
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.
I don't think guerrilla warfare could work as anything more than an extra attrition modifier. It's far too technical and would need a whole system of its own.
 
  • 3
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
You appear to say that there's only 2 sensible design choices: all-in super micro, or all-out no micro. Or possibly that "war micro on, economy micro off" has sense but the opposite doesn't. Certainly you can argue that such a design choice is preferable to what got released, but arguing there is no sense to it? Disagreed, there is rationale to it and it's open to interpretation whether that fits what each player wants.

Indeed, I was primarily addressing the end of your post where saying "look there's lots of loud feedback" implied "it must be a majority opinion, not acting on it is a sign of being deaf to what the community wants". Apologies if I misread your intent, but why else would you say "vast majority of feedback"?
Why did this give me a notification?
 
The whole list of diplomacy part is definitely on my wish list.
If you guys can do this, along with making IGs care about foreign policy, it would make a good game into a fantastic game.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
One suggestion that I have for legitimacy, specially for the ones that have some sort of election is making the legitimacy of the government diminish with every law change, in a way simulating that the "mandate" they got from the population who voted for them diminishes with every reform.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Any chance of some level of automatic trading? I kno u want ppl engaged but what if they were engaged in the sense of managing trade parameters?
 
  • 3
Reactions: