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

[Monkey89Brains]

When a vast majority of what you can come up with are a completely different genre, city builders, and you can't even come up with any strategy games let alone grand strategy games that put economic strategy first and foremost, that just proves my point.

Victoria 3 really is unique in this regard and it's sad that some people are so desperate to strip that uniqueness away just because it's something different.

No one is trying to strip it of anything, or make it less unique. People are trying to gain agency over a part of the game that, despite claims to the contrary, IS rather important.

 

[General Mohsel]

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:

• 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)

It could be said that certain types of economy take a certain share of their own construction sector. For example, with planned economy, you would still have the whole construction sector. With interventionism, the capitalists would always build their own things with 50% of the construction sector and the other 50% could still be used by themselves. Under laissez faire, even nothing would be built, because 100% of the building capacity is used by the capitalists to build the land. (Edit: It doesn't have to be 100%, but a high percentage)

By the way, I must also point out that your decision to focus on the economy and society brings with it a whole new way of playing. Especially when it comes to warfare, where in other paradox games, people seem to focus again and again. I welcome this change.

 

[grommile]

Under laissez faire, even nothing would be built, because 100% of the building capacity is used by the capitalists to build the land.

That doesn't work, because the government still needs to build barracks and admin buildings and so forth.

 

[TempestM]

When a vast majority of what you can come up with are a completely different genre, city builders, and you can't even come up with any strategy games let alone grand strategy games that put economic strategy first and foremost, that just proves my point.

Victoria 3 really is unique in this regard and it's sad that some people are so desperate to strip that uniqueness away just because it's something different.

So are the games that you suggested for people to play in your initial message. Stellaris is completely different genre (4x) for example. "Vic2 but much deeper and with improvement" is also a niche that no other game has filled and it's sad that some people are so desparate to strip that away just to make it Anno 1800

 

[wilcoxchar]

No one is trying to strip it of anything, or make it less unique. People are trying to gain agency over a part of the game that, despite claims to the contrary, IS rather important.

You do have agency though. You have agency over the parts of warfare that tie back to the core mechanics of the game - the economics, sociopolitical, and diplomatic parts. You have agency over the wartime economy, you have agency over getting military laws passed, you have agency over which generals to recruit and having to manage their interests and political aspirations, and you have agency over the diplomatic negotiations surrounding the war. This is what properly happens when something is a secondary mechanic in a game. Your agency over it exists insomuch as it relates back to the primary mechanics. I understand this might be difficult for war micromanagers since you've gotten so used to war being shoehorned in as a primary mechanic in every single strategy game for decades, but this is how it should work for games like this where war is not the central gameplay focus.

 

[CB79]

Will be, or already is, possible to buy Acre from Bolivia as Brazil? This is also historical as buying Alaska from Russia as USA...

 

[Svenska Super]

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.

Indeed it seems to be complicated because the warfare is so fast paced now, troops incredibly quick advance in teritorry. This pace must be more historically paced.
Than happens the following waging a war is more costly and lengthy by nature.

it's more than an attrition modifier. It would make relevant when playing a larger nation to commit troops fighting insurgents.
Therefore making warfare like now not only costly but also increase the when aspect to wage war. More important it requires the large country to keep troops reserved for such issues or face consequences. In case now where you pull every last man in a large nation and put it into a war.

It opens up diplomatic options to support nations in their guerilla war. Guerilla wars can over time demand for a change in politics.

Depending on strenght of guerilla it would mean that border regions will have significant development issues and can
trigger the choice of escalation into fullblown war. Overall a nation will indeed have an attrition and problems with developing.

To make implementation easier, one could integrate this a bit by introducing stats in the institunional tree like eg. home defence stance just an idea

 

[Antigonid1]

People really need to stop pretending they speak for the entire community like this.

No. Steam reviews score is a VERY reliable estimate of the reception of the game, and large part of players didn't like it and war is one of the most recurrent point. It is known.

 

[Monkey89Brains]

You do have agency though. You have agency over the parts of warfare that tie back to the core mechanics of the game - the economics, sociopolitical, and diplomatic parts. You have agency over the wartime economy, you have agency over getting military laws passed, you have agency over which generals to recruit and having to manage their interests and political aspirations, and you have agency over the diplomatic negotiations surrounding the war. This is what properly happens when something is a secondary mechanic in a game. Your agency over it exists insomuch as it relates back to the primary mechanics. I understand this might be difficult for war micromanagers since you've gotten so used to war being shoehorned in as a primary mechanic in every single strategy game for decades, but this is how it should work for games like this where war is not the central gameplay focus.

What a terrible take. War is as much a tool of politics as it is a tool of the economy. It is central to economy, technology and social change, especially during this period. It is a subsystem of the central gameplay focus and asking it to be given the attention and influence over it it deserves is not asking too much. There is no shoehorning it in here, as it is essential to this time period and the strategies that are expected of the player in this game.

 

[Voodoo Lilium]

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.

I somehow managed to plant my army in the middle of Siberia and abused the AI into eventually capitulating lol. I don't know why they thought they should keep attacking, but I wasn't about to stop them wasting troops and losing war support I think they were looking at their slightly higher numbers, even though we both had higher defense than the other had offense. Conceptually, what I did wasn't much different from baiting the AI into attacking a fort in the mountains.

 

[Mucsaccso]

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.

I see your point. But I'm not sure that they had chose this system because they wanted to favour one part of the community who hated micro. In fact, I don't even remember that there were huge debates about dropping the known, microing war systems, it came as a surprise, a bold move when they announced it.

Funnily, I was one of those who always wanted to scrap the microing war. When I played EU4 (good old times around Mare Nostrum, oh god, it was in 2016...), I hated managing armies. I always cared more about the societal side of the game (EU4 didn't have much, tho...). At the least, I dreamed of AI generals who follow my guides, but work on their own.

Do you know why? Because it was unfair. Microing made the games too easy. A player could always do better, provided they had enough experience. And when a human brain is that much of advantage, it makes games boring, since it takes the challange away. So I was happy to see the innovative idea of Vic3's system. I wouldn't say they do it for their own sakes, there are good enough reasons for that.

Yet, I believe that it's disappointing what they gave us. It's obviously not implemented well, in fact, it's only half-baked. I wanted to say that HOI4's war system wouldn't be applicable here, because wars were different, but come on, does Vic3's current system represent how wars went during the 19th century? They put so much time in modelling the economic side that they didn't have time to create a basic war system.

I get why you feel that half of the community is screwed with their decision. But I hope when they improve it and provide some kind of player agency, you'll reconsider this feeling.

 

[omega20056]

Indeed it seems to be complicated because the warfare is so fast paced now, troops incredibly quick advance in teritorry. This pace must be more historically paced.
Than happens the following waging a war is more costly and lengthy by nature.

it's more than an attrition modifier. It would make relevant when playing a larger nation to commit troops fighting insurgents.
Therefore making warfare like now not only costly but also increase the when aspect to wage war.

It opens up diplomatic options to support nations in their guerilla war. Guerilla wars can over time demand for a change in politics.

Depending on strenght of guerilla it would mean that border regions will have significant development issues and can
trigger the choice of escalation into fullblown war. Overall a nation will indeed have an attrition and problems with developing.

To make implementation easier, one could integrate this a bit in the institunional tree like eg. home defence stance just an idea

Needing to commit troops to fight insurgents is an interesting idea. You do sort of have that in HoI4 with needing garrisons and high levels of dissatisfaction causing rebellions. It would be interesting if it was a viable strategy of its own. For example, if you're playing as Belgium and Germany attacks you, you're going to be slaughtered. You know you can't win conventionally, so you decide to focus on guerrilla warfare instead. You send agents to your provinces to recruit and arms units and there are events and such based around that which can boost or hamper your progress. If Germany has to withdraw troops to fight Russia or whatever, you can choose to revolt and potentially take back you country. If they don't, you continue to attack them locally by sabotaging their equipment, destroying infrastructure, and ambushing troops.

It could work very well, but probably only in Hearts of Iron. I don't think a system like this would suit Victoria at all.

 

[Svenska Super]

I was also thinking about tech speed recently, my take is:

1) spread is too fast/high
2) base tech gain (50) is too high
3) and thus uni bonus is too low.

The idea to connect some of that to literacy is a good and sensible idea though, I just feel like it needs some number tweaking.

Currently it feels like deciding is not that relevant because the passive gain via spread is so huge (point 1) and building unis is not that much worth it because spread and base value is so high (point 1, 2 and 3). Games are fun because of decisions (what tech do I want) and less so "hm I guess I unlocked something, whatever".

I think it would be ok to buff uni tech output, maybe also increase paper consumption at the same time so they don't get too efficient, but a much more worthwhile decision (am I able to sustain an uni that boost my tech speed? do I need and want that tech speed?)
But I understand (and support) that it should not be another "tech rush" game, so it needs some thought about the numbers.
Also maybe it would actually be ok to split some techs, I feel it's very unbalanced with some techs doing a lot and some almost nothing.

If you even read this I assume you have similar thoughts, just wanted to add another player experience.

If you want the tech system to be more beautiful you introduce westernisation. Than allow player to choose direction of research, as such a bit in vic 2 what they did perfect there your chances increase that a technology in country is invented. Than maybe consider somekind of tech spread modifier.
So instead of picking technologies you must advise the education system panel which goals you have than in line with your capacity (like do you even have a university)
will go down your chosen path, which you can revise but pay penalty in switching like with hoi4 production line retention mechanic

 

[wilcoxchar]

What a terrible take. War is as much a tool of politics as it is a tool of the economy. It is central to economy, technology and social change, especially during this period. It is a subsystem of the central gameplay focus and asking it to be given the attention it deserves is not asking too much.

You're right. It is a subsystem. Not a system in itself. As such, it is correctly treated as a subsystem which functions only so much as it ties to the primary gameplay systems of the game, instead of being elevated to a separate system like the micromanagers want.

 

[TempestM]

I somehow managed to plant my army in the middle of Siberia and abused the AI into eventually capitulating lol. I don't know why they thought they should keep attacking, but I wasn't about to stop them wasting troops and losing war support I think they were looking at their slightly higher numbers, even though we both had higher defense than the other had offense. Conceptually, what I did wasn't much different from baiting the AI into attacking a fort in the mountains.

Oh that reminded me of something. I was at war with my puppet Finland as Russia, and Austria intervened. I focused on Finland and kept only nominal forces on the border with Austria and both empires were told to defend. Well that didn't stop my other puppets. They kept throwing their 10 battalions against their 100 over and over losing thousands of men.
Now, if I were Austria, does this count as good old "baiting into mountains" people keep talking about, or "baiting" into attacking forts in hoi4? After all, all those dead people should have even more impact on "society" here

@Futhington I assume you think it doesn't count. Please explain why

No one bothered to answer my question, guess it was too uncomfortable

 

[Voodoo Lilium]

Oh that reminded me of something. I was at war with my puppet Finland as Russia, and Austria intervened. I focused on Finland and kept only nominal forces on the border with Austria and both empires were told to defend. Well that didn't stop my other puppets. They kept throwing their 10 battalions against their 100 over and over losing thousands of men.
Now, if I were Austria, does this count as good old "baiting into mountains" people keep talking about, or "baiting" into attacking forts in hoi4? After all, all those dead people should have even more impact on "society" here

Yeah, they definitely need to tweak how the AI decides whether or not to attack.

 

[Svenska Super]

Needing to commit troops to fight insurgents is an interesting idea. You do sort of have that in HoI4 with needing garrisons and high levels of dissatisfaction causing rebellions. It would be interesting if it was a viable strategy of its own. For example, if you're playing as Belgium and Germany attacks you, you're going to be slaughtered. You know you can't win conventionally, so you decide to focus on guerrilla warfare instead. You send agents to your provinces to recruit and arms units and there are events and such based around that which can boost or hamper your progress. If Germany has to withdraw troops to fight Russia or whatever, you can choose to revolt and potentially take back you country. If they don't, you continue to attack them locally by sabotaging their equipment, destroying infrastructure, and ambushing troops.

It could work very well, but probably only in Hearts of Iron. I don't think a system like this would suit Victoria at all.

Exactly you got my drift. This approach can be more simplified than in hoi4 plenty of people will accept it. Belgium good example, so by choosing guerilla option you
can buy some more time. What is really important for such gameplay mechanic is the implementation of stock piles. As such at the start of your game, your generals can ordered to train local resistance nests (think of gladio program in eu). Than increase their equipment (weapon caches) as such you are ready to execute such strategy, you can when a front line exists commit fewer troops as your tactic is not complete confrontation but tactical retreat towards the english channel harbor, where you transfer your precious soldiers (if they are elite trained - not only equipment they are more costly chance to implement this)to a colony for a last stand.

 

[.NoWay.]

Great to hear. I'm looking forward to most of the things listed.
Also happy to hear construction won't be taken away from the player. That's for me one of the most interesting aspects of the game.

 

[Monkey89Brains]

You're right. It is a subsystem. Not a system in itself. As such, it is correctly treated as a subsystem which functions only so much as it ties to the primary gameplay systems of the game, instead of being elevated to a separate system like the micromanagers want.

Are these micromanagers in the room with you now? I have seen no one asking for micro, not a single one. I have seen people asking for more control over the direction their wars go in. Having a modicum of control more than Attack!/Defend! orders over your army is not the same as asking to be able to do cavalry encirclements on 3 fronts in Europe while upgrading wheat fields in South East Asia.

 

[KINGYOLOSWAG]

I think I had enough hours in factorio to want something other to play in Victoria 3. But I wouldnt mind a dynamic war supplies mechanics, something abstracted like gold reserves and budget but more intervened into military aspects of the nations, not just a simple chest-like stockpile with numerical stuff in it.

Maybe like a small base stockpile amount from barracks but then to get more storage you build strategically placed military bases that also double as a way for you to manage logistics if you want to engage in overseas operations. I think a cool way to show players how this sort of thing historically worked out at the end would be to watch as all the ammunition they stored over years of build up vanishes completely within a couple months of a large scale war