• 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:
Will Command Economy also have some AI autonomous constructions?
I mean we should have an AI-controlled planning department rather than arranging everything like Vichy2.
Maybe this planning department can be affected by decree. For example, if you maintenance roads in Moskov, the planning department will start infrastructure in this region.
I think it will be a better way to increase the differences in gameplay between different economic systems than taking construction entirely out of the hands of the player
 
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
The reason at the time would have been because other stronger countries would come between you and force you to settle for less. I agree that there should be a way to press a war, but it should increase your infamy and make the Great Powers much more inclined to intervene against you to keep the system of apparent civility in place.

And of course modified depending on your location and status.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Cheers for the DD Wiz, and the extra info from Alastorn :) I've had a lot of fun playing V3 since release, and thank you and the rest of the devs very much for all your post-release support work. And I very much support improvements to the war system (as you say, there's a promising foundation, but it has more than a few rough edges), and those priorities sound like a great place to start :)

In terms of the foundation, I think the foundation for land warfare at the moment is stronger than that for naval warfare - this isn't an issue of tactical vs strategic, but rather that naval gameplay feels at the moment like it hasn't had enough time in the oven. The battles feel rather like the land system brought across with very little change (and less depth), and the strategic questions facing the development of navies through the era aren't really well reflected in the way the naval base building works, be it in relation to how to build a balanced navy, to how its deployed across the world, to how it actually works to control or contest sea lines of communication (the reason navies exist).

That being said, it's already a significant improvement on V2 - so it's a step up and I very much appreciate everything can't be done at once - but if it's something that resonates with the devs, it's worth bearing in mind V2 was a very low base, and that historically Paradox doesn't have a very strong track record in representing maritime and naval matters in its games, relative to the other game elements (and for the Victorian era, sea lines of communication were the engine of globalisation and hugely important for warfare). Just putting in my 2 cents for "please don't forget about this" while you're polishing everything else. What's on the list is a great starting point, and I'm not suggesting naval things should be a priority (they shouldn't, all the things mentioned in this DD are important) but I'm hoping there'll be more work down the track.

Victoria 2 had war and also economics without any micro

That's a bit of a stretch. I'm not suggesting that V2's war or economics were bad (although I personally rate V3's economics far above those in V2, and I'm well aware of the rough edges there too), and at release whether V3's land warfare was better than V2's is an open question (and not one I'd like to try and answer), but V2's warfare had plenty of micro, as did the economy even playing as hands-off capitalists (given the deficiencies of the AI), and you're presumably not referring to communist/interventionist gameplay here.

For a naval-themed, DD-appropriate pic, here's a pic of a very visible fleet on review in 1935, at Spithead, from this link :)

1667536934534.png
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
At a minimum it has been represented in CK and Imperator, so I’m not sure that ”literally” means what you think it means.
I know what it means, and I played both of those games. We just presumably have a difference of opinion in the definitions of the terms used, as completely unbelievable as that may be in a disagreement on the internet.
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Where did I ask for micro? I didn't. What I want is agency. I want to direct the front, I want to set provinces as goals, I want to determine how many soldiers go where along that line. If that is too much "micro" for your grand strategy game, well then just remove warfare all together in my opinion.
It's almost like I responded to someone who wasn't you.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I've found a game for you: Anno 1800. It's even in the same era! You're welcome

Really, those who disagree should check it out. Definitely no "toy soldiers", just pure Victorian economy. Meanwhile people who wanted actual Grand Strategy that combines all of those elements into one actually had no other series but vicky
Nah, tried it and actually love the game, but it is a city builder. I want to play the same kind of stuff but on a national level. And now I can finally with Victoria 3, and I love it!
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
The fact that - as anyone, I'm sure, could attest - squashing a mosquito is possibly one of the hardest things possible doesn't attest to the fact that the mosquito is a 300-pounds super-beast able to shrug off your attacks. If the colonising power was able to bring their forces to bear against the colonised, the ensuing battle would almost always be extremely one-sided. What happened, instead, is that the colonising power couldn't bring their full power. Lack of infrastructure or motivation or the sheer distances and travel times involved usually conspired to make it so that the coloniser would end up using a tiny fraction of their theoretical power - tiny fraction that could, in fact, be overcome. But at the moment you can mobilize your entire army, and call up every single conscript while you're at it, and send them half a world away, in order to fight tiny two-tiles Bumfuckingstan (population, 47): and despite this overwhelming force, be stopped by Wakanda's elite psionic armies forcing your men into single combat after single combat. The end result might - might - look somewhat okay, but the way there is a bit more than somewhat ridiculous.

I'm not saying it's perfect, but that the argument against it is generally wrong.

The game doesn't have a real system of logistics or much in the way of good reasons to not send your entire army overseas. It would be nice if it did! But as long as it doesn't - and to be fair, this is pretty normal for Paradox games - then I am happier that you can occasionally run into annoying resistance, because that happened. A lot. A lot more than it did in Victoria I or II (or EUII-III-IV).
 
  • 5
  • 4
Reactions:
Currently I absolutely love the game.
This Dev Diary I don't like at all. Not that these things wouldn't be nice, they are absolutely not what I need to keep playing.

I currently play the game on 5 speed, the entire time, while pausing once a year to check out government, standards of living, and market and then queue up buldings.
I would like to play it on 2 speed. Out of an entire list of diplomacy options I have only clicked on trade agreement, increase relations, decrease relations, rivalry. I can't even do trades or declare interest at the start with some countries.

I don't need automation or easier information, I have already figured out where to find everything, including war.
I need things to do, add events when certain decrees are picked and laws are in use.
Give me a pool of people to pick from to: govern states, manage armies, run my nation. That pool could rotate depending on who is in government.
Give me more unique resources to pick from.
Make production unique to each state, so some states produce faster than others. I can build multiple things at the same time, but maybe the buildings take longer to build. Like in Ck3.

Please don't try to appease the gamers that down voted you, you pretty much already lost them and this won't bring them back.
Instead give the gamers that are activity playing more things to do.
Thanks your loyal fan!
 
  • 11
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The first part of that sentence is a much bigger problem than the second.

The fact is, decentralised/unrecognised countries frequently gave fits to colonising powers instead of being squashed flat immediately. This has literally never been represented in anything Paradox has ever done before now. Can it be tweaked and iterated further? Of course.

But any system that cannot represent the Dutch conquest of Aceh was always a bad system that was going to contribute further to the mythology of colonial empires.

And yes, sometimes it wasn't actually that troublesome for the colonising power... although this rarely was as neat and clean as Paradox games made it (it often would represent only controlling the capital and not the hinterland, and there would be compromises with the local powerful interest groups to gain their acquiescence, etc., but the game represents it as "all this is yours now, to do as you please, no meaningful further resistance).
It's not a reprrsentation of "natives defending against bigger powers" because fronts work like that with every country, it's a general front problem
 
The reason at the time would have been because other stronger countries would come between you and force you to settle for less. I agree that there should be a way to press a war, but it should increase your infamy and make the Great Powers much more inclined to intervene against you to keep the system of apparent civility in place.

And of course modified depending on your location and status.
There is already a way for others to intervene in the play, therefore this limitation is very arbitrary
 
So honestly, it never is "just an option in the menu". Besides, game creation is an art form, and the artist always has the final say in what kind of a game they make. Nothing stops anyone else from making another version with different mechanics. Victorian times as a concept can't be copyrighted.
I was about to bring up the complexity of adding options, but I see you beat me to it.

There are two nuances I would like to add though.

For one, I think people on the internet can be way too quick to judgement, and depending on situation I definitely think there are cases of "just an option in the menu", and I say that as someone who does software development. A prime example would be an option that exposes a feature that already exists in the game, but is hidden/disabled by default. It's hard to give good examples when you don't know the inner workings of something, but take the country fragmentation in HoI4 for instance; all the systems, tags and everything are in most cases already in place, so even if there are edge-cases, most of them stem from the foundation that the game is already built on.

Secondly, I think that the artist having the final say comes down to school and strategy. I can definitely get behind it, but in a medium built on interactivity & digital media I definitely think there's space for abandoning that idea in favour of giving the players proper options. In fact, plenty of games already thrive on asking the player what they want and then delivering that; Dungeon Hack being one of my favourites.

With all that said, I love the new system for warfare. It could use improvements in fields such as clarity, UX and agency, but I want those improvements to build on the foundation that's already there, not expand in a different direction. Like, why is it that diplomacy grinds to a halt when you go to war? Did telegrams to Mexico never get sent historically?
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Promised changes are amazing, but what really caught my attention is the decision of placing expansions in the back burner.
This shows how confident you are in this product of yours. Keep it up!

If its anything like Martin's stewardship on Stellaris, its because expansions come with them new mechanical systems. Free updates would be tweaking the systems that exist and some minor UI update or mechanics.

First expansion will probably come with it either a LOT of historical flavor (immersion/story pack) and a smaller mechanical feature, or a large mechanical rework/update.

I think he said somewhere about wanting to include a Federal government mechanic with the USA update, which could tie into an entire mechanic of your country having a Constitution (the set of special laws that define what your government can or can't do, with or without legislature voting on it). Who knows if that'll be one of the first ones though.

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.

No, my 1880 Battleships!
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm not saying it's perfect, but that the argument against it is generally wrong.

The game doesn't have a real system of logistics or much in the way of good reasons to not send your entire army overseas. It would be nice if it did! But as long as it doesn't - and to be fair, this is pretty normal for Paradox games - then I am happier that you can occasionally run into annoying resistance, because that happened. A lot. A lot more than it did in Victoria I or II (or EUII-III-IV).
Sorry, but I'll have to put a hard disagree on this. I am convinced that the "how" is at least as important as the final result. Two impossible things break my immersion twice. They don't cancel out, they sum.
 
  • 11
  • 1
Reactions:
People really need to stop pretending they speak for the entire community like this.

But this is precisely what you do.

The thing is, AI is there to HELP players, NOT to replace them, unless anyone may think that free will worths zero when facing AI. And precisely, the AI is disastrous at handling anything in Vic3, as it was in Vic2 in economy/industry. Therefore, it is quite simple: or the AI can be fixed, or it will have to be replaced, reduced, or removed. Right by now, I do not see any other alternative.

You mentioned in one of your previous posts, the lack of societal and economical simulations. There are, and I guess you know it, and even in these points, Vic3 is far from beeing the best. As an exemple, while my borders were closed, I managed to create railroads in the whole Japan by 1855, and in 1856, Edo and Kyoto were gas lighted: it raises some serious questions, as it sounds more like a fantasy than a simulation.


The historical series from PDX has always focused on all those historical elements, only to put the emphasis on one point or a other, according to the games. Balanced for EU, diplomacy for CK, economy and societal for Vic, military and industrial for HOI. And you know why ? Because those were the basis for warfare along the centuries.

A game on the XIXth century where warfare should be put in the background (or worse, managed by the same AI that poorly handled industry in Vic2), while the climax is precisely reached by WW1, the very first total war in History, cannot be called a simulation anymore.


BTW, just in case you might forget it, Andersson's design philosophy is "to create believable worlds.", and I do not think teleportation, as it is (again) implemented, is a part of any sort of a credible world, neither the ackward situations most of the players witnessed while playing.
 
Last edited:
  • 10
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Did Paradox end up fixing the 'Open Market' diplo-play from forcing markets open for 60 YEARS instead of 60 months like all the tooltips suggest? Or are we still waiting?
 
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.
In regards to this.

Some production methods like barbed wire for livestock farms is unlocked after electric fences.
Now I`m no historian but I would assume barbed wire was a common item way before electric fences :D
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
I don't know if I am doing something extremely wrong but as a player, unifying Italy as Sardinia-Pedimont is a titanic task and I only managed to do so near the 1900s and with extensive save scumming, and just "forming Italy without wrestling the Italian states under Austria out of them.

Apparently the AI does it very consistently and early and IDK how but I really think unification for Italy needs to be easier rather than more difficult unless there is some sort of secret trick that I can't understand (and can't be found online apparently)
 
I don't know if I am doing something extremely wrong but as a player, unifying Italy as Sardinia-Pedimont is a titanic task and I only managed to do so near the 1900s and with extensive save scumming, and just "forming Italy without wrestling the Italian states under Austria out of them.

Apparently the AI does it very consistently and early and IDK how but I really think unification for Italy needs to be easier rather than more difficult unless there is some sort of secret trick that I can't understand (and can't be found online apparently)

I didn't play any Italian nation yet, but I did play Bavaria and with nationalism tech other states of your culture can peacefully join you if they are in your market and have good relations. Maybe it's the same in Italy.

Check if you have a "unify region" journal that explains this possibility.



The only big problem I had after forming the Shouth German Federation is that other countries I traded with didn't produce almost any oil and rubber, so I'm grateful it's in the radar of the devs. Maybe it could be a nice diplomatic action to propose/ask/pay so other countries develop those natural resources (more). It seems that the devs are also looking at implementing investments, but only to countries in your market that may not have the resources you need.

Another problem with the market I see is other countries in your market "stealing" your electricity production. If the other countries are small it's a small problem, you can produce more. But try to join a big nation's market and produce electricity for yourself...

Finally, my map nitpick: can we lock all non-terran mapmodes even if we zoom? Sometimes I want to check small countries borders/markets but when I zoom in it's very difficult to see the translucent borders on top of the terrain. We should be able to lock the map without terrain and not fight the game with a hundred of zoom in/zoom out to see small countries.
 
  • 1
Reactions: