• 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:
I don't think illegitimate governments should be blocked from passing laws, plenty of such governments pass laws anyway. But instead passing a law with an illegitimate government should increase radicals. Also most passive radicalism growth.
would be good to see this. It would be good to have any group that would normally oppose that law become radicalised instead of just annoyed by it, when an illegitimate government tries to put a law through.
 
Looks like a good high level plan. I guess the only thing I wish was mapped out but isn't is adding more depth around internal politics. For being one of the design pillars, I have found managing my internal politics to be simplistic and rather trivial to bypass regardless of my government type. Impacting legitimacy is a nice start but outside of the RNG for passing a law, I wish legitimacy was more impactful in how it may radicalize your pops.

Additionally a few small areas that I think would lead to more interesting internal politic management:
  • Rulers/IG leaders to lend more to a country's/party's stability.
  • Humiliation war goal being imposed on your nation add significant radicalization of your pops (compounding if you have nationalism tech)
  • IGs/Parties demanding certain types of investments in states/types of buildings based on their interests and power base
    • This could be something like political parties making election promises to IGs in governance radicalizing if you consistently work to minimize their influence (e.x. player focusing on industrializing as Japan with Shogunate IG in government, southern landowners wanting more plantations built, etc.)
Point 3 in your plan might help with the american civil war, since a player can currently build barracks only in states they know are "safe" for their own chosen side in the civil war (assuming they have the skill and finesse required to actual cause the civil war! i tried 3 times before i was able to trigger it!) resulting in a one sided war. If the southern planters were demanding increased barracks construction it might force the civil war along a little at worst, and provide a more even spread of the best troops at best.
 
I love most of what you said here and I think it all goes Sinto the right direction. Personally I like the game a lot, it has a lot of rough edges but ,out guys are good at making rough diamonds shine so I look forward to the updates!

What I would like to ask and also see on that list however would be two things:

1. Automatic trading, or at least some form of it. As it stands now I must mange most myself which honestly kinda sucks especially late game, if that could be less tidious it would be awesome (also the ability to raise tariffs on specific goods like as in consumption taxes would be cool could use the same cost too)

2. A way to join wars after they started. That's mostly for multiplayer but also in single player, id really love to see a system were a war gets another Diplo incident started each year it lasts and both parties get moves depending on the cost of the war, to either sway neutral parties or expand their war goals.

Outside these two topics I don't have any major things to add to the list. You guys did great work really looking forward to what comes next!
on point 1: are you aware that you can already set tariffs on import or export of each good?
If you go to the market screen and choose the middle tab you can set the tariff one way or the other, and that tariff rate is dictated by the economic law (Mercantilism is the biggest tariff on imports, interventionism is middle ground and free market disallows all tariffs - this is working from memory i could be wrong in little details).
 
  • 1
Reactions:
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.

View attachment 902219

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.
View attachment 901288
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.
View attachment 901289

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!

Looking forward to some changes in Russian context also (Serfdom) and reducing cost of war in early period, say 1836 to 1865. With professional armies being smaller and conscription being allowed only for states with very high bureaucracy.
 
Great stuff and some much needed improvements. Probably mentioned but now there are 24 pages on this post I can’t be sure, but please can you scrap the teleportation of armies?

I play a lot of PDX titles with a mate online and I sadly had to say that he should wait a bit before buying this, but hopefully when a few patches are released along this roadmap I can give it the full endorsement I feel it should deserve.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I would also mention the amount of techs known at game start. Now I would expect the main players to have knowledge of many techs at start, plus European powers, but what shocked me was when I played the 216 ranked country Bahrain to see how they played, & discovered they had knowledge of 20 techs already. Come on. Now I am not saying they shouldn't have any, but surely nowhere near the amount of top ranked counries have at game start.

I think one of the problems with this, is by 1836 Industrialisation had been going on nearly a hundred years in UK, so it would be very strange if many hadn't already been discovered, but this has made it a bit unbalanced. One of the reason why I wanted the game to start earlier.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Great content, still hope for improvement for historical accuracy

1. Great Qing should be freedom of conscience at start about be legacy slavery, Great Qing hasn't abolished their slave servant until 1910. What's more, Great Qing should be much weaker and harder to modernize. This is unbelievable Qing have the ability to mobilize battalion like a modern country. Eastern empire actually ruled their country in totally different logic with western country, it's unthinkable for Qing to build "university" on their game before they make decision to westernize. Because that would be rebellion to the traditional "KEJU" system. Also Qing totally have no interest to industrialize before they realize they need to innovation.

2. Europe country and united states should have more difference between countries to make more accurate to play different country. Britain should have intelligent group who is neutral attitude between monarchy and republic but more enlighten landowner and church, now Tory party have exactly same ideology with Bonapartist. Meanwhile it's hard to believe U.S petite Bourgeois opposed Republic and more favor to Monarchy and Theocracy.

3. I hope there will be more useful if I have more democratic laws, now democratic laws only lost authority if I enact universal suffrage. The change on content about legitimacy seems great

4. I hope the leader of interest group have less influence for interest group. Now it's not plausible one interest group is super satisfied now and suddenly super radical socialist only because they change a leader and ignored that country is already super care about their interest on welfare or freedom of speech. What's more, I think there should be some more mechanic to permanent change interest group ideology. Like if country stay democratic and generous for workers, trade union should not believe communist or other radical belief. And the feminist law now have bug, after let trade union or intellegience accept feminist, it/s actually not working. They still hate female leader after feminist leader leave.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Found workaround:
- Select the Market tab on the left panel
- open the Details tab
- Click on the resource you need

Voila, will highlight provinces on the map with the given resource.
 
Stockpiles is needed to make economy more realistic. and armies too.

now the market signal is instant and does not feel natural, stockpiles will solve that.

Also stockpiles will solve the issue with the army that you just change production method with a click and suddenly alll armies change weapons.
 
  • 6
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Stockpiles is needed to make economy more realistic.
Realistic stockpiles could make the economy more realistic, but would require rebuilding the economy simulation basically from the ground up because the notion that stockpiles are abstracted away is baked into the current model.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Realistic stockpiles could make the economy more realistic, but would require rebuilding the economy simulation basically from the ground up because the notion that stockpiles are abstracted away is baked into the current model.
Without stockpiles (to a small amount) and the ability to reduce 100% export into world market under non-Free trade, the game is broken.

Even HOI4 has different types of trades and stockpiles.
 
  • 6
  • 3
Reactions:
I really don't see that stockpiles would add much of anything to the game. The grace period before the penalties get real bad does perfectly fine for that purpose imo.

The main thing, as far as economics are concerned, should be looking into making it so that two-way trades don't print money.
 
  • 5
  • 4
Reactions:
Without stockpiles (to a small amount) and the ability to reduce 100% export into world market under non-Free trade, the game is broken.
Any concrete stockpile at all requires a major rework of the economic model, because stockpiles are currently abstracted into the pricing mechanism and shortage penalties system.

Fixing circular trades and the whole "importing expensive goods to a market where they are cheap can still somehow magically make a profit" is (or at least looks like it should be) vastly more rewarding relative to the effort required.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Any concrete stockpile at all requires a major rework of the economic model, because stockpiles are currently abstracted into the pricing mechanism and shortage penalties system.

Fixing circular trades and the whole "importing expensive goods to a market where they are cheap can still somehow magically make a profit" is (or at least looks like it should be) vastly more rewarding relative to the effort required.

When stockpiling is done correctly, goods that have a certain shelf life is considered. You as criticaster, by keep arguing that stockpiles are embedded in the game design will see that steam rating goes up and with certain systems revampled-redesigned this game will in time keep the player influx = community high.
Prdx games are actually so sophisticated they teach the player base new things and keeping key game designs separated in fear of lack of difference between titles is just an unwarranted fear of not being innovative, prdx dont need this fear they can do this
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The first thing I felt was that the colonization of the powers was so random and so fast in every world. I want a change in the way that the colonies are focused on a particular area.
 
I think a simple miltary good stockpile wouldn't be too difficult to add.

How about a Development building called 'Warehouse' whereby you select which good (probably just military) to stockpile. Each additional level allows a larger stockpile, akin to fuel silos in HOI4.
In times of peace, your arms industry could stay open filling these warehouses.
Then when you go to war and fully mobilise and start running a deficit of these goods, they are taken from these warehouses, keeping costs down and delaying any possible shortages.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
When stockpiling is done correctly, goods that have a certain shelf life is considered
Yes.

That's part of why vic2 stockpile design was not fit for purpose, and part of why adding concrete stockpiles to vic3 (rather than having them be abstractly present through the price calculations and the shortage penalties mechanism) would be hard.

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what the rest of your post was trying to say. It felt like a weird tangent.
I think a simple miltary good stockpile wouldn't be too difficult to add.
Adding any kind of concrete stockpile at all seems like a significant complication of the economic system.
 
Yes.

That's part of why vic2 stockpile design was not fit for purpose, and part of why adding concrete stockpiles to vic3 (rather than having them be abstractly present through the price calculations and the shortage penalties mechanism) would be hard.

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what the rest of your post was trying to say. It felt like a weird tangent.

Adding any kind of concrete stockpile at all seems like a significant complication of the economic system.

First of all this is a new game no add on or dlc from vic 2. I as well as many others kindly reference to vic 2 in purpose to take the good things in vic 3.
You should understand that if more work is put in the economic system; having a stockpile is absolutely no problem.
Why is this so complicated to grasp because now a vital point for you to tinker with the fundamental uptake on farming and capitalism is wrong, as well as resource distribution on the map (which consumes a lot of player work as well as pc work cpu).

Than the world lacks trade zones and distance measures. The previous point of simplyfing farming (its output is important) and uptake on capitalism can introduce stockpiling without any problem. The most difficult task to round it is the determination of new pricing/ profit mechanics. The devs choose a more simple price profit loop
which passes through the eye of the apprentice.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions: