• 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 #67 - Patch 1.1 (part 3)

16_9.jpg

Happy Thursday! Today we'll talk about some more changes we've introduced in patch 1.1, including how Morale works.

For starters, why rework morale? One piece of feedback we heard a lot of post-release was that it was frustrating to watch long, drawn-out battles that tied up the front while your battalions that weren't in that combat perished from attrition. Our goal with these changes is primarily to make battles snappier, ensuring that battles that are all but decided can come to a rapid conclusion so the front can start moving again. Some nice side effects are that your supply, morale recovery rates, and having reinforcements and reserves start to play a greater role than they used to.

In the new system, instead of the losers typically being the only side to take morale damage, units on both sides will take a certain amount of morale damage for each round of combat. That morale damage can be modified by various factors, such as technologies and production methods. In addition, the side that has taken the most casualties will suffer an additional multiplier to their loss of morale, ensuring that combat superiority is still what ultimately wins battles.

The basis for how much morale units lose each day is determined by the organization or ship class production method groups in Barracks / Conscription Centers and Naval Bases respectively. The more modern the method of warfare, the lower the loss of morale. Also, conscripts now differ from regular Battalions in that they suffer more morale damage.

These Ohioan conscripts have a relatively high base morale loss of 15 men per day, but this is reduced due to National Militia. Their morale losses increase somewhat from currently being in a battle where more casualties have been inflicted on them than they have on the enemy. When all remaining men in the unit have been lost to casualties or morale loss, the battalion will detach from the battle. Once fighting has concluded, their commanding General's Experienced Diplomat trait will increase the speed by which their morale recovers. Morale will also recover along with fresh reinforcements from the Conscription Center supporting them.
DD67_1.png

Modifiers can affect how much morale your own troops lose, such as good modifiers from First Aid and Field Hospitals, or bad modifiers from battle conditions such as Broken Supply Lines or commander traits like Reckless. But the morale damage you take can also be modified by the enemy's forces, for example via production methods like Siege Artillery or Chemical Weapon Specialists, or character traits like Wrathful.

When battles start, units are now deprioritized to enter combat if they are injured or demoralized. What this means is that even if you end up with fewer than your full complement of battalions in a particular fight, the rest of them will make use of this short respite to recover for the next one.

Speaking of recovery, we have also made a few changes to the way Wage levels work. Higher military wages than usual now affect how quickly units recover morale when not in combat, letting flush governments push frontlines by gradually overcoming the enemy's fighting spirit - at least as long as you're able and willing to rack up an enormous body count in the process.

Recovering Morale faster than the enemy does could be well worth the expense in the long run. It will also give your Officers and Servicemen a better Standard of Living, building Loyalists in your Armed Forces over time. Their increased Wealth will provide them with more Clout to throw around in internal politics as well, of course, so take that into account.
DD67_2.png

This isn't the extent of the changes to government and military wages in 1.1. These settings used to be a highly efficient way of directly and immediately altering your Interest Groups' Approval scores, which we have toned down a bit in 1.1 by making the Approval changes limited to -2 / -1 / 0 / +1 / +2 for the five different levels. Of course, the act of raising or lowering wages still has the usual knock-on effects on Approval by increasing or decreasing the purchasing power of the pops that tend to make up those groups, leading to changes in Standard of Living and therefore Radicals and Loyalists.

High or low military wages also affect your armed forces' Power Projection, leading to a Prestige impact also during peacetime. Low military wages also affect your buildings' training rate, i.e. how rapidly they can reinforce battalions and flotillas that have become underpowered due to casualties. To round it out, low government wages provide a direct impact on Prestige while higher levels now provide additional Authority.

As a final note, an update from our first Patch 1.1 update on Legitimacy levels. One oft-repeated concern with how Legitimacy works currently is that under most democratic systems, having two parties in a coalition government does not provide much of a penalty, even if those parties are vehemently opposed to each other. From one perspective this was working as intended, as it represents a trade-off between Legitimacy (in this case, popular representation) and ability to actually enact any new Laws (since the incoherence between the ideologies in government would make debate and stall outcomes very common). But on the other hand it felt wrong to have the two completely incompatible parties working together in a highly functional government - as long as they didn't try to make any changes, that is.

In response, we have changed the Legitimacy penalty from government size to one that actually represents ideological incoherence. Adding a party or Interest Group to government will now cause any conflicting ideologies (as measured by their stances on Laws) outside party boundaries to inflict a Legitimacy penalty. This encourages formation of government groups that are both strong and effective together. We're very interested in hearing how this change feels to you all, once patch 1.1 drops!

Despite representing the majority of Clout and Votes in Great Britain, an unholy alliance between Tories and Whigs is just too incoherent to form government together. You could still confirm such a government, but the penalties for doing so would be enormous and no legislation could be passed while Legitimacy is that poor.
DD67_3.png

The changes we have discussed in this and the previous two dev diaries represent just a fraction of the changes you will see in the new update. These ones are maybe the most visible, but a number of under-the-hood improvements and bugfixes have been made as well. Next week we will go through the full changelog! Until then!
 
  • 177Like
  • 48Love
  • 12
  • 6
  • 2
Reactions:
I saw a twitter teaser about how treaty ports will be changed and I think we need to raise this question sooner than later. Am I the only think that this "fix" is unacceptable? It won't fix the very core of the problem - small patches of land on start of the game being auto-treaty ports even if they are just some small chunks of land in a state

Why people disagree with this? You think that Gibraltar should be a treaty port??
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm mostly happy with the military system, but like many it does bug me how little visibility there is into things. Are there any plans to show WHY a battle starts with only 8 of my 30 troops, against 12 of my enemy's 15? What even does "offense" and "defense" mean in a battle? What are the available tactics that a general can choose when joining a battle?
 
  • 19
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Are there any plans to rework how generals are assigned troops? Having them tied to strategic areas creates a lot of undesirable edge cases. I’d love to be able to actually build army groups from the ground up and assign generals to lead them.
Also not being able to decide how many troops go to each general, reassign the troops between them (to create smaller force for colonization or naval invasion). The current system is incredibly rigid for no good reason. You can only pick between 2 when hiring new general. Your soldiers all become unassigned when a general dies (wtf?).

Devs say that reserves are going to be more important now, but we can't send some troops into reserve without "killing" the general and making IG angry and completely screwing the composition for every other general in the same HQ
 
  • 5
  • 2
Reactions:
Yeah, this is cool, but would conflict with the political side of the military gameplay. Currently, you promote your commanders to lead more troops, which give them more political power and makes them a bigger threat in case of uprisings. If you could just give your Field Marshal command of five conscripts with muskets to declaw him, he's not much of a potential threat to you.

Not to say there aren't solutions to this and it is one area we're looking to explore in the future, but we have to be careful that it doesn't wreck existing features.
I was puzzled about the inability to re-assign generals to different HQ but I have never thought about possibility of exploiting it to reduce the interest group strength. To illustrate the problem of not being able to assign generals, I put Herbert Kitchener in a state I conquered on Indian subcontinent which, for some reason, Raj would not conquer after many years passed in game. Kitchener had historically been stationed in India before he returned home so I thought it made sense. However, I was dismayed to see that I could not re-assign him to metropole after some time in India.

So it got me thinking... perhaps it could be done so that you cannot re-assign to any HQ whose available troops are greater than or equal to the number of troops that he commanded at the time of re-assignment. Of course, you could still exploit by reducing level of barracks in HQ region but I am not sure how to prevent that exploitation, though doing so would potentially be offset by the prospects of unemployment which can make pops... unhappy, naturally. And, of course, it could also be unwise military-wise.

Also, on slightly unrelated note, I was puzzled that you cannot station your troops in peace-time to your colonial subjects. I am almost certain that Britain had their own troops stationed in Canada, India, Australia, and Cape Colony, at least at the beginning of game time-frame. In fact, there were the 'Crown troops' in India to distinguish them from Company / Raj troops when they were stationed there. This inability also meant that troops from, say, Home Counties, would take longer to reach to India than if they had been stationed as they were historically. Moreover, it was also puzzling that you could not have your own naval bases in your colonial subjects such as Halifax in Canada and Cape in Cape Colony as Britain historically had. I believe there were also Royal Navy base in Ceylon as well.
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions:
That's good feedback, thanks! It's not necessarily a given that all buildings will be more profitable at high technology tiers though, it's (as you've noticed) very much conditional on your population's demand and the supply of your input goods. Demand for services is virtually infinite, as it increases exponentially for wealthier pops, so to build your demand for services you need a large population of very wealthy people - or you could focus more on your supply of Glass, maybe by subsidizing your Glassworks.

But we'll keep your feedback in mind, maybe the balance is a bit off on the high-end Urban Center PMs!
From my experience service centers are barely profitable even at the lowest PMs, i never go above the second one as even that struggles and is usually mostly unemployed, ive found street lights to be a downgrade due to this as they tend to both crash the price of services and drive up their production cost quite. So while demand for them might be infinite in theory in practice its all the other goods that are the limiting factor, especially since increasing their production directly increases services production too at what seems to be an even higher rate making it nearly impossible to increase demand for them without increasing their supply.

All of this also makes journal entires involving them impossible to complete as they usually require iirc them to be staffed and profitable, especially the elevator one since that requires 75% of them to have the highest PM on top of that.

And while at it ive had some similiar experiences with food (especially grain), difference being that you can just build less farms and export them, the actual production potential seems way too high, im pretty sure you could feed all of Europe with just Scandinavian farms and still have some leftovers.
 
  • 6
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Speaking of recovery, we have also made a few changes to the way Wage levels work. Higher military wages than usual now affect how quickly units recover morale when not in combat, letting flush governments push frontlines by gradually overcoming the enemy's fighting spirit - at least as long as you're able and willing to rack up an enormous body count in the process.
This seems very abusable, everyone will just turn it on to max during war and turn it off right after, I feel like this should have some cooldown before the positive effect take place, like a year.
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
I like the government changes!

I hope the release build uses a more descriptive name for the tooltip than "Government Ideology Penalty" though. That seems quite cryptic.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
This seems very abusable, everyone will just turn it on to max during war and turn it off right after, I feel like this should have some cooldown before the positive effect take place, like a year.
Wouldn't that spam radicals from loss of wealth? I have an impression that raising wages is dangerous because you may need to decree them later and that hurts people more than keeping them low.
 
  • 8
  • 1
Reactions:
Hi! Thank you for reworking some points, but I have a question. Are you changing/reworking the Service Centre? Now these centres do not work normally in the middle and end of the game, because the consumption of services is lower than production, especially when we use high methods in service centers.
also there is the problem that services are replaced by a lot of other good goods that you want to have; Art, Transport, Automobiles and Telephones (if you can spare the oil and rubber)
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
They should fix THIS problem, it's a core of it. The symptoms of it (like one battle per front) hurt too much
In a nation of several dozen millions or hundreds of millions, having between 100 to 600k radicals doesn't really mean much, especially since the Armed Forces IG is fairly easy to keep satisfied and they take most of the army clout.
 
Wouldn't that spam radicals from loss of wealth? I have an impression that raising wages is dangerous because you may need to decree them later and that hurts people more than keeping them low.
I've read that part, I don't think that those changes, since you increase wages only for war, will impact radicals THAT much, plus radicals seems to be only really dangerous to AI, not the players. If morale really will be so important, then paying some additional cash to get +20% recovery during war seems worth it
 
Will minimum wage be changed, so it doesn't increase wage of high earning professions, if laborers in same building qualify for minimum wage?
One solution would be wage bonus, something similar to dividends for capitalists in one of capitalist owned PM - additonal income on top of wages so hardcoded wage weights doesn't have to be reworked.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Seriously can we please not do something stupid like tie unit stat increases to increased military pay? You're already stupid if you're not paying them at max because it barely costs anything until you're at war and it's incredibly easy to stockpile enough money prewar to prevent this from ever being a problem. You already gain an unfair advantage in the government because you have pops that on average will be far more loyal and powerful (because of wealth).

If you're going to do this you HAVE to also modify the number of goods being used so they use up more to balance this. You can already bring the world to it's knees by the end of every game by spamming tank regiments with +30% offense and defense from the military's approval bonus. The Prussian way of governance (AKA military with a government vs government with a military) is far too OP as of now.

Edit: That being said, you should have worse morale when you're paying less.
 
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Yeah, this is cool, but would conflict with the political side of the military gameplay.
This political side is really bad though. I've never ever heard someone say that they cared about which general is promoted to which rank and which IG they belong too. And you have too little tools to interact with that system too - only retire the old one or hire a new one, with a pick only between 2

@kawamuratc What do you disagree with? You think there are a lot of tools? Please explain
 
Last edited:
  • 6
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
This inability also meant that troops from, say, Home Counties, would take longer to reach to India than if they had been stationed as they were historically. Moreover, it was also puzzling that you could not have your own naval bases in your colonial subjects such as Halifax in Canada and Cape in Cape Colony as Britain historically had. I believe there were also Royal Navy base in Ceylon as well.
Also another frustrating core design issue is that it doesn't really matter where the troops stated, because they can teleport, and they have plenty of time to do this before any war starts. I was trying to take Pondicherry from France as UK, I have much bigger navy but smaller army, so it's logical that I should be able to prevent them from defending that small region half a world away. But they just teleport 150 battallions there right when the plays starts and there is nothing I can do about it!

The same with the good moving around the market, or land trade no requiring convoys, in many very important places the question of logistics is just non-existant
 
  • 6
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions: