• 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:
They said few comments ago that differences in IG within a single party would not impact it, only between separate parties/IG outside party. It would make single-party governments more reasonable choice.

That's nice, but I was imagining more if I had two parties in government, and one IG wanted to join x party. but their laws disalined with y party's, where previously the two could coexist just fine.
 
Do you have any plans on adding the option to declare war? Or maybe an overhaul of how war goals work in general? I think it’s kinda strange how you can’t declare the Mexican American war at the moment. Also WW1 mechanically could never happen in this sim because allies can’t join mid war and war goals are only decided at the start of the war.
 
  • 6Like
Reactions:
If more morale damage is done each round of combat, and troops disengage due to being demoralized quicker, does this mean that battles themselves will have fewer casualties? Or do we have battles that resolve quicker, but the total number of casualties in an individual battle is similar- meaning that casualties per combat round is also higher?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
We're looking into it! The challenge with it is not technical per se, but rather an issue of what it would mean for the complexity of the frontline mechanics - for example, if your general advances with 90% of the troops on the front (woo!) but the enemy has two generals, one that's defending and one that's advancing, and now while you're fighting the big battle the other guy advances against your remaining 10% (boo!), and while that fight is going on his two allies on the same front advances and just easily marches in to occupy territory because there's nobody left to defend (nooo!), so in response you frantically hire several more generals, and before long you're saddled with dozens of boring randos leading your army instead of a handful of interesting ones, requiring dozens of clicks to manage... So this is the core issue, not enabling multiple battles per front. I can promise a thorough design investigation, and I hope we can find a good solution!
I might be misreading this, but in your example you should definitely lose the front as the enemy was able to take tactical battles keeping your troops busy. To advance, you should have more troops, and if you can't match all your enemies advances, they should go through. Battles should be decisive only if both sides are evenly matched. There is already a proportional troop assingment in the game, so that sounds like a feature.

Unless the issue is that each battle requires unique general, which would definitely lead to lower rank generals being stronger. But a field marshal can surely manage multiple battles at once. (You could even tie this to the rank, so one level 5 could keep 5 level 1s at bay).
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
The upcoming changes look promising and are greatly appreciated.

However:



My first thought was "great, legitimacy sucked before, and now it's getting even more annoying"

It's kind of strange that democratic systems, in which everyone has a vote and everyone is part of the governing process, actually work faster than any autocracy. Simply because they have much more legitimacy through the current system, in which enactment times are tied to legitimacy. Now you include ideologies into the mix to bring legitimacy down even more?

What's more, revolutions from an IG don't even remove the ruler who is affilated with them, so after the revolution you end up with a ruler whose IG is at 0% clout. You lose out on the big legitimacy bonus, as the ruler's IG isn't in the government. So not only do revolutions bring nothing revolutionary to the table in terms of changes to existing laws and the government, they even preserve the old ruler and slap you with lower legitimacy.

I'm usually not one to complain, but in this case I dislike the changes to the political system with each update. It's probably the one system that isn't remotely fun to me in the entire game.
they made the game in a way that the best and only option is to always go woke with multiculturalism and trade unions in the governament.

then you can have high level education and healthcare.

we need to wait for the modders to update everything they are going to implement.

we need a parlament with representants as characters so we can trade some kinda of bribe or help for the interest groups for their support passing bills, absolute monarchies/autocracys should just enact everything they want if the ideology is right.

That's it.
 
  • 10
  • 5
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Are there plans to diversify governments and state structure with things like minor laws and the like? Things like term limits, voting systems and election frequency would make democracies really distinct, and there's a lot of potential in allowing the players to customise their nation with some gameplay consequences of course. Voting age could modify the enfranchisement of dependents, and there's also fun stuff like the status of duels (it would be pretty neat if duels increased the mortality of officers and aristocrats, especially if you could guarantee an individual's right to duel), maybe additional slavery laws to further distinguish between types of slavery. I know there's definitely other priorities right now, but it would be a nice thing for the future
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Tying all these effects to military wages is very gamey and beyond ridiculous, I’m sorry to say. Prestige, power projection…according to wages? If I pay spear-armed primitives their weight in gold, I suppose they can project fear and prestige, sure. Very realistic.

This game holds no interest for me with this kind of direction, none at all.
 
  • 11
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
High or low military wages also affect your armed forces' Power Projection, leading to a Prestige impact also during peacetime.
Whats the idea behind that countries in war (that's when you mostly raise military wages) have more prestige then those in peace?
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Can't wait for next week for all changes and patch notes. Why do state trait Agriculture throughput penalties not affect Ranches and Subsistence Ranches, so in all of Sahara it applies literally to a single province (Dongola)? Why does AI take my export-taxed Hardwood, despite not using it at all? Or completely disregard infrastructure limits and base material inputs? Why can Isolationist countries willingly join Customs Unions or can request to become Protectorates?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I think the capitalist is too conscientious, he will raise the wages of the workers too much in the early stage of the game, but he is not so profitable, which does not seem to be in line with that era
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Will the update fix my armies from abandoning a front? In my Germany game, I lost because my general abandoned his front in Guinea to fight in Alsace-Lorraine. It automatically configured itself to abandoning the advance that we were winning in.
 
What does "in government" represent? That IG/party has representation that takes part in debate? That IG/party is part of a coalition for the majority?

(and I have trouble seeing how any of this really ties into the concept of "legitimacy")
It's a party that controls the executive, which typically means having ministers in the Cabinet.

This is easily aligned with a Westminster system. This is a party that has ministers in the Cabinet and whose legislators normally vote with the government.

In a Washingtonian system, it's not quite so neat, but you can think of it as a party that is aligned with the current president's agenda in the congress. In reality, the president and vice-president would come from parties in government, though at present V3 doesn't properly model that. They would probably have Cabinet positions too, though the party affiliation of Cabinet members isn't really significant in these systems, since they tend to have very weak party discipline.

In a non-democratic state (e.g. Qing Empire or Tokugawa Japan), this is a party/group that has ministers or the equivalent in the executive. There may not be a Cabinet or formal party membership, but the Chancellor of the West Palace is drawn from the Imperial Clan or the Lord High Executioner speaks at meetings of the Constitutional Association, then those 'parties' are in government.
Something doesn't feel right. If you do some sort of national union, your governement will be seen as illegitimate and radicals will appear? You risk revolution because two parties who disagree join the same governement?

I get the incentive from a gameplay perspective, but flavor-wise it doesn't sound logical.
Do I take it that by "national union" you mean a government of national unity? When I started writing this I disagreed, but writing this post persuaded me that you are right, this change is not great from a flavour perspective and even has gameplay issues!

Many governments of national unity in this era were plagued by infighting. Using V3's archetypal state as an example, Britain's 'Ministry of all the Talents' in the 1800s eventually fell apart because of arguments over whether to have the State Church or Freedom of Conscience laws. Likewise, its 'National Government' in the 1930s was dogged by disputes over Free Trade vs Protectionism, with one party (the Samuelite Liberals) leaving the government over the issue. So they suffered because of ideological disputes.

But are right these were not crises of legitimacy: both these governments claimed to have great legitimacy because of their wide base of support and this is supported in the latter case by their overwhelming victories at the polls. But the in-game effect of low legitimacy is that you struggle to pass legislation in all areas. There's little evidence of this at all. The Ministry of all the Talents was able to pass the Legacy Slavery law (Abolition of the Slave Trade Act 1807), a bitterly opposed reform, because its wide base gave it the legitimacy to make a big change and because there were no major opposition figures who stood to gain office by exploiting the issue. Likewise, the 1930s National Government was able to enact a steady programme of reforms, including contentious legislation like the Mass Conscription law (Military Training Act 1939) and a Multiculturalism law (Government of India Act 1935), because of its overwhelming support (legitimacy) in Parliament.

So rather than an Ideological Penalty to Legitimacy, affecting all attempts to pass laws, perhaps it would be better if there was just an enhanced penalty against passing laws where the parties in government disagree? In other words, you are stuck with the status quo unless the parties in government agree that they want to make a change. But where they do make a change, broadly-based governments should easily overcome the Clout of interest groups in opposition.

However, there's one related phenomenon that should also be included. No government can please all of the people all of the time. If you have a government of national unity, you still have opponents, and they will coalesce around new figures (sometimes unsavoury ones) and form new parties. This can be seen in Second World War Britain (just beyond our period, I know), where the wartime government of national unity had extremely high legitimacy (and we know this from opinion polling and Mass Observation data) and included almost all legislators. The result was a rise in popularity for the few parties (the Communist Party and Common Wealth) that stood against them. It was also observed during Germany's Grand Coalitions of the 1960s (the Außerparlamentarische Opposition, which was one strand in the formation of the now powerful Green Party) and the 2010s (where the Alternative für Deutschland rose from nowhere to the official Opposition). I can't think of a clear example from within the V3 period, unfortunately, but I think the same processes would have been at work.

So in V3, a government with very high legitimacy should create a higher chance of new parties forming, with the possibility that they might then peel away IGs currently in the government.

I think a system of cultural relations between different cultures would be quite cool. At the end there are some cultures closer to others and there could be ways to influence this. If I remember well it was implemented in Imperator.
I guess that are thinking of CK3, which has had an excellent system of Cultural Acceptance since ptatch 1.5 Fleur-de-lys? This could not currently be fully implemented in V3 because of the lack of characters, but any steps in that direction would be good.

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.
Could this be too much of a newbie/casual trap? They will see that raising wages improve their Morale, without knowing that cutting the wages after the war will be devastating. Most players don't read these forums and there's not even a manual or complete wiki.
 
I think giving conscripts a morale penalty would make them useless. The added numbers already don't matter, so conscription would just pad your army with units that will lose battles for you.

Also, if you make reserves more important, can you get rid of the message that tells players to recruit more generals if they have battalions in reserve? It's a noob trap.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Good to hear about the legitimacy. Just becasue some voters voted for one party and other voters voted for the other party, doesn't mean that together, all voters would be happy. A vote for one party is just as much a vote AGAINST the other party.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Great work for Legitimacy reworked,just one question for party system. Isn't that reworked will cause democratic system meaningless? Because before the advantage of democracy is that they have party system to prevent size government's penalty. But now how did this party system worked? Do they still have penalty for inner party conflict?
 
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.
You could solve this (just a suggestion) by letting the player assign and shift around brigades and having, other than the maximum number of brigades a general can lead, also a minimum number generals expect to have under their command, depending on their rank. You could make them angry by removing too much power (brigades) from them, so preserving their threat. Kinda like Imperator does with loyal units.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions: