• 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:
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.
At least, you could allow to reassign them to a more prestigious position. The prestige here would be determined by number of battalions, with some bonus for home countries. So you could reassign a good general from colonies to command a main front at home, and they would happily accept it. And it would be either forbidden in the other way (easy to do), or, preferably, it would be possible but with some sort of penalty (malus to opinion of general's interest group, or if the said group is already unhappy and powerful enough, chance of uprising).
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
At least, you could allow to reassign them to a more prestigious position. The prestige here would be determined by number of battalions, with some bonus for home countries. So you could reassign a good general from colonies to command a main front at home, and they would happily accept it. And it would be either forbidden in the other way (easy to do), or, preferably, it would be possible but with some sort of penalty (malus to opinion of general's interest group, or if the said group is already unhappy and powerful enough, chance of uprising).
Yep, something like this is likely how we would handle it. It would also permit for another requested feature, the ability to reassign commanders (permanently) to another HQ, but with some sort of impact or penalty to discourage the player from just shuffling commanders around all the time.
 
  • 16Like
  • 8
  • 3
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
Yep, something like this is likely how we would handle it. It would also permit for another requested feature, the ability to reassign commanders (permanently) to another HQ, but with some sort of impact or penalty to discourage the player from just shuffling commanders around all the time.
I would specifically like to move an experienced general to fill the empty post if my main army general dies, instead of hiring some rookie.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Is the A.I going to utilize the buffs from wages? If they don’t it will make the player even more OP.
Of course the AI will be using the wage levels.

It's important to note though - both in response to your comment and other comments here - that the positive modifiers from wages are actually not particularly powerful, and this is intended. They may provide the boost you need in certain circumstances, but they're not tuned to be a must-have in every relevant situation such that for example you feel compelling to bump your military wages as soon as you get into a conflict as a matter of course. Their biggest impact is and will remain the actual money paid out and the effect that has on the pops.

The reason not to make that the only impact is a player psychology thing. Seeing that pressing a button to raise wages will make your expenses increase will discourage you from ever pushing it proactively if there are no other effects. More importantly, seeing that pressing a button to lower wages will reduce your expenses incentivizes you to push it, but this is a trap that causes your military to become rebellious over time. By putting some pretty high-value penalties on the reduction of wages we encourage players to only reduce wages when absolutely needed, while putting some low-value bonuses on the increase of wages we give a small incentive to at least try it out from time to time.

The same rationale goes for positive and negative Capacity balances. A positive Capacity balance provide a minor bonus so you don't feel bad for having some Capacity in reserve, but it's still almost always better to spend it than save it. A negative Capacity balance provide a major malus so you try to get back in the green ASAP and don't get used to operating at a deficit and dig yourself a bigger and bigger hole.
 
  • 21
  • 8Like
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Could You pls add some reduction of infrastructure usage if input goods are locally available. It would balance whole game and enforce gathering of industry in state where resources are mined. Thx If not, pls tell me why and is it possible (and how) to add such modifier by modder??????????????????????????? Thx a lot.
enforce gathering of industry in state where resources are mined

This is precisely why we don't do it. The notion that manufacturing industries are located in the same place as resource industries they rely on is not a universal truth, and in fact very frequently it's the exact opposite - manufacturing industries tend to cluster in population centers where both workforce and consumers are plentiful, and ensuring good infrastructure connections between those hubs and the more rural areas where the raw materials are sourced should be key to developing a successful economy.

What you will find though is that if you do cluster your manufacturing and resources economies together without expanding infrastructure, you will still be able to run profitable industries if there are local workforce and consumers, because more of the economy will be local due to the reduced market access. With raw materials in high supply your manufacturing industries will get a better deal, and as long as locals buy the finished products you can sustain this economy without infrastructure. It won't scale well to multiple supply chains, and your international trade will suffer, but this is the trade-off between local low-infrastructure operations and market-wide ones.

In the future we do plan on experimenting more with the differences between local and market prices to make this effect more noticeable and relevant to gameplay.
 
  • 29Like
  • 6
  • 4
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions:
This makes perfect sense but I was entirely unaware of it until now, despite playing for ~50 hours. Could this be made more prominent in the UI?
It's not how it works now, it how it will work instead of gov size

whoever downvoted this, go and check it yourself, JFC
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
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.
View attachment 917063
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.
View attachment 917065
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.
View attachment 917066

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!
Very very nice update I must say!

One thing to ask, would it not be interesting to have defensive wars get a small morale bonus, as the population understands a defensive war much more than a offensive one.

Or maybe it could be calculated somehow on percentage of loyalists in the country vs radicals... high amount of radicals lowering morale/will to fight for your current government.
 
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 agree in land battles, but in Sea battles please allow this to happen as currently invasions can just bypass navies because 1 navy in the sea province happens to be fighting in a battle.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Are there any plans to improve migration in this patch? Right now the Colonial Resettlement law gives +100% migration attraction in unincorporated states, which is insane. I've run several test games while working on mods and I've consistently noticed the Eastern United States becoming depopulated because everyone is migrating to become peasants in unincorporated North Dakota.
building jobs in the east really helps slow this down.
 
Ouf, it will be welcome. I really do dislike the actual warfare system, but it will at least be more supportable with those ameliorations. Thank you for that !

Some mods have implemented military commands, fortresses that permit to choose what "focuses" the army should aim for (offensive, defensive) and fortify province. Do you think it could be an improvement for the current system?

I can't wait for more improvements for the UI and the pop-pup, informations listing, etc. Sometime, the game can really be tiring with how fat it needs you to dig for relevant informations!
 
Will synthetics plants be rebalanced? I noticed the production method of nylon needs more input but the value of output doesn't change. It makes plants producing nylon always under deficit which doesn't make sense.
 
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!
Can I suggest tieing this into a chain of command effect like this:

The number of battles that an attacking alliance can force on any one front is limited to the lesser of:

1) The number of attacking generals (duh!)

2) Half of the total number of generals on the front, rounded up.

3) The number of ranks of general present on the front.

So, 1 general will always be able to attack and generate 1 battle. Two generals will not both be able to generate a battle under any circumstance. Three generals will be able to generate 2 battles IF one of them is senior to the other two (or two of them are senior to the third). This would limit the total number of battles to the number of general ranks available as an absolute upper limit, making the hiring of additional generals useful, but not to an unlimited extent; 10 generals on a front is the most that will be useful if there are 5 ranks of general (which I can't remember how many there are, to be honest).
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The thing I don't like most about warfare is that Generals suddenly disappear from an area, even if there is still a front close and return to any (not necessarily their own) HQ, being not available for X days. If you don't take care and the war is somewhere far away it takes up to 63 days for them to return to HQ and another 63 days for them to get back to front (worst case) or 63 days if you figured out immediately they moved and send them back (best case). Why can't the player decide where they will be moving to?
If they were the only troops in that area the enemy can take huge potions of the battleground while you are waiting for your troops to return.

Additionally it would be great to get some info where the general or admiral is located in peace times, instead of hovering over every generals send-back-to-HQ-button to see if he is located correctly.

And what would be really awesome is to get an overview which states belong to a HQ. It's so tiring if you build a naval base e. g., just to figure out that it belongs to another HQ and not to the one you wanted, or if you'll update troups and you don't have the materials and you decide to do one elite HQ with all the good stuff (right now you have to hover over the HQ, look at the generals and check manually which states belong to the HQ).
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm thinking the changes to legitimacy would really hamper our ability to pass any "non-majority" laws. We already have to deal with low clout percentages and the lengthy process and somewhat RNG impacts. So if I'm a country with a large agrarian base I can put labor into government with a 15% clout and at least try to get some laws passed. If that's going to trash my legitimacy AND I have a low chance to pass it will really lock in the political landscape but maybe that's the intent --- to give a unique country playthrough by making it very hard to change everything to a liberal democracy.
 
Any discussion on reducing the impact of generals/admirals on politics or somehow incorporate an impact to negative traits? I'm tired of getting stuck with a cocaine addict who's cruel and unpopular but yet he's a hero of the landowner class?