• 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:
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.

I think the way to best handle this is to have local prices determine the cost to purchase goods for pops and inputs, but overall market prices determine the price goods are sold at. Then you have a choice, do I put my factory where the supply is (making it vertically integrated and more profitable), or where the demand is (making local goods available cheaper to pops who consume them). Local prices would always be different from global ones, with infrastructure and market access just controlling how different. The difference between local price and market price represents the price of delivery.

There is a knock on effect of this that I think is even more important than the supply chain for manufacturing that everyone first thinks of, and that is the price of food in colonies. Right now Europeans colonizing Africa has the silly effect of raising SoL for the locals, because they suddenly have access to European grain markets. Instead, what should happen is that as more locals are pulled out of subsistence to work on plantations, there should be less local food and the local price of grain should rise and the SoL of native peasants should fall
 
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 don't get this, why not just base a general's political power on things like level of promotion and how many battles he's won, and ignore how many troops he's leading at the moment? And if your hotshot general joins an uprising, the uprising could just reassign him from the 5 conscripts with muskets to a larger army.
 
  • 3
  • 3
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?
what do you mean? didn't you look at how stall and debate are calculated?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I think the way to best handle this is to have local prices determine the cost to purchase goods for pops and inputs, but overall market prices determine the price goods are sold at. Then you have a choice, do I put my factory where the supply is (making it vertically integrated and more profitable), or where the demand is (making local goods available cheaper to pops who consume them). Local prices would always be different from global ones, with infrastructure and market access just controlling how different. The difference between local price and market price represents the price of delivery.

There is a knock on effect of this that I think is even more important than the supply chain for manufacturing that everyone first thinks of, and that is the price of food in colonies. Right now Europeans colonizing Africa has the silly effect of raising SoL for the locals, because they suddenly have access to European grain markets. Instead, what should happen is that as more locals are pulled out of subsistence to work on plantations, there should be less local food and the local price of grain should rise and the SoL of native peasants should fall
An even more egregious example I noticed playing as Cape Colony (as suggested for the Tutorial - just finished the GC) is that I was making most of the electricity used in the British market... because it was, er, being packaged up and shipped around the world??

The markets in general seem to be working well, but globe-spanning market unions have some real flaws. Maybe make the markets in groups of goods separate for the purposes of the customs unions? Laws might handle some of the groups being included or not - and some (like elecrticity and services) should be impossible to combine.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I know numbers in screenshots are always WIP, but in the screenshot for morale, is the 15 morale loss meant to be a flat number while the bonus from National Militia is a percentage? If so then National Militia would only reduce the morale loss by 1, whereas if its something like 15% morale loss but reduced by 5% from National Militia for 10% result, that would be more substantial.
 
what do you mean? didn't you look at how stall and debate are calculated?

What am I meant to be looking at?

I tried digging into the tooltips on this on the map screen but hovering over the stall and debate chance didn't seem to tell me anything
 
I think the way to best handle this is to have local prices determine the cost to purchase goods for pops and inputs, but overall market prices determine the price goods are sold at. Then you have a choice, do I put my factory where the supply is (making it vertically integrated and more profitable), or where the demand is (making local goods available cheaper to pops who consume them). Local prices would always be different from global ones, with infrastructure and market access just controlling how different. The difference between local price and market price represents the price of delivery.

There is a knock on effect of this that I think is even more important than the supply chain for manufacturing that everyone first thinks of, and that is the price of food in colonies. Right now Europeans colonizing Africa has the silly effect of raising SoL for the locals, because they suddenly have access to European grain markets. Instead, what should happen is that as more locals are pulled out of subsistence to work on plantations, there should be less local food and the local price of grain should rise and the SoL of native peasants should fall
Without any limiter that can get pretty insane. For example, lets say I have a massive steel mill industry in Pennsylvania that relies upon its own local coal, but supports its iron demands from the iron deposits of the iron range around the great lakes. Assuming I flood the coal in the local market, my coal industries are making a killing at the market price while the steel mill is saving a massive amount of money on its coal, basically printing money to the coal mines (I know, extrapolation considering the sell and buy order system, but still). This sounds like it would be exactly the idea put forward and mutually beneficial...

Then we get to iron. The iron supply in Pennsylvania cannot support the massive giant steel mills I put up, so the local market is quite short on iron compared to demand, and the iron cost is therefor sky high. My market iron sellers, however, sell relatively low as there's a glut on the market, and no matter how I manage the infrastructure of the iron range to ship its iron to my steel mills nothing can be done about the price, it'll always be capped at +75% of base cost because of the local buy price.

Whatever the system, market price should act as some sort of upper limit on goods costs. But I feel like a better way to tackle it is infrastructure, since that's meant to represent trade supply capacity. At the very least, Infrastructure should be more precious than it is at the start of the game (looking at you, pops giving infrastructure). Most states outside of rivers and coastal port cities should be more dependent upon local markets, and therefor have an infrastructure deficit at game start. Wanting to sell your goods to the inland, landlocked states should be something you build towards, not something you start with.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Without any limiter that can get pretty insane. For example, lets say I have a massive steel mill industry in Pennsylvania that relies upon its own local coal, but supports its iron demands from the iron deposits of the iron range around the great lakes. Assuming I flood the coal in the local market, my coal industries are making a killing at the market price while the steel mill is saving a massive amount of money on its coal, basically printing money to the coal mines (I know, extrapolation considering the sell and buy order system, but still). This sounds like it would be exactly the idea put forward and mutually beneficial...

Then we get to iron. The iron supply in Pennsylvania cannot support the massive giant steel mills I put up, so the local market is quite short on iron compared to demand, and the iron cost is therefor sky high. My market iron sellers, however, sell relatively low as there's a glut on the market, and no matter how I manage the infrastructure of the iron range to ship its iron to my steel mills nothing can be done about the price, it'll always be capped at +75% of base cost because of the local buy price.

Whatever the system, market price should act as some sort of upper limit on goods costs. But I feel like a better way to tackle it is infrastructure, since that's meant to represent trade supply capacity. At the very least, Infrastructure should be more precious than it is at the start of the game (looking at you, pops giving infrastructure). Most states outside of rivers and coastal port cities should be more dependent upon local markets, and therefor have an infrastructure deficit at game start. Wanting to sell your goods to the inland, landlocked states should be something you build towards, not something you start with.

The actual local price would not be the pure result of sell/buy orders alone in the province as if it were at 0% market access, it should be a weighted average of local demand and your entire market. The amount of infrastructure you have would get your local price closer and closer to your market price, but never 100%. Different goods would also have differences in how transportable they are (this already exists and controls how many convoys they use per level), which makes them more or less resilient to local prices. The net result is that if you have a positive balance of a good in a state, its local price will be lower than its price on your larger market, and vice versa.

This does have the impact you want of making infrastructure important. However, I think the primary driver of this absolutely must be prices- because that is what you see and interact with as a player constantly, it is the core loop of the game, its visible in every production panel, and it is intuitive. Infrastructure is a modifier to prices, an important one, but build factories next to mines to get an infrastructure bonus that I have to tab into a different screen to even see is not psychologically rewarding gameplay. I want dopamine, not railways.
 
Sounds like an interesting patch so far, though I feel that government legitimacy might become so important that passing laws that not exactly popular with the ruling elite becomes way to hard. (looking at Banning Slavery/Abolishing Serfdom) specially if as legitimacy drops the enactment time goes way too high, and you just end up getting a couple of bad rolls. I understand that it should be hard to make those changes but the game timeframe becomes rather small to make all the changes to laws necessary and then build your country up. This is even more critical in countries that are trade isolated and low on pops.

When it comes to the construction system, I wonder why instead of full Pause, it doesn't just go to the fundamental free +5 per week, this would allow a much more dynamic way to manage your economy building and budget instead of the dreaded moment when you build up the construction sector and only when you get a decent economy you can manage it again by changing the building mode.

And also please do advise if your gonna fix glaring bugs that should be easy fixes? Looking at those peasant revolts in too small states that have no army and get in a permanent war that no army is fighting, I had a run with Paraguay where Argentina was stuck in a mountain area with a peasant revolt that was in the passable area, where Argentina was in an un-passable area, so I ended up having to drop that run for Bolivars Dream because it is now impossible to conquer a small state with no army to whom I had to "lose a war" and pay like 41k a week in war reparations. This should be a easy fixe, like make a check if any army exists and both countries have 0 war support end it with a white peace or something.

Another glaring bug is the 60 years of forced open markets instead of 60 months.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Hey, sorry for being late to the party.

I wanted to say that the bonuses from government wages for technologies should increase tech throughput instead of lowering cost of technologies. At this stage this is highly exploitable and immersion breaking :(.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Hey, sorry for being late to the party.

I wanted to say that the bonuses from government wages for technologies should increase tech throughput instead of lowering cost of technologies. At this stage this is highly exploitable and immersion breaking :(.
What
 
Not really that important, but a lot of the dynamic color changes don't seem to want to go into effect unless you reload the game. Some of the name changes like "German Empire" for monarchist Germany that is at least a major power don't seem to work at all.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
There are some issues about pop needs: the default consuming good of free movements, communication and art needs are services or transportation, and these two goods are set to low weight. Apparently, it's good to consume automobiles, telephones and fine art rather than services or transportation to fulfill needs, but that actually didn't work, because in most cases there are a lot of services and transportation in the market, so the pop will consume services and transportation rather than choosing the cheap find art or automobiles, the 99% of art needs of pop are services, that is not reasonable.
 
  • 1Like
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.
How about a more indept loyalty system for generals, which cause certain effects like +10% or -10% morale? Loyalty could be shown like in a range from -5 to +5. Shuffling your general between fronts will cause the loss of one loyalty every time, because it is obviously annoying to this poor general and his family (lol). In the direction of -5 loyalty he could be more likely to join opposing political movements / lower government support or at worst plan a civil war, while with +5 (e.g. due to keeping him at the same front for several years and sometimes promoting him etc.) will raise the possibility for him to get new government support / legitimacy etc.

Illoyal generals could also try to lower the loyalty of other generals with the same political orientation or try to win the support of generals who are also already illoyal. Then, with a civil war, there would be a bigger threat, because one illoyal general could draft other generals into it too. Of course you won't be able to move illoyal generals to other fronts, they will obiously refuse if illoyality is too high (this could also be a potential trigger for a civil war - refusing orders is a big deal).
 
what about so-called 'unity governments'? In theory there should be times when the threat level to a nation is such, that parties set aside their difference and join into a government together.

We see examples of this throughout the civil war period. The so-called 'National Union' ticket, which was meant to help heal the wounds of civil war, featured Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, a southern democrat, as his vice president. The UK formed national governments during the napoleonic war, world war I and the great depression.

It seems like it shouldn't be too difficult to scale the penalties for forming coalitions made up of ideologically opposed parties to war exhaustion or some other indicator for threat to national survival? Perhaps they simply go away when involved in a diplomatic incident with two or more great powers.

Just a thought. I think the changes to legitimacy and party coalition make sense overall.
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
How will the legitimacy rework look like in a state that has won a civil war? It seems like it would drastically reduce the legitimacy of any government formed after a victory in a civil war which might be thematic but would also make it really easy for countries to just enter into civil war death spirals as they lack the legitimacy to make meaningful reforms even after purging their political enemies due to law incoherence.