• 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 #79 - What’s next after 1.2?

16_9.jpg

Hello and welcome to the first Victoria 3 dev diary after the release of update 1.2! With this update now out, we feel that it’s a good time to return to the Post-Release Plans we outlined in Dev Diary #64, check what’s already been done and go over what further changes and improvements we have planned for the game in future free updates such as 1.3, 1.4 and beyond. In the Post-Release Plans Dev Diary we outlined three key areas of improvement for the game: Military, Historical Immersion and Diplomacy and these are very much still our main targets, but are now being joined by an Internal Politics section. The Other section is also still there for anything that doesn’t fall neatly into one of the four categories.

For this dev diary, I’ll be aiming to give you an overview of where we stand and where we’re heading by going through each of these four categories and marking on each one with one of the below statuses:
  • Done: This is a part of the game that we now consider to be in good shape. Something being Done of course doesn’t mean we’re never going to expand or improve on it in the future, just that it’s no longer a high priority for us.
  • Updated: This is a part of the game where we have made some of the improvements and changes that we want to make, but aren’t yet satisfied with where it stands and plan to make further improvements to it in future updates such as 1.3, 1.4 and so on.
  • Not Updated: This is a part of the game where we haven’t yet released any of our planned changes/improvements in either 1.1 or 1.2 but still plan to do so for future updates.
  • New: This is a planned change or improvement that is newly added, ie wasn’t present on the list in Dev Diary #64.

Just like in the original Post-Release Plans dev diary, we will only be talking about improvements, changes and new features that are part of planned free updates in this dev diary. So then, let’s get to the categories and see where we stand! For each point in each category that isn’t new to this update there will be a sub-point detailing our progress on the point so far.

DD79_01.jpg

Military​

Done:
  • Adding the ability for countries to set strategic objectives for their generals
  • The ability to designate Strategic Objectives were added to the game in update 1.2
  • Addressing some of the rough edges in how generals function at the moment, such as improving unit selection for battles and balancing the overall progression along fronts
    • While there are still rough edges in the military system and we undoubtedly will continue to tweak the precise balancing here, we consider the specific issues with front progression and unit selection for battles largely resolved in update 1.2
Updated:
  • Improving the ability of players to get an overview of their military situation and exposing more data, like the underlying numbers behind battle sizes
    • We have made a number of improvements to army visualization in 1.2 and added breakdowns for factors such as battle sizes, but we have more work to do when it comes to giving players a good overview of wars and making multi-front wars easier to manage
  • Increasing the visibility of navies and making admirals easier to work with
    • Some improvements have been made here, such as removing the restriction on naval invasions using Generals from different HQs, but we still consider navies an area of the game in need of improvement from a visibility and usability standpoint
  • Finding solutions for the issue where theaters can split into multiple (sometimes even dozens) of tiny fronts as pockets are created
    • We have mitigated this issue in update 1.2 by auto-closing small pockets and improving battle province selection but the issue still persists (particularly in wars with a large number of small countries) so further improvements are needed here
Not Updated:
  • Experimenting with controlled front-splitting for longer fronts
    • Some internal design work has been done on this, but it’s very tricky to get right without worsening the front splitting issues - it’s still very much a high priority for us nonetheless!
New:
  • Adding a system for limited wars to reduce the number of early-game total wars between Great Powers
  • Solving the issue of armies going home after Generals die during a war by adding a system for field promotion

Historical Immersion​

Done:
  • Ensuring the American Civil War has a decent chance to happen, happens in a way that makes sense (slave states rising up to defend slavery, etc), and isn’t easily avoidable by the player.
    • The ACW is now more difficult to avoid, and when sparked over the issue of slavery, should now create a historically plausible CSA (note that there may still be unintended cases of a ‘fake CSA’ appearing due to a non slavery related landowner revolt, which isn’t covered by the above fixes)
  • Working to expose and improve content such as expeditions and journal entries that is currently too difficult for players to find or complete
    • The Journal Entries that we wanted to make easier to complete and/or more visible have been tweaked in the intended way (though we will undoubtedly continue to make minor balance adjustments to them)
Updated:
  • Tweaking content such as the Meiji Restoration, Alaska purchase and so on in a way that they can more frequently be successfully performed by the AI, through a mix of AI improvements and content tweaks
    • Significant improvements have been made to the AI’s ability to complete Journal Entries such as Tanzimat, Manifest Destiny and so on, though it still struggles with others like the Meiji Restoration and so further work is needed.
  • Ensuring unifications such as Italy, Germany and Canada doesn’t constantly happen decades ahead of the historical schedule, and increasing the challenge of unifying Italy and Germany in particular
    • The Unifications now occur in a way that is more ‘on schedule’, but we still want to change them so that they mechanically behave in a more historically plausible way
  • General AI tweaks to have AI countries play in a more believable, immersive way
    • Significant changes have been made to the diplomatic AI in both 1.1 and 1.2 but this is an area that is going to continue receiving attention from us for some time, particularly when it comes to making the AI less opaque in its reasoning (for example, explaining why they sided against you in a diplomatic play despite good relations)
New:
  • Adding more country, state and region-specific content to enhance historical flavor of different countries

Diplomacy​

Done:
  • The ability to expand your primary demands in a diplomatic play beyond just one wargoal (though this has to be done in such a way that there’s still a reason for countries to actually back down)
  • Adding additional primary demands was added to the game in update 1.2
Not Updated:
  • ‘Reverse-swaying’, ie the ability to offer to join a side in a play in exchange for something
  • More things to offer in diplomatic plays, like giving away your own land for support
  • Trading (or at least giving away) states
  • Foreign investment and some form of construction in other countries, at least if they’re part of your market
  • Improving and expanding on interactions with and from subjects, such as being able to grant and ask for more autonomy through a diplomatic action
New:
  • Allowing peace deals to be negotiated during a Diplomatic Play instead of only having the option to give in

Internal Politics​

Updated:
  • (Moved from ‘Other’) Making it more interesting and ‘competitive’ but also more challenging to play in a more conservative and autocratic style
  • We have made some changes here, such as locking laws behind regressive distributions of power and changing GDP to not unfairly favor manufacturing economies but this is still an area where we want to do more
New:
  • Improving the mechanics of law enactment and revolutions to be more engaging for the player to interact with
  • Adding more mechanics for characters and giving the player more reason to care about individual characters in your country:
  • Adding laws that expand on diversity of countries and introduce new ways to play the game

Other​

Done:
  • Making it easier to get an overview of your Pops and Pop factors such as Needs, Standard of Living and Radicals/Loyalists
    • Update 1.2 added new overviews for Pop Needs and better explanations for the reasons behind radicals and loyalists
  • Experimenting with autonomous private-sector construction and increasing the differences in gameplay between different economic systems (though as I’ve said many times, we are never going to take construction entirely out of the hands of the player)
    • Autonomous private-sector construction was added to the game in update 1.2
  • Ironing out some of the kinks with the late-game economy and the AI’s ability to develop key resources such as oil and rubber
    • While the economic AI is definitely going to continue to receive improvements, the specific issue of the AI never developing these key resources should be fixed
New:
  • Improving Alerts and the Current Situation widget to provide more useful and actionable information.

Just as last time we shared these plans, the above is not an exhaustive list of everything we want to do, and I can’t give an exact timeline for any of the individual points or which precise future update they will be a part of. This list also still only covers changes and additions that will be part of free updates! We are planning to continue releasing dev diaries like this updating you on our progress after each major update to the game.

That’s all for today’s update, I hope you found it informative! Next week we’ll dive right back into regular dev diaries as we start going over the details of what we have in the works for Update 1.3, though I’ll note that we won’t be ready to talk about the release date for that update. See you then!
 
  • 162Like
  • 37Love
  • 25
  • 11
  • 2Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
Is there a reason why you want to continue working on the Current Situation system rather than having a row of banners/alerts on top a la EU4/Stellaris?

While I appreciate most of CK3's UI changes from CK2, the decision to hide away hugely important notifications in a button that's very easy to miss has always baffled me.

Still, thanks for continuing to work on polishing the game before releasing new paid content: I hope this will smooth the path to a steady release for Victoria 3's first DLC!
As a sandbox game where most actions have a reaction elsewhere in the system, there are very few instances in Victoria 3 where you have "no-brainer" types of actions to take. Our rule of thumb is that alerts, that prominently signal a call to action and stick around until you've resolved them, should be irrefutably bad for you and something the player is usually easily able to resolve with a few clicks. For example, an undefended front will cause you to lose territory very quickly, and a severe goods shortage is very likely to hamstring your industry without a net benefit to anyone. Both situations can usually be resolved by sending a General to the front (even if you have to hire a new one) or importing goods / reducing consumption by downsizing, so these qualify as Alerts.

Other types of "alerts" are a lot less severe, might require long-term planning to resolve without knock-on issues, or might even be a desired (though unbalanced) state - say you're paying a lot of money for Man-o-Wars but your Capitalists that run the Shipyards need to be kept in check, you might not want to reduce their earning potential by importing from your neighbors. Exposing this situation under a menu you can access on demand when you have time, and even dismiss items if they don't apply to you, makes more sense than shoving them in your face and demanding you deal with them by some prescribed method.

What we're going to look into here is improving what information shows up where and in what form, and ideally giving more control to customize this as well. I don't have any more details to share quite yet though.
 
Last edited:
  • 56
  • 33
  • 15Like
  • 5
Reactions:
Thx a lot. Do you know when will you add "Foreign investment and some form of construction in other countries". It would influence positively the game a lot. Thx once more.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Any thoughts on adding lesser "posts" or "wings" to IGs to allow player visibility of more characters and for characters to be able to have political careers outside of either being leader of an IG or a general or admiral?

I think it could be nice if the game allowed for a pool of characters not associated with any IG, just to represent important people in your country (some of which may never become members or lead IGs). With some historical characters, such as Sigmund Freud, it doesn't feel right that they'd be leading an IG. So these could hang around in a pool separate of IGs and intervene in the political process episodically, for example by publicly taking sides in a law debate.

As you say, IGs could be expanded to give 1-3 positions to "secondary" associates of IGs in addition to the leader. The characters from the pool could then upgrade to become associates or supporters of IGs. This line of secondary IG characters could also be the pool from which the net IG leader will be recruited - this would make the at times immersion-breaking recruitment of generals to IG leaders less frequent (sure, it makes sense that the Armed Forces recruit their leaders from generals, and it is plausible for some other IGs as well. But I'm pretty sure I've seen generals become the leader of the Devout as well).
Furthermore, the game could provide tools for the player to influence who will become the next leader by making the secondary characters appear in a more or less attractive light, either through events or by giving us a mini-version of suppress/bolster interactions just for these secondary IG characters.

This character rework would pave the way for an eventual IG rework, which would allow for factions within IGs.
 
  • 6Like
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
Really enjoy and appreciate the transparency that you folks are providing with these future looking update!

If I could offer some suggestions for future items:

  • Warfare
    • Allow moving generals/admiral between HQs
    • Tie armies/navies to HQ rather than a leader, allowing for named armies and more player control of composition
      • While generals lead an army/navy, the state should still control the composition and size of that army under their control
        • As player, I may chose to give my defensive minded general control of an army largely of conscriptions as I want my regulars to be involved in pushing into new territory along a front
  • Diplomacy
    • Allow for joining a Diplomatic play after it kicks off
      • Maybe gating behind a tech? But this would also help simulate things like the US joining WWI after the start
 
  • 21Like
Reactions:
I think it could be nice if the game allowed for a pool of characters not associated with any IG, just to represent important people in your country (some of which may never become members or lead IGs). With some historical characters, such as Sigmund Freud, it doesn't feel right that they'd be leading an IG. So these could hang around in a pool separate of IGs and intervene in the political process episodically, for example by publicly taking sides in a law debate.

As you say, IGs could be expanded to give 1-3 positions to "secondary" associates of IGs in addition to the leader. The characters from the pool could then upgrade to become associates or supporters of IGs. This line of secondary IG characters could also be the pool from which the net IG leader will be recruited - this would make the at times immersion-breaking recruitment of generals to IG leaders less frequent (sure, it makes sense that the Armed Forces recruit their leaders from generals, and it is plausible for some other IGs as well. But I'm pretty sure I've seen generals become the leader of the Devout as well).
Furthermore, the game could provide tools for the player to influence who will become the next leader by making the secondary characters appear in a more or less attractive light, either through events or by giving us a mini-version of suppress/bolster interactions just for these secondary IG characters.

This character rework would pave the way for an eventual IG rework, which would allow for factions within IGs.
You could have different leaders from different aspects of society as characters that form the IGs. Union Leaders for the TUs, Bishops for the Devout, etc. Make them more than just "politician"! Instead of Generals having an IG they belong to, they could all just have their ideology and be part of the armed forces, and so the AF would lean more or less towards other IGs depending on the makeup of your Generals.
 
  • 5Like
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
Do you have plans to add representations of money supply and inflation/deflation at some point?
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Do you think that the willingness of the AI to go to war over diplomatic plays is in a good spot right now?
In my runs so far, the AI seems a bit stubborn and either just doesn't give in even if it is an unrecognized power facing off against a GP or just calls in like half the other GPs, both is very annoying, especially if I see Britain sitting over there initiating diplomatic plays one after another and no one opposing them whilst if I try then they all jump at the opportunity. Might just be me though, monkey brain is weird sometimes :D
Monkey brain is indeed weird! I have frequent conversations regarding both situations, AI getting involved when it feels weird that they do, and AI not getting involved when they'd be expected to. What this tells me is that we need to do more work visualizing how the AI makes decisions; better predictive tools relating to diplomacy; and more AI balancing based on such displayed information, to get expectations and reality to match up better and contextualize why the AI is making unexpected decisions in the situations where it does. And we do want some unpredictability, I think - if we had a perfectly predictable AI, diplomacy would turn into more of a puzzle game than a strategy game.
 
  • 47Like
  • 10
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions:

Other​

Done:
  • Making it easier to get an overview of your Pops and Pop factors such as Needs, Standard of Living and Radicals/Loyalists
    • Update 1.2 added new overviews for Pop Needs and better explanations for the reasons behind radicals and loyalists
Would it be possible to change this to a list of needs and how they are being met instead of just the summed list of what is being purchase. Some goods satisfy multiple needs to it is not always clear if there is a secondary method to solve the 'x is too expensive' problems short of make more x. (i.e. is might be able to make more y reducing the strain on x from pops).

As a sandbox game where most actions have a reaction elsewhere in the system, there are very few instances in Victoria 3 where you have "no-brainer" types of actions to take. Our rule of thumb is that alerts, that prominently signal a call to action and stick around until you've resolved them, should be irrefutably bad for you and something the player is usually easily able to resolve with a few clicks. For example, an undefended front will cause you to lose territory very quickly, and a severe goods shortage is very likely to hamstring your industry without a net benefit to anyone. Both situations can usually be resolved by sending a General to the front (even if you have to hire a new one) or importing goods / reducing consumption by downsizing, so these qualify as Alerts.

Other types of "alerts" are a lot less severe, might require long-term planning to resolve without knock-on issues, or might even be a desired (though unbalanced) state - say you're paying a lot of money for Man-o-Wars but your Capitalists that run the Shipyards need to be kept in check, you might not want to reduce their earning potential by importing from your neighbors. Exposing this situation under a menu you can access on demand when you have time, and even dismiss items if they don't apply to you, makes more sense than shoving them in your face and demanding you deal with them.

What we're going to look into here is improving what information shows up where and in what form, and ideally giving more control to customize this as well. I don't have any more details to share quite yet though.
I would say the first type you list would be similar to the EU4 red flags, where the second would be more of the yellow and some green.

I feel it would be better to have those secondary concerns visible instead of buried in a list of other concerns. This would be enhanced with the ability to click away alerts that I feel are not currently relevant.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
  • Adding more mechanics for characters and giving the player more reason to care about individual characters in your country:
  • Improving Alerts and the Current Situation widget to provide more useful and actionable information.
Along these lines, it would be nice if, when an IG leader retires, to have an additional notification (ideally in the same alert) telling me who the new person in charge is. Every time leadership of an IG changes, I want to know who the new person in charge is, but to do so I have to look at the retired/dead person and navigate to their IG and from there to their leader.

So, something like "X has retired from political life. The new leader of the Rural Folk is Y."
 
  • 5
  • 2Like
  • 2Love
Reactions:
Could you please consider adding "resource mining rights" as a mechanic?
You mine the resources of a foreign country, and the output goods are put to your market instead of them.
Like in Hearts of Iron, Great Britain controls the Middle East's oil outputs.
This sounds easy but has a very very large number of design gotchas. But rest assured we're aware of the demand for a foreign investment mechanic and are invested in finding a solution. It will not be in the very near future though, due to the complexity.
 
  • 42
  • 23Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Any chance we could get a ledger back in one of the future updates?

I do miss my ledger. Having a sortable way of viewing my pops, production, etc. is very helpful when planning what I want to focus on.
 
  • 5Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Are there any plans to somehow change the dynamics of the battles? I'm talking about a situation where half the time of the battle is fought by a few percent of the starting number of troops.
When the battle is fought by a few percent of the starting number of troops, you're either trying to man a very long front or you might be advancing into very undeveloped terrain. In such situations you are actually better off on average to mobilize a smaller number of troops, so you suffer less attrition and lower materiel cost while trying to wage your campaign. That's intentional, a total war with full mobilization over a small African colony is meant to be a bad move.

That's not to say we won't continue tweaking the battle size setup script where we see a reason to do so, of course.
 
  • 23
  • 13Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Do you have plans to add representations of money supply and inflation/deflation at some point?
"At some point", yes. "Soon", no. It's extremely compelling to me and others in the team, but mostly for econ-nerd reasons rather than it being a feature the game is sorely lacking at this point.
 
  • 37Like
  • 15
  • 2Love
  • 2
Reactions:
One thing that I think is really needed in the peace deal menu, is that 'Liberate Country' needs to highlight the actual borders of the country you wish to liberate.
 
  • 23
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Can we please get IGs approving and disapproving diplomatic plays as well?
Say, Anti-slavery IGs becoming more loyal if we start a diplomatic play against another country so they ban slavery, or IGs who approve free market becoming more loyal if we push to open up another country, or even pacifist IGs becoming more radical if we start diplomatic plays or even Patriotic/Jingoist IGs becoming more loyal if we start diplomatic plays against rivals or pushing for unification plays.
 
  • 12
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Will population growth dynamics get another rebalance?

This small sign mistake in one of mortality trend modifiers was less severe before 1.2 pop rebalance.
This small bug is here since launch which now makes pop almost not die at SoL of 20.

This fix would require birth/death rate rebalance.
Code:
@improving_slope = @[(birthrate_at_delta_cap-min_birthrate-min_mortality-mortality_at_equilibrium)/(pop_growth_sol_delta_cap-pop_growth_sol_equilibrium)]
should be
@improving_slope = @[(birthrate_at_delta_cap-min_birthrate+min_mortality-mortality_at_equilibrium)/(pop_growth_sol_delta_cap-pop_growth_sol_equilibrium)]

+min_mortality would make comment about constant net growth above SoL 20 true.
 
  • 2
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
This all looks great to me! A couple questions though - you explain that “making the ACW more likely and harder to avoid” is now a completed change. I’ve played a couple games past the 1860s in 1.2 and have never seen it break out, and have seen others around here lodge similar complaints. Do you think this just a matter of a small sample size on my part? Or is there still more work to be done here (you mention that “complete” doesn’t necessarily mean “no further changes”).

Second- is there any plan to make going’s on in the rest of the world more apparent to the player? This is one place where I miss the old V2 newspaper system. I’ll look up from my country to find I missed some pretty big global changes and it’s a bit immersion breaking to not be aware of, say, a Franco-British war or the like.

Finally, any plans to make the US presidents more realistic? Regularly seeing leaders in office for 5 straight terms and under the age of 35 is a nitpicky but real annoyance to a us history nerd like me


Excited to see what 1.3 has in store either way!

Edited to add a couple more questions
 
Last edited:
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Anything on allowing me to give allies in war more than 1 wargoal? Currently if I have an ally and declare a war they are automatically called to my side and I have no option to give them anything from the enemy. If they are neutral or lean in one direction I can give them exactly one wargoal in order to sway them, but why can't I sway them with more than one or sway them with one and then give them more because I can't take more infamy and theres more manuevers I can use. Hopefully improved subject interactions include declaring wars to expand my subjects or return territories with claims of friendly nations, for example I often get Greece in my customs union and would love to help them retake some balkan land from the ottomans.
 
  • 7
Reactions: