• 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 #80 - Law Enactment and Revolution Clock in 1.3

16_9.jpg

Happy Thursday and welcome to the first of several diaries about improvements and changes in Update 1.3! Today we will cover changes made to the process of enacting laws, political machinations by your ruling Interest Groups, and the build-up to revolution.

First off, why are we making changes here? Well, while the core mechanics of law enactment and political movements agitating for legislative change and/or revolution work well and in accordance with the design vision, there are a number of issues that has bothered us and many in the community since release:

  • The feeling of excessive randomness in law enactment mechanics, where you might have only a 5% success chance but could hope for a "critical hit" that wasn't particularly rare, or repeatedly failing and getting stuck when at 80% success chance
  • The risk of getting stuck with "bad rolls" early on in an enactment process leading to repeated frustration until you cancel enactment and start over
  • Exploits related to repeatedly starting/canceling law enactment to prevent revolutions from ever getting off the ground
  • The ability to disarm a revolution by inviting a supporting Interest Group to the government, only to then ignore their desires
  • Interest Groups in government actually having less political agency than those in opposition
  • Revolution buildup not feeling particularly flavorful or engaging as a simple progress bar
  • Several confusing user experiences and tooltips relating to law enactment and revolution

We've tackled these issues with two larger and several smaller features or tweaks.

Law Enactment Changes​

Laws now need to progress through three phases in order to pass, instead of simply having a percentage chance to be enacted once the clock fills up. What is not changing here are the underlying mechanics of Success, Advance, Debate, and Stall chances, which are based on the relative endorsement and opposition of the law from the Interest Groups in your government. However, when the result is a Success, you will progress to the next phase instead of immediately enacting the law. If you then achieve success in the third phase, the law will pass.

To compensate for the additional time requirement, we've increased the pace of the enactment clock - which also means more twists and turns during each law enactment. Previously it was not uncommon that if you had 40% endorsement of a law you want to pass, you might succeed on the very first checkpoint, which makes the whole thing mostly a waiting experience. By requiring a number of successes, we can compensate for the random factor and create more interesting challenges.

DD80_01.png


While this is, in the words of Alex in QA (who originally conceived of this feature), "just three EU4 sieges in a trenchcoat", it solves the problem of excessive randomness and feels a lot better: giving you a clearer sense of progress and increases the stakes of each decision made. Choosing to get a +5% Enactment Chance out of an early event now doesn't just give you a +5% bonus to a single roll, but effectively a +5% bonus to each of the three phases, which is a much bigger deal. You're also much more likely to experience a variety of events before the enactment is concluded.

Events spawned by the enactment process are now categorized in association with the UI element that tracks your progress, and identifies the outcome that spawned it to give you more context. They will also time out automatically (selecting the default option) when the clock fills up, so there's always only one enactment event pending - no more delaying taking action on negative events until the next cycle to try to improve your better outcome!
DD80_02.png

One issue with the current (1.2.x) build is that after dealing with a few negative events you could end up with a net negative enactment chance, a hole you'd have to try to dig your way out of in order to even have a chance to progress. But of course, the lower the enactment chance the lower the chance of getting a positive event, so this often turns into a self-perpetuating cycle of digging a deeper and deeper hole. The "correct" action at this point is to cancel enactment and try again after a cooldown period, but this feels very bad.

To address this, in 1.3 we have introduced a concept of setbacks which can be taken to recover from a situation like this. Each enactment process can take up to three setbacks, but when it has taken its third it will automatically and irrevocably fail. For as long as you have taken less than that, events will permit you to reset your current enactment progress if you've taken too large of a hit, or in some cases trade a setback to turn an negative outcome into a marginally positive one.

When enactment chance drops below zero, the Legislative Failures event will automatically spawn and let you reset back to a clean slate at the cost of a Setback.
DD80_03.png



Many law enactment events have been backfilled with new options that let you take a setback in return for avoiding a more negative repercussion, letting you gamble a bit to try to get your bill passed.
DD80_04.png

However, Stall outcomes can also sometimes generate Setbacks without your input, so be wary of pushing your luck too much!

Even with the extra agency provided by the Setback mechanic, you may find that enacting a certain law is so difficult it's just not worth it. When you cancel enactment in 1.3, you will find that the cooldown has increased to 2 years instead of 1 (and is applied even if you have not yet reached the first checkpoint), but also an entirely new effect: if there is a Political Movement currently agitating for this law to pass, and you cease trying to enact it, the movement's Radicalism will shoot up considerably, in many cases all but guaranteeing they will revolt as a result.

Cancellation confirmation box explaining the impact of your decision. Laws redacted to not spoil the fun for next week's dev diary, but feel free to speculate in the comments!
DD80_05.png

This closes the door on two (unfun) identified exploits: starting to enact a law a movement demands, but canceling it before it succeeds, keeping the movement teetering just on the edge of revolution without giving in to it; and canceling enactment just before the first enactment cycle is up, thus avoiding cooldown and penalties altogether.

But what about the exploit where a revolutionary Interest Group is invited into government, thus removing them from their Political Movement? In one sense, this is working-as-designed; inviting a populist faction to try to execute their politics in a more respectable fashion is a not-infrequently utilized tool for declawing a revolutionary movement. The problem with this in Victoria 3 is that a human player will be in full control of which laws are being enacted, so inviting a group into government doesn't actually give them more power to make change - it only takes away their ability to threaten consequences.

Enter Government Petitions.

Government Petitions​


Petition events commonly appear a few months after a new government has been formed. They can be issued by any of the Interest Groups in government and for any of the law changes they endorse the most.
DD80_06.png


The event produces a Journal Entry that you may pursue if you wish, or ignore at your peril. Passing the desired law will of course have the effect of improving the Interest Group's Approval as usual, but it will also improve your Legitimacy for a long time, as you're showing responsive governance. On the other hand, if you don't pass the law on time, or by some other means disenfranchise the petitioning Interest Group, they will become very disappointed with you.
DD80_07.png

In effect, this creates a kind of "government agenda" that the player is rewarded for pursuing and penalized for ignoring, further incentivizing building a government constellation of groups whose politics you actually want.

For the modders out there, Government Petitions are implemented entirely in script, and can serve as a good example and pattern for Journal Entries that can be more dynamic and responsive to circumstances.

Finally, what happens when things go sideways and your population demands something you can't (or won't) give them? In the current live build, a Political Movement with high Radicalism will become Revolutionary, triggering a countdown until they rise up against you, taking one or several of your states with them. In 1.3, these fundamentals remain but the countdown has changed drastically.

Revolution Clock​

When a Political Movement becomes Revolutionary, a clock will start ticking. Similar to the enactment clock, every time it fills up the Revolution meter will (usually) increase, with a revolution event triggering alongside it. The event frequently provides some options for how to deal with the revolution. All in all there are 40 such new events in 1.3, many of them contextually triggered based on who is supporting the revolution, what law is currently being enacted, and so on.

DD80_08.gif


With the support of the Rural Folk and a Political Movement led by the Intelligentsia and Trade Unions (all of them individually weak) we're attempting to ban slavery in early game Afghanistan. The reaction from the Landowners was quite severe. Not only did they leave the government in protest (causing Legitimacy to drop to a level where we cannot make progress on the law enactment), but they also started their own movement to preserve Debt Slavery and, on account of their considerable strength, went straight into plotting a revolution against their former Rural Folk co-rulers.
DD80_09.png


On the new Political Movement panel, we can get a good overview of where the support is actually coming from and why they are as strong and radical as they are.
DD80_10.png

On the Supporting Pops tab in the same panel, you can find out exactly who is providing the most support and radicalism to the Movement. Perhaps you could temper some of these strong feelings by increasing dividends in their industries or providing some targeted reduction in prices of certain luxury goods?
DD80_11.png


The Revolution Clock events usually adjust the revolutionary progression up or down, but can also apply other conditions, some which may upset your country's political balance for quite some time. This can of course also impact revolutionary progression indirectly, as Clout heavily impacts the conditions of the movement.
DD80_12.png


Revolutionary movements have also been given their own animated map marker, to make it clearer where the revolution is brewing and what territory is likely to go along with it when it erupts. And yes, once again I've had to redact part of the UI to not spoil some surprises we have in store for you!
DD80_13.png


That's all for today! As you can see we're putting a lot of focus on making internal politics more dynamic and fun to play with in Update 1.3, and there's much more to come in subsequent dev diaries. Next week Victoria will present new laws we have introduced in the mix, to fill some late-game gaps and enable new early- and mid-game conflicts between your political factions!
 
  • 184Like
  • 81Love
  • 8
  • 8
  • 7
Reactions:
Autocrats should pursue their interests, not just an event to show up randomly, for a 20% additional chance of getting a law approved (not 100%), that gives a negative modifier for the intelligentsia, for no reason. Do you think that in a autocratic government, every time the autocrat does something, the intellectuals have to be against it? To get laws approved in a non-democratic society does the autocrat need to beg? Does it need to ask kindly and humbly about their feelings?

I believe not.
They are more likely to be something between "My way or the highway" and
"If I don't get this law approved until next month, heads will start to roll".

As history repeatedly shows what happens is the advisors to the autocrat TELL the autocrat they passed the thing but nobody in the country actually follows (or possibly even knows about) the new decree. (and the constant lying is what is annoying to the intelligentsia)

Neither autocrats nor democracies have any limits on how the leader declares their desire. BOTH autocrats and democracies have limits on the declaration actually getting implemented.

Now autocrats might have a greater clout, a larger IG and can push things ahead 'personally' - but all those things are represented in Vic3. Maybe they can be boosted a bit but the system as it currently exists seems more historic than your viewpoint.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
biggest problem of political ssytem was the movements being uninteractive and boring, not all this. While a welcomed change, this won't improve the situation much imo
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
There is something that I still don't get, why the Autocracy law always gives power to Aristocrats?
In a Autocratic Theocracy it should empower Clergymen.
In a Communist Autocracy there are no Aristocrats to empower, so I guess the Bureaucrats.
In a Fascist Autocracy it should empower the Capitalists.
you came very close to realizing a core flaw about IGs: why isn't the government itself part of an IG? There should be a "bureaucracy" IG that represents the will of the state itself, in order to differentiate between "autocracies" that are dominated by Landowners or Capitalists and genuinely totalitarian states where the government holds all power (communism and fascism).

I was thinking there could be a system where you'd have a "core" IG that is always apart of your government no matter what and can't be pushed out unless you change your laws. For most autocratic and democratic states, this would be the "bureaucracy" IG, for monarchies it could be the landowners, for theocracies it could be the devout, etc etc.
 
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
why isn't the government itself part of an IG?
Because IGs represent class self-interest, and the government's self-interest becomes very quickly undefined in game terms. You decide the government's interests. IGs are a tool to determine who the state serves; the state cannot serve itself. It's only a tool to enact the will of the people wielding it. You're proposing that it wield itself.

Like, consider any category of law. Is there a reason why a hypothetical bureaucracy IG should not support each law option equally? Since the state wants it, the bureaucracy as an interest group would support it, since the bureaucracy's self interest is the support of state power, and you as a player decide what constitutes state power. They would support every possible law change. It's bad gameplay that arises from a fundamental misunderstanding of what an IG is or how IGs and the state relate to each other. The state is a mechanism for implementing laws that decide what type of people - that is, what IG - are in charge of society. The state itself is not a valid answer to that question. It has no inherent interests or desires.

The bureaucracy makes much more sense as a job that provides outsized effect on clout relative to its wealth to the existing IGs, due to its employees' ability to directly help or harm the enactment of laws.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
Is there a reason why a hypothetical bureaucracy IG should not support each law option equally?
Cynically, the bureaucracy IG should support law options that expand the bureaucracy to meet the growing needs of the bureaucracy.
 
  • 5Love
  • 4Like
Reactions:
As history repeatedly shows what happens is the advisors to the autocrat TELL the autocrat they passed the thing but nobody in the country actually follows (or possibly even knows about) the new decree. (and the constant lying is what is annoying to the intelligentsia)

Neither autocrats nor democracies have any limits on how the leader declares their desire. BOTH autocrats and democracies have limits on the declaration actually getting implemented.

Now autocrats might have a greater clout, a larger IG and can push things ahead 'personally' - but all those things are represented in Vic3. Maybe they can be boosted a bit but the system as it currently exists seems more historic than your viewpoint.
I see, the power of an autocrat can vary greatly.
From a Banana Republic to a Tsarist Autocracy, there is a big difference.
Tsarist Autocracy has more institutions, where the autocrat delegates his power, the Imperial Council, the Imperial Duma, the Council of Ministers, the Senate.
Institutions will dilute the autocrat power.

Well, I wish there was institutions in the game (as being a explicit mechanic).
So we could have Autocratic nation A with 1 institution with 100% autocrat power, and a Autocratic nation B with 10 institutions with 10% autocrat power.
The difference between a democratic and an autocratic institution is how you put people there.

Am I in the right path now?
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Because IGs represent class self-interest, and the government's self-interest becomes very quickly undefined in game terms. You decide the government's interests. IGs are a tool to determine who the state serves; the state cannot serve itself. It's only a tool to enact the will of the people wielding it. You're proposing that it wield itself.
You aren't necessarily playing the government itself, you are playing the "spirit of the nation". So yes, making the bureaucracy distinct from the player's agency is very plausible and realistic. If the player truly did represent the will of every single aspect of the government, how can the game model countries such as the Qing dynasty and the Soviet Union, which declined largely due to corruption within the government? Given your own logic, any government corruption should just be handwaved away by the player deciding "ok, time to modernize now!", and nobody within the government would try to stop them, because according to you government is just a "tool to enact the will of the people". There's no reason why an elite within the government should have less agency than an elite belonging to the industrialists or landowners or whatever. The government is made up of individuals just like any other organization, and individuals have their own goals and motives.
Like, consider any category of law. Is there a reason why a hypothetical bureaucracy IG should not support each law option equally? Since the state wants it, the bureaucracy as an interest group would support it, since the bureaucracy's self interest is the support of state power, and you as a player decide what constitutes state power. They would support every possible law change. It's bad gameplay that arises from a fundamental misunderstanding of what an IG is or how IGs and the state relate to each other.
The bureaucracy would support whatever laws that centralize the states power, So it would support non-traditional economic systems, laws that increase taxation, public education and other services, etc.
The state is a mechanism for implementing laws that decide what type of people - that is, what IG - are in charge of society. The state itself is not a valid answer to that question. It has no inherent interests or desires.
you say repeatedly that the state has no inherent interests or desires, yet you do nothing to elaborate or justify this claim.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Is there any possibility that how revolutions function will change dependent on the interest group backing it? For instance, landowners would probably have a difficult time doing a full-scale popular revolution, instead favouring smaller and more targeted military coups.

At the moment, they function identically, which is a little bit odd.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Because IGs represent class self-interest, and the government's self-interest becomes very quickly undefined in game terms. You decide the government's interests. IGs are a tool to determine who the state serves; the state cannot serve itself. It's only a tool to enact the will of the people wielding it. You're proposing that it wield itself.
There are a couple of books talking the current Spanish state of affairs (pun not intended) where the author does talk how a good bunch of the issues we've had in the mid 2010's have been because of an entrenched and self-serving bureaucratic arm. Police people, judges and some mid-scope politicians working just to ensure the state survives and stays the same, no matter who's in power and what improvements they want to make. We've had this year a police protest when we tried (fruitlessly) to revoke a lot of features that made them untouchable, from filing misdemeanors for "insulting a law enforcer" (which ends up being a catchall for the more corrupt individuals) to their testimony, even when they're the defendant or the accusation, being nanometers off being the biggest design of evidence – to the point where a policeperson got to force a congressman to have their Congress seat being revoked, even when the policeman fumbled his statement and no other evidence pointed to that, through a small fine that a judge deemed to require a cancellation of their Congress right.

I mean, there IS a semblance of truth in there. The devil is in the details, but it's not like it doesn't happen.
you came very close to realizing a core flaw about IGs: why isn't the government itself part of an IG? There should be a "bureaucracy" IG that represents the will of the state itself, in order to differentiate between "autocracies" that are dominated by Landowners or Capitalists and genuinely totalitarian states where the government holds all power (communism and fascism).
The fact is that there's a semblance of this thing already being modelled: You can change the way the Bureaucracy is represented, from Hereditary Bureaucrats to Elected Bureaucrats. Also, some other Laws, mainly in the Power Structure branch but also in others, do emulate (or strive to, or set the seeds for) the more complex political designs of your country. All the "IG Political Strenght", while not actually working towards actually modelling the full extent of a authoritarian regime or a fully democratic one, does try to show who has the power to do stuff, and working against it is one of the struggles of the game.

Sure, we could make something where the Bureaucracy has its own mini-IG partition, where if the bureaucratic structure doesn't want a law to pass they can delay it, and have that structure slowly shape with times, depending on how their Bureaucracy/Army/Police laws define them, but I think the current system is good enough. We just need more flavour events that make each Law interact with the rest of it. And that's just something that will be fleshed out with time.

Also, there's the nearest to a Communist (or what people think Communism is) law. Again, it's just a thing of roleplaying and a thing of fleshing out the events such options conceive. And Autocracy, as defined, is where:
The Head of State's power is absolute and they are held accountable to no earthly power.
The nearest thing to a Fascist regime would, most likely, be a Presidential Republic governance principle with an Autocratic distribution of power. Which is what, iirc, the Nazi Germany had in the end. Beyond the fact that Aristocrats do get strength, whereas the Petite bourgeoisie is the one that usually comes when the pop is employed in Urban Facilities or the Government (as per the wiki).

As always, it all could be better, but we always end up pushing ourselves to the risk of making the game too complex to follow or so complex that the median computers cannot run it well.
 
You could've at least redacted the icon for those new set of laws which are obviously land laws/land reforms which also means that you prolly are going to introduce some sort of land-ownership mechanics

Update: (lol) yup frens, this was supposed to be funny
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Cynically, the bureaucracy IG should support law options that expand the bureaucracy to meet the growing needs of the bureaucracy.
Well, I was just going to say that the bureaucracy IG should support changing any law to any just for the sake of changing, but this is close enough.
 
You could've at least redacted the icon for those new set of laws which are obviously land laws/land reforms which also means that you prolly are going to introduce some sort of land-ownership mechanic
Why should they have done that? It is a quite traditional approach to leave some clues even in redacted screenshots to reward spectators paying attention to the details and spark discussion and anticipation. Yes, it is teasing and may not be 100%ly consistent in regard to "redacting" stuff - but I like it and wouldn't like it to be gone.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
When I read this sentence, I was hoping for an interesting take on how this is the wrong way to address the issues with the government system (it has some), with suggestions for what might be better.

I was disappointed to find nothing more than a complaint about some nebulous "lack of flavour".

Vicky 3 is the most simulationist of the current generation of Paradox GSGs. "Unique flavour" cannot compensate for bad systems, because bad systems degrade gameplay everywhere, and unique flavour only improves gameplay in the places that have some.

Also, "a least a handful of nations" already have some unique flavour. The Ottomans and the USA spring immediately to mind.

(In this post, I am not taking any specific stance on the quality of any existing or proposed system in Vicky 3; in particular I am neither endorsing nor objecting to the material described in this dev diary.)

Finally, this dev diary is about changes in a free patch. The current design principle at Paradox is that improvements to core systems have to go in free patches, which implies that unique flavour has to mostly go in paid DLCs (because DLC purchases are what provide the business case for continuing to develop the game).
First of all, I am bewildered that you defend the DLC-policy. The game costs 50 Euros. One might expect a complete game at that price tag. Thus those generous "free" patches feel like insult to injury.

I also fail to see the quality of a simulation, when you beat the AI of Britain, France etc. with Sweden like no problem at all at the first go. Swedish GDP is x times as large as that of any Victorian super power without breaking much of a sweat. Playing Mexico and turning the US into pulp? No problem, either. And that's a flavor problem: There should be specific differences/challenges in how you play a nation. The way it is now, it's always the same: You either scramble for Africa and win easily, or you selfimpose restrictions by not colonizing and watch your endless construction queue.

As for the nebolous lack of flavor: After posting my review I actually got curious and started to look up the modding section on Steam. Miraculously "Victorian Flavor Mod" manages for free, what Paradox fails to deliver. Then there is "Anbeeld's revision of AI", which, another miracle, makes the AI competitive all of a sudden. Add "State Transfer Tool" and you have another issue solved - again by a modder, not Paradox.

So, long story short: Using mods makes the game worth its while. But I am really baffled that it takes a multiple voluntary, free coding effort to make a game worth its price tag.
 
  • 10
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
This looks like an amazing change! Especially looking at how wacky sometimes the reform-passing works - I once had a 5% chance being passed instantly, while I went another time from a 75% chance subsequently down 4 times by -15%.

Looking forward what other changes will be made in this patch, it starts promising already!
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Something new: can you program (or, if it exists, tell me) a command, with witch you can move pops in dependence of the culture? My usecase would be, that i would like to split states and move the population in the new parts.
 
Something new: can you program (or, if it exists, tell me) a command, with witch you can move pops in dependence of the culture? My usecase would be, that i would like to split states and move the population in the new parts.
Code:
            # in "from scope (state, country)"
            random_scope_pop = {
                limit = {
                    culture = {
                        # culture filter in {} or just name with cul: scope without {}
                    }
                }
                # where to (country with tag EVE, for example)
                c:EVE = {
                    random_scope_state = {
                        save_temporary_scope_as = migrastate_eve
                    }
                }
                move_pop = scope:migrastate_eve
            }
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Will the system continue to be generic?

Understand that the Tsar or the Shogun don't pass law the way Americans do

Revolutions need weapons, it's no use 80% of the group of intellectuals want a revolution if the weapons are safe in barracks

The military group should be much more relevant if access to weapons is restricted
 
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Another point, communist governments have much more autocratic tendencies than by vote

I see that by following the communist routes the game takes you to the fairy tale where everyone is happy and well

When in real life these groups tended to become radicalized and concentrate power when they actually came to power.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Another point, communist governments have much more autocratic tendencies than by vote

I see that by following the communist routes the game takes you to the fairy tale where everyone is happy and well

When in real life these groups tended to become radicalized and concentrate power when they actually came to power.
On my Anarchy on the UK run, I ended up in a situation in which my Trade Union government supported the change to Autocracy, after having achieved an Anarchist Council Republic. I made the switch because I needed the extra Authority points. I was then pretty much locked into the laws that TU supported, and had very little chance of switching to anything else for the remainder of the game. Kind of a sad state, but I think the game represented how communist dictatorships seize power quite well.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions: