• 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:
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.
In all my gameplay when you give the vote to the people after some time it is very difficult to go back

There are no events that favor making a dictatorship

As far as I've seen the game doesn't represent the communists very well

There are several more or less radical movements in this system and some quite eccentric.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
In all my gameplay when you give the vote to the people after some time it is very difficult to go back

There are no events that favor making a dictatorship

As far as I've seen the game doesn't represent the communists very well

There are several more or less radical movements in this system and some quite eccentric.
Maybe in my run, some RNG made the leader of the TU become pro-autocracy, and since that was the only path to more Authority I had, I embraced it. Not sure if this always happens, or even if it's common at all, but I quite liked that what started as "by the people, for the people" quickly became "by my friends only".
 
Maybe in my run, some RNG made the leader of the TU become pro-autocracy, and since that was the only path to more Authority I had, I embraced it. Not sure if this always happens, or even if it's common at all, but I quite liked that what started as "by the people, for the people" quickly became "by my friends only".

It was simply RNG since in the middle of the game there are too many events to force radicalism
 
Why can't autocracy government just enact law without debate, and in return they get negative modification on revolution if there's interest groups not in favor of that law.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
I am kind of worried, that these changes will make it even harder to reform "backwards" nations.
Will there be any protection from e.g. landowners trying to bring back crippling laws like serfdom or traditionalism?
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Why can't autocracy government just enact law without debate, and in return they get negative modification on revolution if there's interest groups not in favor of that law.
I don't know why this seems to be an unpopular opinion, I feel that the game doesn't do enough to distinguish between authoritarian and totalitarian states
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I am kind of worried, that these changes will make it even harder to reform "backwards" nations.
Will there be any protection from e.g. landowners trying to bring back crippling laws like serfdom or traditionalism?

It should be a lot harder to reform any nation, and reactionary movements should be pretty common in-game.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
I don't know why this seems to be an unpopular opinion
Because even a totalitarian autocrat needs support from people who think they have more to gain from supporting him than from murdering or isolating him.
 
  • 2
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I am kind of worried, that these changes will make it even harder to reform "backwards" nations.
Will there be any protection from e.g. landowners trying to bring back crippling laws like serfdom or traditionalism?
there shouldn't be. 1.2 made it harder for players to easily get what they want and I hope they stick with this direction.
 
Last edited:
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.
Tbh, my mistake for assuming that pdx forum of all places would recognize my joke, as what it was, a joke, i apologize
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Because even a totalitarian autocrat needs support from people who think they have more to gain from supporting him than from murdering or isolating him.
Then what's the problem? Playing as autocrat you're free to enact laws as you wish but be ready to answer for your actions. Playing as democratic government you have a voting system. It's harder to pass the law but you at least you would know how many people would be angered by this law.

I think that RNG dice rolls themselves are a fundamental problem of law enacting. I can't remember a single law that was enacted by that. TNO Guandong voting system is e somewhat a good representation of how it works. As I see it, You have an initial voter base (seats in executive council) and if you don't have enough votes to pass the law you have to attract more votes by giving some concessions or using your political power. As I see it, when you want to enact law in your country you would get an initial voter base that are pro-law, against law and neutral. That's what we have currently. Then you should put the law on the agenda and try to allign neutrals. You opponents would do the same. Then, the voting day is here and you would get the final results. In that case, the whole process is a pure gameplay mechanic that player can directly affect. if you want to pass the law the majority of voters are against, then you need to weaken them first. If the voter base are equal then the results would depend on how good was your agenda.

It works for autocrat too. You're right, even autocrats need support to safely enact laws. That doesn't mean they can't enact an unpopular vote. The system would work pretty much the same, except there wouldn't be a voting and you can put on your agenda as much as you wish and enact law as fast as you wish. This how it works for Russia, Qing, Latin American countries and so on. As player you would have a choice to enact an unpopular law fast and face the consequences or wait until it would become miore popular.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
You're right, even autocrats need support to safely enact laws.
No, they need support to enact laws at all.

There is a whole edifice of cronies and minions required for the spewings of an autocrat's brain froth to reach the point of being what the game recognizes as an enacted law.
 
No, they need support to enact laws at all.

There is a whole edifice of cronies and minions required for the spewings of an autocrat's brain froth to reach the point of being what the game recognizes as an enacted law.
You're right too, but currently we don't have mechanics to represent the time lag between law being enacted de-jure and law being carried out de-facto.
 
Then what's the problem? Playing as autocrat you're free to enact laws as you wish but be ready to answer for your actions. Playing as democratic government you have a voting system. It's harder to pass the law but you at least you would know how many people would be angered by this law
I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding that causes this debate: you, the player, are not the autocrat. You are the "spirit of the nation". The autocrat is the landowner, industrialist or whatever in the government screen. Chances are, if you're in an autocratic government, all the laws that he wants to pass, are already passed or could pass with not much effort at all. I haven't seen a situation where that's not the case.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding that causes this debate: you, the player, are not the autocrat. You are the "spirit of the nation". The autocrat is the landowner, industrialist or whatever in the government screen. Chances are, if you're in an autocratic government, all the laws that he wants to pass, are already passed or could pass with not much effort at all. I haven't seen a situation where that's not the case.
Think of the brief Chinese Empire that was established in the 1910s as an example. The leader of the Republic of China declared himself emperor and his nation a monarchy out of nowhere, and it was so unpopular that the rest of his country immediately started to fall apart and was overthrown within months. So yes, being able to pass a law unpopular with the elites as an autocrat is realistic, it doesn't mean that it should be without consequences though.

Also the autocrat is the leader of the country, not the interest groups.

 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Think of the brief Chinese Empire that was established in the 1910s as an example. The leader of the Republic of China declared himself emperor and his nation a monarchy out of nowhere, and it was so unpopular that the rest of his country immediately started to fall apart and was overthrown within months. So yes, being able to pass a law unpopular with the elites as an autocrat is realistic, it doesn't mean that it should be without consequences though.

Also the autocrat is the leader of the country, not the interest groups.

"To secure his own power he collaborated with various European powers as well as Japan. Around August 1915, he instructed Yang Du (楊度) et al. to canvass support for a return of the monarchy. On 11 December 1915, an assembly unanimously elected him as Emperor."
.....
"but the Hongxian Emperor was opposed by not only the revolutionaries, but far more importantly by his subordinate military commanders"

This is literally describing the Landlords IG winning the election in a Presidential Republic, passing Monarchy after several months of law enactment, and the subsequent revolution to restore Presidential Republic led by the Armed Forces IG. It's already in the game.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
If there's something I really miss in all this it's just a bit more nuance.

Obviously IGs should have issues they regard as critical or existential, and beyond those there should be issues that they care about which can make them progressively unhappier over time, but there should be a bit more of a distinction between these. Forgive me, I've not played since near launch and don't keep up closely with everything here so I'm very happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but it seems there's no real distinction other than an IG approves of a law change, is neutral, or opposes it? If so, I don't think every change an IG opposes should necessarily be a potential revolution. They should be angrier if it's a more existential issue, or if it's the latest in a long line of unfavourable law changes. If that's already factored in to some degree, then apologies, because this paragraph has largely been a waste!

Either way, if there's one thing I really like in Vic 2's politics system, it's the presence of a degree of pragmatism seen in the passing of laws. I forget the specifics, but in certain circumstances parties are willing to back changes in law they would normally oppose when there is a high rate of radicalism. It's crude, but this simulates two dynamics in the politics - a) typically, mainstream governments that are not pursuing a really locked-in (usually more extreme) agenda simply look to avoid unrest in society at-large, and b) groups are willing to compromise when it looks like the compromise will hurt them less than the alternative (i.e. getting overthrown in a revolution, or losing a subsequent election). And we just don't really have any of that nuance in Vic 3.

Industrialists and capitalists should be willing to stand against any law change that will strip their right to own their factories and businesses, and they should be wholly committed to that and consider unrest to oppose it. But shouldn't they be willing to contemplate certain softer "socialist" policies if they think they can cool down unrest or support for a rival party/IG? If radicalism among the IGs supporting the socialist or communist party/ideology is very high, surely industrialists and capitalists should at least be willing to consider letting through some compromise around perhaps welfare or other state provisions in the hope that it can stave off a revolution that leaves them screwed? As far as I can see, an IG that opposes a non-existential law change will consider revolutionary means to oppose it even if it might make sense to... if not support it, at least tolerate it?

Perhaps an IG should be less interested in achieving their ideal law change through petition when the government is instead maintaining a challenged status quo against a rival, radical opposition? Certainly, it seems to me they should be more forgiving if the government honestly tries and simply fails to achieve a law change as compared to a government that ignores them. Why would an industrialist IG that hasn't achieved its entire wishlist want to leave and give way to, say, an alternative of rural folk and communists? Especially if its capitalist government allies genuinely did try to pass a favourable policy only to see it fail in the face of a radical opposition?

There should be certain exceptions of course - maybe a diehard IG leader really will refuse to budge and slam anything less than the government adhering to their ideal platform even when it's foolish to do so. There's obviously real life examples of the doctrinaire just as much as the pragmatist. But having stuff like that matter more would be a great consequence of having some more nuance in establishing what IGs can and cannot countenance in terms of laws. Having more than just "we believe this is the ideal government and will pursue it at all times at all costs" would add a lot of depth quite quickly. It would certainly feel more like, well, politics!
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions: