• 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 #81 - New Laws in 1.3

16_9.jpg

Hello. This is Victoria, also known as Pacifica, and today we will be going over the new laws added in 1.3.

By and large, these laws exist to grant an experience that allows for more “modern” forms of states, to represent the changing ideologies of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and to represent some of the most contentious and important issues of the period - land reform, anti-clericalism, and more modernised systems of governance.

DD81_01.png

Land Reform​


One of the most important political issues within modernising nations was the matter of land reform. Whilst most European nations, by 1836, had abolished formal serfdom, they often still had tenant farming systems which gave landlords an immense amount of power over the peasantry. Within the period of Victoria 3, many political movements throughout developing nations explicitly sought to handle the issue of landlord power even after serfdom was formally abolished.

Under the new Land Reform law category, production methods pertaining to the rural economy have been decoupled from the Economic System law, instead being folded into this category. The ownership production methods available for farms and plantations will be determined through the player’s Land Reform laws.

Previously, the distinction between the system of serfdom and non-serfdom was extremely non-granular. Once serfdom was abolished, the player could safely ignore the issue of land reform for the entirety of the game, only touching this law category again if they wished to implement workers’ protections. With the new Land Reform law category, the issue of who owns land has been separated from the rights of workers, allowing for increased choice within both categories, and options for interesting political setups, such as a highly laissez-faire republic with a modern commercialised agriculture law and a total lack of workers’ rights, or a paternalistic monarchy that maintains serfdom, but considers protections for labourers to be an innate component of its social contract.

DD81_02.png

The new Land Reform laws represent a variety of land ownership schema, all of which play an important role in affecting the political strength of groups in your nation. Whilst Serfdom and Tenant Farmers greatly benefit the traditional landowning elites, the new Homesteading law both provides a base benefit to the political strength of the Rural Folk, and unlocks the new Homesteading production method, which cuts the proportion of Aristocrats in farms, whilst increasing the amount of Farmer jobs.

Pictured: A wheat farm in Russia with Serfdom active, versus a wheat farm in the USA with Homesteading active. The USA’s starting Homesteading law empowers the Rural Folk in the North, whilst the Southern plantations remain dominated by the Landowners.

DD81_03.png

Commercialised and Collectivised Agriculture, respectively, represent more “modern” systems of industrial agriculture, with commercialised agriculture treating land as private property and farming as a business like any other, unlocking the Publicly Traded production method. Collectivised agriculture, on the other hand, organises the land into plots worked by agricultural collectives. These collectives can either be owned by the workers themselves, or owned directly by the state, unlocking both the Workers’ Cooperative and Government Run production methods.

DD81_04.png

As laws that greatly affect the balance of power within nations, land reform is prone to sparking very contentious debate amongst the populace, as well as fierce resistance from those that have interests in the current system - but the opportunity granted to emerging classes by the prospect of land reform will serve as a boon to the player’s efforts to enact them.

DD81_05.png


DD81_06.png

State Atheism​


Many states within the time frame of Victoria 3 had politics that were dominated by differing attitudes towards religion. Nations such as Mexico, the Spanish Republic, and the socialist states of the early 20th century all practised strong anti-clerical politics, seeking to minimise the political influence of traditional religious institutions within society. These anti-religious policies will be modeled in 1.3 with the new State Atheism law, and with it, the new Atheist “religion”.

DD81_07.png

State Atheism is the ultimate means to reduce the power of the Devout within a nation, banning religion from public life and making all religions discriminated against. Nations with State Atheism will gain a new Atheist state religion to replace their previous one, and enactment will grant a small group of Atheist pops in your nation.

Pictured: Whilst Mexico’s policy may be State Atheism, Catholics still make up a supermajority of the nation - it has a long way to go to truly eradicate religion from public life.

DD81_08.png

Whilst this is an immensely effective way of reducing the power of religious institutions within the state, State Atheism will create a massive group of discriminated pops, which will increase turmoil through the nation. With this law, it will be ever more important to both focus on keeping standard of living high, and prioritising national values to quash the remnants of religion within your country.

State Atheism will generally be backed by Nihilists, Communists, and other similar ideologies. The process of enacting State Atheism will ignite conflicts between secular and religious society - but it will also open new opportunities for social experimentation, as traditional institutions are rendered marginalised.

DD81_09.png


DD81_10.png

Technocracy and Single-Party States​


The final two laws added in 1.3 are the Technocracy and Single-Party State laws, both representing more modern distributions of power that were either implemented or theorised about during the tail end of our time period. Both of these laws grant significant Authority, with Single-Party State granting the highest flat bonus to Authority in the game.

DD81_11.png

The new Single-Party State law is intended as a late-game replacement to the Autocracy and Oligarchy laws, designed to fit into the era of mass politics and the party-state. Once Single-Party State is enacted, either the ruler’s IG’s political party will become the sole political party in the nation, or a new political party involving the ruler’s IG will form. Elections will be held every four years as normal, with the single legal party always getting 100% of the vote.


Pictured: The modern face of the Empire of Japan, ruled by the firm hand of the Taisei Yokusankai.

DD81_12.png

Under a monarchial single party state, the head of state will be hereditary as normal, but under another system, whenever the head of state dies or otherwise changes, a new leader will be chosen from the interest groups within the party. A single-party state does permit including non-party interest groups - but they will come at a substantial hit to legitimacy.

Enacting a single-party state will enrage those interest groups not contained within the party - but it will allow a unique political situation where both more “authoritarian” laws like Command Economy and Collectivised Agriculture, and more “democratic” laws such as Women’s Suffrage and Elected Bureaucrats are available.

Pictured: An enactment event that can arise, if the idea of a single-party state is already popular in your country… and one that can arise if the people are not so thrilled about it.

DD81_13.png


DD81_14.png


Pictured: A closer look at the Regime. I love the Regime.

DD81_15.png

Meanwhile, a Technocracy represents rule by the trained and educated, in accordance with the theories of figures such as Henri de Saint-Simon and Howard Scott. The tendencies that technocracy draws from are myriad, but all desire a state primarily ruled by technical experts. A technocratic state will tend to be supported more by the Intelligentsia and Industrialists, and provides benefits to the political strength of the educated class, from academics to officers. Technocracies will dispense with the inefficient and unenlightened notion of “democracy” altogether, removing political parties, cancelling elections, and ruling in a fashion similar to Autocracies, Anarchies, and Oligarchies.

DD81_16.png

Technocracy can be combined with every set of governance principles in the game [although such combinations may be quite unstable], meaning that both the Platonic ideal of enlightened governance, and the grand dreams of true Vperedist patriots can be realised under this law.

DD81_17.png

A Technocracy will be greatly beneficial for those that wish to enshrine the rule of the Industrialists and Intelligentsia without worrying about elections - and it, as well, permits the Command Economy law, allowing for a highly centralised, streamlined, and optimised economy under the auspices of stone-faced men in stately grey suits.

DD81_18.png

Industry Banned​


As the final law we will be visiting, we have precisely the opposite of Technocracy, and one of the most drastic changes in playstyle in Victoria 3 - Industry Banned.

DD81_19.png

The Industry Banned law represents the most radical elements of opposition to the industrialisation of the Victorian Era. Under this law, all heavy industry in your nation - steel mills, motor industries, chemical plants, and more - will be destroyed, and cannot be replaced until the law is replaced. Furthermore, this law forbids all automation technologies for the industries that remain, mandating the economy remain both small-scale and labour intensive. Technology spread and research speed will be sharply reduced, allowing your nation to remain in a pristine pastoral state, unblemished by things such as smog, labour-saving technology, or modern medicine.

Pictured: The machines may threaten to overthrow us, but there is one thing they lack - the unbreakable and universal concordat of Humanity.

DD81_20.png

Of course, passing this law will be immensely contentious. Any group that has an opinion on the economic system will usually have a low opinion of abolishing the means of production entirely. There are, of course, some proponents of this law that may arise, however - and, under a sufficiently cruel and alienating system, some otherwise reasonable people may see putting an end to industry itself as desirable to the status quo.

DD81_21.png

Industry Banned will enormously empower the Rural Folk, and through disabling heavy industry, will also harm the influence of the Industrialists, and boost the Landowners. By combining Homesteading and Industry Banned, one can acquire a +75% bonus to the clout of the Rural Folk - creating the rural, idyllic realm within which power lies primarily with smallholding settlers.

As you can see, we are putting significant effort into making both internal politics and ideological variation more interesting and flavourful in 1.3, as well as creating additional laws for both more exotic late game situations and critically important political issues that defined the time.

Also, revolutions now always adopt the most desired governance principles of their most powerful IG. You won’t be seeing any more radical or communist revolutions with monarchs at their heads.

Pictured: One example of a revolutionary government against a monarchy, composed mostly of people who are ambivalent on the question of monarchism versus republicanism.

DD81_22.png

That is all, and we will see you next week.
 
  • 145Love
  • 114Like
  • 12
  • 9
  • 7
  • 2Haha
Reactions:
@PDX_Pacifica

Would be a bit strange to have the leader of an IG be a luddite when most people wouldn’t be this radical to support such a leader guiding them. This would be a reason to add several politicians to IG’s and have them struggle for power over the ideas the IG and eventually political party supports. This way a luddite politician from the Rural Folk IG can eventually take over the group and make his radical ideas reach the mainstream.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't think there was a 'Cybernetic State' in the Victorian Period. I hope I can turn that off. Similar to how we can turn off wacky formable nations.
Cybernetic at the time meant different things. It was more of an idea about the system that combines control over men and machines working together. In that sense, a technocratic intelligence/labor movement government is a cybernetic state because it seeks to create a society where men and machines are working together via principles of logic and order.

While in theory, we had no such goverment IRL, there were many movements

The Soviet Union had one in the 50s but was always cut due to dogmatics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics_in_the_Soviet_Union

But even before that, we had thinkers like Alexander Bogdanov that had similar beliefs but never came to power.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Bogdanov
Even some mid-19-century thinkers of utopian socialist type had the same beliefs but under a bit different names

So when a player somehow mixes council republic and technocratic goverment, it whould be just logical to call it that way. Other possible name whould at best be called techno-socialist republic or maybe Vpereist socialism, but non of them are official names as thouse of cybernetical state, which at least has its own real definition
 
  • 7Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I would like to request laws determining government centralization, allowing for confederations, federations, and unitary states, as well as different events and responses to law enactments depending on which one you have.
I feel like it might make a good DLC, because after all it's something we will eventually get and not everything will be a free feature, but this is something that could add a lot of interesting flavour and separate mechanics, but wouldn't make the game without it feel too lacking. And tbh a large, detailed DLC, that really gets it right, would maybe be better, than a smaller free feature implementation.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Ehhh... I'm not sure I like the Industry Banned. There's no reason for anyone to take it, except for "let's break stuff on purpose".
it's sort of the meme version of luddites not the historical.

It would make sense for isolationist/preindustrial, many nations tried to stop foreign influence through banning foreign technologies? but something already covered by the Agarian law in game fits better for most of the anti-industrial movements, it wasn't no factories but compensation, no gov. funding supporting rich industrialists when it could go to X, communal/state ownership or factories and etc. Machine breaking was about protesting lack of compensation and who owned the factories, not the technology. Even the luddites wanted factories, they just wanted pensions for anyone put out of work by them.
The only example I can imagine is Pol Pot which was, kind of a unique case not a rule.

Espec. when the game doesn't include the major late game movements like agarian syndicalist, corporatist, etc anti-industrialist return to pastoralism movements that you know, liked factories just not privately owned for profit factories but smaller communal owned or larger state owned ones.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Not too long ago I mentioned State Atheism as a possible feature, so it's nice to see it in the game. Still I think it's a bit weirdly implemented. Firstly atheist pops being strictly atheist and discriminated by everyone (or discriminating everyone) is a tad odd. It might however be a problem of discrimination mechanics, rather than of the law itself. Like I think it should reduce political power of all religious pops, but not equally and not treat them as totally discriminated.

What's more, with how pops on high literacy stop supporting Devout IG, I think there should be cases where they turn atheist without atheism state "religion". Especially under Total Separation, but possibly even under Freedom of Consciousness some of the urban, highly educated pops should become atheist. That instead of "passing this law auto-converts part of population" it should feel more organic.

Lastly, and that's very important, culture and religion of pops needs to influence their political views. When a law disenfranchises a large portion of the population, they should create a movement for preserving current one, and nations with small minority governments should see common movements for expanding rights, instead of 99% of the population can't vote, but unless the Intelligentsia supporting part of 1% decides to advocate for it, there is no movement whatsever.
 
  • 5Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Once Single-Party State is enacted, either the ruler’s IG’s political party will become the sole political party in the nation, or a new political party involving the ruler’s IG will form.
So how will this work when a proponent of this law is in the opposition? Will the fascists in the opposition support the Single-Party State law when socialists are in power? This is also my problem already with "Autocracy", "Oligarchy", "Outlawed Dissent" and "Secret Police", that they don't make sense when a proponent of these laws is in the opposition being happy while their ideological enemies in the government are enacting them.
Elections will be held every four years as normal, with the single legal party always getting 100% of the vote.
I feel the notifications about these elections will get annoying really quick.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
With the mechanics of an IG joining a party, there's a decent chance that, in every election, interest groups may join and leave the party depending on their leader.

For example, under normal circumstances the Rural Folk may join the Communist Party unless their leader has an ideology which disqualifies them from it (ie. Fascist or Royalist).
 
With the mechanics of an IG joining a party, there's a decent chance that, in every election, interest groups may join and leave the party depending on their leader.

For example, under normal circumstances the Rural Folk may join the Communist Party unless their leader has an ideology which disqualifies them from it (ie. Fascist or Royalist).
Don't know if this is a reply to my post, but I meant: if a fascist IG is in the opposition, will it be happy when the leftist government installs a single party state?
 
single party democratic elections, still change things. IF you're democratic and single party, elections should still have a chance of changing which IG leads the party or even party IG make-up or something to make them representive?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
single party democratic elections, still change things. IF you're democratic and single party, elections should still have a chance of changing which IG leads the party or even party IG make-up or something to make them representive?
I wish 'clout' determined that instead, it doesn't make sense that a one party state would use fair elections to determine who would lead. Then they are just a democracy, with an opposition, etc.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
The new Land Reform laws represent a variety of land ownership schema, all of which play an important role in affecting the political strength of groups in your nation. Whilst Serfdom and Tenant Farmers greatly benefit the traditional landowning elites, the new Homesteading law both provides a base benefit to the political strength of the Rural Folk, and unlocks the new Homesteading production method, which cuts the proportion of Aristocrats in farms, whilst increasing the amount of Farmer jobs.

Commercialised and Collectivised Agriculture, respectively, represent more “modern” systems of industrial agriculture, with commercialised agriculture treating land as private property and farming as a business like any other, unlocking the Publicly Traded production method. Collectivised agriculture, on the other hand, organises the land into plots worked by agricultural collectives. These collectives can either be owned by the workers themselves, or owned directly by the state, unlocking both the Workers’ Cooperative and Government Run production methods.
I love this new category of laws, it was definitely one of the most important political issues of the time that was previously not reflected as a law. I also like how it gates changing the ownership methods of agricultural buildings, which currently is a way too convenient tool of lowering aristocratic political power once the tech is available.

But I think the way these laws are designed right now is too narrow in focus on just the ownership aspect.

Most importantly it should also impact arable land. A major challenge for states with more feudal modes of land ownership (serfdom and tenantship) was that land was very inefficiently distributed into small plots, where even individual owners would hold small parcels of land spread around the area that were completely disconnected. This is a generational consequence of this land ownership generally being inherited down the family line (for nobles and smallholders alike) and getting fractured every time an inheritance is split.

Both commercialized and collectivized agriculture were seen as solutions to this problem: either capitalists or the state would be able to buy off these small plots and consolidate it into much larger plots that operate more efficiently. This could be represented either by:
  • Commercialized and collectivized agriculture increase arable land
  • Serfdom and Tenant Farmers increase arable land used by each agricultural building
  • Commercialized and collectivized agriculture increase agricultural throughput
Another neat law effect would be if Homesteading increased the immigration attraction from arable land. It makes sense on its own terms - people are more likely to migrate where there is land when they can expect to actually own it themselves and reap the benefits, instead of toiling for a noble/capitalist landlord. It would also represent the USA better more explicitly because they are both a historical example of this law being in effect and the intended beneficiary from this kind of immigration.

Lastly I would like to suggest adding another law named something like Common Lands. Meaning not collectivized agriculture in the modern socialist sense but traditional modes of agriculture where land is shared by a local community. With the current set of laws there isn't really a law for societies that neither had serfdom nor are advanced enough yet for more modern landownership modes based on property relations. In my opinion it should:
  • Include farmers in the ownership shares - but not to the extent that Homesteading does
  • Reduce arable land by 50% (or double arable land required by agricultural buildings if that is mechanically more desirable) and increase the throughput and employment of subsistence buildings by 100%
Rural Folk (or anyone with the Agrarian ideology) would support this law but still prefer Homesteading over it. Landowners, Industrialists and Labour Unions each would want to move away from it asap to their more preferable laws.

The way the law is designed means that the number of people in subsistence farming remains the same, while the overall land available for agricultural buildings is severely limited. The player is therefore incentivised to move away from it asap, modeling the historical homesteading process.

Many states within the time frame of Victoria 3 had politics that were dominated by differing attitudes towards religion. Nations such as Mexico, the Spanish Republic, and the socialist states of the early 20th century all practised strong anti-clerical politics, seeking to minimise the political influence of traditional religious institutions within society. These anti-religious policies will be modeled in 1.3 with the new State Atheism law, and with it, the new Atheist “religion”.
State Atheism is the ultimate means to reduce the power of the Devout within a nation, banning religion from public life and making all religions discriminated against. Nations with State Atheism will gain a new Atheist state religion to replace their previous one, and enactment will grant a small group of Atheist pops in your nation.
Just to clarify, is this law mostly intended for roleplaying purposes?

The way it looks like right now, there seems to be little benefit to adopting State Atheism - it has all the drawbacks of a State Religion except worse because the population base that is accepted would be much lower. At the state of the game where you can adopt this (both from a tech and political perspective) the Devout are usually either negligible or fully marginalized anyway, so that isn't much of an incentive.

I think it should at least come with something similar to what Technocracy has - increased political power for academics, for example.

Also, revolutions now always adopt the most desired governance principles of their most powerful IG. You won’t be seeing any more radical or communist revolutions with monarchs at their heads.
That's great, but any comment on revolutions implementing their agenda on victory in general?

Currently even when revolutions win there seems to be almost no change to their nation's laws, even though the IGs on the side of the successful revolution desire many changes to the existing laws.

I recently proposed that a successful revolution should spawn a few temporary political movements with high support and radicalism based on the desires of the victorious IGs (revolutionary or counter-revolutionary) - that would be a nice way to handle it both for the player and the AI.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2Love
  • 2
Reactions:
I wish 'clout' determined that instead, it doesn't make sense that a one party state would use fair elections to determine who would lead. Then they are just a democracy, with an opposition, etc.
I would assume that the leader themselves practically rules for life unless deposed. I would agree that the elections would change the government composition as the attraction changes between elections.

That doesn't necessarily contradict your suggestion, though. IIRC, Republican Governance Principles chooses the Ruler from the largest IG within the winning party. (Or the largest IG in government in Parliamentary Republics)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Maybe it would be best is Luddite was renamed to Arcadian or something; Luddites were mostly about automation for then industry in general, while Arcadian or Romanticist would better mesh with agrarian Utopian ideals
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions: