• 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:
One of the hurdles many industrialising countries such as the Ottomans and Japan had to overcome was its strong trades-guilds that stifled capitalist competition. Have you discussed the possibility of making Traditionalism more penalising with restrictions to more advanced PMs, but not forbidding more advanced private industries like chemicals and steel? (A moderate form of Industries Banned if you like).
This would make Traditionalism more unique compared to Agrarianism.


Traditionalism -> Agrarianism -> Interventionism/LF
Subsistence econ. -> Developing market econ. -> Market econ.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
The Atheist religion can appear as the religion of certain characters in otherwise non-atheist states, but outside of this, Atheism is generally reserved for state atheist countries. Whilst there's certainly atheist pops floating around, especially near the tail end of our time period, they're generally fairly small unless the state is specifically fostering anti-religious policies.
Writing as an atheist, I feel like this is quite unimmersive, particularly given the weight V3 gives to other historical counterfactuals, erasive, and traffics in the discriminatory trope that all atheists are militant Stalinists in the making. It's also probably historically incorrect - atheism, as documented, does seem to be a preserve of upper-class intellectuals, but that is at least in part because almost all philosophical documentation of any stripe was written by upper-class intellectuals. V3 has no compunction elsewhere about assuming the religion or political preference about people who were loathe to document it for themselves (e.g. peasants), and the idea that there was only a statistically irrelevant number of atheists by 1936 is probably wrong given that the concept was widespread enough in 1811 for Percy Bysshe Shelley to expelled from Oxford for publishing The Necessity of Atheism - neither party would have acted this way if the idea was socially meaningless. Supposedly, The Oracle of Reason, an atheistic periodical, sold about 4,000 copies a week in 1841-1843. For comparison, the famous Guardian newspaper had a circulation of 100,000-200,000 throughout the 2010s, when the UK population was 3.7 times larger.

I would have it that Western European countries begin with a (very!) small number of atheist pops (I can't speak for other parts of the world), with some pops "converting" (/apostasising) over time with a higher probability with high SoL, literacy, being an academic, being an Intellectual, or being a member of an IG with certain traits (e.g. Nihilist).
 
Last edited:
  • 11
  • 4
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Oh these changes are amazing, can't wait to try them!

Will more dictatorial governments be able to push through the land reform with more force - as it was the case in the Soviet Union, especially in Ukraine, creating the Holodomor? Or like in Communist China later, where also millions died so the reforms would be pushed through?
Something like a radically increased mortality for a few years but strongly increased chance of passing it?

Out of curiosity: Were there historically any attempts to actually ban the Heavy industry?


Once again: Love it all, can't wait to try them!
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
So we equate the ramblings of a few reactionary "old men yelling at cloud" who were afraid of wool threshers as "historical basis" to a whole policy of industrial self-destruction? Sure sure.

Aside of 20th-century marxizing maniacs like Pol Pot and Kim Il-Sung, please name us one serious politician or organized political stakeholder who seriously advocated destroying their country's whole heavy industries in Victorian era.
I don't subscribe to the great man theory of leadership so I don't analyze history based on the abstraction of "serious politician(s) or organized political stakeholder(s)", I take pretty seriously the large amount of organized protests that occurred in the 19th and 20th century in response to industrialization though. There is plenty of "serious" historical relevance related to both the grievances of individuals who were part of various movements (like the Luddites) and those were targeted by this movement (Especially across regions of Great Britain). You seem sure of yourself and your understanding of the nuances of the reactions towards industrialization during the period of this game, especially with your clear misunderstanding regarding something as basic as claiming "marxizing maniacs" would want to "advocate destroying their country's whole heavy industries" so I'll leave you to come to your own conclusions in your historical research since your response seems like it was written in bad faith.
 
  • 7
  • 6Like
  • 3
Reactions:
Why does single party state give you legitimacy from votes when it guarantees that you get 100% of the vote?

These seems both unrealistic and OP. Once you have the laws you want, you can lock them in for the rest of the game with high legitimacy and authority with no downside.

I suggest removing legitimacy from votes and adding an approval penalty for those interest groups excluded from the government, like the penalty you get with an authority deficit. Permanently excluding powerful groups should have serious consequences.
 
  • 4
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Do these changes also effect subsistence farms?

IE: homesteadng reduces the aristorcrats in the mix for any subsistence farm buildings alongside the enclosed plots

Also Homesteading seems like a slightly too North-American or at least colonial flavored term that connotes establishing new family farms on previously undeveloped land while at the same time it also represents things like early soviet Stolypin reforms that lead to kulaks (well to do farmers).


Have you considered a more neutral term that would also describe empowered farmers in europe and asia where powerful rural folk IGs do crop up quite frequently?

Otherwise any considerations towards tying infrastructure and investment pool contribution efficiency for farmers and aristocrats to these laws?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Will land reform law impact migration attraction, directly or indirectly? While Russia and the US may both have some unused arable land with which to attract migrants, there's something inherently more attractive about the prospect of being an American homesteader than of being a Russian serf.
 
  • 8Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't subscribe to the great man theory of leadership so I don't analyze history based on the abstraction of "serious politician(s) or organized political stakeholder(s)", I take pretty seriously the large amount of organized protests that occurred in the 19th and 20th century in response to industrialization though. There is plenty of "serious" historical relevance related to both the grievances of individuals who were part of various movements (like the Luddites) and those were targeted by this movement (Especially across regions of Great Britain). You seem sure of yourself and your understanding of the nuances of the reactions towards industrialization during the period of this game, especially with your clear misunderstanding regarding something as basic as claiming "marxizing maniacs" would want to "advocate destroying their country's whole heavy industries" so I'll leave you to come to your own conclusions in your historical research since your response seems like it was written in bad faith.

Sure, sure. Keep telling yourself that, while there is not a single occurence of a credible political interest in the whole of years covered by Victoria 3 that seriously proposed a platform of "These heavy industries? These jobs? Let's vote laws to destroy all of them and go back to work on the fields like our medieval forebears."
 
Last edited:
  • 13
  • 5
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Shouldn't bureaucrats also receive a boost to their power in a technocracy? Civil servants are often experts in their fields that the state employs for their skills and knowledge, thus especially high-level bureaucrats we should expect to be influential in an undemocratic and in principle democratic state. By all means technocracy is arguably a state run by an unaccountable bureaucracy.
 
  • 14
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I like the DD in general.
However
1) completely destroying the heavy industries under "industry banned" needs boosted small-scale production to work, so that at least all pops' demands can be satisfied, at least in theory, by what a large country produces
2) atheism needs more love
2.1) atheists should appear even without active government propaganda (Wiki says around 5% of the UK population wasn't affiliated with any religion by 1930s)
2.2) atheists should not get discriminated under freedom of consciousness
2.3) state atheism should not have the same discrimination mechanics towards religious people as the regular inter-religious discrimination. For example, the salary difference is plainly absurd in this case. There should be heavy penalties to promotion into bureaucrats or officers, sure, but other than that, non-clergy pops should not suffer SoL-affecting effects (unless we add religion as a form of services)
 
  • 11
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Sure, sure. Keep telling yourself that, while there is not a single occurence of a credible political interest in the whole of years covered by Victoria 3 that seriously proposed a platform of "These heavy industries? These jobs? Let's vote always to destroy all of them and go back to work on the fields like our medieval forebears."
The fact that you doubled down and described the process of deindustrialization like people who are in the process of completely losing their livelihoods would be so patient as to vote tells me how little you know about the subject you are so confident on. Saving this interaction to cite it as an argument for Paradox on why they really need to add Wikipedia links back into these games.
 
  • 7Haha
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
Wait? So I can stay a monarchy, adopt technocracy and keep intelligentsia happy. Hell yeah, I will give Victoria 3 another shot. :D Bow before the enlighten and chosen by God emperor. <3

So if state atheism bans religion then maybe there should be option to ban communism and fascism? I would ban adoption of some laws and disallow communist/socialist/fascists from joining government and made all those pesky communist/fascists an discriminated pops?

And maybe intelligentsia should be split into two pops: liberals and socialists? While both would support banned slavery, feudalism, separation church and state, liberals would not care about the government as long there is free speech, guaranteed rights, separation of religion etc. while socialists would be anti-monarchical and pro collective economy. In other words liberals would be intelligentsia for capitalists and landowners, which socialist would be intelligentsia for trade unions
 
  • 1
  • 1Love
Reactions:
the Luddites were using sabotage to protest losing jobs, they wanted to have fair wages and control over the machines. They were angry since they got instead unemployment at worst and substandard wages at best.

Their destruction of machinery was labor sabotage to make a point. they just got smeared into being portrayed as anti-technological when that wasn't what they wanted.

I really hope that is reflected and not the smears.

also it feels like banned Heavy Industry is a trap law.
 
  • 11
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
I'm disappointed Monarchy + SPS doesn't create prime ministerial dictatorships ala fascist Italy.
 
  • 9
  • 1Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Honestly, I am a bit mixed on having "Atheism" as a "religion". I guess, there's no better way to represent State Atheism within the current game mechanics, but, honestly, I would prefer to have something like a "Religiousness" parameter for pops, similar to Literacy.
 
  • 18
  • 5Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Honestly, I am a bit mixed on having "Atheism" as a "religion". I guess, there's no better way to represent State Atheism within the current game mechanics, but, honestly, I would prefer to have something like a "Religiousness" parameter for pops, similar to Literacy.

I have to agree -- atheism as a religion does make sense in the context of the State Atheism law, which is clearly meant to model the extreme anti-religion policies of certain states in the time period which encouraged fervent denial of the existence of God and a devotion to the idea of a purely physicalist model of the universe, but that's a small sliver of the overall story of secularization.

This was an era of declining religiosity and declining church power, not because of a sudden explosion in explicit atheists but because it became déclassé for respectable people to care too much about religion or God. In the US at the end of the timeframe for example there is an enormous difference between what it meant for a wealthy northern businessman to be "protestant" and what it meant for a southern tradesman to be "protestant".
 
  • 8Like
  • 3
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Also I would split public education into two:
- public education with religion,
- public education without religion.

Even for this day in countries of full separation of religion and state, religion is thought at public schools as non-mandatory subject (e.g. many Catholic countries with Concordat). It could give let say 1/3 of conversion ratio of religious schools without discriminating any pops on bases of religion.

It just seems weird to me to have animists pops in Germany that is not converting to Christianity nor becoming atheist.
 
  • 6
  • 2Like
Reactions: