• 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:
I admit I am not too fond of "Technocracy" as a distribution of power law. In Victoria 3 currently, the Governance principle determines how the country is de-jure run, while the distribution of power determines, well, how power is actually distributed.

Now in theory Technocracy, which is supposed to give power to the best, the brightest and the ablest sounds like a distribution of power law. But when one looks at it it's really not. Because who exactly sets the criteria for the relevant expertise? Surely a Catholic Theocratic Technocracy would just test for Catholic theology and thus be indistinguishable from a Theocratic Oligarchy. A Marxist Theocracy would surely just determine that the experts are the ones most able to parrot Marxist theories and thus be indistinguishable from a Marxist One Party state. It seems very out of character for the distribution of power law, which is supposed to represent how the country is actually run and not the ideological formalism of how it claims it is run, to just magically automatically raise the political power of the ablest by virtue of being passed.

I also have a few doubts about the utility of "One Party State" as a distribution of power law. Because it once again seems to me like it's a pure matter of formalism. What's actually the difference between an Autocracy or an Oligarchy and a "One Party State" besides the fact that the Autocrat or the Oligarchs who run the latter use an instrument with the name "party" given to it?

I like that Land Reform has finally been added in. I have no complaints there. Though it would be nice to also have a local-government set of laws to represent something like patrimonial administration which is still in place in (among others) Japan or Austria and exists independently of serfdom (as Austria shows).
 
  • 9
  • 4
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Making atheism a religion doesn't make sense, particularly because there is a strong cultural component to it as well (things like marriage practices, holidays, etc) which persists even among atheists. Particularly in this era and really onto the modern era the level of religiosity would often swing but the actual religion would remain roughly the same or change only very slowly. As in a highly conservative and religious population could produce a generation which is largely atheist/agnostic and liberal/communist but then this generation could produce another generation which is highly conservative and religious again in which case they'll inevitably have the original religion of their forefathers.

The Soviet Union of course is a big example, State Atheism was strongly enforced but when it floundered the populace reverted back to Orthodox Christianity for the Russians, Islam for the various Turkic peoples, Lithuanians went back to Roman Catholicism, etc. There is absolutely no way that Russians for example could start to convert en-masse to Islam or Catholicism in the same level as they would to their old Orthodox after State Atheism ends which would be the case now considering the mechanics. Atheism is much more natural as an ideological component, not as a seperate religion entirely.
 
  • 7
  • 5
  • 1Like
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.
Wow, I know France barely exists in this game but still... The French Revolution had a little impact on atheism as a component of French political life throughout the 19th century, you know. from the Cult of Reason, the Chouannerie, the White terror, the Falloux laws, the Ferry laws. ...
Thirty years before game start, French offcial religion was state atheism, and atheism was here to stay for a significant portion of the population throughout the restoration of the monarchy. In fact, every 19th century revolution in France, 1830, 1848, the Commune, to only name the major ones, burned christian symbols. During the thrid republic, to be catholic was de facto being reactionnay and monarchist . Republicans were not only atheists, they were actively anticlerical.
.. and, since 1881, teaching religion is *prohibited* in public schools in France, to this day.
 
  • 6Like
  • 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.
 
  • 8
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but the idea of adding an "atheist" religion seems kind of janky. I feel like it would make more sense for there to just be sort of like a N/A or "--", basically some kind of null or void value instead. Atheism is the lack of a religious affiliation so having it be defined as an absence of a value for religion is more accurate.
 
  • 10
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I love the new laws, hopefully they get to add a lot more much needed flavor and details in playing the game!

The One Party State Law seems especially interesting, as it feels like a way to be able to do a more "modern" authoritarian regime.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:

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.

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.
"Industry Banned" have such massive maluses and small bonuses, other than roleplaying, in what situation any player will ever want this?
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Practically never. You're supposed to fight them by defending against a peasant revolt.
That's fine except they'll completely obliterate all pre-existing industry in all the seceding states the millisecond the revolt fires. As rare as it will apparently be, I find it really dumb that this would happen. For one, how would that even occur realistically? Assuming this is a more late-game sort of thing, you could have hundreds of factories, and they all disappear simultaneously? Furthermore, deleting all industry would instantly cripple the rebels, since any military that relies on ammunition, guns, or artillery are gone, not to mention the SoL and GDP would tank as well, plus radicals from unemployment. When you inevitably win that civil war, you reclaim a barren land full of unemployed people and radicals. I don't know about you, but that sounds dreadful. Literally, 0 benefit in any way unless you want to hardcore larp, not even any interesting bonuses for taking that approach. I loved the rest of this DD, but this one law is so awful, it kind of sours my mood on the whole thing. At least I know that I will likely never encounter it myself.
 
  • 5
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
can you change the "multiple production methods" line to just name the one production method that changes for all five nearly interchangable subsistance farms. you are just hiding the information behind a two unnessecary layers of tooltip.
 
  • 6
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.
 
  • 8
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Single party state is a FANTATSTIC idea IMO. Its always been kind of awkward if you want to play fascist or communist late game after naturally liberalizing to go back to autocracy and also at some point get rid of the monarchy and be an autocratic presidential or parliamentary republic or something.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I was trying to picture how could every single party function in a single-party state. A Patriotic single-party state is self explanatory. A Radical single-party state seems to be a bit of a stretch until you realized the party icon is a GUILLOTINE.

ETA:
An Agrarian single-party state (esp. with a Luddite leader) is perhaps the most ridiculous as it is the memetic "Return to Monke" state.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
That's fine except they'll completely obliterate all pre-existing industry in all the seceding states the millisecond the revolt fires. As rare as it will apparently be, I find it really dumb that this would happen. For one, how would that even occur realistically? Assuming this is a more late-game sort of thing, you could have hundreds of factories, and they all disappear simultaneously? Furthermore, deleting all industry would instantly cripple the rebels, since any military that relies on ammunition, guns, or artillery are gone, not to mention the SoL and GDP would tank as well, plus radicals from unemployment. When you inevitably win that civil war, you reclaim a barren land full of unemployed people and radicals. I don't know about you, but that sounds dreadful. Literally, 0 benefit in any way unless you want to hardcore larp, not even any interesting bonuses for taking that approach. I loved the rest of this DD, but this one law is so awful, it kind of sours my mood on the whole thing. At least I know that I will likely never encounter it myself.
As a player I do like the idea of really dangerous laws that political movements could get behind, giving me a huge incentive to keep those IGs happy. That gives more meat to the political game.

But I agree that this law is kinda extreme. Maybe it should just ban all labor-saving PMs? As others have mentioned that might be closer to what the IRL Luddites actually wanted.

If it does go through as currently written though, there should at least be a gradual shutdown of industry, rather than all factories instantly being vaporized when the revolt happens as you noted.
 
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
With the state atheism law could it be used as a base for a law changing state religion (aka any religion with over 30% of population is on the list and can be adopted.), this would be useful for when you form a nation or unify a multi-religion nation, especially when the current game sees you changing religion in some cultural unifications.

Also the devout faction really needs to be replaced with factions for every religion present, it doesn't make sense for the catholic germans to support the devout faction that wants state protestantism and etc.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Technocratic Stellaris vibes.
 
@PDX_Pacifica one question regarding Positivists - and especially their stance on Distribution of Power. It was shared on Discord that Positivists strongly oppose Universal Suffrage and Oppose Census Suffrage, while supporting Wealth Voting. I find it really strange, since one of the core beliefs of positivists (at least in my country) is about promoting "building from the foundations/working at the grass roots/Organic Work".

Is it regular or just a special case for Poland (mostly cause it was in opposition to romanticism/messianism)? And if it's special case, would it be included similarly to the special parties in countries or it will be more of "flavour pack" work?
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Can you add a graph that shows how industries in states have increased or decreased wages over time when you put your cursor over the wages?

Maybe also a Gini coefficient indicator under the gdp UI or SoL UI if possible as an additional metric to see how inequality fluctuates.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions: