• 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:
Will Land Reform also have an effect on 'Landed Voting'?
Now 'Landed Voting' boosts the votes of especially Aristocrats, but what if Aristocrats barely have any land due to certain Land Reform laws?
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
So, with the addition of tenant farmer laws, why not make agricultural buildings and plantation buildings entirely produced by sharecroppers (who are classified as farmers in the game)?
In the American South, for example, plantations in the antebellum South had only landowners, supervisors (who could be classified as clerks), and laborers (or slaves), but never farmers. After the Civil War, nearly all Southern cotton, grain, and meat production was carried out solely by sharecroppers, with no need for supervisors or labor. So did most Asian countries in the 19th and 20th centuries. The game should provide a production mode that only employs farmers.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
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.​
So, does it mean I can have Worker Cooperative PM under Command Economy law, and vice versa? It will be kinda weird.

LAWS.png
 
  • 1
Reactions:
So, does it mean I can have Worker Cooperative PM under Command Economy law, and vice versa? It will be kinda weird.

View attachment 967584
I think it makes sense a bit. USSR had both of those systems, and change often. Even in era with USSR went fully into state planning, there were many autonomous worker collective farms that were not fully under state control. I whould not call them full coops, but there were close.
I can image Coop economy state had some state control farms of important resources, but also state planned state has some coop farms for better effectivity of grain or rice farming
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Yeah I am not quite convinced by Collectivized Agriculture, because it seems to take two different approaches - bureaucrats as owners or farmers as owners, and treats it as same law. For example, will Rural Folk support it over Homesteading? If it's a Co-Op they should, if it's a Command Economy they shouldn't.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Yes. Several new ideologies have been added - Protectionist, Positivist, Luddite, Jacksonian Democrat, and Authoritarian.

Protectionists are in favour of Interventionism and Protectionist trade policies, Positivists prefer anti-clerical, technocratic, and republican policies, Luddites wish to ban industry, Jacksonian Democrats desire both slavery and expanded voting rights, and Authoritarians prefer single-party states, autocracies, or other such systems.
While adding flavour is generally a good thing, adding more leader ideologies not necessarily, because when a leader has it, they can't have any other. Some are interesting, but ones that mainly focus on a single issue can feel like a waste and just another flavour of Moderate. Looking at the list and imagining what IGs can roll which laws I am really worried most of them will be focused only on a few IGs, that already support most of these laws.

Like who can be Protectionist? TUs already are, some IGs just don't care and others actively oppose it... so like, Intelligentsia and maybe Armed Forces? That would change very little and not bring anything interesting into the game.

Similar case for Authoritarian and (if limited in 90% of the cases to Intelligentsia) Positivist. They are just too narrow as ideologies to bring interesting situations.

And Luddites, well many people before said Industry Banned is a meme law, that nobody will want to pass, so this is a meme ideology, that wastes space.

(And Jacksonian Democrat likely is US specific, so just local flavour, possibly a good addition, but not one to influence most games)
 
  • 2
Reactions:
For example, will Rural Folk support it over Homesteading? If it's a Co-Op they should, if it's a Command Economy they shouldn't.

Are you sure they should support Co-ops over homesteading by default?

Unless the RF have anarchist or a similar leader ideology (as historically in Spain, just after Vicky 3's time frame), my (admittedly non-expert) understanding is that, in Vicky 3's time frame (and speaking very generally), farmers preferred to own the land they worked. This is why it was always problematic to collectivize agriculture once the farmers had been made owners of their land. They were like, "hey, I just got this - now you want to take it away from me again?"
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Now with state atheism it might be a problem that there is no granularity in religious belief. I mean there is and at this point in history was a wide range from only nominally belonging to a religion to aligning your entire life to that religion and seeing any deviation from it as a reason to riot.

Or in game terms, someone who grew up in a secular state with a marginalized devout IG might be much more willing to accept atheism than someone who grew up in a state with a state religion, religious schools, charity hospitals and a powerful devout IG.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Yeah, I guess they did have elections, but were it "fair" elections? Because if they weren't, then I think "clout" represents that power just fine.
what is a "fair" election? The elections for the Supreme Soviet might be rigged by the Communist party, while the elections for the Congress of the Communist party might be somewhat "fairer" because they elected the party leadership itself, but of course those elections were only for communists so in the end might not be fair.
 
Now with state atheism it might be a problem that there is no granularity in religious belief. I mean there is and at this point in history was a wide range from only nominally belonging to a religion to aligning your entire life to that religion and seeing any deviation from it as a reason to riot.

Or in game terms, someone who grew up in a secular state with a marginalized devout IG might be much more willing to accept atheism than someone who grew up in a state with a state religion, religious schools, charity hospitals and a powerful devout IG.


They could create a parallel set of "interest groups" but these interest groups would be country specific. These parallel sets of IG's (which could be called Identities in the game) would be about culture and religion. Ex: in Greece you could have those who support Greek identity and those who support Orthodox identity, as well as Turkish identity and Sunni identity.

POPs could support two identities at the same time (one cultural and one religious or just one or the other depending if they are more about religion or more about culture in order to add more dynamism to the game. This would allow for Atheism for instance to make Atheist pops just care about culture issues). Culture based issues would mostly arise from minorities that are marginalized due to citizenship laws. Majority cultures would complain if migration policies are seeing wages being dropped due to immigrants of other cultures saturating the work force. Religious minorities would complain under the state religion policy while everyone else would complain if state atheism is forced through. In addition, if the church IG has a lot of popularity and they are disgruntled with the government, they could use religion as a weapon by triggering the population, ultimately leading to laws that benefit the church or in the worst case, a revolution that leads to a theocracy.

Maybe an idea for the future. @PDX_Pacifica
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I really like whats going to abe added and I would like to extra-emphasize that the joy I had with reading the is devs. The pure information on the new content is one thing, but getting a well written text of why something gots added/changed, how this is done and in which way it will affect gameplay is the icing - thanks for the anticipation your sparked in me for 1.3, @PDX_Pacifica !

And foreign investiments ??. We need this.
If I understand previous official statements correctly, there will be an 1.4 before an DLC stuff and if so, I see good chances that foreign investments will be part of it. I share your desire to get this feature, but I don't mind waiting for it alittle bit longer, as my feeling is that it might work the better the more fleshed out other mechanics are.

Gonna be honest, it's a no for Industry Banned. It's essentially bad enough, that it doesn't even work as a meme law. It has basically only a potential for a game where you challenge yourself to only play with rural buildings or that it occasionally ruins AI countries and you wish it wasn't ever a thing. Like I can imagine it being a meme mod, not a law in vanilla game. Imagine a country that hugely empowers Rural Folk, destroys all their steel mills, passes isolationism, because it's something their most powerful IG wants, and now all these lovely farms can't work, because there are no trains to provide any infrastructure.

At the very least it should reduce throughput of industrial buildings and make new ones cost more to construct, not destroy them.
I see the potential for AI destroying themselves (but I'm convinced that this is monitored in interal testing) and indeed, changes to how infrastructure is calculated may be needed under this law, but I don't think its impossible to achieve. You could boost e.g. the tranportation related PM of farms/plantations somehow or the railways itself. Also, I would not underestimate that suddenly all industries being gone means there infrastruture drain is no longer there.

I cannot believe how horrible the Single-party State law idea is.

It essentially:
1.) Removes politicking from single party states, with all IGs being part of a single party (gone is my idea about Industrialists and Landowners turning into Industrial and Agricultural Managers respectively in Council Republics)
Looking at the screenshot and from what the text says, it is not the case that all IGs are automatically part of the single party (you can invite any/some/all from the rest as you desire, but then your legitimacy will take a hit) - it is just that the non-member ones can't organize themselves in 2nd/3rd/4th ones.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
May it be possible to force the industry bann law as a war goal or force it on puppet states?
I like the idea from a point of immersion (especially if an attacked nation suddenly decides to bring this up as war goal in case of winning the war...), but if implemented it needs to be done very carefully - with the current effect of Industry Bann that war goal would be the most devastating one to the defeated nation - just compare to being able to taking only a single statewithout resorting to infamy costing secondary goals, war reparations or humiliation...or the actual devastation war itself causes (a modifier vs. completely obliterating most buildings) Allowing it would mean that the targetted nation would almost be forced to fight, it needs to come with a price tag (infamy and maybe more, the extend depending on how much the action destroys and who is targetted) and it is also necessary to code the AI to handle it with care, when being the aggressor.
 
That is all, and we will see you next week.​

Great that Collectivized Agriculture allows for both coops and state ownership, allowing for the distinction of kolkhoz and sovkhoz farms (at least in an idealized form). Together with State Atheism and Single-Party State, I cannot wait to play Russia in 1.3!

Having thought about it some more: the fact that the topic for next week's dev diary has not yet announced makes me think that maybe we will get an announcement for the first immersion pack, which might be released together with 1.3.

The fact that we got a lot of laws that work well with a Russia/USSR playthrough could suggest the first immersion pack might focus on countries like Russia (going from agrarian to communist).

Alternatively, the pack might not focus on specific countries but rather a theme (as announced in the Grand Edition post, immersion packs "increase the depth of the game in a particular aspect - perhaps a region of the world, time period, or theme"). This theme might relate to reforms (would fit the law rework) and revolutions (would fit with new laws such as Single-State Party and Collectivized Agriculture).

The obvious title for the immersion pack would then be "Reform and Revolution". This not only hints to the pamphlet written by Rosa Luxemburg during Victoria 3's time period, it also fits with the recent wave of DLC alliterations (Melodies for the Masses, Tours and Tournaments, Wards and Wardens).

If 1.3 were to be released alongside a Russia or Russian revolution-focused DLC, the patch might be called "Caravan" or Oolong.

I am probably getting hyped for nothing, but that's what I came up with as a reason for not announcing the topic of the next DD.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Will atheist pops have any kind of effect on gameplay? Or is it just a flavor around that is required for pops to be accepted?
 
Will atheist pops have any kind of effect on gameplay? Or is it just a flavor around that is required for pops to be accepted?
From what it seems 3 most significant changes are removing clergy pops from any position and from any production method. Urban centers will no longer be churches, to just state atheism production methods, maybe that increase power and influence of intellectual or state eurocrats?
The next one is the removal of any clergy production methods. This will destroy any political power of church IG even more since the church has absolutely no way to get wealth and power.
And lastly, you turn 99% of your pops more hostile which increases the chance of reactionary revolution against you.
Basically, it is like you enacting Ethnostate as a British Indian Company. You have to guarantee a certain level of living standard or your nation is fucked from constant rebellions.

Honestly, it is hard to even imagine positives, except total destruction of the clergy. You could make the case that it whould maybe should increase research on literacy gain. But just because there is state atheism doesn't mean that magically people became smarter. Cause you can be state atheist but still anti-intellectual like Cambodia.

State atheism was more about ideological beliefs, and had little benefits over the classical secular state in both research and literacy. In many scenarios, it had the worst impact, and I say it as an atheist.

I think current representation is the best way to portray it.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Having thought about it some more: the fact that the topic for next week's dev diary has not yet announced makes me think that maybe we will get an announcement for the first immersion pack, which might be released together with 1.3.

The fact that we got a lot of laws that work well with a Russia/USSR playthrough could suggest the first immersion pack might focus on countries like Russia (going from agrarian to communist).

Alternatively, the pack might not focus on specific countries but rather a theme (as announced in the Grand Edition post, immersion packs "increase the depth of the game in a particular aspect - perhaps a region of the world, time period, or theme"). This theme might relate to reforms (would fit the law rework) and revolutions (would fit with new laws such as Single-State Party and Collectivized Agriculture).

The obvious title for the immersion pack would then be "Reform and Revolution". This not only hints to the pamphlet written by Rosa Luxemburg during Victoria 3's time period, it also fits with the recent wave of DLC alliterations (Melodies for the Masses, Tours and Tournaments, Wards and Wardens).

If 1.3 were to be released alongside a Russia or Russian revolution-focused DLC, the patch might be called "Caravan" or Oolong.

I am probably getting hyped for nothing, but that's what I came up with as a reason for not announcing the topic of the next DD.
I think you are right. All hits to possible immersion pact for USSR or revolutions in general. Even Pacifica during the explanation of Technocracy mentioned Vpreredist. I hope there will be more about IG changing political ideologies based on events. Like, for example, the church was in a coalition where you passed council republic law, they could switch from patriarchal to populist or egalitarian to represent Liberation Theology or different wings of religious socialism. Same way with far-right revolutions, like if you create one-party fascist state with support of unions, they can switch to patriot or reactiony, to symbolise things like IRL felangist and national syndicalist
 
  • 5Like
Reactions: