Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #82 - Voice of the People

[Ivashanko]

Overall I'm looking forward to the new content, and agitators will definitely shake things up. However with the immersion pack I am concerned that the game is going into an extremely railroaded direction for countries, starting with France, comparable to the typical Victoria 2 mod. Hopefully the events and journals are dynamic enough to prevent the railroading.

A little railroading would be a delightful change of pace.

 

[Ivashanko]

Can agitators agitated for or against certain wars and alliances? Can they push for you to fight against another nation with different values?

Please, please, please say yes! The sooner IGs can start influencing FP the better.

 

[dnarik]

Seems very weird to seperate out the Exile/Invite mechanics and make them DLC while leaving Agitators part of the base game. They seem really deeply tied and I'm not sure how well a new gameplay system can really be balanced well enough when its split down the middle like this?

Exactly, this feels like a deliberate move to just sell DLC to more people. Only to add "exile" for free in the future, once they realise it's essential part of agitators

 

[BrotherJonathan]

I agree partially, but honestly the game is just a bit confused about how exactly IGs feed into parties and a political system generally, and fascism is just where that's most laid bare. I wouldn't really say the NSDAP united IGs, but rather won votes and support from a significant cross-section of society. The point is it just wasn't a party born of x, y, and z interest groups coming together, and often the people who would fall under those IGs were split. Sure, the NSDAP got a considerable number of votes from workers, but there was still the SPD and KPD winning votes particularly from urban and unionised workers (and, iirc, in Vic 3 the IG isn't "the workers", but "trade unions"). Catholics, whatever their class, often voted for the Centre Party. Members of the old elite also backed the DNVP. Then, of course, the Nazis turned the country into an authoritarian regime by either bullying these parties into "backing them" (Centre Party) or by violently suppressing them. I've no idea how you represent that in an IG context.

The rigidity of the IG system just doesn't allow for a good representation of a party driven by ideology, or a wider party system altogether. Ideology is there in innate preferences of certain IGs, and in the specific tastes of their leaders, but this is weak, and does not represent the way society was split, and the whole reason why one election's results is different to the next. People didn't just shuffle into IGs which then split neatly into parties which then decided political outcomes based just on their size (or weird, abstracted clout numbers). Similarly, it doesn't allow for nationalist political movements, or religious or ethnic minority movements, which also shaped politics in lots of different countries. It also doesn't explain how a Conservative Party can win enough working class votes to remain the dominant political force in the UK, which in 1921 had just 2.75m salaried (middle class) workers in a population of over 40m (and no, abstract clout doesn't do the work, it won actual, material votes). Even more, it completely ignores any bearing of international affairs and the state's international standing on domestic politics. IGs aren't interested in revanchism, or nobly winning a war, or what land their country should or should not hold in general (or at least they weren't when I last played, maybe that's changed).

It's not fascism that needs a DLC, it's politics all round. IGs are a great level of detail to have added to the game, but by themselves and a crudely added on party system that utterly relies upon them there's just no depth or nuance at all to the political side of the game for democracies. Hitler didn't belong to an IG, he belonged to (/owned?) an ideology. Voters may have an IG that it seems they should belong to and vote with, but that doesn't stop them voting another way entirely. Separatists and parties that represented specific demographic groups are different things again. The game simply needs deeper politics.

This makes sense. The current system is way better than what there was in Vicky II, but it can still be a bit stiff and has trouble dealing with weird edge cases like Hitler as you pointed out.
The happy medium would probably be somewhere in between a rigid IG/party system and the other extreme of simulating political preferences at the POP level.
Having IGs/parties/whatever influence diplomacy would be cool, but IIRC the devs tried this early on and it made the AI go berserk so it might not be possible.

 

[dnarik]

Will the 1.3 update be released as a beta first like 1.2 was?

No

 

[Teutonic_Knight_2000]

- Armagnac was removed and split up between Aquitaine and Languedoc
- Limousin and Auvergne had their provinces reshuffled and were renamed.
- Lorraine was split off from Franche-Comte
- Nord-Pas-De-Calais was split off from Picardie

Lots of new provinces - I like it

- Many provinces where reshuffled between existing and new states to redraw the borders.

I wonder if these changes will take place not only in the vicinity of France.

Germany:
- Ruhr was split off from North Rhine

My favorite change out of all the ones you listed <333

It will be interesting to see if similar changes will take place in other parts of Europe.

Personally, I am very irritated by the great province of Silesia - in my opinion it should be divided into at least two: Lower Silesia and Upper Silesia. Silesia could become a formable TAG.

In addition, completely new cultures could appear, such as: Silesians, Kashubians, Moravians, Sorbs, etc.

 

[Teutonic_Knight_2000]

In addition, completely new cultures could appear, such as: Silesians, Kashubians, Moravians, Sorbs, etc.

As they would be small nations surrounded by larger ones, they would be able to support them during conflicts. For example, during the Silesian Uprisings (Aug 16, 1919 - July 21, 1921), native Silesians were on both the German and Polish sides - some were loyal to Germany, while others counted on freedom in the newly established Poland (which turned out to be illusory). At the same time, there were parties that wanted independence or those that supported the option of joining Czechoslovakia. So small nations could really offer a lot of interesting things in this game.

That's why I think that small nations could be a tool of big players during diplomatic actions (liberating a small nation or investing in them to support us) but at the same time small nations could, like David, kill Goliath (provoke a big conflict).

 

[Star Seeker]

No

Did they confirm this somewhere?

 

[MrRazza]

This makes sense. The current system is way better than what there was in Vicky II, but it can still be a bit stiff and has trouble dealing with weird edge cases like Hitler as you pointed out.
The happy medium would probably be somewhere in between a rigid IG/party system and the other extreme of simulating political preferences at the POP level.
Having IGs/parties/whatever influence diplomacy would be cool, but IIRC the devs tried this early on and it made the AI go berserk so it might not be possible.

Ah, that does make sense on the diplomacy side. That said, it would still be nice to see diplomacy at least impact politics somewhat. e.g. Voters would be more willing to back more extreme/pro-military/fascist parties when their country has recently lost a war, or has lost significant territory (or, perhaps, is simply dropping down the list of powers?)

Re the happy medium, I'm always reluctant to suggest solutions because a) well, I just don't know how to make a game, and b) I don't have time to consider all possible drawbacks of anything I do suggest, but I think a good solution would be to just add an extra degree of separation between parties and IGs (I'm assuming there's already some degree of vote preference being simulated for POPs already given we have elections, but that it's just quite barebones atm). Parties could exist independently of IGs in select circumstances, and there could be additional factors that drive voter interest in parties, perhaps in the form of certain "appeals"

The first, and main, form of appeal would be based on IG association. Particularly early on, this would primarily be the way parties are generated. e.g. Trade Unions form the Socialist Party, they back the Socialist Party, this makes worker POPs substantially more likely to vote for this party.

The second appeal would be on specific policies. I can't remember all the laws in the game but not all of them would apply here, just specific ones with big material impacts on POPs. They can be fixed core platform because of ideology/the base IG backing the party, but perhaps some can be altered by dedicated leaders. e.g. The Socialist Party backs a welfare state, and so Rural Folk POPs with low SoL are somewhat more likely to vote for the Socialist Party, even if the Rural Folk IG is uncommitted to a party/even backing a different one.

The third appeal would be ideological. This would largely be to drive interest in more extreme parties, and is another way in which parties could be created without IG backing - though IG backing would still boost them. Parties with a Communist ideology would be more appealing to low SoL POPs if there is a very large gap between them and high SoL POPs, and radicalism is high. Parties with a Fascist ideology would be more appealing if cores are foreign-owned, or a country is falling down the rankings of powers, and radicalism is high. IGs would become more likely to gain leaders backing these ideologies, and so move to back the relevant parties, in the same circumstances. I would also add a "Moderate" ideology. If a party is led by a "Moderate" leader, it has very limited policy preferences, and it is more likely to be supported by POPs with high SoL, and those backing IGs whose ideal laws are already in place. This could also be an area where country-specific ideologies could be added over time for flavour in DLCs.

I've no idea how doable it'd be, but I'd also ideally like a fourth appeal - whether a party is currently in government or opposition. All POPs become slightly more likely to support parties in government for doing "well", whether that be winning a war, raising SoL, creating more loyalists... while in these circumstances, opposition parties would lose support. Equally, if SoL falls, a war is lost, and more radicals are being created, POPs become more likely to support opposition parties and lose support for government ones.

Vague stuff that I have no idea how workable it'd be, but it's the sort of depth I'd like to see added, and would make a bit more historical sense.

 

[Ivashanko]

Ah, that does make sense on the diplomacy side. That said, it would still be nice to see diplomacy at least impact politics somewhat. e.g. Voters would be more willing to back more extreme/pro-military/fascist parties when their country has recently lost a war, or has lost significant territory (or, perhaps, is simply dropping down the list of powers?)

Re the happy medium, I'm always reluctant to suggest solutions because a) well, I just don't know how to make a game, and b) I don't have time to consider all possible drawbacks of anything I do suggest, but I think a good solution would be to just add an extra degree of separation between parties and IGs (I'm assuming there's already some degree of vote preference being simulated for POPs already given we have elections, but that it's just quite barebones atm). Parties could exist independently of IGs in select circumstances, and there could be additional factors that drive voter interest in parties, perhaps in the form of certain "appeals"

The first, and main, form of appeal would be based on IG association. Particularly early on, this would primarily be the way parties are generated. e.g. Trade Unions form the Socialist Party, they back the Socialist Party, this makes worker POPs substantially more likely to vote for this party.

The second appeal would be on specific policies. I can't remember all the laws in the game but not all of them would apply here, just specific ones with big material impacts on POPs. They can be fixed core platform because of ideology/the base IG backing the party, but perhaps some can be altered by dedicated leaders. e.g. The Socialist Party backs a welfare state, and so Rural Folk POPs with low SoL are somewhat more likely to vote for the Socialist Party, even if the Rural Folk IG is uncommitted to a party/even backing a different one.

The third appeal would be ideological. This would largely be to drive interest in more extreme parties, and is another way in which parties could be created without IG backing - though IG backing would still boost them. Parties with a Communist ideology would be more appealing to low SoL POPs if there is a very large gap between them and high SoL POPs, and radicalism is high. Parties with a Fascist ideology would be more appealing if cores are foreign-owned, or a country is falling down the rankings of powers, and radicalism is high. IGs would become more likely to gain leaders backing these ideologies, and so move to back the relevant parties, in the same circumstances. I would also add a "Moderate" ideology. If a party is led by a "Moderate" leader, it has very limited policy preferences, and it is more likely to be supported by POPs with high SoL, and those backing IGs whose ideal laws are already in place. This could also be an area where country-specific ideologies could be added over time for flavour in DLCs.

I've no idea how doable it'd be, but I'd also ideally like a fourth appeal - whether a party is currently in government or opposition. All POPs become slightly more likely to support parties in government for doing "well", whether that be winning a war, raising SoL, creating more loyalists... while in these circumstances, opposition parties would lose support. Equally, if SoL falls, a war is lost, and more radicals are being created, POPs become more likely to support opposition parties and lose support for government ones.

Vague stuff that I have no idea how workable it'd be, but it's the sort of depth I'd like to see added, and would make a bit more historical sense.

This! This! This!

 

[Herennius]

Hearts of Iron 4 charged $20 for a dlc that added a completely new espionage system, along with content for France, Spain, and Portugual. And Guess what? That dlc wasn't even received that favorably. Victoria 3 is now charging a similar amount for a dlc JUST focused on France. I dont really like this trend. The free changes look good though I guess.

20$ is 33% more than 15$ (or 15$ 25% less then 20$) - I wouldn't call that similar. Plus that LaR was released 3 years ago - between that time and now many countries have seen a significant inflation. What doesn't mean that I like that things get more expensive - I just think it is kind of inevitable.

 

[dnarik]

Did they confirm this somewhere?

Yes

 

[dnarik]

20$ is 33% more than 15$ (or 15$ 25% less then 20$) - I wouldn't call that similar. Plus that LaR was released 3 years ago - between that time and now many countries have seen a significant inflation. What doesn't mean that I like that things get more expensive - I just think it is kind of inevitable.

It's not inevitable in vic3 though, unfortunately. Prices never change

 

[icedt729]

Within the Paradox Forums community, there are two wolves:

One is afraid that PDS will abandon Vic 3 soon. The other is angry that PDS is making paid DLC for Vic 3 already

 

[embrylex]

OwO, what's this?
View attachment 969553View attachment 969554View attachment 969555

I'm surprised to see Bonapartism opposing technocracy... France has arguably been a technocracy ever since Bonaparte became First Consul!

Napoleon Bonaparte introduced the “Code Civil” underpinning the entire corpus of French public law. Napoleon founded a professional civil service; including the military-type corps of engineers for infrastructures and public works. He modernised the Conseil d’Etat (the Council of State) as the highest administrative court and institution for policy guidance throughout the vast apparatus of government. He instituted a rigorous system of public examinations, known as “concours”, for entry into the civil service. He founded the French "Grandes Ecoles", etc.

The former and later Emperors also appeared to value modern sciences greatly (I don't know for the middle one). Throughout their rule, they surrounded themselves with scientists while claiming to be the champions of progress and meritocracy.

I know that in the game terms, technocracy encompasses much more than that, but still Bonapartists should be neutral toward technocracy.

 

[Jayvee94]

On the topic of the Fascist Party in game. If I understand correctly, it's TECHNICALLY not fix to an IG but to two "leader ideologies", Ethno-nationalist and Fascist.

In theory, every IG can join. However, some IGs are indeed more likely to join than others.

ETA: With the addition of new leader ideologies (the Three french monarchists ideologies), I would assume that the name of the parties would change accordingly.

 

[anbeck]

If I read the discord dev messages correctly, it is confirmed that coups are coming as part of the immersion pack. I know there were references to coups in one of the Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte screenshots shown in the trailer, but we couldn't be sure it was referring to a game mechanic, because it could just have well been a reference to his failed coups prior to the game's time frame.

I'm curious to see how coups will work in Victoria 3!

 

[Mr Karl]

Given the still negative reviews Victoria 3 is receiving on Steam, and the comments that the game is not worth the money they paid for it, how do you justify charging people money for something that arguably should have been included in the base game?

 

[grommile]

something that arguably should have been included in the base game?

Every DLC feature Paradox have ever released has had someone arguing it should be in the base game.

 

[Promethium555]

The happy medium would probably be somewhere in between a rigid IG/party system and the other extreme of simulating political preferences at the POP level.
Having IGs/parties/whatever influence diplomacy would be cool, but IIRC the devs tried this early on and it made the AI go berserk so it might not be possible.

When did the idea of simulating politics at the pop level become "extreme"? Saying you disagree with it is one thing, but calling it "extreme" is bizzare considering it was the main way pops worked before Victoria 3 in games like Stellaris and Victoria 2.