• 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 #89 - What’s next after 1.3?

16_9.jpg

Hello and welcome to our Post-Release Plans update dev diary for 1.3. Just as we did in Dev Diary #79, in this dev diary we’ll be going over what changes and improvements we have planned for the game in future free updates such as 1.4, 1.5 and beyond. In the previous Post-Release Plans Dev Diaries we outlined four key areas of improvement for the game, which we’ll be sticking to for this one: Military, Historical Immersion, Diplomacy, and Internal Politics. The Other section is also still there for anything that doesn’t fall neatly into one of the four categories.

Just as last time, I’ll be aiming to give you an overview of where we stand and where we’re heading by going through each of these four categories and marking on each one with one of the below statuses:
  • Done: This is a part of the game that we now consider to be in good shape. Something being Done of course doesn’t mean we’re never going to expand or improve on it in the future, just that it’s no longer a high priority for us. Any points that were already marked as Done in the previous update will now be removed from the list, to avoid it growing unmanageably long!
  • Updated: This is a part of the game where we have made some of the improvements and changes that we want to make, but aren’t yet satisfied with where it stands and plan to make further improvements to it in future updates such as 1.4, 1.5 and so on. Note that this section will mainly focus on updates made in 1.3.
  • Not Updated: This is a part of the game where we haven’t yet released any of our planned changes/improvements in any currently released updates but still plan to do so for future updates.
  • New: This is a planned change or improvement that is newly added, ie wasn’t present on the list in Dev Diary #79.
  • Reconsidered: This is a previously planned change or improvement that we have reconsidered our approach to how to tackle from previous updates. For these points we will explain what our new plans are, and change the list appropriately in future updates.

Finally, just like in the original Post-Release Plans dev diaries, we will only be talking about improvements, changes and new features that are part of planned free updates in this dev diary. So then, let’s get to the categories and see where we stand! For each point in each category that isn’t new to this update there will be a sub-point detailing our progress on the point so far.

Post Launch 2 v2.png

Military​

Done
  • Solving the issue of armies going home after Generals die during a war by adding a system for field promotion
    • Field promotions have been added to the game in 1.3 to solve the most critical issue of armies simply going home. In the future we’ll aim to further improve this through changes to armies/navies and having defined successors for your commanders.
Updated:
  • Improving the ability of players to get an overview of their military situation and exposing more data, like the underlying numbers behind battle sizes
    • This is an area where we are continuously making improvements but where we still definitely have more work to do. A particular area of improvement we’ve identified is the need to more clearly be able to see a summary of a country’s military strength instead of just seeing unit counts.
  • Increasing the visibility of navies and making admirals easier to work with
    • As above, this is an area where we are continuously making improvements but still have work to do. In particular, we want to improve the sense of where exactly your navy is and what exactly it is doing.
  • Finding solutions for the issue where theaters can split into multiple (sometimes even dozens) of tiny fronts as pockets are created
    • We have mitigated this issue in update 1.2 by auto-closing small pockets and improving battle province selection but the issue still persists (particularly in wars with a large number of small countries) so further improvements are needed here
New:
  • Adding a system for limited wars to reduce the number of early-game global wars between Great Powers
  • Adding systems for organizing your generals and admirals into discrete armies and navies to allow more control over geographic positioning, military composition and unit specialization
  • Adding more options for strategic control over your generals to allow for more ‘smart play’ in wars
  • Adding more on-map graphics for armies and navies, including soldiers on the map
Reconsidered:
  • Experimenting with controlled front-splitting for longer fronts
    • After some internal design consideration, we have decided that this is not the best approach going forward - instead we will aim to solve the issues with long fronts by supporting multiple battles and improving the strategic options you have to direct your generals.

Historical Immersion​

Updated:
  • Tweaking content such as the Meiji Restoration, Alaska purchase and so on in a way that they can more frequently be successfully performed by the AI, through a mix of AI improvements and content tweaks
    • Improvements to this were made in both 1.2 and 1.3 (the most significant being preventing journal entries such as Fragile Unity from being broken by revolutions) but we still have some work planned here, particularly to the Meiji Restoration and the willingness of AI countries to open up Japan.
  • Ensuring unifications such as Italy, Germany and Canada don’t constantly happen decades ahead of the historical schedule, and increasing the challenge of unifying Italy and Germany in particular
    • The German Unification received a significant rework in 1.3 to more closely follow the historical narrative, with other unifications planned to receive similar improvements in the near future.
  • General AI tweaks to have AI countries play in a more believable, immersive way
    • This is something we are continuing to work on in every update. Some tweaks and improvements were made in 1.3 but the biggest improvements here should come alongside planned updates to diplomacy.

Not Updated:
  • Adding more country, state and region-specific content to enhance historical flavor of different countries

New:
  • Going through the base game Journal Entries and events and making improvements and additions to ensure that they feel meaningful and impactful for players to interact with


Diplomacy​

Not Updated:
  • ‘Reverse-swaying’, ie the ability to offer to join a side in a play in exchange for something
  • More things to offer in diplomatic plays, like giving away your own land for support
  • Trading (or at least giving away) states
  • Foreign investment and some form of construction in other countries, at least if they’re part of your market
  • Improving and expanding on interactions with and from subjects, such as being able to grant and ask for more autonomy through a diplomatic action
  • Allowing peace deals to be negotiated during a Diplomatic Play instead of only having the option to give in

Internal Politics​

Done:
  • Improving the mechanics of law enactment and revolutions to be more engaging for the player to interact with
    • Law enactment and revolutions received a significant rework in 1.3 to behave in less random and more engaging ways, while also somewhat (intentionally) increasing the challenge involved in rapidly reforming your country
  • Adding more mechanics for characters and giving the player more reason to care about individual characters in your country:
    • Agitators were introduced as a new character type in 1.3 that directly interacts with political movements and serves to push more forcefully for political reforms. There are definitely more types of characters we want to add and more we want to do here in the future, but right now it’s not a high priority when compared to the other items on this list.
  • Added Petitions to ensure the Interest Groups you add to your government has agency in demanding political change
    • This was not previously on the list but is something we’ve added since we consider it a fairly significant change to internal politics.

Updated:
  • Making it more interesting and ‘competitive’ but also more challenging to play in a more conservative and autocratic style
  • New laws were introduced in 1.3 (such as One Party State) that makes late-game autocracies more viable, and the addition of Agitators means that conservative countries now face a greater internal push for reform.
  • Adding laws that expand on diversity of countries and introduce new ways to play the game
    • A number of new laws were introduced in Update 1.3, but there is definitely more we want to do in the future here

Other​

Updated:
  • Improving Alerts and the Current Situation widget to provide more useful and actionable information.
The Current Situation widget received a series of tweaks in 1.3 to give more useful and actionable information. In the future, we want to improve this further by giving the player much more custom control over the alert/current situation system similar to what we’ve done with message settings.

New:
  • Increase the overall challenge in the economic core loop, as well as creating more clear mechanical differences between different countries and their starting positions in ways that encourage more economic specialization.
  • Find a way to deal with the excessive fiddliness of the trade system in large economies, possibly by allowing for autonomous trade based on your laws in a similar way to the autonomous investment system.

So when can you expect these changes to reach the game? I can’t give specifics for any particular points but what I can say is that we are planning a large update with an extended open beta period in the second half of this year which will check off a considerable number of points from the list. In particular, that update will be aiming to tackle many of the points from the Warfare and Diplomacy sections of this list. I’ll end this dev diary by reminding you yet again that this list only covers changes and additions that will be part of free updates.

Well then, that’s all for today’s update. We will see you in two weeks for our next Dev Diary, on the 22nd while we work on 1.3.3!
 
  • 132Like
  • 44Love
  • 14
  • 3
  • 3
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
A change that we're trying out internally right now is to remove the concept of 100% market access and ensure that local supply and demand always plays a role in price setting, to promote local synergies and add more weight to the decision on where to build buildings.
That sounds very interesting. Is it demanding on the AI to place buildings correctly though? My immediate thought here is that optimizing building placement is something that it would be hard for the AI to do on a competitive footing with a player who is playing somewhat optimally.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Please allow generals the freedom to change units under command. I know that in some countries at that time, the army was the private property of the generals, such as the Beiyang Army of the Chinese general Yuan Shikai, but in most countries after 1900, the army was subordinate to the state, and the generals were only responsible for commanding battles and could change command at any time the troops
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
Thanks for the updates and communication. I know it's been said elsewhere repeatedly that it is being worked on, but need to emphasize that for many of us by far the biggest issue with the game is that performance issues make it unplayable despite meeting or being well above recommended specs. For myself personally, this seems to change every other patch or so from "playable but significanf slowing after 1900" to "completely unplayable after around 1850."

Really enjoying the game overall, which is why its so frustrating I'm not able to play it most of the time.
Performance is absolutely a top priority for us, and we have a change planned for the update later this month that we hope should make a significant impact. It is something that is hard to put on a roadmap though, since we always have programmers working on it but it's hard to tell exactly what impact their work will have, especially on all the myriad hardware configurations involved.
 
  • 45Like
  • 6
  • 3Love
Reactions:
This is actually one aspect where Vicky 3s warfare system can shine aesthetically but (just like all things warfare) it falls flat, since armies are not moving around bespoke provinces you can afford to have more tiny men, supply caravans, artillery pieces and so on to really get into the immersion whereas in say EU4 you'd prefer the big tall guys for clarity purposes.
Yeah... a shame really. :( EDIT: As much as i want them big soldiers boys, i see fully how small armies would make more sense considering how on-map graphics look atm.
But lets see, how they plan to implement it.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Please allow generals the freedom to change units under command. I know that in some countries at that time, the army was the private property of the generals, such as the Beiyang Army of the Chinese general Yuan Shikai, but in most countries after 1900, the army was subordinate to the state, and the generals were only responsible for commanding battles and could change command at any time the troops
Part of our plans involved in creating discrete armies and navies is indeed to allow reorganization of units in this way. We'll of course go over all this in dev diaries when it's closer to release.
 
  • 45Like
  • 5
  • 4Love
Reactions:
Diplomacy has to be the top priority focus for the game and not in Q1 2024.

For example right now when I'm playing France and follow the Indochina event chain I can have the East India Company that is swayed by Dai Nam. It makes absolutely no sense: they are not supposed to be autonomous in their foreign policy. Besides, there is absolutely no interest for them to go at war against France.

Swaying in general is frankly badly implemented since many countries accept those swaying for an obligation that provides nothing to them. We can feel it is just +30 obligation -10 this, +15 that which feels completely artificial and make a poor description of the diplomatic tractations of the time.

Warfare is not the main problem but diplomacy is since it regularly breaks the suspension of disbelief.
 
Last edited:
  • 19Like
  • 7
  • 3
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Hello! Please add "make Vancouver Island an Island" and "add Puget Sound" to the roadmap please.

Also, with the plans to automate trade, are there any ideas to automate PMs? Like the most profitable one will always be chosen?
 
  • 5Like
  • 3Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
So the one thing that we've been screaming for re: military play, the ability to actually tailor our front designations to our needs so that we can actually have some semblance of strategy in our GSG, is kaput? Incredibly disappointing. Guess we're stuck with the Turkmenistan to Vladivostok and New York to Utah fronts forever.

If "Adding more options for strategic control over your generals to allow for more ‘smart play’ in wars" isn't really solid and an in-depth, well thought-out mechanic, I'm a bit less optimistic about the upcoming update.
The problem identified isn't one we've given up on solving, but we want to solve in a way that one long front acts more like a number of small fronts rather than actually dividing it into said smaller fronts, as the latter comes with all the issues involved when creating, splitting and merging fronts. More on this in future dev diaries, though.
 
  • 36Like
  • 11
  • 1
Reactions:
Diplomacy has to be the top priority focus for the game and not in Q1 2024.

For example right now when I'm playing France and follow the Indochina event chain I can have the East India Company that is swayed by Dai Nam. It makes absolutely no sense: they are not supposed to be autonomous in their foreign policy. Besides, there is absolutely no interest for them to go at war against France.

Swaying in general is frankly badly implemented since many countries accept those swaying for an obligation that provide nothing to them. We can feel it is just +30 obligation -10 this, +15 that which feels completely artificial and make a poor description of the diplomatic tractations of the time.

Warfare is not the main problem but diplomacy is since it regularly breaks the suspension of disbelief.
As mentioned in the dev diary, Diplomacy is one of the top priorities for the large update coming later this year.
 
  • 27Like
  • 3
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Hello! Please add "make Vancouver Island an Island" and "add Puget Sound" to the roadmap please.

Also, with the plans to automate trade, are there any ideas to automate PMs? Like the most profitable one will always be chosen?
I believe these are actually fixed internally already!

For automating PMs, it's an idea we've toyed around with but we've gone no further than that right now.
 
  • 14Like
  • 11
  • 8Love
Reactions:
Hello! Please add "make Vancouver Island an Island" and "add Puget Sound" to the roadmap please.

Also, with the plans to automate trade, are there any ideas to automate PMs? Like the most profitable one will always be chosen?
I think the better term is “Correct terrain map” because it not only is off in the lovely PNW, but also in the Netherlands.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
So the one thing that we've been screaming for re: military play, the ability to actually tailor our front designations to our needs so that we can actually have some semblance of strategy in our GSG, is kaput? Incredibly disappointing. Guess we're stuck with the Turkmenistan to Vladivostok and New York to Utah fronts forever.

If "Adding more options for strategic control over your generals to allow for more ‘smart play’ in wars" isn't really solid and an in-depth, well thought-out mechanic, I'm a bit less optimistic about the upcoming update.
The main problem with long fronts is that there's currently only one battle per front, so I think the main problem will be addressed once multiple battles are allowed. Allowing the player to manually assign fronts sounds like a tedious stopgap measure to that tbh, and probably another way to make it easier to dunk on the AI.

However the way fronts split/merge automatically is definitely both annoying and aesthetically weird. Like the Dobrudja/Caucausus front stretch across the Black Sea. And the way fronts are named seems bugged, as it frequently names fronts after states that are way off from where the fighting is happening.
 
  • 10
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
A change that we're trying out internally right now is to remove the concept of 100% market access and ensure that local supply and demand always plays a role in price setting, to promote local synergies and add more weight to the decision on where to build buildings.

Maybe splinter infrastructure usage into a new concept called regional development and have development value use some sort of calculation in terms of GPD, region size, and infrastructure.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Will be possible to have multiplicative expansion of buildings?
If you have more than 100 levels of buildings, then you can expand it by 5%.

Autoexpand and autonomous investment also would expand building level by 5% once conditions are met.
So if something bulk expands 100 level buildings, then 5 levels are added to queue.
This would make management of large states (population wise) require much less clicks, that is if you didn't mod ctrl/shift clicks to place 100, or even 1000 levels of building.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
To be fair for that one, it's probably much harder for the Netherlands since you guys keep changing your terrain map
Haha, I’m not even Dutch, I’m from the PNW as well. I just want that thing to get fixed. It’s been scaring me.
 
  • 4Haha
Reactions:
It would be nice to have the ability to « lock » any production method so that any factory/mine/farm acquired in a new state (after a war) gets automatically the locked PM. It is so annoying to have to check all PM after a war to be sure everything is as it should.
 
  • 2Love
  • 1
Reactions:
Could you consider front joining for small fronts so they consolidate between sides? It currently gets extremely micromanagement heavy in Europe and India, which the system is not built to handle.

It could work very well with multiple battles per front too.
 
  • 6Like
  • 1
Reactions: