• 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 #80 - Law Enactment and Revolution Clock in 1.3

16_9.jpg

Happy Thursday and welcome to the first of several diaries about improvements and changes in Update 1.3! Today we will cover changes made to the process of enacting laws, political machinations by your ruling Interest Groups, and the build-up to revolution.

First off, why are we making changes here? Well, while the core mechanics of law enactment and political movements agitating for legislative change and/or revolution work well and in accordance with the design vision, there are a number of issues that has bothered us and many in the community since release:

  • The feeling of excessive randomness in law enactment mechanics, where you might have only a 5% success chance but could hope for a "critical hit" that wasn't particularly rare, or repeatedly failing and getting stuck when at 80% success chance
  • The risk of getting stuck with "bad rolls" early on in an enactment process leading to repeated frustration until you cancel enactment and start over
  • Exploits related to repeatedly starting/canceling law enactment to prevent revolutions from ever getting off the ground
  • The ability to disarm a revolution by inviting a supporting Interest Group to the government, only to then ignore their desires
  • Interest Groups in government actually having less political agency than those in opposition
  • Revolution buildup not feeling particularly flavorful or engaging as a simple progress bar
  • Several confusing user experiences and tooltips relating to law enactment and revolution

We've tackled these issues with two larger and several smaller features or tweaks.

Law Enactment Changes​

Laws now need to progress through three phases in order to pass, instead of simply having a percentage chance to be enacted once the clock fills up. What is not changing here are the underlying mechanics of Success, Advance, Debate, and Stall chances, which are based on the relative endorsement and opposition of the law from the Interest Groups in your government. However, when the result is a Success, you will progress to the next phase instead of immediately enacting the law. If you then achieve success in the third phase, the law will pass.

To compensate for the additional time requirement, we've increased the pace of the enactment clock - which also means more twists and turns during each law enactment. Previously it was not uncommon that if you had 40% endorsement of a law you want to pass, you might succeed on the very first checkpoint, which makes the whole thing mostly a waiting experience. By requiring a number of successes, we can compensate for the random factor and create more interesting challenges.

DD80_01.png


While this is, in the words of Alex in QA (who originally conceived of this feature), "just three EU4 sieges in a trenchcoat", it solves the problem of excessive randomness and feels a lot better: giving you a clearer sense of progress and increases the stakes of each decision made. Choosing to get a +5% Enactment Chance out of an early event now doesn't just give you a +5% bonus to a single roll, but effectively a +5% bonus to each of the three phases, which is a much bigger deal. You're also much more likely to experience a variety of events before the enactment is concluded.

Events spawned by the enactment process are now categorized in association with the UI element that tracks your progress, and identifies the outcome that spawned it to give you more context. They will also time out automatically (selecting the default option) when the clock fills up, so there's always only one enactment event pending - no more delaying taking action on negative events until the next cycle to try to improve your better outcome!
DD80_02.png

One issue with the current (1.2.x) build is that after dealing with a few negative events you could end up with a net negative enactment chance, a hole you'd have to try to dig your way out of in order to even have a chance to progress. But of course, the lower the enactment chance the lower the chance of getting a positive event, so this often turns into a self-perpetuating cycle of digging a deeper and deeper hole. The "correct" action at this point is to cancel enactment and try again after a cooldown period, but this feels very bad.

To address this, in 1.3 we have introduced a concept of setbacks which can be taken to recover from a situation like this. Each enactment process can take up to three setbacks, but when it has taken its third it will automatically and irrevocably fail. For as long as you have taken less than that, events will permit you to reset your current enactment progress if you've taken too large of a hit, or in some cases trade a setback to turn an negative outcome into a marginally positive one.

When enactment chance drops below zero, the Legislative Failures event will automatically spawn and let you reset back to a clean slate at the cost of a Setback.
DD80_03.png



Many law enactment events have been backfilled with new options that let you take a setback in return for avoiding a more negative repercussion, letting you gamble a bit to try to get your bill passed.
DD80_04.png

However, Stall outcomes can also sometimes generate Setbacks without your input, so be wary of pushing your luck too much!

Even with the extra agency provided by the Setback mechanic, you may find that enacting a certain law is so difficult it's just not worth it. When you cancel enactment in 1.3, you will find that the cooldown has increased to 2 years instead of 1 (and is applied even if you have not yet reached the first checkpoint), but also an entirely new effect: if there is a Political Movement currently agitating for this law to pass, and you cease trying to enact it, the movement's Radicalism will shoot up considerably, in many cases all but guaranteeing they will revolt as a result.

Cancellation confirmation box explaining the impact of your decision. Laws redacted to not spoil the fun for next week's dev diary, but feel free to speculate in the comments!
DD80_05.png

This closes the door on two (unfun) identified exploits: starting to enact a law a movement demands, but canceling it before it succeeds, keeping the movement teetering just on the edge of revolution without giving in to it; and canceling enactment just before the first enactment cycle is up, thus avoiding cooldown and penalties altogether.

But what about the exploit where a revolutionary Interest Group is invited into government, thus removing them from their Political Movement? In one sense, this is working-as-designed; inviting a populist faction to try to execute their politics in a more respectable fashion is a not-infrequently utilized tool for declawing a revolutionary movement. The problem with this in Victoria 3 is that a human player will be in full control of which laws are being enacted, so inviting a group into government doesn't actually give them more power to make change - it only takes away their ability to threaten consequences.

Enter Government Petitions.

Government Petitions​


Petition events commonly appear a few months after a new government has been formed. They can be issued by any of the Interest Groups in government and for any of the law changes they endorse the most.
DD80_06.png


The event produces a Journal Entry that you may pursue if you wish, or ignore at your peril. Passing the desired law will of course have the effect of improving the Interest Group's Approval as usual, but it will also improve your Legitimacy for a long time, as you're showing responsive governance. On the other hand, if you don't pass the law on time, or by some other means disenfranchise the petitioning Interest Group, they will become very disappointed with you.
DD80_07.png

In effect, this creates a kind of "government agenda" that the player is rewarded for pursuing and penalized for ignoring, further incentivizing building a government constellation of groups whose politics you actually want.

For the modders out there, Government Petitions are implemented entirely in script, and can serve as a good example and pattern for Journal Entries that can be more dynamic and responsive to circumstances.

Finally, what happens when things go sideways and your population demands something you can't (or won't) give them? In the current live build, a Political Movement with high Radicalism will become Revolutionary, triggering a countdown until they rise up against you, taking one or several of your states with them. In 1.3, these fundamentals remain but the countdown has changed drastically.

Revolution Clock​

When a Political Movement becomes Revolutionary, a clock will start ticking. Similar to the enactment clock, every time it fills up the Revolution meter will (usually) increase, with a revolution event triggering alongside it. The event frequently provides some options for how to deal with the revolution. All in all there are 40 such new events in 1.3, many of them contextually triggered based on who is supporting the revolution, what law is currently being enacted, and so on.

DD80_08.gif


With the support of the Rural Folk and a Political Movement led by the Intelligentsia and Trade Unions (all of them individually weak) we're attempting to ban slavery in early game Afghanistan. The reaction from the Landowners was quite severe. Not only did they leave the government in protest (causing Legitimacy to drop to a level where we cannot make progress on the law enactment), but they also started their own movement to preserve Debt Slavery and, on account of their considerable strength, went straight into plotting a revolution against their former Rural Folk co-rulers.
DD80_09.png


On the new Political Movement panel, we can get a good overview of where the support is actually coming from and why they are as strong and radical as they are.
DD80_10.png

On the Supporting Pops tab in the same panel, you can find out exactly who is providing the most support and radicalism to the Movement. Perhaps you could temper some of these strong feelings by increasing dividends in their industries or providing some targeted reduction in prices of certain luxury goods?
DD80_11.png


The Revolution Clock events usually adjust the revolutionary progression up or down, but can also apply other conditions, some which may upset your country's political balance for quite some time. This can of course also impact revolutionary progression indirectly, as Clout heavily impacts the conditions of the movement.
DD80_12.png


Revolutionary movements have also been given their own animated map marker, to make it clearer where the revolution is brewing and what territory is likely to go along with it when it erupts. And yes, once again I've had to redact part of the UI to not spoil some surprises we have in store for you!
DD80_13.png


That's all for today! As you can see we're putting a lot of focus on making internal politics more dynamic and fun to play with in Update 1.3, and there's much more to come in subsequent dev diaries. Next week Victoria will present new laws we have introduced in the mix, to fill some late-game gaps and enable new early- and mid-game conflicts between your political factions!
 
  • 184Like
  • 81Love
  • 8
  • 8
  • 7
Reactions:
But this is headed towards the wrong direction. As long as playing Sweden feels the same as playing Prussia, there is no real immersion. Why not focus on something like EU IV mission trees or national ideas to give at least an handful of nations some unique flavor?
On my opinion, mission trees is way to nowhere. With them EU4 dlcs eventually became just indefinite stream of balancing and rebalancing the same bunch of nations with waste tries to model history by bunch of modifiers (as example, "lucky nations" very "loved") - which in turn just put process on rails - each game feels the same.
Flavor should stem from religion, culture and geographical conditions and dynamic btw them (smth like in CK3 - it has flaws but base is solid) and game variety should rise from depth and number of mechanics not from tag color.

And, of course, changing of systems which presented now. For example, in laws there shouldn't be things like become better and better just because you going down to laws list. For example if game force you to get rid of Traditionalism (once you disable it - you never go back) - it means only bad design, so that should be changed not in laws but in events. Same with slavery. It doesn't give you situation bonuses to have it (like in Stellar is) so slavery shouldn't be in laws in first place
 
Last edited:
  • 15
  • 1Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Facts: Dynamic and emergent gameplay able to naturally reproduce real world outcomes is a noble and ambitious endeavor and any developer wet dream. Should it be achieved, it would satisfied both sandboxers and historists. But it is also extremely difficult and maybe even realistically impossible with the team available resources. Mission trees are nothing but an acknowledgment of the incapacity to build such a system. No shame in this.

That said, please guys it's not the place to start this argument again.

I'm saying it again, but being able to predict which territories will revolt and the fact that the capital never revolts clash with the way armies are managed, and while this it not changed, any other revolution improvement won't prevent them from being exploited/made trivial.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Welcoming the new way to enacting laws, I have to say I'm even more excited about the demands from IGs in goverment. Finally the IG/parties inside the coalitions you make start to matter in regard to the political goals of your partners; currently it's mainly about maximizing legitimacy, while you can be pretty selective whether you implement anything desired at all.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
A good direction, however I think how easy it is to enact laws should depend on how democratic a country is.


It should only be easy and quick if the law is supported by the IG in power, and assuming they also have (why shouldn’t they? High legitimacy).
If the law is not only not supported but opposed by the IG in power, the only way it should be passing is through a political movement that might or might not have high radicalism and the dictatorship passes the law to avoid a civil war.
Technically this effect is already in a game with the "#King/Queen/Emperor intervenes in political process" event (generic_laws.6).
 
  • 5
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Well done on answering a question without answering it.
I assume you focused on the "What difference does it make if you have to pass one RNG step or 3?" bit, but what about the rest of the argument?
No funny link to just throw at that and call it a day?

I’m not inclined to defend this games’ devs, but… Khan Academy is not exactly a humor website. It got me through grad level statistics classes.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Can the revolution clock mechanism being modded for other usage?

For example, if I want to have it mimicking a crisis that each time it fills up, legitimacy drop, an event is fired, when the revolution bar is filled, state secession happens? Can this achieved by script?

Will Revolution can be triggered by script in 1.3?
 
Last edited:
Shouldn't absolute monarchies or military dictatorships be able to force laws through? The aftermath is a different thing but it should be fine in theory so long as the military is loyal to them or capable of winning a civil war/revolution in the aftermath.
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
Shouldn't absolute monarchies or military dictatorships be able to force laws through? The aftermath is a different thing but it should be fine in theory so long as the military is loyal to them or capable of winning a civil war/revolution in the aftermath.
But then they shouldn't be able to pass laws that the monarch or dictator is against. I think that would give an interesting difference between political systems. That would also require some tweaking for current rulers (for instance Nicolas I of russia disliked serfdom, in the game he supports it). I'm certain it would also causes frustration for some wanna be autocrats because of the heir rng.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Shouldn't absolute monarchies or military dictatorships be able to force laws through? The aftermath is a different thing but it should be fine in theory so long as the military is loyal to them or capable of winning a civil war/revolution in the aftermath.
That system is partially implemented, actually. Monarch is part of IG and it'd be strange if they'd force laws which out of their interests (absolute monarch forcing freedom of speech is just nonsense at least while player represent not a ruler but invisible GodHand which should fight with ruler traits also). Once again, what is required - is get rid of absolutely useless laws to which you never gonna return (everyone rush to multiculturalism, improved taxes and so on). Traditionalism, serfdom or slavery for example should have viable bonuses in some situations cuz now it's just an obstacles - and getting rid of obstacles can be implemented through decisions when landowners or slaveholders weak - in current situation they just take place in laws interface.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
This is already rather well-modeled. Once they revolt, the IG's in opposition are essentially dropped from your country. If you defeat the revolution, the political power of the losing side is reduced to zero.

If there was any real support for the law you're trying to pass, during this time you'll easily get the law enacted. On the other hand, if you tried to abolish the monarchy with 3% support to begin with, simply defeating the people who got angry over the attempt doesn't mean there's enough support to actually enact it.

Sure, but when that 3% constitutes the entire remaining government, surely a guillotine can be found quick smart? :p

I found it very strange to win a civil war over the abolition of the monarchy... and still have a monarchy. Then, a few bad RNG rolls later, my odds of abolishing the monarchy were now worse than before I won a civil war fought over abolishing the monarchy. Just doesn't seem quite right.

It'd be fine if the monarchy were abolished by virtue of winning the civil war, but you then got a political movement to bring it back which grew in power as the defeated reactionary forces regained their strength. You have a republic now - if you can keep it. More fun!
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
thats not what we are talking about and you know it
Occam's razor is a golden rule of game design: if you can use already existing mechanics or tool to get the desired effect instead of implementing new mechanic or creating an exception to existing, then you should. That event allows an autocrat to use his personal power (not the power of the IG) to push the law. The need to strengthen this power or to increase the chance of this event appearing (with or without influence of (free) authority) is another question, but the tool is already in game.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
It would be great if you can add the possibility to boost revolution with the help of foreign countries. For instance, Kingdom of Sardinia helping revolution in Lombardy under the Austro-Hungarian Empire
 
  • 1
Reactions:
It sounds like the end result of these changes is that laws will on average take 3 times as long to pass as they do in the current build of the game, since you have to get a full success three times instead of just once.

And laws already tend to take a long time to pass in the current build, unless the support is overwhelming.

Will the base enactment time per tick be reduced correspondingly? Or will some other measures be taken to ensure enactment time isn't tripled compared to the current build?
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I am hoping each cycle will have their time severely reduced, otherwise, it’s a bad move.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Will you approach how the the revolutionary side is politically handled ? For example I often have the problem that a liberal revolution happens because for example im trying to enact a parliamentary republic and get rid of the king, but the liberal "revolution country" Im playing then does still have a (conservative) king and needs to enact the parliament law, but now the legitimacy is so low, that the new law never gets enacted, because the conservative king and new liberal government dont get a long.

In that case the king shouldnt be there anymore at all, he should run to the conservative revolutionary side.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
It sounds like the end result of these changes is that laws will on average take 3 times as long to pass as they do in the current build of the game, since you have to get a full success three times instead of just once.

And laws already tend to take a long time to pass in the current build, unless the support is overwhelming.

Will the base enactment time per tick be reduced correspondingly? Or will some other measures be taken to ensure enactment time isn't tripled compared to the current build?
They mentioned in the DD:
To compensate for the additional time requirement, we've increased the pace of the enactment clock - which also means more twists and turns during each law enactment.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
Occam's razor is a golden rule of game design: if you can use already existing mechanics or tool to get the desired effect instead of implementing new mechanic or creating an exception to existing, then you should. That event allows an autocrat to use his personal power (not the power of the IG) to push the law. The need to strengthen this power or to increase the chance of this event appearing (with or without influence of (free) authority) is another question, but the tool is already in game.
this is a bad-faith argument. a single random event that you can't do anything to make happen is not a comparison to an actual mechanic. "Occam's razor" seems to be a euphemism for "we shouldn't improve because we dont need to"
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
I was rethinking about autocracies today, here are my thoughts.

Previously I was asking for autocrats to pursue their interests, but as AI, being 100% controlled by the computer.

Autocrats should pursue their interests, not just an event to show up randomly, for a 20% additional chance of getting a law approved (not 100%), that gives a negative modifier for the intelligentsia, for no reason. Do you think that in a autocratic government, every time the autocrat does something, the intellectuals have to be against it? To get laws approved in a non-democratic society does the autocrat need to beg? Does it need to ask kindly and humbly about their feelings?

I believe not.
They are more likely to be something between "My way or the highway" and
"If I don't get this law approved until next month, heads will start to roll".

Now, I see that when in a Autocracy, the player does act as the autocrat many times.
So there is no way for the AI to be the autocrat and also the player.
It is in the player control to be the smart autocrat or the stupid autocrat.

Then we have a situation where we can approve all laws 100% guaranteed, that would make Autocracy too powerful.
Only thing I can think to counter this is that in a Autocracy every law approved should make a lot of radicals, and half the time should trigger a civil war.

There is something that I still don't get, why the Autocracy law always gives power to Aristocrats?
In a Autocratic Theocracy it should empower Clergymen.
In a Communist Autocracy there are no Aristocrats to empower, so I guess the Bureaucrats.
In a Fascist Autocracy it should empower the Capitalists.

Today I'm asking developers to implement the autocratic process (the inverse of the democratic process), the way things are today, they are too democratic for my taste.;)
You know, maybe a little bit of bribery and other political concessions, the diplomatic path.

I don't know if the continuation of diplomacy (also known as violence) is viable: backstabbing, assasinations, political purges and a extra dose of good old threats to take everything they value in their miserable lives.

I think that the petition system will help make democracies more democratic.

I'm glad that making Autocracy interesting is still in the roadmap.
 
  • 2
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
That system is partially implemented, actually. Monarch is part of IG and it'd be strange if they'd force laws which out of their interests (absolute monarch forcing freedom of speech is just nonsense at least while player represent not a ruler but invisible GodHand which should fight with ruler traits also). Once again, what is required - is get rid of absolutely useless laws to which you never gonna return (everyone rush to multiculturalism, improved taxes and so on). Traditionalism, serfdom or slavery for example should have viable bonuses in some situations cuz now it's just an obstacles - and getting rid of obstacles can be implemented through decisions when landowners or slaveholders weak - in current situation they just take place in laws interface.

Maybe can only force laws that they are in favor of or that don't clash with their personal ideology.
 
  • 1Love
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions: