• 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 #93 - Military Improvements in Open Beta

16_9.jpg

Happy Thursday to you all! This is a particularly exciting dev diary for me to write, because I finally get to reveal details on what we've been working on since before the summer months - and strap in, because it's a lot!

I want to start out by talking a bit about the Open Beta and expectation setting. As we discussed in Dev Diary #91, we will be running an extended Open Beta from Aug 28th (alongside the launch of the 1.4 update) until our final release of 1.5 in late autumn. During this time we anticipate releasing at least 2 additional updates to the Open Beta branch, coinciding with our 3-week sprint schedule.

Expectations for the first update
Launch date: Aug 28. In the initial release, new features will be in a rudimentary state, with plenty of placeholder interfaces, graphics, and missing mechanical details. Many features will be exploitable and buggy, and absolutely not balanced. Some features will be unused or underused by the AI. Core components of the game that we have not touched should continue to work, so playing a game focused on economy and politics should not be heavily affected by these changes, but be aware that military campaigns may feel unsatisfying or cumbersome. If you wish to partake in testing this update, focus on feedbacking on what additions or balance changes would make the new features fun, not on whether they feel great right now.

Expectations for the second update
Tentative launch: mid September. By this time the new features should feel a lot more mature, with bugs and missing information / graphics filled in, additional mechanical details closing exploits and providing new optimization challenges, and in general more bells and whistles available to you. While beta testing this update, in addition to the aforementioned considerations, focus on balance and UX improvements.

Expectations for the third update
Tentative launch: mid October. If all goes as planned, at this point we should be fully feature-complete for the 1.5 release. This doesn't mean everything is wrapped up and ready to go! We will spend the time between this update and the final release fixing bugs, doing balance updates, and reacting to your feedback. While testing this update you should be able to focus on how fun the game is to play with the new features.

But first a short message from our Community Manager Pelly on how the Open Beta will be run!




Hello! For those that don’t recognise me, I am the Community Manager for Victoria 3 and helped run the Open Beta for 1.2 last time.

Open Betas are a very involved process, not just from the developers, but also on the community team end too!

When the Open Beta for 1.5 starts, the old 1.2 channels will be reopened for usage by the community! Any user can access these, to make it as easy as possible to provide feedback and chat about the Beta update!

As soon as the Open Beta is live, you can access the Beta Steam branch by following these instructions:
  • Right click Victoria 3 in your steam Library, select properties.
  • Click on ‘Betas’, then in the ‘Beta Participation drop down box select the 1.5 Open Beta option, when it is live, it will appear there similar to these options:

DD93_1.png

Now a bit about the Discord Channel structure:
  • Open-beta-news - where news about the open beta is posted, e.g. when Beta updates are announced.
  • Open-beta-changes-and-bugfixes - where changelogs for the Beta updates are posted so you know what has been changed or fixed between versions.
  • Open-beta-pelly-post - this is where I go through all the feedback and bug reports for the day. Then I list them here, with any dev responses or mark if they are duplicates. This helps everyone know that their items have been looked at and seen by the devs! This is updated every day for the previous day's issues, normally closer to 16:00 CEST!
  • Open-beta-chat - the area to chat generally about the beta updates, I still know people who really enjoyed talking here and became part of the ‘open-beta-chat’ gang!
  • Open-beta-feedback - The place to post any feedback about the updates, tags are used to distinguish the topic and if it has been looked at by devs/! Developers will be around to talk in these threads, however don’t expect an answer for every single thread!
  • Open-beta-bug-reports - We don’t normally have bug reporting on discord, as the bug reporting forums are the place to post these issues. However, during the Open Beta period it is easier if we have both feedback and bug reports on the same platform for ease of communication.

That is all from me, I hope you will enjoy the Open Beta when it starts and I see people around!

I will be there most of the time and happy to chat to y’all if you have any questions.




Now let's jump into the juicy stuff! For these features we are looking to improve the military gameplay in three broad areas: Agency, Depth, and Visuals.

By Agency we mean the degree of control the player feels they have over their military campaigns. Equally important to granting more agency is ensuring the player doesn't experience a lack of agency, for example by having more fronts to manage than Generals; uncontrollable, unpredictable front splitting; or armies that suddenly return home because their General decided an active front was an opportune place to die of old age.

Depth refers to both detail and realism. More military attributes and configuration options, armies and fleets that are composed and behave more like you'd expect from history, and more interesting decision-making during warfare.

Visuals require little introduction: it's about what we have come to affectionately refer to internally as "little dudes on the map". Seeing your armed forces in action, in transit, and being able to put a concrete location on everything (which also helps with agency).

Shared Fronts​

One issue that can rear its ugly head from time to time in the current version of Victoria 3 is the very large number of fronts you may be dealing with at any given moment. Many of you have pointed out that this leads to mandatory micromanagement of the war effort, which defeats the design goal that led us to create a more hands-off system for Victoria 3 in the first place. Reducing the number of fronts, especially in wars involving several countries on either side, to a more manageable number is a big priority for us.

The first in a one-two-punch effort to solve this problem is to make fronts adjacent between two or more allied countries into a single unified front. This can drastically reduce the number of fronts active at the start of a war.

There isn't that much more to say about shared fronts, which is a good thing. While quite complex in implementation (and we still have a few edge cases to sort out), they do what it says on the tin and are very intuitive in play. Here's an example of a single front between Bavaria and Württemburg on one side, and Hesse, Frankfurt, and Baden on the other. In the current live version this would be 4 unique fronts!
DD93_2.png

State-based Front Movement​

The second strike in our fight against too numerous and unpredictable fronts is state-based front movement. While merging adjacent fronts is a method of controlling the initial number of fronts between known participants, the bigger problem for most players is the unpredictable front splitting and merging that happens during the course of war, as battles are won and small pocket theaters are created. This feature eliminates the uncertainty of what might happen once a battle concludes, and drastically reduces the number of "temporary" fronts that emerge (which then causes you to lose the war because you don't have another General to staff it with so your enemy stomps all over you).

It works like this: battles will be fought in a province like before, but when you win you capture a fraction of the state that province is in, not a number of provinces. Only one state can be captured at a time, and only once the whole thing has been captured will the front actually move.

As part of this we have also permitted battles to be disconnected from frontlines, so you won't be attacking only the border provinces repeatedly until you have won the entire state. In our current build the province is chosen randomly from provinces in the state, but during Open Beta we will enhance this to select from provinces deeper and deeper into the state depending on occupation already earned.
DD93_3.png
As a battle concludes, the winning side earns a victory score - currently just a flat value, but this will eventually be changed to be conditional on the size of the victory. This victory score is allocated towards gaining or clearing occupation in states adjacent to the front, depending on the winning side; defenders will only clear occupation while attackers will clear some from their own states (if any) and gain some in the state they attacked.

In the current version of Victoria 3, the number of provinces gained on winning a battle are dependent on the size of the win, the stats of the advancing General, and some randomness within a min-max range. With 1.5, the amount of occupation gained in a state from a battle is dependent instead on a comparison between the victory score and the "occupation cost" of the state(s) in question. The occupation cost is determined by a number of factors:
  • State population
  • Amount of provinces with difficult terrain
  • Number of mobilized battalions left standing in the defender's theater compared to the size of the theater

Both victory score and occupation cost are broken down in the UI and fully scriptable/moddable. We intend on tweaking both during the Open Beta phase heavily in response to your feedback, to make sure states that are supposed to be hard to take are actually more challenging to conquer (without it becoming a slog) while depopulated savannahs are easier to march across.

What we have found in testing this feature is that in addition to controlling the sudden appearance of new fronts, this new behavior also makes it very easy to determine whether you're in control of a particular wargoal. In the future we hope to add new mechanics tied into this feature, such as economic exploitation of states occupied during war.

An example of the new outcome of battle and the occupation cost breakdown. In this case Piratini should have gotten to plant their flags across 87% of the state, but some advanced math (a.k.a. bug) as described by this screenshot only granted 10% - guess it's back to the code mines for me!
DD93_4.png


Speaking of flags! While it won't be in the initial Open Beta build, this is one way we plan on visualizing partial state occupation despite the frontline itself not moving, in addition to shading the terrain itself.
DD93_5.png

While state-based front movement is primarily a way to control and predict the number of fronts that emerge during a war, this feature is also something we're looking to expand on in the future by tying state occupation tighter into other game mechanics, like economics and military supply.

I'll close this section out by saying that while multiple simultaneous battles per front won't be in the initial beta release (should be coming in the 1st or 2nd update), the way we plan to implement and balance them is to only allow 1 battle / front / state at a time. This means you would only potentially benefit from having more Generals than your enemy on particularly long fronts, and even then only if you outnumber their defending troops. This is however an area we are actively going to solicit feedback on, and you'll hear more about it in future dev diaries.

Military Formations​

This feature has a number of sub-features that I'll go into in some detail, but first a bit of background to what this is and why we're doing it.

Having Generals and Admirals as the leaders of your armed forces is great both for flavor and for the knock-on effects it can have on the political system, but in retrospect characters are simultaneously too static and too ephemeral to serve as good containers of military units for a player to control. Commanders are meant to have names, traits, and faces so you can remember them, and if you have too many of them you can't tell them apart. But limiting the number of them you can maintain simultaneously restricts your ability to fine-tune your military and control who goes where, which can be frustrating (especially when you have to assign Generals to an indeterminate number of fronts!)

But, let's say we put gameplay over narrative concerns about identity uniqueness and removed the cap. Then we run into the issue of having to give every one of them a unique order every time we want them to go somewhere or do something different. This is very annoying when you just want everyone to go defend your single frontline.

To make things worse, if one of them kicks the bucket due to old age or gets suddenly ripped away due to some special event, your entire military campaign might be irrevocably disrupted in an instant! While we made an initial pass to address this issue in 1.3 with Field Promotion of new commanders, having a non-character container for your armed forces removes this problem altogether - your units will remain in place, and you can assign or recruit a new commander to lead them as you wish.

Another issue with the current system is that Buildings act as your only main vector for customizing your military. While this makes sense to model the economic and population impact your armed forces have, it can be a cumbersome and unintuitive way of constructing a diverse and capable military.

Military Formations tackles the issue of commanders being simultaneously too static and too ephemeral by providing a container for both commanders (generals or admirals, depending on formation type) as well as combat units (battalions / flotillas). You can create as many Formations as you want - with or without commanders, each with as many commanders as you like, and you can move both units and commanders between formations at will.

The design intent here is to provide you with a kind of entity - that's programmer-speak for thingamajig - that is more customizable to your own needs for agency than commanders are. These needs may vary a lot depending on what kind of country you're playing, where in the world you are, and what kinds of wars you happen to get yourself into. It also gives us a better platform for customization - adding depth - than commanders and buildings are, which we will see below. And finally, facets we're including with formations such as concrete movement and unit types give us a lot more opportunities to visually represent your military on the map and in the UI. So let's get into some more details!

Combat Unit Types​

In addition to recruiting commanders into Military Formations (which works similarly to how it currently does in the live version) you can also recruit specific unit types and mix and match to your heart's desire. If you're playing a single-state country and want to recruit 5 Skirmish and 10 Line Infantry, you cannot do so in the current version of the game since unit type is governed by Production Method and all levels of a building must have the same methods. But in 1.5 you can do just that in a Formation, and the Barracks that get constructed "around" those units as a result will maintain the mix.

This works by creating the units inside the scope of the Military Formation itself, not by expanding buildings directly. That follows our UX design vision for this feature: rather than configuring and maintaining your military through an awkward mix of interactions with buildings and characters, all interactions with your military are done through formations first and foremost, with characters and buildings appearing around the formations as supporting entities to ensure existing game mechanics continue to function.

In addition to the different types of infantry units, we are also adding additional groups of units with different properties: infantry, artillery, and cavalry on the army side; as well as light ships, capital ships, and support ships for the navy. For the final release, most or all of these will have unique illustrations/icons; right now they all have the same placeholder icon.
DD93_6.png

Units constructed in this way will be upgradeable between types (though not for the first Open Beta release) but only in certain cases: you will be able to upgrade your Ship-of-the-Line to Ironclads, as was often done historically, but you cannot upgrade your Ironclads to a different ship class like Battleships.

We're very interested in hearing your feedback on the specific units we're adding into the Open Beta, how they're grouped and balanced, and how managing them in the UI feels!

Mobilization Options​

I've always been happier with the current mobilization mechanics in theory than in practice. I like the increased demand on my industry during wartime and how that changes my economy (and my pops' economy). I also appreciate that I can't cheese the game by cranking down my consumption of military goods to zero in peacetime and turn it up to max when I'm at war, and that increased consumption is handled automatically as I mobilize a General into activity. I enjoy the tough decisions I sometimes have to make about whether I can truly afford to mobilize another General, or if my currently mobilized forces should be able to mop up the opposition in time.

What I don't like about it is how hard it is to balance, both as a designer and player, since it only increases the quantity of goods they're already consuming and therefore can only do so in a quantity that doesn't cause immediate shortages in your economy. Having to maintain mandatory unprofitable import trade routes for guns & ammo with potential elasticity to ensure I can prosecute my future wars sounds cool but can feel a bit much in practice sometimes.

Mobilization Options permit you to customize what goods you want to give your battalions when they're out active soldiering, with powerful effects providing trade-offs for the increased costs. Sometimes those goods are military hardware, other times they're just better rations or fancier uniforms. Adding consumer goods as a possible cost to mobilization also means a stronger impact on the civilian population during the war effort, which is both realistic and a great game dynamic.

Mobilization Options (typically) impose a cost in goods per unit in a Formation, which is applied to that unit's building, in exchange for an effect on all units. Both cost and effect are applied only when mobilized, and Mobilization Options can be toggled on or off only while the Formation is demobilized.

This is the list of Mobilization Options we will launch with the initial Open Beta release (fully unlocked, of course), but it's neither finalized nor well-balanced. Some of the options may even end up as new unit types instead (or in addition to) for example. We will be actively seeking feedback on what other options you want to see, and rework the UI to allow us to fit more options. Icons are currently borrowed from other areas of the game and are particularly WIP.
DD93_7.png

Mobilization Options don't have to be just about goods, it can also just be toggles on how you want this Formation to behave. For example, Forced March causes the Formation to move faster but at a cost of increased morale loss (a penalty which could be countered by Luxurious Supplies, if desired). Rail Transport is mutually exclusive with Forced March, doesn't cause morale loss, but requires both the Railway tech and Transportation goods.

The way we see Mobilization Options used is as toggles that can be set prior to active warfare, taking properties like market conditions, commander traits, and combat unit mix into account. You could customize a small, fast formation of elite crack troops or a giant army of cheap irregulars forced to march on an empty stomach, depending on your strengths as a nation and who you're likely to be fighting against.

Early Demobilization​

While we initially added early demobilization with 1.3.6, it was a little bit hacky: it operated as a character interaction rather than a military command, and only applied a flat cost to a country in response to the goods cost prior to demobilization instead of incurring actual consumption.

We have now made it possible to demobilize armies during active warfare if desired. When this happens, the army will first have to travel home, and will then spend 4 months in demobilization (exact value very much subject to feedback) where mobilization supply cost will be gradually decreased over the duration. Unlike the current live implementation on Generals, these goods will be properly consumed in the interim so your industries and trade routes don't immediately collapse with nothing to gain for it.

Early demobilization can also be a little more relevant in the Open Beta due to Mobilization Options, in case those options you provided ended up a little too costly over the course of the war and you want to return home for reconfiguration.
DD93_8.png

DD93_9.png

Station at HQ​

Military Formations, both armies and fleets, are initially created in an HQ but do not need to stay there. You can re-station a Military Formation at an HQ - even a temporary one you have established during the course of the war on allied or occupied territory - if you're willing to pay the increased supply cost for doing so depending on where your combat units are actually from (once we get around to adding that increased supply cost that is - until then, re-station away!).

You can station a fleet in any coastal HQ. Later during the Open Beta we will require an active Naval Base to exist in order to station your fleet there.
DD93_10.png


This also means if you want to move an army to proactively defend against an impending naval invasion, you can do so (as long as you're quick about it!)
DD93_11.png

Concrete Location​

Another thing we have been dissatisfied with is the lack of a tangible location for your armed forces. In the current live version, Generals and Admirals are either at the HQ they're recruited into or on a mission somewhere, depending on their current order. But when a commander moves somewhere in response to their order changing, they are put into a kind of limbo while they are moving to a new location (typically a front, with naval movement being more abstracted as an "execution time") with the travel time only visualized as a countdown in the UI.

In the Open Beta, Formations will always have a concrete on-map location, so you can track their real-time movement between locations more easily. Generals and Admirals no longer have their own independent locations as this is inferred by their Formation, but Generals can autonomously spread out across fronts to visually indicate what state they are primarily defending and/or attacking.

For the first Open Beta release, movement will be tracked only in straight lines. Here we see an army moving first from the Maranhão Pará Front, then towards the Maranhão Rio Grande do Sul Front, and finally back towards its HQ in Rio de Janeiro when it's demobilized.
DD93_12.gif


For upcoming Open Beta releases, formations will pathfind across roads, railways, and sea lanes (or sea lanes only for fleets, for obvious reasons) and travel along those to their destination. Here we see the path taken by an army traveling from Örebro, Sweden to Tampa, Florida. The short skip over English territory visualized here is because the pathfinder currently does not take either military access or spline travel time into account but just travel length; once we've completed our work on the pathfinder it should still be possible for armies to disembark/traverse land/re-embark if the time savings makes it worth it, but it will generally be avoided.
DD93_13.png

Transferring Commanders and Units between Formations​

Of course there will be moments where you would like to split, merge, or transfer commanders and units between two formations of the same type. Even with shared fronts and state-based occupation, there may be instances where a new front is created in an area where you already have an army - for example, if you join a totally separate war while you already have another military engagement.

This can be easily done in the field if you have a single formation with multiple commanders. You can right-click one of those commanders and choose to "Split" it off into a new formation, which will cause them to quickly take a number of representative units in proportion to their own Command Limit and form a new formation with the same properties and in the same place.

You can tune this more precisely if you like by opening a Transfer popup, where you can select the exact commanders and units you want to move, select a target formation (which could be a brand new one), and execute the transfer. If the target formation is not in the same location as the origin, a temporary formation will be created that automatically travels to the destination where it will automatically merge with the target.

In-game mockups of what the Transfer popup will look like. We're hard at work trying to get this implemented for the first Open Beta release but it might not be fully functional until the second release, in September. We're also considering other potential enhancements to this, such as a double-sided panel where you can transfer Commanders and units back and forth between two formations.
DD93_14.png


DD93_15.png

Name and Icon customization​

When a formation is first created it gets a name selected based on your primary culture, type, and how many other formations you have of that type. You can change that name to your liking, to help you remember what you've designed it for or just for flavor and immersion.

In subsequent releases of the Open Beta you will also be able to customize the symbol and color of the formation icon, making it even easier to identify which formation is traveling across the map or deploys across a front.

A very work-in-progress screenshot of the formation appearance customization popup. The "pattern" section will provide a list of possible unique icons while the "color" section will contain a palette suitable for the formation type.
DD93_16.png

Revised Naval Invasions​

Naval Invasions have also been revised to accommodate the new state-based occupation mechanics and improve the UX in managing naval invasions. Naval Invasion can be initiated either from a formation or the Military Lens. Like in the current version of the game you target a state, but as a follow-up step you then get the option to add the formation(s) to be involved in the invasion. During the Open Beta we will enhance this panel with more information to help inform you on the likelihood of success, such as exposing information about landing penalties and the like.

In the initial Open Beta release, only one formation of each kind can be assigned to a naval invasion. In upcoming releases you will be able to assign multiple formations of each kind.
DD93_17.png

As you confirm the naval invasion, the formations selected will travel to the sea node just off the coast of the targeted state. When they have both arrived, landing battles will commence. A proper front (with armies assigned to that front) will not be created until the state is fully occupied. When this happens the naval invasion has been concluded.

In the interim, the supporting fleet may be attacked by enemy fleets. If any of these naval battles are lost, the naval invasion will fail and both formations will return home. If a naval battle is won but heavy ship casualties are taken, landing battles will take higher penalties until the fleet can be reinforced. During the Open Beta we will also look into adding more formations to a naval invasion already in progress.

Aside from closing some exploits relating to war exhaustion, this revision will make naval invasions a much more serious affair that requires naval dominance. We will be actively seeking feedback during the Open Beta to ensure executing and defending against naval invasions is more fun and interesting than it is in the currently live version.

I don't know about you but I can't wait to see these little guys in action!
DD93_18.gif

Frontline Graphics​

While most of the graphical enhancements will be appearing across the Open Beta period's two updates, we already have a first iteration of frontline graphics functional in the current development build.

In this screenshot, the frontline graphics system is using the previous battle graphics and additional VFX as placeholder for the assets we are currently producing.
DD93_19.gif


You can even see it from space!
DD93_20.png

Frontline graphics will represent the current formations at the front, with models being selected based on unit type, culture, tech, and mobilization options active. Specific formations, and even specific Generals, will have a distinct location on the frontline, with "their" units organized in their vicinity.

Concept art of our visual target for the final frontline graphics. One of these dioramas will be assembled dynamically based on formation composition and placed in each province along the front (possibly with some provinces omitted if the front is particularly long and the formations particularly small, to avoid miscommunication about the size of an army).
DD93_21.png

We are currently experimenting with our approach to animation and applying VFX to these models. It would not be appropriate for all units along a front to be animated at all times, since they aren't necessarily engaged in active warfare, so we will likely trigger animations on and off at certain intervals. This approach would also help with graphics performance.

We have a lot more WIP eyecandy to show you, but I'll leave that for future dev diaries!

What we broke :(

As a result of a lot of revisions, a few features have been disconnected from the game to be reworked during the Open Beta period. If you intend on evaluating the Open Beta you should be aware of these omissions and how we intend on addressing them in the updates.

Conscription​

Conscripts no longer make sense as raised on a state-by-state basis, since that makes it hard to determine which army they should belong to. Since we also have distinct unit types not tied to Production Methods, we would also need to know the nature of the conscripts that need to be raised.

The way we intend to solve this is by allowing players to assign conscripts of particular types to their formation, much like you build regular units. This will result in Conscription Centers being built as usual in specific states, but will not automatically raise those conscripts - that will be a toggle on the formation itself. Once formations start raising conscripts, the Conscription Centers will start staffing up as usual, up to the conscription percentage limit imposed by the population of the state, your Laws, Technologies, etc.

Putting conscripts on formation level also means you will be able to demobilize conscripts early, using the same Early Demobilization mechanics as described above.

Naval Warfare (other than naval invasions)​

Naval Warfare is scheduled to be reworked to support the new mechanics around concrete locations. This means that all actions you perform with your fleets will be based around sea nodes, not more abstract concepts like HQs or trade routes. If you are raiding convoys in a sea node, you can only be intercepted by other nearby fleets; if you want to defend against a naval invasion, you have to sail your fleet over to that naval invasion.

To account for the issues that may arise from moving fleets around to intercept each other, we're considering a number of solutions including:
  • Fleet Range: the ability for a fleet to be active also in adjacent sea zones, possibly at a reduced interception effectiveness or at a variable range determined by tech or unit type
  • Limited Fog-of-War: obscuring your enemy's positions and actions and only revealing them under certain conditions (Battleship board game style)
  • UI alerts and other visual indicators
  • Some manner of fleet automation, like patrol routes

This is an area we expect to do a lot of work in during the Open Beta, and will probably require a dedicated dev diary later on.

Conclusion​

As you can see, we've been quite busy! There's still a lot of work to be done, but we're all very happy to be addressing so many high-frequency community concerns in the context of a free update, and the new military mechanics already feel like a huge upgrade even in this immature state. With your direct input during the Open Beta period, on these as well as other features - like the new Companies and several other tweaks and improvements, which will be outlined in upcoming dev diaries - I have no doubt that the 1.5 update will bring Victoria 3 to new heights!

Next week we will hear more exciting stuff from our Art Director Max, this time about what to expect from the new Art Pack: Dawn of Wonder! After that we will move to a dev diary schedule of once every three weeks, to coincide with our sprint schedule and Open Beta update releases. This is to ensure that all members of the team are hyper-focused on the upcoming beta build itself and have time to communicate with you all on the Open Beta channel on the Discord server. See you there!
 
  • 178Love
  • 126Like
  • 15
  • 8
  • 5Haha
  • 2
Reactions:
The new method of taking states looks like it's probably mechanically more reasonable than the old way, but it reminds me how much I wish there was a way to create split states in peace treaties. I don't know if that's even at the bottom of someone's design doc, but I really wish it was possible to split a partially-occupied state rather than either take the whole thing or white peace out with whatever the previous borders were.

I wouldn't be surprised if creating split states (aside from treaty ports) is something that would particularly cause trouble for the game engine, but I still kinda want it.
Splitting states is not technically hard, but it creates a bunch of weird edge cases so it's not something we like to do a lot right now. But speaking of "bottom of a design document", I have a Partition wargoal I want to implement on some rainy day.
 
  • 21Like
  • 10
  • 4Love
Reactions:
With the switch to formations instead of industry for equipping and organizing units, will it now be possible to field a modern/semi-modern force on imports alone?
With mobilization options and different unit types giving you much more control of your military spending, this is more reasonable with this system, yes.
Maybe a recruitment of foreign officer option that allows you to equip units under that officer's command with tech equivalents from the source country?
We're considering some sort of "lend aid" option for Sphere of Influence, and the formation system gives us a nice layer to use here. We will see.
 
  • 27Like
  • 8Love
  • 7
Reactions:
Excellent post! Can't wait for some of these changes.

Have you addressed or are planning to address that captured states still provide their full industry and resources to their original owners?
With state-based occupation this is something we can more easily address. Not promising anything here for 1.5 release though, but it's something we want to build on in the future.
 
  • 27
  • 7Like
Reactions:
You've sort of addressed this already, but I thought I'd ask about it in a slightly different way. I know it will not be for this update, but are there plans/thoughts for the future to make the generals more alive as actual characters with desires of their own? Political appointees of course would fall into this, but I'm just thinking that if our role is to manage the war, not to manage the troops, that the primary "job" that entails is managing the generals. I know it can be controversial for games to botch carrying out your orders but if we have the tools at our disposal, I think it makes for interesting and active gameplay, without being overwhelming and micro-managey, to have politically strong but inept generals messing up your wars if you don't find a way to get rid of them. I hate to always bring up the same examples, but the Union army in the US Civil War is a prime example of this in action. This would also be another way to further differentiate government types: obviously the Kaiser in Germany can more easily and freely pick whatever generals he wants--but he might have to worry more about revolutionary or coup-like consequences than Lincoln who is more concerned with losing political power and elections.

I can see some cheesing strategies that would have to be addressed with deliberately tanking your government to get a new one but I still believe there is a nice middle ground between micromanaging all of your armies all over the map and telling your general to attack or defend over an entire front (I know we are getting strategic objectives too already that mitigates some of that).
It's a good point and definitely on-theme for the game! Let's see what we can do here, now or in the future.
 
  • 21Like
  • 5
  • 3
Reactions:
As a battle concludes, the winning side earns a victory score - currently just a flat value, but this will eventually be changed to be conditional on the size of the victory. This victory score is allocated towards gaining or clearing occupation in states adjacent to the front, depending on the winning side; defenders will only clear occupation while attackers will clear some from their own states (if any) and gain some in the state they attacked.
First of all, great DD! This is way more than I was expecting and are all great changes. The only thing I'm utterly confused about is occupation. What does it do exactly? When you have enough occupation then you take a province or maybe it determines how many provinces you get after a battle? Or does it affect war score?
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
As a player, I have to say that I am a greedy person.
I am pleased with the modifications to the military system. However, I still hope to see the real air force in the game.

During World War I, the Air Force made the most rapid progress, and within a few years, these aircraft evolved from simple reconnaissance missions to powerful strategic forces.
Unfortunately, the current role of airplanes in games is not even as good as that of VIC2.
We're considering exactly how to implement an airforce. Right now they aren't exactly units, but a mobilization option. We'd like to see them act more like units, but the idea of 1000 guys in an air "battalion" is also weird - so is the idea of them taking casualties (at least to the same degree) as they're being fired on by cannons artillery. Feedback and ideas during Open Beta very much desired!
 
  • 24Like
  • 6
  • 4Love
Reactions:
First of all, great DD! This is way more than I was expecting and are all great changes. The only thing I'm utterly confused about is occupation. What does it do exactly? When you have enough occupation then you take a province or maybe it determines how many provinces you get after a battle? Or does it affect war score?
Occupation builds up in a state as a result of battle, and when total occupation reaches 100% the country/front with the most occupation gains the state and the front moves. War score (through War Exhaustion) is affected even before that based on the occupation percentage you have reached, but you have to capture the whole state to make it count as a "captured wargoal" and bring the enemy below 0 War Support.

We intend on working more with this during the Open Beta, and in preparation for that has made War Exhaustion fully scriptable(/moddable) so we can more rapidly react to feedback.
 
  • 16
  • 8Like
Reactions:
Exciting changes! I feel like nitpicking for little moddability things but they seem to be mostly done, so I have only one question:

Will there be proper trenches getting built and connecting from one side of the front to the other in longer/larger late game wars? It's kind of a hope of mine to see the race to the sea happen live as trenches get laid down in Vicky 3 (I know, more complicated than it seems)
 
  • 6Like
Reactions:
I'm really and thoroughly impressed, this is exactly what I was hoping for.

A few thoughts though:

I'd consider revisiting which commanders spawn for the recruitment pool. Right now there's some conditional logic that influences which commanders you have available to you at any given time, and maybe we can give players more ways of influencing that. But I don't want to just give players full control of which IG to recruit from, either; part of the fun for me at least is that you have a limited number of options at any given time, forcing me to occasionally choose between the perfect candidate from an IG I don't want to empower or a sub-standard candidate from an IG that agrees with me.
Is there a reason why every commander simply must belong to an IG? Wouldn't it be also possible to have commanders without any party preference, because they don't like politics?

And also, how hard would it be to make the IG affiliation dynamic? I'm thinking of a general commanding a very bloody battle, only for him to turn his back on the Armed Forces IG, go Catholic Church instead and becoming a pacifist. Just as an example of what I mean.

Currently, you just choose a commander, and you stop caring about them, because their IG never changes, they never die during battles, and they only exist to boost their IG clout.

Another thing, since you brought up Visuals as part of player agency and wanting some feedback, even before the beta I can already provide some. Corporate needs you to find which one of the following ships is an Ironclad, a Monitor and a Dreadnought. There are at least 7 differences and I mixed them up on purpose.

theships.png


I hope you understand what I'm trying to say here. Please, for the love of all that is good and holy, don't re-use the same ship pic for three consecutive ship types.

Since we're already talking about ships, how does the new system support battles between several fleets? One problem currently is that only one battle can take place per node. That creates some exploit-y tactics when it especially comes to naval invasions. What if I send three 50 ship strong fleets to make naval invasions and the defender has 100 ships? Will only 50 ships engage, the other 100 wait and then turn back home if the first battle is lost? Or fight three consecutive battles? Or engange all at once?

And while we're talking ships and pathfinding, how about options regarding the Suez and Panamal Canals? They make for great shortcuts, but what if I want to block someone out of using the canals? Similar to how GB denied Russia's Baltic Fleet passage through the canal after they attacked some fishing boats. Didn't lead to war, but still had consequences on the path the entire fleet had to take.

With some real pathfinding I think the canals should play a slightly bigger role, given their importance.

But a great and promising development, can't wait to get my hands on the beta!
 
  • 17Like
  • 3Haha
  • 2Love
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Exciting changes! I feel like nitpicking for little moddability things but they seem to be mostly done, so I have only one question:

Will there be proper trenches getting built and connecting from one side of the front to the other in longer/larger late game wars? It's kind of a hope of mine to see the race to the sea happen live as trenches get laid down in Vicky 3 (I know, more complicated than it seems)
It's very complicated and very performance-heavy :( We're looking into building trenches along the front when suitable units are there, but it might not be along the whole front and they won't remain after the front moves.
 
  • 14Like
  • 14
  • 1
Reactions:
With state-based occupation this is something we can more easily address. Not promising anything here for 1.5 release though, but it's something we want to build on in the future.
Sounds good! Cheers. Hope you guys do get to it at some point. I think it would introduce some interesting counter-play into choosing where to build industry, and could create some challenging situations during wars where an industry of yours might get knocked out and you'd have to find a way to make up the difference.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
It's come up in design discussions and with the new pathfinder it would be more feasible for us to implement something like this. One issue here is historicity; in this era of nationalism it was quite rare for countries to just march their armed forces across another nation's territory (without that nation being under occupation, that is). It doesn't exactly ring true to me to allow countries to have permanent "military access" pacts with one another outside the context of a particular war; ideally I'd want it to be an agreement negotiated in the context of a particular war, and irrevocable for that war.

Feedback much appreciated!
It certainly doesn’t need to be a permanent agreement but I do think at least having it be on a per-war basis would still be a big improvement over not having it at all. The access issue is usually a problem in areas with a lot of smaller states, like Germany, where outside of unification plays it’s not possible to have alliances with every country between you and an enemy nation before you research Multilateral Alliances. In this case nationalism might not be as big of an issue bc all of the countries are German.

Perhaps Customs Unions and attitudes toward the war leaders on both sides of the war should matter then when it comes to providing military access? I think it especially makes sense to be able to have military access through members of your Customs Unions since POPs can already freely move around due to being in the same market so why shouldn’t your armies as well? Obviously the Customs Union is an economic pact not a military one but since all the members are being tied together economically by being in the same market then they’d be affected by any wars other members (especially the market leader) engage in. It might not make sense for the access to be automatic but I think Customs Union members should be highly likely to accept requests for military access from other members during a war especially if they are hostile to the war leader on the other side. Countries outside of Customs Unions should also be able to provide military access if they having a compelling enough reason to help one side without getting involved, such as having a negative attitude toward the war leader on the opposing side. Perhaps there should be diplomatic repercussions to this such as reduced relations with participants on the other side of the war. I think it just makes sense to allow for military access from non-participating countries in a war if there’s a good reason for them to provide it and it’s properly balanced to be difficult to obtain and come with proper repercussions so that it’s not a decision that would be made lightly.

I also do think for the Prussia example if the German Confederation is ever added to the game in the future then automatic military access for member states in wars again non-members might make sense. That’s however something that would be down the road.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm really and thoroughly impressed, this is exactly what I was hoping for.
Glad you like it!
Is there a reason why every commander simply must belong to an IG? Wouldn't it be also possible to have commanders without any party preference, because they don't like politics?
We like the idea of every character belonging to an IG, so they interface with the political system. "Belonging" in this case might mean they support the IG or the IG supports them. Technically we could have some commanders be more like "I just want to grill" I suppose but I'm not sure if it'd be an improvement.
And also, how hard would it be to make the IG affiliation dynamic? I'm thinking of a general commanding a very bloody battle, only for him to turn his back on the Armed Forces IG, go Catholic Church instead and becoming a pacifist. Just as an example of what I mean.
We can definitely do this with events! And events are also a good way to let the player know something like this happened.
Please, for the love of all that is good and holy, don't re-use the same ship pic for three consecutive ship types.
We will have different icons for every ship type, for sure!
Since we're already talking about ships, how does the new system support battles between several fleets? One problem currently is that only one battle can take place per node. That creates some exploit-y tactics when it especially comes to naval invasions. What if I send three 50 ship strong fleets to make naval invasions and the defender has 100 ships? Will only 50 ships engage, the other 100 wait and then turn back home if the first battle is lost? Or fight three consecutive battles? Or engange all at once?
We're currently revisiting this system so I will have to get back to you on that in a later dev diary.
And while we're talking ships and pathfinding, how about options regarding the Suez and Panamal Canals? They make for great shortcuts, but what if I want to block someone out of using the canals? Similar to how GB denied Russia's Baltic Fleet passage through the canal after they attacked some fishing boats. Didn't lead to war, but still had consequences on the path the entire fleet had to take.
Answered above to some extent. tl;dr probably no special canal access mechanics for 1.5 release, definitely on the roadmap for the future.
 
  • 24Like
  • 6
  • 4Love
Reactions:
This was a pleasure of a DD to read. Very excited for the upcoming changes. The increased options for mobilization is something I didn't realize I needed until it was brought up. Would it continue to work as it does now with the raised troops increasing demand for military goods or a could a national stockpile be implemented to cushion some of the pain of having to deal with the increased demand?

It was also mentioned that you guys are looking to push the AI into building taller rather than churn out the number of buildings they currently do. Would a building cap per state be possible like in V2? With localized prices implemented it sounds like the modernized version of the throughput bonuses from resource extraction and factory chains. Having a build limit might force us to make more strategic decision about what to build where as well as improving performance.
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
maybe I have overlooked it.
But will it be possible to create army formations especially with conscript units in mind?
So I have a core army of 10K professional troops and in case of war I can activate 50K conscript troops letting this small intervention force swell up to become my main battlegroup
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
First of all, thank you very much for your hard work.

About the mobilization, can V3 borrow the mode of HOI 4 and simplify it so that the player does not need to do so much - there has template that I can setting, for example, an armored division template, in which I can set the equipment of this division, and then choose this as the source of the division's troops (for example, as Russia, I choose Kiev, Kharkiv and Moscow regions as the recruit places of the division). Next, I just need to click on the template, and the system will automatically recruit the component divisions from these locations and automatically buy enough equipment from the market, instead of me having to click on the assignments of batalion one by one, it's tiring.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Glad you like it!

We like the idea of every character belonging to an IG, so they interface with the political system. "Belonging" in this case might mean they support the IG or the IG supports them. Technically we could have some commanders be more like "I just want to grill" I suppose but I'm not sure if it'd be an improvement.

We can definitely do this with events! And events are also a good way to let the player know something like this happened.

We will have different icons for every ship type, for sure!

We're currently revisiting this system so I will have to get back to you on that in a later dev diary.

Answered above to some extent. tl;dr probably no special canal access mechanics for 1.5 release, definitely on the roadmap for the future.

I was expecting much and my expectations were exceeded. Well done, well done indeed.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
Faith in Victoria 3: Restored!

I may sound a bit too dramatic, but you don’t realize that you just made a huge first step into not letting this game end up like imperator rome/making this game more than a mid game, making it a great game!

On every single topic people had major complains about (naval invasions, agency, visuals, combat etc…), you have got the right ideas and are implementing the changes so desperately needed.

The state based occupations and the question of multiple battles is to be adressed more still, but you are actually listening to us, some might consider you a bit slow on reaction, but you are listening.


This dev diary might be the most important of them all, since the launch.

Keep the good work up, I believe in you!
 
  • 10Like
  • 1
Reactions:
This was a pleasure of a DD to read. Very excited for the upcoming changes. The increased options for mobilization is something I didn't realize I needed until it was brought up. Would it continue to work as it does now with the raised troops increasing demand for military goods or a could a national stockpile be implemented to cushion some of the pain of having to deal with the increased demand?
Yes, it works like it does currently. Some sort of stockpile system is something we're looking into, hopefully for release sometime 2024 - we have a lot of ideas and see a good number of use cases for it, especially with local pricing.
It was also mentioned that you guys are looking to push the AI into building taller rather than churn out the number of buildings they currently do. Would a building cap per state be possible like in V2? With localized prices implemented it sounds like the modernized version of the throughput bonuses from resource extraction and factory chains. Having a build limit might force us to make more strategic decision about what to build where as well as improving performance.
Total building cap per state would be very hard to scale, unfortunately, since some countries only have a single state so it would artificially penalize them. However, working more with competitive advantage and other mechanics to naturally encourage specializing your states is something we're actively working on in the design team (when we're not otherwise occupied with military, right now).
 
  • 17
  • 8Like
  • 6Love
Reactions:
I'm impressed by the depth of the changes, and I think it goes into the direction that most people expected (using formations as a abstraction layer for the military). It mirros a lot of functionalities I was hoping to see. I'm extremely optimistic, and can't wait to test it!

That being said, there's ONE thing that puzzle me a lot :

Concrete Location​

Another thing we have been dissatisfied with is the lack of a tangible location for your armed forces. In the current live version, Generals and Admirals are either at the HQ they're recruited into or on a mission somewhere, depending on their current order. But when a commander moves somewhere in response to their order changing, they are put into a kind of limbo while they are moving to a new location (typically a front, with naval movement being more abstracted as an "execution time") with the travel time only visualized as a countdown in the UI.
In the Open Beta, Formations will always have a concrete on-map location, so you can track their real-time movement between locations more easily. Generals and Admirals no longer have their own independent locations as this is inferred by their Formation, but Generals can autonomously spread out across fronts to visually indicate what state they are primarily defending and/or attacking.

And its simply this : why?

There has been a significant move toward doing away with Provinces for warfare and replacing them with States, which totally make sense due to the issues of frontlines. There are also talks about tying army speed to local infrastructure.

But in that case, why do you want formations to have free positions? Why not simply tying them to States, and having them move from one to the other, until they arrive where they are needed? That's more or less how ALL the other Paradox games do it, and with good reason : making a graph-based system (the States/provinces and their neighbors) interact with free floating objects (Formations here) would generates an awful lot of painful edge cases.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions: