• 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 #114 - The Great Game

16_9.png

Hello. This is Victoria, and today I will be covering much of the Great Game-themed narrative content which is coming in Sphere of Influence. This will be the first dev diary covering narrative content, with the second covering minor nations in the Great Game and other related content.

The Great Game

Throughout the nineteenth century, Russia and Britain competed with one another for influence in Asia. This period of rivalry was known colloquially as the Great Game, beginning in the Caucasus and Central Asia, and expanding over time to include struggles for influence in areas as far away as Korea and China.

The new Great Game objective diverges from the more sandbox-oriented objectives by serving as a guided tour of this period in history. Whilst much of the content involved in the Great Game is available to owners of Sphere of Influence during every playthrough, the Great Game objective contains objective subgoals designed to guide the player through this content and represent the progress of the Great Game as a whole.

To ensure the best experience, the Great Game objective is only available for the six historical participants specified below—Russia, Britain, Persia, Kabul, Herat, and Kandahar.

DD114_01.png

Upon launching the Great Game, the first thing one will see is a list of objective subgoals, along with the subgoal which represents the core of the Great Game. The Great Game objective mixes country-specific and generic objectives—whilst both Britain and Russia have the objective of securing influence over Persia or creating an Afghan protectorate, they also have country-specific objectives which will be covered later in the diary.

DD114_02.png

The Great Game core subgoal is where the progress of each nation in the Great Game is tracked. Completing each subgoal will benefit the nation that completes it, pushing the bar to the right or the left. The bar will also drift in one direction or another each year, according to differences in national prestige and market GDP.

As can be seen here, there are three currently unopened questions in the Great Game—the fate of the Caucasian states, and the struggle for influence over Afghanistan and Persia. These are victories to be had. Both Britain and Russia have made advances before the game’s start, with Britain benefiting from their successful expedition through the Hindu Kush and into Bukhara in 1831, and Russia benefiting from enforcing the Treaty of Turkmenchay in 1828. In the Great Game, Victories represent conflicts within which both powers vie against one another, and advances represent more technical, military, or diplomatic achievements.

DD114_03.png

When the journal entry concludes, the position of the bar will determine whether the Great Game has a victor, or whether neither power was able to gain supremacy. The power that wins the Great Game will receive a prestige and Power Bloc cohesion bonus, and the nation which is defeated will be humiliated in the eyes of the world.


DD114_04.png

DD114_05.png

Of course, the Great Game does not always have a winner. Contrary to the views of the imperial administrators vying over the territories of Central Asia, the people which reside there have agendas of their own. If, whilst playing as a Central Asian or Persian power, one pushes both Britain and Russia out of the region, the Great Game will be forced to a close with both Great Powers being humbled.

Generic Content


Whilst both Britain and Russia have their unique national priorities, the core of the Great Game lies in the battle for leverage over Central Asia. Both Great Powers have generic subgoals for acquiring influence in this region.

Afghanistan

In Afghanistan, for example, one may establish a protectorate over all the nations in the region—but the process does not stop there. The power which successfully establishes a protectorate over Afghanistan must keep it for ten years, without any Afghan states slipping out of their grasp.

DD114_06.png

At the game’s start, Afghanistan’s borders are quite different from what they were at the end of the period. This is owed to the Anglo-Russian Agreement of 1895, in which Russia and Britain jointly decided upon the borders of the Afghan state. Once Afghanistan unifies, a journal entry modelling this will appear for both Britain and Russia, along with an objective subgoal for those playing the Great Game.

DD114_07.png

The Pamir Delimitation journal entry represents the negotiations between Britain and Russia to determine the borders of Afghanistan. Depending on the borders of Afghanistan at the beginning of the process, the journal entry will present a variety of different proposals, permitting the Great Powers to grant or claim a varying amount of land.

Pictured: Britain has decided that Afghanistan’s southeastern border should be drawn along the Indus River, whilst Russia has decided upon giving it some territory in the North.
DD114_08.png

Once both Great Powers have agreed to a treaty, it is presented to Afghanistan, which has the option to accept or refuse. If Afghanistan refuses, the Great Powers will need to do another round of negotiation, this time with additional coercive measures available to them.


DD114_09.png

DD114_10.png

DD114_11.png

If Afghanistan continues to refuse or the Great Powers fail to come to a deal, negotiations will break down, and overlapping claims will almost guarantee future wars in the region.

Pictured: Some of the shapes that a post-Pamir Delimitation Afghanistan may take. Some of these may prove more viable than others.
DD114_12.png


Persia

The requirements for successfully completing the subgoal to secure influence over Persia is similar to Afghanistan, with the caveat that the territorial integrity of Persia must be maintained, at least to some extent. The fluid borders and expansionist ambitions of Persia, which will be shown in more detail next week, mean that Persia may take many shapes over the course of a game.

DD114_13.png

Himalayan Exploration

Throughout the late nineteenth centuries, European explorers constantly attempted to penetrate through the Himalayan Mountains, to chart the Tibetan Plateau and determine the best routes for a military expedition into the interior of China. Sphere of Influence adds a new expedition into the Himalayas, with ramifications for the Great Game if successfully completed.

DD114_14.png

Whilst your explorers survey the roof of the world, they may come across many things, from mountains higher than any seen before, or fascinating wildlife.

DD114_15.png

In addition to the risk of losing life or limb to both frostbite and the wildlife’s claws, any European expeditions trespassing into this region will run the risk of causing diplomatic incidents with China. It is best to tread cautiously, lest the expedition be sent back humiliated—or not come back at all.

DD114_16.png

Country-Specific Content

In the Great Game objective, the majority of objectives are country-specific. In many cases, these objectives are linked to journal entries that are available for a country in any playthrough, with the objectives serving as a way to point out specific journal entries and grant the player points in the Great Game for completing them.

The Caucasian War

For example, in Russia, the “Secure the Persian Border” objective is tied to a new journal entry that is available for Russia at the game’s start.

DD114_17.png

The Caucasian War is a conflict that has been raging for some time at the beginning of the game, beginning with the Russian attempt to annex Circassia in the mid-eighteenth century. In 1836, the Caucasian Imamate and Circassia continue to resist Russian domination of the region, making much of the region effectively ungovernable. Russian control of the South Caucasus is exerted primarily through the Georgian Military Highway—a route constantly threatened by the unrest in the North Caucasus. If Russia loses control of the North Caucasus, it is certain to lead to the loss of the South as well.

DD114_18.png

Whilst the Caucasian War journal entry is active, events will intermittently fire, covering various situations related to the war. The options in these events often increase devastation in the region, which will make things more difficult for the Imamate and Circassia, at the cost of spilling out into Russian-controlled regions as well.

DD114_19.png

DD114_20.png

DD114_21.png


Once Russia has either successfully researched certain technologies or reached the end of its starting truce, the war may be escalated into a full-scale conflict, which permits the use of ordinary diplomatic plays against these nations.

DD114_22.png

Upon escalating the war, the Russian armed forces in the Caucasus will present the historical Milyutin memorandum to the government. Accepting this memorandum will please the command of the armed forces, but lead to the historical outcome of the Caucasian War—the devastation of the region, depopulation, and the forceful expulsion of much of the Circassian population to the Ottoman Empire.

DD114_23.png

Circassia and the Caucasian Imamate also have content related to the conflict, which will be shown off in the next dev diary.

The rest of the Caucasian War requires the Sphere of Influence DLC, but the content pertaining to the Milyutin memorandum and brutal depopulation of the Caucasus does not. Whilst this is a gruesome event in history, it is also not something which can in good conscience be overlooked.

Kazakhstan

As of 1836, the Kazakh steppes have been under the Russian Empire for several decades. The power of the Khan has recently been abolished, and the Kazakh zhuzes placed under the command of various Russian-appointed agha-sultans. However, this system of administration is beginning to fray. Early in the game, Russia will receive an event notifying them of the rise of Kenesary Kasymuli, a Kazakh aristocrat who has come to spearhead Kazakh resistance against Russian rule.

DD114_24.png

When this event occurs, a new unresolved victory appears in the Great Game central subgoal, and a new subgoal, along with its corresponding Journal Entry, appears.

DD114_25.png

DD114_26.png

The Pacification of the Steppes journal entry is completed by slowly and peacefully annexing the Kazakh protectorates, and fails if the Kazakh protectorates’ liberty desire rises too high, or if ten years pass without successfully achieving this goal.

DD114_27.png

Whilst the journal entry is active, events pertaining to Kenesary’s rebels will fire, possibly interfering with the liberty desire of Russia’s Kazakh subjects.

DD114_28.png

In addition to firing events for Russia, Kenesary will also fire events for the Kazakh zhuzes and the Central Asian khanates, giving them a chance to side with Kenesary when he eventually launches his final play for control of Kazakhstan.

DD114_29.png

If Russian rule is sufficiently disrupted, and Liberty Desire reaches too high a value, Kenesary will seize control of the Uly Zhuz and launch his independence war against Russia, along with the allies that he’s collected along the way.

DD114_30.png

DD114_31.png

If Russia can successfully crush the revolt, they will gain progress in the Great Game—but it has far more to lose than to gain. Whilst Britain is not necessarily aiding Kenesary, his victory will represent a coup for Britain, as Russia now has much more work to do to reach Afghanistan.

DD114_32.png

If Russia succeeds, it will have an opportunity to menace the other Central Asian Khanates, and, upon researching Civilising Mission, unlock a new journal entry—the Conquest of Turkestan.

DD114_33.png

DD114_34.png


Other Russian Subgoals

Throughout the course of a game, Russia will periodically unlock additional subgoals which will advance its position in the Great Game. These subgoals represent various historical aims of Russia, and are exclusive to the Great Game objective.

The Codify the Chinese Border subgoal represents the Russian Empire’s desire for the various territorial concessions in Central Asia and Outer Manchuria signed away by the Qing Empire in the mid-nineteenth century. The acquisition of Outer Manchuria was instrumental to the ability for the Russian Empire to project power into the Pacific Ocean, a situation which eventually led to British concerns over the integrity of their Pacific colonies and their later alliance with Japan.

To complete this subgoal, Russia must both acquire these territories from China, and force China to abandon claims on the territory. If a non-player China has been weakened by the Opium Wars and other calamities, the options to sign the Treaty of Aigun, Beijing Treaty, and Chuguchak Protocol provided by the Ruler of the East Journal Entry are a perfect way to see this goal through whilst minimising both the risk of war and the negative implications of a revanchist China on the border.

DD114_35.png

The Acquire Manchurian Concessions subgoal also relates to the relations between China and Russia, and is triggered by the Russian acquisition and incorporation of a state in Outer Manchuria. This subgoal encourages Russia to acquire a treaty port in Manchuria, and construct the historical Chinese Eastern Railway, which served as the furthest Eastern branch of the trans-Siberian railway until the opening of the Amur River Line in 1916.

DD114_36.png

With the Russian acquisition of Outer Manchuria also comes ambitions to secure a protectorate over Korea. Korea was considered to present a risk in the hands of a foreign power as a staging point for the decapitation of Russia’s Far Eastern naval assets. Historically, the Russian Empire contended diplomatically with Japan for influence in Korea following the first Sino-Japanese war, a period which would meet its climax with a Japanese-sponsored coup killing the Queen of Korea and forcing the King to flee to the Russian embassy.

This period of heightened tensions between the modernising Empire of Japan and Russia would cool for a brief period with the establishment of several agreements that would establish a balance of power in Korea. These agreements would come to an end following the end of the Russo-Japanese war, and the later Japanese conquest of Korea. The Secure a Korean Protectorate subgoal represents an alternate route—the ambition of both Nicholas II and factions within his government to establish full Russian control of Korea.

DD114_37.png

British Subgoals

In the 1830s, British citizens and ships played a role in assisting Circassia against Russia. Whilst Britain was historically unwilling to escalate its involvement in Circassia beyond occasional shipments of weapons or volunteers dispatched by private citizens, it considered exerting influence into the Black Sea to be in its national interest.

The Disrupt the Russian Caucasus subgoal represents the various initiatives amongst British civil and political society to assist Circassia, and react to what they saw as the threat of Russia taking control of the Ottoman Empire if it could consolidate its territories in the Caucasus.

DD114_38.png

The Expand British India subgoal represents the desire to expand the territories controlled by the East India Company into Burma and modern-day Pakistan. A strong East India Company, or British Raj, may serve as a valuable counterweight to Russian influence in the region, and a centre from which Britain may project power into the remainder of Asia.

DD114_39.png

The Contest the Russian Pamirs subgoal represents an abortive attempt in 1902 by Britain to seize control of the Pamir Mountains and establish an independent buffer state through a deeply unsubtle method—a direct military incursion with cooperation from Afghanistan.

Whilst this proposition was historically rejected by the British government before materialising, the acquisition of Tajikistan by Russia will present Britain the opportunity to launch the proposed invasion. If Britain can manage to seize Tajikistan or establish a new Tajik state in its power bloc, it will gain a decisive advantage in the Great Game.

DD114_40.png

The final unique subgoal for Britain is to counter Russian Pacific Influence. This represents the historical Anglo-Japanese Alliance of 1902, which was formed in reaction to the strengthening of the Russian presence in its Far Eastern territories. This subgoal is triggered by Russia developing naval bases in Outer Manchuria, heralding an incoming threat to the British fleet in the Pacific.

DD114_41.png

Next week, I will cover the content for minor nations involved with the Great Game, as well as how sandbox mode works with the new content. And that is all. Thank you for reading.
 
  • 123Like
  • 59Love
  • 25
  • 17
  • 6
Reactions:
Looks like this will be quite fun to play as! Two questions:

1) Is it not possible to get Great Game objectives as the British Raj?

2) Are there new ways that Britain can influence Circassia? Beyond declaring war on Russia, I'm not sure what Britain can do under current game mechanics. Britain can't trade with them, so are there new mechanics there?
 
  • 5Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Man, this is such a downer of a dev diary for a Sikh Empire player. Not only are they excluded from the Great Game (a crime as they sit between the British Empire, Persia/Afghanistan, and Russia), their starting territory is part of the Great Game itself, with Kashmir and Pashtunistan included in the Afghan treaty. Furthermore, Britain/EIC will now be more AI-incentivized to take over the Sikh Empire.

This unique starting nation will be caught in the crossfire of this content, succumbing to its players without being given the opportunity to play for themselves.
 
  • 10
  • 4Like
  • 3
Reactions:
Will we see the addition of Zoroastrian pops? They were important to the Iranian nationalist movement and hold a powerful economic position in India. This seems like it would be the time to add them
 
  • 8Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Very excited for all the new content for my favorite area to play and mod for. Question though, do you have a way to keep Kenesary Kasymuli from retiring/dying before the journal entry ends? I've had this issue when modding narrative content for Persia and the character would randomly retire or stop agitating. It would be nice if there was a way to script a specific character so that they wouldn't do this.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Im not a fan of such journal entries. I would would rather have universal mechanics which would allow such things to happen organically.

For example it could be an universal feature to be able to have a conference between great powers which have interest in the region to establish borders between them over the heads of minor nations. And whole diplomatic play should be expanded to allow for some negotiations and compromise.

Similarly the infamous French dlc shouldn't add pretenders as journal entry just for France. Situation where certain pretender became aligned with an ideology/interest group happened in multiple countries. When monarch of certain IG is overthrown and another one is installed then those monarchs could become a pretenders for those IG and would be remembered by a game and restored in case of monarchical revolution made by IG which supports them.

Or some dynamic ideology could be created for a pretender based on laws of a country in a moment of his deposition. Name of ideology could be created from his name just like we had Carlism, Miguelism, Jacobitism. Both solutions would be more interesting than just journal entry restricted to France.

Generally speaking, Journal Entries are a very weak and boring mechanic. Personally, I would prefer this game to have mechanics similar to the Mission Tree or National Focus.
 
  • 21
  • 3Like
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
Generally speaking, Journal Entries are a very weak and boring mechanic. Personally, I would prefer this game to have mechanics similar to the Mission Tree or National Focus.
I agree with your first sentence. How are Mission trees or Naitonal Focus at all better, though?
 
  • 9Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
How are Mission trees or Naitonal Focus at all better, though?
Because they can be unique and increase the immersion of playing a given country. There are several branches that can direct the operation of our country.
 
  • 16
  • 1Love
Reactions:
I can see that effort was put into this, and it's some good flavour, but here is the potential problem:

Will the player even have a reason to do this besides the roleplay element?
Seriously, in this dd you are talking about expanding influence in central asia, the pacific ocean and you are talking about pacific fleets, and the black sea.... But the problem is, the game doesen't have the proper mechanics in place to make geography matter, to feel like it has impact, to then force you to engage with this system for actual tangible gains, while enjoying some flavour too.

Russia had to acquire these ports in the black sea and pacific ocean to have warm water ports, to trade from there and have naval bases, but why do that in a game, where there is no supply system for navies and armies? No supply range for navies, which if they leave, they will start attrition. There are no actual ship units (for now, i know it has been propised...), so no need for ship repair or maintenance, and therefore no need for naval base network for resupplies and repairs. Also there is no difference between warm water ports, and useless frozen costline, so why would russia bother doing all of this, instead of sitting there and gdp maxing?

Talking about the transsiberian railroad....Why? The unit travel time is not influenced by geography, harsh terrain, or supplies, Units moving from europe don't take the time they should to get to asia, they get there too fast, and with no attrition, (also, funny how attrition is "turned on" only when you are at war, and only if you are at a front lol) so what railroads are we talking about? What trans siberial railway, why bother?

This is good for rp i guess, but beyound that, it's just reading the events and trying to rp it, with no actual impactful benefits, that could be attained with a more optimal paly. I doubt that this will make an actuall impact, be actually usefull gameplay wise.... Why bother, when I can assamble a 150k army, teleport them quickly to central asia or Korea, and roll over anyone i don't like, and occupy all by just starting a diplo play? There is no attrition based on supply after all, there is no significant downside committing an army like that.... engaging with the system should feel worth it i think.

At least occupations and annexations by these flavour events could reduce radicals from conquest, or give cores, make it so if annexed it is already incorporated or something.....or give some meaningfull bonuses at least within this game's bounderies.... because in the current state of this game (with logistics not existing) this would be the only thing that makes it worth engaging with this system (besides roleplay i guess).
 
  • 25Like
  • 3
  • 2Love
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
@Teutonic_Knight_2000 @Revolutin 11 I mean no disrespect, but as someone who hate mission trees with passion, I can believe that you find them better than journal entries, but for me whatever the form they are in, they are still country-exclusive mechanics, and save from some possible explanations, their presence in a game meant for simulating an era in history is difficult to swallow.
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
DD114_15.png


A new animal for the Morgenröte Zoo. Fine! We'll add it. :)
 
  • 6Haha
  • 1Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Feels a little too much like "launch a conquer state diplomatic play" with a few extra steps AND a lot of tooltips to read which can already overwhelm you in other events. Things you can complete so fast you don't even care about them. The options for diplomacy are all laid out for you, why can't I as UK decide how I want my Afghanistan to look? What if I want to make a new state out of it? And what if I, as Russia, want to go a different way with China? What if for whatever reason I want to go a different way other than the default options? I just can't, because the game hardcoded it for me not to. It feels underwhelming when devs do all the work for you, instead of compensating with more dynamic world building and diplomatic decisions.
As other people pointed out, why can't I have a Great Game for South America if I play my cards right? Or "westernize" as isolated countries? Go an extra mile to make my state militaristic like Prussia or declare myself, specifically, a protector of certain peoples or religion? So on...
 
  • 9
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Im not a fan of such journal entries. I would would rather have universal mechanics which would allow such things to happen organically.

For example it could be an universal feature to be able to have a conference between great powers which have interest in the region to establish borders between them over the heads of minor nations. And whole diplomatic play should be expanded to allow for some negotiations and compromise.

Similarly the infamous French dlc shouldn't add pretenders as journal entry just for France. Situation where certain pretender became aligned with an ideology/interest group happened in multiple countries. When monarch of certain IG is overthrown and another one is installed then those monarchs could become a pretenders for those IG and would be remembered by a game and restored in case of monarchical revolution made by IG which supports them.

Or some dynamic ideology could be created for a pretender based on laws of a country in a moment of his deposition. Name of ideology could be created from his name just like we had Carlism, Miguelism, Jacobitism. Both solutions would be more interesting than just journal entry restricted to France.

People say that but then we complain as a community that the game feels too bland and every country plays the same (remember Imperator?).

Personally I welcome these journal entries and hope that we will have more in the future so that when I play USA, UK, France, Russia, I don't feel like I am playing any other country with exactly the same goals and objectives.

Grand strategy game are not supposed to be sandbox only, there is also an historical part in that genre. It is not Civilization.
 
  • 13Like
  • 8
  • 4
Reactions:
Because they can be unique and increase the immersion of playing a given country. There are several branches that can direct the operation of our country.
Are you under the impression that Journal Entries can’t be country-specific or that they can’t have several branches? Because they absolutely can (e.g. the Brazil monarchy/republic JEs).
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
The only content that's specific to the Objective are a few very light Journal Entries that serve as a "progress tracker" through the Great Game, so you can think of picking the Objective as more of a "quick-start" to play in one of the most interesting regions affected by the expansion's new mechanics and narrative content. All the meaty stuff in the Great Game is available to expansion owners playing in the relevant countries (as well as AI countries, of course) in any game mode, including Sandbox, just as in e.g. Colossus of the South. Sorry if that was unclear!
So, to make completely sure I understand how this will work - if I play a sandbox game as, say, Russia, I will still get to play through stuff like the events of the Caucasian War, Kenesary's revolt or the shaping of Afghan borders, and the only significant change would be that there would be no Great Game progress tracker and journal entries awarding Great Game points? In other words - the content remains, just without the journal entries?
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I really enjoy Div's content on the Great Game. It looks fantastic! Thank you for your work. By the way, have the errors regarding the surnames and ethnicities of Afghan rulers been corrected?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Btw please don't lock it behind game objectives. It feels weird and this is definitely not Vic 3's last DLC, if I have to choose between which DLC content I want to play and sideline all the others, then there will be no reason at all for me to buy any expansion besides the one I like the most, because I will have to keep microing which game I should play.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
@Teutonic_Knight_2000 @Revolutin 11 I mean no disrespect, but as someone who hate mission trees with passion, I can believe that you find them better than journal entries, but for me whatever the form they are in, they are still country-exclusive mechanics, and save from some possible explanations, their presence in a game meant for simulating an era in history is difficult to swallow.
Journal entries are simply not very intuitive, even unnoticeable and therefore illegible. Mechanics such as the Mission Tree (EU4) and National Focus (HoI4) are presented in a clear way, which allows us to see what the next stages may be after completing the current one. In addition, they are simply more interesting and increase immersion by allowing for the creation of both historical and alternative branches.
 
  • 8Like
  • 4
Reactions:
Are you under the impression that Journal Entries can’t be country-specific or that they can’t have several branches? Because they absolutely can (e.g. the Brazil monarchy/republic JEs).
Yes they can. I've even played them and they're just unintuitive.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions: