• 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:
Nice stuff. I can sort of see where the people who would prefer this to be more system-drive are coming from, but also think that this looks good as a flavorful side-dish to the main mechanical reworks of this DLC.
Also it seems to me like the devs are getting much better at exploiting the potential of JEs to create a "sweet spot" in between sandbox and railroaded content.
 
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
EU4 and its consequences have been a disaster for Paradoxian Gaming: A Deepdive into the 2010s

I can empathize as well to a point, but I'd personally rather have it best as it can be than not have it at all personally, doubly-so with the direction PDX is taking where the mechanics themselves aren't locked behind the DLC which means they can actually be worked on.
I do agree that for V3 in particular it's probably an overreaction at this point.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Literally, and I say this without a hint of exaggeration, there would be a [Capital] Commune in every single country in Europe every single game and suffer from the same fate as the God awful Jack The Ripper event you mentioned. Like, at the very least, there will be a Berlin Commune in every single game due to Prussia's inability to win the Brothers War, several Communes in Italy due to the San Marco Rebellion, a London Commune when GB inevitably gets a revolution due to Anti-Monarchy agitators, and an Istanbul Commune.

It's how it be for the AI.

I think your example misses the point, because you simply assume the worst AI and content scripting (I don't see anybody here advocating for either). If we base our discussions on the worst possible case, this is not very fruitful.

Just assume, for the sake of the argument, that the devs put the same amount of research and the same amount of care into scripting these JEs as they would into country-specific content. If, to stay with the example, the [Capital] Commune content is done well, i.e. to grasp the historical dynamics the Paris Commune represents, and if it really grows organically out of the concrete conditions found in a given save, one would not expect to see more [Capital] Communes on average than we did in the real world (and, by the way, I don't even see France getting the Commune event in my 1.6 games, so there's that).

I personally prefer having curated and scripted content for specific countries when it involves flavour and events, I actually like that, and want the mechanical stuff to be global.

I also would not subscribe to this version of the content vs. mechanics dichotomy, because well-made JEs can be mechanics or at least lend form to mechanics. An example mentioned in this thread is how Austria's woes with nationalist movements will ultimately be represented in the game. On the one hand, this could be done simply via country-specific JEs. At the other extreme, you could have pure mechanics. I think there's a third option: to have solid mechanics that the game can bundle into engaging curated JEs.

All I am saying is simply: build on these nationalism mechanics and if it suits the situation, fire the related JEs. But do not make it an Austria-tag JE but rather one that all multi-national empires that find themselves in similar situations may need to face. I want Austria to face this challenge, but if the Austria tag does not exist in a given save, because everything has been conqered by, say, Switzerland, I want them to deal with these issues, too, if the conditions are met.

Whether these conditions are met or not is decided by mechanics. How the content is presented in the form of curated content/decisions/etc. to the player can be done via JEs. They are not mutually exclusive, and I'd argue each gets better if the other is at its best.
 
  • 4
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
It’s a very cool design. Seriously speaking, very cool.

Now we have a good way to make the number of the possible situations of Afghanistan’s border matching that in Kaiserreich the hoi4 mod.

But I do dislike the design of bookmark — there are two countries (over four) are not completely shown in the first page, and 1/4 of the screen is in blank… Anyway, have you thought about some new design on that? What about a TNO design?

Anyway, kinda pity that we do not have content for Yettishar — it’s kinda interesting as an historical event in Qing’s Sinkiang, especially promoted by Russian and British, which is the topic of the Great Game.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Every time I see new development, I realize even more that this game is done for a very specific subset of players. While the example I put below from this DD is not the wildest one, the coded language in tooltips is getting out of control. Of course, there's people that will defend that raw code is better than a nice sentence saying in this example: "Will complete if: Delhi is controlled by Great Britain or one of their subjects" (like EU4 and Imperator have).

Screen Shot 2024-04-25 at 22.09.02.png
 
  • 9Like
  • 6
  • 2
Reactions:
Objectives aren't compatible with multiplayer at the moment. This may be subject to change in the future.
This would be controversial my friend. VERY controversial.

Only countries centred in the Central Asia or Persia strategic regions, such as Persia, Afghanistan, the khanates, etc, are able to force the European great powers to end the Great Game.
EVEN more controversial. I remember that you guys decided to make dynamic participants serveral months ago. So has it failed due to some technical reason?

Well, anyway, the former one seems to be controversial anyway. At least I’ve planned to have a multiplayer as GBR and RUS with my friends. It would hurts if multiplay unsupported.

I’d say that this JEs has a very good understand on the historical regional political strategy but - alt-historians feel terrible.

Anyway, it’s glad to see northeastern Asia is also a part in this update - personally I prefer to see that Qing would not be placed in a complete negative position, which means being target of foreign mechanics only - may cause some must-be-killed issues, which is of a big headache.
 
Last edited:
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Every time I see new development, I realize even more that this game is done for a very specific subset of players. While the example I put below from this DD is not the wildest one, the coded language in tooltips is getting out of control. Of course, there's people that will defend that raw code is better than a nice sentence saying in this example: "Will complete if: Delhi is controlled by Great Britain or one of their subjects" (like EU4 and Imperator have).

View attachment 1124129
Too many tooltips make the whole codes look terrible.

Either presented in codes’ logic which is exactly what the pic means, or write some specific tooltip for each trigger/condition. In order to keep the codes and the localization clear, I’d rather prefer them to pick the former one more.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Too many tooltips make the whole codes look terrible.

Either presented in codes’ logic which is exactly what the pic means, or write some specific tooltip for each trigger/condition. In order to keep the codes and the localization clear, I’d rather prefer them to pick the former one more.
By the way you write, either you work with coding or at least you mod. Great, but that's precisely why I said that this system only appeals to a certian segment of the players, who find fine and efficient this way of presenting info. But my point is not about efficiency, especially if you leave behind people confused (I've had plenty of discussions with people showing off their arrogance when it comes to talking about logical language being superior, so I'm well covered here).

I used to mod Imperator and thank to the gods we had something called custom_tooltip where we could "narrate" the requirements as opposed to give a barrage of checkboxes like here. Either this does not exist in V3 or devs are extremely lazy.
 
  • 1Love
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't mind the progress bar JEs but I would like you to consider adjusting the terminology around "success/fail". Some of them are actual failures (like failing an expedition). But sometimes "fail" just means a different outcome, possibly even one that the player may actively want. "Spectre Haunting the World" and the Positivist JE come to mind, where you have to read really carefully at the conditions to figure out what "failure" or "success" means.

I like what you did with the Great Game journal entry, specifying left vs right and their various outcomes. Failure there is a completely different situation. This kind of description and terminology is what I'd like to see applied to some of the older JEs.
 
  • 9
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Is Great game should be in game? Yes.

But why fill game with hand-made events over systematic gameplay?

Like there is only Japan that has "westernisation" events, but non of the other isolatet countriess could have same route. Why there is no "Meiji resoration"-like events for indochina? Why "Great game" are restricted to Asia and can't happen in Africa?

This is same as "Paris Commune" couldn't somewhy happen in any other European country.
hahaha, I didn’t think I’d see you here, Erfan)) I support the message. From Andrey’s tg channel
 
Last edited:
I have been playing Paradox games for 14 years now. Many, many players have made the same propositions over the years, and still, these "mechanics to represent complex patterns" are yet to appear in any paradox games...
Those "bandaids" are the bread and butter for historical immersion in paradox games and I largely prefer that over a bland sandbox game because players foresee mechanics we have never seen in a game before... But maybe I simply lost my youthful naivity & hope ;)

V2 and several mods for other games have nearly all of their mechanics be non-Tag specific, so we know, for a fact, that it can be done.

Edit: I'm always confused when people respectfully disagree with a purely factual statement. I'm not arguing that non-Tag specific mechanics are necessarily better than Tag specific mechanics, though I do generally believe that to be true.
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 3Like
Reactions:
It all looks amazing! My main query is - how often does this stuff "work"? Some of the most frustrating recurrent events are the weak uprisings of the Republic of San Marco and the Taiping Rebellion (the latter of which actually has half a chance to succeed). If I'm watching AI Russia, or playing as these tiny Central Asian or Caucasian States, what chance do I actually have to secure my independence? The war system in this game is a little unsophisticated to allow me to just place a smaller army than that of the massive Russian Empire's at my Kazakh border and hope.
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Love the idea but does this stop us (as either Russia/GB or anybody else) from just puppeting Persia day 1 without interference? Right now that is a viable strategy as no else usually gets involved.

Quick edit for clarification: I would love it if it was not that simple.
 
  • 8
Reactions:
Does the objective require you to play to 1936 like the others do, or does it complete if you win the Great Game?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Does the objective require you to play to 1936 like the others do, or does it complete if you win the Great Game?
None of the other objectives require playing to 1936 anymore, not since 1.4 I believe.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I'll be honest: this doesn't look like content I'd ever want to engage with. If we had mechanics like limited wars and Diplo Play negotations then adding Journal Entries that interact with those mechanics for flavor and to steer things in plausible history-adjacent directions would be great. But instead we're getting an overcomplicated web of JEs trying to do everything on their own. Come on, JEs are a great feature but they can't replace proper game mechanics.

Especially when reading the DD it's very hard for me to understand which JE flows from which, what it does and what paths are available to take. And the whole "Great Game objective that's not in the sandbox mode" thing only made things more messy. I'm starting to miss Focus Trees, despite their issues at least they had a clear visual representation.

When I'm going to want to play in this region I think I'll first take time to sit down and mod all of this out. It'll be a blander experience for sure, but without hundreds of premade goals, subgoals and railroading it'll probably be a better one. I want a GSG, not a CYOA.
 
  • 9
  • 5
  • 3Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Why the bear piece is on the left, but the progress bar says "the right of the bar will benefit Russia"?
So the bear advances right, and similarly the English lion advances left. If the bear was on the right, it would be retreating right.

I agree that it's not immediately obvious though. I was initially confused about it, too.

At least, my understanding is that the indicator icon moves rightward if Russia does well, and leftward if Britain does.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions: