• 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 #126 - Update 1.8 Overview

16_9.png
Happy Thursday and welcome back to another Victoria 3 development diary. This week we’re going to take a bird’s eye view of the headline features of update 1.8, which is of course the next free update for the game, planned to be released sometime later this year. However, before we start on the dev diary proper I should tell you about a slight change of plans in our release schedule. Back in Dev Diary #124 I told you that update 1.8 would be a smaller update, focused almost entirely on bug fixing and general polish.

This was indeed the plan, with update 1.9 intended as a larger update following relatively closely on the heels of 1.8, but when we sat down to work out the details we realized that our intended timeline simply didn’t work out, as we would either have to work on the two updates in too close proximity (creating major challenges for 1.8 post-release support among other things), or delay update 1.9 all the way to next year, which we didn’t want to do. So we decided to combine the two updates, with the result that 1.8 is now going to be a single update with the combined scope of both 1.8 and 1.9, meaning it will contain not just bug fixes and polish but also some juicy new free features.

But enough about update planning, let’s get into those headline features I just mentioned! As I said, this is just an overview dev diary, so we’re not going to go into any great detail today, but we have plenty more dev diaries planned in the upcoming weeks where we will fill in the blanks. One final thing before I start: All of the features mentioned are still in early stages of development, so any screenshots, numbers and art shown are going to be very, very, very (very) work in progress.


Ideological Forces (Political Movement Rework)

A frequent complaint about Victoria 3’s political system is the highly random nature of leader and character ideologies. The way in which you build up support for certain laws among your Interest Groups can be frustratingly opaque and reliant on using certain pieces of content (Corn Laws, anyone?) in a way that is neither immersive nor feels particularly rewarding.

In update 1.8, we are taking aim at this problem, alongside a number of other issues with a feature that we have dubbed ‘Ideological Forces’, but which can be more accurately called ‘Political Movement Rework’. The plan is to transform Political Movements from spontaneous and temporary demands for a single legal reform into longer-term ideological movements with a broader political agenda. For example, instead of a movement popping up to abolish slavery, you will have an actual Abolitionist movement with a long-term legal agenda, which will attract supporters from your Pops and influence the politics of the Interest Groups that those Pops are backing. Political Movements will also include religious and cultural minority (and majority!) movements, with some corresponding changes to civil war and secession mechanics.

One of the major aims of the Political Movement Rework is to make the mechanics around how we assign ideologies to Interest Group leaders much more transparent to the player
DD126_01.png

Discrimination Rework

Another issue straight off the future update plans that we’re tackling in 1.8 is the way pop discrimination works. Ever since release, we’ve said multiple times that the overly simplistic nature of discrimination is something we want to improve on in the future, and now that future is finally here! This feature is still in the ‘figuring it out’ stage, so I’ll eschew the details, but our principal goals with are as follows:
  • To introduce multiple ‘levels’ to discrimination instead of it just being a binary state
  • To have the level of discrimination faced by a Pop be determined by factors other than just what the law says
  • To turn assimilation into a properly useful feature that isn’t only available to fully accepted pops

UX mockup of what discrimination/acceptance of a particular culture might look like in 1.8. Note that everything here is just placeholder/example data and not necessarily planned features (sadly there will be no ‘let them eat fish’ law).
DD126_02.jpg


Food Availability, Famines and Harvest Incidents

In update 1.8, we’re also planning to expand on the gameplay around agriculture and food availability, which of course was an issue of great importance to governments at the time. After all, the 19th century saw events such as the Irish Potato Famine, the repeated famines in British-controlled India and the world-wide famines in the wake of the Krakatoa explosion.

To do this, we are going to introduce the concept of food availability for Pops, which is a factor that is separate from, but intrinsically linked to a Pop’s standard of living. Currently, we’re thinking that food availability for a Pop will be determined by how much of their buy package goes towards feeding themselves, how expensive the food goods they’re purchasing is, and whether there are any shortages among those goods. Low food availability will increase pop mortality and radicalism and may trigger a state-wide famine if it’s widespread enough.

Food production at the time was highly dependent on the weather and climate, and many peasant families were only one or two bad harvests away from the brink of ruin. To simulate this unpredictability, we’re also adding something called ‘Harvest Incidents’, which can increase or decrease agricultural output in different regions over a longer timeframe.

Early development mapmode showing harvest incidents. Korea is experiencing a period of bountiful harvests, while the situation is less rosy in the East African interior (ignore the colored sea zones, as that is just a bug from the feature being WIP).
DD126_03.png


These are the ‘big ones’ for update 1.8, but of course it is by no means all we’re planning to do in this update. A few honorable mentions of other changes and improvements you can expect in 1.8, all of which we’ll explain in detail over in the upcoming weeks:
  • Companies owning and investing in buildings
  • Bulk Nationalization tool
  • Multi-select and right-click orders for formations
  • Adding wargoals on behalf of subjects

Along with, of course, many bug fixes, balance changes and other miscellaneous improvements.

That’s all for today! More details on all of these features will of course follow, starting with Bulk Nationalization and Companies Owning Buildings, which Lino will tell you all about next week. See you then!
 
  • 212Love
  • 100Like
  • 5
  • 4
  • 4
Reactions:
I'm excited for a lot of it, but I'm most curious about what this actually entails.
In the other paradox games, you can drag a box over the screen to multi-select army units and then right click to point them somewhere. This wasn't a thing sofar in vic3 since there wasn't anything really to meaningfully control. A huge improvement in my opinion since it cuts down on tedious menu diving into each formation. At least that's what I assume it is, but it also could be just checkboxes for each army so you can check several and then do a command
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
For the love of Johan, please why you guys don't use transportation of goods as a market access capacitor? transporting good 1 unit of x from state A to B (adjacent) consumes 1 unit of transportation (or movement of goods), creating a market for the service of transportation and market access??? Is it too much processing demand? That would be a lot more realistic and solve the problem of having excess transportation, it would be more strategic to choose where to build railroads and could also allow the player to build early means transportation such as carts moved by horses and stuff.
Because there are NO goods - there are only buy and sell orders. The game does not know that the steel produced in state X goes to state Y since Y might be buying more steel than X produces, or vice versa.

When Paradox were in pre-release they did talk about limiting market access to the LOWEST transportation between state X and the market capital. But the idea got dropped. Hopefully they bring back something like it, and sub markets. But there are serious design issues with both those so I'd prefer to wait for a proper implementation, not a half-arsed one.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Harvest incidents kinda feel like plagues from Crusader Kings serie, just that their modifiers would target different things.

Will the player have tools to fight them, or future proof against them? I.e. irrigation systems etc.

Do they spread, or just suddenly appear?

Are there different kinds of them with different mechanic? Heatwaves, tsunamis, volcano erruptions etc.
 
Regarding food - I think the rules on meat consumption needs to be changed at least for the nomadic cultures that historically would eat more meat than grain and do not perceive meat as a luxury product - kazakhs, mongolians, etc.
 
Please don't make pop up events for famines I get sad

Famines are the exact kind of thing that could be prone to event spam every few months so I hope that can be avoided

We're modelling famines systemically, not through narrative content, so they won't be based on events :) More on all this in a future DD though!
 
  • 13Like
  • 3Love
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
For the love of Johan, please why you guys don't use transportation of goods as a market access capacitor? transporting good 1 unit of x from state A to B (adjacent) consumes 1 unit of transportation (or movement of goods), creating a market for the service of transportation and market access??? Is it too much processing demand? That would be a lot more realistic and solve the problem of having excess transportation, it would be more strategic to choose where to build railroads and could also allow the player to build early means transportation such as carts moved by horses and stuff.
There are two principal issues with this:
1) Designing the way transportation would be distributed: Which goods get priority, in which states? How does sea transport fit into this and what's the impact of supply networks? How does it tie into trade? How do you visualize it all so players understand when their supply chains break down? It's really not as simple as saying 'goods should use transportation' and calling it a day.
2) Performance: Tracking where every single good in the entire world is going would put an insane demand on the CPU so we would need to design some pretty elaborate heuristics for this. We have done a few design workshops on it and come up with some ideas but they're all just on-paper designs so far.

With that said, it's something I would love to do but it's going to need a lot of time in the oven to work properly and not utterly destroy performance. It's the sort of thing where we'd need to commit significant resources just to make a prototype and wouldn't even know if we would get something useful out of that time, and for that reason it isn't a top priority right now.
 
Last edited:
  • 20Like
  • 8
  • 3
Reactions:
There are two principal issues with this:
1) Designing the way transportation would be distributed: Which goods get priority, in which states? How does sea transport fit into this and what's the impact of supply networks? How does it tie into trade? How do you visualize it all so players understand when their supply chains break down? It's really not as simple as saying 'goods should use transportation' and calling it a day.
2) Performance: Tracking where every single good in the entire world is going would put an insane demand on the CPU so we would need to design some pretty elaborate heuristics for this. We have done a few design workshops on it and come up with some ideas but they're all just on-paper designs so far.

With that said, it's something I would love to do but it's going to need a lot of time in the oven to work properly and not utterly destroy performance. It's the sort of thing where we'd need to commit significant resources just to make a prototype and wouldn't even know if we would get something useful out of that time, and for that reason it isn't a top priority right now.
would this per state transportation need calculation work, while still not be to demanding on cpu?:

((weigh * Σ locally produced goods) - (weigh * Σ locally consumed goods))*Infrastructure surplus = state transportation need
 
My biggest gripe with political movements and leader ideologies is how binary it is and how gamey you have to get, for example by cycling generals until you get one that likes Multiculturalism. I hope that somehow gets adressed.

One idea: Make it so that leader ideology does not impact the types of laws that an interest group wants to pass, instead the leader should be especially passionate about a single law that the interest group approves. The law that the leader is passionate about should be easier to pass, for example by giving a clout modifier to the interest group when passing this particular law. That would eliminate the gamey problems of getting additional law options by combining the right leader ideology with the right interest group and the binarity of it.

Besides that, i hope that a fix to early game total wars will be coming in 1.9 :)
And i hope chapter 2 will be anounced soon =)
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
Reactions:
In your video you all released the other day I heard that navy changes was high up on the agenda. Is there any chance the naval gameplay will be updated before the year is over?
 
With cultural discrimination, can we tie this in with the conflicts in the Balkans?

Specifically: a lot of 19th century stem from Russia imposing itself as a protector of the Orthodox church and as a protector of all Slavs. The video from earlier in the week specifically addressed the Crimean War as an early game conflict, and would tie into the different kinds of strategic interests being developed.

To me, that entails:
1: A strategic interest of protecting [religion affiliated with your state religion] or protecting [culture related to your primary culture]. So, Russia could declare a strategic interest in the Balkans of "protecting Christians."
2: A casus belli related to discrimination: if an affiliated pop is discriminated, wars can be declared to reduce/remove that discrimination.

Based on the roadmap, this seems like a way to tie in the other big updates with it and hopefully a nice flavor pack.
 
One fix that would be great is seeing the AI be more inclined to join diplomatic plays in exchange for taking states that they have a plausible interest in taking (i.e. bordering their country, party of their primary culture group's homelands), etc. If I'm Prussia/NGF allied to/at +80 relations with Sardinia Piedmont, they should want to join a war against austria for Lombardy if our combined armies are enough to take out Austria - no? Same for Sweden in a war against Denmark for Schleswig Holstein, etc.

The current state of the game makes it very difficult to organically build up a country you want to help turn into a strong ally, and instead I find myself conquering states myself, eating the infamy, and then gifting the state to my allies (which half the time they don't even want!)

This seems like it would be a straightforward/simple fix, but I'm not a game developer so I'll let PDX correct me.
 
Sounds awesome!

I think the current political movement system does a good job of representing popular desire on a single issue including slavery/abolition. But I do see a gap as mentioned in the dev diary about being able to steer your nation's political direction over the long term.

Not sure if this is in scope of the planned work, but something I have noticed is that often with census or universal suffrage it is difficult to get over 50 legitimacy.
 
Eeeeemmmmm, I'm gonna ask... are we going to have, with the discrimination rework... the ability to start, and stop as a foreign power, something akin to the Armenian Genocide that took place in Anatolia under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, who, according to them, made the bloody deed to "save guard" the nation against external influences that might have used the discriminated Christians as an excuse to fragment the nation (with a system like the one that is now on the table the ability to simulate the events that transpired in the AG are unparalleled, we could simulate the degrading conditions that lead to said event, [from a point of normal Ottoman Religious and judicial discrimination to outright the extermination plan that the Joung Turks did during WWI]). This is one of my study subjects for uni so I had to ask about it...
I know it might be a touchy subject, but we can't negate that the event took place, it was horrible, and there are multiple accounts of diplomats asking their governments back in Europe to do something about it to save the Armenians to no avail (too many interests in the save guard of the Ottoman Empire ruling system to outright invade).
That is my question Wiz :)
 
  • 1
Reactions: