• 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 #130 - Political Movement Radicalism and Civil Wars

16_9.png

Happy Thursday and welcome back to yet another Victoria 3 development diary. A few weeks ago I went over the changes we’re making to Political Movements in update 1.8, and promised a followup going more into how this impacts Civil Wars and particularly Secessions. As you might have guessed by the title, this is precisely what we’ll be discussing today, along with a bit more detail on Political Movement Radicalism, where it comes from, and how it ties into Civil Wars.

As I went over in the aforementioned Dev Diary, Political Movements have a Radicalism value going from 0-100%. More specifically, this is two values: The current value and the target value, with the current value drifting towards the target value over time. The target value is calculated from a number of factors, including:
  • Which laws you have enacted or are in the process of enacting (if the movement’s core ideology has a stance on them)
  • How many radicals and loyalists are members of the movement
  • Other factors specific to a particular movement type. For example, a Cultural Majority movement might be upset if the ruler of the country isn’t of one of your primary cultures, or a Pro-Slavery movement might be upset if they perceive that Slave States are not receiving their fair share of government building construction, particularly for the army.

A side note is that we’re currently thinking of renaming ‘Political Movement Radicalism’ to ‘Political Movement Activism’ as we feel this better describes how the system works now, but this isn’t done yet so I will continue to refer to it as Radicalism for the moment.

The Abolitionist Movement in the USA is currently ‘Passive’, but drifting towards ‘Agitating’ due to the Legacy Slavery law, the fraction of Slave States versus Free States in the country, and a smattering of Radicals among the movement supporters
DD130_01.png

DD130_02.png

I already went over the different Radicalism thresholds and their effects, so I won’t repeat myself there, but instead focus on the highest radicalism threshold (currently called ‘Rioting’, but we’re probably going to rename it) where Civil Wars become possible. While this isn’t technically all that different from before, what is different is that all civil wars are now started by Radical movements, including Secessions.

What this means is that the previous system we had for Secessions, where they just randomly start when a culture has high turmoil, is completely and utterly gone from the game. Instead, Movements can ignite a Civil War that is either a Revolution or a Secession. Whether a radical movement starts a Revolution or a Secession depends on the Movement Type and the specific circumstances in your country, so I’ll list a few examples of how we currently envision this to work (the exact details may change before release though):
  • Cultural Minority movements will generally always try to Secede if they can
  • Royalist Movements will generally always launch a Revolution if they can, but might Secede under very specific circumstances (see below)
  • Pro-Slavery/Anti-Slavery Movements will usually launch Revolutions, but under Legacy Slavery (ie the American Civil War situation) will tend to secede instead
  • Religious Minority movement might launch a Revolution to change the State Religion if they have broad enough support, but otherwise would Secede

Whether a Movement is able to start a Civil War doesn’t solely depend on their level of Radicalism. For one, in order for a Revolution to start, there must be at least one Interest Group willing to side with the Political Movement. The precise conditions for when an Interest Group sides with a Revolution are still being tweaked, but right now we’re thinking along these lines:
  • The Interest Group must be influenced by the Movement (ie be able to get character ideologies from it)
  • The Interest Group must be Angry
  • The Interest Group must be at least somewhat ideologically aligned with the Movement (ie, Landowners led by a Slaver wouldn’t join an Abolitionist uprising)

Secessions, on the other hand, never pull in Interest Groups directly, and so one of the conditions under which a Secession could happen is when a Movement is extremely radical but unable to garner any Interest Group support and decide to instead break off and make their own country with their own Interest Groups. As an example, the Royalist movement in a Republic flight find the overall support for restoring the monarchy is so weak that they try to create a breakaway Kingdom in whatever region they are still able to garner support in. This may of course not make sense for all movement types, so we’ll have to decide on a case by case basis for each.

The American Pro-Slavery Movement is rising up, taking the Slave States with them in their attempt to secede from the union. Note that the tooltip/UI here is very WIP!
DD130_03.png

Another part of Civil Wars that has changed considerably is state assignment, ie which precise states rise up against you. Previously, state assignment worked according to a few basic rules:
  • For Revolutions, a fraction of states would rise up based on Movement Support (frequently this would be ‘everything but the capital’ if the movement was strong enough)
  • For Secessions, a fraction of cultural homelands would rise up based on level of turmoil (usually, all of them)
  • For Revolutions, only Incorporated states could rise up
  • The Capital could never rise up

All of these rules, including capital immunity, have been tossed out the window. Instead, the precise configuration of states depends heavily on the type and support of the movement, and where its support comes from. For example, a movement with high Military Support will tend to get more of the states with Barracks/Naval Bases, while a movement backed by a large portion of the population would gain a greater share of states overall. In other words, if you stack all the barracks in your capital, and then proceed to anger the military, then well… that capital is likely going to be on the other side of the war in the coming scuffle. Unincorporated States are now also able to take sides, so that Revolutions aren’t just a concern in the metropol anymore.

Overall, just like the Political Movement Rework overall, the new system relies a whole lot less on blunt same-for-everyone rules and much more on precise scripting and rule-setting (all of which is of course fully moddable) for the different movement types, allowing us to create much more interesting and immersive mechanics for the different movements, what they want to achieve, and what they are willing to pick up a rifle to fight for. We are also aiming, overall, to have less inconsequential civil wars going on, but to try and increase the danger and unpredictability for even large countries when they do happen.

The Royalist Movement, giving up on Britain as a whole, are instead trying to create a breakaway monarchy in the north (note that dynamic secessions are also still WIP, so don’t read too much into the name and other details here)
DD130_04.png

Alright then, that’s all for today, but do join us again next week, when Alex will tell you all about Famines and Harvest Conditions. See you then!
 
  • 113Like
  • 88Love
  • 5
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
Will this also change the annoying situation that could happen where a large portion of states would start a revolution to change Law A, you'd start passing it, and the exact same states would immediately start a revolution to preserve Law A, trapping you in a no win situation?
This should at least be more unlikely to happen with individuals only being able to support one movement and movements having more dynamic calculations for which states back them - I can't promise that it will never happen though.
 
  • 24
  • 18Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Nice to hear about the changes to rules around states, that can revolt, from the perspective of US civil war. It's really quite common now for US to lose, because D.C. just keeps being an isolated small state, ready to be overrun, and for Florida not to join, because it isn't incorporated.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Is there any factor which makes political secessions more likely in the young, federal and multicultural American colonies when compared to European states with centuries of continuity?
Not yet but that's a good idea, I'll note it down for the balancing pass on the feature!
 
  • 37Like
  • 5
  • 3Love
Reactions:
This sounds like a great rework, however about the cultural minorities will always Secede when possible, does this entail that every cultural minority will always have an independence movement? How will this be balanced so that it does happen, but not that brutal so you can still play multiethnic nations?
They may have a movement to promote their rights but that doesn't mean the movement is trying to launch an independence war - it depends on their level of Radicalism (see political movement rework dev diary).
 
  • 30Like
  • 5
Reactions:
Not yet but that's a good idea, I'll note it down for the balancing pass on the feature!
Well, yes and no, because the "European states with centuries of continuity" tended to be multicultural empires with a lot of boiling nationalism within! On the contrary, new federal countries offered opportunities for new culture groups to feel they have a say in an evolving political context, less stagnated than the European ones.
 
  • 3Like
  • 3
Reactions:
If Secessions no longer pull in interest groups does this mean the American Civil War is no longer impacted by angry Southern Planters and/or Slavers/Jacksonian Democrats?
It'll be a factor, but the ACW (as in a secession around slavery) isn't going to happen just because the Southern Planters are angry about something else - it actually needs to be about slavery for there to be a confederate secession under the new system.
 
  • 20Love
  • 17Like
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
Well, yes and no, because the "European states with centuries of continuity" tended to be multicultural empires with a lot of boiling nationalism within!
Yes, I wasn't thinking of this in context of cultural/religious secessions.
 
  • 17Like
  • 4
Reactions:
This all looks very interesting. However, I have a kind of minor question.

As civil wars are currently implemented, AI countries that lose a civil war to an uprising often end up being stuck with the wrong capital, and have a bad habit of losing any unique IG ideologies they may have had. Is there anything planned to fix these issues?
I'm planning to change it so that whichever side in a revolution wins automatically moves back to the old capital. The IG ideologies issue I'll have to look into.
 
  • 46Like
  • 3
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Great dev diary. I can agree with most of what is being done here.

The capital should be up for play, agree. Nevertheless, as it's the seat of power, I would perhaps suggest that it should be subject to special rules:

-particular conditions for losing the capital vs other areas
-the seat of power being lost should in some situations, be the end of the civil war (revolution). the opposing side should be forced to lose after a certain point, and you shouldn't have to take back every single province in a country wide civil war. What I think would be interesting however would be to have those provinces that weren't reconquered but rather "surrendered" might have higher radicalism than the rest, making retaking them optional, but possibly advisable.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Why aren't the southern planter IG supporting the secession of the pro-slavery secession?
This is one of those cases where it would make sense for an IG to secede but frankly we just don't have any mechanics for it. We might end up doing something bespoke here for specifically the ACW.
 
  • 18
  • 15Like
  • 2Love
Reactions:
Will this stop the "facist/communist country name here" civil war moments when not a single thing about them is fascist/communist
It should, yes.
 
  • 36Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Today marks the first time I've actually set myself a reminder, with alarm and all, to remind myself about one of these diaries. You have captured my interest ruthlessly; well done.



As a general note, I'd like to ask about the Matter of Hungary content. I touched on this last DD, but will the possible outcomes remain the same? At the moment, Austria-Hungary is the same thing regardless of how it comes about: if you manage to raise Hungarians to the second-highest acceptance, you're rewarded with them becoming a primary culture, and if you fail and they're on the verge of secession, you can opt out by making them a primary culture. Sure, it upsets the aristocracy, but who cares? You've still got yourself a new primary culture, and your state's still as strong as ever.

I'm sure you're already coming up with ideas for an Austria rework, along with so many other countries, but I do think at the moment it's more ahistorical than you can justify. Austria-Hungary wasn't a real state. The flag used in-game was strictly for merchant shipping. In daily affairs, the two realms had their own flags, with their own armies, because they were their own countries held together by an increasingly tenuous personal union. The Ausgleich you get in game is nothing like that: it's equality for the Hungarians, with zero concrete penalties to your state's functionality.

If you're reworking civil wars and secessions anyway, you absolutely need to make Hungarian nationalism into a threat, because at present it's if anything much less scary than any other nationalism. The easiest fix would be that upon failing the Journal Entry you get to choose between the current Austrian Hegemonist option and a new option which, rather than just accepting Hungarian as a culture, instead releases all secessionist states into a Personal Union (as a monarchy) or Dominion (as any other type). I'd also like another success option which lets you remain as Austria in exchange for, say, more pro-Multiculturalism characters.

Now for the harder, but in my view very worthwhile, possibility: expanding this idea to other secessionist movements. The obvious case that comes to mind is the creation of the Irish Free State. At the moment the AI has very little incentive to release puppet states, especially because the predefined state borders usually don't actually match the secession support. In my view, secessionists (at least the less ideological ones) should give you some sort of prompt where you can release them, perhaps in exchange for their loyalty as a puppet state. The more radical a movement is, the more autonomy they'll demand, or else the new puppet might fall into immediate civil war.



Cultural Minority movements will generally always try to Secede if they can
What about changing the acceptance laws? Surely there should be some cases where they'd rather do that; I assume most of the time they'll start with laws, then progress to secession, but in my view you should account for the cases in which secession is unviable (e.g. natives in a colonial state) so that the new revolution either changes the cultural laws or otherwise adds certain native cultures as primary. It could also come with other effects if they succeed, such as accelerating the otherwise fixed* timeframe in which the leading minorities become accepted.

*On that note, I don't think it ought to be fixed, and I've just had one idea for improving it: acceptance gain changes based on the citizenship law, either in fixed increments (quite short at Racial Segregation, a bit longer for the more reactionary laws and significantly longer for the more progressive ones), or based on how high a given Pop's new acceptance ceiling is relative to the mean acceptance ceiling of pops in that country. That way, Racial Segregation results in much faster integration for Pops in a country where they're an elite minority, but it takes far longer to have an effect in Central Europe, where most pops share heritage traits anyway.



Secessions, on the other hand, never pull in Interest Groups directly, and so one of the conditions under which a Secession could happen is when a Movement is extremely radical but unable to garner any Interest Group support and decide to instead break off and make their own country with their own Interest Groups. As an example, the Royalist movement in a Republic flight find the overall support for restoring the monarchy is so weak that they try to create a breakaway Kingdom in whatever region they are still able to garner support in.
How does the Royalist movement manifest if it's not able to find any mainline IG support? Is it just that they have, for instance, a high presence (perhaps an agitator) among the Petit Bourgeoisie, but the PB leadership are firmly Republican so they can't get that IG's backing? If so, how would you determine which PB Pops, in which states, are Royalist, and which are Republican? Finally, would their allied agitators become Politicians and/or Generals in the new state?



You have left me with many questions, and a great deal of hype. Excellent work, as always.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Can multiple Political Movements team up in one Civil War?
At the moment the answer is yes but only in very specific context of movements in different countries rising up together - ie the Polish cultural minority movements in Russia and Prussia seceding simultaneously. Having civil wars be more a distinct gameplay object where movements can 'take sides' would be a great improvement for sometime in the future but is outside the scope of 1.8.
 
  • 33Like
  • 8
  • 7Love
Reactions:
Please make some adjustments towards building downsizing when you have a revolution/seccesion! Currently you can get trapped in an infintite death spiral because you can't downsize construction sectors during a revolution, doesn't matter if that state is actually going to seced ro not, you can't downsize them. I know the rule is there so you can't just remove the army of your revolting states, but please at least make an eception to construction sectors. The following tect only exists to bring attention to this painful feature.

Please let us downsize construction sectors during a revolution!
 
  • 4Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Just Industrialize (like everyone does already) and pray for good RNG, yeah I'll just stick with GPs. Unrecognized play is already extra frustrating with the recognition rework + extra aggressive GPs and now serfdom and traditionalism will stick for much longer than before, why even bother.
I mean. If you need to reform sooner rather than later you can still do a civil war, it just won't be comically easy. Alternatively, all barracks being in the Capital could still go to your side, it just won't go to you if you've crossed the military.
 
  • 1
Reactions: