• 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:
I Really love the new mechanics.

Question.

Will you be able to restore a previously deposed King to the throne?

It will be great than in a Monarchy revolution you can restore the deposed monarch and not just a random new king.
That would be a nice feature but first the game would need to keep track of existing characters. I believe it randomly pulls from a list of characters for the next king and does not store any information about past kings.
 
  • 1
  • 1
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.
...yeah. Literally yes

Being unrecognized is frustrating, RNG dependent, and difficult. It should be all of those things or what's the point? Imo the only bad part is how easy good RNG makes it so people dodge the challenge by restarting

But the thing that makes playing as Iquicha, Kongo, or Johore fun is surmounting insurmountable odds to gain a place in the sun and recognition from the world. Your country turns fairly quickly but you lack the powerbase to make moves without permission. That's good gameplay and better immersion

The thing that makes playing Persia or the Sikh Empire or Egypt or Qing fun is how it's like turning a giant ship. You have to figure out how to go as fast as you can, lose as little as you can, and grow your strength without imploding or exploding. Riding that line is immensely more fun than loading up a game as GB and just watching every number tick up

You haven't truly enjoyed Vic3 until you've shattered GB into a dozen pieces as Egypt or held off a Russian invasion as Korea and I genuinely feel bad for the people who will play this game and never experience any of that
 
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't like that legacy slavery makes the revolution become a secession. Doesn't make logical sense and will confuse new players. If the idea is to make the ACW special, couldn't it be tag-dependent? Or linked to the slave-state mechanic?

Ideally, there wouldn't be special mechanics, and the secession would be the result of a movement not strong enough for a succesful revolution (like royalist secessions) but i suspect that the exception for the ACW is to stop the railroaders from complaining.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Will cultures that were previously unable to secede due to lacking a secession tag (i.e. Tamil) now be able to start a secession?
 
  • 1
Reactions:

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.

Lets say there's a royalist secession happening in the US, or a presidential movement in China, and they create a breakaway region. Will the ideologically aligned citizens in the rest of the country be pushed to migrate to this new country? That would certainly create interesting migration patterns, and a probably needed boon to population in the breakaway state.

P.S. A suggestion: The newly seceded state could be compensated for their (probably) developmentally unbalanced new economy with a temporary +X% investment pool contribution efficiency for all POPs over a couple of years, to represent a "pioneer spirit" in their new ideological utopia-to-be. Perhaps even a bonus to construction buildings effeciency.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
I don't like that legacy slavery makes the revolution become a secession. Doesn't make logical sense and will confuse new players. If the idea is to make the ACW special, couldn't it be tag-dependent? Or linked to the slave-state mechanic?

Ideally, there wouldn't be special mechanics, and the secession would be the result of a movement not strong enough for a succesful revolution (like royalist secessions) but i suspect that the exception for the ACW is to stop the railroaders from complaining.
I think the ACW exception is still somewhat present, but I think the specific case with Legacy Slavery is that it allows for countries to have a mix of Slave States and abolitionist states. The secession mechanic would presumably only apply if there are a few Slave States which don't think they're strong enough to launch a full-blown reaction.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Hmmmm. One of the reasons the Belgians revolted against the Netherlands was that they were mostly Catholic and they were ruled by a Protestant king (there were also other reasons). This happened right before the game's start. In later decades the relations between Protestants and remaining Dutch Catholics were tense (although it never turned into violence, but theoretically it could have).

Also the conflict between the Irish and the British had a lot (but not only) to do with religion.
True, but you could argue this is more of "religion as a part of a wider nationalist movement".
What I'm talking about is a revolt with the primary intention of either changing the official state religion, imposing a state religion where there isn't one, or imposing the laws of a specific religion on the entire country.
Arguably the last time that happened in Europe was the Puritans during the English Civil War.
 
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.
Maybe a problem is that Landowners in America are directly tied to Southern Plantation Owners on a broad, IG level. Maybe Southern Plantation Owners could be an ideology within the Landowners? (or however you guys would implement it). It would stop the disconnect players have from seeing "Southern Planters" not wanting to secede and would do it without having to make an exception in your system just for the ACW. Just an idea, I know nothing of game design!
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
So glad to see this. This update is the #1 thing that I've been hoping for for ages.

A few questions though:

1a. In countries with large numbers of various oppressed cultures (e.g. India or colonial West Africa) would secession have to take place for only 1 culture at a time? It would seem slightly weird if Bengalis and Biharis would have to have separate cultural movements to secede from the EIC. Maybe a special rule is needed for various oppressed cultures in colonies to revolt as one big anti-metropolitan block? Or is that level of cross-cultural, anti-colonial consciousness a little anachronistic for the time period.

1b. For some cultures, it seems apparent that they should band together, but I can think of a pretty big instance where those cultural movements were working against one another: the Hungarian Revolution in 1848. What would happen in the case where two cultural movements both want the same states *and* both get revolutionary at the same time? Is only one secession allowed at a time? Does the first movement to revolt get all the lands? Is there some complicated system of splitting the territory? Would they fight?

2. Can foreign countries induce a revolution/secessionist movement to kick off and can they commit to supporting a movement if and when they revolt?
 
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
this is def an upgrade. hopefully now you can have "communist north vietnam" or "fascist west germany" - and maybe a unification war goals, to reunite them by force again.

edit:
1. one more thing, a movement shouldnt dissapear just because you "won" the lottery on law passing. like "movement to preserve monarchy" shouldnt be less radical after you pass republic law.
2. passing laws in this game is boring (had to be said)
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
...yeah. Literally yes

Being unrecognized is frustrating, RNG dependent, and difficult. It should be all of those things or what's the point? Imo the only bad part is how easy good RNG makes it so people dodge the challenge by restarting

But the thing that makes playing as Iquicha, Kongo, or Johore fun is surmounting insurmountable odds to gain a place in the sun and recognition from the world. Your country turns fairly quickly but you lack the powerbase to make moves without permission. That's good gameplay and better immersion

The thing that makes playing Persia or the Sikh Empire or Egypt or Qing fun is how it's like turning a giant ship. You have to figure out how to go as fast as you can, lose as little as you can, and grow your strength without imploding or exploding. Riding that line is immensely more fun than loading up a game as GB and just watching every number tick up

You haven't truly enjoyed Vic3 until you've shattered GB into a dozen pieces as Egypt or held off a Russian invasion as Korea and I genuinely feel bad for the people who will play this game and never experience any of that
To each their own, but I still think having RNG as the main if not the only thing that makes your game progression going well, stalling, or going to tip you into a death spiral is not a good kind of difficulty. I'll just hope that this update will make it easier to pass laws instead of the usual "debate/advance/stall" RNG gauntlet.
 
  • 2
  • 1Love
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
How do revolutionary/secessionist tags interact with diplomacy? Will it be quite common for hostile countries to support secessions? (E.g. Russia supporting Bulgarian uprising in the Ottoman empire).

In case of a revolution, will IGs that don't support movements, but are more aligned with the revolutionary side be able to opportunistically flip sides?

Say there is a radical movement, communist movement, fascist movement, and you have a Fascist PB/devout in goverment, a radical inteligentsia/industrialists, and vanguardist TU in a fascist one party state monarchy with outlawed dissent. Inteligentsia/Industrialists revolts, but TU are not angry, because they like the laws. Would they stay loyal to the fascist regime or support a liberal revolution?
 
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
I think the ACW exception is still somewhat present, but I think the specific case with Legacy Slavery is that it allows for countries to have a mix of Slave States and abolitionist states. The secession mechanic would presumably only apply if there are a few Slave States which don't think they're strong enough to launch a full-blown reaction.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't USA the only slaver country where some states aren't slave states? My concern is if, for example, I pass legacy slavery as Brazil, then get a reactionary revolution when trying to ban slavery, then I'd get a seccession, even though all my states are slave states.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Definitely an improvement. Some questions:

1. If the military are concentrated in the capital, and launch a revolution/civil war, would it not make more sense for this to be a coup instead?

2. Following on from this, will there be any mechanics for instant wins or coups if a budding revolution is overwhelmingly powerful?

3. Can foreign countries choose to back particular movements? Eg, can I put money into the pro-slavery faction in the USA so they're stronger and I get called into a war?
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't USA the only slaver country where some states aren't slave states? My concern is if, for example, I pass legacy slavery as Brazil, then get a reactionary revolution when trying to ban slavery, then I'd get a seccession, even though all my states are slave states.
Spain also has slave states (just the Caribbean)
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Does this, together with the revision of discrimination, solve the problem that, for example, the Indian farmers are revolting to be recognized, while the rural population as an IG in turn revolts supported by the same people so that they remain discriminated against?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: