• 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 there dynamic factors in what state joins a Seccession/Revolution. Like if the states Political elite support it but rest of the state is composed of loyalists. Or if its a Pro-Slavery Rev/Sec that theres a large politically active non-slave culture in the state that would see themselves lose rights or become enslaved. Will there be special criteria for the ACW on which US states join as "Border slave states" was a thing
 
  • 2
Reactions:
This sounds great.

I want to suggest here that secession movements should probably be granted a base number of military units on their side, possibly proportional to the population of the movement? Especially if they trigger without interest groups.

Even if they are just irregular troops (guerrilla partisans?), it would still something to deal with rather than the 0-1 troops that can basically be ignored in the current state of the game.
 
  • 6Like
Reactions:
What do you think about making AI to move capital back after revolutionaries won?
Makes sense usually, though might not always for some ideological/cultural reason...
I'm thinking now of the Turkish War of Independence, or Russia seceding from the USSR, where in a very literal sense it's secession, but the seceding territory is so large relative to the original country that it's effectively a revolution. How will that be handled?
 
  • 2
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.
If the Confederates were extremely strong (multiple foreign Allies, lot of support in the North, etc), they probably would have aimed for 'Revolution' instead. I feel whether something is a Revolution or Secession should be determined by how strong the rebels are and how widespread the support for the rebels is, it should not be determined by arbitrary laws.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
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
I’m a bit worried about this implementation. I think it can lead to strange results, such as France splitting into two countries due to the issue monarchy vs republic.

To properly model secessions, unifications and nationalism, I think the concept of national identity of pops should be introduced. With this, pops of different cultures might share the same national identity sometimes, leading to unifications, while other times they would have different national identity, causing secessionism. The National identity would be a characteristic of individual pops, so some pops might have a certain national identity, while others a different one despite sharing culture, properly modeling the civil conflicts that many times arise in secessionist regions. Also, under secessionist movements, movements that support unity might arise in response, if some pops share a common national identity with enough strength, making things even more interesting.

For this, national identity should have an strength value.This would also prevent that French monarchist with a strong French national identity would decide to break up France to have their kingdom, while allowing Americans, with still a weak national identity, to split over slavery.

National identity could also change over time or due to catalyst events. This way we could have countries with a single national identity at game start, to have their national identity fractured at the end of the game, while others might develop an unified national identity over time.

And finally, the importance of national identity would change as new ideas are developed, allowing for states without national identity such as the Austrian empire to lose stability as the game progresses, or opening the possibility for such states to try and develop a national identity to stabilize their borders.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
What decides if something is a religious or a cultural movement?

Irish people for instance were discriminated for cultural and religious reasons in the earlier parts of the 19th century (language barred from education and administration/law, forced to pay tithes to another church). What would determine if they would join a religious or cultural movement? Is it possible for such movements to merge if their supporters are in two movements (if it's possible for pops to support two movements)?
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
What decides if something is a religious or a cultural movement?

Irish people for instance were discriminated for cultural and religious reasons in the earlier parts of the 19th century (language barred from education and administration/law, forced to pay tithes to another church). What would determine if they would join a religious or cultural movement? Is it possible for such movements to merge if their supporters are in two movements (if it's possible for pops to support two movements)?
Most of that was answered in DD #128 a few weeks ago. It also mentions pops can only be in one movement at a time.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
It would be great if during revolutions, unincorporated states would get the option to break away. In the current system, I find it strange that Great Britain has a proletarian revolution and all overseas territories silently accept their new fate. Also, for newly conquered states a revolution would be the ideal opportunity to break free again. The previous owner could keep a claim. Maybe it should also be harder to fully incorporate a state, e.g. requiring a certain percentage of main culture pops or bordering an already incorporated state.
 
  • 6Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Roughly when are we expecting 1.8?
End of November- based on the recent HoI4 announcements I’m guessing they’re going to announce it soon with an expansion pass. So there might be some DLC JE’s with 1.8 plus next years DLC which is probably navy?
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
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.
The Centralization Law of 'Better Politics Mod' brings to mind a solution for a future update. If there are plans to eventually introduce a law like that (decentralized, unitary, confederate, federalist basis for organizing of a country)

What if the secession of slavers vs revolution in the entire country was dependent on if the country is Federalist or Unitary?

Federalist countries like the USA could have slavery on a state by state basis and have the slave states revolt. Unitary countries would instead have a country-wide revolution regardless of if it has legacy slavery or slave trade.
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
  • 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.
Mostly true, but mainland Spain is all free states and it only has slave states in the Caribbean. I've just kind of assumed that when they say "tend to" it's because they anticipate that Legacy Slavery will lead to situations in which the slaver IGs don't have enough backing for a proper revolution. See here:

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.
If this is the case, then it must mean a standard Landowner pro-slavery movement will still normally result in revolution over secession. Thinking about it, I don't fully understand how you would get a situation in which they'd secede, because surely the Landowners will always have a Pro-Slavery ideology while a country has any sort of slavery laws. Perhaps it's just to account for edge cases in which the Landowners are pacified enough not to revolt, but other IGs have some pro-slavery movements which don't run the country. Still odd the more I think about it.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I have a question related to secession. why would an entire state revolt when only part of the population is in secession? Since the game already includes a split-state mechanic, wouldn’t it be more immersive and historically accurate for only the revolting provinces to secede from the state? I hope this mechanic is added, as I strongly believe it's feasible.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
I really like the distinction between revolution and secession. However, I wonder if the rule that cultural minorities will always secede could not be conditional on geographical spread and saturation of the relevant culture?

I.e. if a non-primary culture is geographically concentrated to just some of your states, the movement will seek secession. If instead the culture has a significant present in most or all of your states, the movement might seek to replace your primary culture/s with its own.
 
  • 2Love
  • 1
Reactions:
I really like the distinction between revolution and secession. However, I wonder if the rule that cultural minorities will always secede could not be conditional on geographical spread and saturation of the relevant culture?

I.e. if a non-primary culture is geographically concentrated to just some of your states, the movement will seek secession. If instead the culture has a significant present in most or all of your states, the movement might seek to replace your primary culture/s with its own.

Are there many examples of this from the era though, where one culture basically seized the entire territory of another and took over?
 
  • 2
Reactions: