• 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:
Are there many examples of this from the era though, where one culture basically seized the entire territory of another and took over?
Not sure, I do not know of any successful ones at least.

But I would think it could be useful in modelling colonial uprisings, no? In contrast to how the DEI and EIC can now shift into Java and Bengal through an event if released.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
Multiple Political Movements team up in one Civil War has been the case in the February Revolution, the first Russian Revolution 1917, where workers, peasants, bourgeoisie and armed forces teamed up against the tsar. Only to descend into the second revolution, the more famous Octobre Revolution just a few month later, triggered by the communists. Would be great, if movements could work together towards one goal and reorganize after reaching it, breaking apart, if necessary.
 
  • 4Like
  • 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?

In what ways would that differ from colonization? Or to the process of creating a nation? Or a genocide?

I think that Königsberg might be something historically close to what you describe, but it is not "an entire territory of a nation".

I wonder what kind of hybridization would allow to better represent such cultural dynamics.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
How dynamic is the ability to garner military support for a movement? Will we get a lot of maneuverability when trying to popularize a movement or will there be historical limitations to how the military would conduct itself when it comes to a civil war such as in absolute monarchies were the military is almost always loyal such as in Japan or Russia?

I guess a 2nd or 3rd question would also be if whether or not army structure laws would alter how the army would perceive political allegiance, would a Peasant Army lead by a portion aristocrats be more aligned to uphold the landowners more and a National Militia more loyal to a rural folk agenda?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Are there many examples of this from the era though, where one culture basically seized the entire territory of another and took over?
To actually answer your question unlike other replies, the pro-Han rebellions in Qing fit this bill. I can't recall if Danzig also experienced something along these lines too.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Sounds like the military strength of revolutions, including popular revolutions, is still only driven by the presence of barracks in their states. That's disappointing.
But at least they fixed the loophole of cramming all Barracks in the Capital so revolutions only ever have minimal troops.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
To actually answer your question unlike other replies, the pro-Han rebellions in Qing fit this bill. I can't recall if Danzig also experienced something along these lines too.

Han is already accepted in Qing and there is an event for a fractured China, where Han pop get accepted.

What abou Danzig? Is it like what happened to Konigsberg? Those are not full states, though, but parts of Prussia that ended up with different successions.
 
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
Han is already accepted in Qing and there is an event for a fractured China, where Han pop get accepted.
Um, yes.. but that dichotomy is going away, remember? Lol

What abou Danzig? Is it like what happened to Konigsberg? Those are not full states, though, but parts of Prussia that ended up with different successions.
Danzig under Poland. I don't know what you're talking about.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
Um, yes.. but that dichotomy is going away, remember? Lol

You're right. Let's see what they have to say about the acceptance for Han in a fractured China, but I guess they could just update the existing event.

Danzig under Poland. I don't know what you're talking about.
Königsberg is the old name for the current Kaliningrad. It changed hands many times. The current population is mostly Russian, following WWII. Before, Polish, Prussian, and German populations were there. It was the Capital city for Prussia for centuries, being changed for Berlin about 1 century before game's starting date.

For smaller-than-country sized territories, even before the Mandate of Palestine Jewish colonies started several settlements from 1880s on, though they did not completely push the Palestinian population out of these territories before the end-date.

For such reason, I think that these pop movements are better emulated through colonization, cultural communities, and country succession/formation. Though I can see some form of cultural resettlement feature gaining traction with the several levels of acceptance.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
You're right. Let's see what they have to say about the acceptance for Han in a fractured China, but I guess they could just update the existing event.


Königsberg is the old name for the current Kaliningrad. It changed hands many times. The current population is mostly Russian, following WWII. Before, Polish, Prussian, and German populations were there. It was the Capital city for Prussia for centuries, being changed for Berlin about 1 century before game's starting date.

For smaller-than-country sized territories, even before the Mandate of Palestine Jewish colonies started several settlements from 1880s on, though they did not completely push the Palestinian population out of these territories before the end-date.

For such reason, I think that these pop movements are better emulated through colonization, cultural communities, and country succession/formation. Though I can see some form of cultural resettlement feature gaining traction with the several levels of acceptance.
Yeah, I'm familiar with Koenigsburg- I thought you were saying some sort of revolt happened there. Unfortunately I think you misunderstood the subject of the fellow's question. He was asking if there were any instances where one culture had risen up against another and replaced them as the ruling culture in a country. E.g. what the Han tried to do a couple of times to the Qing (even though they didn't have it that bad).

All this talk of frontiers and population replacement etc. from various posters is completely missing the context of his question, which was whether cultural movements to secede should sometimes be replaced with a movement to replace the primary culture. I'm honestly surprised so many people managed to misunderstand given that they surely had read the quoted text in his post.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
  • 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?

Right, but that has nothing to do with what the fellow was asking. He was asking if there were any instances where one culture had risen up against another and replaced them as the ruling culture in a country. E.g. what the Han tried to do a couple of times to the Qing (even though they didn't have it that bad).

All this talk of frontiers and colonisation etc. from various posters is completely missing the context of his question, which was whether cultural movements to secede should sometimes be replaced with a movement to replace the primary culture.

Following the thread, I'm sure I'm not off topic. A culture with significant presence replacing the primary culture in a given country.

Like colonizers eventually do replace the indigenous cultures with their own. Like Russians replacing Prussians.

Regardless, it's pointless to keep discussing anything in this topic, for devs have not been reading it for days now, and the next DD is upon us.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Following the thread, I'm sure I'm not off topic. A culture with significant presence replacing the primary culture in a given country.

Like colonizers eventually do replace the indigenous cultures with their own. Like Russians replacing Prussians.
Does country mean something different to you? In this context country=tag. Russian replacing Prussians was not a revolt and not the replacement of primary culture, because Koenigsburg is not a tag, it's just a place. Primary culture has nothing to do with how many pops of a specific culture exiat in a location.

Regardless, it's pointless to keep discussing anything in this topic, for devs have not been reading it for days now, and the next DD is upon us.
That's your prerogative.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
But at least they fixed the loophole of cramming all Barracks in the Capital so revolutions only ever have minimal troops.
That's true, and the factoring in of military support will also make revolutions involving the military more threatening.

These are definitely good steps. However, both for immersion and gameplay purposes the role of popular revolutions is still quite limited. I would like to see at least a temporary buff to conscriptable regiments and conscription rates for a revolutionary tag based on the popular support of the revolutionary movement.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
That's true, and the factoring in of military support will also make revolutions involving the military more threatening.

These are definitely good steps. However, both for immersion and gameplay purposes the role of popular revolutions is still quite limited. I would like to see at least a temporary buff to conscriptable regiments and conscription rates for a revolutionary tag based on the popular support of the revolutionary movement.
Has a revolution ever succeeded without military support? Maybe the Haitian one?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
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.
Can existing nations of the same culture also join cultural minority secessions? For example, can Krakow get pulled into a multinational Polish secession war?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:

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
View attachment 1196618
View attachment 1196621

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!
View attachment 1196622
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)
View attachment 1196623
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!
Great job. But can the war and battle system be improved? It's confusing and frustrating. I mean, during wars it feels like you don't have the control that a state leader can really have. It would also be great to bring back the newspaper system like in VIC 2 or something similar.Finally, review the laissez faire policy, because it's rare that a nation that has that policy can build for the private sector.I'm not saying that Vic 3 will become a copy and paste of its predecessor but it would be great to implement things that made the previous game great.With that, the game would be excellent.
 
  • 1Haha
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm honestly surprised so many people managed to misunderstand given that they surely had read the quoted text in his post.
Just gonna pop in with a "thanks" for staying on topic with mine and RedRalphWiggum's discussion.

To put some distance between mine and the other "colonialism" comments, I think the value for colonial uprisings would be in the case of a colonial administration consisting exclusively of all of a rebelling culture's homelands when the native culture rebels. It seems strange to me that e.g. a Bakongo nationalism movement against Belgian Congo would demand only a part of their homeland.

Though I'm willing to concede that my proposed change probably should not be a priority, since it seems to be a very rare phenomenon during the time-period. I can think of several post-WW2 conflicts that would fit, however, so I'd argue it also has some alt-history value.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions: