Substates and Federalism are Coming with National Awakening

[Desseabar]

I hope you are right. I've been fancying making a mod that included sub-state entities by creating a new type of subject -- but I'm not sure the actual modding capabilities allow this. Because ideally you want to have several layers of decentralization, this means there should be multiple types of subjects in which some can enact some of the laws and some not (e.g. a sub-state entity which has ability to raise its own army or police). But it would also generate the issues that OP mentioned in terms of halving prestige and other aspects of the gameplay.

I guess we'll have to wait and hope that it can be modded.

Edit: exactly what @yurcick was saying above.

Another edit: There's actually more screenshots on the expansion pack steampage. This is on Bosnia being conquered:View attachment 1294153

This is really interesting because this might mean some new system of de jure/de facto ownership?

Bosnia was legally part of the Ottomans until 1908. It would be really interesting if they have some way to simulate that, as I can’t think of any PDX game that attempts this.

 

[Helmut von Dandy]

Bosnia was legally part of the Ottomans until 1908. It would be really interesting if they have some way to simulate that, as I can’t think of any PDX game that attempts this.

The claims system basically already represents this.

 

[Rudolf Nechvile II]

Another edit: There's actually more screenshots on the expansion pack steampage. This is on Bosnia being conquered:

If I had to guess, the first choice would just be the creation of a puppet, because Bosnia wasn't officially annexed until 1908, and it's annexation caused a diplomatic crisis (a diplomatic play, in game terms).

The second choice sounds like an option to just skip to the 1908 annexation. But what makes it interesting is the "under the auspices of the joint Finance Ministry" line. Historically it was governed as a corpus separatum, or legally separate/autonomous entity, albeit on the less autonomous side of the scale, which could be represented through substate laws. I really hope this will be properly represented, and isn't just flavour text!

But as an aside, if we don't get substates with this DLC, and it just turns out to be a bunch of JEs and events, it would be doubly disappointing, because it would mean basically just one extensive rework or new mechanic for the year. I get that the trade rework is extremely extensive, but that would make the pace of reworks and new mechanics, in my opinion, atrocious...

 

[SS Boss]

I always thought we'd get federalism mechanics with the inevitable U.S-centric DLC.

 

[VineFynn]

I doubt it.

 

[lo24681]

But as an aside, if we don't get substates with this DLC, and it just turns out to be a bunch of JEs and events, it would be doubly disappointing, because it would mean basically just one extensive rework or new mechanic for the year. I get that the trade rework is extremely extensive, but that would make the pace of reworks and new mechanics, in my opinion, atrocious...

the reasoning they have given behind this year being more content-lite is they wanna spend the rest of the year prioritizing fixing existing issues and stuff like that. Personally I'm not expecting substates or federations, but am expecting some sort of nationalism rework with the national awakening patch, tied into the teased National Fervor mechanic.

 

[8816boo]

I assume that whatever the new partitions are, they must be tags of some sort or else they wouldn't be playable. This implies to me something more like a unique, highly integrated form of puppet, as opposed to partitions of land you still 'own'. If this is the case, I hope it in fact doesn't get applied to the US because microing 50ish AI vassals from Washington DC sounds like a special layer in hell.

 

[yurcick]

I assume that whatever the new partitions are, they must be tags of some sort or else they wouldn't be playable. This implies to me something more like a unique, highly integrated form of puppet, as opposed to partitions of land you still 'own'. If this is the case, I hope it in fact doesn't get applied to the US because microing 50ish AI vassals from Washington DC sounds like a special layer in hell.

On the surface it looks hard, but in fact, CK has played marvellously for decades, and it has this multi-layered structure. The solution to the “50 AI vassals doing shenanigans with you only controlling DC” was there as well: while lower-tier “tags” (those are baronies in CK) technically exist, as they can be developed and produce characters which interact with you, they have zero political independence and must follow their count in diplomacy and policy. They are also unplayable.

Explicit devolution laws can provide the tools to have states but not have much agency to them.

 

[Science-Recon]

So long as I don't end up with 50 sub-states when playing a historical US, that sounds fun. Also, please remove DC as a state, just throw it in Maryland. I know it's ahistorical, but there is no ability to get enough pops living there for it to be worth anything.

What's wrong with having 50 states/territories as the US? That would actually give you accurate and somewhat engaging US internal politics to play with. And with a 'federalism' mechanic, they'd still count as your territory for GDP/SoL &c., so it wouldn't massively change the core gamplay, it would mostly just add to the political gameplay (warfare/the civil war with state militias and such).

Also yes, one of the advantages of a substate system would be that the US state regions could be merged together like in HoI IV or something: no need to have DC be it's own state; it's just the part of the Maryland state region owned directly by the federal govt. rather than any state. New England could be one state region with multiple US states in it, the Carolinas, Dekotas and such could be merged. West Virginia wouldn't have to exist at gamestart but could emerge naturally/by historical event during the Civil War. It would also mean that e.g. Singapore could be kept separate from the rest of Malaya even if Britain conquers it, meaning Singapore's majority-Chinese population don't just become a uniformly-spread tiny minority across the whole peninsula (although there's a lot more wrong with Singapore's setup and viability).

I imagine this will probably just be journal entries designed specifically for Austria(-Hungary). They could still be very well-made and advanced journal entries that create interesting gameplay, but I doubt it's going to be something that will apply to countries outside of the immediate focus of the DLC. Same way that we got royal houses only for France with the France DLC.

The thing is, I think any alternative way of doing it like that would be a) as much/more work for b) a worse end result that wouldn't be transferrable to other countries. A federalism/substate mechanic on the other hand would be a mechanic that'd be widely reusable for many, many different countries in the future, as metioned before Germany, the US, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Japan, the UK, Switzerland and the Raj, just to name a few. In terms of precedent, I think Pivot of Empire is a much better example than Voice of the People (both the DLCs and updates); Pivot of Empire came with the discrimination rework and the social hierarchy mechanic which, whilst currently only used for the Hindu caste system will definitely be used in the future for other social hierarchies.

People set expectation that will not be met later. Most likely that Austrian federalism will be represented by the Hungarian and Transylvanian tags released as vassals, because otherwise they would out something about it in a DLC description.

They wouldn't put it in the DLC description because a) it's not part of the DLC, the federalism itself would be in the free update and b) they don't explicitly reveal everything in the DLC descriptions. For example, look at how diplomatic treaties are described in the description for Charters of Commerce:

Diplomatic Treaties: Sign new types of diplomatic agreements, including imposing uneven trade deals and setting limits on colonization.

This could easily be understood as just adding in a couple of new diplomatic actions rather than the whole new system of multi-element treaties that we're actually getting, but that is because that more or less is all the DLC adds, since the DLC just unlocks the treaty articles for non-colonisation and such, the treaty mechanic is part of the base game.
Also, as previously mentioned: having Hungary be a released subject with the current game mechanics would cripple Austria and be both ugly (on the map) and innaccurate (before the 1867 compromise). It would also go against the devs' previous statements about making subjects out of regions with little practical autonomy.
So they'd either have to also rework how subjects work in order to make Austria still a GP whilst lacking Hungary or they'd have to give Austria some special modifiers that make them much more powerful and their subjects more obedient, which also goes against their design ethos to the game and would just be bad.

If I had to guess, the first choice would just be the creation of a puppet, because Bosnia wasn't officially annexed until 1908, and it's annexation caused a diplomatic crisis (a diplomatic play, in game terms).

The second choice sounds like an option to just skip to the 1908 annexation. But what makes it interesting is the "under the auspices of the joint Finance Ministry" line. Historically it was governed as a corpus separatum, or legally separate/autonomous entity, albeit on the less autonomous side of the scale, which could be represented through substate laws. I really hope this will be properly represented, and isn't just flavour text!

Yeah agree, I think that it's a puppet/annex choice, although I would say that the Bosnian Crisis was more of a Victoria II-type crisis than a Victoria III-type diploplay.

I always thought we'd get federalism mechanics with the inevitable U.S-centric DLC.

Yeah, a US/Mexico/Canada DLC would make sense to add in federalism but Austria-Hungary also makes sense for a more generic sub-state mechanic as well as federalism as the federalisation of the empire was a very real plan and a popular alt-history trop (especially amongst PDX/Kaiserreich fans). In fact, a lot of states in Europe at this time were composite states rather than unitary states and a substate mechanic would be a good way to represent that difference and the difficulties of transition.

the reasoning they have given behind this year being more content-lite is they wanna spend the rest of the year prioritizing fixing existing issues and stuff like that. Personally I'm not expecting substates or federations, but am expecting some sort of nationalism rework with the national awakening patch, tied into the teased National Fervor mechanic.

Fair, but I don't think a substate mechanic would be a massive task for the devs; it'd essentially be a new country/subject type that is much more closely tied to the suzerain. Defintiely would take a good bit of design work and programmer time but I do think it could be within the scope of the DLC/update.

 

[Rudolf Nechvile II]

the reasoning they have given behind this year being more content-lite is they wanna spend the rest of the year prioritizing fixing existing issues and stuff like that. Personally I'm not expecting substates or federations, but am expecting some sort of nationalism rework with the national awakening patch, tied into the teased National Fervor mechanic.

I get that, but honestly the game has so many frustrating issues, and is quite bare in so many places, that it needs more than just bandaids. I honestly can't say I'd be satisfied with just fixes, considering the kind of "fixes" they've brought in for the military. This and many other systems don't just need mere repairs, but full reworks, which now sounds like they could even be years away.

There's also the real fear that Victoria 3 might just be quietly dropped, like I:R, because of the low player count compared to the other currently supported games. But, for now at least, Fred Wester has reaffirmed continued support, and desire to bring it in line with the other franchises, during the last earnings call. Although, in my opinion, if they want to attract new players, and retain the old, they need to pick up pace with the reworks, because Vicky 3 doesn't have the best reputation at the moment.

But on the other hand, I'm no coder or game dev, so I'd genuinely like to know how difficult it would be implement a substate entity? It would functionally be similar to any other vassal or subject, but just even more restricted and visually part of the same entity/country. As has been pointed out, the obvious comparison is CK3 vassals.

 

[Rabid]

But on the other hand, I'm no coder or game dev, so I'd genuinely like to know how difficult it would be implement a substate entity? It would functionally be similar to any other vassal or subject, but just even more restricted and visually part of the same entity/country. As has been pointed out, the obvious comparison is CK3 vassals.

Depending on exactly how they want to implement these substates it might be a bit more technically challenging than just adding a new subject type (which should be very simple) but I would be surprised if they wouldn't be able to use the existing infrastructure used for subjects to do much of the work. It's quite a highly demanded feature and would solve one of the game's biggest issues (there are relatively few interesting countries to play as across the whole map if you don't want to start as a great power or one of the ~10-15 more powerful independent states) so I hope that they're looking at it seriously as an option.

 

[Science-Recon]

But on the other hand, I'm no coder or game dev, so I'd genuinely like to know how difficult it would be implement a substate entity? It would functionally be similar to any other vassal or subject, but just even more restricted and visually part of the same entity/country. As has been pointed out, the obvious comparison is CK3 vassals.

Well the two big questions in determining that would be a) exactly what/how do they want to implement? One consideration would also be futureproofing/script exposure. As with the Diplomatic Treaty system, the devs would probably be making such a system with modding and future use in mind so it would probably be a bit more time/effort than strictly necessary for Austria-Hungary. The other question is how the code is already structured. Obviously I can't see the C code so have no idea how the game actually works wrt. countries and such so can't really speculate too much on how difficult it actually would be to implement.

Depending on exactly how they want to implement these substates it might be a bit more technically challenging than just adding a new subject type (which should be very simple) but I would be surprised if they wouldn't be able to use the existing infrastructure used for subjects to do much of the work. It's quite a highly demanded feature and would solve one of the game's biggest issues (there are relatively few interesting countries to play as across the whole map if you don't want to start as a great power or one of the ~10-15 more powerful independent states) so I hope that they're looking at it seriously as an option.

Well, yes, and there's also a somewhat significant division here: adding a new subject type is easy and only requires script work (i.e. could also be done by a mod in the live version). Perhaps if it were to be a special subject type that also appears as part of the mother country on the map (be it like CKIII vassals or maybe like the new CKIII tributaries), that would also require the code to be edited to add in a scripting hook for

show_as_overlord_on_map = yes

or

show_as_overlord_on_paper_map = yes

or something along those lines in the subject definitions in the script. Then things like prestiege gain from subjects could also be tweaked or Austria could be given some JE or something that gives them extra prestiege to keep them a GP.

If, however, it were to be an entirely separate substate mechanic, then that would take significantly more code work to add them as a system that exists alongside current mechanics (e.g. to scope to a state it would still be

s:STATE_CENTRAL_HUNGARY.region_state:AUS = {}

rather than

s:STATE_CENTRAL_HUNGARY.region_state:HUN = {}

, scoping to specifically Hungarian territory would be another/a different script call.) This would also need a fair bit of script work after to add in the substate contracts or whatever you'd call them, potentially also substate-specific laws and special diploactions/equivalents between substates and top/federal governments.
But IMO it'd definitely be worth it because, as you say, it is a very wanted mechanic and it would unlock a lot of potential for the political aspect of the game as well as currently unplayable entities like Congress Poland and US/other federal states, as well as new playstyles like the aforementioned 'Bavaria beyond German unification' or not having to resist the US as Texas and also would allow for much better Canadian & Australian (con)federation systems.

 

[TitaniumMan91]

What's wrong with having 50 states/territories as the US?

Because playing with that many substates doesn't sound fun? The only major difference at a state level was who was getting corrupt contracts and slavery. They weren't doing foreign diplomacy, they weren't doing internal diplomacy, they're admin units functionally no different than any other country with midly more autonomy.

It would entirely change how war works, as subjects control their own units. It would be insanely OP economically, as every tag gets free construction. Do they get their own tech? Do they control their own institutions? Do they all have their own IGs and how does that come in to play for the player IGs? Can you play as the states?

I see such a system being tedious and unfun. Any upside would apply equally to every tag in the game and the downsides are large enough that I would want it on this scale for anyone.

 

[yurcick]

It would entirely change how war works, as subjects control their own units. It would be insanely OP economically, as every tag gets free construction. Do they get their own tech? Do they control their own institutions? Do they all have their own IGs and how does that come in to play for the player IGs? Can you play as the states?

Well, it all obviously can only work if the subjects autonomy is reworked into something much more flexible, with possibilities to take away subjects’ control of various things.

The only thing you cite that actually needs deep contemplation is IGs (how pops affect both local and federal politics). I’m sure we don’t need local IGs, but we do need some laws to be local, so there should be some way of lawmaking that’s not IG-based, which is its own can of worms.

All others are just obvious. Yes, changes are needed, but they’re not fundamental.
Of course, “federal state” subjects should not control armies.
Neither do they get free construction.
Nor are there devolved techs.
Nor institutions.
No, they shouldn’t be playable (see CK baronies again).

 

[TitaniumMan91]

All others are just obvious. Yes, changes are needed, but they’re not fundamental.
Of course, “federal state” subjects should not control armies.
Neither do they get free construction.
Nor are there devolved techs.
Nor institutions.
No, they shouldn’t be playable (see CK baronies again).

That's kinda my point? They're no longer tags in any way that really matters. They don't build, pass institutions (an actually devolved power of US states), don't do military stuff, don't do tech, and aren't playable. So what are we actually gaining by making them tags?

 

[lo24681]

could it be possible to do states kinda like EU4 trade companies? so subjects but not a distinct tag on the map, but still associated with a certain area?

 

[Science-Recon]

Because playing with that many substates doesn't sound fun? The only major difference at a state level was who was getting corrupt contracts and slavery. They weren't doing foreign diplomacy, they weren't doing internal diplomacy, they're admin units functionally no different than any other country with midly more autonomy.

It would entirely change how war works, as subjects control their own units. It would be insanely OP economically, as every tag gets free construction. Do they get their own tech? Do they control their own institutions? Do they all have their own IGs and how does that come in to play for the player IGs? Can you play as the states?

I see such a system being tedious and unfun. Any upside would apply equally to every tag in the game and the downsides are large enough that I would want it on this scale for anyone.

Yes, if they were subjects. Representing the US as 50 puppets of DC would indeed be awful. But that's not what I'm contending. I think it would be a system more akin to CK's vassal system. Florida is still directly a state of the USA, but it has a local government within the USA, not under it.
The dynamics of the individual states were also a massive factor in antebellum US politics, if not one of the defining features of it. The balance of free states vs. slave states in the Senate was one of the primary contentions and the very decentralised nature of the US is what allowed the states to secede and form the Confederacy relatively seamlessly. And the fact that states fielded their own armies was a big factor in their initial strength and success. The shift from state to federal control of the militias was also a big factor in the US being able to be more expansionist/globally assertive from changes spurred on by the Civil War and the World Wars. There could be a mechanic for the federal govt. to take control of them during war, somewhat like the HoI expeditionary force thing where you can take control of your subjects' troops.

Again, you assume they would get base construction the same as a normal tag, but that's a faulty assumption: why should they? Obviously that would give federal nations a very large advantage over unitary ones, so they should either get none of a very minimal amount (since if they have none the federal govt. could build it for them).

They should definitely have their own IGs; that would be the whole point. Southern US IGs should be much more pro-slavery, Northern ones much more abolitionist, Austrian IGs should be more centralist whereas Hungary and other lands of the Habsburg monarchy would favour more decentralised rule. Home Rule Ireland should probably have the Catholic IG rather than the Anglican one. How exactly that should interact with the federal IGs would be a question of implementation; we'll have to wait and see what/if the devs have done/will do in that regard.
And yeah, they should definitely be playable. It'd be a massive missed opportunity otherwise. Allowing you to join a country (US/Germany/Canada/Australia &c.) without it being a game over, allowing you to play as Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria &c. in a more natural way than having to gameruin Russia/Austria/Ottomans and release them. American players I'm sure will be keen to do a playthough as their own home state.

As with all things, there are definitely ways that it could be done badly, but if it's done well it'll be a great mechanic that'll deepen the political aspects of the game and make the simulation much better as well as providing some more unique and varied playstyles.

Well, it all obviously can only work if the subjects autonomy is reworked into something much more flexible, with possibilities to take away subjects’ control of various things.

The only thing you cite that actually needs deep contemplation is IGs (how pops affect both local and federal politics). I’m sure we don’t need local IGs, but we do need some laws to be local, so there should be some way of lawmaking that’s not IG-based, which is its own can of worms.

All others are just obvious. Yes, changes are needed, but they’re not fundamental.
Of course, “federal state” subjects should not control armies.
Neither do they get free construction.
Nor are there devolved techs.
Nor institutions.
No, they shouldn’t be playable (see CK baronies again).

Disagree on this. They should definitely be playable, more akin to counties/duchies than baronies, but yeah they probably wouldn't have their own techs or free construction, but they could have institutions and armies or things. The Bavarian Army existed all the way up until 1919, although it's command was seconded to the Empire during the first World War and it did become more integrated during the course of the war.

Basically, ideally the mechanic would be very generic - capable of having a very minimally-autonomous regional law area or something like e.g. the Scots legal system within the UK (probably not a vanilla thing but an example of a 'substate' that doesn't actually have a separate legislature/leadership but merely a regional difference in laws still set by the central govt.) all the way up to something like modern Belgium or the Swiss cantons before the wars.

That's kinda my point? They're no longer tags in any way that really matters. They don't build, pass institutions (an actually devolved power of US states), don't do military stuff, don't do tech, and aren't playable. So what are we actually gaining by making them tags?

Well no, they could still build even if it didn't get free construction, they'd defintiely have their own laws (their main gameplay purpose IMO) as well as IGs, they could potentially have militaries although they'd probably be 'draftable' by the central govt. in times of war (or at the very least significant wars - perhaps some sort of negotiation/clout kind of thing).

What we could gain from it would be:
- Playable nations/regions that don't exist on the map as independent nations at gamestart: Poland, Hungary, Bohemia, Bulgaria, Japanese Daimyo (or potentially the Imperial Court in opposition to the Shogun) &c.
- More opportunities for historical content: Irish and Icelandic Home Rule, proper Canadian/Australian federalisation rather than the awful current system, the violent conflicts between centralists and federalists in Mexico &c.
- More diverse playstyles - being able to play as Texas or a German minor without having to become a GP and beat the US/Germany instead being able to carry on as a subnational state; even being supportive of annexation into the union.
- Proper simulation of some of the pivotal conflicts of the era such as the US Civil War, the Boshin War and the Chinese Warlord Era, as the current mechanics mean that the opposition has to be created out of thin air, and it's kinda awkward to play as the US or the Shogunate whilst planning to continue as the Confederacy or Empire; you're incentivised to do badly in order to have an easier time later, but that also takes some of the challenge away as you don't really have that opponent there to fight against until it's far too late to make a difference.
- Probably some weird and whacky stuff I can't even think of at the moment that could be added in future updates/mods using the mechanic.

could it be possible to do states kinda like EU4 trade companies? so subjects but not a distinct tag on the map, but still associated with a certain area?

EUIV trade companies don't really exist. They're just province modifiers and once those provinces have >50% of the trade power in a node you get +1 merchant. This would be more akin to CK vassals.

 

[HomesliceSupreme]

I would be very surprised if they added this mechanic, I think they said somewhere that the only mechanic rework/addition is the trade related stuff. That being said I expect them to buff national movements with this fervor stuff, eg. increasing radicalism and amount/quality (hopefully both) of troops they get when fervor is high.

 

[Rudolf Nechvile II]

I think there's actually more evidence from the Expansion Pass 2 announcement that supports OPs theory:

Specifically the reference to a federationist state, under the Austrian content. To me this sounds like it would be the outcome of completing a journal entry, and I think everyone can agree that blowing up you empire and releasing a bunch of vassals after successfully reforming your empire, would be a pretty shit reward (to put it mildly), because it completely weakens you and defeats the point of remaining "united". I also think that just giving all your pops full acceptance and a couple of modifiers is neither a good representation of what federalising would have meant, nor would it be fitting as a reward. At that point, rather just don't make the content at all, because you can already do all those things right now in vanilla.
So, if I had to speculate, I would think that successfully meeting all the requirements of a federation JE would let you choose the degree of federalisation, e.g., is Slovakia and Transylvania separate from Hungary, is Slovenia part of Illyria, etc.

There's also some other evidence in there, like "Hungarian nation within... the empire", or the ability to from Illyria (instead of Yugoslavia), which I presume is limited to being a constituent of the empire. However, I find those to be more tentative examples of "evidence".

Lastly, the Vicky 3 devs have dropped game-changing reworks that were surprisingly larger in scale than anyone could have suspected. The discrimination/acceptance rework comes to mind, and now there's also the new diplomatic treaties system coming with Charters of Commerce. So perhaps substates coming with National Awakening is wishful thinking, but I don't think it's an entirely unreasonable speculation.

 

[Science-Recon]

I think there's actually more evidence from the Expansion Pass 2 announcement that supports OPs theory:

View attachment 1299329

Specifically the reference to a federationist state under the Austrian content. To me this sounds like it would be the outcome of completing a journal entry, and I think everyone can agree that blowing up you empire and releasing a bunch of vassals after successfully reforming your empire, would be a pretty shit reward (to put it mildly), because it completely weakens you and defeats the point of remaining "united". I also think that just giving all your pops full acceptance and a couple of modifiers is neither a good representation of what federalising would have meant, nor would it be fitting as a reward. At that point, rather just don't make the content at all, because you can already do all those things right now in vanilla.
So, if I had to speculate, I would think that successfully meeting all the requirements of a federation JE would let you choose the degree of federalisation, e.g., is Slovakia and Transylvania separate from Hungary, is Slovenia part of Illyria, etc.

There's also some other evidence in there, like "Hungarian nation within... the empire", or the ability to from Illyria (instead of Yugoslavia), which I presume is limited to being a constituent of the empire. However, I find those to be more tentative examples of "evidence".

Lastly, the Vicky 3 devs have dropped game-changing reworks that were surprisingly larger in scale than anyone could have suspected. The discrimination/acceptance rework comes to mind, and now there's also the new diplomatic treaties system coming with Charters of Commerce. So perhaps substates coming with National Awakening is wishful thinking, but I don't think it's an entirely unreasonable speculation.

Oh yeah, that description is much more explicit than the one on Steam. Definitely seems like it's hinting at federalism with the Austria and Hungary bits. Illyria could be, though I'd expect that Illyria could also just be a Croat-dominated South Slav state as opposed to Yugoslavia being a Serb-dominated one.