Grand Strategy Victoria 3

[Fedora Master]

 

[Comte]

View attachment 20986

View attachment 20987

Peak Swedish masculinity

 

[Joggerino]

Niggaz is struggling


Trigger warning: afro-caribeño slaves

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeY1KnjmjHE

Slavery isn't horrific, it has existed as long as humanity. What's horrific is the modern homo sapiens.

 

[Preben]

Niggaz is struggling


Trigger warning: afro-caribeño slaves

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeY1KnjmjHE

Slavery isn't horrific, it has existed as long as humanity. What's horrific is the modern homo sapiens.

So has murder and theft. Are they good too?

 

[Joggerino]

Niggaz is struggling


Trigger warning: afro-caribeño slaves

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeY1KnjmjHE

Slavery isn't horrific, it has existed as long as humanity. What's horrific is the modern homo sapiens.

So has murder and theft. Are they good too?

You missed the point completely. No one is gonna go pearl clutching before explaining their thieving game mechanic or "murder" mechanic. Its fucking obnoxious.

 

[Preben]

Niggaz is struggling


Trigger warning: afro-caribeño slaves

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeY1KnjmjHE

Slavery isn't horrific, it has existed as long as humanity. What's horrific is the modern homo sapiens.

So has murder and theft. Are they good too?

You missed the point completely. No one is gonna go pearl clutching before explaining their thieving game mechanic or "murder" mechanic. Its fucking obnoxious.

You still can find plenty of folks over the Internet that will argue that slavery was good and blacks should know their place. If that wasn't the case nobody would have to do virtue signalling over this.

 

[Sranchammer]

Niggaz is struggling


Trigger warning: afro-caribeño slaves

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeY1KnjmjHE

Slavery isn't horrific, it has existed as long as humanity. What's horrific is the modern homo sapiens.

So has murder and theft. Are they good too?

You missed the point completely. No one is gonna go pearl clutching before explaining their thieving game mechanic or "murder" mechanic. Its fucking obnoxious.

The only thing that changed was that they were paid hourly instead of for life.

Freeing them gave them the distinction of becoming bullet sponges too!

 

[Space Satan]

It’s Thursday again and you know what that means - another Diplomacy dev diary! Today’s dev diary is one I’ve been looking forward to writing for some time, as it covers Diplomatic Plays, which we consider to be more or less the signature feature for Diplomacy in Victoria 3.

So what are Diplomatic Plays? Well, to answer that question, I’m going to reach all the way back to Dev Diary #0 and one of the four game design pillars, namely Diplomatic Eminence. That pillar reads as follows: War is a continuation of diplomacy, and everything that is achievable by war should also be achievable through diplomacy (even if that diplomacy sometimes comes at the point of a gun).

Well, diplomacy at the point of a gun is exactly what Diplomatic Plays are, as they allow you to try to achieve any objective normally achievable by war by diplomatically maneuvering to force the other side to give it to you without a fight. To fully explain what I mean by that, we’ll go over the mechanics of Diplomatic Plays in sequence - how they start, how they play out, and finally how they are resolved.

The way Diplomatic Plays start is the way you would normally start a war in another Paradox Grand Strategy Game - by demanding something from another country, for example that they cede a particular state to you. In fact, unlike other GSGs, Victoria 3 has no ‘declare war’ button to get what you demand - instead you start a Diplomatic Play, and wars are always preceded by Diplomatic Plays.

The fourteen opening moves currently available as Diplomatic Plays, each corresponding with a war goal. As usual, the number in green indicates the number of possible valid targets that exist for that Play.

Once a Diplomatic Play is started, there’s a number of things that happen immediately. First, the country that is being targeted is of course notified, along with any countries that are considered Potential Participants in the play. Who is considered a potential participant depends on the exact nature of the play, but usually it includes any country with an Interest in the Strategic Region where the Play is taking place as well as countries that have a strong diplomatic reason to get involved (such as allies or the overlord of the defender). At this point it’s important to note that only the Initiator (the country starting the play) and Target (the country targeted) are active participants, all others just have the potential to take part.

Next, the primary active participants on each side (the Initiator and the Target initially, though this can change if the overlord of either side steps into the play) are given a number of Maneuvers. This is a currency that primarily depends on Rank, with higher Rank countries having more maneuvers, and determines how many actions such as Swaying and adding Demands (more on these below) that said primary participant can take during the course of the play to try and gain the advantage over their enemy.

There are three distinct phases over which a Diplomatic Play plays, based on the level of Escalation, which is a value that increases each day after the play is started. The first of these is Opening Moves, during which participating countries take stock of the situation, set their initial stances (more on that below) and the Target has time to set their Main Demand (the Main Demand of the Initiator has already been set, as it depends on what type of Play was started). During the Opening Moves phase, it isn’t possible for other countries to fully commit to one side or another, with the sole exception of overlords of the primary participants. It also isn’t possible for either side to back down.

Cape Colony’s bid for independence and open British markets turned out to be a step too far. Britain demands nothing less than total annexation of the colonial upstarts, whose only hope now is either suffering partial annexation for its insolence, or having to get in real close with France and hope for the best.

Once Escalation reaches a certain point, the Opening Moves phase ends and the Diplomatic Maneuvering phase starts. If by this point the Target has not set their Main Demand, they are automatically given one (usually War Reparations). This is the ‘main’ phase of the Diplomatic Play, which occupies the majority of the escalation scale and during which most of the ‘action’ takes place.

During this phase, potential participants can now set any stance towards each side, from full support without requiring anything in return (something most AIs won’t be keen to do as they’re not big on having their troops die for charity, at least not in an offensive war), to leaning towards a particular side (which will signal to that side that they’re likely willing to be swayed), to simply being on the fence with no particular preference for either side. It’s also possible for countries that have not committed to one side or the other to simply Declare Neutrality and exit the play altogether, though this might have diplomatic consequences depending on the circumstances.

With only a fraction of the military strength of Great Qing, Kokand’s future independence looks highly questionable. But this Play still has the potential to become pretty complex if Kokand can convince the Sikh and Russian empires to support their case against Qing. Perhaps gaining another subject is not worth the risk of a protracted war that might well cost upwards of half a million lives.

The Diplomatic Maneuvering phase is also when the primary participants are expected to use up their available Maneuvers on adding Demands and Swaying potential participants to their side. It is also possible to spend your Maneuvers during the Opening Moves phase on adding Demands for yourself, burning through most of them early might leave you at a significant disadvantage late.

Demands are essentially Wargoals (and will turn into such if the Play escalates into war, but more on that later) and includes a wide variety of requests-under-duress such as ceding land, giving up claims or becoming a subject. Only the primary participants can add Demands, but in addition to demanding things on their own behalf they can also demand things on behalf of other countries backing them, if said country agrees that the Demand is something they want.

While this may make it sound like it’s a good idea to spend your maneuvers piling on as many Demands for yourself as possible, there’s a couple reasons not to. First, adding certain aggressive Demands (such as demanding land) always results in a Diplomatic Incident, which will immediately give you Infamy and may degrade relations with countries you need to support you in the Play. Second, being seen as greedy and unreasonable in your Demands will in itself make it harder to get countries to back you up, and may in fact make it so undecided participants side against you just to put a stop to your mad dreams of conquest. It’s worth noting though, that the Infamy from any Demands or Wargoals that end up not being pressed (for any reason) is partially or fully refunded, though their negative impact on relations remain.

Swaying, on the other hand, is the main way in which the primary participants get undecided participants over to their side, by making them a promise. This promise may be in the form of owing them an Obligation (more on this in a later dev diary) or promising them a Wargoal if the Play escalates into war. There’s a few more such types of promises planned for release (promising to become their Protectorate or giving them a piece of land or a subject of yours, for example) but these are not yet implemented. If the country agrees, they will be set as backing the Swaying side in the Diplomatic Play, and will fight on their side if war breaks out, just as if they voluntarily set their stance to backing that side.

Offering Prussia the Austrian states of West Galicia, Moravia, or Bohemia would be most appreciated, as they are populous border states. States which do not already border Prussian land are less attractive to them as they would be much harder to manage.

However, if you think the Play is over just because France threw their weight behind the Initiator and there isn’t anyone strong enough to oppose them, you’d be wrong! It’s possible for countries that have promised to back a side to betray that promise and go back to being undecided, or even switch sides entirely, perhaps because the other side made an even juicier offer. Doing this of course makes them lose out on anything that was promised to them and negatively impacts on relations with the betrayed side, but otherwise there is no limit to how many times a single country can switch sides in a Diplomatic Play (the AI will be rather reluctant to offer something to a country that has already forsaken them once unless they desperately need their support, though).

This also means that trying to ‘play it smart’ by burning through your maneuvers immediately to sway all the countries you think you need early in the Play can backfire, as the other side is then free to try and ‘bid over’ on your supporters while you’re unable to do anything. Furthermore, it can also make it risky to not be upfront about your own territorial demands - doing the swaying first and then saying ‘oh, and by the way, I want London’ might result in your side of the Play looking very empty all of a sudden as your former supporters scramble to distance themselves from you. Swaying and adding Demands during Diplomatic Maneuvering will also both pause Escalation for some time when carried out, to make it possible for the other side to react even if those actions are taken right at the end of the phase.

[Bolivia will remember this]

The final phase of the Diplomatic Play is Countdown to War, which is exactly what it says on the tin. During Countdown to War, both sides are locked down and it’s no longer possible for countries to declare or abandon support for either side, nor is it possible to add new Demands or do any Swaying. In fact, the only thing that is possible during this phase is Backing Down, and this is usually the phase when you will see one of the sides give in (though it is also possible to back down during Diplomatic Maneuvering).

Backing Down is, quite simply, one side deciding that the odds aren’t looking in their favor and deciding to concede the Main Demand of the other side to cut their losses. It’s important to note that only the Main Demand is ever conceded in this way, so any additional Demands that are either added or promised to supporters of the winning side are simply lost (with accrued Infamy fully refunded), along with of course all the Demands on the losing side. This means that there is actually in some cases a reason to want the Play to escalate into war (and hence, to not stack the odds in such a way that the other side sees no path to victory), as it is the only way in which you can simultaneously press multiple Demands/Wargoals, assuming you’re willing (or at least think you’re willing) to bear the heavy cost of the war. It’s possible to back down all the way up until the Escalation meter hits 100, at which point the Diplomatic Play is over and War breaks out.

Once all the cards are on the table you have to carefully weigh if this is really something you’re able to win, and what cost you’re willing to pay for the opportunity to try. Perhaps it’s better to cut your losses, gain a Truce, let the other side accrue some Infamy, score a Claim on the lost territory (if the Play was about land), and start making a plan to recover what you lost - and then some.

Whew, that was a lot of text, and I’m sure I’ve still missed some detail or another. As those of you who are familiar with Victoria 2 has noticed, Diplomatic Plays draws a lot of inspiration from the Crisis feature in Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness, a feature I’ve personally worked on and always thought was one of the most interesting things we’ve done in any expansion for a Paradox GSG. But with that said, our dev diaries on Diplomacy are drawing to a close (for now, we’ll certainly return to the subject later) as next week we’re going to talk about something you’ve been (rightfully) curious about since the announcement… War!

 

[what am i doing]

While I'm sure they'll find a way to fuck it up in practice, at least in principle this system looks to be a colossal improvement over Victoria 2's cb/justification/declaration system. In theory it looks like it might also potentially better model the way that small conflicts/disputes in that time period could easily start to involve more countries.

 

[Sranchammer]

This game is all I have interest in - and even that is fleeting.

 

[Space Satan]

Hello and welcome to another Victoria 3 development diary! Today’s dev diary has been a hotly anticipated one, as we’re finally ready to start talking about war and combat and how they will work in Victoria 3.

So then, how does war and combat work? The answer is that we’ve taken a pretty different approach to warfare and combat in Victoria 3 compared to other Paradox Grand Strategy Games, and in this dev diary I’ll be going over the overall vision that governs our design for warfare, with the actual nitty-gritty on the mechanics coming over the next few weeks. Just as Victoria 3 itself has a set of design pillars that all game mechanics follow (as outlined in the very first diary), Warfare in Victoria 3 has its own design pillars, which we will now explain in turn.

The first pillar is one that is shared with the vision of the game as a whole:
War is a Continuation of Diplomacy
- anything you can gain through war should also be possible to gain through diplomacy. As we’ve already talked about this multiple times in the past, and last week’s dev diary told you all about Diplomatic Plays, we don’t feel the need to go into this again, but it’s still important to keep in mind to understand our approach to warfare.

The second pillar,
War is Strategic
, is exactly what it sounds like. In Victoria 3, all decisions you make regarding warfare are on the strategic level, not the tactical. What this means is that you do not move units directly on the map, or make decisions about which exact units should be initiating battle where. Instead of being unit-in-province-based, warfare in Victoria 3 is focused on supplying and allocating troops to frontlines between you and your enemies. The decisions you make during war are about matters such as what front you send your generals to and what overall strategy they should be following there. If this sounds like a radical departure from the norm in Paradox GSGs, that’s because it is, and I’ll be talking more about the rationale at the end of this dev diary.

The third pillar,
War is Costly
, is all about the cost of war - political, economic and humanitarian. There is no such thing as a bloodless war in Victoria 3, as just the act of mobilizing your army will immediately start accruing casualties from accident and disease (as these were and remain the biggest killers of men during war, not battles) in addition to being an immense financial burden for your country. The soldiers and conscripts who die during war leave behind children and widows, and may even become dependents themselves as a result of injuries sustained during your quest for national glory.

The fourth pillar,
Preparation is Key
, ties heavily into the second and third pillars. Much of the strategic decision making in Victoria 3 that will let you win wars are all about how well prepared you are. For example: Have you promoted the most competent generals, or were you forced to promote an incompetent wastrel for political expedience? Have you invested in the best (but very costly) rifles for your soldiers, or are you forced to fight at a technological disadvantage? During the Diplomatic Play preceding the war, did you mobilize all your armies in time and eat the costs in men and materiel, or did you hold off hoping on a peaceful resolution, or at least for the conflict to end up as a limited war? Did you choose to build and subsidize an arms industry large enough to cover your wartime needs, or is your army reliant on import of weapons that may be vulnerable to enemy shipping disruptions? These are the sort of questions that can decide who has the true advantage when going into an armed conflict in Victoria 3.

The fifth pillar,
Navies Matter
, is an ambition of ours that for many countries, navies should feel just as important (and in some cases more important) as armies. In addition to supporting or hindering overseas expeditions (by, for example, cutting off enemy supply lines), navies play a crucial role in waging economic warfare, as a country whose economy (or even worse, military goods supply) depends on trade will be vulnerable to the actions of hostile navies.

The sixth and final pillar,
War Changes
, is all about the technological advances of the 19th century and the way that warfare changed from the maneuvering of post-napoleonic armies to the meat grinder that was World War One. Our ambition is for these changes to be felt in the gameplay of Victoria 3, as technologies such as the machine gun makes warfare an ever bloodier and costlier affair while advancements in naval technology makes it easier for countries with advanced navies to project global power.

Before I end this dev diary, I want to talk briefly about our most radical departure from other Paradox GSGs - the absence of units you move on the map, and why we chose to go in this direction. The main reason is simply that Victoria 3 is a game primarily focused on Economy, Diplomacy and Politics and we felt a more strategic approach to warfare mechanics fits the game better than micro-intensive tactical maneuvering.

It’s important to note that how this works differs completely from having AI-controlled units in our other GSGs, since in Victoria 3 armies you assign armies to fronts rather than provinces (navies of course work differently, but more on that later). We’ll be getting into the exact details of the mechanics for both armies and navies in the coming weeks.

We of course still want Victoria 3 to have interesting and meaningful warfare mechanics, but we want the player to be engaging on a higher level of decision-making, making decisions about the overall war strategy and just how much they’re willing to sacrifice to achieve their goals rather than deciding which exact battalions should be battling it out in which exact province next.

This also ties into the general costliness of wars and the fact that you can achieve your ends through diplomacy - we want the ways in which an outmatched Victoria 3 player triumphs over their enemies to be clever diplomacy, well-planned logistics and rational strategic thinking rather than brilliant generalship. Ultimately, we’ve taken this approach to warfare for the same reason we take any game design decision: because we believe that it will make Victoria 3 a better game.

With that said, we’re done for today! We’ll of course be talking much more about warfare in the future, starting with next week’s dev diary on the topic of
Fronts and Generals.

 

[Sranchammer]

What does this mean for Haiti playthrough?

 

[FreeKaner]

I was rather indifferent to cautiously pessimistic towards Victoria 3 but such a radical and bold change to one of the weakest aspects of the game definitely made me look forward to the release of this game. I hope they succeed with this.

 

[Fedora Master]

We all know they are going to fuck this up with their Swedishness.

 

[Joggerino]

This is so epic that I am now considering buying this game

 

[Space Satan]

I feel conflicted. On one side, one of the most satisfying aspects of PDX games were outmaneuvering your enemies and encircling\stackwiping them. On the other side - this new system could simulate actual fronts like no unit-based could and AI ALWAYS fuck up unit management because human have way too strong advantage on tactical level. I want to see how it will develop to be applied to other future games.
Anyway, anyone have an example of games with similar approach to front management?

 

[thesecret1]

They certainly seem ambitious with this game, going ahead with new mechanics rather than just rehashing old shit. Sounds like incline, tbh, but let's see what they actually end up with

 

[Harthwain]

This is so epic that I am now considering buying this game

I remain exceedingly cautious. At least until I see how it works in practice.

 

[Hace El Oso]

As long as there is a representation of war in some form on the map to satisfy my shallower side, maybe with trench lines and artilleryfire, biplanes cruising, etc. then I can be content without direct tactical control. In return for a novel form of war gameplay that places a more realistic burden on the incompetents that pass for AI coders at Paradox. Not to mention that it’s more in line with the responsibilities of a head of state. My first thought while reading the dev diary was this:

Did anyone else play that, back in the day?

The biggest danger I can think of with this approach (from what has been said so far)is it becoming a kind of glorified CYOA, like the duels from CK2. I wouldn't doubt Nu-Paradox's ability to find new and exciting ways to disappoint me, though.

 

[Harthwain]

As long as there is a representation of war in some form on the map to satisfy my shallower side, maybe with trench lines and artilleryfire, biplanes cruising, etc. then I can be content without direct tactical control. In return for a novel form of war gameplay that places a more realistic burden on the incompetents that pass for AI coders at Paradox. Not to mention that it’s more in line with the responsibilities of a head of state. My first thought while reading the dev diary was this:

Spoiler

Did anyone else play that, back in the day?

As for Victoria 3's potential - I concur with Diplomacy coming to mind. What I am afraid of is that we might end up with a bunch of modifiers and not much else, resulting in the player not feeling like he has any impact on the course of the war.

Now, a boardgame-like combat might work and be fun (and I am a big proponent of making videogames more like boardgames), but a huge aspect of playing boardgames is the diplomacy part that happens between the players, which is why chat box is the second most important tool in the digital version of the A Game of Thrones: The Board Game (right after the strategic view of the map). I can hardly see that to be the case in a singleplayer-oriented game though. Then again, diplomacy always was on somewhat competent level in Paradox games. It was the combat that was sub-par aspect of it (due to the AI not being able to properly utilize it).

By the way, I prefer A Game of Thrones: The Board Game, because it introduces more variables (random events, various orders, various battle cards, etc.).

 

[Catacombs]

Did anyone else play that, back in the day

I don't know how this game could be fun with computers. It's best with real people. We actually had a Codex Diplomacy game going on for a while. Loads of fun.

 

[Delterius]

Did anyone else play that, back in the day

I don't know how this game could be fun with computers. It's best with real people. We actually had a Codex Diplomacy game going on for a while. Loads of fun.

Which, incidentally, calls to attention all the claims that Victoria 3 isn't going to be a good multiplayer game. The game is gonna have diplomatic power moves, balance of power and negotiated two-part peace deals in it. With most of the micro being concentrated in the economy it has the potential to be the Diplomacy-Anno of Paradox games.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Did anyone else play that, back in the day

I don't know how this game could be fun with computers. It's best with real people. We actually had a Codex Diplomacy game going on for a while. Loads of fun.

Paradox itself released a computer adaptation of Diplomacy in 2005, although it was rushed to meet the deadline they had agreed with Hasbro, while suffering from a brain-dead AI and an inability to communicate directly with other human players --- the last element due to Paradox's insistence on limiting each human player to the same communication options for other human-controlled players as for AI-controlled countries, although they did belatedly admit defeat following the game's release and added direct multiplayer communication via patch.

 

[thesheeep]

As for Victoria 3's potential - I concur with Diplomacy coming to mind. What I am afraid of is that we might end up with a bunch of modifiers and not much else, resulting in the player not feeling like he has any impact on the course of the war.

I think a lot of this depends on how war is implemented/simulated under the hood.
The player not having such a direct influence is something I approve of, especially for this game.

But it would be interesting if, for example, you have HoI4 style frontlines - just without the units.
When you select the frontline, you can see "how it goes" and some approximations of the battles that are happening.
What would be important for that would be to see actual effects of things that you CAN influence as the player, e.g. if you assign more resources/manpower/whatever to the war, you should see the effects of that on that frontline somehow.

If it was really just a bunch of numbers hidden somewhere, it would be very underwhelming.

 

[Trithne]

Since they said that provinces are still captured as part of a front line, there is probably some low level simulation like that going on, but not to the extent of HoI4 and having the AI move physical units around.

I'm amused to see how the reception here is largely "yeah that's a good idea", while the reddit and pdx forums were in a civil war after the diary went live. Some people just really don't want to let go of unit-driven gameplay.